DescentBB

Grendel wrote:Did you enlist or not ?

Just imagine if we applied this to every cause...

"I think we should do more to help the homeless!" "Have you built any shelters yet?"

"I think we should do more to secure the border!" "Did you join the minutemen?"

"I think we should lower taxes!" "Have you run for congress?"

"I think we should clean up the environment!" "Have you founded a startup to build low-emissions cars?"

I was reading a blog by a former soldier who tried to reenlist but was too old. He regularly had "anti-war" people criticize him for not being active service. One of his buddies who was active service and had just returned from Iraq became his co-blogger, and he got criticized for not currently being deployed. At one point, they published an e-mail about Iraq from a soldier who was in Afghanistan, and he got criticized for being on the wrong battlefield!

Pretty soon, we won't be allowed to have an opinion on any subject unless we're active military congressmen working for nonprofit corporations building biodiesel cars and revolutionizing economic theory while patrolling on the Mexican border and simultaneously fighting in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, and North Korea.

Grendel wrote:

ccb056 wrote:ROFL, the classic "You can't support the war if you don't enlist" argument.

What a pile of *****.

I don't remember asking you or starting an argument. But since you barged in -- did you serve ?

Define serve.

Grendel wrote: Yes I did serve in my country. I was just curious if this eighteen year old pro-war advocat will be consequent to her view of things.

I'm a college freshman majoring in Special Education. My courses deal specifically with elementary level students having mental or behavioral disorders and I will be there for four years. So, I don't know how I'm going to be able to quit and enlist just to be able to voice my opinion on what I see coming in this world, and what I see coming is not good.

But we all know thats not what you want to hear is it? So, knowing what the Islamic terrorists do to girls I would be way too afraid of being raped, tortured and murdered to join. I'm not that brave and thats the truth. But I'm not stupid either. I see whats happening in the mideast and I'm going to voice my opinion every chance I get.

The way you goaded me to answer your question leads me to believe that you served on the front lines and may have even killed some of the enemy. I'm not that brave and commend you and all the other brave soldiers for risking your lives for people like me.

Other than that, I don't know what else I can tell you except I'm not afraid of guns because if I saw you coming at me I would shoot you as many times as my gun had bullets. Hopefull, you will leave me alone now.

Bettina

Ifyugon teach special children, then thats one method of serving your country, and while you may not be being shot at, you have just an equal right to voice. at least thats how it works around here =)

Thanks for the answer. For the future I would suggest not to feel threatened by a simple 4 word question that has a good answer. Not sure why the \"regulars\" here felt compelled to barge in throwing insults, to me it looks like you can think for yourself

Your posts did come across as implying that you had to enlist in order to voice an opinon on going to war or not, i disagree with that, everyone here, enlisted or not, veteran or not has that equal voice, becuase the decision to goto war and not to goto war still affects all the citizens here in the US, the country in question, in this case, iran, and the rest of the world.

Now, Im all for going in and takijng care of iran now, Im not elisted, nor do I intend to do so, in the traditional sense. Our troops are there, iran poses a potentia threat, to not only the US, but to its neighbors, even europe. Nuclear missiles in a radicalist nation is bad, Im not going to say muslim, simply radical, becuase it doesnt matter what religeon, radicals are dangerous.

I will be going into the aerospace industry in a few years, with all hopes, so I may enfd up designing the next hand held rocket for them, the next smart bomb, etc, so while I will not be enlisted, I will be serving my country, and my troops.

enlist and serve have several meanings, none of them align.

My bad then -- english isn't my native language, seems I put the question \"[Who] would want to go to war with Iran\" into the wrong context w/ the answer \"War +++\".

If I had implied \"you had to enlist in order to voice an opinon\" I would have said so. Like I said, I was just curious. Interesting reaction from some bystanders tho.

As for my opinion about the US going to war w/ Iran -- I don't know (and I didn't vote on this poll.) Israel would probably be most threatened by the Iran having nukes, OTOH Israel has nukes themself and they know how to fight for their interests. The US would help Israel for sure so it's hard to say if the Iran would dare to try anything (I tend to say not likely.) As for improving the society in the mid-east, experience shows that it's not a \"go in, remove the govenment, install democracy, all happy.\" The situation in Afganisthan is so-so, the situation in Irak is pretty bad and seems to get worse by the minute. Elsewhere (Hungary eg.) that worked a bit better, but then the religious-fanatic component was neglectable in those cases. I don't see a good alternative how to improve the situation for the people living in the ME. Politics have failed so far. In the past \"subversion\" by commerce has worked pretty well in some instances (change comes from w/in) but w/ the current \"sanction/threaten the crap out of them\" attitude that doesn't seem an option. My guess would be some \"surgical\" strikes taking out any nuclear facility are most likely to happen if the standoff continues. It will further detoriate ME/W relationships tho and fuel the fire of fanatism.

However you look at it, the consequences are pretty bleak IMHO.

Grendel wrote:Israel would probably be most threatened by the Iran having nukes, OTOH Israel has nukes themself and they know how to fight for their interests.

Right now Iran's terror wing has bullets and explosives, Israel has bullets, explosives and nukes. Right now the terror wing of Iran uses the bullets and explosives freely against Israel even though Israel knows how to fight for themselves and even though the U.S. helps Israel.
What is it about that reality that makes you think they would decide to not use a nuclear device in an attack? They don't fear the Israeli's retaliation, they don't fear the U.S. helping, they don't fear dying to complete an attack....
It seems like your belief they wouldn't is based on nothing but hope!

aye, it isnt an easy thing to do, and the installaton of democracy isnt always the best course of action. However, history has proven that there are two things you can count on. When invading a counrty and removing its leadership, you can not just leave, you have to restore either the old government, or establish a new one. The US/World learned from that one post WWI, Hitler was a result of invading germany, hitting them up with a huge fine, and leaving them. All that did was tick off germany, and guess what, they took revenge. so after WWII, Germany was split into the 4 sectors, also a BAD way to do it, but much better then just leaving again. After Japan, the US set up not necassarily a government, but a method of doing business, we tought them our way. I look at japan, and they are doing much better then us. In the case of Iraq, we removed their leader, becuase he had threatened his neighbors, he was eccentric, he was radical. so post removal we need to remain to ensure some sort of balance is restored. Iran is not helping that process. It may be possible that the democracy that has been established will work, time will tell. However, I refuse to listen to the media, and peruse the web quite often, out side of the media context, iraq hasnt ben as bad off as the media, especially CNN has made it out to be. the news simply focuses on the small localized attacks, they dont go into the city to look at the regular people. the only time they did that was with the voting, the purple thumbs, didnt people see how happy/cheerful the people looked? that is mostly the story, but you always havethose small groups of troublemakers, in Iraq you have small groups of radicals. thats the difference

I'm going to come in on Grendel's side, sort of.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

When one is debating war, I think everyone has a right to an opinion, but I think the opinion of those who have actually put their lives on the line has more weight than those of us who merely benefit from their decision.

Now, as everyone knows, I was VERY opposed to starting the war in Iraq, and voiced that opinion quite vocally. I have NOT served in the military. I obviously think my opinion counts. So I am NOT saying you have to serve in the military to have an opinion, just that I add a little bit of extra weight to the opinion of those willing and able to make the sacrifice.

I would also include in that bunch people who have close family members who are serving.

So yes, I think Bettina (and I) both have every right to an opinion, and that our opinions SHOULD be heard. I also don't think its wrong to ask if we have served and to consider that as one element when you are weighing our opinions values.

Israel and America have the rationality not to go lobbing nukes around just because they hate someone or want to see them \"wiped off the map\".

Whether because they have enough alternative military power not to need them or not, that doesn't matter. But there is no danger of either breaking out the nukes first any time soon.

The same guarantees are not in place for Iran. If they had nukes, I have much less reason to believe they wouldn't use them.

I have every reason to be certain that if they had them, they would use them. thats why I think that while we are there we should secure them.

\"Did you enlist?\" is commonly asked in this sort of debate, and followed up with various \"chickenhawk\" type arguments. The point of the question is almost always to suggest someone's opinion is not valid or should be weighted less.

If you're asking the question without meaning to imply \"your opinion is not valid\", you should explain that at the start.

ran (read: islamo-facsist movement with immediate regional, and ultimately global, aspirations) is either a threat or it isn't, regardless of what Bush may say about them or how badly Bush has dealt with other military situations!

Bush=bathwater
Recognizing Iranian threat=baby

So be careful what you are throwing out!

This is too black and white, Will.

Iran could not be a threat, but become a threat because of our threats on them. That's the way I see this playing out eventually -- someone who isn't a threat becomes one out of their own defense of our aggression in their region. I think our middle east policy is creating the threats, not getting rid of them.

And I agree with Lothar about the \"enlist\" analogies.

iran and iraq have been in tension for as long as I can remember, its been aproblem prior to the world/US involvment in the middleast

Kilarin wrote:I'm going to come in on Grendel's side, sort of. I also don't think its wrong to ask if we have served and to consider that as one element when you are weighing our opinions values.

Well, I'm not on his side. I didn't have to read between the lines to know his intention was one of belittlement. It was effective for a few days and it bothered me to be put into a position where I felt I had to explain myself like I did. So, although it may not be wrong to ask those things, How and when you ask it is...

Anyway, I'm past it and intend to keep on voicing my opinions.

Bettina

As much as we are entitled to have opinions, we are entitled to question those of others. The problem is that a lot of the time, most people do this by going on the attack, me included. I've yet to meet anyone who isn't at least a little guilty of this at some point or another.

Also, if Grendel was really seeking to belittle you, he would have just gone ahead and called you short.

I voted a NO to a war!
Because I think a war would be a much larger threat to the greater good than letting Iran carry on with their regular business, and then trying to intercept them if they get too dangerous.

Lothar wrote:

Grendel wrote:Did you enlist or not ?

Just imagine if we applied this to every cause...

"I think we should do more to help the homeless!" "Have you built any shelters yet?"

"I think we should do more to secure the border!" "Did you join the minutemen?"

"I think we should lower taxes!" "Have you run for congress?"

"I think we should clean up the environment!" "Have you founded a startup to build low-emissions cars?"

Well, if we did that...
Then this world would be a much better place! Because people would actually be doing those things instead of sitting around and complaining about how other people aren't doing them!

Bet51987 wrote:With one difference. The weapons that Islamic clerics are trying to obtain will be far deadlier.

Please, please, please tell me that you don't actually believe this, and just had a bad day...

please please tell me your not trying to bury your head in the sand


nothing in this world happens in a vaccuum anymore, the weapons iranians are trying to aquire are bad and can cause a lot of global damage.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:With one difference. The weapons that Islamic clerics are trying to obtain will be far deadlier.

Please, please, please tell me that you don't actually believe this, and just had a bad day...

I didn't need to have a bad day to know that fundamentalist Islamic clerics are the biggest liars in Islam and they will build nukes and nothing scares me more than that. Their unstable and they remind me of the mutants in Planet of the Apes who prayed to the bomb.

I have the chills now.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:With one difference. The weapons that Islamic clerics are trying to obtain will be far deadlier.

Please, please, please tell me that you don't actually believe this, and just had a bad day...

I didn't need to have a bad day to know that fundamentalist Islamic clerics are the biggest liars in Islam and they will build nukes and nothing scares me more than that. Their unstable and they remind me of the mutants in Planet of the Apes who prayed to the bomb.

I have the chills now.

Bee

I'm not talking about whether or not they may build WMDs, I'm talking about that you actually think that, in a few years, their combined weapons will be more powerful than the combined weapons of the USA! Only in a few years!

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:With one difference. The weapons that Islamic clerics are trying to obtain will be far deadlier.

Please, please, please tell me that you don't actually believe this, and just had a bad day...

I didn't need to have a bad day to know that fundamentalist Islamic clerics are the biggest liars in Islam and they will build nukes and nothing scares me more than that. Their unstable and they remind me of the mutants in Planet of the Apes who prayed to the bomb.

I have the chills now.

Bee

I'm not talking about whether or not they may build WMDs, I'm talking about that you actually think that, in a few years, their combined weapons will be more powerful than the combined weapons of the USA! Only in a few years!

Of course not. But does it matter? Nuclear weapons of any size in the hands of clerics are far deadlier than anything the USA has. I never once worried about nukes in Russia, China, or even North Korea because they don't operate under a warped religious doctrine. The mideast is a different matter.

Bee.

I worried about north Korea, becuase they really REALLY REEAAAALLLY hate the South loreans, CHinese, and Japanese, that area is a sleeping hot spot, I personoally think that china is a good controlling country in that area when it comes to military, but if a war were to break out, China would like nothing more but to go take back Taiwan, which the US has vowed to protect. Economically we also need to protect japan, so see how a small spark over there can cause a 3rd world war? I sure do.

The middle east at present state cant start a world war as theyre range of weapons is limited, and not as deadly, however if they managed to go nuclear, then the whole world has a reason to shut them down, becuase as bett said, the people in iran dont have a control on their weapons, all safetys are off. so yes, the US, China, Pakistan, India, Israel*, EU may have nuclear weapons, but we have control over them, we understand the consequences and gloabal image, the results of the fall out, we KNOW its bad. Iran hasnt proven that they care about those factors. Thats why I, and from the sounds of it, Bett are afraid of Iran even becomming nuke capable.

*Not really sure I like the idea of israel having it, im not a religeous nut job, so I can planely see that israel having nukes is BAD

Bet51987 wrote: Their unstable and they remind me of the mutants in Planet of the Apes who prayed to the bomb.

Much like paranoiac Americans during the Cold War. The bomb, naturally, was to be worshipped and feared as the only deterrent against those Godless communists who were taking over the movie industry and the government and our bodily fluids.

Perhaps you should re-examine the history of our country before you judge the mindset of another.

maybe you should do more then study it and understand it

We broke our ties with a crown to avoid a monarchal crown. We never used our new government to take down the infidel british followers, now did we

Bakdraft wrote:

Bet51987 wrote: Their unstable and they remind me of the mutants in Planet of the Apes who prayed to the bomb.

Much like paranoiac Americans during the Cold War. The bomb, naturally, was to be worshipped and feared as the only deterrent against those Godless communists who were taking over the movie industry and the government and our bodily fluids.

I'm not going to get into the differences between communism and democracy because you should already know that. However, the "bomb" was a major deterent during the cold war and was effective in preventing nuclear war between major countries like the U.S, China, and the USSR. Although they were at odds with each other, they also had the knowledge to know what would happen if either struck first. So, the bomb was a major deterrent.

Perhaps you should re-examine the history of our country before you judge the mindset of another.

I am very knowledgeable of the history of my country, and although I will never forgive it for the brutal atrocities we caused Hiroshima, I'm still proud to be an American... and my mindset on the fanatical religious regimes in the mideast, and nuclear weapons, is very very clear.

Believe it or not.... I'm off to church.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:I'm not going to get into the differences between communism and democracy because you should already know that. However, the "bomb" was a major deterent during the cold war and was effective in preventing nuclear war between major countries like the U.S, China, and the USSR. Although they were at odds with each other, they also had the knowledge to know what would happen if either struck first. So, the bomb was a major deterrent.

...

...

...

That's it, I give up! There's no hope left for you!

TIGERassault wrote: That's it, I give up! There's no hope left for you!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

TIGERassault wrote:That's it, I give up! There's no hope left for you!

Bakdraft wrote:Couldn't have said it better myself.

Thats ok, I'm a hard sell. But remember....

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Bettina

Though I don't disagree with the sentiment of the idea,
teh Quote Nazi must speak!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
(see ref. 4 near the bottom), and

http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html

if you just say \"attributed\" to Edmund Burke, then Quote Nazi will agree with that statement.



And, I would vote \"No\" in the poll, but not for the reason stated, so I haven't voted.

The \"Bomb\" was not a major deterent in the cold war, the ICBM was. but it only acted as a deterrent becuase of the fact that country A new if they fired one, they could expect a reponse from country B, C, D with a similar weapon, if not a bigger more distructive weapon. BUT, that only works when other countrys care about their populations, and care about the rest of the world and the collateral damage cause, something the US, Russia, and Chinese are aware of. the clerics in the ME just want to kill the infidels, and of course, the Koran says if they do, they get rewarded, so nothing would stop them.So you guys can go bury your head in the sand and imagine if the US didnt have nuclear capability and the ME did that roses will flourish and little birs will tweet, Ill be realistic and know if that were the case nuclear winter will be upon us.


All it ever takes is a trigger happy dictator.

Immortal Lobster wrote:The "Bomb" was not a major deterent in the cold war, the ICBM was. but it only acted as a deterrent becuase of the fact that country A new if they fired one, they could expect a reponse from country B, C, D with a similar weapon, if not a bigger more distructive weapon. BUT, that only works when other countrys care about their populations, and care about the rest of the world and the collateral damage cause, something the US, Russia, and Chinese are aware of. the clerics in the ME just want to kill the infidels, and of course, the Koran says if they do, they get rewarded, so nothing would stop them.So you guys can go bury your head in the sand and imagine if the US didnt have nuclear capability and the ME did that roses will flourish and little birs will tweet, Ill be realistic and know if that were the case nuclear winter will be upon us.

All it ever takes is a trigger happy dictator.

Just to clarify, it makes no difference whether the bomb was in an airplane, or mounted on top of a missile. The bomb was the deterrent and when they were mounted in submarines, whose locations could never be known, it solidified peace.

Mutually Assured Destruction works even today to keep that peace but in Islam where blowing up yourself, shopping malls, schools, and just about anything leads me to believe that MAD will never work so how do you deter a mindset that is bent on spreading their oppressed way of life around the world by force. What is the right, but effective, thing to do?

This is why I feel civilized countries should do something right now to keep nukes out of the hands of clerics. I hate hurting people so I don't know how to do this but its got to be done.

Bee

there was suppsed to be some sarcasm in that first sentence =P

Bet51987 wrote:Just to clarify, it makes no difference whether the bomb was in an airplane, or mounted on top of a missile. The bomb was the deterrent and when they were mounted in submarines, whose locations could never be known, it solidified peace.

It makes a huge difference if you can deliver the payload in 7min (ICBM) w/o the possibilty to intercept it or in a few hours w/ a plane that can be shot down fairly easy. Subs do not carry bombs, they carry (note the use of present tense) missiles w/ bombs mounted. The "deterrent" is the combination of bomb & missile. I lived in that "solidified" peace, let me tell you it's no fun having nightmares about bombs that will destroy earth in a blink of the eye any minute.

Bet51987 wrote:Mutually Assured Destruction works even today to keep that peace but in Islam where blowing up yourself, shopping malls, schools, and just about anything leads me to believe that MAD will never work so how do you deter a mindset that is bent on spreading their oppressed way of life around the world by force. What is the right, but effective, thing to do?

Just to clarify that -- what you said reflects the mindset of christianity in the middle ages. Today "they" do not try to spread their view by force, the use of violence is in response to the (in their view) meddling of "evil" (non-islamic people) w/ their affairs. The islam religion is not that different from christian religion if you compare the papers they base on and go back a bit in history.

Bet51987 wrote:This is why I feel civilized countries should do something right now to keep nukes out of the hands of clerics. I hate hurting people so I don't know how to do this but its got to be done.

Bee

That is the key. IMHO the only way to do that would be the seggragation (sp?) of state & religion, a change that can only come from w/in. Our own history shows that the more influence religion has on the state the more bloddy things get. It also shows that the more pressure there is from the outside to reduce religious control, the more counterpressure there is from w/in. This can easily lead to genocide if no party involved gives in, IMHO not a very civilized solution. It all has to do w/ the intolerance some religions have to other views that may "threaten" it..

It all boils down to: Religeon + Politics = BAD

unfortunatly, theres no real way to avoid it. All I know is that more people have died in the name of a god, then have died in the name of a country or themselves. its stupid, organized religeon will be the downfall of the human race.

If you could remove Religon from the equation. I.e. Tomorrow some un-identifiable source wipes the concept of Islam from the face of the middle east, would Terrorism cease to exist.

I'm fairly sure there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Radical Islam is fueling much of the terrorism in the Middle East, But is it really the cause?

The cause of what? you left that very open

Islam isn't spreading their view by force?????
Its outside meddling in Islamic affairs that is fueling the hatred?????

Girls... Convert to Islam or die.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.htm ... page_id=34

Girls... wear the veils or die.
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/pak-school- ... 259-2.html

Girls... who fool around with boys
http://www.dawn.com/2007/02/24/top7.htm

Oppose Al Qaeda and die.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... cxMTBhYjc=

Girls again
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_new ... ?id=116838

What kind of meddling do you think caused the most brutal oppression of girls in Afghanistan the modern world has ever seen? You people make me throw up.

Bettina

Grendel wrote:The islam religion is not that different from christian religion if you compare the papers they base on and go back a bit in history.

Don't agree with this, Gren. Aside from a professed monotheism and ethic for peace, I think there are great differences between Islam and Christianity. The Qu'ran and the Bible are quite different texts in terms of their meanings for ideas and their worldviews.

Bet51987 wrote:Islam isn't spreading their view by force?????
Its outside meddling in Islamic affairs that is fueling the hatred?????

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp508.htm

Bet51987 wrote:Girls... Convert to Islam or die.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.htm ... page_id=34

http://www.christianaggression.org/tactics_medical.php

That better ?

I'm too tired to dig up more examples along your line in "favor" of western religious nutcases. There are many, many to be found, draw your own conclusions.

Bet51987 wrote:What kind of meddling do you think caused the most brutal oppression of girls in Afghanistan the modern world has ever seen? You people make me throw up.

So, what are you saying ? We are wrong and they all have to be killed ? Our opinion makes you sick ? We are uncivilized ? We are morally wrong opposing war ?

What is your point ?

dissent wrote:

Grendel wrote:The islam religion is not that different from christian religion if you compare the papers they base on and go back a bit in history.

Don't agree with this, Gren. Aside from a professed monotheism and ethic for peace, I think there are great differences between Islam and Christianity. The Qu'ran and the Bible are quite different texts in terms of their meanings for ideas and their worldviews.

I'll take your word for it until I find the time to read this.