[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

You know, I think everyone is jumping ahead of themselves. First off, the Iraqi army basically dissolved into the population. On a military vs military basis, Iran wouldn't stand a chance given that the US has everything Iran has an tons more. Now, people can bring up Vietnam(in which the US wasn't forced out, but choose to leave because of opinion at home and lack of support for the war -- if the US wanted to they could have stayed in Vietnam up to today and probably would be brought up on genocide charges given the largely un-even amount of casualties suffered)or Iraq, but those battles are not army vs army. I'd like to see any army prepare itself against an enemy you can't see who plants bombs on the side of the road that you can't see. Overall, politics and global image get in the way of the US completely destroying third world nations like they are capable of. If the US wanted to, they could probably carpet bomb every Iranian city, but they can't because the international community would cry out loud against it and the US would ruin their image even more. Now, that is all depending on if the US attacked first. If for some stupid reason Iran was to attack first, you can say goodbye to that country because the US has a history of bombing whatever, or shooting first, asking questions later. Even if Iran used their chemical weapons on the US, the US could nuke them. If Iran gets nukes, they most likely won't be attacked.

Just because Iran obtains armour piercing weapons doesn't make them a sudden force not to be messed with, considering the US has probably had those types of things for decades or so now. If anyone has read of the Iran/Iraq war, you would now that both forces show'd how truly third world they were in how they fought. It's not like a Russia/United States kind of face off which would result in some massive battlefield world war 2 style stuff.....it was more like badly planned, poorly fighting militarys who didn't even know how to maximize their tanks fighting chances or set up any other good military plans, at least nothing on the level of what the US is capable.

Overall, nothing will probably happen, and now the US is even talking about diplomacy with Iran.....maybe to win over more European allies(haha, doubt it would happen).

[Lawndart]

"You're a freak, Lawndart. A racist, bigoted loser engaged in some sort of Christian Jihad. You are no better than Saddam or the Ayotollah...same shit, different pile."

Revblair, what happened. Although your posts are misguided, they are occasionally well argued and border on the intelligent, at least as much as a left wing point of view can be so.

But alas, my expectations have been fulfilled. As with any Politically Correct, NDP, lefty-type zealot, your arguments have degenerated into the usual mindless personal attacks. Why do those of your ilk ALWAYS decry anyone you disagree with as a "Racist/Bigot." Those words have lost any meaning in todays world, simply because your type uses them so liberally.

Further, I love the way you level the word "Christian" as an insult. You wouldn't dare try that with a word like "muslim", as you are a liberal. As we all know, liberals hate ALL religions, except Islam, and perhaps Native spirituality.

I'll never apologize for being proud of western civilisation and it's accomplishments. That doesn't make me a bigot Rev. You wouldn't call a Mohawk a bigot for being proud of his culture. Why not?

Yes, it's true. From the Lawrence Summers fiasco at Harvard, to the idiotic policy debates at the Liberal party convention this year, the left is becoming increasingly irrelevant as it's shrillness becomes tedious and predictable.

Rev my friend, you've just proven my point.

BTW, you forgot to call me a "Fascist." And I'm still waiting for the mindless "Hey hey, ho ho, corporate greed has got to go" chant. Are we going to be treated to that in a later post? I can't wait.

[Rev_Blair]

Lawndart:

You keep referring to a people who were civilized long before us as "barbarians". That is an inherently racist assumption based on nothing more than your ignorance of their culture and their history.

I say that you are on a Christian jihad because of of your bigoted statements. You earned the title, little buddy. More than that your assumption that I wouldn't say the same of a Muslim (or a Jew or a Sihk or anybody else who bases their assesment of other people by comparing fundamentalist superstitions) is mistaken.

I don't care if want to have pride in your culture. When you use that pride to call others barbarians you show yourself to be nothing more than another narrow-minded bigot who lacks the mental ability to understand that he's no better than the zealot saying the same thing in Arabic.

[Lawndart]

O.K Fred22, Rev.

Fred, seeing as how you obviously got your history degree from the University of Wikipedia, I'll forgive your ignorance.

Suffice to say the Romans weren't defeated by the Goths. They were defeated from within by a breakdown in their own society and the emergence of Christianity.

The Crusades, regardless of the atrocities that took place (hey, it was war), were still a Christian response to Islamic expansionism. An expansionism that brought them to the gate of Vienna eventually.

And despite the injustices of European colonization, every single country in Africa enjoyed lower infant mortality, higher incomes, and longer life expectancy 40 years ago under colonial administration than they do today. Admittedly, the system wasn't perfect, but it was arguably preferable to what exists today in the third world.

And Rev, your cultural relativism is laughable. I am fully aware that Islam was advanced and civilized long before Europe, but that ended in about 1282. What have they done lately besides slaughter each other en masse in this Shia/Shiite conflict and blow up Israeli school children?

If you want to continue arguing this culturally relative nonsense that would have us believe that western civilization is evil, then I suggest you take a good long look at the one way stream of immgrants from east to west. That should tell you we're doing something right over here. I don't see many Frenchmen moving to Algeria after all.

[fred22]

Hi lawndart,
Well lawnfart I tried a reasoned arguement with you but as usual a goose stepping right wing racist POS does not adress the topic but stoops to insults. lets begin,
1.)Fuck you
2.) The Goths sacked Rome
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/ro ... line.shtml
They did this because the Romans no longer had the balls to defend themselves and their latest colloction of mercenairies got their ass kicked by the Goths. The letters are admittedly small and the words big but pay attention.
"Suffice to say the Romans weren't defeated by the Goths. They were defeated from within by a breakdown in their own society and the emergence of Christianity."
Having you capital sacked is defeat. Christianity emerging did not weaken the Romans as you allude to but their slave economy ,endless internal fighting, were the factors. Read a book.
"The Crusades, regardless of the atrocities that took place (hey, it was war), were still a Christian response to Islamic expansionism. An expansionism that brought them to the gate of Vienna eventually."
The crusades were caused by a declaration we must retake the holy lands and led to thousands outside the city of Acre having their stomachs sliced open to search for jewels after the city was captured. The crusades may have started as free the holy land but for the upper echelon it became about power and money. Look up the Albigensian crusade where they took out the Cathars. They live in france so stopping the moslems was not the reason but insuring Romes power and stealing the cathars pocessions were the order of the day. read a book.
"And despite the injustices of European colonization, every single country in Africa enjoyed lower infant mortality, higher incomes, and longer life expectancy 40 years ago under colonial administration than they do today. Admittedly, the system wasn't perfect, but it was arguably preferable to what exists today in the third world. "
The first thing is it is their world to do with as they please. Secondly having theiving imperialist would do little to improve the standard of living in most places. Look up Leopolds rule in the belgium Congo. Slaughterring thousands to make rubber. great deal.
At no point did I say Western civilisation is evil but it is what is warts and all. Your white mans burdern arguement is stale racist and not based on facts. Occupy both your hands with a factual book and not one moving rapidly and a copy of Dur Sturmer in the other. Anytime you want to drop your insulting patronising attidude we can get back to being grownups about this.
Cheers
fred

[Mustang1]

fred22 fred22:

Hi lawndart,
Well lawnfart I tried a reasoned arguement with you but as usual a goose stepping right wing racist POS does not adress the topic but stoops to insults. lets begin,
1.)Fuck you
2.) The Goths sacked Rome
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/ro ... line.shtml
They did this because the Romans no longer had the balls to defend themselves and their latest colloction of mercenairies got their ass kicked by the Goths. The letters are admittedly small and the words big but pay attention.
"Suffice to say the Romans weren't defeated by the Goths. They were defeated from within by a breakdown in their own society and the emergence of Christianity."
Having you capital sacked is defeat. Christianity emerging did not weaken the Romans as you allude to but their slave economy ,endless internal fighting, were the factors. Read a book.
"The Crusades, regardless of the atrocities that took place (hey, it was war), were still a Christian response to Islamic expansionism. An expansionism that brought them to the gate of Vienna eventually."
The crusades were caused by a declaration we must retake the holy lands and led to thousands outside the city of Acre having their stomachs sliced open to search for jewels after the city was captured. The crusades may have started as free the holy land but for the upper echelon it became about power and money. Look up the Albigensian crusade where they took out the Cathars. They live in france so stopping the moslems was not the reason but insuring Romes power and stealing the cathars pocessions were the order of the day. read a book.
"And despite the injustices of European colonization, every single country in Africa enjoyed lower infant mortality, higher incomes, and longer life expectancy 40 years ago under colonial administration than they do today. Admittedly, the system wasn't perfect, but it was arguably preferable to what exists today in the third world. "
The first thing is it is their world to do with as they please. Secondly having theiving imperialist would do little to improve the standard of living in most places. Look up Leopolds rule in the belgium Congo. Slaughterring thousands to make rubber. great deal.
At no point did I say Western civilisation is evil but it is what is warts and all. Your white mans burdern arguement is stale racist and not based on facts. Occupy both your hands with a factual book and not one moving rapidly and a copy of Dur Sturmer in the other. Anytime you want to drop your insulting patronising attidude we can get back to being grownups about this.
Cheers
fred

Fred,

Nice work! Your history, as per usual, is quite sound – too bad your opponent needs to some more reading before venturing into this field again. He likely tried aping Gibbon’s work (influential, but extremely dated), but his over simplistic reasoning behind Rome’s decline (Christianity as a cause? Didn’t Byzantine Empire flourish just fine with it?) only served to reveal a rudimentary understanding. Oh well…you got him regardless.

[fred22]

Hi mustang,
I miss sometimes where people disagreed without starting a pissing match. I find it hard to walk away though even given my years. Have a good one.
Cheers
fred

[Lawndart]

Fred, why the anger?

Your minion, Mustang, may be impressed by your arguments, but I'm not.

I should take that back. Your arguments are poorly presented, but do get the right answer on a couple of points. I suggested Rome wasn't defeated by Goths, but by internal strife. You've stated the exact same thing, although more crudely, by arguing "their slave economy, endless internal fighting...were the factors" thereby reinforcing my point.


I said the Crusades were a Christian response to Islamic expansion. Again, you haven't really disputed that. You've pointed out they were an attempt to "retake the Holy Lands". Note the word "retake." The west was retaking the Holy Lands after an Islamic expansion into the area. The fact the west lost the war doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong to fight it. Of course you've digressed and focused on the atrocities that were committed. Welcome to the real world. That's how it was done in those days, by all sides.

We do disagree on our view of colonialism. Fair enough. You believe it's "their world to do as they please." I don't. Not as long as we in the west are being asked to contribute foreign aid, forgive debt, send our troops to die under blue berets sorting out their problems, and accept thousands of refugees fleeing those nations every year. As long as we are expected to do that, I think we in the west are quite entitled to tell them how to run their societies and judge how well they've done.

Of course, you are incapable of disputing what I say. Much easier to set your argument button to default and slur me as a "Racist POS" for disagreeing with you. Very intelligent Fred. Typical product of a politically correct university background. Not capable of original thought eh?

As for your protestation that I accused you of calling the west evil, you are mistaken. I made it quite clear, that comment was directed at Rev. And he didn't say that outright, his arguments just allude to it.

Oh, by the way, you can quote all the internet sources and refer me to all the books you like. The academic institution I went to didn't allow internet sources, and I've got plenty of my own books thanks. (That's a chance for you to insert a smart assed quip like "Yeah, books like Mein Kampf". I realize calling me a racist has already been done and that's probably the only insult in your bag, so I'll make up some for you to use).

If you need any more help Fred, please don't be afraid to ask.

[fred22]

Hi Lawndart,
It is hilarious you ask where does the anger come from
"Fred, seeing as how you obviously got your history degree from the University of Wikipedia, I'll forgive your ignorance. "
I take it this is your idea of a polite openning statement in an intellectual discourse. I will begin by saying I do not give two ounces of sour owl shit what you think about me or my opinions. I also think it's funny you refer to Mustang as one of my minions. Mustang holds some opinions on religion i disagree with strongly but we have managed to disagree politley. His views although differant then mine seem to contain some intellectual content. A marked contrast from your bullshit. I do come here fopr a reason I suppose so lets look at the latest voluime from Kipling reborn.
In your original post
"Suffice to say the Romans weren't defeated by the Goths. They were defeated from within by a breakdown in their own society and the emergence of Christianity." the use of the word and seems to be a direct causal link does it not? This I objected to. Christ did not encourage the enemies of Rome or aid them that i can discern. Christianity IMO is about universal love and help thy neighbour not lets go invade somebody,steal their national wealth and enslave them. Rome died because they became lazy, corrupt and arrogant. their military was defeated often by superior technology and tactics as well as the rot within. In short like many empires they had their time in the sun and then disappeared. TFB.
"I said the Crusades were a Christian response to Islamic expansion. Again, you haven't really disputed that. You've pointed out they were an attempt to "retake the Holy Lands". Note the word "retake." The west was retaking the Holy Lands after an Islamic expansion into the area. The fact the west lost the war doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong to fight it. Of course you've digressed and focused on the atrocities that were committed. Welcome to the real world. That's how it was done in those days, by all sides."
Both sides committed atrocities. crusaders were given a dispensation by the Pope for all sins committed while on crusade. They did this before they wiped the mat with the cathars as well as the moslems or do you think they were muslims in disguise. Some may have believed as you state that it was about liberating the holy land but then they sacked Byzantium which was the largest Christian enclave in the whole area. this weakened the Byzantines and in no small way contributed to the end of the last powerful Christian state in the area. Is that retaking the Holy land for Christians or simply establishing Romes supremacy or maybe the fact the crusaders were a bunch of murderous thugs who saw something to steal rape and or kill? Whose brillian idea was the Childrens crusade? great tactics to send scores of children off to a foriegn country to be murderred or enslaved. I have no doubt some saw themselves as liberators but look at what actually happenned. Yes the moslems were expasionist but that ended to on Christianities home turf in europe. The lesson being invasions for religious purposes seem stupid and in both cases were more about greed then spreading the faith.
"We do disagree on our view of colonialism. Fair enough. You believe it's "their world to do as they please." I don't. Not as long as we in the west are being asked to contribute foreign aid, forgive debt, send our troops to die under blue berets sorting out their problems, and accept thousands of refugees fleeing those nations every year. As long as we are expected to do that, I think we in the west are quite entitled to tell them how to run their societies and judge how well they've done."
We disagree violently on coloialism. This was about europeans stealing from other countries and justifying on the basis of moral superiority. have you not looked at Leopiolds reign in the Beklgium Congo. Bring in the rubber or we will muder your wife and children. On thier little expeditons the Force Publique had one person desiganted to keep all the severed heads hans et cetra collected to show they had not wasted bullets. Do you deny these things?How is this helpful. Every colial power in it's own way treated colonial subjects like shit which is why the Americans Africans and asians threw their asses out. Africa now is a very turbulent place but doi you belive we would help by refusing to help? I thik the ultimate soloution will have to come from within and will take the poltical will to really help and encourage those elemnts within the continent but not by simply saying if you want to eat do as we say.
"Of course, you are incapable of disputing what I say. Much easier to set your argument button to default and slur me as a "Racist POS" for disagreeing with you. Very intelligent Fred. Typical product of a politically correct university background. Not capable of original thought eh?"
If you don't like shit thown at you don't pitch it. i was viewed when i went university as rather conservative during the eighties not PC.
I read lots of books and learn lots from them. Your books seem to be either old or simoply filled with nonsence. Your views seem to be intellectually barren and based on a worldview that views most of the globe as violent children needing our direction. the Americans are pushing that point of view to the max in Iraq making the world a more dangerous place and paying for it by wrecking their economy and killing their own soldiers. Is this how you want things to be for all of us. I will stop as soon as you do in terms of the nastiness. It's easy.
Cheers
fred

"