|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 10, 2007 18:07:40 GMT -5
A group of apostates urges that both muslims and outside critics "Stop with excuses, justifications and rationalizations." www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=3&page=1Rationalizations such as, Christianity also had to go through reforms to be what we see today. Of course Chistianity has undergone reforms but these reforms have all been guided by a single definitive model of Jesus. In contrast, the single definitive model of Islam is Mohamed. Please, honestly compare the two. Another reformer suggests that "Unless Muslims Take a New Direction, One Can Reasonably Assume that Arab [Civilization], Constrained by the Framework of Islamic Faith, Will Join the Great Dead Civilizations…" memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA31507Islam is not only killing a relative small number of Americans but is crushing the life of its own adhererants worldwide.
|
|
lovinusa
Cog in Training
God Bless the USA
Posts: 78
|
Post by lovinusa on Jan 11, 2007 16:39:54 GMT -5
Can you clear this up for me? Aren't The Islamic people the decendents of Abrahams "other son" whom God told his mother He would be the father of a great nation? These crazies are not going away til Jesus returns when is everyone going to get that. there is no reform. We can only hope to change some of thier minds before it's too late for us all
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 11, 2007 17:04:56 GMT -5
Islam does not limit itself to only Arabs, who are thought to be decendents of Ishmael. Islam is an ideology, not a race.
I am not terribly optimistic about reform. The first link is to a letter written by a former mulsim who has given up on reform and declared himself apostate. The attempt for reform may be an important first step for a muslim that has never questioned their faith.
The attempt to provide a reasonable manner in which islam can be expected to reform may be an important first step for lazy moral relativists to stop providing excuses for islam.
Indeed we can hope as much as we like, even when we have honestly exhausted any real expectation that muslims can change their minds.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Jan 13, 2007 3:51:57 GMT -5
A group of apostates urges that both muslims and outside critics "Stop with excuses, justifications and rationalizations." www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=3&page=1Islam is not only killing a relative small number of Americans but is crushing the life of its own adhererants worldwide. Thus it cannot be reformed. It is it's own worst enemy.
Here's the test. Read the Koran and associated texts. There is no principle message of love, charity, forgiveness that is even remotely comparable to the message of Christ. Islam is about death, death, and more death.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 14, 2007 19:47:18 GMT -5
Deo is mostly right.
Islam does call for acts of charity....towards other Muslims. As for us "infidels", we're fair game for conversion, slavery or extermination.
Now obviously that interpretation of Islam isn't the only one...probably not even the most adhered-to one. But it is the one that has the loudest voice right now and thus attracts the lion's share of attention.
Christians and Jews are NOT going to be able to reform Islam from without; that's a process which must be completed (if not necessarily begun) by the so-called "moderate" Muslims. Until the voices of moderation are louder than those of extremism, there will be no peace.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Jan 15, 2007 3:52:10 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300] Deo is mostly right.[/glow] That doesn't happen often. [glow=red,2,300] Islam does call for acts of charity....towards other Muslims. As for us "infidels", we're fair game for conversion, slavery or extermination.[/glow] My point exactly, well amplified by you. Thanks, womi. [glow=red,2,300] Now obviously that interpretation of Islam isn't the only one...probably not even the most adhered-to one. But it is the one that has the loudest voice right now and thus attracts the lion's share of attention.[/glow] An interpretation of Islam, one differing from that which we see now, that casts Islam in a positive light, may well be a mistaken one in that said interpretation doesn't reflect the message contained in the Koran. [glow=red,2,300] Christians and Jews are NOT going to be able to reform Islam from without; that's a process which must be completed (if not necessarily begun) by the so-called "moderate" Muslims. Until the voices of moderation are louder than those of extremism, there will be no peace.[/glow] First of all, if the Koran is adhered to, there will certainly be mo peace, for peace is not advocated. Second, the reference to "moderate" Muslims is troubling. Let's look at it this way. Let's assume that the vast majority of Iraqis are in fact of "moderate" Islamic temperament. How do we square that with the fact that the majority, over 70%, want us out of their country, knowing full well that others of an "extremist" temperament are waging war within the country? If there was such a disconnect between the two groups, wouldn't it stand to reason that most Iraqis would be more supportive of our presence there? Wouldn't Iraqi troops, not to mention the government, be more motivated to secure the situation? I do believe that the cloak of "moderate Islam" is nothing but subterfuge devised to conceal the true aims of Islam. Let us also not forget that terrorists must obtain support from somewhere. They've been operating rather successfully since the creation of the Jewish state. A mere handful of "extremists", it would seem, would find it rather difficult to carry out their agendas for such an extended period of time without vast support. Your thoughts womi?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 15, 2007 18:56:14 GMT -5
Deo is mostly right. Islam does call for acts of charity....towards other Muslims. As for us "infidels", we're fair game for conversion, slavery or extermination. Now obviously that interpretation of Islam isn't the only one...probably not even the most adhered-to one. But it is the one that has the loudest voice right now and thus attracts the lion's share of attention. Christians and Jews are NOT going to be able to reform Islam from without; that's a process which must be completed (if not necessarily begun) by the so-called "moderate" Muslims. Until the voices of moderation are louder than those of extremism, there will be no peace. Infidels, Christians, and Jews can make a difference in either the improbable reform or more likely death of islam. They can give no quarter to the creative obfuscation of islam. For that is the more proper term than "interpretation." How do you "interpret" something to mean something other than its clear language? The intent of such language that has been upheld by 1400 years of traditon and the initial example of mohamhead. Moderate, or rather nominal muslims also called munafiq, will only be able to reform islam to the degree that they are willing to piece together that which must be destroyed. Mo' did preach no religion of peace. Any religion of peace that calls itself islam will have to face mo and 1400 years of tradition and defeat those adversaries.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 31, 2007 10:12:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 1, 2007 18:58:45 GMT -5
Deo-
I might very well be naive in my effort to cling to the hope that it is the extremeists who are perverting Islam and not the moderates who are doing so.
I suppose it is possible that the 'moderates' are the ones with the misconception of the true path of Islam and not the radicals. that's certainly a troubling concept. one right up there with the possibility that maybe atheists have it right and there is no God.
Far be it from me to try to get inside the heads of the average Iraqis but one possibility as to why 70% of Iraqis polled want us gone is that, while they are grateful that we deposed Saddam and gave them the right of self-determination, our contiued presence there, necessary though it is, reinforces the viewpoint around the world that the Iraqis can't deal with their own problems, that they are somehow weak. The continuning violence doesn't reflect well upon them- nor should it- and the continued presence of our troops is a daily reminder of their failure.
I also think that many are more supportive of our presence and our efforts as is evidenced by conventional wisdom. Within a week of President Bush's introduction of the 'surge' plan in which a number of US troops would be sent to reinforce troops already present in the Anbar province, Iraqis in Anbar came forth in droves- literally in the hundreds- to volunteer for the army and for the police force and tribal leaders in the area began to much more openly co-operate with US and Iraqi security forces. Anbar is one of three provinces in which the level of violence has been very high and one of two in which al Qeida has openly operated. Might these Iraqis have taken heart that Bush isn't going to desert them- no helicopters leaving the embassy rooftops there? It's a bit early to draw any conclusions, but I think it fair to say that it is a promising early development.
Lastly, on the support issue.....
I won't take much convincing to agree that the continuing presence of Israel in the region, along with our continued support of the Jewish state, makes recruting radical easier and allows for easy fundraising from both sympathetic and, perhaps more numerous, fearful individuals and groups.
I've long suspected that much of the financial support in countries at least thought to be 'moderate'- like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, for examples- is more out of fear than agreement.
When you have a country like Saudi Arabia in which the poor are truly poor and the rich obscenely so (by comparison), class warfare is easily instigated. I'm sure that the Jihadists tap into that resentment and, even more pernicious, are able to weave an ideological fabric into that resentment which yeilds even more visceral anger. Poverty in the Arab world is every bit as fertile- and dangerous- a breeding ground for Jihadists as poverty is here for mindless liberalism.
It's very interesting that the most radical Jihadists are either individually very wealthy or come from very wealthy families (along with being generally highly-educated- in Western schools of education no less). Whatever the religious/economic system, wealth tends to give disproportionate influence to those who have it, giving them a greater voice than their numbers would suggest appropriate. OBL is the scion of an extraordinarily weathy Saudi family that made much of its money in construction. Despite being disowned (at least officially) by his family, he still has hundreds of millions of dollars stashed away to seed his murderous plans.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 2, 2007 13:04:11 GMT -5
I suppose it is possible that the 'moderates' are the ones with the misconception of the true path of Islam and not the radicals. that's certainly a troubling concept. one right up there with the possibility that maybe atheists have it right and there is no God. I know of no religious text or tradition that holds that God said there is no God. The "religion of peace" does have a tradition of abrogation in which the verse known as the "the sword" ("....kill all unbelievers...") is accepted to supercede any Meccan verses that suggest such things as "no compulsion in religion."
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 2, 2007 19:48:09 GMT -5
Actually, I find that a very significant factor in religion is compulsion....
I didn't mean to leave the impression that I was referring to or quoting God as saying that God doesn't/didn't exist.
I was trying to relate my fear that perhaps the extremists are correctly interpreting Islam and that it is the moderates who are 'perverting' it and saying that such a possibility would shock me to the same degree that the prospect that atheists are correct would.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 2, 2007 23:16:33 GMT -5
I didn't mean to leave the impression that I was referring to or quoting God as saying that God doesn't/didn't exist. And, I did not mean to imply that you were saying such. My comment was to distinguish that the concept of atheists that there is no God is not supported by the early records and traditions of Judaism or Christianity. Contrast that with the record of islamic tradition that has repeatedly held that what we would call moderates did not follow the true path of islam. -calling them munafiq and apostate- I don't consider these concepts to be equal in the degree to which they are troubling. Pascal's Wager has long ago demonstrated that there is nothing to lose if one believes in God and is proven wrong. To realize that, however well meaning, moderates do have an impossible task of moderating the distemperate whims of mohamhead is much more troubling. To realize that muslims respect as a prophet and a role model a man, that around the age of 50 did marry a 6 year old girl and consummate that marriage only 3 years later when Aisha was 9 is truly disheartening.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 5, 2007 18:35:35 GMT -5
Genocide against the Native Americans Enslaving Africans Burning "witches" Crusades Spanish Inquisition Mexican War land Grab IRA Bombings
Its always interesting to me how people view their own behavior differently from others.
We fought WWII to stop Hitler and is concept of Lebensbraum "breathing space to the east" in which it was the German people's ordained by God Right to the lands in the East and it was perfectly ok to commit genocide to that end.
Sounds a little too much like "Manifest Destiny"
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 5, 2007 22:12:58 GMT -5
Genocide against the Native Americans There has been no genocide against the Native Americans. There are instances of slaughter. Certainly cultural repression and displacement was systematic but there was no systematic planned extermination. education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/genocideGenocide- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. The regrettable actions that led to massive Native American deaths did never represent our highest ideals. You have not shown how islam can divorce itself from its idealization of the murder of infidels. We were not the first to enslave Africans. Nor the last. There has been a process of reform that has led to the freedom of African slaves in the United States of America. Many of the leaders of the abolition movements were themselves very devout Christians. You have not addressed why slavery does still exist in the islamic world. "Ironically, a Spanish inquisitor named Alonso Salazar y Frias mounted the most dramatic challenge to witch-hunting. Salazar cross-checked testimony, had supposed magic substances tested, and applied logic to conclude that the alleged witches were simply an artifact of witch-hunting. "There were neither witches nor bewitched until they were talked !and written about," he reported in 1610. With stubborn patience, Salazar wrested a decision from his superiors that freed the accused in 1614. The Spanish Inquisition never executed another witch; nor did it permit secular authorities to do so after an outbreak in Catalonia that saw more than 300 witches hanged between 1616 and 1619." www.crisismagazine.com/october2001/feature1.htmWhat do you suppose would happen to a witch found in Saudi Arabia today? The first crusade 1095 AD was predated by the Muslim Conquest of Italy: 831-902 AD the Saracen sack of Rome 846 AD en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_%28846%29& the Seige of Constantinople 718 A more complete timeline can be found here. www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades_timeline.htm I'll again refer to Alonso Salazar y Frias as an example of Christian tradition being able to reform itself. You have engaged in relativisms and obfuscations showing general ignorance of the historical events that you'd hoped to relate to the present dangers arising from islam. You have failed to show how islam can reform.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 6, 2007 8:41:54 GMT -5
This is crazy talk.
i invite you to read Dan Brown's "Bury my heart a t Wounded Knee". There was indeed genocide taken out on the Native Americans. Blankets from smallpox hospitals were loaded up in wagons and left near villages designed for the extermination of men, women and children. The END RESULT OF MANY OF THESE DELIBERATE POLICIES WAS THE EXTERMINATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN CIVILIZATION AND THE SEIZING OF ITS LANDS.
2. We didn't enslave Africans first and others enslaved them too, so its ok??? WE DID ENSLAVE AFRICANS and ALL THE OTHER THINGS I REFRENCED ABOVE. I think you are the one engaged in moral relativism with your excuses and denials.
The point is that Christianity has its own bloody history and we used terms like "noble savages" as opposed to infidels. ISLAM is a religion of 1 BILLION people, we are not at war with all of Islam but a radical segment of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are moderate and thats why they are helping us in Pakistan and in Iraq. I don't know that you can reform the radicals when they value death over life.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 6, 2007 10:30:57 GMT -5
Not sure if this is proper thread for this question, but maybe it's related. What would happen if the land given to Israel was given back? Isn't this the root of the anger?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 6, 2007 11:12:26 GMT -5
This is crazy talk. i invite you to read Dan Brown's "Bury my heart a t Wounded Knee". There was indeed genocide taken out on the Native Americans. Blankets from smallpox hospitals were loaded up in wagons and left near villages designed for the extermination of men, women and children. The END RESULT OF MANY OF THESE DELIBERATE POLICIES WAS THE EXTERMINATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN CIVILIZATION AND THE SEIZING OF ITS LANDS. 2. We didn't enslave Africans first and others enslaved them too, so its ok??? WE DID ENSLAVE AFRICANS and ALL THE OTHER THINGS I REFRENCED ABOVE. I think you are the one engaged in moral relativism with your excuses and denials. The point is that Christianity has its own bloody history and we used terms like "noble savages" as opposed to infidels. ISLAM is a religion of 1 BILLION people, we are not at war with all of Islam but a radical segment of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are moderate and thats why they are helping us in Pakistan and in Iraq. I don't know that you can reform the radicals when they value death over life. I invite you to overcome your bumper sticker mentality and actually read past the first sentence of each paragraph. 1.Have you actual proof of the systematic use of small pox infested blankets? The fabrications of Dan Brown or Ward Churchill does not constitute proof. The key word being "systematic." The occasions in which the practice was used does not reveal a systematic gov't sanctioned program. 2.We did enslave Africans and we did free them. I have denied only the most ill-informed of your charges. The only point of relativity that I have made reference to is time. You, with ignorant hyperbole, allude to crimes past in that we have addressed. You have failed to show how Christian tradition was any hindrance to emancipation. Rather, if you had read more than the first sentence of the paragraph then you would see that, I cited that Christian tradition was an important component of reform. The term "noble savage" does not come directly from the Bible, nor was it meant as insult. The term was used by a philosopher arguing against the concept of man being borne into sin. The point is if so many muslims are moderate then why do cartoons result in the death of a priest in turkey and comments by the pope result in the death of a nun in Somalia? Why does Hamas win elections in pseudo-stinian Israel? Why can the supposed majority of moderate muslims not directly refute the koranic references made by the jihadists? I began this thread with reference to both an apostate and a moderate both hoping to reform the islamic world. Have you taken the time to read those links? Or did you jump right into your slogans?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 6, 2007 11:18:16 GMT -5
Not sure if this is proper thread for this question, but maybe it's related. What would happen if the land given to Israel was given back? Isn't this the root of the anger? You are kidding. Right? Who would the land be given back too? The Ottoman Empire that Britian won it from? They no longer exist. Before that it was a part of Byzantium. They no longer exist. Before that the Roman province of Palestine, so named in an effort of cultural repression following Jewish revolts. The Roman Empire no longer exists. Before that it was the Kingdom of Judea. You know....Judea....as in Jews. So, who are we supposed to return this gifted to Isreal land to?
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 6, 2007 20:21:38 GMT -5
Dan Brown and Ward Churchill are universes apart but since you just read the first sentence and didn't read the book, you wouldn't know that. Maybe if you could get past your bumper sticker mentality and stop lumping widely respected historians with radical professors you might understand some things.
Christianity was not a hinderance to emancipation??? Slavery took place in this "Christian Nation". The HUGE majority of the population was christian and could have imposed its will to stop slavery, but about 1/3 of those "christians fought a bloody civil war to keep it.....please spare me the various "state rights" links.
There are alot of radicals, there are not 1 BILLION Muslim Radicals, if there were you would know it.
I have heard plenty of moderate muslims refute the radicals interpretation of the Koran. As the U.S. military is finding out (the most powerful in the world by the way), when people are willing to blow themselves up and die to create chaos...there isn't much the moderates can do to stop them.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 6, 2007 21:12:04 GMT -5
Dan Brown and Ward Churchill are universes apart but since you just read the first sentence and didn't read the book, you wouldn't know that. Maybe if you could get past your bumper sticker mentality and stop lumping widely respected historians with radical professors you might understand some things. Since when is Dan Brown a respected historian? Have you read the book that you can not name the author of? Dan Brown is not a respected historian, Dr. Thomas Brown, who here hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm "analyzes Ward Churchill’s accusations that the US Army perpetuated genocide." is a respected historian. Your "blanket" accusation is more likely to come from the fact that "Churchill argues that the US Army created a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan people in 1837 by distributing infected blankets." than from Dorris Alexander Brown's "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." Are you with me or still stuck on the first sentence? Christianity was not a hinderance to emancipation??? Slavery took place in this "Christian Nation". The HUGE majority of the population was christian and could have imposed its will to stop slavery, but about 1/3 of those "christians fought a bloody civil war to keep it.....please spare me the various "state rights" links. Of course the Christians of this nation could impose their will to stop slavery. The complete story is, that they did. Do you deny that much of the abolition movement was Christian? Even the controversial John Brown was a rather devout man. There are alot of radicals, there are not 1 BILLION Muslim Radicals, if there were you would know it. Do you consider the vast majority of Christians to be in close adherence with Christian tradition, or do you suspect wide hypocrisy? How do we protect ourselves from hypocrites that may suddenly love an enemy as themselves? Or more to the point, protect ourselves from a hypocrite that may finally adhere to the killing of infidels any where they can find such? I have heard plenty of moderate muslims refute the radicals interpretation of the Koran. Really, perhaps you'd like to explain for them the concepts of; abrogation, dhimmitude, the killing of kufr wherever you find them, and why suicide bombers are thought to get 72 houris? As the U.S. military is finding out (the most powerful in the world by the way), when people are willing to blow themselves up and die to create chaos...there isn't much the moderates can do to stop them. Simply untrue. Truly moderate muslims -those that islamic tradition would label as munafiq- have been instrumental in foiling jihadist plots.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 6, 2007 22:37:33 GMT -5
I'd beg to differ here as well.
Look at Japan during WW2 with their kamikazes.
Just like the Jihadists, these Japanese pilots were more than willing to kill themselves so long as they could take as many gaijin with them.
How did we defeat them? By using overwhelming military force including nuclear weapons to make the cost of continuing the war beyond Japan's willingness to endure and also by making it clear that we, the Allies, would pay any price, bear any burden and make any sacrifice (to quote a portion of JFK's splendid first inagural address) in order to achieve victory. We were able to impose our will on a nation that had not lost a war in modern history.
Now I'm not advocating that we use nuclear weapons against the Jihadists- slightly different type of enemy here- but we do need to impose our collective will upon the enemy and force them to the conclusion that we will NOT give up.
And, yes, that means none of this non-binding resolution Bravo Sierra.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 7, 2007 8:32:57 GMT -5
I meant Dee Brown..I know you will understand it was human error since you called him Doris. You make my point again with your John Brown comment. Yes he was a devout christian when he wasn't hacking people to death at the Pottawatommie Massacre or at Harper's Ferry. He is identical to these jihadists, violently murdering for his perceived religious cause. Do you see 1 Billion Muslims running around killing kuffar? No! its no different than Christians believing pagans, heathen, or non-believers are going to Hell. Its a deragatory term but 1 billion Muslims are not running around killing kuffar. Though there may have been some successes by moderates in stopping suicide plots...they have not stopped and will not stop the chaos. There are attacks DAILY! How long should we be there to train the IRAQIS to do what the most powerful country in the world can't do? ? We are fighting an insurgency which is intermingled with the general population we are trying to help. We bombed Vietnam and could not bomb them into submission. Where do you bomb?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 7, 2007 15:06:47 GMT -5
I meant Dee Brown..I know you will understand it was human error since you called him Doris. The man's name is Dorris Alexander Brown. Your general ignorance of this author does make me wonder if you have actually read his book yourself. encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1086You make my point again with your John Brown comment. Yes he was a devout christian when he wasn't hacking people to death at the Pottawatommie Massacre or at Harper's Ferry. He is identical to these jihadists, violently murdering for his perceived religious cause. Actually, It may be you that makes my point, Why would you say that,"Yes he was a devout christian when he wasn't hacking people to death at the Pottawatommie Massacre or at Harper's Ferry?" Do you not find that his actions are in keeping with what you know of Christ's message? To prove that he is identical -not just comparable- you will need to demonstrate a similar knowledge of how jihadist are divergent from mohamed's model. Notice this thread is entitled, "How can islam reform?" This is not only a question asked by outsiders, but by apostates and hopeful reformers. I will ask again. Did you read -before launching into your slogans- the text of the articles that are linked to at the beginning of this thread? Do you see 1 Billion Muslims running around killing kuffar? No! its no different than Christians believing pagans, heathen, or non-believers are going to Hell. Its a deragatory term but 1 billion Muslims are not running around killing kuffar.[\quote]Perhaps not all "1 Billion" but I do see evidence of many kufr being killed. www.thereligionofpeace.com/Though there may have been some successes by moderates in stopping suicide plots...they have not stopped and will not stop the chaos. There are attacks DAILY! And why do the moderates fail? How long should we be there to train the IRAQIS to do what the most powerful country in the world can't do? ? You are confusing the root problems with current difficulties. The most powerful military in the world has been very successful in the limited scope of their mission. A democratically elected gov't does exist. Iraqis can choose to be a part of reform. Why are there so many that refrain? Could it be because of the koran, the violent example of mohamed, and 1400 years of dhimmi beating tradition? No, It couldn't be, because once upon a time, Amherst once mused about passing small-pox to the Native Americans. We are fighting an insurgency which is intermingled with the general population we are trying to help. We bombed Vietnam and could not bomb them into submission. Where do you bomb? How often did we bomb North Vietnam? Each sustained air sortie into the North did result in North Vietnam coming to the peace talks. Vietnam was lost in the same manner that this war may be lost. Ill informed criticism of our gov't policies leading to a general lack of support in the USA, and no military action did drive us from Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 7, 2007 19:28:40 GMT -5
Right...we bombed them to the peace talks and then gave them everything they wanted. Just another 10 years and only 56,000 more and we would have won Vietnam. Government policies that are ineffective and cost American lives and Billions of dollars need to be criticized in a democracy.
Look, this is past boring and totally unproductive.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 7, 2007 19:32:03 GMT -5
Unproductive and just crap!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 7, 2007 19:36:52 GMT -5
richbrout,
A short skim of MaccusGermanis's blogsite would show that he has spent an extensive amount of time on the subject. The dude goes to seminars and meetings about this stuff (correct me if I am wrong MG), so you are going to have to play your A game on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 8, 2007 8:19:31 GMT -5
I picked up he is "in to it" but nit picking over author's aliases is not my idea of fun. He needs to go to a few more seminars if he thinks we didn't systematically wipe out the indians and somehow we lost Vietnam because we didn't have enough support. If we had just had more support and a few more years when that is crap. We are sold a bill of goods on Vietnam as we were in this war. We were told we were in Vietnam to defend the "democracy" of South Vietnam...Crap. President Diem closed the Pagodas, shut down the papers and arrested any political opposition. What kind of democracy is that? The war in Vietnam was a war to drive the French out of their colony (sound familiar?) and we misasessed it. Millions in the North were mobilized with old people and children are doing support work-for self determination -and to drive the foreign super power out of "their" country---our boys were dying to prevent a series of American appointed presidents from losing power. Yes we won every major military engagement...we also found out that doesn't mean crap. This war is reeking of Vietnam. We are told we are there to make Iraq a shining democracy in the Middle East. We have to stay to prevent chaos and civil war. THERE ALREADY IS CHAOS and civil war. I'm just glad its an all volunteer army (of course with the exception of the back door draft-where these people have served their stints ad are being kept there)
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 8, 2007 10:20:53 GMT -5
How is where we help with "democracy" decided? We are in Middle East to help the situation, similar situation in Vietnam -- but we avoid the Sudan (Africa.)
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 8, 2007 12:44:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 8, 2007 12:48:24 GMT -5
richbrout, A short skim of MaccusGermanis's blogsite would show that he has spent an extensive amount of time on the subject. The dude goes to seminars and meetings about this stuff (correct me if I am wrong MG), so you are going to have to play your A game on this topic. Thanks phin, but in truth my first hand knowledge is somewhat limited. I have not grown up in the islamic tradition. The apostate and the reformer, that I did previously link to, have. I find it unconscionable that people would discount these well informed opinions in favor of their own precious ignorance.
|
|