RE: Iraq: For Solutions only

RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 12:12:32 PM)
quote: The notion of "God did it" is not a default for a lack of scientific understanding and religious faith is not a substitute for real empirical evidence. Critical thinking is always superior to "letting things slide" philosophically. I really do not care what you believe, I have no emotional investment, it does not impact my life, and I am not out to convert you... you have me confused with someone that wants to debate these topics.. which if you read my posts on religion on this forum I never do. I do not expect people to scientifically explain why they believe in some spiritual precept... I am more interested in how people interact with beliefs than I am in what they believe... and believing there is no God is a belief BTW, the only intellectually sound argument is agnosticism... because we just do not know.

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 12:39:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Just musing and not having any direct bearing on Iraq. Or fat girls for that matter, and no directed attacks against specific persons. Pretty much a throw away post, I suppose. I don't think this was a throw away post ... but I think the one's with directed attacks against specific persons, are.

mnottertail -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 12:48:04 PM)
you might point them out to me, ja? the attack in relation to the opposition. Don't snipe, stand and deliver. Ron

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 1:00:14 PM)
More of a general comment, actually ... perhaps you are being a little crispy today. [;)][8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 1:03:35 PM)
LOL, Context, m'lady.............I am not so gentlemanly as to let you bat eyelashes and cave my soul. (but by god you do come close.)

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 1:29:47 PM)
Counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. [;)] (this coming from someone that has never played horse shoes or seen a hand grenade)

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 2:10:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx "The Civil War" ????? I do not understand your reference. There was an enemy during the Civil War. It is an example of a situation where having a military was useful for protecting the rest of the citizens of the United States who were not in the military. Having said that, I want to reiterate that I am anti-war. What I am not is anti-soldier. quote: "Given that there is an enemy" there is no enemy, that is my point. "If A then Not A" is your point? Or do you mean that we should wait until there is an enemy to actually develop and train a military? With a highly technical and mechanized military this is a relatively poor choice. This is used in places like Iraq and most people know how effective they were facing the military that Clinton built. I agree with you about one thing, our military was co-opted by a bunch of insane and criminally incompetent wackos put into office by the people who live in Dumbfuckistan. quote: The chances of Hitler having won WWII are non existant. That is a fairly bold statement. He almost ended up winning the war without firing a shot, but then he decided to attack France, Holland, and Belgium. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, and the United States was not drawn into the war by the Japanese, bringing the full brunt of our manufacturing prowess in support of the allied powers, Hitler might have ended up winning the war. quote: While I realize that most Americans believe that WE won WWII any serious student of that conflict knows better...at best we were a minor player. Although as a minor player we did wind up with most of the chips. You claim to be a serious historian, but you suggest that the United States was simply a minor player in world war 2? Care to clarify what historical references you are using in making this statement? Please clarify what other major power fought in World War 2 against the Japanese in the Pacific Ocean? Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 2:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Atheism and other forms of godless spiritualities will always be inherently superior (oh please bring up Stalin like I know you want to) to theistic philosophies simply because they don't have the luxury of defending their beliefs because "my god said so". And yet statements like that one always make me think, how is your ungod superior to their god...it just really makes me shake my head... Just the fact you used the word "superior" to describe your belief system puts you in the same "my belief system is better than your belief system" bullshit worldview... Julia: Let me ask you this. Who is the ethically superior person? The religious person who does the "right thing" out of fear, because if they do not, god will fuck over them. or The athiest who does the "right thing" because it is the right thing. thompson That is a false dichotomy, many religious people do the right thing because it feels good. To measure ratios is impossible because you would have to go inside of them and weigh their heart conditions... unless you are a superior being yourself, I doubt you can do this. It nevert ceases to amaze me how judgmental Atheists are, projecting their own sense of superiority on the religious... As an anthropologist I see very little difference between many (not all) Atheists and religious zealots... and No I do not do anything because a superior being might punish me. That is outside my personal understanding of The Sacred. The ethically superior person does not need this issue to make them feel ethically superior Julia: You are the one making the false dichotomy in order not to answer the question. I am not talking about all relilgious people only those who do the right thing so that god does not fuck over them. I am not pronouncing ethical superiority for anyone. I am asking you to. thompson --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I am asleep and you want to wake me. If I am awake and don't want to make me.

Chaingang -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 2:17:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Very cool stuff. Sounds like some good reading material there. It's great having a conversation with someone that doesn't already know these things. [8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 2:19:20 PM)
I have often wondered why cops wear a flag on their uniform or their car. Did they think I might not know they were from amerika? thompson

juliaoceania -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 2:22:13 PM)
quote: Julia: You are the one making the false dichotomy in order not to answer the question. I am not talking about all relilgious people only those who do the right thing so that god does not fuck over them. I am not pronouncing ethical superiority for anyone. I am asking you to. thompson I am of the opinion that when we start stereotyping groups it is very nonproductive and leads to arguments I do not want to take part in. I do not see atheists as morally superior to any other group of individuals. The individual who tries to do good things because it makes them feel good is probably someone I will like more than someone who only does so because of the law, or people will not like them, or an omnipotent being will punish them... there are many forms of social control.. religious tenets only being one of them

bills944 -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 2:53:48 PM)
* Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords and the Propaganda of Silence * This weekend marks the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan. In recent months the Taliban has seized control of entire regions of the country. The security situation has worsened as suicide bombings are up 600 percent this year. Opium and poppy cultivation are at record highs. NATO forces are suffering their highest casualty rate in five years. We speak with Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls, authors of the new book, ³Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords and the Propaganda of Silence.² Listen/Watch/Read http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/06/1350253

SirKenin -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 4:42:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Very cool stuff. Sounds like some good reading material there. It's great having a conversation with someone that doesn't already know these things. [8\|] I am not sure which is worse. Admitting you do not know everything (Me). Or pretending that you do know everything (you). Let Me think about that one.

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 6:09:29 PM)
Hello A/all, SirKenin, I wanted to make a comment about your signature line (Catholic Church, serving up guilt since 107 AD) that reminds me of something Robin Williams said on Broadway. "Im an Episcopalian. It is like Catholic Light, only half the guilt." I have to agree with the poster who stated that the only intellectually defensible position on the God / NoGod debate is agnosticism; we really do not know. I would like to add a comment to that. I am not convinced human beings need to know, or could even understand if somebody sat down and showed it to them. There is an aspect of physiology which involves sensory input outside of the range an organism can process. An example of this is a speeding car coming around the corner at night, and it's headlights causing a deer to "freeze" in the middle of the road. Natural selection and evolution have never forced a deer to learn to process a car going 40 miles per hour with headlights on at night. Consequently, the deer that would run away from a car going 40 miles per hour during the day gets turned into Roadkill Pizza. Take this logic, apply it to an Infinite Supreme Being, and is it likely that human beings could ever really fully come to an understanding of God? In terms of the poster who asked which was more a more moral person, the one whose God could get them after they died if they did not do good works, or the one who did good works because they felt like doing good works, I tend to think the one who is not operating out of fear of the Unknown has far more moral character. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 8:24:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx "The Civil War" ????? I do not understand your reference. There was an enemy during the Civil War. It is an example of a situation where having a military was useful for protecting the rest of the citizens of the United States who were not in the military. ******************************************** The Civil War was a war between ourselves. The Confederacy did not attack the north. They took possession of a fort that was within the confederacy. The north did attack the south (first battle of Bull Run) and promptly got their butts kicked. If Lincoln had allowed the south to secede there would have been no Civil War. *********************************************************** Having said that, I want to reiterate that I am anti-war. What I am not is anti-soldier. quote: **************************************************** I have not said I was anti soldier...what I said was that you are a fool if you go and kill people so that rich people can get richer. ********************************************* "Given that there is an enemy" there is no enemy, that is my point. "If A then Not A" is your point? ********************************************************* "Given that there is an enemy" Is your quote my response was that there is no enemy...not, if A then Not A... ********************************************************* Or do you mean that we should wait until there is an enemy to actually develop and train a military? With a highly technical and mechanized military this is a relatively poor choice. This is used in places like Iraq and most people know how effective they were facing the military that Clinton built. ***************************************** The Iraquies and the Afghanis seem to be doing a credible job against the American military three years and a couple of thousand body bags after "Mission Accomplished" ************************************************* I agree with you about one thing, our military was co-opted by a bunch of insane and criminally incompetent wackos put into office by the people who live in Dumbfuckistan. quote: The chances of Hitler having won WWII are non existant. That is a fairly bold statement. He almost ended up winning the war without firing a shot, but then he decided to attack France, Holland, and Belgium. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, and the United States was not drawn into the war by the Japanese, bringing the full brunt of our manufacturing prowess in support of the allied powers, Hitler might have ended up winning the war. quote: *********************************************************** Less than 10% of Russias war supplies came from the U.S. ********************************************* While I realize that most Americans believe that WE won WWII any serious student of that conflict knows better...at best we were a minor player. Although as a minor player we did wind up with most of the chips. You claim to be a serious historian, but you suggest that the United States was simply a minor player in world war 2? Care to clarify what historical references you are using in making this statement? ********************************************** I did not claim to be a serious historian (but I am). I did not suggest that the U.S. was a minor player in the war I stated it as fact. ********************************************* Please clarify what other major power fought in World War 2 against the Japanese in the Pacific Ocean? Sinergy ******************************************** Hitlers grand plan from the beginning was to attack Russia...his mistake was going to an asskicking contest barefoot. When he made that left turn out of Poland and headed towards Russia he did it with 140 divisions...the downside was that after he had stretched out his supply train 500 miles the Russians were waiting for him with 300 divisions...Hitler showed up at the gates of Moscow in mid winter with the temp at 30 below zero (with no cold weather gear) and started banging on the door saying let me in it is cold out here (just like Napoleon). Ivan told him to go to hell and then began shepherding him there via Stalingrad and Kursk. The Russinas lost more than 25 million men during WWII The U.S. only had about 16 million under arms and our losses were only about a quarter of a million. Total losses for everyone on both sides (not counting Russia) in WWII was about 12 million. So it is pretty clear who did the heavy lifting. Hitler never commited more than a two dozen divisions to the west the major thrust was towards Russia. ************************************** The Japanese were a minor consideration and were dealt with primarily by the USMC, which had less than 40,000 men when WWII started and only about 600,000 at wars end...by comparrison the germans lost over 600,000 just at Stalingrad. You might want to read John Tolands two volume work "The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire" We must not forget that the Chinese kept many of the Japs occupied in China and of course the Brits and the ANZAC forces did journeyman service against the Japanese also...The U.S. Army had several divisions in the pacific theater also...But the heavy lifting was done by the Marines but still this was division and regimental level combat not field armies. I hope you will excuse me as I am pretty new here and I do not know how to navigate this board very well. I have tried to put my answers close to your statements and questions but as I preview this it looks a bit scrambled. thompson ____________________________________________________________

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 8:32:05 PM)
Julia: I was speaking only of ethical superiority not moral superiority. thompson

juliaoceania -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 8:36:21 PM)
I am of the opinion that when we start stereotyping groups it is very nonproductive and leads to arguments I do not want to take part in. I do not see atheists as ethically superior to any other group of individuals. The individual who tries to do good things because it makes them feel good is probably someone I will like more than someone who only does so because of the law, or people will not like them, or an omnipotent being will punish them... there are many forms of social control.. religious tenets only being one of them Note: edited my post to ethics instead of morals, my opinion stays the same basically, but since you wanted to quibble about wording, there you are

CrappyDom -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 8:57:11 PM)
Thompson, counting casualties as "heavy lifting" is idiotic. The Russians used men as cannon fodder, especially at the begining. They traded men and distance for time. By your definition, Monty was a clever general and El Alamein was a brilliant victory. The US kept Britain afloat, kept Rommel in Africa, fought Japan single handed, did enourmouse damage to Germany's industrial capability and fuel supplies. I also seriously doubt your 10% for supplies to Russia and would love to know of what percent that was of certain critical war goods. We supplied vast quantities of dodge and other trucks, something that was in very short supply. If that 10% represented ALL of the trucks in russia then saying "only 10%" is a grosse missrepresentation of the value of that 10%. In addition, the vastness and fucking coldness of Russia did a lot of the work just freezing the poor Germans to death. Hitler, like Bush, lost only through gross incompetence by choosing the path to failure over and over and over again.

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 10:55:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Thompson, counting casualties as "heavy lifting" is idiotic. The Russians used men as cannon fodder, especially at the begining. They traded men and distance for time. By your definition, Monty was a clever general and El Alamein was a brilliant victory. The US kept Britain afloat, kept Rommel in Africa, fought Japan single handed, did enourmouse damage to Germany's industrial capability and fuel supplies. I also seriously doubt your 10% for supplies to Russia and would love to know of what percent that was of certain critical war goods. We supplied vast quantities of dodge and other trucks, something that was in very short supply. If that 10% represented ALL of the trucks in russia then saying "only 10%" is a grosse missrepresentation of the value of that 10%. In addition, the vastness and fucking coldness of Russia did a lot of the work just freezing the poor Germans to death. Hitler, like Bush, lost only through gross incompetence by choosing the path to failure over and over and over again. CrappyDom: I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. I think I mentioned that Hitler, like Napoleon, went to Russia in the winter without his longjohns. I think I mentioned also that the Russians stretched out Hitlers supply line to over 500 miles(which cost land and blood). Hitler attacked Russia in late june of 41 and Stalin realized that he needed to keep the Germans from getting to Moscow before winter so he made the decission to sacrifice thousands of lives to save millions (Stalin was never known for his sensitive heart) Counting body bags is what heavy lifting is. For example the life expectancy of a bomber crew in the 8th airforce (which flew daylight precission bombing missions over Europe) was shorter than it was for a marine at Pelelu (the most expensive (in terms of body bags)piece of dirt the marines took in WWII). Even for all their losses the 8th airforce did no meaningful damage to the German war machine until 1944. You might want to read "The Arms of Krupp" by William Manchester. It details how he dealt with the bombing of his factories and what effect the bombing had on production. My point was that Hitler never commited more than a couple of dozen divisions to Europe while he threw more than 200 divisions against Russia. You might also peruse the diaries of Tomishinko and Zukhov...you will find that kill ratios of Russians to Germans at Stalingrad and Kursk were rediculously lopsided in favor of the Russians. The supplies that the U.S. sent to Russia were broad spectrum...trucks medical supplies etc. But lets suppose you need a million trucks and I send you 100,000. That is a lot of trucks but it is still only 10% of what I need. You gotta stop trying to learn history off of the history channel. Combat in the pacific never had more than 20 divisions for both sides combined; Primarily because a large part of the Japanese army was in China. While it is true that the marines did most of the dying the Brits,ANZAC and Chinese were there in significant numbers and filled their share of body bags. What beat Rommel was the fact that the Brits. had broken the German code and kept sinking all of Rommels supplies as they crossed the Medeteranian. Although he did a pretty good job with what he had. Hitler was not grosly incompetent. Some of his moves were extraordinarily successful. His failures were more seminal. He grossly misunderstood the Russians capabilities. And Russian intelligence was superior. You might want to read a book called "Hitlers Spies" It is about the Russian intelligence service and who their contacts were within Hitlers inner circle. thompson _______________________________________________________________ If I am asleep and you want to wake me. If I am awake and don't want to make me.

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/6/2006 11:10:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I am of the opinion that when we start stereotyping groups it is very nonproductive and leads to arguments I do not want to take part in. I do not see atheists as ethically superior to any other group of individuals. The individual who tries to do good things because it makes them feel good is probably someone I will like more than someone who only does so because of the law, or people will not like them, or an omnipotent being will punish them... there are many forms of social control.. religious tenets only being one of them Note: edited my post to ethics instead of morals, my opinion stays the same basically, but since you wanted to quibble about wording, there you are Julia: Ethics and morality are two different things, I am not quibbling about wording. And there you go again changing what I said...I said nothing about feeling good or whether you would like me more or less. I do many things that do not necessarily make me feel good but I do them because they are the ethical (right) thing to do. I was not stereotyping anyone...I simply asked a straight forward question concerening two individuals. And you in your very warm and genuinly nice way answered me...but with a great deal of wiggling and squirming. thompson __________________________________________________ If I am asleep and you want to wake me. If I am awake and don't want to make me.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875