Evangelical Disconnect

limerickman

and I invite you to tell us whether or not you support the condemnation of Bush by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Being the good christian that you are.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

garage sale GT

A socialist, arab-nationalist dictator builds his people some state funded public works projects which they want and appreciate. So much for your debatable objection.

I have put forth the argument in several posts that Saddam's regime was far more secular than other nations which we have not invaded, in answer to the absurd claim that the US attacked Iraq for being Islamist. I do not claim it was entirely secular or atheistic.

__________________
Your mouthwash ain't makin' it.

garage sale GT

Only if you tell me where I brought up the war.

__________________
Your mouthwash ain't makin' it.

Crankyfeet

There may be some confusion because Bro Deal seems to have deleted the message that you quoted when you first mentioned the war.

__________________

Crankyfeet

IMHO The US attacked Iraq because:

1. They have wanted to ever since Saddam was able to gloat after the 1991 Iraq war that the US hadn't defeated him... and for his screwing around with the sanctions and weapons inspections.

2. Ever since Saddam tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush

3. Saddam and his nuclear aspirations were the chief threat to Israel (not the US). BTW - they knew he never had WMDs. They didn't want him to develop them though. How stupid would it have been to invade a country that had WMDs and back a leader into a guillotine while the leader could press a button and blow up the whole of Israel within 10 minutes of launching the missiles. And what better way to ensure that you get the war/invasion you want than to condition not attacking on your enemy giving up something that you know they don't have.

4. After the Twin Tower attacks in New York.... and the subsequent difficulties in finding Osama Bin Laden and fighting a diffused Al Qaida network... Iraq was a country they knew how to fight... had plans for fighting... had a definite victory milestone... and a leader they wanted deposed.

5. They listened too much to opportunistic Iraq exiles like Chalabi

6. Bush wanted a "Mission Accomplished" moment.

7. The US (neocons) wanted a democratic foothold in the center of the Arab world (one in which they held large influence over and retained military bases in) to act as a beacon for democracy in the Middle East, and a large military base to exert "US" diplomacy.

8. OIL

9. More OIL

10. Bush isn't super smart... but he had worked out that all great US Presidents in history presided over victorious wars. So he just had to find one.

11. The Christian right within the Republican Party were fighting a holy war. And if they didn't think they were, then they would have phrased it as defending against an Islamic holy war.

12. Corporate interests. The war industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US. They need wars for ongoing business growth. President Eisenhower warned against this... and he was a military general.

__________________

garage sale GT

Nope, still there. How coud I have quoted it otherwise? You can only delete posts for a few hours.

__________________
Your mouthwash ain't makin' it.

limerickman

If you insist :

13/5/08 10:11am


No mention of Iraq.

13/5/08 5:48pm


Is that crayon clear enough for you?




Now I suggest you starting answering some direct questions which the membership is putting to you - instead of scribbling your usual nonsense.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

limerickman

You claimed earlier that Iraq was secular.


Now you say it's not entirely secular.


So why claim that Iraq was secular (earlier)?

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Crankyfeet

Dude... "Bush and his crusade against Islam" on "Faux" news is not a direct mention of Iraq.

Don't Iran and Al Qaida... not to mention Hamas, also fall under the Islamic banner?


In some relation to the OP, the point, if I'm not mistaken, is the disconnect between the motives and actions of the so-called Christian right-wing in the USA (Evangelicals are a prominent subset) and the teachings of Christ. What happened to the peace, love for others, turn the other cheek, blessed are the meek, and a host of other teachings that seem to be lost in the nationalism and groupthink of militant reprisal?

The point is not the merits of military aggression as a tactic/strategy... but how it is consistent with the teachings of Christ.

__________________

garage sale GT

Dude, I didn't think so either!

But how did he react to it when I questioned him on it? Do you recall him bringing up an invasion in which hundreds of thousands died? Where else are we currently invading if not Iraq? Therefore, what was he referring to in the comment about Faux news & the crusade against Islam?

(except for Afghanistan, which actually held the terrorist organization who had killed 3000 civilians in lower Manhattan. Whether or not they had anything to do with Iraq, they were in Afghanistan, hence, it was not a war against Islam but a response to direct aggression.)

You all are playing with me, aren't you? You emailed one another and said "let's drive the guy nuts by pretending not to understand!"

Who's on first?

__________________
Your mouthwash ain't makin' it.

garage sale GT

I said it was more secular than societies which are run by clerics. Do you understand the subtle difference between more secular and completely secular?

__________________
Your mouthwash ain't makin' it.

garage sale GT

So, what invasion was Bro Deal referring to? Where else have we invaded, where hundreds of thousands have died?

Besides Afghanistan, a country which housed the terrorist organization which killed 3000 New Yorkers, of course. Tell me, what country was he referring to?

__________________
Your mouthwash ain't makin' it.

Crankyfeet

Shit you're right... now answer the question you keep ducking.

__________________

TheDarkLord

There seems to be a tendency among some people to speak confidently/assertively and keep ducking the question in hand. Sort of like the way Kevin James did in that video posted in FID. So, I'm quite skeptical that garage sale will ever answer the question.