Well your christian god surely requires grovelling (at least in the catholic form). I'm not well versed enough in the protestant religions to comment on that, but I'd be surprised if kneeling to pray isn't required.
So no, your silly old jahweh certainly doesn't merit my respect as he requires plenty of grovelling. By the way, in the old testament there are plenty of sacrifices made to him to appease his anger. Besides, jahweh wasn't averse to rain down punishments akin to war crimes on those that displeased him either. Egypt and the 7 plagues anyone? (just to mention one example)
Grovelling an incorrect statement?!! You should listen to the prayers local catholics recite here in Malta, enough to make you go over to them, shake them up and ask them if they have any spine or pride.
Apart from that, kneeling to someone is grovelling. I hold to the ancient Roman Republican view, kneeling demeans both the person kneeling and the one receiving the kneel. You're free to think otherwise of course. If it makes you happy, bruise your knees till eternity friend.
Sorry mate, if I need to ask for help from anyone, I do it on my own two feet, same as I'd expect from anyone asking my help.
Grovelling is just demeaning, and if a god existed that required me to grovel, he wouldn't be worthy of my respect or worship anyway. Yeah I know, I tend to be a rebellious guy
I won't be able to reply to this thread for a week since I'll be on holiday starting tomorrow; so lack of replies here doesn't mean I've raised a white flag as yet
Sorry but this statement makes no absolute sense mate. Anyway this thread seems to fuel even more the notion that those who 'believe' are totally intolerant of those who think (see, I didn't use the word believe to keep you happy) otherwise.
After all, history shows that it's believers who have burned and tortured 'heretics' throughout the ages. On the contrary, atheists have never been guilty of murders and torture because of their 'beliefs'.
If you want to kneel before a god (or gods) feel free to do so, I for my part don't grovel to anyone.
American intervention in WW1 was in retaliation due to the fact that German U boats were attacking neutral shipping destined to the UK.
American intervention in WW2 was in retaliation to Pearl Harbour. Before that, Japanese and American relations had been cooling for a long time in the 30's due to Japanese expansion in Manchuria, and the American oil embargo on Japan made war a question of when the attack would happen rather than when. Pearl Harbour was only such a surprise to the American populace at large because like you, they were too confident in their isolation and that their corner of the world was 'peaceful'.
Korea and Vietnam saw American intervention to stop Communist expansion. Post WW2 Soviets and Americans fought in such 3rd world countries as an alternative to going head to head. Don't tell me the Americans had nothing to gain there (and mind you, I don't blame them for intervening either).
Gulf War 1 (Desert Storm), Kuwait had struck oil deals with the USA for cheaper oil, a fact that made the Iraqi economy destabilized after the ill effects of the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqis were trying to rebuild their shattered economy by selling more oil to the West, however the new Kuwaiti deals made that very difficult, if not impossible. When Saddam's (admittedly sledge hammer crude) diplomacy to strike a deal for stabilized oil prices failed, he resorted to grab Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait didn't just happen because Saddam woke up one fine day and said, 'what shall we do, oh yeah, let's invade those pesky Kuwaitis for some fun'.
Gulf War 2 (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was only finishing what should have happened in Desert Storm. Toppling the Iraqi regime and trying to bring it under the Western sphere of influence, thus securing more stable oil prices in future. This as we've seen has failed as there was no clear plan on how to control Iraq once the invasion phase has finished.
You might believe all the legal rhetoric and UN resolutions you want, fact is they're usually propaganda used by the politicians to hide their true agendas, which are much more cynical and power oriented.
Well you got to consider that in the initial invasion plans, Bush & Co. had expected 'the populace to rise with us against their oppressors', while rather the opposite thing happened.
The current Iraqi government is literally sitting on a ticking timebomb and has to thread a very fine line between trying to please its foreign supporters, while trying to appease the local populace.
I don't want to sound like many of the conspiracy theory nuts roaming over these forums, but I'd be very surprised if the non-US companies didn't have US shareholders in them.
Also, if the current Iraqi government is not a puppet one, it would be the first time in history that an invading nation would not put a friendly regime as the new leaders. If that was the truth, it wouldn't reflect very well on US planners I'm sorry to say.
Actually (and strange as it sounds) there is a percentage of people who enjoy the danger associated with war. If you read the memoirs of guys who served in Special Forces such as the SAS you'll find that most comment that they love their job, and wouldn't do anything else.
In a way it's like those people who practice extreme sports, it's dangerous, but they do it for the sheer adrenaline rush. People may not view this favourably or even understand it, but it's there. Andy McNab's, Chris Ryan's and Mike Curtis's biographies all testify to this more or less.
I'll agree that it's usually career personnel who are of this view, and that conscripts will generally tend to have an opposite attitude.
While I support the reasons for the US in attacking Afghanistan, I think that beyond all the human rights/UN resolution rhetoric, the real reason for attacking Iraq was to gain a foothold on that nation's oil reserves. US contractors are the ones benefiting most from rebuilding Iraq, and I think no one is naive enough to think that the US will allow a non-pro West leader to take power in Iraq. A puppet 'democratic' government such as the one in place is only to be expected.
Is this view cynical, maybe, I guess it's more realistic than believing otherwise.
Actually the Japanese cabinet was tried for war crimes, and most were condemned to death. Opening a history book wouldn't do harm before posting mate.
As for the way they treated prisoners, that was the 'norm' for Japanese for centuries. The code of Bushido meant that an enemy who surrendered was shamed beyond redeem, in effect losing his 'human' status, and thus was not to be treated with decency.
Very harsh, and to our Western eyes, inhuman, but to the Japanese prison guards at the time (who weren't actually Japanese in most cases, but conscripted Koreans), they weren't doing anything wrong. I'm not excusing their behaviour mind, just stating why they acted in that way.
True size wise his army was the 4th largest in the world at the time, but his tank park was mostly composed of old obsolete T55 tanks (immediate post ww2 tech), and his 'elite' Republican Guard were equipped with equally obsolete T72's (1960's era stuff). Lacking thermal sights, modern laser range finders, communications gear, and the most important ingredient of all, training and the will to fight, they proved no match for the Allied armoured thrusts.
Some of the people I know have been on tour both to Iraq and Afghanistan, and amongst those in the older generation I was lucky to meet with many veterans of WW2.
Regarding those that suffer mental and physical problems, there are undoubtedly a number who are caused by their military service, but the same can (and does apply) to many civilian jobs. In my line of work I meet many people with depression and suicidal tendencies who have never spent a day in military service.
Hi trish, you should see the 'santi' (small artistic pictures depicting saints and other religious stuff) they used to pass during religious classes her in Maltese primary schools.
The brainwashing and fear they tried to instill in us as kids was amazing. Pictures of fiery holes with demons crawling out wielding pitchforks opening up beneath the deathbed of some guy etc. Obviously all this accompanied by moralistic sermons from the religion teacher on how we'd end up like that if we didn't say our prayers, go to church etc.
And then they try to convince us that christianity is a religion based on love rather than fear and superstition. Yeah go figure.
Erm, it's only peaceful in the Western sphere of influence, and then again, because in the current political situation, there is no economic benefit from one Western country declaring war on another. We still had wars on our backdoor, e.g. Yugoslavia in the 90's, and as with all civil wars, the going ons there weren't pretty at all.
Africa is still a hotch potch collection of current (or recently finished) civil wars (pretty much the situation Europe was in pre-WW2), as well as many parts of Asia as well.
War is and will remain part of human nature. If push comes to shove and your own survival is at stake, each one of us would very quickly shed his/her civlized way of life and expose the beast within. It's not confined to humans either. Just watch a nature documentary, war is waged by animals on a continual basis, whether it's for food, territory or mating rights.
While there are a lot who think America is the ultimate war criminal, and while I'm not particularly fond of Americans myself, I would ask those US bashers out there what would they think the situation would be like were another country/regime be in the position of sole superpower right now?
Somehow I find it hard to believe that China or the old Soviet Union etc would have cared a lot about not committing war crimes in the US's place right now. Of course,many of the US bashers are usually on the leftie side of things, those red tints must influence their judgements at the end of the day
The deeds of the victors are usually glossed over. Although on very rare occasions someone on the winner's side is tried as a war criminal, it does not benefit the victors in any way to try one of its own.
Taking WW2 as an example, the Soviets did as many (if not more) atrocities than the Germans, but no one was ever tried for torturing prisoners in the Gulag camps, or summary shooting of Soviet soldiers by political commissars etc.
It's quite a logical step when you think about it. The victorious side will wnat to justify why it went to war in the first place. By presenting the enemy leaders as the criminals, the winners can claim the moral high ground, whether it is real or not.
Undoubtedly, it is not fair to the defeated, but as the Celtic chief Brennus said after sacking the fledling Roman Republic, 'Vae Victus', i.e. 'Woe to the vanquished'.
I write left handed, kick a football lefthanded, but in kenjutsu I have to fight right handed (as it's compulsory in the fighting style). When shooting my dominant eye is the right, so I shoot right handed too.
I must say I agree with your views. When I message someone I try to write something interesting which gives a picture of what I am like.
Responses vary. Some will write back, and most will still ignore your message no matter what. Once I had sent a very well written (well, at least to my eyes) to a girl who had taken my fancy, and she didn't reply back. After a week without response, I sent another message along the lines of 'since I didn't write a crappy one liner, sending a hello back wouldn't have broken any fingers you know'.
Her reply was 'a crappy one liner is better than an essay'.
So I'd say there is no right approach how to go about this. Myself, I prefer people who can write a nice profile, and who are able to write more than a couple of silly lines when sending a message. That to my eyes shows that the particular person is interesting and has at least a modicum of intelligence, as opposed to those who can barely write anything more than a 'hi'.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for being insensitive and rude by the pc brigade for writing this though!
Very well written thread Dario, but why would what you've written only apply to American males? It's not meant as a critique mind, just that what you've written applies over here in Europe too.
wulfen Forum Posts (810)
RE: For those of you who say that there is no God!
Grow up in a catholic country such as Malta and you'll see plenty of grovelling/kneeling in church during mass etc.So it's still prevalent in catholic ritual.