PDA

View Full Version : I like it.


Res_Ipsa
01-06-2012, 11:39 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8998411/The-battle-for-the-Pacific-will-reshape-the-world.html


I am a strong proponent of moving away from a large conventional force to a highly trained and equipped mobile force to which troops can be drafted/volunteer in the event of a war. Since cutbacks to aircraft carriers are off the table that has the practical effect of everything short of full blown invasion being manageable. Plus, what a drone can do is infinitely more effective. However, I would like to see us out of Afghanistan before these cuts take effect. I would like to see us ramp up huge numbers in Afghanistan and out and out win in the next 2 years but I doubt that will happen in any event. W made the initial mistake of putting us in a protracted 2 front war when he should have used the political capital and put 300,000 boots on the ground in Afghanistan and annihilated any opposition.


Now, let's talk about HHS, SS, Caid/Care cuts :P

GonzoTheGreat
01-07-2012, 03:23 AM
Out of curiosity: how would the US defense forces cope with an enemy who can send lots of drones into the USA itself?
Suppose, for instance, that China or India sends over half a million of those things; would you have enough fighter planes to deal with that?

Just trying to cheer up those who aren't eager to tear down the military-industrial complex.

Weird Harold
01-07-2012, 07:39 AM
I am a strong proponent of moving away from a large conventional force to a highly trained and equipped mobile force to which troops can be drafted/volunteer in the event of a war.

You've specified two incompatible requirements here.

It takes six weeks of basic training and up to a year of technical training to produce a "highly Trained" soldier. Modern wars -- of the all-out, invasion variety -- seldom last long enough for draftees/volunteers to complete enough Basic Training to be a challenging target, let alone become "highly trained"

Res_Ipsa
01-07-2012, 11:20 AM
You've specified two incompatible requirements here.

It takes six weeks of basic training and up to a year of technical training to produce a "highly Trained" soldier. Modern wars -- of the all-out, invasion variety -- seldom last long enough for draftees/volunteers to complete enough Basic Training to be a challenging target, let alone become "highly trained"

Pardon me, I was tired when I was typing. I am a strong proponent of keeping a highly trained and mobile force say somewhere around 250,000 men that forms the professional US military. The professional forces can respond immediately to any situation short of a full scale war which would then require the enlistment of more men into more conventional forces.

GonzoTheGreat
01-07-2012, 11:29 AM
And that enlistment would happen involuntarily, if not enough volunteers showed up, wouldn't it?

Res_Ipsa
01-07-2012, 11:34 AM
And that enlistment would happen involuntarily, if not enough volunteers showed up, wouldn't it?

Wll duh, welcome to war gonzo, drafts are sometimes necessary. For a "real" war, I would imagine Americans would do their duty as they always have, we are not all cowards like you Gonzo. :p As it stands, we have a 1.5 million man voluntary army (+1.5 million reserve) that has been more than willing to provide a shield to the rest of the world so I don't think that raising numbers would be an issue. Even in WWII a draft was needed and that is the epitome of a necessary war.

GonzoTheGreat
01-07-2012, 12:23 PM
WWII was necessary*, GWII was not.
Do you think that demolishing the Iraqi state companies was worth it for those who got killed?

Do you think that a draft would be right if the USA decided to invade Iran, and discovered (a bit too late once again) that there too the tales of WMD had been somewhat incorrect?

Don't blather about wars waged by the grandparents of the current politicians, think about the wars that will come in your own lifetime.

* From our point of view. It would've been quite morally acceptable if the majority of Germans had said "hell no, we won't go".

Tomp
01-07-2012, 12:36 PM
I've heard a suggestion about a war tax i.e. an extra tax to be paid in wartime.

Any opinions on that?

Uno
01-07-2012, 01:32 PM
WWII was necessary*, GWII was not.
Do you think that demolishing the Iraqi state companies was worth it for those who got killed?


I don't think the Iraq war is the topic of discussion here, Gonzo. Everything can't revolve around that one conflict, you know.

Res_Ipsa
01-07-2012, 02:34 PM
I've heard a suggestion about a war tax i.e. an extra tax to be paid in wartime.

Any opinions on that?

Bond drives are a better option. Technically that is already the case since the public owns most of the US debt.

WWII was necessary*, GWII was not.
Do you think that demolishing the Iraqi state companies was worth it for those who got killed?

Do you think that a draft would be right if the USA decided to invade Iran, and discovered (a bit too late once again) that there too the tales of WMD had been somewhat incorrect?

Don't blather about wars waged by the grandparents of the current politicians, think about the wars that will come in your own lifetime.

* From our point of view. It would've been quite morally acceptable if the majority of Germans had said "hell no, we won't go".

Uno said it. You asked what if there is "forced conscription" to which my response was well sometimes you need a draft. The whole point of the discussion is that I like our scaling down our military in favor of a more efficient force and if the time comes when we need more men, then our professional military will be adequate for the x months it takes to train recruits/volunteers. That is the benefit of a highly armed civilian population as well bc most will already have the basics of firearm training who need to. I think the FBI says that half of every US home has a firearm and that does not take into acct unregistered ones so that could be much higher.

confused at birth
01-07-2012, 03:01 PM
The whole point of the discussion is that I like our scaling down our military in favor of a more efficient force and if the time comes when we need more men, then our professional military will be adequate for the x months it takes to train recruits/volunteers.

this is an ideal format but look at what happened to England in WW1, massive empire lots of men to draft but a small main army that one on one could beat nearly anyone else at the time.

most of them were dead before a large enough force could be formed to help them fight because they were outnumbered to badly.

Your forces are good enough to function this way as long as your navy is intact. If you lost a couple of carriers early on and lost air superiority for even a short time that small army is finished.

Davian93
01-07-2012, 06:53 PM
Pardon me, I was tired when I was typing. I am a strong proponent of keeping a highly trained and mobile force say somewhere around 250,000 men that forms the professional US military. The professional forces can respond immediately to any situation short of a full scale war which would then require the enlistment of more men into more conventional forces.

Wow...we agree on something.


Cool. So...you are okay with cutting the military by 2/3 basically? If it were me, I'd go down to 9 Carrier groups (instead of 12), keep the Marines the same and cut the Army down to around 200K active duty (from its current total of 550K).

With carriers, you have to understand that it takes 3 carriers for every carrier you keep in foreign waters (1 in foreign waters, 1 in port refitting and 1 in between to relieve the one on station as it takes a good month to go from San Diego to the Gulf) Thus, 9 Carriers gives you 3 expeditionary forces you can have in foreign waters at any one time...this does not include our helicopter/harrier carriers of which we also have another 10 or so. Sorry, but I dont give a damn about policing the world anymore. Cut, cut, cut DoD.

Davian93
01-07-2012, 06:56 PM
Bond drives are a better option. Technically that is already the case since the public owns most of the US debt.

Just do both...like we did during WWI and WWII.

Even with both, we almost went bankrupt during WWII.

That is the benefit of a highly armed civilian population as well bc most will already have the basics of firearm training who need to

You would think so but for the most part most of the "I'm a hunter, derp, derp derp" guys in basic training weren't very good shots with M-16s and later in M-4s. They didnt want to listen to the instructors because they "knew better". On the flip side, some of the very best shots were newbies and there were a couple of the good ole boys that could shoot damn well...it was just rarer than you'd think.

Bryan Blaire
01-07-2012, 11:30 PM
You would think so but for the most part most of the "I'm a hunter, derp, derp derp" guys in basic training weren't very good shots with M-16s and later in M-4s. They didnt want to listen to the instructors because they "knew better". On the flip side, some of the very best shots were newbies and there were a couple of the good ole boys that could shoot damn well...it was just rarer than you'd think.
Completely agree, Dav. I was a good shot and a good hunter because I was trained by a US Marine. If I hadn't been trained by an "instructor" to follow directions to shoot, I probably wouldn't have been near as good, and I ran into a few hunters with no prior military that had to go back to the qual range more than once. There's also a big difference between engaging a single resting/non-mobile target, even with the chance of it getting spooked, at 150 meters and engaging between 30 to 50 pop-up timed targets between 50 and 300 meters of varying sizes. My little brother has been trained to shoot better than most country hunters that go out every weekend for two to three months do (and has been in competitions to prove it), and he's definitely a better shooter than most of the guys I was in training with.

Also, our training was already starting to change in marksmanship in 2004, but in 2008-2009, there was a huge proposed overhaul, including moving to set for firing, obtaining cover, and clearing jams using SPORTS instead of a traditional firing range event. I don't know if the new overhaul was actual implemented Army wide yet for training, but I know it was originally being used at Benning and had been moved to Ft. Jackson for testing as well. Honestly, this method is much more useful for training even basic rifleman skills, even if your MOSs are supposedly non-combat.

We could definitely do with some military down-sizing, but we really are hurting in jobs already, where are these folks gonna go work?

Res_Ipsa
01-08-2012, 12:21 AM
Wow...we agree on something.

Which goes to show you can be a reasonable person! :D

Cool. So...you are okay with cutting the military by 2/3 basically? If it were me, I'd go down to 9 Carrier groups (instead of 12), keep the Marines the same and cut the Army down to around 200K active duty (from its current total of 550K).

I would keep that many active duty + their support staff as a separate # of civilian workers. I have an obvious bias towards US Marines and I think of them as the more versatile service of the two, so yes, I would not cut the Marines while reducing the Army.


With carriers, you have to understand that it takes 3 carriers for every carrier you keep in foreign waters (1 in foreign waters, 1 in port refitting and 1 in between to relieve the one on station as it takes a good month to go from San Diego to the Gulf) Thus, 9 Carriers gives you 3 expeditionary forces you can have in foreign waters at any one time...this does not include our helicopter/harrier carriers of which we also have another 10 or so. Sorry, but I dont give a damn about policing the world anymore. Cut, cut, cut DoD.

That seems to be the case; I think what Obama is talking about is having 2/3 in the pacific with the two main bases remaining Bahrain and Japan. Some commentators have hit on the obvious that this may antagonize China but It is more beneficial to concentrate force there and require Europe to safeguard their own backyard.

Sinistrum
01-08-2012, 12:22 AM
I don't think the Iraq war is the topic of discussion here, Gonzo. Everything can't revolve around that one conflict, you know.

But Uno, its the only argument he has! Don't go being mean and taking it away from him like that.

GonzoTheGreat
01-08-2012, 03:51 AM
You asked what if there is "forced conscription" to which my response was well sometimes you need a draft.
And it is precisely the question of "who decides when it is sometimes" that is brought so strongly to the fore by the Iraq case. WWII was a case of self defense, GWII was a case of US aggression. Would the draft be defensible in both types of cases?

But if you prefer, there is of course another elephant in the room: how about the draft in order to put troops on the ground in Afghanistan? I don't think that country will stabilise if things continue as they are going now, so, if there was a reason to have troops there in the past 5 years, then that exact same reason would also apply to having troops there in the next 50 years.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-08-2012, 05:10 AM
Which goes to show you can be a reasonable person.and here I thought we'd already seen Res at his most condescending.

And it is precisely the question of "who decides when it is sometimes" that is brought so strongly to the fore by the Iraq case. WWII was a case of self defense, GWII was a case of US aggression. Would the draft be defensible in both types of cases?

But if you prefer, there is of course another elephant in the room: how about the draft in order to put troops on the ground in Afghanistan? I don't think that country will stabilise if things continue as they are going now, so, if there was a reason to have troops there in the past 5 years, then that exact same reason would also apply to having troops there in the next 50 years.Afghanistan will prolly never be "tamed" by military means. Alexander the Great failed as has everyone who's come afterwards, so no there's no reason whatsoever to continue doing what we (NATO) have been doing.

GonzoTheGreat
01-08-2012, 05:34 AM
Afghanistan will prolly never be "tamed" by military means. Alexander the Great failed as has everyone who's come afterwards, so no there's no reason whatsoever to continue doing what we (NATO) have been doing.
I know that. And because the free market fundamentalists wasted the first decade, it can't be tamed by other means either, now. Which, of course, means that all those who died in the fighting there died in vain, just as those who died in the previous (Soviet) invasion did. Yet, if the "the draft should be used" argument gains traction, then those who die in the next ill conceived war would be forced labor instead of volunteers*.

Edited to add:
It could be very different if a serious discussion on "why should we wage war, anyway" was held. But the right wing doesn't want that, and they dictate the contents of the debate.

* Technically, the locals don't really volunteer either, I admit. But, apparently, that's what they get for being natives.

Res_Ipsa
01-08-2012, 10:58 AM
and here I thought we'd already seen Res at his most condescending.

How can you possibly take that as condescension? I understand you want to put words in my mouth, but the only woman that can do that is my mother. :D:D I put two, count em, two big grins this time so you could not possibly mistake this as condescension. You however would probably be correct to infer that I am reserving some level of disgust for having to constantly correct your misstatements. Damn, that sounded a bit patronizing, and could be interpreted to be condescending. :D:D:D Does that make it better? :p

Afghanistan will prolly never be "tamed" by military means. Alexander the Great failed as has everyone who's come afterwards, so no there's no reason whatsoever to continue doing what we (NATO) have been doing.

And yet, I could argue that the war in the pacific during WWII was a much more brutal and hard fought campaign. We won against a much more fanatic enemy and changed who they were. We have never really went to war in Afghanistan. We have half assed the whole process from the start. If W had done what was smart and put several hundred thousand troops on the grounds, instead of 8k-30k for much of the wars existence, it would be a totally different outcome.

GonzoTheGreat
01-08-2012, 12:03 PM
The reason that the USA lost in Afghanistan is not just the number of troops, though that was definitely one of the factors. The reason we lost is that the war had been carried out as a "private enterprise crusade", and that simply does not work.
Bush did not want to win peace, he simply wanted to create business opportunities. He did that. The result is quite good profits for some years for a bunch of corporations, a bunch of dead coalition troops, a far bigger bunch of dead Afghans, and that's it.

Terez
01-08-2012, 12:49 PM
Interesting. It seems the Occupy movement has shaped even Gonzo's dialogue. :D He's always been a socialist, but there is a noticeable shift in rhetoric, don't you think? (Not complaining; I just find it interesting.)

yks 6nnetu hing
01-09-2012, 02:00 AM
How can you possibly take that as condescension? I understand you want to put words in my mouth, but the only woman that can do that is my mother. :D:D I put two, count em, two big grins this time so you could not possibly mistake this as condescension. You however would probably be correct to infer that I am reserving some level of disgust for having to constantly correct your misstatements. Damn, that sounded a bit patronizing, and could be interpreted to be condescending. :D:D:D Does that make it better? :p .

:p:p you are an idiot moron child, your mother didn't raise you right. Was she a wolf? :D:D:D

/sarcasm

putting smileys on text that is insulting, condescending, racist or patronizing (or in some other way negative) does not always "compute" in an evironment where people cannot hear the tone of your voice or facial expression.

It is the same logic by which it's acceptable to use (some) slang when talking to your colleagues in the office (or professors in the Uni) but it's a definite no-no to use it in official correspondence. Not that this place is all that straight-laced, as you may have noticed, but the principle is the same.

When a person agrees with you, generally what you want to do is make a friendly remark so they'll like you as a person which will make them more likely to agree with you at an undefined point in the future. Davian agreed with you, you answered with:

Which goes to show you can be a reasonable person

which is to say: "you are normally *not* a reasonable person" :D:D:cool::D:rolleyes::D

but I don't know, maybe that's a social norm only where I come from and where you come from it's normal to insult people who are on your side...


anyways, back to the actual topic: you're directly contradicting your original point with this: If W had done what was smart and put several hundred thousand troops on the grounds, instead of 8k-30k for much of the wars existence, it would be a totally different outcome.

Basically, you're saying - on a thread you made with the point that a small specialized army would be ideal - that the current long-running war in Afghanistan could have been won with a massive military force.

Or is that not what you're saying and I'm "putting words in your mouth"?

AbbeyRoad
01-09-2012, 03:43 AM
The reason we lost is that the war had been carried out as a "private enterprise crusade", and that simply does not work.
Strange, I didn't think you were American.

Zombie Sammael
01-09-2012, 03:46 AM
Strange, I didn't think you were American.

Might want to check up on the different countries that made up the coalition forces that invaded Afghanistan, then.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2012, 04:00 AM
Interesting. It seems the Occupy movement has shaped even Gonzo's dialogue. :D He's always been a socialist, but there is a noticeable shift in rhetoric, don't you think? (Not complaining; I just find it interesting.)
Mostly part of the Occupy movement, specifically: you. Your comments on it has made me start reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, and that has somewhat altered the way in which I look at those wars. Right now I'm in the chapter where Bremer prohibits Iraqi democracy because that would endanger the corporate bottom line.

Strange, I didn't think you were American.
I am not a hard core Islamic fundamentalist of the Wahhabi sect. Anyone* who didn't fall in that latter category sided with the Americans after 9/11. Only later, when the USA chose to abandon all its ideals and adopted those of its attackers did I become more of a third party.

Frankly, I think that not even the Islamic wackos can be said to have won the war in Afghanistan. The only group who can claim that distinction is the ISI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence). So basically the USA lost a war against an intelligence service which was financed by the USA. Was that money well spent?

* Well, those that could be bothered to care, at least. I suspect that for people who were starving to death somewhere in Africa it didn't really matter all that much. According to Bush, that meant that they were his enemies.

maacaroni
01-09-2012, 04:38 AM
Can anyone honestly say that allowing young girls to be educated and for thousands of brainwashed talibs meeting their maker means that NATO lost in Afghanistan????

Especially as that Arab Al-Qaeda gentleman is no longer on this mortal coil?

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2012, 06:09 AM
Can anyone honestly say that allowing young girls to be educated and for thousands of brainwashed talibs meeting their maker means that NATO lost in Afghanistan????
Considering the rather obvious fact that those girls will lose any rights they happen to have at the moment when (not if, definitely "when") our troops leave, it is not a very impressive victory, is it?
And considering the fact that instead of killing them, we might have unwashed their brains, I don't think that there is all that much reason to brag about body counts either. Especially as those body counts are so very suspect: there have been plenty of cases where NATO announced having killed dozens of Talib, only to have it turn out when the evidence appeared that the victims had been innocent civilians. That, combined with the standard denial of any possibility of error until long after the evidence showed that an error had been made, sort of throws a lot of doubt on the claims of huge numbers of Talib killed. After someone has been killed, how do you prove whether or not he had been brainwashed?

Especially as that Arab Al-Qaeda gentleman is no longer on this mortal coil?
Which, considering that fact that said Arab gentleman had been comfortably living in Pakistan, apparently protected by the ISI, which was (and still is) financed by the USA, proves my point, doesn't it?

What good have those bombings of wedding parties done, precisely?
Be specific, here, please. I really want to know why things would have been worse if we hadn't killed so many innocent people.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-09-2012, 06:42 AM
Can anyone honestly say that allowing young girls to be educated and for thousands of brainwashed talibs meeting their maker means that NATO lost in Afghanistan????

Especially as that Arab Al-Qaeda gentleman is no longer on this mortal coil?

Can you give me numbers on how much civilian effort is given to the Afghani infrastructure buildup? Because I cna give you the exact numbers of what Estonia is contributing, very specifically in healthcare (in personnel, training and equipment), mainly healthcare for women, and also in education in the countryside. But, Estonia is possibly the poorest NATO country so what we're giving is as a percentage of our GDP large but overall... minuscule. If the rest of the Western World would rather forget about the whole thing, then of course as soon as the troops are out, everything will revert to status ante, if not worse.


the thing is, of the whole NATO force, only the military fores in the Baltics had former experience in Afghanistan, seeing as they had been in there in the 80s as part of the Soviet contingent (and the caution in entereing the country was due largely because of that practical experience rather than "humanitarian" reasons that were on the forefront in Western Europe). So in those countries there was actually a deep discussion on what is winnable in Afghanistan and how to go about it. Hence, the contribution in civilian means is at least as high as the military contribution.

Davian93
01-09-2012, 07:48 AM
What good have those bombings of wedding parties done, precisely?
Be specific, here, please. I really want to know why things would have been worse if we hadn't killed so many innocent people

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Terez
01-09-2012, 08:45 AM
Mostly part of the Occupy movement, specifically: you. Your comments on it has made me start reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, and that has somewhat altered the way in which I look at those wars. Right now I'm in the chapter where Bremer prohibits Iraqi democracy because that would endanger the corporate bottom line.It's a fantastic book, isn't it? Not just the content. You don't usually come across a book with so many footnotes that's written in such a straightforward and engaging style. She rocks. Her research is awesome, and she avoids the muckraking prose, which I hate. I think most of us knew that Iraq was all about Halliburton, Blackwater et al., but she really does a great job of looking into the era that shaped the whole thought process, and the way the ideology of free market fundamentalism took hold in the West, how we forced it on any weak country we could target long before Americans were willing to accept the ideology at home. All in the name of multinational corporations. I think her overarching theory is dead-on, but even if you don't agree with that theory, the book is absolutely packed with important information.

Res_Ipsa
01-09-2012, 09:05 AM
but I don't know, maybe that's a social norm only where I come from and where you come from it's normal to insult people who are on your side...

It wasn't an insult at all. In point of fact it was in the same vein of "oh hey we agree, well I guess that means you can be reasonable" as a joke. Ask Davian if he did not get it, until then, keep overreacting to everything I say as you always do.

anyways, back to the actual topic: you're directly contradicting your original point with this:

Basically, you're saying - on a thread you made with the point that a small specialized army would be ideal - that the current long-running war in Afghanistan could have been won with a massive military force.

Or is that not what you're saying and I'm "putting words in your mouth"?

In point of fact I am not contradicting my statement, because the war in Afghanistan fits into my idea that you can raise troops levels to match a conflict. Plus, the topic of conversation was about the scaling back efforts now, in the future; when we invaded Afghanistan we chose not to put many boots on the ground when we had several hundred thousand available for deployment.

I don't think you actually think about your posts when responding to me before you type something. It is not that you are putting words in my mount in this instance (you were for the "insult", as you always do), it is that you are not even in the same hemisphere of thought. I like the idea of scaling back peace time troops levels and then ramping them up during times of war. So even if I was not referencing a past event and we were in the early stages of the Afghanistan war it would still follow that you would use your professional army while raising a much larger force in times of war. It was W's mistake to treat Afghanistan like it was another domino conflict. I do not like waging war half-assed. I think it only gets more people killed in the long run especially when you do not finish the job.

Davian93
01-09-2012, 09:10 AM
There is no way we could have ever won in Afghanistan. We could have sent 1 million soldiers in and occupied the country for 20 years and the end result would be the same: Factional warfare the moment we leave. AFghanistan isn't a nation-state in the modern sense of the word. Its a loose grouping of similar tribes that all HATE each other with blood feuds that go back centuries.

Barring a "solution" where we literally wiped them all off the map, there won't be any real peace in that country.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-09-2012, 09:38 AM
edited to add, Sorry Gonzo, may I post a response while you're still typing out yours?

It wasn't an insult at all. In point of fact it was in the same vein of "oh hey we agree, well I guess that means you can be reasonable" as a joke. Ask Davian if he did not get it, until then, keep overreacting to everything I say as you always do. again: adding a smiley does not automatically clarify that your poorly thougth out expression was a joke. It is possible to express a joke in simple text, you know.

you did get my point with the smileys, I hope?

In point of fact I am not contradicting my statement, because the war in Afghanistan fits into my idea that you can raise troops levels to match a conflict. Plus, the topic of conversation was about the scaling back efforts now, in the future; when we invaded Afghanistan we chose not to put many boots on the ground when we had several hundred thousand available for deployment.

I don't think you actually think about your posts when responding to me before you type something. It is not that you are putting words in my mount in this instance (you were for the "insult", as you always do), it is that you are not even in the same hemisphere of thought. I like the idea of scaling back peace time troops levels and then ramping them up during times of war. So even if I was not referencing a past event and we were in the early stages of the Afghanistan war it would still follow that you would use your professional army while raising a much larger force in times of war. It was W's mistake to treat Afghanistan like it was another domino conflict. I do not like waging war half-assed. I think it only gets more people killed in the long run especially when you do not finish the job.Alright, let's postulate that there's no internal logical fallacy in those two statements of yours.

but here you're now clashing with Gonzo's point: when is a war, particularly outside of one's own borders, a matter of necessity?

According to classical Christian viewpoint, things haven't really changed since Augustine who postulated the Just Cause, which then got broadened a bit by first the crusaders and then the Humanists to basically 3 conditions: self defence, helping a friend and spreading the Christian faith/defeating heathens. The last of the 3 is nowadays considered as no good reason (and anyways, while USA is overall very Christian, it's not so much Catholic. Nevertheless, that rhetoric has been used in the recent past by US but I'm ignoring it for now), which leaves basically 2 widely accepted Just Causes to engage in war: self defence and helping a friend.

Now, without taking a specific case as basis, self defence with a small specialized army is not possible if attacked on a massive scale, particularly in this day and age when a war can be over in a matter of days. You simply don't have time to draft, train and equip, then deploy all those extra people.

Helping a friend on the other hand, you don't have to deploy everything, because your own existence is not directly in jeopardy, so it's possible to indeed, deploy a smaller force, then gather the draft and then if needed deploy more. But, sadly, the necessity of drafting will most probably get stuck in politicking.

ETA: although, technically when we're going by the Bible alone, Christians should never engage in war, not even in self defence. Turn the other cheek and all that. Killing someone is a mortal sin, so getting that all straight, both on the solider's individual level as well as the level of those who do not do the killing themselves but give orders, has been the subject of several thousands of pages of Deep Thought. While the Christian religious limitations no longer hold for our secular Western World, it is undeniable that these values have shaped our moral compass of what is acceptable in war and what not.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2012, 09:38 AM
Edited to clarify: I am responding to Dav, but yks barged in without properly asking for permission.

Maybe, maybe not. I do think that simply accepting the authority of the tribal chiefs and thus effectively disregarding the human rights of ordinary Afghans was not the right approach. That's one example where Bush ditched "our" principles and fully embraced theirs.

People often talk about the "melting pot" that the USA was (still is, actually). One of the reason why it could be that way, why it worked, is that the law applies equally to all, whether they are black, white, Ashkenazi Jews or whatever other tribe you might assign to them.
Obama was not put into the White House because he was a "negro# tribal leader, and it was the nigger's# time to provide a president", he became president because he was elected by all* the Americans as the one most of them wanted.
Bush and his subordinates chose to disregard all they supposedly knew about democracy and instead dealt with warlords and tribal leaders as if those were the legitimate rulers, thus making that the de facto standard.

One of the problems is quite simply that while claiming to try to bring Afghanistan into the 21st century, they were using 15th century methods (have merchants deal with nobles, and force the serfs to accept the outcome).

# I know the use of words like these annoy people a lot. But when talking about tribal divisions in the USA, it is definitely a fitting one to distinguish between "them" and "us", for a lot of people, no matter on which side of the divide they are.

* Well, all those who bothered to show up to vote, at least.

Uno
01-09-2012, 10:55 AM
Edited to clarify: I am responding to Dav, but yks barged in without properly asking for permission.

Maybe, maybe not. I do think that simply accepting the authority of the tribal chiefs and thus effectively disregarding the human rights of ordinary Afghans was not the right approach. That's one example where Bush ditched "our" principles and fully embraced theirs.

Bush and his subordinates chose to disregard all they supposedly knew about democracy and instead dealt with warlords and tribal leaders as if those were the legitimate rulers, thus making that the de facto standard.

One of the problems is quite simply that while claiming to try to bring Afghanistan into the 21st century, they were using 15th century methods (have merchants deal with nobles, and force the serfs to accept the outcome).



How are tribal chiefs not the legitimate authority in a tribal society? You don't have to answer, I can tell that you want to take up the white man's burden and teach those backwards people democracy. That is, impose your own political and social system on a foreign society. I kind of figured you were an imperialist after all.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2012, 11:18 AM
How are tribal chiefs not the legitimate authority in a tribal society? You don't have to answer, I can tell that you want to take up the white man's burden and teach those backwards people democracy. That is, impose your own political and social system on a foreign society. I kind of figured you were an imperialist after all.
If we go in there in order to replace one government by another, then the new government should at the very least be acceptable to our standards. If we don't do that, but instead simply act as hired guns to a different bunch of medieval rapists*, then on what basis can we claim to our soldiers that they are actually on the moral high ground?

Do you really think that it would be fair to draft people so that they can go and die (or get mutilated by a roadside bomb), without actually letting them do something they can feel good about if they achieve it?
Now, as it is, even if Karzai wins, then the soldiers who served there will now that they haven't done anything to substantially change the situation. All they have done is replace one set of religious bigots with another, more corrupt, but equally bigoted, group.

Edited to add, cause I realised that I hadn't really answered the question:
I would say that tribal chiefs are not the legitimate authority unless they are actually chosen by their tribe (both men and women), and in general tribes aren't small enough to make that feasible nowadays. This is definitely not how it works in Afghanistan. So, while those chiefs may be the only authority in that region, I would not say that they are legitimate.
Just as in the past, slave holders were the authority in charge of their slaves, but that was not legitimate.
As a great philosopher# put it some time ago: "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

* If you want to, you can fill in just about any other criminal job description here. I don't think many Afghan warlords are guilty of piracy on the high seas, but that's because it is a land locked country.

# Not, you may be surprised to hear, Britney. I do know other philosophers as well.

SauceyBlueConfetti
01-09-2012, 11:23 AM
I know the use of words like these annoy people a lot. But when talking about tribal divisions in the USA, it is definitely a fitting one to distinguish between "them" and "us", for a lot of people, no matter on which side of the divide they are.


Thanks for assuming everyone in the US sees things as "them vs us" and would use terms like that flippantly. In case you don't get it, that is SARCASM on my part. Because that is one of the MOST insulting posts to folks in the US you have made in a while. But why am I shocked?

Uno
01-09-2012, 11:28 AM
If we go in there in order to replace one government by another, then the new government should at the very least be acceptable to our standards. If we don't do that, but instead simply act as hired guns to a different bunch of medieval rapists*, then on what basis can we claim to our soldiers that they are actually on the moral high ground?


Imperialists almost always feel they have the moral high ground, whereas anti-imperialists see imperialism itself as wrong. But who was drafted to fight in Afghanistan, anyway?

You're posing a fake question here. It's more likely that if the US had a conscripted military, the government would be far more wary of military entanglements abroad. More young people and their parents and other relatives would be, anyway, and that translates to a lot of voters getting upset.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2012, 11:32 AM
Thanks for assuming everyone in the US sees things as "them vs us" and would use terms like that flippantly. In case you don't get it, that is SARCASM on my part. Because that is one of the MOST insulting posts to folks in the US you have made in a while. But why am I shocked?
I did mention that it was true for "a lot of people", thereby indicating that it wasn't everyone. And even many of those who do not use it as a way of separating people into "them and us" will be able to recognise that it has been used for that purpose a lot in the past. So in my view, it should be possible for those who read this thread to figure out that it would possible to divvy up people in Western countries into tribes too, if a conqueror* wanted to do so. We wouldn't appreciate that, nor would we think that it was justified. We would want to be approached as individuals, and rightly so. But why should we then not extend that same right to others, even if some warlords claim that they are the sole authorities who deserve a voice?

* Of course, conquering the USA might be a bit involved. Happily, the logistics of that are not my problem.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2012, 11:34 AM
You're posing a fake question here. It's more likely that if the US had a conscripted military, the government would be far more wary of military entanglements abroad. More young people and their parents and other relatives would be, anyway, and that translates to a lot of voters getting upset.
Is that why the Vietnam affair never became a real war?
Just imagine that Americans had been drafted to go fight a war there. That would've been horrible.

Saucy, part of this was sarcasm too. :p

Crispin's Crispian
01-09-2012, 11:37 AM
Nevertheless, that rhetoric has been used in the recent past by US but I'm ignoring it for now), which leaves basically 2 widely accepted Just Causes to engage in war: self defence and helping a friend.
I would argue that there are still three possible Just Causes, at least rhetorically. Instead of spreading the Gospel, however, we are spreading the gospel of democracy. It's not always the case, and most of the time it's not considered the primary cause, but it always pops up as a justification.

Now, without taking a specific case as basis, self defence with a small specialized army is not possible if attacked on a massive scale, particularly in this day and age when a war can be over in a matter of days. You simply don't have time to draft, train and equip, then deploy all those extra people.In addition to whatever small standing force we keep, we also need to maintain the world's most extensive intelligence network. It's certainly not perfect, but it is certainly good enough for us to avoid surprise attacks on a massive military scale. Honestly, though, those are the types of surprise attacks we should really worry about. It's much, much more likely (IMO) that we will be crippled by cyberattacks, shutdowns of the electric grid, or some form of biochemical warfare. A massive standing army can do nothing about that.


ETA: although, technically when we're going by the Bible alone, Christians should never engage in war, not even in self defence. Turn the other cheek and all that. Killing someone is a mortal sin, so getting that all straight, both on the solider's individual level as well as the level of those who do not do the killing themselves but give orders, has been the subject of several thousands of pages of Deep Thought. While the Christian religious limitations no longer hold for our secular Western World, it is undeniable that these values have shaped our moral compass of what is acceptable in war and what not.
Oh stop--you're over-analyzing. Besides, according to the American translation of the Bible, it is to be read as "thou shalt not murder," and Jesus never specifically said that killing anyone was a "mortal sin."

Uno
01-09-2012, 11:38 AM
Is that why the Vietnam affair never became a real war?
Just imagine that Americans had been drafted to go fight a war there. That would've been horrible.

Saucy, part of this was sarcasm too. :p

You are not aware that the Vietnam War changed the way Americans viewed military involvement abroad? You think American society has not changed over the last forty years?

This is an error you fall into a lot. You base your arguments on grabbing a random piece of information from any historical period that suits you and treat it as if it represents timeless phenomena. Context matters.

Davian93
01-09-2012, 11:59 AM
Vietnam is another example of a war where you can win every single battle but never have a shot in hell of winning the "war". All we did was delay the inevitable by about 15 years.

EDIT: Vietnam was a huge reason we didn't topple Saddam in 1991 thanks to the lessons Colin Powell learned first-hand in the jungles and was able to forcefully convey to Bush Sr. Its a shame that Bush Jr was too coked up at the time to pay attention to that success.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2012, 12:24 PM
This is an error you fall into a lot. You base your arguments on grabbing a random piece of information from any historical period that suits you and treat it as if it represents timeless phenomena. Context matters.
I guess I'll clue you too in: I was sarcastic about Vietnam not being a war.

And I don't think it changed the American attitude to war in general, only towards wars in which they themselves (or their children) might die.

EDIT: Vietnam was a huge reason we didn't topple Saddam in 1991 thanks to the lessons Colin Powell learned first-hand in the jungles and was able to forcefully convey to Bush Sr. Its a shame that Bush Jr was too coked up at the time to pay attention to that success.
Actually, I think that if Bush Sr. had gone in, toppled Saddam and then started a rebuilding effort based on the Marshall Plan, that would have worked. But he didn't want to do that, and he did have the sense not to think it could work in another way. Bush Jr. didn't want to rebuild along the Marshall Plan lines either, but he did believe that it could be handled simply by leaving it up to the market.

Davian93
01-09-2012, 12:27 PM
Actually, I think that if Bush Sr. had gone in, toppled Saddam and then started a rebuilding effort based on the Marshall Plan, that would have worked. But he didn't want to do that, and he did have the sense not to think it could work in another way. Bush Jr. didn't want to rebuild along the Marshall Plan lines either, but he did believe that it could be handled simply by leaving it up to the market.


No...he would have simply seen the Shia/Sunni/Kurd rivalries turn into open bloodshed again and had Iran move in to support the Shiites...much like is going on now.

Uno
01-09-2012, 12:31 PM
I guess I'll clue you too in: I was sarcastic about Vietnam not being a war.

And I don't think it changed the American attitude to war in general, only towards wars in which they themselves (or their children) might die.


What are you talking about? I guess I'll clue you into what I mean by context: you can't assume that the conditions of the 1960s and 70s apply in 2012 and beyond.

And, yes, wars in which the average person's children might die would be wars fought with conscripted armies, so that was rather my point, you know.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-09-2012, 01:05 PM
I would argue that there are still three possible Just Causes, at least rhetorically. Instead of spreading the Gospel, however, we are spreading the gospel of democracy. It's not always the case, and most of the time it's not considered the primary cause, but it always pops up as a justification.

In addition to whatever small standing force we keep, we also need to maintain the world's most extensive intelligence network. It's certainly not perfect, but it is certainly good enough for us to avoid surprise attacks on a massive military scale. Honestly, though, those are the types of surprise attacks we should really worry about. It's much, much more likely (IMO) that we will be crippled by cyberattacks, shutdowns of the electric grid, or some form of biochemical warfare. A massive standing army can do nothing about that.very true, though the version that'd be the most crippling is a combined cyber attack and massive ground attack. Take out the communications, land a couple hundred thousand troops and voila, the invader wins.



Oh stop--you're over-analyzing. Besides, according to the American translation of the Bible, it is to be read as "thou shalt not murder," and Jesus never specifically said that killing anyone was a "mortal sin."they made me read hundreds of pages of said Deep Thought, so I assure you, it exists, and in much more detail than my short synapsis.

Thou shalt not kill.

End commandment. Not murder, kill

Obviously, the sentiment has changed over the millennia, but that is what it says. Literally.

Sukoto
01-09-2012, 01:40 PM
they made me read hundreds of pages of said Deep Thought, so I assure you, it exists, and in much more detail than my short synapsis.

Thou shalt not kill.

End commandment. Not murder, kill

Obviously, the sentiment has changed over the millennia, but that is what it says. Literally.
You are aware that "murder" and "kill" are words, right? The generally accepted meaning behind the word "kill" has probably gone through many subtle changes in a few thousand years. And who knows? The meaning behind the original Hebrew word may have carried a still different set of nuances than what the average person would normally think of when hearing or reading the word "kill" today. It says "kill," but that is the English translation of another word, which in turn is a representation of the originally intended meaning. One of the great human dilemmas is that we rely on words to convey meaning, when meaning is, at it's core, a feeling/emotion or thought. Words are clothing. Just think about that next time you think you know what something "means" or "says."

Davian93
01-09-2012, 01:52 PM
http://coobs.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/family-guy-bear-arms.jpg

The right to "Bear" arms...

Zombie Sammael
01-09-2012, 01:55 PM
You are aware that "murder" and "kill" are words, right? The generally accepted meaning behind the word "kill" has probably gone through many subtle changes in a few thousand years. And who knows? The meaning behind the original Hebrew word may have carried a still different set of nuances than what the average person would normally think of when hearing or reading the word "kill" today. It says "kill," but that is the English translation of another word, which in turn is a representation of the originally intended meaning. One of the great human dilemmas is that we rely on words to convey meaning, when meaning is, at it's core, a feeling/emotion or thought. Words are clothing. Just think about that next time you think you know what something "means" or "says."

Where were you on Friday/Saturday?

SauceyBlueConfetti
01-09-2012, 02:05 PM
I did mention that it was true for "a lot of people", thereby indicating that it wasn't everyone.

Did you take a poll? I always forget that vague wording negates any intended insulting and derisive commentary.

Terez
01-09-2012, 03:16 PM
Did you take a poll? I always forget that vague wording negates any intended insulting and derisive commentary.It's called being specific. You know, saying what you mean to say. Your interpretation of his words was less careful, along with the usual histrionics.

Sukoto
01-09-2012, 03:25 PM
Where were you on Friday/Saturday?
I take it I missed something.

Crispin's Crispian
01-09-2012, 04:06 PM
very true, though the version that'd be the most crippling is a combined cyber attack and massive ground attack. Take out the communications, land a couple hundred thousand troops and voila, the invader wins.
I (thankfully) don't know the ins and outs of the military's current communication system, but remember that the Internet was created as a way to keep communication lines open even when many or most nodes were taken down during an attack. I have to think they haven't abandoned the idea of redundancy and have only improved upon it. In other words, a cyberattack might take down residential and commercial telephone and Internet, but probably not government.

But my bigger fear is an attack on the power grid. As we saw back in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003), the grid supplying power to major population centers can fail very quickly, and the long-term effects of a lack of power can be very bad.


Thou shalt not kill.

End commandment. Not murder, kill

Obviously, the sentiment has changed over the millennia, but that is what it says. Literally.
I know what it says. I was being a little sarcastic. But clearly if any and all killing were prohibited, there wouldn't be further instructions to stone people to death for sins, Joshua wouldn't have killed all those Canaanites on God's instruction, etc.

Are you suggesting the Bible is inconsistent?

SauceyBlueConfetti
01-09-2012, 05:22 PM
It's called being specific. You know, saying what you mean to say. Your interpretation of his words was less careful, along with the usual histrionics.

go troll someone else Terez you don't bother me anymore :D

Weird Harold
01-09-2012, 10:33 PM
Thou shalt not kill.

End commandment. Not murder, kill

Only if you consider the King James Version of the bible the sole accurate translation --
which it demonstrably is not, since much of it was translated into English from Latin or Greek translations of the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

Every translation of the ten commandments I've seen that post-dates the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls translates as "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

fdsaf3
01-09-2012, 11:35 PM
very true, though the version that'd be the most crippling is a combined cyber attack and massive ground attack. Take out the communications, land a couple hundred thousand troops and voila, the invader wins.



they made me read hundreds of pages of said Deep Thought, so I assure you, it exists, and in much more detail than my short synapsis.

Thou shalt not kill.

End commandment. Not murder, kill

Obviously, the sentiment has changed over the millennia, but that is what it says. Literally.

I heard it explained once that this commandment applies to other Jews. It's something like "Thou shalt not kill a member of your own tribe", meaning other Jews. God didn't really give a shit about Jews killing anyone else.

At least, that's how it was explained to me by some people I know who are religious scholars.

Terez
01-10-2012, 01:11 AM
go troll someone else Terez you don't bother me anymore :DGood to know I don't bother you (I'll be sure to bring that up next time you start foaming at the mouth), but I'm not trolling you. Just pointing out the truth - you're one of the least rational people at Theoryland, and one of the most overdramatic.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-10-2012, 01:40 AM
I heard it explained once that this commandment applies to other Jews. It's something like "Thou shalt not kill a member of your own tribe", meaning other Jews. God didn't really give a shit about Jews killing anyone else.

At least, that's how it was explained to me by some people I know who are religious scholars.actually, that's the exact theological reasoning used for allowing Christians to kill non-Christians just for being non-Christians.

Good to know I don't bother you (I'll be sure to bring that up next time you start foaming at the mouth), but I'm not trolling you. Just pointing out the truth - you're one of the least rational people at Theoryland, and one of the most overdramatic.

oh, this is so rich, it's been a long time since someone posted something this funny on TL.


on another note and back to the actual discussion, the 2nd "valid" reason to start a war: helping a friend and/or someone who's been wronged has its own pitfalls, which I inadvertently demonstrated earlier in this thread by taking up arms on behalf of Davian. First of all, he most likely didn't need my help and secondly he might have gotten insulted at me for barging in on stuff that might not be my business at all. Principle is the same when entering in military combat on behalf of someone. Unless specifically asked, it's best to butt out... Although, in this case I saw a trend being exemplified in brilliant clarity and just had to point it out since it was bothering me.

Terez
01-10-2012, 01:59 AM
oh, this is so rich, it's been a long time since someone posted something this funny on TL.Humor is a matter of perspective, you know. ;)

Davian93
01-10-2012, 07:57 AM
on another note and back to the actual discussion, the 2nd "valid" reason to start a war: helping a friend and/or someone who's been wronged has its own pitfalls, which I inadvertently demonstrated earlier in this thread by taking up arms on behalf of Davian. First of all, he most likely didn't need my help and secondly he might have gotten insulted at me for barging in on stuff that might not be my business at all. Principle is the same when entering in military combat on behalf of someone. Unless specifically asked, it's best to butt out... Although, in this case I saw a trend being exemplified in brilliant clarity and just had to point it out since it was bothering me.


Nah, not insulted. More like flattered and amused.

SauceyBlueConfetti
01-10-2012, 08:20 AM
Good to know I don't bother you (I'll be sure to bring that up next time you start foaming at the mouth), but I'm not trolling you. Just pointing out the truth - you're one of the least rational people at Theoryland, and one of the most overdramatic.

Missed your medication refill again T? :D Don't worry, we understand.

Terez
01-10-2012, 08:23 AM
Good to hear. ;)

yks 6nnetu hing
01-10-2012, 08:31 AM
Nah, not insulted. More like flattered and amused.

hmm, come to think on it, I think I also proved Res' point for him. Hitting hard in one go (no wishy washy maybe stuff) really does get results... Although, technically it is a good idea to consider the strength of your opponent first and then hit where it hurts most. Except, on message boards generally we're supposed to be civilized and not go for civilian victims (=personal attacks and dirty language)

Also, Crispy, after Stuxnet I really wouldn't be so confident. Particularly considering the average maths scores (not to even mention competition winners) in China and Russia compared to USA.

as for a way to "win" Afghanistan: what should /could have been done, and what still can be done, is cultural modification: just plunk a McDonalds with free Wi-Fi access and running MTV's 16 and pregnant (or Jersey Shore, frankly I don't know which is stupider) every 500 meters and watch the development in the next 2-5 years.

GonzoTheGreat
01-10-2012, 09:00 AM
hmm, come to think on it, I think I also proved Res' point for him. Hitting hard in one go (no wishy washy maybe stuff) really does get results...
I think that someone else already used the "kill them all ..." quote. But yeah, if you simply exterminate everyone, then they're unlikely to complain afterwards.

Except, on message boards generally we're supposed to be civilized and not go for civilian victims (=personal attacks and dirty language)
For that there's the "we don't do body counts" solution.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-10-2012, 09:10 AM
For that there's the "we don't do body counts" solution.

otherwise known as "but I call my best friends whores and ninnywags all the time" approach.

additionally torturing war prisoners is generally considered in bad taste. Likewise is purposefully using vocabulary that is highly volatile. the good old "but they won't tell me what I want if I don't put bamboo sticks under their nails"

Frenzy
01-10-2012, 09:26 AM
Just pointing out the truth - you're one of the least rational people at Theoryland, and one of the most overdramatic.

Hi pot! Have you met kettle?

Terez
01-10-2012, 10:07 AM
Hi pot! Have you met kettle?It's not quite the same. At least I have a reason when I go off on people; SBC is kind of random. As for being irrational, her criticism of Gonzo earlier is a great example of that. She does things like that all the time. I don't.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-10-2012, 11:09 AM
It's not quite the same. At least I have a reason when I go off on people; SBC is kind of random. As for being irrational, her criticism of Gonzo earlier is a great example of that. She does things like that all the time. I don't.
Ummm... you sure about that?

Terez
01-10-2012, 11:10 AM
Ummm... you sure about that?Yup.

DahLliA
01-10-2012, 12:28 PM
all we need now is some mud !

*runs away*

Uno
01-11-2012, 06:29 PM
The larger issue in the linked article, of course, is the impending confrontation between the US and China. Where will Russia stand there?

GonzoTheGreat
01-12-2012, 03:49 AM
The larger issue in the linked article, of course, is the impending confrontation between the US and China. Where will Russia stand there?
Russia has upcoming presidential elections, so they'll probably be willing to go to war a bit. Against whom is not quite entirely clear, though.

Uno
01-12-2012, 01:13 PM
Russia has upcoming presidential elections, so they'll probably be willing to go to war a bit. Against whom is not quite entirely clear, though.

China and the US aren't going to war yet, but Iran is largely a Russian-Chinese client, so it's not like this rivalry isn't having some rather serious consequences already. But Russia and China hardly trust one another, and the Russian regime is not as stable as it seemed a few months ago.

Bryan Blaire
01-12-2012, 02:40 PM
Given the Christian bashing going on in this thread and the Gay Marriage one, and in light of the resounding silence from Gonzo and others about the things done under Sharia law in some of his favorite countries on the planet from those in "a religion we should tolerate because they aren't all as bad as those damn evil Christians," figured this would be fitting as a discussion point on the "When might it be okay to go to war": Islam and Women's Rights - Atheist Foundation of Australia (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/islam-and-womens-rights)

Maybe those claiming to be the Tolerant are a tad biased and aren't tolerant at all, just anti-Christian...

Uno
01-12-2012, 03:08 PM
Maybe those claiming to be the Tolerant are a tad biased and aren't tolerant at all, just anti-Christian...

Meh, I don't pretend to be all that tolerant of any religion. People can believe what they like, and I won't go out of my way to be disrespectful of it, but I'm not going to worry if anyone's tender religious sensibilities are offended. If people believe in weird things, that's their business, but not my problem.

Bryan Blaire
01-12-2012, 03:14 PM
Meh, I don't pretend to be all that tolerant of any religion. People can believe what they like, and I won't go out of my way to be disrespectful of it, but I'm not going to worry if anyone's tender religious sensibilities are offended. If people believe in weird things, that's their business, but not my problem.

Yeah, I don't think you and I have ever had any issues on that front.

I do think that maybe if there was a little more "war" waged on those responsible for truly bad situations (yes, this is one of those places where might not make right, but it makes it right for those truly oppressed/damaged without them having a lot of recourse themselves) for people that just don't have a lot of ways to help themselves (it's really hard to pull your self up by the bootstraps when you aren't even allowed boots), then maybe the response to "War, what is it good for?" would be "Cleaning up degenerate bastards that rape their own in many different ways and then murder them."

Uno
01-12-2012, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I don't think you and I have ever had any issues on that front.

I do think that maybe if there was a little more "war" waged on those responsible for truly bad situations (yes, this is one of those places where might not make right, but it makes it right for those truly oppressed/damaged without them having a lot of recourse themselves) for people that just don't have a lot of ways to help themselves (it's really hard to pull your self up by the bootstraps when you aren't even allowed boots), then maybe the response to "War, what is it good for?" would be "Cleaning up degenerate bastards that rape their own in many different ways and then murder them."

Of course, many of the areas where this kind of thing is going on have in the past actually been conquered and ruled by imperial powers with different ideals of gender and a professed desire to civilize the uncivilized, without that making a lot of difference to how women are treated. Not sure how imperialism is going to make things better this time around.

Bryan Blaire
01-12-2012, 04:09 PM
Wasn't just talking about women, but also with the hope that maybe we've learned something in the past 200 years or so, and we'd actually make a real difference for once. Sadly, given the last couple of results, it seems a bit unlikely.

GonzoTheGreat
01-13-2012, 04:05 AM
Maybe those claiming to be the Tolerant are a tad biased and aren't tolerant at all, just anti-Christian...
Alternative explanation: maybe they simply think that at least many of those Christians can be at least marginally reasonable, and thus can be reasoned with. Then, since those Christians live in countries that are actually democratic, using arguments and discussion can provide worthwhile results. In the case of the Saudi ruling class, to name but one example, I do not think that they would be willing to listen to reason, and I do not think that those who might possibly be swayed by arguments in that country have any chance of having an effect on policy there.

I do not think that any argument I could mention here on this board would have any chance of changing the Pakistani anti-blasphemy law. I do hope that I would have some kind of small chance of achieving something when I argue about laws and regulations in our own, more democratic, and less fundamentalistic, countries.

So in short: I am paying you a compliment by arguing against you.
If you want me to stop, simply announce here that you are a misogynistic idiot who believes in the literal truth of a document you can't even understand because it's written in a language (languages) you are not sufficiently familiar with. If you match those qualifications and I had missed that, then I will even apologise to you.

Terez
01-13-2012, 05:18 AM
Amazing how some people will twist any argument about the logical inconsistencies of Christianity (especially in practice) into Christian-bashing. Get a grip.

Bryan Blaire
01-13-2012, 07:03 AM
It's amazing how many of the Tolerant don't get that they themselves are prejudiced hypocrites and don't recognize their own lack of tolerance. Get a grip.

Had other points to address, and yet once again, certain parties show they can only respond certain ways, rather than to whole posts and all points.

Gonzo, you and I have had this type of discussion via PM before. No, I don't think you actually want to reason anything, because you don't want to acknowledge any "reason" but your own.

GonzoTheGreat
01-13-2012, 07:15 AM
No, I don't think you actually want to reason anything, because you don't want to acknowledge any "reason" but your own.
I do want to do that, and now and then I even actually do it. It is possible that sometimes I miss things because I am too attached to my own approach. But on other occasions I have admitted that I'd been wrong with certain things (such as when Terez pointed out that Logain hadn't been at the Cleansing), and then I either change or drop my argument.

Now, how about you?
Do you admit that you are more willing to listen to reason than Afghan mullahs, or do you claim to be just as pigheaded as they are? If the latter, then I have to admit that I can't reason with you, which, you may notice, would be yet another occasion of me listening to someone else's "reason"*.

* The quotes around the word would be very justified in that case. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to do that.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-13-2012, 07:35 AM
Gonzo, having faith in and of itself is not a Bad Thing. Some things need to be taken on faith (at least to a certain extent): such as other people actually existing and having thoughts - not that you imagine that they exist and say or write things, or believing that lava is hot without actually touching it, there being no oxygen (or pressure) in space...

Part of having faith sometimes means trusting things/doctrines that cannot be proven and sometimes are contradictory. Just because we don't know/can't prove how it all fits together, doesn't mean that there simply isn't an explanation.

then again, questioning faith is something that ought to be done on a regular basis as well.

GonzoTheGreat
01-13-2012, 07:56 AM
The big problem for me does not lie with faith as such (though I'm not really happy about that either), but instead on the insistence of those who do not question their own faith that the consequences of that faith should also apply to all others. That's something that is very common amongst all the varieties of Judaism (of which Christianity and Islam are the most numerous), but other religions also have it. Probably because for a religion, it is a survival mechanism: if it keeps to itself well enough, then eventually it dies out.

Now, I admit that at the moment, Islam in general is worse than Christianity, which in turn is worse than traditional Judaism, when it comes to trying to push its edicts on everyone. But on the other hand, Islam is far less relevant to me, as it simply is nowhere near in a position to dictate anything in my country, whereas Christianity can and does do exactly that. Moreover, as a result of historical events, Christianity is more capable of engaging in dialogues, because those versions of Christianity which can't do that are marginalised.
So arguing with Christians does make sense, whereas trying to hunt down some Muslims somewhere who might be willing to debate their faith does not. And, of course, that's yet another issue which Bryan conveniently ignores here: there are no Muslims on this board that I know of, so attacking Islam would be gratuitous sand-nigger-bashing, whereas an attack on Christianity might find defenders (or I could be tilting at windmills, which does happen now and then).

Part of having faith sometimes means trusting things/doctrines that cannot be proven and sometimes are contradictory. Just because we don't know/can't prove how it all fits together, doesn't mean that there simply isn't an explanation.
But when there is such a contradiction, we should be well aware that we actually do not have an explanation.
Take, for instance, quantum mechanics and general relativity. I have faith in both. I also know quite well that they are mutually contradictory. So I admit that at least one of them is actually wrong, and that I do not have an explanation for the situations in which those two theories clash. A lot of Christians 'solve' this by saying "God did it", and pretend that explains anything.
Oh, in case you can't think of such a situation where the two theories clash: the Big Bang is a classic case. I admit that I do not understand that adequately, many Christians claim that it can be solved by believing that God created it, even though that does not resolve any of the theoretical problems at all.

Terez
01-13-2012, 08:15 AM
It's amazing how many of the Tolerant don't get that they themselves are prejudiced hypocrites and don't recognize their own lack of tolerance. Get a grip.Stop being a troll and provide some examples.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-13-2012, 08:28 AM
Stop being a troll and provide some examples.

Amazing how some people will twist any argument about the logical inconsistencies of Christianity (especially in practice) into Christian-bashing. Get a grip.

redundant troll is redundant

Bryan Blaire
01-13-2012, 09:13 AM
Gonzo, you claim to want to see people not taking the things written down in the Bible as explicit fact and that Christians should realize they don't understand a book translated from other languages, and yet you use quotes or "learnings" from said work to prove your point that Christians are violating a tenant, etc. *This itself is a logically inconsistent argument tact, unless you are stating that you understand this book in it's infinite forms, in all translations, and see all possible interpretations, and people that are Christians, some of who do read some ancient languages and try to achieve the best translations possible and read multiple theological interpretations of the Bible, can not do this, ie, you are a better arbiter of re work than them. *If you are stating this, please say it outright, as you keep asking for professions from others.

I understand that you think the whole of Christendom (by this I mean those that actually profess to be Christian) does little thinking about their own faith, beliefs and works, but as someone who has actually been a member of numerous different Christian sects, both Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox, and still has friends from many of these places (and hey, they are almost all in the backward, hypocritical, prejudiced South), I also know this is untrue. *Individual people do think about these things and do recognize inconsistencies throughout the works, and different sects accept different interpretations an translations over others, etc. *There is a single, very vocal group of evangelicals and Baptists that tend to believe what many attribute to the whole of Christianity, probably because they use money to do the very things that most of us other Christians condemn, but to state that these are the traits of the entirety of Christians is not any different or less stereotypical than stating broad facts or arguments about those on welfare, Muslims or the rich. *A group rarely truly embodies in any given person the things that others state as traits for the whole group, and it is no less of a act of demonization of others than people accuse any other entity for.

As for what you see as hand-waving being substituted in for what you believe is true understanding, you exhibit a lack of understanding yourself. *In your example of the Big Bang, you say it is not a good enough explanation to say "God did it," but just because you feel this is an inadequate explanation doesn't mean that anyone else has to hold to that view, or that others are wrong in feeling that this simplistic idea is a good enough explanation for them. *It doesn't make them any more stupid or foolish or make them any more ignorant than the whole of humanity, nor does it make them any less capable of understanding atomic or relativistic physics, it just may not be that important to them. *Not everyone needs to actually understand "Why" for themselves, they simply want it to keep working for them the same way it always has and move on to the portions of their lives they actually care about (and for some, that's actually getting out there and doing things like building/repairing houses for the poor, feeding and clothing the homeless, etc). *In the end, if you aren't in a specific field of study of science, most of the scientific information is esoteric and most other scientists, while being capable of grasping concepts, don't even truly understand different fields of science. *This doesn't make them stupid either, nor does the fact that some scientists can't comprehend others (even other scientists) thoughts on the soul and other metaphysical concepts, like freelings, music, and other arts, make them any less cultured, barbaric, foolish or stupid. *We are all people, and we all seek understanding in our own fashion. *Some of us want very thorough explanations of the world, others accept a less specific but more profound feeling method. *Neither one is better or right until you apply your own point of view to the situation, and frankly, depending on where you sit in that spectrum, you'll have almost no ability to relate to someone lying across the other side of the scale from you, your methods of understanding will just be too different. *This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is one of those situations where you go "I just don't get why you believe that" and move on. *No amount of argument or "logical presentation" of other ideas or concepts is likely to sway them, and again, this doesn't make them Wrong or right, just totally different in their world-view. *Now, to you personally, they may be wrong or stupid/ignorant/foolish, etc, but that's your perception of them, and your perception is colored by your personal reality, and while your belief may be in a concrete reality, considering the number of people that disagree with your reality, they may be inclined to believe you are wrong.

If people were truly acting in a tolerant, non-judgemental fashion, they wouldn't assign values of "right" and "wrong" to other's beliefs, but it's an extraordinary occurrence to find someone truly tolerant.

Terez, your version of logical consistency is clearly different than mine, and as you have time and again proven that you are incapable of seeing a viewpoint other than your own, why would I bother, when you dismiss anything as "Stupidity from Bryan." You really aren't worth my time trying to convince you to change your mind, because you hold to your ideas, prejudices and beliefs with a religious fervor reminiscent of an evangelical preacher (which I think you said your father was once, so if IIRC, it probably runs in the family). While I admire you for having such strong convictions, I don't bother with trying to change that type of person, because unlike Gonzo, I don't find them reasonable and I have a hard time finding common ground with someone that focused and dedicated to any particular set of ideals. Each of us has our own blind-spots, and it is usually almost impossible to get someone to acknowledge their own unless they want to acknowledge them. Even pointing them doesn't tend to actually allow each of us to see them and rarely does it actually engender change, especially in those resistant to it due to strongly held ideals and
beliefs. It's hard to achieve compromise with a person like this. ;)

GonzoTheGreat
01-13-2012, 10:47 AM
Maybe those claiming to be the Tolerant are a tad biased and aren't tolerant at all, just anti-Christian...
Out of curiosity: which of my remarks in this thread which I made before you joined the debate do you count as "anti-Christian"?

I've reread (part of) this thread, and the only part which I could find that might technically qualify is:
I am not a hard core Islamic fundamentalist of the Wahhabi sect. ...

Frankly, I think that not even the Islamic wackos can be said to have won the war in Afghanistan.
While I might be willing to accept a claim that Muslims are just heretical Christians, I do not see how to interpret it that way without running afoul of your "resounding silence from Gonzo and others about the things done under Sharia law".

So, given the facts that I did not do any Christian bashing as such* in this thread until after you complained of me doing that, and that I had actually not been silent about the things done under Sharia law, what, precisely, is it that you're griping about?

* Assuming that you make a difference between Christians and Muslims, of course. Which, for the sake of this# part of the argument, I am willing to do.

# If such differences are pertinent to the debate, then they should be taken into account. If they aren't, then the groups could all be lumped together.

Bryan Blaire
01-13-2012, 10:56 AM
It tends to be a historical thing, Gonzo, and may not have specifically been directed at your personal comments here. Just as I have my patterns here, so do you, and you are often quick to jump on Christians and defend Islam/Muslims. You may not have personally triggered my statements, but you are one of the more outspoken on the topic. You did notice I joined on page 1 and said it was also influenced by another thread as well, right? I vacillated between the two topics before choosing one to post in.

Now, are you going to respond to any of my commentary on war per the thread original topic, or my previous discussion, or can I assume you are in agreement with the content of those and we can move on to something else, such as getting back to the draw down of US military power, some of which is more finally coming out of Europe?

Crispin's Crispian
01-13-2012, 11:09 AM
If people were truly acting in a tolerant, non-judgemental fashion, they wouldn't assign values of "right" and "wrong" to other's beliefs, but it's an extraordinary occurrence to find someone truly tolerant.


This sounds really nice and fluffy, but let's recall reality for a moment. There are two problems with whatever you're trying to argue here.

1) Religion has a strong basis in defining what is right and wrong, and Judaic religions, at least, have a strong judgmental aspect. So your plea for tolerance is lost almost by definition.

2) Given #1, when a religion is used as a basis for legislation, it will naturally come into conflict with those who do not hold its tenets. Again, we come to a point of judging what is right and wrong, because that's what informs our laws.

This is rather the point of the gay marriage thread. I can unequivocally say that legislating a ban on gay marriage is wrong according to my beliefs. A fundamentalist Christian would take the exact opposite view.

It's nice to say that both of us are right in our own way, but that just won't cut it. A judgement must be made.

Bryan Blaire
01-13-2012, 11:17 AM
So, SDog, you agree that people terming themselves tolerant are somewhat delusional then? Also, shouldn't those that are atheist be the ones we could look to the most for actual tolerance, using your first rule?

I already stated in other threads that I really don't think that an actual religious argument should be being made in the guise of running a country, whether that be in forming legislation or for the purposes of declaring wars or really much else. I did try to make the argument that stopping cruelty may actually be the only real reason a war should occur, and got a single response to that idea. Apparently saying that people really aren't tolerant when they self-describe themselves that way really riles people though. The idea that our might could be used in a beneficial way to stop cruelty though, that one doesn't seem to et much traction here.

Now, on the terming of "fundamentalist" anything, is that a label you are assigning or a self-assigned one. There are definitely liberal groups within certain churches that view themselves as preserving Christian fundamentals and take some offense at the evangelicals.

GonzoTheGreat
01-13-2012, 11:23 AM
It tends to be a historical thing, Gonzo, and may not have specifically been directed at your personal comments here. Just as I have my patterns here, so do you, and you are often quick to jump on Christians and defend Islam/Muslims. You may not have personally triggered my statements, but you are one of the more outspoken on the topic.
I may have defended Muslims fairly often, but I would really want to see evidence for the allegation that I've ever defended Islam. At most, that may have been a backhanded compliment, of the type "in the Middle Ages, Islam was a lot less hostile towards those who had different beliefs than Christianity was", and even then I probably would've added that this was only true in regard to other "people of the Book", not towards unbelievers, pagans, and such.
So I think that you are simply not correct when you accuse me of defending Islam.

Now, are you going to respond to any of my commentary on war per the thread original topic, or my previous discussion, or can I assume you are in agreement with the content of those and we can move on to something else, such as getting back to the draw down of US military power, some of which is more finally coming out of Europe?
Probably not a very safe assumption, but I'll see. :D

I do think that maybe if there was a little more "war" waged on those responsible for truly bad situations (yes, this is one of those places where might not make right, but it makes it right for those truly oppressed/damaged without them having a lot of recourse themselves) for people that just don't have a lot of ways to help themselves (it's really hard to pull your self up by the bootstraps when you aren't even allowed boots), then maybe the response to "War, what is it good for?" would be "Cleaning up degenerate bastards that rape their own in many different ways and then murder them."
That was the whole basis of the Iraq war, wasn't it?

At the time, I objected to the war not because I thought that having Saddam there was particularly good, but because I thought that Bush would be worse. And I have the distinct impression that I've been proven right by history, even if I would have preferred to have been wrong. Hardly any Iraqis want Saddam back, but almost all of them want the Americans out, at least on the terms on which those Americans were send in by Bush. Replacing Saddam and his above-the-law thugs with Bremer and his above-the-law thugs was not a big enough improvement to make it the kind of situation they wanted to perpetuate.

So, I do agree that in theory there may be cases where going in and waging war would be good. But I am very skeptical over when precisely it would be needed, and even more (a lot more) skeptical over the question of whether it would be worthwhile to actually do it.

I'll give a recommendation which may help us agree on the issue: accountability.
I would want the troops to be actually accountable for what they do, their officers to be accountable for what the troops do, and, above all, the politicians who sent them in to be accountable for what is going on.
In my view, it is unlikely that Abu Ghraib would have happened, and extremely unlikely that it would have been as big as it was now, if Rumsfeld had known that if something like that happened on his watch then he might have to face an Iraq court and an Iraqi jail himself. In my view, that mess happened not just "because such things happen", but because there was a very deliberate and politically arranged lack of oversight. If that hole in the political process is not mended, then not having American forces interfere would be better than having them interfere in almost any conceivable circumstances.

To sum it up:
I think that Rumsfeld could have fucked up North Korea even worse than it is now. So even there I would not approve of American intervention, until this oversight issue is properly dealt with.

Note: I'm aware that Americans aren't likely to want to tackle NK, because of its nukes. But as that's a direct argument for Iran to get nukes of its own, I am not happy with that argument.
Note to the note: I still do not think the Iranians are actually trying to make nukes. They are Islamic wackos, and they generally believe their own version of Islam. They have convinced themselves that nukes are immoral, so no one should have them, not even they. This seems a case where going along with their craziness would be beneficial. Of course, it's not as if anyone in Washington or Tel Aviv will listen to reason on this.

Crispin's Crispian
01-13-2012, 11:25 AM
So, SDog, you agree that people terming themselves tolerant are somewhat delusional then?
Not delusional, just arrogant. I find the idea of "tolerance" to be offensive in many contexts, because it assigns a lower value to the class of which your being tolerant. If a company said, "We work hard to put up with blacks and hispanics," as opposed to the more PC, "tolerant of minorities," it would never fly.

When you tolerate something, you live with it even though you don't like it.

I guess in the context of gay marriage, etc., tolerance is a more applicable term because it is a moral disagreement.

I already stated in other threads that I really don't think that an actual religious argument should be being made in the guise of running a country, whether that be in forming legislation or for the purposes of declaring wars or really much else.So, no offense please, but what was your point?

Now, on the terming of "fundamentalist" anything, is that a label you are assigning or a self-assigned one. There are definitely liberal groups within certain churches that view themselves as preserving Christian fundamentals and take some offense at the evangelicals.
I was using the generally accepted definition. Perhaps a better choice would have been, "evangelical," but I'm talking about the politically active, very morally conservative types who want to legislate according to the Bible.

Terez
01-13-2012, 06:54 PM
redundant troll is redundantI didn't troll anyone...that was all Bryan. And on top of that you apparently don't know what that word means.

Davian93
01-13-2012, 06:55 PM
~sits on ESC couch~

Anyone want a beer? I have Yuengling and Shiners here.

And Fat Tires for the WC peeps.

Terez
01-13-2012, 06:56 PM
Terez, your version of logical consistency is clearly different than mine, and as you have time and again proven that you are incapable of seeing a viewpoint other than your ownThis is bullshit, and anyone who pays any attention knows better.


why would I bother, when you dismiss anything as "Stupidity from Bryan."
Why bother trolling in the first place? Just to be a schmuck? It's easy to make accusations. Back them up with something, or go back to your little hidey hole.

frenchie
01-13-2012, 08:36 PM
~sits on ESC couch~

Anyone want a beer? I have Yuengling and Shiners here.

And Fat Tires for the WC peeps.

Toss me a Lager, if you would, sir.

Davian93
01-13-2012, 08:51 PM
Toss me a Lager, if you would, sir.

Here you go...enjoy

~tosses lager~

Terez
01-13-2012, 09:19 PM
On topic...Groupthink (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/how-friends-ruin-memory-the-social-conformity-effect/) is a very interesting phenomenon.

frenchie
01-13-2012, 11:14 PM
Here you go...enjoy

~tosses lager~

You can always tell a Pennsylvanian when you ask for a Lager, and they know which beer you want.

Res_Ipsa
01-14-2012, 07:02 AM
Yuengling came to Ohio but it did not come to Kentucky. That will need to be remedied soon as I hate driving into Ohio just for beer.

Davian93
01-14-2012, 12:20 PM
Yuengling came to Ohio but it did not come to Kentucky. That will need to be remedied soon as I hate driving into Ohio just for beer.

I have to drive to NY for it...which includes a ferry ride across a lake.

Though I will say that Yuengling in a bottle isnt that good. On tap, its fantastic lager. Still, the bottled variety is acceptable.

Bryan Blaire
01-17-2012, 07:05 PM
So I think that you are simply not correct when you accuse me of defending Islam.
Without having some direct evidence at hand, I'll just say that while I completely believe that you don't feel you have actually defended Islam itself, I know I've read (and stated before my feelings about) your comments on Islam otherwise, and I don't think I'm 100% alone on that (although I could be).

That was the whole basis of the Iraq war, wasn't it?
I don't think so, not really, and I don't believe you do at all, especially when you've stated (and defended) things to the contrary (such as "Where are the WMDs?" and comments about controlling oil, etc).

So, I do agree that in theory there may be cases where going in and waging war would be good. But I am very skeptical over when precisely it would be needed, and even more (a lot more) skeptical over the question of whether it would be worthwhile to actually do it.
Well, I think that some of the cruelty that goes on in Africa most times (although I will agree that I'm not the foremost on International Relations), usually back in the "jungle" there, would qualify, but I agree that I'm skeptical as to the good it would do without some major follow up efforts.

I'll give a recommendation which may help us agree on the issue: accountability.
I would want the troops to be actually accountable for what they do, their officers to be accountable for what the troops do, and, above all, the politicians who sent them in to be accountable for what is going on.
In my view, it is unlikely that Abu Ghraib would have happened, and extremely unlikely that it would have been as big as it was now, if Rumsfeld had known that if something like that happened on his watch then he might have to face an Iraq court and an Iraqi jail himself. In my view, that mess happened not just "because such things happen", but because there was a very deliberate and politically arranged lack of oversight. If that hole in the political process is not mended, then not having American forces interfere would be better than having them interfere in almost any conceivable circumstances.
Well, I'd disagree on the accountability of officers directly for the actions that their troops take, because I generally disagree that anyone should be directly held responsible for the actions of another. Now, in the circumstances where it was shown that there was knowledge of the action that was criminal and an officer took no action to discipline said criminals, then they should be held accountable for complicity. In the situation where there were direct commands issued, then obviously they would be accountable for actions taken that were followed (however, in this circumstance, however hard, the troops the orders were issued to should refuse to follow them on grounds of criminality).

Note: I'm aware that Americans aren't likely to want to tackle NK, because of its nukes. But as that's a direct argument for Iran to get nukes of its own, I am not happy with that argument.
Note to the note: I still do not think the Iranians are actually trying to make nukes. They are Islamic wackos, and they generally believe their own version of Islam. They have convinced themselves that nukes are immoral, so no one should have them, not even they. This seems a case where going along with their craziness would be beneficial. Of course, it's not as if anyone in Washington or Tel Aviv will listen to reason on this.
Oddly enough, I'm not all that concerned by Iran attempting or even building nukes. Not sure all the toys should be kept in just a few countries' hands, but I don't necessarily think that they should just be handed out. If they develop them though internally, then so be it. TBH, I'm more concerned with China seeming to be consistently able to get their hands on even parts of our supposedly "Next-Gen" warfare developments. I don't think that Iran has the capability to deliver nukes via stealth tech, but something tells me the Chinese do.

Not delusional, just arrogant. I find the idea of "tolerance" to be offensive in many contexts, because it assigns a lower value to the class of which your being tolerant. If a company said, "We work hard to put up with blacks and hispanics," as opposed to the more PC, "tolerant of minorities," it would never fly.

When you tolerate something, you live with it even though you don't like it.

I guess in the context of gay marriage, etc., tolerance is a more applicable term because it is a moral disagreement.
Well, at least we agree on the idea of tolerance. I think it generally is used to hide actual prejudice, rather than attempting to work through it. I don't think it is that great a statement to be tolerant, especially as a self-label.

So, no offense please, but what was your point?
I get tired of seeing "Christians" presented as some monolithic horrid demon people? There are actually Christians that do condemn wars and fight against (or simply support the fight against) bigotry - Dav is one, unless I misremember. After all, Christ spent his time among those that were cast out from Jewish society. Then you have the evangelicals and Baptists, who don't seem to do this much, but are the most vocal group.

This is bullshit, and anyone who pays any attention knows better.
Yup, yup, I'm both stupid and completely unobservant. Guess those that agree with me just never pay attention either. They all just hate you, right, and are clique-ish?

Why bother trolling in the first place? Just to be a schmuck? It's easy to make accusations. Back them up with something, or go back to your little hidey hole.
Um, if I was actually trolling as you think, and then you ask something like that, then obviously:you apparently don't know what that word means.
LOL Yeah, my little hidey hole in government service where I am actively trying to work to make our country a better place. I'll let my boss know I should stop doing that and pay more attention to arguing on Theoryland, because as you've pointed out, it makes soooooo much difference in the country to argue here. (Yes, that was sarcasm ;) :rolleyes:)

Now, I realize that this post is derailed and I apologize for the thread necromancy without participating in the derailment. I'll move on with my life as well and take a spot on the ESC now and say that Bocks are always superior to lagers. :D

Davian93
01-17-2012, 07:50 PM
I, too, am not all that concerned about Iran getting nukes. I think it farcical that we have the imperialistic gall to condemn others for getting the same weapons we have when we're the only nation on earth to have ever even used nuclear weapons on another.

Tough to assume the moral high ground on that issue. Also, we've looked the other way on Israel having nukes for 40 years despite them essentially practicing apartheid in the occupied territories and even in Israel proper. In that respect, Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons...if nothing else, it helps balance the power in the middle east and it would provide a check on Israeli aggression. Iran was an advanced nation-state when northern Europeans were living in mud huts using bronze and stone tools.

Res_Ipsa
01-17-2012, 08:08 PM
I'll move on with my life as well and take a spot on the ESC now and say that Bocks are always superior to lagers. :D

You sir, are lucky that, in Kentucky, lawyers are not allowed to duel. (not that I am holding myself out to be a full lawyer but the oath does actually include that little detail, go go Alexander Hamilton) Rather, as an apprentice, wannabe atty, I must still maintain myself in a professional manner.

And so, I will content myself w/ seeing your Bock and raising you my helles lager.

Davian93
01-17-2012, 08:09 PM
Lager on tap is a superior beer.

if we want to get technical, hefeweizen is superior to both lager and bocks.

Sei'taer
01-17-2012, 08:28 PM
Lager on tap is a superior beer.

if we want to get technical, hefeweizen is superior to both lager and bocks.

There is not a beer on earth that is better on tap than a Bass ALE. Hefies are nice but they fill me up and I like to eat and get full, not drink and get full.

GonzoTheGreat
01-18-2012, 03:44 AM
Without having some direct evidence at hand, I'll just say that while I completely believe that you don't feel you have actually defended Islam itself, I know I've read (and stated before my feelings about) your comments on Islam otherwise, and I don't think I'm 100% alone on that (although I could be).
So you don't have any actual evidence, but you won't let that change your bad opinion of me. Figures.

I don't think so, not really, and I don't believe you do at all, especially when you've stated (and defended) things to the contrary (such as "Where are the WMDs?" and comments about controlling oil, etc).
Bush (and his merry gang) made things rather difficult, what with his constantly evolving reasons. You do remember that he called it a Crusade, implying that it was an attempt by Christians to defeat and drive away heathens. He used the WMD as a reason numerous times (not willing to wait for the mushroom cloud). He gave violations of Security Council resolutions as reason for violating SC resolutions himself. And the code word used for the actual operation was OIL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Liberation) (until someone pointed out that was just a bit too blatant, then they changed it).
Finally, when all else failed, Bush claimed that humanitarian reasons where important, even while he was violating human rights left and right himself.

And, of course, the "free market" was also part of the reason, as shown by all the no-bid contracts which happened to go (through some odd series of coincidences) mainly to companies in which Bush et al. had shares. And the selling off of Iraqi state property by the conquerors.

Well, I think that some of the cruelty that goes on in Africa most times (although I will agree that I'm not the foremost on International Relations), usually back in the "jungle" there, would qualify, but I agree that I'm skeptical as to the good it would do without some major follow up efforts.
I would add to that that those efforts had to be well aimed, which is a detail which was definitely left out of the major follow up efforts in Iraq. A lot of money was used there, but very little to good effect.

Well, I'd disagree on the accountability of officers directly for the actions that their troops take, because I generally disagree that anyone should be directly held responsible for the actions of another. Now, in the circumstances where it was shown that there was knowledge of the action that was criminal and an officer took no action to discipline said criminals, then they should be held accountable for complicity. In the situation where there were direct commands issued, then obviously they would be accountable for actions taken that were followed (however, in this circumstance, however hard, the troops the orders were issued to should refuse to follow them on grounds of criminality).
There is also the issue of officers deciding not to bother with checking what their troops are doing. And of officers deciding to deliberately remove safeguards against bad behavior, as Bush did in the case of the "enhanced interrogation" methods.

I don't think that Iran has the capability to deliver nukes via stealth tech, but something tells me the Chinese do.
Why would anyone want to deliver nukes using stealth tech? :confused:

Either lob them in with ICBMs, which are basically impossible to defend against. Or, if you have only a few, send them in with a couple of tons of Afghan heroin, and then you have a nuke sitting neatly in downtown Manhattan, no complicated delivery mechanism needed at all.

I get tired of seeing "Christians" presented as some monolithic horrid demon people? There are actually Christians that do condemn wars and fight against (or simply support the fight against) bigotry - Dav is one, unless I misremember. After all, Christ spent his time among those that were cast out from Jewish society. Then you have the evangelicals and Baptists, who don't seem to do this much, but are the most vocal group.
You know, it would be quite simple to substitute a couple of words here, like "Muslim" for "Christian". But if I did that, then I would be "defending Islam", I suspect.

Yup, yup, I'm both stupid and completely unobservant.
This, I will not deny.

Bryan Blaire
01-18-2012, 08:18 AM
So you don't have any actual evidence, but you won't let that change your bad opinion of me. Figures.

This, I will not deny.
And here I would have said that I thought that while we disagree on a lot of things, you have an interesting and different perspective that generally gives me insight into another way of thinking... But it sounds like you want me to have a bad opinion of you from that last statement. LOL

Crispin's Crispian
01-18-2012, 10:50 AM
Well, at least we agree on the idea of tolerance. I think it generally is used to hide actual prejudice, rather than attempting to work through it. I don't think it is that great a statement to be tolerant, especially as a self-label.

Indeed. There are cases where it is accurate, and doesn't have to be offensive, but in general terms we agree.

I get tired of seeing "Christians" presented as some monolithic horrid demon people? There are actually Christians that do condemn wars and fight against (or simply support the fight against) bigotry - Dav is one, unless I misremember. After all, Christ spent his time among those that were cast out from Jewish society. Then you have the evangelicals and Baptists, who don't seem to do this much, but are the most vocal group.

But be honest, there's really only one person here to demonizes Christians. If we're painting with broad brushes--several "on your side" love to complain about "all the Christian-bashing" that goes on here as if we're holding Bible-burning ceremonies and assaulting Christians with Richard Dawkins books. Other than Gonzo's obvious trolling, can you point out some examples? I think of myself as pretty sensitive to both sides, and I think most people here are pretty fair about it.

This goes back to the discussion of personal morality versus legislating morality. A lot of people are vehement that another person's religion shouldn't be codified into law. That doesn't mean they are "Christian bashers," as you've already pointed out that many Christians feel the same way.

Yup, yup, I'm both stupid and completely unobservant. Guess those that agree with me just never pay attention either. They all just hate you, right, and are clique-ish?Not to horn in on your in-depth discussion with Terez, but...aren't being a little inconsistent here? You accuse Terez of wrongly calling you clique-ish, but in the same paragraph you feel the need to point out the other members of your clique. :confused:

Earlier in the same post, you used a similar argument against Gonzo:

"I don't think I'm 100% alone on that (although I could be)."

If you don't want to be seen as clique-ish, I suggest you stop specifically pointing out that others are on your side. If nothing else, it's a poor rhetorical technique.

lord Mordeth
01-18-2012, 11:43 AM
Also, we've looked the other way on Israel having nukes for 40 years despite them essentially practicing apartheid in the occupied territories and even in Israel proper.

Not to mention that Israel secretly collaborated with genuinely apartheid South Africa to allow them to get nukes in turn...Israelis were apparently baffled when Nelson Mandela wanted little to do with them on beoming president.

Bryan Blaire
01-18-2012, 12:10 PM
Not to horn in on your in-depth discussion with Terez, but...aren't being a little inconsistent here? You accuse Terez of wrongly calling you clique-ish, but in the same paragraph you feel the need to point out the other members of your clique. :confused:

Earlier in the same post, you used a similar argument against Gonzo:

"I don't think I'm 100% alone on that (although I could be)."

If you don't want to be seen as clique-ish, I suggest you stop specifically pointing out that others are on your side. If nothing else, it's a poor rhetorical technique.
I would sincerely hope that people are not just agreeing because they are friends. I have plenty of disagreements and disputes with friends here and elsewhere. I would hope that each individual decides for themselves whether they agree or not, not simply supporting an idea because of friendship, etc. Saying to Gonzo that I thought others might agree with me wasn't referencing anything other than that, that there may be those that agree with me. I wasn't making a call for support from anyone, and pointed out that I might be alone on the idea.

Maybe I have a different view of a clique, but to me that's a group of people who basically are always on the same side of everything. I don't think I'm on the same aide of everything with anyone. It may seem that way, but it is likely from an agreement to just drop the subject and not discuss it due to strong feelings between myself and the other party already. I don't have a problem with this, provided we don't continue harping on it to each other.

Also, who do you feel I called out? I don't believe I even have a clique here, I'm an equal opportunity offender (granted, that may not always be on this board, but I have other more heated arguments via other methods than here most times).

Gilshalos Sedai
01-18-2012, 12:29 PM
I would sincerely hope that people are not just agreeing because they are friends. I have plenty of disagreements and disputes with friends here and elsewhere. I would hope that each individual decides for themselves whether they agree or not, not simply supporting an idea because of friendship, etc. Saying to Gonzo that I thought others might agree with me wasn't referencing anything other than that, that there may be those that agree with me. I wasn't making a call for support from anyone, and pointed out that I might be alone on the idea.

Maybe I have a different view of a clique, but to me that's a group of people who basically are always on the same side of everything. I don't think I'm on the same aide of everything with anyone. It may seem that way, but it is likely from an agreement to just drop the subject and not discuss it due to strong feelings between myself and the other party already. I don't have a problem with this, provided we don't continue harping on it to each other.

Also, who do you feel I called out? I don't believe I even have a clique here, I'm an equal opportunity offender (granted, that may not always be on this board, but I have other more heated arguments via other methods than here most times).

I'm not in your clique. You offend me daily.



:D

Sorry... felt the urge to be a smartass. It's passed now.

Crispin's Crispian
01-18-2012, 12:32 PM
I would sincerely hope that people are not just agreeing because they are friends. I have plenty of disagreements and disputes with friends here and elsewhere. I would hope that each individual decides for themselves whether they agree or not, not simply supporting an idea because of friendship, etc. Saying to Gonzo that I thought others might agree with me wasn't referencing anything other than that, that there may be those that agree with me. I wasn't making a call for support from anyone, and pointed out that I might be alone on the idea.

Maybe I have a different view of a clique, but to me that's a group of people who basically are always on the same side of everything. I don't think I'm on the same aide of everything with anyone. It may seem that way, but it is likely from an agreement to just drop the subject and not discuss it due to strong feelings between myself and the other party already. I don't have a problem with this, provided we don't continue harping on it to each other.

Also, who do you feel I called out? I don't believe I even have a clique here, I'm an equal opportunity offender (granted, that may not always be on this board, but I have other more heated arguments via other methods than here most times).
I didn't mean to say that you called anyone out specifically. I read both of those as an "appeal to the majority" argument, and those don't fly well with me. If I was wrong, that's fine. It just seemed inconsistent to me to then worry about being called clique-ish.

I don't know if you have a clique, other than with your wife. You'd be foolish not to agree with her without thinking. ;)

Bryan Blaire
01-18-2012, 12:55 PM
Trust me, even the fool that follows me isn't as big a fool as I am in that respect, SDog. ;)

No, neither of those were an appeal to the majority. One was a restating of a long-ago accusation that members of TL had been turned, the other was my honest assessment, but I doubt the majority would agree with me on it anyway. ~shrug~ I have really strange views and just assume they don't fit into many groups. I'm cool with that.