Dr. Shane Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Originally Posted By: Shane America had a balanced budget for one year and that is because revenues came in higher than expected due to the high-tech boom - which crashed and the surplus crashed along with it. And here is where Bush, who had access to this information, did nothing to curb it. Instead, he allowed it to happen. He didn't pay attention to his economics.... Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 Quote: I believe it is always worth fighting against tyranny and dictatorship for freedom. So we can expect America to go to war with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Sudan, Zimbabwe and at least half a dozen other candidates? I'm serious: if a country takes to itself the right to invade other countries with tyrants for leaders, eternal world war is inevitable. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 ! Neil, you made the mistake of taking on Shane on the issues that he raised that were not responsive to my original post, which gave him permission to keep hammering on about those issues! Shane, how about going back and taking on the real issues in my post. I said nothing about the government budget, but about the economy as a whole, so whether it was Congress or the President spending government funds is irrelevant. What has broken the economy as a whole is not government spending but unregulated banks and financial institutions engaging in very lucrative but criminal behaviour. Better regulation (shock, government playing a role) could have avoided much of this turmoil. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 No, Bravus. Is that what history shows? I know that this is the way the far Left sees things. It may be one of the main reason that the Democrats lose this election-- if indeed they do lose it-- because they have bought into this "bash America" mentality, and it is not the way most Americans see the world or themselves. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I'm confused. I didn't hear Bravus talking about bashing America. I'm not sure what you're responding to. What is history showing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 Quote: I believe it is always worth fighting against tyranny and dictatorship for freedom. So we can expect America to go to war with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Sudan, Zimbabwe and at least half a dozen other candidates? I'm serious: if a country takes to itself the right to invade other countries with tyrants for leaders, eternal world war is inevitable. I don't think that the one follows the other. Americans have always believed that it's worth fighting and dying for freedom and against tyranny and dictatorship. In fact, the English themselves love freedom and believe it is worth fighting for. Despite our revolution being fought against the British, history shows that our two peoples are bonded in our love for freedom, in a way that the Germans (racial cousins of ours) and us are not. Yet history doesn't show that either the British or Americans invade every country where there is tyranny. I think that believing it does ignores a great deal of history and requires a misunderstanding of America and Americans. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 I'm confused. I didn't hear Bravus talking about bashing America. I'm not sure what you're responding to. What is history showing? I'm responding partly to the idea that since Americans believe that freedom is worth fighting and dying for and that tyranny and dictatorships are worth fighting against, it follows that America will invade in the way that Bravus describes below: Quote: So we can expect America to go to war with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Sudan, Zimbabwe and at least half a dozen other candidates? I'm serious: if a country takes to itself the right to invade other countries with tyrants for leaders, eternal world war is inevitable. American history shows this is not true. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 history doesn't show that either the British or Americans invade every country where there is tyranny. Why not, if it's such a worthy cause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 Because of the other, very important factors involved in these issues. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 history doesn't show that either the British or Americans invade every country where there is tyranny. Why not, if it's such a worthy cause? Just wondering if you disagree with this statement: Freedom is worth fighting and dying for and tyranny and dictatorships should be defeated. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 My question was about the criteria used to decide when that happens and when it doesn't. I agree with that statement as a general principal, but the point I was trying to make above is that if it is carried through to its logical conclusion, all those invasions would be what you'd get. You're not calling for all those invasions, so apparently the statement is somehow relative rather than absolute, or there are other mitigating circumstances or something. You understand? It's you who is making this very broad, sweeping declaration, without any qualifications. All I did was point out the implications of what you yourself declared. If it is more complicated, then since it is your statement it needs to be you who clarifies it. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Because of the other, very important factors involved in these issues. Like what - oil or world dominance? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. Why do we so rarely "save" countries that have no resources that we covet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Just wondering if you disagree with this statement: Freedom is worth fighting and dying for and tyranny and dictatorships should be defeated. I do agree, with the exception that I do not necessarily think dictatorships are a bad thing, to be defeated. Too often they are bad, but not necessarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 Just wondering if you disagree with this statement: Freedom is worth fighting and dying for and tyranny and dictatorships should be defeated. I do agree, with the exception that I do not necessarily think dictatorships are a bad thing, to be defeated. Too often they are bad, but not necessarily. I agree that there are some conditions under which dictatorships may not be evil and can be the best thing for a nation as long as those conditions exist. It depends on the dictator, though. Some dictators are so ruthless that they shouldn't be allowed to rule at all. Pol Pot, for instance. There are others. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 Because of the other, very important factors involved in these issues. Like what - oil or world dominance? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. Why do we so rarely "save" countries that have no resources that we covet? We were in Vietnam for a long long time and gave tens of thousands of our lives-- and the main reason was not resources. (I was completely opposed to this war at the time it was being fought.) Are "resources" the reason you believe we fought in Korea? What about Europe in WW2? Did we fight there for resources? How about Kuwait? Does history show we gained from their resources? How about Gredana? Lebanon? How about saving Israel-- are we allies with Israel because of their resources? This is not to say the United States is not concerned with US interests. Of course we are, just as any nation is. But the fact is, that America has fought to help people for reasons other than simply wanting some of their resources. Of course, to believe this, you have to be willing to believe that America is a good country. If you think it's an evil country like the Marxists do, then naturally you are going to see everything we do as a country in the worst possible light. Then we become the terrorists and al Qaeda and Iran become the good guys. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Yes. And it's one thing to *assist* a country in getting rid of an evil dictator. But that's not what we did in Iraq. I don't recall anyone ever asking us to come assist them in getting rid of Saddam. On the other hand, technically Hitler was not a dictator, but we felt it necessary to get rid of him, as he *was* evil. But we were not the first ones to jump in and take care of him. We actually waited quite a while, and we waited until our country was actually attacked by an enemy. Then there are situations like Rwanda, which was basically a civil war with the intention of genocide. And where were we then? So, not only did Iraq not ask us to help them, but they are actively and persistently asking us to leave. But Iraq has oil, lots of oil. Which is why I suspect we went in, and which I believe is why we are refusing to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 How about saving Israel-- are we allies with Israel because of their resources? This is not to say the United States is not concerned with US interests. Of course we are, just as any nation is. But the fact is, that America has fought to help people for reasons other than simply wanting some of their resources. Of course, to believe this, you have to be willing to believe that America is a good country. If you think it's an evil country like the Marxists do, then naturally you are going to see everything we do as a country in the worst possible light. Then we become the terrorists and al Qaeda and Iran become the good guys. Many times we help other countries because we want to get rid of their leader and put one in that we like better, who will be our puppet - even if it might be an evil dictator. I believe the *people* of America are good. I'm not so sure about a lot of the leaders. And that goes for most countries. I don't think America is any better or worse or different than your average country, in that respect. I have not seen much proof that Iran is a bad guy. And I have to wonder - if al Qaida is so bad, why didn't we go after them? It just looks more than a little suspicious to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 ....On the other hand, technically Hitler was not a dictator, but we felt it necessary to get rid of him, as he *was* evil. But we were not the first ones to jump in and take care of him. We actually waited quite a while, and we waited until our country was actually attacked by an enemy.... It's true that Hitler originally came to power as a result of an election, but by 1938, Hitler was unquestionably a legitimate dictator. Therefore it is incorrect to say that Hitler was technically not a dictator. I can fully understand, however, why you might say he was not a dictator. See Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. See below: Quote: In 1938, Hitler forced the resignation of his War Minister (formerly Defense Minister), Werner von Blomberg, after evidence surfaced that Blomberg's new wife had a criminal past. Hitler replaced the Ministry of War with the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (High Command of the Armed Forces, or OKW), headed by General Wilhelm Keitel. More importantly, Hitler announced he was assuming personal command of the armed forces. He took over Blomberg's other old post, that of Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, for himself. He was already Supreme Commander by virtue of holding the powers of the president. The next day, the newspapers announced, "Strongest concentration of powers in Führer's hands!" Many experts believe that it was at this point that Hitler became absolute dictator of Germany. It can, however, be argued that he became absolute dictator four years earlier with his assumption of the president's powers. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 I'm reluctant to raise a separate issue while still waiting for a response on the criteria that are used to decide when an invasion is unavoidable to get rid of a dictator, but I do need to point out that I remember 2002, and that the justification for the war *before* it was begun - the one that was taken to the UN - had nothing to do with freedom or with deposing a dictator. It was all about weapons of mass destruction. The 'freedom' rationale was a post hoc morph after the WMD failed to materialise. So in a sense arguing that as the rationale is moot, since it was not the rationale but a rationalisation. Still interested in how the decision not to invade Zimbabwe, for example, is made. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 OK, I was wondering about that, but I wasn't sure about the timeline. Yes, it was before WWII, so he would have been a dictator at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 ....or at least before WE got into the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 President Kennedy's father, who had served as Ambassador to England, actually favored Hitler, prior to Sept. 1939. Also Charles Lindberg, the great American hero who had a big following. America was not totally united against Germany until 1941, although by far the majority favored the Allies. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 WW2 = digression Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 I don't agree that WW2 is a "digression." World War 2 was a defining time in America's experience and future and it influences to some degree virtually everything we do as a nation today. Americans are fundamentally the same freedom-loving people who went to war during that time. The situation outside our borders has changed dramatically, but we have the same general character as a people that we had then. In other words, the situation that drove us into that war and the actions we took to defeat evil during those years still motivates Americans in 2008. For instance, a lot of young people who volunteer for the Iraqi war do so because their grandfather was in WW 2. They are inspired by that example. McCain's son is a good illustration. There are tens of thousands like that. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 President Kennedy's father, who had served as Ambassador to England, actually favored Hitler, prior to Sept. 1939. Also Charles Lindberg, the great American hero who had a great following. America was not totally united against Germany until 1941, although by far the majority favored the Allies. It's true that Hitler's true colors were well hidden for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.