:: But why shoudl the Nicargauan people, who didn't vote for Reagan or capitalism, have to suffer at his hands? Why is it right for him to intervene to suppress democracy in Central America, when the Central Americans were not responsible for electing him? Please explain thsi to me. You characterize Reagan's policies as interferring with the free expression of the Nicaraguan people in a democratic process. Nobody legitimately argues, however, that the Soviets were not attempting to set up another client state with Nicaragua. Nor do they argue that the Soviets were not violently imperialistic at that time (Afghanistan).
This was an imperial force with a history of openly threatening to crush the U.S. (Kruschev), a known genocidal entity (Ukraine) with evil intent (Cuban missle crisis), and openly advocating world domination as a necessary part of its agenda. Forgive me for supporting those people responsible for crushing them. Maybe you can't forgive me Nikhil. If not, I'll just tend to my family which, by the way, lives in far more security than it did before the determination of Ronald Reagan steered this economic steam roller over the Soviet leadership. Long may the flattened bodies of Soviet policy makers rot in the road for the world to see. The cold war was not good either. It was necessary.
:: You say that Barry wants war as a means of sweeping away injustice and exploitation from the world. But sometimes war brings about good thinsg, because it clearly exposes teh difference bewteen good and evil. The Civil War was a monumental war of good against evil, as was teh Second World War, as was the Nicaraguan Civil War, the Tanzania-Uganda war, the war over Bangladesh, the Spanish Civil War, and any number of anti-colonial wars. The Bible predicts a war between God and the Devil at the end of time, which must precede the final judgment day- I presume that you treat this as a 'good thing'. Incidnetally, speaking of 'calamity', it also predicts a thousand-year rule by the Antichrist. Hindu scriptures say a similar thing, that the world must become evil before it can be made good again.
Sure, war can bring about positive social change. That doesn't make war good nor does it legitimize a sick desire for it. Barry doesn't advocate any particualr war for the ostensible reasons it will be waged. He only seeks to profit from the carnage and anarchy that ensues because his views have no hope of suceeding in this democracy.
You need to study your Bible more if you intend to use it to back up any assertion of social issues. The thousand year reign is not by the Anti-christ. It is by Jesus Christ. A minor point in the context of this arguement, to be sure, but it makes one wonder why you bother bringing up Biblical references if you can't the facts of them straight. The thousand year reign follows the seven year tribulation of rule by the Anti-christ. It is decidely not good nor is it reported to usher in any social change. It is reported to be stopped by the miraculous return of Jesus Christ.
:: Looking at history, calamities have often been necessary to waken people to tehir ondition and to spur them to build a better society,. Teh Great Depression ushered in social democracy in America.
You characterize the New Deal as good? I say it institutionalized poverty. We've spent over 5 trillion on it now and what long term good have we accomplished in the war against poverty except to institutionalize poverty and its so-called solution?
:: The European rebellions of teh late 1800s ushered in social democracy to Europe. Do you think Christianity would have conquered the Roman Empire if Rome hadn't been a hellhole of amoral corruption, decadence, injustice, murder and slavery? I think that the evil nature of the Caligulas and Neros made Rome ready to receive a creed of love and mercy.
So the evil and vindictive nature of French revolution has merit, I see. As far as the Roman Empire goes, Constantine had the primary role in converting the empire to "christianity" with his edict, making it the religion of the empire. Of course, that act had the effect of "christianizing" every pagan religion of the land as well. The Catholic Church's many sacraments and its priesthood has its basis in neo-pagan ritual as a result. Did you know that the early, pre-catholic church did not baptize infants with water and did not advocate a priesthood? Did you know that the baptism of infants entered the church at the time of Constantine and that the practice was a residual ritual performed by the priests of Baal and other Mesopotamian religions before sacraficing infants on a burning altar? The practice of burning infants had ceased 1500 years previous but the ritual of washing them continued on, and still does to this day in the form of infant baptism. I don't consider that a good development so I can't even concede this point.
:: so in conslusion, who is truuly more sociopathic, those who want the failings of teh economy and the system to become suddenly apparent so taht peopel can overthrow them in a day, and teh next day install a new system of justice and peace, or thsoe who wish an exploiattaive system to continue for another thousand years?
You'd think the masses were smart enough to see if the system they live under was failing. I guess not, eh Nikhil? They'er too stupid to see it your way so they need a good war to show them. Amazing! Also, it's not very clever of you to imply that the thousand year reign of the Anti-christ is our current capitalistic system, especially after you mistakenly switched the protagonist and antagonist.
A true sociopath enjoys the pain of other people enough to want to cause it. I won't go so far as to say that is what Barry actually wants but I will say that it is a far cry from altruistic or egalitarian principle to make a post such as he did. I believe Barry would put the personal suffering of individuals second to the implementation of his pet ideal. Whatever you want to call that, it isn't healthy.
Stuart Gort
