more muslim cry babies - Page 2

rebound · #11 10-16-2007, 04:18 PM

"Sheeple?"

You're spending too much time in the looney left. Do you also use the moniker "Chimpy?"

Sponsored Links

Wagner · #12 10-16-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Yes, 99% of the time they are added to get the support of the sheeple.

I don't doubt that there were wars about religion centuries ago, like the crusades, but I'm talking about modern times.

As for your reason #3, that is not a reason that a country goes to war. That is a reason they defend themselves when being invaded.

You agree then that religion does play a part in conflict.

Wagner · #13 10-16-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

"Sheeple?"

You're spending too much time in the looney left. Do you also use the moniker "Chimpy?"

His point is valid that money drives a war, however removing religion or society from the equation is impossible.

Eric5273 · #14 10-16-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

You agree then that religion does play a part in conflict.

Yes, I just don't believe that it is the cause of war.

B-Line · #15 10-16-2007, 05:27 PM

Holy Crap.. Pun intended...

Eric, are you off your fooking rocker. Money is not and will never be, the number one cause of war. If that's what your dad the history professor is teaching his students, we are all in big trouble.

The number one thing that causes a war will always be, US vs. THEM. It doesn't matter what the US is or the THEM is but it's certainley not, first and foremost, moniterily driven...
Unless of course the "US" is, we are poor and the "THEM" is, they are rich.

Or it's the We have this land and they have that land. Now you can say, HEY, THAT'S MONEY !!.. But as usual, you would be wrong.
The longest major, ongoing coflict in the middle east is the battle fro Jerusalem, Sinai, not because of it's financial significane, but because of it's religious significane. If the wars were purley monitary, the Palestanians would be fighting over the oil fields, not over the right of the Jewish, Israeli state to exist.

Vietnam was not a war over money. It was a war over ideology. Communism over Democracy, US vs. THEM. Even wars within religions, the suni's and the shiate's, US vs. THEM.
Apartheid = Race wars, US vs. THEM. WWII was Aryan vs. Everyone else, US vs. Them.
Countries don't go to war for money, countries go to war to protect or spread their IDEOLOGY. Which is a much greater reason that, to make a buck.

RELIGION has always been and will always be, THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF WAR. And any effort for you to spin it anyother way is just plain old STUPID.

Yes, there will always be war profiteers, but that is not and never has been the reason for war.

Where did you get your education? The hair and make-up academy?

B

Eric5273 · #16 10-16-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

Communism over Democracy

I think you need to educate yourself on what communism is and what democracy is. One is an economic system, the other is a political system. A country could have one, the other, or both. Certainly one cannot triumph over the other as they do not overlap even the slightest bit.

The conflict you are referring to is "Communism vs. Capitalism" and that is most certainly about money. Communism being introduced in a country where foreign corporations control 99% of the wealth and everyone else is poor, is most certainly a threat to the assets of those corporations. Whenever this situation has presented itself in the last 100 years, the foreign countries where the corporations come from have always stepped in militarily to preserve the status quo, i.e. keep the lower class in check.

In the case of Vietnam, they had both Communism AND Democracy. The reason we went to war against them was not because of the Democracy part, but because of the Communism part. If they had Capitalism and Democracy, then we wouldn't have cared. In fact, if they had been a brutal dictatorship, but still had Capitalism, we still would not have cared. A good example of that is our overthrowing of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile and the installation of the brutal Pinochet regime. The issue was Communism vs. Capitalism. Politics was not an important consideration in that decision, as they traded democracy for dictatorship in the process. Similar situations have also presented themselves in Brazil (1964), Iran (1953), and others. In each case, the US overthrew a democratic communist government, and replaced it with a capitalist dictatorship.

As for Vietnam, that war was 100% about economics, and 0% about politics or religion.

Just about all of the wars we have fought since WWII, and there have been dozens of them, have been of a similar mold. WWII itself was in fact of a similar mold, with the major conflict being Fascism vs. Communism -- again with Communism being a threat to the assets of the wealthy elite fascists.

Best Man · #17 10-16-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I think you need to educate yourself on what communism is and what democracy is. One is an economic system, the other is a political system. A country could have one, the other, or both. Certainly one cannot triumph over the other as they do not overlap even the slightest bit.

The conflict you are referring to is "Communism vs. Capitalism" and that is most certainly about money. Communism being introduced in a country where foreign corporations control 99% of the wealth and everyone else is poor, is most certainly a threat to the assets of those corporations. Whenever this situation has presented itself in the last 100 years, the foreign countries where the corporations come from have always stepped in militarily to preserve the status quo, i.e. keep the lower class in check.

In the case of Vietnam, they had both Communism AND Democracy. The reason we went to war against them was not because of the Democracy part, but because of the Communism part. If they had Capitalism and Democracy, then we wouldn't have cared. In fact, if they had been a brutal dictatorship, but still had Capitalism, we still would not have cared. A good example of that is our overthrowing of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile and the installation of the brutal Pinochet regime. The issue was Communism vs. Capitalism. Politics was not an important consideration in that decision, as they traded democracy for dictatorship in the process. Similar situations have also presented themselves in Brazil (1964), Iran (1953), and others. In each case, the US overthrew a democratic communist government, and replaced it with a capitalist dictatorship.

As for Vietnam, that war was 100% about economics, and 0% about politics or religion.

Just about all of the wars we have fought since WWII, and there have been dozens of them, have been of a similar mold. WWII itself was in fact of a similar mold, with the major conflict being Fascism vs. Communism -- again with Communism being a threat to the assets of the wealthy elite fascists.

Take the effort to cite these facts or stick them back up ur ass where they came from, or both. Oh, and please elaborate on how Vietnam was 100% about economics, I'm very very interested in hearing this.

B-Line · #18 10-16-2007, 06:22 PM

Yes Eric, you are somewhat correct. And I did mean Communism vs. Capitalism.. I was typing quick to get my thoughts out and mispoke.

But if you really think that just because one is a political system and the other is an economic system, and using your words, "THEY DO NOT OVERLAP even the slightest bit." - Well, that's about as stupid as saying that wars are caused because of money not religion..

Nuff said.
B

rebound · #19 10-16-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I think you need to educate yourself on what communism is and what democracy is. One is an economic system, the other is a political system. A country could have one, the other, or both. Certainly one cannot triumph over the other as they do not overlap even the slightest bit.

The conflict you are referring to is "Communism vs. Capitalism" and that is most certainly about money. Communism being introduced in a country where foreign corporations control 99% of the wealth and everyone else is poor, is most certainly a threat to the assets of those corporations. Whenever this situation has presented itself in the last 100 years, the foreign countries where the corporations come from have always stepped in militarily to preserve the status quo, i.e. keep the lower class in check.

In the case of Vietnam, they had both Communism AND Democracy. The reason we went to war against them was not because of the Democracy part, but because of the Communism part. If they had Capitalism and Democracy, then we wouldn't have cared. In fact, if they had been a brutal dictatorship, but still had Capitalism, we still would not have cared. A good example of that is our overthrowing of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile and the installation of the brutal Pinochet regime. The issue was Communism vs. Capitalism. Politics was not an important consideration in that decision, as they traded democracy for dictatorship in the process. Similar situations have also presented themselves in Brazil (1964), Iran (1953), and others. In each case, the US overthrew a democratic communist government, and replaced it with a capitalist dictatorship.

As for Vietnam, that war was 100% about economics, and 0% about politics or religion.

Just about all of the wars we have fought since WWII, and there have been dozens of them, have been of a similar mold. WWII itself was in fact of a similar mold, with the major conflict being Fascism vs. Communism -- again with Communism being a threat to the assets of the wealthy elite fascists.

And you need to educate yourself on the fact that since its inception, communism has in reality been more than an economic system.