| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
NidPuterGuy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 237
|
| dubya observes day of prayer |
|
This is some disturbing stuff. Is the US headed towards being a ChristoFascist state? Declaring war on people if they are a different color or religion? Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, when does this crap end?
Here is a quote from dubya:
"We cannot be neutral in the face of injustice or cruelty or evil," Bush said in his prayer day remarks, without specifically referring to the war in Iraq (news - web sites). "God is not on the side of any nation, yet we know he is on the side of justice. And it is the deepest strength of America that from the hour of our founding, we have chosen justice as our goal." |
Fri May 07, 2004 1:38 am |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
It is disturbing. Bush is nothing but a frickin' evangelist. If he doesn't get voted out of office I'll assassinate him.  Well, maybe not. I'll probably just get really pissed off.
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 2:19 am |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
What am I missing here? Why does that quote have anything to do with declaring war on different cultures/religions/whatever? Has my knowledge of the English language sunk so low that I cannot discern, in that quote, this supposedly obvious omen that foreshadows a theocracy? What the blazes does Vietnam, Bosnia, Rwanda or any other American conflict have to do with race/culture/belief/whathaveyou? Whatever happened to history, don't they teach that in high school anymore? Isn't the president an American citizen as well? Doesn't he have the right to have beliefs of his own, without fear of causing a remonstration of the soi-disant free-thinkers, but in truth Christianity haters? |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 3:21 am |
|
|
Scribelus
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 46
|
I suppose the logic is:
God is not on the side of America just because it is America
Rather, God has a preference for justice
America incarnates justice in the form of its founding Constitution
Therefore, God is on the side of America
IMPLIED:
God does not dislike other nations just because they happen to be particular nations [Aside: In the Old Testament he does have a preference for Israel, though he gives them a real tough time - read Jeremiah for example]
However, some other nations are not as just as America [Aside: this is manifestly the case]
Therefore, God is not on the side of these other nations.
I guess the problem is in associating divine providence or influence with a whole NATION, rather than the more New Testament idea that God deals with people on an individual level. Bush is trying to find a way to say that God is on the side of the U.S., after all.
As for the "declaring war on people just because they are..." remark by NidPuterGuy, that's a bit of a jumble.
Vietnam: Action due to political reasons
Iraq: Action due to political reasons
Bosnia: Inaction due to internal bureaucratic disagreement and inertia
Rwanda: Inaction due to the idea "it's not by problem".
I don't think the U.S. has ever acted or failed to act due to racism or religion.
The single biggest factor governing American foreign policy in the last 50 years is the Cold War - that situation explains a lot, and it is unfair to blame the Cold War on the U.S.
The most worrying religious factor in the U.S. is belief in the Apocalypse (pace Attorney General John Ashcroft.) |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 5:38 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
I don't think the U.S. has ever acted or failed to act due to racism or religion.
Ummm, hello US Civil War? And let's not forget the whole Israel situation.
quote:
The single biggest factor governing American foreign policy in the last 50 years is the Cold War - that situation explains a lot, and it is unfair to blame the Cold War on the U.S.
No, not really. That would be oil and capitalism.
Rwanda and Bosnia were never American conflicts. |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 6:09 am |
|
|
Scribelus
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 46
|
Energy has strategic importance, true, but "capitalism"? Maybe if you are a Marxist historian, but are there any of those still left?
Support by neocon Apocalypse believers may explain some recent Israel policy - it's unclear how much. After the Rapture, some Jews will turn to Jesus, and the others will go to hell, apparently - not sure why the Jews are friends with such people...
I don't know much about the Civil War, except for Apu's answer in his citizenship test on the Simpsons... |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 6:24 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Energy has strategic importance, true, but "capitalism"? Maybe if you are a Marxist historian, but are there any of those still left?
I don't have to be a Marxist historian to see the close ties between energy and capitalism.
quote:
Support by neocon Apocalypse believers may explain some recent Israel policy - it's unclear how much. After the Rapture, some Jews will turn to Jesus, and the others will go to hell, apparently - not sure why the Jews are friends with such people...
Bush tried to critisize Israel once. He will most likely not do that again. |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 1:14 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scribelus
Bush is trying to find a way to say that God is on the side of the U.S., after all.
He specifically said: "God is not on the side of any nation." |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 3:29 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
quote:
I don't think the U.S. has ever acted or failed to act due to racism or religion.
Ummm, hello US Civil War? And let's not forget the whole Israel situation.
Didn't have a very good history teacher, eh?
The Civil War was started over States Rights vs Federal Government. The fact that slavery was abolished was just a bonus. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. That was it's stated purpose.
What part could racism or religion possibly play in the U.S. support for Israel? Other than proving that those who make U.S. foreign policy on Israel don't discriminate against Jews.
@NidPuterGuy and MageofFire: 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 9:38 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Didn't have a very good history teacher, eh?
The Civil War was started over States Rights vs Federal Government. The fact that slavery was abolished was just a bonus. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. That was it's stated purpose.
The ongoing free-state/slave-state battle through the American Congress has been repeatedly used as one of the major instignating factors for the Civil War.
Who would EVER try and write it off as a simple bonus?
quote:
What part could racism or religion possibly play in the U.S. support for Israel? Other than proving that those who make U.S. foreign policy on Israel don't discriminate against Jews.
The Zionist support of Israel in the US is why the goverment protects and supports Israel in any way it can. If you're going to throw in boring jabs about discrimination, it is, if anything, positive discrimination.
Last edited by Hexy on Fri May 07, 2004 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 11:17 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
The Zionist support of Israel in the US is why the goverment protects and helps Israel unquestionably.
Nonsense. You know as well as anyone that, in a sea of over 300 million (IIRC) arab people, that tiny nation of non-arab Israel is the only one, with the possible exception of Turkey, that has anything that resembles a republic/democracy. In case you forgot, the US did support Egypt in the 1950s, and we all know where that led.... Oh, and there's also the small, irrelevant fact that it's because of Israel that the US and the coalition did not face an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons in the first Gulf War. |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 11:40 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Nonsense. You know as well as anyone that, in a sea of over 300 million (IIRC) arab people, that tiny nation of non-arab Israel is the only one, with the possible exception of Turkey, that has anything that resembles a republic/democracy. In case you forgot, the US did support Egypt in the 1950s, and we all know where that led.... Oh, and there's also the small, irrelevant fact that it's because of Israel that the US and the coalition did not face an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons in the first Gulf War.
Hahahahaha
So you're saying that the US supports Israel because it's a democracy?
Is that why the US vetoes any UN inspections of Israels assumed nuclear warheads? Is that why the US quietly concedes with Israel outright murdering palestinian "insurgents" while the rest of the world protests angrily? Is that why after the first and only time Bush spoke against Israel, immediate reapercussions were felt through the electorate?
Although I'd like to know what Israel has to do with Iraq not using the WMDs they got from the previous Bush administration? Hey... did the US support a dictator like Saddam? But how can that be? That's not a democracy!? |
|
Fri May 07, 2004 11:53 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
The ongoing free-state/slave-state battle through the American Congress has been repeatedly used as one of the major instignating factors for the Civil War.
Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Lincoln's most famous letters. Horace Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, a few days earlier had addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions." In it, he demanded emancipation for the country's slaves and implied that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
Lincoln wrote his letter to Greeley when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed the vision he possessed about the preservation of the Union. The letter, which received universal acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
That was the policy of the President of the U.S. at the time of the Civil War.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Who would EVER try and write it off as a simple bonus?
I'm not writing it off as a "simple" bonus. It was definately one of the most positive outcomes of the war, but it was not the reason the Union and Confederation went to war. Lincoln was able to get away with the Emancipation Proclamation because he only freed the slaves in the rebel states. He couldn't risk losing key border slave states that had stuck with the Union. If he had entered the war with the stated purpose of freeing the slaves the outcome of the war may have been different or, more likely, would have taken a great deal longer to win due to losing the support of those states. The goal was to preserve the Union.
Frankly, the move was brilliant.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Sat May 08, 2004 12:05 am |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
So you're saying that the US supports Israel because it's a democracy? Is that why the US vetoes any UN inspections of Israels assumed nuclear warheads?
State one episode where Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal posed a threat to the US.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Is that why the US quietly concedes with Israel outright murdering palestinian "insurgents" while the rest of the world protests angrily?
Several of those "insurgents," as you put it, have carried terrorist attacks aimed at the people of Israel, including attacks deliberately aimed at children.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Is that why after the first and only time Bush spoke against Israel, immediate reapercussions were felt through the electorate?
What the heck does that have to do with your Zionist conspiracy theory? Can't the electorate voice its opinion?
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Although I'd like to know what Israel has to do with Iraq not using the WMDs they got from the previous Bush administration?
1981. Osirak's nuclear reactor.
No Bush administration ever gave any nuclear weapons to Saddam.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Hey... did the US support a dictator like Saddam? But how can that be? That's not a democracy!?
And what would you have the US do in the wake of the 1979 Iran revolution? Sit by and just watch? Invade Iran? Oh, I'm sure the Soviets would have loved that.... |
|
Sat May 08, 2004 12:57 am |
|
|
NidPuterGuy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 237
|
I didn't mean that the US had a hand in Rwanda or Bosnia but just that it is an example of humanities inhumanity that has been expressed throughout history over and over. Until the world can seperate religion and government we will have war. |
|
Sat May 08, 2004 1:37 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
