Previous  1  2  3  Next

I am not of any of these religions, but it is my understanding that Christians, Jews and Muslims all have the same biblical ancestors. How does one claim they are the original or direct descendants over the other. .

   

Well, look back to the first Israel Kingdoms:

he existence of the United Monarchy is disputed by modern historians. This section describes the account given in the Old Testament.

Around 1050 BCE, the twelve tribes of Israel united to form the Kingdom of Israel. Saul was the first King of Israel. He unified the tribes under a single Israelite authority, but, according to the Torah, due to his disobedience to God, he ruled for only two years.

David, the second King of Israel, established Jerusalem as Israel's national capital 3,000 years ago. Before then, Shilo had been capital of Israel.

David succeeded in truly unifying the Hebrew tribes, and set up a monarchical government. He embarked on successful military campaigns against Israel's enemies, and defeated bitter foes such as the Phillistines, thus creating secure borders for Israel. David built up an established centralised government in Jerusalem, a standing army, judiciaries across the land, and a sophisticated infrastructure.

Under King David, Israel grew from Kingdom to Empire, and its sphere of influence - militarily and politically - in the Middle East expanded greatly, controlling a number of weaker client states around it.

Religion of Islam 570-632 C.E or A.D. Islam takes some elements of Judaism. I would say that Israel would have a more legitimate claim to its own land before the Palestinians. All the more reason to defend whats theirs with PeterFinns words.

   

If it was all about oil all the US has to do is come to Alberta.... who's gonna stop them?

   

Umm well hopefully the citizens of Canada as well as Alberta for starters..

   

Here's some fun stuff to read.

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/koran.html

"Religion of peace" and all that. Right.

   

You can just stop right there. Don't even try to meet me halfway on some bologna blame crap- because I don't want to meet you anywhere on something that doesn't even exist. Blame for what? Nothing.



Well good for the world and good for Chirac. God forbid that when we go into Iraq his interests are at stake and he has to shy away back into his socialist sofa.
Also, don't use those troops as pawns in this ridiculous argument we're having when you don't even know what they personally were fighting for. That's pretty low and dishonorable. They gave more to the hope of opressed people than we are doing sitting here like we're high and mighty.

And just for the record, I ain't spewing hate. I'm spewing disappointment in the free world (minus Britain) for stuffing their pockets while making the United States carry the burden as world police. But I guess that's our job, sure feels like it.

   

If a job is worth doing you have to do it yourself I suppose. The US would be one of the most qualified for the job but the idea that it is the burden to be carried by the US alone makes it sound like the US has not made demands of it's own to those who would 'help' the US in its struggle to make the world safe for freedom and democracy.

I would dearly like to take on your idealism of the US and it's actions but quite simply I am far to cynical or pragmatic of the motivations of nations than that.

Nations have interests and they act upon them and defend them, nothing more. Charity and altruistic endeavors come as an after thought. In as much as we would like to pretend that this is not the case cold reality will soon sweep away any doubts. The US, nor any nation on this planet, is truly altruistic as much as we may want to see it otherwise. We must not be ignorant of the fact that nations have needs and to blind ourselves with such things as patriotism and valor to this is good for newspaper headlines but not for your health.

One can look at the contracts that were initially offered in Iraq.1st come 1st serve basis was never the plan (a free market approach to contracts) but rather no bid contracts delegated directly were the norm and no nation was given contracts unless they committed troops to the coalition. This is why the US shoulders so much burden. Especially when nations told the US not to go to war and the US was unable to support the cause of war in the UN under Powell (pictures he used were later shown to be out of date or inaccurate). Add to this the proof that Saddam was a threat under years of sanctions and inspections the case for war may have been great on Fox and CNN or the NYT but abroad it was flimsy at best.

Be that as it may many nations made profit from the food for oil scam, not the least of which was the US and the UK who were in control of the program and at all times and had the power of veto over any and all aspects of the program.

Clearly the US is the most powerful nation but the argument that it is freedoms best chance only flies in the US.

   

Good call, Scape. But, if we truly wanted the oil so badly- couldn't we have just done what France did? Is it that hard for us to make deals with Saddam instead of going to war? Like even if the deals are underhanded like France and Russia? I mean, we made deals with him in the 80's- why not now? Perhaps it is because we did see a legitimate threat. And, if we didn't see a legitimate threat and all we wanted was solely the oil, I'm sure we could've gone down the corruption road and let Saddam be a dictator a wee bit more. Would it seriously be that hard for us to suck up like sons of guns to Middle East countries and bathe in the oil? Look at Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we do that in Iraq as well? Maybe there was more to this war than a lie to get oil- maybe there was actually a threat and we do want to start democracy rolling in the Middle East.

I guess this really isn't arguing down the moral road of freeing a people ( I might've went a bit overboard on that in the last post), but it comes with the U.S. national interest to free people if they are opressed by a threatening dictator who we want out.

   

Good Post

   

Oil was not the primary reason for making an example out of Saddam but rather to show that dissent would not be tolerated by the most powerful nation.

Saudi Arabia may very well support the Mujahadein and have limited control over the Wahhabis but they are not chanting death to America just yet (or at least not when I saw Bush holding the Saudi's Princes hand last month). If the US was to flatten them then there would be no moderate Arabs at all.

The perceived threat that Saddam poised (in the form of a mushroom cloud if I remember correctly) is an excellent motivator for the public but is it real? We know North Korea has nuclear weapons already and Pakistan sells to everyone with cash so what made Saddam that different? He didn't have them. I suppose if he did the invasion would have turned out a lot different wouldn't it?

War like slavery, is obsolete and we can and should outgrow it. By 'making an example' of Saddam the world has now more nations seeking WMD and all of them have their targets fixed on the US. This has made the world a more dangerous place not safer.

   

I agree with USA1776, the very idea of someone like AVRO, with his left of Stalin views of how the world should be, listing the names of 7 fine Canadian soldiers in his post makes me sick.

Avro I knew Marc, Nathan, Ainsworth and Rick and they would all tell you and your leftest views to fuck off! Don't try to pretend that you actually give a shit about them, it is truly sickening!

Go back to what you do best, bash the US, bash anyone who supports the US, and generally ramble on about how the world would be so much better if you just let big brother and the communists, oops NDP, run the show in Canada.

Avro, I must go now because I really think I'm going to puke. You truly fucking disgust me!

   

Well said 2Cdo. Too many of these left wing types inkvoke the names of the fallen PPCLI to further their political gripes at the yanks. None of them have ever served or been to some shithole on the otherside of the world in the service of their country.

Avro has no grasp of the sacrifices our troops make daily in the military. I don't just mean combat. I mean the long detatchments and deployments, time away from home and family, crappy accom. and all the other things service people take in their stride. Armchair warriors that vote liberal. Can it get any worse?

I'm sick of the liberal "peacekeeping" mantra that has destroyed the CF.

If we are not careful we will have a military that consists of fat chicks with blue berets.

Nice post 2Cdo. I still can't believe the liberals disbanded the Airborne.

Wankers.

   

I mostly agree with eyebrock & 2Cdo about US bashing. Its not the US I bash but the religious republican group that currently leeds it. I grew up in the military and although was young when the airborne was disbanded was old enough to know how appalling it was. My family lived through repeated military budget slashes that had been going on since I was born. It was mulroney who truly put canada in debt by trying to create useless grass cutting and window washing jobs. The liberals would be in power with a real majority today if they hadn't (wisely) eliminated the deficit and dropped our national debt from 564 billion in 1998 to 501 billion today. I believe Canada should have at least double its current number in the forces along with modern fighters,attack helicopters and real modern submarines. I'd be willing to pay more tax to get them as long as I knew it was actually going there! Its not America that Canada does not support but the very very anti-canadian bush and his xtian only, god told me I'm right bush. Every Canadian knows that it was a deliberate slight not including us in his post 9/11 speech even after all the aid that gander, NFLD gave stranded americans (among others). We all know that when our 4 soldiers were accidentily killed he did not even bother to offer condolences till many days lated and it became a political imperitive. This all happened long before iraq so it was bush not supporting Canada and not the other way around. Why the fuck should we have supported him when 50% of his people don't support himm and 85% of ours. His war in Iraq is now know to be based completely on lies and the fact that 2 years later not one thing has changed shows that they will never win. I don't believe America will invade Iran because the bulk of the US won't allow the draft, which will almost certainly need to be reinstated. I don't think even blair, who has shown a remarkable puppy dog subservient mentality to bush wouldn't support it. I'm sure that bush has at least one advisor with an IQ above 40 to point out that they can't even secure iraq let alone invading iran. Note to pro-bush Candians -- what has bush ever done to deserve your loyalty. He (and the US) do not protect Canada!

   

Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next