[Mark]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Name one thing Kerry has done which would hurt Christianity (and no, a failure to impose != hurt).

Conversely, it's awful hard to raise a kid Hindu in Bush's world.

Hard to raise a Hindu kid? What? You can't pray in schools, lobbysts are trying to take the word "God" and phrases like "Under God" out of everything. Our pluralistic society makes it easier than ever for someone of a minority religious affiliation to practice unimpeded.

[JerryLove]

Hard to raise a Hindu kid? What? You can't pray in schools, lobbysts are trying to take the word "God" and phrases like "Under God" out of everything. Our pluralistic society makes it easier than ever for someone of a minority religious affiliation to practice unimpeded.

In addition to everything Chrstians deride as hurting Christianity hurting other religions equally, the pledge and money are monotheist, we have judges shoving Jewesh religious law into public courthouses (and don't think, because the statue came down, there are any fewer judges ignoring the law (as did that one) in favor of their Christian adgenda).

[Campfan86]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You seem confused, and don't seem to have interacted with my comment.

Would you choose to have your heart-transplant perfromed by an esteemed cardiac surgoen (who happened to be an athiest), or by your church's minister?

You seemed to be confused at my comment. I don't think there's only atheistic
surgeons. Got to go. I'll be back to chat later.

[JerryLove]

You seemed to be confused at my comment. I don't think there's only atheistic surgeons.

Non-sequiter.

Given the choice, would you choose to have your heart-transplant perfromed by an esteemed cardiac surgoen (who happened to be an athiest), or by your church's minister?

[fifsuperpod37]

Neocons tend to model foreign policy after Israel's--preemptive strikes, unwillingness to negotiate, unwillingness to work with UN or allies. This should sound familiar.

That's funny, I remember Israel trying to negotiate with Clinton and Arafat, making large concessions, and then seeing Arafat back out.
I remember Israel negotiating with Egypt and releasing themselves of an enemy.
Also, the U.N. hates Israel, they would never work with them. The U.N. condemned Israel's plan to withdraw from the gaza strip. Every other week an anti-semitic comment comes from the U.N. or a U.N. nation.
If not for Israel's pre-emptive strike on Saddam in the 80's he might have acquired nuclear weapons.
Also, none of the things you've mentioned are parts of the neoconservative idealogy.

Most prominent neocons are also Zionist Jews. I think they have a warped perspective on Israel's "righteousness" as a nation.

I think you are approaching anti-semitism here yourself.

As in Max Boot's "The Case for American Empire"

I'm not familiar with this. Since you are, maybe you could quote.

Okay, two of those were from another era, that leaves you with two successful (arguably) cases that are at all applicable to the post-nuclear world.

These are examples of U.S. success in nation building. I don't understand your grounds for dismissing them.

Vietnam, Chile, Philippines, Greneda, Libya, all attempts at regime change backed unilaterally by the U.S. (I don't see a distinction between "regime change" and "nation building" besides one being more successful than the other).

Our efforts at building democracy in Iraq are vastly different than our efforts to support a weak leader in S. Vietnam. The examples I mentioned are some of the best examples of what happened when the U.S. committed itself to the reconstruction of a nation.

That's the propoganda-statement for neoconservatism. A more accurate statement is that they are mostly miopic old zionists who view history through the lens of World War 2 and ignore facts (the astounding lack of success of neoconservatism in spreading stable democracies) over ideology (freedom must prevail over communists ... or now, Islamists).

Now I think you are very close to anti-semitism. Do you have any facts or arguments as opposed to these sweeping personal attacks?

Once and for all, the French and Germans are not going to send troops to Iraq, Kerry has had to admit as much.

www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040928-103906-3997r.htm

[JerryLove]

That's funny, I remember Israel trying to negotiate with Clinton and Arafat, making large concessions, and then seeing Arafat back out.

Concessions from what? Did they agree to go back to their granted borders?

Also, the U.N. hates Israel, they would never work with them.

The UN created Isreal

If not for Israel's pre-emptive strike on Saddam in the 80's he might have acquired nuclear weapons.

In the 80s, Ronald Reagan was selling Saddam WMD. That's how he got them in the first place.

I think you are approaching anti-semitism here yourself.

When you don't have an argument, either use a slur or call them an anti-semite.

These are examples of U.S. success in nation building. I don't understand your grounds for dismissing them.

We also successfully built our nation with president after president ordering genocide, and "punitive raids" killing innocents to terrorize other populations. Perhaps there are reasons to have contemorary discussions.

S. Korea was already a democracy... and they have been in a paused war for 50 years. Germany and Japan were not about building a deomcracy; they were about reconstructing destroied countries. Germany was a democracy prior to the war, and Japan retained an emperor after reconstruction.

El.Salvidor I'm gonna have to look up, but even assuming it meets the standard, that's not a good success rate.

Our efforts at building democracy in Iraq are vastly different than our efforts to support a weak leader in S. Vietnam. The examples I mentioned are some of the best examples of what happened when the U.S. committed itself to the reconstruction of a nation.

Oh, I'm all for nation reconstruction... though we didn't do it in Afghanitan the first time, it looks set to fail this time, the president's analists are predicting civil war in Iraq, we didn't seem to think it was woth the bother of in Somalia, the list goes on.

Now I think you are very close to anti-semitism. Do you have any facts or arguments as opposed to these sweeping personal attacks?

"Jew" != "Zionist". They are not interchangeable. Dislikeing a political philosophy which happens to be within the Jewesh communit is not anti-semetic. If I though he were, I'd have more than a few words for him myself.

Once and for all, the French and Germans are not going to send troops to Iraq, Kerry has had to admit as much.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...3906-3997r.htm

Because someone wrote in an opinion that said so? The author isn't even named.

[nbleo04]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Name one thing Kerry has done which would hurt Christianity (and no, a failure to impose != hurt).

Conversely, it's awful hard to raise a kid Hindu in Bush's world.

well you name one thing he has done to help or even support christians rights

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by fifsuperpod37

That's funny, I remember Israel trying to negotiate with Clinton and Arafat, making large concessions, and then seeing Arafat back out.

I think the Palestinians are more to blame than the Israelis for the mess, however the Israelis are not, and have not, helped their situation at all by sticking to a retaliatory/preemptive policy for 50 years. They have historically refused to negotiate unless their conditions are met, and back out of negotiations as soon as some crackpot militant breaks their conditions. Look at where it's gotten them.

I remember Israel negotiating with Egypt and releasing themselves of an enemy.

Before or after they invaded them?

Also, the U.N. hates Israel, they would never work with them. The U.N. condemned Israel's plan to withdraw from the gaza strip.

They rightly condemn Israeli policy which generally does not comply with their human rights standards.

Every other week an anti-semitic comment comes from the U.N. or a U.N. nation.

Anti-semite: Someone who hates members of the Semitic race, particularly Jews.

Can you cite any anti-semitic comments?

If not for Israel's pre-emptive strike on Saddam in the 80's he might have acquired nuclear weapons.

1. Argument from ignorance; I could just as easily say that if Reagen wasn't an actor he might have acquired them.
2. If Saddam were to acquire weapons he probably would have done so, at the time, by purchasing them from us.
3. Pre-emptive strikes such as Israel's tends, as Iran's nuclear buildup shows (as well as Pakistan/India), to galvanize nations into pursuing nuclear programs even more, since they are under attack and would not be if they had nuclear countermeasures.

Also, none of the things you've mentioned are parts of the neoconservative idealogy.

Perhaps not as you define it; I understand there are differences. I am referring to neoconservativism that embraces the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and ignoring international (UN) guidelines, as Israel does (although I don't think it's accurate to describe Israel as "neoconservative")

I think you are approaching anti-semitism here yourself.

I think you're being ridiculous, since I am myself Semitic.

I'm not familiar with this. Since you are, maybe you could quote.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//c.../rrtw/boot.htm

MANY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE September 11 attack on America was payback for U.S. imperialism. If only we had not gone around sticking our noses where they did not belong, perhaps we would not now be contemplating a crater in lower Manhattan. The solution is obvious: The United States must become a kinder, gentler nation, must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchanan's phrase, "a republic, not an empire." In fact this analysis is exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation.

He goes on to cite some non-apropros examples of where imperial nation-building worked (none of them at all contemporary or applicable today):

The mealy-mouthed modern euphemism is "nation-building," but "state building" is a better description. Building a national consciousness, while hardly impossible (the British turned a collection of princely states into modern India), is a long-term task. Building a working state administration is a more practical short-term objective that has been achieved by countless colonial regimes, including the United States in Haiti (1915-1933), the Dominican Republic (1916-1924), Cuba (1899-1902, 1906-1909), and the Philippines (1899-1935), to say nothing of the achievements of generals Lucius Clay in Germany and Douglas MacArthur in Japan

Follows that up with the standard ridiculous idealistic prediction that if we invade Iraq then we'll have lots of street cred and everyone will want to join our empire:

Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul. With American seriousness and credibility thus restored, we will enjoy fruitful cooperation from the region's many opportunists, who will show a newfound eagerness to be helpful in our larger task of rolling up the international terror network that threatens us.

This article reflects our current policy.

These are examples of U.S. success in nation building. I don't understand your grounds for dismissing them.

Well, Germany was already a deposed democracy, Japan was culturally completely different from Muslim countries. I hadn't even heard of El Salvador before Cheney mentioned it offhand. Furthermore the first two do not apply in a post-cold war worled; they are from a completely different era based on conventional warfare and surrender rules. I think Roman accounts of occupation are more applicable to Iraq than WW2 ones.

Our efforts at building democracy in Iraq are vastly different than our efforts to support a weak leader in S. Vietnam. The examples I mentioned are some of the best examples of what happened when the U.S. committed itself to the reconstruction of a nation.

And I showed why they are insufficient to make a case for your doctrine, since they are vastly overshadowed by the number of cases where we failed trying to do the same thing, and furthermore are mostly inapplicable to the era we live in today.

I tend to think that we should pick foreign policy that works.

Now I think you are very close to anti-semitism. Do you have any facts or arguments as opposed to these sweeping personal attacks?

1. It's not anti-Semitism, and you are being inflammatory and naive by suggesting that it is.
2. Most of them support Israel, write very openly about supporting Israel, and many of them right for the magazine Commentary, which is a zionist magazine. (are you claiming they're not zionists?)
3. They view the world through the lens of WW2 in the same way you do, by pretending that our successes in that era (in nation-buidling) and failures in that era (appeasement) are universally applicable in every situation.

Once and for all, the French and Germans are not going to send troops to Iraq, Kerry has had to admit as much.

Perhaps they'll flip-flop like Kerry does all the time (and Bush too).

[Lightknight]

HAHAHA, this thread title is funny!!! As Christians we should vote for the person God wants. Please, tell me who that is, because that doesn't mean that it's Bush. Heck, Bush told the muslim leaders that Allah is our god too *spits at feet*. So don't be so sure it's Bush. Look at what he's doing in our society as well. Is it the best that he could do? However, are we choosing the lessor of multiple evils by voting Bush? I don't know, but don't just vote for someone because they claim to be Christian. Some of the most blatant sinners I've ever met have claimed to be Christian.

[JerryLove]

well you name one thing he has done to help or even support christians rights

Lobbied to change the patriot act.

[Campfan86]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Non-sequiter.

Given the choice, would you choose to have your heart-transplant perfromed by an esteemed cardiac surgoen (who happened to be an athiest), or by your church's minister?

No. I'd rather have a church minister who as the Holy Spirit. That an atheistic surgeon who trust his own skill. See, with God anything is possible. Your statement is also based on the fact (it seems anyway) on the fact that there are only athiestic or non-moral people. What in the world is Non-sequiter? Would you rather have a stockbroker who is the highest esteemed stockbocker and was also the most deadliest serial killer or a 18 year old who had no clue about money? Just curious.

[Campfan86]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

HAHAHA, this thread title is funny!!! As Christians we should vote for the person God wants. Please, tell me who that is, because that doesn't mean that it's Bush. Heck, Bush told the muslim leaders that Allah is our god too *spits at feet*. So don't be so sure it's Bush. Look at what he's doing in our society as well. Is it the best that he could do? However, are we choosing the lessor of multiple evils by voting Bush? I don't know, but don't just vote for someone because they claim to be Christian. Some of the most blatant sinners I've ever met have claimed to be Christian.

And there is not just the Republican party or the Democratic party.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Campfan86

No. I'd rather have a church minister who as the Holy Spirit.

Make sure you make that clear when you fill out your medical insurance forms. "I don't need a doctor, you can just take me to the nearest pentacostal church when I need heart surgery."

Would you rather have a stockbroker who is the highest esteemed stockbocker and was also the most deadliest serial killer or a 18 year old who had no clue about money? Just curious.

His point was that a person's religious beliefs generally have nothing to do with how well they perform practical tasks, such as being doctors or running a country.

[JerryLove]

No. I'd rather have a church minister who as the Holy Spirit. That an atheistic surgeon who trust his own skill. See, with God anything is possible.

Which, I'm sure, explains the complete failure to groups the "The Church of Christian Science" to cure the ill. Blunly put, I don't belive you. I don't think you would actually be foolish enough to make that choice. I don't believe that you choose prayer over a splint to help a broken arm (watch out, that splint may have been made by athiest.

What God can or cannot do is not in question. What God will or will not do is another matter.

Your statement is also based on the fact (it seems anyway) on the fact that there are only athiestic or non-moral people.

I didn't make a statement, I asked a question.

What in the world is Non-sequiter?

Non sequitur (I suppose it would be easier to look up if I spelt it correctly): An inference which does not follow from the premises.

Would you rather have a stockbroker who is the highest esteemed stockbocker and was also the most deadliest serial killer or a 18 year old who had no clue about money?

Definately the skilled serial-killer... just remind me not to tell him where I live in case he gets out of prison.

[fifsuperpod37]

Concessions from what? Did they agree to go back to their granted borders?

Israel was invaded by Egypt, as you know, in the 7 days war. Israel threw back all her assailants and even won land from the 5 nations that invaded them. Including Egypt. In the Camp David Accords with Jimmy Carter, Sadat, and Israel the "zionists" gave up that land and Egypt became an ally.

With Clinton, Netanyahu, and Arafat they had a deal on the table that had Israel making big concessions but Arafat failed Clinton and backed out of the deal. Which is ironic because an agreement between Israel and Palestine there might have led to Gore's election due to a much improved Clinton legacy but I digress.

Anti-semite: Someone who hates members of the Semitic race, particularly Jews.
Can you cite any anti-semitic comments?

Since the Oslo accords Israel has been the victim of terrorist attacks killing 259 Israelis and injuring 5,000. 34 resolutions condemning Israel were passed by the U.N. during this same period. None were passed condemning the terrorists.

Their have been many anti-semitic charges made, usually by arab nations, in the U.N. that have gone unrepudiated. U.N. actions against Israel and lax actions against anti-semitism are common.

1. Argument from ignorance; I could just as easily say that if Reagen wasn't an actor he might have acquired them.

What?

2. If Saddam were to acquire weapons he probably would have done so, at the time, by purchasing them from us.

Ridiculous, as mistaken as the U.S. was in supporting Saddam we were not about to supply him with nuclear weapons. It would not have been necessary and it would not have helped our position to give him nukes.

3. Pre-emptive strikes such as Israel's tends, as Iran's nuclear buildup shows (as well as Pakistan/India), to galvanize nations into pursuing nuclear programs even more, since they are under attack and would not be if they had nuclear countermeasures.

The reason Israel uses pre-emption to prevent its enemies from acquiring nuclear weapons is that it knows it will be at great risk if this happens. It would not surprise me if Israel bombed Iranian targets to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. How could you blame them?

Perhaps not as you define it; I understand there are differences. I am referring to neoconservativism that embraces the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and ignoring international (UN) guidelines, as Israel does (although I don't think it's accurate to describe Israel as "neoconservative")

You are defining neoconservatism in order to put up your definition as a strawman. Give me a credible source for this definition you are using.

I think you're being ridiculous, since I am myself Semitic.

Hear me out and let me clarify. Your language is close to the language used by anti-semites who talk about Jewish or Zionist conspiracies.

MANY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE September 11 attack on America was payback for U.S. imperialism. If only we had not gone around sticking our noses where they did not belong, perhaps we would not now be contemplating a crater in lower Manhattan. The solution is obvious: The United States must become a kinder, gentler nation, must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchanan's phrase, "a republic, not an empire." In fact this analysis is exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation.

Wow. The Weekly Standard. I'm surprised that you would find such a column there, and also that you would cite it.

As for Pat Buchanon and the isolationist nonsense he argues. It is naive to think that we can withdraw our presence from the middle east and expect al-qaeda to start ignoring us. And it's wrong to think that we should. It would be wrong to stop supporting Israel's right to exist, it would be impossible to cut ourselves off from the oil in the region, and it would be unthinkable to allow al-qaeda and militant Islam to go unchecked in establishing governments like the one in Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Saddam in Iraq (not that it was a militant Islam government). I completely disagree that the United States should not be involved in the world, spreading its philosophies about government and economics. The U.S. has done far too much good in this area to back out now.
Finally, it's dangerous to allow militant Islam to go unchecked in the east merely because the U.S. is located in the West. Europe is becoming full of Muslims and is having to be engaged in the war on terror because many al-qaeda cells are located there. Accuse me of trying to create a new Cold War but the Militant Islam idealogy is a worldwide movement that presents a threat to the United States.

And I showed why they are insufficient to make a case for your doctrine, since they are vastly overshadowed by the number of cases where we failed trying to do the same thing, and furthermore are mostly inapplicable to the era we live in today.

Our instances of failure have not involved the U.S. committing itself economically, militarily, and politically in the same instance as it has in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps we could agree that our efforts in these nations are new experiences and no examples of the past will be truly accurate enough to suggest U.S. failure or success at building democracy in the Middle East.

Perhaps they'll flip-flop like Kerry does all the time (and Bush too).

When reading this quote I thought it sounded exactly like the kind of thing the Kerry campaign manager would say if a reporter caught him off-guard with a question about how France and Germany will not commit troops. Just a piece of campaign rhetoric that does not address the reality of the situation.