"Americans kill dozens of prisoners"

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I know you really, really want to think that America is a warmongering fascist state, but I'm you're going to be disappointed by the fact that it is not. Bush leaves office officially in January of 2009 and seriously doubt that we're going to have anymore wars unless Iran attacks Israel or if North Korea attacks Japan, or if Syria attacks Lebanon, Israel, or Iraq... or if China invades Taiwan.

And I know you really, really want to think that I am a Osamas's fan or Saddam's admirer...but you are going to be disappointed by the fact that Im not...lol

Oh... Bush still has all this time? ...I think its enough time to find some excuse (evidences...) to start another war...but maybe you are right...

[eusebioCBR]

"or if China invades Taiwan" The pledge to defend Taiwan was made long before Pres. Bush came to office. This is the possible conflict that makes me very nervous

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

You can use all the concepts you want... but its clearly INTOLERANCE that puts all of us in this dramatic world full of wars...unless you dont know the meaning of intolerance...(do you? )

Intolerance is based in prejudice, and can lead to discrimination....Common forms of intolerance include racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, religious intolerance, and intolerance of differing political views.

I know what intolerance is. I don't think America is intolerant. I think we are too tolerant.

Quote:

I didnt say literally YOU Stephen! And Im sure you know History....(btw you have a very good knowledge in History issues... ) but this has nothing to do with my point...I was refering to US governors who obviously ignored other countries until 11/09 attacks...

Ignored other countries? Exactly what did you want us to do? I mean, did we ignroe Kuwait? I don't think so.

Quote:

You know..you were offline for a while...so it must explain your innacurate statement...in the thread about muslim cartoons posted by Chase...I said that muslim women seemed to be more willing to changes...because they were so opressed that need these changes...

They are oppressed. Very much so. I am amazed that America's super liberal feminist majority hasn't damned all of Islam for their treatment of women.

Quote:

and yeah....being the only woman posting regularly on Political Banter..I need to be a feminist to defend women here ...lol

Meh. Don't worry about me. I greatly respect the inferior sex! (lol, in case you didn't catch that, I was totally joking)

Quote:

Wow...only being a religious woman I can see the social rights as important things?? Did I say that in America you dont have social rights? I dont remember saying this absurd...unless you are refering to the title of this thread...huh? ..

Only someone with a basis for even believing they are RIGHTS at all is what I mean. What leads you to believe social rights are important? If it is something besides religion, sobeit. But I can't think of anything else that would say social rights are good with any kind of logicality or authority.

Quote:

Also...explain to me what do you consider as social rights...

Depends on what you mean. Do you mean what do I consider as what SHOULD be social rights, what ARE social rights...?

Quote:

Cheers.... Stephen...Cheers!!!

Indeed.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote:

Oh... Bush still has all this time? ...I think its enough time to find some excuse (evidences...) to start another war...

Lol. Nah. The American people are tough to dupe twice. I strongly strongly doubt the possibility of another war, unless some other country does something like... I dunno... blow up Pearl Harbor.

[Rocketqueen]

oh come now they will blow up something im sure they are cooking right now on another famous usa landmark

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I know what intolerance is. I don't think America is intolerant. I think we are too tolerant

.

If you come back to my post youll see that I didnt say that especifically America was intolerant..btw...dont try to change my words here... (one person doing this is enough...two smell cowardice right?....lol)

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Ignored other countries? Exactly what did you want us to do? I mean, did we ignroe Kuwait? I don't think so.

I dont want that America does anything...really...but its too strange that US only recently (your governement..not the people...right?) had noticed certain countries and consequently decided to spread 'democracy' ???

Seriously, despite all your excellent knowledge in History -- what was your familiarity with Afghanistan before the invasion/war ???

Kwait???? Of course not...it has oil...isnt it?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

They are oppressed. Very much so. I am amazed that America's super liberal feminist majority hasn't damned all of Islam for their treatment of women.

Yeah..

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Meh. Don't worry about me. I greatly respect the inferior sex! (lol, in case you didn't catch that, I was totally joking)

Of course I got what you meant...Im a woman...Im intelligent ...lol

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Only someone with a basis for even believing they are RIGHTS at all is what I mean. What leads you to believe social rights are important? If it is something besides religion, sobeit. But I can't think of anything else that would say social rights are good with any kind of logicality or authority.

Well we live in a society...you have to cohabit ...so you need some rights and rules to make them work...

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Depends on what you mean. Do you mean what do I consider as what SHOULD be social rights, what ARE social rights...?

Its amazing the way you try to avoid answering my questions...I want that you say what are social rights? Simple question....

Quote:

Indeed.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Lol. Nah. The American people are tough to dupe twice. I strongly strongly doubt the possibility of another war, unless some other country does something like... I dunno... blow up Pearl Harbor.

Duped twice? Please don't tell me you consider going after the Taliban regime (the government directly behind the funding 9/11) duping the American people. C'mon... America is at least allowed to defend itself.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Lol. Nah. The American people are tough to dupe twice. I strongly strongly doubt the possibility of another war, unless some other country does something like... I dunno... blow up Pearl Harbor.

So theres some possibilty ...well who knows? But anyway.. Bush still has lots of time to think (does he think?) about it...

Also...you chose Bush for the second time...so its not so hard ...lol

[Rocketqueen]

this politic stuff is a languge i cant grasp i try and puts me in a oblivion so help me, i dont know one country from other you know what really ticks me off When I See These Big Flyers SAYING Pray For Our Country NOT THAT IT DOES NOT NEED IT, They send all our good men to war of course and make heroes out of theme and use theme to feed their hunger and laugh behind their back Not Public of course No they will give up and give their speaches of houner and respect to the poor victims and urge more to fight for the country... I Do Pray For Our Troops And Prisoners And I Know GOD IS BEHIND THEME ALL, Not Thir Country By No Means

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Rocketqueen)

this politic stuff is a languge i cant grasp i try and puts me in a oblivion so help me, i dont know one country from other you know what really ticks me off When I See These Big Flyers SAYING Pray For Our Country NOT THAT IT DOES NOT NEED IT, They send all our good men to war of course and make heroes out of theme and use theme to feed their hunger and laugh behind their back Not Public of course No they will give up and give their speaches of houner and respect to the poor victims and urge more to fight for the country... I Do Pray For Our Troops And Prisoners And I Know GOD IS BEHIND THEME ALL, Not Thir Country By No Means

Sister...I think I *almost* got what you meant...

lol

Seriously politics is much more easy to me than your...hun...language..lol

[Rocketqueen]

:d

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

No, it wouldn't. Once again you look at this like states instead of religions. To have unbelievers in posession of the Holy Land was embarassing and unbearable. They wanted to take back the Holy Land because Christians were not always allowed in, pilgramages were nearly impossible, Christians had no rights when visiting their own origins, etc.

As stated in the quote of Wikipedia before the Arabs/Muslims were very tolerant towards pilgrims/pilgrimages, except for the brief period in which one leader wanted to destroy all the churches.

Also would you call it a defensive war now if Christians tried to take Jerusalem from the Jewish nation Israel? Was it a defensive war when Israel took it from the Palestines? If you have a religious claim on a city/area is it always defensive to take it back?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

And I also said they were defensive in nature, if anything. I don't really think they were so clear cut. They were religious wars. After they started they never really ended. But Islam was the intial agrressor. That is all I mean by saying defensive in nature. Another problem with your Britain analogy is that Britan and the U.S. have not been constantly at war for the last two hundred years.

I already agreed that the status of early islam was very aggressive and could be considered war-mongering. The expansion of this religion in early days was almost always though conquest. I also agree that there was a certain state between the 2 religions that was open war at times and could be considered a cold war at other times, but in that light was the letting pilgrims come to the 'holy country' a sign of tolerance by the muslims. Although it would always be a hazard, just like in the wild west it would always be a hazard to travel through indian land, peace treaty or not, I suspect.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

As for the Church never "owning" Jerusalem, that is because the Church rarely "owns" anything, except Vatican City. The only major exception was in the medeival era the ill-fated Papal States which... were a bad bad idea. Even then, the Pope was not in direct control of the countries. There were monarchs.

Also, the Church did not attack the Holy Land. Popes often organized the crusades and offered plenary indulgences to those who would go, but the rulers of the Christian nations gained what they conquered. Actually, one of the worst abuses in the Crusades was when, after promising the return of lands previously controlled by the Eastern Empire, the majority of the military commanders failed to do so.

I'm not saying bad things didn't happen. I mean, its war. Bad things ALWAYS happen. That's why I think the Iraq war is so wrong. But it was not a war the Christians ever wanted.

Actually I read up on most of the other history of the crusades yesterday on wikipedia, and I think it was the third crusade (out of 9 in total) that totally ransacked (sp?) the city of Constantinopel (present day: Istanbul), with the reason that they considered the there leading Eastern Orthodox church also heretical.

And about the land, once again, I do not consider a religious claim to be anything that could make you claim a defensive status in a war, but I think we have to agree to disagree on that.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I know what intolerance is. I don't think America is intolerant. I think we are too tolerant.

I wouldn't say that the USA is intolerant, but I surely would not say that it is too tolerant.

There are certainly more tolerant countries, but there are undoubtedly much more intolerant countries.

I think especially in the bible belt, there could be more tolerance toward homosexuals, or for that matter anyone who aspires any other relationship than the traditional family type, and people with other worldviews.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Lol. Nah. The American people are tough to dupe twice.

Well as Ana said, the re-election of Dubya proved this statement wrong.

In regard to Dubya starting another war, I don't think even he would be dumb enough to try that, unless indeed provoked by another 9/11 scenario, in which case the cry for revenge would have to be answered by any political leader. Otherwise he knows that the American military is too stretched already by the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and also the extra costs of another war could not be made clear to the American public without any direct attack, both in money and in human lifes.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

You're wrong. The RMS Lusitania was a British passenger ship... and the Germans declared war on the United States after Japan attacked the United States. Hitler wasn't concentrated on America and wasn't obligated to declare war on the U.S. due to the conditions of the Tripartite Pact of 1940. He actually had a problem with the U.S. being a neutral country because he knew that the Americans would do business with the British and provide sell them old naval destroyers.

Either way... the U.S. really didn't have to go to Europe. We could've just focused on Japan.

So actually the USA did not enter the war in Europe just to help us out, they were declared war upon by the Germans?

I have to agree that the decision of the USA to enter the war in Europe was probably the deciding factor there, but if 'you had just dealt with Japan' and Europe would have become a total nazi-state, it would have become much harder for the USA too later on, I presume, to beat them. So it was probably a good tactic to join the effort in Europe.

Oh, and it may be true that the Lusithania was British, but the USA entered the war because many American passengers died, I believe.