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

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

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 11th 2013 new
William, I don't mean to be argumentative, but my parents and my grandparents suffered much after WWI & WWII due to Russia spreading it's errors in past decades, that is, in my homeland of old Croatia (then Yugoslavia). But not nearly as much as so many others.

I agree with ED's assessment of Putin. But granted, I am biased against him; call me a doubting Thomas in that regard. I won't give up on him, but I got to see much more to believe his words to be the real deal.

I was ecstatic to see Russia go down and unravel, thanks to the work of JPII consecrating Russia and the world, then Thatcher & Reagan on the political scene with him, but most of all, Our Lady's carefully measured interventions. Much blood was shed. Martyrs were many. Bl Alojzije Stepinac, from the country of my birth immediately comes to mind, as countless men and women of no notoriety.

God is great and these leaders better get behind Him and start walking and doing not just talking and deceiving.

Now, back to Syria; somebody has to say: Assad, put the chem weapons on the curb; you can no longer possess them! If he won't do it, I am fine if he gets hit right between the eyes with the modern Tomahawk. I'd rather see that than more men, women and children get gassed, or the weapons fall in the hands of the rebel nuts.

What scatters the population is not our warships there, but rather all this time no-one coming to assist the innocent, while beastly men roam unchecked.
Sep 12th 2013 new
(quote) William-607613 said: Putin had a delivery of parts to Iran that was suspended at the request of the US and Israel. In hindsight, it appears to have been a gentleman's agreement that Putin would "play nice" if the US and Israel "played nice." If the US or Israel did not "play nice," then Putin would no longer "play nice" and would go ahead and complete the delivery of what I believe to be parts for a reactor in Iran. (This new offer may also be missiles or missile components as well.)

If the US were to attack Syria without conclusive evidence that the Assad regime had gassed citizens (and the evidence that our government has provided is not, in fact, conclusive), then because we were not "playing nice," then neither would Putin.

Putin has very little leverage over the US. This is the one issue that would get our attention and Israel's, because Israel is terrified of a nuclear-powered Iran, and they are more terrified of an Iran that could deter an attack against itself.

Let's keep in mind what started this whole thing. It wasn't Putin. It was Obama. It was Obama racing towards an attack against Syria, which could literally start World War III. Putin is responding to our mouth-breathing president and his sycophants in Congress. (Obama was far more than inept here, by the way. He was leading us towards an attack on a country. This wasn't a simple gaffe.)

Putin did not ask for the spotllight which the US unwittingly gave him. He is not asking for the grief that the members of Catholic Match are heaping on him. In all of your thoughts and words on this subject, please keep in mind that it is Putin who is responding to an overly-aggressive American president.

Ed, for all of your concern about Putin's record to human rights, let's look at this president's record as well as his predecessor's.

During the war in Iraq, 109,000 Iraqis died. We know this because this is a CIA estimate that came out in a Wikileaks dump. Before anyone responds that the Americans didn't kill all of these people (through accident or by design), I would remind that person that the US completely turned a country upside down and smashed its infrastructure. The infrastructure that had been in place to protect the citizens of Iraq was gone, and there was nobody left to protect them. (I'm not trying to change the focus of the thread.)

Our foreign policy in the Middle East (courtesy of both Obama and his predecessor), has led to absolute mayhem in countries where we were perfectly willing to do business with their secular leaders until we turned on them on a dime. Hussein, Mubarak, Qaddafi are either dead or in jail, and their citizens have had their lives completely thrown upside down and torn inside out. Many of our Christian brothers and sisters are either dead or living in a foreign country because of asinine decisions US presidents have made.

And all I hear is how untrustworthy Putin is. Ask Saddam Hussein how trustworthy Donald Rumsfeld is, as Donald Rumsfeld met with him and shook his hand back during the Reagan Administration. Oh, wait. You can't ask Saddam Hussein, because Saddam Hussein is dead. Ask Qaddaffi how trustworthy the Americans are; he gave up his pursuit of nuclear weapons because George Bush asked him nicely to do so. Oh, wait. You can't ask Qaddaffi, because Qaddaffi is dead.

Putin stepped in and averted what may have been WWIII, and we are looking past the log jammed in our eye and pointing to each other about the splinter in his own.
William,

I don't have the time or the energy to exhaustively address each of your points, so I'll just pick out one of them.

You wrote... "Ask Qaddaffi how trustworthy the Americans are; he gave up his pursuit of nuclear weapons because George Bush asked him nicely to do so. Oh, wait. You can't ask Qaddaffi, because Qaddaffi is dead."

Your contention that Qaddaffi gave up nukes because "Bush asked him nicely to do so" is really lacking.

Some of what you're missing is that April 1986, Ronald Reagan bombed strategic targets in Libya in a surprise attack (over 12 minutes, with approximately 300 bombs and 48 missiles). Qaddaffi only escaped with his life because he was tipped-off by an Italian politician. This strike was in response to Qaddaffi's continued terrorism and nuclear weapons development. en.wikipedia.org

Also recall that it was definitively proven that Qaddaffi was responsible for the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (known as the Lockerbie bombing in the UK) in December 1988, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. en.wikipedia.org

After all of this, it was made quite clear to Qaddaffi that (effectively) his body would be found at the bottom of a deep crater if he was found to be responsible for any terrorism involving nuclear or chemical weapons. Eventually he came to the revelation that he would be better off without those weapons, so that he could gain better status among other nations.

So you see, Qaddaffi didn't just give up nukes because "Bush asked him nicely to do so". Qaddaffi had a great deal of "persuasion" by the U.S. and Briton.

I don't think that Obama should have attacked Libya, but I am not losing any sleep because Qaddaffi is no longer walking the Earth. Qaddaffi was a nasty man responsible for much misery in the world during his lifetime.

Ed
Sep 12th 2013 new
And William...

If you think that Putin, and Putun's Russia are so fine as compared the the U.S., I suggest that you set up a conference call with Ed Snowden (if you can find him). I imagine that Ed Snowden's perception of Putin and Russia is going to change considerably over the coming months and years... if it hasn't already.

Try this experiment. Take (the equivalent of) 100 Russian permanent Green Cards and go into any public place in the U.S. Give away the Green Cards as fast as you can with the only condition that the Americans have to give up their U.S. citizenship. Now do just the opposite in any public place in Russia, giving out permanent American Green Cards with the only condition that they give up their Russian citizenship. I suspect that the Russians would mob you and you wouldn't have a single Green Card left in ten minutes. Doing that same thing in the U.S., I believe that you would have to come back every day for month or a year to give away all of those Russian Green Cards to the Americans. What do you think? Maybe the U.S. isn't such the bad place that you portray it to be... especially when you compare it to Putin's Russia. Something to think about.

Ed
Sep 12th 2013 new
ED. I think you're onto something! It needs to be taken further.

Why just take over 100 green cards, why not do that with about 150 some million?!!

For the US citizens, I would require three conditions:

1. Each must be a bleeding liberal; 2. Each gets a free one way ticket there but not the pre-paid return flight; 3. They can only take up to ten thousand dollars with them but have no requirement to give up US citizenship, just that you have to live in Russia for five years. If they want to come back then, fine, but they have to pay for the trip themselves to come back.

On the flip side, for the Russians: 1. Offer them up to 150 million green cards and free airfare to the USA on one condition, they would have to profess to be Catholics to either the Eastern or Western Rite. Don't coerce, just ask them freely if they are or not. If they do, give them a one way ticket and right to future US citizenship.

Talk about the instant conversion of Russia!!!!!!! laughinglaughinglaughing

Do you know who would vote in this country against such a plan? laughing;lol:laughing However, if the plan was approved, as soon as the exchange was complete, I'd cancel all western flights in and out of Russia. cool
Sep 12th 2013 new
Here is a BBC article that I dug up, dated April 2005.

William, how does this glimpse of Putin square with your version of him being a peace/freedom-wanting, Christian-liking, responsible statesman from a friendly nation?


Putin deplores collapse of USSR
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.

"Any unlawful methods of struggle ... for ethnic, religious and other interests contradict the principles of democracy"
Vladimir Putin

news.bbc.co.uk
----------------------------------

Seems rather contradictory to me.

Ed
Sep 12th 2013 new
(quote) William-607613 said: Ed,

That was very nice of you to show something that would tend to support your opponent's argument.

I have read in several places that Putin has called for a greater role for the Russian Orthodox Church in public life, and has personally promised to defend Christians worldwide. (We should be charitable to him, lest we find ourselves persecuted to the point where we are knocking on his door.) ;o)

On a sobering note, we should keep in mind the Blessed Mother's promise at Fatima in 1917, when she said that "Russia would be converted." (Note that Pope Benedict XVI had opened up a dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church to try and put an end to a 950 year-old split.)

For all of the problems that Russia has (and they are not minimal), their trendline is moving towards religion as the West's trendline is moving away from it. As Catholics, we should not be surprised to see Russian political leaders take a more Catholic position than our own leaders do. Whether we are talking about homosexual "marriage" or military action, I think we will only see more of this.
Thanks William. I figure that if I have to suppress information in order to bolster my point of view, then I likely don't have a very solid foundation for my point of view.

Ed
Sep 12th 2013 new
(quote) ED-20630 said: William,

I don't have the time or the energy to exhaustively address each of your points, so I'll just pick out one of them.

You wrote... "Ask Qaddaffi how trustworthy the Americans are; he gave up his pursuit of nuclear weapons because George Bush asked him nicely to do so. Oh, wait. You can't ask Qaddaffi, because Qaddaffi is dead."

Your contention that Qaddaffi gave up nukes because "Bush asked him nicely to do so" is really lacking.

Some of what you're missing is that April 1986, Ronald Reagan bombed strategic targets in Libya in a surprise attack (over 12 minutes, with approximately 300 bombs and 48 missiles). Qaddaffi only escaped with his life because he was tipped-off by an Italian politician. This strike was in response to Qaddaffi's continued terrorism and nuclear weapons development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

Also recall that it was definitively proven that Qaddaffi was responsible for the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (known as the Lockerbie bombing in the UK) in December 1988, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

After all of this, it was made quite clear to Qaddaffi that (effectively) his body would be found at the bottom of a deep crater if he was found to be responsible for any terrorism involving nuclear or chemical weapons. Eventually he came to the revelation that he would be better off without those weapons, so that he could gain better status among other nations.

So you see, Qaddaffi didn't just give up nukes because "Bush asked him nicely to do so". Qaddaffi had a great deal of "persuasion" by the U.S. and Briton.

I don't think that Obama should have attacked Libya, but I am not losing any sleep because Qaddaffi is no longer walking the Earth. Qaddaffi was a nasty man responsible for much misery in the world during his lifetime.

Ed
Some of what you're missing is that April 1986, Ronald Reagan bombed strategic targets in Libya in a surprise attack (over 12 minutes, with approximately 300 bombs and 48 missiles). Qaddaffi only escaped with his life because he was tipped-off by an Italian politician. This strike was in response to Qaddaffi's continued terrorism and nuclear weapons development. en.wikipedia.org

After all of this, it was made quite clear to Qaddaffi that (effectively) his body would be found at the bottom of a deep crater if he was found to be responsible for any terrorism involving nuclear or chemical weapons. Eventually he came to the revelation that he would be better off without those weapons, so that he could gain better status among other nations.


Libya was bombed in 1986; Qaddaffi renounced his WMD program in 2003. (The strike against Libya, by the way, was in direct response to Libya's role in the bombing of a discotheque in West Germany which took the lives of two American servicemen.)

Are you suggesting that a bombing from 17 years earlier changed his mind?

(He may be still alive today, by the way, had he developed a nuclear program. The United States tends to be very polite to countries that have the Bomb.)


Funny how that works...

Sep 12th 2013 new
(quote) ED-20630 said: And William...

If you think that Putin, and Putun's Russia are so fine as compared the the U.S., I suggest that you set up a conference call with Ed Snowden (if you can find him). I imagine that Ed Snowden's perception of Putin and Russia is going to change considerably over the coming months and years... if it hasn't already.

Try this experiment. Take (the equivalent of) 100 Russian permanent Green Cards and go into any public place in the U.S. Give away the Green Cards as fast as you can with the only condition that the Americans have to give up their U.S. citizenship. Now do just the opposite in any public place in Russia, giving out permanent American Green Cards with the only condition that they give up their Russian citizenship. I suspect that the Russians would mob you and you wouldn't have a single Green Card left in ten minutes. Doing that same thing in the U.S., I believe that you would have to come back every day for month or a year to give away all of those Russian Green Cards to the Americans. What do you think? Maybe the U.S. isn't such the bad place that you portray it to be... especially when you compare it to Putin's Russia. Something to think about.

Ed
If you think that Putin, and Putun's Russia are so fine as compared the the U.S., I suggest that you set up a conference call with Ed Snowden (if you can find him). I imagine that Ed Snowden's perception of Putin and Russia is going to change considerably over the coming months and years... if it hasn't already.

Try this experiment. Take (the equivalent of) 100 Russian permanent Green Cards and go into any public place in the U.S. Give away the Green Cards as fast as you can with the only condition that the Americans have to give up their U.S. citizenship. Now do just the opposite in any public place in Russia, giving out permanent American Green Cards with the only condition that they give up their Russian citizenship. I suspect that the Russians would mob you and you wouldn't have a single Green Card left in ten minutes. Doing that same thing in the U.S., I believe that you would have to come back every day for month or a year to give away all of those Russian Green Cards to the Americans. What do you think? Maybe the U.S. isn't such the bad place that you portray it to be... especially when you compare it to Putin's Russia. Something to think about.

Ed


Ed, now you're putting words in my mouth, which displays a weakness on your part. Your inability to address my points isn't terribly important to me, however, as it stands out to those who read the thread.

I made it clear in one of my previous posts that Russia has plenty of problems. I've made it clear as well that I applaud Putin's leadership on this issue of averting a war with Syria and that I applaud his position for a greater role for religion in public life in Russia. At no time did I make any comment on life here in the US, except in a reference to the disdain that many of our public officials display for organized religion here in this country. Your reference to the appeal to outsiders that our country offers is confusing, since this is its first mention in the thread.

The lack of any substance in your recent comments shows the limitations in your argument, so I'll take a bow here and bid you 'adieu.'



Sep 12th 2013 new
(quote) William-607613 said: Some of what you're missing is that April 1986, Ronald Reagan bombed strategic targets in Libya in a surprise attack (over 12 minutes, with approximately 300 bombs and 48 missiles). Qaddaffi only escaped with his life because he was tipped-off by an Italian politician. This strike was in response to Qaddaffi's continued terrorism and nuclear weapons development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

After all of this, it was made quite clear to Qaddaffi that (effectively) his body would be found at the bottom of a deep crater if he was found to be responsible for any terrorism involving nuclear or chemical weapons. Eventually he came to the revelation that he would be better off without those weapons, so that he could gain better status among other nations.


Libya was bombed in 1986; Qaddaffi renounced his WMD program in 2003. (The strike against Libya, by the way, was in direct response to Libya's role in the bombing of a discotheque in West Germany which took the lives of two American servicemen.)

Are you suggesting that a bombing from 17 years earlier changed his mind?

(He may be still alive today, by the way, had he developed a nuclear program. The United States tends to be very polite to countries that have the Bomb.)


Funny how that works...

Gosh William,

You have a way of only picking out of history only what you can twist around into something that supports your contention that the U.S. must be the bad guy. I'm quite tired of it. Perhaps you should run out to the wood shed and flagellate yourself for being a citizen of such an evil country as is the U.S.

Perhaps you should just turn in your U.S. citizenship and move to one of these fine countries of which you speak. You must be right, America is terrible. These other countries must certainly be on the moral high ground when compared to the U.S. I'm sure that you could get a nice job serving as a diplomatic minister in Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria or any other country that you find morally-superior to the U.S. Once you have that job, you will be able to hop all around the globe, telling anyone and everyone who will listen, just how bad, unfair, unreliable and dastardly your former country (U.S.) is to everyone else in the world.

I hope I never get stuck in a fox hole with someone of your views. Such a person will probably jump out of the fox hole and apologize to the first person he sees... getting shot in the process.

I suggest that you may want to move to a country of which you can be more proud. You will probably sleep better at night.

Ed


Sep 12th 2013 new
Ed,

I know William's comments push the envelope for both of us, but I think he was just trying to make a point. I don't think you need to unload on him with both barrels. As much as I disagreed with his take on the events, I found it an "eyebrow raising" position and it made me think about things I haven't thought about for a while. We can still debate opposing positions in this country; thank the Lord. Ok, maybe not in a few years, but I digress.
Posts 41 - 50 of 52