OK -- when did Adam and Eve live? -- cite your evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Left wingers in USA seem to be more imperialist fascists than right wingers nowadays
- Thread starter Lars
- Start date
We Never Know
No Slack
In the past
Citation, please.
But they were not science, nor were they facts. They were largely just opinions. I could cite wrong predictions by Christians, as well.
"Running out of fossil fuels" is not rocket science. If a resource is used faster than it's replaced it will run out. A six year old could see this.
Last edited:
Our casus belli was questionable enough. We needed all the boogymen we could find. The offers were widely reported in the foreign press, and American progressive of leftist publications like The Nation.
Military bases in strategic areas. Minerals. Control of the proposed trans-Afghan pipeline -- the latter being the 1ry motivation for the Soviets.
LOL! Exactly! -- and this was widely proposed -- tongue-in-cheek -- by the non-mainstream press.
Being anti-war fell out of fashion by the time of the Reagan Administration. Even supposedly "leftist" Hollywood started making military recruitment films like Top Gun to entice youngsters and make the military cool again.
By the time of the first Gulf War against Iraq, I recall discussions about possible ways of persuading potential anti-war protesters against doing that. That's when the whole movement about "Support the Troops" started.
They said that if people wanted to be anti-war, then they should do so in other ways, without criticizing or dishonoring America's troops. By that time, there was a big push to allow women to serve in combat roles and to allow gays to serve in the military, so a lot of the attention and political capital of the left went towards that, while anti-war causes seemed to go to the back burner.
As I recall, press coverage was also a bit more tightly controlled. Unlike the media during Vietnam, they didn't show anything too graphic or gruesome. Plus (and this is a biggie), the war was quick and American casualties were light. They achieved their objective of driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, the Iraqis sued for peace, got favorable terms from the U.S., and that was that. So, there wasn't really much time to organize or build up much support for an anti-war movement.
Since 9/11, I think the entire American populace was somewhat affected, at least in terms of their perceptions of the world, war, terrorism, and violence in general. The police have been militarized, there's surveillance everywhere, the government is on the hunt for terrorists - and they get to decide who is a "terrorist." The moderate Democrats have gone along with this, while they've chosen other issues to challenge the Republicans on.
Plus, Americans have generally had a short attention-span, and this phenomenon has become more exacerbated since the advent of the internet and social media. People are too easily distracted and tend to forget about things. The rage over 9/11 slowly subsided and dissipated - but it was never and still hasn't been forgotten. Still, life goes on, and there were a host of other issues for the public to focus on. I'm not saying they forgot we still had troops in Afghanistan, but there wasn't much coverage of what was going on over there. For several years, the public was transfixed by ISIS, along with various domestic issues.
I recall the Occupy Wall Street protests, and they looked promising, but fizzled out. It seems it's difficult for people to unite and get behind a single issue. It also seems like the culture has changed. People are a lot more individualistic and narcissistic these days.
There's a line from ST:VOY (not my favorite Trek, but it did have its moments), which kind of sums up the left:
SEVEN OF NINE: When your Captain first approached us, we suspected that an agreement with humans would prove impossible to maintain. You are erratic, conflicted, disorganized. Every decision is debated, every action questioned. Every individual entitled to their own small opinion. You lack harmony, cohesion, greatness. It will be your undoing.
Things became more partisan.
It re-appeared when Bush's wars arrived.
Then it disappeared when they became Obama's.
Also....
I did some checking and jogged my memory a bit, and it seems that offer was to hand him over to a third country, which seemed to be the sticky point.
In the end, it turned out they found Bin Laden in Pakistan, but then they killed him outright, rather than bring him in for trial. After that point, there was absolutely zero reason to remain, yet the American leadership at the time chose to stay. Even if the original casus belli had been shaky and motivated by blind rage, by the time the original stated objective had been achieved, the rage had mostly subsided. While there was probably no good, valid reason to have gone in the first place, there was even less of a reason to remain after 2011.
Same motivations as any empire. Makes one wonder why the West ever gave up colonialism. Having control of all those resources was a pretty hefty source of profits. If that's what they want to fight about - minerals and pipelines - then why can't they just come out and say so? They go to so much trouble to create some drama or play, just to present to the people and drum up support for war, when they could have just as easily said "For the glory of Rome!" Or something like that.
But instead, they have to make up some kind of pretense, because telling people the real reason would make them look bad.
LOL! Exactly! -- and this was widely proposed -- tongue-in-cheek -- by the non-mainstream press.
I've often thought that we need a more coherent and consistent foreign policy. If it's all about national interests, minerals, strategic resources, etc., then our foreign policy aspirations should be clearly outlined and enunciated along those principles. If, instead, we say that our purpose is to make the world safe for democracy and go around like white knights for truth, justice, and the American way, then I would say we should probably consider another purpose.
But why are the hawks hawks? What's in it for them?
The conspiracy:
1. "The care and feeding of American corporations: making the world open and hospitable for Neo Liberal globalization; enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors who have contributed generously to members of Congress and residents of the White House.
2. Preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
3. expanding the empire; establishing political, economic and military hegemony over as much of the globe as possible to facilitate the first two imperatives, and to prevent the ascendancy of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy."
To American policy makers, these ends have justified the means, and all means have been available. -- Rogue State. p. 16. William Blum.
See also: Noam Chomsky: What Uncle Sam Really Wants. and Michael Parenti: Against Empire.
The Wars mentioned were pre-planned and engineered by the military-industrial complex. They needed only a Klein shock to enrage members of both parties and move them to precipitous decisions. See: Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine.
Most American adventurism, though. is not motivated by vengeance.
People plan, they conspire. That's what distinguishes us from the Chimps
A lot of what might be perceived is driven more by media rhetoric, but it may not reflect what's actually happening at street level. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but there are reasons why public opinion seems to shift like that.
Political power.
Voters approve of war.
That's the testable explanation.
The MIC is merely a faith based conspiracy theory.
There are always reasons for things.
And it's good to know what those reasons are, eh?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Have you ever read any of the numerous other holy books whose followers claim have made very accurate prophecies?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Nope, they're all alive and speaking, too. According to many people.
Agreed.
Hasn't Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the growth of a military-industrial complex proved prophetic?
ElishaElijah
Return
Buddha was cremated and Muhammed still in the tomb, Jesus tomb is empty because He is in Heaven ready to return.
ElishaElijah
Return
Daniel and Isaiah prophecies were spoken before events occurred and were fulfilled and some haven’t happened yet. For example God showed Daniel the Kingdoms that would come after Babylonian rule till the coming of Jesus. So far the
Media/Persian, Greek, Roman empires have come and gone just like God said, we are in the final days of the last kingdom, it’s obvious for me to
see, a lot of people don’t. Jesus also said in Matthew 24 this would be the case.
Eisenhower was a politician.
They say many things to manipulate us.
Without evidence, they cannot be taken on faith.
Otherwise, you'd have to believe 9/11 was staged by government,
Biden stole Trump's election, & Covid 19 is a Big Pharma hoax.
The MIC conspiracy theory is the last refuge of voters
who won't take responsibility for electing war mongers.
ElishaElijah
Return
If you believe fossil fuels are only made from decaying material then you could convince a six year old we were running out, but then again we wouldn’t have the amount of fossil fuels we have currently.
So I believe that we aren’t running out of fossil fuels because God created the earth to manufacture these fuels for our needs just like we won’t run out of oxygen.