Protestantism

» pink101 - What

.
"However, if you get past the inflammatory title of his book and the divisive sound bytes surrounding it, there is at least some truth to what he is saying."
.
What would that be?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - What

In response to What posted by pink101:

I addressed that question briefly in my blog post. I think D'Souza has a point that the Arab-Muslim world is outraged at what they see is the moral indecency of America's popular culture.

I also think - and I didn't address this - that SOME of Bush's more radical, bitter critics (D'Souza expands this group out much more broadly than I'm comfortable with) are hoping for Bush to fail. I am very uncomfortable with this. Whether we like Bush or not, we should be hoping/rooting for a US success in Iraq. We should be hoping that our troops can come home victorious. SOME of the more virulent critics of Bush seem to be rooting for Bush to fail. But, again, I would only apply this to SOME of Bush's critics - not as many as D'Souza does.

***Arrrggh! What's the deal with these italics? I can't get rid of them.

» pink101 - What

In response to What posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"... we should be hoping/rooting for a US success in Iraq."
.
Of course we are. I want success in Iraq and all those of us who are honest want success. But, what is success? Do you have an idea of what you think you mean when you say you want success in Iraq?
.
How many dead people equal success, Brian?
.
I think the problem is in the title of this thread. I hit the wrong key when I loaded it. I meant it to be D'Souza and somehow it turned out to be what it is.
.
My error.
.
I think.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Dead People and Success?

In response to What posted by pink101:

Pink, who in the world can possibly answer that question?

How many dead people were justified for us to succeed in World War II? the Civil War? the Revolution?

If Abraham Lincoln knew that 620,000 Americans would die horribly between 1861 and 1865 - if he had known that in 1861 - should he have moved ahead to stop the South from seceding?

Should George Washington have surrendered in December 1776 if he knew the American Revolution were going to drag on for EIGHT long years?

The first question to ask is: Is our cause just? Second question: Is our strategy effective? And then, the third question: Is it worth it?

I think the answers to these questions for Iraq are.... YES, NO, and NO (if it's going to be 'stay the course' on the same strategy).

» Brian Tubbs - War on Terror

Oh, and the answers for the War on Terror overall?

Is our cause just? DEFINITELY!

Is the strategy effective? JURY IS STILL OUT ON THAT ONE (definitely not effective in Iraq)

Is it worth it? YES - ABSOLUTELY!

» pink101 - Dead People and Success?

In response to a href="http://protestantism.suite101.com/discus..."Dead People and Success? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
World War II wasn't about killing people. This war is.
.
The Civil War was fought in defense of a direct assault on the sovereignty of the United States of America. The War for Independence was a defensive war as well.
.
But, you are right in asking those questions.
.
It's a terrible mess. I do not think the cause was just, I think the strategy was effective and it was to split the Iraqis against each other and it was NOT to bring democracy to Iraq or any other of the stated reasons, and the answer to the last question is that none of it was worth one drop of American blood.
.
I absolutely do not think the government has had or now has the best interests of America in mind at all. It was all for money as far as I can see. This isn't the first time in the history of America that the government has ignorned the best interests of the American people.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - I don't get this....

In response to Dead People and Success? posted by pink101:

World War II wasn't about killing people. This war is.

The current war in Iraq is about "killing people" but World War II was NOT. I don't get it.

There were A LOT of people killed in World War II, and comparatively FEW killed in the present conflict in Iraq. Now, don't get me wrong. ONE American killed in an unjust war is too many. But I'm commenting on this one statement of yours. Pink, ALL wars are - militarily speaking - about killing.

If you're referring to the objective BEHIND the war - as in World War II was not (at least on our end) aimed at killing people for the sake of killing them - then I agree. But NEITHER is the current affair in Iraq.

Do you honestly think George W. Bush said to his advisors: "We have to kill some people, so pick a country. Any country. Okay, Iraq it is!"

Give me a break.

» Brian Tubbs - Civil War

In response to Dead People and Success? posted by pink101:

For the record, I support Lincoln and am glad the North won the Civil War. I'm not a "southron" (as you put it), and I reject the southern extremism evident in some circles even today.

However....as a former Virginian and one who has studied the Civil War at GREAT length, I can tell you the causes of the war are a bit more complex than you allude to in your line about the "sovereignty" of the United States.

First, there's a BIG distinction between why the Deep South seceded and why the Upper South seceded. Those two regions seceded at different times - and for different reasons. That's very important.

Second, most of the southern soldiers on the ground weren't fighting for slavery or some high-minded legal concepts of states' rights. Most of them (ESPECIALLY in the Upper South) were fighting because they saw Lincoln sending government troops into THEIR states, lands, neighborhoods, and homes. They saw it as a tyrannical government invading its own country. One southern soldier was asked by a Yankee why he was fighting. The answer: "Because yer down here!"

Now, do I agree w/ Lincoln? Yes. But I also think he made a couple mistakes early on that contributed to the war. And I don't support the vilification or one-dimensionalization of the South. There were good and honorable people fighting on both sides of the war - blue and gray.