I just wanted to post a little something commemorating our beloved Messiah spreading hope and change throughout the Muslim world this week. I am just so grateful to have a competent president with firm resolve with which to protect the United States from radical regimes throughout the world, those regimes which seek the destruction of America. It is truly a sight to see that he can approach these nations and negotiate the downfal..... I mean protection of the United States through diplomatic means. Thank you Mr. Obama. Thank you.
Good point Obama made his speach in Egypt for 55 minutes and not one mention of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThe Muslim world is dominated by men of steel, and they see Obama as the push over he is. Obama is to us, what Prime minister Chamberlin was to the British at the begining WWII. Obamas statment about "Iran has a right to nuclear Power" is refective of his cowardice to call evil by its name.
I just hope Isreal still has the Minerals to go knock out Irans Nuclear program.
Being a libertarian Thunderlump, why is that you feel that Iran doesn't have the right to nuclear power? I am not disagreeing with you here but I am curious how you are able to reconcile your statement that Iran perhaps does not have that right.
ReplyDeleteThunderlump, Thank you for your comment about Obama being equivalent to Chamberlain. My wife and I went to the WWII museum in New Orleans on Memorial day 2 weeks ago. We watched a video and it was irrefutable how similar the situation of the world then is to today. Chamberlain consenting the lands to Hitler pre WWII is so similar to today with Obama's empty threats to North Korea and consent to Iran developing "nuclear power" a.k.a. nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Iran having the right to develop nuclear weapons consistent with Libertarian ideology, that's living with your head in the sand. I'm all for everyone having the right to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon my right to do the same, and Iran having nuclear weapons is equivalent to your neighbor stating that you or your other neighbor two houses over does not have the right to exist and then proceeding to stockpile hand grenades, rifles, and ammo with a clear intent to seek you or the other neighbor's destruction.
I guess I am curious where the right to own something changes based intentional use of their right? Does it mean if someone declares that they want to go shoot someone that their 2nd amendment right to bear arms is revoked?
ReplyDeleteI consider it a legitimate question for the same reason that libertarians believe that people have the right to certain things and that their rights are only lost when a person or entities acts have infringed on someone else's rights and not before. In other words, how is considering the ideal of preemptive strikes inline with libertarian thought?
So far Iran has not shot a nuclear weapon nor do we have solid reason to believe that they can actually pull off what they are threatening. Do threats constitute the violation of the rights you speak of or does there actually need to be an act?
Of course we know they want to, and we know that a nuclear weapon is possible but does that take away their right to have them? Again, I want to emphasize I am not disagreeing with you I am just curious where we are able to draw the line between taking away a right because someone is scared, vs. taking away a right because someone actually violated law and the rights of others.
Actually, yes. If you go into a gun store and ask to buy a gun to go shoot someone, the store cannot sell you the weapon.
ReplyDeleteJames, you are making as much sense as a liberal.
ReplyDeleteSo the declaration of intent where that intended act infringes on the rights of another is the criteria for or constitutes the forfeiting of certain appropriate and corresponding rights? Do I understand you correctly?
ReplyDeleteJames : You must be suffering from some sort of dilussional amnesia or reading some other post. I never said Iran doesnt have a right to nuclear power I quoted Obama who said they do have a right to nuclear power. And I equated him to Chamberlin the former british prime minister.
ReplyDeleteIf I am wrong in my assumption then you are saying that Iran does have the right to nuclear power?
ReplyDeleteJames: What is the purpose for your line of questioning?
ReplyDeleteIf I could make a polite suggestion it's not about what I beleive its about you.
Ive seen you perpetually belittle GWH over and over. Ive never met you but you come across as petty and small minding constantly attacking people you disagree with rather than debating the merits of a point.
You carry lines of questioning from post to post constantly attacking the man never making a logical point. Understand when you attack people and not the problem you dilute the debate to something its not about.
Mark Twain said "History doesn't repeat itself but it Ryhms" mearly drawing the conclusion that Obama pretends to be "the great peace keeper." In 1938 Neville Chamberlin returned from his famous trip to Germany where he secured the Munich Agreement, with his Infamous quote he stepped of the plane and exclaimed he had acheived "Peace in our Time." The Munich agreement gave Hitler a Pass for obtaining Lebensraum or living space. We of course know Hitler went on to conquer western and most of eastern europe. We know Hitler wrote Mien Kampf which called for the elimination of all inpure races of people.
Fast forward to 2009, how many years has the president of Iran been calling for the elimintation of the state of Isreal? How long will it take for Iran to nuke Isreal once they have obtained one? Iran does have a right to nuclear power absolutly. Iran also owns the consequences of owning such a weapon and constantly threatening to eliminate isreal, whatever those consequences may be.
Just stop the childish gotcha of games. Hopefully you allready understand why Iran having a Nuke is a potential hazzard to all of us.
You keep calling me Libertarian also out of assumption which is wrong, I'm independant. If you want to be adressed in the future I suggest you make intellectually honest comments about issues instead of acting like an old Yenta dickering about nuance when you know what people mean.
I honestly was looking for a clarification of your viewpoints. If you read I even AGREED WITH YOU!
ReplyDeleteMy line of questioning was trying to get a clarification of the the commentor's remarks. I was doing the Covey endorsed principle of seeking first to understand. That is all. Talk about being argumentative, I even agreed with you and you take it as attack. Questions are part of discussion last I checked.
If you both are done calling me a liberal or small and petty perhaps we can get back to the points of discussion.
For the love of Pete you three sound like a bunch of Nancy’s. James line of questioning makes perfect sense; he is trying to get you all to engage in a discussion on intent and actually following through on it. There is nothing petty or demeaning about it but rather from my stand point after reading this a legitimate line of questioning designed to collectively come to some conclusion on the subject of “Do we have the right to be world police and not allow others the same rights we have?” He has clearly stated he is not for a nuclear Iran, how is that in any way like a liberal? Now can you all take your panties out of the wad you tied them in and answer the questions he asked?
ReplyDeleteOn another note why the hell is Obama for a nuclear Iran when he won’t even allow further growth of the nuclear industry in our own country as an alternative oil?
It is cold comfort to realize that the One may have a lot of deaths on his shoulders and a lot of blood on his hands at the end of the first four years.
ReplyDeleteIt is going to be awfully difficult for him to wash his hands of this. I'm sure he will find a way, however, with all of his apologists....I mean, friends.
While no single life on this planet is any more important than any other single life (although some arguments could be made for the significantly-lesser value of individuals such as Micheal Moore, et al), I must pray that there is a minimum of American blood in that final mix.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames, I like how you continue asking the same question until you get the reaction you're looking for, or when you don't get that reaction and the pointlessness of your question is exposed you simply say, "Well I agreed with you" as if that makes it all better. Your question was answered by Thunderlump. Iran has the right to Nuclear power as much as any other nation. It is not in the best interest of the United States for Iran to have nuclear power because one of the bi-products is weapons grade material. Where Iran has stated an intent to wipe Isreal off the map and that they have no right to exist and have also made menacing statements against the United States, I think it would be in our best interest to do whatever is necessary to prevent them from developing anything which could result in the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. Christ said that to look after a woman with lust in your heart is the same as commiting adultery. Therefore, that is where I stand in regards to intent. And M. Galt, maybe try reading the comments before calling everyone "nancies" because James's question was answered, he just didn't get the reaction he was looking for.
ReplyDeleteM.Galt: Yeah I don't think you read the posts thoroughly enough to comment about the subject. Your sounding like a Yenta to. I think James can get caught up in Gotcha tactics rather than, truth seeking, but maybe I read it wrong?
ReplyDeleteI don't propose that anyone has a right to act as "World Police." I propose that nations have a right to defend themselves.
So when Iran says repeatedly they will "Wipe the human stain of Isreal off the face of the map" I take that statement at face value. Its disapointing to hear the president of the United States say "Iran may have Rights to nuclear power." To me this statement sounds simular to Neville Chamberlins claim of "Peace in our Time."
Whos responsibility is it to defend Isreals right to exist?
I think Isreal is the master of their own destiny at this point since our president has made it clear he does not support them. I also think Isreal may be required to go it alone like Britan did at the begining of WWII. Then when America gets its collective head out of its rear we might help them.
Do the scriptures foretell of this time when nations either stand with or against Isreal? Or is that a spiritual concept instead of a physical concept?
I couldn't agree more that nations have the right to defend themselves and it's a shame that Obama is hanging the U.S. out to dry. I agree with you Thunderlump that it's Isreal's responsibility to defend themselves and not the U.S., however considering Isreal has been a vital ally of the United States in the past, and offers the only truly stable nation with a productive and industrious society in the Middle East, I believe it is in America's best interest to back up Isreal. What is siding with the Muslim nation's going to benefit the U.S.? Isreal has conceded plenty to the Muslims' whether it's conceding land to the Palestinians or giving back the Suez canal to Egypt after the 6 day war among many concessions. What has that gotten them? Last I checked they struggle with terrorism and violence on a near daily basis.
ReplyDeleteI did read and did make a judgment based on everyone's comments, because I come to a different conclusion then you doesn't mean I wasn't reading. The way it seems to me is that TL and GWH are dogmatic with their points and refuse to accept a line of questioning that challenges their already held ideas, you two came in with the negative comments first without provocation telling him he is thinking like "a liberal" Clearly an insult in the world of GWH and the TL telling him he "must be suffering from some sort of delusional amnesia" insult number two without him ever insulting your opinions or ideas. So yea I did read enough to understand the situation, you two attacked him for a reason I do not know.
ReplyDeleteIf you cant handle the line of questioning don't engage or ask for clarification, poking each other with sticks by name calling and being insulting doesn't accomplish anything and is not the purpose for this blog site. I created this site to discuses ideas, this means we will inevitably disagree, this doesn't mean we can insult each other for those opinions.
M.Galt: again you haven’t read all the posts or threads. My comments were reflective of James condescending tone where he wrote "Lumpy lumpy lumpy" Richard wrote I spoke out of “knee-jerk” If I feel condescended to I will react. It doesn’t matter if you don’t feel I was condescended to, your not my judge. I don’t feel abused but I call it like I see it. If that’s wrong your the Heffe of the site buddy so you can always uninvited us. But if I’m condescended to Ill respond in kind.
ReplyDeleteSorry I did know I had to read every interaction you two have ever had on the site to get the "full story" for this situation. In this case, on this post you two attacked first.
ReplyDeletewe can all disagree and we can all do it without insults or names. People are invited to the site to contribute because we want to hear their view point not their quips back and forth to each other. Nuf said.
Did James get his feelings hurt and call you or something? If he can't play with the big boys..... He has posted on nearly every blog post of this site with some kind of condescending remark followed by "I didn't say I was disagreeing with you" to try to smooth it over. Disagreement is fine. James' behavior on this site has been anything but disagreement or presentation of an alternative perspective in contribution to whatever the discussion might be. But that's not the point of this post, this post has turned into whether or not intention justifies retaliation. To shrink down the entire discussion into one word; yes, it does.
ReplyDeleteI would take the opposite and say intention does not wart retaliation because intention is not a physical action…yet. It’s contrary to the laws of God, he knows we will make mistakes and hurt others but still allows it to happen. Why does he not interrupt our actions before they happen?
ReplyDeleteClearly we should be prepared and ready to rock and roll should it happen, guarding our borders all along doing everything we can to prevent it. And here is another screw ball for you GWH; the more I think about tit the more I think we shouldn’t have even gone into Iraq.
How is it contrary to the laws of God? I can see where you're going with that, but please explain how that fits in context with Christ stating that to look after a woman with lust (intended adultery) is the same as committing adultery?
ReplyDeleteWell adultery is adultery not taking the life of another with what we perceive is their intention. In addition who is judge of adultery? God is right? In the situation we are talking about we are taking finale judgment on the intentions of others and killing them for it. That is a long distance away from Gods perfect and eternal judgment.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation we are talking about the war between governments not the people. As such I think that the rhetoric of both our leaders and their leaders needs to be seen through the prism of critical thinking. We know our government is corrupt and functions first and for most with the idea of self preservation in mind. Do we think Iran’s is any different?
Touche. I agree with 90% of your last comment up to the part where "do we believe Iran is any different." I do believe Iran is different in that they are the tip of the spear in the pursuit of the destruction of Isreal. I don't think they are pursuing Isreal's destruction out of self preservation but because of their long running hatred of Jews. Isreal has even stated that they will not bomb Iran..... that is unless they percieve Iran to be a threat and then they will take whatever action is necessary for self preservation. Doctrine & Covenants makes some pretty bold statements regarding the justifications for war...... I suppose my opinion is somewhat different, but I will admit God's way is the best.
ReplyDelete