 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I appreciate your sentiments monkspider and I happen to share them from the point of view of a Christian BUT there is also such a thing as the responsibility of civil government to "punish evil dooers" and maintain order. I do not believe personally in killing anyone however I am not in a psition of authority in civil government. That government has the responsibility of protecting the citizens. The war on terrorism came to our shores. Sitting around in a circle now and singing cume by ya is not going to solve the problem. It is simply naive to think that people like Hitler are going to respond to the peace and love overtures of Christians or anyone else. |
I am pleased to know you that we are essentially in agreement in the larger scheme of things. Essentially our minor area of disagreement is that you believe government should punish "evil" countries. In other words, you feel that it is at times necesarry to put laws of geopolitics ahead of God's laws of infinite, unconditional love as an unfortunate matter of necessity. I am here to assure you that there are never circumstances where man's laws should come ahead of Gods. I apologize if you have become embittered by liberals in the past for whatever reason. However, I ask that you seriously consider what I have to say. If you have spiritually evolved to the point that you realize God's desire for us to love our neighbor, to resist evil with good, and that with God nothing is impossible, then I believe that you will agree with me. Relying on God's power is never naive or foolish, on the contary, it is the greatest wisdom that man can attain. One thing that God's wisdom shows us is that there are always ways to help liberate the Iraqi children, if that is what we as a nation desire to do, without means of bloodshed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
Some of the most cold-hearted, militant thinking people I know still think this war is idiotic, mainly cause they don't give a damn about "making people free", which as I have said before is the only reasonable argument backed by ample evidence that any of you pro-warmongers have made.
As for Hussein=Hitler...my god, give it up, he isn't Hitler. Hitler died in 1945, and Iraq in 2003 is not, will not, never was, and never shall be Germany in 1936. It was a stupid annalogy in 1991, its even stupider today. Can't you guys come up with a "better" moronic "hisotrical annalogy?"
I know, give "Saddam is Attila" a try. At least it is new.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge of early Nazism with us. However, these details are for the most part superflous to the larger scheme of things. |
The details are always inconvenient when they invalidate your points. |
Not at all, they are just not pertinent to the larger picture that I am trying to address. I am speaking in terms of a macro-level picture, however the particular details are more micro-level. So there is a difference in scale in what we are discussing, which may be at the root of our misunderstandings. I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us, however.
quote:
quote:
Versailles intended to punish the Germans, if the allies had instead tried to help the Germans rebuild, and treated them as friends, it is unlikely there would have been a Hitler. There are infinite things the Allies could have done to avert a Hitler from rising to power. |
I think you didn't read what I posted with much care, so here is the point in question.
quote:
That doesn't count outside assistance. It came about equally from German families in America sending money to relatives and from various governments. The total assistance throughout the 20s was also greater in inflation-adjusted value than the Versailles reparations. |
You see, the fact is folks did try to help the German people and the German government in the 20s. It didn't help. Weak-minded English and American pacifists were convinced that Hitler was good for Germany. Did their misguided love change Hitler? |
Unfortunately, there were not enough like-minded people at the time, or else there would not have been a Hitler. It was now just as it was then. There are few who want peace and understanding, and the majority, at least in nations such as Britain and the USA who do not. So it will be until mankind spiritually evolves to realize that peace is the only way to progress. We have made a lot of progress over the past century, so I am certain that the day is coming soon.
quote:
There is a famous quote something like, "There are no people so diverse that cannot be united against a common enemy." Differences always emerge, and they tend to cause splits even among those who share a common love. A common hate is always stronger.
A common love says, "Hey, we agree! Cool. See ya 'round." A common hate says, "We agree, cool! Let's get the ba$tards!" Lots of people in America love America, but hating terrorism and tyranny is stronger.
After WWII we punished both Germany and Japan. We placed them under martial law. We put people on trial. We split Germany in two. So why didn't Germany arise again, under your theory? Not because of love, but because of hatred of the oppression behind the iron curtain. Hatred is good when it is hatred of evil.
|
I would not attribute Germany and Japan's current state in the world to a "hatred" of those who defeated them. On the contrary, it should show what a small amount of love can do. After World War II we helped rebuild Germany and Japan, we tried to treat them as partners, and there was no Hitler this time. The post world war II peace was clearly in a different vein than Versailles. There was no war guilt, no harsh reparations. The Versailles treaty attempted to punish Germany, to destroy Germany, while after world war II the allies tried to rebuild Germany. That is the key difference.
quote:
Doesn't Jesus say that few will find life, while many go down to destruction? If Jesus can't win everybody with love by dying on the cross for them, why do you think Pollyanna warm fuzzies can win everybody? "…men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." That is eternal truth, my friend. |
You're right of course, many indeed will go down to destuction and going the path of darkness is easier than the path of light, and oneness. And you are also correct that these facts are eternal truths. Does it mean that man should actively engage in destruction, or that men should love darkness, simply because it may seem the more easy path, of course not. Only through living a life like Jesus' can we ultimately attain light. A life which includes the infinite love, forgiveness, and brotherhood that was at the heart of his teachings. Once we reach this light, there is nothing that is beyond our power.
God bless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
Ahh, a great question Orange. 
While Marx, Lenin and even some of my comrades here may disagree with me, I am convinced that true and lasting socialism will only come about through peaceful means.
There is a day coming that is not far away when the majority of humanity, and even eventually all of humanity, will realize that it must learn to live for it's fellow man, as well as it's self. That is when we will have true socialism. It is our duty as socialists to help make people aware of this better future that lies ahead and what their part will be, and therefore, help bring it about quicker.
Though socialists are apparently defeated at the moment, I can already sense a small undercurrent of momentum building for us. The current debacle in Iraq is helping us to realize that we are all in this together. Come what may to us, as long as there is God, there will always be socialism and we will always win in the end.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:26
|
|
monkspider, we didn't love them more the second time, we hated the necessity of war more. After WWI the weenies called it the War to End All War. They were so anxious to end it they ended it before it was over, and so we got WWII. In WWII we settled for nothing less than total victory, military and moral. That is the difference.
We didn't have to punish Germany because we conquered Germany. We left no corner untouched, warring with unalloyed fury. We didn't put reparations on them, we made them "pay through the nose." We firebombed their cities. We left so little that they had to rebuild almost everything. We helped them more because there was more need.
We didn't let them create their own war guilt. We created and directed their war guilt by prosecuting war criminals instead of letting them blame Jews or Bolsheviks or claim "just following orders." We loved them by helping them see and hate evil.
Also, instead of issuing reparations through treaty we allowed individuals to sue for reparations. It didn't have anything to do with loving the losers more this time. We made them chose to settle such conflicts in court instead of taking it to the field of battle. There are suits filed and settled to this day, suits arising from both theatres of WWII.
In Japan it was a little different. Yes, we warred furiously and firebombed their cities. We used the Bomb so we wouldn't have to fight in their cities to the bitter end. With the Soviets advancing down Sahkalin and the Kurils they chose to surrender to the US. There were some war crimes punished, but not as in the Nuremburg Trials.
They have taken their own guilt to heart because of their cultural honor values. Over the decades they have come clean about abuses of the IJA—death camps, comfort women, etc. It is a continuing struggle.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2003 22:04
Or if we end up with Turkey, Iran and Saudi making powerplays in Iraq once we walk away, and we end up with a less stable situation then we have now?
|