Theoretically possible, but the discussion dealt specifically with Christianity and Christianity is incompatible with such an idea.Reciprocity wrote:
you can always sacrifice yourself to the state in the name of god.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
To boil Macbeth's post down, you can't sacrifice yourself twice. You can only sacrifice yourself to the state if there is no God in need of your full attention.
christianity is no less a plastic tool as any other religion. would christianity, as we recognize it, fit with lenin's plans? no. but morally and ethically defined tenets of equality, sacrifice and even fealty would.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Theoretically possible, but the discussion dealt specifically with Christianity and Christianity is incompatible with such an idea.Reciprocity wrote:
you can always sacrifice yourself to the state in the name of god.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
To boil Macbeth's post down, you can't sacrifice yourself twice. You can only sacrifice yourself to the state if there is no God in need of your full attention.
It's difficult to turn something that is literally written in stone into a tool for you to use directly. There are too many issues, like Macbeth pointed out, with Christianity making promises of infinitely high returns on investment that has nothing to do with the state, and it's all written down in the most widely published book ever.Reciprocity wrote:
christianity is no less a plastic tool as any other religion. would christianity, as we recognize it, fit with lenin's plans? no. but morally and ethically defined tenets of equality, sacrifice and even fealty would.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Theoretically possible, but the discussion dealt specifically with Christianity and Christianity is incompatible with such an idea.Reciprocity wrote:
you can always sacrifice yourself to the state in the name of god.
Communist leaders aren't stupid, there is a reason why they go with atheism. If they wanted to go with religion there is no reason why not to just make it a theocracy, works out the same for the leaders.
When you control the stone, what's written in the stone, and the illiterate peasants who comprise your populace, I don't think the message is so difficult to control. But I do understand your point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's difficult to turn something that is literally written in stone into a tool for you to use directly.
When I said written in stone I was referring to stone tablets, i.e. Ten Commandments.
I believe in Reaganomics. It is true today as it was back in 1981 when our country had a severe recession...similar to what we had last year - their answer was to lower taxes, Obama's is to raise taxes (letting Bush tax cuts expire) and add new regulations (Obamacare, the new Financial Reform Bill, and whatever they can get Cap & Tax through).JohnG@lt wrote:
Not openly. It would be political suicide. Too many people still believe in the myth of Reaganomics for them to have any chance of bringing back those tax rates. But, they would if they could. Trust me.Reciprocity wrote:
who is suggesting this? I have not heard anyone suggest we go back to pre-1980's tax rates.JohnG@lt wrote:
And yes, if they could, they would jack the top end tax bracket to 70% or so while expanding welfare and other payouts in order to 'close the income gap'. How do I know this? Because they've done it before and plenty of people still worship at the altar of FDR.
Reagan lowered taxes for everyone...that started one of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history (also doubled tax revenue to the government before the end of that decade). Its just too bad that spending didn't slow (remember the Democrats were in charge with Tip O'neal and crew so Reagan had to work with them often having to agree with their spending to get what he wanted unfortunately).
The Russians didn't restrain themselves at all, didn't help them.Reciprocity wrote:
it could always be worse. right now we restrain ourselves to our own detriment, but that's just the cost of waging modern war against insurgents. and I'm not the biggest fan of this war or any war.Dilbert_X wrote:
so what?
The 'but for the ROE we'd be winning' argument doesn't fly.
Doctor Who would have solved it.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo … 5899715836
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-01 22:49:54)
Fuck Israel
yeah, I got that. I just think you're underestimating the amount of control that could be exerted over the early 20th century russian populace.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
When I said written in stone I was referring to stone tablets, i.e. Ten Commandments.
With Iraq at least the country is `modern` and progressed enough to hopefully stand on its own feet, whereas Afghanistan is a tribal nation still stuck in the 800 A.D..Dilbert_X wrote:
The Russians didn't restrain themselves at all, didn't help them.Reciprocity wrote:
it could always be worse. right now we restrain ourselves to our own detriment, but that's just the cost of waging modern war against insurgents. and I'm not the biggest fan of this war or any war.Dilbert_X wrote:
so what?
To win in Afghanistan and to be able to withdrawal would require at least two or three generations of (~50 year) commitment to bring this country into at least the 20th century. Even a neo-con like myself knows that this is not possible, especially, like Reciprocity noted, we restrain ourselves (now with McKristal out and Betreus in the rules of engagement will be better).
However, even with the better rules of engagement, the nation building effort will need to be sustained. For us to get a 'win' we need to get the hearts and minds of the Afghan people (the Russians did not and is the key reason they lost).
Our technology will help us reduce our casualties and collateral damage.
The big wildcard in all this is Pakistan. Unless they let us have unfettered access into Warhisitan (the place we believe OBL to be), then this really will take decades to fight.
Oh, and the moment we pull out of Afghanistan it the Islamofacists around the World will rejoice more than they did after 9/11.
Last edited by Harmor (2010-08-01 23:01:56)
Well I wasn't necessarily talking about the 20th century Russian populace either, I was talking more generally about today's world. Communication is so widespread that anywhere with an appreciable level of technology would have at least heard of/have a basic understanding of the Bible. 100 years ago that wasn't the case. Well maybe even then the Bible was absurdly widespread, but you understand what I mean.Reciprocity wrote:
yeah, I got that. I just think you're underestimating the amount of control that could be exerted over the early 20th century russian populace.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
When I said written in stone I was referring to stone tablets, i.e. Ten Commandments.
different time, different war, and at this point, different objectives.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Russians didn't restrain themselves at all, didn't help them.
The 'but for the ROE we'd be winning' argument doesn't fly.
This was essentially my point.Reciprocity wrote:
religion is a very pliable utility of control.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Whatever. I hardly have to prove myself to you.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Your "argument" could have been a copy/paste job out of any piece of material telling early twenty somethings to avoid taking out a loan to buy their first car. It demonstrated no understanding of the time value of money.JohnG@lt wrote:
Lol, are you really this mad that my argument didn't line up exactly with what you read in the criticism section of his wikipedia page so you don't know how to counter? Get over yourself. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. You've got the wisdom and life experience of a fruit fly.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This is JohnG@lt missing the point that because both sides are terrified of losing, we will have neither the socialist state the Democrats want or the completely unrestrained free market christian theocracy the Republicans want.
You have never read/understood the fiscal policy section of Wikipedia, much less an economics textbook.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The point is the military campaign, and the specifics of how it is carried out, is entirely irrelevant to future success or failure in Afghanistan.Harmor wrote:
With Iraq at least the country is `modern` and progressed enough to hopefully stand on its own feet, whereas Afghanistan is a tribal nation still stuck in the 800 A.D..
To win in Afghanistan and to be able to withdrawal would require at least two or three generations of (~50 year) commitment to bring this country into at least the 20th century. Even a neo-con like myself knows that this is not possible, especially, like Reciprocity noted, we restrain ourselves (now with McKristal out and Betreus in the rules of engagement will be better).
However, even with the better rules of engagement, the nation building effort will need to be sustained. For us to get a 'win' we need to get the hearts and minds of the Afghan people (the Russians did not and is the key reason they lost).
Our technology will help us reduce our casualties and collateral damage.
The big wildcard in all this is Pakistan. Unless they let us have unfettered access into Warhisitan (the place we believe OBL to be), then this really will take decades to fight.
Oh, and the moment we pull out of Afghanistan it the Islamofacists around the World will rejoice more than they did after 9/11.
Fuck Israel
Reciprocity wrote:
Now you sound like ATG.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, because he's open with his agenda
This woman essentially makes the same arguments I did against the health care bill. Listen for the Congressman's response at 2:50.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Back from Utah. Buried my Mom.
hello to all.
hello to all.
Sorry to hear that.
My condolences.ATG wrote:
Back from Utah. Buried my Mom.
hello to all.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Thanks you Sir.JohnG@lt wrote:
My condolences.ATG wrote:
Back from Utah. Buried my Mom.
hello to all.
I think that video was thread worthy.
Someone has apparently never heard of Clausewitz.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is the military campaign, and the specifics of how it is carried out, is entirely irrelevant to future success or failure in Afghanistan.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Good read. I'd even rank him higher than Sun Tzu.FEOS wrote:
Someone has apparently never heard of Clausewitz.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is the military campaign, and the specifics of how it is carried out, is entirely irrelevant to future success or failure in Afghanistan.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I've grown to prefer Corbett...but they each have their place.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good read. I'd even rank him higher than Sun Tzu.FEOS wrote:
Someone has apparently never heard of Clausewitz.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is the military campaign, and the specifics of how it is carried out, is entirely irrelevant to future success or failure in Afghanistan.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Maybe all these experts should try studying history.FEOS wrote:
I've grown to prefer Corbett...but they each have their place.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good read. I'd even rank him higher than Sun Tzu.FEOS wrote:
Someone has apparently never heard of Clausewitz.
Fuck Israel
I don't know who Corbett is, but Clauswitz is history. Prussian commander in the 18th century, I think.Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe all these experts should try studying history.