PDA

View Full Version : American soldier exposes ...



Pages : [1] 2 3

Mitja
05-26-2008, 08:41 AM
I've just seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU), and I would hear some opinions, some thoughts about it.

NAS
05-26-2008, 08:43 AM
Nothing new there
Look around and you will see a huge trail of this stuff leading back to the start of the occupation

NAS

prospector
05-26-2008, 08:54 AM
Hitting all the lefts talking points :sleeping:

Mitja
05-26-2008, 09:02 AM
:grumpy: ...ok...

SplineGod
05-26-2008, 09:43 AM
I dont know....what are your thoughts about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hpu3dJNCK4

IMI
05-26-2008, 09:54 AM
I've just seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU), and I would hear some opinions, some thoughts about it.

I was particularly impressed with his obviously high degree of intelligence. Not. :D
I see a guy looking for and finding his 15 minutes of fame. Too bad he wasted it on such a simple, standard, lefty bandwagon issue. But then again, he seemed like a pretty simple guy.

Mitja
05-26-2008, 10:09 AM
I dont know....what are your thoughts about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hpu3dJNCK4

I watched it and it's nothing that special.
What I wanted to know about you guys out there (especially those beyond the pond) is if the guy on that video is telling some ********, or the truth.
Since many things, regarding US troops, are "censored" even before they reach the US audience - so you must think of what arrives in Italy (nothing)-, I just wanted to know if you knew about what that guy said and if it's the truth.


I was particularly impressed with his obviously high degree of intelligence. Not.
I see a guy looking for and finding his 15 minutes of fame. Too bad he wasted it on such a simple, standard, lefty bandwagon issue. But then again, he seemed like a pretty simple guy.
So you think he's in seach of fame.
Thanks for replying!

AbnRanger
05-26-2008, 10:09 AM
Come murder our civilians, and this is a little taste of you get in return:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDeL_l_hSzg&feature=related

Mitja
05-26-2008, 10:16 AM
And, btw, I don't want to re-start a pro-vs-con war thread, which would be really boring indeed.

IMI
05-26-2008, 10:29 AM
So you think he's in seach of fame.
Thanks for replying!

Not really in search of fame. The "15 minutes of fame" thing just an expression following the "theory" of artist Andy Warhol that everyone in his life would have 15 minutes of fame.
What I think that guy is, is just a wandering lost soul (and not a very bright one at that) in search of something to belong to. Normal society doesn't do it for him, since he never felt at home there, the military isn't his bag - but he found a far left group of conspiracy theorists who welcomed him with open arms and supplied him with a soapbox from which to prove to the world just how much a nutcase he is. ;)

jin choung
05-26-2008, 11:48 AM
Hitting all the lefts talking points :sleeping:

yes, excellent point. because labeling it 'left' makes all of what he said completely false. he is left. that means that by definition he is an inaccurate liar.

listen to his points. every single one of them are wrong and/or lies. each statement he utters is verifiably WRONG!

and right means truth. everything the right said has been proven to be true and accurate and their strategy has proven itself to be wise and beneficial to not only americans but all iraqis as well - yes, even the ones that ended up inadvertently dead. we killed them (and their children) to save them.

most of all, the right is beyond reproach in the way that it cares for and honors all the wounded and dead soldiers returning from the war -

the way they honored the first troops returning dead by holding commemoration services on the tarmac as planes carrying the fallen touched down on american soil. because no matter what, they gave their lives for this country and they deserved to be recognized and honored.

the way that soldiers receive all of the counseling and care that they are entitled to without even having to ask. they withheld nothing in service to this country and in turn, nothing is withheld. not a single iota of effort is expended in depriving a veteran of the care he needs. clearly, the speaker in the video is a goddam liar.

so yes, while some might say that "labeling and dismissing" as "talking points" is the brain dead soundbyte shorthand of an intellectually lazy age, can you not see that in this case, it is well and absolutely proven correct?

this is america goddammit. everything we do is by definition righteous and good. we are a chosen people and as such, hubris can have no meaning.

to criticize us is to go to war with us. to criticize us is to be our enemy. you are either for us or you are against us. and if you dare criticize and you are an american, SHAME ON YOU!

this is america goddammit. love it or leave it.

jin

Mitja
05-26-2008, 12:16 PM
I had to read it twice...
At the end, if I understood:
-he's a left liar;
-an american must accept everything america does, no matter what;

Weetos
05-26-2008, 12:35 PM
He basically said that if you dare saying to an American (even a stupid one) that he's wrong, well you're dead. Nice.

Love America, but I don't like idiots - fortunately, they're not too many.

jin choung
05-26-2008, 12:45 PM
this is so less effective if i have to explain it but since english is not everyone's first language:

take every statement in my previous post and if you make it the OPPOSITE, that's what i truly mean.

SARCASM - "we killed them (and their children) in order to save them"... may give you a clue....

i am ridiculing those who have a problem with that video by using their language and their excuses and their arguments past present and future to mock them.

jin

Mike_RB
05-26-2008, 12:48 PM
He's decently articulate and may have a point. Unfortunately his message is cluttered by the phrase '9/11 is a lie'. Which obviously isn't the case, the buildings came down. I think what hes trying to say is 9/11 is poor justification for the American presence in Iraq, especially in regards to what he says are the current orders regarding targets in mixed enemy/civilian areas. Which may have some merit, unfortunately that point is clouded by his continuing repetition of 'if you believe 9/11 is a lie, like I do'....

I think if he sharpened up the accuracy of the words hes using to make his point he would get a lot further.

If you are asking me what I think about what hes trying to say. I think the problem now isn't so much about why we are there, its done, we're there. Its more about how do we stabilize things to eventually withdraw successfully and leave the region in decent order and keep what remains of the good perception of American foreign policy intact.

-M
Honorable Discharge
(11B1P, Specialist, 1/508 Airborne Battalion Combat Team (Red Devils), Southern European Task Force(SETAF))

Weetos
05-26-2008, 12:50 PM
Now I feel stupid. Should have guessed you were sarcastic. All apologies, Jin.

*ducks under the desk*

Hopper
05-26-2008, 12:51 PM
Oh come on guys ... how many of Jin's posts have you read?

You took the punch right out of that one. :)

IMI
05-26-2008, 12:52 PM
That's a beautiful piece of sarcasm there, jin, really.
No, what I just wrote is NOT sarcasm - I mean that, and you're rather quite accurate in your assessment.

Now, just for the record I out-of-hand automatically dismiss any viewpoint that seems obviously slanted in one direction or the other. The fact is, in this Iraq mess, it's become a war of propaganda (the right) versus a war of idealism (the left).
Meanwhile, people in the real world are dying over a gross miscalculation which our government has largely failed to acknowledge.
Well, that's beside the point....
My previous comments don't reflect how I see the war or the cause for the war, or even its implementation, but just how I see that particular individual in the video. He's as brainwashed as those who staunchly defend the fact of the war, just oppositely so.

When we were all on the same page, in Afghanistan, seeking out those directly responsible for 9/11, we were doing a good thing - a bona fide "war on terror".
Iraq, however, is not where it began, and certainly not where it will end.

Weetos
05-26-2008, 12:56 PM
When we were all on the same page, in Afghanistan, seeking out those directly responsible for 9/11, we were doing a good thing - a bona fide "war on terror".
Iraq, however, is not where it began, and certainly not where it will end.

Totally agree. errr wait ... was that sarcasm ? :D

Jake
05-26-2008, 12:57 PM
Come murder our civilians, and this is a little taste of you get in return:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDeL_...eature=related

You betcha. Those damn Taliban, they got theirs just like the Germans did for bombing Pearl Harbor!

Mitja
05-26-2008, 12:58 PM
this is so less effective if i have to explain it but since english is not everyone's first language:

take every statement in my previous post and if you make it the OPPOSITE, that's what i truly mean.

SARCASM - "we killed them (and their children) in order to save them"... may give you a clue....

i am ridiculing those who have a problem with that video by using their language and their excuses and their arguments past present and future to mock them.

jin

This definetely makes sense! :thumbsup:

IMI
05-26-2008, 01:00 PM
Totally agree. errr wait ... was that sarcasm ? :D


No, that wasn't sarcasm... but maybe this is. :D
No, it's not.

IMI
05-26-2008, 01:04 PM
You betcha. Those damn Taliban, they got theirs just like the Germans did for bombing Pearl Harbor!

The Taleban were harboring them.
Of course, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia first - maybe at the same time - but that would have been too economically and politically messy. (Although it wouldn't have been much different than our reasoning for attacking the Taliban.)

Steamthrower
05-26-2008, 01:04 PM
Fish 'n chips, anyone? :D

Mitja
05-26-2008, 01:05 PM
He's decently articulate and may have a point. Unfortunately his message is cluttered by the phrase '9/11 is a lie'. Which obviously isn't the case, the buildings came down. I think what hes trying to say is 9/11 is poor justification for the American presence in Iraq, especially in regards to what he says are the current orders regarding targets in mixed enemy/civilian areas. Which may have some merit, unfortunately that point is clouded by his continuing repetition of 'if you believe 9/11 is a lie, like I do'....

I think if he sharpened up the accuracy of the words hes using to make his point he would get a lot further.

If you are asking me what I think about what hes trying to say. I think the problem now isn't so much about why we are there, its done, we're there. Its more about how do we stabilize things to eventually withdraw successfully and leave the region in decent order and keep what remains of the good perception of American foreign policy intact.


I agree: he said some, imo, true things, but in a wrong way.

It's realy interesting to know from people around the world what are their opinions, I'm glad to have such opportunity!


Now, the fatal question, the reason of the war:
-what's been told to you, officially?
-what's, iyo, the real reason?

IMI
05-26-2008, 01:32 PM
Fish 'n chips, anyone? :D

Nachos, jalapeños and melted cheddar cheese, preferably. ;)

IMI
05-26-2008, 01:38 PM
He's decently articulate and may have a point. Unfortunately his message is cluttered by the phrase '9/11 is a lie'. Which obviously isn't the case, the buildings came down. I think what hes trying to say is 9/11 is poor justification for the American presence in Iraq, especially in regards to what he says are the current orders regarding targets in mixed enemy/civilian areas. Which may have some merit, unfortunately that point is clouded by his continuing repetition of 'if you believe 9/11 is a lie, like I do'....


No, his sponsoring organization is one of those 9/11 - as US Conspiracy types. When he says 9/11 is a lie, he means it literally, as in a staging by the US with the intent of manufacturing a reason to go to war with the Mideast.

Funny thing about those people, though - as they mock GWB's obvious lack of intelligence, they also credit him with pulling off the single most brilliant conspiracy of all time. ;)

AbnRanger
05-26-2008, 01:44 PM
You betcha. Those damn Taliban, they got theirs just like the Germans did for bombing Pearl Harbor!Pardon me, but didn't Japan join the Axis just like the Taliban and Al Queda were conjoined twins?
What's more...I do remember vividly them being given the chance to turn Al Queda over...they said "screw you."

Mike_RB
05-26-2008, 01:50 PM
No, his sponsoring organization is one of those 9/11 - as US Conspiracy types. When he says 9/11 is a lie, he means it literally, as in a staging by the US with the intent of manufacturing a reason to go to war with the Mideast.

Funny thing about those people, though - as they mock GWB's obvious lack of intelligence, they also credit him with pulling off the single most brilliant conspiracy of all time. ;)

If 9/11 was engineered locally, by government agents, I'd assume the President has nothing to do with it, or knowledge about it. People with the know how to stage something of that complexity wouldn't mess it up by informing the President. I don't believe it was carried out by the US Government by the way, it's hard enough to get 19 people to agree on something as complicated as that, never mind how many it would take to pull it off if you have guys sneaking into buildings to plant explosives or whatever (I'm not up on the current crop of nonsense ideas about this). Occam's Razor comes down pretty heavily on this one.

Shame, if he limited his criticism to linking 9/11 to Iraq in general he might have some points worth listening to, but his involvement with the US 9/11 conspiracy people removes what limited credibility he earned from actually being over there.

Steamthrower
05-26-2008, 01:55 PM
At one time I thought there was something to the 9/11 theories, but then had second thoughts.

Sure, sounds like something the government would do, but think of the planning behind that, and then think how efficient our government is. They can't even plan a highway development without botching it up. Think they can kill 3,000 and destroy some of the world's tallest buildings and not leak anything? Come on.

IMI
05-26-2008, 02:03 PM
Now, the fatal question, the reason of the war:
-what's been told to you, officially?
-what's, iyo, the real reason?

Well, since you asked. ;)

Officially? "Officially", Saddam Hussein has been sponsoring terrorists and harboring WMD's and was going to become the central hub of the anti-West revolution.

Both of those accusations are actually true, except his sponsoring of terrorists was mostly limited to his own personal and political enemies in Iraq, as well as Israel as a whole.
Hi *did* at one time have WMD's, and actually even used them (in his own country), but had either used them all up or got rid of them in response to UN pressure. His big, fatal mistake was in maintaining the facade he still had something, but he really had no choice but to keep up the act - his worst nightmare was that Iran would learn just how weak he was, so he "pretended" to still have that kind of power, even if it meant betting on an inside straight against the powers of the UN. A decade of empty threats of power against him numbed him to the possibility one day someone might actually do something and call his hand.

The "real reason"? Oil, of course.
Not to say we thought we could steal it and/or control it, but because we want stability in the countries which have it in such large quantities, and our government thought it'd be easy to overthrow him and replace him with someone more friendly to our needs.
Don't mistake that with what the conspiracy nutballs say - they think we were disillusioned enough to think we could get away with simply taking the oil. But, we know damn well we could never get away with that, but the next best thing was to hope for a regime change more conducive to our needs, more friendly to the west.

These are the realities. The "official" version of why is either a complete fabrication, or, more likely, a combination of idiocy mixed with inefficiency and wishful thinking.
I don't for a minute believe it was only about seizing the bull by the horns and taking the opportunity to carpe diem most conspiratorial. It was a monumental blunder with many, many reasons and contributors, most of whom have to remain nameless, for political reasons, as the US government absorbs all the blame (while denying it).

Iain
05-26-2008, 02:08 PM
You just know already that this is going to be another epic rollercoaster of a thread.
Mitja, after you light the blue touch paper, you're supposed to stand well back.

FWIW, I think he's just a commie plant, and although everything he said was wrong and stupid, he makes some good points about a just and worthwhile war we should never have entered.
Confused? You will be.

jin choung
05-26-2008, 02:10 PM
ehhhh? i'm totally taking it that he's saying that 9/11 AS A JUSTIFICATION for invading iraq is a lie.

if he's saying the u.s. engineered 9/11 to happen - he's a nutjob.

but i don't think that's what he's saying. everything he says is about iraq and it sounds like he's talking about the 9/11 rationale.

and i think imi is talking about the conspiracy to mislead the nation into invading iraq... not into getting jetliners into our skyscrapers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

mitja,

we've been told LOTS of things actually about why we're invading iraq. idiotically though, most americans don't stop long enough to ask themselves, "WELL WHICH IS IT?!"

for a while, neocons were throwing out reasons left and right and seeing what sticks! which would be popular with the american people, let's try....

1. "he tried to kill my daddy" (no? okay... how about...)
2. saddam's a really bad guy and he tried to wipe out his own people (americans don't care that much.... besides how many countries are we going to have to invade then if it's on the basis of police action.... alright, howabout...)
3. he has a link with 9/11 terrorists (hey! here's something that gets traction! let's go with this! we gotta sell the war and just like with any sales job, we gotta pitch WIFM - "what's in it for me") [btw,cheney still says this - fing idiot]
4. weapons of mass destruction that CAN BE USED AGAINST AMERICA.... (now we're cookin! not only did they cause 9/11 they're a present and future danger!)
5. "we're fighting them over there instead of over here"... fing idiotic statement on soooooo many levels but ultimately stupid because we're GIVING them an opportunity to kill americans that they wouldn't otherwise have.

if more americans remembered all these separate reasons we were given, we'd understand just how idiotically bad their lies are and how you can even see their retarded minds engineer the whole thing.... but alas....

we are a nation of dumshits who burned dixie chicks records and yet contribute to gwb's historically low approval ratings now.

jin

IMI
05-26-2008, 02:14 PM
At one time I thought there was something to the 9/11 theories, but then had second thoughts.

Sure, sounds like something the government would do, but think of the planning behind that, and then think how efficient our government is. They can't even plan a highway development without botching it up. Think they can kill 3,000 and destroy some of the world's tallest buildings and not leak anything? Come on.


And, you know, in spite of all the sophisticated science and efforts of the scientists to debunk it all through physics and the numerous papers written.. all the calculations...
...what you said there is still the best argument against it. :D

There's not a chance in Hell our government could pull that off.

*Pete*
05-26-2008, 02:16 PM
9/11 was, without doubt done by terrorists, most likely al qaida..end of story.
conspiracy theories sound intresting and well made conspiracy theories sound convincing, but when you step back a little and look at them realistically, you see that a well made story could even convince you to that you are originally from mars.

conspiracy theories claim that the goverment created 9/11, a conspiracy theory by the goverment created the Iraq war...
its easy to convince people anything, everything....did the moonlanding ever happen, is the truth a conspiracy or is the conspiracy the truth?..i think it happened, but when we need to reinvent the technology to get to the moon, i begin to doubt.

i really hate the dishonesty we humans have, none of us can be trusted ;)

jin choung
05-26-2008, 02:24 PM
y'know, the funny thing is, gwb is probably greatest vindication possible for ghwb... but not in any way gwb intended.

remember the UPROAR that ghwb faced when he didn't just take the opportunity after kuwait to take down saddam? it was HUUUUUUGE and newspaper after newspaper called him stupid and too conservative, etc etc.

at least history books will be able to say ghwb got it right. he knew what he was talkin' about.

jin

IMI
05-26-2008, 02:31 PM
we are a nation of dumshits who burned dixie chicks records and yet contribute to gwb's historically low approval ratings now.

jin

No, we're a nation of dumshites who allow our blind allegiance to Those In Power to dictate how we see any particular event. It goes both ways, and people seem to conveniently forget it was THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS which went along with the idea to go to war against Iraq.
And then , with a political expedience, brushed it all off as lies.
If GWB is guilty of lying, I submit that members of the existing Congress at the time are also guilty of gullability and also as a whole incapable of rationally running the country.
No backpedaling, no justification - the whole mess of them should have been outed, and they ALL deserve to see their credibility shot to hell.

Those who burned Dixie Chicks CD's did so not as a response to the anti-war people, but rather as a response to the frustration we all feel living under a government which takes away our voice little by little, day by day, as we end up with supreme morons with running our country. They just don't realize that's why they did it. :D

RTSchramm
05-26-2008, 02:36 PM
I'm in the military, and the military machine goes to extreme lengths and gives us extensive training each year on how and how NOT to conduct warfare. Except for the nature of how terrorism has changed over the years, most of this training has been the same since I joined the Air Force 37 years ago. The values we are trained on haven't changed. All military personnel are indoctrinated in the "Code of Conduct", must abide to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the Geneva Convention. AND we must do this while raging a war. NOT a small task if I must say so.

I envy the dedication, termination, and compassion of our Army and Marine brothers who are fighting a brutal war were the enemy thinks nothing of using woman and children as human shields. An enemy who thinks nothing of using hospitals, schools, churches as base of operations because they know that we will not bomb such facilities due to our moral values.

I believe in the fog of war mistake are inevitable. But to imply on the YouTube that the USA military does not to have compassion and teaches us to kill indiscriminately is so wrong. This is were I draw the line in the sand.

Rich

OOZZEE
05-26-2008, 02:36 PM
unfortunately, lots of these guys/gals only realize the ******** and how wrong war is after the fact....

the only way to stop war is to not go to war and sadly humanity hasn't reached that level of intelligence yet...

maybe in another gazillion years ???

adamredwoods
05-26-2008, 02:39 PM
My take on the video is that this is another veteran trying to educate people that war is bad.

Violence begets violence. Joe punches Bob. Bob punches Joe. Joe gets chair, hits Bob. Bob gets knife stabs Joe. Joe's mother cries, then Joe's brother kills Bob. Bob's family sues Joe's brother, but Bob's uncle owns an SKS and takes out Joe's brother. Joe's neighborhood gets shot up. Joe's neighbors go shoot up Bob's neighborhood and someone gets hurt again....

Go into another country and shoot up the place, expect some retaliation from the citizens. Expect hatred from the next generation b/c someone killed off some of their parents.

IMI
05-26-2008, 02:43 PM
at least history books will be able to say ghwb got it right. he knew what he was talkin' about.


GWHB, a rather ineffective president who inherited the footprints of a rather effective and well-liked president and had no choice but to try to walk them.
He never achieved that - he never achieved much of anything, really, but he did do at least one thing right - the Gulf War was relatively just and justified. Stopping where he did made sense.
Too bad capacity for intelligence and decision making abilities aren't genetic. ;)

Jake
05-26-2008, 02:44 PM
Pardon me, but didn't Japan join the Axis just like the Taliban and Al Queda were conjoined twins?
What's more...I do remember vividly them being given the chance to turn Al Queda over...they said "screw you."

Sure they had it coming. I'm just responding to your "murder our civilians this is what you get" comment. The Taliban are basically backwards tribesman in one of the poorest regions of the world. They can't orchestrate a decent economy, let alone something like 9/11. It's debatable whether they even could hand over Al Qaeda. Watching guys up in the mountains get blown to pieces doesn't give me a strong sense of progress in the war on terror. Pretty silly when you think of the other areas that are harboring Al Qaeda (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

IMI
05-26-2008, 03:19 PM
Pretty silly when you think of the other areas that are harboring Al Qaeda (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.).


Got that right.
And it's really just a result of what US government thinking has regressed into: don't solve the real problem, just pick at the symptoms and hope it all works out OK.
After all, it's easier and SAFER to take aspirin over and over again for a headache than it is to remove the brain tumor causing it.

AbnRanger
05-26-2008, 03:26 PM
y'know, the funny thing is, gwb is probably greatest vindication possible for ghwb... but not in any way gwb intended.

remember the UPROAR that ghwb faced when he didn't just take the opportunity after kuwait to take down saddam? it was HUUUUUUGE and newspaper after newspaper called him stupid and too conservative, etc etc.

at least history books will be able to say ghwb got it right. he knew what he was talkin' about.

jinSay what you want...believe what you want. But GWB had a decision to make that none of us would want to have to make. I honestly believe he WANTED Saddam to come clean, and let the inspectors do their job. No president, liberal or conservative, wants to have the deaths of service members on their conscience. It literally was a matter of "If I let Saddam continue, it'll be my luck that another 9-11 happens with Saddam behind it the next time...contributing chemical weapons and/or know-how. The Liberals wanted it both ways. They wanted to hound him for not being pro-active in defending America against her enemies (at that point the Liberals themselves were touting how much a threat Saddam was...got them on tape saying so...when Bush agreed, they suddenly HAD a change of heart), then when Bush DOES get pro-active, they slam him for being a War-Monger. Face it...GWB couldn't make a decision one way or the other without blistering criticism from the Liberals. They just hate the man, and it started way before Iraq. No action would be the right action for the Liberals. They'd find something to criticize, and not lightly either.

If the liberals hadn't hounded him for supposedly ALLOWING 9-11...I doubt he'd have felt as much pressure to prevent another one. He had 2 bad choices to choose from. In his mind, he chose what he honestly believed was the least risky of the 2 and would ensure that we didn't have to face the threat...whether it would have materialized or not. We just weren't in a position to accept that risk.
So, go ahead...convince yourself of all the conspiracy theories. It makes better fiction. Right or wrong, mistakes or not...Saddam was shown a live demonstration by Al Queda (little peons in Saddam's eyes...think he appreciated being upstaged?) of how it's done (striking back at America).

If you're President, and you have the worst attack on American soil fresh in your memory, along with your political enemies hounding you relentlessly day and night about how your not protecting America and her citizens, do you honestly think you'd want to be in position to have to make that call?

No, you wouldn't. Easy to criticize, unless it's your decision to make.

jin choung
05-26-2008, 03:33 PM
Face it...GWB couldn't make a decision one way or the other without blistering criticism from the Liberals.

poor gwb....

and so when in doubt, LIE to put troops in harms way for NO GOOD REASON. get them maimed and killed along with unknown COUNTLESS innocent civilians.

because the liberals were picking on him and he didn't know what to do....

boofinghoo.

hard job or no, gwb was a singularly incompetent schmuck of a puppet to hold the office.

jin

AbnRanger
05-26-2008, 03:47 PM
poor gwb....

and so when in doubt, LIE to put troops in harms way for NO GOOD REASON. get them maimed and killed along with unknown COUNTLESS innocent civilians.

because the liberals were picking on him and he didn't know what to do....

boofinghoo.

hard job or no, gwb was a singularly incompetent schmuck of a puppet to hold the office.

jinAdmit it Choung...you just hate the man...period. I didn't say the Liberals made him do it...I was pointing out the Liberal hypocricy. He has to choose the lesser of 2 evils...all while having liberals like yourself trying to stab him if he turns to the left, or stab him if he goes to the right. On one hand they instigate a fight, then point the finger when the principal walks in.
Who can make the right decision under those circumstances?
He was fairly elected, and it was his decision to make. Not one you or I would want, but then there's never any risk involved being the "Monday Morning Quarterback" is there?

IMI
05-26-2008, 03:48 PM
I honestly think it's well beyond overkill to be discussing why we're in Iraq and how we got there.
Right or wrong, whoever's "fault" it is, the fact remains, we're there, and it can't go on forever.
Equally importantly, but much less mentioned is the fact none of us here likely had anything to do with our involvement in Iraq.
(If you did, now's the time to fess up. ;) )

The potentially more interesting discussion, not to mention, more important, is what do we do now that we have no choice but to stay or retrreat?

Much as I hate to agree with a liberal, I like hearing Billary saying we need to put it onto the Iraqi government. Sink or swim.
Sink, and maybe the world comes together to prevent the inevitable Iranian takeover. Swim, and we all win. For now.

Well?

Iain
05-26-2008, 03:59 PM
unfortunately, lots of these guys/gals only realize the ******** and how wrong war is after the fact....

the only way to stop war is to not go to war and sadly humanity hasn't reached that level of intelligence yet...

maybe in another gazillion years ???

But war isn't always wrong. Philosophy wrestled that one a long time ago. Try applying Aquinas' model of the Just War Theory to this conflict, however, and I think you'll fall at the first hurdle.

Why did we kill countless innocents, at the same time offering our own (unusually reluctant) lambs to the slaughter? Was a greater evil than that going to manifest itself?
Was it f***! And that was clear to see from the beginning. A knee jerk reaction to a terrible atrocity gave the world a far more terrible atrocity.
Not to mention the inevitable and untold payback we are still to recieve.

IMI
05-26-2008, 04:00 PM
He was fairly elected...


Not entirely true.
He was elected Constitutionally, by the Electoral College, which is legal under US Constitutional law...
... but in the minds of the masses, far from "fair".
Which of course is why there are so many crying FOUL!
Because they see "fair" as an entirely different entity than "legal".
Even as the liberals seek to merge the concepts of "legal" and "fair" into one grand unification with the full support of the downtrodden masses.
Gets confusing, doesn't it? :D

jin choung
05-26-2008, 04:05 PM
Admit it Choung...you just hate the man...period.

that's the thing nash,

i don't. you can do a search here for when i say i think he looks like a nice guy and it seems like he means well. and when he does takes, antics and dances and stuff, it looks to me like he has a splendid, self-effacing sense of humor - and though he gets slammed for being a fool on these occasions, i don't take it that way.

BUT

he's stupid. and incompetent. as president.

might've been a fine auto mechanic or used car salesman.

does it actually need to be said?! NOT EVERYBODY'S CUT OUT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

and yes he won the vote (fair and square debatable) and that is a pretty fing damning indictment on the american people... cuz if they're voting for someone who's "like them".... ugh....

every president deals with the other party. ya think bill had a fine ol', easyass time? lincoln had his detractors. jfk certainly had his.

but fact remains, some serve this country well and DO RIGHT by the nation. others perform BADLY, gum things up and jeopardize our standing in the world.

or do you come from the camp that thinks that by definition, an american president can do no wrong?

so... ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, do you have a doubt that gwb is gonna go down as the most detrimental us president... possibly EVER?

here's another thing - GOOD INTENTIONS DON'T COUNT FOR VERY MUCH AT ALL.

jin

IMI
05-26-2008, 04:14 PM
Not to mention the inevitable and untold payback we are still to recieve.


Nothing to live in fear over. The really powerful nations on the planet, even if they disagree, will forgive us out of political and economic expediency.
The nations close to it in terms of geography and even religion tend to need not only us, but also the money we give them.
The actual people involved, or, more accurately, the radicals who do nobody any good, even their own governments, will die until they're all gone or give up or are told to cease.

That leaves only God to punish us. For now, we'll survive. ;)

IMI
05-26-2008, 04:25 PM
here's another thing - GOOD INTENTIONS DON'T COUNT FOR VERY MUCH AT ALL.


Nope.
I too agree GWB is probably a real nice guy - someone you might even be able to hang out with and shoot the shite and walk away from thinking, "man, that's some swell dude there".
But, yes, not all people are cut out to be Prez of the US. Very few - actually, the percentage of citizens qualified might not even be measurable.
But, there are those who can.
Too bad we've allowed the system to corrupt itself to the point where only the well-connected have a chance - so long as the media approves, that is....

Iain
05-26-2008, 04:32 PM
The actual people involved, or, more accurately, the radicals who do nobody any good, even their own governments, will die until they're all gone or give up or are told to cease.



Really? I wish I could be reassured by that but when one radical dies, he would be failing in the greater cause if at least one other didn't replace him.

That's what's scary about fundamentalism. It's not a person or a body of people, it's an ideology and one far more sacred than life.

IMI
05-26-2008, 04:59 PM
Really? I wish I could be reassured by that but when one radical dies, he would be failing in the greater cause if at least one other didn't replace him.

That's what's scary about fundamentalism. It's not a person or a body of people, it's an ideology and one far more sacred than life.

You can spin it as you see fit, and in your little perversion of what I said, I would have to agree with you. Yes, you know what I mean, since you took the time to do it.

But what I meant was nowhere near what you implied; my own statement was a parody of sorts - I meant that we all know that as long as the idea lives, there will be those to fight and die for it.
Not an insult, but a reality.

However, you have to choose which reality you want to belong to - the reality which encompasses the Muslim fundamentalist's beliefs, or the Western World's equally-screwed-up version of reality where people are at least free enough to make simple choices.
Like, should I allow my woman to wear that NY Yankees cap out in public, or should I stone her to death for crimes against The Prophet?

Chris S. (Fez)
05-26-2008, 05:26 PM
The U.S. should never have invaded but they also should never have allowed the installation of that horrible, hybrid Theocratic/Democratic government. Iraqis squandered their American-won freedom when they voted in yet another intolerant theocracy.

If Iraqis had embraced democracy and "the occupation" the country could very well have been the Japan of the MiddleEast. Instead, we have yet another theocratic hellhole of nutters indiscriminantly slaughtering infidels (mostly each other!) in the name of Allah.

Oedo 808
05-26-2008, 05:59 PM
If democracy means I have no water, electricity or healthcare, and dictatorship means that I do, I'll vote for a dictator...:confused:

In the words of one poor soldier facing an angry mob:

"They don't see it getting any better... I don't see it getting any better."

You're not going to sow the seeds of democracy in that garden.

RTSchramm
05-26-2008, 06:56 PM
I totally agree that war should be the last resort, but as long as there are humans on this planet there will always be a war somewhere on this planet due to greed, hate, or desire for power.

This is why mankind has been fighting each other for thousands of years and I believe unless something unimaginable happens, mankind will be on this ferris wheel forever.

History always seems to repeat itself in some form or another because although technology changes, the human psyche doesn't.

Rich

Chris S. (Fez)
05-26-2008, 07:02 PM
If democracy means I have no water, electricity or healthcare, and dictatorship means that I do, I'll vote for a dictator...:confused:

In the words of one poor soldier facing an angry mob:

"They don't see it getting any better... I don't see it getting any better."

You're not going to sow the seeds of democracy in that garden.

Exactly. If Iraq had trusted America (a trust that was shamefully broken by scandals that excluded 99.9% servicemen) the oil, water and electricity would likely be flowing. The insurgency ruined Iraq's opportunity to be totally rebuilt into a self-reliant country at America's cost. Not only did the insurgents effectively make every civilian a target by attacking and/or attacking from civilian centers, but they made it impossible for foreign contractors to lend their expertise and do their jobs.

I personally know 2 insanely skilled engineers who were essentially forced to sit on their hands for two years before being sent back home. Insurgents were targeting not only the professionals responsible for rebuilding their infrastructure but ALL intellectuals. Iraq has seen the slaughter and/or mass exodus of an entire generation of doctors, scientists and professors.

The surge worked. It gave Iraqi politicians time and opportunity to settle their differences and make peace. But it is becoming increasingly clear that they are simply not capable of compromising and will fight indefinitely...which is why, in a twisted way, Saddam was "wise" to stifle religious freedom.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-26-2008, 07:03 PM
I totally agree that war should be the last resort, but as long as there are humans on this planet there will always be a war somewhere on this planet due to greed, hate, or desire for power.

This is why mankind has been fighting each other for thousands of years and I believe unless something unimaginable happens, mankind will be on this ferris wheel forever.

History always seems to repeat itself in some form or another because although technology changes, the human psyche doesn't.

Rich

Well said.

OOZZEE
05-26-2008, 07:57 PM
But war isn't always wrong. Philosophy wrestled that one a long time ago. Try applying Aquinas' model of the Just War Theory to this conflict, however, and I think you'll fall at the first hurdle.

Why did we kill countless innocents, at the same time offering our own (unusually reluctant) lambs to the slaughter? Was a greater evil than that going to manifest itself?
Was it f***! And that was clear to see from the beginning. A knee jerk reaction to a terrible atrocity gave the world a far more terrible atrocity.
Not to mention the inevitable and untold payback we are still to recieve.

I doubt I would fall at the first hurdle.... no one can convince me regardless of what theory or model is out there, that there is one valid reason to wage war. Its wrong ! In simplistic forms, if one party stirkes first, its wrong... and if the other retaliates, that is also wrong.

no offense taken and I hope none taken by yourself. its just my opinion that doesnt really matter.

razorrust
05-26-2008, 08:33 PM
The official story of 9/11 is a LIE. Up, down, and sideways. Call me a nutjob if you like, but you want facts, I got a few.
'93 WTC Bombing? Run by the FBI. Sting operation gone LIVE.
'96 OKC bombing? Inside job. (The Iraqis running around on that op were part of the 5000 Iraqi soldiers imported by Bush SR. and Clinton)
7/7/05 Bombing in London? Gov't Op.
Why would we do such things to our own countries you ask?
The Gov EXPANDS and gains more POWER every time.

There ARE real Muslim terrorists though. They wouldn't get very far without western money, weapons and training. Got facts for that, too.
I'm not indicting the whole Gov't. for planning and executing 9/11. GW is a puppet. Not a very good one even, but good enough to "play dumb".
We have an estimated 40 Billion dollar "black budget" for the shadow Gov't to play with overthrowing countries all over the world. They've had so much success over the years, why not go for the BIG Kahuna U.S.A.?
Oh, the war is not going badly for the Neocons. It's going GREAT. They WANT to stay for a LONG time. Look up pentagon plan P2OG.

IMI
05-26-2008, 09:03 PM
The official story of 9/11 is a LIE. Up, down, and sideways. Call me a nutjob if you like...

OK, you're a nutjob.
Thank you for offering that, and taking it so graciously. :)

IMI
05-26-2008, 09:09 PM
If democracy means I have no water, electricity or healthcare, and dictatorship means that I do, I'll vote for a dictator...:confused:


Yes. Yes, of course. It's much easier to give in to to the repressive and oppressive forces than it is to fight them and create your own destiny. Compromise. And if compromise doesn't work, then beg. And when that doesn't work, accept your fate and be happy you have at least *something*.

Thank God history had only a limited supply of sheep who shared your vision.

jin choung
05-26-2008, 09:25 PM
If democracy means I have no water, electricity or healthcare, and dictatorship means that I do, I'll vote for a dictator...:confused:

In the words of one poor soldier facing an angry mob:

"They don't see it getting any better... I don't see it getting any better."

You're not going to sow the seeds of democracy in that garden.

actually i totally agree.

it may not be IDEAL but it IS how human beings are.

this is why you don't hear too much squabbling over democracy in china or russia right now.

by all accounts putin is pretty totalitarian but the russian people actually like him because he's delivering economically where yeltsin totally screwed the pooch with everything.

china is growing by leaps and bounds and people seem to consider a lack of western style democracy as an inconvenience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

having said that though, it's inevitable. people want to be free and the global influence of the net is going to make a lockdown society impossible. they'll try. but unless you go north korean on that mofo, you'll fail.

democracy not by war or conversion then but by commerce....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for iraq not being like japan - see, that's the huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge mistake that gwb and his cronies made - in thinking it might be.

they read the tea leaves completely wrong. they didn't understand that iraq was a powder keg that had no analog in japan. japan is ethnically homogenous and the people lived their lives in obedience and dedication to their emperor that remained a figurehead in keeping the people in check. there were multiple fortuitous circumstances that made japan "as good as it gets" in terms of occupation.

(certainly no al quaeda or foreign spoilers wanting to touch off the powder keg with a match....)

but to have assumed iraq to be like that... or to judge the iraqis for NOT being like that....

that's madness.

jin

jin choung
05-26-2008, 09:41 PM
I doubt I would fall at the first hurdle.... no one can convince me regardless of what theory or model is out there, that there is one valid reason to wage war. Its wrong ! In simplistic forms, if one party stirkes first, its wrong... and if the other retaliates, that is also wrong.

no offense taken and I hope none taken by yourself. its just my opinion that doesnt really matter.

sure it's your opinion and yeah, for what that is, sure it matters.

but i disagree. : )

maybe initiating war is always wrong but what about self defense then?

isn't a self defensive war completely justifiable to everyone without exception?

and then extend that - what about participating in the defense of a friendly nation that was attacked? that also sounds good right?

that covers the defensive side. as for the offensive side - it can be argued that it's always wrong. but people will always resort to it.

UNLESS-

mexican standoff. Mutually Assured Destruction. peaceniks hated it but hey, it worked! maybe the only way to prevent war is to give EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE a button that will annihilate EVERYBODY (including yourself, your children, your wife, your culture, etc)!

maybe that is the grand lesson of the cold war and game theory and all that. the solution to war is M.A.D. no peace except that bought at the price of living consistently on the razor's edge of oblivion.

jin

razorrust
05-26-2008, 09:50 PM
Yes, it is quite nutty to believe that the CIA and NORAD were running huge drills preparing for a 9/11 style event for two years PRIOR to that date, and on the very same day at the same time. Yes, preparing for the event of an airliner being hijacked and used as a weapon against the WTC, pentagon, White House, ect. What are the odds?
It is also fruity to believe that the Bush family has had close ties to the Bin Ladens for decades, and that the FBI doesn't event have Osama listed as being wanted for the crimes of 9/11, citing "lack of evidence".
It's crazy to believe that the PNAC fellows in October 2000 (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby) called for a "Pearl Harbor event" to mobilize the American people for a military campaign to remake the middle east, which would not be feasible otherwise.
It is lunacy to suggest that there was a CIA operation Northwoods planned in the 60's which called for blowing up airplanes, D.C. sniper attacks, bombings. ect. to blame on Cuba. Green-lighted all the way up to the white house.
It's all crazy, yes, but true.

ted
05-26-2008, 10:02 PM
Nutty YES.

But hey, I heard a heck of a connection between the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy. Sounds like another conspiracy to me. :D

Hopper
05-26-2008, 10:08 PM
It's amazing to hear what people think is "fact".

Lunacy, yes.
Nutty, yes.

True ... unlikely.

razorrust
05-26-2008, 10:08 PM
Yes, I've seen the list of congruities regarding the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations. Interesting stuff, indeed.
Speaking of Kennedy, an informal poll:
Lone gunman or no?

razorrust
05-26-2008, 10:30 PM
It's amazing to hear what people think is "fact".

Lunacy, yes.
Nutty, yes.

True ... unlikely.
NORAD drills?: ABC news, USA today. Just some geeks in the basement
Bush/Bin Laden connection?: Halliburton shareholders list. Small fries.
PNAC?: I didn't get their newsletter, but many folks did. Like those zit-faced power-brokers in Washington.
Operation Northwoods?: Teenage ne'rdowells at the National archive w/CNN.

Hopper
05-26-2008, 10:47 PM
NORAD drills?: ABC news, USA today. Just some geeks in the basement
Bush/Bin Laden connection?: Halliburton shareholders list. Small fries.
PNAC?: I didn't get their newsletter, but many folks did. Like those zit-faced power-brokers in Washington.
Operation Northwoods?: Teenage ne'rdowells at the National archive w/CNN.
Don't believe everything you read and only half of what you see. You believe in these conspiracy theories because everything was a "lie", yet you will believe anything handed to you by the media? Make up your mind.

razorrust
05-26-2008, 11:48 PM
Don't believe everything you read and only half of what you see. You believe in these conspiracy theories because everything was a "lie", yet you will believe anything handed to you by the media? Make up your mind.
I agree, we should be naturally skeptical of ANY media. What I try to do is boil away the "spin" and get down to the PROVABLE facts. From WHATEVER the source.
Any news media or organization can amplify or suppress certain facts. That's a given. When you get a story from different reports, and the facts don't match, someone's either mistaken or lying. Now then, who has something to gain from this "spin"?
Most of what you get on the "wires" like AP, Reuters, ect. is unfiltered at first.
What gets amped up and slapped on 'heavy rotation" on your cable or nightly news is generally VERY controlled. Sometimes what slips through the cracks is very telling, and it's here where the contradictions pop up.
We were attacked by airliners on 9/11...terrible FACT
Buildings collapsed, people died....FACT
Contradictions: The Gov. saying that they had no idea that such an event could take place (they said it--fact), when the drills for the SAME event were
ongoing for two years (the drills happened--fact) Someone's lying.

Why can we accept the idea that an ordinary crime scene should be scoured for evidence, but the evidence from the crime of the century should be melted down before an investigation takes place? (provable fact) And that we already know who the guilty parties are because of some questionable evidence spouted out and run in heavy rotation. (spin)

Why were our troops amassed in the Caspian sea ready to attack Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11?
Why did NASA thermal imaging of the WTC site show thermal hotspots HOTTER than the fires could've possibly burned, for weeks after the attacks?

My mind is made up to follow the facts where they lead me...

All these things have come out in the "mainstream" media. The same "mainstream" media that carries the official government story. Most people's minds go into "doublethink"; holding both opposites to be true.I say NO. One of them is false. And the pathological liars' account is the one most likely one to be discounted.

geothefaust
05-27-2008, 12:23 AM
Hey jin, I was going to post something, but... I think you summed up my thoughts on this pretty well. :) Thanks.

Iain
05-27-2008, 01:43 AM
You can spin it as you see fit, and in your little perversion of what I said, I would have to agree with you. Yes, you know what I mean, since you took the time to do it.

However, you have to choose which reality you want to belong to - the reality which encompasses the Muslim fundamentalist's beliefs, or the Western World's equally-screwed-up version of reality where people are at least free enough to make simple choices.


Spin? Pervert? Even with a retrospective application of facetiousness or irony, I still can't see how I rejected or twisted anything you said. If parody was your intention then surely I reinforced it?

On the other point, no-unfortunately you can't choose which reality to belong to. There is only one.
In that reality there exists more than one set of viewpoints and beliefs and each party involved is of the opinion that their one is correct.

Iain
05-27-2008, 01:51 AM
I agree, we should be naturally skeptical of ANY media. What I try to do is boil away the "spin" and get down to the PROVABLE facts. From WHATEVER the source.


How do you do that, exactly? Visit the scene and interview everyone involved? Make or commission your own forensic investigations?

Or just invent more probable scenarios fuelled by a cynicism garnered from watching a lifetime of sensationalist entertainment?
Or assume the parts that we aren't allowed to see are actually exciting and scandalous rather than just disturbing or tedious?

I'm sure there is a lot more to the news than we are allowed to know but to apply conspiracy thoeries to everything is giving "them" (and we all know who "they" are) more creative credit than they deserve.

iojabba
05-27-2008, 02:31 AM
I had fun threading this thread today.

It was interesting seeing the different points of view. Many of you have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about these issues.

As always though there are several that are hopelessly entrenched in one camp or the other and resort to regurgitating what the players in their camp (right or left) have been saying forever.

Mitja
05-27-2008, 02:33 AM
All military personnel are indoctrinated in the "Code of Conduct", must abide to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the Geneva Convention. AND we must do this while raging a war. NOT a small task if I must say so.

I envy the dedication, termination, and compassion of our Army and Marine brothers who are fighting a brutal war were the enemy thinks nothing of using woman and children as human shields. An enemy who thinks nothing of using hospitals, schools, churches as base of operations because they know that we will not bomb such facilities due to our moral values.

I believe in the fog of war mistake are inevitable. But to imply on the YouTube that the USA military does not to have compassion and teaches us to kill indiscriminately is so wrong. This is were I draw the line in the sand.

Rich
I agree with you. When that guy in the video says that the more soldiers were killed, the more they were allowed to do to Iraqi's (civilians too), is complitely reasonable, imo.
War is war, is about kiling or beng killed. We here say -Better you than me. -

Though, I believe that guy that many soldiers, mostly the young ones, are "tyred" of war, and want to stay at home (if you look a the comments below the YOUtube video,they are called desertors!), and that nobody helps them (they are forced to go back to war?).
As for the enemy hiding in hopitals etc: aren't they just fighting against an invader, who is technologically 50 years before them?
And it's, probably, true that many organizations make profit on soldier's death.

Money is the gear that moves the world. And this is sad.

As for conspracy theories: I believe there are many things that are kept hidden to "common mortals", and we'll never know the real truth.
You can say what's the truth and what's not, only if you have all the information at your disposal. It's really naive to believe blindly what others say, just because they say it.
With that said, I must clarify that I DON'T believe to conspiracy theo's, BUT I think there's something more of what theysay officialy.

Iain
05-27-2008, 02:38 AM
I had fun threading this thread today.

It was interesting seeing the different points of view. Many of you have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about these issues.

As always though there are several that are hopelessly entrenched in one camp or the other and resort to regurgitating what the players in their camp (right or left) have been saying forever.

Thanks for looking in Jehova!:bowdown:

razorrust
05-27-2008, 03:00 AM
How do you do that, exactly? Visit the scene and interview everyone involved? Make or commission your own forensic investigations?

Or just invent more probable scenarios fuelled by a cynicism garnered from watching a lifetime of sensationalist entertainment?
Or assume the parts that we aren't allowed to see are actually exciting and scandalous rather than just disturbing or tedious?

I'm sure there is a lot more to the news than we are allowed to know but to apply conspiracy thoeries to everything is giving "them" (and we all know who "they" are) more creative credit than they deserve.

Okay, let's look at it this way, then. Since my conclusions of a cover-up are embellished and delusional because I didn't conduct first-hand interviews or a forensic analysis, how can we take anyone's word on ANYTHING? Heck, I've never been to Mexico, so it's just my belief and not a fact that it's there? We could get real philosophical about the nature of information...that won't get us anywhere. But I tend to take people's first hand accounts as fact, unless they are proven to be wrong.
The start of this thread was Mitja asking for opinions on the AWOL soldier's video, and some users expressed that the soldier's message was diminished because of his use of the "9/11 was a lie" phrase. Yes, he was somewhat inarticulate, but his message rang true because of his first-hand accounts of his war experiences. I share his thoughts on 9/11, because I believe the first hand accounts of the people on the ground. There were many secondary explosions at the WTC. Were they power transformers, jet fuel, elevators falling, or bombs? That day there were news reports of bombs in the building, possibly planted to bring the buildings down. When so many incredible things are going down, I think that would've been a legitimate avenue of investigation. Prove or dispove. But by the next day, all reports of explosions were GONE from the news networks. Did NIST ever test for explosive residue? No.
I know that's not proof that bombs were used, but add it up:
Reports of "heavy duty" explosions, "detonators", by firemen. (All the major news networks reported this live)
Partially EVAPORATED steel recovered and analyzed by NIST. (In their report)
Molten steel, "flowing like lava", found in the wreckage weeks later, (described by NY fireman in TV interview)
None of this PROVES there were bombs. I know. But If you are to say for a fact there were NO explosives, you would have to have proof of that.
You say that there is news we are not "allowed" to know. This is it, and it is
exciting, scandalous, disturbing AND tedious. All you have to do is dig...

iojabba
05-27-2008, 06:03 AM
Thanks for looking in Jehova!:bowdown:

lol, no problem

Chris S. (Fez)
05-27-2008, 06:32 AM
I share his thoughts on 9/11, because I believe the first hand accounts of the people on the ground. ...

The historical archive of firsthand accounts of Ghosts and UFOs is collosal...and yet the only thing the archive proves with any definity is that the capacity of human beings to lie and/or delude themselves is practically limitless.

Accordingly, I find the capacity of some conspiracy theorists to selectively dismiss or fabricate evidence in favor of their theories is staggering. But like I sometimes say, why let facts, physical laws and common sense get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

I have yet to see a single 911 conspiracy theory that IMHO has not been credibly discounted...however, I try to keep an open mind when presented with the "evidence" of these theories. Conversely, I too rarely correspond with 911 conspiracy theorists who are similarly open to the possibility that the collapse of the buildings came about EXCLUSIVELY from being struck at full speed by two massive commercial airliners piloted by Islamic militants.

Al Qaeda recently called these 911 conspiracy theories a conspiracy to undermine their contribution in the war against "The Great Satan"...

In any case, I unfortunately don't have time or inclination to debate this topic, but I thought I would share some thoughts.

Jake
05-27-2008, 07:46 AM
mexican standoff. Mutually Assured Destruction. peaceniks hated it but hey, it worked! maybe the only way to prevent war is to give EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE a button that will annihilate EVERYBODY (including yourself, your children, your wife, your culture, etc)!

maybe that is the grand lesson of the cold war and game theory and all that. the solution to war is M.A.D. no peace except that bought at the price of living consistently on the razor's edge of oblivion.

Much of the hysteria surrounding terrorism is fueled precisely because mutually assured destruction is no longer seen as a viable deterrant. A fundamentalist terrorist group may not care that everybody will be destroyed.

Mike_RB
05-27-2008, 08:11 AM
The historical archive of firsthand accounts of Ghosts and UFOs is collosal...and yet the only thing the archive proves with any definity is that the capacity of human beings to lie and/or delude themselves is practically limitless.

Accordingly, I find the capacity of some conspiracy theorists to selectively dismiss or fabricate evidence in favor of their theories is staggering. But like I sometimes say, why let facts, physical laws and common sense get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

This also applies equally well to the terrorists themselves. Afterlife, promised virgins...

I wonder if it did come out that this was some rogue official in the US government plotting to keep tensions high and a face to the 'enemy', like in a Dan Brown novel, if people wouldn't even accept that and be looking for an even bigger conspiracy. I think it's incredible enough that 19 people pulled off an attack of this scale... no need to make it any more unlikely by having the Government involved as well.

Oedo 808
05-27-2008, 08:29 AM
Exactly. If Iraq had trusted America (a trust that was shamefully broken by scandals that excluded 99.9% servicemen) the oil, water and electricity would likely be flowing.

Our debate is a fairly simple matter, I believe the above statement made from a view through very rose tinted glasses, in fact for me it stops just short of pure fantasy. I can understand your not having the desire to debate this at length, so we'll agree to disagree.


Yes. Yes, of course. It's much easier to give in to to the repressive and oppressive forces than it is to fight them and create your own destiny. Compromise. And if compromise doesn't work, then beg. And when that doesn't work, accept your fate and be happy you have at least *something*.

Thank God history had only a limited supply of sheep who shared your vision.

I honestly can't believe some of the views I'm reading here, not so much about how bad 'they' are, but more about how good 'we' are. What's funny about your statement is that it sounds like a perfect call to arms for every potential 'jihadist' to get off their arses and force the useless, corrupt and violent western influences from their land.

Osama would be proud.


actually i totally agree.

it may not be IDEAL but it IS how human beings are.

this is why you don't hear too much squabbling over democracy in china or russia right now.

by all accounts putin is pretty totalitarian but the russian people actually like him because he's delivering economically where yeltsin totally screwed the pooch with everything.

Ahh! At last! the voice of reason. But then I would say that :D

A major contribution to Russia's woes came as a result of post Cold War meddling from the West that was designed to help Russia transform itself into a shiny happy capitalist democracy, thus neutralizing the potential for communist growth.

The end result was massive corruption, poor amenities and widespread poverty. Even those who could afford to buy the basics would have had little chance in finding them. Vladimir Putin greatly reduced the low level corruption, improved the basic infrastructure of Russia and brought some pride back to the Russian people. Do many want to move on to a Western style democracy? I'm sure they do, but would they swap what they have now to go back to the way things were, just to be rid of Putin? Not a chance.


I think it's incredible enough that 19 people pulled off an attack of this scale... no need to make it any more unlikely by having the Government involved as well.

I'm with you on this, but I think the argument is that government involvement makes it a less incredible scenario.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-27-2008, 10:16 AM
Our debate is a fairly simple matter, I believe the above statement made from a view through very rose tinted glasses, in fact it for me it stops short of pure fantasy. I can understand your not having the desire to debate this at length, so we'll agree to disagree.
.

I do appreciate your courtesy/candor :).

Anyways, the "pure fantasy" of the following scenario escapes me:

When bombs started destroying civilian centers and rebuilt infrastructure the Iraqi and Arab media reflexively blamed the U.S.. Pointed headlines and reports on Al Jazeera, islamonline and other Arab media outlets left little doubt that the U.S. was responsible for these atrocities.

And why not? U.S. soldiers had already proven they were capable of some spectacular depravities...so why not blame them for the bombs?

Turned out maniacs were targeting each other over Islamic minutiae. Now the U.S. is blamed for granting these guys the "freedom" to slaughter each other. The common enemy of both sides was of course the "infidel invasion" which included American soldiers and ANY western worker. The same Western workers charged with rebuilding...

I point again to Japan. My girlfriend is a Japanese/American workaholic businesswoman and is quick to point out that her ambition for overachievment is simply part of her heritage. That country came from the ashes of WWII to became one of the world's greatest (not to mention wealthiest) nations. If the Iraqis had united under democracy (instead of dividing under theocracy) and taken advantage of America's vast resources, I firmly believe they too would have been better off.

Just my opinion.

Mike_RB
05-27-2008, 10:22 AM
I point again to Japan. My girlfriend is a Japanese/American workaholic businesswoman and is quick to point out that her ambition for overachievment is simply part of her heritage. That country came from the ashes of WWII to became one of the world's greatest (not to mention wealthiest) nations. If the Iraqis had united under democracy (instead of dividing under theocracy) and taken advantage of America's vast resources, I firmly believe they too would have been better off.

Japan's history of workaholic overachieving predates the US reconstruction. In 1870 They we're still largely a medieval country. Horses, Samurai with swords... by the 1930's They had one of the best modern navies in the world and had conquered the entire area around themselves.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-27-2008, 10:44 AM
Japan's history of workaholic overachieving predates the US reconstruction. In 1870 They we're still largely a medieval country. Horses, Samurai with swords... by the 1930's They had one of the best modern navies in the world and had conquered the entire area around themselves.

Oh, absolutely. I did not mean to suggest that Japanese success was derived exclusively from American-style democracy. When given lemons, the Japanese made lemonade and threw a happening picnic that thrives to this day.

Iraqis were given lemons but insisted the Americans make lemonade for them...only to throw it back in America's face and indiscriminantly douse each others eyes. Then they burned down the grove.

OOZZEE
05-27-2008, 10:57 AM
sure it's your opinion and yeah, for what that is, sure it matters.

but i disagree. : )

maybe initiating war is always wrong but what about self defense then?

isn't a self defensive war completely justifiable to everyone without exception?

and then extend that - what about participating in the defense of a friendly nation that was attacked? that also sounds good right?

that covers the defensive side. as for the offensive side - it can be argued that it's always wrong. but people will always resort to it.

UNLESS-

mexican standoff. Mutually Assured Destruction. peaceniks hated it but hey, it worked! maybe the only way to prevent war is to give EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE a button that will annihilate EVERYBODY (including yourself, your children, your wife, your culture, etc)!

maybe that is the grand lesson of the cold war and game theory and all that. the solution to war is M.A.D. no peace except that bought at the price of living consistently on the razor's edge of oblivion.

jin

like I said Jin, if one strikes first its wrong....

If I punch you in the face for 'whatever' reason I believe is right.... I'm wrong. There is no justification for it.... and yes you will probably 'self defend' and kick the living bejesus out of me.

on a grander scale, ie starting war, its still wrong.... and unfortunately many people pay the price for other people's stupid and wrong reasonning.

humanity hasnt learn that yet... thus there will always be a war somewhere.

Mitja
05-27-2008, 11:38 AM
like I said Jin, if one strikes first its wrong....

If I punch you in the face for 'whatever' reason I believe is right.... I'm wrong. There is no justification for it.... and yes you will probably 'self defend' and kick the living bejesus out of me.

on a grander scale, ie starting war, its still wrong.... and unfortunately many people pay the price for other people's stupid and wrong reasonning.

humanity hasnt learn that yet... thus there will always be a war somewhere.

Right!

warmiak
05-27-2008, 11:59 AM
starting war, its still wrong

It is never that simple - it depends on your definition of peace etc...

Iain
05-27-2008, 01:23 PM
like I said Jin, if one strikes first its wrong....

If I punch you in the face for 'whatever' reason I believe is right.... I'm wrong. There is no justification for it.... and yes you will probably 'self defend' and kick the living bejesus out of me.

on a grander scale, ie starting war, its still wrong.... and unfortunately many people pay the price for other people's stupid and wrong reasonning.

humanity hasnt learn that yet... thus there will always be a war somewhere.


A first strike is an invasion or an attack. It's the counter strike, the engagement that makes it a war.
That second move is quite often the just action.

Oedo 808
05-27-2008, 02:04 PM
I do appreciate your courtesy/candor :).

No worries, I think as soon as someone loses their cool they also lose their credibility. And besides, I have to be careful not to do myself out of any future LW tips & tricks. :thumbsup:


Anyways, the "pure fantasy" of the following scenario escapes me...

Of course it escapes you, because you are quite correct in what you have said in as far as Iraq not moving forward as a people is concerned. I have often pointed to Germany's own rise to power after WWI to illustrate the very point you are trying to make. But what I'm saying is that the Western companies that are involved in the restoration of Iraq are so steeped in corruption and guilty of such apathy and incompetence that even if Iraq were to have a population of zero, the place would still be in a terrible state.

Using the aforementioned Russian situation as an example, in that case there was no occupation and no subsequent resistance to take into account, yet the policy interference alone caused a total collapse, if there had been an American presence you can bet that it would have borne the brunt of public anger and then people would have said "If only they would work together with us things would be much better."


On the subject of 'war', there is no point in talking about whether it is right or wrong, to my mind you can fight for a just cause as well as you can have just cause for launching a preemptive strike. The fact that most cases are not just is a moot point.

Cageman
05-27-2008, 02:07 PM
I was particularly impressed with his obviously high degree of intelligence. Not. :D

"Stupid people are the ones who tell the truth becase they are not smart enought to lie..."

Think about it.. :D

Seriosly though... I have to say I'm very worried about the developement US has taken in terms of foreign politics. This has escalated with a rocketbooster ever since Bush became president. American people are brainwashed enough to let things like this happen; a bunch of protestors outside White Palace isn't enough. If most americans "doesn't care", THAT has to account for as STUPIDITY, especially since this isn't the first time...

This soldier, whatever he is saying, want US to end the war. What's stupid with that?

UltraViolet
05-27-2008, 02:16 PM
Nothing at all. Only those who never participated in any war can find it stupid :)

prospector
05-27-2008, 02:42 PM
Only those who never participated in any war can find it stupid
I have and still find video stupid.

People like that lost us 1 war and are trying to lose another.
A war should be the last resort, but once in, there should be no surrender.

But there are always very good reasons for first strike, and the US should always look for that reason (after talks breakdown and 1 warning)

warmiak
05-27-2008, 02:47 PM
American people are brainwashed enough to let things like this happen


Brainwashed by whom ?

Seriously, I would like you to explain to me who is behind all that brainwashing …

I keep hearing a lot of this nonsese from people who generally tend to get their news from state run news agencies.
( which was the case in Sweden where public radio and Tv was the only option up until early 1990s.)

mattclary
05-27-2008, 03:18 PM
Well, thank God the world has the U.N. to protect them...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_re_eu/war_zones_sex_abuse

Lightwolf
05-27-2008, 03:38 PM
Well, thank God the world has the U.N. to protect them...

Pass the blame:

"The governance of U.N. missions has always been a problem because soldiers from individual states are only beholden to those states," he said. "So it's difficult for the U.N. to pursue charges and difficult for the U.N. to investigate them."

...that was too easy. ;)

Cheers,
Mike

CMT
05-27-2008, 03:39 PM
UNLESS-

mexican standoff. Mutually Assured Destruction. peaceniks hated it but hey, it worked! maybe the only way to prevent war is to give EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE a button that will annihilate EVERYBODY (including yourself, your children, your wife, your culture, etc)!

maybe that is the grand lesson of the cold war and game theory and all that. the solution to war is M.A.D. no peace except that bought at the price of living consistently on the razor's edge of oblivion.

jin

The problem with mutually assured destruction is that it assumes that everyone has the sanity to not push the button.....

warmiak
05-27-2008, 03:41 PM
So it's difficult for the U.N. to pursue charges and difficult for the U.N. to investigate them


So they are like mercenaries that work for free and are only vaguely responsive to the client ?
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

SBowie
05-27-2008, 03:46 PM
So they are like mercenaries that work for free and are only vaguely responsive to the client ? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.Truth is, it hasn't worked out all that well often times, but sometimes because the 'client' is of not just two but several hundred minds. For a real eye opener on the failings of that system, look for a film called Shake Hands With the Devil (http://www.whitepinepictures.com/dallairesite/), about the Canadian General who basically went out of his mind trying to turn the genocide in Rwanda aside in the face of an international political bureacracy.

Lightwolf
05-27-2008, 03:56 PM
So they are like mercenaries that work for free and are only vaguely responsive to the client ?
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Well, that's what happens if you have member states with veto power. Apparently there's even members that would oppose having their troops judged in international war tribunals, imagine that.

Of course, then they proceed to blame the UN for not being effective...

Cheers,
Mike

CMT
05-27-2008, 03:57 PM
Brainwashed by whom ?

Seriously, I would like you to explain to me who is behind all that brainwashing …

I keep hearing a lot of this nonsese from people who generally tend to get their news from state run news agencies.
( which was the case in Sweden where public radio and Tv was the only option up until early 1990s.)

Some Americans are brainwashed simply because they don't seek out the information for themselves. They assume that whatever info they get from the nightly news is reliable enough for them to make a decision. Because for the most part it is. But on government issues like politics or other government affairs, you better get off your *** and do your homework or you'll most likely form your opinions on half truths and false assumptions.

But as it is, there are a lucky few people in America which have the internet and aren't too lazy to research the issues for themselves. I'm sure that those who make a blanket statement that Americans are brainwashed would realize that at some point.

IMI
05-27-2008, 04:00 PM
I honestly can't believe some of the views I'm reading here, not so much about how bad 'they' are, but more about how good 'we' are. What's funny about your statement is that it sounds like a perfect call to arms for every potential 'jihadist' to get off their arses and force the useless, corrupt and violent western influences from their land.

Osama would be proud.



How do you get that from what I said?
You said you'd rather live in a dictatorship if it meant you could have things, as opposed to being poor in a democracy.
OK, fine, if that's what you want, and I was probably a little too harsh with my reply.
But all I was saying is it's a good thing we have had people in the past who rebelled against that sort of thing. The US is hardly a perfect democracy (actually it's technically a republic), but those who stuck their necks out and rebelled against the King of England to create a much more free society here, really did quite an extraordinary thing.
What I meant is if everybody had that sheep-like attitude to just paly the cards they were dealt and don't make waves, then where would we be?
Still in the dark ages, probably. Look at how technology took a huge leap forward after people began rebelling against the stranglehold of the Catholic Church in the 15th century, who had pretty much repressed all science and oppressed all people through their governments.
1200 years of that and after they broke free, exciting things began happening.
Why did they do that? They had "things", they had life, they had more or less what they needed.
Sometimes people have to take a chance and risk it all to make a better future, but it doesn't happen if everyone is content to ride it out and hope for the best.
That's all I said.
No, Osama wouldn't be proud. Osama is a shephard.

warmiak
05-27-2008, 04:00 PM
Some Americans are brainwashed simply because they don't seek out the information for themselves.


That's not brainwashing ... that's a personal choice.

Iain
05-27-2008, 04:13 PM
Well, thank God the world has the U.N. to protect them...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_re_eu/war_zones_sex_abuse

In that same report, there is mention of Save the Children workers being found guilty of child sexual abuse.

There are rotten apples in every cart-child care, social work, office staff, police, soldiers, everything.
The UN is always assumed to be whiter than white for some reason. It's not. It contains the same elements of society (good, bad and indifferent) as every other body.
In fact it's massive scale and geographical catchment probably exacerbates that.

That doesn't excuse this of course-it's just a disgusting fact of life.

Oedo 808
05-27-2008, 06:13 PM
IRT IMI:

How I got the 'call to arms' from what you had said was your talk about giving in to, rather than fighting the repressive and oppressive forces and shaping your own destiny etc etc.. Exactly the sort of thing Bin Laden and his like will be spouting to whoever will listen.

My original point being that this so called democracy has brought nothing for the population of Iraq, in fact they have ended up a lot worse off.

I don't deny that by far the most stable and sustainable form of civilised governance is a capitalist democracy, but it is sheepish indeed to want to replace a functioning government, albeit a dictatorship, with a broken down half-arsed democracy for the sake of having a democracy. No doubt that the people of Iraq would like to be able to vote for who they wanted and then to be governed wisely and benevolently by that person, but who wouldn't.

In the UK the running of transport, education and healthcare is a joke, not to mention policing etc. If the Queen or even Tom, Dick or Harry decided tomorrow that they'd had enough, took power and managed clean things up, I'd be in no hurry to kick them out and reinstall Gordon Brown.

Yes, history has shown us that a dictator will inevitably abuse their power, but it also demonstrates that life does not become a bed of roses simply by achieving democracy, and thinking otherwise is as far as I'm concerned an incredibly blinkered point of view.

So would I rather have education, healthcare, electricity and clean water under a dictatorship than be ignorant, ill and starving under a democracy? You damn right I would, and if you would really prefer to have a democracy over quality of life, more fool you.

You said that you may have been a bit harsh in your reply, well not at all if you believe your point of view then I can well understand your finding my position incredible, but what has irked me about your standpoint is that it purports to be a free thinking approach rather than just a go with the flow, but to me it sounds like quite the opposite, if I were an Iraqi I am sure I would be wishing the 'liberation' had never happened, that would mean wanting a dictatorship over a democracy.

Now while it's unlikely that the Royal Family is going to take over the running of the UK and even less likely that they would do a good job of it, it doesn't mean that all countries that are currently governed under a dictatorship are ready to grow and bloom under a democracy, even if it is preferable.

I guess to try and compact things, which would have helped if I'd done it a little earlier :rolleyes: It sounds like you're saying:

"Well they've got democracy haven't they? What more do they want?"

Oedo 808
05-27-2008, 06:26 PM
Hang on a minute, was that really five minutes or did I slip into and alternate reality for a moment!? Anyway, my edit, with actual editing for that authentic feel:

*edit*

I should add not to worry about being a bit harsh or offending, I won't usually take offence and likewise won't usually mean to be offensive in return... usually ;)

warmiak
05-27-2008, 07:16 PM
if I were an Iraqi I am sure I would be wishing the 'liberation' had never happened


Are you an Iraqi ? Or is it just what some call the "BBC effect" ?

OOZZEE
05-27-2008, 07:52 PM
A first strike is an invasion or an attack. It's the counter strike, the engagement that makes it a war.
That second move is quite often the just action.

some will see the second move as self defence and others as retaliation.... there is a fine line there between being just and being revengeful.... and thats a discussion where I wont live long enough to find the right answer to.

however, why start it in the first place ?

especially when the consequence of your actions are almost guaranteed to have the same effect in return.

the bottom line is that there is no cure for stupidity...

after thousands of years of this kind of crap, we still continue to do it and we never ever learn from it.

unbelievably sad and pathetic!

************
like I said in previous post, this is my opinion only and I respect all those that agree or disagree.

Its not an easy subject to have everyone be on the same page.

now back to modellnig for me !!

jin choung
05-27-2008, 07:53 PM
The problem with mutually assured destruction is that it assumes that everyone has the sanity to not push the button.....

right, if someone is an out and out nutjob (clinically insane), then you're in trouble.

but i don't think even extremists fall into that category. kamikazes were not insane and from what i've seen on the news, the human bombs in the middle east don't seem insane either... just desperate/brainwashed.

but in this case of extremism without insanity, i think it still WOULD work. because it guarantees death not just for your enemies. it guarantees death for EVERYONE.

there is no cause left behind. no survivor to carry on a message. all culture that you cherish, all tradition, all theology, annihilated.

given a bomb big enough to assure mutual destruction, i think it would still work.

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 07:56 PM
Are you an Iraqi ? Or is it just what some call the "BBC effect" ?

it's not difficult to play, "let's pretend". just put yourselves in their shoes now, read up on what life was like before.

now what would you choose in those circumstances?

bbc need not apply.

jin

p.s. and i live in the states and i've heard lots of interviews where the people of iraq have said this.

they were hopeful of a better future when the invasion started. that's all gone now.

jin choung
05-27-2008, 08:13 PM
some will see the second move as self defence and others as retaliation.... there is a fine line there between being just and being revengeful.... and thats a discussion where I wont live long enough to find the right answer to.

however, why start it in the first place ?

especially when the consequence of your actions are almost guaranteed to have the same effect in return.

the bottom line is that there is no cure for stupidity...

after thousands of years of this kind of crap, we still continue to do it and we never ever learn from it.

unbelievably sad and pathetic!

************
like I said in previous post, this is my opinion only and I respect all those that agree or disagree.

Its not an easy subject to have everyone be on the same page.

now back to modellnig for me !!

we shouldn't be vague and throw different issues into one lump. so let's parse it out for clarity's sake:

1. you agree that national self defense is GOOD right? yes, self defense can turn into vengeance but IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY. so you agree that a war fought purely to repel an invader is good?

2. you feel that attack or INITIATING WAR is always wrong and that is something someone can sanely argue. so initiating always wrong for you right?

3. as for "why" anyone would attack - that's not a real question. you know the answer. war can actually just be looked at as an extremely lively (or in this case, deadly) version of the workings of economics.

SCARCITY. limited resources. lots of interested parties.

we can wage this war through commerce and pricing, or we can take it.

if there were no scarcity, there would be far less wars. but for now, we live in a world of scarcity.

jin

warmiak
05-27-2008, 08:27 PM
now what would you choose in those circumstances?


I don't know. I am not one of them.

One could just as easily argue that for tens of thousands of French civilians who lost their loved ones during the Normandy Invasion in 1944, mostly due to allied bombings, so called liberation was not a welcomed development.

The point being , we have no clue what to make of Iraq , it is simply too early in the process to make any sort of final judgment.
Right now, things appear to be moving in the right direction but we won’t know for sure for another 10 or 15 years.



they were hopeful of a better future when the invasion started. that's all gone now.

If that’s the case then their hope was entirely misplaced … and they had only themselves ( and perhaps British ) to blame.

Having a dictator imposing some sort of order by the sheer "virtue" of being the most ruthless and barbaric on the block, is hardly an indication of stability.

TripD
05-27-2008, 08:54 PM
"Stupid people are the ones who tell the truth becase they are not smart enought to lie..."

Think about it.. :D



What is your definition of... 'it'? :jester:

As for conspiracy theories... meh

But I would still like to know what happened to the fuel from the plane that struck the Pentagon.

OOZZEE
05-27-2008, 09:01 PM
we shouldn't be vague and throw different issues into one lump. so let's parse it out for clarity's sake:

1. you agree that national self defense is GOOD right? yes, self defense can turn into vengeance but IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY. so you agree that a war fought purely to repel an invader is good?

2. you feel that attack or INITIATING WAR is always wrong and that is something someone can sanely argue. so initiating always wrong for you right?

3. as for "why" anyone would attack - that's not a real question. you know the answer. war can actually just be looked at as an extremely lively (or in this case, deadly) version of the workings of economics.

SCARCITY. limited resources. lots of interested parties.

we can wage this war through commerce and pricing, or we can take it.

if there were no scarcity, there would be far less wars. but for now, we live in a world of scarcity.

jin

jin, my best friend was at war at the age of 14... he was forced into it in Cambodia, was put an aka47 in his hands and told fight or I'll kill you. literally as bullets were flying by his head.

He has told me atrocities that you will never see in the news. Things he has had to do and things that were done to him. I do not judge him in any way no matter how bad it was what he did as I understand that he didnt fully understand what he was doing.

He was told he was defending... and he believed it and he did it... But you know what, today he will tell you that he fought and killed for no valid reason. nothing can justify having to do those things. it was wrong.

and that makes lots of sense to me... regardless of whatever reason its done for and whatever side you are on, only pain and suffering and death will come out of it, nothing more. Can you justify that ? I surely cant. land ? no, country ? no, money ? no, oil ? no, power ?no, culture, no ( i could go on forever)

so thats my point of view.

Today, that man is the most human person I have ever met. not an ounce of mal intentions in him even though he was robbed of his childhood for many years and had to survive in a hell most of us will never be able to imagine or totally understand.

I'm not trying to be vague... some people will say good things come out of wars.... but why couldnt those good things be done without the war ? are we that unintelligent that we have to destroy first and then go... oh yeah great, now we can do something smart !! everybody sign on the dotted line.

one day maybe we will realize that we dont have to do that anymore to advance as humans.

jin choung
05-27-2008, 09:10 PM
One could just as easily argue that for tens of thousands of French civilians who lost their loved ones during the Normandy Invasion in 1944, mostly due to allied bombings, so called liberation was not a welcomed development.

we could ask them. i would imagine that was NOT what they feel on the whole.

The point being , we have no clue what to make of Iraq , it is simply too early in the process to make any sort of final judgment.
Right now, things appear to be moving in the right direction but we won’t know for sure for another 10 or 15 years.

again, we can and do ask them.

If that’s the case then their hope was entirely misplaced … and they had only themselves ( and perhaps British ) to blame.

saddam wasn't a walk in the park, when they had news that america was coming, i would bet a lot of them had hope we would save them. they're looking to make lemonade with lemons they have no control over and you're talking about blaming them? : )

Having a dictator imposing some sort of order by the sheer "virtue" of being the most ruthless and barbaric on the block, is hardly an indication of stability.

this statement is false. ruthlessness and stability are NOT AT ALL DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED CONCEPTS.

jin

warmiak
05-27-2008, 09:19 PM
I'm not trying to be vague... some people will say good things come out of wars.... but why couldnt those good things be done without the war ?


Why ?
Because of something called human nature or more scientifically , a random gene mixing process which tends to produce human beings, which vary considerably in just about every possible way, including their perception of justice, equality and their perceived place in the scheme of things.

Unless we can somehow fix that , we are stuck with what we have now :)

CMT
05-27-2008, 09:27 PM
Yeah, we ask them. And we get different opinion based on which side is delivering the edited information. But I have a hard time believing that the people in Iraq right now would prefer the previous regime where they were living day to day in fear for themselves and their loved ones wondering whether they have brought some type of ill attention from the government to themselves.

At least now, for those who actually wanted liberation, they are given a chance to fight for what they believe in. They don't have to worry about some sick fool attacking his own countrymen.

Only by someone removing Saddam from power, whether by the US or from within his own country (tried on a couple occasions), would his regime end. Sanctions would not have ended the brutality aimed at his own people.

cyatic
05-27-2008, 09:43 PM
p.s. and i live in the states and i've heard lots of interviews where the people of iraq have said this.

they were hopeful of a better future when the invasion started. that's all gone now.


Jin,
I've actually been there. I'm in the military and was there when the elections were held. It's all gone now? It's a hundred times better now than it was when Saddam was there. The insurgence are really the only ones causing problems there, just like the stupid gang bangers we have here. Sure these guys aren't blowing themselves up but they're just as bad. I'm from L.A. and it has always been pretty bad there. Anyway, the average Iraqi is happy we are there. Yes, I do know this for a fact, I didn't get it from the news. I'd rather live in a place that is being rebuilt free than live in a place that looks great but live in terror.
This part is not directed at you Jin. For those people that say they support the troops but not the war. In actuality they really don't support the troops because we actually support the mission. I won't say 100% support it, but most of us do. Most of us support the mission of us being there. It's funny how you don't hear about all of us who re-enlisted and volunteer to go back there. Anyway, we support the war effort, and in turn support our Commander in Chief. It's a shame that so many of my brothers and sisters have died there, but we volunteered for the job because nobody else will. It's a volunteer force. It's our job to go where we are told to go.
Sorry about the rant, it just upsets me when people act like being there was a total waste and it's doing no good. Unless you've actually been there you really have no idea what's going on. Thank You.

Alex

jin choung
05-27-2008, 09:46 PM
are we that unintelligent that we have to destroy first and then go... oh yeah great, now we can do something smart !! everybody sign on the dotted line.

do you have to ask? do you actually have ANY faith in the intelligence of human beings? from people who join modern cults to the behavior of people in general devoted to any cause it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to me that humanity is dumb as dirt.

yes. we ARE that unintelligent. unfortunately.

we all wish for peace. but as long as scarcity has a hand in human affairs, war is inevitable.

but don't worry, things will be better when the robots take over... : )

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 09:58 PM
Jin,
I've actually been there. I'm in the military and was there when the elections were held. It's all gone now? It's a hundred times better now than it was when Saddam was there. The insurgence are really the only ones causing problems there, just like the stupid gang bangers we have here. Sure these guys aren't blowing themselves up but they're just as bad. I'm from L.A. and it has always been pretty bad there. Anyway, the average Iraqi is happy we are there. Yes, I do know this for a fact, I didn't get it from the news. I'd rather live in a place that is being rebuilt free than live in a place that looks great but live in terror.
This part is not directed at you Jin. For those people that say they support the troops but not the war. In actuality they really don't support the troops because we actually support the mission. I won't say 100% support it, but most of us do. Most of us support the mission of us being there. It's funny how you don't hear about all of us who re-enlisted and volunteer to go back there. Anyway, we support the war effort, and in turn support our Commander in Chief. It's a shame that so many of my brothers and sisters have died there, but we volunteered for the job because nobody else will. It's a volunteer force. It's our job to go where we are told to go.
Sorry about the rant, it just upsets me when people act like being there was a total waste and it's doing no good. Unless you've actually been there you really have no idea what's going on. Thank You.

Alex

interesting... sounds vague though.

your average iraqi WHERE? what sect? where were you stationed? who did you talk to? i would imagine the sunnis might have a different opinion than say the kurds.

sure being there gives you a better understanding of the situation than from the news but only in the places you can see. i assume you're not omnipresent....

as for your last statement... even if we take it as a gospel requirement, there are quite enough of you out there talking to the press and posting youtube videos (see original clip) that disagree with YOUR view.

so yes, you say you're in the military and you served in iraq. you've seen with your eyes and you believe. fine. but since the opinions of the military themselves is not homogenous, your view is by no means authoritative or definitive either.

others have seen and been on the ground and they disagree with you.

now who's right?

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:07 PM
But I have a hard time believing that the people in Iraq right now would prefer the previous regime where they were living day to day in fear for themselves and their loved ones wondering whether they have brought some type of ill attention from the government to themselves.

that's you. YOU have a hard time believing in it. doesn't speak on the actuality of the situation though.

i have a hard time believing people are republican. doesn't make it less likely. it only speaks to what i have a hard time believing.

At least now, for those who actually wanted liberation, they are given a chance to fight for what they believe in. They don't have to worry about some sick fool attacking his own countrymen.

see, this is just mysterious to me. are you not watching the same news that i'm watching? how does an average iraqi fight? for ANYTHING? they're just trying to live and THAT is complicated by foreign agents and extremists that did NOT exist before.

better the single devil that you know than the millions of devils that you don't.

and considering their current DAY TO DAY LIVING CONDITION - electricity and water and the ability to leave their homes it is ABSOLUTELY NOT BETTER NOW THAN IT USED TO BE.

do you not read about the bodies on the streets that show signs of execution and torture... PILED UP BODIES. no matter how bad saddam was, the public did not deal with stuff like this.

Only by someone removing Saddam from power, whether by the US or from within his own country (tried on a couple occasions), would his regime end. Sanctions would not have ended the brutality aimed at his own people.

what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

you're saying there's not a worse dictator in the world than saddam was? if we're in the business of taking down brutal regimes, where do we start and where do we end? why aren't we in africa? or north korea? or cuba? hey let's go liberate tibet already... then do an entire pan-asian tour, liberate hong kong again for some reason, sweep into taiwan, take out the stupid mofos in burma and then maybe take a second shot at vietnam?

saddam's brutality MEANS NOTHING in terms of u.s. action. NOTHING.

p.s. and unfortunately, because of gitmo, abu ghraib and "freedom boarding", i wouldn't go around waving that flag for taking down brutal regimes too enthusiastically....

jin

iojabba
05-27-2008, 10:14 PM
[QUOTE=jin choung;704034]
saddam's brutality MEANS NOTHING in terms of u.s. action. NOTHING.


Oh, there is where you are wrong....

It made for a good excuse to invade. At least for PR.

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:16 PM
Oh, there is where you are wrong....

It made for a good excuse to invade. At least for PR.

you take my meaning incorrectly... what i'm saying is that it alone "SHOULD" mean nothing in terms of u.s. action. i.e. otherwise we'd have to invade everybody we thought was playing rough.

jin

ted
05-27-2008, 10:16 PM
Jin, Alex isn't the exception. The people you so quickly believe are the EXCEPTIONS.
As Alex said, so many have re-enlisted.
Many that have been wounded ask to go back.
I have friends that have gone for up to a 3rd time and they agree, as Alex so well explained to you, IT IS WORKING.

Unfortunately people like you believe the media over the large majority of enlisted.
Who’s brainwashed? :hey:

THANK YOU ALEX AND ALL THAT HAVE SERVED! :thumbsup:

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:18 PM
also, it was one of those reasons that the public didn't buy. for the american people, police action against a sonofabitch just didn't justify sending their babies.

neither did "he tried to kill my daddy"....

that's why they had to cook up all the other ******** about 9.11 and iraq, al quaeda and iraq, wmd and iraq....

jin

iojabba
05-27-2008, 10:19 PM
No, I took your meaning correctly.....

I was making a joke.

His brutality was showcased and used as an excuse.

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:19 PM
Jin, Alex isn't the exception. The people you so quickly believe are the EXCEPTIONS.
As Alex said, so many have re-enlisted.
Many that have been wounded ask to go back.
I have friends that have gone for up to a 3rd time and they agree, as Alex so well explained to you, IT IS WORKING.

Unfortunately people like you believe the media over the large majority of enlisted.
Who’s brainwashed? :hey:

THANK YOU ALEX AND ALL THAT HAVE SERVED! :thumbsup:

i DIDN'T SAY HE WAS THE EXCEPTION. i said there were other military men who served their country with honor who believe different. are you DENYING THAT?

now your turn: you say the majority of the military agree. SHOW ME.

where do you get that info?

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:21 PM
No, I took your meaning correctly.....

I was making a joke.

His brutality was showcased and used as an excuse.

oh, gotcha.

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:23 PM
Unfortunately people like you believe the media over the large majority of enlisted.

at least my excuse is i listen to the media... you're evidently making this "large majority" up off the top of your head? show me.

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:25 PM
also,

what about the those honored veterans who serve this country and DON'T agree with cyat? why aren't YOU listening to THEM?

why is THEIR VOICE somehow less deserving to be heard?

jin

cyatic
05-27-2008, 10:26 PM
All i can give is my opinion and draw from my experience and the experiences of others who I have served with. I don't care if you believe me or not, I know where I was and what I did. I'm sure the Nazis had a different opinion as well. They too were on the other side. Was it wrong for us to have gone there? I'm sure things didn't get better there overnight. In fact the Berlin wall didn't come down until the 80's. Yes, being there gives me a better understanding than say you living in Glendale. I don't have to be omnipresent, I have plenty of friends that were all over the country. I don't have to be there to know what's going on. We all talk amongst ourselves. I didn't say we all agree with the war, but a majority of us do. It's not just MY view. How many Soldiers, Marines, Sailors or Airmen have you talked to about this? I think my view is more factual than what YOU see on the news. Others that disagree with me are entitled to, doesn't mean I have to just sit here and take.

iojabba
05-27-2008, 10:26 PM
i DIDN'T SAY HE WAS THE EXCEPTION. i said there were other military men who served their country with honor who believe different. are you DENYING THAT?

now your turn: you say the majority of the military agree. SHOW ME.

where do you get that info?

jin

Lets put it this way....

Most of the service members that I have spoken with that have been there agree that it is working. Obviously no one can speak for all members of the armed forces. Sure there are some that are disgruntled. I would say that most, but not all (again, from my personal observations) of the service members that are disgruntled with the way Iraq is going comes from the "younger" troops. You can draw your own conclusions to why this is.

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:28 PM
and ted,

for a propaganda swilling conservative, i'd use that term "brainwash" carefully if i were you.

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:31 PM
All i can give is my opinion and draw from my experience and the experiences of others who I have served with. I don't care if you believe me or not, I know where I was and what I did. I'm sure the Nazis had a different opinion as well. They too were on the other side. Was it wrong for us to have gone there? I'm sure things didn't get better there overnight. In fact the Berlin wall didn't come down until the 80's. Yes, being there gives me a better understanding than say you living in Glendale. I don't have to be omnipresent, I have plenty of friends that were all over the country. I don't have to be there to know what's going on. We all talk amongst ourselves. I didn't say we all agree with the war, but a majority of us do. It's not just MY view. How many Soldiers, Marines, Sailors or Airmen have you talked to about this? I think my view is more factual than what YOU see on the news. Others that disagree with me are entitled to, doesn't mean I have to just sit here and take.

didn't say it was just your view.

but i'm saying there are those in the military no less honorable than you that disagree with you.

again, i put it to you - who's right?

you don't have to sit there and take it. you've had your say. but as i said, it is not necessarily right, authoritative or unanimous.

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:35 PM
Lets put it this way....

Most of the service members that I have spoken with that have been there agree that it is working. Obviously no one can speak for all members of the armed forces. Sure there are some that are disgruntled. I would say that most, but not all (again, from my personal observations) of the service members that are disgruntled with the way Iraq is going comes from the "younger" troops. You can draw your own conclusions to why this is.

and there are retired generals who served their country no less honorably than the folks you spoke to that say iraq is a [email protected]#.

shrug.

jin

cyatic
05-27-2008, 10:38 PM
Jin,
Why do we have to "show you" that there are military members that actually do volunteer for this? Why do we have to take your opinions as gospel, but you won't believe someone who disagrees with you. Anytime you want to go to Camp Pendleton I will be happy to escort you there so you can ask the Marines there. I CAN show you. Now, can you show me all of these veterens that disagree with the war, besides youtube and the news? I don't live in Virginia anymore, I live in California so i can go with you anytime you like. I never said theie voice was not desrved to be heard. If anything it's the people that support the war that are not really heard most of the time.

warmiak
05-27-2008, 10:39 PM
saddam's brutality MEANS NOTHING in terms of u.s. action. NOTHING.


Yeah, that’s true.
In fact, after all these years my problem with the war is that there was no significant US interest there.

One could perhaps come up with some justification in terms of having a significant military presence right at the border of Iran , which combined with US presence in Afghanistan ( the other side of Iran ) should make Iranians quite nervous …

Another one would be the so called “domino theory” ..

Personally though, I think this sort of expensive military action (expensive in terms of human sacrifice as well as the cost (actual financial expense) should only be undertaken to advance US interests ( economical or otherwise) and , as far as I can tell, Iraq just doesn’t cut it.

I wish all that nonsense about “blood for oil” was actually true but unfortunately it isn’t so we are stuck there trying to build a new society, which is exactly the sort of adventure our founding fathers cautioned against ( “slaying dragons abroad”).

cyatic
05-27-2008, 10:39 PM
Names please.

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:40 PM
Jin,
Why do we have to "show you" that there are military members that actually do volunteer for this? Why do we have to take your opinions as gospel, but you won't believe someone who disagrees with you. Anytime you want to go to Camp Pendleton I will be happy to escort you there so you can ask the Marines there. I CAN show you. Now, can you show me all of these veterens that disagree with the war, besides youtube and the news? I don't live in Virginia anymore, I live in California so i can go with you anytime you like. I never said theie voice was not desrved to be heard. If anything it's the people that support the war that are not really heard most of the time.

i didn't ask YOU to show me anything. i was asking ted.

jin

cyatic
05-27-2008, 10:40 PM
and there are retired generals who served their country no less honorably than the folks you spoke to that say iraq is a [email protected]#.

shrug.

jin


Jin, names please.

cyatic
05-27-2008, 10:42 PM
i didn't ask YOU to show me anything. i was asking ted.

jin

Ted said he had friends that were in the military. Does he have to give you names and phone numbers to confirm?

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:43 PM
Names please.

i assume this was directed at me.

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/41/1/

and *SHOCK* FOXNEWS! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271053,00.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/

was it just an academic question or were you really not aware?

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:44 PM
Ted said he had friends that were in the military. Does he have to give you names and phone numbers to confirm?

he said LARGE MAJORITY OF THE MILITARY... that goes a little beyond his immediate group of military buds dontcha think? he stating something in the area of polls and statistics and not anecdotal info.

please, read the objection before jumping in.

jin

iojabba
05-27-2008, 10:46 PM
and there are retired generals who served their country no less honorably than the folks you spoke to that say iraq is a [email protected]#.

shrug.

jin

You are correct and they are entitled to their views just as you are. I'm just relaying my own experiences.

I would say though that the Generals you speak of are probably (again my opinion) few in the grand picture. I believe this for the simple fact that you only see a few of them in the press and we all know that every one of them that is willing to speak out about the war is plastered all over the news at every chance.

The controversial voice is the one that gets the airtime.

A Former General who is willing to speak about the war is a novilty and the media takes advantage of this every chance they get.

And don't get me wrong...... They should show opposing views. Its their job.

cyatic
05-27-2008, 10:47 PM
I understand those Generals disagree with the war. They are still honorable and are entitled to their opinion. Those are still a very small amount. How many Generals and Admirals do you think are in the Military? Not all are going to agree, but i'm still sticking to the FACT that there are more military members for it.

jin choung
05-27-2008, 10:52 PM
I understand those Generals disagree with the war. They are still honorable and are entitled to their opinion. Those are still a very small amount. How many Generals and Admirals do you think are in the Military? Not all are going to agree, but i'm still sticking to the FACT that there are more military members for it.

you can do anything you like but that's kinda like me saying that i know absolutely for sure that most people are gonna vote obama....

ehhh....

without looking at a single poll... from anecdotal info from my immediate group of friends and contacts.

as i said, you can do what you like.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

also, even if the majority of the military agree with you, my point in bringing up the opposition is merely to say that your opinion as a military person is not authoritative.

you kinda wanted to present a somewhat authoritative front on your opinion with the "if you haven't been there".

i was countering with - "even if we accept your rule [having been there], your opinion is just your opinion and not authoritative since other service people disagree with you."

jin

cyatic
05-27-2008, 11:00 PM
Jin,
I never said I was the official spokesman for the US Military. But I am going on fact by saying that most military members do support the war, because we talk to each other. Your only reason for bringing up opposition was to prove that a military member was not the authoritative voice of the military? Ok, you win. I was merely stating that having been there and having talked to actual people that I kind of knew what I was talking about. My opinions were not based on the newspaper, youtube, cable news, local news, whatever. The way I see it, it looks like your only reason to discuss this was to prove I didn't speak for everyone in the military? Again, you win.

Cageman
05-27-2008, 11:08 PM
I keep hearing a lot of this nonsese from people who generally tend to get their news from state run news agencies.
( which was the case in Sweden where public radio and Tv was the only option up until early 1990s.)

I keep seeing the US President talking about God, just like the fundamental Islamistic groups around the world. Talk about brainwash...Scary stuff... :/ At least here, we don't mix religion and politics (and there isn't much religion to talk about).

So, lets see here if you got your facts straight; No..

Before we got access to more TV-channels through our cable network, people got satelitte dishes. There were ALOT of people who had those, I personally looked at Sky, Super Channel and BBC (mostly programs for children, such as DJ Cat Show on Sky, Hippo on Super Channel etc). I really can't remember the exact shows, but I was only 6-8 years at the time and was not fluent in english. :) This was back in 85-87 and we were pretty late compared to alot of neighbours in getting a satelitte dish. All this pushed the government into rethinking their strategies for cable networks and that's where we are today (ALOT of both national and international channels).

If we are going to talk about information flow, let's talk about internet. Our internet revolution started in 93-94 and I just recently read an article stating that 86% of the population above 16 years of age have direct access to internet here in Sweden. That's pretty much everyone old or healthy enough to sit at a computer. And we are not even talking about 8-15 year old kids yet.

So, your point was?

UltraViolet
05-27-2008, 11:10 PM
I have and still find video stupid.

People like that lost us 1 war and are trying to lose another.
A war should be the last resort, but once in, there should be no surrender.

But there are always very good reasons for first strike, and the US should always look for that reason (after talks breakdown and 1 warning)

Don't get me wrong, but I don't think US ever lost a war against anybody, if that was the case you would not be sitting there typing your message :)

warmiak
05-27-2008, 11:19 PM
I keep seeing the US President talking about God,

Uh ? So ?
I don't go to church nor I believe in God but if he finds his inspiration in God then more power to him - who am I to question that ?

I don't mind people believing in whatever they want as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me.



So, lets see here if you got your facts straight;

Come on - I never said Sweden was a totalitarian country.
I simply said that back in the 80s if one wanted to get his/her news in their native language the only option was a state run news agency.
That's all.

Mike_RB
05-27-2008, 11:38 PM
Uh ? So ?
I don't go to church nor I believe in God but if he finds his inspiration in God then more power to him - who am I to question that ?

I don't mind people believing in whatever they want as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me.

I think someone in as an important job as the president should keep his belief in in a deity whos origin story and wants are incompatible with the beliefs of some of the American people to himself. It really shouldn't come up in official speeches where he's thanksing god and blessing god for things.

UltraViolet
05-27-2008, 11:39 PM
... At least here, we don't mix religion and politics ...

Well, in USA mixing it is what is happening a lot (even though there is separation, somewhere on the paper). THE most important (but not official) requirement to be a president of US is to be religious (Christian, to be more precise). Not that I personally care, but that is just the way how it is, everybody knows it :)

jin choung
05-27-2008, 11:47 PM
I don't mind people believing in whatever they want as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me.

my view too.

unfortunately, they don't practice this in america. whether it is abortion or stem cells or euthanasia... even evolution (ack!), america is the land where they try to legislate religion.

i wish christians would just follow the golden rule: stuff down the gullets of others as you would have others stuff down yours.

every law that a christian tries to get passed in the name of his faith, if he would just think to himself, what if a buddhist or wiccan (GASP!) legislator tried to pass a law that conformed to THEIR belief.... how would *I* like it.

and if they want to teach "creationism", then be fair. teach the cosmology stories of the zoarastrians, and babylonians and greeks and buddhists etc... yeah, let's spend all of science class talking about this stuff!!!

sigh...

madness....

jin

jin choung
05-27-2008, 11:55 PM
Not that I personally care, but that is just the way how it is, everybody knows it :)

i know you are not endorsing this so just so people don't get the wrong idea about what you're trying to say:

i agree completely.

it's unfortunate but completely true.

in this day and age, an atheist could not be elected president of the u.s.a. and that's just sad.

personally, i DO care and it's just really sad.

and made all the worse because instead of making presidents faithful members of the flock, it probably just multiplies lip service and hypocrisy....

jin

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 12:09 AM
I think someone in as an important job as the president should keep his belief in in a deity whos origin story and wants are incompatible with the beliefs of some of the American people to himself. It really shouldn't come up in official speeches where he's thanksing god and blessing god for things.People who say that don't know American history at all. The vast majority of our founding fathers would've made you squirm all the more. :D
Most of the elite colleges in America today started as seminary colleges(Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc).

warmiak
05-28-2008, 12:10 AM
unfortunately, they don't practice this in America


Sure they do.
I feel pretty comfortable here and , believe me I would notice … I have to seriously restrain myself when faced with Jehovah preachers banging on my door.



every law that a christian tries to get passed in the name of his faith


Yeah, well, and what would that be ?
Do you have any examples ?

Teaching creationism is basically waste of time but to be fair it is simply presented just as another option so you can hardly speak of religious indoctrination.
Actually, this was an example of people \putting pressure on local governments/schools officials …you can hardly blame Bush for that.



I think someone in as an important job as the president should keep his belief in in a deity whos origin story and wants are incompatible with the beliefs of some of the American people to himself.


Why ? He was quite open about it before he got elected and people had plenty of time to make their own minds about this particular issue .. and they did.

In other words, skip the rhetoric and wake me up when he attempts to do something meaningful that actually qualifies as violation of the constitution.

Until then, I simply don’t give a damn what motivates him to get up in the morning and if he has a need to share it with us - I just don't listen.

UltraViolet
05-28-2008, 12:17 AM
i know you are not endorsing this so just so people don't get the wrong idea about what you're trying to say:

i agree completely.

it's unfortunate but completely true.

in this day and age, an atheist could not be elected president of the u.s.a. and that's just sad.

personally, i DO care and it's just really sad.

and made all the worse because instead of making presidents faithful members of the flock, it probably just multiplies lip service and hypocrisy....

jin

Lol, well, I actually do care, but since I'm an extreme minority there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, so I just go with my own businesses, as usual, pretending that I do not care :)

parm
05-28-2008, 12:19 AM
Brainwashed by whom ?

Seriously, I would like you to explain to me who is behind all that brainwashing …

I keep hearing a lot of this nonsese from people who generally tend to get their news from state run news agencies.
( which was the case in Sweden where public radio and Tv was the only option up until early 1990s.)

Are schoolchildren in America, still made to swear the oath of allegiance everyday?

One nation under God?

warmiak
05-28-2008, 12:24 AM
in this day and age, an atheist could not be elected president of the u.s.a. and that's just sad.



Why ?

Because the majority of people don't vote the way you want them to vote?
Or are you implying that the process itself is somehow rigged ?

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 12:31 AM
Why ?

Because the majority of people don't vote the way you want them to vote?
Or are you implying that the process itself is somehow rigged ?Yes, it is...it's a "Conspiracy"...don't you remember?
Right now, GW and the Neo-Cons in the CIA are plotting how to nuke Hollywood...so GW can go out with a Bang!

warmiak
05-28-2008, 12:32 AM
Are schoolchildren in America, still made to swear the oath of allegiance everyday?

One nation under God?

Yep.

But wait until you hear this .... there are people out there who still enjoy having a king and a queen and keep referring to some members of society as lords ... now that's medieval.

jin choung
05-28-2008, 12:39 AM
People who say that don't know American history at all. The vast majority of our founding fathers would've made you squirm all the more. :D
Most of the elite colleges in America today started as seminary colleges(Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc).

maybe less than you think. christian right seems to press a case that may not be all that valid:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Gospel-Founding-Fathers-Making/dp/0812976665/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211956480&sr=8-1
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/jon_meacham/2006/11/the_consummate_american_holida_1.html#more

interesting to note that it was actually baptists PUSHING FOR separation of church and state!!! LOL.

http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

the third one i just found in looking for the first two but he cites sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINALLY, they were christians that owned slave.

wonderful men of god?

pfffft.

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 12:42 AM
Yeah, well, and what would that be ?
Do you have any examples ?

sorry but please pay attention. i listed my examples in the post that you're trying to argue.

we can tackle each of the religion based legislation if you want if you come back with my list.

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 12:45 AM
Yep.

But wait until you hear this .... there are people out there who still enjoy having a king and a queen and keep referring to some members of society as lords ... now that's medieval.

ummmmm....

that's not a really great comeback....

if king and queen is medieval, i guess religion is "prehistorical"?

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 12:48 AM
Why ?

Because the majority of people don't vote the way you want them to vote?
Or are you implying that the process itself is somehow rigged ?

yes, EXACTLY.

because the majority of people don't vote the way i want them to vote.

i.e. they will (almost without a doubt) vote an incompetent christian into office over a superbly qualified hindu.

jin

warmiak
05-28-2008, 12:51 AM
that's not a really great comeback....



I think it is.

Whatever floats your boat and seems completely natural to you , may seem completely nonsensical , ridiculous and backward to others.

warmiak
05-28-2008, 12:54 AM
i.e. they will (almost without a doubt) vote an incompetent christian into office over a superbly qualified hindu.


Well, I don't know what to tell you .... try to educate them or perhaps stage a coup and turn this place into some sort of meritocracy ?

jin choung
05-28-2008, 12:56 AM
Teaching creationism is basically waste of time but to be fair it is simply presented just as another option so you can hardly speak of religious indoctrination.

fine fine. as i said, to be fair, we gotta bring all the other "options" too... what does buddhist cosmology have to teach us? or hey, ancient greeks? Ra? mayan anyone? i hear 2012 is gonna be big... they should get equal time too.

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 12:57 AM
stage a coup and turn this place into some sort of meritocracy ?

oh god... what a freakin' nightmare that would be!

(again for non native english speakers - meant to be read with dripping sarcasm)

and i'm not saying there's anything we can do about it. i'm just sayin' it's sad.

jin

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 12:59 AM
yes, EXACTLY.

because the majority of people don't vote the way i want them to vote.

i.e. they will (almost without a doubt) vote an incompetent christian into office over a superbly qualified hindu.

jinIf you want that to change, why not get a passport and move to India? You'll find the bliss you've always longed for.... in another life as a dung beetle that is :D

jin choung
05-28-2008, 01:00 AM
If you want that to change, why not get a passport and move to India? You'll find the bliss you've always longed for.... in another life as a dung beetle that is :D

NIIIIICE!

haven't heard a version of "america love it or leave it" in a while!

you go girl.

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 01:01 AM
I think it is.

great. stick with it.

you find my list of religious laws yet?

jin

warmiak
05-28-2008, 01:15 AM
you find my list of religious laws yet?

Not really.

I mean, you (well not you) but women out there are free to have as many abortions as they can handle so that's out.

As far as euthanasia ... I am with you on this one but people aren't ...

And no, I am not going to stage a coup for a right to kill myself with dignity - seems pretty ridiculous.

jin choung
05-28-2008, 01:34 AM
Not really.

I mean, you (well not you) but women out there are free to have as many abortions as they can handle so that's out.

As far as euthanasia ... I am with you on this one but people aren't ...

And no, I am not going to stage a coup for a right to kill myself with dignity - seems pretty ridiculous.

please...

you're losing grasp of the subject of our argument. that last statement has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the original argument. you may need to refresh yourself so go back and re-read what you objected to, my original statements and then come back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
now,

these are all areas where the religious right seeks to legislate religion.

that is the assertion you deny. ???

not saying they're necessarily successful (thank goodness) but that they're oh so very trying.

so, the list (yes really) is:

1. ABORTION
2. STEM CELL RESEARCH
3. EUTHANASIA (again, doesn't matter if you need it, want it or respect it)
4. EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM

and i can add

5. PRAYER IN THE CLASSROOM
6. 1950's revision to pledge of allegiance

i can probably go on....

jin

p.s. btw, my assertion that the religious right is legislating religion is often argued over the "rightness" of it... i've not YET (until you) heard an argument on the EXISTENCE OF IT!

Cageman
05-28-2008, 01:38 AM
But wait until you hear this .... there are people out there who still enjoy having a king and a queen and keep referring to some members of society as lords ... now that's medieval.

They are not at all in power though and our king has made some embarrasing statements throughout the years, but overall they represent Sweden quite well, and in very few circomstances (Nobel priceceremony is a good example).

They have yet to pick a fight though...

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 01:47 AM
maybe less than you think. christian right seems to press a case that may not be all that valid:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Gospel-Founding-Fathers-Making/dp/0812976665/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211956480&sr=8-1
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/jon_meacham/2006/11/the_consummate_american_holida_1.html#more

interesting to note that it was actually baptists PUSHING FOR separation of church and state!!! LOL.

http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

the third one i just found in looking for the first two but he cites sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINALLY, they were christians that owned slave.

wonderful men of god?

pfffft.

jinLike you, Jin, there's always someone with a contrary opinion, regardless what the facts declare...that Washington was a Deist...now, why would you pray daily to a God you believed just sat back and did nothing but watch...and declare in public addresses the hand of Providence in the affairs of men, when Deist believe just the opposite?
Always some braniac coming up with a loony spin on how our founders were really closet atheists. And yes, their one great sin was not undoing slavery early, when they had the chance...Jefferson pushed for it's abolishion during the first congress, and came within one vote of pulling it off. Christian legislators like William Wilberforce in Britain's parliment fought tooth and nail all their lives to abolish it...well before America finally did.
Abortion is the evil of our day, and apathy allows it...I don't hear you decrying that, Jin?

If it's a woman's body afterall...why is the DNA of the fetus/baby not the same as the mother's, but unique? Huh? People then were just as adament that blacks weren't real humans...just as stupid an argument for abortion today as there was for slavery then.
Stupid questions like, "When does life begin?" When Human Development begins (at conception)!...duh? :foreheads Before conception there no biological development AT ALL. After conception...IT'S ON! The Woman's body is merely a host, nurturing a brand new life in the most critical formative stage period. Great time to tear the child limb from limb, right?
As retarded the arguments were for the slave trade, so it is with NARAL and PLANNED HOMICIDE....I mean PARENTHOOD (nice way to cover up with just a single word, huh?), for abortion. Not a severed baby leg to stand on. They have services to SELL...taxpayers to bilk!
Same scheme going on today...but Jin ain't saying jack! :D
Same oppression of the voiceless, under the thumb of Big Business (Abortion IS a multi-billion dollar INDUSTRY...that's right. No free rides. No cash, no abortion)
Think about this...since Roe vs Wade in 1973, more than 45 million Americans were dismembered in the most vulnerable stage of human development, and never got their chance to be somebody...to love somebody, and be loved by...somebody. Where ya at Jin?

While the tree huggers are protesting about wilderness conservation, they should be protesting first about the conservation of little Jin's growing in his mother's womb, waiting for the day he'd get to use Lightwave for the first time...only to switch to the dark side...that is Maya. :D

jin choung
05-28-2008, 01:56 AM
Abortion is the evil of our day, and apathy allows it...I don't hear you decrying that, Jin?

what up nash... we ain't doin' the last name thing anymore? : )

re: your quote.

pfffft....

no it's not. it's soooooooooooooo not.

unbelievers don't agree with you. many christians don't agree with you. lots of other religions don't agree with you.

i'm not apathetic. i'm FOR IT!

also, read the links. especially the second one. meacham is not saying they were atheists or all deists... but most weren't christian the way you would know it.

and read the third link. the man is CITING SOURCES. what factual errors do you protest?

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

and if they're factual, who's on the wrong side of the gullibility fence?

jin

warmiak
05-28-2008, 01:58 AM
They are not at all in power though and our king has made some embarrasing statements throughout the years

I wasn't actually refering to your King but whatever ...

I say, keep your king and all your princes and whatever else makes Sweden a unique place ... it works for you .

Just don't come on this forum and claim that Americans are brainwashed idiots because they have a president who likes to talk about God and they tend to prefer to watch Fox News instead of BBC.
It seems to work for them and when it stops working they will do something about it - perhaps even this fall.

jin choung
05-28-2008, 01:59 AM
btw,

seeing you try to stretch abortion to slavery was quite entertaining!

omoshiro desu! clap clap clap

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:09 AM
Just don't come on this forum and claim that Americans are brainwashed idiots because they have a president who likes to talk about God and they tend to prefer to watch Fox News instead of BBC.


why not? i thought this was a free country? free speech? all that jazz?

what is less palatable imo, is going around telling people what they can and cannot do.

disagree if you will but prohibition? please....

jin

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 02:18 AM
what up nash... we ain't doin' the last name thing anymore? : )

re: your quote.

pfffft....

no it's not. it's soooooooooooooo not.

unbelievers don't agree with you. many christians don't agree with you. lots of other religions don't agree with you.

i'm not apathetic. i'm FOR IT!

also, read the links. especially the second one. meacham is not saying they were atheists or all deists... but most weren't christian the way you would know it.

and read the third link. the man is CITING SOURCES. what factual errors do you protest?

You asked for it...
George Washington:
"You do well to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."
Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor ( Washington, D.C.:W.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol.XV, p.55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."
Source: Washington, Writings (1932) , Vol. V, pp244-245, July 9, 1776

"I am sure there never was a people who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the United States."
Source: Washington, Writings (1838), Vol.X, pp.222-223, to John Armstrong on March 11, 1792

"I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the states over which you preside, in His holy protection…that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, without an humble imitation of whose example, we can never hope to be a happy nation."
Source: George Washington, The Last Official Address of His Excellency George Washington to the Legislature of the United States ( Hartford:Hudson and Goodwin, 1783 ), p.12.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness."
(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States…Preparatory to his declination ( Baltimore: George and henry S. Keatinge, 1796), pp.22-23.)

Can you snicker "Separation of Church and State?" I thought you could! :D

warmiak
05-28-2008, 02:18 AM
these are all areas where the religious right seeks to legislate religion.


Heh .. so you are upset because there are people out there who , using perfectly acceptable means, are attempting to get their agenda passed as yet another law of the land.

How is that different from a typical liberal group trying to pass another law aimed at micromanaging my personal affairs ( be it in relation to guns, smoking, what kinds of of light bulbs I am allowed to use or what kind of food I am being served at a local McDonald ) ?

This is what democracy is all about – all kinds of people trying to get things done the way they think it should be done.

There are plenty of checks and balances built into the system and they tend to work pretty well, even if it takes some time before things get back to normal.

Personally, I think there are plenty of much more potent and potentially dangerous villains just waiting to dictate what a modern and civilized member of society is supposed to look like and Christians aren’t on the top of my list.




disagree if you will but prohibition


Just a little bit of friendly advice – I don’t have the power to prohibit anyone from anything.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 02:21 AM
btw,

seeing you try to stretch abortion to slavery was quite entertaining!

omoshiro desu! clap clap clap

jinSame principles apply...the victim doesn't have a multi-billion dollar industry...as you so vehemenantly stated earlier...running the show

Have you ever talked to someone whose mother nearly had them aborted...sit down and ask them what they think about the subject...Jin. Then scream to them....HEY MAN, I'M ALL FOR IT!!!!

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 02:24 AM
Heh .. so you are upset because there are people out there who , using perfectly acceptable means, are attempting to get their agenda passed as yet another law of the land.

How is that different from a typical liberal group trying to pass another law aimed at micromanaging my personal affairs ( be it in relation to guns, smoking, what kinds of of light bulbs I am allowed to use or what kind of food I am being served at a local McDonald ) ?Cause it's not Jin's agenda...don't you get it yet. It's wrong cause it's not what Jin wants himself.

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:34 AM
You asked for it...


i did! great! did all of that come from sunday school?

take this:

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country" (George Washington, 1789).

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

James Madison, principal author of the constitution:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

"Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. " (ibid)

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ." (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith." (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?" (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)


i've got more. how about you? got anyone besides washington or did your bible study not get that far yet?

and finally,

are you saying that the quotes i'm stating are incorrect lies someone made up? if not, how do you explain it?

jin

Iain
05-28-2008, 02:36 AM
Same principles apply...the victim doesn't have a multi-billion dollar industry...as you so vehemenantly stated earlier...running the show

Have you ever talked to someone whose mother nearly had them aborted...sit down and ask them what they think about the subject...Jin. Then scream to them....HEY MAN, I'M ALL FOR IT!!!!

What about the rape victim who learns she is pregnant? She'd probably like to hear that some people are all for her being able to decide what to do.

And that's just two, albeit extreme, situations that ordinary people face every day. Who are we to decide what avenues should or shouldn't be open to them?

Cageman
05-28-2008, 02:36 AM
Have you ever talked to someone whose mother nearly had them aborted...sit down and ask them what they think about the subject...Jin. Then scream to them....HEY MAN, I'M ALL FOR IT!!!!

*LOL*

As if you would know what you would miss if you were aborted?

Come on...

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:40 AM
Heh .. so you are upset because there are people out there who , using perfectly acceptable means, are attempting to get their agenda passed as yet another law of the land.

How is that different from a typical liberal group trying to pass another law aimed at micromanaging my personal affairs ( be it in relation to guns, smoking, what kinds of of light bulbs I am allowed to use or what kind of food I am being served at a local McDonald ) ?


ummmmm... social studies class? you're asking some EXTREMELY basic and fundamental questions here....

"separation of church and state" not ring a bell?

the difference... is... OBVIOUS.

y'know, fleeing religious persecution and all that? ring any bells?

i've got some quotes here if you need a refresher.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

conservative agenda APART from religion is fine. economic policy, interventionism, etc... that's all fair game. just like the LIBERAL agenda.

religion as LEGISLATION... seriously. that's madness.

we've got the christian agenda now but what if the hindus DO come into power in 2012 and they want to outlaw the consumption of meat? you good with that spacecowboy?


jin

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 02:40 AM
back in the saddle...
Ooohh noooo....separation of church and state, I declare...separation of... :twak:...George Bush and something n'other

George Washington
1st President of the United States In his "Inaugural Address."

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect...No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."
(source: Annals of Congress (1834), Vol. I pp.27-28, April 29th, 1789.)

"True religion affords to government its surest support."
(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, 1838), Vol.XII,pp. 166-167, to the synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America in October 1789.)

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle…"
(Source: George Washington, address of George Washington, President of the United States…Preparatory to his declination ( Baltimore: George and Henry S Keatinge, 1796), pp.22-23.)

John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people . It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francess Adams, editor (Boston; Little Brown and Company, 1854),Vol.IX, p.229, to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798.)

You ok, Jin? Thought you were about to pass out there on us. Carrying on...

John Adams

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."
(Source: John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28,1813.)

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:43 AM
What about the rape victim who learns she is pregnant? She'd probably like to hear that some people are all for her being able to decide what to do.

And that's just two, albeit extreme, situations that ordinary people face every day. Who are we to decide what avenues should or shouldn't be open to them?

or if the life of a fetus endangered the mother... the list can go on and on.

but i'll save abn ranger the trouble of typing-

their answer is: "but it's not the baby's fault".

but again, CHRISTIANS disagree with him. so his is just a voice in a crowd no matter how much bible he bangs.

jin

warmiak
05-28-2008, 02:43 AM
As if you would know what you would miss if you were aborted?


Hmm… yep, once they are dead, they won’t be missing anything because, guess what, they are dead !


You have a brilliant argument here … if you are in business of killing people, this is the kind of moral opening that could revolutionize the genre.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 02:43 AM
*LOL*

As if you would know what you would miss if you were aborted?

Come on...
Or if it matters to you what your future holds if someone snuffs out your life tomorrow? You're saying it's perfectly ok for someone to murder you cause you won't know what would've happened? Does that make ANY sense?
No Abortion argument does...Always falls flat on its face

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:44 AM
back in the saddle...
Ooohh noooo....separation of church and state, I declare...separation of... :twak:...George Bush and something n'other

George Washington
1st President of the United States In his "Inaugural Address."

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect...No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."
(source: Annals of Congress (1834), Vol. I pp.27-28, April 29th, 1789.)

"True religion affords to government its surest support."
(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, 1838), Vol.XII,pp. 166-167, to the synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America in October 1789.)

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle…"
(Source: George Washington, address of George Washington, President of the United States…Preparatory to his declination ( Baltimore: George and Henry S Keatinge, 1796), pp.22-23.)

John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people . It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francess Adams, editor (Boston; Little Brown and Company, 1854),Vol.IX, p.229, to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798.)

You ok, Jin? Thought you were about to pass out there on us. Carrying on...

John Adams

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."
(Source: John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28,1813.)

wonderful. so how do you explain my quotes then? lies lies and damn lies?

i'm asking you to think here.

jin

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 02:47 AM
or if the life of a fetus endangered the mother... the list can go on and on.

but i'll save abn ranger the trouble of typing-

their answer is: "but it's not the baby's fault".

but again, CHRISTIANS disagree with him. so his is just a voice in a crowd no matter how much bible he bangs.

jinJesus said there would be tares among the wheat (Matt 13: 24-30), so what else you got?

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:47 AM
: )

so everyone who disagrees with you is an infidel.

why does that sound familiar?

: )

hey nash, so what about my question? how do you explain the quotes that seem to say the direct opposite of your quotes?

jin

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 02:48 AM
wonderful. so how do you explain my quotes then? lies lies and damn lies?

i'm asking you to think here.

jin You're the one backtracking...first it's the founders weren't really Christians...then it's well...well...they weren't good ones?!
To quote a famous philosopher:
PPffffffttt!

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 02:51 AM
: )

so everyone who disagrees with you is an infidel.

why does that sound familiar?

: )

hey nash, so what about my question? how do you explain the quotes that seem to say the direct opposite of your quotes?

jinThe point is, he said there would be plenty of pretenders among the fold...you'd know the real ones by their fruit. Advocating tearing babies limb from limb in their mother's womb...FOR CONVENIENCE sake? Yeah...real Christian there?

Funny how abortionists always fall back to their last line of defense...a mother's health...isn't that sweet of you, Jin?
Now, how many of those 45 million babies were risking their mother's health?
You don't care cause it's not you being mutilated...Terrorist have more rights...at least more advocates with guys like Jin around

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:51 AM
You're the one backtracking...first it's the founders weren't really Christians...then it's well...well...they weren't good ones?!
To quote a famous philosopher:
PPffffffttt!

who's backtracking? i said their christianity was not likely to be one you would recognize... or say you agree with.

so you got your quotes.

i got mine. we can evidently go at it all night with the quotes. i'm just as fast on google as you are.

so who's right?

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:53 AM
The point is, he said there would be plenty of pretenders among the fold...you'd know the real ones by their fruit. Advocating tearing babies limb from limb in their mother's womb...FOR CONVENIENCE sake? Yeah...real Christian there?

right,

so people who don't agree with your interpretation are infidels. or heretics if you will.

pop question hot shot: define "extremist".

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 03:01 AM
this is interesting:

George Washington

Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

who's quotes are lies lies and damn lies? who's quotes come from reliable sources? so who's right?

i'm going to bed but final point:

DOES ANYONE HERE DISAGREE THAT AMERICA IS A COUNTRY FOR ALL ITS CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THEIR FAITH (OR LACK OF) FREELY AND BE FREE FROM THE TENETS OF OTHER RELIGIONS?

if not, we have no disagreement.

if so, we're far far far too far apart to even begin discussion.

this my friends is why we have war. : )

don't worry, it'll all get sorted either when rapture comes or the robots take over.

jin

Cageman
05-28-2008, 03:03 AM
Or if it matters to you what your future holds if someone snuffs out your life tomorrow? You're saying it's perfectly ok for someone to murder you cause you won't know what would've happened? Does that make ANY sense?
No Abortion argument does...Always falls flat on its face

Victims of rapists, people with intelligence handicaps, young people etc..

Are you saying these people will be good parents, especially if they themselves doesn't want a child? Parenthood is ALWAYS about taking responsibility; if someone who is clearly not able to take such a responsibility, it is best for both the parent(s) and the UNBORN child to make abortion.

No?

Then we have "normal" people who makes abortions. What about those? Are they mature enough to take care of a child if they can't protect themselves in the first place?

Come on... to many children have bad, bad childhood as it is...

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 03:04 AM
right,

so people who don't agree with your interpretation are infidels. or heretics if you will.

pop question hot shot: define "extremist".

jinWhen he called Disciples...he told them "Whoever has my commands and DOES THEM, this is the person who loves me, and my Father will love him, and I too will love him and reveal myself to him"

So...those who say..."Nay, I'm gonna do things on my terms" is the real Christian? Is that what you're saying?
So, I do my best to adhere to what he says and I'm labled by YOU an... extremist liberal socialist...an Extremist? Great, sign me up?!!!

When I was in the Army, I was always under the impression that doing what you were told was a GOOD thing...listening to a liberal like yourself tell it...that's lunacy...
Again, sign me up!!!

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 03:10 AM
Victims of rapists, people with intelligence handicaps, young people etc..

Are you saying these people will be good parents, especially if they themselves doesn't want a child? Parenthood is ALWAYS about taking responsibility; if someone who is clearly not able to take such a responsibility, it is best for both the parent(s) and the UNBORN child to make abortion.

No?

Then we have "normal" people who makes abortions. What about those? Are they mature enough to take care of a child if they can't protect themselves in the first place?

Come on... to many children have bad, bad childhood as it is...Again...real slow-like....HOW-MANY-OF-45,000,000 babies killed were due to rape, incest, severe deformity,etc.? Give me some real numbers please.

You don't even have a severed baby leg to stand on with that fallacious argument. Fact is...before Roe vs Wade, that's where the law drew the line...allowing them in only such cases. So, what's you point in letting anyone kill their child because they made an irresponsible choice? What about the babies that are already out? Do the mothers get a do-over? Ever heard of the concept of ADOPTION? Worked before a time or two.
Come on guys...don't you have anything better than that?

warmiak
05-28-2008, 03:11 AM
Are you saying these people will be good parents, especially if they themselves doesn't want a child? Parenthood is ALWAYS about taking responsibility; if someone who is clearly not able to take such a responsibility, it is best for both the parent(s) and the UNBORN child to make abortion.

Nah, dead end , trust me - you don’t want to go there …

Unless, of course you don't mind executing 3 year olds who were unfortunate enough to be born to unfit/abusive/take-your-pick-of-social-ill parents.

Cageman
05-28-2008, 03:17 AM
Stages of Development of an Animal Embryo

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/2k4ch39repronotes.html

This part is very interresting:

"The first 3 weeks are the most hazardous periods in your life. Roughly one third to one half of all fertilized zygotes never make it beyond this point. Sadly, many women will have at least one miscarriage in their childbearing years."

During these three weeks there are few things I would call "human life".. no brains, no organs, just a bunch of cells that has divided themselves and created what could become a human child, but still it isn't more "killing" than doing a handjobb and flush the sperm in the toilet.

IMHO...

warmiak
05-28-2008, 03:23 AM
http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocour...epronotes.html


Interesting.
Take a look at Week 16. It surely does look like a human being doesn't it ?

Cageman
05-28-2008, 03:27 AM
Interesting.
Take a look at Week 16. It surely does look like a human being doesn't it ?

And you TOTALY ignored my post...

Thanks! :)

warmiak
05-28-2008, 03:29 AM
I didn't.
I just took a mental shortcut ( not to mention setting you up for an ambush ) :)

Mitja
05-28-2008, 03:31 AM
I suggest you people to read "On the Genealogy of Morals" (F. Nietzsche).
Plenty of interesting thoughts on mankind and the origin of our moral...Anyway, I ask you these questions:
Why is the human species the "elected" one? Why killing a man is a sin, and killing a cat is bad, but not a sin?
God created the Earth and everything on it: aren't all creatures God's cratures? Why are men above everything?

Cageman
05-28-2008, 03:31 AM
Well, I stand by my comment..

At week 3 there isn't enough life to support even the smallest bug. Not much of a killing...of course, you may not kill bugs, spiders and other small critters?

If you can do that, you shouln't have a problem with my reasoning.

Iain
05-28-2008, 03:36 AM
but still it isn't more "killing" than doing a handjobb and flush the sperm in the toilet.

IMHO...

Don't you know that every sperm is sacred!??!

Cue Monty Python quotes.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 03:37 AM
this is interesting:

George Washington

Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist." Thomas Jeffereson was a Deist...who respected Christs teaching greatly enough to mandate that the BIBLE be the primary text within the Washington DC school district and had services held in the capital building...some separation of Church and State he provided...seeing the fallacious arguement that he instituted the whole thing.
Liberal spin at its finest.
Washington, may certainly not have been a Christian in the most traditional sense. Nevertheless, he was a very devoutly religious man, who believed the God of the Bible and was seen praying and studying the Bible for hours each day...when you're a deist you don't believe GOD has any dealing with men, but just observes. A Deist closely resembles an agnostic. Nevertheless, HIS LIFE contradicted any such notion...despite whatever twist some liberal tries to latch onto in effort to lessen his contribution to our Christian Heritage. Liberals can't stand the truth that this nation has a pronounced Christian founding...like you they wish it were anything but, so they have to weaken what they can...as if you had ANY point at all (so what if everyone of them weren't part-time clergymen, what's your point? the overwhelming majority of the original signers of the declaration and congress itself were devout Christians...so again, what's your point, really?)

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 03:40 AM
I suggest you people to read "On the Genealogy of Morals" (F. Nietzsche).
Plenty of interesting thoughts on mankind and the origin of our moral...Anyway, I ask you these questions:
Why is the human species the "elected" one? Why killing a man is a sin, and killing a cat is bad, but not a sin?
God created the Earth and everything on it: aren't all creatures God's cratures? Why are men above everything?Ah, yes...Nietzshe. Hitler's favorite Philosopher. We should all take in the ideas that forged a monster of the ages!
I'm sorry, but it's Fred...who is dead.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 03:42 AM
Well, I stand by my comment..

At week 3 there isn't enough life to support even the smallest bug. Not much of a killing...of course, you may not kill bugs, spiders and other small critters?

If you can do that, you shouln't have a problem with my reasoning.

So, you're reaching to justify brutality upon the weakest, most vulnerable...simply because...they're only in the earliest stages of human development? And we don't kill them after they come out of the womb because? ....Because?
Keep making sense, why don't you?

Iain
05-28-2008, 03:46 AM
the overwhelming majority of the original signers of the declaration and congress itself were devout Christians...so again, what's your point, really?)

Well what about the point that things have changed quite a bit since then? What about the growing numbers of religions in our society and the growing numbers of non believers?

What about the atheist or agnostic parents who don't teach their children any particular religion (or anti religion) only to find it is stuffed down their throats as the indisputable truth at school?

That is what's wrong with an atheist being seen as unfit to rule a country like the ones we live in-we are taught to fear such people, to place no trust in them-when actually they have none of the 'sheep' qualities referred to earlier like believing things which have no foundation other than stories because their parents or teachers told them to.

warmiak
05-28-2008, 03:49 AM
Well, I stand by my comment..

At week 3 there isn't enough life to support even the smallest bug. Not much of a killing...of course, you may not kill bugs, spiders and other small critters?

If you can do that, you shouln't have a problem with my reasoning.

Sure, I won't deny - at 3 weeks you have a valid point.
The problem is that the Abortion Act of 1974 (Sweden ) stipulates that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman ( partly quoting from Wikipedia)

Anyway, I am not a religious person and I don't really have a dog in this fight.
I just find it amusing to watch people attempting to perform the moral equivalent of a triple somersault trying to justify their position on abortion.

From a purely moral and humanitarian point of view – it is just about impossible.

You are gonna have to admit that it is mighty convenient to be able to kill an unwanted baby …

Mitja
05-28-2008, 03:50 AM
Ah, yes...Nietzshe. Hitler's favorite Philosopher.

Nietzsche was popular with a lot of people. And justbecause he was Hitler's favorite (???), desn't make him a monster.
Maybe you say so because you read some Nietzshe's books? Or beacuse you've HEARD he was "Hitler's favorite Philosopher"?

IMI
05-28-2008, 03:51 AM
And don't get me wrong...... They should show opposing views. Its their job.

I'm not here to debate whether the Iraq war is "right" or "wrong". People have their opinions which are formed for a variety of reasons - I have mine, too, but one thing I've learned over the last few years is I've not seen *one* person swayed to change his opinion in an internet forum.
Suffice it to say I believe it will be some time before we actually know whether or not Iraq was a success or failure. And I'm not going to argue that, either. :)

But in response to the above quote, "They" being the media.

No, that's not true. The media has become a full-blown political powerhouse and has willingly accepted that role and run with it.
I don't see much balance at all in the media today. The norm seems actually to lean towards extreme imbalance, through the blatant interjection of opinion throughout almost all stories they cover. But not just opinion - if you read and listen closely, you can almost see and hear them saying, This is how you should feel about this...this is how you should believe.
About the only thing which is spin-free coming from them these days are the sports scores.
Even the weather reports are tinted heavily with global warming innuendo.
And then you hear in the US about incidents where our own Congress makes attempts to quiet down people like Rush Limbaugh, because they don't like his message, and attempts to enact laws to make free speech on the radio more *fair* through *mandating* conservative shows to offer a liberal balance...
Well, that's getting a bit scary. Might as well do away with that part of the 1st Amendment altogether. One day they will.

iojabba
05-28-2008, 03:52 AM
Well what about the point that things have changed quite a bit since then? What about the growing numbers of religions in our society and the growing numbers of non believers?

What about the atheist or agnostic parents who don't teach their children any particular religion (or anti religion) only to find it is stuffed down their throats as the indisputable truth at school?

That is what's wrong with an atheist being seen as unfit to rule a country like the ones we live in-we are taught to fear such people, to place no trust in them-when actually they have none of the 'sheep' qualities referred to earlier like believing things which have no foundation other than stories because their parents or teachers told them to.

When the atheist and agnostics outnumber the christians then we will have one as Pesident. It may happen.

iojabba
05-28-2008, 03:54 AM
I'm not here to debate whether the Iraq war is "right" or "wrong". People have their opinions which are formed for a variety of reasons - I have mine, too, but one thing I've learned over the last few years is I've not seen *one* person swayed to change his opinion in an internet forum.
Suffice it to say I believe it will be some time before we actually know whether or not Iraq was a success or failure. And I'm not going to argue that, either. :)

But in response to the above quote, "They" being the media.

No, that's not true. The media has become a full-blown political powerhouse and has willingly accepted that role and run with it.
I don't see much balance at all in the media today. The norm seems actually to lean towards extreme imbalance, through the blatant interjection of opinion throughout almost all stories they cover. But not just opinion - if you read and listen closely, you can almost see and hear them saying, This is how you should feel about this...this is how you should believe.
About the only thing which is spin-free coming from them these days are the sports scores.
Even the weather reports are tinted heavily with global warming innuendo.
And then you hear in the US about incidents where our own Congress makes attempts to quiet down people like Rush Limbaugh, because they don't like his message, and attempts to enact laws to make free speech on the radio more *fair* through *mandating* conservative shows to offer a liberal balance...
Well, that's getting a bit scary. Might as well do away with that part of the 1st Amendment altogether. One day they will.


Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that there job is to slat both ways. I mean that on a subject with diffent views, they should show both. They are supposed to be the "Public Watchdog".

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 03:58 AM
What about the atheist or agnostic parents who don't teach their children any particular religion (or anti religion) only to find it is stuffed down their throats as the indisputable truth at school?Are you talking about Evolution...being shoved down their throat? You won't find nary a liberal who is against that. So one perspective IS ok to treat as dogma, or not? Which will it be?

Iain
05-28-2008, 03:59 AM
When the atheist and agnostics outnumber the christians then we will have one as Pesident. It may happen.

That's true and it's exactly the issue. US citizens in particular think that politics and religion are bound together.
Why? Why can't morality be judged without a rule book that constantly contradicts itself and has almost no relevance today (and not just when read literally)?

iojabba
05-28-2008, 04:00 AM
wonderful. so how do you explain my quotes then? lies lies and damn lies?

i'm asking you to think here.

jin

Your quotes aren't lies....

But separation of Church and State is.... kind of.

In that it doesn't exist in U.S. Law. It is quotes so much that most believe that it is in the Constitution.

It is a quote as you said, but its from a letter form Thomas Jefferson describing his interpritation of the First Amendment. Since then it has been quoted by the Supreme Court so many times that it ingrained in our culture now.

Iain
05-28-2008, 04:02 AM
Are you talking about Evolution...being shoved down their throat? You won't find nary a liberal who is against that. So one perspective IS ok to treat as dogma, or not? Which will it be?

The one which has some basis in fact and reality and may actually provide a foundation for useful future study.
The one which hasn't started countless wars never mind school age bigotry and hate.

I reckon.

iojabba
05-28-2008, 04:04 AM
That's true and it's exactly the issue. US citizens in particular think that politics and religion are bound together.
Why? Why can't morality be judged without a rule book that constantly contradicts itself and has almost no relevance today (and not just when read literally)?

Many people stear their lives by a moral compass and choose to elect representatives that claim to represent the same. There are a lot of people who have a moral belief system similar to Christians but are not Religious and therefor they vote for Christians.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 04:08 AM
Nietzsche was popular with a lot of people. And justbecause he was Hitler's favorite (???), desn't make him a monster.
Maybe you say so because you read some Nietzshe's books? Or beacuse you've HEARD he was "Hitler's favorite Philosopher"?Yes, Hitler gleaned his favorite concept...a master race...from Nietzsche and his fondness of Darwinism, which is all about "Survival of the fittest" True Darwinian bedrock principle. Huxley himself said in effect that no one in their right mind believes the savage races (blacks and generally non-caucasian) to exist for very long...alluding to their "weaker" minds (less culturally sophisticated).
Yes, Nietzsche's bitterness toward his father really made for some fine "anarchic" philosophy as well. Kill off the "less desirable" of the human specie and create a master race...we went through that before, didn't we?

parm
05-28-2008, 04:26 AM
You are gonna have to admit that it is mighty convenient to be able to kill an unwanted baby …

It's actually illegal to kill babies.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 04:27 AM
The one which has some basis in fact and reality and may actually provide a foundation for useful future study.
The one which hasn't started countless wars never mind school age bigotry and hate.

I reckon.It's fact cause you say so? That's like Autodesk saying "Buy Now" but essentially leasing. They think that just because they can self-label it what they please, that it makes it something other than what it in fact is...a lease. So, just because a majority of atheists label evolution as REAL science doesn't make it so. They are afraid of SOMETHING cause otherwise they'd welcome the comparison models in class...just so they could PROVE evolution is the more accurate model. No sir...they won't even let it get to the front door...let alone on the same table for a side by side, point for point comparison/debate.
If Evolution REALLY is science, throw that puppy down next to ours and lets compare notes! Can't do it....they don't appreciate having massive holes punched in their thesis'. They're SKEEER'ED, I tell ya.

So, on one hand you don't want Christian principles which this nation was founded upon, taught...but it's totally ok for a completely contratry and hostile ideaology (which has no root in the founding of this nation) taught dogmatically, solely because it suits our social moraise...am I getting this right?

Mitja
05-28-2008, 04:31 AM
Yes, Hitler gleaned his favorite concept...a master race...from Nietzsche and his fondness of Darwinism, which is all about "Survival of the fittest" True Darwinian bedrock principle. Huxley himself said in effect that no one in their right mind believes the savage races (blacks and generally non-caucasian) to exist for very long...alluding to their "weaker" minds (less culturally sophisticated).
Yes, Nietzsche's bitterness toward his father really made for some fine "anarchic" philosophy as well. Kill off the "less desirable" of the human specie and create a master race...we went through that before, didn't we?

What you are saying is true, because of the thing called propaganda. After his death, many writings were changed (even by his sister) to fit nazi's propaganda.
I read some of his books (some twice), and I haven't seen the "kill the less desirable" stuff you are talking about.
With my today's first post I didn't want to engage a discussion on Nietzsche himself, but on some concepts, like: man the center of the universe - why are we so special?
And other things that I don't now how to translate.... :D
But I'll try: I like this discussion.

warmiak
05-28-2008, 04:46 AM
It's actually illegal to kill babies.

Another backflip.

warmiak
05-28-2008, 04:49 AM
man the center of the universe - why are we so special?
.

That's simple.
Because we define reality as we know it - at least I do.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 04:59 AM
The one which hasn't started countless wars never mind school age bigotry and hate.

I reckon.Ooops. Almost let you get by with that one. I'll give you a chance to retract it first. Take it back or you're in checkmate...mate. :D
Give you a little hint...4 actually....Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...Check your numbers chief, and come back to the table.

Iain
05-28-2008, 05:03 AM
...am I getting this right?

No.
I don't disagree with 'christian' principles being taught. That's just basic morality given a name.

I didn't say evolution was fact either. Rather that it was based upon fact. Evidence shows this and although the evidence is not irrefutable, it's better than nothing.

parm
05-28-2008, 05:09 AM
Another backflip.

Not at all. It's a question of having rational perspective on the matter.

iojabba
05-28-2008, 05:12 AM
I didn't say evolution was fact either. Rather that it was based upon fact. Evidence shows this and although the evidence is not irrefutable, it's better than nothing.

Many Christians actually believe in evolution as part of the "intelligent design", and they have no problem with evolution being taught in school. They save the intelligent design part for sunday school.

warmiak
05-28-2008, 05:16 AM
It's a question of having rational perspective on the matter

Having a legal system that considers killing of a pregnant woman a double murder while at the same time allowing women to perform abortion as a matter of choice, is not exactly rational ... Convenient but not rational.

iojabba
05-28-2008, 05:20 AM
What about the rape victim who learns she is pregnant? She'd probably like to hear that some people are all for her being able to decide what to do.

And that's just two, albeit extreme, situations that ordinary people face every day. Who are we to decide what avenues should or shouldn't be open to them?

You are right, those are extreme situations and almost all people agree that the the mothers health should be taken into consideration first. I would say that the mental health of a rape victim who becomes pregnant to be at risk, and would fall into this catagory.

I am against abortion in principal, but I'm not prepared to make it illegal across the board. If for no other reason than people will do it anyway and in less than ideal circumstances (putting both mother and fetus in danger).

I think that most would agree that it is overused as a form of birth control.

Iain
05-28-2008, 05:24 AM
I am against abortion in principal, but I'm not prepared to make it illegal across the board. If for no other reason than people will do it anyway and in less than ideal circumstances (putting both mother and fetus in danger).

I think that most would agree that it is overused as a form of birth control.


I agree with all of that. People will do it anyway and always have.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 05:26 AM
No.
I don't disagree with 'christian' principles being taught. That's just basic morality given a name.

I didn't say evolution was fact either. Rather that it was based upon fact. Evidence shows this and although the evidence is not irrefutable, it's better than nothing.Much of the same "Science" as you call it is a matter of looking at the very same artifacts and specimens...things like fossil records...then as you would in a court room debate the veracity of evidence each side presents. Take the Peking Man, for example...much has been shown to debunk it, yet it still is taught as absolute fact in most classrooms.

Also, examining a given species' traits that tend to point toward a design model than a chance model, then vice versa...how is that NOT SCIENCE? Looking at geological samples that seem to refute the millions of years earth age, or fossils that seem to scream "Catostrophic Event Took Place." Why is that less science than what atheists adhere to?
So what is the harm at taking an objective look at the body of evidence and letting the students decide each for themselves where it leads. If it leans in favor of no creator...so be it. But if it does, why must it be excluded from the class room simply due to some spurious "Separation of Church and State" law that only exists in the minds of liberals...and is found no where in the constitution?
If it leads to a Creator, then that's as far as it goes in the classroom. There would not be any theology classes involved, but Liberals act as if it would.

Iain
05-28-2008, 05:26 AM
Ooops. Almost let you get by with that one. I'll give you a chance to retract it first. Take it back or you're in checkmate...mate. :D
Give you a little hint...4 actually....Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...Check your numbers chief, and come back to the table.

What are you talking about?

I can't see how you are addressing my point at all
.........erm.....buddy?.

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 05:28 AM
I agree with all of that. People will do it anyway and always have.Again...guys...stop and think through what you are saying. I bet you are lousy chess players. :D

So, if abortion is murder, then we need to allow all other forms of murder...because murderers are going to murder anyway?
You guys are too easy!

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 05:33 AM
What are you talking about?

I can't see how you are addressing my point at all
.........erm.....buddy?.I'm giving you a chance to retract what you said about religion being the basis for all wars and evolution/atheism NOT being such. So, I take it you're going to stick with that losing hand? When I just tipped you off, that you're going to lose that arguement....badly.

parm
05-28-2008, 05:37 AM
Having a legal system that considers killing of a pregnant woman a double murder while at the same time allowing women to perform abortion as a matter of choice, is not exactly rational ... Convenient but not rational.

Continually extending the premise under debate, isn't exactly conducive to rational discussion. Is it?

A woman is not just allowed to have an abortion at will. As a matter of choice. As you put it.

There exists an upper limit, relating to the extent of the pregnancy term. Up to which an abortion is allowed.

That cut off time. Does, indeed. Form a legitimate basis for discussion. And could perhaps vary. Taking into account, (amongst other things), the current state of medical science. And the survivability of the foetus. At any given stage in it's development, should it have been born. Any religious or ethical factors, outside the legal framework. Are purely matters of individual choice.

iojabba
05-28-2008, 05:37 AM
Again...guys...stop and think through what you are saying. I bet you are lousy chess players. :D

So, if abortion is murder, then we need to allow all other forms of murder...because murderers are going to murder anyway?
You guys are too easy!

The problem is....most people don't consider it murder. Even most people who are against it don't. I personally am against it, but I'm not sure that I am prepared to lock up anyone who doesn't think exactly the way I do about it.

iojabba
05-28-2008, 05:41 AM
Continually extending the premise under debate, isn't exactly conducive to rational discussion. Is it?

A woman is not just allowed to have an abortion at will. As a matter of choice. As you put it.

There exists an upper limit, relating to the extent of the pregnancy term. Up to which an abortion is allowed.

That cut off time. Does, indeed. Form a legitimate basis for discussion. And could perhaps vary. Taking into account, (amongst other things), the current state of medical science. And the survivability of the foetus. At any given stage in it's development, should it have been born. Any religious or ethical factors, outside the legal framework. Are purely matters of individual choice.


I think that is the point. Its a matter of individual choice.

However, I have never heard of a court case where someone wasn't charged with a double murder becuase she was only in the first tri-mester. I could be wrong.

iojabba
05-28-2008, 05:48 AM
Again...guys...stop and think through what you are saying. I bet you are lousy chess players. :D

So, if abortion is murder, then we need to allow all other forms of murder...because murderers are going to murder anyway?
You guys are too easy!

I'm not saying that we should endorse it. Far from it, it should be discouraged especially as a form of birth control. Like I said, many don't consider it murder. Many also consider the death penalty murder....but lets not get into that please.

On a side note. Has anyone else had trouble downloading the 9.5 documentation?

Iain
05-28-2008, 06:04 AM
I'm giving you a chance to retract what you said about religion being the basis for all wars and evolution/atheism NOT being such. So, I take it you're going to stick with that losing hand? When I just tipped you off, that you're going to lose that arguement....badly.

If you want to remain credible in this discussion, you shouldn't alter my words to strengthen your own case. They are there to check back on.

I didn't say all wars. I said countless.

If you read that post again, you'll also see that I didn't mention atheism. The alternative (in the context of our discussion) to creationism is evolution-not atheism.
I'm not sure any of the wars or conflicts you mention were caused by the theory of evolution.

Lightwolf
05-28-2008, 06:07 AM
I simply said that back in the 80s if one wanted to get his/her news in their native language the only option was a state run news agency.
If you want decent news you'd read a newspaper anyhow - and you still do. And the only state owned I can think of is probably Prawda ;)

Cheers,
Mike