1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Filibuster compromise

Discussion in 'The OT' started by pjmrt, May 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,866
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    That, my esteemed colleague, is the most naive and illogical statement I've ever 'heard' you make.

    Terrorists don't fabricate modern weapons like Stinger missiles from rocks and weeds they find laying around just outside their caves. Organized terrorists and their clandestine supporters purchase them from the black market and from covert weapons merchants just like everyone else. Of course, the ultimate in the creative application of technology at hand was the use of four commercial aircraft on 9/11/2001.

    To assume that terrorists sans portfolio cannot acquire and use a nuclear device is unwise at the least, and suicidal in the ultimate worst-case scenario.
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I recently heard a conservative terrorism specialist (sorry, it was on the radio while driving so I don't remember the name or even what show I heard it on) state that he felt it was highly unlikely that any terrorist group had access to now, or was likely to gain access to in the future, an actual nuclear device.
     
  3. olgeezer

    olgeezer Guest

    1,833
    0
    Dec 5, 2003
    From Nick" OYOH, I just might get converted by a lumbering herd of proselyting dems in my senility and end up thinking like you. "

    No, you've reached the senility part and your thought patterns still follow pre WWI corporate America thought. :D
     
  4. SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Nowhere in my comment did I say the Constitution dictated the work of committees. The Constitution is not the only document that makes the rules for the operation of the Senate.
     
  5. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    That's right. Terrorists don't have sophisticated weapons factories and are unlikely to anytime in the forseeable future. As you so insightfully observe they must "purchase them from the black market and from covert weapons merchants". So if for instance all Stinger missiles were destroyed and it could be assured no more were ever produced, it is NOT naive and/or illogical to assume terrorists could never acquire another one.

    Of course there are substitutes for Stingers and perhaps even crude imitations could be fabricated in a garage, basement or cave. This is NOT the case with nuclear weaons however. No one has come up with a bathtub recipe for enriching uranium, nor is anyone likely to. If terrorists acquire nuclear weapons, they will necessarily beg, borrow or steal them. They will "purchase them from the black market and from covert weapons merchants".

    As it stands, there are a number of possible sources for nuclear weapons, and that number is growing. And we need not only worry about NK or Iran. At this point our bosom buddy Pakistan seems to have been the main purveyor of these materials and technologies. And let's not forget the former Soviet Union. Russia has had trouble maintaining security for their nukes, even to the point of not being able to pay guards and former scientists. Some other former Soviet Republics also have "leftovers", some who may be sympathetic or share the philosophy and religion of Islamic extremists.

    And the "West" is not totally secure either. We must rely on Britain and France's:eek: security systems to safeguard their weapons. And if I recall, over the years WE have has some stuff "go missing"! If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't too long ago our inventory of plutonium came up a little short. I don't remember the final disposition on that particular case, but I'm sure terrorists would love to get their hands on US weapons. Besides the obvious irony, if anyone has compact, portable "suitcase bombs", we certainly do.

    With the current paradigms, if terrorists wish to acquire and use nuclear weapons, they WILL inevitably do so. There are simply too many out there with too many different entities manufacturing and controlling them. It is a sieve that eventually will leak, if it hasn't already. The only sure way is to empty the sieve completely and assure it is never filled up again.
     
  6. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,866
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Once again, through what mechanism or means do you propose to secure those WMD that may currently exist and are under the control of extremist organizations? How do you know that the Hezbollahs, Jihadists or al Quedas of the world don't already possess nukes, biologicals or chemicals?

    Finally, there is NO WAY, as long as Americans are still running this country, that the U.S. is ever going to surrender the means to defend itself. MAD may have been an insane defense strategy during the cold war, but it worked. We went toe-to-toe with the Soviets on several occasions, but at least we could talk and negotiate, but when a terrorist sticks a nuke, dirty bomb, or even just saran or anthrax up your ass, you can assume he's not here to chat.

    Click. BOOM! It's over...
     
  7. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Why, the person to whom I was replying. Good enough, yeah?
     
  8. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    But you have been whining for pages now about how the filibuster is not in the constitution, its just a rule the Senate added later. Kinda like committees. :lol: You are so funny when you are totally inconsistent. :D
     
  9. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    And which WMD are "under the control of extremist organizations" again?:scratchin

    I don't think anyone is claiming direct or indirect knowledge any of these groups already have chemical or biological weapons, let alone nuclear. And given history, if there was any such knowledge it would be touted daily by the administration and the subject of every talk and news show. The phrasing is always "if" and "when". Even available reports they are looking to obtain these weapons appear pretty spotty and inconsistent. It would seem the current approach of conventional explosives are the preferred weapon of terrorists. Non-conventional WMDs are expensive and hard to come by, difficult to store and move, tricky to use and haphazard in their effects. I mean really! What could be more royally lame and embarrassing then to launch an expensive long-range operation to disperse chemical or biological agents in Baghdad or Boston only to have it blow back in your face or drift away and terminate a herd of goats of flock of pigeons?:rotfl:

    No my friend, although they might have a passing interest, WMDs are not currently the weapons of choice for terrorists.

    Ah, the truth will out!

    The US maintains nuclear weapons to "defend itself"? Really? How does that work exactly? If the Pacific northwest is invaded, what do we do, nuke Seattle?:ewww: And let me guess, the US is alone among nations(with possible exception of a few of our closest allies) viewing nuclear as defensive and/or has the prudence and restraint to only use them defensively? Is that about the gist?

    OK, a bit of sarcasm there.:blush: Of course I understand the theory. If we were seriously attacked we could and should respond with a massive retaliation to vaporize whatever nations, groups or individuals we identify as attacking us. Simple enough, and satisfying to our baser instincts on several levels. But think it over. Would that be the best response, even for our short term interests?

    Of our potential adversary NATIONS, only China and Russia(discounting the possibility Britain or France would attack us:sure: ) are remotely capable of attacking US conventionally, or with nuclear on a massive scale. Assuming NK has adequate delivery systems, and that's a big assumption, they could possibly hit Alaska, Hawaii and/or the Pacific coast with one, or if they were incredibly lucky, maybe several nukes, but NK would then be spent.(they are suspected of having 4-6 total) As serious and horrendous as that would be, speaking as one IN the target zone, would even a restrained nuclear retaliation on NK be the best option?

    Hundreds of thousands or even millions more would die, mostly innocent civilians. And a cloud of radiation would then begin to circle the globe. Depending on wind conditions, devastating Japan and/or parts of China, then probably drifting towards Alaska, Hawaii and our Pacific coast and eventually the east coast as well. The net effect being we might not have to nuke Seattle to defend ourselves after all, "friendly" radiation could kill me even if I survived an initial blast, and even you might find yourself frantically scrubbing your vegetables and still throwing up blood.

    Responding in kind to a nuclear attack by terrorists would seem as much or more pointless and counterproductive. Who would we vaporize? Blowing up the Hindu Kush might kill a lot of goats, but especially since they famously live in caves, only a direct hit would guarantee "getting" those responsible.

    Yes, the acronym "MAD" was very apropos for the inherent insanity implied. And "it worked" probably as much by luck as anything. We are finding out now it came dangerously close to NOT working on several occasions through mistakes, equipment malfunction and/or posturing bravado. And just because "it worked" doesn't mean it was the best or only solution that would have. But even if it was, let's not automatically assume this cold war strategy is applicable to a terrorist war.

    One last thing about the US needing nuclear weapons to "defend itself".

    Much of the rest of the world views this argument skeptically, and as ironic and disingenuous. The US is still the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons for any reason, defense, offense or "in anger". The outcome of the war was not changed. Japan had already accepted total surrender with the condition the Emperor remain.(No, Japan did NOT "unconditionally surrender") I'm willing to write it off as a certain amount of naivete and curiosity over the effects, although we probably had a pretty good idea what air-bursting one of these babies over an urban area would do.:nono2: Others are not so charitable.
     
  10. SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    The only time I even used the word "Constitution" was when it became neccesary to inform you that I never made any arguments reguarding the Constitution.

    I would suggest that you either improve your reading comprehension or discontinue lying about what other people have said to make your argument sound logical.
     
  11. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Ok, you have been whining since the beginning of this thread that blocking nominees is supposed to happen in committee, not by fillibuster.
    Who says that is where it is supposed to happen? Where in Constitution does it say so? Both committees and the filibuster are found in the Rules, not the constitution. So what makes one thing right and the other wrong, except that the rules aren't working the way you want them to? Just because this is the tactic used by the Republicans when they were the majority does not make it the only tactic that is possible.

    One thing that is for sure is that when the party in the majority keeps emphasizing the fact that the other party doesn't even have to be consulted on issues, the less likely they are to remain the majority. This country is not as conservative as some of you think it is, and the majority of the nation's voters really don't like the thought of total power being held by a small group of people. They are really not into monarchy. They like there to be a balance of power. The more Republicans emphasize that Democrats (representing half the country) have no voice and no input, with a budget that is out of control and deficits as far as the eye can see, and that no one in Washington seems to give a damn, there will be a change in the next election.
     
  12. Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    Checks and balances... If any of you actually believe there is such a thing then you are sadly mistaken.

    Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution states:

    “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.”

    This pertains to the power of the states (Union) to keep a powerful, dangerous central government at bay. The Senators were supposed to be untainted by the corruption of money and they were supposed to be appointed and accountable to the states and only the states. They were to represent the states not you like the House of Representatives thus another system of checks and balances.

    In 1913 this treasonous government stole that power away from the states so the bankers could take over the country with their corrupt money. The b*stard Wilson administration stole your Senate along with stealing your wealth by giving the power to coin money to the private Federal Reserve Bank. Then they created the income tax that went against the Constitution as well with the direct tax which it forbade: “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

    If that wasn’t enough, they tried to throw you into Satan’s New World Order with “the war to end all wars” and then the failed attempt to set up a world government with the League of Nations. Since that failed the communist, FDR gave you the New (Raw) Deal, WW2 and the UN. Now, the Neo-Cons will bring you the son of perdition after WW4.

    I will never vote again and be part of their damn scam. They do not represent you and as long as you vote and think there’s a dimes’ difference between the two, then you’re nothing but useful idiots playing in a game that will make you a slave. The Senate just voted 100-0 for the “Real ID Act” which will make you carry your papers to exist in their beast system like the 3rd Reich did. In a few years you will not be able to buy nor sell without their mark and whoever takes it will be condemned to the Lake of Fire.


    Wake up or Waco!
     
  13. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    This sure sounds like ann unconditional surrender to me

    "We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated."

    True the emperor remained on the throne. But Japan was not allowed to prosecute its own war criminals, and the Allies did occupy the mainland. Those terms were not accepted until August 10 (after the bombs were dropped) and some members of the Japanese cabinet committed suicide when the emperor accepted them.

    Having said that amny think that Russia's entry into the war on Japan was just as important. Prior to Russia entering many Japanese belived that Stalin wiould not want America in Japan and might force somewhat more favorable terms. When Russia (re) entered the war that hope evaporated.

    But it is just as possible that both events influenced the decision.
     
  14. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Maybe that's what this thread should be about, the disappearing "balance of power" in our government, certainly disappearing from the legislative and flowing to the executive. Tempered with a little reason and minus the millennialism, even Roger makes some points that should be analysed. C'mon Roger, shake off all those conspiracy cobwebs, you could be a critical thinker!;):D

    I was slammed a while back for comparing the Presidency to a kingship, albiet a four or eight year reign. The erosion of power from Congress to settle in the executive began at least as far back as Wilson, and probably to an extent back to Washington. The point is well made taking the power to appoint Senators away from the states themselves and giving it to the people may not have been as good an idea as it seemed at the time.:scratch: It took what was a partisan appointment(bad enough) and loosed(not losed) it into the popular campaign circus. Worst of all perhaps it robbed states and state political parties of tremendous power and handed it to national parties. Before, an endorsement by a President or national leadership was meaningless, maybe even counterproductive. Now it's half the battle to be nominated and elected.

    Foreign affairs has always been the purvue of the executive, Congress only able to ratify or reject treaties and control the purse. Congress's main function in foreign policy has been the power to declare war. Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1941, yet during those almost 65 years we have been in virtually a perpetual state of war. Congress has completely ceded their most important foreign policy power to the President. The President therefore not only has the Constitutional authority to conduct wars, he now decides if, when, with whom, and under what circumstances we go to war. One of the biggest questions leading up to the past several wars has been whether the President will, or should, even consult with Congress before committing the nation to war. Could Congress refuse to fund the wars? Theoretically. But they are then accused of "not supporting the troops". The President goes to war and then effectively dares Congress not to fund it under the threat of being vilified from the "bully pulpit". I think we all can recall how Kerry was pilloried for merely expressing reservations about details of the funding even though he had supported the war itself.

    Much the same paradigm now applies to domestic legislation. Congress is supposed to furmulate and enact the laws of the land. But through intimidation and the power of the veto, the President effectively writes much of our laws down to the minute detail. Sure, Congress can pass legislation opposed by the President. But if vetoed, it's very seldom the veto can be overidden, so most of the time they don't even bother. And it doesn't matter all that much if Congress and the Presidency are controlled by opposing parties. Reagan finessed most of what he wanted to do through a Democratic Congress. And Clinton managed much the same with the Republicans, even quietly orchestrating the demise of his nemisis, Newt Gingrich, from behind the curtain.

    Now we come to the other "balance", the federal judiciary. Being appointed for life gives federal judges great independence from both the legislative and executive branches. And that's exactly how the founding fathers intended it. At least partially removed from the pressures of politics, federal judges can move more purely on conscious and their interpretation of the law and Constitution. When their acts conflict with political policy though, the bully pulpit of the Presidency and the not so bully but still powerful pulpit of Congress is employed to paint them as "activist". At this point I must give judges high marks for resisting this intimidation from the highest levels. But the pressure is constant and unrelenting. It sure must enter the minds of many judges as they contemplate their more controversial decisions. And to my mind that is much more dangerous than doing research on the internet or looking to the laws of other nations.
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    You can parse it any way you want, but retention of the Emperor and his immunity from war crimes were certainly "conditions" any way you look at it. "Unconditional surrender" is what had been promised and so that's what was proclaimed.

    Although arguably less "hands-on", letting Hirohito off the hook would have been like negotiating a pardon for Hitler in return for a slightly earlier German surrender. One might contend Hirohito was manipulated by the militarists, but that makes him no less culpable. He had complete and total authority and it's been pretty well shown he was active and knowledgable, AND APPROVED OF, all major initiatives, policies and offensives including the atrocities in China and of course Pearl Harbor.

    But you do being up an interesting point. The entry of Russia into the Pacific war was probably just another reason for US to drop the a-bombs. The Japanese were being quite adamant about keeping Hirohito. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were one last gambit to get them to capitulate before Russia got too involved and could claim a voice in any settlement. What happened was the Japanese essentially called our bluff. Even after we vaporized two major cities, they stuck loyal to the Emperor. Theoretically unbeknownst to them, we had no more "vaporizers", so we gave in and let them keep Hirohito.
     
  16. Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    Jon:

    "C'mon Roger, shake off all those conspiracy cobwebs, you could be a critical thinker!"

    No, you C'mon and wake up. :D You know that I'm a critical thinker and after all these years you still deny what I have to say because of your religion or lack thereof. You may not believe in God but the neo-cons and others belong to Bohemian Grove and Skull and Bones, not to mention the Illuminati and the others. You have to admit that even if the Bible isn’t true they are creating a police state and a system where nobody can buy nor sell unless they accept their system and thier mark (National ID).

    Not a bad post but here is where I disagree

    “Now we come to the other "balance", the federal judiciary. Being appointed for life gives federal judges great independence from both the legislative and executive branches. And that's exactly how the founding fathers intended it.”

    I beg to differ because it gives them a lifetime pass of absolute power and unaccountability because let’s face it, they are never disciplined or impeached by the Congress. I think their duty has been to legislate and do the dirty work of the political parties and the NWO because they aren’t held accountable and they do illegally make laws that the Congress could never get away with on their own like taking God and the Bible out of the schools and the legalization of murder with abortion and euthanasia. An elected politician can’t vote to murder Terri Schiavo but the court did and got away with it didn’t they?

    Let’s take a look at this:

    Article III
    Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

    Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


    Nowhere in the above gives them the power to interpret anything let alone legislate like they’ve been doing for years. Today, these unelected, unaccountable b*stards have the final say on everything and make laws left and right which should show you how bad this tyranny is. The above I posted gives and limits their power and none of them have been on good “behaviour.” Instead of them being a very limited power and one of three branches of the government and part of the checks and balances, they are supreme and have the final word and say on EVERYTHING and this is wrong and very unconstitutional.
     
  17. Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    The Japanese were just as brutal as the Nazi’s if not worst. Why did we have Nuremburg and not Tokyofest? What about the Japanese war crimes and criminals? I’ve been told the reason why we let them go is that the Japanese made a deal to give all torture and human experiment results to the Americans and to hold out so the NWO can show off their terrifying atomic bomb to the people to scare them into WW3 (Cold War).

    There was no reason to use an atomic bomb. They were defeated and completely surrounded. They are a freaking island for crying out loud and the war was already over.

    “The entry of Russia into the Pacific war was probably just another reason for US to drop the a-bombs.”

    Why? We gave them half of Europe without firing a shot with the secret Malta meetings. This government gave half of Europe and eventually half the world to these evil, communist creeps. Why? To get rid of God out of the culture and to enslave half the world to the NWO. 50 years later now the “free” world dropped to their level with so-called democracy and lack of moral values so thus the end of WW3 or the Cold War. The NWO won. Now if they can only get rid of those pesky Muslims their dream of a One World Government is at hand.

    www.prisonplanet.tv
     
  18. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    My only point was that the Japanese surrender terms did change after the bombs were dropped. Yes they kept their emperor but he renounced any claims to divinity, America occupied mainland Japan, and they were not allowed to try their own war criminals. In fact the Allies tried 20,000 Japanese for war crimes executing 900 of them. I think that those were serious and substantial changes to the Japanese surrender terms that came only after the bombs were dropped and Russia entered the war.


    As for the notion that Japan called our bluff realtive to the Russian entry I don't buy that. Rightly or wrongly America wanted Russia in the war. Japan was trying to convince Russia to be a peace broker based on mutual self interest. I do not doubt at all that long term american interest might have been better served by ending the war without Russian involvement but America sought to end the war as quickly as possible. Japan did not call any bluffs. Japan ran out of options when the only Allied powere that might have tried to limit American influence in the region joined in.

    As for who "Gave in" at the end of the war. Well I think it was the side that surrenderred. Yes we could have invaded Japan, or produced more bombs (and there is controversy over how long that would have taken) but Japan surrenderred, its existing governemtn was deposed and we occupied the country. That does not sound like the US "aave in" it sounds like Japan surrenderred.
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    And the emperor could have easily been one of those 900 and rightly so. So there WERE conditions to this "unconditional surrender". Without completely dissecting the last days of WWII, it's probably fair to say the decision to drop the bombs was a questionable call at best. Hindsight is 20/20. But knowingly or not, I believe the perils of an invasion were overblown. The Japanese were squeezing pine cones to fuel what was left of their war machine and economy. Invading allied troops would have been met with mostly brooms and pitchforks for defense.

    And the key here is "allied troops". The Soviet Union was our "ally" at the time and Stalin would have had no qualms about committing several million more of his people as cannon fodder if the prize was a piece of Japan and its territories. We knew that quite well and therefore wanted a speedy surrender before that could become a reality. And loathe as the Japanese were to accept an American occupation, they certainly realized a Soviet occupation would have been much more brutal.

    Again, for myself, I can see the decision as understandable and forgivable given the context. Except for possibly a few of the scientists who developed them, no one who knew of these devices, including Truman, understood their gravity or how they would profoundly change the nature of warfare and civilization forever. they saw them as just another weapon, a new high explosive. And probably only those few scientists understood the dangers of radiation either. Military men and the President, if they even fundamentally knew what radiation was, viewed it as just another consequence of war and well worth the cost for such a powerful weapon.
     
  20. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    "We gave them half of Europe" because that is essentially what they had fought and died for, doing the heavy lifting keeping the Nazis busy for several years as we "contemplated" our invasion of the mainland. All the time begging US and their other "allies" for a "second front". You can argue all you want about their designs and motivations, or the duplicity and gullibility of signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler, but Soviet losses(not looses!;)) in WWII far exceeded the losses of all other nations combined. While we were practicing with rubber rafts in the Thames and fox-trotting to Glen Miller at the London USO, the Soviets were slugging it out with the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad and Kiev. As far back as at least Napoleon, Russia had felt vulnerable to attack from Europe and they desired a buffer zone under their control to prevent future invasions. Undoubtedly Stalin had hidden motivations, but that's what they brought to the table at Malta and it was hard to argue with. Twice, in less than half a century, Germany had become an aggressive war machine. The Soviets presented a convincing case they were entitled to not let it happen again. And again, considering the price they had paid, it was a case hard to argue against.

    Your nightmare visions of NWOs, Illuminati and Bilderburgers notwithstanding, the current scenario of control seems to have "God" as an integral part of the control mechanism. If the plan was to "get rid of God out of the culture and to enslave half the world to the NWO", the first part at least seems to have failed miserably. Unless of course the strategy is some sort of reverse psychology where it is believed if our leaders and a sizable portion of the population embrace "God", this will somehow inevitably lead to the entirety of the population eventually rejecting "God".:icon_stup:rotfl:

    And if "godless communists" were such an integral part of the NWO plan, how and why did they fall into such disarray that their main bastion, the Soviet Union, was allowed to disintegrate, purportedly pushed over the brink by US God-fearing Americans?:scratchin

    The "NWO" envisioned by the neocons of this administration is a "New World Order" of American Empire, complete hegemony over the Earth and even space. They have as much said so in numerous public statements and documents. And I have no doubt they have convinced themselves this is what "God" wants. I also have no doubt if they felt "God" was an impediment to their imperial dreams, or if "godlessness" was a quicker means to their ends, they would "convince themselves" otherwise.

    "God" is a tool of control for humans. Always has been and is today. To believe anything else is not to understand history OR God!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page