Someone deserves a fruit basket.

Wow. It has a 'Why didn't I think of that character to it?'

So, as an upshot to this, would India almost overnight become the second most powerful Navy in the world?

I'm sure that history will have some unkind things to say about this administration, but it won't be about thier deft handling of India and Pakistani relations. Somehow we managed to advert a nuclear war, partner with two historic foes, and become closer allies of both at the same time. Add to that the recent defeat of the religious extremists in Pakistan, and the possibility of some semblence of Pakistani democracy being restored...

Yeah, someone deserves a fruit basket.

And a Congressional Medal of Freedom.

Perhaps it is this guy: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/28128.htm

Or maybe this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blackwill

The Admiral Gorshkov is a shrimp boat compared to the Kitty Hawk. A commie-built shrimp boat.

And they're going to raze the superstructure and put a full flight deck on it? Will they at least put tin foil over the cardboard?

"Someone deserves a fruit basket."--Celebrim

They've already gotten the biggest fruit basket in history- US arms manufacturers. Think of all the domestic and foreign arms purchases that have gone down the past seven years. All the potential KH deal represents is one more super-duper sale.

South Asia is a volatile part of the world, as is the ME. The fact that so many US arms have been provided or allocated is not exactly a cause for euphoria. Unless, of course, your view on war is ultimately justified in capitalist terms.

"Unless, of course, your view on war is ultimately justified in capitalist terms."

You are correct of course. We should declare the rest of the world a neutral zone and decline to supply any weapons to anyone.

PS:

Silly me. What a short sighted response my inital post was. We should instead supply all the weapons the rest of the world needs for free. That way we could not be accused of doing it for capitalisic reasons.

Considering India is one of the largest nations in the world, democratic, and practically no history of agression, I don't think its particularly apt to lump them in with Burma as particularly 'volatile'.

For that matter, the less effective India is at policing the Indian ocean (against pirates if nothing else) the more proactive the US Navy will have to be in the region to protect open seas. I guess if you are more comfortable with a greater US military presense in the region than Indian you can stay on your high horse.

Otherwise this seems to be a brilliant move and a win-win.

India makes an excellent ally against China.

"South Asia is a volatile part of the world, as is the ME. The fact that so many US arms have been provided or allocated is not exactly a cause for euphoria. Unless, of course, your view on war is ultimately justified in capitalist terms."

This is so muddled of a statement that I scarsely know what it means.

The fact that the world needs armies or navies is no cause for euphoria for me.

But since there will be wars until the eschaton, I'd rather there be well-armed nations of good will in the world than the reverse. A well armed India is a stablizing force, and a poorly armed India is an invitation for someone to start a war. It is a shame that man must make swords, but nothing quite scares me like someone yelling, "Peace! Peace! Peace!"

As the good professor said, "It takes one side to make a war, not two, and those
without swords can still die on them."

Rather than pray that those with swords get rid of them, I would pray that those with swords establish justice among men and nations and use those swords to be a terror to evil-doers. That is what they are for. When those we have provided arms do evil with them, then I will regret that they have arms but not nearly as much as I would regret the evil that we could have prevented simply by providing the oppressed with a few arms to protect the bread we provided them with.

#1, Celebrim:

So, as an upshot to this, would India almost overnight become the second most powerful Navy in the world?

On paper, it might. In practice, probably not. Operating an aircraft carrier is not a trivial skill, nor operating one you haven't designed.

Meaning, I think I'd still put money on the Brits or the French.

#7, Gabriel:

India makes an excellent ally against China.

India makes an excellent ally, period, in my opinion. Not perfect, by any stretch, but flipping them from the Russian sphere to the American sphere would be a wonderful thing.

Thing is, the Indians are not stupid people. They know as clearly as we and the Russians do what it is we're trying to do-- we're trying to shackle them into dependency on Western weapons and replacements parts. The tricky part is convincing them that we are more benign in that fashion than the Russians. I personally tihnk that's a trivial calculation to make (even knowing that the US is no angel in that regard) but then, India does have active communist parties, with representation in government, that have close ties to Russia.

Operating an aircraft carrier is not a trivial skill, nor operating one you haven't designed. Meaning, I think I'd still put money on the Brits or the French.

Indeed, Bush administration foreign policy has been the best in decades.

I don't see what it is the problem of selling weapons to India, the race was started by China. In addition, if the U.S does not sell it them, somebody else will do.

Celebrim,

You wrote, "I would pray that those with swords establish justice among men and nations and use those swords to be a terror to evil-doers."

But you also wrote, "nothing quite scares me like someone yelling, "Peace! Peace! Peace!" "

So I'm just wondering who it is you pray to?

China has put about 20 ships to sea in the last couple of years, and will eclipse the British & French soon. Helps to be a dictatorship so you don't have to bother with trivia like support for the aged, medical care, et. al., and can just plow money into weapons (best estimate is that their real defense budget is $100-120 billion, vs. India's audited and accountable $20 billion). Even with a sub fleet that is definitely #2 in the world (and may become #1 the way the US is going), China can't be #2 without a carrier or two. But they're getting the Varyag ready, and I expect them to hit that status by about 2015.

The good news from India's perspective is that China's resource lines run right by their front door, and it must also divide its attention between the Pacific and Indian oceans. So, India can trade better positioning and possibly regional allies (South Africa, Vietnam, UAE) for an inferior navy.

The overall policy toward China won't be hostile, and there will be many professions of friendship. Even so, India is well aware who is causing serious trouble in nearly every one of her neighboring states, and the mandala concept of international statecraft (make allies of the states bordering your rival is one precept) comes from their own Arthashastra. Behind the public mask of friendship, China, too, will understand what's really going on.

India will work hard to avoid dependence on any one power, and the industrial offset requirements for the fighter deal et. al., plus ongoing aerospace outsourcing, will build them into a defense industrial power. Meanwhile, they will make sure they have lots of friends. And as folks here have noted, whether they're formal allies or not, their natural inclinations will help make for a better world if given the means to back it up.

Somewhat like the British opinion of the upstart Americans a while back, and recall that those 2 had fought a pair of wars with each other (the 2nd and 3rd most divisive wars in American history, actually).

Maintaining the Kitty Hawk will be different than the Viraat, but hey, they're churning out tens of thousands of engineers in India. I think they'll do fine.

It will be very different operating catapult aircraft launches and arrester trap landings, as opposed to Sea Harriers that use ski jump takeoffs and vertical landings. Still, even there there's an interesting convergence. India's air force just started receiving Hawk jet trainers from Britain, as the final aircraft before their pilots go to front line fighters. A close derivative called the T-45 Goshawk is the US Navy's trainer aircraft for carrier landings.

So, it will be quite possible for India to put pilots through the normal training schedule in India, have them come to America for carrier training on another Hawk aircraft (expect a financial agreement for that, too), then transition to Super Hornets just as US Navy pilots do.

Finally, Mark Pyruz is just annoyed because his enemy (the foremost representative of the capitalist powers, who slew his god - as you might guess from his language) may be about to succeed at something. That's always bad news for him. Let him be.

Another thing, I trust India's H1-B's over the Chinese ones. We don't get many stories about Indian programmers spying do we.

> Another thing, I trust India's H1-B's over the Chinese ones. We
> don't get many stories about Indian programmers spying do we.

Well there is this guy.

Noshir Gowadia

Without a paid subscription I can't read the article about the Indians' RFP. Does it specify that the aircraft be carrier-capable?

Kitty Hawk was launched in 1960 and commissioned in 1961, making her 47 years old. The ex-Gorshkov is only 26 years old. Are the Indians really likely to want a fifty-year-old hull, with an equally old internal structure, on which to figure out all the nuances of operating a full size aircraft carrier?

For free, and in time to retire INS Viraat (which is even older), and as opposed to the possibility that they will sink more money into ex-Gorshkov with no eventual return? Yeah, I bet they want that, even if it was to be only a stopgap rather than a long-term solution.

@wolfwalker:

Doh!!! Acquiring Kitty Hawk (which has kept pace in US modernization schedules) gives India immediate and direct experience in operating a modern supercarrier complete with modern aircraft. For blue-water power projection CATOBAR is the way to go and Ex-Gorshkov would be barely capable there. Even if she lasts only another 15 years (a way short estimate given what they squeezed out of INS Viraat/MHS Hermes), she'll educate the next cohort of India's brown-shoe Navy.

Fixed the fighter link.

wolfwalker, all US Navy ships go through scheduled maintenance periods, with varying levels of refit and structural replacement. There are 12 throughout a US carrier's life cycle, including a 1-2 year process called RCOH which is a huge overhaul at the mid-life point. RCOHs cost $3+ billion for the nukes, because they involve a reactor refueling (something the new CVN-21 Gerald R. Ford Class won't require), but the nuke is under 1/2 of that.

Kitty Hawk may have been launched in 1961, therefore, but large sections are newer. And since they'd receive the carrier in a "hot transfer" from active duty, they'd know that the stuff on it would be working when they got it. Something that they can't have any confidence in re: the Gorshkov, especially after the Odfjell contract debacle.

Throw in the fact that the number of aircraft carried roughly triples, and it starts to look like a pretty incredible deal.

I do expect some rework and modernization to take place, of course, but most of that would take place in Indian shipyards. This aligns nicely with India's determination to foster a domestic industrial base. I have my own thoughts re: India's ability to manage such projects, but this arrangement would give them extra time to work all that out. Worst case scenario is that they have to call in America contractors for help, which means more bucks come back to America. I can live with that.

Oops, sorry for the double post. Darn lag & my own impatience got me. [JK: fixed.]

RE: mark (#12). On behalf of celebrim, since you've given me such a straight line:

"I know Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a friend of mine, and dude, you and your passive-aggressive cohorts are about as far from Jesus Christ as it's possible to be."

The late, great Senator Lloyd Bentsen adds that you're no John F. Kennedy, either.

mark: I'm afraid I'm not seeing the contridiction. If you are having trouble seeing my meaning, perhaps it would help to put the thoughts in the order in which they appeared, and to avoid cutting out the clause that connects the two thoughts. It seems that your redaction has had the unfortunate effect of confusing my meaning, rather than clarifying it.

Even so, it is not like I claim credit for the ideas. Have you not read where it says?

"These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” John 16:33

And also...

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Romans 13:4-5

And also...

"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." 1 Thessalonians 5:3

And so that you may be able to convict me of the faith if I am put on trial, I pray to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is the one true God, Who was in the beginning and shall be ever after, and Who made everything that is through His Word, and Who's Word was made flesh and dwelt among us that we might recieve His grace.

Celebrim -

I hear you, but consider this: What if you prayed to Vishnu for a free fleet carrier, and it worked? Kind of make you think, wouldn't it?

Glen: What is this, 'Nobby' Nobbs impression night?

Sure, but to have concieved the idea of Vishnu in the first place is to have done a bit of thinking. If someone had prayed to Vishnu for a free fleet carrier, and it worked, it would make me believe different things than it would were I the Vishnu believer.

I hear you, but suppose you believed this notion of a universal diety permeating the universe and aware of all things was alot of rot, and then this guy prayed to Vishnu for a free fleet carrier, and it worked. It would kind of make you think, wouldn't it?

Celebrim:

And also (admittedly Old Testament, 2 Kings, regarding Elijah):

"2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Little kids ripped to pieces by wild animals for being little kids. And some who call themselves Christians approve of everything in the Old Testament, and think we all ought to live by it. Any more comment required?

Fletcher: LOL

There's one in every crowd.

So, as I was saying, sounds like a good idea. I think someone deserves a fruit basket.

Celebrim,

The contradiction, as I see it, is pretty clear between an appeal to a benevolent God for help from beyond versus the admitted need to take practical steps to defend oneself because you're pretty damn sure that any such help is not forthcoming. Actions reveal belief more clearly than words. Why bother pretending? Why pay lip service to a belief system that emphasizes loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, forgiveness of transgressions, charity and trust in God, when, in reality, you would mock anyone who actually attempted such foolishness?

I believe it was written "Thusly he said, 'If you don't have a fully-decked-out aircraft carrier, sell your cloak and buy one.'" Luke 22:36-38 (Totally-New Translation)

mark: I'm afraid that there are alot of assumptions there that aren't warranted. I find God's help is forthcoming all the time. I find America's history to be filled with incidents of divine providence. And since we are on the topid, I would include in that America's military history (and perhaps especially its military history).

But God makes it fairly clear that though he could do all by His almighty hand, it is His pleasure that we should able to assume duties and responcibilities of our own - and in this we ought to find joy. You practical steps to defend yourself not despite the fact that you believe in His providence and mercy, but because of it.

I'm continually reminded of both these facts. That without Him, I can do nothing. Yet through Him, I can do all things. You are right to say that faith without works is dead. That is precisely why taking practical steps is necessary, for otherwise how could we demonstrate our faith?

Why should you think that I'm pretending? Do you think I subject myself to the sort of abuse gauranteed to occur whenever you out yourself as a Christian, just because I'm playing lip service? I assure if I wanted to play at something and have pretentions, that there are easier roles where I would garner far more defenders that I could choose to play.

I do try to love my enemies. I do try to forgive transgressions. I certainly would not mock a man of peace. Do you think I think poorly of the faith of the Amish? But this discoarse between believers in the particulars of establishing peace and justice is very old, and I frankly thank that you have know role in it because you don't really have the common ground shared between believers. To you they are all in some fashion or the other just objects of scorn, and you are clinging to one meme or the other not because you have any real faith in that meme but merely because it is useful to you at the time being for the purposes of expressing that scorn.

Mercy and love to ones enemies is I think best expressed by defeating them with the minimum loss of life and then bestowing blessing on them rather than taking the tribute from them that the world associates with a conquerer. It is not I think best expressed by leaving the oppressed in the hands of thier oppressors? How is that establishing justice? How is it spreading peace when what you call peace is leaving the innocent in the hands of the violent who seek out thier blood?

Turning the other cheek is an act of strength and courage. It is a wonderful thing, especially when someone chooses to forgo worldly honor in exchange for heavenly ones because he truly loves the one which has struck him. But for those not led of the Spirit, 'turn the other cheek' is all to often an excuse for cowardice an innaction. It is all well and good to turn your own cheek and await a blow. It is altogether a different spirit motivating you to turn someone else's cheek and allow them to be struck.

As for who I would mock and who I wouldn't, just who is it that started mocking people here?

Actually mark you're making the mistake of attempting to apply precepts intended for interpersonal dealings to countries.

Countries are collections of people, not actual people. They do not have souls. The rules are different for good reasons.

The bible advises me to turn the other cheek, not turn other peoples' cheeks for me (or even along with me). The first is an expression of mercy and love. The second is pure evil.

Let's try and avoid anthropomorphizing every complex system that comes along...

Celebrim, I appreciate the lengthy and heartfelt response.

However, I will go back to my original complaint. You did write that "It is a shame that man must make swords, but nothing quite scares me like someone yelling, "Peace! Peace! Peace!" "

And now you write that "I certainly would not mock a man of peace."

I am surprised you find it difficult to be a Christian in a nation in which the President, 8 of 9 supreme court justices, 100% of the senators and and 99.5% of the Representatives are Christians (When was the last time we had a president who wasn't a Christian---Jefferson, wasn't it?). You ought to try being a non-Christian. You want abuse, trying being a jew, muslim, hindu or atheist around here. Every read Jim Rockford's posts about muslims here at WoC?

"As for who I would mock and who I wouldn't, just who is it that started mocking people here?" Are you implying that I was mocking you somehow when I asked you who you prayed to following your declaration that you are frightened by people who yell "Peace?" If so, I apologize. I am not a Christian. But I have thoroughly studied the gospels in Greek and in English. As represented in the gospel -- and I know of no other source of information regarding his message -- Jesus was most certainly a man (or, if you prefer, God) whose foremost message was peace and love.

I don't question the sincerity of your religious beliefs. Nor do I question the sincerity of your desire for a well-armed India for the reasons you outlined. But--and I write this without mocking either--I do see an unresovled contradiction between the two. It's a common one, I think. It is similar to that of those who profess to believe in a gospel that instructs us to forgive trespasses but who also declare there can be no amnesty for illegal immigrants. Frankly, I don't get it.

I am not a Christian. But I have thoroughly studied the gospels in Greek and in English. As represented in the gospel -- and I know of no other source of information regarding his message -- Jesus was most certainly a man (or, if you prefer, God) whose foremost message was peace and love.

I don't want to dabble in a theological dispute, but mark you assume a fairly simplistic message:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

Treefrog, I have to respectfully disagree. I think the precepts of all religious belief systems are intended to be applied collectively. I think that is the point. God wants ALL men to behave a certain way, not just you. That's why the instructions get written down in books and passed around and don't remain whispers in one individual's ear.

As for the need to "avoid anthropomorphizing every complex system that comes around," isn't religion itself an anthropomorphizing complex system? Isn't it a way of projecting human values, e.g, love, mercy, forgiveness, meaning, sacrifice, etc., onto the universe so that we feel a little less lonely? When God sends his only begotten Son to earth to die for our sins, you don't see a wee bit of anthropomorphizing going on?

PD, LOL, for someone who doesn't want to dabble in a theological dispute, you're doing a pretty good job. Yes, you can pull quotes out of the Bible (OT or NT) to make any point you want. But, I remain confident that 9 out of 10 people who read the 4 gospels in their entirety will come to the conclusion that the central message of Jesus is, as I said, one of peace and love.

mark: Oh, that's easily enough explained. I don't think that everyone that cries, "Peace!", is a man of peace. Weren't you all about actions speaking louder than words?

As for the claim that "the precepts of all religious belief systems are intended to be applied collectively", that's demonstratably false of every religion I can think of. Start thinking that instructions of national conduct are divine charges to every individual, and pretty soon you think that its the duty of every Moslem to blow themselves up in the service of Allah.

It's not a pretty belief, and while the Christian version of that belief system is different, in the end it is pretty ugly too. Read some of Ghandi's lesser quoted stuff, for example.

Let's start in the old testament. The ten commandments proclaim, "Thou shalt not kill." But not long after that the same document lists all sorts of situations when in fact you should kill. Modern translators tend to say, 'Thou shalt not murder' to insure people get the sense of it, but that isn't really necessary nor does it actually clarify what is meant. After all, we easily can discern what 'kill' means, but the meaning of 'murder' is abit trickier. All murder means is 'not according to the law'. What's really necessary is to notice and what is really at the heart of the misunderstanding is that these are personal injuctions and not collective ones.

The Bible distinctly separates individual obligations from collective obligations, and creates a special class of persons - magistrates, if you will - who are in the name of the people required to carry out collective obligations. The same distinctions can be found both implicitly and explicitly in the New Testament. The tension I think comes down to the question of Justice versus Mercy. A magistrate that is compelled to demand mercy, leaves those he's charged to protect in the hands of thier oppressors. But a people who demand only Justice quickly become a mob which enacts no such thing. So we are charged to be individually merciful, but to be collectively mindful of justice.

This is hardly a new conversation in Christianity. It's been going on since the first Centurian came to believe. There is tons of writing on the subject. And some pretty good movies too. I encourage you to consider 'Sgt. York' or 'Gentle Persuasion'.

mark: You are quite right to say that redacting things down to a short out of context summation is generally a deceitful practice which can be used to prove any point you wish. The central message of something is not the same as the thing in its entirety.

Treefrog, I have to respectfully disagree. I think the precepts of all religious belief systems are intended to be applied collectively. I think that is the point. God wants ALL men to behave a certain way, not just you.

Mark, you are completely and totally missing the point.

Let's take a specific example and see if I can help you understand the difference between individual and collective morality.

Let's do the one we started with here, the old turn the other cheek routine. If someone comes up and slaps me, and I 'turn the other cheek', what have I just done? I have shown forgiveness and mercy. In other words I have forfeited my right to justice voluntarily. I have a right to such justice as the aggrieved party.

In other words I have exercised my own free will in a matter of my own rights. As I was the wronged party, the response is mine to dictate.

Let's try a different spin on the scenario.

Someone walks up to someone next to me and slaps them. I then demand that they turn the other cheek. Where does that place me? It places me as AN ENABLER AND ACCOMPLICE TO THE ATTACKER. I have no right and standing to sign away the victims rights. Just the opposite, attempting to force the victim to give up their rights is an act of moral violence of my own. I am providing assistance and support to the offender, encouraging them to strike again.

Indeed my duty as a moral bystander is to ensure that the victim suffers no further violation of his rights. How best to do that is, of course, a tactical consideration that depends upon circumstance, but enabling the offender can never be a moral course of action.

I get to choose if I desire to defend myself or not, I do not get to make that choice for my neighbor, the choice belongs to my neighbor. Indeed I believe I have a moral duty to defend my neighbor.

You're attempting to blindly take a scenario discussing behavior between two people and apply it to groups of 3+ without understanding the reasons behind it. In so doing you pervert and destroy the meaning of the precepts.

A nation cannot turn the other cheek. A government cannot choose to turn the other cheek for it's own citizens. Only each individual can do that for themselves. Since no practical government can determine to 100% accuracy if every wronged citizen wishes to turn the other cheek in any given confrontation (particularly during messing international conflicts), the moral duty of any government is to NEVER turn the other cheek, instead to always pursue justice instead.

You cannot judge the proper nature of a spiderweb by looking at a single strand. The moral nature of a nation is similarly not the same as the moral nature of an individual. You cannot blindly attempt to apply the same rules up and down the collective structures of humanity.

That is what I meant by attempting to anthropomorphize nations.

Being predominately a heathen, I still find it amusing to witness those who think they've invented a new argument that hasn't been previously addressed by Christian scholars over it's 2000 years.

Christianity has to easily be top two on the list of most critically self-examined religions.

Keep plinking away though; I'm off to get some popcorn.

Treefrog,

Let me save you a lot of time in the future. Once you write something like this:

"Let's take a specific example and see if I can help you understand the difference between individual and collective morality."

I'm not going to read any further. As much as I appreciate your offer of help, that kind of unwarranted condescension is a certain sign that the person responsible for it is not worth my time. Sorry you wrote so many words after that. My fault. I should of warned you sooner.

lurker,

I don't think anyone claimed any novelty in this discussion. With all respect due everyone who comments on WoC, myself included, there's no more originality in the views generally expressed here than there was in your last comment. Good grief, if there were a "new thought filter" on this site, there'd be nothing to read. Enjoy the popcorn all the same.

I'm not going to read any further. As much as I appreciate your offer of help, that kind of unwarranted condescension is a certain sign that the person responsible for it is not worth my time.

It wasn't intended to be condescending, it's just a hell of a whole lot easier to explain with something concrete to play with.

You came into the thread and asked about the apparent dichotomy in Christian beliefs being displayed. In my first response I gave the short answer, that it is caused by the complexity in the interplay between individual rights caused by having systems with many people in them.

You misunderstood my response, indicating I wasn't clear in the response, and I attempted to elaborate. One example being worth a thousand words I used one.

I have to admit I'm somewhat confused. I do believe this is the first time I've ever seen someone take a proffered example in an explanatory setting as attempted condescension. I've always considered them the mark of a good explanation.

Dang, all the authors of those technical reference manuals next to me have been mocking me all along.

mark,
So, you're here to... what? Try your hoary old arguments against Christianity's? Practicing for a rhetoric final? Trying to learn something? Or just trying to prove how smart you are?

Or, are you trying to stand up to your Christian oppressors? I can see how you'd be feeling under siege, being trapped in Manhattan and all.

BTW, I don't see where Treefrog was being condescending. Unless, disagreeing with you is, ipso facto, condescending.

Thanks, I will enjoy my popcorn.

Treefrog, then, please, by all means, take my hand and allow me to guide you out of the intellectual morass into which you have unwittingly wandered. Watch me carefully and put your poor lost feet exactly where I place mine and in that manner, by following me, you will discover the one true path at the end of which you will realize how the offer to help me understand that you are right and I am wrong is condescending.

Oh, knock off the passive aggressive bs already. You asked why Christians believed such and such. I answered. What has that got to do with what you believe, and whether it's right or wrong?

It had nothing to do with you, aside from an apparently erroneous assumption that you had an interest in the reasoning behind a certain belief system.

If you didn't want the answer, why ask the question?

lurker, when you're done munching, you might want to scroll back up and see that I wasn't the one who introduced Christianity into this. Mine was a very brief comment about Celebrim's remark that he is frightened of people who call for peace. (he has since explained that he believes those who call for peace can be different from those who are men of peace.) This was followed by a host of quotes from the Bible by others, as well as references to Jesus. A discussion ensued. I was enjoying it. Celebrim is fun to chat with. Which helps answer your question: I am here to enjoy discussion. Your claiming nothing new is being discussed, or Treefrog's offer to help me understand the truth---not so enjoyable. Kind of petty, really.

Treefrog, which question did I ask that you are trying to answer?

First you wrote,

Actions reveal belief more clearly than words. Why bother pretending? Why pay lip service to a belief system that emphasizes loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, forgiveness of transgressions, charity and trust in God, when, in reality, you would mock anyone who actually attempted such foolishness?

and then a bit later,

But--and I write this without mocking either--I do see an unresovled contradiction between the two. It's a common one, I think. It is similar to that of those who profess to believe in a gospel that instructs us to forgive trespasses but who also declare there can be no amnesty for illegal immigrants. Frankly, I don't get it.

if you weren't mocking, then it's clearly a question. A perceived contradiction inviting an explanation. If you didn't want an answer, than it's clearly mocking.

Since you wrote quite clearly that you weren't mocking, I read it as the first, a question. Clearly my mistake.

No, you didn't introduce Christianity into the thread, you only tried to hang Cerebrim and Treefrog on what you perceive as a contradiction, then you refuse to consider, even still, Treefrog's explanation in good faith. while completely ignoring Cerebrim's quite lengthy reply.

Are you still having fun?

I only piped up, with my own version of snark, because when you engaged Cerebrim, I was anticipating watching you engage in the subsequent gun-fight with your usual cloudy magnifying glass and a pair of tweezers.

Unfortunately for me, my popcorn has gone cold, and you appear to have decided it wasn't so much fun afteral to have engaged Cerebrim at all.

You may carry on now.

Good grief, people...

...I mean let's have interesting arguments about things worth arguing about. Is this?

A.L.

lurker, I think you're quite wrong. Is pointing out a perceived contradiction in an argument the same as "hanging" someone on it? I don't think so.

I never found a contradiction in Treefrog's initial foray into this. I just thought he was plain wrong and said so, with an explanation. Re-read it. It's #35. It is short, simple, respectful and directly related to his initial post. That's when he offered to help me understand my confusion.

I'm not ignoring Celebrim (not Cerebrim, btw). The discussion got sidetracked by you and Treefrog. Also, the conversation with Celebrim seemed to reach a natural end. His opinions are pinned to a religious belief, a religious belief I don't share. I see an underlying internal contradiction. He explains that away with what I view as set of gymnastic rationalizations. We're at a standstill. I'm sorry it's not up to your standards of novelty.

A.L.,

No it isn't it. You are right. I'm done. I'll also apologize for my role in it.

...I mean let's have interesting arguments about things worth arguing about. Is this?

The underlying philosophical basis that, out of the reconciliation between individual rights and interpersonal relations in the context of self-defense grew, in the Catholic case, into the Just War doctrine or the various Protestant versions of the same thing?

Gorshkov will be refitted.

link

India, Russia end spat over Soviet-era aircraft carrier
21 hours ago

NEW DELHI (AFP) — India and Russia have ended a protracted dispute over the cost of a Soviet-era aircraft carrier which will be now sold at a higher price to the Indian navy in 2011, officials said Thursday.

Indian Defence Secretary V. K. Singh, returning from Moscow, said a new undisclosed price had been agreed for the 44,570-tonne Admiral Gorshkov.

Russian export firm Rosoboronexport in 2004 signed a deal to refurbish the carrier for 970 million dollars but last year demanded India pay an additional 1.2 billion dollars.

Singh declined to give details of the negotiations but conceded "there will be a substantial increase in the "reworked estimate" for the modernisation of the 30-year-old ship.

"The figure cannot be disclosed as the modified contract has to be put up to the union Cabinet and the cabinet committee on security for clearance," he told reporters in New Delhi.

"The modified contract would be signed by March end after teams from Russia visit here to finalise it," he added.

"There is no question of giving up the carrier and at no time had the Russians said that they wanted to reclaim the carrier."

Defence sources said India has agreed to pay up to 900 million dollars more for the carrier and added that a domestic shipbuilding yard was rushing experts to speed up the project.

"India is sending more than 100 trained personnel from its shipyard to the Sevmash shipyard to join 1,200 Russian personnel who are working on that ship," a ministry official said.

Secretary Singh said the Gorshkov will be rechristened INS Vikramaditya and join the Indian navy as early as 2011.

"The warship requires installation of new turbines, boilers, 2,500 kilometres (1,500 miles) of cabling and strengthening of its flight deck as part of the new retro-fitting to be undertaken on the carrier," he said.

"The carrier will be ready by 2010 after which it would undergo 18 months of sea trials."

Under the contract Russian shipyard Sevmash will equip the vessel with modern weapons, 16 MiG-29 fighter jets and a fleet of anti-submarine helicopters.

Admiral Gorshkov is to fill a vacuum left by the scrapping in 1997 of India's first aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, which had been in service since 1961.

The Indian navy has only one operational aircraft carrier, the INS Viraat, which is to be phased out in coming years.

The breakthrough on the deal came three months after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh flew to Moscow on November 12 for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on defence and political ties.

Russia accounts for 70 percent of Indian arms supplies but late deliveries, and commercial disagreements, have led New Delhi to use other suppliers such as Israel, Britain, France and the United States.

Russia is in a race with Western rivals for a 10-billion-dollar deal to sell 126 fighter jets, artillery worth two billion dollars and 317 helicopters worth a billion dollars to India.

[lucklucky: PLEASE do not post bare URLs. Instructions regarding formatting live links are presented before the text entry fields for comments. --NM]

Treefrog gets the heart of it, but I'm quite willing to make this discussion as free of religion as he likes. We can approach this as secularists too. Is Marcus Cicero right in claiming, "An unjust peace is better than a just war."? Or, is he right when he said, "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has claimed it.", and the first quotation is a case in point.

It is easy to see why someone might think an unjust peace is better than a just war. Most of the time you would be right. Certainly Cicero is right if you conception of just war is that your honor has been offended, and that it must be restored by shaming the offender. That conception of just cause would have permeated Cicero's society, and still is found in many Mediterran cultures today. I recall hearing a Palestinian explain why the violence in his homeland must continue by saying, "Whenever you have been slapped, you have to slap back twice as hard." But it is quite easy to consider occassions when peace is more terrible than war, and when 'peace' really is just a name for a war where only one side has weapons. And those weapons can be terrible things like famine, pestilance, bondage, terror and despair.

What does a rape victim think of Cicero's maxim? What does anyone facing the prospect of abuse and death think of Cicero's maxim? Will you stand by and say, "Sorry I can't help. Just war is worse than unjust peace, and all that." Or will you decide that what is going on right now isn't really peace, and if there is going to be real peace it must first be made?

I think there is a certain genius in naming a weapon, Peacemaker . I very much doubt that the weapon always lived up to that name, but it eloquently captures the purpose of a weapon. It is an ideal to live up to, and the USA's greatness has been in ideas that are hard to live up to but very worthwhile to be pursuing.

I hope whoever is responcible for renaming the Kitty Hawk well understands the gift being given and finds a suitable name for our steel. I don't mind the US distributing weapons - in fact I think it wisdom - but I don't want them to be repurposed.

My mistake, i apologise. I was in a bit of a hurry too.