This story is archived
Op.Ed:Iran, Neocons, and Christianity »
Posted by: elzorro2162 2 years, 9 months agoFurther, a founding document of so-called neoconservatism claimed that, "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has" (and we all know how swimmingly our project in Iraq has gone!). So, unfortunately, it does seem necessary to make and defend the obvious claim: Christian faith is inc
Read Full Story at beliefnet.com »
Submitted By:
elzorro2162
I am Latino, I love watching and practicing sports (especially baseball), enjoy working out and living a healthy lifestyle. I also enjoy movies and acting ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 34
-
elzorro2162
March 8, 2007, 8:23 a.m.In the world of American politics, the phenomenon of the unholy marriage of Republican agenda and evangelical christianity is wrong in so many levels. This article illustrates how it is hypocritical to be a christian and still support a Machiavellian world view and agenda. Wake up America! We progressives need to point this out to these hypnotized potential churchgiong voters, otherwise we'll be stuck with the dooming reality of 4 more years of martial insanity.
The war in Iraq and the thoughts about Iran are indefensible morally if you're a thinking atheist and not promoted in Jesus' teachings in the Bible.
Z
-
vor
March 8, 2007, 9:06 a.m.Nice article. You will find however that you preach to a limited choir on this one. Most of the left still doesn't understand that the PNAC agenda is now our foreign policy. Otherwise they would not see Bush as the chief culprit. Bush reminds me of Peter Sellars in "Being There". He is just a symbolic leader. Sure he can cry "I am the Decider" but that is just his spoiled blue blood coming out. He knows that in the backrooms where the deals are done he has little voice.
Somehow Americans on the Right and Left had better get educated as to what PNAC is all about, if they agree with their policies and objectives, fine. But I would say that support is around 20% at best and those are the blind faith flag wavers that would march over a cliff if Cheney told them it was necessary. The rest of the country has the ability to reject these policies. If we don't do it in '08 it will likely be too late to turn back from this course of action.
-
Ciera-Marie
March 8, 2007, 9:52 a.m.VOR and Elzorro:
If most Right wing evangelical Christians looked at not just the PNAC they would be shocked. I was. James Dobson has his name on it. IF I remember correctly Gary Bauer does too. Look at what Pat Robertson is doing in Africa. Follow the $.
-
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
-
-
disraeli
March 8, 2007, 8:52 p.m.It's "might makes right" versus "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you".
Choose wisely America.
-
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
-
12july
March 9, 2007, 6:58 a.m.It is not about Christianity it is all about power and control i.e.. crusade occupation of the Axis of the world (the M.E.) it is strange the U.S.of terror considering its self as the police of the whole world and to put the conducts of right and wrong . The UST has no right to be in Iraq or to decide who control the gulf. Just look after your borders and country. Iran will be always the US enemy as long as it does not be US slave, like many others are. And considered as FRIENDS.
-
youpeopledrivemenuts
March 9, 2007, 8:44 a.m.Did you guys read anything other than the article? Did any of you go to the links provided? I fail to see where they are advocating a global take over. But please enlighten me with links and such if you can.
-
vor
March 9, 2007, 9:44 a.m.This is not about a global takeover, even these loons realize that is not possible. It appears to be one of the few things they see as beyond our control. It is about global American dominance in political idealogy and economic belief. Creating a "Pax Americana" based on the idea that everyone is better off behaving as America has behaved. The belief that a world of democratic republics would not war with each other. Another absurd view IMO.
Do we expect the world to accept this view? As Americans it sounds plausible yet if you were a citizen of the rest of the world would you see this as a plan of good intentions? It is no wonder we have lost the trust of the remainder of the world and that we can no longer put together alliances.
By the way I have been reading on PNAC for seven years.
The only link needed is their website
newamericancentury.org
make up your own mind, this is all in their own words. Are these the key issues of our future?
-
youpeopledrivemenuts
March 9, 2007, 11:53 a.m.No sir. I read alot of the stuff thats on there and I don't see what your saying. I saw a bunch of posts on things that are going on in those countries that are either going in a direction that is like some of us here want and some things that are going in a direction that some on the left want. What I don't see is America trying to take over the world.
You go ahead and wish that we were more like france or other countries in Europe, but they have probably more problems than we do. You may not think so but when was the last time we had full scale riots going on here?
-
youpeopledrivemenuts
March 9, 2007, 12:04 p.m.here's psrt of the statement of principles
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
Continued
-
youpeopledrivemenuts
March 9, 2007, 12:11 p.m.We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
I recall that at the begining of the Clinton admin They started closing bases. Getting rid of soldiers that were not up to par,etc. Whats wrong with having a strong military?
Do you folks not want to protect our country? If someone went to your house and kicked your dog, Raped your wife, killed your kids, Would you let it go? or would you kill or try your best to kill that MF. What is so wrong with trying to protect America and it's interest?
-
LEATHERNECK1
March 9, 2007, 6:16 p.m.If you look at whats happening in the world today, the answer is Christ. I am a christian, and a democrate George Bush cheated his way into office. and he's a catholic go figuer. If he is suppose to be all than why cheat. And he speaks of christian like he really cares about us, truth of the matter is he does not. Like when they said bring the troops home instead hes doing it his way, saying its his way or the highway. The Christians get it anyway you look at it but if you say in public that your a Christian you had better remember one thing to turn the other cheak.and they say we are wrong.
-
Burgermeister
March 13, 2007, 11:48 a.m."Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has"
Can someone please remind me, what was the threat Iraq posed to the USA before the invasion? Apart from controlling large oil reserves.
The first 32 comments are shown. Show all 34 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
