Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ken Hughes on May 29, 2011 at 11:16am

I was in the fourth grade when the idiotic IGWT dribble was added to the Pledge.  1954 was a time when all students in my small textile-town North Carolina school stood and recited the pledge.  At the time, even as a 10-year-old I thought it broke the original's rhythm and was a silly addition to the original that was written by a Baptist (I think) minister.  It was a time when the communist world was in the position now occupied by the islamic world and congress, prodded by ministers wanted to set us off from the supposedly "ungodly communists".  I was also the time of Joe McCarthy looking under every bed and in every closet in America to find hidden communists and gays and never found any of either persuasion, while his chief counsel Roy Cohn, who died of AIDS, sat right beside him.  I am sooo tired of all this holy-roller governmental intrusion BS that if I were younger and had the wherewithal I would move to Australia or Denmark and seek citizenship. 

 

I thought 21st century America would mature a little and yet the extreme right christian crackpots have managed to drag us back into the 1950s mire and seek to take us all back to the 12th century.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 29, 2011 at 11:25am

Yup.  Duck and cover was done with by the time I started school, but once a year they had a 'remembrance' of it just so we could understand what our parents had gone through - basically a way of instilling unjustified fear in us so we could remember our parents' unjustified fears.  It's just sick to watch people buying into that fear cycle all over again.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 29, 2011 at 11:58am

"unjustified fear"

I would say a few thousand nuclear missiles aimed at you would be quite justifiable fear. But that's just me.

When 23% of the population of the planet supports an ideology which entails a totalitarian dictatorship state, it's also quite a justifiable fear. Especially when they are a bit fuzzy on concepts such as international terror.

I doubt there will be a "Peace for our time", especially when the declaration of war is still in effect and the other party cannot be approached.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 29, 2011 at 12:13pm

Few thousand nukes aimed at me?  Provide one shred of evidence that such was the case.  Unjustified fear.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 29, 2011 at 2:40pm

Note that you used the word quoted in two different combinations:

Unjustified fear akin to than "what our parents had gone through". I interpreted this as the Cold War standoff between the US and the USSR.

(Second usage is in "remember our parents' unjustified fears.", which presumably relates to the 'paranoia' and 'off rocker craziness' of my arguments.)

My first sentence therefore clearly reference that scenario, and you are either being willfully obtuse or you lack the necessary mental faculties to comprehend an argument.

I am not going to go through all the digging to find pre-SALT USSR nuclear levels, but suffice to say, there are currently 4650 active Russian nuclear warheads aimed at various locations, mostly NATO country cities, and one of them is aimed at where I live. I don't want anyone to fuck about with that trigger, like jolly old Jeltsin did to me in '95.

I am justified in fearing Russian nuclear capabilities. You are too. And that's why we try to talk to Russians before setting up things such as a missile defense to explain to them that it's Iran going nuclear or North Korea going nuts we're scared of, not Russia. Russia always focus on the greater evil in their time.

If there is any unjustified fear in here, it is your fear of calling Islam and its worshipers by the vile names they have justifiably earned through repeated action, because their precious religious feelings must be protected. Preferably by laws against freedom of speech.

---------

Side note: For whatever bad the current Russian regime currently does, it has at least thrown off the worst of of totalitarianism. Revolutions from Totalitarianism to Plurality/Democracy over night almost never happen at any point throughout the annals of history, especially Russian.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 29, 2011 at 2:56pm

This will of course just digress into the redefinitions of words as you need them - so just redefine lose and be happy with it.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 29, 2011 at 3:04pm

The kids today call it 'schooling'. ;)

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 29, 2011 at 4:16pm

Or you can just check out the original source, what Eisenhower said:

As the cold war intensified, oil negotiations stalled, and the President Dwight D. Eisenhower replaced Democrat Truman, the United States helped destabilize Mosaddeq on the theory that "rising internal tensions and continued deterioration ... might lead to a breakdown of government authority and open the way for at least a gradual assumption of control" Iran's well organized Tudeh communist party.^[17]

Note the word 'communist'. It was a part of the greater US-USSR battle. The Cold war was cold because they never fought outright against eachother, and a war because they fought outright eachother through third parties.

Here's a quick run through on why the US was justifiably scared of Communism:

And a quick run through of the events leading through the overthrow of Allende:

Those are the basic facts, now let me start to pick asunder:

"In the fledgling democracy of early 1950's Iran, western interests were far more concerned about the nationalization of oil than backing the ideology of democracy."

Yes, and of course they were. Britain was the dominant power in the area and both UK and US required oil to drive their countries. Nationalization of oil is a bad thing. Stopping international trade is bad. The UK in particular was a flat broke country which had just fended off starvation. Every country provides first for its citizenry. Your facts are fairly correct, but your analysis is not thorough.

"The CIA was even in there to ensure the Mosaddegh government would be toppled if the economic sanctions failed to fuel a coup against the government. "

Yes, a full out war was out of the question due to the battle being part of the US-USSR conflict. Therefore intelligence agencies are used, which is exactly what intelligence people are there for. Take out enemies of state. At this point in history, all country leaders who flirted with communism would fall under USSR sphere of influence, thus making the Iranian oil fields inaccessible to US interests. The US interest is predominantly free trade.

Mossadeq was taken out like Hitler should have been after the Beer Putsch. The US has learned a bit of effective foreign policy from history. Hurrah!

"When the neighbouring Iraqi Monarchy, who played ball with the west, was deposed by a general who didn't, the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein rise to power - and had a long and happy relationship with him until he no longer served their interests."

Of course. Again, the big Communism vs Capitalism Cold War. The biggest wins and I'm pretty happy I don't live in a Communist state. In addition, you neglected to mention that Saddam also fought against the Iranians (and took on the Kurds in the process). This is part of the Sunni-Shia (a continuation of Arab-Persia) conflict. They hate eachother about as much as they equally hate Jews.

Anyway, Shias are the most closed in. Everyone's trying to kill Shias. Israel wouldn't mind, Saudi would be happy to (check out Saudi vs Iran military budget for verification), the US could easily wipe it off the map, and not even the Soviets liked Iran because they supplied most of the weapons (bought by American money) to fight. Also, in this mess, there is Syria. A Soviet leaning Baath country. Baath being the same party of Saddam.

So Saddam played both sides at the same time because the greater evil in the US-USSR conflict of the area at the time was Iran/Shia Islam.

"When the Chilean democracy had the nerve to elect a Marxist as president,"

He was elected by 36% of the votes. Hardly a landslide. And after nationalization and wealth destruction, the Chilean people had it worse than before Allende. The country was about to revolt, and Allende demanded that the Army would suppress the democratic will of the people. It's too bad Pinochet turned out to be a douchebag, but he looked like the right guy at the right time. The usual US defense for supporting dictators (check JFKs comments in Batista in Cuba, a similar situation).

"who coincidentally claimed Chilean ownership of Chilean oil (nationalization)"

Yes, and again. Nationalization is bad. Mostly for the people of the nationalizing country, but also for the US.

"the CIA/U.S. backed another coupand left a ruthless tyrant in place as dictator.  Looks like the people can't even choose socialist ideals for themselves"

Marxism is not socialism. Allende was a Marxist. Socialists at the time were Labour in Britian and perhaps as far as Tito in Yugoslavia. (who incidently the Soviets tried to "take out")

"They were glad to help the proto-Taliban militants push the Soviets out of Afghanistan but then left the country to fall into theocracy - whose fault is that then?"

The Taliban were mostly a nationalistic party formed to defend Afghanistan from USSR invasion by any means necessary. A regional player that got caught up first in US-USSR tensions, then in Sunni-Shia tensions. After the USSR pulled out they left a Communist puppet in charge in Afgh till 1992 and a country in complete turmoil. The USSR (at that time in the form of Russia/FSU) is to blame for that one too.

"In fact, there is no justification for any of their aggressions against the spread of communism - it starts with a revolt by the people." 

Stopping the spread of Communism - a noble and just cause - was the justification. And it was plently good.

"So you'ld have to say Korea and Vietnam got left in the wake of blind American idealism as well."

Both part of the Cold war. Soviet puppet in North Korea stops at 38 parellell, South-Korea is left without democratic leadership by the fall of the Japanese Empire, and S-K is about to be overrun by Chinese Maoism (a Communist totalitarian empire). Vietnam is pretty much the same story.

Here's a summary:

 

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 29, 2011 at 4:24pm

Now before I read any of that - perhaps you can sum up rather succinctly what any of it has to do with the difference between Christianity and Islam - the topic of the discussion.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 29, 2011 at 4:59pm

Well, you say that I can't be afraid of Islam. I shouldn't fear it because there are things which are much worse, such as capitalism. Capitalism only indoctrinates people in amorality - there being no good or bad, just effective and ineffective to reach a goal.

Christianity was a very effective means of overthrowing Roman thought, and that was after the Roman society started caving in their laws against monotheism. Since then, Christianity was overthrown in the French revolution.

Islam is a very effective means of overthrowing Western thought, and if we cave in to Islam demands, we will fare no better than the Romans.

This is what Islam is capable of doing to men. The rapist is being afflicted with this religious disease, and there are possibly thousands of innocent victims each day. It is a Black Plague we might need to use medieval tactics to be able to confront.

(This is from Norwegian State Broadcasting. What the government wants the people to draw some all-too hasty conclusions from and set the level of the public debate about Islam, knowing full well it will feed racism.)

 

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 29, 2011 at 5:17pm

Feel free to be afraid of anything you want but cheeseburger eating Muslims are no different than Cheeseburger eating Christians.  Muslim kids growing up around here don't retain your the Islamic brand of misogyny - they turn out just like other French kids except they spend holidays at the Mosque instead of the Cathedral.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 29, 2011 at 5:52pm

"Muslim kids growing up around here"

Exactly. For the time being that may hold true. They didn't use to do it as much in Norway either until criticizing Islam became a modern day "sin".

And in France - indeed most of Europe - kids don't go to Churches or Cathedrals. In fact, most will never set their foot inside a Church except as sightseeing.

In a country of state religion, my city of 40k people has 4 active churches in total. And last time I got dragged into one of them I was 12.

As a side note, here's how Christianity 2.0 builds churches, they blend in with the environment:

This is Islam, plonking down in downtown Oslo (where also the above church is located):

Sorry muslims, my people haven't spent 200 years wrestling off the shackles of Bronze age mythology just to have it come back again. I love my late night döner, but not the late night rapings, and I can live without döner if Islam doesn't grow up.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• Next ›
• Page