[Damn True]

Kofi Annan announced this afternoon that Hussein has agreed to full access UN arms inspection.
Hopefully he wont jerk around the inpectors like last time.

See guys, gunboat diplomacy can work.

 

[splat]

Or is this just another stall tactic ?

 

[amateur]

if we know where he is...why not go after him? seems liek it'd be easier in the long run, especially if he agreed to inspections. probably just means he thinks he has a really good hiding place for his weapons, or they're in a nother country. something doesn't seem right here.

 

[Serial Midget]

I am bummed. There is no substitute for live target practice.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by Damn True
Kofi Annan announced this afternoon that Hussein has agreed to full access UN arms inspection.
Hopefully he wont jerk around the inpectors like last time.

See guys, gunboat diplomacy can work.

I'm sure he will.:angry:

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
I'm sure he will.:angry:

Honestly, I don't expect his behavior to be any different than it was four years ago (the last time inspectors were allowed in). But I sincerely hope I am wrong. I never want to see our boys sent in harms way.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
Kofi Annan announced this afternoon that Hussein has agreed to full access UN arms inspection.
Hopefully he wont jerk around the inpectors like last time.

See guys, gunboat diplomacy can work.

It can but it's not without its risks.

George sounds pretty disappointed, apparently he thinks it is a tactical decision by the Iraqis. Why is he surprised? What the hell else would it be?

Yeah Saddam will mess the inspectors around, just like many of us would not exactly cooperate with the IRS if we had money hidden under the floorboards.

On a side note DT, how do you reconcile your fondness for gunboat diplomacy with Christ's advice to 'turn the other cheek'?

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by fluff


On a side note DT, how do you reconcile your fondness for gunboat diplomacy with Christ's advice to 'turn the other cheek'?

Simple. If you've read the Bible before, you know that Israel (in that time) had an army to defend it, and you know that God had no problems with that. I was just waiting for someone to say this. No offense intended, but I hear this a lot - people seem to think ANY agression at all means *gasp* Christians aren't turning the other cheek.

If you do some research, you will discover that the whole phrase 'turn the other cheek' (at least as far as the Biblical term goes) refers to insults....we JUST studied this the other day in class because, believe it or not, I asked about it. I also went and did a bit of Biblical research on it myself. If you slapped someone in that day on the cheek, of course, it was an insult, and for them to continue with that insult, they'd have to backhand you in order to 'keep it fluid.' *L* Thus, you'd have to turn the 'other cheek' (probably the right one) to 'let' them backhand. The point is that the phrase 'turning the other cheek' stems from one (or more) insulting you. Turning the other cheek doesn't mean standing there like an idiot while people bomb the @#$#@ out of you.

Now, as far as justifying pursuing punitive action against Iraq when they haven't really taken direct action against us, that's another matter, of course.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Simple. If you've read the Bible before, you know that Israel (in that time) had an army to defend it, and you know that God had no problems with that. I was just waiting for someone to say this. No offense intended, but I hear this a lot - people seem to think ANY agression at all means *gasp* Christians aren't turning the other cheek.

If you do some research....

OK, this ain't personal right?

Having grown up in a very religious background I have read the bible several times (although not for a while now). My father is a preacher, etc. I get heartily fed up with people re-engineering biblical text. A good example is the pot thread discussion about biblical wine. Noah got drunk, Samson's strength had to do with abstinence, Jesus turned water into wine and used wine as a symbol of his blood at the last supper. Where's the need to justify all this with 'ah, but in the bible it means something else'.

Care to rejustify this one? 'It is easier for a camel to pass throught he eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'?

Now if I remember rightly the Isreal of Christ's time actually had an army to occupy it. Made up of Roman soldiers.


From an agnostic theologic point of view the three main (related) middle-eastern religions are products of their time:

Judaism - a besieged nation surrounded by hostile forces - 'an eye for an eye' style laws and the promise of a messiah to deliver God's chosen people.

Christianity - an occupied and beaten nation (and entire Roman empire hence the spread) - 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesars' and 'turn the other cheek' and 'blessed are the meek', your reward is in the next life - precepts to help a conquered people endure.

Islam - born in a time of Arabic conflict and expansion - your reward is in this life and the infidel must not be permitted to damage Islam (no direct quotes 'cos I don't know the Koran anywhere near as well as the bible, though I should point out that Islam has some excellent concepts in the areas of women's rights, the immorality of interest, welfare of the poor and defence of the rights of innocents).

Justifying an attack (not defence) on a nation whilst being an active Christian seems a contradiction to me (though it must be God's will, right?) It ain't that far from claiming Allah willed the destruction of the WTC, which is a complete perversion of the Koran and Islamic law.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by fluff


OK, this ain't personal right?

Having grown up in a very religious background I have read the bible several times (although not for a while now). My father is a preacher, etc. I get heartily fed up with people re-engineering biblical text. A good example is the pot thread discussion about biblical wine. Noah got drunk, Samson's strength had to do with abstinence, Jesus turned water into wine and used wine as a symbol of his blood at the last supper. Where's the need to justify all this with 'ah, but in the bible it means something else'.

Care to rejustify this one? 'It is easier for a camel to pass throught he eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'?

Now if I remember rightly the Isreal of Christ's time actually had an army to occupy it. Made up of Roman soldiers.


From an agnostic theologic point of view the three main (related) middle-eastern religions are products of their time:

Judaism - a besieged nation surrounded by hostile forces - 'an eye for an eye' style laws and the promise of a messiah to deliver God's chosen people.

Christianity - an occupied and beaten nation (and entire Roman empire hence the spread) - 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesars' and 'turn the other cheek' and 'blessed are the meek', your reward is in the next life - precepts to help a conquered people endure.

Islam - born in a time of Arabic conflict and expansion - your reward is in this life and the infidel must not be permitted to damage Islam (no direct quotes 'cos I don't know the Koran anywhere near as well as the bible, though I should point out that Islam has some excellent concepts in the areas of women's rights, the immorality of interest, welfare of the poor and defence of the rights of innocents).

Justifying an attack (not defence) on a nation whilst being an active Christian seems a contradiction to me (though it must be God's will, right?) It ain't that far from claiming Allah willed the destruction of the WTC, which is a complete perversion of the Koran and Islamic law.

Nope, not personal.

First, I'm not 'reengineering.' There's nothing wrong with clarifying the context in which scripture was used, words were spoken, etc., in the Bible. A PERFECT example is when people say "All things work for good..." and leave it at that. They sort of forget the "....to them that love God" and the following scripture. Granted, Christians try to twist scripture around to fit their uses (and I'm sure I'm guilty of it at times myself), but that doesn't mean that anytime anyone tries to defend the Bible, it means they're trying to twist meanings. Christians by no means hold exclusive rights to doing this.

I could also ask why it is that non-Christians are so intent on proving that us Christians are not perfect, and that we can't always defend the Bible because we're not perfect, when we are more than willing to admit this fact. *L* This does not mean the Bible is a load of crap and/or is not valid on its own. It's just that the defendants (myself included) are not perfect. That doesn't undermine the validity of the Bible or the faith itself. If you've read Evidence That Demands A Verdict, you know this fact, and personally anyone who HAS read that book and STILL says "There's no proof" doesn't get much of my time because you CAN'T ignore that much evidence/proof.

Second, I didn't say that I am condoning attacks on Iraq. I said that Israel had an army to DEFEND its people, and that I don't think God has a problem with DEFENDING our country. Yes, we have the Bible, but we can also employ common sense as well....I somehow do not think it is "God's will" for us to say "hit me right here" and point to our cheek so that Saddam can lob a nuclear warhead at it. That's not turning the other cheek. That's being dumb. Again, not to offend, but make sure you read what I write so that I'm not misunderstood (Although if I have contradicted myself before - and I am sure I have *L*I apologize.)

When it comes down to it, while I have to support the government and the decisions they make, no, I'm not for going after a country that hasn't done anything to us. However, if it can be proven (and I know that it has for the most part) that, at the least, Iraq has defied laws set in place by the UN (of which the US is a part), then I have no problem pursuing methods to remove Saddam from power, remove his access to weapons of mass destruction, etc. Do I have control over HOW they do this? No, but I'm not going to scream and cry because of that fact.

 

[fourgivn1]

Also...no offense intended to anyone, but while I am not perfect, and while I am guilty of this myself, one of the things I AM and always WILL be doing, is to simply spend my entire life studying the Bible. Josh McDowell has spent a lifetime doing this, and obviously he's not an idiot. Go read his books. I'll probably never be at the level he is at because he has such a love for doing it (researching the Bible) but I AM doing it, although slowly. But I have a problem when people say "I used to study the Bible" or "I grew up in a Christian home around Christian people, etc." That alone does not justify one's making snap judgments on the Bible. I'm not saying I have a problem with anyone here...but it's like me reading the Quran a few times through and then pointing out anything that looked like a contradiction, yelling "HA!" and using that as my reason for not believing, when I would still know NOTHING about the people of Islam, the times in which the Quran was written, the figures of speech they used, etc. I can't make anyone do this, but if you're going to argue the Bible and get into it, then at least actually GO and research it NOW (study the context in which it was used, read books like those Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias writes, etc)....don't base it solely on what one read a while back. I have a great memory but I forget a lot of things, and just because one can remember stuff better doesn't mean that person has suddenly disproven the faith because he knew more than a representative of that faith.

The Bible is the Word of God, I believe, and I do not believe that God would let people corrupt it by letting them screw it up with grammatical or literary errors and the like. On the other hand, PEOPLE did in fact, write it, not God himself. This means there will be different viewpoints, different ways of saying things, etc. And yes, there will be 'ambiguities.' Those exist ANYWHERE. NO ONE escapes being guilty of doing that. People place just as much faith in evolution as they do in Christianity.

But does this mean that the Bible is null and void? No. An ambiguity is not a contradiction, and a few supposed contradictions (I say supposed) do not undermine an entire faith.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by fluff


It can but it's not without its risks.

George sounds pretty disappointed, apparently he thinks it is a tactical decision by the Iraqis. Why is he surprised? What the hell else would it be?

Yeah Saddam will mess the inspectors around, just like many of us would not exactly cooperate with the IRS if we had money hidden under the floorboards.

On a side note DT, how do you reconcile your fondness for gunboat diplomacy with Christ's advice to 'turn the other cheek'?

Luckilly I am not the person making the decisions so I personally do not have to justify it. I suggest you email GW and ask him.

That being said, there is significant precedent for the effectiveness and rightousness of that type of diplomacy. There was this little thing called the Cuban missile crisis back in '61. Worked pretty darn well then against a legit threat not some pi$$ant group of desert houlagains.
Hey, if taking some tyrant to the brink of war to get him to acquiesce to either ours, or the UNs demands is what it takes, then I am all for it. The (pi$$-weak) UN has spent the last four years saying "please or we'll say please again" and threatening nothing more than to "say nasty things about them" with absolutely ZERO result. ONCE AGAIN the UN (and the rest of the world) has depended upon that which they dearly love to complain about. The projection of US military power.

BTW, ask your Dad or Grandad (I'm not sure how old you are so I don't know which generation would be appropriate) about "turning the other cheek" to those nifty little V-2 rockets?

I'm willing to bet they were (regardless of the strength of their faith) pretty pi$$ed off and wanting nothing more than to get to the other side of the channel and whup some arse.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True


Luckilly I am not the person making the decisions so I personally do not have to justify it. I suggest you email GW and ask him.

That being said, there is significant precedent for the effectiveness and rightousness of that type of diplomacy. There was this little thing called the Cuban missile crisis back in '61. Worked pretty darn well then against a legit threat not some pi$$ant group of desert houlagains.
Hey, if taking some tyrant to the brink of war to get him to acquiesce to either ours, or the UNs demands is what it takes, then I am all for it. The (pi$$-weak) UN has spent the last four years saying "please or we'll say please again" and threatening nothing more than to "say nasty things about them" with absolutely ZERO result. ONCE AGAIN the UN (and the rest of the world) has depended upon that which they dearly love to complain about. The projection of US military power.

BTW, ask your Dad or Grandad (I'm not sure how old you are so I don't know which generation would be appropriate) about "turning the other cheek" to those nifty little V-2 rockets?

I'm willing to bet they were (regardless of the strength of their faith) pretty pi$$ed off and wanting nothing more than to get to the other side of the channel and whup some arse.

Actually I could ask both (if both were still alive). My great-grandfather fought in WW1 and became so disillusioned with the governments of the time that he became a Christian (after toying with Marxism). His son (my grandfather) followed his father's Christian faith and was a conscientious objector in WW2. He wasn't happy about being bombed but he felt that just because someone else wanted to break God's laws that didn't mean he would. My father was only 9 years old though.

Isn't martyrdom one of the qualifications for sainthood? Didn't the early Christians suffer greatly at the hands of the Romans without fighting back?

The problem with gunboat diplomacy is that for it to be effective you absolutely must carry out your threats if your conditions are not met.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by fluff
My father was only 9 years old though.

When you were born??? Man, he sure got around a lot.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


When you were born??? Man, he sure got around a lot.

He was 9 in 1939. I was born in 1965. Feel old these days, especially when sat in ER with a bust clavicle chatting to some 12yr old who just busted his wrist jumping. Even he thought I should know better!

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by fluff


He was 9 in 1939. I was born in 1965. Feel old these days, especially when sat in ER with a bust clavicle chatting to some 12yr old who just busted his wrist jumping. Even he thought I should know better!

Dang...I feel bad sometimes when outclassed by someone with more knowledge, but the fact that you're 11 years older than I am, plus the fact that you got admonished by a 12-year-old, makes it all worthwhile.

 

[Westy]

Kofi Annan announced this afternoon that Hussein has agreed to full access UN arms inspection.
Hopefully he wont jerk around the inpectors like last time.

See guys, gunboat diplomacy can work.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Even scanning this topic gave me a headache.

 

[Westy]

Even scanning this topic gave me a headache.

Looking through the old Poly threads.

There used to be a lot of OUTRAGE

Where is your outrage now Ridemonkey?

 

[kidwoo]

I'm pretty pissed that you reminded me of the existence of Damn True.

That's probably going to simmer up to a good rolling boil if you keep it up.

 

[Westy]

I'm pretty pissed that you reminded me of the existence of Damn True.

That's probably going to simmer up to a good rolling boil if you keep it up.

I wonder what he is doing these days?

Trump Rallies?
Sleeping in nature reserve gift shops?
Fapping to Palin podcasts?

 

[Pesqueeb]

Where is your outrage now Ridemonkey?

I'm outraged that both Silver and $tinkle are gone.

 

[kidwoo]

Fapping to Palin podcasts?

No way in hell.

Palin gender=female

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Where's @FSM?

 

[Pesqueeb]

Where's @FSM?

Last I read teh FSM is in Denmark setting the Heathens free.