Paris Club forgives loans - the real takeover of Iraq begins

[bitwhys]

I said "The difference is that the Fundagelical ARE the predominant sect and currently believe they are calling the shots."



Dobson thinks he just saved the world. George ("I think God wants me to run for President") W Bush thinks that's what he's doing. I think you are underestimating the influence American Fundamentalism has on its demographic. I've seen it argued that the influence of "moral values" on the swing was marginal, but that overlooks the placement of the demographics in general.



What I am "anti" is what I've seen Christianity become on the open market. What I am opposed to is preachers (and priests) standing in the pulpit transparently telling their people to "vote their values" when that just translates into "vote for the war criminal".



Being opposed to the war doesn't pay off with the "moral values" (as opposed to immoral values I suppose) crowd, but being anti-gay and anti-choice sure does. Nice priorities. Deitrich Bonhoeffer must be turning in his grave.



yeah, Big Business is calling the shots but its the Church's job to stand up to them, not help them whitewash the whole thing so people will tune in next week. heard THAT sermon on the 700 club lately?

[DreamTone7]

Once you acknowledge that government is becoming little more than a pawn in this particular game, you realize that who is in office makes little difference. But here at home, it can make a big difference. Many Christians who yell "Bush" are in reality saying "no" to Kerry. I voted for niether of these two...I would like to see a change in "business as usual", too. But if forced to choose between Bush and Kerry, I would choose Bush...not because he is Bush, but because he is NOT Kerry. At least with Bush, I know what I'm getting...and what is going on overseas is going to go on anyway for a long time to come. That issue has been set in motion and has a lot of momentum. With Kerry, we get somebody who could have won, but did not because he said and did so many stupid things. Do I really want this guy in the whitehouse...along with all the immoral decisions he proclaims to stand for? No. You see, there is also more at stake here than just the moral issues...it is the pandora's box that they could, and would, open.



For the record I oppose any religious leader who says "vote for Bush", or whoever...and I walk right up to them and tell them so every time they do it. But I also think that there is nothing wrong for telling people to vote their values...everyones values are self-determined. (I don't buy your "translation" statement.) It is, after all, a democracy...for better or worse.

[DreamTone7]

FWIW, it is a lack of moral fibre in the first place that allows the leaders and stock-holders of these Corporations to do what it is they are doing. Could you live with yourself?...these folks obviously can. I think it important to stop the moral "bleeding" rather than run-around and try to "bandaid" the effects of it. I do wish that there had been an alternative to Bush or Kerry that stood a possible chance of winning, believe me.

[bitwhys]

Quote:

---

Three-quarters of all white voters who described themselves as evangelical Christians voted for President Bush, according to national surveys of voters as they left the polls on Tuesday.

---

I guess its just a fluke then



and this isn't about which flavour of impericist ice cream was chosen. the point of this thread is the loot-and-pillage phase of this little neoliberal escape. the "christian v. islam" thing is really only relavent insofar as it keeps "the masses" from 1) catching on to what's really going on, and 2) from the "christian" side of the equation, thinking the action in Iraq is legit, ergo the "opiate" remark.



but this isn't about theology, its about geography.

[DreamTone7]

I agree with some of what you said...but not all of it.



I don't think that there is any "Christian vs Islam" thing being used to either invalidate or justify going into Iraq. "Terrorists" was one of many "justifications", valid or not, for going in there...and records show that Saddam was seeking an audience with Osama himself prior to the invasion...what for, I wonder? We will never know for sure, now. Aside from other "justifications", I think the Saudi Royals had a large but silent part in the puzzle. Saddam was cutting into their profits by selling more than he was supposed to out the back door through Syria. This drives the price of oil down...and we know that the Saudis like their money. What better way to rid them of Saddam (and keep their noses clean) than by threatening the US to cut production if they didn't do something. (The US economy is HEAVILY based on oil.) It prevents the Islam vs Islam issue, and keeps Osama away from the Saudis (though this obviously didn't work for long)...and doesn't require the Saudis to spend their precious money coming up with a military capable of threatening Saddam. The Saudis save face in the Muslim world, and money. Just an idea to think about.



bitwhys - "but this isn't about theology, its about geography."



...ultimately, it's about money...was there any doubt?



Since others have quoted from other books on this board, I feel it is fair to quote the Bible:



1Timothy 6-10



"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

[bitwhys]

I think we've got lots of common ground to work. Not to put too fine a point on it though, but

Quote:

---

Saddam was seeking an audience with Osama

---

I heard it was the other way around.

[DreamTone7]

You could be right...it's been a long time since I read that report.

[bitwhys]

yeah I think so. it was in the 9/11 commision report, I think. they went asking but Hussein's bunch never replied. something like that. I'll post it if I trip across it again.

[russky joe]

Y'know, buttercup, you were just starting to approach talking sense and then you went and delivered this little pearl of wisdom:



"I don't think that there is any "Christian vs Islam" thing being used to either invalidate or justify going into Iraq."



Post after post from you and the frickin' Lone Ranger associating Islam with terrorism and 'evil', and then you say that. As soon as you use the word evil you put a religious slant on everything. You're suckered so far into this thing that you can't even see it.



And, on the other side of the coin, I'm not sure about bitwhys' point about the secular nature of the insurgents. If that's the case, how come they were doing that religious chant to ward off the bullets on the TV news? Don't make sense to me.



I'm sorry to tell you this, but the history of religion is so frickin' saturated with human blood that it can't be exonerated. Not one little bit.

[russky joe]

...... and if religious indoctrination doesn't soften people's heads ready for war why do you're frickin' wonderful christian schools fill kid's heads with junk like this?



"God was protecting the holy Brits as God did the Isrealites when they behaved from enemy invaders. However if they were bad God allowed the Isreal to be beaten and even enslaved..."



..... the reason for the Spanish Armada losing the naval batlle, which was taught to Rev9volts in his history lesson. How frickin' edifying for a kid to know that, eh?



Going to war and winning has been the standard way of proving yourself a worthy leader chosen by god. Every frickin' crazy emperor and king used it as an excuse to whip up war-fever against the 'evil' enemy and prove their 'divine right' to rule. The frickin' Romanov Czars thought they were appointed by God, and that loony-tune Bush has stated this clearly in public.

[Rev9Volts]

you got a point rusky!



rusky and da rev are both

[DreamTone7]

joe - "Every frickin' crazy emperor and king used it as an excuse..."



Bingo...an excuse...which is what I have been saying all along. Religion being the scapegoat of a king or emperor that people like you, joe, point to as the reason...when in fact you yourself realize that it is just the excuse, not the reason! And what happens when you eliminate the excuse, but not the reason? Why, another excuse is found, of course!



It's only by changing the motives of said kings and emperors that you can eliminate the need for an excuse. And how is this done? Three guesses...and the first two don't count...

[DreamTone7]

...and I can't believe, joe, that you know about the Czars of Russian and yet seem to conveniently forget what was probably the biggest dirtbag (in terms of human lives lost...mostly his own countrymen) in recorded history. Namely, Joseph Stalin. Where was religion there? Practically non-existant...and yet that didn't stop good old Joseph, did it? It appears that religion is not necessary at all for atrocity to prosper (duh?)...only the immoral attitudes of men are necessary for that. Nationalism can replace religion any time to be used as an "excuse"...and as soon as you eliminate one excuse, another will pop up to take its place...then another, and another. It never ends unless you address the reason...not the excuse.

[russky joe]

"Where was religion there? Practically non-existant"



Total bullshit. Don't you lecture me about frickin' Russian history.



The Bolsheviks made a frickin' religion out of Marxism, after old Karl told everyone specifically not to do that. When old Leon Trotsky tried to resist Stalin's betrayal of the Russian revolution he accused the paranoid creep of doing exactly that, turning it into a religion instead of a people's politics.



Then Uncle Joe could trump up his own idea of 'evil' and send all the "evil ones" to the gulags. It's exactly the same principles, another frickin' B-movie with Lenin and Uncle Joe as the messiahs, with the Bolsheviks as the angels and the immortality of being a "servant of the revolution" instead of the afterlife.



Frickin' N*zism became a religion also. We like religion coz it deals with black and white absolutes, good and evil and all that frickin' bullshit, it llets us play the "good guys" with an excuse for slaughtering the "bad guys" and it lets us stay like little lazy children who only have to please their "heavenly father" instead of growing up and seeing the world as adults.



We need to get rid of religion and all religious-type thinking, because it's at the frickin' heart of war-mongering. Yeah, it preaches peace when things are going sweet, then if there's a threat it just flips and turns into a hate-creed. It's a Jekyll and Hyde, and there'll be no peace till it's gone.

[DreamTone7]

Sorry, joe...your version of history exists in your own mind and noplace else. Just because you choose to call something a religion for the convenience of your argument does not make it so.



Interesting thing is that not only are there those in history that have used religion as an excuse...now you too, joe, have used it as an excuse for your bitterness and anger...an excuse to vent on others who have had nothing to do with the way you feel. Interesting...and ironic.