We in the West have tried to spread the idea that a free, open society which encourages new ideas and debate is ultimatly the best for the human condition. Anybody hear of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? We have been less than consistent in how we preach this. But for those who say that our efforts in Iraq are a step towards world domination I have two questions -

1) Should we have allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power? The rape of a country is acceptable as long as the country rapes itself? How is that a good choice? Granted, we have not found a solution, but...

2) How can you help create a stable government in this mess? Was it better with Saddam, and if so, the United Nations now accepts totalitarianism as long as it creates a functioning economy? That can't be the best choice! And if we leave the world will condemn us for allowing Iraq to destroy itself.

We would have been criticized for not helping change Iraq, as we are now being criticized for not fixing Darfur, or Rwandha, or Kosovo. And we get criticized for taking action. If we are to be the world's policeman then the world shouldn't argue about how we walk the beat. Anytime another country wants to send troops I'm sure they would be welcome.

But they won't. Europe will be glad to offer comments as they slide into oblivion.

So what war that happened 3 centuries ago was more just than ANY after that?





I'm sorry, couln't tell if this was directed to what I had said. if it was, i never said it was ok for anyone to condemn another, for sexual orientation or any reason. i DID say "who are they to judge", refering to any Christian who would judge someone else, while they themselves are sinners too. I just hate when people take the attitude of "well at least im not as bad as THAT".

My point was, the religion as a rule is not moving towards acceptance of homosexuality as was stated before. That doesn't mean its members get to freely persecute.

On the other hand, please tell me HOW Christains go about persectuting people. Do tell tell then they're going to hell? Is this the same as a religion that would justify immediate death for someone who was gay? Its not quite the same. especially the first way is trying to be constructive, although it is admittedly misplaced.

yes. It clearly says that even elite christians will be fooled by the antichrist 'if that was possible'.



well if you havn't noticed it, then i carn't explain it to you.



Yea these things are also matters of concearn to me as well. Some muslim comunities have a badly warped sense of honour verses justice. However not all muslim countries allow this kind of injustice which is a good thing.



Persecute? yes, definately, if you go back in time 200 years! However nowdays i think the Christian church is confusing the concept of not persecuting homosexuals with actual acceptance, which are two very different things. Have you ever heard the saying "love the sinner, hate the sin"? that dousn't mean "love the sinner and accept the sin".

Seriously, you're killing me. You believe more deeply than the neoconservatives who concocted this whole charade. At least they KNEW they were lying!

Now don't be just blaming conservatives, wasn't it Mr. John Edwards himself who SPONSORED the bill to invade Iraq? Did he believe there were WMD's? If not, then he's even lower that I already think he is for going along with something just to look good. If so, how can you blame conservatives and how can you say "they knew they were lying". The Senate does get to see all the intelligence, some people think they only get top hear what the president tells them. Of course Democrats tend to do whatever will get them reelected, so maybe they weren't fooled and theny voted for the war to look patriotic and keep their jobs.

there WERE WMD's, at some point, apparently not at the time of the invasion. But if he didnt have any, Sadam did sure make it look like he did. What was the point of defying the UN for 10 years, kicking out inspector after inspector? I guess he wanted everyone to think he had something, well it worked.

You 'misread' what I was saying to a degree. This idea that war is glorious, that being a soldier makes someone 'honorable and courageous'... who came up with that? Probably some romantic writing a novel or a spin doctor trying to get the civilians to rally around the troops. War is a horrible thing, sometimes necessary (at least the way we as a species have been led to believe)but always a waste of life and resources. Has there ever been a 'just' war? I don't know since I have only been around for 36 years. But if you look at 'war' from the romantics eyes, there really hasn't been anything 'romantic' about it. What was the American Revolution about? Surely you don't believe it was just about not paying taxes to England, do you? There was more, underlying greed at work with that one. Or how about the Civil War? It wasn't about freeing slaves, as the South was well on the way to freeing them itself. No, it was because the North needed 'tax money' from the South, which happened to be a striving manufacturing 'area' in our young country vs. the North being 'banker land' and the home to politicians (and we all know that politicians are a worthless bunch who provide nothing in the form of wealth to the people, only for themselves and their friends). WW I... just a power play among the world elite and bankers attempting to establish Israel. WW II... the second attempt to establish a 'Jewish homeland' on soil that was never theirs, at least not during the twentieth century, and this attempt succeeded. Vietnam... oil reserves that the big wigs of the oil companies wanted to keep in the ground for fear of driving the price of oil to all time LOWS, not highs. Any war that has happened in the Middle East... well we all know what the real reason is, for what else is there but sand!!!
And let's not forget all the little special ops missions that hardly anyone ever hears about against little backwater regimes... regimes set up by corporations to fleece the resources of a country... regimes who ultimately 'die' at the hands of the same corporate buffoons when they ask for more or refuse to play the game anymore... can anyone remember Noriega? That's just one of the few that we know about. Do you really think what is going on in Africa isn't corporate sponsored? You really believe that one day some merciless thug happened upon great wealth and riches with a position of ruler supreme... in a land full of gold or diamonds or some other precious commodity?
Sorry for the long winded rant here guys, but this is the exact topic that gets WAY under my skin. I hate that the average citizen is nothing more than a stupid sheep being led by a more stupid herder!

Do you know this? Have you met these people who would do you harm, as you say they would? Do you ever think that maybe they are just as 'fleeced' as we are by their own governments, the same way our government/media lies and feeds us propaganda daily?
If you haven't 'met' these people then you should really find another way to form your opinion of death and hate towards them. You have nothing to base your fears on except what your government has told you, and that is a shame.
It seems more like your call to 'bomb' people into oblivion is based on fear, fear of the unknown. Get out more and broaden your mind. Allow the full scope of what life on this ball of mud should really be about to permeate your mindset. Maybe you will find that it isn't the people who are pretty much just like you and me, living halfway around the world, who deserve to die... maybe you will realize that it is those who try to shape our beliefs to what they want are the ones who should die. Die and leave us to enjoy the life we were meant to live, a life for us, not for them.

Stormbringer, you don't get to rewrite history to fit your opinions.

1) The American Revolution was about greed - English greed. At the time, the American colonies had one of the highest standards of living in the world, higher than that of London. The colonists went to war with the largest military power in their world to defend their prosperity. Now, if you want to argue the difference between "freedom fighter", "insurgent", and "terrorist", I'll give you that. The Redcoats probably considered the Minuteman terrorists because they didn't fight with traditional methods. The Iraqis are doing the same to us. And what happened to the Redcoats?

2)Dude, read some Civil War history. The South lost the war because they had no industry and they had a agricultural economy based on low-cost (read: slave) labor. They were no where near to freeing the slaves, and were not a "striving manufacturing area". England did not assist the South because they couldn't win the war. The North had something like 80% of factories and 85% of the railroad lines. Even at that, they almost lost because of poor military leadership.

The war was about state's rights and the role of the federal government. Slavery became an issue after the war started. Many of our big government issues have a basis in that era.

3)WW1 was about establishing Israel? Do we live in the same world?

4)WW2 was about a Jewish homeland? Again, are we on the same planet? Do you actually believe this? Now, tell me the Holocaust didn't happen...

5) Vietnam was about OIL? Come on...are you one of the people that think Hallibuton blew up the World Trade Center to raise their stock prices?

Look, we have the majority of the world's resources and are the wealthiest country and the world is jealous. And that won't change unless we give it all away. And I'm not living in a tent and milking a goat so some family in Somalia can have half of my money. People have always wanted to destroy us, and always will. The question is how to defend our country and our values from those who would destroy them. Rewriting history does not help at all.

We should be learning from our history so we don't repeat it. If we had not helped the Shah of Iran in the 70s would we be facing the current crisis? We gave the Taliban weapons and cash in the 80s when they were fighting the Soviets in Afganistan. Was that a good idea? We have been tinkering with foriegn governments in Central America since the 1900s and look what is going on there. But to ignore everything and hide leads to America in the 1930s. If we had been stronger and more of a world presence in 1938 maybe WW2 would not have happened.

Read your history. Read several histories. Learn the stories. And figure out how to not keep making the same mistakes. But, please, don't tell me that WW2 was about establishing a Jewish homeland unless you can back it up.

"Neoconservative" refers to those of whom this administration is primarily composed: those who now believe the US should impose its will upon the rest of the world, and that this is the best way to a world of peace and freedom. Some of them were liberals in the past, and I think that's why they're called "neo".

No, I don't hold the Democrats in much higher regard than the Republicans. But I see it now as an issue of extremism within the administration versus less extreme (and still often foolish) actions of the legislature.




Of course he wanted people to think he had something. He was hanging on by a thread within his own country, and the nations around Iraq only respected him to the degree that they feared him. He was a secularist governing a couple of extreme religious factions, with extreme religious factions on his very borders as well. He was despicable, but I don't find his posturing at all surprising.

[WW I... just a power play among the world elite and bankers attempting to establish Israel. WW II... the second attempt to establish a 'Jewish homeland' on soil that was never theirs, at least not during the twentieth century, and this attempt succeeded. [/quote]

The jews had been the majority in "Israel" since the 1800's by purchasing land from ottoman Turks who "own the land" and happened to be an Islamic Empire at the time. It was not the sweet land that it is today, the Israelis have been painstakingly reclaiming land from the desert for over a hundred years.

Its funny how People think that the lines drawn in the middle east is just made up by the western colonial powers. The western colonial powers did look at historical maps before drawing the lines while looking for their best intrests... What nation doesnt?

Sorry but i just can't go into all the conspiracy theories. Can i assume that you also belive that the US LET pearl harbor happen just so we could enter the war? I just can't get over the idea that we lost the worrl trade center on purpose. I'd laugh if it wasnt so off target.

Of course the south would have had SOME industry, the point is that the war didnt happen just for the sake of northern bankers, as was said. It was about bringing the counrty back together, even if by force. the south actually broke away before Lincoln became president, the out going democrat Buchanan (i think) let it happen but didnt want a war on his hands. Of course this made it that much worse when Lincoln had to do what he had to do, the south had an organized army and its own president by then. Sometimes its takes action and not just worrying what history will say. Did lincoln KNOW that things would turn out ok? no. but sometimes you gotta go to war based on what you SHOPULD do and let history deside what was best. I don't even know if Lincoln was even appreciated in his lifetime. I think the north was made up of a little more than a single street in new york city, all those states and nothing but banks. hmmmm

And how can it be that WW2 was faught to establish a jewish home land, whaaaat? Who started the war? or is it just that some men wrote history to make it seem that it was Hitler's fault? i mean i havent even heard this one before. is this in a new Michael Moore book or something?

Sorry, meant to include this.

Good point. How different would modern history be if Israel was in France?

But the winners get to make those choices. All the more reason to pay attention to history.

Gullable? Highly doubtful, but then you would actually have to know me to believe this. Do I believe that people who were rich decades ago would want to incorporate their power into their families hands forever? Of course, wouldn't you want to 'guarantee' your family's success for years to come? Now realize that what, at least 60% of the truly 'wealthy' families have received their money the 'old fashioned' way, through illegal and deceitful activities of course and where does that leave us? It would then be safe to say that the 'morals' of these spoiled little rich kids are somewhat less than 'heavenly'.
So here we sit, all these years later, ruled by who in reality? Why the rich, I mean the incredibly rich, of course. If kings and queens could do it back in the day then why could the same not be held true today?
So yes, I do buy the 'Illuminati' talk, to a degree. Are they evil alien reptiles who can shape shift... I really don't think so. Are they a bunch of rich people with nothing better to do, since they don't work 'real' jobs, than sit around and play a real life, global game of 'risk'? Yes, yes they most certainly are.