Outside of Captain Mc Screwup we haven't really put that much money into the middle east.

I mean the rest of our wars were basically won pretty easy because we just kicked ass until we got what we wanted then went home.

If anything it was probably positives since it let us test equipment in real combat situations.

I think the first Iraqi war actually found a couple flaws in our military equipment we didn't know about.  Something about how the Iraqis could screw up our missle guidence, and we found out that the helicopters we purchased were really crappy and I think caused more deaths then enemy soldiers did.

Even the Iraqi war has shown great benefits for Iraq in general.  It just was a hell of a lot rockier then it should of been.

We pour a lot of money into Middle Eastern countries on a yearly basis that you never even hear about. We have given Pakistan over $10 billion in the past few years as "reimbursements" for helping us fight terrorism. And this is incredibly common. You'd be shocked if you saw how much money (or weapons that cost a lot of money) we have given to Israel.

You don't hear people who complain about the government bailing out the Big Three complaining about this kind of activity.

I'm not saying that we should just completely isolate ourselves from the Middle East, but that we need to be way more careful than we have been. And this isn't the kind of activity we should be doing when we are dead broke as a country.

See I just thought you were talking about the directly getting into the fight stuff.

Yeah we give a lot of stuff to Israel and money to Pakistan... though i'd argue the money in Pakistan was doing helpful things for us. (though once again not all moral.)

Giving straight cash to countries is actually one of the bigger moves to accomplishing good political relationships.

Giving weapons, eh, it dpends what we're giving them.  Haven't really paid much attention.

Either it's stuff we aren't using, or stuff we're making anyway so it kinda does help our economy in some way... and we know that those weapons have little chance of being used against us.

(Heck we give and sell weapons to people we know likely will use them against us later.)

Oh yeah, even terrorists are sometimes using weapons we sold to groups that funded them. Other times they have seized the weapons or bought them on the black market.

I just think we need to evaluate our Middle Eastern foreign policy. I don't even think the "carrying a big stick" policy is even working for us, let alone the "using the big stick" policy we are using now.

US policy in the Middle East has not been an unmitigated failure. The use of the recently developed MCA Threshold Program has been the catalyst for marked and steady reforms in Jordan and Yemen. I concur that the failures surpass the successes, but there are some successes, nevertheless.

A) It can be directly inferred that they will.  It says faith makes you righteous, and if you die with faith, then you must also die with righteousness.  Therefore, the righteous will go to heaven.

B) That assumes that Satan actually knew about God's omnipotence.  While it seems obvious that he would know, there is no way to tell how things worked in the spiritual realm.  Satan could have rebelled without knowing that God could defeat him.  Also, Satan could have known but done it anyway; perahps he thought God wouldn't resist (whatever kind of "war" it was).  These are not absurd suggestions; we would know nothing about how the spiritual realm works, so we can't really make large assumptions about it.

C) Actually, that's an example of evil not being in the presence of God, not the other way around.  Of course, that doesn't solve the problem, but just clarifies it.  Anyways, you assume that this must be a universal standard, and that this is a standard, because: 1. It merely says Aaron wasn't righteous enough to see God, not why he had to be righteous.  For example, perhaps unrighteous humans are killed by God's presence (which could happen).  Also it doesn't say all evil couldn't be in God's presence, just not the semi-righteous Aaron.

D) Some parts of Christianity do indeed teach that men are born sinners; others don't.  Calvinism teaches the former.  I, an Arminian, believe the latter.  Whatever the answer is, however, we both agree that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans something).  As such, all need redemption.  I would argue that the Christian doctrine of salvation does not necessarily count as a new covenant, it's actually what was promised all along (and I'll just leave it at that, because that would take forever to exegete), so nothing may be replace in that sense.

E) That directly contradicts the verse about laying down ones own life, though.  The connotation of the human-sacrifice verse is strictly referring to one sacrificing another (I will posit).  Also, God doesn't necessarily submit to the rules he gives out; some are merely commands for our well being, so he would not need to heed them.  He can even kill us indiscriminately (I think), and that would be fine because everything is His, and He only told that law to us, not himself (I'm not ssaying that God can do what he calls abominations, just clarifying God and law (and I'm not saying that all human sacrifice is an abomination, just one against the other, so God can do it)).

Yes, there are quite a few successes. I actually am a huge supporter if Israel, but I wish we'd keep our nose out of their business as well. I say that if the Arabs want to make war against Israel, so be it. They'll just get beat down again for the 6th time.

Israel can support itself anyway... but the cronies in Washington keep stopping Israel from competing against U.S. Arms companies on the world market, hence, they need money. Israel should just give the U.S. government the bird, and do it anyway.

I love Israel for that.

I was going to say something, saw that the thread got derailed completely and was going to give up but, why not?

I am catholic, so what I say could be biased, but from what I read, I don't think the Pope was comparing the two. He said that humans should care about nature to avoid it's destruction (the rainforests). And he also said that we shouldn't forget about human nature and how certain current ideologies speak about the relativization of human nature (saying genders are merelly cultural constructs, for example) and how that would lead to a "moral destruction" of humanity. Not an actual destruction.

I also tried to find the actual full text, to put in context, but the vatican site only has it in German and Italian. Since, I can't read it, I am posting the links to someone that can (and is interested) read it.

German -http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081222_curia-romana_ge.html

Italian - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081222_curia-romana_it.html

A) I agree with a lot of what you say, but like I said, the Bible doesn't say that "heaven" is the desitination of the righteous.  It never says that one time... that's one of the funny things to me really.  The protestant churches broke off from the mother church (Catholic Church) but they continue to repeat the same jargon that was passed at the Catholic, "Counicl of Nicea".  It's not Biblically founded that the desitination of the righteous is Heaven.  It's just popular belief.

B) Now I agree with the assumption that the spiritual is unbeknownst to us... but to say that a being whose sole purpose for creation (the service of God) could actually make the concious choice to rebel against him is just not logical.  I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one... there's just no way that I'll ever believe that angels made war on God, it's just not logical.

C) Right, right, but you are missing my very small and simple point.  Forget everything else for just a moment.  Do you believe that Aaron, or Satan is more righteous according to your Christian ideology.  I think it goes without saying that Aaron is more revered than the "evil" Satan... Therefore, if the "semi" righteous Aaron is unfit to be in the presence of God, then the complete opposite of righteousness, the Christian version of Satan, certainly could not stand before the almighty.  If Satan is even a little bit righteous (therefore allowing his presence in heaven, and standing before God) then there is no way this guy made war on God. 

D)  The Bible, prior to J.C. walking on the Earth, never once stated that men were born into sin... once again, this false doctrine was fabricated by the Council of Nicea.  Prior to that meeting, the concept of "original sin" didn't exist.  Moses walked with God before he even performed the sacfifices of attonement, and God saw that he was still righteous.  Sacrifice has never been a rock hard requirement for righteousness.  Please don't ask me to explain the original meaning of the Temple sacrifices, because that a 35-page lecture in itself.  Just believe me when I say as a guy who was raised in a Torah observant home that I know a thing or two about it.

E) I know where you are going with this, but it doesn't work.  According to the Christian Bible, J.C. clearly states (according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) that he is a human sacrifice to make "blood attonement" on the "alter" for the sins of mankind.  That's not the same thing as jumping in front of a bullet to save a mans life... that is honorable.  But God more than once punished the Israelites for sacrificing their children for attonement.  He said it was a pagan and detestible practise... and "abomination".