USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[evilnate 0]

Sorry I didn't read though all of the 180 pages, but I just wanted to inject a comment as an american patriot.

It sounds like our country has been getting a bad reputation and I can understand why. We have corrupt, sexualy disturbed, self centered politicians to choose from on the voting ballots. It seems like some of our cities' crime rates are higher than more than one-half of the other countries. Approximately 127 million adults in the U.S. are overweight, 60 million obese, and 9 million severely obese - we just counted ourselves a little while ago at 300M (adults, children, seniors). Many people in other countries watch american television and form opinions; Jerry Springer, Cops, "Reality" television. Our current government in charge is responsible for invading and conquering a body of the united nations on faulty intelligence. Our government also took over another country, while both surrounding the country that has the highest overall number of troops in the entire world publicly labeling it part of our axis of evil. Our government chooses to send aid in forms of money and arms to the most hated country in the world. America is the only nation to have used a nuke on another country at war. I think americans are viewed as having vast lands and most travel many miles to work 5 days a week in our huge sport utility vehicles and 4X4s while eating bigmacs. Not a single american publisher will accept BIS's terms for a signing - or something. I can totaly understand why others would view america as the new big, bad, fat, wolf.

The fact is, is that I think I can speak for alot of the people I know who are americans. First of all - we do support and respect our troops! They need to have supplies and leadership to get the job done. I can also say that there are indeed "springers", but there are very few, hide pretty well, and are generaly harmless. Most of us (west coast) wish bush wasn't in office when september eleventh rolled around. Most of us wish he wasn't in office these past couple of years either. But, he is our president - because he had just a few more votes than the other guy and we should just try to make due with what we have until the next election. More and more people like myself are becoming more of an active voter and I believe that we will start voting more often to choose the lesser of the 10,000 evils.  

My point is to remember most of us americans are great, hard working, patriotic, inspired people who do care about what is going on and understand the world doesn't revolve around us.

Thank you.

[billybob2002 0]

The Soviet Union did not bankrupt the United States. I do not remember the news reports which informed us that we are a bankrupt nation living off of aid.

I don't think you've been reading the business pages then.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/

"The Outstanding Public Debt as of 29 Nov 2006 at 03:46:13 AM GMT is:

$8,629,744,706,718.55

The estimated population of the United States is 300,340,264

so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,733.23

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$2.03 billion per day since September 29, 2006!"

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The money is predominantly lent by Britain, Japan and China.

The Soviet Union didn't bankrupt the United States, Reagan did.

[/img]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.bayfield/National-Debt-GDP.gif[/img]

The U.S. currently spends more than it earns and it's getting worse with no end in sight.

Russia bit the bullet; when Britain, Japan or China pull the plug, the U.S. will be forced to also.

(At which point if you have a bit of cash saved up, you stand to make a serious killing on the stock exchange).

I'm very foggy (what every that means) on the issue of money. However, you declare bankruptcy when cannot pay the creditors. The United States is in debt but has not declared bankruptcy.

[Baff2 0]

But the U.S. can't pay that debt.

The only reason it's not bankrupt is because China, Britain and Japan aren't calling it in.

Hence the economy is held afloat artificially by foreign aid.

The trouble starts when America's creditors run out of credit,

or wish to destablise the country.

The U.S. has an unspecified but limited amount to time to fundamentally reform or face economic collapse identical to that seen in the Soviet Union.

The only thing currently staving that off is foreign intervention.

In terms of Cold War spending, it means that America could not just keep borrowing indefinitely until they were in a position to force the U.S.S.R. to increase it's military production; because either no one was willing or able to lend them any more dough.

The U.S. didn't have enough money on it's own to force the Russians to upscale their military, and neither did they and their Cold War allies combined. Reasgan gave a damn good try, but failed.

S.D.I. was abandoned due to budgetry constraint. The Soviets were never placed in the position where they would need to re-arm to maintain their superiority.

The START treaty was the beginnings of the climb down.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]The EU economy is roughly the size of the US one (actually somewhat larger)

but considerably more fragile too. all it takes is a nuclear state to withdraw and the whole thing collapses.

Quote[/b] ]There are a number of cultures which hold a belief in fairies. Why do you dismiss them? And especially, why are you not respectful of the belief in them? Do you feel the same way about say the Hindu gods? Or about the beliefs of other Christian sects?

But not as gods. I have never really conversed with a Hindu. I don't see Hindu's any less or greater as a person than I. But I tolerate their religion because it is a big part of their culture. and offending a persons culture offends the person (underlined for you denoir).

It's starting to get back to a theological debate... Moving on! Oh to put a nail into the US Constitution - Religion debate:

Quote[/b] ]Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Good luck shaking that off your fur.

That's just the thing - it wouldn't. The EU isn't bound by military loyalty  - it is based on economic self interest and some shared political values. Any country or group of countries could leave without the EU collapsing. The US would be far more sensitive to one or several states leaving the federation.

No, the EU's weakness comes from its basic assumption that society doesn't have to be hierarchical - that people have an interest in society working out. While on average this is certainly true, it doesn't hold in every case and for all groups.

One example is the growing fundamentalist Muslim communities that actively work against the liberal principles of the European society. And Europe doesn't know how to handle that - the tolerance extends to the intolerant which is of course auto-destructive.

Another example is the French and Dutch rejections of the proposed constitution - a clear yes/no in a decision is rare in the EU - for the most part everything is some form of compromise. While there are of course different parties and political agendas, the decision process is by necessity more cooperative than adversarial.

If the EU model will fail then it will be because of too liberal values - because of the willingness to respect and tolerate the minority that wants to see it destroyed.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]"Blessed are the peacemakers", wasn't that what Jesus said?

"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)

"But the LORD is with me like a mighty warrior; so my persecutors will stumble and not prevail. They will fail and be thoroughly disgraced; their dishonor will never be forgotten.(Jeremiah 20:11)

Yes, there are a massive amounts of inconsistencies in the Bible, especially between the two testaments. And as I said, you seem to me like more a fan of the old testament genocidal god.

The moral message of the old testament is awful by any modern standards. The character "God" is a thoroughly disgusting, petty, vengeful and plain evil one who ordered genocide and other forms of mass murders.

To give an example, on god's orders the Israelites invaded Canaan and exterminated seven ethnic groups whose only crime was to live there.

"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them." Deuteronomy 7:1-2

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21

Not to mention the various mass murders of innocent children:

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." Exodus 12:29-30

No normal person in the civilized world today would say that genocide and infanticide are good moral standards.

These are just few examples. The old testament is really morally disgusting and even though it's a work of fiction, its message is appalling.

Quote[/b] ]The reality is: we have US soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen over in a country where they feel they're winning.

They feel they're winning? Do you have something to back that statement up? Some statistics, an opinion poll perhaps?

You know, for a discussion to be meaningful, you're not allowed to make stuff up.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The combat action of WWII, we still have bases in Germany from WWII remember?

So ? I´m pretty sure the US will have bases in Iraq in 5 or 6 years aswell. What´s your point ? Right now tghere is slaughter on Iraq´s streets. And it has not DECREASED but INCREASED.

Quote[/b] ]

Civil War? I'm yet to find a casus belli. right now its foreign terrorists coming in and hoping to get a civil war started to put more pressure on the US hoping we will leave.

Nonsense. Even the white house went away from that message.

Quote[/b] ]Lets review what happened last leek... Thanksgiving! Those terrorists are getting smarter... -ish.

As if the Iraquis would give a damn about Thanksgiving. It´s called sectarian violence, if you haven´t read the news lately.

Quote[/b] ]Where the hell are you getting that number?

UN: Record civilian slaughter in chaotic Iraq

Quote[/b] ]

BAGHDAD -- The toll of Iraqi civilians has mounted steadily in the country's unremitting violence, with at least 3,709 civilian deaths in October, the highest count so far, the UN reported in its bleakest assessment since the U.S.-led invasion.

Last month's total was up nearly 400 from September and 700 more than in August, with the violence now taking an average of 120 lives each day, the report said.

The continued slaughter of civilians as well as increasing poverty has forced more than 2 million people from their homes, most of them fleeing the country. Every month, nearly 100,000 Iraqis flee to neighboring Jordan and Syria, the UN found.

...

snip

Get your facts straight.

Quote[/b] ]YOU, SIR, HAVE NO IDEA WHATS GOING ON! IF OUR TROOPS ARE OVER THERE KNOWING THEY CAN WIN THIS WAR THE BY GOD THEY WILL! THIS WAR CAN ONLY BE WON BY THE SHEER DETERMINATION OF TROOPS ON THE GROUND! NOT BY THE B****ING OF BRAINLESS POLITICIANS.

This war is long lost. Using capitals doesn´t revert latest history.

Quote[/b] ]Let me show you this picture and let you decide on whats going on:

Have you checked the age of that pic ?

Either you are willingly living under a rock in Nevada, or you are just in denial of reality.

Come in again if you have done some reading on what´s going on in Iraq TODAY.

[EiZei 0]

the SU was winding down, internal pressure from political leadrers caused the withdraw.

The same thing would have probably happened to you as well when your leaders would have realized the futility of the mission.

Quote[/b] ]

along with talks of the US getting Iran and Pakistan together to repulse the "invasion." But this is tricky too, the "invasion" was actually an armed assistance to Afghanistan. Afghanistan, if you recall, actually favored the SU.

And the vietnam war was supposedly a police action to support south vietnam as well.

Anyways, blaming "foreign agents" for the violence in iraq is so 2005.

[Baff2 0]

No, the EU's weakness comes from its basic assumption that society doesn't have to be hierarchical - that people have an interest in society working out. While on average this is certainly true, it doesn't hold in every case and for all groups.

One example is the growing fundamentalist Muslim communities that actively work against the liberal principles of the European society. And Europe doesn't know how to handle that - the tolerance extends to the intolerant which is of course auto-destructive.

Another example is the French and Dutch rejections of the proposed constitution - a clear yes/no in a decision is rare in the EU - for the most part everything is some form of compromise. While there are of course different parties and political agendas, the decision process is by necessity more cooperative than adversarial.

If the EU model will fail then it will be because of too liberal values - because of the willingness to respect and tolerate the minority that wants to see it destroyed.

The EU is fundamentally weaker than the U.S., despite it's economic superiority, by the fact that it is not one unified nation.

It does not have, never has had, nor is it ever likely to have, the capability to act with unified purpose.

It is a body of independant nations each with conflicting goals, priorities and sensebilities. It has no history of common culture or purpose. It does not speak with one voice or act with one purpose.

If we use the Iraq War as our (predictable) example. Half the EU was up for it, half was not. Each country had it's own boat to row, it's own intrests to pursue. The EU was fundamentally unable to act as one body.

Even the very concept of the EU has different meanings and concept for it's individual countries.

The U.S., on the other hand, can rapidly and effectively mobilise it's populace and industry in a unified fashion. Like Russia and China, this common nationality gives it access to far greater concentration of resources for any single purpose it's leadership chooses.

The EU lacks the ability to agree and co-ordinate it's populace with anything like the same level of focus.

[Baff2 0]

LMAO. Foreign terrorists.

All twenty of them. Best send more troops.

[xawery 0]

Sophion-Black:

Quote[/b] ]let me review: "OF OUR LORD." and to clarify which one I'll even throw in the nations motto: "IN GOD WE TRUST"

You do realise that "In god we trust" was only declared your nation's motto in 1956, as a way to distinguish the USA from the godless USSR?

If you ask me, "E pluribus unum" sounds a lot more secular to me... Guess when it was chosen as the US's motto? That's right, 1776.

One could argue that "Annuit Coeptis" is a reference to the Christian religion. However, given the facts that "Deus" has been intentionally left out and that the phrase can be tracked a pagan prayer to Jupiter, I don't think so.

In conclusion: saying that the US has been built on Christian values is a product of (relatively) recent times.

[billybob2002 0]

Sophion-Black:

Quote[/b] ]let me review: "OF OUR LORD." and to clarify which one I'll even throw in the nations motto: "IN GOD WE TRUST"

You do realise that "In god we trust" was only declared your nation's motto in 1956, as a way to distinguish the USA from the godless USSR?

If you ask me, "E pluribus unum" sounds a lot more secular to me... Guess when it was chosen as the US's motto? That's right, 1776.

One could argue that "Annuit Coeptis" is a reference to the Christian religion. However, given the facts that "Deus" has been intentionally left out and that the phrase can be tracked a pagan prayer to Jupiter, I don't think so.

In conclusion: saying that the US has been built on Christian values is a product of (relatively) recent times.

You forgot about the eye of providence, or the eye of God, in the Great Seal. Charles Thomson, the creator of the Great Seal, wrote, "the Eye over it (pyramid) and the motto Annuit Coeptis allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favor of the American cause." Basically, God favored the American colonists. I don't know Charles Thomson's view on religion but he was the first American to complete an English translation of the Bible.

Source: http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/explanation.html

[xawery 0]

You are correct BillyBob, but the Eye of Providence is a rather ambiguous symbol: it is a very prominent element of Freemason symbolism, especially in combination with the pyramid (the temple of King Solomon). Incidentally, the logo of the Information Awareness Office (IAO) was changed for exactly this reason.

My case still stands: why use "Annuit Coeptis" instead of "Deus Annuit Coeptis" or "Deo favente" if the former is much more ambiguous and reeks of ill-defined deism? I understand that the strange obsession with the number 13 (thirteen layers in the pyramid) is partly to blame, but this only strengthens my argument that the US at the time of its inception was engulfed in a fascination with gnostic mysticism, rather than outspokenly founded on the Christian faith.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]And yet you took the freedom (that you now rob Denoir for) to label Iraq as a victory

We hold the capital, the Iraqis are turning against extremism, the US is exposing what Iran really is the the SCO, and Syria is looking like its cautious about its steps now.

And? The war is still not over, and you still mean you've got the right to label it as a victory, while Denoir should not be allowed to label it as a failure?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]"Thou shalt not kill" (Somewhere in the bible...)

There's an exception, the 20th chapter of Deuteronomy (explains what to do before war).

Yeah, you just got to love how you can choose which parts to follow and which not to follow, right? Like Denoir have already pointed out, the bible (and most other religious texts) are full of contradictions and inconsistencies, which probably are what's making religion as harmful as it sometimes can be.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]How does that prove that USA was founded on christian values?

let me review: "OF OUR LORD." and to clarify which one I'll even throw in the nations motto: "IN GOD WE TRUST"

Quote[/b] ]You do realise that "In god we trust" was only declared your nation's motto in 1956, as a way to distinguish the USA from the godless USSR?

Quote[/b] ]YOU, SIR, HAVE NO IDEA WHATS GOING ON! IF OUR TROOPS ARE OVER THERE KNOWING THEY CAN WIN THIS WAR THE BY GOD THEY WILL! THIS WAR CAN ONLY BE WON BY THE SHEER DETERMINATION OF TROOPS ON THE GROUND! NOT BY THE B****ING OF BRAINLESS POLITICIANS.

Yeah, and a certain Mr. Adolf Hitler was quite sure he could drive back the Soviets and get in to the war when in fact the Soviets were rather close to his bunker...does that mean that Hitler could just label WWII as a victory? Of course, I expect (and sincerly hope) that the americans soldiers in Iraq got a bit more grip on reality than Hitler, but that still doesn't mean that USA is winning in Iraq because they feel they are...

Don't you think the japanese felt they were kicking some serious US ass after Pearl Harbor? Don't you think the Germans felt they were winning against the Soviets up to the battle in Stalingrad? The fact that they probably felt so doesn't make it a universal truth...

Quote[/b] ]Civil War? I'm yet to find a casus belli. right now its foreign terrorists coming in and hoping to get a civil war started to put more pressure on the US hoping we will leave.

Yeah, and lets just ignore that Iraqis say that if a Shia muslim lives in a Sunni muslim area, he is threatened to move, and if he doesn't he can expect to be killed. Lets just ignore that Iraqis say that a Sunni muslim may kill a Shia muslim because the latter one had a "Shia-name"...This doesn't prove that it's a civil war, but it proves that there's not (only) foreign terrorists that's doing the bad things, it's Iraqis...

[billybob2002 0]

You are correct BillyBob, but the Eye of Providence is a rather ambiguous symbol: it is a very prominent element of Freemason symbolism, especially in combination with the pyramid (the temple of King Solomon). Incidentally, the logo of the Information Awareness Office (IAO) was changed for exactly this reason.

My case still stands: why use "Annuit Coeptis" instead of "Deus Annuit Coeptis" or "Deo favente" if the former is much more ambiguous and reeks of ill-defined deism? I understand that the strange obsession with the number 13 (thirteen layers in the pyramid) is partly to blame, but this only strengthens my argument that the US at the time of its inception was engulfed in a fascination with gnostic mysticism, rather than outspokenly founded on the Christian faith.

Charles Thomson was not a freemason.

Anyway, let Charles Thomson answer your questions on the Great Seal:

http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/explanation.html

Quote[/b] ]

The Escutcheon is composed of the chief & pale, the two most honorable ordinaries. The Pieces, paly, represent the several states all joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief, which unites the whole & represents Congress. The Motto alludes to this union. The pales in the arms are kept closely united by the chief and the Chief depends upon that union & the strength resulting from it for its support, to denote the Confederacy of the United States of America & the preservation of their union through Congress.

The colours of the pales are those used in the flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valor, and Blue, the colour of the Chief signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice. The Olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace & war which is exclusively vested in Congress. The Constellation denotes a new State taking its place and rank among other sovereign powers. The Escutcheon is born on the breast of an American Eagle without any other supporters to denote that the United States of America ought to rely on their own Virtue.–

Reverse. The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: The Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause. The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence and the words under it signify the beginning of the new American Ćra, which commences from that date.–

There were four attempts to design the Great Seal with the fourth attempt becoming the Great Seal. The first committee (July/August 1776) was comprised of Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams.

Franklin's Great Seal:

Quote[/b] ]

"Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity.

"Motto, Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."

Jefferson's Great Seal:

Quote[/b] ]For the front of the seal: children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. For the reverse: Hengist and Horsa, the two brothers who were the legendary leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon settlers in Britain.

Adams' Great Seal:

Quote[/b] ]

John Adams chose the allegorical painting known as the "Judgment of Hercules" where the young Hercules must choose to travel either on the flowery path of self-indulgence or ascend the rugged, uphill way of duty to others and honor to himself.

They agreed to this: http://www.greatseal.com/committees/firstcomm/SimitiereSketch.jpg

13 probably means the number of colonies that made the United States. The first committee (Jefferson, Franklin and Adams) that attempted to design the Great Seal contained the initials of the 13 colonies embroidered on a shield.

Oh, the second committee's motto was Deo Favente Perennis....

[Garcia 0]

Countries where founded and had laws against killing and stealing before Christianity. Christianity is partly based on morale that was already in the society. Things like "you shall not kill" and "you shall not steal" was common morality before christianity. If I write a book that says "You neither kill nor steal", and a country is founded with laws against stealing and killing, does that mean that country is founded upon my words, my values? Would the same country not have laws against these things if neither my book nor any other book said that killing and stealing was wrong? I am quite sure the laws and morality in that country would be the same with or without my and other books. Christianity is based on morality from the countries it evolved from, countries are not founded on the morality in christianity...

And except for some vague arguments like things having "OF OUR LORD" in them, I haven't seen much that point towards USA being founded on christian morality...would people consider Eminems lyrics as based on christian morality simply because he uses words that can only be connected to christianity (or possibly other religions), like God or hell or angels?

[xawery 0]

Hi BillyBob,

you are correct in your quotes, but they in fact strengthen my argument. The first designs were very religious in nature, but were rejected in favour of a neutral Seal. Charles Thomson's quote says it all:

Quote[/b] ]The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: The Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause.

No mention of Christianity at all, only references to vague and abstract notions of 'providence'. I'm not saying he was a freemason (although George Washington and many other US presidents were); I'm saying that the original regalia of the United States of America consist of neutral and/or ambiguous symbols, chosen over explicit Christian symbolism which had been considered an option. If that doesn't tell you (and Sophion-Black) something, I don't know what will. All the references to god are a recent phenomenon devised to distance the USA from the "atheist" USSR. I use quotation marks because religion in communist states was simply replaced with another cult: the worship of the leader. But that's another story...

However, let's not get lost in minutiae. This whole discussion started with Sophion's assertion that the US was founded on Christian principles. I think we have managed to prove that the USA, while certainly a religious country, wasn't built around the Christian faith. Gnosticism, a belief in some supernatural power, yes, but not Christianity per se. It is thus all the more surprising to see how hostile some Americans can be towards other faiths or the lack of one (vide Bush Sr.'s remark about atheists not being true patriots).

Incidentally, Sophion-Black, I must say your recent string of posts has brought a grin to my face. On numerous occasions, you have (indirectly) threatened Denoir with bodily harm for his lack of respect for your religion. Boy, doesn't that sound familiar?

[Sophion-Black 0]

LMAO. Foreign terrorists.

All twenty of them. Best send more troops.

Are you stupid or just full of democratic bull sh!t?

Its been three years! do you think Iraq will be left if all the terrorists were domestic? NO! You honestly think that Iraqi people are picking up guns off dead terrorists to fight American and allied troops?

Quote[/b] ]And it has not DECREASED but INCREASED

political move, the terrorists know that if Iran gets a foot in the door the US will be powerless to stop them. After all look who is standing behind them, Russia and the PRC. That is one of the reasons the US doesn't want Iran to get nukes. Another being Israel will use theirs to blast Iran off the map... and we don't want to play "duck, duck, who's-- (Boom)" in Iraq!

Quote[/b] ]You do realise that "In god we trust" was only declared your nation's motto in 1956, as a way to distinguish the USA from the godless USSR?

to what... tell the world we're the nation that... has faith in God maybe? That was a nice argument

Quote[/b] ]This war is long lost. Using capitals doesn´t revert latest history.

look they said that about WWII, they said that before the US went toe-to-toe with Spain. But let me tell you something, there is nothing more powerful than an American Servicemen and his weapon! If we can beat the living sh!t out of a country that has seen war for more than a decade and controls more than 16,000,000^2 miles with heavily fortified positions that can only be taken by foot after a meat grinder of crossfire on the shore.  Then the US can definitely beat the s*** out of poorly trained, misguided rejects of society!

This is all it is, the world doesn't want to see a weak force destroyed by a very large one. They're just rooting for the underdog and waiting to laugh up a loss of the US! They know they can't beat the US, but they want sto see someone do it.

Is that what all you want!? to see the US lose a war!?

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, and a certain Mr. Adolf Hitler was quite sure he could drive back the Soviets and get in to the war when in fact the Soviets were rather close to his bunker...does that mean that Hitler could just label WWII as a victory? Of course, I expect (and sincerly hope) that the americans soldiers in Iraq got a bit more grip on reality than Hitler, but that still doesn't mean that USA is winning in Iraq because they feel they are...

Don't you think the japanese felt they were kicking some serious US ass after Pearl Harbor? Don't you think the Germans felt they were winning against the Soviets up to the battle in Stalingrad? The fact that they probably felt so doesn't make it a universal truth...

All against well-trained-battle-hardened troops. this is different, this is militiamen.

Quote[/b] ]They feel they're winning? Do you have something to back that statement up? Some statistics, an opinion poll perhaps?

You know, for a discussion to be meaningful, you're not allowed to make stuff up.

primary sources:

PFC David Whelms, USMC

LCPL Jessie Whoebach, USMC

SGT Justin Davidson, USMC

PFC Steven Cornet, US Army

[Garcia 0]

Are you stupid or just full of democratic bull sh!t?

Have the thought that maybe it's you who are either stupid or full of Republican bullshit ever crossed your mind? I would guess not...

Quote[/b] ]Its been three years! do you think Iraq will be left if all the terrorists were domestic? NO! You honestly think that Iraqi people are picking up guns off dead terrorists to fight American and allied troops?

Hmm, yeah, Iraq can't take the deaths from some terrorists killing some people and getting killed themself, but they can take the 100 000 who are fleeing the country each day?

Quote[/b] ]to what... tell the world we're the nation that... has faith in God maybe? That was a nice argument

The point is wether or not USA is founded on christian values...if you somehow can tell me how a motto that was taken into use quite some time AFTER USA was founded somehow proves that USA was founded on christian values, then please, enlighten me...if not, how about coming up with something that was a fact around the time USA was founded...

Quote[/b] ]look they said that about WWII, they said that before the US went toe-to-toe with Spain. But let me tell you something, there is nothing more powerful than an American Servicemen and his weapon! If we can beat the living sh!t out of a country that has seen war for more than a decade and controls more than 16,000,000^2 miles with heavily fortified positions that can only be taken by foot after a meat grinder of crossfire on the shore. Then the US can definitely beat the s*** out of poorly trained, misguided rejects of society!

This is all it is, the world doesn't want to see a weak force destroyed by a very large one. They're just rooting for the underdog and waiting to laugh up a loss of the US! They know they can't beat the US, but they want sto see someone do it.

Is that what all you want!? to see the US lose a war!?

Christ, it's rather amusing, but at the same time a bit annoying seeing your "USA is teh best at everything" attitude...you actually belive USA is flawless? It certainly seems so...judging out from your statements one could almost belive that a single US soldier could take on the whole world and win...I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually aware of the fact that US soldiers are dying and that USA is quite far from being flawless...

Quote[/b] ]All against well-trained-battle-hardened troops. this is different, this is militiamen.

Hmm...let me see...Afghanistan...militamen managed to fight off the Soviet Union...Vietnam...militamen managed to fight off USA (although you somehow consider Vietnam to be a very nice success, even though you had to pull back because of militamen in pyjamas with low-tech equipment compared to the US equipment...)...

[scary 0]

World War I... Remind me, how important was the US contribution to that scuffle?

Pretty much decisive I would say, the influx of fresh manpower ended the stalemate, was how i understood it.

The US military hierarchy seriously screwed over their men. They entered the war with a heavy dose of arrogance and decided they didn't need the advice of the British and French militaries. Pershing insisted on using frontal assaults, a tactic both the British and French had abandoned because of its ineffectiveness and the obscene attrition rate. It didn't take very long for the Americans to be switched from an independant force to being reinforcements for the British and French.

The British naval blockade of Germany which started in 1917 was beginning to bite by early 1918 and the German industrial machine slowed to a crawl. It was this that ended the stalemate.

By the time the Americans arrived Germany's best soldiers were gone and they were rapidly running out of equipment. There was also severe internal unrest in Germany.

You are dodging the fact that the West and the Soviet Union opposed each other. It was Team A vs. Team B.

I'm not dodging it because it isn't a fact. It was not A vs. B. A and B were playing solitaire, trying not to be the first to lose.

Quote[/b] ]The ideology of both parties are relevent. One was based on captialism and the other was communism. Communism dislikes captialism and captialism dislikes communism. Remember, the House Committee on Un-American Activities? The House Committee on Un-American Activities did not go after suspected capitalist.

Being abstract constructs, neither communism nor capitalism can have a view on anything. The economic system of Russia had no impact on the US other than having one less potential trading partner. It was a choice to have them as an enemy, communism was the excuse.

Incidentally, I never could see how the HUAC harassing suspected communists was itself not "un-American" - political freedom and all.

1) wasn't prolonged, just lost political support

2) wasn't open either, mostly unconventional

3) "Police Action" was a term that discribes what we did. we protected and assisted ARVN troops. Then we got ticked and lashed out and everyone started bitching.

4) If i remember correctly, the US never lost a battle in 'Nam

1) It lasted 16 years. That is prolonged.

2) Open does not refer to strategy and tactics, it means not clandestine. It was not clandestine.

3) I've never seen the NYPD fighting in the jungle, or trying to stop an invading army. You cannot use more explosive than was used in WWI and WWII combined and say it wasn't a war.

4) Not every contact was a battle. All battles can be won and a war lost.

Quote[/b] ]but realy, take a look at realy is going on now, not what the press shows. they can only show so much in an hour.

Not to worry there, my finger is very much on the pulse. It would take a lot of head stomping to turn it around and nothing anywhere near stompy enough is ever going to be authorised.

Quote[/b] ]Nope, American Millitia vs. Pequot Indians.

Nope, two English colonies and some local tribes vs. Pequot Indians. The only way Americans were involved is if there was some use of time travel.

Quote[/b] ]no, stop British Impressment, establish stronger boarders, repusle the british from mainland US, and gain trade rights.

The British were impressing British seamen on American vessels, something they were within their rights to do. They were not taking Americans. The issue was spun as a reason by those with a vested interest. Those same people were the ones antagonising the situation with forged or illegally issued citizenship certificates. America wanted to move its borders in order to gain more land and kill a few Indians, not strengthen them. They wanted to repulse the British from the whole of the American continent, not just the US. There were no trade rights to gain, Britain had already decided to lift the blockade stopping the US trading with France but the Americans didn't hear about it until after they declared war.

Quote[/b] ]have you ever heard about American Frigates? The Best in the world, HMN was ordered not to engage them.

The Royal Navy (not HMN) was, by far, the worlds most powerful navy from the 17th century through to the inter-war years when it was overtaken by Germany.

HMS Shannon was a 38 gun frigate, USS Chesapeake was a 36 gun frigate. Also, while the cream of RN ships and crews were busy fighting in the Napoleonic Wars and elsewhere leaving lesser vessels and overstretched, under-trained crews patrolling N. America, Capt. Brook had an excellent, well drilled crew.

The best ships the US had were its super-frigates which were fourth/fifth rate. The US only used them against RN fifth rate frigates and sixth rate sloops. The RN had 60 gun fourth rates that made US frigates look like canoes. The ships of the line would make them look like flotsam, shortly before turning them into it. The RN had 97 vessels operating around America, the US had 22. They were not told not to engage US ships.

Quote[/b] ]I have an understanding of assymetric warfare. but let me tell you, the US never advanced its troops beyond an artillery fan. We had control of the battlefield. But not the brain-washed hippies in the US.

Artillery doesn't work very well in the jungle. And students protesting 9,000 miles away don't affect a military's effectiveness.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The EU economy is roughly the size of the US one (actually somewhat larger)

but considerably more fragile too. all it takes is a nuclear state to withdraw and the whole thing collapses.

No, the EU economy is not based on two states' nuclear arsenals. The US economy is in such dire condition as to need a war to stop it from collapsing and is now sabre-rattling with Iran for the same reason.

[billybob2002 0]

No mention of Christianity at all, only references to vague and abstract notions of 'providence'. I'm not saying he was a freemason (although George Washington and many other US presidents were); I'm saying that the original regalia of the United States of America consist of neutral and/or ambiguous symbols, chosen over explicit Christian symbolism which had been considered an option. If that doesn't tell you (and Sophion-Black) something, I don't know what will. All the references to god are a recent phenomenon devised to distance the USA from the "atheist" USSR. I use quotation marks because religion in communist states was simply replaced with another cult: the worship of the leader. But that's another story...

References to God are not a recent phenonmenon devised to distance the USA from the "atheist" USSR. For example, the Eye of Providence is the Eye of God. Does the Eye of Providence in the Great Seal represents the Christian God? I don't know. However, the Eye of Providence in the Great Seal is the Christian verison of the Eye. Compare the Eye of Providence on the Great Seal to the Eye of Providence on the Aachen Cathedral.

Pierre EugÄne Du SimitiÄre suggested using the Eye of Providence. The first committee's design, created by Pierre, did contain the Eye of Providence. The freemasons adopted and changed the Eye of Providence later for their usage.

However, let's not get lost in minutiae. This whole discussion started with Sophion's assertion that the US was founded on Christian principles. I think we have managed to prove that the USA, while certainly a religious country, wasn't built around the Christian faith. Gnosticism, a belief in some supernatural power, yes, but not Christianity per se. It is thus all the more surprising to see how hostile some Americans can be towards other faiths or the lack of one (vide Bush Sr.'s remark about atheists not being true patriots).

You can argue that the government of the United States was not built around the Christian faith (whatever that means). However, you got to remember, the majority of the original 13 states (all?) that made up the United States, the nation, were founded upon Christian values/beliefs/principles/etc. The United States is a Christian nation.

Chancellor James Kent, the author of "Commentaries on American Law", wrote, "(W)e are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon 'he doctrines or worship of those impostors of other religions" in his decision for People V. Ruggles (1811).

Yikes

[Baff2 0]

LMAO. Foreign terrorists.

All twenty of them. Best send more troops.

Are you stupid or just full of democratic bull sh!t?

Its been three years! do you think Iraq will be left if all the terrorists were domestic? NO! You honestly think that Iraqi people are picking up guns off dead terrorists to fight American and allied troops?

I don't think they have to pick up foreigners guns at all.

As far as I'm aware every Iraqi household has a gun, and Saddam organised the distribution of his vast military arsenal (the largest one in the Middle East) amongst the populace in order to fight a partisan war as part of his defensive doctrine.

He set up Feday'een training camps to specially train his civilians in the art of resistance fighting, and innumerable members of the civilian population come from the now disbanded Iraqi army and have had full military training.

I do expect there to be members of foreign special forces arming and training insurgents with advanced weaponry, such as shaped and remotely detonated roadside bombs. But I very much doubt if they themselves are actually taking part in the combats.

How many foreign terrorists have been captured? 20? 30?

As you say, it's been 3 years.

Tens of thousands of domestic Iraqi's have been.

The only democratic bullsh!t in Iraq is its "government".

[Sophion-Black 0]

Christ, it's rather amusing, but at the same time a bit annoying seeing your "USA is teh best at everything" attitude...you actually belive USA is flawless? It certainly seems so...judging out from your statements one could almost belive that a single US soldier could take on the whole world and win...I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually aware of the fact that US soldiers are dying and that USA is quite far from being flawless...

I know US troops are dying over there, that's why the saying "Freedom isn't Free" is a true statement. But judging on the record of US forces, we certainly can throw a punch! Take example:

The Battle of Sacramento (Mexican-American War).

US Strength:

924 Soldiers

Mexican Strength:

1,500 infantry, 1,200 calvary and 119 artillery (2,819 total).

Result: US Victory

US Casualties: 9 (1 KIA, 8 WIA)

Mexican Casualties: 600 (300 KIA, 300 WIA)

There are more than one instances of "lopsided" results like this. and not just in the Mexican War either, it shows up through US history.

Quote[/b] ]Hmm...let me see...Afghanistan...militamen managed to fight off the Soviet Union...Vietnam...militamen managed to fight off USA (although you somehow consider Vietnam to be a very nice success, even though you had to pull back because of militamen in pyjamas with low-tech equipment compared to the US equipment...)...

Again, the soviets pulled out for the same reason the us pulled out, politics. NOT MILITARY FAUILURE! And Vietnam wasn't a "very nice" success, it was military victories throughout. besides, both the US and SU didn't have full attention to those locations. they were focused elsewhere... like each other.

Quote[/b] ]As far as I'm aware every Iraqi household has a gun

Not anymore they now have weapons caches, and its not just one cache for each city. There's usually more than one.

Quote[/b] ]I do expect there to be members of foreign special forces arming and training insurgents with advanced weaponry, such as shaped and remotely detonated roadside bombs. But I very much doubt if they themselves are actually taking part in the combats.

I would imagine they're staying on their own turf then sending the ba****ds over. But it's too soon to point fingers at governments, so i wouldn't say its from foreign governments.

Quote[/b] ]The only democratic bullsh!t in Iraq is its "government".

they're holding three provinces, so far with little action. Oh... wait... new news coming in... *reads post*

Well it's doing pretty good if they can handle taking full security of Iraq in June.

Quote[/b] ]World War I... Remind me, how important was the US contribution to that scuffle?

Money is a big thing... something the US provided.

Quote[/b] ]A and B were playing solitaire, trying not to be the first to lose.

they were definitely against each other. in fact there are instances were the SU and US was in open engagement. Korea: MIG Squadrons lead by Soviet trainers fought US Jets.

Vietnam: Soviet AA shot down US planes

Quote[/b] ]1) It lasted 16 years. That is prolonged.

2) Open does not refer to strategy and tactics, it means not clandestine. It was not clandestine.

3) I've never seen the NYPD fighting in the jungle, or trying to stop an invading army. You cannot use more explosive than was used in WWI and WWII combined and say it wasn't a war.

4) Not every contact was a battle. All battles can be won and a war lost.

@1) I never knew the US was in engagement from the time it landed

@2) "Open" means two large forces opposing each other.

@3) Action in Vietnam was used to stop northern aggression, therefore it was a police action.

@4) If your referring to base insurgency then that was a battle won too, they repulsed the VC.

Quote[/b] ]The only way Americans were involved is if there was some use of time travel.

The men involved there were Americans, yes they were under British "rule" but they were still living, breathing, and walking America.

Quote[/b] ]The British were impressing British seamen on American vessels, something they were within their rights to do.

WRONG! When a ship goes to sea it is sovereign territory the British were INVADING US SOVERNINTY, INVADING US BOARDERS AT LAND, AND INVADING US WATERS! Now, if the US did that now to the British how would you feel?

Besides, the criteria they used to determine that the sailor was "British" fit nearly all Americans (look, acted and spoke English, and/or had an English name). basically they stole US sailors off US ships!

Should I spell it out, or do you get the point?

Quote[/b] ]The best ships the US had were its super-frigates which were fourth/fifth rate.

Try one of the best in the world, since America had different species of trees and an abundance of them, it was safe to say they were "top notch." Do i have to pull in the example of "Old Ironsides" to put you in your place about American Frigates?

Quote[/b] ]Artillery doesn't work very well in the jungle. And students protesting 9,000 miles away don't affect a military's effectiveness.

BS    Arty works just the same. And hippies do affect wars 9,000 miles away:

1) Lowers US morale

2) Raises VC morale

3) Politicians control money to fund the war.

Quote[/b] ]The US economy is in such dire condition as to need a war to stop it from collapsing

You think was is a solution to raise an economy? well hell! lets all pick up the boxing gloves  

[Badgerboy 0]

Christ, it's rather amusing, but at the same time a bit annoying seeing your "USA is teh best at everything" attitude...you actually belive USA is flawless? It certainly seems so...judging out from your statements one could almost belive that a single US soldier could take on the whole world and win...I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually aware of the fact that US soldiers are dying and that USA is quite far from being flawless...

I know US troops are dying over there, that's why the saying "Freedom isn't Free" is a true statement. But judging on the record of US forces, we certainly can throw a punch! Take example:

The Battle of Sacramento (Mexican-American War).

US Strength:

924 Soldiers

Mexican Strength:

1,500 infantry, 1,200 calvary and 119 artillery (2,819 total).

Result: US Victory

US Casualties: 9 (1 KIA, 8 WIA)

Mexican Casualties: 600 (300 KIA, 300 WIA)

There are more than one instances of "lopsided" results like this. and not just in the Mexican War either, it shows up through US history.

All relative.... Most militaries have stories/deeds like this in their past. Dwelling on particular moments doesn't enhance a militaries current capabilities. (Look at Rorkes drift for example)

If we were to do that, reference the Battle of Kasserine Pass. An example of when US forces got completely stuffed in one of their first combat actions involving the Germans. Should we therefore therefore decide that the US Army is not capable of conducting successful engagement?

Seriously though, do you stuff bald eagles in the blender every morning for a patriotic beverage? You do make me laugh!

[Garcia 0]

Christ, it's rather amusing, but at the same time a bit annoying seeing your "USA is teh best at everything" attitude...you actually belive USA is flawless? It certainly seems so...judging out from your statements one could almost belive that a single US soldier could take on the whole world and win...I'm beginning to wonder if you are actually aware of the fact that US soldiers are dying and that USA is quite far from being flawless...

I know US troops are dying over there, that's why the saying "Freedom isn't Free" is a true statement. But judging on the record of US forces, we certainly can throw a punch! Take example:

The Battle of Sacramento (Mexican-American War).

US Strength:

924 Soldiers

Mexican Strength:

1,500 infantry, 1,200 calvary and 119 artillery (2,819 total).

Result: US Victory

US Casualties: 9 (1 KIA, 8 WIA)

Mexican Casualties: 600 (300 KIA, 300 WIA)

There are more than one instances of "lopsided" results like this. and not just in the Mexican War either, it shows up through US history.

All relative.... Most militaries have stories/deeds like this in their past. Dwelling on particular moments doesn't enhance a militaries current capabilities. (Look at Rorkes drift for example)

If we were to do that, reference the Battle of Kasserine Pass. An example of when US forces got completely stuffed in one of their first combat actions involving the Germans. Should we therefore therefore decide that the US Army is not capable of conducting successful engagement?

Seriously though, do you stuff bald eagles in the blender every morning for a patriotic beverage? You do make me laugh!

In that case, the brits are damned good...there was this battle in Africa during the colonization where quite few brits killed quite many Zulu warriors...(I'm quite sure they were brits). Of course, we're ignoring the fact that the brits had rifles and such, while the Zulus mostly had...axes and spears...

Quote[/b] ]Arty works just the same.

I'm not really an expert on artillery, but I'd say it's a fair guess that artillery into the vietnamese jungle is far less effective than artillery into a flat, open area...The simple fact that the shells would quite likely hit trees and blow up before they hit the ground would cause artillery into thick jungle to be less effective...

[JdB 151]

I'm not really an expert on artillery, but I'd say it's a fair guess that artillery into the vietnamese jungle is far less effective than artillery into a flat, open area...The simple fact that the shells would quite likely hit trees and blow up before they hit the ground would cause artillery into thick jungle to be less effective...

It's a "beautifull" phenomena called "treeburst".

Also alot of canisters are designed to explode 2 dozen or more feet above the ground to let it rain ordonnance/shrapnel, increases the effective range alot compared to shells that actually hit the ground.

Shrapnel-inferno.

[Baff2 0]

Quote[/b] ]As far as I'm aware every Iraqi household has a gun

Not anymore they now have weapons caches, and its not just one cache for each city. There's usually more than one.

Quote[/b] ]I do expect there to be members of foreign special forces arming and training insurgents with advanced weaponry, such as shaped and remotely detonated roadside bombs. But I very much doubt if they themselves are actually taking part in the combats.

I would imagine they're staying on their own turf then sending the ba****ds over. But it's too soon to point fingers at governments, so i wouldn't say its from foreign governments.

Quote[/b] ]The only democratic bullsh!t in Iraq is its "government".

they're holding three provinces, so far with little action. Oh... wait... new news coming in... *reads post*

Well it's doing pretty good if they can handle taking full security of Iraq in June.

Quote[/b] ]The US economy is in such dire condition as to need a war to stop it from collapsing

You think was is a solution to raise an economy? well hell! lets all pick up the boxing gloves  

Those caches haven't appeared since the war, placed by foreigners, they were placed there before the war by Saddam. (He did mention this to us at the time).

The "democratic government" doesn't rule any provinces. It doesn't even rule 5 blocks away from it's own headquarters. Of the two (not three) provinces that have so far been handed over by the British and withdrawing Italians, each fell to the local militia's on the same day.

Our puppet president of Iraq says whatever Bush wants him to say, unfortunately nothing he has ever said has ever born any relation to, or had any affect upon, events in Iraq.

As usual, our troops will all be home before Christmas/July/name your date that will be changed nearer to the time.

Long term oil security is vital to the U.S. economy. War envigorates an economy short term due to the increase in GDP. But overall is very expensive. Capturing new trade markets is good for the economy.

Traditionally, in the immediate term war is good for the economy, the medium term bad; and if you win there is a peace dividend.

Hitlers invasions in Europe are widely considered to have been largely economic in principle. Rearmament brought an end to Germany's recession and the growth bought by such rapid expansion sustained the additional costs.