Cheney Throws Bush Under The Bush

[AAAintheBeltway]

You are not expected to forfeit the right to protect yourself, your family or your country to be a Christian. There is nothing hypocritical about fighting muslim terrorists.

I continue to have trouble understanding how it is perfectly acceptable for obama to launch drone strikes at suspected terrorists and anyone standing near them, but completely unacceptable to waterboard them. Which would you prefer?

 

[dbphoenix]

You are not expected to forfeit the right to protect yourself, your family or your country to be a Christian. There is nothing hypocritical about fighting muslim terrorists.

I continue to have trouble understanding how it is perfectly acceptable for obama to launch drone strikes at suspected terrorists and anyone standing near them, but completely unacceptable to waterboard them. Which would you prefer?

Who says it's acceptable? The straw men?

 

[CaptainObvious]

Dick Cheney, agree with him or not, he seems to be the only guy with any integrity. He owns what he did. Makes no apologies. No pretending that he wasn't onboard with it all. I have to respect that, unlike the den of cowards in congress who I hold in utter contempt.

 

[dbphoenix]

Dick Cheney, agree with him or not, he seems to be the only guy with any integrity. He owns what he did. Makes no apologies. No pretending that he wasn't onboard with it all. I have to respect that, unlike the den of cowards in congress who I hold in utter contempt.

Running with that particular ball, I suppose one could consider Hitler and Stalin to be men of integrity as well.

 

[jem]

Before you decided to screw up this part of ET, someone using your handle was promoting price and volume t/a while Stu and I were discussing whether this country was founded as a Christian nation.

Do a search and realize the only thing transmogrified is your how your handle went from someone writing about t/a to someone to who chooses to stupefy our previously more interesting political forum.

Finally, there are very few who still consider this a Christian nation. Even fewer on the left. I have no idea how you could be so blinded as to say this is still a Christian nation. It once was, it is no longer... imo.

Once again you transmorgrify what you read into whatever melds into your worldview.

Of course this is a Christian nation. No one claims it is not.

A few people? Really? And the idea that we "become a Christian nation" because "a few people torture" is idiotic.

The fact remains that those who were responsible were and are Christian. Being Christian did not prevent them from approving and participating in these atrocities. And many Christians, such as those who populate this forum, think it was all a grand idea.

Does this mean that there is something inherently wrong with Christianity? That's debatable. But what is not debatable is that these Christians were and are extraordinarily hypocritical.

 

[dbphoenix]

Finally, there are very few who still consider this a Christian nation. Even fewer on the left. I have no idea how you could be so blinded as to say this is still a Christian nation. It once was, it is no longer... imo.

You'll have to take that up with the Christian Right.

 

[jem]

so now you let the Christian Right do your thinking?
you said something stupid... just admit it.

 

[dbphoenix]

so now you let the Christian Right do your thinking?
you said something stupid... just admit it.

Yeah. That makes sense.

 

[piezoe]

Pie, you are overgeneralizing from some specific statements in the New Testament about how to deal with personal affronts, eg "turn the other cheek."

If you read the Old Testament, there is considerable violence and war. There is a recognition that evil must be confronted, not tolerated or appeased. The men of the New Testament were intimately familiar with the Old Testament. There are many subtle references to it througout the New Testament. Yet there is no effort to disassociate from the history of war and conflict recounted there.

The Catholic Church has done many studies on the so-called "just war" doctrine in an effort to reconcile this potential dilemma.

You are not expected to forfeit the right to protect yourself, your family or your country to be a Christian. There is nothing hypocritical about fighting muslim terrorists.

I continue to have trouble understanding how it is perfectly acceptable for obama to launch drone strikes at suspected terrorists and anyone standing near them, but completely unacceptable to waterboard them. Which would you prefer?

The drone strikes are wrong headed, and will lead to endless acts of terrorism against U.S. interests. Had U.S. foreign policy been more enlightened there would have been no drone strikes because there would have been no terrorism aimed at U.S. interests. There is a price to be paid for constant bullying and meddling in other nations affairs, and constant acts of war against other sovereign nations. I'm not an isolationist, far from it. But I do believe in the Golden Rule. One war begets another.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I don't really have a problem with drone strikes per se. Bring it home to their leaders. I can't get too concerned about collateral damage either. They send suicide bombers out to bomb churches and shopping centers. So they put their own families at risk.

I agree that a meddlesome foreign policy creates these issues. It all goes back to Bush 41's decision to rescue the Emir of Kuwait and his fortune from Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Ladin was incensed that "infidel" troops were allowed into Saudi Arabia. That's arab gratitude for you.

Ironically, there is considerable disagreement within conservative republican circles over interventionism versus neo-isolationism. McCain versus Paul. It mirrors the debate within the party over immigration, obamacare and budget and tax issues. A similar albeit lower key debate is taking place within the democrat party. Warren versus Clinton.