0
   

George W. Bush and the Almighty

 
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 09:36 pm
I don't know what the stats are, exactly, real life, but you keep stressing that China's military is twice the size of that of the US. I will assume that you have the facts right and that the statement is true. In that case, China's military is much smaller that the US as a percentage of the country's population. I thought they had a bigger army than that. Only twice as big as the US?

C.I. has it right on the weaponry. Even with a potential work force of close to a billion people, China can't possibly keep on flooding the civilian market with consumer goods and, at the same time, manufacture enough tanks, fighter planes etc. to keep the military adequately supplied. And if you've tried to buy anything not made in China recently, you know which manufacturing arm gets priority these days. China's strength lies in its economic potential, not its miliitary might.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:33 pm
China will continue to grow their GDP, but at the expense of the workers that produce all those clothes and toys for the world markets. Their pay is so low, they can't even afford to buy the same goods they produce, nor anything that's imported. Their buying power is zilch. That's going to be a bigger problem for every year China keeps their currency at fixed rates rather than letting it float in the world marketplace.

Yes, there are new millionaires in China, but the vast majority of Chinese still farm by oxen, and they're demonstrating and fighting the local governments all the time, because they're not getting paid adequately for their food, but are taxed heavily. Their internal termoil is just going to grow.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:50 pm
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
OK so China has an army that is twice the size of the US army. But the facts are irrelevant , right CI?

America is just a bully plain and simple, right?

America's military has served long, thankless periods keeping the peace in Europe after WWII ( how many troops still are in Europe?) , protecting South Korea from aggression long after the Korean war (no oil there, I thought that's all we ever went to war over, CI ) and in Japan ( how many US troops still there? ) so that Japan has no need to militarize and become a threat to the region (don't laugh, it could have happened after WWII had not the US presence remained, just look at Germany between WWI and WWII ).

Yes a sizable percentage of the US military is dedicated to protecting the peace around the world. We're just bullies, right?

We throw money to the military just to throw our weight around. Unrepentant , power mad USA. How evil, eh?

We spilled our guts to rescue Europe, not once, but twice in the last century.

We have time and again rescued weaker nations from aggressors. All without your thanks.

Did it serve our interests too? Yes, peace is in everybody's interest. But you don't often see other nations spilling blood to keep the peace like the USA.

Should we just pull back and let terrorists have at it?

We were attacked by terrorists AT LEAST 4 times during the reign of King Bill , and we did nothing substantial in response, inviting further aggression.

4 times:

World Trade Center attack #1 -- 1993
Khobar Towers -- 1996
2 Embassies in Africa bombed -- 1998
USS Cole attacked -- 2000

Ignoring aggression invites further aggression.

Ok, so I won't bother you with the facts anymore.

China feeds and supplies a military presence over twice the size of the US military. (They also have NO ongoing commitments to keep the peace anywhere in the world.) But we're the bad guys. We're the ones 'spending more to militarize'. Yeah right.


Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?


Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 10:58 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
I don't know what the stats are, exactly, real life, but you keep stressing that China's military is twice the size of that of the US. I will assume that you have the facts right and that the statement is true. In that case, China's military is much smaller that the US as a percentage of the country's population. I thought they had a bigger army than that. Only twice as big as the US?



It is AT LEAST twice as big.

In a closed society like China, it's hard to get accurate figures, and these are much more likely to be understated.

China and the USA have roughly the same amount of territory to defend and they have a standing military AT LEAST twice as big as the US. Why would that be necessary?

In addition, as I pointed out, a sizable percentage of our military is stationed overseas protecting other countries (Europe, Japan, Korea, etc).

China has no such commitments or obligations.

They contribute almost none of their military to keeping the peace in hotspots around the world.

So why such a big military for a country that no one is threatening?

On the other hand, China is doing some saber rattling of it's own in regard to Taiwan and has issued threats in regard to the west coast of the USA.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 11:02 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
China will continue to grow their GDP, but at the expense of the workers that produce all those clothes and toys for the world markets.


Yes but not at the expense of their military. It is first in line for the cash, and that is the point of this discussion, not the plight of the Chinese worker.

China's investment in it's military is much greater than the US when measured as a percentage of GDP. And this will continue even as the GDP increases.

In America, we foolishly buy as many Chinese items as we can, because they are cheap. Thus we (not our government, but we) finance their militarization.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 11:13 pm
real is full of BS. China spends most of their money on construction.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 09:05 am
The question is not 'what does China spend most of their money on?'

The question is 'which country spends the greatest amount on their military?'
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 11:55 am
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?


He was just kidding.

What was the question on this thread again?

Was it an observation that nearly half the population of the US hold beliefs which are in direct conflict with known physics and science? And that those people are influencing the direction of the government?

Regardless of how preposterous these beliefs may seem, they exist, and will have an inevitible effect on the world around them. This is a natural condition. It must be played out.

We are experiencing the evolution of human perception as represented by fundamental belief structures. And it's accelerating as our ability to communicate (globally and quickly) increase.

Without any direct affect on personal survival, cultural philosophies are not guided by normal biological selection criteria. The fact that religious fanatics don't know the true age of the Earth, or that they evolved naturally does not directly affect their ability to reproduce, or to spread their ideas.

The selection criteria which remains, is the ability to 'convince'.

The battle seems very balanced, and can probably go either way in the long run. The one bit of imbalance I can see is that science does dip into biological survival when it comes to medicine, and it's here that we find the true-believers shifting their allegience. I bet if you too that 44% of US people who believe in a young earth, or Adam and Eve, a majority of them would still turn to professional medicine if their kids were seriously ill. Ultimately, survival and effectiveness (the strengths of science) trump philosophies.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 01:03 pm
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?


Only when he was having his bum spanked.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 06:00 pm
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?




Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 06:09 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nothing comparable to what the US or our allies have. Also, how do you suppose China will transport all those military men and supplies? To where, and how? And for what purpose?


So are you wanting the US to reduce our military expenditures to the level of the Chinese?

That's really your desire, isn't it? We shouldn't attempt to do any more than what they do, right?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 01:05 pm
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?




Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?


I did not say that whatsoever. I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 01:57 pm
I do find it rather hypocritical that "Christians" would support the Iraq war and the death penalty -- and they even find Biblical justification for their beliefs. Are hatred and killing truly Christian beliefs?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 08:23 pm
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?




Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?


I did not say that whatsoever.


Your comment seemed to imply that you thought Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek was applicable to relations between nations, hence descriptive of a principle for determining foreign policy and / or military budgets.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should come right out and say what you did mean by quoting Jesus' words in that context.

maporsche wrote:
I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.


I don't think I said anywhere that I am pro-war. We were discussing the relative sizes of the military budgets of modern countries.

There is certainly nothing in the NT where Jesus forbids participation in military affairs, so I am not sure what you think is at odds with what.

Perhaps some specifics?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 08:32 pm
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?




Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?


I did not say that whatsoever.


Your comment seemed to imply that you thought Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek was applicable to relations between nations, hence descriptive of a principle for determining foreign policy and / or military budgets.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should come right out and say what you did mean by quoting Jesus' words in that context.

maporsche wrote:
I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.


I don't think I said anywhere that I am pro-war. We were discussing the relative sizes of the military budgets of modern countries.

There is certainly nothing in the NT where Jesus forbids participation in military affairs, so I am not sure what you think is at odds with what.

Perhaps some specifics?


RL, we've had this discussion before on another thread, I have no desire to re-hash it again. I will try to find the thread for you though and you can relive it.

But just one thing. Do you think that Jesus would condone or approve of war in general, and the Iraq war specifically.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 08:45 pm
maporsche, there is no sense in trying to argue with real life. Real life needs to get a real life.

There are no real Christians these days. These folks are Christianists who will cheerfully spout biblical verses to back up their totally non-Christian agenda. Just like the Islamist terrorists cheerfully spout suras from the Quran. It means nothing. It is a tale full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 08:49 pm
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?




Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?


I did not say that whatsoever.


Your comment seemed to imply that you thought Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek was applicable to relations between nations, hence descriptive of a principle for determining foreign policy and / or military budgets.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should come right out and say what you did mean by quoting Jesus' words in that context.

maporsche wrote:
I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.


I don't think I said anywhere that I am pro-war. We were discussing the relative sizes of the military budgets of modern countries.

There is certainly nothing in the NT where Jesus forbids participation in military affairs, so I am not sure what you think is at odds with what.

Perhaps some specifics?


RL, we've had this discussion before on another thread, I have no desire to re-hash it again. I will try to find the thread for you though and you can relive it.

But just one thing. Do you think that Jesus would condone or approve of war in general, and the Iraq war specifically.


Well, I answered the first part re: war in general before you asked it.

To the second, I think that expecting GWB to have the omniscience of Jesus is somewhat unreasonable. So, to look back now in hindsight and say 'was this a good idea?' is simply political gamesmanship on the left.

Both R's and D's voted in large numbers to depose Saddam. The UN gave it's approval also, before getting cold feet when they realized that Bush was not all talk like Clinton.

Saddam was in violation of the UN orders for years ( if you care what the UN says then that's a big deal, if not, then read on )

I think the mass graves in Iraq and the large numbers of Iraqis gassed and murdered by Saddam do make a strong case for going in and protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

As an Independent, I supported and do support the president's goals for Iraq and for containing terrorism in the Middle East.

I could give you a list of dozens of things on which I disagree with GWB, but this isn't one of them.

Have you read Ed Koch's defense of Bush's actions? You should.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 09:34 pm
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?




Are you suggesting that the US should base it's foreign policy and/ or military budget on the teachings of Jesus?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?


I did not say that whatsoever.


Your comment seemed to imply that you thought Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek was applicable to relations between nations, hence descriptive of a principle for determining foreign policy and / or military budgets.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should come right out and say what you did mean by quoting Jesus' words in that context.

maporsche wrote:
I was challenging your Chrisitan PRO WAR stance.

They seem to be at odds with each other.


I don't think I said anywhere that I am pro-war. We were discussing the relative sizes of the military budgets of modern countries.

There is certainly nothing in the NT where Jesus forbids participation in military affairs, so I am not sure what you think is at odds with what.

Perhaps some specifics?


RL, we've had this discussion before on another thread, I have no desire to re-hash it again. I will try to find the thread for you though and you can relive it.

But just one thing. Do you think that Jesus would condone or approve of war in general, and the Iraq war specifically.


Well, I answered the first part re: war in general before you asked it.

To the second, I think that expecting GWB to have the omniscience of Jesus is somewhat unreasonable. So, to look back now in hindsight and say 'was this a good idea?' is simply political gamesmanship on the left.

Both R's and D's voted in large numbers to depose Saddam. The UN gave it's approval also, before getting cold feet when they realized that Bush was not all talk like Clinton.

Saddam was in violation of the UN orders for years ( if you care what the UN says then that's a big deal, if not, then read on )

I think the mass graves in Iraq and the large numbers of Iraqis gassed and murdered by Saddam do make a strong case for going in and protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

As an Independent, I supported and do support the president's goals for Iraq and for containing terrorism in the Middle East.

I could give you a list of dozens of things on which I disagree with GWB, but this isn't one of them.

Have you read Ed Koch's defense of Bush's actions? You should.



"Not Forbiding" war is not the same as condoning it and is not the same as supporting it. Jesus didn't specifically forbid stem-cell research......etc. He didn't specifically forbid a lot of things, but I doubt he'd support everything he didn't forbid.

I'm not asking for GWB to be omniscient. I'm asking what Jesus would think today, yesterday, 4 years ago, 4 years from now, 100 years from now. What do you think he'd think.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 11:20 pm
As I said, I think the mass graves and the thousands murdered by Saddam with chemical weapons, various means of torture, etc do make a very good case for protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

We went into Kuwait in 1989 (Gulf war I) to undo Saddam's invasion of a neighboring country. That conflict never ended. We had only a cease fire , but we had obligated ourselves, as did the whole international community, to make sure that Saddam could not threaten his neighbors, etc anymore.

Saddam was in constant violation of those cease fire agreements.

We kept our obligation. Much of the rest of the 'civilized world' got cold feet when it came time to act.

I think keeping our word, even when deserted by many of our 'friends', and protecting the defenseless are consistent with Christian principles.


-----------------------------------------------------------


Here's some Ed Koch for ya, if you haven't looked him up yet.

Yeah, I know he's a right wing, Republican hack, right? Read him anyway.

from http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0905/koch.php3

Quote:
Speak up America! Sheehan has spent her sympathy

By Ed Koch

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in action in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has become the face of the anti-war movement in the United States. While her grief is understandable, her rhetoric is outrageous.

As the mother of a son killed in battle in Iraq, she originally struck a sympathetic chord, whether you supported the war in Iraq or opposed it. One cannot help but empathize with the agony of a bereaved mother. But that has changed over the months, and I believe that many Americans who viewed her with sympathy no longer do so.

Many Americans, myself included, now see her as a person who has come to enjoy the celebratory status accorded to her by the radicals on the extreme left who see America as the outlaw of the world. These radicals are not content to be constructive critics. They are bent on destroying this country.

Some of them want to turn America into a radical socialist state. Others hope to create a utopia. But regardless of their agendas, how can Cindy Sheehan's supporters defend her shameful statement, "This country is not worth dying for."

While we recognize the U.S. is far from perfect, we are still head and shoulders above most other countries in the world in every respect. We remain the place where almost all others, given the chance, want to come to live. We continue to be the land of opportunity. We are the world's leading economy.

Yes, there is far too great a difference between the incomes of the rich and the poor. Yes, we haven't provided universal medical care as a matter of right for all of our citizens. Yes, minorities still suffer from discrimination socially, in housing, jobs and education. But we have a political system that for more than 200 years has allowed the electorate to work its will through regularly held elections. The government follows the will of the people, or it will no longer stay in power..

Those who rail against the United States have simply failed to sell their message to the public at large. They keep losing elections, local as well as national. Rather than broadening their appeal, they have narrowed it.

I supported and still support the war in Iraq, because our Congress and President had every right to rely on the advice of the CIA that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. On Sunday, September 25, 2005, Tim Russert of Meet The Press, summed up the situation prevailing before the war, saying, "Â…post September 11th, there was a fear of terrorism, an inability to know whether there were weapons of mass destruction by the public or by the media. George W. Bush said there were. Bill and Hillary Clinton said there were. The Russians, French and Germans, who opposed the war, said there were. Hans Blix of the UN said there were."

Iraq had fought an eight-year war against Iran resulting in a million casualties, using poison gas against the Kurds, who were citizens of Iraq, and against the Iranian army. Yes, since the 2003 invasion, we have not found any present supplies of WMD. Nevertheless, based on advice from CIA counterparts advising every member nation of the United Nations Security Council, the Security Council, including Syria, adopted Resolution 1441 unanimously, finding Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for which it had not accounted and advising Iraq that failure to account was cause for war. Iraq refused to account for them to the U.N. We and our allies were right to invade, notwithstanding that other countries, terrified by the prospect of terrorism against them and tempted by corruption at the UN masterminded by Saddam Hussein through the Oil-For-Food program and lucrative vendor contracts with Hussein's regime, did not join us.

As I have often stated, we have accomplished our original goal to prevent Iraq from threatening us or its regional neighbors. We should declare victory and get out. Yes, there probably will be a civil war among the Kurds, Sunni and Shia. If the UN ?- which is still under a cloud because of the "Oil for Food" scandal ?- decides to take a military role in Iraq to stop the civil war, we can join them at that time. Having accomplished our original mission, we should no longer be fulfilling the obligations of other countries, such as Germany and France which have had a free ride to date. Even in Afghanistan, the latter NATO allies, do not participate in combat duty, leaving that and the ensuing casualties for the U.S. to bear.

President George W. Bush summed up his views on Iraq when he stated, "When the Iraqi army stands up, the American Army will stand down." I have low expectations of that happening in the immediate future. The estimates provided by the Bush administration on our getting out range from two to ten years. I do not believe we should wait that long, because of the casualties that would be involved. We should get out now, leaving the UN in charge. Although I believe that we should leave Iraq, I do not accept Sheehan's outrageous statements.

Sheehan has joined those who rail against Israel, labeling Israel as the culprit with her comment, "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine and the terrorism will stop." Is that why Sunni and other terrorists have intentionally killed thousands of Shia civilians, labeling them, according to al-Zarkawi, infidels? Is that why Arab fundamentalists have declared war against all Christians and Jews?

According to Wikipedia, on August 15, 2005, on the Chris Matthews Show, Sheehan said, "she would not have responded differently to her son's death had he died in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. Sheehan argued that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was 'almost the same thing as the Iraq war.'" Remember, the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and the war against the Taliban government.

Sheehan's personal attacks on President Bush include comments in a speech on April 27, 2005, when she said, "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush." Shameful.

According to Wikipedia, Sheehan wrote, "Casey was killed in the Global War of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive neo-con cabal."

In an interview on CBS, Sheehan referred to the foreign insurgents coming into Iraq, who are condemned as terrorists even by other Arab countries, as well as the U.S. and Great Britain, as "freedom fighters." On September 16, 2005, she said, "Pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq." On the one hand, she and her supporters urge that the National Guard be brought back from Iraq to be used in New Orleans, and on the other hand, she condemns their use there now.

In addressing a veterans' group on August 5, 2005, she demeaned herself with the use of truly outrageous remarks hurled at the President, describing him as "a lying bastard," "that jerk," "that filth spewer and war monger," and "that evil maniac."

Sheehan appeared this past weekend in Washington, D.C., leading the parade in a picture captured by the media that included Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and Al Sharpton.

On Monday of this week, while Sheehan and her supporters were in Washington protesting at the White House against the presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq ?- those forces there at the request of the democratically elected Iraqi government ?- according to The New York Times, "Armed men dressed as police officers burst into a primary school in a town south of Baghdad on Monday, rounded up five Shiite teachers and their driver, marched them to an empty classroom and killed them, a police official said." Sheehan believes them to be "freedom fighters."

Of course, Sheehan has the right to state her opinion in a country she believes shouldn't be defended. We who disagree with her statements, we who believe this country deserves our thanks, love and willingness to defend it, also have the right to express our views. Speak up, America.


Of course the major flaw with Koch's idea of 'leaving the UN in charge' is that they won't do it.

The terminally cold feet of the UN when it comes to dealing with Iraq reveal it's ineptness and it's uselessness.

The money saved by closing the UN could do a lot of good elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/28/2026 at 10:04:14