Creation Theory

[NAB]

Cereal, you can bob, weave and shadow box all you want, but at the end of the day you are achieving little but peddling selective misinformation, unreasonable bias, and throwing ineffective punches that miss their mark (IMO).

Certainly the US had economic interests related to Kuwait, and would be inclined to help protect that. But what is it you don't get about the creation, function, and methods of the United Nations?

The reaction to Saddams invasion of Kuwait (as well as Iraqi missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and Israel during that time) was sanctioned and authorized by the UN, with somewhere between 30 and 40 nations involved in authorizing and participating in the defense of Kuwait as a UN coalition and kicking Saddams butt back where he came from. It was not a "war" in the traditional sense of such because traditional wars are a thing of the past. The fact that the US got to lead the mission and played a leading roll in terms of committed forces is of little importance related to your argument.

Canada is (was?) a staunch supporter of the UN process for addressing local conflicts in a global scenario. We involved ourselves militarily in Korea, the Congo, the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan (among others) under UN decisions. The Blue Beret of UN Forces was worn proudly by UN peacekeepers from a lot of nations regardless of their country of origin. To me it was Bush Jnr, and he (and his administration) alone who opted to circumvent the UN process as to Iraq this time round and which, to me, was very wrong! Just as I am disappointed in Britain and Australia for supporting him in it.

But I still maintain it has beans all to do with religion! Lestor Pearson must be rolling around in his grave with angst over what has become of his visions for achieving a peaceful world, and particularly how so many Canadians, religious and athiest alike, have so blatantly undermined his legacy and Canada's ability to participate and advance it from Trudeau onwards.

Back to my packing ... ;-)

Nab

[cerealkiller]

Cereal, you can bob, weave and shadow box all you want, but at the end of the day you are achieving little but peddling selective misinformation, unreasonable bias, and throwing ineffective punches that miss their mark (IMO).

You crack me up, man! I am glad you added the IMO, that makes it a bit more presentable.
Not one single question of mine answered, only more accusations! Your credibility is skyrocketing!
So let me get this straight: the US (and it's pressured allies) did not invade Kuwait. Is that what you are saying? Or are you claiming that after Saddam invaded Kuwait, the war was justified because two wrongs make surely a right?
I never claimed that Kuwait or Vietnam or Korea or whatever had anything to do with religion. I claim that as a superpower that is based on christian principles, the US should be the most pacifistic country in the world. Check the last 500 years from Columbus to today and see how many wars have been started, how many atrocities have been committed, and you'll get my point.
The UN is a debating club, nothing more and nothing less. But since the US is a major financial contributor and has huge economic power, the Security Counsel is firmly in their hands. Puppets they are, only lately Russia and China learned how to veto. The US initiated the invasion of Kuwait and Afghanistan. I can see Afghanistan had it's merits because of the direct attack of 9/11 and the Taliban/Al Quaeda connection, but I'll be darned if the same goes for Kuwait. There was absolutely no imminent danger from Hussein against the US; this could have been dealt with differently. But the oh so christian US is always fast with their guns and bombs. That's why they are so loved all over the world.
But keep denying nabcom, it's all good. The many faces of christianity...
keep packing.

[NAB]

Yup, I think ya pretty much got it now cereal except for one thing. Just when I thought I had seen all the possible spins, you suggesting that the UN coalition forces moving into Kuwait to confront and expell the Iraqi invader (by invitation of Kuwait, and with assistance from neighbouring Arab states?) and kick Saddam out was an "invasion" of Kuwait is one interpretation I could never have imagined coming from anyone, least of all you. Kuwait continues to exist as an independent and peaceful country because of it.

As for the US running the UN, Nah. If that were the case their invasion of Iraq this time would have been UN sanctioned too. But it wasn't as far as I know, and in addition I seem to recall some report about the US not even meeting its funding commitments to the UN to boot. Don't get me wrong, I am not the worlds biggest USofA booster, far from it. But it seems to me that one needs to be fair concerning their independent history (which certainly didn't start with Columbus). There are things that deserve criticism, as well as things that deserve commendation IMO. To wash it all into one universal slop bucket is to me a very shallow train of thought. I would be hard pressed to contemplate where the world would be today were it not for their power and its application when needed.

C ya

Nab

[cerealkiller]

So two wrongs do make a right. Learned something again.
And as always, no syllable about my claim: The US is the most powerful, religious country in the world. One would assume adhering to the christian doctrin of love and peace (as claimed here often and displayed by bigned so eloquently), that the US is the most peaceful nation in the world. A quick glance at history reveals that the opposite is the case.
The question remains: why not 'save' the Sudan, Burma, North Korea or Nepal? Oh, of course, no oil! Clumsy me! Kuwait was 'rescued' because of love for the Kuwaitis and their wonderful desert sand.
Yes, there are things that deserve commendation but they are far and in between in the US. Ask the blacks and the Natives how they would have fared without the christians. Maybe their answer would give some folks a clue. Far be it for me to criticise everything that comes from the US, I lived there long enough to judge. My point was, is and remains that a nation founded on christian principles, where politicians only get elected if they profess their belief in god, should be a peacemaker not a warfarer.
300 billion dollars a year on 'defense', yet they cannot afford to get universal health care. Very christian indeed.
In case you did not understand my point yet: I am showing the hypocrasy of it all.

[cerealkiller]

I forgot to show the credibility of the UN. Here it is:

THE FIVE PERMANENT MEMBERS OF THE UN SECURITY COUNSIL:
USA, UK, FRANCE, CHINA, RUSSIA

THE FIVE BIGGEST ARMS DEALERS IN THE WORLD:
USA, UK, FRANCE, CHINA, RUSSIA

[steven lloyd]

Under section 176(2) of the Criminal Code, “Every one who willfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction”. I provided Kelowna RCMP and Crown with the link to this forum, and while there was some discussion as to whether the discussion among believers here could even loosely be defined as worship, it was decided Cereal could not be convicted at any rate given his obvious mental deficits.

[sleepdeprived]

blah blah blah blah blah.... it was decided Cereal could not be convicted at any rate given his obvious mental deficits.

I think you may be guilty of an offence under the bilious gasbag control act.

[zzontar]

steven lloyd wrote:

I provided Kelowna RCMP and Crown with the link to this forum, and while there was some discussion as to whether the discussion among believers here could even loosely be defined as worship, it was decided Cereal could not be convicted at any rate given his obvious mental deficits.

That cracks me up...

I think if religion didn't exist ther would still be wars-a-plenty unless the world became one country. That is why these scenarios exist:

You're not in our gang? Then we must fight.
You go to a different school? Then we must fight.
You're from a different town? Then we must fight.
You're on the other team? Then we must fight.

etc. etc.

Unfortunately, division breeds animosity, add to that greed, whether it be for oil or land, and voila... the ingredients for war.

There are many atheists fighting in wars for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and many religious people that go to war for reasons other than religion. Why would atheists enlist in a religious war? Hmmmmmmmmmm...

[cerealkiller]

blah blah blah blah blah.... it was decided Cereal could not be convicted at any rate given his obvious mental deficits.

I think you may be guilty of an offence under the bilious gasbag control act.

[Nebula]

steven lloyd wrote:

I provided Kelowna RCMP and Crown with the link to this forum, and while there was some discussion as to whether the discussion among believers here could even loosely be defined as worship, it was decided Cereal could not be convicted at any rate given his obvious mental deficits.

That cracks me up...

I think if religion didn't exist ther would still be wars-a-plenty unless the world became one country. That is why these scenarios exist:

You're not in our gang? Then we must fight.
You go to a different school? Then we must fight.
You're from a different town? Then we must fight.
You're on the other team? Then we must fight.

etc. etc.

Unfortunately, division breeds animosity, add to that greed, whether it be for oil or land, and voila... the ingredients for war.

There are many atheists fighting in wars for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and many religious people that go to war for reasons other than religion. Why would atheists enlist in a religious war? Hmmmmmmmmmm...

zzontar, believe it or not, I agree. Cereal and I differ in that I believe wars and bad things would go on regardless of religion's existence or not.

Where we are similar is that we both (I think) believe that it is just way too hypocritical for religious people to participate in 'bad' things and then justify their actions in some way based on their religion.

[cerealkiller]

zzontar, believe it or not, I agree. Cereal and I differ in that I believe wars and bad things would go on regardless of religion's existence or not.

Hang on Dave, I absolutely agree that even without religion there will be wars and other atrocities. But if we can eliminate one major cause and inspiration, we have evolved beyond divise ancient texts and removed a major hurdle towards lasting peace.
Yes zzzontar, there have been idiots who were not religious, who initiated wars and slaughtered their own people because of power, land, money, whatever. Some with the help of the church or religion, like Hitler, some without. But I am not aware of any atrocities in the name of Atheism..

[zzontar]

Cerialkiller, do you honestly believe that Americans are fighting a war because they think God told Bush they should? If Bush hated kilts and so told the people they should invade Scotland because God told him they should, do you really think it would happen?

Think man, think

[cerealkiller]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[zzontar]

So? How about a quote from cerialkiller... you go on about how religion is the cause of these wars... do you really think that Bush can decide to invade any country because God tells him to and it'll happen? I think if he wanted to attack Sweden tomorrow, it would be you and Bush and a few other wacky people...maybe... all you have to do is see what the invader wants in a war, and you'll seldom see the goal is taking nothing, but trying to convert everyone to their religion.

It just sounds better to attack in the name of God than to say "I'm a greedy *bleep* and I want what you have."

[steven lloyd]

blah blah blah blah blah.... it was decided Cereal could not be convicted at any rate given his obvious mental deficits.

I think you may be guilty of an offence under the bilious gasbag control act.