Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

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

Jun 1st 2013 new
Hi Marianne, RR pushed the funding for radio info broadcasting into eastern Europe and USSR. Eventually the Soviet bloc stopped jamming attempts. The overthrow of the stalinist system soon followed.

Just me, I feel that the death of the blue model in the U S is partly a result of the modern alternative media. Can we hope that a much better informed electorate will remove the rotten officials currently in the W H and congress ?
Jun 1st 2013 new
(quote) Bernie-645443 said: Hi Marianne, RR pushed the funding for radio info broadcasting into eastern Europe and USSR. Eventually the Soviet bloc stopped jamming attempts. The overthrow of the stalinist system soon followed.

Just me, I feel that the death of the blue model in the U S is partly a result of the modern alternative media. Can we hope that a much better informed electorate will remove the rotten officials currently in the W H and congress ?
I wonder if what Regan funded was just much larger towers in order to broadcast into Eastern
Europe? That was probably the case.

Anyway, I don't think anything can stop the rotten officials currently in the WH and
Congress. There is no rhyme or reason why they should be constantly re elected.

This country is falling apart. They are closing two more hospitals where I live. That is about
a total of 9 hospital in the last 20 years. The infrastructure is sorely needing of repair.
Medicare and Social Security should be funded by the Government if the collections are
not sufficient to cover those that need it. Why not take care of Americans who have been
in this country for generations and have also worked and paid into the system their whole
life? It is unethical to take care of anyone else first who is not American. It is a sham.

And the ghettos are still ghettos whereas illegals coming into this country are advancing and
leaving behind those who were unlucky enough to be born in the ghetto.

Then you have the American dream being pushed and a college education should/will make
all the difference for students, while they come out of college, with extreme debt and they
cannot get jobs.

America does not need anymore psychology degrees or communication degrees or any of
those soft degrees. They especially don't need degrees where people get credit for life
experience. Math abnd Science and Engineering degrees are hard and also needed. They
are the degrees that the Government should be subsidizing for Americans who can keep
up with the programs. Not for foreign students.

And don't get me started on the Catholic Church closing all the schools in our area, yet funding free
tuition for illegals. This whole thing makes me sick.

No, I don't think Americans will be getting any too smart in the near future and voting those
frauds/socialists/anti-Americans, out of office.
Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: WAIT, WAIT!!!

Rebecca in Texas, meet John in Seattle!
You two should really meet IN PERSON, you would have so much to talk about.
I really mean that. I am not trying to be flippant.
This could be one of those cases where pure opposites attract :)
Her fire, his calm and rational demeanor.... an interesting mix!
John, she's a very attractive pro-life Republican!!! Well, at least she votes Republican, even if by default.
Progeny? Peacemaker, gladiator! PERFECT Warriors of Christ...

She does seem to be smart, passionate, and confident. And she's even pretty too!

But the drive to San Antonio would take quite a bit of time!
Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) Marianne-100218 said: John:

Can you give some more of the reasons why the US went into Iraq? The Weapons of Mass
Destruction seems to be the prevalent one, so I am not too familiar with the others.
March 16, 2003 there are 5 different reasons listed:

The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people.


Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: But John people make excuses all the time to invade nations Hitler argued he was freeing fellow Germans by invading certain parts of Europe.. Japan argued they were freeing fellow Asians! Very rarely do nations say oh we are going in because we just want too. What you have to look at said nation's record.. The fact is that the for many in the world especially in the Middle East, the arguments that we were doing it to free the Iraq's ring hollow. Why because we supported, funded, and armed many dictatorships in the Middle East an throughout the world. And this is true. For many the Middle East, it had nothing to do with freedom for Iraq, but rather us wanting access to Iraq's oil, and control of the Middle East. And I'm not convinced their wrong.
The mere existence of excuses in general does not prove any given statement is an excuse. You need to produce specific evidence to do that.

Why do you keep on insisting that we are funding people in the Middle East? They are pretty much a self-funding group.

With the exception of Mubarak in Egypt, we weren't arming any of the middle eastern dictatorships. That was done by the USSR/Russia. We have armed pretty much all of the monarchies in the Persia Gulf.

The "access to oil" argument is perhaps one of the must absurd. If all we wanted was access to the oil, all we had to do was lift the sanctions that we ourselves imposed. Saddam would have been delighted to start openly selling again to help his cashflow out. I have yet to hear a rational argument to the contrary.
Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: There are international rules and norms. These rules exist to prevent another world war. And the United States and the "coalition of the winning" went against these international laws. The laws have some very strong rules about sovereign nations. [br] We open Pandora's box by circumventing them. I'm not convinced China/Russia are going to set back and watch us continue on our merry way. The merry way of attempting to control the Middle East. They view us as more and more of threat. Because we are building bases that surround them etc. And our love of interfering in other nation's internal affairs. We can invade nations that aren't democratic and abusive to their people, would that make you feel comfortable with the USA? If you were China? Our country continues on this path. We are either going to bankrupt ourselves, or we will cross a red line with one of those nations. Powerful countries just like us have fallen with endless wars etc. Everything in me tells me this country continues like this we are headed down a very bad path.
Cite a single international law that was violated by the invasion of Iraq.

Your analysis of China and Russia is kind of flawed, especially China. China is more than happy to "let us continue our merry way" just so long as that way does not go through China, Taiwan or the East China Sea. The Chinese are no doubt delighted to see us tie up time and resources pretty much anywhere else.

Powerful countries like us usually do not fall from "endless wars." They usually fall from financial/economic crises and internal decay and corruption. A war may or may not be the thing that finally pushes down the rotting carcass
Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) John-336509 said: March 16, 2003 there are 5 different reasons listed:

The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people.


As to your reasons:

1). What WMDs? The message ever since has been that, whatever remnants of chemical weapons found since, there had been no active program since the early 1990s, and that US intelligence knew this!
2). Was he, with his decrepit air force that was shot at and bombed on a regular basis since the first Gulf War, any real threat to the Middle East at all? No, it was not.
3). There ended up, for all the claims of terrorist camps made during the run-up to the war, more terrorists in Iraq after our invasion than before.
4). Ah, you mean the wonderful progress in places like Egypt, Libya, etc in 2011 and afterwards. You might want to talk to Coptics from Egypt, Assyrian Christians from Iraq, or Melkites and Antiochians now and ask their opinion of the "progress" made since 2003.
5). Debatable. Ask Shiites in Iraq, Alawites in Syria, and, of course, the Christians whether the the Republics that replaced these leaders were an improvement. They might give you another answer.
Besides, if "liberty" by the bomb was such as triumph, then why not support the removal of Monarchies such as the Saudi Kingdom (which ruled with an iron fist for 150 years!) and the Sheikdom of Bahrain.
Oh, that's right! They're the "good" dictatorships since they are our "allies," forgetting of course that the majority of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudi.
Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) John-336509 said: Cite a single international law that was violated by the invasion of Iraq.

The Dutch would beg to disagree, and the issue of the legality of the Iraq War under International Law has never been ruled upon by the International Court of Justice, primarily because the combatants who instigated it have veto power in the U.N. Security Council.

An independent inquiry into the Dutch involvement in the Iraq War found that government policy was violated by that nation's entry into the war, and that there was no justification for it in International Law even under the ceasefire resolutions or Resolution 1441.

www.guardian.co.uk.

More on where the issue stands.


en.wikipedia.org


Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: The Dutch would beg to disagree, and the issue of the legality of the Iraq War under International Law has never been ruled upon by the International Court of Justice, primarily because the combatants who instigated it have veto power in the U.N. Security Council.

An independent inquiry into the Dutch involvement in the Iraq War found that government policy was violated by that nation's entry into the war, and that there was no justification for it in International Law even under the ceasefire resolutions or Resolution 1441.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-violated-interational-law-dutch-inquiry-fi...

More on where the issue stands.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War


The request was to cite the law violated, not give examples of other people voicing an opinion that there was a law violated.

If binding international law was violated, somebody should be able to quote it.
Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: As to your reasons:

1). What WMDs? ...
2). Was he, with his decrepit air force that was shot at and bombed on a regular basis since the first Gulf War, any real threat to the Middle East at all? No, it was not.
3). There ended up, for all the claims of terrorist camps made during the run-up to the war, more terrorists in Iraq after our invasion than before.
4). Ah, you mean the wonderful progress in places like Egypt, Libya, etc in 2011 ...
5). Debatable. Ask Shiites in Iraq, Alawites in Syria, ...
...
1) It has already been established that WMD's were not found in the quantities predicted. While that clearly has vast political significance, it isn't really that important in reality. The reality is that Saddam had already proven by his use of those weapons both in combat against Iran and against his own civilians that he was capable and willing to use them.

2) By your logic, we need to stop worrying the budget. After all, there is no tomorrow right? We can pay the bills today, so we have no responsibility whatsoever to make sure nothing bad happens later on. There is no threat to the economy at all...

3) In other words, you admit that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism and are trying to throw in a red herring.

4) No, I mean nothing of the sort. The biggest single stumbling block to peace in the Middle East is the Arab-Israeli conflict. While there were many other guilty parties involved (including Israelis), Saddam was openly funding terrorist attacks in Israel (point number 3 again), offering bounties to the families of suicide bombers to encourage such attacks.

5) Obviously irrelevant. The plight of Syrians of any sort does not in any way shape or form speak to the conditions of pre-war Iraq. Likewise the conditions in post-war Iraq do not have magic powers to travel through time and change the history that had already happened. It is an unalterable fact that "For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people." No amount of crying about post-2003 Iraq will magically change the history of pre-2003 Iraq.



Posts 151 - 160 of 192