Text 4036, 61 rader
Skriven 2004-10-23 20:37:10 av Gary Moore (1:396/45.0)
   Kommentar till text 3958 av Steve Asher (3:800/432.0)
Ärende: Bush & Mark Of The Beast?
=================================
 SA> Whether Bush is (or is not) the Antichrist cannot be known.

 GM> If you're going to speculate, it could be Kerry.  Why focus on
 GM> Bush?

 SA> The article refers to Bush, not Kerry, so I kept my comments to Bush.
 SA> Feel free to introduce any material that relates to Kerry.

 My question was prompted by the thought that Bush would seem to be
 eliminated as some kind of an end-time despot if he were to lose the
 election and he willingly relinquished the White House.

 Your article and accompanying argument is posted mere days before
 an election, the results of which might make you have to change your
 speculation about things.  I don't see Kerry as "the Antichrist,"
 but if your argument is based on the aggressiveness with which the
 presidential candidates might wage war, you should consider that
 Kerry has said he wants to substantially increase the number of
 men and women in the U.S. military, and he claims he would wage war
 more effectively.  It's difficult to know what he would do, were he
 to be elected.  Hence, my question.

 SA> However, the ultra-liberal course he has embarked upon of
 SA> bringing "peace and freedom" to the world, at the point
 SA> of a cruise missile if necessary, is consistent with the
 SA> "job description" of the Beast, and will result in
 SA> destruction.

 GM> How does the desire to bring peace and freedom to the world
 GM> equate to an "ultra-liberal course," Steve?

 SA> I think you'd agree that what is commonly viewed as the
 SA> "peace movement" is largely the liberal (in the US sense)
 SA> left, well-meaning church members (palm Sunday marches etc),
 SA> socialist worker alliances (etc) - at least when it comes
 SA> to organising peace marches & rallies - i.e. "liberals".
 SA> That was my experience of the "peace movement" in Adelaide
 SA> in the 1970s and 1980s, anyway.

 There are many ways in which one might pursue peace and freedom
 throughout the world, Steve.  All paths aren't the same.

 SA> While the "movement" was successful in opposing the Vietnam war,

 The "peace movement" with which I'm most familiar would appear to
 have been pacifist in nature.  It was against the war.  Yet, you're
 applying the term "ultra-liberal course" to the course of perpetual
 war upon which the Bush administration has embarked.  Your labels
 don't seem to fit.  There doesn't appear to be a consistency that
 makes sense.  Were we to explore this a little more closely, we might
 examine the origins of the term "neo-conservative" as pertains to
 certain New York intellectuals, some liberal disenchantment with
 American foreign policy, and the choice of some to move from their
 positions on "the liberal left" to "the conservative right."  Still,
 the label "ultra-liberal course" wouldn't appear to apply to the
 course pursued by the Bush administration.

-+- QuikEdit 2.41R+

--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: Sursum Corda! BBS-New Orleans 1-504-897-6006 USR33k6 (1:396/45)