WH justification for the extrajudicial killing of American citizens

[byco42]

Let me know when the drones kill all the al qaeda baddies. I think they will kill all the cockroaches first.

 

[Thumb]

You could make that speculation about any nation.

True, my point was one nation having a lack (officially) of religion wont prevent them from having a military when other nations still have them.

 

[Thumb]

Let me know when the drones kill all the al qaeda baddies. I think they will kill all the cockroaches first.

Point taken, but the same could be said about Special Forces and/or conventional troops.

 

[redandguilty]

True, my point was one nation having a lack (officially) of religion wont prevent them from having a military when other nations still have them.

So what? Do you really believe an absence of religion would eliminate war? That's the argument the China statement is a response to. China doesn't have an army because they're afraid the religious fervor in Russia or Japan is going to drive them to war. Maybe I should have pointed to the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 or the Civil War or WWI or WWII or the Korean War or the Vietnam War...

 

[mhughes0021]

So what? Do you really believe an absence of religion would eliminate war? That's the argument the China statement is a response to. China doesn't have an army because they're afraid the religious fervor in Russia or Japan is going to drive them to war. Maybe I should have pointed to the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 or the Civil War or WWI or WWII or the Korean War or the Vietnam War...

absense of religion would eliminate hostility....not all war. But hostility leads to war. China cant even manage the landmass they have now or feed their people....why would they look to get more? Whens the last time they tried too?....back when they fought the mongols? Are you suggesting they are building an army to go attack a bunch of countries.....cause as far as i know....were the only country that does that for no reason at all. Most other countries do it for religious hostility and differences.

 

[redandguilty]

absense of religion would eliminate hostility....not all war. But hostility leads to war. China cant even manage the landmass they have now or feed their people....why would they look to get more? Whens the last time they tried too?....back when they fought the mongols? Are you suggesting they are building an army to go attack a bunch of countries.....cause as far as i know....were the only country that does that for no reason at all. Most other countries do it for religious hostility and differences.

Seriously? I just listed a bunch of non-religious wars. The US didn't start all of them. Absence of religion would not end hostility.

Also, not that they're specifically relevant to this discussion, but nations, including China, are still looking to expand their borders. China is involved in 14 territorial disputes right now. I'm not making a point there, I just think it needs to be pointed out in light of your rhetorical questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

 

[redandguilty]

One war I won't use to make my point is the Toledo War. I think Michigan vs Ohio might qualify as religious.

 

[Thumb]

So what? Do you really believe an absence of religion would eliminate war? That's the argument the China statement is a response to. China doesn't have an army because they're afraid the religious fervor in Russia or Japan is going to drive them to war. Maybe I should have pointed to the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 or the Civil War or WWI or WWII or the Korean War or the Vietnam War...

I think you're confusing me with hughes.

I never made the argument that having no religion would mean no wars/armies.

In fact, I actually argued the opposite.

 

[mhughes0021]

I think you're confusing me with hughes.

I never made the argument that having no religion would mean no wars/armies.

In fact, I actually argued the opposite.

I never said no wars either. Less war, sure. Not to mention god killed the dinosaurs so i get to add all of them to the "religious" death toll.

 

[redandguilty]

I think you're confusing me with hughes.

I never made the argument that having no religion would mean no wars/armies.

In fact, I actually argued the opposite.

I think I've kept the crossover posting straight. That's why I specified what point you responded to and asked if you were taking an opposing view. I've been operating under the impression that you're undermining my point, but I haven't figured out exactly what your point is yet.

You know what? I misread post 42. I thought you were arguing nations without religion need armies when there are other nations with religion and armies. I was good and cautious trying to figure out what you were saying in post 40, but after 42...I thought you were undermining my point.

 

[redandguilty]

I never said no wars either. Less war, sure. Not to mention god killed the dinosaurs so i get to add all of them to the "religious" death toll.

You said "eliminate hostility". That's a taller order than eliminating war.

Religion has been used by people to motivate populations to war. The real driving forces are political, not religious. A solid indicator is to look to the outcomes of war. Do wars end with political changes or religious changes? Are terms of surrender generally religious? No.

 

[Thumb]

My only point was you were debunking his theory by saying China has no religion but still has an army (based on the assumption that you were actually using that to argue against his point) with my own point that they don't have an army because of religion, the have an army because of the two (at least) countries who have historically threatened them.

 

[redandguilty]

My only point was you were debunking his theory by saying China has no religion but still has an army (based on the assumption that you were actually using that to argue against his point) with my own point that they don't have an army because of religion, the have an army because of the two (at least) countries who have historically threatened them.

I see, I just took a look back and re-edited my explanation post. I didn't have you confused with anyone else, but I did have your point wrong.

 

[byco42]

absense of religion would eliminate hostility....not all war.

I guess that you have forgotten what the Soviets did to the religious of Russia for the better part of 70 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

[mhughes0021]

I guess that you have forgotten what the Soviets did to the religious of Russia for the better part of 70 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

actually that proves my point further....if there was no such thing as religion than the soviets wouldnt have been going around blowing up churches and religious buildings for 70 years.

 

[redandguilty]

actually that proves my point further....if there was no such thing as religion than the soviets wouldnt have been going around blowing up churches and religious buildings for 70 years.

 

[mhughes0021]

thanks....i figured someone would bring up the muslims at some point.

 

[redandguilty]

thanks....i figured someone would bring up the muslims at some point.

 

[mhughes0021]

lol

 

[byco42]

actually that proves my point further....if there was no such thing as religion than the soviets wouldnt have been going around blowing up churches and religious buildings for 70 years.

Preposterous. That's like the criminal blaming the bank for his crime of armed robbery. And you think that it was only about religion? And it's religion's fault that the commies were pouring ice water on naked people and twisting off their heads after they froze for shits and giggles? And executing kids?