www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Farenheit 9/11

Both Canada and the United States have diverse regions, peoples, economies, and standards of living. The continent is a series of diverse regions.

The United Nations does rate Canada higher on most indexes (in fact, overall the number one country in the world), but these are subjective evaluations which are 'an average'. There are both 'positives' and 'negatives' in diffrent regions of either country. I have lived in both, and travelled extensively around the continent, and would not be prepared to rate one country better than the other. I prefer Boston to Toronto, but not Indianapolis to Montreal. Both countries are equal (except for that stupid 'gun thing' in the USA ). But then again, according to your 'economic theories', Canada with it's far more abundant natural and hydro energy reserves per capita, should be far wealthier.

Also, Canada could not defend her borders without the aid of the USA. The country would be much poorer if it spent as much as the USA does on national defence.

Again, the USA government has an obligation to protect the Saudi's and all diplomatic missions. Michael's filming of the embassy is a threat to the security of the Royals, from both USA domestic and Saudi fanatical Muslim extremists. Filmed pictures of the embassy could be used to attack the staff who are mostly royals. What part don't you get ?

Again, there are extremists within Saudi Arabia whom the Royals have not been able to control. They are now willing to change things.

Hritzko

My impression is it appears you feel there are a few malcontents. I am saying a sizable majority want the regime toppled.

The only Middle Eastern country where Christians are first class citizens is undemocratic Syria, which the Neo-Con artists threaten to topple for Sharon.

(lospodi po-me-looh ) No Cyrillic type

There are malcontents in the United States also. In fact, the latest polls put John Kerry at 49% of the popular vote vs George Bush at 41%. So, does that mean that we must destroy the country to have changes within society ?

There are a minority of Saudi citizens who are malcontents. There are two choice for us a westerners at this point:

(1) We can help the House of Sad through the changes in their society which are needed to have the country evolve into a modern democratic nation.

(2) Let the fanatical minorities take control and ruin their and the world economies. We can call this scenario - Iran part 2.

There is no longer a Soviet Union to stir trouble, and the House of Sad is now fully suportive of the needed social changes. It's only a matter of time before the reforms take place.

It now seems that we have covered all of the issues more than once, so unless you have any NEW lines to your poetry perhaps we should end the discussion.

Hritzko

With the Azeri Oil Rush, Russian Lukoil, Mexico, Venezuela, Alaska, Texas and now de facto owning Iraq, Saudi Arabia is not as vital as it was.

Saudi democracy would give us President Bin-Laden.

Dear Walnut 40,
Well, we could say Ya-Rab-ur=ham - but this program doesn't allow for that alphabet either. Or we could say Kyrie Eleison, but although it seems to be possible to get the Greek alphabet on here, I don't know how it's done. I also don't know if this thing will take the diacritical marks for Albanian, French, Magyar, Romanian or whatever else might suggest itself. So we do the best we can!
Incognitus

Then we would have another middle east country to invade.

Hritzko

Both countries are equal (except for that stupid 'gun thing' in the USA ).

That stupid "gun thing" just happens to be part of our Constitution.

JoeS

It was indeed put into the USA constitution some two hundred years ago when the newly united American states believed that an elected president could usurp power permanently to become a dictator or 'king for life'. There was also a real chance that the British would attempt to retake the colonies (ie: the war of 1812) and install a colonial governor or 'king' who would be subject to the powers of the United Kingdom. The 'right to arms' provided the USA people with a tool to ensure that they would retain a certain amount of 'power' over their government. Also, the USA government could not provide adequate order, law, and protection for the population in the outlining regions, therefore the citizens needed to defend themselves.

This 'right to arms' was a fundamental difference between the newly establish Canadas (British North America - North of the 49th parallel) and the United States. The British installed a governor general and guaranteed law, order, and good government, thereby negating the need for the civilians to arm themselves.

Two hundred years later, the human casualties (deaths and injuries) due to guns is about 15 times higher per capita in the United States than in Canada. This coupled with the fact that the need for arms is no longer valid, should make people think about changing the USA constitution to remove the right to bear arms.

Hritzko

I'm not going to argue the need for the 2nd Amendment because it would take too much time and would get boring. Believe me I could realy bore you with a lot of facts. I will just leave it that I am glad the 2nd is in but thats just me.

JoeS

Two hundred years later, the human casualties (deaths and injuries) due to guns is about 15 times higher per capita in the United States than in Canada. This coupled with the fact that the need for arms is no longer valid, should make people think about changing the USA constitution to remove the right to bear arms.

Hritzko

Oh but please do.

The gang violence in Boston has been escalating for the past few years and has reached a 7 year high. Young people are dying in record numbers in the poorer 'hoods' of the city.

Guns kill people !

Hritzko

No, I just dont have the time or energy to do so. And it is unfair to tie up this forum with a lot of non-religious content. Suffice it to say that the gun is an inadimate object which requires a human to operate. PEOPLE kill people.

JoeS

//Oh but please do.

The gang violence in Boston has been escalating for the past few years and has reached a 7 year high. Young people are dying in record numbers in the poorer 'hoods' of the city.

Guns kill people !

Hritzko//

Hritzko,how many Ukrainians did Russia murder with the five year plan through starvation?The carnage in Ruwanda with machete's?And how many were murdered on 9/11?And all without guns!

Joe is correct,guns dont kill,IMMORAL people do.If there were no guns in the "HOOD",the"HOODS" would be beating each other to death with ball bats.

The difference between a CITIZEN,and a SUBJECT is determined by whether or not the civilian population is armed or not,and we the people have chosen.And since you can't vote,(for whatever reason,)your two cents worth is'nt really worth two cents.

In Christ,Wizdom

You are correct in stating that immoral people kill, but guns significantly increase the death / injury rate (often innocents).

In Canada and in other industrialized nations where firearms are not available (tightly restricted and only for hunting), the incidence of deaths due to guns is significantly lower. It is estimated that you get about 7 fatalities / casualties in Canada for every 100 in the United States. Now using your rational that only immoral behaviour kills people (ie: weapons have nothing to do with it), it can be concluded that Americans on a whole are 15 times as immoral as Canadians. My experience tell me this is not the case, but perhaps you have other evidence.

People often kill because of short 'snaps of anger' which cause them to loose their moral judgement (senses). When this happens, guns will do much more damage than will baseball bats. For example, have you ever heard of a 'drive-by baseball bat killing' ? If you have did any innocent people get hurt in the confrontation . Think about it - it's a little tricky .

Would you say the same thing to the holy Father John Paul 2 (who can't vote in a USA election) if he had made this statement ?

Hritzko

Hritzko,your EXPERIANCE tells you the United States is not 15 tmes as immoral as Canada?Does this mean you did'nt personally experience the 1.3million abortions performed each year for the past 30 years?You was'nt aboard the Enola Gay,or prsonally witness the vaporizing of Hiroshima,and Nagasaki?You was'nt in attendance when African Americans were injected with Syphilis just to monitor their regression?Perhaps Viet Nam,Agent Orange,Napulm,My Lai,slipped off your statistical index card when you were compiling your most immoral country comparison?Maybe you would'nt consder the U.S.Food and Drug Administration giveing their approval to the biotech company Gilead Biosciences to TEST VIREAD in Africa, and Cambodia as IMMORAL since it is hitting a little close to home?I guess if you would'nt consider it immoral to disparage a host country then your incapable of reason.

As for your assertion that Gun toteing,hot tempered,I will shoot you dead,and take out anybody in the way could be a MORAL person caught up in the moment is evidence your understanding of morality is lacking.

Drive by shootings are premeditated,not spontaneous,therefore a ball bat will work!

On your question of how I would respond to the Holy Father if He said what you have.
The absolute absurdity the POPE would say abortion is'nt a voteing consideration,that this Nations Constituition is stupid,and it's President ignorant,while he was liveing, and working here is more than I care to contemplate!

In Christ,Wizdom