Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists

us ourYF 22s wrote:

3.7% for 2007.
The US military budget, according to wikipedia is the larger than all other countries combined and we still are spending 1/10 of our gdp as apposed to 1945....
where should we cut back....????
You might notice that after the WTC bombings of 1993 the Clinton admin cut Spending until by 2000 we were spending about 25% less than we need right now in his war on terror...I forgot he didnt have one. Only the terrorist had declared war by his and of office.

Why do the Clinton bashers always conveniently ignore the part about the Pentagon and military experts being the ones that called for the revamped streamlined military? Additionally, we don't "need" the billions we are spending now as most has nothing to do with a war on terror, and is in no way making us safer.

None of this will matter if Islamic law prevails. The "free thinkers" will then be forced to quash any doubts about Islam, and no one except the Muslims will have any freedom at all.
The very thing that formed and saved Europe, Christianity, is being strangled by secularists, and eventually they will be silenced by the Jihadists.
Their mindless atheistic totalitarianism will be overcome by the tyranny of Islam. They will reap what they are now sowing, and they are cutting their own throats.
So, the godless "progressives" will lose everything to real religious fanatics who will not take NO for an answer. Either submit or die. If they think that Christianity is "oppressive" then lets see how they cope under Muslim rule. Let's see how long their "free thinking" will survive then.
Europe is committing suicide.

CaptainH wrote:

None of this will matter if Islamic law prevails. The "free thinkers" will then be forced to quash any doubts about Islam, and no one except the Muslims will have any freedom at all.
The very thing that formed and saved Europe, Christianity, is being strangled by secularists, and eventually they will be silenced by the Jihadists.
Their mindless atheistic totalitarianism will be overcome by the tyranny of Islam. They will reap what they are now sowing, and they are cutting their own throats.
So, the godless "progressives" will lose everything to real religious fanatics who will not take NO for an answer. Either submit or die. If they think that Christianity is "oppressive" then lets see how they cope under Muslim rule. Let's see how long their "free thinking" will survive then.
Europe is committing suicide.

As far as mindless rants go, I can only give a C+. To improve that grade, you'll need to go on for several more paragraphs and make some mention of Satan.

CaptainH wrote:

None of this will matter if Islamic law prevails. The "free thinkers" will then be forced to quash any doubts about Islam, and no one except the Muslims will have any freedom at all.
The very thing that formed and saved Europe, Christianity, is being strangled by secularists, and eventually they will be silenced by the Jihadists.
Their mindless atheistic totalitarianism will be overcome by the tyranny of Islam. They will reap what they are now sowing, and they are cutting their own throats.
So, the godless "progressives" will lose everything to real religious fanatics who will not take NO for an answer. Either submit or die. If they think that Christianity is "oppressive" then lets see how they cope under Muslim rule. Let's see how long their "free thinking" will survive then.
Europe is committing suicide.

Um, yeah, sure, ok. Atheistic totalitarianism?

MADRONE wrote:

<quoted text>
As far as mindless rants go, I can only give a C+. To improve that grade, you'll need to go on for several more paragraphs and make some mention of Satan.

Very true. He didn't even quote the Bible! The people that tell him how to think are going to be very upset!

us ourYF 22s wrote:

<quoted text>Fiscal Year Military spending as
percent of GDP
1940 1.7
1941 5.6
1942 17.8
1943 37.0
1944 37.8
1945 37.5
1946 19.2
1947 5.5
1948 3.5
1949 4.8
1950 5.0
1951 7.4
1952 13.2
1953 14.2
1954 13.1
1955 10.8
1956 10.0
1957 10.1
1958 10.2
1959 10.0
1960 9.3
1961 9.4
1962 9.2
1963 8.9
1964 8.5
1965 7.4
1966 7.7
1967 8.8
1968 9.4
1969 8.7
1970 8.1
1971 7.3
1972 6.7
1973 5.8
1974 5.5
1975 5.5
1976 5.2
1977 4.9
1978 4.7
1979 4.6
1980 4.9
1981 5.1
1982 5.7
1983 6.1
1984 5.9
1985 6.1
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.8
1989 5.6
1990 5.2
1991 4.6
1992 4.8
1993 4.4
1994 4.0
1995 3.7
1996 3.5
1997 3.3
1998 3.1
1999 3.0
2000 3.0
2001 3.0
2002 3.4
2003 3.7
There is 1.4 million in the active military. 14 miliion Americans served during WW2. you might notice that under Ike, spending was 3 times higher almost.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-rela...

It's interesting, but like ALL single-aspect comparisons, it fails to see the "big picture".

The budget is NOT just a simple percentage-spent. It's more than that.

The dollar does not linearly scale up-and-down, either.

And a loaf of bread is always a loaf of bread (in that it fills you up the same, regardless of how much it costs).

Thus, the total $$ expenditure is important, too. Especially if you adjust those to be more-or-less the same-- that is, they each represent the same number or fractions of a loaf of bread (or equivalent).

Next, one MUST consider the COST of the material being purchased-- TODAY's military parts cost much more (per/part) than they did in the 40's or 50's. There are MORE regulations to meet than there was then, both in the labor force and in the parts stream.

Finally, there is that ugly aspect of any human endeavor-- corruption.

I think that cost-inflation and corruption is much higher these days, than in the early, post-WW2 era.

So, does the above make your % GNP picture better or worse, then versus now...?

Dennis2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do the Clinton bashers always conveniently ignore the part about the Pentagon and military experts being the ones that called for the revamped streamlined military? Additionally, we don't "need" the billions we are spending now as most has nothing to do with a war on terror, and is in no way making us safer.

You're Dam right I bash Clinton for not getting binladin, for not recognizing we had been a real target, for not even declaring the 93 bombing of WTC a terrorist act handing it to the FBI.

I never said Clinton was useless and that everything he did was useless but his antics made him ineffectual and mindless to a larger threat than an infidelity charge....but he felt it was more important to protect his tarnished "honor"(use it loosely) as apposed to finding and killing the extremists. Not getting Binladin goes far beyond 9/11, it puts his name into myth and along side of Mohammad and Hussein the last Imam. You can deny this but none the less, its true. Had we got him, he would be a footnote in the Jihad, that probably wouldnt have half of its followers now.

The Military is essential, if you can find waste and corruption, eliminate it.

One of those bloated programs is coming soon too, hypersonic missiles, developed in conjunction with NASA and will one day be orbiting in space as a deterrent as a program of self-deterrence...quick action weapons. You may not like the sound of that.
There's already talk of having them orbit in space and calling when needed.

"The HyFly program’s goal is to demonstrate the key technologies that would move a missile at Mach 6 in an environment that would enable the Navy to adapt the technology to a next generation of high-speed cruise missiles. According to DARPA, the HyFly program aims to demonstrate a vehicle range of 600 nm “with a block speed of 4,400 feet per second,” or 3,000 mph."
http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/...

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10889...

By Jeremy Singer

Updated: 7:32 p.m. ET March 22, 2006
The threat of cancellation no longer looms over the Pentagon's Airborne Laser effort, but senior program officials say they are taking nothing for granted as they prepare for a missile-intercept demonstration in 2008.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11961673/

us ourYF 22s wrote:

3.7% for 2007.
The US military budget, according to wikipedia is the larger than all other countries combined and we still are spending 1/10 of our gdp as apposed to 1945....
where should we cut back....????
You might notice that after the WTC bombings of 1993 the Clinton admin cut Spending until by 2000 we were spending about 25% less than we need right now in his war on terror...I forgot he didnt have one. Only the terrorist had declared war by his and of office.

We should cut back on foreign bases or make those countries pay a significant portion of the costs and spend the money defending our country and fighting a real war on terror that doesn't include the occupation of other countries.

We are so powerful now that we have have adopted the term of self-deterance. We have either a too small or too large footprint.

Hypersonics might change that. When Clinton fired on Afghanistan it took hours to arrive and Binladin knew he had something coming and thus moved. He or anyone who is an imminent danger can be hit within minutes, anywhere.

I saw where Smart Bullets are in the making.

People say we arent safer now, which I say is not true. I notice all these threats are on foreign soils. What the news people wont let us see is the real face of islam here. Moyers and PBS shelved the show that Fox picked up saying it wasnt balanced.....as if we are going after muslim males between 17-40 out of unfounded fears.....show me one act of terror or a beheading not done by this group.

CaptainH wrote:

None of this will matter if Islamic law prevails. The "free thinkers" will then be forced to quash any doubts about Islam, and no one except the Muslims will have any freedom at all.
The very thing that formed and saved Europe, Christianity, is being strangled by secularists, and eventually they will be silenced by the Jihadists.
Their mindless atheistic totalitarianism will be overcome by the tyranny of Islam. They will reap what they are now sowing, and they are cutting their own throats.
So, the godless "progressives" will lose everything to real religious fanatics who will not take NO for an answer. Either submit or die. If they think that Christianity is "oppressive" then lets see how they cope under Muslim rule. Let's see how long their "free thinking" will survive then.
Europe is committing suicide.

Methinks the good captain should lay off the H.

The west would do itself a favor by going into countries and educating the Women of Islam.

Two major movements of modern times were brought about by men of enormous faith. Ghandi and King both applied their beliefs to their movements and changed the face of their countries for the better.

us ourYF 22s wrote:

<quoted text>You're Dam right I bash Clinton for not getting binladin,....

Neither has BUSH got bin laden.

Hmmm.

And Bush, Sr, sold him WEAPONS.

Hmmm.

us ourYF 22s wrote:

The west would do itself a favor by going into countries and educating the Women of Islam.
Two major movements of modern times were brought about by men of enormous faith. Ghandi and King both applied their beliefs to their movements and changed the face of their countries for the better.

Good point. The Saudi women are very liberated--by Muslim standards at least.

For all that the Saudi's are a hotbed of terrorist support, at least they are progressive (relatively) about that.

us ourYF 22s wrote:

People say we arent safer now, which I say is not true.

Say that to the 3500+ dead US soldiers... in Iraq alone.

Say that to American would-be travelers, who DON'T travel anymore, due to terrorist threats, as escalated by Bush's unilateral actions.

Safer? Hardly....

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither has BUSH got bin laden.
Hmmm.
And Bush, Sr, sold him WEAPONS.
Hmmm.

It took twenty years for the USA Calvary to catch Geronimo. Looking for miracles friend?

Sekhmet wrote:

<quoted text>
It took twenty years for the USA Calvary to catch Geronimo. Looking for miracles friend?

No. But, I do grow weary of the same tired lament that "Clinton didn't get bin ladin" from the right.

Neither did bush, I say.

left of Limbaugh wrote:

<quoted text>
We should cut back on foreign bases or make those countries pay a significant portion of the costs and spend the money defending our country and fighting a real war on terror that doesn't include the occupation of other countries.

Absolutely my philosophy!!

The war on terror will be won by intelligence gathering, surveillance, evesdropping, phone tapping, internet hacking, spying, infiltration, propaganda, etc... not by military power.

william wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely my philosophy!!
The war on terror will be won by intelligence gathering, surveillance, evesdropping, phone tapping, internet hacking, spying, infiltration, propaganda, etc... not by military power.

Hear! Hear!

The ONLY way to understand what is going on in someone's mind-- is to talk to them...

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Say that to the 3500+ dead US soldiers... in Iraq alone.
Say that to American would-be travelers, who DON'T travel anymore, due to terrorist threats, as escalated by Bush's unilateral actions.
Safer? Hardly....

do you actually know anyone in the service or have friend with kids there? I have a few friends on the net and they pass along the emails and to a man and woman they BELIEVE in what they are doing there.

How do you feel about the fact that the Allies blow huh? that they are an ungrateful bunch of cowards with one exception the UK +Aussies. What about the fact that right now part of the national pride is a war museum in Aussie with Saddams goplden ak 47, which he should have used, on display there. It was recovered by the American 101st Airborne in Baghdad.

what about the blood thirsty M*******rs who cut head off ...that is our fault also huh? Perhaps its the troops too coz they are the real source of pain...and BTW who gives a good frig if tourism is down...in the arab world. Amman Jordan just announced a 20 bil dollar project, the Kurds have an int'l airport they didnt have....Kuwait and Kater are booming....watch Arabia business on the weekends.

You are sadly mistaken with your statement and it really infuriates me...had I not come to like you I would blast off but, I'll pass.

us ourYF 22s wrote:

<quoted text>do you actually know anyone in the service or have friend with kids there? I have a few friends on the net and they pass along the emails and to a man and woman they BELIEVE in what they are doing there.

And _I_ have read the blogs and tales of soldiers and ex-soldiers who do not.

I suspect that it's pretty even-- much like the US.

Furthermore, it's in the nature of a soldier to believe in the cause-- it's a matter of survival. Those that no longer do, often get their !sses shot off, because they've lost the "edge". By not believing.

And believe or not, there ARE nearly 4,000 dead and counting.

Tell me-- IS it worth it?

For as SOON as the US pulls out-- and make no mistake, we WILL, if we must wait for bush to cough-up the whitehouse first. There's clearly no stomach for it, in the general public.

Anyway, when we DO exit, what do you think will happen?

I'm no Nostradamus (and neither was he), but I CAN read history.

And history tells us that the area is strife with chaos.

The people are very much into tribalism and extreme religious factions.

Remove the presence of the US Army, and *boom* it all falls apart.

Again.

So. Was it WORTH it to kill those 4,000 lives?

The Iraqis don't WANT a democracy any more than the Palestinians do (just LOOK who they "elected" to be in charge.....). The Iraqis do not know how to work one, and they seem to prefer the Mulla's and Tribal Leaders as rulers. Feudalism.

us ourYF 22s wrote:

How do you feel about the fact that the Allies blow huh?

The CHIEF reason is BUSH.

And his STUPID, ARROGANT, UNILATERAL, All-or-Nothing "diplomacy".

We USED to have allies-- but in just 7 short years, BUSH has BLOWN 40+ years of diplomatic effort.

He's got nearly ALL of Europe hating our guts.

It'll take YEARS to undo the mess that Bush's made out of our international reputation. We may NEVER live it down.

us ourYF 22s wrote:

that they are an ungrateful bunch of cowards with one exception the UK +Aussies.

Ungrateful? Cowards? Where on EARTH do you get THAT idea?

Because they won't roll over and submit to Bush's demands?

Because they won't just "yes, sir" every time Bush makes unreasonable demands of them?

How is sticking to what they believe is Moral, the act of a coward, then?

I just don't get that at all, at all.