Afghanistan has been a failed state for quite some time. It will likely take a generation for it to be in full control of it’s own borders and defeat the Taliban. I think it’s great that Canada is there for several reasons.

For starters, it increases Canada’s participation in world events, giving us more diplomatic clout within NATO. Canada has been growing steadily weaker relative to it’s peers since 1918, and despite liberal theories to the contrary, war shows zero signs of leaving the human race.

The use of our armed forces in Afghanistan will increase stability in the region if we are successful. It will turn a historically xenophobic country into a moderate ally and an agent of reform in one of the most strategic locations in the world.

Further, it enhances our standing with the United States. As our two countries are the world’s largest trading partners our interests are inevitable linked to theirs. Open borders between the two states benefits every Canadian there is. It would be very beneficial for the other members of NATO to contribute to the Afghan war effort; as it is, they are merely displaying token interest in one of the most important conflicts since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Regarding internal revolution, I agree. The difficult thing about Afghanistan is their centuries-old culture of warlord rule that has existed to varying degrees since the departure of Ghengis Khan and his sons, and cannot be overcome in (likely) less than a generation. Yes, the vote was a sham perpetrated by the same warlords that ran the country before the Talibs came. Is it hopeless, then? Definitely not.

General McChrystal has said it will take a year to determine the most probable outcome. The chances of success are proportionate to the level of security that we can provide the Afghan people. The level of security we can provide the Afghan people is dependant on NATO’s committment to the war. We are a part of NATO. Therefore I think it is great that we have 2000 troops there. I don’t think it’s great that this is the maximum force Canada can send overseas on an extended mission. I think that is pathetic.

Conservatives doing people on the street interviews with Obama supporters asked similar questions. If the supporters on the street are any indication of the people they support, Obama isn’t even worthy to share the same field with Palin.

I agree that our troops (Canadian) are underfunded, but in the same breath, it’s necessary to show the voters why we are participating in these wars before we demand that the military get more funding.

I do respect the US for being the first country in the history of the world for not using their hegemony in pursuit of world empire.

The blog owner seems very nice and reasonable so feel free to join in if you like. It doesn’t have an option to subscribe to comments so I’ll just have to go back now and then.

First let me say that I appreciate your respect for Jesus and tone of your show. I just think that you have an innacurate understanding of who Jesus is — though oddly enough your beliefs are closer to orthodox Christianity than theologically Liberal Christians. They mock Jesus all the time.

Objection 10: That does not address the claims of the Bible, which are that Jesus had an eternal divine nature and took upon a human nature as well ~ 2,000 years ago. He is the uncreated creator, but took on flesh to dwell among us.

Objection 9: There are many clear passages about Jesus’ deity, such as his claiming to be “I AM.” The passages reflect the Jews as knowing that Jesus made a claim to divinity.

The speaker said that Jesus should have said, “I am God.” But He did say, “I AM!”

He also accepted worship many times (Thomas: “My Lord and my God.”) If He was not God then He was a very bad man.

John 1 is very clear. You are the ones taking it out of context. It tells you that Jesus is the word and that the word is God. What could be more plain?

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Re. the notion of Jesus being God: This was a very early teaching in Christianity, traceable back to the first few years after the resurrection.

The fact that the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible is irrelevant. The concept is there.

The self-sufficency claim fails. It plays on the initial assumption that ignores that Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

Yes, God is the object of worship, and the Bible couldn’t be more clear that Jesus was worshiped.

The Bible was transmitted to us in a very reliable way.

Please consider how the Koran is mistaken in Sura 4:157-158 by explicitly claiming that Jesus did not die on the cross. Any historian will tell you that the evidence points to a real person named Jesus who died on the cross. There were many witnesses and accounts inside and outside the Bible. Islam claims that one guy came along over 500 years later with a vision that it wasn’t Jesus. I think the evidence demonstrates that the Koran is incorrect.

I do like your illustration about “giving back” your free will to God.

Blessings to you all.

Totally off-topic: I just ran your blog’s url through the “What’s Your Blog Rated?” site, and guess what the result was?

NC-17 – “No one under 17 admitted”!! LOL!!

My theo-geek blog got a “G”, and the eating disorders one got a PG (because I used the word “hell” once. I’m surprised it only came up once!)

NOW I know why you get so much traffic here…you’re a regular smut-peddler. Tsk, tsk.

It seems that if one’s peers don’t like what you say, you get a poor review.

One can’t select who reviews one’s paper, nor how many reviewers there might be. It varies often.

If the premise of one’s paper contradicts the research done by the person(s) doing the review, one gets a bad review regardless of the soundness of one’s research.

In short, peer reviews are highly political and biased and mean nothing in light of that fact. The same blogger tried a similar ploy using “citation indexes” when I referred to an opinion by Thomas Sowell. Apparently Tommy doesn’t rank with some liberal economists, but that’s another story. The point is that these indexes are also politically biased.

BTW, what’s the plural of “index”.

Now, to go further, if you’re great aunt is misinterpreting what Beck is saying, I would think you might want to set her straight. Watch Beck for yourself and find a way to prove his assertions wrong, and/or show your aunt why she’s a bit off in what she thinks he’s saying.

Thanks for visiting. I’ll leave comments over there once I can watch the whole thing, but at a glance I saw that they are just misinterpreting verses such as John 1:1-3. Islam has a wrong understanding of Jesus, even on basic historical facts such as how He died on a cross and not some body double or Judas.

Peace,
Neil

http://loga-abdullah.blogspot.com/2009/11/10-reasons.html

All the best.

Abby Johnson now encourages thinking and loving individuals to place a special value on others who are (also humans made in the image of God) and in the same stage of development that “They were”!

The thoughts that dance in the mind of humans, is conceived in their heart and hinges on the pivotal question that ushers in the undeserved “Death penalty” for the unborn; or the joyous excitement, anticipating the soon coming birth of a child.

The question that answers the complex motive for a person’s actions after conception is “Is the pregnancy and baby wanted or rejected by one or both parents (or families) of the child”?!!!

And if most women-with-child was loved by the child’s father,
she would smile and happily say “No abortion” why bother.

Ask God and the person you mated with to forgive you,
forgive yourself and live the abundant life.

Sincerely,

Arthur Trafford
Arthur@ArthurTrafford.com
979-703-7300

After all, it took Pearl Harbour to bring you into WW2; for two years you seemed quite content to watch Europe burn.

And I have a list of countries, if you want them, that are waiting for your intervention on the same basis that you gave for intervening in Iraq. They just don’t have oil, or presidents who tried to kill your president’s daddy, so I assume they don’t count.

I’m not discounting what good you have done, or dissing your soldiers, who are just doing their jobs. But don’t expect the rest of the world to fall over themselves praising you for protecting US interests, just because it may have the side effect of increasing security in their own countries.