Why right wingers are pro war?

[Salty]

Lets see if there was a North Korea, and a North Vietnam, then I would suppose there was a South Korea and a South Vietnam....

 

[glfredrick]

Much like what Obama is doing in Afghanistan.

Speaking of Obama and Afghanistan...

Has anyone else noticed that we don't get big nightly body count headlines anymore? While Bush was in office, the network and cable nightly news all featured stories about every soldier who lost his or her life that day (plus the horrific total body count...). It's been a LONG time since I've heard a number -- since the presidential election as I recall. Wonder why? Media bias anyone?

 

[billwald]

>Lets see if there was a North Korea, and a North Vietnam, then I would suppose there was a South Korea and a South Vietnam....

We didn't have a dog in any of those fights.
_____

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

>Lets see if there was a North Korea, and a North Vietnam, then I would suppose there was a South Korea and a South Vietnam....

We didn't have a dog in any of those fights.
_____

Guess that depends on your view also. If it is in our nation's intrest to promote democracy in other nations of course we did. Also, since we had treaties with these nations there was the question of what we will do for our allies.

Of course the "domino" theory was used to sell our intrest in Vietnam and it did not come to pass. Thiland and other nations did not fall after Vietnam. But I still believe the reason they did not was because of the effort we did put in to protecting Vietnam. We certainly had more reason to be in Vietnam or to still be in Korea than we do to be in Iraq or Afganistan.

 

[billwald]

Our enemies point out that we only promote democracy in countries whom we don't control. WE promoted dictatorship since WW2 in the oil dictatorships whom we had under our thumb.

 

[rbell]

I cannot figure out why billwald woudl derail his own thread.

You'd figure he'd could at least could stay on topic on a thread he started.

If ever there were a BB Ritalin ad...

 

[targus]

I cannot figure out why billwald woudl derail his own thread.

It's because it is not his purpose to have discussion.

His purpose is to get things riled up.

 

[shodan]

Well Crabtown...
As far as your comment about Christians not following Christ’s view on military action I would remind you that Christ said that he brought not peace, but a sword (Matt 10:34). In Luke 22:36 he advised any of his followers who did not have a sword that it was more important than their clothing. Jesus died a violent death to secure our salvation, but never forget that the Lamb of God will return as the Lion of Judah and will defeat those who oppose him with military force. God had advocated and even commanded military action many times over the centuries, and he can still do it today. I am not saying that all war is ordained by God by any means, but he certainly is no pacifist.

Your comment really reveals the level of Biblical illiteracy among so many Christians. So many can cite one verse here and there but without any idea of the Biblical context.

Jesus' 'sword not peace' saying refers to the divisions that following Him will cause, even in families. Read the following verses. It has nothing to do with military action. And it ends with 'he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me." I would think that following Him would involve obeying his teachings.

The saying in Luke 22:36, "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" is again hyperbole, a figure of speech. When the disciples say, "Lord, look, here are two swords." Jesus' reply of "Enough" implies a rebuke to the disciples for again not understanding his figure of speech.

If you want to take it that 'enough' means that 'two' is enough, then it is obvious that he did NOT exhort everyone 'who has no sword...buy one.'

And the Lion of Judah will defeat his enemies with the host of Heaven not with any earthly might.

 

[billwald]

>I cannot figure out why billwald woudl derail his own thread.

Please explain how.

>Has anyone else noticed that we don't get big nightly body count headlines anymore?


Nightly body counts of soldiers or civilians? The nightly body count of GIs would average one/day? A nightly obit of drunk driving victims nationwide would be impressive.

>"Pro-war" to some means anyone that believes in fighting for freedom or the right to exist.

"Anti-war" to some means not encouraging young people to be cannon fodder for the oil companies and opium market.

 

[Salty]

Folks, looks like Bill finally got us on this one.

Stop and consider how much cheaper gas is now than is was in 1991 (B4 Gulf War I )

and overall, we must have the cheapest gas worldwide.

 

[billwald]

Non sequitur. You think company profit is related to consumer price?

In terms of work hours required to buy gas, the price isn't much different than in 1991. The US has a low gas price because the gas taxes are much lower than in Canada or Europe.

As I recall the Bush2 Iraq War was partially sold to us on the theory Iraq would repay us with cheap oil. Ha. Ha.

 

[Alcott]

Why right wingers are pro war?

Because pros are more likely to win one than amateurs.

 

[Salty]

In terms of work hours required to buy gas, the price isn't much different than in 1991. The US has a low gas price because the gas taxes are much lower than in Canada or Europe.

I fully agree with the taxes - but why are some countries only paying a quarter for a gallon of gas....

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Right wingers are not "pro war", we are pro freedom. Freedom is never attained nor retained without warfare. War is a necessary evil in the defense of the sovereignty of a free society. Conservatives understand this concept while leftists believe they can talk enemies into surrender.

 

[Salty]

Freedom is never attained nor retained without warfare. War is a necessary evil in the defense of the sovereignty of a free society. Conservatives understand this concept while leftists believe they can talk enemies into surrender.

But what about Neville Chamberlain?

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Your comment really reveals the level of Biblical illiteracy among so many Christians. So many can cite one verse here and there but without any idea of the Biblical context.

Jesus' 'sword not peace' saying refers to the divisions that following Him will cause, even in families. Read the following verses. It has nothing to do with military action. And it ends with 'he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me." I would think that following Him would involve obeying his teachings.

The saying in Luke 22:36, "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" is again hyperbole, a figure of speech. When the disciples say, "Lord, look, here are two swords." Jesus' reply of "Enough" implies a rebuke to the disciples for again not understanding his figure of speech.

If you want to take it that 'enough' means that 'two' is enough, then it is obvious that he did NOT exhort everyone 'who has no sword...buy one.'

And the Lion of Judah will defeat his enemies with the host of Heaven not with any earthly might.

The thief comes not but to steal and to kill...

If the strong man knew when the thief was coming he would have DEFENDED HIS HOME!

*YOU* (can) sit still while the thief breaks into your home, kills your family and rapes your wife and girls....

*YOU* (can) sit still while the enemies of Freedom infiltrate our Government and rob the freedoms Right Wing Patriots have Voluntarily Shed so much of their own blood to procure and maintain.

*YOU* have *that* right...

To divide the Word of Truth as *you* see fit...

But, don't make your interpretation binding on me!

As for me!

I will keep my oath to defend my home, nation and freedom...

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Right wingers are not "pro war", we are pro freedom. Freedom is never attained nor retained without warfare. War is a necessary evil in the defense of the sovereignty of a free society. Conservatives understand this concept while leftists believe they can talk enemies into surrender.

AMEN!

We are also Pro Self Sacrifice, both in our own blood and our monies...

The Left Wing Globalist Loonies tend to want to give everyone elses away but their own!

 

[glfredrick]

Non sequitur. You think company profit is related to consumer price?

In terms of work hours required to buy gas, the price isn't much different than in 1991. The US has a low gas price because the gas taxes are much lower than in Canada or Europe.

As I recall the Bush2 Iraq War was partially sold to us on the theory Iraq would repay us with cheap oil. Ha. Ha.

Ironically, the ONLY ones that have ever said that Iraq was about cheap oil were the Left, who did not want us there at all. So, if "cheap oil" was the true motivation, and the Left resisted our efforts, perhaps the Left doesn't care or wish for cheap oil? That would seem to play well with their other emphasis on huge taxes and lower vehicle use. The Left is SO fond of using taxation to punish people that don't support their causes in the hopes of blackmailing those people to swing their funding to the Left's favorite issues, like socialism. :BangHead:

 

[michael-acts17:11]

But what about Neville Chamberlain?

If he were an American, we would consider him to be a RINO on account of his foolish, unlearned attempt to acquire peace solely through diplomacy. Speak softly, but be prepared to use a "big stick" to keep despots under control.

 

[billwald]

>I fully agree with the taxes - but why are some countries only paying a quarter for a gallon of gas....

Because some socialist countries subsidize the price of gas. Last week one of the South American countries had rioting because the gas subsidy was cut.