New Mars Forums

I've changed my mind, I did support European troops sending to Irak,
now I'm too disgusted to think we can have any  commitment with these non human sadist torturers

While I'll reserve judgement until I have more information on this than what comes from C-BS news, if true this is troubling. The remarkable lack of atrocities historically is a mark of honor for the US military, I would hate to see it tarnished.

I guess this topic has been aired somewhere else here at New Mars(?) but I haven't found it yet. It's been hard to find any reference to it anywhere in the press or on T.V., too, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention.
    The Australian newspaper ran an editorial which sums up the story and I've been waiting for it to really take hold in all the mainstream media - so far it's been kept fairly quiet.
    Here's the editorial from two days ago (somebody please tell me if quoting it verbatim is against the regulations and I'll delete it. I'm assuming that because it's 2 days old, it's no longer a copyright issue.)

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and in the year since, a fashionable argument about toppling Saddam Hussein's regime went something like this: no effort to end the suffering of the Iraqi people would be "legitimised" unless it was led by the UN because, while the UN's motives were humanitarian, those of the US and its allies were blackened by material self-interest. There is now growing evidence that the opposite was the case. Iraqi oil production is at pre-war levels, and genertaing $20 billion a year in profits that flow direct to the Iraqi people - not the coffers of the coalition of the willing. But in a scandal that has now snaked its way right to the office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it appears that it was at the UN, and among Security Council members who opposed the invasion, that Iraq was "all about oil".

    The oil-for-food program, which was set up under UN auspices in 1996 to ameliorate the effect of economic sanctions on children, the sick and the poor, is now alleged to have been scammed in three ways. By pretending that Iraqi oil had generated less income for the program than was the case, UN officials skimmed billions of dollars for Saddam and themselves. Meanwhile, contractors received kickbacks for overquoting the price of food, medicine and other humanitarian aid: the difference between the quoted price, and what they were really paid, was split with Saddam's regime and corrupt officials. And finally, hundreds of individuals - including, it is claimed, senior Russian and French diplomats, as well as some prominent anti-war voices in the West - were given preferential oil contracts that they were able to on-sell to oil traders at considerable profit. It is a scandal that dwarfs the general claims of favouritism made about the awarding of Iraqi reconstruction contracts to US Vice-President Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton.

    There are currently three investigations into oil-for-food, and it is not impossible one of them will claim the scalp of Mr Annan himself - the corruption and incompetence were on his watch, and encompassed some of his senior officials. But whether the motives of those who drove the UN position on Iraq were lilywhite or sullied, that position was wrong. In November, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441, which ordered Saddam to meet his obligation to the international community by disarming and allowing full weapons inspections. He was allowed to flout the resolution, just as he had done with rulings stretching back a decade. It now seems possible the delay increased the "take" of those profiting illegally from oil-for-food. But it certainly cost lives in Iraq, and permanently dented the relevance of the UN.

    So, it's beginning to look like the anti-war brigade's attitude was actually "all about oil", not that of the coalition of the willing!
    I've always thought that that was bound to prove the much more likely case, since now the Iraqi oil production benefits go straight to the Iraqi people. Australia certainly never got any illicit oil out of it, I'm sure of that!
    Up until now, the "all about oil" theory just never made any sense to me. Now, it does ... but not in the way most of the press has been bleating about it for the past 12 months.
                                         :;):
    I, for one, am very much looking forward to some of these hypocritical "anti-war" crooks being brought to justice. But it'll be interesting to see whether some of the anti-coalition-pro-UN media will give it much coverage.
                                            ???

I can see where this thread is going and your attitude about it. All the things you accuse me of doing in interpatations of God's word, you do yourself. The bias shows. You are saying: My interpatation is better than yours and none of what you say I'll never accept. That's fine with me. My views are here for all to read and to accept or not. But your views you push and push as the "only way, the only truth etc..." Sorry we all don't think like you.

Just like God gave all choices to choose whatever. I choose not to participate in this thread anymore. O I know you'll come up with something witty to say to get the last word. As a show to your friends here that you are superior lol. But, when the time comes, there will be someone that no one can out do. And when He judges us all, there will be no excuse for not believing what is written. It is what you call faith. And faith is not what you have. And for that, I'm truly sorry.

Nope, the point is that you yourself interprit the bible figuratively not literally, and therefore are violating the very premise of your professed ideology.

You choose to contradict contemporary science, professing biblical literalism, but then go about interpriting the bible non-literally yourself.

This one I could not resist to reply to. It's a perfect example of science as a replacement of God.

Many people can interprit the bible in a manner that does not contradict contemporary science.

It is ok for science to contrdict God? But it's not ok for God to contradict science?

So is science now going to replace God?

So who in science gets the honary position of God?

I can see where this thread is going and your attitude about it. All the things you accuse me of doing in interpatations of God's word, you do yourself. The bias shows. You are saying: My interpatation is better than yours and none of what you say I'll never accept. That's fine with me. My views are here for all to read and to accept or not. But your views you push and push as the "only way, the only truth etc..." Sorry we all don't think like you.

Just like God gave all choices to choose whatever. I choose not to participate in this thread anymore. O I know you'll come up with something witty to say to get the last word. As a show to your friends here that you are superior lol. But, when the time comes, there will be someone that no one can out do. And when He judges us all, there will be no excuse for not believing what is written. It is what you call faith. And faith is not what you have. And for that, I'm truly sorry.

Have you ever been walking down the street, or leaving a bank, or sitting at a cafe, when somebody passes you and you wonder what their story is?

Have you ever been walking down the street, or leaving a bank, or sitting at a cafe, when somebody passes you and you wonder what they think your story is?

That's my weird fun. 

I know what the next question is, so I'll go ahead and answer it. How does things date so old if the earth is so young?
Since we do not know all the things that happened for creation, I've come up with this answer.
What we test as old (millions or billions of years) is actually a by-product of quick creation.

Example: There are somethings that you can add radiation to and make it look and test older. Japan has come up with a way to make diamonds in about a week. Something that in nature takes years.

Just because something tests old, does not always mean it is old. During creation, God had the power to actually speak something into existence. Knowing this, would He have to wait millions or billions of years for a certain element to be at a state he needed for His creation right now?

Example: Imagine that you have the power to speak things into existence. What would be your limitations? Anything you wanted you could have, right? Now, what would be God's limitations to create in 6 days while having the power to speak anything into existence? Knowing that this power has no limitations, I see no problem with everything being created in 6 days.

Also, does a one day need the sun? Time was created before the sun existed. And light was created before any object that produced light (such as the sun and moon). And since God is light, the light mentioned came from Him until the objects that produced light where created. And since anything that comes from God directly is not objected to a time and distance barrier as we know it (because God is eternal), The whole universe would have been lit up by the light that came from God. All the way to the end and back. When applying how something happened in creation. You have to remember that God was not hindered in anyway by time. And because we know nothing about the realm of eternity that He lives in, as far as how we precieve time, It can only be presumed that God being eternal, in his realm, gave God enough time, in our realm, to do what was needed to create everything in 6 days our time as we precieve it.
And if you don't think so. Then answer this question. How is time calculated in the eternal (if that is possible)? And if you can't answer that question, then the scientific answer for 6 day creation cannot be answered by science until such is testable. And to presume as much as science has already, without the knowlege of eternity, means it all could be wrong and God could be right.
Because to say something is wrong when it's not testable, is to only guess at what is observable. Which is how science came up with all that it has already.
But what if all of a sudden, we could test eternity? Some theories, I think, would have to be rewritten.

Somewhere in the Bible -- now where is that passage again? -- its made plain that a day for God is not what it is for man, which makes sense to me, and answers your last question.