|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Moral/God-given duty of US
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Paul Limsk
IMHO, the US has a moral duty to ensure that the world remains or becomes as peaceful as can be. The US does not have a long history and it has become the strongest in both the economic and military sense. Deriving her strength from the migrants from all over the world, she has a God-given duty to protect the weak and to vanquish the villains of the earth. Americans should not hold back when it comes to supporting the will to act in a responsible and righteous manner. The US must show that she cannot be cowed by the dastardly acts of beheading carried out by the iraqi murderers. Comments pls.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
This all sounds fine in a fantasy world, but the United States is not impervious to harm, as recent terrorist acts have proven.
Regardless of the superhero complex that seems to be prevalent among many Americans, this view of what the United States of America is "entrusted" to do seems very narrow-minded. It implies that what the USA thinks is always the right thing for everyone, and anyone who thinks any different MUST BE MADE to think the same way we do. This is no different than a tyranny or a dictatorship. A certain german dictator once thought that his way is the right way, and tried his best to make the other countries think the same way he does. The other countries, of course, decided that his narrow-minded initiative of what is best for the world is not meant to be, and they banded together to destroy this german and his "cleansing" forces.
As for God-given duty, this in itself is against diversity, as you are implying that everyone in the US must believe in a God and follow the task entrusted upon them whether they like it or not. This diversity has made the US the boiling pot of differing religions, philosophies and ideologies, hence believing in a "God-given duty" to do something is ignorant of that fact.
Our country has ignored warnings from several countries regarding the Iraqi campaign. Our president has ignored the United Nations and proceeded to invading a country behind a variety of false reasons, ranging from destroying weapons of mass destruction to liberation. The government has admitted using false information about the Iraqi campaign to accelerate the invasion. This whole Iraq affair has boiled down to nothing more than a profitable venture for our Vice President's former company.
Are you saying that these actions are unexpected? Did you expect the US to kill all terrorists in the world in just 4 (or if we're unlucky, 8) years? We all knew the consequences of this campaign against terrorism, one that was good in theory but foolish (and unrealistic) in execution. It is obvious that some Iraqis want us out of their country - anyone who believed ALL Iraqis would be eternally grateful for their "liberation" is delusional. We still have soldiers dying almost every week over there, AFTER we have allegedly freed Iraq and restored peace.
I believe that the US has to take care of its own, first and foremost. Military campaigns should NEVER be the first priority, as our president wants it to be. Do you honestly believe that (a) when we leave Iraq in a few more weeks, the terrorism there will stop? and/or (b) do you believe our government will allow Iraq to be autonomous without assigning someone there to control its government so it remains "favorable" to our country?
We are no longer in the business of "protecting" ... we have moved on to "attacking" anyone we feel threatens us. Pre-emptive strikes are just the beginning. We have sunk so deep into our pseudo-patriotism that we have developed blinders. We only care about what WE think is right, and anyone else who does not think the same way we do is either a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. "You're either with us, or against us," as our president eloquently said.
We have become too brainwashed by the media and the government about "vanquishing" the villains, that we do not notice the fact that we are becoming villains ourselves.
Posted by: armystud0911
well written post there laggy, woulda taken me nearly a day to get that sounding good.
I am about as patriotic as any but I never saw it written in our constitution that we should police/overtake other countries. Granted Saddam was an unthinkibly crual and ruthless dictater and Iraq is better off without him, I'd take my chances with an America lover over a manaical killer anyday. However, to say that we should keep the world in peace (using acts of war to establish this) makes us into the worlds rulers, period.
Posted by: redwench
a man's god-given duty (should he believe in god, naturally) is to ensure his own personal behavior is moral, first and formost. people talk about the beheadings in the middle east as if they are somehow worse than beating prisoners to death. im not even going to touch the moral standing of a country that invades others because of trumped up lies about what they have the "capability" of doing. and then ignoring the geneva convention regarding prisoners whenever we feel like it.
now, we had a right to be angry about 9/11, although we did set the stage for it. but we certainly have no right to be up in arms over people in a country we occupy militarily when they express their displeasure about it. ironicly enough, we funded bin laden when he rebelled against the soviet occupation of afghanistan. cant have him and his proxies rebelling against our occupation, oh heavens no.
we get the hell out of other countries, then we might have a moral standing about various atrocities in the world. but as of now, its the cooking container calling the water heater the absence of light.
Posted by: Chaotic
First off, I feel we should gtfo of Iraq.
Secondly as a thought exercise..What do you (by you, I mean anyone that cares to state an opinion) think would happen if every major military power withdrew into it's own boundaries. No interactions beyond trading. For, let's say, 10 years. Would the state of the world at large be better? Worse?
Posted by: Null Actor
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
IMHO, the US has a moral duty to ensure that the world remains or becomes as peaceful as can be. The US does not have a long history and it has become the strongest in both the economic and military sense. Deriving her strength from the migrants from all over the world, she has a God-given duty to protect the weak and to vanquish the villains of the earth. Americans should not hold back when it comes to supporting the will to act in a responsible and righteous manner. The US must show that she cannot be cowed by the dastardly acts of beheading carried out by the iraqi murderers. Comments pls.
|
I don't believe in god, but even if I did, I don't think I'd believe god gave you any right until he specifically told me so. On top of that, isn't claiming to know the will of god the same as heresy?
Regardless.
There is a huge difference between protecting someone, and attacking, as Canis says.
And who are you, or we, or anyone, to say what a villain truly is? It all depends on your point of view. It is all subjective.
Consider:
There is a country that has been invaded. The people who live in that country now want the invaders out. So they fight the invaders.
Which party is right? Which party is wrong? Which is good? Which is evil?
It is not so simple a thing to claim who is evil and who isn't.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I feel that in the course of "righteousness" that the message has been translated into fear; fear not brought on by terrorism, but rather, by our own government and media. This ultimately plays into the hands of all who would see our downfall, as this fear (though fuling a battle that i think should be fought, the battle against terrorism) is causing us to make some very poor decisions in the name of righteousness.
I'm with most of you in saying that it isn't so simple that you can make a right/wrong dichotomy out of the situation. I think, though, that terrorism has become a tool for geopolitical action within our own government--and that said terrorism is being perpetuated by our government. So perhaps, we are doing some of the right things for some of the wrong reasons and in the process, possibly as a by-product (though I doubt it), we are doing a lot of the wrong things as well.
In conclusion, I don't know what is going on, I just know that I don't like it. The situation is quite confusing, and I fear that we may be too far into a damaging situation to avoid paying an enormous price for it.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...1242639,00.html
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chaotic
First off, I feel we should gtfo of Iraq.
|
We did ... the last time was our fourth or fifth time there  - and not one of these campaigns ever solved or helped anything in the long run - except the time when we actually had a country to protect (Kuwait) ...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chaotic
Secondly as a thought exercise..What do you (by you, I mean anyone that cares to state an opinion) think would happen if every major military power withdrew into it's own boundaries. No interactions beyond trading. For, let's say, 10 years. Would the state of the world at large be better? Worse?
|
Although this would NEVER happen, I'll go along and imagine that it can... you're asking what would happen if all countries started minding its own business ... hmmm ... let's take Japan for example. After they were humbled in the last world war, they withdrew (or were forced to withdraw) all military forces from all countries they occupied. They then went on a military "hiatus" and instead concentrated on rebuilding their battered country, improving their economy and education, enhancing their way of life, pushing the envelope on technology and not actively participating in any international skirmish except ones that were mere miles from their borders.
Can you say that Japan is better or worse than they were sixty years ago?
No one knows if it would be "absolutely" better or worse without sounding ignorant. But the thought of "all" major countries putting a halt on the arms race and instead concentrating on taking care of its own and using the money that was allocated for "national defense" into improving its people's way of life? Wouldn't that be utopian...
But as I said, this would never happen. We have to admit that, as Americans, we are always curious about what other countries are doing, whether or not they have better weapons (or way of life) than we do, and whether they pose any threat to us or not. It's been that way for a long, long time, even before the terrorist attacks as we call them now...
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Fraid I agree with Laggy but a point I would like to make was an initial statement (I think made by President Bush) About fighting terrorism. You may engage in fighting it, but you will never subdue it prevent it or eradicate it. The statement in itself is ludicrous.
Without pushing it too far one prime example is the CONTINUING problems the UK has in Northern Ireland, the only problem that people do not realise is that in the main the problem is NOT RELIGIOUS. It is turf war for protection money and racketeering. Which is still continuing every day, people being beaten, knee capped and shot dead.
But you will never defeat terrorism no matter how much muscle or money you put in the pot. Question what about all the money put into DEA to stop drugs from South America reaching US etc. Sorry Laggy i've drifted off subject, I'll stop here.
Posted by: NyGulkuk
The US has no right to tell anyone about morals. This country has engaged in and is still engaged in mass murder and all the atrocities that go along with it. From the million or more South Americans we have helped to kill and millions more we help to subjugate to dictators that we prop up to the millions of poor people who the rich walk on the backs of to stay rich and get richer we continue to be at the root of the problems of the entire world.
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
"You can't serve GOD and Mammon both; Mammon being money."
Posted by: AOTY2KB
Noam Chomsky and his book Hegemony or Survival sheads a great deal of light on "American Terrorism"
Posted by: Blackknight
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chaotic
Secondly as a thought exercise..What do you (by you, I mean anyone that cares to state an opinion) think would happen if every major military power withdrew into it's own boundaries. No interactions beyond trading. For, let's say, 10 years. Would the state of the world at large be better? Worse?
|
The world wouldn't change much. The rich countries would get richer and the poor countries would probably stay in poverty.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
First I agree with all of you...and that is very odd indeed for a thread in rants and raves. I am astounded that it seems where ever I go and almost whomever I speak with is starting to come to the opinion that these men in power now have it wrong. That they don't speak for us. It is easy to see that the rest of the world disagrees with what the U.S. is doing but it seems (if you watch any cable news) that America is behind its government 100 percent. That could not be further from the truth. Even certain conservatives are having many reservations about the unilateral aproach we have taken. This war is not about republicans or democrats......Second anyone speaking about God giving them the right to do anything should be treated and maybe released at a later date....Third making war to ensure peace should easily be understood as a contridiction, my 6 year old nephew could grasp that concept easily. As can the neo-cons in power, does anyone really believe we went to Iraq to ensure world peace. Self-interest wether for oil or a foothold in the middle east or both it does not matter. The men running this war are the same men that were friendly with Saddam (there is a picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand after he had use chemical weapons on Iran) all through the 1980's. There can be no argument that these men want a democratic Iraq or wanted to liberate the Iraqi people. These are not moral people, we cannot allow them to pretend to be moral people. Using these moral justifications is insulting and arrogant.
Posted by: Storm_Shot
I think that most people in the US don't realize how awful we look from the standpoint of other countries. They can only see it from our point of view, which is a big problem. I just don't see how people can say we are "fighting for democracy" when we go against what is probably the biggest form of democracy in the world (when it does anything) the UN. We have such a double standard in the US that anyone looking at us from the outside has to think we are colectively insane.
That article Canis posted gives me a feeling of impending doom I've only felt once before, it's a wierd feeling. It's like you are the guy in one of those hollywood effects movies where the tidalwave is about to hit New York. You're in an office building on the first couple floors and you look out the window to see the horizon. You can't see the horizon, as it is towering 500 feet above you. You keep looking out the window, and you cant quite figure out what's going on, but you know it's bad, and you know you have to get away fast. That's the kind of feeling I get.
P.S. Canis, I think what Chaotic meant by "gtfo" was "get the f*** out" not 'go to' 
Posted by: Chaotic
Ha, yes. I thought something was off. Gtfo = get the fu** out.
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Limsk
she has a God-given duty to protect the weak and to vanquish the villains of the earth.
|
A: If God gave us this duty, can you show me the duty-roster? I don't know which God you're talking about, but if he has a Holy Book, I'd like to read it to see the part where he addresses the United States bombing every country that we don't like.
B: If the aforementioned God is a Christian one, I find it odd that, in about 33 years, Jesus couldn't vanquis evil from the Earth, and he had that whole God Thing going on, and yet the US Armed Forces are supposed to be able to. That would imply that God is not as strong as we are.
C: You're basically proposing to wage war on the Human Condition. The only way you can win the war against evil is to end the human race. Maybe we should use our defense forces for actually defense, rather than waging a comic book politic of the Super Friends versus the Legion of Doom, or however you want to word it.
Well, that's my take on it, at least.
Posted by: redwench
i wonder what youre supposed to do if the villian is yourself?
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
i wonder what youre supposed to do if the villian is yourself?
|
Pretend it's not and accuse anyone who says it is of being unpatriotic.
Posted by: redwench
ah, silly me. of course.
Posted by: laborat
Laggy of course, is right on as usual.... but to expand upon his remarks... I think it is actually time for U.S. to practice it's internal moral compass and concentrate on the poor, tired, and hungry within our own borders. It might actually be a good thing for some governmental cocooning and leave the rest of the world to fend for themselves. There is no way that we can impose our ways of life upon cultures who are older by far than we are. It is presumptuous of us to think our ways of doing things are workable in countries like Iraq or whereever.
Look at the facts facing us within our own borders: We have a disintigrating infastructure in our highway system, our bridges, even our major cities with outdated sewer systems and water resources. If there is a war or should be a war it should be directed at those who are eroding our national resources and turning our lands into concrete and asphalt jungles. Let's send some troops into south LA or New York or Detroit and clean out drug dealers, pimps, and fences. Let's bulldoze some public housing projects in any major city you want to choose. Let's concentrate on problems within our own borders for the next, say, 50 years and let the rest of the world work out what they want to do. And for all our sakes, lets stop being the muscle behind our US corporations as they invade the third world and rape them of their resources. We have a God given moral right to protect his garden, we have a God given moral right to insure the meek inherit the earth. I also think we have a Moral right to ensure that our children don't drown under major deficit debt in their lifetimes.
As for beheadings, if we started beheading some folks like the CEOs of Enron and Halburton and those Savings and Loan Crooks or (insert guilty corporation here) maybe their predesessors would be less likely to ignore the law in favor of the bottom line. It doesn't make much sense for the U.S. to go out of it's way to become LESS self-suficient upon it's own resources, factories, and personal ingenuity just because of factors like cost. You get what you pay for. Those five dollar shirts you get at Wal-Mart are being sewn by child slave labor you know. So take those Wal-Mart shirts and wear them to Church and be as God Given Moral and Righteous as you want to be just like the rest of the congregation. Anybody who brings up God as a moral justification for man's depredations upon other men be they pagan or heathens even, has yet to truely know Him. I suggest we all pray for Armegeddon (just to end the suspense if for no other reason).
Posted by: NyGulkuk
I agree with what you say for the most part, but about the drug dealers, pimps etc. Those people are as much victims as the mentally ill and other homeless people, not that they are shining examples of morality, but they don't import the drugs they sell. The importers are rich people who thrive upon exploiting the addicted and weak among us. Who makes them weak? Rich people who have exploited the not-so-smart into believing that non-whites are inferior even to the most degenerate; as long as they are white. I'm not smart or informed enough to expound on this idea much, but that is what I believe has happened to the inner cities and other backward and degenerated areas. What to do about it; I don't know.
Posted by: redwench
when was the last time you heard of a harvard graduate pimping hos in the ghetto? that should direct anyone to the answer to most criminal behavior. 
Posted by: BooRadley
There's probably as high, if not higher, a ratio of psychopaths in government and business as there is in ghettos. They're just a little smarter and better educated, plus wealthier, so they're less likely to do something overt and stupid and end up in prison.
Posted by: redwench
ah, never said anything about what goes on in their tiny little minds. behavior, in this case legal, is what counts. most pimps and drug dealers arent psychopaths either. thats reserved for vice presidents. oops, did i say that ?
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
thats reserved for vice presidents. oops, did i say that ?
|
That does it. I'm calling Ashcroft. You're busted, you little terrorist.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Laborat for President (or someone with the same views) and I don't care which country either!
Posted by: laborat
Since I live in a ghetto, and see pimps and drug dealers on a daily basis killing each other along with any innocent bystanders in the vicinity, I have less tolerance than most liberals when it comes to them. Even if they are innocent of their behaviors because of manipulation by the "Man", it doesn't justify how they are destroying their culture and it's credibility. I realize it is mostly anger at the system and the "man" but that anger does nothing but turn their block, their part of the city into a war zone that no one will go into, businesses or social workers. Come down to where I live and go through on a nightly basis, having to hit the floor when gunfire erupts outside so you don't get hit by an errant bullet and see if that changes your mind just a little bit .
What is sad is that most of them are victims of generational violence that gets passed down as acceptable behavior as they are children. Most of them are raped or abused by family members before they reach puberty. Many of their mothers are crack addicts and they were born addictied. Many have no fathers in the home. (mainly because of laws and rules that prevent moneys being given to the household with two parents. go figure)
The only way out of their situation assuming they have it together enough to see their plight is to deal drugs. Ironicly, should they go the route of being a Churchie, when they are old enough, they are often left with two choices that of the military or junior college. Since most of them don't qualify for college funding they have to go to the military if they want to go to college.
Don't think for a moment that normal jobs are open to them as they are in the mostly "white" suburbs. Why? Because there are hardly any businesses in the ghetto unless you count pawn shops and paycheck loans. Most cities are strapped for funds and in our city anyways one of the things that was cut this year was the inner city job fair where kids could get summer jobs helped out by the city subsidizing businesses to hire inner city youth.
Is it any wonder that summer riots erupt in our major citys? No. And yes it is true that "Whites" just feed the flames by selling drugs and guns to psychopaths. Those white folks should be shot. lined up and shot on sight. no trial. no justice. just shot. If the money trail leads to Harvard or the vice president so be it. But I wouldn't stop there, since we have several generations of baby psychopaths out there now, white, black, yellow, and rainbow. These folks need to be lined up and shot as well, no trial, on sight, no justice, since there is no practical solution in which society, a civilized society can deal with them.
We need to do this soon, while we still have a society to deal with them. Once our civilization crumbles in chaos and it is, those folks will be the ones in charge, and all of us liberal, gentle, opinionated folks who can read will all be lined up and shot, on sight, no trial, no justice, for offenses as stupid as the clothes we wear, the food in our pantrys, the gas in our cars. You think I'm kidding?
Go look around you. Really look around you and see what chance you really have should society decide to take a dive in your lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
