Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Mari-894290 said: ... The US returned the territories occupied by the Armed Forces in 2000. Neverth...
(Quote) Mari-894290 said:


...

The US returned the territories occupied by the Armed Forces in 2000. Nevertheless, in the Torrijos-Carter Treaty there's a clause that states that the US can "invade" (I apologize for not having the quote) Panama if there's a thread to the Canal. Now, it is impossible to "defend" the Canal, just like you could not "defend" the Mississippi or the Nile river. Thus, it has been plain from the start that that specific clause is intended as an apology for military purposes.

...

--hide--


eyebrow


Why on earth would you say that it is impossible to defend the canal? People have been defending waterways for thousands of years. Roman legions held the Rhine for centuries. Athens spent a lot of its time defending its control of the Hellespont.


If you want to talk specifically about canals, the British defended the Suez Canal from the Ottomans in WWI and from the German Afrika Corps under Rommel in WWII.


There is nothing impossible about it.

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: Hi John. I'm glad someone is thinking. Even when all the military bases were well e...
(Quote) John-336509 said:


Hi John. I'm glad someone is thinking.

Even when all the military bases were well established here, the Japanesse went into territorial waters and the US did not detect them. It was only found out later.

I have liver in a country with military from outside in times of so called peace (in this case the US) and I can assure you that it's no picknick, On the other hand,l sabotage is way too easy. Is your mighty country safe? 9/11? Drug lords? Gangs? Anyway, I don't want to live in an Afganistan, as much as I love the Big Brother from the North coming to visit - 'cause they never seem to know when to leave the party.

If defending a territory were not difficult, we you would not be worried about Chavez's new toys.

If you want to come down, I'll show you just how vulnerable the is... wink


Thanks for posting.






Why on earth would you say that it is impossible to defend the canal? People have been defending waterways for thousands of years. Roman legions held the Rhine for centuries. Athens spent a lot of its time defending its control of the Hellespont.


If you want to talk specifically about canals, the British defended the Suez Canal from the Ottomans in WWI and from the German Afrika Corps under Rommel in WWII.


There is nothing impossible about it.

--hide--

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Mari-894290 said: Hi John. I'm glad someone is thinking. Even when all the military bases were well e...
(Quote) Mari-894290 said:


Hi John. I'm glad someone is thinking.

Even when all the military bases were well established here, the Japanesse went into territorial waters and the US did not detect them. It was only found out later.

I have liver in a country with military from outside in times of so called peace (in this case the US) and I can assure you that it's no picknick, On the other hand,l sabotage is way too easy. Is your mighty country safe? 9/11? Drug lords? Gangs? Anyway, I don't want to live in an Afganistan, as much as I love the Big Brother from the North coming to visit - 'cause they never seem to know when to leave the party.

If defending a territory were not difficult, we you would not be worried about Chavez's new toys.

If you want to come down, I'll show you just how vulnerable the is...


Thanks for posting.

--hide--


I've been to Panama and seen the canal. When I showed my grandfather my pictures of the Miraflores locks, he pointed at the fence and laughed, "when I was there, there wasn't a fence; *I* was the fence!"


You seem to be playing fast and loose with words here. If by the word "defend" you mean absolutely guarantee nothing remotely bad will ever happen at any time, then it woould impossible to for anyone to defend anything. That is not a particularly useful usage of the word. Denfense and complete invulnerability are two different things.


Nobody particularly devastating resulted from the Japanese merely getting into Panamanian territorial waters. If they had been able to shut down, destroy, or take control of the canal, that would have been vastly different. As it was, the Allies were able to use the canal throughlut WWII.

None of the things you mentioned, be 9/11 or criminals, or Hugo Chavez are positioned to destroy the U.S. Irritate, annoy, harrass, yes. But destroy or conquer, no. Nothing is invulnerable, but that does not mean nothing can be defended. If Chavez lobbed a SS missile into the U.S., it would presumably do damage. And after all the smoke cleared, Chavez would be dead or in prison, Venzuela would have dramatically different leadership, and the U.S. would go back to life as norml before the troops even got done leaving Caracas.

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I've been to Panama and seen the canal. When I showed my grandfather my pictures of th...
(Quote) John-336509 said:



I've been to Panama and seen the canal. When I showed my grandfather my pictures of the Miraflores locks, he pointed at the fence and laughed, "when I was there, there wasn't a fence; *I* was the fence!"


You seem to be playing fast and loose with words here. If by the word "defend" you mean absolutely guarantee nothing remotely bad will ever happen at any time, then it woould impossible to for anyone to defend anything. That is not a particularly useful usage of the word. Denfense and complete invulnerability are two different things.


Nobody particularly devastating resulted from the Japanese merely getting into Panamanian territorial waters. If they had been able to shut down, destroy, or take control of the canal, that would have been vastly different. As it was, the Allies were able to use the canal throughlut WWII.

None of the things you mentioned, be 9/11 or criminals, or Hugo Chavez are positioned to destroy the U.S. Irritate, annoy, harrass, yes. But destroy or conquer, no. Nothing is invulnerable, but that does not mean nothing can be defended. If Chavez lobbed a SS missile into the U.S., it would presumably do damage. And after all the smoke cleared, Chavez would be dead or in prison, Venzuela would have dramatically different leadership, and the U.S. would go back to life as norml before the troops even got done leaving Caracas.

--hide--


Wohhh "after the smoke cleared?" You're talking about retalliation? Sorry... I'm Catholic. Prayer is my only defense. You will blow me up to million pieces, but at least I'll hope for Purgatory.

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Mari-894290 said: Wohhh "after the smoke cleared?" You're talking about retalliation? Sor...
(Quote) Mari-894290 said:


Wohhh "after the smoke cleared?" You're talking about retalliation? Sorry... I'm Catholic. Prayer is my only defense. You will blow me up to million pieces, but at least I'll hope for Purgatory.

--hide--



If you choose to personally be a complete pacifist, you are free to do so. However, it is not a requirement of the Catholic Church. If it were, the Church would not have a Just War Theory. It would not allow its members to enter the military. The catechism would not speak of legitimate defense playing a real role in peace. So if you choose to go with prayer as your only defense, that's fine, you can do so. But it doesn't make you Catholic (nor does it make you a non-Catholic). It simply makes you a pacifist.

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: If you choose to personally be a complete pacifist, you are free to do so. However, it...
(Quote) John-336509 said:




If you choose to personally be a complete pacifist, you are free to do so. However, it is not a requirement of the Catholic Church. If it were, the Church would not have a Just War Theory. It would not allow its members to enter the military. The catechism would not speak of legitimate defense playing a real role in peace. So if you choose to go with prayer as your only defense, that's fine, you can do so. But it doesn't make you Catholic (nor does it make you a non-Catholic). It simply makes you a pacifist.

--hide--


There's one word in our Beloved, Wise Church for those who believe like I do: Martyrs.


I will pray for both sides of the battle (be it Talibans o whatever), since they both believe they are right. I will pray, not judge.

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Mari-894290 said: There's one word in our Beloved, Wise Church for those who believe like I do: Mar...
(Quote) Mari-894290 said:


There's one word in our Beloved, Wise Church for those who believe like I do: Martyrs.


I will pray for both sides of the battle (be it Talibans o whatever), since they both believe they are right. I will pray, not judge.

--hide--



This is not true. Martyrs are people who would rather die than renounce their faith. It has nothing to do with pacifism.


St. Thomas Moore was no pacifist; but he was a martyr.

There are no doubt any number of pacifists throughout history who chose to live rather than die for their faith. Martyrs they are not.


I would suggest that it is good to pray for both sides of the battle because they are all children of God. Whether they believe they are right or not doesn't have anything to do with it.

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I've been to Panama and seen the canal. When I showed my grandfather my pictures of th...
(Quote) John-336509 said:



I've been to Panama and seen the canal. When I showed my grandfather my pictures of the Miraflores locks, he pointed at the fence and laughed, "when I was there, there wasn't a fence; *I* was the fence!"


You seem to be playing fast and loose with words here. If by the word "defend" you mean absolutely guarantee nothing remotely bad will ever happen at any time, then it woould impossible to for anyone to defend anything. That is not a particularly useful usage of the word. Denfense and complete invulnerability are two different things.


Nobody particularly devastating resulted from the Japanese merely getting into Panamanian territorial waters. If they had been able to shut down, destroy, or take control of the canal, that would have been vastly different. As it was, the Allies were able to use the canal throughlut WWII.

None of the things you mentioned, be 9/11 or criminals, or Hugo Chavez are positioned to destroy the U.S. Irritate, annoy, harrass, yes. But destroy or conquer, no. Nothing is invulnerable, but that does not mean nothing can be defended. If Chavez lobbed a SS missile into the U.S., it would presumably do damage. And after all the smoke cleared, Chavez would be dead or in prison, Venzuela would have dramatically different leadership, and the U.S. would go back to life as norml before the troops even got done leaving Caracas.

--hide--
What if one of those long range missiles Hugo Chavez sent our way was a NUKE!!!! It would do a lot more than harrass us! I find it terrifying.

Sep 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: What if one of those long range missiles Hugo Chavez sent our way was a NUKE!!!! It would do a l...
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:

What if one of those long range missiles Hugo Chavez sent our way was a NUKE!!!! It would do a lot more than harrass us! I find it terrifying.

--hide--



Good ol' Hugo doesn't have a nuke, nor is there any reason to believe he will have one any time soon.


Don't get me wrong; I agree the world would be a better place if Hugo didn't have any missiles at all, but his ability to be more than a nuissance is still not very great.

Sep 30th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: (Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: What if one of those long range missiles Hugo C...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

Quote:
Cheryl-409772 said:

What if one of those long range missiles Hugo Chavez sent our way was a NUKE!!!! It would do a lot more than harrass us! I find it terrifying.





Good ol' Hugo doesn't have a nuke, nor is there any reason to believe he will have one any time soon.


Don't get me wrong; I agree the world would be a better place if Hugo didn't have any missiles at all, but his ability to be more than a nuissance is still not very great.

--hide--
What if Iran gets them and than sends him some??? Or China??? Can't figure out what Hugo's problem is anyway as he makes money off of us...

Posts 21 - 30 of 39