Sarah Palin - Oh, Great...

[MC]

Oh? You're war tired, so you think a potential VP who thinks it's prudent to nip plans on cutting off much of the world's oil supply in the bud, meanwhile honoring NATO treaties is a bad one? If it comes to that, at the very least we'd have support in stopping Russia from doing that.

Support from who?

That concerns a great deal of nations, possibly even triggering a 3rd world war. But hopefully with the backing of other nations, even a vast nation like Russia could be toppled fairly quickly.

Who's to say that no one will back Russia?

Tire of war does not mean we should weasel out of wars that have true, logical reason to be fought.

And what logical reason is there to go to war with Russia exactly?

 

[sub]

Oh? You're war tired, so you think a potential VP who thinks it's prudent to nip plans on cutting off much of the world's oil supply in the bud, meanwhile honoring NATO treaties is a bad one? If it comes to that, at the very least we'd have support in stopping Russia from doing that. That concerns a great deal of nations, possibly even triggering a 3rd world war. But hopefully with the backing of other nations, even a vast nation like Russia could be toppled fairly quickly.

Tire of war does not mean we should weasel out of wars that have true, logical reason to be fought.

JDude, I probably wasn't making myself clear. Let me try again.

****. THAT.

War tired? Forget about Iraq. Forget about the possibility of a war with Iran. This has nothing to do with being war tired. A war with Russia is not ****ing necessary unless Russia is about to drop bombs on the U.S. The fact that she would rather risk a possible nuclear holocaust just to honor NATO is bat**** insane. If it's not scaring you, then something is wrong with you and you should seek help immediately. I'm serious.

It's not "Oh, let's just hope a war with Russia won't be necessary. And if it is, with the help of others we can probably topple them quickly." That's insane, JDude. Utterly insane. Do you have any idea what the repercussions of a war with Russia would be? Russia has enough nuclear bombs to destroy the world a few times over. We have enough nuclear bombs to destroy the world a few times over.

So, let me choose. Honoring NATO or not honoring NATO. It's close, man, but I'm going to have to go with the one that doesn't result in the deaths of every human being on the planet.

 

[Ness]

Support from who?


Who's to say that no one will back Russia?


And what logical reason is there to go to war with Russia exactly?

For the same reason America goes to war against anyone tbh. Because they are a threat. Same reason you went to war in Iraq. Dey had nooks lololol

 

[sub]

Well, in this circumstance, it'd be because we had to honor NATO. But yeah, Georgia was the aggressor the first time. Let's not go to war and risk a possible nuclear holocaust over this. Let's not vote for the people who think that risking said nuclear holocaust might be necessary.

 

[J-Dude]

I'm sorry, but my understanding of the situation in Russia is that they've invaded Georgia in order to take over it and cutoff a large part of the world's oil supply and either raise the export prices sky high or try and starve nations who need it altogether. I rather doubt Europe will much appreciate this any more than anyone else, and it seems obvious through such actions that Russia wants to pick a fight with someone, or at least profit inhumanely off of our misfortune.

And as a side note, I should have thought by this point that the world aside from insane terrorists had learned it's lesson about nuclear warfare, and that one aggressor loosing one could ultimately lead to "Planet Earth: The Microwave World".

 

[sub]

That would make sense if Russia started the war with the goal of doing that, but Georgia was the aggressor in the war. They started it.

But fine, let's assume that Russia is doing that. Let's risk a nuclear holocaust over it!

 

[MC]

What happened was that fighting between Georgia and South Ossetia forces broke out and Russia threatened to intervene if the fighting escalated. The fighting between Georgia and South Ossetia forces continued and eventually escalated, prompting Russia to intervene in the conflict.

Edit

Here's a timeline of events - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_War#Timeline_of_events

 

[Chakra-X]

Forget about nukes. Both the US and Russia care a LOT over their penis sizes. Our egos would not let either back down for a long time. We would actually be fighting a nation with an ARMY, not scattered terrorist groups.

Christ people are too comfortable with "war" as an option. "*****, who do you think you are? IT'S WAR TIME MOTHER****ER". War shouldn't be a shiny button you use when the going gets tough or when you are really pissed off.

We can't just go around ****ing up whoever we please.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

can we look forward to this if obama is elected?

HOLY **** YELLOW CAKE!

 

[Skiwan]

Oh? You're war tired, so you think a potential VP who thinks it's prudent to nip plans on cutting off much of the world's oil supply in the bud, meanwhile honoring NATO treaties is a bad one? If it comes to that, at the very least we'd have support in stopping Russia from doing that. That concerns a great deal of nations, possibly even triggering a 3rd world war. But hopefully with the backing of other nations, even a vast nation like Russia could be toppled fairly quickly.

Tire of war does not mean we should weasel out of wars that have true, logical reason to be fought.

That statement terrifies me.

You must realize if it didn't come to a nuclear war that Russia a has very tight relationship with China and North Korea, these are countries which have not exactly had the best relationship with the US but have very important military and economic treaties with Russia. Those are 3 of the largest armies in the world you would be coming up against. To put it in perspective, China has more troops than the US, Russia has slightly less than the US, and North Korea has more than double troops in reserve than the US does in total. Not to mention that all 3 of these countries have nukes.

As for creationism in schools, christ, what does it take for people to understand that children don't live with their teachers, they live with their parents. Parents have ample time to teach their children the theory of creationism at their own discretion. Religion is a private and personal matter, it has no part in school or politics, this does not mean it should be ignored though, it should be treated objectively without bias. I have nothing against religion, but schools should be a mixing pot where the next generation learn together and embrace the differences in cultures and find wider acceptance for one another, teaching one religion as fact does nothing but anger those who do not hold the same belief and cause tension and division. School should be free from this. Personally I see nothing wrong with creationism to be taught as part of religious education, but given the same focus as all other religions explanations for the universe, alongside the workings of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism etc so it can be discussed objectively. It should not be taught as Science.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

problem is though, dave. 90% of people being taught about religion at home will be taught from a biased perspective. a lot more biased than at school.

 

[sub]

I'm sure that a lot teachers will go into it with whatever preconceived notions they have, whether they be in the group that is for creationism or against it. Some teachers have already been fired for teaching or advocating intelligent design in the classroom, I can't imagine how much advocating some will do if it's actually allowed to be discussed. You can't get rid of human bias.

The bottom line is that kids shouldn't be allowed to debate it in a science classroom because it's not science, it's religion and thus breaks the separation of church and state. If we allow it to slip on this, I'm afraid something else will be next.

 

[DiebytheSword]

To me, Optional, seperation of church and state means that neither one should be involved in running the other. For instance, we should not have a bishop running the united states, and there should never be a state controlled religeon. Religeous belief in schools is dodgy, because we teach atheism in school. Atheism is a religeous belief, you have faith that there is no supreme being.

 

[sub]

I don't understand how we're teaching atheism in school. Can you please elaborate on that. Just because religion is not being taught does not mean atheism is being taught.

Can you also elaborate on how atheism is a religious belief? I believe that someday, I have faith that some day, I will be married. Is this a religious belief?

I think the fact that 90 percent of Americans are religious should prove that athiesm isn't being taught in school.

 

[Zeonix]

I'm sorry, but my understanding of the situation in Russia is that they've invaded Georgia in order to take over it and cutoff a large part of the world's oil supply and either raise the export prices sky high or try and starve nations who need it altogether. I rather doubt Europe will much appreciate this any more than anyone else, and it seems obvious through such actions that Russia wants to pick a fight with someone, or at least profit inhumanely off of our misfortune.

And as a side note, I should have thought by this point that the world aside from insane terrorists had learned it's lesson about nuclear warfare, and that one aggressor loosing one could ultimately lead to "Planet Earth: The Microwave World".

You clearly don't understand what happened over there, and if you think we're doing NATO a favor by poking the bear that lives right next to Europe, and you think they'd appreciate being raped by that bear, you've got another thing coming. It's all sunshine and lollipops when you have two oceans separating you from the rest of the world, but, you know, this isn't the 1940's. Just about anyone who's anyone has the technology required to fire missiles and hit any point on the planet with deadly accuracy, not that you'd need it when it's a nuke. If you don't think Russia would use nukes if we made our way into a hot war, you're delusional, because we'd do exactly the same thing. Nukes are the reason the Cold War wasn't a hot war, and nukes are the reason why actively engaging them is the biggest mistake one could make.

I mean, attacking Russia over Georgia isn't even neocon logic, so I don't understand how you and Palin could be for murdering every last person on the planet. The goal for the Project for the New American Century was to first surround Russia on all sides, and then, if it was necessary, end it once and for all. You're jumping the gun, and shooting your friends, family, your enemies and then yourself in the head.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I have to agree with this: war with Russia is not a good idea for anyone. Russia requires a diplomatic route, but "containment" obviously is not going to work either. I believe that Georgia was the agressor, but Russia's response was way overboard, and lets face it, they have been looking for a reason to stomp Georgia into the mud (much like us with Iraq).

We may have to get tough on Russia, but I think everyone can agree that trying to invade Russia is a very bad idea. Will we win? Ultimately I believe our troops are better trained, and our technology is better, but that is not something I'm willing to test to the tune of several millions of lives. I also have no doubt that Russia would use the bomb on their own soil to stop the advance of troops.

As for my comment on Atheism in schools, perhaps you are right Sub, to a point. I still think that teaching one belief and not allowing discussion of others is tantamount to simply teaching that this is the only way.

Atheism is an absense of religeous belief, would be more accurate. Bear in mind that I have very little tolerance for Gnostic Atheist, as they essentially believe in something that they cannot prove. Agnostic Atheist are better in my book, because at least they are willing to be proven wrong. Gnostics act like extremist, and can't handle the idea that they might not be the supreme being on the planet, so much so that they refuse to listen to any witness. They support that there must be concrete proof for everything, which would make exploritory science very difficult. That's why I say they have a belief system. They have faith in something they have no proof for, and in turn say that there must be proof to have faith.

 

[-Origin]

Atheism is an absense of religeous belief, would be more accurate. Bear in mind that I have very little tolerance for Gnostic Atheist, as they essentially believe in something that they cannot prove. Agnostic Atheist are better in my book, because at least they are willing to be proven wrong. Gnostics act like extremist, and can't handle the idea that they might not be the supreme being on the planet, so much so that they refuse to listen to any witness. They support that there must be concrete proof for everything, which would make exploritory science very difficult. That's why I say they have a belief system. They have faith in something they have no proof for, and in turn say that there must be proof to have faith.

Isn't this the same as pretty much every religion?

 

[Zeonix]

I have to agree with this: war with Russia is not a good idea for anyone. Russia requires a diplomatic route, but "containment" obviously is not going to work either. I believe that Georgia was the agressor, but Russia's response was way overboard, and lets face it, they have been looking for a reason to stomp Georgia into the mud (much like us with Iraq).

We may have to get tough on Russia, but I think everyone can agree that trying to invade Russia is a very bad idea. Will we win? Ultimately I believe our troops are better trained, and our technology is better, but that is not something I'm willing to test to the tune of several millions of lives. I also have no doubt that Russia would use the bomb on their own soil to stop the advance of troops.

As for my comment on Atheism in schools, perhaps you are right Sub, to a point. I still think that teaching one belief and not allowing discussion of others is tantamount to simply teaching that this is the only way.

Atheism is an absense of religeous belief, would be more accurate. Bear in mind that I have very little tolerance for Gnostic Atheist, as they essentially believe in something that they cannot prove. Agnostic Atheist are better in my book, because at least they are willing to be proven wrong. Gnostics act like extremist, and can't handle the idea that they might not be the supreme being on the planet, so much so that they refuse to listen to any witness. They support that there must be concrete proof for everything, which would make exploritory science very difficult. That's why I say they have a belief system. They have faith in something they have no proof for, and in turn say that there must be proof to have faith.

I actually covered this in the NNK forum, but gnostic theism is just as bad as gnostic atheism. Of course, you're attributing gnostic atheism to all atheists, which is pretty silly when one understands just how many subsets atheism and agnosticism have. I'm sure there are individuals who believe that there absolutely can not be a God who also happens to be a science teacher, but very rarely will you ever hear them say that to their students, unless you're debating your professor in college/university. The same is true for gnostic theists, who believe there absolutely must be a God. Unless you specifically ask them, they'll usually keep it to themselves, unless you live in the deep south or in places where keeping religion separate from public education is scoffed at. I would venture to say, in America at least, gnostic theism is a much bigger problem as we don't exactly have schools where teachers combine belief in the non-existence of a supreme being with actual science, or any other subject.

So my question is: If they're keeping it to themselves, how exactly are our schools teaching atheism, and if a specific teacher has taken it upon himself or herself to spout his or her beliefs, why are you then using that person to paint every single teacher in the US with such broad strokes?

 

[DiebytheSword]

Isn't this the same as pretty much every religion?

That's my point. They beileve in that there absolutely cannot be a god, despite lack of proof. Yet, they decry theists for believing something without proof.

As for your comment Nix, I already conceeded that point to Sub. Do I really need to conceed it again to you?

As an aside, I am not a gnostic theist. I was convinced through an event in my life which could not be explained logically that god exists. I have my personal proof, and it's not something that I could use to convince any other human being except for the ones present for that event. Do I believe god exists, yes I do, and I believe I have actually witnessed his work. That is proof enough for me. Every thing else needs to be questioned, including how organized religeon presents God to us. Now that I'm not in the republican party, maybe I loose my membership in gnostic theism before that becomes the next big label on me.

 

[-Origin]

That's my point. They beileve in that there absolutely cannot be a god, despite lack of proof. Yet, they decry theists for believing something without proof.

As for your comment Nix, I already conceeded that point to Sub. Do I really need to conceed it again to you?

Ah okay, I see. Was getting confused there.