FCPHA: Big Table in the Back

[renaedawn 1]

In exactly ONE WEEK, my plane will be landing back in Buffalo....

Stop it. That's depressing.

[crazyIvan 0]

Sweet! How'd that happen.I'm so glad you seem happier today.

Wife decided to up the $$ I can spend.Appearances can be deceiving. js

[jeff_536 3]

OMG. Seriously, show others the ability to live peacefully and that's going to prevent people from showing agression to America? You know, I personally just don't see that happening. If we lessened our military and tried to 'live peacefully' in efforts that other nations will say, "Hey America is at peace, let's all sing kum-by-ya together and dance around the flagpole." Hell no, it's not going to happen. The people that want us Americans dead are going to eat our arses alive if we were to go on those beliefs. They just want us Dead, they don't necessarily have reason, they want us dead because of what we believe in. That's right, they want You dead, just because you're an American, and just because you have freedoms, and just because you have the beliefs that you have. So let's go on the notion of living peacefully and others will follow, why don't you just hand the keys out to your house, and tell people that you don't steal and hope that they don't either.

But by bombing innocent civilians in other countries, aren't you doing to them what you accuse them of wanting to do to us? Which, as a nation, no one has done, btw.

[dms26 3]

So, we should be going to war because it's been the world's tradition for thousands of years?Nobody thinks it's magically going to stop. But, that doesn't mean we should be promoting it as anything other than a last resort.

we were attacked first, America isn't going to sit back and just take that without fighting back.

[crazyIvan 0]

Is all this the teaching of the Taoists? I'm just curious.

[Smacciemac 3]

Right now it is 2 days till Vegas.. in the morning it will be.. Woot Tomorrow is Vegas! So I am going to bed to make it "tomorrow" :)Night All!

[PCPinkoLiberal 0]

One last thought Doug, these wondefull peacfull people you want to negotiate with would stone you to death if they had a chance because of your sexual orientation!

Have you comprehended a word that was said all night? Good lord, it's like arguing with a wall sometimes.First, look into the Islamic religion a bit more. There are about as many Muslims that would kill me as there are Christians and Jews. They may not like it, but most wouldn't kill me.Second, I'm not saying that I want to live in their society. But I'm saying that if this is what the people want, it's what the people should have.Finally, and this is something I learned a few months ago that has really stuck with me: For hundereds of years, just after 1000 CE or AD (whichever you use), Spain was completely controlled by an Islamic government. Not a radical Islamic government - an actual Islamic government. During this time, Spain's people flourished ecnomically, socially, religiously, and artistically. The country lived essentially harmoniously with every other country in the world during this time, mostly because they followed true Islamic law the way that it was meant to be followed by Mohammed. Christians, Jews, and Muslims rarely quarralled, other than having religious debates and all were welcome to follow whichever religion they liked. Many historians believe that it was one of the best civilizations created by mankind.

we were attacked first, America isn't going to sit back and just take that without fighting back.

By Iraq? Really? Seems it's much more logical to reach the conclusion that we were attacked by Saudi Arabia...

Is all this the teaching of the Taoists? I'm just curious.

Cute.

[Whiskey16 1]

But by bombing innocent civilians in other countries, aren't you doing to them what you accuse them of wanting to do to us? Which, as a nation, no one has done, btw.

I think that's an oversimplification of what Jarret is saying. Someone, I believe Norm, asked Jarrett his opinion on why we continue to spend more money on the weapon systems that we do. I think the answer was that with the precision of these weapons, the US is able to strike their targets, with the most minimal collateral damage as possible. I think Jarrett's point is that we seem to often overlook "innocent lives" in our own country as part of normal day-to-day occurences, and pay more attention if "innocent" lives are lost in the name of defending our country.

[jeff_536 3]

I think that Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Italy, lots and lots of countries are able to live the way they live because of the US and to a lesser extent Great Britain and Australia. Without that protection, they would have to build their own military that is capable of defending their entire country. They would then be having to make these tough choices that America has to make in deciding what can be overlooked and what simply cannot for the safety of their own country (and in the US's case, most of the world). They would then be having these same discussions we are having about military force vs leading by example. They are able to only live by example because they don't have to balance that double edged sword as we have to try to do.It's apples/oranges.

Australia??

[crazyIvan 0]

Cute.

It was a serious question. If you don't want to respond, so be it.

[Whiskey16 1]

By Iraq? Really? Seems it's much more logical to reach the conclusion that we were attacked by Saudi Arabia...

Who do you think provides a lot of the funding?

[renaedawn 1]

Is all this the teaching of the Taoists? I'm just curious.

Actually, no, not at all. But Taoism is a life philosophy not a military strategy, so there again. Apples/Oranges.But to answer the sentiment of your question, Taoism teaches that simple is better. That through simple joys and pleasures, the greatest this world has to offer (or enlightenment) is attained.Anyone who is interested in Taoism should read The Tao of Pooh. It's an amazingly simple yet effective book that conveys the overall generalities of Taoism in a cute and entertaining way (Pooh Bear, Christopher Robin, Piglet, etc.)

[PCPinkoLiberal 0]

It was a serious question. If you don't want to respond, so be it.

Ah, sorry, I thought it was a jab at me.No, Taoism teaches that it doesn't matter what other people think and that there is no point in arguing with them. It's probably the teaching that I have the most trouble with, because I love to argue.

[jeff_536 3]

It's about time! Did someone pop your wheelchair's tires?

need the old Canadian liberal on your side? I was out umping tonite..just recently got back.

[renaedawn 1]

Australia??

In the current "War on Terrorism", yes.*Edit - Since you chose to nitpick, I'm going to assume that means you agree with the generality of the statement.

[PCPinkoLiberal 0]

Who do you think provides a lot of the funding?

Saudi Royals and the Taliban. Saddam hates/d Osama.

Actually, no, not at all. But Taoism is a life philosophy not a military strategy, so there again. Apples/Oranges.But to answer the sentiment of your question, Taoism teaches that simple is better. That through simple joys and pleasures, the greatest this world has to offer (or enlightenment) is attained.Anyone who is interested in Taoism should read The Tao of Pooh. It's an amazingly simple yet effective book that conveys the overall generalities of Taoism in a cute and entertaining way (Pooh Bear, Christopher Robin, Piglet, etc.)

Ah, crap. Again, I completely misread a question. Sorry, Ivan.

[fryer98 30]

Renae saw my ball. fyi

[crazyIvan 0]

Ah, sorry, I thought it was a jab at me.No, Taoism teaches that it doesn't matter what other people think and that there is no point in arguing with them. It's probably the teaching that I have the most trouble with, because I love to argue.

Well, i'm trying to be in a good mood, and regardless of the topic, I'm going to bow out of the argument. I've had enough "war" in my house to last me a lifetime. I don't need to worry about the rest of the world right now.

[PCPinkoLiberal 0]

Is all this the teaching of the Taoists? I'm just curious.

Here are a few verses from the Tao Te Ching (essentially, a Biblesque book by Lao-Tzu, believed to be the father of Taoism)...Whoever relies on the Tao in governing mendoesn’t try to force issuesor defeat enemies by force of arms.For every force there is a counterforce.Violence, even well intentioned,Always rebounds upon oneself.“Weapons are the tools of violence;all decent men detest them.Weapons are the tools of fear;a decent man will avoid themexcept in the direst necessityand, if compelled, will use themonly with the utmost restraint.Peace is his highest value.If the peace has been shattered,how can he be content?His enemies are not demons,but human beings like himself.He doesn’t with them personal harm.Nor does he rejoice in victory.How could he rejoice in victoryand delight in the slaughter of men?

[Whiskey16 1]

Saudi Royals and the Taliban. Saddam hates/d Osama.Ah, crap. Again, I completely misread a question. Sorry, Ivan.

So you're going to say that Iraq had absolutely no connection to Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

[renaedawn 1]

Renae saw my ball. fyi

I did and it was glorious. He has to come to Vegas now or I might actually begin to stalk him.

[jeff_536 3]

I think that's an oversimplification of what Jarret is saying. Someone, I believe Norm, asked Jarrett his opinion on why we continue to spend more money on the weapon systems that we do. I think the answer was that with the precision of these weapons, the US is able to strike their targets, with the most minimal collateral damage as possible. I think Jarrett's point is that we seem to often overlook "innocent lives" in our own country as part of normal day-to-day occurences, and pay more attention if "innocent" lives are lost in the name of defending our country.

But as renae is pointing out, it's apples/oranges. No one should die needlessly. But controlling crime on your streets is somethign you, as a nation, could make a priority if you want to. However, you choose to spend more money on the military and less on police/intervention programs. Maybe if the US would get to the root causes of crime on their streets, mainly poverty, there would be less need to take out your aggression on countries that have, frankly, not really bothered you that much except to not sell you their oil cheaper.And don't go blaming foreign countries for acts of terrorism by their citizens, or have you forgotten the internal terrorist Timothy McVeigh? What country do you blame him on?

[PCPinkoLiberal 0]

So you're going to say that Iraq had absolutely no connection to Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

No. I'm going to say that Iraq had an absolutely minor connection with Al Qaeda and that Saddam despised the group as much as the United States.

And don't go blaming foreign countries for acts of terrorism by their citizens, or have you forgotten the internal terrorist Timothy McVeigh? What country do you blame him on?

Canada.

[mulhs82 2]

Let's see if there is anything I quoted that I can stil respond to.

We defend a lot more than just America for your tax dollars.

I have a slight problem that we are proctecting others on our dime, but I understand why on occassion we have to do this.

You've actually done a very good job of misunderstanding essentially every argument I'm making. I'm impressed.I'll try to make this a little clearer:I'd like to cut back on the amount of money we spend on the military, not eliminate it. With less funding, it wouldn't make sense to start wars that aren't neccessary for our security. Use the military for war when we have to, and increase spending as neccessary - not at will. The military we have (the troops that aren't being used for war) would then be used for peacekeeping in other countries and to defend the homeland.

Then it comes down to judgement as to what is a neccessary war. Personally I do not think we should have invaded Iraq, but once we did it, it unfortunatly became a neccessity to finish what was started.

And then get to live here and enjoy the freedom's and safety provided by our government and laws. Brilliant.

This is why our nation is special. To butcher a quote from "The American President"...To have freedom is not only to have the right to protect the flag, but protect the person that will burn that same flag. (Yeah i really screwed that up, but you should get the idea)

I think that's an oversimplification of what Jarret is saying. Someone, I believe Norm, asked Jarrett his opinion on why we continue to spend more money on the weapon systems that we do. I think the answer was that with the precision of these weapons, the US is able to strike their targets, with the most minimal collateral damage as possible. I think Jarrett's point is that we seem to often overlook "innocent lives" in our own country as part of normal day-to-day occurences, and pay more attention if "innocent" lives are lost in the name of defending our country.

There have been over 200 murders in Philadelphia since the beginning of the new year, but that doesn't make any news. One innocent person or soldier dies overseas and it's national headlines. I think it would be fair to say, that there is a slight double standard in news reporting the deaths of innocent people.

[crazyIvan 0]

But as renae is pointing out, it's apples/oranges. No one should die needlessly. But controlling crime on your streets is somethign you, as a nation, could make a priority if you want to. However, you choose to spend more money on the military and less on police/intervention programs. Maybe if the US would get to the root causes of crime on their streets, mainly poverty, there would be less need to take out your aggression on countries that have, frankly, not really bothered you that much except to not sell you their oil cheaper.And don't go blaming foreign countries for acts of terrorism by their citizens, or have you forgotten the internal terrorist Timothy McVeigh? What country do you blame him on?

You are kidding, right? Most drug dealers could buy and sell me 10 times over. What does poverty have to do with that? You really believe that if America were socialist we would no longer have any crime? Jeebus!