 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 339 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 05:54 pm |
|
The rhetoric now coming out of Moscow and the actions of its troops are exactly what one would have expected during the Cold War. Russia is signing treaties that it obviously has no intention of honoring, threatening a pre-emptive strike on Poland if it dares to install a missle-defense shield, and dictating to the former Soviet satellite nations what their destinies will or won't be. In response, the West is talking about major reactions; blocking Russia's bid into the WTO, cancelling NATO's direct negotiations with them regarding their security concerns, and possibly may end up with economic sanctions. In case anyone forgot, Putin began re-aiming its ICBMs toward the West several years ago after Yeltsin had previously redirected them toward China. It was only a symbolic sabre-rattle at the time, but it is looking more ominous now.
It often seems I am alone when discussing this topic but Russia gives me the major heebie jeebies. There has been a resurgence of nationalism there in recent years and it is being fueled by a resentment of the West and a pining for the glory days of the Soviet Union (IOW a powerful geopolitical influence).
It looks to me like the Cold War is firing up again.
____________________
"This idea that there is no logic in heaven seems illogical to me." ~~~~ Stiggy
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 05:56 pm |
|
I share in your heebie jeebies.
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
Cajun
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Peckerwood., USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 07:08 pm |
|
Ronson wrote:
It often seems I am alone when discussing this topic but Russia gives me the major heebie jeebies.
You're not alone. There has been a resurgence of nationalism there in recent years I think it'd been going on for at least a decade. and it is being fueled by a resentment of the West and a pining for the glory days of the Soviet Union (IOW a powerful geopolitical influence). The communists and such like Putin weren't too happy within short order of the Soviet Union collapsing. If I recall, there were a number of tries to reinstitute communism as Russia was having such a hard time deconverting economically. It looks to me like the Cold War is firing up again. Just as with China, I'd been expecting this for some time. Putin retaining power and position (not even hiding behind party curtains) made it a little clearer. Listening to a commentator on the radio today, he called what is going on in Russia economically a conglomeration of criminals and capitalism.
And reading Ezekiel 38 and 39 last night (along with remembering some basic pretrib interpretations and prognostications)...
The two chapters focus on Gog and Magog, but there's another group mentioned as well (along with some better known and direct ones such as the Persians), Gomer/Togarmah. Many Biblical eschatology academics, specifically those of a Pretrib disposition and a Roman paradigm view, have believed for several decades that Gog and Magog, or at least Magog was Russia - or the Soviet Union, during which time this view really proliferated. There are still a number of people who hold to this interpretation, that Gog and Magog speak of Russia.
Yet, Togarmah is spoken of as being from the far or uttermost north, whereas Magog merely north. It is possible that Togarmah and Magog are one people, as today so many nations are really an ethnic mixing bowl. It'd be a stretch to say that Togarmah is the Lapps, Finns, Swedes or such, I think. Other than for a brief period focusing on Europe and being a vangaurd for Byzantine emporers, the Vikings and Northern Europeans really haven't had that much affect on the Jewish people I think, much less Israel. Russia on the other hand has been a powerhouse for a while, and has and continues to have direct issues with Israel.
Another thing to consider is the movement of people thru the ages. The first references to Magog, Gomer and Togarmah is Genesis, when people were still fairly close together. Anyhow, there's some who think Togarmah may have relevance with the Hittites and then Turks and Russians.
Either way, I think we cannot rule out the potential of Russia - not only from a secular viewpoint - in eschatology. Furthermore, we must not ignore Turkey.
Secular Turkey's government has been taken over by fundamentalists. And the leadership of that government has been making and taking great strides to position itself as a mediator, ally and powerhouse in that region. They've made alliances and mediations with Russia and Iran.
China has had (may still have) forces in Sudan (Though recent calls of Iran seeking alliances with Egypt could alter an understanding of Libya and Cush/Ethiopia since both areas were originally close to or within modern Egyptian borders and often under Egyptian rule). Read Ezekiel 38 and 39 then with these thoughts.
None of the nations or areas listed are distinctly Arab, though they are Muslim, with the difference of Russia (if Russia is correctly identified as Togarmah or Magog). Not to fear, there are plenty of passages in the Old Testament that mention arab involvement and destruction in the end times.
Consider also these issues and factors:
Turkey has been trying to become a member of the EU (in part since a portion of the nation is on the European continent). It is believed that this will never come to fruition. Turkey is a cross-roads country in that it looks to Europe as well as Asia. If Turkey is spurned, it may well turn completely to Asia and its cultural and religious heritage. Much of its recent heritage over the last millenium is definitely Turkic and Islamic. With the break-up of the Soviet Union the Turkic regions became independent countries that Turkey now as economic and administrative alliances with.
Whether or not Russia will play a role as Togarmah, Gog or Magog, I really don't know. From a strictly secular view of current events and recent history it would certainly seem that Russia couldn't but be part of or leading some act of aggression towards Israel.
We must not though leave out the potentiality of Turkey given current factors, much less Biblical eschatology.
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 07:35 pm by Cajun
____________________
Like water on a duck.
|
ChadE
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 251 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 07:10 pm |
|
I don't want to overdo it, but I think that Americans in general would do well to think about how we may look in the eyes of others in the world.
Ronson wrote:
The rhetoric now coming out of Moscow
Contrast it with Bush's rhetoric about all nations either being with us or against us as we prepared broad military action that included countries not directly or clearly linked to 9/11.
Russia is signing treaties that it obviously has no intention of honoring
Bush unilaterally pulled out of at least one signed and ratified treaty, and is widely regarded to have violated another (which his AG-at-the-time called "quaint").
threatening a pre-emptive strike on Poland if it dares to install a missle-defense shield
We are the nation that brought the notion of pre-emptive attacks to the forefront of international diplomacy. Is it really so crazy for Russia to be concerned about missile shields when for so many years the main deterrent to nuclear attacks was the threat of retaliation?
and dictating to the former Soviet satellite nations what their destinies will or won't be.
We've engaged in military actions to support and to help topple regimes in Latin America and certainly don't have a hands-off policy in terms of the destinies of Iraq or Afghanistan.
I hope people reading this won't take what I'm saying too literally. I'm neither excusing Russia's recent actions nor claiming that the analogies to various US actions are perfect. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the world sees us as being similarly aggressive and there are some legitimate grounds for that belief. Regardless of whether one shares it or takes a more positive view of US actions in the world, if we aren't aware of how others see us we are likely to misjudge their reactions to our diplomatic efforts.
There has been a resurgence of nationalism there in recent years and it is being fueled by a resentment of the West and a pining for the glory days of the Soviet Union (IOW a powerful geopolitical influence).
I think you're right...but I also think the same could be said about the US. Our dollar is in decline, our trade balance remains anything but balanced and our military is stretched thin. I suspect that a lot of the nationalist rhetoric I keep hearing around me is a backlash against the fact that our status as the one true superpower is/has fading/faded.
|
Cajun
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Peckerwood., USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 07:24 pm |
|
ChadE wrote:
I think you're right...but I also think the same could be said about the US. Our dollar is in decline, our trade balance remains anything but balanced and our military is stretched thin. I suspect that a lot of the nationalist rhetoric I keep hearing around me is a backlash against the fact that our status as the one true superpower is/has fading/faded.
I think though that whereas nationalism often increases aggressivism and actions, I don't think much will come of it here in the US. I think our time in the sun is fading. I only hope that it's more in line with Britain's decline instead of an Austro-Hungarian one, or worse, Myceanean obliteration.
____________________
Like water on a duck.
|
ChadE
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 251 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 07:49 pm |
|
Cajun wrote:
ChadE wrote:
I think you're right...but I also think the same could be said about the US. Our dollar is in decline, our trade balance remains anything but balanced and our military is stretched thin. I suspect that a lot of the nationalist rhetoric I keep hearing around me is a backlash against the fact that our status as the one true superpower is/has fading/faded.
I think though that whereas nationalism often increases aggressivism and actions, I don't think much will come of it here in the US. I think our time in the sun is fading. I only hope that it's more in line with Britain's decline instead of an Austro-Hungarian one, or worse, Myceanean obliteration.
My concern would be whether we'll do something truly awful. I don't think it's really likely, but I ask myself what I would think about a country that I didn't personally love that had a huge and rising debt, the largest military in the world, a vast trade deficit, and a population that has proven its willingness to rationalize away some truly awful things in the name of nationalism.
|
Cajun
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Peckerwood., USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 08:31 pm |
|
ChadE wrote: My concern would be whether we'll do something truly awful. I don't think it's really likely, but I ask myself what I would think about a country that I didn't personally love that had a huge and rising debt, the largest military in the world, a vast trade deficit, and a population that has proven its willingness to rationalize away some truly awful things in the name of nationalism.
I think a lot will depend upon what happens within the next six months and who becomes President; whether we're directly attacked or drawn into another engagement because of alliances.
Like Clinton before him, Bush is making plenty of efforts towards peace for Israel and a definitive, Palestinian state before he leaves office. Unless Iran, Russia or a terrorist organization does something dumb over there, it could well come to fruition - at least a Palestinian state. Outgoing Olmert is/was pushing for it too.
Iran's got missle capabilities to attack our navy in the Persian Gulf... not to mention potential nuclear armaments via Russia, if not of their own creation.
There's so many possibilities and factors to consider, what ifs and such that my head is swimming. If 'a', then 'b', but, if 'a2' then 'c', etc.
China has us by the economic 'nads, and Iran has the potential to devastate our navy in the Gulf. There's still the unknown and potential quantity of sleeper cells here in the US and the possibility of a 2nd 9-11 here of a Beslanic style multiplied.
The question then is, do we face an attack before or after the election and how might that impact our voting, much less how will such an attack effect the policy of an incoming President, much less the present one if an attack occurs while still during his remaining term?
We may have the largest military by virtue of materiel and technology, but nations such as China have the largest standing armies. And in an economic situation such as we're in and have been for quite some time, it won't take much to render our military forces helpless, if not reduced to negligibility. A series of effective attacks on our navy, continued decrease in morale, at home and abroad, governmental disdain of the military and current engagements to the point of monetary reductions, loss of oil and energy resources available from abroad. There are chinks in the armor that can bring the US military to a screeching halt quickly.
If this is the "time", I think we're seeing the beginning of the decline of the US as a world power. What part we'll continue to play in the world and how we'll be affected remains to be seen. I think that we're beginning to see a growth of isolationism in America even as our sense of nationalism continues in many sectors. Perhaps we may go the route of Switzerland if we're able to figure our way thru the economic issues and if end-time events turn out to be regional affairs (only affecting us indirectly) instead of global (as many fundie pretribbers believe).
The thought of "awful" could well be up for interpretation, depending upon who becomes President, what happens to us and what that President decides to do at home and abroad. I think that both candidates can be considered to have the potential to do "awful" things to and in the name of the US once they become President.
____________________
Like water on a duck.
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 08:57 pm |
|
I don't think it would be so bad if we weren't a superpower anymore. Maybe we could quit policing the world and take care of business at home instead.
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 339 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 08:59 pm |
|
Cajun wrote: And reading Ezekiel 38 and 39 last night (along with remembering some basic pretrib interpretations and prognostications)...
The two chapters focus on Gog and Magog, but there's another group mentioned as well (along with some better known and direct ones such as the Persians), Gomer/Togarmah. Many Biblical eschatology academics, specifically those of a Pretrib disposition and a Roman paradigm view, have believed for several decades that Gog and Magog, or at least Magog was Russia - or the Soviet Union, during which time this view really proliferated. There are still a number of people who hold to this interpretation, that Gog and Magog speak of Russia.
Yet, Togarmah is spoken of as being from the far or uttermost north, whereas Magog merely north. It is possible that Togarmah and Magog are one people, as today so many nations are really an ethnic mixing bowl. It'd be a stretch to say that Togarmah is the Lapps, Finns, Swedes or such, I think. Other than for a brief period focusing on Europe and being a vangaurd for Byzantine emporers, the Vikings and Northern Europeans really haven't had that much affect on the Jewish people I think, much less Israel. Russia on the other hand has been a powerhouse for a while, and has and continues to have direct issues with Israel.
Another thing to consider is the movement of people thru the ages. The first references to Magog, Gomer and Togarmah is Genesis, when people were still fairly close together. Anyhow, there's some who think Togarmah may have relevance with the Hittites and then Turks and Russians.
Either way, I think we cannot rule out the potential of Russia - not only from a secular viewpoint - in eschatology. Furthermore, we must not ignore Turkey.
Hal Lindsey covered the 'Gog and Magog = Soviet Union' scenario at length in his 'Late Great' books. When the Soviet Union fell I figured Lindsey's predictions fell as well. As you say, Russia has a long history with the Jewish people. I used to know one Soviet-Jewish immigrant and he detailed the Jewish plight in the Soviet Union quite well.
Secular Turkey's government has been taken over by fundamentalists. And the leadership of that government has been making and taking great strides to position itself as a mediator, ally and powerhouse in that region. They've made alliances and mediations with Russia and Iran.
Turkey has understandably soured toward the U.S. American support for the Kurds has not been lost on them, and U.S. policy to keep Turkey from dealing with Kurdish rebels within Iraq irritated them even further. I believe Turkey has already turned eastward.
China has had (may still have) forces in Sudan (Though recent calls of Iran seeking alliances with Egypt could alter an understanding of Libya and Cush/Ethiopia since both areas were originally close to or within modern Egyptian borders and often under Egyptian rule). Read Ezekiel 38 and 39 then with these thoughts.
China is one country that I do not envision getting into any major global conflict. They are historically isolationist. And even during the height of their Stalinist years, they have only ventured outward when something was an immediate concern to them (like the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia or Taiwan's declarations of independence). They aren't seasoned players on the international military stage and I don't think they want to be.
____________________
"This idea that there is no logic in heaven seems illogical to me." ~~~~ Stiggy
|
Charles of Austria
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sat Aug 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:09 pm |
|
Cold war revisited? Looks more like Sarajevo revisited! 
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 339 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
ChadE wrote: I don't want to overdo it, but I think that Americans in general would do well to think about how we may look in the eyes of others in the world.
I often try to view the U.S. from the vantage point of others. Yes, we are often boorish and arrogant because our economic and military strength makes that possible. I don't like it because such behavior does not win true allies. The U.N. support Bush sought prior to the Iraq invasion was a weak facade. Everyone knew that if Bush was determined to rout out that "evil-doer" that he would do it with-or-without U.N. blessings, so why even bother? Especially when one of his afterthought excuses for the invasion was because Saddam ignored U.N. resolutions. So yes, I'm not claiming U.S. foreign policy is some shining example of diplomacy and that we are saints in the world. But the sabre rattling coming from Moscow right now is tailored for western ears, whereas Bush's usual rhetoric has not been aimed at Russia.
Bush unilaterally pulled out of at least one signed and ratified treaty, and is widely regarded to have violated another (which his AG-at-the-time called "quaint").
It's a little different when Medvedev says "I will pull our troops out in the next couple of days" and then doesn't do it. Then he signs a treaty saying they will begin pulling out in two days and then doesn't do that either. He is proving himself to be thoroughly untrustworthy; even crazy Khrushchev kept to his word when pulling missiles out of Cuba. Medvedev had better start working hard and fast on his reputation or he will be perceived as a two-faced liar and no one will deal with Russia on any important issues while he's in charge.
Is it really so crazy for Russia to be concerned about missile shields when for so many years the main deterrent to nuclear attacks was the threat of retaliation?
We are living in a totally different world than we did in the 1950s. For Russia to still be chanting the mutual-destruction mantra is unrealistic in a climate of shadowy terrorist groups and crazed despots (remember how Hussein starting firing bio-weapons at Isreal in 1992? If he had nuclear capabilities at the time he would have fired those). Russia isn't concerned about nuclear shields anyway. That's just talk. What they are really concerned about is the West encroaching on their previous sphere of influence. They don't want more NATO members snuggling up to their borders, just like the U.S. wouldn't have wanted Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact.
What it means to Russia is an uncertain future and the tying of their hands. Say the Kazakhstan Fundamentalist Front began launching raids into Russian regions where Islam is strong and the ethnicity is primarily Kazakh (or whatever). Right now, Russia would invade Kazakhstan and rout the rebels and punish the Kazakhstan government for allowing it. But if Kazakhstan was a NATO member and had a mutual-defense pact with many powerful nations, Russia's options would be limited. This is the real issue bothering them, not necessarily missile-shield implementation.
I think you're right...but I also think the same could be said about the US. Our dollar is in decline, our trade balance remains anything but balanced and our military is stretched thin. I suspect that a lot of the nationalist rhetoric I keep hearing around me is a backlash against the fact that our status as the one true superpower is/has fading/faded.
I haven't really been hearing nationalistic rhetoric in the U.S. lately, at least not since around 2002. There is a lot of talk about our dependence on foreign energy and how it needs to be addressed, but I don't see that as drum-beating nationalism as it is well-reasoned concern.
____________________
"This idea that there is no logic in heaven seems illogical to me." ~~~~ Stiggy
|
Cajun
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Peckerwood., USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:20 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: China is one country that I do not envision getting into any major global conflict. They are historically isolationist. And even during the height of their Stalinist years, they have only ventured outward when something was an immediate concern to them (like the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia or Taiwan's declarations of independence). They aren't seasoned players on the international military stage and I don't think they want to be.
I've laid out my position on China elsewhere here on AARM:
http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum53/7457.html
As I pointed out to Evelyn, historical trends and precedents can be overturned and occassionally have been in various ways and various places. Revelation notes an army from the east consisting of 200 million men. Whether that is to be taken literally or not, the fact is that China's standing army is over 200 million strong and over the last decade they've been making vast strides in updating and modernizing their military.
That Israel didn't exist as an autonomous nation for nearly two millenia was a precedent, broken by its rebirth sixty years ago. While it could be argued that the Biblical passages are not directly correlated to this rebirth, it can also be argued that it is. “Then he said to me, ‘Son of man, these bones represent the people of Israel. They are saying, ‘We have become old, dry bones – all hope is gone.’ Now give them this message from the Sovereign Lord: O my people, I will open your graves of exile and cause you to rise again. Then I will bring you back to the land of Israel. When this happens, O my people, you will know that I am the Lord.” Ezekiel 37:11-13 “‘Who has ever seen or heard of anything as strange as this? Has a nation ever been born in a single day? Has a country ever come forth in a mere moment? But by the time Jerusalem’s birth pains begin, the baby will be born; the nation will come forth. Would I ever bring this nation to the point of birth and then not deliver it?’ asks the Lord. ‘No! I would never keep this nation from being born,’ says your God.” Isaiah 66:8-9
No, I think there's great potential for China to break nearly two millenia of precedence and attack far beyond its borders, even possibly being a part of Biblical end times prophecies.
____________________
Like water on a duck.
|
ChadE
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 251 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:47 pm |
|
Ronson wrote:
]I often try to view the U.S. from the vantage point of others. Yes, we are often boorish and arrogant because our economic and military strength makes that possible.
That's part of it. I also think that we've got a lot of boorish and arrogant opinion leaders and that we embrace it much the way many other nations do. Look at Sean Hannity's "greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of this earth" stuff. He's huge, and I'm going to risk being called a liberal elitist and say that I strongly suspect that a high percentage of his audience don't even own passports, let alone know much about the countries they're so sure we're better than.
Bush unilaterally pulled out of at least one signed and ratified treaty, and is widely regarded to have violated another (which his AG-at-the-time called "quaint").
It's a little different when Medvedev says "I will pull our troops out in the next couple of days" and then doesn't do it. Then he signs a treaty saying they will begin pulling out in two days and then doesn't do that either. He is proving himself to be thoroughly untrustworthy; even crazy Khrushchev kept to his word when pulling missiles out of Cuba. Medvedev had better start working hard and fast on his reputation or he will be perceived as a two-faced liar and no one will deal with Russia on any important issues while he's in charge.
How different is it? From a neutral perspective, is it scarier when a leader in the middle of a military conflict says he'll pull out and then says it's not yet possible or when a leader in the calm of day says that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply when he doesn't think it should?
Is it really so crazy for Russia to be concerned about missile shields when for so many years the main deterrent to nuclear attacks was the threat of retaliation?
We are living in a totally different world than we did in the 1950s. For Russia to still be chanting the mutual-destruction mantra is unrealistic in a climate of shadowy terrorist groups and crazed despots (remember how Hussein starting firing bio-weapons at Isreal in 1992? If he had nuclear capabilities at the time he would have fired those).
Iraq was still a nation-state that could still have faced nuclear retaliation. I don't share your opinion at all, by the way. I think Saddam knew that if he nuked Israel he was deader than deaderson.
I agree that the world has changed, but if missiles aren't the game anymore why would we want to invest so much in making one?
Russia isn't concerned about nuclear shields anyway. That's just talk. What they are really concerned about is the West encroaching on their previous sphere of influence. They don't want more NATO members snuggling up to their borders, just like the U.S. wouldn't have wanted Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact.
I agree, which is why it's so bizarre to me that we want to push them so hard on that front.
I haven't really been hearing nationalistic rhetoric in the U.S. lately, at least not since around 2002. There is a lot of talk about our dependence on foreign energy and how it needs to be addressed, but I don't see that as drum-beating nationalism as it is well-reasoned concern.
I wish I could agree. At least half of the attacks I see on Obama are about patriotism -- flag pins, pledge, etc., etc. Sean Hannity's "greatest, best" stuff is hardly unique to him. The whole "support the troops" campaign is, in my view, just a form of nationalism since what it boils down to is that to be a real American you have to support what our troops are doing.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1192 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:04 am |
|
Ronson wrote: The rhetoric now coming out of Moscow and the actions of its troops are exactly what one would have expected during the Cold War. Russia is signing treaties that it obviously has no intention of honoring, threatening a pre-emptive strike on Poland if it dares to install a missle-defense shield, and dictating to the former Soviet satellite nations what their destinies will or won't be. In response, the West is talking about major reactions; blocking Russia's bid into the WTO, cancelling NATO's direct negotiations with them regarding their security concerns, and possibly may end up with economic sanctions. In case anyone forgot, Putin began re-aiming its ICBMs toward the West several years ago after Yeltsin had previously redirected them toward China. It was only a symbolic sabre-rattle at the time, but it is looking more ominous now.
It often seems I am alone when discussing this topic but Russia gives me the major heebie jeebies. There has been a resurgence of nationalism there in recent years and it is being fueled by a resentment of the West and a pining for the glory days of the Soviet Union (IOW a powerful geopolitical influence).
It looks to me like the Cold War is firing up again.
You've gotta be kidding?!?
So when the US invades a sovereign state on a tissue-thin wad of lies, it's okay and everyone should just shut the fuck up and deal with it.
But when Russia does something similar, it's a resurrection of the Cold War and the US feels it has the moral high ground to tell Russia to get out of Georgia?
Damn, but some of you guys really do think the rules apply to everyone but you, don't you?
Team America, fuck yeah...
____________________
|
Evelyn
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 545 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:02 am |
|
the Vikings and Northern Europeans really haven't had that much affect on the Jewish people I think, much less Israel.
So where are the Germans in biblical prophecy regarding the Jewish people? They did quite e number back there in the 30s and 40s....
|
ChadE
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 251 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:49 am |
|
Aldaron wrote:
So when the US invades a sovereign state on a tissue-thin wad of lies, it's okay and everyone should just shut the fuck up and deal with it.
To be fair, I don't think Ronson's post was about Russia being the black hat to the US white hat. His point was about Russian rhetoric being aimed at the west and the West responding to Russian actions in a way that was reminiscent of the Cold War.
Like you, I thought it appropriate to point out that Russia's latest actions could be viewed as fairly similar to some of our own, but I don't think we should assume that Ronson is saying something he may not be.
|
Cajun
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Peckerwood., USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
Evelyn wrote: the Vikings and Northern Europeans really haven't had that much affect on the Jewish people I think, much less Israel.
So where are the Germans in biblical prophecy regarding the Jewish people? They did quite e number back there in the 30s and 40s....
In general the Germans would follow with the Old Testament proclaimations and prophecies about the Jewish people continuing to be oppressed.
While the Holocaust was no doubt the most aggressive and expansive effort in European history to oppress and obliterate the Jewish people, it was by no means the only time such oppression of the Jews (specifically in Europe) occured, nor did it occur due to a new thought in the psyche of one person with no correlation to previous, European culture and history.
It could be argued that the Holocaust was a culmination of over 1,500 years of European bigotry and xenophobia. Of course, it still occurs among some with the continued oppression of the Romas.
Even if - and to a degree it certainly was - due to a warped understanding and interpretation of who was to blame for Christ's death, surely a couple of centuries of Enlightenment and a growing movement of secularism in Europe thru the late 1700's and especially the 1800's should have seen a reduction in the bigotry towards the Jewish people. And yet it continued. Christian religious views then cannot be soley blamed for the culmination that was the Holocaust.
There are references in the Bible that seem to correlate to Europeans as a whole, and perhaps some individual tribes/groups. However, many literalists of a Roman view of the End Times certainly see plenty of references to Europe via the Roman Empire when interpreting the Bible (often taking a verse discussing Babylon and correlating it to Rome, thus seeing it as figurative)... and the Roman Empire could be said to have continued with the Holy Roman Empire ( as well as portions of the original whole Empire) into much/if not all, of what is modern Germany.
The Bible doesn't talk about quite a lot of things, and at the same time it does talk about a number of specific people and issues. That Germany or the Holocaust isn't mentioned in the Bible doesn't negate the importance of that event or people, or End Time prophecies, their relevance or eventual occurance.
What people often fail to consider is that while the Old Testament is relevant for the world, just as the New Testament is, it was written by Jews, for Jews and discussing people and places with whom they interacted. It's because of this backdrop that is apparent throughout the OT that some theologians throughout the ages have disregarded a Roman/European paradigm to the end times and instead have placed more consideration to an arab/Middle Eastern/Muslim paradigm.
Consider as well that as far as might and power are concerned, and having a relationship with the Jewish people, one might expect to read about the British People or the United States in the Bible. Yet neither are mentioned, and only by taking an extremely allegorical interpretation (that throws a lot of context and summation out the window) will one come to the belief that the US is the end time power mentioned in the Bible.
Euro-Asian people mentioned in the Bible:
Sycthians, Gomer, Togarmah, Javan, Kittim, Rome (in the NT). The Sycthians, Gomer and Togarmah are understood to have been from the region of northern Turkey, the Caucasus', Ukraine and the Western portions of current Russia. Kittim may be about Europeans. It seems up for debate. Also, the city of Tarshish is often mentioned and some put it in Greece, Spain or far England!
Some theologians, like Jerome have equated the Germanic tribes with the Assyrians, but this seems to be a purely allegorical take.
In the end, this is what I find so facinating about Biblical prophecies, to figure out and discover how they are correctly interpreted. In reality they'll only truly be interpreted in hindsight, though with so many interpretations and views on eschatological passages, I'd think that at least a few people have struck on the correct posits.
"And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. . . and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand" (Dan. 12:8-10) Anotherwords, people won't be able to understand or correctly interpret the end times until it's upon them. It's sort of like a puzzle and trying to put it together without the picture. It gets hard to start it at first, and you organize it by the corners and color patterns, but as you build it, it gets easier to put together. So too in life, as young people, immature and inexperienced we don't understand many things (even into old age this is still true), yet as we get older and gain maturity and experience, we gradually begin to understand more and more things.
So, from a very allegorical standpoint, Germany may well be mentioned in the Bible. It's certainly mentioned as are all people indirectly as Gentiles, the world and those generally interacting with God's chosen people and those adopted into the bosom of Abraham. But, from a literal standpoint, Germany and many important and pivitol events in history, especially that which was important to the Jewish people, is not mentioned.
____________________
Like water on a duck.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1261 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote:
But when Russia does something similar, it's a resurrection of the Cold War and the US feels it has the moral high ground to tell Russia to get out of Georgia?
Where are you getting this "moral high ground" from? Ronson said he was concerned about Russian aggression. In 1938 and 1939, Americans were also concerned about Hitler's agressive invasions. Does this mean that anyone with qulams about totalitarians extending their territory (which was obviously not the case with us in Iraq) are taking a moral high ground? Perhaps Churchill should have let Hitler do his thing, so as not to be looked on by history as a moralist by guys like you.
|
Cajun
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Peckerwood., USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 03:06 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote:
But when Russia does something similar, it's a resurrection of the Cold War and the US feels it has the moral high ground to tell Russia to get out of Georgia?
Where are you getting this "moral high ground" from? Ronson said he was concerned about Russian aggression. In 1938 and 1939, Americans were also concerned about Hitler's agressive invasions. Does this mean that anyone with qulams about totalitarians extending their territory (which was obviously not the case with us in Iraq) are taking a moral high ground? Perhaps Churchill should have let Hitler do his thing, so as not to be looked on by history as a moralist by guys like you.
Don't you know Stiggy, the US is still very Imperialist, bent upon world domination at all costs. We'll occupy the world yet, and rationalize it every step of the way. Heck, we've been doing it for over a century and there's no stopping us it seems. We're right and the world is wrong. 
____________________
Like water on a duck.
|
ChadE
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 251 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 03:13 pm |
|
| Or, perhaps some people are pointing out that the US isn't a pure white knight and that when someone posts about a possible pre-emptive strike it's worth remembering which global power last decided to attack another country pre-emptively.
|
Current time is 02:13 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|
|
