World leaders should unite to end anti-Christian persecution, Vladimir Putin says

LifeSitewNews ^ | 8-1-13 | Hilary White

[ReformationFan]

Vladimir Putin has urged the world’s political leaders to stop the violent persecutions against Christians that have erupted in many Middle Eastern countries.

Speaking at a meeting with Orthodox Christian leaders in Moscow last week, the Russian President said he noted “with alarm” that “in many of the world’s regions, especially in the Middle East and in North Africa inter-confessional tensions are mounting, and the rights of religious minorities are infringed, including Christians and Orthodox Christians.”

“This pressing problem should be a subject of close attention for the entire international community,” Putin said. “It is especially important today to make efforts to prevent intercultural and interreligious conflicts, which are fraught with the most serious upheavals.”

Putin praised the growth of cooperation between the Orthodox Churches and the Russian state, saying, “We act as genuine partners and colleagues to solve the most pressing domestic and international tasks, to implement joint initiatives for the benefit of our country and people.”

The Russian Federation recently passed legislation making it illegal to promote homosexuality as normal, a move that, while condemned by many European leaders, was strongly supported by the Orthodox Church.

[SumProVita]

Hard to believe the day would ever come when the leader of Russia cares more about Christians’ freedom than the President of the United States does.

_____________________________

Amen to that!

[WilliamIII]

you conveniently evade my question. do you want the US to invade Iran the way we did Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you want US bombing of Iran - and if troops were necessary, would you support troops on the ground in Iran?

[Olog-hai]

The way we did Iraq and Afghanistan, no. We’d actually have to fight to win, like we should have done in those two countries, and not let liberal dogma get in the way of victory.

Fact is we need to deal with Iran; the word “want” is irrelevant. Diplomacy is nonexistent on this front, because, as Frederick the Great said, if we don’t back it up with force of arms, it’s just like music without instruments.

[WilliamIII]

so you want the us in a war with iran. got it. who’ll pay? borrow from the chinese, or raise our taxes even more? those are the only two choices. you’re one of the folks — along with mccain and lindsey graham — who can’t get enough of war, i see

[Olog-hai]

What view are you approaching this from? Liberal pacifist or libertarian pacifist? because it’s not from any conservative POV that I can see, with the “can’t get enough war” rhetoric. Waiting for Iran to strike while we refuse to act is not a solution. Bad enough the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan were conducted in a manner that the liberals wanted (that includes McCain), resulting in wasted effort, wasted money and Iran stronger in the region as a result—Iraq is now a satellite state for them.

And I don’t see how this has aught to do with the thread. Bad enough that Putin is aiding Iran in their quest to build nukes. Iran is already on the record as to several things they want to do with nuclear weapons, and they are all in an offensive manner.

As far as war and the desire thereof, look up George Washington quotes sometime. He was adamant about the USA having to be “always ready for war”.

[WilliamIII]

What view am I approaching if from?

Not pacifist of any stripe — rather, Reaganite.

[Olog-hai]

Sounds very pacifistic to me. Perhaps Reagan ought not be lionized by conservatives as he has been, if that view is truly Reaganite. He certainly is and has been worthy of conservative ire over the amnesty issue.

Iran is a problem that has only metastasized over its 35 years as an Islamic Republic so-called. Once they get nukes, not a single soul on this planet (except maybe hardcore Twelvers and hardcore Wahhabists) will say that they should have been left alone to do according to their fancy.

[WilliamIII]

Sounds like you’re in favor of a third US war in the Middle East, within 12 years, following two that have turned out less than well (to put it generously)

And you brand anyone who is skeptical of your desire for a third US war in the midddle east, as a “pacifist”

That’s like calling Gen. Douglas MacArthur a “pacifist” for warning against another ground war in Asia.

As for being a Reaganite, that’s where I stand - Do you believe the fact he didn’t invade any countriies (other than tiny Grenada) made him a “paciist”? He still won the Cold War

[Olog-hai]

Oh, you believe Reagan won the Cold War. Guess again. Red China never fell; Russia made a comeback under an autocratic “president” with KGB training who believes that the fall of the USSR was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the (20^th) century” (not WWII mind you) and is working as hard as he can to create USSR II in the form of the “Eurasian Union”, never mind assisting Iran in building offensive nuclear weapons that Iran intends to use in an offensive manner. And noteworthy is Russia and Red China’s continued joint military exercises, which bespeaks a strong alliance there, and none of it pro-US. (Thanks for helping me bring things back on topic, in part.)

You mistake me. I don’t want a “war” (as the liberals have called their fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan); I want a victory, especially while we still have the military capability of achieving one (but it would take the will). Shirking our responsibility in this arena will lead to world war, and (most likely if things keep going the way they have been) the actual Great Tribulation, since nukes will be in use.

PS. That alleged MacArthur quote to JFK has no source. A similar one was claimed by pacifist James W. Douglass, not a very honest broker (comes from JFK and the Unspeakable).

[WilliamIII]

Thank you for candor in conceding
1) you favor US war in Iran.
2) you consider anyone who is skeptical about a third US war in the middle east in the space of 12 years, a “pacifist”
3) and now, you reject that Reagan won the Cold War (without launching any hot wars! he also didn’t invade Iran even though it was ruled by the ayatollah and its nuclear ambitions date back to even before Reagan’s time)

As for the caution by MacArthur — a “pacifist,” by your definition — against more land wars in Asia: that warning to JFK by the Five Star General hero of Inchon and Manila, was reported by no fewer than three of JFK’s top aides: Arthur Schlesinger, Theodore Sorensen, and Gen. Maxwell Taylor. See, e.g., the citations in Douglas MacArthur: Warrior as Wordsmith, by Brian Duffy and Ronald Carpenter, p. 151

[Olog-hai]

Again, I don’t call what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan “wars”. World War II was a war, because we fought to win. Therefore, to fight Iran will certainly have to be the USA’s first war in the region. The fiascoes (not wars, just to make things clear once more) in Iraq and Afghanistan were waged by pacifists who really believed their own liberal rhetoric and utterly failed to understand the enemy.

Bernard K. Duffy, who wrote “The Politics of Rhetoric”, very critical of Richard M. Weaver and his stand against communism, even accusing him of “political paranoia”? Also, I’d be skeptical of anything JFK’s aides reported, especially Schlesinger, a hardcore leftist Democratic operative (I hope that is not the kind of person you admire), Sorensen (Chappaquiddick apologist) or Taylor (the object of derision in “Dereliction of Duty”, mainly for failing to devise a plan to decisively defeat the North Vietnamese Army). MacArthur’s true character was that which got him fired by Truman (which was folly on that president’s part)—gearing up to counterattack against Red China in Korea.