Apr 11, 2012 -- 12:26PM, christine3 wrote:

I'm short on words, long on pause.  :) Which could frustrate you. Not at all :-).

...especially the Christian religion, which has historically been so aggressive, and still is but just coming in the back door with food and medicine. Christianity had a good and bad rep, no doubt. I think it is because it's made up of human beings. There in normally lies the good and the bad of any organization. Such is life.

Christianity would be tackling both Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time in India.

Tackling? I'm lost on this one. Why tackle anyone?

I don't know your philosophy. All humans are people and people makes the world what it is. No philosophy is better than the next, simply different.

I am not exuberant about how the United States exploits/weakens other countries while gaining strength.  That's business and human nature. Such is life.

The U.S. is like those caterpillars that eat all the foliage off the tree; the tree suffers so badly it will never be a beautiful tree. Agreed, the USA does not understand what a great gift it has and is treating is wealth like a spoiled child does. Such is life.

Iran will finally get pinched between U.S. sanctions and its need for food from India.  For some reason it will attack India, and I don't have the answer for that. Thats where I fall down. Without the "reason" for such a huge and horrible act the statement seems random. Like me stating huge chunks of brazil will soon break upward and fly off to the sun to be swallowed. It's a theory with no backing.

Did you know that India & Pakistan have Nuclear Arsenals greater than 1 nuclear weapon? In fact they have hundreds. The retaliation would be swift and final, Iran would cease to exist.

The U.S. and Russia will leave Iran alone, as they both will benefit from further exploiting India.

Now you may think the USA and Russia are heartless business ogres who care less about anything other than money, but I beg to disagree. The USA and Russia's response would be swift indeed! But in your scenario you have Iran which might soon have several nuclear devices attacking a nuclear armed country with ballistic ability, India. This would be a quick and mostly one sided nuclear conflict and after the USA and Russia would like to begin discussions with India on why it obliterated Iran and how to now put a lock on any use of nuclear weapons ever!

In fact, the "haves" in the world will benefit from India the "have not" in the world, as it is helped to become more productive.

I got news for ya, India is a "Have". It is a very progressive country with a military force superior to poor Iran and a 100 to 1 nuclear weapon advantage. Don't tread on India, they are a nuclear military power. Pakistan, which lies between Iran and India is also a nuclear military power. Any shooting of such weapons over thier country would encite them violence as well.

This is what I mean about "fleshing" out ones theory. The facts will tell the tale.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 6:59PM, christine3 wrote:

Christine:  Christianity would be tackling both Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time in India.

In the example you site there is no Christianity, only Iran = Muslim, and India = Hinduism & Bushism. Christianity is not in the equation for your example, where is it coming from and why would it be tackling India or Iran?

Christine:  As with any business, the church must continue to grow.  Instead of 'tackle', try 'convert'.  

Christinaity convert India or Iran? Oh I'm sure the rhetoric of many churches vaguely states such in a very oblique way... but changing the minds of billions and reversing thier culture that was instilled of thousands of years is impossible. Other religions know this only to well, and so many just do good deeds, send food, send aid, send bibles etc... but I don't think they have any hope for any real returns. Ever.

Christine: No I didn't know that about the arsenals.  I see your point, but the conspiracist in me thinks the United States uses divide and conquer tactics.  U.S. can get along without the oil, and can get along without the food import if it chooses to, but the U.S. too is like an organism that needs to continue to grow.  It will use both Iran and India to it's own advantage, keeping the two dependent on each other.  Let the little guys fight it out and while they are doing that, they will likely both not prosper and be dependent on the United States.   

All counties, some more some less, POLITICALLY attempt to divide others and GAIN what they are after. It's another human trait. The USA has much oil, but nothing on terms of Saudia Arabia for example which has simply emense reserves. So we as a country can not live at our current standards without that oil, we would simply have to drive less - manufacture less - and form less electricty using our own reserves alone. We don't import foods anything on par with the food we export. The USA is very plentiful on food growth. We feed the world, not the other way around.

The USA does not want to grow, it does not want new lands (Imperialism does not work in a world of high nationalism, and that is what the world is now: High Nationalism!). The USA does indeed want political gain to further its materialistic gain. Ergo it uses politics to manipulate to gain what it is after, materials. We import incredible amounts of materials. The USA would not incite wars directly, but incite aggrevation (political aggrevation) between countries. Many countries do this and its business. Not exactly morally correct, but that's business. The USA would be MAD to attempt to incite a war with a modern country like India, especially a nuclear exchange. It could easily become a target of such then.

You may distrust the USA, but please remember that the USA is a repbulic and rules by a mandate from the mass's. Its representatvies may do stupid things, but not outside that mandate. The masses in turn are people. Just like you, just like me. People do good things and people do stupid things. It's the nature of man.

Christine: You are really right, but how is a country like the U. S. to grow if it doesn't keep consuming other countries?  India, Africa are looking spectacular with their resources that have hardly been used.  Would it be feasible that it would use Iran to do it's dirty work?   

The USA does not want to grow in land or territory. It wants to "deal" with other countries and gain it's needs. Military solutions are grave mistakes. The USA used it's miliatry in Iraq, and now its gone, left, did not continue to gain. It has military in Afghanistan and it wants out as there is no gain. The USA does not want to grow. Only in business. And so does everybody else :-)

The USA does not want Africa or the Middle East. That opens a huge can of worms. Iran is to clumsy to be a good political tool for others. Most, including the USA want to keep Iran bottled up.

Christine: I have to explain and am sorry to say that I am disgusted with both my country and the Roman Catholic Church, my being Native American.  I see both in the worst light and have no trust at all for either.

There is much to be disgusted with in the USA and any church. But they are great things too. It's all in how YOU choose to see the world. Through dark filtered glass's or through clear ones. You choose. I see people as wonderful and organizations as faulty. But organizations are natural and humans make them, they grow, they become great, they degrade and they fall apart. Such is life. Those that do not grasp the pommel of the sword last longer, those that do grasp the sword attempt for greatness and fail sooner.

Have a good day!

Hey Timothy! How have you been?

Well Tim, given your track record, I wouldn't worry too much............

Aug 31, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Timothy wrote:

So it's Romney? If you people vote for him, you know what will happen. Don't say I didn't warn you.

By the way, the US national debt clock is about to hit 16 trillion. www.usdebtclock.org

Welcome back, Tim. I agree with you about Romney, but at least he would be better than Santorum or Gingrich although that's not saying much.

I got a good laugh out of the debt clock since it was George W. Bush that put the country in deficit in the first place.