CommanderJohnson

Ok, lets spell this out nice and simple: Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States The facts in 1-8 of what Saddam is doing do NOT suddenly change if the UN says "Don't attack Iraq". Just because other countries say "those problems aren't problems" or "those problems dont exist", doesn't make them magically disappear. What Bush did in his speech, and his statements following it, were very smart. He sent the message that either: The UN does it's job and keeps some semblence of legitimacy. OR The United States will take out Iraq and the UN will lose legitimacy and become irrelevent in world affairs. Like it or not, but throughout history, the groups with the guns/weapons/power were the ones in charge. After WW2, the US had the power, it had the nukes, and it was a superpower. Following the Cold War, the United States was the only one left. The UN is based on the idea that the United States is going to support it and go along with it and provide a military to enforce it's edicts. Without the US, the UN has no power, and means nothing. Back to Iraq. Iraq will be attacked and Saddam will be removed from power. Either the UN will do it, or the US will do it by itself. Either way, problems 1-8, and the "possible problems" will be solved. If the UN says no, then they are removed from the process of decision making, and all the better because of it. There is no way we can morally stand by and watch Saddam continue his reign of terror, and there is no way that we can pragmatically stand by and watch Saddam become a threat to the rest of the world. Regardless of if he is supporting terrorism or not, him gaining nuclear weapons just adds another possibility for terrorists to possibly get weapons, and his possession of chemical and biological weapons is just as bad. It's obvious that most of the other arab nations dont want us there, because when people see freedom and it works, they are much more likely to NOT like their own regimes, and rise against them. That's why we are getting conflicting messages from Arab nations. They secretly want Saddam out of power (because he's a threat to THEM due to his irrational behavior...if he nukes the US, I don't think we'd have an issue nuking him back and irradiating the Middle East), but they also don't want us in there (because the concept of another free nation besides Israel threatens their control over the population). Some may ask, so why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? They are oppressive to their people. Why don't we attack North Korea, they may be getting WMDs. My response: So what? It doesn't matter the order we do it, and it doesn't matter if we get them all. Iraq is the only country that meets all the problems I listed, and the other problems will be weakened after we take out Iraq. Maybe after we take out Iraq, other oppressive nations will fall. Maybe they won't. But one thing is obvious. If other threats rise because of our attacks on Iraq, we will take them out too, and any other threats, on and on until there are no more oppressive regimes, no more dictatorships, no more terrorism, and no more threats to our security.

No ideas how to help me out with XP?

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Fact is for science, faith is for religion. It is a fact that either: 1. God exists. 2. God does not exist. Having faith in something doesn't make it true. Does anyone disagree with my last post/2 posts?

A ship the size of the BC mk3 with virtually unlimited size bays, 50000 marines, 50000 pilots, 25000 fighters, 50000 PTA turrets, 1000000 shield, 10000000 hull, and 10000 of every other person type, and then a 1 second jump speed and recharge time.

To invert your mouse, turn it upside down. Problem solved.

quote:Originally posted by goaliejerry: "So how can you say the holocaust was wrong? It was good for Hitler, it was betterment for the people of his country, he was doing it for the "betterment of mankind". So how was Hitler wrong? How were Stalin's purges wrong? Why is the murder of mentally retarded people wrong? Why is murdering 2 year olds wrong? You can justify all of those instances as "good for mankind" or "good for society", so why are they wrong? Without a God, morality is relative to the situation and the results of actions, not the intrinsic wrong involved in them. Without a God, a group gaining power and oppressing everyone else isn't wrong, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen, since it could possibly serve the betterment of society. Just look at slavery, how was it not "better for all of mankind?"" This doesn't make any sense. This had nothing to do with what I said. Just because someone makes a claim to be doing good does not mean that good was done. Even if they believe that they are doing good, if in practice they are doing injustice then thats all there is to it. I would argue that one could not possibly justify these occurances as working for the betterment of mankind, and frankly I am confused as to why you even bring them up. You clearly ignored my words regarding the existace of morality regardless of god. Your claim that without a god that morality is realitive is an extremely tenuous position based on your desire to show that God does exist. In every example you cite, the "betterment of all mankind" is not being served, because in each case a certain group of "man" is being deprived, and as a result not "all" of mankind are being bettered are they? Think about it. What you say makes no sense. You ask why all of those things are wrong? Because they are unjust. Does the existance of justice demonstrate the existance of god? Certainly not. You say to "Just look at slavery, how was that not the betterment of mankind?" I think I'll just take a step back and let you rethink what your contending here. See, this is a difficult debate to have with you because you have already made up your mind. If I present you with logic you can choose to ignore it and stick by your guns. Your quoted paragraph above is a non sequitur. It has absolutly nothing to do with anything I say, and I don't understand why you even brought it up.The "greater good of mankind" is totally arbitrary. You can define the "greater good" and "mankind" as whatever you want, and thus justify every atrocitiy ever committed. Besides, that isn't even my main point. My main point is the risk calculus that if you have faith and are wrong is always going to be better than not having faith when you really should have.

I've had some Internet Connection problems under Win XP PRO with ping times to games. They start off OK but they spike up a lot and get up to around 500-800 ms when they used to be 120-160 under WIN 98 and maybe even XP home. I have a direct phone line connect with an internal DSL modem to the internet. Any idea how to get the pings stable and low under XP Pro?

So, what's your age? And Lawrence Welk isn't bad, used to watch it with my grandparents, although I only enjoyed the swing music.

quote:Originally posted by goaliejerry: No my friend, I must also disagree with you that a godless existance means life without morality, a sort of survival of the stongest if you will. For does morality and justice not serve the greator good of mankind, and therefore benefit the individual, who thereby might benefit from the exhibition of justice himself? Why does a god need to come into play when living the moral life is seemingly better for all of mankind? (Granted a truly and completely moral life is non-existant on this earth, and the imposition of such a life would not bide well with the populace at large!) So how can you say the holocaust was wrong? It was good for Hitler, it was betterment for the people of his country, he was doing it for the "betterment of mankind". So how was Hitler wrong? How were Stalin's purges wrong? Why is the murder of mentally retarded people wrong? Why is murdering 2 year olds wrong? You can justify all of those instances as "good for mankind" or "good for society", so why are they wrong? Without a God, morality is relative to the situation and the results of actions, not the intrinsic wrong involved in them. Without a God, a group gaining power and oppressing everyone else isn't wrong, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen, since it could possibly serve the betterment of society. Just look at slavery, how was it not "better for all of mankind?" quote: Ahh very good, while I would change the wording where you say "chance doesn't cut it," for by the nature of chance, it very well might. But you are correct, science will not be able to disprove the existance of god. However, it won't be able to prove the existance either. And I'm sure you'll agree, a lack of disproof does not constitute proof. No evidence exists to prove I killed the poor girl, so does that mean I absolutly didn't? Well, the way I look at it is this way: It'll never be possible to PROVE or DISPROVE the existance of a God with science, since we'll never know, or never be able to comprehend, the "first step ever". I then look at how great humanity is, and miracles, etc, as clues that God may exist. I may have come across incorrectly before, but I don't believe that it is PROOF, it just helps me overcome disbelief to have faith in God as opposed to faith in chance. Then I look at it on a very pragmatic level: If there is no (Christian) God, and there is no morality made by Him, and it doesn't REALLY matter what we did in life after we die, and then when we die there is just nothingness or reincarnation, then believing in God and having faith in God is not going to hurt anything, and we'll all end up the same in the end no matter what we believe, and my following the Christian set of morality will probably lead me to living a happier more content (even if a totally constructed/fake/illusion) life. But then on the other hand, if there IS a God, and I reject the possibility of faith, and I decide that what I do during life doesn't REALLY matter after death, and then I die, i'll be in for a huge shock, and according to the spiritual/religious beliefs that I have, i'd be in for an everlasting seperation from God and unimaginable pain and suffering (as opposed to everlasting happiness). Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that people who don't believe in God are going to be hurt in any way after death, since there is no way that anyone on this Earth can tell you for sure what will happen to you after death (and that's what disgusts me about religious zealots who think they know God better than anyone else...they are contradicting their own beliefs), I am simply saying that my personal moral compass dictates to me that if I do whatever I want during life, without thinking about a higher meaning and about life after death, then I will personally be in for a whole bunch of pain. So, to put it into real, real, real simple terms: If i'm right about God and I follow His teachings: I'm going to be in supreme happiness after I die. If i'm wrong about God and I follow His teachings anyway: I'm going to be a much nicer person than I otherwise would have been during life, and i'll end up the same as everyone else when I die. Then when you factor in that if i'm right and then I ignore the teachings i'm going to be in supreme suffering forever, i'd rather follow the teachings and be wrong, than not follow em and feel utter suffering, just like if you have a choice between walking through a possible minefield and walking around it, most people would choose to take the long route without the risk of an infinitely bad consequence of stepping on a mine. quote: 3. No. As far as miricles, I don't want to address this, for we've already mentioned that such occurances may be simply misunderstood natural occurences. Yes, but there's no evidence why those "misunderstood natural occurences" seem to happen with surprising consistency on religious objects, statues, and areas. It seems illogical to have faith towards them being natural occurances when they are both totally unexplainable AND center on belief in God. I'd expect that to lean toward more a CLUE (not proof), that there is a higher power/God, as opposed to that "it's just a fluke".

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Ok, so we canÔÇÖt explain a phenomenon and thus it must be god. Typical religious thinking. LetÔÇÖs assume that you are correct, and that some entity has to have caused the big bang (never mind that there is no evidence to suggest this). Since that entity had to come from somewhere, which is supposedly impossible before the big bang, then it has to be god. There is simply no basis for making that jump, just because itÔÇÖs something we donÔÇÖt understand DOESNÔÇÖT necessitate it being god. There are two possibilities here that both cannot be true. Option 1: The universe has always existed, the big bang just existed and happened. By chance the Earth was created, by chance humans evolved to the level we are now, by chance there is an extremely strong belief in religion or a higher power throughout the world which people die for, and by chance miracles happen. Of course, if we exist by chance, human life isn't notably valuable and there is no need for any sort of morality or law. At that point, we are simply animals, who do not have any value other than efficiency and ability to bring pleasure. If you are not useful, you should be destroyed, since under the idea that all human life is by chance, then human life has not been made higher by a God, thus morality is meaningless. The majority and groups and power should be able to do whatever they want and oppress whoever they want since, in the end, none of it matters. Basically, that idea of creation that denies the existance of God justifies people doing whatever they want that makes them feel good while lowering humanity to the level of animals. It also says that somehow, we beat the largest odds possible, and exist without any outside help. If we find some other sentient life in the universe, that theory becomes less and less likely. If you take the current odds however, and look at all the very, very, very, very, very, very, very miniscule chance that we were created by chance, and compare it to the current scientific thinking that everything has to have a CAUSE of some sort, then it is much more likely that God exists. Option 2: The first step was God, who caused this to all happen or started the chain of events. Explains morality, raises humanity to a sacred level, and explains just about every objection to the idea that the universe existed by chance. Maintains that the universe was deliberate and planned. Just because science can't prove definitively that God exists, it certainly can't disprove it, and never will be able too, since as far back as science ever determines causes, it will never be able to prove that the first cause was not God. Sure, it's religious thinking, but it's also much more likely than the impossibility of the existance of God. I agree with you totally that much that is attributed to God can probably and will probably be explained by science, but there is absolutely no way that science can ever prove the very first step ever. quote: As far as the improbability of us being created by chance, unlikely things happen. That only proves that either A: we got really lucky, B: we donÔÇÖt understand all of what went on in the process that created life, or C: all of the above. It's probably more likely, statistically, that if I jump into the air i'll float into space and then live without oxygen than we were created by chance. quote: Intrinsic order to the universe? Compared, pray tell to what? You canÔÇÖt say our universe is orderly unless you have a different universe that you can say is disorderly. Where, pray tell, did you find a second universe? If we were created by chance, so was every other being, and all of the laws of science, and every other thing that science has proven to have order. Even if humanity was created by chance, there had to be some sort of plan or order or logic behind it all, and "chance" doesn't cut it, at least not at the level we know about chance. Sure, one day science may be able to explain most of it away, but it'll never be able to disprove the idea of God doing it. quote:As for miracles that cannot be explained by science, that is unsupported. There is no reason to believe that they cannot be explained by science, simply that they cannot be explained by MODERN science. A few thousand years ago a comet, the movement of the sun and mood, the planets, these could not be explained by the current level of science, but now they are. If you were to show a laser pointer to a scientist of the 14th century (or whatever passed for scientists back then) he would assure you that it was indeed magic. But that doesnÔÇÖt mean it is magic, only that it was beyond the scope of science at the time. You fail to realize the inherent contradiction. If you have faith in science because it works, and then "miracles" happen now that directly contradict science and do things that science SHOULD be able to explain currently (blood coming out of statues eyes even when the statue is moved?, imprints of faces staying on cloth for years, visions?), then don't those miracles prove that the science that you believe in is flawed? At that point, having faith that God exists is just as logical as having faith that science will eventually be able to explain everything. quote: And what exactly do you mean when you say the uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds. Humanity is unique in the since it is the most evolved species on earth, but genetically were are very similar to apes (I think itÔÇÖs about a 98% match with certain species). As for the power of our minds, IÔÇÖm not sure I understand. If your referring to so called psychic powers, we need to start a whole new argument, if your referring to something else kindly explain. Not talking about psychic powers. I'm talking about the fact that humans are the only species that even grasp the concept of religion, and life, and meaning of life, etc. I don't see any apes even questioning or considering the idea of God. And to respond to Goaliejerry: If it comes down to choosing between the universe always simply existed, and God always existed, it is much more logical to assume that God always existed, since it: 1. Is supported by science that everything has some sort of cause. 2. It takes away the concept that we somehow beat the very, very, very, very smallest odds imaginable. 3. Explains and justifies the concepts of morality and miracles. I think I may have been incoherent toward the beginning, but i'm half asleep.

The main reason why a God of some sort has to exist is because something had to start it all. Sure, lets say an alien existed and caused the Big Bang, but how did the alien come into existance? Every effect has a cause of some sort, so there has to be one entity that is all powerful and everlasting, tangibly seperate from the reality/universe as we know it that started it all. Then the multitude of secondary reasons, such as how hard it would be that we would be created by chance, the intrinsic order of the universe that had to have put in place, the multitude of miracles that can't even be partially explained by science, the extreme uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds, etc.

If you believe in God, you aren't agnostic. From what you said, your what some would call a "non-practicing christian". I'm pretty sure your only agnostic if you dont know if there is a God or not and don't have belief either way. Atheists simply don't believe in a God. (Always used to get atheist and agnostic mixed up)

Your attempting to argue against a moral calculus that is the fundamental basis for every group that has freed themselves from oppression throughout history. You can't worry about extrinsic factors that are not directly under your control when attempting to fight against oppression, otherwise oppression always wins. Simply put, it ISNT our fault, just like it's not my fault if I kill someone trying to kill me, and because of that the robber's brother kills my family. I'm morally justified in defending myself. It's not *MY* fault that my family is dead, it's the brother's fault. If we take out Iraq, it's not OUR fault that idiotic governments start killing their own people. We're morally justified in stopping the oppression of a group of people. It's not OUR FAULT that their people are killing each other, it's the GOVERNMENTS fault. I may not totally understand the world, but there is the concept of FREE WILL which every person on this planet has, and directly contradicts your idea that people shouldn't act morally because bad results could happen. Under your "logic", if there was a holocaust happening right now in Iran, we shouldn't stop it because other Arabs would get mad because of it and they might kill each other. What kind of morality are you operating under, because as it stands your making two distinct points: 1. We should preserve human life. (not do anything that might even possibility cause death) 2. We should not preserve human life. (allow any atrocities to happen to any group because action may violate #1) I fail to see any coherence. We should let people die through our complicity but not our actions? It is better to LET people die than try to stop it? Do you somehow sleep better at night thinking that if you do NOTHING to stop an atrocity, that somehow that's better than doing good and trying to stop the atrocity? Does it ever cross your mind that maybe doing the morally right thing and possibly causing physical pain is better than doing the morally wrong thing (through complicity) and allowing oppression? You can't say that people have a right to live and then leave out the fact that they also have a right to live with RIGHTS and FREEDOMS. It is far better to *attempt* to keep a person *alive*, *free*, **AND** with *rights* than to *assure* that a person is kept *alive* ***without*** *freedom* and *WITHOUT* *rights*. You find one person who HAS been oppressed under a totalitarian regime and is now free, that would rather be back in that oppression than face the POSSIBILITY of death. Too bad there isn't anyone.

quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: If I hate Gammulamns, does that makes me a racist? Nah, it makes you a target, and subsequently, dead.

The terrorists probably won't pull the same stunt again, but some suicidal moron might, so it's a good idea to make security as tight as possible, just to be safe. Last thing we need is them to be able to pull off the same thing twice. That makes us look week AND incompetent. As for not letting the pilots have guns, WHY NOT?!?!? They already hold your life in their hands when they fly the plane, and if they want you to die they could probably crash the plane, or open a door and decompress the plane and turn off the oxygen masks, or any number of things. All in all, if the pilot wants you dead, your dead anyway. Why not be SURE that a terrorist can't get into the cockpit, lock himself in, and then kill you. Why not let the pilot shoot the guy? Also, I don't think that a decompression from a bullet hole would be able to literally suck you through it. Your body is a little bit tougher than jello. Besides, if you fasten your seat-belt like your supposed to, there isn't really much of a danger there. Also, you forget the fact it's better if your plane decompresses and you all die at 30,000 ft than a terrorist takes control and smashes it into the White House.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Keep in mind that if we invade Iraq the Arab out cry for action would be very, very strong....how do you think those governments are going to keep the peace....if they even try.....duh.....they are going to be cracking heads all over...but they are Muslim so I'm sure you could live with that.... I'm out...for now.Gerwith, a Professor of Philosophy @ University of Chicago stated: " The required supplement is provided by the principle of the intervening action. According to this priciple, when there is a causal connection between some person A's performing some action (or inaction) X and some other person C's incurring a certain harm Z, A's moral responsibility for Z is removed if, between X and Z, there intervenes some other action Y of some person B who knows the relevant circumstances of his action who intends to produce Z or who produces Z through recklessness. The reason for this removal is that B's interventing action Y is the more direct or proximate cause of Z and, unlike A's action (or inaction), Y is the sufficient condition of Z as it actually occurs. An example of this principle may help to show its connection with the absolutist thesis. Martain Luther King Jr. was repeatedly told that because he led demonstrations in support of civil rights, he was morally responsible for the disorders, riots, and deaths that ensured and that were shaking the American Republic to its foundations. By the principle of the intervening action, however, it was King's opponents who were responsible because their intervention operated as the sufficient conditions of the riots and injuries. King might also have replied that the REpublic would not be worth saving if the price that had to be paid was the violation of the civil rights of black Americans. As for the rights of the other Americans to peace and order, the reply would be that these rights cannot justifiably be secured at the price of the rights of blacks." Applying it to your objection, we should look at the parallel. MLK was fighting a moral injustice even though he knew it was cause a negative reaction, and even deaths. Two concepts then came into play: 1. The idea that it wasn't HIS fault that the people died, it's the fact that the opposition groups to him killed them or the rioters made the decision. 2. The fact that a loss of rights and ignoring a moral justification makes any loss of life worthwhile due to solving an oppression of a group of people. The same concept applies to any attack on Iraq or any other totalitarian nation. We are stopping a direct opppression/moral injustice/denial of rights. The intervening actor, or the totalitarian governments, the propoganda, and radical groups calling out for revenge, are the cause of any sort of retaliation by other muslims and any sort of unrest in the Middle East. The same two factors come into play: 1. It isn't OUR fault that there will be much head-cracking by Muslims. It is the intervening actors that feed them the propoganda that we are trying to destroy them (as opposed to freeing them), as well as the people who decide to become violent. We don't cause them to become violent, just like MLK didn't cause people to attack his marches and protests. 2. The fact that a loss of rights and ignoring a moral justification makes any loss of life worthwhile due to solving an oppression of a group of people (the Arabs who are living in the stone age politically). Additionally, it saves American lives. You can't justify not acting just because other actors may or will do violent acts. Sure, many people may die, but I don't know one group in history that has preferred oppression to death after they are made aware of the injustice. [ 09-11-2002, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Ok, the "Life" topic I made caused me to post it. Read the Life topic to see some background. We debate, discuss, and argue politics, so let's do the same with religion and religious beliefs. As far as any sort of taboo as to discussion religious issues, it wouldn't make much sense. If we can talk, discuss, and defend our political beliefs, we should certainly be able to do the same with religious beliefs. I also think, however, that the same standards should be applied. Just because someone on here may be a satanist is no reason to attack the PERSON. If we are going to question and be critical of other's religious beliefs and increase our understanding of them, we should always remember to attack and question the ARGUMENT/BELIEF and not the person. Now, as for my religious/spiritual beliefs. I believe in God, and I believe in it because of a greater meaning and potential for human life. I don't think that it's possible that a being that can have the thoughts and beliefs and analysis and feelings that I do could be simply destined to reproducing and dying in an endless cycle until one day humans manage to wipe themselves out. I also believe in God because of the simple idea of creation. Sure, people can believe that the Big Bang's matter just existed and then the Big Bang happened, but there's no way that it can be claimed that the Big Bang existing and then just "happening" is MORE likely than God simply existing and causing the Big Bang. If you have faith in the Big Bang simply existing, there's no reason not to have faith in God simply existing. That, combined with the idea that huamns are great, combined with the idea that there's no point to ANY common morality if there is no God, and combined with the many beliefs/miracles of millions of people around the world gets me to the point where I choose to have faith in God existing over the idea of "The Big Bang Exists and there's nothing after death, so life doesn't matter". I also believe and have faith in Jesus. Although not to the extent I do of God (since God can be reasoned much easier), I have a belief in Jesus because of the sheer number of people (I know that they all could be wrong, but it's how I have faith), but also because of the miracles attributed to Him and His direct implication that humans are important and that they can be forgiven for wrongdoing and there is life after death. I would consider myself a non-denominational Christian due to my beliefs, but I do not believe in any "organized church organization", since they cause you and try to force you into a specific way of believing and a certain way of worshipping which seems to me to intrinsically contradict the concept of free will. "You have free will to make your own decisions, but you better do and believe what our church says or your wrong and going to hell". I think we can all have the possibility to find God on our own, and priests/bishops/reverends have no greater "connection" to God than anyone else. They may devote their lives to God, but that doesn't make them necessarily more right or gifted than anyone else. I have some more specific beliefs, but that is enough for now.

That quote is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO true no matter how you look at it. Small extrapolation to make this a big topic: Same idea goes along with capital punishment, and here's why: First of all, objections to capital punishment have to be based on the concept of there being a God. If there is no God, it doesn't matter how long someone is kept alive, since they won't be able to carry on their biological function of reproduction anyway in a prison for life. If there is no God, then killing a murderous person is the same as killing a violent animal. Nothing special about humans except that they are more advanced. Doesn't give them a greater right to life. Now, lets assume that there is a God, and lets assume i'm arguing against someone who is using that as justification against "God deals with forgiveness, I just arrange the meeting." If there is a God, and He is all powerful (as all monotheistic religions believe, as far as I know...), he would know the outcome if we let the criminal/terrorist live, anyway. He would be able to see if the criminal/terrorist was going to turn toward God, and act accordingly. Thus, if we kill someone (such as terrorist or serial killer), it doesn't matter when he dies, since time means nothing to God, and God would know what would have happened anyway if the dead person had lived. So, in terms of terrorists and capital punishments, I agree with the General.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Yep superior firepower worked in Vietnam...yep just got to lean forward....just take those casualties...it's all in the math er.oops. Oh come on. This would be nothing like Vietnam, and we both know it. Sure, it sounds good "we dont want another Vietnam", but so many things were against us in Vietnam that are untrue in Iraq it's ridiculous: 1. We've gone to Iraq before, already proved it isn't another Vietnam. 2. Vietnam was in jungle warfare that the troops weren't prepared for and heavy equipment couldn't be accurately used, nor could our extremely advanced (comparitively speaking) tech. 3. Couldn't fight an offensive war cause of China. 4. Didn't have the true support of the nation. Attacking Iraq we'd have almost every advantage. We could use our tanks, planes, and other tech. The troops have been trained for open and urban combat, they wont have any allies, the people will support it in the US (for the most part...Bush isn't going to do it halfheartedly. I think he'd rather not be re-elected than back down from Saddam), and we've already proven it'll work. There are other reasons too, but it isn't going to be a Vietnam. More likely be an Afghanistan or Ksosovo. (oh yeah, and if you remember, the liberals said Afghanistan would be a Vietnam. Wow, really?!?!?) quote: And I realize this probably doesn't bother you. It is clear you don't value human life. Just American life...and thats a maybe. You are ready to make the tough call...like the nuke freaks in the cold war that actually thought someone could actually win something like that. Most knew deterrence was important. But some (and I bet this would be you) thought we could win..you and your kind are scary.Um, American life is human life. I think all of us here value HUMAN life, it's just that when it comes down to AMERICAN life vs IRAQI life, we would much prefer that IRAQI life is lost than ours, and that goes directly with NATURAL LAW. If your threatened, you have every right in the world to kill the source of danger. It doesn't matter how dangerous he is RIGHT NOW, it's how dangerous he CAN be, is TRYING to be, or is GOING to be. Saddam=threat, better he dies and Iraqis die than Americans die. We don't need to WAIT to die before stopping the threat. Also, I don't think any of us here think that we would have survived a nuclear exhcnage with the USSR. This is notably different, especially since no one who CURRENTLY has nuclear weapons would be stupid enough to sacrifice their country and power just to take out some Americans. These radical, propoganda filled, totalitarian islamci states however (Iraq included), have no problem with losing all the lives in their country after killing Americans (since they will ALL go to heaven with 50 virgins...remember?) At least Stalin and the other USSR heads didn't think that getting killed was bright. quote: You believe in power and you fail to grasp motivation. This country has power but that culture has motivation. A medieval motivation that is truly amazing and horrific when pushed to it.Just had a discussion on this today being 9/11 and all. Lets think about this: The countries that are greatest supporters of terrorism are totalitarian regimes, and generally muslim. These governments directly support the idea that American culture is evil. The people in charge may recognize some sort of economic or political injustice on them by the US (but not really an injustice on them, since the ones in charge are RICH...the ones in power only advocate attacking America since America is a threat), but their people's motivation is simply fed to them. They truly belive that Americans and America is EVIL, because of the indocterination of that belief by groups in power which caters to their religion (all they really have when kept oppressed). They believe that killing Americans and dying in the process will get them to heaven. They believe this at the same level we believe that if we don't breathe, we will die. This is all good, but it all falls back to the totalitarian regimes. The regimes in the Middle East realize that the more power the US projects, the more danger there oppressive regimes are in of falling because their people will become more and more informed. Israel is an example of freedom in the Middle East, and that is why they are hated by surrounding Muslim regimes. The United States is going to attack Iraq, and they don't want to see Iraq attacked because that would be another free nation in the Middle East. In order to maintain power, the Arab nations convince people to hate the United States and Israel and other democratic nations. It comes down to good vs evil, and moral relativism is pure ****. Either natural law is right, and people should be free, or not. Take your pick. If you believe in your convictions and you believe oppression is evil, you can't say "let them suffer and break free themselves". We must use our power to help them and free them, otherwise we are LETTING the oppression continue which is just as bad as oppressing them ourselves. The reason why people are taught to hate us is because our values directly contradict theirs. We believe in freedom, their governments believe in religious based totalitarianism. We believe in the rights of all in our country and support diversity, they believe in oppressing anything that is a threat or different. When we project our power in any way, that is a THREAT to their nations, and those in power react violently and by propoganda. Some of you may say that we should just stop projecting our influence and leave it alone. Some of you may think it'll solve the problem. It won't. The United States is STILL a beacon of freedom, as is Israel. Our values clash regardless of what power we project. Waiting for more problems just delays the inevitable and lets them enemies more powerful. You may think it's wrong to "control another nation", but it's not if the other nation is oppressive now. The idea and concept of oppression, as a whole, is wrong. We keep debating whether or not the US should attack Iraq and how the US is going to cause pain to itself by being active, but so what? Through eliminating totalitarian regimes (which is what we are going to do, I bet we aren't going to stop with Iraq), we are freeing people. We are getting rid of EVIL regimes. I don't know how any of you can justify NOT attacking Iraq on humanitarian grounds, while these nations OPPRESS THEIR PEOPLE ANYWAY. Let their people live in peace, even though they are living in virtual slavery? Your living in a dream world if you think every person who hates America hates America because they are well informed and made a concious decision (the majority doesnt have the access to media and information). It comes down to politics. Regimes want to stay in power. Us spreading freedom makes their regimes weaken. They try to scare the US off with terrorism. We get rid of regimes, the people stop the terrorism (or even if they don't, it stops their capability. a bunch of poor oppressed muslims in Iran can't swim across the Atlantic ocean or book passage on a ship with bags of sand). quote: We need to fight the good fight. This is not it. If the world comes together then it is the good fight. If they don't then war would be the action of a rogue nation and the shame would be on all of us. Rogue nation is a threat constructive term that the United States coined in order to justify negative relations with North Korea, Iraq, Libya, etc. It holds no real meaning. There would be no shame in taking out Iraq. Just because every other nation in the world has no convictions behind any sense of decency or morality is no reason for the United States not to. Sure, the US is full of immorality, but letting oppressive regimes exist is worse than inadvertantly killing civilians in a war. Your advocating a double standard and it's repugant! Look: 1. The United States should not oppress other nations because it oppresses and hurts the people and causes negative reactions toward us. (inversly, your advocating you must want us to help the people and think the people should not be oppressed) 2. The United States should not attack other nations because it could kill their civilians and it doesn't go along with the "international community". (inversly, your advocating we should not let civilians of other nations die, and we should do what the "international community" wants) Ok, fine, that's great, you seem to be advocating that human life is very important, and people should not be oppressed. I'm guessing you'd agree with those two statements? If i'm wrong, feel free, but before you answer, note this: 3. The other nations oppress and kill their people TO BEGIN WITH. Your advocating that we LET OPPRESSION CONTINUE because it'd be bad for us to end it? And those oppressive regimes should continue to try to kill AMERICAN LIVES? The oppression by the US and current regimes would even out (I think the US would be less oppressive, but i'll even say that it evens out), then it comes down to the lives. Do we let the regimes CONTINUE hating us because of our values, and thus put American lives at risk, or do we replace the CURRENT oppressive regime with a US supported regime (oppressive or not, doensn't matter), where American lives ARENT at risk. No matter how you look at it, lives are better off with Iraq attacks and taking out totalitarian regimes. If it is right to attack Iraq morally, it shouldn't MATTER if other nations support us or not. Morality isn't relative or a democracy. Either oppression is wrong and ending those regimes is right, or we should let oppression continue and everything we stand for means nothing. It'd be nice if we get other nations to support us, but if they don't see the simple fact that an attack on Iraq would be RIGHT under nautral law and just about every other form of common decency, then it doesn't change the objective truth that oppression is wrong, and those regimes oppressions of their people is wrong. If you want to argue that Iraq's own people aren't oppressed, i'll simply preempt that with the fact they have no CHOICE in their government, and the fact Saddam GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE. We didn't put no-fly zones over Iraq just because we were bored. quote:Fear leads to hate. Don't be so scared and you won't hate them so much. 80% of what you advocate is aggression without thought, ignorance and intolerance. You may well get your war....but no one will really win. Only losers like you will think something will be accomplished. Stop the ad hominem arguments. The arguments may be stupid, but the supporter of the argument isn't a loser. Also, the causality links are breaking down. Iraq is another Vietnam? Iraq caused 9/11? The constitution is going to be destroyed by attacking Iraq? C'mon guys, lets try to keep some form of cohesion and rational thinking in our discussion, and if your going to say something not posted or implied by every piece of media, give a link or two. We all know the general history of Saddam's insanity and politics, but even I haven't heard any evidence dierctly linking Saddam to 9/11. Not that I care either, since being an oppressive regime and violating weapons inspections is enough for me. Anyway my rant is over, I know it's sort of incoherent and long, so if anyone wants me to clarify a point, I will, but to sum up: 1. Oppression is bad. 2. Iraq's regime is oppressive. 3. We are getting attacked because our ideals directly clash (and is thus a threat) with oppression no matter what our Foreign Policy is. 4. Either you advocate oppression or you don't. If oppression is wrong, it should be ended. Just because more countries "vote" that we shouldn't stop the oppression doesn't mean that it's NOT oppression and that it's NOT wrong. Wrong is wrong, wrong isn't a democracy, and the concept of letting Iraq continue oppressing it's people is tantamount to letting a rape happen when you could have stopped it. On the other hand, if you think oppression is fine, then you shouldn't have any objection to us using up our stockpile of weapons and bombing Iraq to radioactive glass and becoming more powerful along the way.

I'm not sure if i've posted on this thread yet or not, but banning video games is stupid. I usually don't resort to such simple and innane comments as stupid, but it IS. Why would you outlaw a type of entertainment and then ban tourists from using it? Who the **** is going to gamble on a game of counter-strike or BCM? If the police are too stupid to know what gambling games are, they need to spend the money used enforcing this ****ing stupid law on training their ****head cops. Morons.

quote:Originally posted by Grayfox: ok if the pilots get into a shootout with the terrs, then whos flying the plane??? id feel much safer with 3 sky marshals on the flight... or with me packing my own "porquito muerte" than i would with the pilots blasting caps down an aisle full of passengers. now if someone tried forced entry into the cockpit, then i could see the pilots doing that. but if its in the passenger cabin, there should be sky marshals there to take care of it... hell where do i apply?All you really need is one sky marshal. Terrorist gets up, rushes the cockpit, sky marshal gets up and shoots the terrorist in the back about 10 times. I think every flight today (9/11) had a sky marshal on it. I have to disagree with letting people with concealed weapon permits to carry guns on planes. Don't need panicing people to shoot the wrong person, or the sky marshals to shoot passangers, etc. Letting the pilots carry guns is a good idea.

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: I would say that you have to find someone to share your life with, and focus on yourself and that one other person. Make your personal enjoyment, and that of your partner, the goal of your life, and to hell with everyone else. Of course, Im a shameless hedonist and something of a sociopath, so perhaps that colors my views. Your view doesn't really seem tainted by hedonism. Everyone on here seems to agree that a big part of life is finding someone/something to focus on/care about. quote: As far as religion goes, many of you may recall that Im an atheist. I dont believe in miracles, simply unexplained (but not unexplainable) phenomena. If there is some supreme being (which I supremely doubt) then he (or she, or it) is a creature of science as much as we are, simply more advanced. Anything beyond a peoples ability to explain with science tends to be relegated to the category of magic. If you showed a laser pointer to a group of aborigines who had never seen modern technology before, they would think it was magic, but it isnt, its science. All the phenomena that are explained through religion, these are just that, phenomena. The existence of human life, the joy someone may take in helping another, the cruelty of an untimely death, or narrowly avoiding misfortune. Its like the laser pointer, beyond our knowledge, but not in the least magical or divine. Ahh, I wanna disagree with this but I don't want this thread to get totally off topic. Might want to respost in the thread i'm about to create if you want. quote: So what does this mean for Dredds question? It means that yes, we are biological machines that exist solely because we happen to be a type of biological machine that is good at self replication and survival. It means that, as biological machine, our function is to exist so long as to reproduce and then to assist our offspring (and the offspring of others of our species) in existing long enough to reproduce, and so fourth and so on until our extinction. Pretty miserable philosophy eh? But then, the truth is so often bitter and lies so often sweet. So, youre a self replicating (though not all by yourself) biological machine whose function is reproduction and existence, what do you do? My answer would be forget about all that, forget about reproducing and assisting the next generation in existing long enough to reproduce, why bother. Have fun, either by your self or with someone you love, and to hell with the rest of humanity.Wow. That IS depressing. Thanks for the insight. One day I may look back and think "wow, she was right", but for now (as i've previously posted), I think way too highly of myself to give up on the reality/illusion that I have massive potential beyond that. Dont get me wrong though. If Dragon Lady or anyone else shares a view that seems to contradict my idea that I and other humans are great and should have some massive potential beyond what it seems like, feel free to post or explain even more. I really would like to understand the "humans=biology only" philosophy, since I have been indocterinated with much catholic religious teachings and I am very, very arrogant/self-confident, however you want to put it. Feel free to post here or on the new religion topic, depending on what your view is justified on. (If your saying we're more because of God/religion, post there. if your saying it is because of personal theory and belief and experience, post here) quote: Umm thats rather ageist. I read that and I was more then a little offended, I mean Im not a dreadfully nice person, but thats just rude, not to mention crass. Making a generalization about someone because of there age is one thing, but thats an extremely strong, not to mention incorrect, statement (I mean, think about it for a moment, how long can you actually masturbate at a time anyway, one would think you would get rather raw after a while). Why do you think I never mention my age, its a prime excuse for belittling someones ideas. Ether your too young, and you will come to agree with me as you mature (objections are moot, because its obvious you will change), or else youre an old fart, with dated ideals (and perhaps a touch of senility) even if your not all that old. Bah! You cant win! Ah, well, he was justified with the generalization. Most teenagers I know, when I talk to them, are really deep people and have a lot of potential, but their actions toward others and in groups show very little thought beyond personal pleasure and self-gratification. They'll eventually come around, but most teenagers would not take the time to critically question their activities, motives, and beliefs. I normally keep my age secret, but I know people here aren't going to dismiss my beliefs due to my age (as proven on the many liberal vs conservative debates), and it was relevent to the topic at hand. Also, if anyone was ever stupid enough to dismiss me due to my age, i'd probably post a nice rant about how many ways that shows that their argumentation is flawed . Anyway, So Dragon Lady, how old are you? quote: quote: we have a word those persons...punks we love to lock up punks! Um Im not going to get started (primarily because I dont feel any kinship to punks) but thats more then a little hostile. Maybe Im takes this wrong, but it makes you sound like a real zealot. We gotta have zealot cops. Rather have em locking up every criminal than letting em all run free.

Take out Galcom HQ. They are a haven for criminals! *whistles innocently*

quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: [QB] quote:So, any comments about my 3rd or 4th post with all the different points? [Jumps up and down waving arms.] Second (third?) to last post first page. See it? Feedback important this time. Not sure if you meant you wanted my feedback to it, but anyway, thanks for that post, and i'm planning on going to college no matter what, and then going into the AF as an officer.