The Bible and Love and Christians

[Drtooth]

Well for one, there was no draft. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars only affected families who children willingly went to war. Everyone else just went on with their lives.

Actually, it cost us our standing in the world, our safety, and more money than we can even count... most of it "lost" and a good chunk of it went back into the hands of the very same terrorists we were trying to destroy. China got ALL the oil we could have got... but then again, most of this was stuff we only found out now.

But it didn't help the matter that pro-war propaganda was shoved down our throats to the point where we had to vilify any country that didn't want to get involved. Remember Freedom Fries and "Let's bomb France next" bumper stickers? No wonder people hated the right back then.

You can't expect to talk sense into people who won't listen, you can't expect to change people set in their ways, and you especially can't expect people to listen if they don't bother paying attention. It's all meaningless.

Also, sometimes the peace protests took on a sort of "Hanoi Jane" vibe, where the threat of terrorism was played down. Just because America was wrong at times doesn't mean the rest of the world was right.

You know what REALLY honked me off was when Michael Moore back in 2003 gave a rant about the Iraq war when it wasn't popular to speak out against it and got booed for it, and once Obama was elected, the movie Hurt Locker won an Oscar. That movie won an award from the very same people who booed anti-war sentiment because now it was popular to speak out against it. Yeah, Hollywood is only as "liberal" as it's fashionable and profitable, and they still made Rambo movies and Rocky 4.

But I do agree, a lot of these protests blow up in everyone's faces except for the protestee. Look at the guy who threw a pie at Rupert Murdoch. Instead of people focusing on the fact that a multi-tentacled octopus media empire uses underhanded methods, now we made a hero out of the trophy wife bimbo that beat him up.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Actually, it cost us our standing in the world, our safety, and more money than we can even count

Yeah but let's face it, the average person was able to go on with their lives.

You can't expect to talk sense into people who won't listen, you can't expect to change people set in their ways, and you especially can't expect people to listen if they don't bother paying attention. It's all meaningless.

If you approach it as "talking sense into people," you can be sure they won't listen. Why should they listen when you're telling them they lack sense?

You know what REALLY honked me off was when Michael Moore back in 2003 gave a rant about the Iraq war when it wasn't popular to speak out against it and got booed for it, and once Obama was elected, the movie Hurt Locker won an Oscar.

I thought Roger & Me was a very important film. But after that, I would argue that he didn't take the issues he was dealing with seriously enough in his other films. It became easier and easier to dismiss him as a joke. He let that happen.

 

[Drtooth]

I thought Roger & Me was a very important film. But after that, I would argue that he didn't take the issues he was dealing with seriously enough in his other films. It became easier and easier to dismiss him as a joke. He let that happen.

Him letting that happen or not isn't the issue, nor the reason I brought it up. It's the blatant hypocrisy of waiting for something to be safe to speak out against it. Hollywood has done this for years. They've had "Why are we in Vietnam?" films years into the war, they couldn't even make them about Vietnam... M*A*S*H* was about Korea, for example... it was the indie film producers that made films about this stuff... Grindhouse films unfortunately... heck, Troma talked about AIDS even before Philadelphia came out. I heard that directly from Lloyd Kauffman. Hollywood only cares because it sells.

Yeah but let's face it, the average person was able to go on with their lives.

Yes and no. To say the least money funneling out of schools, firehouses, and all that... government jobs being deleted, budgets being slashed, all to fund 2 useless unwinnable quagmires all the while cutting taxes for the wealthy. They didn't have to fight, sure... but we all had to pay for that one. Not to mention the whole fodder for Jihadists stuff.

 

[CensoredAlso]

It's the blatant hypocrisy of waiting for something to be safe to speak out against it.

Yes, that is also true. "But if I really say it, the radio won't play it. Unless I lay it between the lines."

 

[beaker]

Well for one, there was no draft. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars only affected families who children willingly went to war. Everyone else just went on with their lives.

Also, sometimes the peace protests took on a sort of "Hanoi Jane" vibe, where the threat of terrorism was played down. Just because America was wrong at times doesn't mean the rest of the world was right.

I don't think that comparison is fair. Jane Fonda, despite calling out the US for mass war crimes was also seen with the Viet Cong in pictures. In other words it'd be akin to anti war activists being seen with the Taliban, which of course never happened. I never once saw anti war activists say they support al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Other than 9/11, the WTC 1993 and I guess in some way the Fort Hood shooting pretty much most the terror attacks in America have been committed by white far right individuals or groups. There really is not much of a real terror threat in America(even tho homeland security is going through with placing grope-downs everywhere)
Mexico seems an insane amount of terror bombings and mass shootings against the civilian public every day, but the media here doesnt report it too much. Terrorism also plagues Pakistan, due to instability caused by the US invasion. But "terrorism" just is not really a threat to the Western world.

I agree though, that is definitely a key reason most kids are "whatever" to war...sure they might have a friends brother or cousin who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it's a by choice situation. Of course, when people say "remember and mourn the 3000 dead from 9/11" I say "absolutely...as well as the hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims killed in a decade of war and the fallen 6500 US soldiers"

 

[CensoredAlso]

I never once saw anti war activists say they support al Qaeda or the Taliban.

No but it felt like some did play down the threat or try to play down just how oppressed people are over there.

 

[beaker]

No but it felt like some did play down the threat or try to play down just how oppressed people are over there.

Yeah but what threat? Even the former head of Homeland Security appointed by Bush(Tom Ridge) came out and admitted most the "terror threat" alerts were pretty much made up to push Bush's polls up/distract from low polls: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/tom-ridge-i-was-pressured_n_264127.html

And it's pretty clear a majority of the "terror plots buster" post 9/11 were FBI sting entrapments out of the minds of agents and informants with no actual terror plots.

And what about the actual jihadist attempts...the shoebomber, the underwear bomber, and the time square bomber. All three so beyond incompetent to an almost laughable embarassing degree.

In my view the entire "terror threat and fear" and war on terror is a carefullyc rafted hoax by the powers that be to get us behind their insidious endless war, corporate contracts/energy resourcing and to strip our rights away(like grope downs/radiation nude scanners/gestapo police tactics)

Given the US gives tens of billions annually to the very state sponsors of al Qaeda and the Taliban(Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, etc) what's that say about the whole thing?

 

[CensoredAlso]

Given the US gives tens of billions annually to the very state sponsors of al Qaeda and the Taliban(Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, etc) what's that say about the whole thing?

It just says that the US hasn't been entirely innocent. It doesn't mean there isn't a genuine terrorist threat. It's not a matter of one or the other. It's both.

And what about the actual jihadist attempts...the shoebomber, the underwear bomber, and the time square bomber. All three so beyond incompetent to an almost laughable embarassing degree.

Thank goodness. But it means we're lucky, not safe. Plus what about the Fort Hood situation?

 

[Drtooth]

And what about the actual jihadist attempts...the shoebomber, the underwear bomber, and the time square bomber. All three so beyond incompetent to an almost laughable embarassing degree.

And the thing is... those people weren't even connected to anyone. They were pretty much well to do peons that felt that they needed to say something in their pathetic, dull, and pointless lives.

The Fort Hood thing was just another crazy guy who snapped and killed everyone fiasco. Nothing any different than Columbine or Virginia Tech. Sure, the guy wanted to rationalize it with pretending to say terrorist-ish things. Wasn't it revealed that the guy was bullied by everyone because he was a Muslim? Again, it's the same vein of the bullied individual snapping (something I DIDN'T do or ever consider... and High School was torment for me), not a real terrorist attack. In fact, we're more in danger of idiot splinter groups, the kind that work on the principle of stupid little brother that wants to be like the big brother and constantly gets himself hurt or in trouble than the Al Queso and Towley-ban ones. Those guys are a dying breed if anything. Only reason they're still around is they WANTED us to come and attack them so they look like the heroes.

I don't think that comparison is fair. Jane Fonda, despite calling out the US for mass war crimes was also seen with the Viet Cong in pictures. In other words it'd be akin to anti war activists being seen with the Taliban, which of course never happened. I never once saw anti war activists say they support al Qaeda or the Taliban.

When it comes to the people who said we shouldn't be there, there are 2 kinds... Isolationists who feel we should NEVER get involved with other countries (which this war climate gave them a good point) and people who want to see this solved through peaceful means or some other way entirely. NO ONE said, "YEAH! They have every right to rape their women to death and have their 2 year olds teethe on an uzi." I HATE what was going on there, but all going to war did was make the villains look more like the good guys because, let's face it, we wound up killing more innocents than boogiemen. There are peaceful people that HAVE to go with the regime only out of fear of death. As for Iraq... really.. if we waited long enough, the Arab Spring would have taken care of Saddam. And he was our bestest best friend in the 80's when we were selling him weapons to defend them against the weapons we sold Iran. All we did over there was free the would be terrorist losers that were too pathetic to do anything to Saddam.

We have to be VERY careful with foreign policy, and that was what we SHOULD have learned on 9/11. Now 10 years later we all seem to forget the lessons we learn... like in EVERY single tragedy or market crash, or disaster. We just make commemorative wine and coins to make a quick buck that doesn't even go to the victims families.

 

[CensoredAlso]

The Fort Hood thing was just another crazy guy who snapped and killed everyone fiasco. Nothing any different than Columbine or Virginia Tech. Sure, the guy wanted to rationalize it with pretending to say terrorist-ish things. Wasn't it revealed that the guy was bullied by everyone because he was a Muslim?

Just because he was bullied doesn't mean it wasn't a terrorist act. Again, it's not a matter of either one or the other. It's both.

Bottom line, I just think some the peace protestors lacked a sense of balance. They needed to say "Yes the US is guilty. But yes, there is also a terrorist threat." If they'd done that, people would have taken them more seriously.