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

Jun 23rd 2013 new
(quote) Laura-56149 said: ... but will straight out ask you why you think we should be involved in the rebel uprising in Syria or for that matter any one of those countries?
As for your direct question, I will be happy to answer it, but first you must give a direct answer yourself.

You made the following statement:

Haven't we armed rebels much to our regret? When will we ever learn!

Name the rebels we have "armed much to our regret," and on what basis do you claim that over history (yes, you have to do more than come up with a single group devoid of context) there are more rebels we have claimed armed who have caused us regret than rebels who have given satisfaction?
Jun 23rd 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Some good counterrevolutionaries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VUgJb2LFw4

However, that's exactly what they were. They fought to defend their country from invasion and unjust usurpation on legitimate authority.

As to counter-revolutionaries against internal usurpation, you have the examples of the Christeros in Mexico, the Pilgrimage of Grace in Henrican England, which I've mentioned, and the Vndee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwjN4snANU

I wasn't so foolish as you've accused me of being, John. OTOH, allow me to offer some solid Catholic teaching about the distinctions of revolution versus counter-revolution, and when a people may legitimately rise up.



I see we're changing the question rather than answering it.

The following statement was made:

Haven't we armed rebels much to our regret? When will we ever learn!

Obviously examples from a quarter of a millennia before the U.S. was even a nation can be nothing but red herrings. Likewise the distinction between revolutionary, counter-revolutionary, and non-revolutionary are all irrelevant.

The contention has been made that the U.S. consistently regrets the rebels it has armed. Name those rebel groups.

Jun 24th 2013 new
(quote) John-336509 said: tsk, tsk, tsk, come now Laura, surely you can do better than this.

First of all, don't you think it is pathetic in the extreme for the person who can not give a historical example to back up her point to demand that the person who already has given such an example "go read some history?" Aren't you a bit old to be "debating" like an elementary school child?

Second, point out exactly where in this debate I have definitively said that we absolutely should get involved? If you go back and look, my consistent points are A) not every Muslim on the planet is a terrorist, therefore the assumption any aid we give must inevitably go to extremists is factually incorrect on its face B) Supporting dictators just because they are secular and not religious is morally bankrupt and C) if we don't choose to get involved, we have no say in the outcome. Consequently the whining about how terrible it is that the mean, nasty Islamist are going to take over when the whiner is unwilling to lift a finger to get a different outcome.

I also have a new flash for you- the example of your brother-in-law cuts both ways. When we fail to do anything and something bad happens, we are still going to be blamed anyway. After all, the mean, nasty, U.S. should have foreseen the outcome and prevented it.
I never saw an example from you. There were other examples given, why should I repeat. The conversation with you is over. I don't converse with people who insult me and call me extremely pathetic and a child.
Jun 25th 2013 new
A reminder... while debating and questioning the ideas and facts presented by someone please remember to do it in a Charitable manner and of open dialogue, rather than in a condescending tone. Any posts which resemble a direct attack on a persons intellect, background, or name calling, will be removed immediately. Praying theheart
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) John-336509 said: I see we're changing the question rather than answering it.

The following statement was made:

Haven't we armed rebels much to our regret? When will we ever learn!

Obviously examples from a quarter of a millennia before the U.S. was even a nation can be nothing but red herrings. Likewise the distinction between revolutionary, counter-revolutionary, and non-revolutionary are all irrelevant.

The contention has been made that the U.S. consistently regrets the rebels it has armed. Name those rebel groups.

How about Al Qeada, which we armed during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) John-336509 said: I see we're changing the question rather than answering it.

The following statement was made:

Haven't we armed rebels much to our regret? When will we ever learn!

Obviously examples from a quarter of a millennia before the U.S. was even a nation can be nothing but red herrings. Likewise the distinction between revolutionary, counter-revolutionary, and non-revolutionary are all irrelevant.

The contention has been made that the U.S. consistently regrets the rebels it has armed. Name those rebel groups.

How about the Free Syrian Army, which we directly support. Here is some of their latest work: atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: How about Al Qeada, which we armed during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Given that Al Qaeda was founded at the end of the Russian occupation, this is unlikely. If you are referring to the Mujahideen, keep in mind that the principle aim at the time was to defeat the Soviet Union; terrorism was a lesser concern. With the benefit of hindsight we can establish that arming the Syrian rebels has serious complications because they are Islamic extremists.

What I do regret is that we didn't attempt to stabilize Afghanistan post (Soviet) invasion in the manner that we attempted to stabilize Europe post WW2.
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: How about Al Qeada, which we armed during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
How about a real, non-fictional example? This has been covered many times in many places. We never armed al-Queda during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This is nothing but baseless anti-American propaganda.
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: How about the Free Syrian Army, which we directly support. Here is some of their latest work: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/06/syrian-child-tied-up-in-chains-and-forced-to-watch-the-murder-of-her-parents-by-obama-backed-jihadis.html
Do you have an independent source for this claim? I do not (at the present time) trust that blog. Do you have any evidence that the Free Syrian Army as a whole is corrupt? One can always find corrupt individuals in a sufficiently large organization; given that a small number of Catholic priests molested children, we should be cognizant of this. Note: prior to replying, please take note of the explicit statements or questions in this post and not implied ones.
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: How about the Free Syrian Army, which we directly support. Here is some of their latest work: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/06/syrian-child-tied-up-in-chains-and-forced-to-watch-the-murder-of-her-parents-by-obama-backed-jihadis.html
Well, you're getting closer. First, "support" is not the same as arming. Second, it is exactly the Syrian rebels that we are discussing the merits of arming. The argument has been presented that we should not do this because of the bad history we've had in arming rebels in the past. So while you're certainly free to argue against arming the rebels, you can't claim a future (or at best, just now beginning) case as a historical example.
Posts 21 - 30 of 31