Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Iraq: For Solutions only


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 12:12:32 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to ZenrageTheKeeper)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 12:39:23 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 10/6/2006 12:48:05 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 12:48:04 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		you might point them out to me, ja?

the attack in relation to the opposition.

Don't snipe, stand and deliver.

Ron

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/6/2006 12:49:10 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 1:00:14 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		More of a general comment, actually ... perhaps you are being a little crispy today.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 1:03:35 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.)

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 1:29:47 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		Counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.  (this coming from someone that has never played horse shoes or seen a hand grenade)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 2:10:04 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
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 

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 2:13:05 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 2:17:18 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 2:19:20 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to bills944)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 2:22:13 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 2:53:48 PM   
bills944


Posts: 122
Joined: 9/26/2004
Status: offline 		 * 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

(in reply to bills944)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 4:42:37 PM   
SirKenin


Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline
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.





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.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 6:09:29 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 8:24:19 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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



____________________________________________________________

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 8:32:05 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Julia:
I was speaking only of ethical superiority not moral superiority.
thompson

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 8:36:21 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		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



_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 8:57:11 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 10:55:21 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Iraq: For Solutions only - 10/6/2006 11:10:20 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094