Types of ruling

[MODERATOR's NOTE: This thread resulted from a split from this thread. http://boards.fansub.tv/index.php?showtopi...40&#entry121231

Please refer to those posts if you are looking for the quoted text]

QUOTE (rtgmath-san)Yup. Quite true. I'm a math prof at a community college. I have a wife and four children. The oldest is 19 and the youngest is 7. As for being "more polite," well, politeness is always nice, but you can bet I don't always get it from my older children (though they usually do quite well). Come to think of it, my 7-year-old is often not polite. She is quite presumptuous, although usually in a loving way. Good to have such a wise person here! And I actually pretty impolite to my father often,despite the fact I love him(and my mother!) really much,and I told myself again and again not to be rude to him,but I guess his attitude does get to me at times.I'm not that really good a person after all...please note this...

Anyway,back into our topic.First of all,I agree that the US didn't enter the WW2 for the Jewish sake,and I don't think that they enter the war with that great bad intention and such,it's a war after all.In such state of confusion,we were dragged along before we knew it,and sometimes even forget what exactly we've been fighting for.It's more like for political's sake,but it's too bad many were sacrificed for it.So,the things of the past isn't what that I was really concerned about here,but rather the present.We can't changed the past after all,just need to remember them so it'll act as our guidance for our future acts.But the present doesn't seem to pleasant that I can agree with without saying anything,specifically about how US governments see things and act,more specifically concerning the Jewish.I'm not being specifically dislike or even hate the Jewish that I arise many questions about them time after time,but it's just many things about them and their acts that left me wondering.
QUOTE (rtgmath-san)I hope this helps you understand things just a little bit. The US and others are protective of the Jews because they swore that no more would they be subject to extermination as a people.

You may indeed accuse the US of hypocrisy. It would be true. After all, there is a genocide occurring in Darfur, and in other places in the world. It is true that we have not met all such terrible things with consistent or appropriate measures. But even had we willed to, could we have? Iraq has taught us that there are some hatreds far beyond our ability to restrain.It's not really beyond restrain rtgmath-san.Sorry but I have to object to that.It's more like they(US) have been ignoring to understand the cause of the hatred.Hating is not something we human likes,but we always subjected to it.Not many could abolish the reason for them hating by themselves,but others,more importantly those who have cause the hatred have to help them get rid of those.An apology is one of the simplest and easiest way.Have you heard any word of an apology by the US government for killing so much of the Iraqis,or at least become the reason behind it,rtgmath-san?No.Almost none.Even if they were,it's just after the world pushed(so Hard!) for them to do so,and even that lacks sincerity,if there's any at all.(But they often says sorry to the US' army fallen soldiers's family....)
Why would offering such a simple word of an apology can be so hard for them?Simple.They never thinks they have done anything wrong for killings the Iraqis.At least that's what the Iraqis thought so,and thus subjected them to their hatred.Times and times,the US' medias only stating the casualties for the Iraqis caused by their bombing and such as collateral damage and refuse to say sorry.Your family has been killed,and yet you only heard the killers says 'collateral damage' over and over again,you can't help to think "Huh,so we're nothing to them...".They can save this people only by a sincere apology,but they don't,and thus creating lots and lots of insurgeons there.You get my point,rtgmath-san?Even Osama bin Laden first step into this looking at such sufferings the Bosnians Muslims(and of course Muslim's throughout the world) have gone through while the world was watching(looks like leisurely) and do nothing.So,he despised them all and decides to save those poor people by his own hand,thinking the lives of the innocents were way important for him rather than the killers and those who he see act as the accomplice,except for me he himself have lose sight of his real vision and go killing the innocents himself.Why do you think such a rich person(billionaire!) would trouble himself living in such a damp place and fight a war that seems impossible?Evil person only do things for his personal worldly gains,yet Osama doesn't really have anything to gain,but rather throw himself into trouble(and throw LOTs of money,yet with almost nothing to gain in return),while he could have live leisurely with his money,only believing he is doing the right thing.Of course,many of you never know about this or even to try to learn it,while it would be so easy if you stop for awhile and think about it in exchange.Ok,that's long.....but keep in mind that I'm NOT his supporter....
QUOTE (rtgmath-san)And yet there has been no other people quite like the Jews, whose Father begat three of the world's greatest monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Like it or not -- like them or not -- their history and ours are intertwined irrevocably.Yeah,of course.But our Great Prophet(Muhammad p.b.u.h.) doesn't have any in his teachings copied from the other two.It's all revelations send to him by God.And in a sense,Jewish does help Islam's progress though they never intended to.
-In Madinah,or previously Yathrib,there's bunch of influential clan of Jewish(Bani Khuraizah,Bani Nadhir and Bani Qainuqa') and they've built a wall for themselves there(they always did this,see what they're building in Palestine now?),always threatening and scaring the Arabs that they'll killed them all once the Last Prophet were sended down to them(they think the prophet would be one of them).So,when our Prophet preached to some group of Medinah's young men(6 of them),they have no trouble accepting it since they've heard about the Last prophet from the Jews over and over again.At first some of them maybe do so out of hatred for the Jews,and just happy knowing the last Prophet were actually one of them instead of the Jews,but later discovers they're so lucky to have converted into the beautiful Islam.-
So that's it.
Have some work to do,will edit this later.
Here comes the edit:
QUOTE (rtgmath-san)That US soldiers did some horrible things in Vietnam is well known. Some people were eventually prosecuted over some of it. However, these things were not "genocide."

We need to be specific with our terms. Genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation." We were engaged in a political war, not an ethnic one. We were killing "Communists", not necessarily Vietnamese. The objective was not to kill a people or nation. We were not out to destroy North Vietnam or to exterminate its people. We were there to establish a democracy in South Vietnam.

Yes, there were still large amounts of dead as a result. The war in Vietnam was ill-conceived. It was a reaction against Communist China. Please remember that we'd had quite a lot of bad experience with totalitarian regimes in WWII. The determination to spread democracy was a natural response to such experience, if we now see that it was not always the best one. There had been initial successes -- Japan, South Korea, Germany. Successes came harder the longer in. Well,guess I could agree with you on that And guess I use the wrong word/term there...my apologies if this by anyway have offended you...BUT!(here comes the all-timer but...),democracy isn't the only correct path for the world.If you looks at it carefully,it's clear that democracy itself now have become a mere political tools for US to spread their influence throughout the world...Communist,capitalist,there're just bunch of people who have neglected the most important thing,religion,and of course,God.Really,those who've neglected God's Words usually won't do really beautiful things for the world.The path God has shown us were no doubt were the BEST,but still,God have never restricted us to only one way of ruling(in this case democracy),but just give the guideline that as long as the way weren't disastrous or against His words,any kind of ruling a government would be fine.Well,not pointing the previous Vietnam having a good way of ruling though... But,US' gov. have use democracy as a reason for them spreading lies and waging war here and there.I don't mind if it's indeed for justice,but so far their intention were indeed arguable....
QUOTE (rtgmath-san)As part of those who won WWII, the US gained a rather large ego complex, sustained by huge economic gains. Now, as the rest of the world is on par with the US economically (or gaining rapidly), the US is finding out that it is not omnipotent. It is a hard place to be in, and some people are never going to "get it."

Please understand. The US has done plenty wrong. But for most people in the US (including many leaders) the decisions are made in large part due to a self-deluded ignorance.Yeah,surely i understand rtgmath-san.You're right and I was well-aware of that."GOOD" and "BAD" has never been restricted on only a certain group of people.Of course,they're always good people and bad people among us,be it they are Jews,Christians,or even my fellow Muslims.That's just a law of those called Human.But I sure do hope that the Americans,and people around the world understand this themselves,and not looking at us as All-BAD people,and even think Islam promoting violence in any way(ISLAM means PEACE!).Even when Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h.) was still alive,there are some Christians and Jews have converted to Islam and devoted fully to Islam,and were loved by our prophet(p.b.u.h) too.May God blessed them!
Sorry...my post was long...and my apologies if any part of it have somewhat offended you rtgmath-sa.I hope you'll write yet another good reply to this... (Edit:and I hope Bold-sama or noob-sempai will too )...
Regards,
ONCE AGAIN,ISLAM MEANS PEACE!!

QUOTE (d'observer @ Jan 21 2007, 02:44 AM)Good to have such a wise person here! And I actually pretty impolite to my father often,despite the fact I love him(and my mother!) really much,and I told myself again and again not to be rude to him,but I guess his attitude does get to me at times.I'm not that really good a person after all...please note this...
Well, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. I hope that I show wisdom. I aspire to be truly wise (does that make sense?). And as for being a good person after all, well we all fail, and miserably at times. It is good for us to remember it. And what is true with individuals is also true with nations and religions.


QUOTE So,the things of the past isn't what that I was really concerned about here,but rather the present.We can't changed the past after all,just need to remember them so it'll act as our guidance for our future acts.But the present doesn't seem to pleasant that I can agree with without saying anything,specifically about how US governments see things and act,more specifically concerning the Jewish.I'm not being specifically dislike or even hate the Jewish that I arise many questions about them time after time,but it's just many things about them and their acts that left me wondering.

Well, since you are more specifically interested in the present, this might need to be moved to another thread. I'll trust the moderators to make that decision. I will try to keep this in as much context as is possible, since we are interested in understanding the actions of others, even if we do not agree with them. So in that context ...

To be honest, I think you likely see more "Jewish" influence than what is there. By far the most reason for support of the Jews in the US is due to fundamentalist Christianity's devotion to the Jews, remembering the promise given to Abraham that whoever blessed him and his descendants would be blessed, and whoever cursed him and his descendents would be cursed.

And since the fundamentalists have a hard time distinguishing between opposition to a policy or cause and cursing, they tend to support Israel no matter what they do. It is an immature reaction, similar to a child who, though loved and cared for, when disciplined for bad behavior says to her parents, "You don't love me!"


QUOTE It's more like they(US) have been ignoring to understand the cause of the hatred.Hating is not something we human likes,but we always subjected to it.Not many could abolish the reason for them hating by themselves,but others,more importantly those who have cause the hatred have to help them get rid of those.An apology is one of the simplest and easiest way.Have you heard any word of an apology by the US government for killing so much of the Iraqis,or at least become the reason behind it,rtgmath-san?No.Almost none.Even if they were,it's just after the world pushed(so Hard!) for them to do so,and even that lacks sincerity,if there's any at all.(But they often says sorry to the US' army fallen soldiers's family....)

Actually, the "sorry" to the US soldier's family isn't much more than a formal letter regretting his death but saying that he died "in service to his country." No real sorrow there, and President Bush has said he is willing to invest more servicemen's lives in this venture.

But you are right. The US has ignored the cause of the hatred. Or hatreds (as plural). They ignored the background of the Iraqis before going in to depose Saddam Hussein. Hussein restrained division with an iron hand. But tribal hatreds in the region go back centuries, and the Shia/Sunna hatreds go back a thousand years. And never an apology between the opponents there, since each believes in the total rightness of their position and the necessity of revenge.

Had we known what we were getting into, I have a hard time believing that we would have done it.

And yes, the US has engendered bad feelings. The US has caused many deaths. But the "collateral damage" done to civilians by the US has been far less than the Iraqis have done to themselves. There have been many abuses. But the hatred has been much along the lines of "the friend to my enemy is my enemy." And since the US has tried to be friend to both Shia and Sunna, guess what happened? A friend to both became the enemy of all.

I agree that an apology for many of the deaths is warranted, and some have actually been given. But you know that an apology is a hard thing to give, simple as it is. After all, you take responsibility for an action with an apology. If you believe that an action was prompted by the bad behavior of your opponents, you have a hard time apologizing even if things go wrong. After all, if the bad guys had only been by themselves instead of being in a crowd of innocent civilians, then the strike on them wouldn't have killed innocent people. An apology would make us liable for reparations.

How often do you find a way to not apologize for things you really ought to apologize for? And what reasons do you have for that? It is the same with nations as with individuals.

Mind you, the things the insurgents or other perpetrators of violence demand apology for are no more than anything they do with impunity. You don't see the US forces beheading other people, or rounding up a bunch of noncombatants to shoot them in the head and leave them in the road.

And please understand, I think the US presence there is a mistake. I didn't like Saddam. He was brutal. The US truly thought it was "liberating" the Iraqis. As in any war, there are deaths that occur, but no nation or group going to war argues against the war on the basis that there will be some unfortunate deaths. With the exception of a very few instances, Iraqi civilian deaths due to US troop malice have been relatively few. On the other hand, Iraqi civilian deaths due to death squads from opposite sides of the Islamic coin have been frequent and unnecessarily bloody.


QUOTE Times and times,the US' medias only stating the casualties for the Iraqis caused by their bombing and such as collateral damage and refuse to say sorry.Your family has been killed,and yet you only heard the killers says 'collateral damage' over and over again,you can't help to think "Huh,so we're nothing to them...".

The term is cold, isn't it? But as I said, it isn't so much that there is no feeling about the deaths, but that the killers the US were after so often embed themselves among the innocent. And the "innocent" so often embrace the violent killers the US is after to shelter them. This is a perverse development, one which the US really doesn't know how to deal with. Hezbollah, for example, ran a social work that helped a lot of Lebanese. And they would set up artilliary and mortar positions right by (or even within!) a home of one of those they had helped. So when retaliatory bombing came from Israel, the Israelis were accused of indiscriminatory killing.

How do you deal with an enemy like that? I don't know. Maybe you have to tell the people in advance, "I'm sorry. You harbor the enemy in your home or allow him to be in your neighborhood without telling us, and you are no longer an innocent civilian. If you or your loved ones get killed while harboring such people, don't look to us for sympathy." Frankly, that is how the people of the region look at it. They don't say they are sorry when a revenge killing hurts the innocent.


QUOTE Even Osama bin Laden first step into this looking at such sufferings the Bosnians Muslims(and of course Muslim's throughout the world) have gone through while the world was watching(looks like leisurely) and do nothing.So,he despised them all and decides to save those poor people by his own hand,thinking the lives of the innocents were way important for him rather than the killers and those who he see act as the accomplice,except for me he himself have lose sight of his real vision and go killing the innocents himself.Why do you think such a rich person(billionaire!) would trouble himself living in such a damp place and fight a war that seems impossible?Evil person only do things for his personal worldly gains,yet Osama doesn't really have anything to gain,but rather throw himself into trouble(and throw LOTs of money,yet with almost nothing to gain in return),while he could have live leisurely with his money,only believing he is doing the right thing.

Ahhh, so you see that "evil" and "good" are complicated abstractions. Each person has his mixture of them, and can be deluded into doing evil for good reasons. I noted the same things about Bin Laden. He is a "True Believer", yet for him, Islam is not about peace, but about revenge and subjugation of the infidel.

And no, I recognize that saying these things about Bin Laden does not make you his supporter. His actions pose logical questions. He saw suffering, and he proposed that those who were relatively free of suffering feel suffering and anguish for their support of Israel. The Palestinian question, of course, would be answered by him by the annihilation of Israel. A pity.

As a note, if you like, we can restart the thread about Islam. Whether Islam is a religion of peace rather depends upon the individual practicing it, rather like Christianity. Whether Islam is superior to Judaism and Christianity is really a matter of opinion. My belief in the rightness and superiority of my faith (Christianity) does not impell me to blow you up. Nor do I know of any Christians who are killing others in the name of Christ today. On the other hand, I am daily aware of those in Islam who kill in the name of Muhammad for Allah's sake. No Christian nation makes it a crime to be Muslim, but many Islamic nations have made it a crime to be a Christian.

But again, we can discuss this on another thread. The purpose here is to try to understand why those who do certain awful things do them.


QUOTE Democracy isn't the only correct path for the world.If you looks at it carefully,it's clear that democracy itself now have become a mere political tools for US to spread their influence throughout the world...

Now, now. That is a bit harsh. And even if it were true, the idea of democracy is that each person's vote or decision matters and should be heard. That the US itself is not perfect in that regard is not a reason to discount good (if misguided) motivations.

And the reason why democracy is not the "correct path" for many countries is that they have no history for it. Democracy in the Western tradition is a product of hundreds of years of development.


QUOTE Communist,capitalist,there're just bunch of people who have neglected the most important thing,religion,and of course,God.Really,those who've neglected God's Words usually won't do really beautiful things for the world.

Oh dear! Rather the contrary, I'm afraid. Those who have ruled based on religion have often been the most bloody and cruel. More wars have been fought over religion, and more people have died in the name of religion than ever were killed by secularism. Inventors and scientists and educators have been primarily secular. A few were mildly religious, but for the most part, the kinder and more benevolent have been the more secular who did not feel that their faith was worth flailing others for not following.


QUOTE God have never restricted us to only one way of ruling(in this case democracy),but just give the guideline that as long as the way weren't disastrous or against His words, any kind of ruling a government would be fine.

Well, I would say that a dictatorship is rather much a worse form of government than a democracy. I would say that a theocracy that will not allow me to worship as I choose or convert to whatever faith I choose is worse than a freer form of government.


QUOTE But,US' gov. have use democracy as a reason for them spreading lies and waging war here and there.I don't mind if it's indeed for justice,but so far their intention were indeed arguable....

Bush and company have indeed lied. As has every nation. And while I am absolutely for the US leaving Iraq, I may note that doing so will unleash the full cruelty of those who claim to serve Allah on their own countrymen.


QUOTE But I sure do hope that the Americans,and people around the world understand this themselves,and not looking at us as All-BAD people,and even think Islam promoting violence in any way(ISLAM means PEACE!).

Oh, I don't think there are a lot of Americans who think Muslims to be all bad. I do think you will find only a few who believe that Islam is actually peaceful, even though "Islam" may mean "peace." It is in the practice of it, not simply in the words, and there has been far too little Islamic peace to convince others. Mind you, I don't claim that other religious governance has been any more peaceful.


QUOTE Even when Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h.) was still alive,there are some Christians and Jews have converted to Islam and devoted fully to Islam,and were loved by our prophet(p.b.u.h) too.May God blessed them!
Sorry...my post was long...and my apologies if any part of it have somewhat offended you rtgmath-sa.
And many Muslims and Jews have converted to Christianity. I would say they were blessed, too. Again, if we are going to do a comparative analysis, the Islam thread might be better.

No, you have not offended me. Nor was your post too long (in my opinion, at least, or in comparison to my posts!). But again, the point was not to agree, but to find understanding.

And while I do not condone many of the actions of my government, I do hope you understand them a little bit better. Things are not black and white. While the actions of the US have often been poorly conceived and often more poorly executed, the actions of the Islamic World are not really any better. It is easy to take sides. It is not always easy to parse the issues and make judgments that lead to understanding -- especially when it shows us that taking sides inevitably leads to minimizing the evil of one side and the exaggerating of the evil on the other side.

Regards,

QUOTE (d'observer @ Jan 19 2007, 01:41 PM)And one more side-note,John Kerry has this pledge to protect the Israel even better in his 2004 presidential campaign.That's weird considering why would an American presidential candidate would have such pledge to win votes,and seems this 'pledge' is just as important as to protect the Americans itself.
I believed you might have over estimated this. Don't forget that the US, unlike most of the rest of the worlds democracy, only have two political parties. So people can only vote for A or B. This means the options are very limited. The end results is that candidates have to please over 50% of the voting people (note that I said voting since the US have gotten really low percentage of the population voting.

So basically the statements you refer to were probably just statements to win pro-Israel groups in the US. But the US are not dependent on Israel (either economically or otherwise).

If you play close attention to the discourse during election times, each one target a specific group of voters while trying not to offend the other groups.


QUOTE (d'observer-san @ Jan 21 2007, 04:44 AM)Have you heard any word of an apology by the US government for killing so much of the Iraqis,or at least become the reason behind it,rtgmath-san?No.Almost none.Even if they were,it's just after the world pushed(so Hard!) for them to do so,and even that lacks sincerity,if there's any at all.(But they often says sorry to the US' army fallen soldiers's family....) You have to keep in mind that many US people believe they were doing Iraq a favor. Apart from the more educated groups, the general feeling is that Sadam Hussein was a monster that was killing babies having fun making his people suffer. So even if there is now a civil war going on, some thing it is a step in the right direction. (but I don't want to be off topic, this is a discussion that is starting to look lie it should be in the "Execution of Saddam Hussein" thread).

Since world war 2, don't forget the US have had a military based foreign policy. Meaning, they see their military has a tool to solve foreign diplomatic problems. Even if many people don't agree with it, we are forced to recognize that this approach was relatively successful. Apart from Vietnam, the US did not loose any of those wars (well, technically, the US will say they did a "tactical retreat" from Vietnam, not a loss, but we can agree that it was far from a successful operation)


QUOTE (d'observer-san @ Jan 21 2007, 04:44 AM)democracy isn't the only correct path for the world.If you looks at it carefully,it's clear that democracy itself now have become a mere political tools for US to spread their influence throughout the world...Communist,capitalist,there're just bunch of people who have neglected the most important thing,religion,and of course,God.Really,those who've neglected God's Words usually won't do really beautiful things for the world.The path God has shown us were no doubt were the BEST,but still,God have never restricted us to only one way of ruling(in this case democracy),but just give the guideline that as long as the way weren't disastrous or against His words,any kind of ruling a government would be fine. Now I am forced to strongly disagree. In my view politics and religion should never be mixed. There are two reasons for it.

First of all, which is the right religion? The basic message of most religion is mostly the same. Lie in peace and be a good person. But then people start arguing about relatively superficial aspect of religion. Just look at the differences between Catholics, Protestant and Anglican. Basicly it comes down to what rtgmath said

QUOTE (rtgmath on Jan 22 2007 @ 12:33 AM)Ahhh, so you see that "evil" and "good" are complicated abstractions. Each person has his mixture of them, and can be deluded into doing evil for good reasons. I noted the same things about Bin Laden. He is a "True Believer", yet for him, Islam is not about peace, but about revenge and subjugation of the infidel.

Secondly, there is always the risk of religious leaders twisting meaning and using it to control people. When a politician says or does something you don't agree with, you can voice the disagreement. But if it is said to be the voice of god, how can you disagree? You might thing it is a relatively small problem, but I can assure you the contrary. Until about 1960, Quebec has had many problems with the catholic religion that was trying to intertwine itself into the political system. That is why today religions plays no role in the affair of the states.

Those are the two main reason why many democracy are non religious. Like France which is legally non religious and others, like Canada which are non religious by general acceptance. But that rule is not absolute. Some states allow a relative place to religion like the US do.

QUOTE (Bold @ Jan 22 2007, 05:19 AM)Since world war 2, don't forget the US have had a military based foreign policy. Meaning, they see their military has a tool to solve foreign diplomatic problems. Even if many people don't agree with it, we are forced to recognize that this approach was relatively successful. Apart from Vietnam, the US did not loose any of those wars (well, technically, the US will say they did a "tactical retreat" from Vietnam, not a loss, but we can agree that it was far from a successful operation)

Actually it wasn't technically a war, since there was no declaration. We just went into Vietnam to crush Ho Chi Mihn and abolish communism in the Asian hemisphere. Dwight Eisenhower called it the "Domino Theory" where if they lost South Korea, every country in Asia would soon fall into a communist ideal. That's why the U.S. entered Vietnam in the first place. Strange yes, but it does explain why they didn't use their full potential in the war. U.S. can never be defeated thankfully.

Off-topic:
First of all,I would like to say sorry for my belated reply,have somethings to do,so I'm off away from my home for a couple of days
Secondly,I agree that our conversation does got off-topic recently,so I won't object if Bold-sama has any idea of whether changed the thread to a more appropriate one Maybe you could start a new thread that may include all of the topics we're about to discuss,Bold-sama?But before that,i'll stick my post here...
Thirdly,you guy's replies are indeed good,which has forced myself to think harder....
Ok,then back to the main topic:
-Well,actually I thought I've already put all my feelings and thinkings into my posts earlier,hoping that somehow you guys would agree with me,but oh well,this is a discussion board after all,if things were to be solved easily,we won't have wars/fights.We just need to work our way through and attain better understandings of each other right?And even 100% understandings was virtually impossible,but we can always compromise QUOTE (rtgmath-san)By far the most reason for support of the Jews in the US is due to fundamentalist Christianity's devotion to the Jews, remembering the promise given to Abraham that whoever blessed him and his descendants would be blessed, and whoever cursed him and his descendents would be cursed. Supposedly our Prophet,Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h.) was actually a decendant of Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim(p.b.u.h.) on Prophet Ishmael's(p.b.u.h.) side,so if that's how you believe it rtgmath-san,what do you think the Christians should do with their view on our Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h.) ,if that's the case?
QUOTE (rtgmath-san)I agree that an apology for many of the deaths is warranted, and some have actually been given. But you know that an apology is a hard thing to give, simple as it is. After all, you take responsibility for an action with an apology. If you believe that an action was prompted by the bad behavior of your opponents, you have a hard time apologizing even if things go wrong. After all, if the bad guys had only been by themselves instead of being in a crowd of innocent civilians, then the strike on them wouldn't have killed innocent people. An apology would make us liable for reparations.
Mind you, the things the insurgents or other perpetrators of violence demand apology for are no more than anything they do with impunity. You don't see the US forces beheading other people, or rounding up a bunch of noncombatants to shoot them in the head and leave them in the roadI agree that the Iraqis has done more damage to themselves,but THAT's because the US' caused it first(on the things I've said before).Things just went out of control for them,yet their actions were mostly based on hatred and sadness they've been accumulating before,and as I said,being dragged to war out of confused-emotion,they tend to forget the reason they were on war at first gradually.
And I don't agree that the US' gov. couldn't anticipated that,most people,at least the experts on this should have known.But they invade Iraq anyway,which then I say I was rather doubtful of their intentions.(If they really couldn't,then what a bunch of dummies they are....)Seems like the Iraqis lives are none of their concern.Of course,I realised that some,maybe most of US' soldiers were just thinking they're doing the 'rescue mission' for the Iraqis(which I think you're thinking just the same,rtgmath-san),or even some of them just doing their job for nationalism or the paycheck,but the one making the decisions in the gov.?No,I have doubts about at least 3/4 of the among highest-ranking officials.I think they're the problems here.
QUOTE (rtgmath-san)The term is cold, isn't it? But as I said, it isn't so much that there is no feeling about the deaths, but that the killers the US were after so often embed themselves among the innocent. And the "innocent" so often embrace the violent killers the US is after to shelter them. This is a perverse development, one which the US really doesn't know how to deal with. Hezbollah, for example, ran a social work that helped a lot of Lebanese. And they would set up artilliary and mortar positions right by (or even within!) a home of one of those they had helped. So when retaliatory bombing came from Israel, the Israelis were accused of indiscriminatory killing.

How do you deal with an enemy like that? I don't know. Maybe you have to tell the people in advance, "I'm sorry. You harbor the enemy in your home or allow him to be in your neighborhood without telling us, and you are no longer an innocent civilian. If you or your loved ones get killed while harboring such people, don't look to us for sympathy." Frankly, that is how the people of the region look at it. They don't say they are sorry when a revenge killing hurts the innocent.As much as I agree on some of the Islamic extremist's action on that,I always been sured that the Israelis were the one started that.(which mean they're the main to blame...).First,explain to me about Sabra&Shatilla's massacre,which 3,000 civilians,most of them were women and children were killed,can be justified?Just how,killing a pregnant woman,and taking out her fetus from her dead-body(it did happened!) never been much a problem to the US?Please note,this one of the main cause of anger for the Palestinians back then,which many of them pledge Jihad for it.
The Israelis(army to be exact) never have a problem or complain for taking random aim at the innocent citizens,but when the Palestinians retaliate,they were made as if they were the one started it(No need to hide the fact,IT IS the Israelis who first attack the Palestinians,while the Palestinians were the one doing self-defense.Please,look back on how the current Israel was established years ago,after WW2).If the Israelis can shoot 'whoever they want','wherever they want' in Palestine,please,do explain why those 'whoever they want' can't attack from 'wherever they want',as a revenge?E.g.You shoot at a bus,full of passengers,is it strange if some of the passangers shoot back from inside the bus?Then you shoot back,some of them dead,most of them were not those who shoot back,then you said"Oh,what the hell,who ask those people to shoot from inside the bus.See,innocents have been killed,we're not responsible.Those who shoot back are!We're actually targeting them!".So,that's nonsense!You shouldn't shoot at the bus in the first place,and thus make some of them shoot back at you!
That's a bit harsh,but,it's just how i see things there,and i did some research on it(with Muslim-based sources of course.Trust me,they're more truthful than the westerns').If you're not agree rtgmath-san,please explain it to me why.
QUOTE (rtgmath)Now, now. That is a bit harsh. And even if it were true, the idea of democracy is that each person's vote or decision matters and should be heard. That the US itself is not perfect in that regard is not a reason to discount good (if misguided) motivations.

And the reason why democracy is not the "correct path" for many countries is that they have no history for it. Democracy in the Western tradition is a product of hundreds of years of developmentI don't think I'm being harsh there...Sorry if i did....Anyway,I was saying that democracy is not the ONLY correct path for us,I'm not saying it's totally unreliable.But,the way the US and some other Europeans countries were forcing other countries to accept it,can it be justified as democracy.You did say,each person's vote or decision matters should be heard,and and I believe,the decisions made were based on majority.So,if most of people there refuse to accept it,shouldn't US stop forcing to do so?The US are acting on opposite way of their own beliefs....
Besides,i don't think letting the whole citizens(with certain qualification though) picking their President was wise enough.They can hardly know a candidate's true personality and behaviour,and only know them with about 3,4 months of campaigning(which usually fully-packed of lies and bragging...).How can this people,that some of them didn't know how a gov. is being run or what real important criteria and qualities a leader should have,made better choice for a position concerning the whole country?What's wrong if they let some good and well-accepted leaders,decide among themselves who should be one,since they are the experts and know a lot more in this 'department'?
QUOTE (rtgmath)Oh dear! Rather the contrary, I'm afraid. Those who have ruled based on religion have often been the most bloody and cruel. More wars have been fought over religion, and more people have died in the name of religion than ever were killed by secularism. Inventors and scientists and educators have been primarily secular. A few were mildly religious, but for the most part, the kinder and more benevolent have been the more secular who did not feel that their faith was worth flailing others for not following.
QUOTE (Bold-sama)Now I am forced to strongly disagree. In my view politics and religion should never be mixed. There are two reasons for it.

First of all, which is the right religion? The basic message of most religion is mostly the same. Lie in peace and be a good person. But then people start arguing about relatively superficial aspect of religion. Just look at the differences between Catholics, Protestant and Anglican. Basicly it comes down to what rtgmath saidNow,now.I maybe sound a bit harsh now,so sorry,but I need to say this after all.Religions should be a way of life,and ruling a government is also a part of life.You CAN separate them,but all you get is WORLDLY things,and yeah,also a proof you're not that faithful to your religion.It is harsh,right?I'm sorry.....
'People' that's mixing religions and politics often use the religion's excuse for many bad things in the past?Then,the 'People' is the bad one here,not religions.Also note the word past there.(most gov.s are using technologies and medias to hide their cruel and selfish act,not only the US,many do so.We DON'T have much of that in the past.....at least not this advance..To put it simply,hipocricy and lies made up most of the world's gov's...)
Please do understand(I know you guys are),the main problem is always be those we called HUMAN.Even if you separate religions and politics,if they wish to,they can still manipulate an all-politics-based government for bloody and selfish course.
A quick question here.Another harsh one,for all of us,including myself.Just how,we who live in the world created by God and entrusted to us,can seek God's blessings while avoiding God's words for certain part of our lives?Didn't we believe each and every of God's word is true that we stick to a certain religion?True,it's dangerous if someone use our religions to stir up 'people' and make enemies here and there,but for those 'people':
"Don't you know,and don't you think?!With hearts and minds given to you by God, if you failed to think and understand God's words properly,thus got tricked by some selfish persons,shouldn't you the one be blamed,not the God's words itself?"
Well,kinda like that....i wish i could potray that more beautifully.....
BUT,this world is but just a temporary world to live in,at least to those who believe that...
Note this:I'm not that good a Muslim myself,so that works as a reminder for myself too....But I do wish I can be better....
QUOTE (TehSoldure @ Jan 22 2007, 08:40 AM)Actually it wasn't technically a war, since there was no declaration. We just went into Vietnam to crush Ho Chi Mihn and abolish communism in the Asian hemisphere. Dwight Eisenhower called it the "Domino Theory" where if they lost South Korea, every country in Asia would soon fall into a communist ideal. That's why the U.S. entered Vietnam in the first place. Strange yes, but it does explain why they didn't use their full potential in the war. U.S. can never be defeated thankfully.I think I kinda agree with TehSoldure-san...
Sorry,another long post,rtgmath-san,Bold-sama....And I'm really really sorry if my post has somehow offended you two...or anybody else...But sometimes I do got carried away,which is not a good quality for Muslim.But,it's my bad,not my religion.ISLAM MEANS PEACE!!

Regards,

QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Mar 18 2006, 11:55 PM) had he not have dragged the U.S. into the war, he probably would have ended up winning. His biggest mistake was not taking heed to our warnings about discontinuing sub attacks on us. All he had to do was not shoot the U.S. ships, but noooo, he decided "to hell with them, we can take them! *RAWR* *shoots at U.S. ships and gets his ass kicked*"
the unrestricted submarine warfare was the casue of us entering world war one

Hitlers invasions: many of them were seen as justified in the worlds view, for instance the remamerment of the rhineland was put this way in an english news paper:" why shouldnt the germans be allowed in the rhine land that would be like asking a man to stay out of his own garden." not to mention instances with this one was the french sudden occupation of the rhineland. the ansluch or anexation of austria was soposed to happen by plebicite but for what ever reason (hitler cited communist intervention) he walked in a day early. the chech republic had the sudaten homeland which was at one time the birht place of bavarian culture, not to mention pre wolrd war one the czech area was little more than a slavic province of Austria, and highly influanced by both germany and Austria they were often seen as baby brothers to Germany, much like the dutch to the west (granted these views have changed since then). poland became an independant country after world war one but thier forceful anexation of the "free city of danzig" was seen as an act of aggression to many of the easten prussian provicances Danzig was traditionaly at the time a german city only made "free" so the poles would have access to the north sea.
Germanys spread/alliances in responce to Russia
Russia was off fighting many wars trying to spread thier influance over europe finland, poland, the balkins the baltics regions all felt russias breath down thier necks, infact many argue that the plan for containment of communism comes from the germans, with thier Anti-Comintern Pact, combineing this with the anti agression pact hirlter made with stalin the only sure fire way to contain comunism was to annex your friendly neighbors, see anexation of allys to the north.
Hitler as a leader:
general: terrbile
speaker: great
often polices were done by his underlings, as far as extermination of jew. the holicost had at least 6 million people dilberalty killed outside of war, most likly the numbers are scewed to support the victors of the war, that and evidence that some "concetration camps were dummied up to look as extermination camps, and the inconsistancy of camp stories lead many to speculate the seriousness of the events.
world war two was invedible. basicly the german empire was a world power, it toook 4 world powers to take it down in world war one, this is like one guy fighting 4 guys of equal stature and holding his own for a long time. then when he chose to leave the fight as germany did, they demanded his wallet his car, and his house.... even if it wasnt hitler, that guy is comming back to get his stuff eventully. post world war two well the guy was put in the hospital told he couldnt have a car a gun and then took away his back porch and yard but now he doesnt have to mow, and is really doing well in the arts and crafts, in other words becasue germany isnt doing all the things a noraml super power would normaly do it has allowed itself to flurish economicly. but dont be supriesed if he tryes to get the car gun and back yard back, or at least ask for it later.

Just a quick note to deal with this observation:

QUOTE (d'observer)Now,now.I maybe sound a bit harsh now,so sorry,but I need to say this after all.Religions should be a way of life,and ruling a government is also a part of life.You CAN separate them,but all you get is WORLDLY things,and yeah,also a proof you're not that faithful to your religion.It is harsh,right?I'm sorry.....
'People' that's mixing religions and politics often use the religion's excuse for many bad things in the past?Then,the 'People' is the bad one here,not religions.Also note the word past there.

There are a lot of different people in the world, with a lot of different beliefs. While my faith is an integral part of my life and behavior, I do not believe that I have the right or the duty to force others to live according to the dictates of my faith. Far from being any kind of indication (much less proof) that I am not "that faithful" to my religion, it is indeed one indication that I am being faithful to it.

For example, I do not believe that I have the right to force you to live like a Christian. Neither do I believe I should be subject to Sharia law or otherwise be forced to live under Islamic law.

For that matter, I don't want other Christians telling me how I should believe and live as a matter of law. Traditionally, religious governments have tried to settle doctrinal disputes by legally installing one and outlawing another. And the best has not always prevailed.

Furthermore, while religion tends not to change, the world still changes and situations change. Governments operating under religious control tend to be stifling and unable to adequately or appropriately adjust to the needs of a changing world. Nor do they seem to be concerned with the individual.

So, as a general rule, I resist theocratic onslaughts on the freedoms of others. That doesn't mean I agree with what many others may do. But I will not force them to behave in accordance with my own beliefs. After all, if a power comes into being later that wants to force me to behave in accordance with their beliefs without regard to my own, they would have as much right to do that to me as I have done it to others.


QUOTE Besides,i don't think letting the whole citizens(with certain qualification though) picking their President was wise enough.They can hardly know a candidate's true personality and behaviour,and only know them with about 3,4 months of campaigning(which usually fully-packed of lies and bragging...).How can this people,that some of them didn't know how a gov. is being run or what real important criteria and qualities a leader should have,made better choice for a position concerning the whole country?What's wrong if they let some good and well-accepted leaders,decide among themselves who should be one,since they are the experts and know a lot more in this 'department'?


Oh yes, an oligarchical approach. But then, these "well-accepted" leaders -- who are they accountable to? Oh, that's right, no one. They claim God's authority.

Sigh.

Democracy isn't perfect. It's just better than anything else on the market, if you can get it and keep it and not ruin it. There is no system that cannot be corrupted. Your oligarchy gets corrupted by power really, really fast. And of course, an oligarchy can spread a pack of lies just as quickly as in a democracy. The difference is that in an oligarchy or other system where the "people" do not have the freedom to choose their own leaders is that in a democracy, freedom of the press allows for lies to be exposed.

Oddly enough, the system you propose (the good, well-accepted leaders choosing other leaders without restraint) has been promoted by Bush. After all, he was elected, so he should be able to choose who he wants as judges, heads of government agencies, etc., right? And the Republican congress generally gave him what he wanted (with a few exceptions).

Due to the human condition, I do not trust any man to be so devout that he can be assumed to be incorruptible and to always have the best interests of others at heart. So I'll stick with democracy, an admittedly flawed system. The other systems are flawed, too.

Regards,

QUOTE (rtgmath @ Jan 24 2007, 12:00 AM) Just a quick note to deal with this observation:



Oh yes, an oligarchical approach. But then, these "well-accepted" leaders -- who are they accountable to? Oh, that's right, no one. They claim God's authority.

Sigh.

Democracy isn't perfect. It's just better than anything else on the market, if you can get it and keep it and not ruin it. There is no system that cannot be corrupted. Your oligarchy gets corrupted by power really, really fast. And of course, an oligarchy can spread a pack of lies just as quickly as in a democracy. The difference is that in an oligarchy or other system where the "people" do not have the freedom to choose their own leaders is that in a democracy, freedom of the press allows for lies to be exposed.

Oddly enough, the system you propose (the good, well-accepted leaders choosing other leaders without restraint) has been promoted by Bush. After all, he was elected, so he should be able to choose who he wants as judges, heads of government agencies, etc., right? And the Republican congress generally gave him what he wanted (with a few exceptions).

Due to the human condition, I do not trust any man to be so devout that he can be assumed to be incorruptible and to always have the best interests of others at heart. So I'll stick with democracy, an admittedly flawed system. The other systems are flawed, too.

Regards,
I know the poltical system convo isa bit off topic, however icouldnt help but to wade in on this one. Demcracy is by far the worst form of government luckliy the USA is a republic, only te 3rd worst govermnet what is he second worst government one may ask well it is anarchy or the lack of government.
Democracies are to intune to the fical masses, who are to interested in things the A shouldnt be interested in, B private affairs that have no berring on prefromance, and C any scandal the media will give them, and the mdia will make it up if it cantfind it.
Republics are only slightly more stable, with terms and what not but still historicly i far worse than an oligarchy, who are typicly held in check by milirary and Churches. these are stabel but often end up as dictatorship becasue of infighting
Autocrat, Dictatro king, emprerorwhat ever you want to call it is by far the most effect form (good or bad) of government when properly done with an educated council (who should be ellected in my opinion by the industries they would repersen like education civial services military ect) and these should be non inheritable or nepitistic. these are very effective and very stable see the roman "good emperors" as an example.

Back to subject kindof.... Hitler had a simmilar condition to hat i just explaned but due to inreased parinoia stress, a variety of drugs, and the eraly on set of parkinsins the leader became ineffective and should have steped down, but due to an onging war this was next to impossible.

Finally,I have enough room for replyng to rtgmath-san post....Anyway rtgmath-san,would you like to move our discussion here to 'Islam' thread?We could avoid being off-topic there..at least for most part of our discussionQUOTE (rtgmath)There are a lot of different people in the world, with a lot of different beliefs. While my faith is an integral part of my life and behavior, I do not believe that I have the right or the duty to force others to live according to the dictates of my faith. Far from being any kind of indication (much less proof) that I am not "that faithful" to my religion, it is indeed one indication that I am being faithful to it.

For example, I do not believe that I have the right to force you to live like a Christian. Neither do I believe I should be subject to Sharia law or otherwise be forced to live under Islamic law.I'm sorry that I didn't make this clear,but when I'd say I perfer to have religion-based(Islamic to be precise) government instead of those who separated their religions,I didn't exactly mean that all people/citizens should abide to the Shari'ah law.The one I'm saying is having a form of government that abide to their religions law themselves,before doing any decision regarding their citizens.Which mean the decision they made won't be contradicting with their teaching and beliefs..
The Shari'ah law you're talking about is actually a form of Justice system,more like what kind of punishment you get for doing this or that.It's not basically a form of ruling.Besides,the Shari'ah law were meant only for Muslims,and if the non-muslims don't wish that they should abide by those law,we won't forced them to accept it.We'll just applying on the muslims and the non-muslims can ask for other kind of Justice system they wish.Please note that the Shari'ah law exist only to protect the law and order and the security of the citizens..

QUOTE For that matter, I don't want other Christians telling me how I should believe and live as a matter of law. Traditionally, religious governments have tried to settle doctrinal disputes by legally installing one and outlawing another. And the best has not always prevailed.So,please give me the proofs that the secular government have perform any better than the previous one....legally installing one and outlawing another were done mostly by the Christian empire.And as I said,it's all done by individuals or certain group of people for their own selfish course,not the religions itself.Please don't generalise all people of the world would the same way they did,and for all the time.
QUOTE (rtgmath)Furthermore, while religion tends not to change, the world still changes and situations change. Governments operating under religious control tend to be stifling and unable to adequately or appropriately adjust to the needs of a changing world. Nor do they seem to be concerned with the individualThe religions that can hardly cope with the changes of time and the world's trend,sorry this might sound harsh,would only mean they were created by mere humans only,not God.And please do note,that even if Islam were viewed as behind-times or whatever you guys called it,it's actually not.Islam is always suitable for all time and everywhere.It's actually the muslims themselves is now currently pretty much behind,especially in education and way of thinkings,all that thanks to the colonization by the Westerns.They usually limited education on the colonized people,and usually practice divide-and-conquer way of ruling.Thanks to that,even after they left,those people have to spend most time restoring even peace and education among themselves,and even now has yet to catch up.So,who is it to be blame for all that?It's that 'secular-based-government' that most westerns were always bragging about.And now they say their way is the best,and others not looking at their current development compared to them,while it's actually them who cause those people for their lagging behind..It's sort of a tactics,don't you think?
And please also note,the WW1 and WW2 are initated by those 'secular' government,which proofs that the problem has always been mankind,not the religions send by God.
QUOTE Oh yes, an oligarchical approach. But then, these "well-accepted" leaders -- who are they accountable to? Oh, that's right, no one. They claim God's authority.

sighI'm the one who really eager to do the *sigh* here...
"Oh yes,a democratic approach.But then,these "masses"---who are they accountable too?Oh,that's right,no one.They claim their own exclusivity even if they have less knowledge about it."hehe,same old song,with some new way of singing...
That's why I said that democracy isn't the ONLY way for us.Democracy isn't perfect,like you said rtgmath-san.Oligarchy approach is of course wasn't perfect either.It's because what ever kind of system is it,it's run by us,HUMAN.HUMAN is always far from PERFECTION.But that's why we strive to look for the best system that suited us.AND,one thing that works for one doesn't always work for another.World is full of possibilities,isn't that what educated person like you believe?Even for practising a system,there's lots of thing to be considered.The westerns aren't always the same with the rest of the world,despite the fact we are all human.There's much differences between us,be it educational level,way of thinkings,culture,nature and personality and vice versa.Because of all of this differences,the system that work most effective also differs.Is it wrong to be different,while it bring no harm to the peoples,nor violating the God's teaching?
That's why I said I'm not really appreciate the fact that the Westerns were forcing others to accept it,not really because I dislike democracy and such.It's just forcing people like that,make me wonder,were they doing that for the sake of others,or just want to spread their influences and want al people to be like them?
EDIT:YAY!!New thread!Thanx Bold-sama! Finally we could avoid being off-topic...Ok,here comes the edit vers.....
QUOTE (rtgmath)Oddly enough, the system you propose (the good, well-accepted leaders choosing other leaders without restraint) has been promoted by Bush. After all, he was elected, so he should be able to choose who he wants as judges, heads of government agencies, etc., right? And the Republican congress generally gave him what he wanted (with a few exceptions). But then again,Bush were chosen by the masses,who as I said earlier,not many of them paticularly knowledgable of how a government truly works.Not to mention they've got quite a limited choice,whether it's Kerry,or Bush(you could say the other candidates were basically there just to add a little more 'fun' to this).Most of them simply choose who they like better,or the opposites of the one they dislike,not to mention with all that attractive campaign or promises that sound appealing.Can Bush really be regard as 'well-accepted' leader?We even have doubts on whether he IS a 'good' leader....The 'well-accepted' leaders(S!) I'm pointing at before were those we know much of personality,and has produced good results for us,not the one we know only for 3 or 4 months.AND they select among themselves for a higher position,at least in this case we're talking about(the President's seat).ALSO,they supposed to be just and even better if they're neutral,so that their selection were not biased,but truly for the sake of the people/citizens.What are you talking there rtgmath-san is Bush,who were selected with quite a flawed system,picking people to join his government.Of course they made quite a consideration about that,and there's chances they will pick a good one for each position,but even that was biased,usually they pick those who shared the same ideals with them,not really the best.This 'party' system the democracy was having clearly clouded many decisions made by the ruling government.
But then again,the oligarchy system weren't free from those 'biased' thing either.That's why I said we shouldn't separate religion from politics.The well-mannered or should we say 'religious' leaders usually understand the need of being just,as that's what most religions stressed on.So,this people at least think about the people first,and that's one of the most vital part of what a ruler should have.We find among this people those who're best in politics skill,and usually we get a good,perhaps a great leader.Democracy and 'secular' government COULD produce such amazing people,but most of the time it's just pure coincidential...
Please look how Khulafa' ur-Rasyidin rule the early empire of Islam,those 4 people(Abu bakar,Umar,Usman,Ali) were highly religious,and they have good skills in politics,AND they were GREAT leaders.Have they separate religions(Islam to be exact) from their way of rulings?NEVER!They usually put the people's interest way before theirs,more than that what the God(Allah) has told them how to do so.Can anyone deny the fact that they were great leaders?Just how many in this time we could find leaders who spend most of their money for the sake of their people,and live in poverty as the result like them?We COULD easily find those who spend people's money for their own sake...
That's pretty long post yet again,but I run pretty short on time now,so I will add more when I will be able to.Yet again sorry for any parts of my post that you find to be offending,rtgmath-san.Really,even if we do not share much way of thinking and opinions,I really respect you and your strong stands for your beliefs.Hope we can stay or become(if we still weren't one) good friends.
One more editing....:I'd really love to hear your opinions on this Bold-sama. Could you post a few reply on this when you're free?
Good day to you,