Go Yankies!

[CrimsonFrost]

This video is similar to this thread, this is a cnn video which is a liberal US news station http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU. It is only like 4 minutes long. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Towards the end of the video it mentions how a lack of religious belief in Europe is destroying it. Only 7% of the National Academy of Sciences believe in God, the other 93% of the smartest people in the United States belong to the most hated minority group atheists....

Hm.. It is off topic, but I'd be curious to see where that statistic came from. (I understood that a majority of the US believes in God, although not officially saying they are apart of any church.)

[Come_Forth]

It is not that off-topic since bush's religious beliefs are ruining the US. He is ignoring the separation of church and state, and trying to convert the US into a theocracy. This is where I got those stats http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelli ... ligion.htm
It is common knowledge though that the majority in that group are not religious

An example of religious beliefs influencing policy would be Israel. The only reason the US supports Israel over Palestine is that there is a verse in the Bible where God says that He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. If I was President when the USS Liberty was hit by Israel I would have blown Israel to bits. Why the hell did we let them get away with killing 34 US sailors?

[The Xeno]

In contrast, US pilots are trained to lock on the enemy at long distance with radar and fire missiles. US planes are heavily armed with electronics and less agile than the light, lean MiGs that can climb and turn faster than the US planes

The F-15 Eagle is how old?
And still, I'd like to see a Korean mig try and outclimb it.
No point even bothering to compare our newer fighters...

It is not that off-topic since bush's religious beliefs are ruining the US. He is ignoring the separation of church and state, and trying to convert the US into a theocracy. This is where I got those stats

Into a theocracy of what exactly? This is reality we are discussing:
Bush is no more a firebrand than Ahmadinejad is a pacifist.
Now, I would also ask you to look at our economy. If all those kitten sacrifices he is having us 'Cheney-cultists' perform in the worship of God-On-Earth-W'bua is 'ruining us', I don't see it.
--------------
Sure, there are problems… senators beating up on security guards, Anna Nichole coverage, and speculation about the ‘real' meaning of Prince’s super bowl performance... but we are hardly ruined.

An example of religious beliefs influencing policy would be Israel. The only reason the US supports Israel over Palestine is that there is a verse in the Bible where God says that He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. If I was President when the USS Liberty was hit by Israel I would have blown Israel to bits. Why the hell did we let them get away with killing 34 US sailors?

I'm sure there is something else going on... like say... the fact it is currently our only real ally in the middle east? (Because, and forgive me Israelis if i'm being presumptuous...) they need our backing. That need supplies a cement far more powerful than normal relations with say Saudia and France...

Honestly, if the Catholics of the medieval era looked down upon jews, how do you expect the Sunday Baptists and atheists to stick up for Israel based solely upon a passage of the Bible? You are attributing a power to religion, Christianity in particular, that it does not have in the United States…

As for the Liberty... Please... Many of our own citizens were agast at the thought of retaliating in the wake of 9/11. Looking back, and applying the same hateful lens, how on earth could we justify tackling Israel?
Even then, there is a difference between the Liberty and the Cole.

----------

Really though, a theocracy?
I can only wish, that and a border fence.

[Come_Forth]

I said he wants to create a theocracy, he would love nothing better than to have prayer back in schools and to pull evolution out and have of the politicians christians who enforce christian morals on the population. He wants to keep In God We Trust on the money and keep "One nation under God" in the pledge even though those things were only added in 1952 and 1956. Look at the fight over the Ten Commandments in court houses. Thank goodness the ACLU sued my county so they took them down. Having the 10 commandments up is establishing a religion.

Xeno Edit: Topic Split at this point.
To comment upon the last two posts please visit: "Split from Go Yankees"
http://herebegames.com/StarGateWars/vie ... hp?t=62667
Ontopic discussion, please continue. /-Xeno

[Jack_White]

The reason Bush is so misliked by his peers(fellow world leaders) is that he is arrogant and self absorbed. He does not listen to other people, he was given advice by people he had asked to investigate the situation in Iraq, that he should begin pulling out troops. Instead he committed another 20k troops, without the approval of Congress. The only reason that he managed to pull it off, was because some R. senators was using the old Filibuster trick. So, the US has nukes? There are other countries in the world that has that as well, as we have established. China has a 4 times the population of the US, if they so wanted they could amass an army the size of the US population through drafting. Now if you ask me, that would probably be cause for some serious concern for the US as that would mean, that even with their high tech army, they would be facing an opponnent with so vastly larger numbers than their own.
One of the major reasons Germany was losing to Russia was that they had such superior numbers, when they finally got on their feet.
The russians lost 5k troops every hour during the Battle for Berlin, but still at the end of WWII their armed forces outnumbered the rest of the Allies.

Secondly, the US is currently extremely dependent on Chinese goods, that a war with them would kill your economy. The major difference between American and Chinese economic policy, is that the Chinese couldn't care less who they traded with as long as they get paid for their goods, and they could probably get more other places than what companies like Wal-Mart is currently paying.
The Import-Export ratio between the US and China is about 15 to 1. Over $50 billion worth of goods come from China alone every year, and it's estimated that US exports to China is between $3 billion and $5 billion dollars.

I think one of the more interesting political happenings recently, was the Norwegian trade boycott of Isreal. Everyone is telling them that what they are doing is horrific, and it's making them just as bad as what the Germans, and numerous others did to them over the millenia's. But it's interesting though, as the Muslims, was by far some of the most kind conquerers of the Jews, ranking only second to Persian emperor.
Even though the boycott only lasted a few days, because the Primeminister overruled the financeministers decision, it was a well played card IMO, as it put some more focus on the cruelty of Israel.

Lastly, should it come to a nuclear war, who the triumphant would be.
Yes, you all know it. It is, The Earth!
I cite Sam Hughes: "Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy."

So, it would certainly, or at least most likely kill the Human race along with every other lifeform worth noticing at this time on the planet, but it would not destroy the Earth, just the atmosphere and the surface of the planet.

And btw, has anyone else noticed that GW never speaks when Cheney is drinking water?

[GAT-X207]

we humans are a mere blip of time in earth's history, sure we can make it a radioactive ball but it will recover quickly in terms of planetary lifetime ie 10k years to a 5-6 bil years old

[El TC]

yeah, of course I will do my best with this post of yours but allot of questions have been answered in the original article. I will try and lookup the majority of these claimed facts as well as the auhtor, hope to have a response soon.

[Jack_White]

The author can be found at this link http://www.qntm.org/destroy.

[The Xeno]

The reason Bush is so misliked by his peers(fellow world leaders) is that he is arrogant and self absorbed. He does not listen to other people, he was given advice by people he had asked to investigate the situation in Iraq, that he should begin pulling out troops.

Just because he does not act upon a particular opinion, is not evidence that he does not listen. At this point, I do not see how calls for a troop withdrawal are anything but a partisan position taken by those who wish to reclaim their political power.
I don't see how such a move is in our best interest, and thus, am glad he has chosen the advice from a different group...

Instead he committed another 20k troops, without the approval of Congress.

No, he had approval.
You forget, those democrats held a symbolic vote
Even they realize, deep down, that it is not our best option to leave; else it would have been a real one.

The only reason that he managed to pull it off, was because some R. senators was using the old Filibuster trick.

Which the democrats were using/threating to use last year to try and prevent Republican moves.... neither side is pure.

And btw, has anyone else noticed that GW never speaks when Cheney is drinking water?

He does actually; but I'm sure that then it's Robo-Bush ® and not the real thing

[Gatedialer]

Anyways, back to Iran.

I'd say if Iran detonates a nuke, and its obvious that they did, that NATO/US will launch a preemptive strike against Iran to take out their capacity to build any more. We would probably take out Military targets and their Leadership, which would increase the chance of the already powerfull Iranian resistance to overthrow the government.

If we invade, which is less likely, Iran is probably screwed. We have Afghanistan and Iraq, which both cover the east and west sides of Iran. We'd probably get support from Russia to use their airspace to launch paratroopers from the north and then use the gulf to launch the south approach. If Iran decides to use WMDs of any sort, well, we'd use nukes against them. That was policy during the Iraq war and would probably used here too.

I've yet to mention the obvious advantage of both numbers, and technology that the US possesses. This is obvious.

The reason ultimately for this war is because:
1. Iran possesses a nuclear weapon.
2. Iran is the biggest supporter of Terrorism in the world.
3. There is no doubt that Iran would give the bomb to Al Quida or Hezbollah.

This is completely unacceptable and there is no doubt that there would be some form of military action by NATO and the United States.

[The Xeno]

We'd probably get support from Russia to use their airspace to launch paratroopers from the north and then use the gulf to launch the south approach.

I wonder if you put to much faith in Putin/Russia. I have no doubt that Russia would 'support' us... but I imagine that their support would not extend to airspace. The same probably holds true for NATO and I cannot imagine the UN even touching the subject.

Indeed, other than the odd Island nation that dedicates two-thousand troops... I would imagine we would have the show to ourselves. Even Israel seems subdued after their moral collapse against Hezbollah and might not provide oft-rumored air strikes. (As long as the US is involved.)

We would probably take out Military targets and their Leadership, which would increase the chance of the already powerfull Iranian resistance to overthrow the government.

It will be a race between their resistance movement and ours...

[CrimsonFrost]

Anyways, back to Iran.

I'd say if Iran detonates a nuke, and its obvious that they did, that NATO/US will launch a preemptive strike against Iran to take out their capacity to build any more. We would probably take out Military targets and their Leadership, which would increase the chance of the already powerfull Iranian resistance to overthrow the government.

If we invade, which is less likely, Iran is probably screwed. We have Afghanistan and Iraq, which both cover the east and west sides of Iran. We'd probably get support from Russia to use their airspace to launch paratroopers from the north and then use the gulf to launch the south approach. If Iran decides to use WMDs of any sort, well, we'd use nukes against them. That was policy during the Iraq war and would probably used here too.

I've yet to mention the obvious advantage of both numbers, and technology that the US possesses. This is obvious.

The reason ultimately for this war is because:
1. Iran possesses a nuclear weapon.
2. Iran is the biggest supporter of Terrorism in the world.
3. There is no doubt that Iran would give the bomb to Al Quida or Hezbollah.

This is completely unacceptable and there is no doubt that there would be some form of military action by NATO and the United States.

I believe I share the same thought as many Americans that if Iran, or any other country ever assaulted the US with nuclear weapons, that place will be turned to a nuclear wasteland. Nearly every US president, Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative will respond the same way because the outcry would get that person kicked out of office if he didn't even want to.

Now on the possibility of Iran giving that weapon to terrorists, that would also be a bad idea on their part. Just like the US is beginning to get media ammunition to attack Iran, (Showing proof of Iranian material support in the guise of training, specially shaped missiles, etc) is already making things look bad. If they gave them a nuke, it would be war with the US and basically in then end the entire Middle East would probably blow up into open war.

[Londo Mollari]

GWB is very full of himself imo. Blair is probably one of the few world leaders who actively supports him and he is stepping down soon. I think it fairly likely that both the US and the UK will slowly withdraw there forces from the east.

IMO Bush may be full of himself, but Putin is even worse. Russia has large oil reserves which are worth a lot of money and he knows it all right. He will probably use this to increase his influence on the world as much as possible.

You say that the US would turn the territories of its aggresors into nucleur wasteland. If they have nuclear weapons then i would say that there are more potential targets in the US than in Iran or North Korea. A nuclear bomb being dropped in NK would be seen by the media as a brutal blow by the US and a show of strenght. A nuclear explosion in the US, would be simply crushing. America would be seen to be weak, brought to its knees by NK.

[CrimsonFrost]

GWB is very full of himself imo. Blair is probably one of the few world leaders who actively supports him and he is stepping down soon. I think it fairly likely that both the US and the UK will slowly withdraw there forces from the east.

IMO Bush may be full of himself, but Putin is even worse. Russia has large oil reserves which are worth a lot of money and he knows it all right. He will probably use this to increase his influence on the world as much as possible.

You say that the US would turn the territories of its aggresors into nucleur wasteland. If they have nuclear weapons then i would say that there are more potential targets in the US than in Iran or North Korea. A nuclear bomb being dropped in NK would be seen by the media as a brutal blow by the US and a show of strenght. A nuclear explosion in the US, would be simply crushing. America would be seen to be weak, brought to its knees by NK.

I'd strongly disagree with the statement about nuclear explosions bringing America to its knee's. A good choice would be really any major assault on the US in it's history such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. American culture is interesting in the fact that upon being attacked or going to a major war, they go into "wartime status" The large majority of people forget their differences, show loud vocal support for the troops in every way imaginable raising troops morale dramatically. Companies that typically support US operations kick into high gear, along with the ideaology of capitalism kicking in. Companies show support for their troops, which garners them more sales, which makes the US economy even stronger. This aspect of American culture could no better be displayed then the prominent status the US took as a superpower after World War II.

If we were hit with a nuclear attack, the country that commenced said attack would be virtually annhilated. The world would not outcry if the US was hit first, which is why there was only offers of support when the US hit Afghanistan after 9/11. As said before, history is written by the victor, and if attacked by nuclear weapons or in an conventional assault by North Korea, North Korea would end as a country.

[The Xeno]

This aspect of American culture could no better be displayed then the prominent status the US took as a superpower after World War II.

It would be interesting to see if we are able to acomplish that again...
But then I remind myself:

• The current polarity is nothing compared to congresional reconstruction.
• Charges of a 'Corrupt Bargian' between politcal candidates were being flung about in 1824.
• Lincoln was called an imperialist tyrant bent on martial law (and stupid, gangly, ape-like).
• The ACLU was baying against WW1/2.
• Mcarthy set our nation afire without actually locking anyone away... etc. etc. etc.

And wholeheartedly believe that we would indeed rise up in substantial majority. I wouldn't place bets on CCNI however