>> ^shinyblurry:

That isn't an indictment against money, it is an indictment against greed. God doesn't care if you have money, but He does care what you use it for. He made Solomon the richest person on the planet. I think those who are rich should be using their money for the Lords work and giving heartily to the poor, so I do not support the aquisition of wealth for wealths sake. I think that is sinful. However, that is their choice, and it is not up to me, but it is between them and God.


Typical christian, thinks he knows what his god wants but ignores what he says... Just think about how much good works those stashed millions could be doing for the poor. Dare I say it, the 'God' conservatives put so much stock in is a *gasp* socialist...

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."
-Proverbs 21:13

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
-Proverbs 31:8-9

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
-Matthew 6:24

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
-Matthew 19:23-24

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
-Matthew 25:41-45

"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 17:5

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
-Proverbs 22:16

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
-1 Timothy 6:9-10

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
-1 Timothy 6:17-19

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
-Ezekiel 16:49

"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."
-Proverbs 22:2

"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."
-Proverbs 14:31

"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor."
-Proverbs 22:9

"Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse."
-Proverbs 28:6

"A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 28:20

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7

"Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death."
-Proverbs 11:4

"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them."
-Proverbs 22:22-23

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."
-Proverbs 23:4-5

"Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless."
-Ecclesiastes 5:10

"A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."
-Proverbs 22:1

"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."
-Deuteronomy 15:11

"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have."
-Hebrews 13:5

"You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."
-Psalm 14:6

"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done."
-Proverbs 19:17

"A rich man may be wise in his own eyes, but a poor man who has discernment sees through him."
-Proverbs 28:11

"A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare."
-Proverbs 21:6

"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall."
-Proverbs 18:11

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world..
Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault...
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well.

Exactly. Without war America goes back to the 30's - California's border closed, 400,000,000 acres of farmland turned to dust by greed and lack of regulation, stillbirths due to malnutrition, bank of America paying people (WHITE People!) 5c a day for picking lettuce and beating them in some cases to DEATH for demanding a liveable wage (it was 25c before the excess labour turned up from the dust bowl).
Then corresponding communist organisation by the workers, FBI involvent in repression via total constitutional breaches, etc etc.
Without WW2 it looked like civil war - or reduction to a slave force for big east coast finance. Then the massive battle fleet parked off the coast of Japan mysteriously provoked an attack - and whammo - a job for everyone, a new massive industry (still what America spends half of all it's money on to this day), and a border extended effectively all the way around the globe, allowing the cycle to start again except on a much bigger stage.
What happens now when the organisms reach the edge of the petri dish? Well, better stick some of that annual $1 trillion into FTL research cos we're going to need a new planet.
The choice - face up to it, or shout boo at anyone who tries to tell you the truth.


Welcome to the world of bullshit for people who only speak and know bullshit -- that's everyone, FYI. And it's going to be that way for all of time, whether it's at the workplace of 2012, politics in 3012, or Sunday school at the Grand Cabal's Science Center for Observable Theological Theory in the year 100,012. I already have FTL drives and I keep em powered up wherever I go.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world..
Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault...
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well.


Exactly. Without war America goes back to the 30's - California's border closed, 400,000,000 acres of farmland turned to dust by greed and lack of regulation, stillbirths due to malnutrition, bank of America paying people (WHITE People!) 5c a day for picking lettuce and beating them in some cases to DEATH for demanding a liveable wage (it was 25c before the excess labour turned up from the dust bowl).
Then corresponding communist organisation by the workers, FBI involvent in repression via total constitutional breaches, etc etc.

Without WW2 it looked like civil war - or reduction to a slave force for big east coast finance. Then the massive battle fleet parked off the coast of Japan mysteriously provoked an attack - and whammo - a job for everyone, a new massive industry (still what America spends half of all it's money on to this day), and a border extended effectively all the way around the globe, allowing the cycle to start again except on a much bigger stage.

What happens now when the organisms reach the edge of the petri dish? Well, better stick some of that annual $1 trillion into FTL research cos we're going to need a new planet.

The choice - face up to it, or shout boo at anyone who tries to tell you the truth.

Good luck on the revolution front. Not only do we need a new foundation on how we deal with corporations, police, military, science, religion/state, prisons, health-care, lawmaking, politics, policy foreign/domestic, executive functions state or country, emergency response systems, logistics roads/bridges/railroad, infrastructure, welfare and societal needs, energy, money/goods, trade, etc...

Like he said, we need a new foundation on our psychology. What we teach our children is bunk, it will make the majority of them happy for a few fleeting moments and unhappy the rest of their lives. We need to find a new foundation to help find happiness for everyone for the majority of their entire life--without resorting to competition and instead combining our strengths and creating a great community.

I'd wager the closest you'll get is to literally do education completely different than what we do now. Start at an early age and give the children a glimpse of ALL trades to be used and learned in the world. Over time find what they excel at and LIKE doing and help them achieve their goal in that field. Then continually narrow the field as they get older so they can truly become a master at something, like a chemical engineer. Education would, graphically, look more like a giant plinko board that students slowly make their way down and filter themselves into the field THEY want. If we supported students all the way PASS college to the point they were job ready (and in fact you could perhaps harmonize corporations into the mix, so that when you get your degree not only have you most likely interned/researched at the place you will work gaining practical knowledge you are ready day one out of school to start a job you LOVE and excel at.

I know you'll get clumps and pools of people in places you may not have uses for them, but if we truly put our minds to it I bet we could find a way to still get the method to work (I know corporations won't necessarily do what I said except in--most likely-- the science fields, but having just a few large companies do it would help). Then if we lived a slower paced life, with more time off to OURSELVES than in slavery to someone else you might see a change in the overall attitude of our community and maybe civilization. Help people pay for modest houses and maybe even some furniture. Cover healthcare needs for each other, maybe even other social services as well. Tone the military down to a defensive one, one that can defend us, but can only truly become a real war machine like what happened in WWII.

Granted, there would be a lot to work out, but I highly doubt it's impossible to create a GREAT life here on this planet if we all work together to make it happen. Hell, we walked on the fucking moon! I know most of this will require not only leaps in science and with those leaps, hopefully ,soon, some of those bring about leaps in the psychology fields helping us to genetically weed out sociopaths, psychopaths, unipolar, bipolar, borderline, Asperger's, sever depression/anxiety, OCDs, addictions, etc... Plus with expanded bio-engineering, especially in genetics, if we could make sure people atleast have an IQ of say 120 (hell if you truly find the master switch--just turn it up), get rid of all genetic diseases and birth imperfections, rid us of deafness, blindness, baldness, etc... Then add in the advancements in bio-engineering on the mechanical, nanotechnological, electronics, and computers and we'll have one hell of a ride (of course if we haven't solved the psychological issues by then, we will almost certainly kill ourselves off). But, that stuff is 50 years away with some probably 150-200 years away. If we can help stabilize our humanity, through engineering and perfecting our psychology, I really believe we'll have a chance one day to see some sort of Utopian society.

Everything he talked about most likely leads to something that MIGHT be better than what we had. But, it won't be here in the U.S. and I doubt it'll even be in Asia (China, South Korea, and Japan). Europe, excluding the U.K. has a chance, with northern Europe having a better chance. You never quite know who history will choose next to bring the next big leap in progress to the human civilization.

/I didn't think I'd write something so long about that. Oh well, I just felt like sharing a little more optimistic view on what could happen to we humans.

Obviously he didn't hide it well enough, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I offer you a test of your own objectivity. Here are some quotes significantly worse than 'a few scattered words like "Jew" and "Sodomy". Will your mind change based on new evidence or will you make more excuses?

-------------------
"Blast ‘Em?
(From the Ron Paul Political Report October 1992 newsletter. [source])

If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking.

It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell their family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months.

In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by the media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob.

What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
------------------

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

"Has been to hell and back"...

... I have a huge problem with the way he's portrayed in this video. It glamorizes the perceived value of having put his life in the toilet for years. Let's remember that this guy was an idiot who took drugs to the point of it ruining his life, and his daughters life - and still didn't quit after his wife died from the very drugs he was taking. These actions don't give him a ticket to sagedom. Among his tattoos he should have one that states - "I am capable of making the worst possible decisions and taking actions that could have led to my death, and made an orphan of my daughter". So where's the moody, weighty video for the guy who tried drugs a few times and decided to stay away from them because they were a bad thing in his life? I'd hold that guy in a lot higher esteem than this idiot.

The moment that he "put his life in gods hands" and took a massive hit of drugs could also have been the moment of his death. His fleeting faith in the possibility of a deity acting as a safety net in his life could have led directly to his death.

To me that is negative.


>> ^Sagemind:

This guy has been to hell and back.
He has reached up and grabbed on to religion and used it to empower himself and find redemption.
He used faith to inspire positivity and truth in his life.
I know people want to shout him down for believing in a God, but how could anyone ever deny him that which saved his life and likely his daughter's life as well?
I know there is a lot of negativity about religion on the Sift but those at the end of their rope can turn around and use religion by embracing it to find grace.
In my mind, this is where faith redeems itself for me. It's that one intangible thing that a person can latch on to when there is nothing else.
On the negative side, Yes, there are always people embraced in religion that seek to exploit people at this stage and all the crap that goes with that. But when you hit the lowest low and you want out of the muck that has become your everyday, sometimes "faith in an idea" can be more powerful than even the chemicals that are used by the scum of the earth (dealers & pushers) to enslave people.
To me that is positive.

Well, the Iranian authorities aren't exactly a reputable source of information. That said - and this is quite likely a red herring - there is the incident of the U.S. drone fleet getting infected with some form of malware a while back:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-fleet/

http://starwarsscifimodels.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/imp-fleet.jpg

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Well, this just confuses me.

It mostly made me chuckle. The Catholic church goes ultra-Keynesian in defense of social justice. Somewhere, there's a fleet of Ron Paul supporters whose heads just exploded.

As for the merits of the idea itself, I don't think we're at the point where a global monetary union would be useful. While the IMF doesn't have the same sort of dedication to social justice one would imagine a Papal Global Bank would have, it's not actually doing too bad a job given its limited resources and authority, and given the kind of ideological mindsets that tend to infest monetary institutions.

I'm also somewhat fascinated at the idea of the Catholic church putting out a statement about a need for expansionary monetary policy to ease poverty in the world. I wouldn't have expected such a scientific idea to come from them.

He's conflating a lot of stuff by the end of this.

Knowing "where the pickle barrel is" has not "always been the harder problem". In the fleet battles of the 18th century, they often had a very good idea where there opponents were for weeks or months. They knew where enemy shipyards were, just like the Allies in WWII knew where that chemical plant was - they just couldn't strike them effectively. Modern weaponry would have insta-won lots of historic conflicts as there would have been no problem finding stuff to blow up. It's not like Norden was trying to solve the wrong problem, he just didn't have the right solution.

Sometimes stuff doesn't work in the field - sometimes it does. There's interesting lessons there, but they're unrelated to the next thing he talks about, which is:

Sometimes you can't use your great tech effectively. They can hide the SCUDs. The Taliban is not going to all get together like a Napoleonic army or try to make a big Hannibal pincer. They make themselves harder to be found.

But that doesn't mean the weapon is ineffective - it's very effective, it limits your opponents possible tactics. And those limited tactics are one reason why direct American casualties are so low in modern wars - the enemy can't ever really show in force, and thus only has a limited set of tactics available.

Sometimes your equipment or strategy is going to directly work, sometimes it's going to work less directly. Every action you take could provide a reaction, and sometimes those could be very bad. Hunting with drones might create a terror attack across the world. There's interesting ideas there, but again you can't just conflate it all together as "technology and war... something something... Norden bombsight".

And it certainly doesn't reason into: War is often a bad idea. Obviously that's true, but it doesn't follow from the story. Sure, sometimes having good tech can make war seem more attractive than it would if we had less tech. You get the illusion of clean war.

Interesting. But the fact that the above is true - that Americans can kill thousands of dirty foreigners while suffering few casualties - is kind of the opposite lesson from the Norden bombsight. If the Americans had a bunch of "Norden bombsight" style ineffective weapons, they wouldn't have nearly the success they do in slaughtering people who were born in the wrong place and maybe the US would end up in less wars.

So maybe that's the lesson? It's better to have complex, works-in-the-lab-only tech, because otherwise it'll be too easy to kill people? Or something?

Anyways, the base story is interesting - his attempts to supply the moral at the end are much less so.

The interaction between tech and war goes lots of different ways, and I'd say sometimes the "Norden"s of the world are right and their war technology does reduce aggregate suffering. For example, I think it's at least arguable that the tech race prevented the Cold War from ending in a total war scenario that would have killed millions. (Note: if you plan on telling me that I'm crazy and the Cold War was all some kind of fraud or illusion or power consolidation for the elite or that Russia was never a threat or whatever, don't feel bad if I don't bother to answer - it's probably because I'm intimidated by the great arguments you made.)

That is the timeline secular scientists have come up with, but the bible says humans have only been around for 6 thousands years, not one hundred thousand. And in that timeframe, God has been very active in His creation..the first coming of Christ was the culmination of 4000 years worth of work that He did in the world, mostly through the jewish people. The past 2000 years have been in the establishing of the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ, a work that has been active and ongoing and remains so.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:
As Christopher Hitchens said " human's have been around for 100,000 years and in that time they've killed, reproduced and acted with impunity without any input from god, it was only in the last 2,000 that he eventually started to care about his creation and then it was only a fleeting visit".
the mathematics of that alone is vastly implausible.

As Christopher Hitchens said " human's have been around for 100,000 years and in that time they've killed, reproduced and acted with impunity without any input from god, it was only in the last 2,000 that he eventually started to care about his creation and then it was only a fleeting visit".

the mathematics of that alone is vastly implausible.

Kenya, 2004. Climbing to the top of a small mountain I never thought I was going to make it up. I sprinted the last 100 or so metres up to the summit through cloud forest and the trees opened up to the most amazing view. So exhilarating. That whole day was unreal. Ran down that mountain after our Masai guide, drank a cold Kenyan beer on top of a massive rock overlooking miles and miles of Acacia trees, catching the occasional fleeting glimpse of Elephants or Giraffe picking their way through as the sun set. I never thought the real Africa would live up to Africa I'd seen in nature documentaries...then it did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm

When Ron Paul talks about Al Qaeda being explicit with their reasons for attacking the US, this is probably what he is talking about.

"Oh American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and results.

Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them.

We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security.

I am amazed at you. Although almost four years have passed since the [11 September] incidents, Bush is still practising distortion and confusion.

He also continues to conceal from you the real reason [for the 11 September attacks]. Thus, the motives still exist for repeating what happened.

I will speak to you about the reasons behind these incidents. I will honestly tell you about the minutes in which the decision was made so that you will consider. I say to you that God knows that the idea of striking the towers never occurred to us.

But, after things had gone too far and we saw the injustice of the US-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I started thinking of that.

The events that influenced me directly trace back to 1982 and subsequent events when the United States gave permission to the Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the aid of the sixth US fleet.

At those difficult moments, many meanings that are hard to describe went on in my mind. However, these meanings produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and generated a strong determination to punish the unjust ones.

While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United States so that it would feel some of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and women... "