Simplistic view of the war on Iraq

[13788]

balls: [quote author=Javierdude23 link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=40#59 date=10/30/03 at 01:44:57]

Hope the Chef didn't burn it...[/quote] HA! I am sure we all hope that.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=balls link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=40#55 date=10/29/03 at 05:57:06]
I respectfully disagree. It is my opinion that this was reason number two on the list, at least. This is just me speculating but my opinion is that the gov't used WMD as reason number one so the people would support the gov't with a sense of urgency. It was what people could understand. Freeing the Iraqi people is part of a larger picture of injecting democracy into the Muslim world as part of a larger plan to hopefully topple the current Iranian theocracy and so on. They are hoping for a chain of events that may take place over the next ten to twenty years that will eventually bring democracy and to the people of the middle east.  They are trying to destabilize the region. The gov't can't go out and say this so they needed an argument that people could understand and care about.
Sometimes you have to break some eggs right?

[/quote]
Reagan installed Sodomy Insane in order to "topple the current Iranian theocracy" - which came into being by the will of the Iranian people themselves in order to topple the dictatorship installed by Eisenhower (as opposed to the previous, democratically elected PM Mossadeq).

Maybe if Americans were pro-democracy for once...

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: And on the pro-democracy vein they have recently stated that they are not allowing religious parties to stand in the upcoming Iraqi elections. I'm sorry, but how can you have a true democracy if you stop a load of people from voting how they want to???

I know, seperation of religion and state et al. ad nauseum, but in the case at hand that isn't really an option - you have to remember that this is not the west and these things can't happen overnight! A moderate religious government would be a helluva lot better than a government that has been vetted by other countries resulting in the religious leaders going into militancy.

 

[jonb]

Well, LTL, these are the same people who insist that our constitution doesn't guarantee separation of church and state, so they're being hypocrites.

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well ya know...the separation of church and state simply means...that the government shall not dictate to the church...freedom of religion...not that religion shall not be in the government...i mean this country was FOUNDED by and on the belief that there is a devine Creator and his Word and Inspiration are huge reasons why this country was founded...

In God we Trust...

One nation, indivisible, under God...

God is all over the founding fathers work...

 

[jonb]

They also ended up compromising the position that "all men are created equal" with the fact that they owned slaves by defining blacks and Indians as other species entirely. Your point?

 

[13788]

tracksuitboy: Sammygirly your post of October 21st is spot on!  This thread should not be called a simplistic view on the war with Iraq, it is the only view.  There was ALWAYS going to be a war against Saddam, 9/11 had NOTHING to do with it, it merely gave Bush the excuse he needed.  Throughout the 90's, there was a group called The Project for the New American Century  which tried to get the Clinton administration to attack Iraq and remove Saddam (simplistic, but that's what it amounted to) and who were the signatories to this group ... mmm ... let me see: George W Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney and Rice.  So, you see, the plan to attack Iraq was not hatched after 9/11 it was all in place before Bush was even elected.

The President has hoodwinked America into believing  this was A Just War and, judging by some of the posts on this topic, many people have fallen for it.  Yes, everything that has been said about Saddam is true, the bastard is up there with Hitler and Stalin but  most of the world is ruled by dictators!  Bin Laden and 15 of the bastards who hijacked the 'planes on 9/11 come from Saudi Arabia but has Bush attacked the Saudi's? No. Why? Oil.  The Chinese invaded Tibet over 50 years ago and what did the West do? Fuck All.  Why? No oil.

It has been suggested in other threads that we European's are anti-American.  I would like to point out that despite the above and despite what I have said in other postings on this matter, I am not anti-American, just simply anti-Bush.  Do yourselves a favour in November 2004 and get rid of the bastard.

Oh, by the way, I would like to point out that Tony Blair is Dubya's Pet Poodle and is regarded as such by many people over here!

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: slaves and that stuff..what can you say..but they had poor judgement...and were totally wrong...but, no-one is totally right all the time...not even you JB...

 

[13788]

Inwood: In God we Trust...
 
One nation, indivisible, under God...
 
God is all over the founding fathers work...

Uh...

I assume you refer to the mottos on our money and the pledge of allegiance. The founding fathers actually had nothing to do with those two items.

Our coinage had the motto first during the Civil War. Paper money didn't get it until the 1950s and early 1960s.

The pledge first appeared in 1892. At that time it had no reference to god. That was added by Congress in the 50s. The man who wrote it was dead by then but one member of his family felt he would not have liked the change. He apparently didn't like an earlier change either.

I've included links to the info I found if anyone wants to read them. Some of it's very interesting actually.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

http://history.vineyard.net//pledge.htm

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: uh...even more of a convincing arguement...as late as the 50s...congress agreeing that God should be on our money...paper money...as your research has pointed out...not just founded...but continued on through the 50s...thank you for solidifying my arguement friend...

 

[13788]

Inwood: What Congress decides to do it can decide to undo if it wishes. So I'm not sure how what Congress did supports this argument. The motto was added more at the request of a citizen. No one in our government, including founding fathers, thought it was necessary to put this type of motto on our currency.

As to the major reasons why this country was founded I would need to do more research but I remember distinctly that one major reason was no taxation without representation. While I agree that religion had and has a role in this country I'm not sure how much of it figured in the revolution and in the decisions made in regard to the structure of our government. However, I am fairly sure that, based on the society of the time, that the constitutional delegates did pray that God would give them wisdom in this endeavor they were about to undertake to decide our form of government.

Several delegates had very strong views on religion and government and how the two should and shouldn't interact. So I guess at some point I'll do some research and put it out there as fodder for discussion.

 

[13788]

aj2181: Like I've said many times I don't give a crap what other peoples religous views are..it doesnt bother me. All I care about is that one religous view point should not dominate. If you are gunna have this much for Christians you gotta have the same for Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc.

What the founders thought about religion in the government isn't that important. We need to look forward not backward for the answer.

I for one get pissed when Jahovahs witness' bang on my door buggin me about religion. I feel the same way about the Mormons walkin about in their white shirts and ties buggin me for the same reasons. Nothin gets me in a bad mood faster than seeing Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson on the tv. Religion belongs in the church and in your own home not in the public arena.

 

[13788]

headbang8: [quote author=Maximillian link=board=99;num=1066747449;start=40#43 date=10/26/03 at 18:51:53]

Actually sammy looks good in pink, especially if its an all over blush  

P.S. the original post was meant as humor, just in case you missed the point so there is no "program" to get with. Now put the keyboard down and back away slowly and no one gets hurt.  ;D[/quote]

Er, Maximillian.  I don't quite know how to tell you this, but my reply was meant as a joke, too.   That so many conservatives use prepostrous, morally bankrupt arguments to frame  the Iraq debate in anything other than petrochemical terms is laughable, if it weren't so tragic.

It's very telling that you mistook my reply for a serious one.  If that's the level of debate you expect from Americans on the subject  (and it looks like it is) then the world's only superpower is clearly a race of infants.

Trust me, I'm a lame-ass pinko liberal, too!   Long may my tax dollars fatten welfare mothers and their children before they fatten crony defence contractors.

Sorry to take so long to clear up this misunderstanding.  I've been travelling--through India, as it happens.   Just get those pompous conservatives to walk through the market in any rural Indian city, and see if they have the gall to maintain that the poor can always help themselves.

Solidarity, comerades!  hb8

P.S. Oh, and here's a few of those silly smiley things so everyone knows not to take this all too seriously.   ;D :-* :

 

[jonb]

If you think about it, putting "In God we trust" on money is blasphemy.

 

[13788]

balls: They should change it to "In Hard Work We Trust" or "In Science and Technology We Trust" or "In The Power of Sex We Trust".
Does anyone know what happened in the 50's to cause them to insert that on our money. Isn't that also when they inserted "Under God" in the pledge of allegience? What the fuck happened in the 50's!?!

 

[13788]

Inwood: "Under God" was added if memory serves, and sometimes it doesn't, that the USSR had a pledge with similar sentiments. To differentiate our pledge from the atheistic communist pledge those words were added.

"In God We Trust" was made the national motto by an Act of Congress. So I guess it got put on our money from that. Here's some links that give viewpoints on the history of the motto.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm


Anyway, hope this helps.

 

[jay_too]

On the separation of church and state -

It is my impression based on reading biographies of Jefferon, Adams and Franklin that the founding fathers would not be mainstream Christian today. Two of the above were avowed Deists and believed that religion has its uses, namely to instruct in moral or ethical values and to interject civility into the body politic. I think that it would be more accurate to describe their religious position as Christian leaning.

On the original meaning of separation of church and state to the writers of the constitution, it was to prevent the establishment of a state church in any of the states or for the nation. Why? Well, based on their experience with state churches in England and the Germanies) only those who confromed to the official religion could exercise full citizenship such as to hold office or vote in some cases. Moreover, a portion of the taxes collected was used to support the official church such as the Church of England or the Lutheran or Catholic Churches in the Germanies.

In England, one had to be Anglican to attend Oxford or Cambridge. Thus, the Puritans and other dissenters established their own universities in London, Liverpool, Manchester, etc. to educate their clergy. In 18th century Europe, correct church affliation had its rewards. [I hope that my rememberance of English history is correct; otherwise, I expect the Brits on this board to correct me.]

So as I understand it, separation of church and state was to insure that state monies were not used to support an established church and church membership was not required for public office or to vote. So how did we get to the point that church property is exempt from taxation by the state? Is this an important issue for me? Nah....but then "In God We Trust" and " under God" are no neverminds for me.

jay

 

[13788]

str8_nnj: ...in regards to post #1278 Jonb..surely you didn't mean to say........Israel's an oligarchy, not a democracy. It's also the only country in the world to use torture.

ah..ah...err..you might want to check with the security forces in Sudan,Eygyt,Georgia,Columbia,Peru,and the Hmong people of Laos....all making the "top ten" of Amnesty International's list of places to go to get your "hair cut" or "pedicure"....

????

....I have a question?. When ever there's a religious
holiday. how come they suspend parking fees (meters)
in most major cities? Isn't that a boo boo between the church and state? Is it the fact that we all save $$$...
or just one of those things we can't pin on someone?

 

[Ralexx]

A short break in :
In March I mentioned that it is possible for the European currency - the € - to reach a 1.2 US $ value on financial markets at the end of the year.
It happened ; yesterday, at Tokyo, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Zuerich and New York, 1 € = 1.2035 US $. A record.

Bankers were right... I'm almost surprised.

 

[13788]

str8_nnj: ...some info about the "in god we trust" debate...

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.