- This topic has 64 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
It is wrong to brand an entire religion as being evil because of the actions of extreme adherents?
Indeed nearly all "mainstream" religions have their extreme adherents who have the potential to damage an entire religion.
Any right minded person would condemn the extremists in Islam who put homosexuals to death, subjugate women, treat rape victims as criminals, stone adulterers etc. –teh majority of Muslims are critical. I therefore think it is wrong to condemn an entire religion because of the actions of a minority.
Try driving a car through the ultra-Orthodox areas of Jerusalem on the Sabbath and you will be stoned by the locals – which is why the police place a cordon around the area to prevent unwary tourists getting caught out – but does that make Judaism a bad religion?
There are extremists in the Christian faith as well – if you want a prime example of Christian bigotry just look at the Christian Voice website.
Although, personally, I have absolutely no time for any religion – I fully accept religion forms an integral part in the lives of many people and all people should be free to practice their religion however they wish – with just one proviso. Namely they do not try to impose their beliefs on others who do not follow their religion.
Wallace…if you arent aware of joe kennedys nazi sympathies at the time of the war when he was ambassador to england (what a vile choice…) then you simply dont know the man at all. As for the paranoid explanation that it was a "protestant" slur…well. As for his sons..whats that got to with it? By some accounts, they didnt like him much anyway…
JFK was a stromg anglophile too…you will be disgusted to hear no doubt
Joe kennedy , the "great man", was a corrupt nazi sumpathising anti semitic bootlegger imo
And why are you constantly banging on about the actions of one british soldier? Seemingly an attempt to tar every serviceman ( or brit) with the same brush i would suggest?
I would fully agree with Paul.
Religion is a load of rubbish IMO. Its just a thing that is used to divide us. We never learn from History unforuntely.
I just hope the War is finished sooner rather than later….its just a disaster on the verge of Vietnam if it is not changed by Obama
I dint entirely agree with paul but hes knows me well enough
Fair enough wallace. tend to agree with that when refering to organised religion although in truth, Buddism, CofE and other strands seem pretty harmless
Iraq was a mistake in its execution and the homework. Frankly they shuld have known that it was en extremely difficult arena nad the arrogance of Bush and his cohorts is to blame. i still maintain that Afganistan was no alternative and given the timeframes involved, the US were not desperate to invade at all
This war fully backed by USA smacks of what the Americans have tried to do in S. America…. put in a corrupt leader dependent on funds from America in return for ”favours”. Oil, minerals etc. None have worked and the Americans have been left with egg on their face.
Going by that your wise enough on the issue imo, happy.
If your interested, Pakistani author, Ahmed Rashid has written what many consider the definitive account of Afghanistan and The Taliban. Apparently took him 22 years to write it. Was well worth the wait imo.
Ever wonder why we are poodles of the US in their missions to propagate ‘freedoms’ around the world?
Wonder no more…Interesting video clip on this subject:
The first article is absolute drivel. Economically illterate and full of laughable assumptions. The idea that the US invaded the middle east countries purely to help a few domestic industries is beyond stupid. The sums simply do not weigh up however they are looked at. Doesnt this twit have a calculator?
And why does the US and GB need to "secure" these sources of oil? Again, total nonsense. Oil is sold on the free market. There is abolsutely no requirement to militarily seize production. Even the most hostile regime will not alienate its biggest customers to do so. Its economic suicide. FFS Russia bought grain off the US during the cold war
Time and again, it has to be repeated that Afganistan is of absolutely no use to the US in energy terms and they certainly survived quite nicely without Iraq’s production
And there was the usual sneer at the Jewish state too
And why does the US and GB need to “secure” these sources of oil? Again, total nonsense.
Even if you dont need the energy yourself, the ability to determine who receives oil and gas, through which routes, and at what price, puts you in a very powerful position indeed. Not to mention the political and military concessions required of individual countries who want to access this energy network.
The belief that the control of ownership, transport and consumption of energy worldwide is of no interest to the USA or NATO is a naive one imo.
The Afghan pipeline will serve burgeoning demand in South East Asia, not zero growth markets in the West.
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”Jimmy Carter 1980.
Old news.
Carv. Been through this before. The cost/benefit of getting involed in a 10 year war in Afganistan of all places for the sake of a desirable but hardly necessary pipeline simply doesnt weigh up. Especially given that the taleban were about to agree to it regardless
the naivity is in swallowing all this conspiracy theory rubbish which is driven by the prejudices (usually anti semitic anti american) of the perpetuators rather than any realistic assessment
You have called this wrong, clivexx.
Energy security is a genuine concern of all Western governments, and many others besides. Ask the Ukranian’s whether their dependency on Russian natural gas is a big deal for them or not.
The US and other western governments, rightly, believe that they cannot allow themselves to be held to ransom, when it comes to provision of their energy. That goes for cost, as well as supply.
Energy security is crucial to how Western economies function, and Governments will not take the chance that a ‘hostile regime’ will continue to provide them with oil and gas. If they can wade into Iraq just to effect regime change, it is a given that they would take military action against a state which threatened to disrupt supply in some manner.
There is no conspiracy theory. In the event that there was disruption of supply by a ‘rogue state’, I don’t think the US would hesitate to pile in, to take control of the resources.
Cav is 100% correct.
You have called this wrong. Get a ****** map. Afgantisan IS NOT ESSENTIAL for the transport of oil. In fact NO OIL would go through there. Gas maybe, but there are alternative pipelines.
And whilst there are alternatives (does the gas go to the US from Uzbekistan? No they get from CANADA), there was no need for a ten year war
The US is not in the same position as the Ukraine. Not in the slightest.
Iraq is a slightly different matter, but frankly if it was just about securing supply, wouldnt it be easier to simply to have cosied up to Saddam a bit and let him of the leash? Makes sense doesnt it?
A little Chrsitmas present for you, Clivexx:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.