The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy, Coldstream, CA_Avgvstinus, goalie31
5,767 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Graeculus), 95 guests, and 40 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,055
Posts414,073
Members5,767
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Is this the proper Christian response?

Saint Gregory Palamas, to his Turkish captors: "It is true that Muhammad started from the east and came to the west,
as the sun travels from east to west. Nevertheless he came with war, knives, pillaging, forced enslavement, murders,
and acts that are not from the good God but instigated by the chief manslayer, the devil."

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Stuart, for soemone who accuses me of Strawmen, this is one. I said theya re more Stable than epublics. The whoel "Learn real Hisotry" routine I get too oftne an is old. The supposed superior "Demcoracy" we promoted is born of Vioelnt Revolution and leads to Civil War and Strife, but thats better than the horrible Dark Ages, right?

Give me a break.

America itself had several Uprisings and a massive Civil War, and socially the peopel are far mroe divided than even the largest controversy in England till the Time of the Reformation or the Roudnheads.


Monarcheis may bnot be 100% stable all the Time, btu they tend to promote Stability much mroe than a Republic can as a Republci relies on SOcial Divisions, and actually creates them as an inherant part of its structure.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Hay-


Quote
Hitler was not duly elected ...



I’m afraid he was.

[/url]


I find no reason why this should not count.

Quote

Hitler took advantage of Chaos and THUGS to take control of an out of control government.



Which he entered in **** after an election.

How was Hitlers actions less Democratic than Abraham Lincolns?


Quote

Please read some history on Hitler before you make comments about it.



I have, even his own words, and even Mein Kempt says he wanted a Revolutionary order and was inspired by the 18th Century Revolutions.

[url]


You can also read about his power here.

[/url]

He was duly Elected. Takign advantage of Social unrest and using a band of thugs to intimidate people is used by Politicians today. Barack Obama did this!


But I don’t think that Obama is as bad as Hitler.






He’s just a Politician, like Hitler.




Quote

Some have also theorized that the strict German childrearing practices prior to WWI and WWII contributed to a people willing to do whatever waa commanded of them (like killing people in gas chambers)




Which is not the inherent result of a Republic or a Monarhcy, but the peculiarities of a Culture and how it developed.


England, my own Native Land, was a Monarchy with a powerful Monarch till about the middle of the 1600’s, but never fostered such a mentality. America has been a Republic since its Foundation and never fostered such either.



Quote

Revisionist history to suit your argument.


No, the revisionism is when something is clearly Founded as a Republic based on the Revolutionary Movements of the 18th Century only to be later called an Anti-Democratic State based on some other ideology.

[url]


Hitlers goals were not Anti-Democratic. He lead a Populist uprising.

[url][/url]


His Governmental Structure was still one that’s based on the same Modern Ideas.









National Socialism would not have existed had the Kings not been deposed.


Quote

By the way - every conflict(WAR) we have right now in the world is caused by Radical Muslims ...


I’d not say every War, as right now Thailand and Cambodia are at War over disputed Territory and both are mainly Buddhist. Also, there are currently Wars in South America between Tribes that are caused by Ancient Tribal Disputes. The Mexican Drug Cartels are at War with the Mexican Government and to an extent the USA, but are mainly Secularised Catholics. I’m pretty sure I can find other Wars right now that have nothing to do with Islam if I checked the News.


Not that it matters, as this Thread is not about Islam Proper but our perception of Democracy and why I don’t buy the Theory that it leads to Peace and Freedom.


Quote

sorry I said it but someone had to.



No, no one had to. That’s not the point of this Thread.


Quote

We need to do psychological analyses on a people who subjugate women in the extreme - who would follow an insane religion that promotes Jihad - who teaches their children the world over in school "Death to America" - I'm sorry - it's complete madness and I will never condone any of it for any reason. They are NUTS - Sadistic, Hateful NUTS.



And, now they have the Right to Vote!


Somehow that’s suppose to Magically Transform them into America Loving Westerners whose Cultural Values are identical to ours.








Quote

I pray for those Muslims who's religion is so screwed up they cannot see THE TRUTH. I pray for their souls. I pray for my enemies ... but I remember that they are enemies.



This is good.


Quote

I don't think Jesus Christ wanted stupidity in people.



Democracy is about selfishness and mob rule. It leads to short sightedness.


Quote

I admire the Coptic who refused to take off his Cross and got killed in Egypt ... I would refuse also and the rest be damned.
I'm not sure they could kill me unless they had a gun - I'm 6'6" and weight 240 lbs - and I am strong enough to defend myself.



Against a Mob? You must also know Martial Arts…


…but what does this have to do with the point of this thread?


Quote

That Coptic man is a true modern day martyr.



Truly, but I’m not seeing the connection to the discussion.


Quote

Unfortunately I'm Serbian so I think my Christianity would succumb to hatred of a murderous population and I would try to assist as many Jihadist's to achieve their idea of heaven as possible before they killed me or my family




But would a majority Muslim Nation from an Arabian Cultural background vote for Western values, do you think?


Quote

Brothers and Sisters = Pray for my soul - it is the one area where I struggle - it may be genetic as I am Serbian - and the Slavs Saved all of Christendom from the murdering hordes of Muslims for Centuries.



Perhaps, but Serbia has been abused in the Name of Democracy for Years now…by the West. Serbia is also a nation with Strong Monarchist tendencies, and a hopeful spot for a Restoration to occur.


Quote

Watch out for this Arab Spring - it may result in an Atomic Weapon taking out an entire large metropolitan city in the U.S.


But they voted so its all good, right?


Quote

You can talk about democracy all you want - it's easy to spot CRAZY.


Would you rather a Murderous Horde be given the Right to Vote? Or one sane voice given that power instead?


Quote

Oops ...

I really do try to live my Christianity - I know my previous post is not very nice ...

Is Nice = Christian?

I just blurt things out sometimes -

I apologize ...



No worries.




Quote


I really would like you to pray for me that I can find peace and the right thinking about the Arab / Radical Muslim problem.



This I shall do. Recall Christ on the Cross, who forgave even his Killers.


Quote

I look at Kosovo for example.




Kosovo was rent off Serbia in the name of Democracy by Western Powers.

It was a Crime against Serbians, committed as much by the West as by the Albanians.

It was a Grave Evil, ad yet only Russia stood firm with Serbia against this Crime.


Actions like Kosovos Creation as a Nation truly prove that the West is not as pure in Purpose as it claims. No I am not saying such things never happened under a Monarchy, only that Democracy does not make it better.


Quote
Sure it's easy to pick on the Serbian's –



Mainly because it is seen as weak and unimportant.

Quote

But do the research on Kosovo today - and the real atrocities happening under the KLA while UN forces let them have free reign.

The Christian churches and Christianity both are under seige!

It makes my blood boil just thinking about it.

What is the proper Byzantine Christian response to this?



I do not know the proper response, mine is to decrie the Injustice, but we all know Christianity is always blamed and the Cultural Impulse is to ignore when the narrative is reversed and the Christian is the Victim, even if this is more common.

Kosovo should be reunited with Serbia and Serbians should reclaim its Laws and Protect their Orthodox Christian Heritage.

They should also restore their Throne.



Quote

Is this the proper Christian response?



The commandment to Love our Enemies is not a Commandment to allow them to kill us. Defend, demand Justice, but do not hate or exceed that Mandate.

Try also to convert them.

Quote

Saint Gregory Palamas, to his Turkish captors: "It is true that Muhammad started from the east and came to the west,
as the sun travels from east to west. Nevertheless he came with war, knives, pillaging, forced enslavement, murders,
and acts that are not from the good God but instigated by the chief manslayer, the devil."



Not really relevant to the discussion.

May Serbia, rent asunder, by God’s guidance be restored.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Quote
I’m afraid he [Hitler] was [elected].


No. In addition to not understanding monarchy, you also don't understand how parliamentary systems work. Hitler was not elected Chancellor, he was appointed by the President of Germany, Paul von Hindenberg. In parliamentary systems, the head of state and the head of government are separated (as opposed to in the United States, where both are united in the person of the President). The head of state may be an hereditary monarch (as in the UK, or the Netherland, or Scandinavia); or he may be elected (as in most other countries). It is the constitutional function of the head of state to oversee the formation of a government based on political control of the legislature; i.e., the party with the most seats in the legislature gets to form a government, headed by a prime minister (or Chancellor, as the Germans like to call them). If no one party commands a majority, then several parties may form coalitions to gain a governing majority.

So much for the concept. Now the hard part--the history lesson.

In 1932, the Nazis got 37.8% of the vote, and won 230 out of 608 seats, or just 38% of the seats. The four main opposition parties--the Social Democrats, the Communists, Zentrum and German National People's Party among them received 54.9% of the vote and won 334 seats--an outright majority. If they had been able to cooperate with each other, they could have formed an anti-Nazi coalition, but they were much more interested in scoring points off of each other. Faced with chaos, Hindenburg had little choice but to go with Hitler and the Nazis, who cobbled together a rickety coalition with some marginal right wing parties.

The following year, Hitler called new elections for March 1933, for the purpose of consolidating his hold on the government. It did not work out that way. This time, the Nazis increased their vote to 43.9%, but they won only 288 seats in an enlarged Reichstag of 647 seats--still just 44%, even though the Emergency Decrees passed after the Reichstag fire seriously restricted the ability of the Communists and Socialists to campaign effectively. This time, the four leading opposition parties--still the Social Democrats, the Communists, Zentrum and DNVP--won 49.8% of the vote and 327 seats--still enough for a paper thin majority (50.5%). But again, they were unable to bury their differences against the common foe, and Hitler was once again appointed Chancellor.

After the death of President Hindenburg, Hitler began ruling by executive fiat, passing the various Fuhrer decrees that cemented his personal rule and demolished the Weimar Constitution. The lack of strong democratic institutions ultimately doomed the Weimar Republic, as the majority of people were attracted to extremist parties at both ends of the spectrum, leaving no room for moderation or compromise.

As for the rest of your post--it's just pure nonsense, a nostalgic fantasy with no foundations in the real history of the Balkans--or any other place. A person who cannot see the difference between the actions of Adolph Hitler and Abraham Lincoln has demonstrated lack of discernment, and his opinions can no longer be taken seriously.

Last edited by StuartK; 11/01/11 10:45 PM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Stuart, one thing one can grow tired of is being insulted, especially when it is baseless.


Quote
No. In addition to not understanding monarchy, you also don't understand how parliamentary systems work.


Of course not. I’m a complete idiot who doesn’t know anything.

I’m sorry but, the mistake I made in the above post was not to include the URL links to support what I had said. Still, saying I neither understands Monarchy nor Parliamentary Systems is just unfounded. What, exactly, have I said about either that is wrong?

Truth be told, I haven’t even really discussed Parliamentary Systems, and as for Monarchy, I’ve stated in the past that Monarchy is actually an umbrella term for multiple forms of Government, much like republicanism is.

But that’s about all I’ve said thusfar other than that they tend to be more stable than Republics, which you subsequently twisted into me saying Monarchies are always stable and promptly told me to learn History.

Its becoming a bore to have to see my words warped by someone who is obviously not interested in the Truth, like you, only to have the distorted claims used against me to prove my mental bankruptcy.

You can’t prove I am an incompetent by lying about what I’ve said.




Quote

Hitler was not elected Chancellor,


And you can quote me, the poor unlearned fool who doesn’t understand parliamentary systems, as saying he was, I suppose?

I said he was elected, not that he was elected Chancellor.


Quote

he was appointed by the President of Germany, Paul von Hindenberg. In parliamentary systems, the head of state and the head of government are separated (as opposed to in the United States, where both are united in the person of the President). The head of state may be an hereditary monarch (as in the UK, or the Netherland, or Scandinavia); or he may be elected (as in most other countries). It is the constitutional function of the head of state to oversee the formation of a government based on political control of the legislature; i.e., the party with the most seats in the legislature gets to form a government, headed by a prime minister (or Chancellor, as the Germans like to call them). If no one party commands a majority, then several parties may form coalitions to gain a governing majority.



Nice overview for me, gosh I never knew that.

But one question, oh wise one…how does this prove that Hitler was not elected in 1929 in his province and sent into the Reichstag? Was he not the head of a Party that sought only Democratic Electoral Victory? That was the election I was referring to. It’s the same system we use back home in Westminster, yet no one says “Dave Cameron was not elected” even though he was appointed by the Queen. Cameron is Head of the Conservatives, and thus their win in Parliament is his win. This is why Americans irritate when they lecture on Politics.

I did not need you to jump to the conclusion that I said he was elected chancellor, and then jump to a new conclusion based on my presumed error that I don’t know how parliamentary systems work, and if you persist in such insults and suppositions I won’t be able to respect your own statements.


Quote

So much for the concept. Now the hard part--the history lesson.

In 1932, the Nazis got 37.8% of the vote, and won 230 out of 608 seats, or just 38% of the seats. The four main opposition parties--the Social Democrats, the Communists, Zentrum and German National People's Party among them received 54.9% of the vote and won 334 seats--an outright majority.



For someone who accused me of not knowing how Parliamentary Systems work, you seem oblivious to the fact that few parties command the overall Majority at any given Time and frequently rely on Coalition Governance. But in this case coalition didn’t happen after a runoff election.


You also seem to have left off the fact that Hitler did win second place in a presidential Election and the Nazi party itself managed to win more seats than any one of their rival and would likely have overtaken the Parliament even had Hitler NOT been appointed Chancellor in 1933.

Just because the others could have formed a coalition that would have opposed him doesn’t mean that their failure to makes this not a Democracy.






It doesn’t matter that his party didn’t have the Majority of the Votes, given that there were about five parties that had a significant poll tracking, its obvious that the percentage was not as likely to be an overwhelming Majority like it is in Two Party (Not officially but De Facto) America.

Perhaps your condescending assumption that I don’t understand parliamentary systems leads you to think you can fool me into thinking that this is meaningful as a History lesson but how does the Nazi Victory really look different than the current Tory Victory in the UK? Well other than that the Tories managed to form a coalition with the LibDems. I mean, what your saying is that the Nazi’s won a general, but not overall majority, and somehow this means they were not elected.


If we actually applied this Logic, then few to no European nation is a Democracy today, including the Republic of France or Republic of Ireland. They all us the same system and, while we don’t’ see any emerging Hitler’s now ( That I know of) we see plenty of the same political manoeuvring going on.



Quote
If they had been able to cooperate with each other, they could have formed an anti-Nazi coalition, but they were much more interested in scoring points off of each other. Faced with chaos, Hindenburg had little choice but to go with Hitler and the Nazis, who cobbled together a rickety coalition with some marginal right wing parties.




Didn’t this recently happen also in France though? And wasn’t a similar crisis only narrowly avoided in the last general Election in the United Kingdom?

And a similar situation was just as narrowly averted recently in Canada.


I’m sorry but that’s pretty standard par for the course in parliamentary Systems.

And since I never actually said Hitler was elected Chancellor but merely said he had been elected, I really don’t’ see how his membership in the Reichstag by being elected is being contradicted, or how his elevation to Chancellorship is any different than how most Nations operate today that we freely call Democracies.

David Cameron may not have been elected prime Minister, but he was elected into Parliament. The same is true of Francis Fillon of France.


This only means that Germany operated on the same Democratic Model used by most nations on Earth today, not that it was not a Democracy.

Just because the others could have formed a coalition that would have opposed him doesn’t mean that their failure to makes this not a Democracy.


Quote

The following year, Hitler called new elections for March 1933, for the purpose of consolidating his hold on the government. It did not work out that way. This time, the Nazis increased their vote to 43.9%, but they won only 288 seats in an enlarged Reichstag of 647 seats--still just 44%, even though the Emergency Decrees passed after the Reichstag fire seriously restricted the ability of the Communists and Socialists to campaign effectively. This time, the four leading opposition parties--still the Social Democrats, the Communists, Zentrum and DNVP--won 49.8% of the vote and 327 seats--still enough for a paper thin majority (50.5%). But again, they were unable to bury their differences against the common foe, and Hitler was once again appointed Chancellor.



This is different than modern European Parliamentary Systems how?

You do realise that his 44% was still much larger than any other single party, Right?



Quote
After the death of President Hindenburg, Hitler began ruling by executive fiat, passing the various Fuhrer decrees that cemented his personal rule and demolished the Weimar Constitution. The lack of strong democratic institutions ultimately doomed the Weimar Republic, as the majority of people were attracted to extremist parties at both ends of the spectrum, leaving no room for moderation or compromise.



But based on everything you said Hitler rose to power specifically through a Democratic process. It’s the same Democratic process used today in the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Poland, and several other European nations, Canada, loads of African nations, Australia and new Zealand, large chunks of Asia, and parts of South America. Its in fact the most common form of “Democracy’ we have. Blaming Hitlers rise to power on a lack of Democratic institutions just seems unconvincing given that I doubt you’d’ hesitate to say that those nations were Democracies. ( aside form some in Asia or Africa and possibly the America’s)

The truth is, it was not a lack of Democracy that lead to Hitler or a lack of Strong Democratic institutions, it was the mechanics of a Democratic parliament.



Hitler was not Oliver Cromwell. He won by the same mechanisms that are used today by European politicians all the Time.


Quote

As for the rest of your post--it's just pure nonsense, a nostalgic fantasy with no foundations in the real history of the Balkans--or any other place.



The only History I need for this is the history of the last decade. According to t he United States Secretary Of State Condoleezza Rice, Russia was wrong to invade Georgia and help in the succession of Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as recognising them as independent Nations. She based this off the Doctrines accepted by the United States of America and United nations those national Boarders shall be Inviolable, and Georgia had internationally recognised Boarders; Yet somehow tis OK for the west to come in and carve up Serbia? I found the specific modern involvement unnerving and the later response for essentially the same thing hypocritical.


Quote

A person who cannot see the difference between the actions of Adolph Hitler and Abraham Lincoln has demonstrated lack of discernment, and his opinions can no longer be taken seriously.


A person who assumes another person doesn’t know how parliamentary systems or monarchies work simply because he isn’t waving the flag of modern democracy and who leaps to conclusions should be careful about throwing stones.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
I think you are quite naive when it comes both to history and to political philosophy. And you build sandcastles in the air in a manner quite analogous to the democracy fetishists whom you criticize. You are simply the flip side of the coin.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Stuart, what are you basing that accusation on, exactly?

if I am to be insulted I should at least liek to know the grounds, and hope this is nto another poor fool swho thinks that I beelive Monarhy solves all the worlds probles when i've said already I didnt.

Im not politically Nieve, those whothink Democracy emans peace or freedm are.


Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
I think I'm starting to see your point Zarove ... you do understand the Serbian situation better than I thought you would.
and I think you are trying to prove the same thing I am - that th Arab Spring will result in Theocracies and more trouble for the U.S.

But I also think Arab Spring has a lot to do with Muslims so my points are relevant to this discussion (I think).

I always try to grow spriritually from these discussions -

I try to change my hate to love - to pray for and to (dare I say it) love the Muslims who want to kill me and my family.

And Saint Gregory is always relevant to discussions about Muslims in my humble opinion.

I don't want to be mean to Muslims - I want to live in peace with them - I'm not convinced we can achieve that with so much hate being perpetrated on us and on their own citizens.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
I do understand things better than Im given credit for, but that is mainly because we have cultivated a society that basiclaly accepts Universal Democracy. its unquestioned, so when I do the unthinkable and reject it I come off as insane.

However, I dont' think the Islamic World will create Theocracies. As I said earlier, a Theocracy is a Government that see's God ( or a god) n direct xontrol as Head of State, which no Muslim nation does.

I beleive instead that the Muslims will create a Democracy, but the Democracy will not follow Western Cltural COnventions. We associate certain things, like Free Speech, with Democracy but really most of our "Democraric" Rights came out of Midaeval Feudalism and a slow, long proccess of Cultural Development. The values we think of as Democratic are really only associated with Democracy because of the co-evovled set of cercumstances that produced the Unique Western Culture we live in. Arabs and Africans who do not share that History won't produce a Culture that's the same as ours simply because they will vote for their Values andd Cultural expecrtations. Expecting them to automatically become like us just because they can now Vote is mindless, and saying they aren't real Democracies because their Majority votes "The wrogn way is just avoiding the problem that majority Rule is not the same thing as Human Rights or Freedom.

When we ask them to "Embrace Democracy' we really mean we want hem to give up who they are ansd throw away their whole Culture and become just like us, and then are shocked everty Time when they don't.

Democracy is not a Magic Pill that makes everything better.

I don't really hate Muslims, and know that many int he West have themselves a western perspective and want nothign mroe than to accept the freedoms we have, and bestow them to others, but I just don't think Tunisia is filled to the brim with that sort.



As for Serbia, its just a victim fo Modern political convenience and Hypocracy.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
The Serbs only reaped what the sowed.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
No, they reap what the West Sows. The Serbians were American Allies back in the late 1990's and at the Time American troops shot at the Ethnic Albanians. When Serbia drew closer to Russia, America swapped sides.

its real politics, not any sort of Divine Retribution, that is at play. I still find the ability to just step in and rip a nation in two for the sake of political expediency rather disturbing.

Last edited by ZAROVE; 11/02/11 07:37 PM. Reason: Spelling.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
As I said, you are rather naive when it comes both to history and to foreign policy.

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
WE ARE TALKING KOSOVO HERE STUART!

With all due respect on this matter Stuart you do not know what you are talking about.

After War - After Milosevic was overthrown = after peace was established . The KLA killed Serbian Orthodox and burned hundreds of churches and desecrated hundreds of Holy Places.

There are YouTube videos of this destruction (desecration of Serbian Orthodox Churches) KOSOVO -

I agree with you on Germany = I disagree with Zarove on Germany but I see what he is doing - he is arguing that democracies in the Arab Spring are not innocent or necessarily good.

Zsrove wants to debate (he needs to join a local debate team ).

You should examine your motives for saying that Serbia deserves
what is happening in Kosovo because one of their misguided leaders took them down the wrong path.

ZAROVE is right on Serbia - Bill Clinton was in office - Serbia was an easy target to exploit - and we did -

At the time we were bombing Serbia - Rwanda was melting down into a genocidal nightmare the West ignored - Conspiracy theorists might argue that it was politically correct to dismantle communist Eastern European countries and might also argue it was a deflection to avoid outrage over Rwanda.
Or sexual trysts in the Oval office (who knows for sure)

One thing is fof certian The United Nations is a joke.

UN forces are a joke as they sat back and let the KLA kill and maim - and they were a joke in Rwanda too.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Quote
WE ARE TALKING KOSOVO HERE STUART!


So am I. Remember what I said--there are no good guys in the Balkans, just varying shades of bad.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Suart, how about the original Legal argument I made. Does International law permit other powers to disolve a nation ro alter its baorders or are those Boarders Sacrosanct?

At least Serbia has a National History as a Unified Body,Georgia did not. Abzakhan was actually originally an indeopendant State, and was only merged with Georgia in the Post Soviet Union.

Why was Putin wrong to recognise their independance based on their History, and their opersonal desires, and wring to send troops in, while its perfeclty fine, even a Moral Imperitive, to cut Serbia in two?


The whole of it is a Doubel Standard. It doens't even matter that there have been generations of troubles itn eh Balkans. I currently licve on land that was stolen from the Indians, that does NOT mean I should feel OJK if soemoen decides my land is not my own now.

What gave the West the Right to cut Serbia in two>? And why is it not Hypocricy to say Russia can't do the same thing with georgia?

And considerign that Georgias Governemnt is a Puppet of the West ( as was Ukraine till recently) and NATO had designed to add them tot he NATO block, it just seems foolish tot hink Russia is a big bad enemy afggressor when we were pushign Missles in poland and annexing De Jure Ukkrain and georgia ansd boxing them in at their own Boarders whislt destoryign their own Allies.

But I suppose we can't look at the Russian perspective on all this. or the Serbian perspective.

While we're at it, some Mexicans think it was wrogn for America to conquer and take over Lower Arizona, so why not seed that back to them? Especially given the high number of Hispanics in the region?

I doubt the US woudl play by those same rules, even if lower Arizona voted to seed fromt he Union and join Mexico, heck, the 1861 Civil War saw to it that Sates can't volunterly leave the Union as a whole.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5