Putin Warns US Over War On Terror & Against Military Action Against Iraq

Financial Times ^

[taxbreak]

Don't confuse "proof" with "resolve." As an example:

RELIGION AND RADICAL EMPIRICISM
Nancy Frankenberry


"Frankenberry offers for the first time a tough, sophisticated, and comprehensive discussion of the relation of radical empiricism to the history of philosophy." 
-- William Dean

Rarely in modern times has religion been associated with empiricism except to its own peril. This book represents a comprehensive and systematic effort to retrieve and develop the tradition of American religious empiricism for religious inquiry.

Religion and Radical Empiricism offers a challenging account of how and why reflection on religious truth-claims must seek justification of those claims finally in terms of empirical criteria. Ranging through many of the major questions in philosophy of religion, the author weaves together a study of the varieties of empiricism in all its historical forms from Hume to Quine. She finds in James and Dewey; in Wieman, Meland, and Loomer of the Chicago School; in Whitehead; and in Abhidharma Buddhism constructive elements of a radically empirical approach to the controversial topic of religious experience. This work provides a strong counter-argument to critics of "revisionary theism," to caricatures of philosophy as "conversation," and to any collapse of the category of experience into its linguistic forms.

We are a very litigacious society, with instant replay, due process, and a secular view of reason. Andy Rooney (who usually irritates me did a segment on this concept. 12-17-01.

http://www.radicalacademy.com/phildavidhume1.htm

http://www.drury.edu/ess/History/Modern/hume1.html

Essentially you believe on faith alone, and politically unles you are a slave to polls, act on resolve and conviction. (You don't need no stinkin proof.)

As the two above links show, it is Machiavellian to expect a concensus on "proof" which in our western society with its emphasis on attorneys a substitute for other parts of the worlds religion.

As far as "proof" and "religion" go... (You don't need no stinkin proof.)

[Don Joe]

"As we move through the world assailing the various terrorists, we are going to allow our allies to protest where it is in their best interest to do so. That does not mean they will oppose us or that they do not support us."

Putin has to walk a bit of a tightrope to silence the dwindling old-line commies in his country. Note that his "opposition" to the ABM/NMD thing quickly morphed into quiet acceptance. When all is said and done, Russia and the US will end up jointly developing and deploying the system, because both countries need it. When my neighbor and me are both at risk of burglars and home invaders, the last thing that concerns us is maintaining a ten-foot high fence between our two homes.

Putin is faced with realpolitik considerations that require him to "demand" that the US include them in the plan, so that he can show that he negotiated it out of us as a concession. Unfortunately, he can't come out and say the obvious -- that the ABM treaty is meaningless, and that Russia needs NMD as much as the US does. So, he and Bush (and their close circles of advisors) worked out the plan, and now Putin plays for his constituency.

[ppaul]

The main concern of the international community, he said, was to prevent Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction. Bombing did not seem to advance this aim.

Baloney. Bombing works wonders. When Saddam decided to build a nuke factory, Israel (without any support from "the international community," (whatever the hell that is) bombed and took it out. Bombing certainly advanced that aim didn't it?

Russia wanted Iraq to re-admit UN weapons inspectors in exchange for a full lifting of sanctions, Mr Putin said. But he admitted this idea had "not met with understanding on the part of Iraq's leadership".

LOL! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

[nocommies]

grow up? have you ever heard rumsfeld say " the mission will define the coalition, not the coalition will define the mission?" i dont see how growing up has anything to do with my having a problem with russia "butting in" or as you could say, sticking their nose where it doesnt belong. unless youve been in a cave with bin laden for the past 10 years, russia and putin have had something to say about just about anything we've been involved in for far too long. perhaps youre the naive one, are we that desperate to organize this "international coalition?" has colin powell brainwashed you?

[DeaconRed]

"Putin Warns US Over War On Terror & Against Military Action Against Iraq."

Then, Hell take action against the bankrupt Russia first, like General Paton wanted to do.
Then turn Iraq in dust.
Then Iran
Then we use hydrogen fuels, and they can all pound sand over there.

[madrussian]

So much for FRIENDSHIP!

It seems, Putin is a bigger friend than Kristol and the rest of the neokommie krew.

[madrussian]

I wonder how our "friend" Putin would feel if the al-Qeada had taken one into the heart of mother Russia.

They did, ever heard of Chechnya and terrorist acts in Moscow?

The obvious question that you should ask yourself is where is the proof of Iraq's involvement (none).

[madrussian]

If we have such proof of Iraqi participation

Wouldn't that be the first thing to start with? Have you ever heard Joe Lieberman or Kristol mention any proof? You don't find it peculiar that a gang of neokommies are the ones calling for war on Iraq?

[madrussian]

I agree with you.

[madrussian]

Let the virgin seeking suicide bombers loose on downtown Moscow and see what Putin has to say then...

At least you could have decency to pretend it's about America and say something about planes crashing into buildings, and not about suicide bombers.

[lavaroise]

We should also go against Palestinians and Hezbollah. They are more a priority right now, although Saddam does pose terrorist threats in the region too.

Uniformed children stand in units named after guerrillas killed fighting Israel as part of Hizbollah's Jerusalem day rally December 14, 2001 in Beirut. The head of Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group urged Palestinians to launch more suicide bomb attacks on Israelis and defy U.S.-led demands to crack down on 'terrorist' militant groups. (Sharif Karim/Reuters)

[tonycavanagh]

re : Financial Times. I really take this report with a grain of salt!

You are joking aren’t you this is thee top paper, not some tabloid or liberal left or reactionary right paper.

A serious no nonsense paper with a no nonsense approach to the news.

Cheers Tony

[madrussian]

This thread doesn't really restore your faith in humanity, does it? LOL!

[madrussian]

We should also go against Palestinians and Hezbollah.

I commend you too for not pretending it's about American interests.

[madrussian]

What do the Brits think about this mess?

[tonycavanagh]

re : What do the Brits think about this mess?.

God Knows we will just join in the kicking when the punch up starts.

This is interesting though, will America declare war on Iraq before the attack, will they make demands and if those demands are not met will America then attack Iraq.

Poor old Saddam one minute he is the blue eye boy for invading another sovereign nation, then he is the bad boy for invading another sovereign nation.

Why did some one not tell him the dos and don’ts, do what you like as long as it does not effect America or American interests.

Tony

[Ruger1099]

I wonder how many of you warmongers would support the draft with all this talk about every nation the U.S. should attack? It's all fine and dandy when you don't have any loved ones doing the fighting.

[ChaseR]

"screw the rest of the world, we dont owe anybody a damned thing after all of this.
there is evidence linking iraq to the wtc bombing in 1993, and every attack on us since then.
clinton just set the tone for passivity"

Exactly! On to Iraq...and wherever we need to go after that.

[Zviadist]

I wonder how our "friend" Putin would feel if the al-Qeada had taken one into the heart of mother Russia.

Uh, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. While the bad guys have conveniently gotten away in Afghanistan, you think we should we should divert valuable resources to fight a country that has never attacked us. Brilliant.

[Zviadist]

if iraq was not building weapons of mass destruction, then why ban the UN inspectors?

Because they were almost exclusively foreign intelligence agents. Let's let Iraqi intelligence come in and inspect OUR nuclear facilities. You obviously care nothing about sovereignty.