Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues

I take it you believe that the end of the world is a self fulfilling prophecy? We believe it will occur, therefore we bring it about?

so what's the plan jar?You're from Texas no? How about we start at a state level and go from there?

I'm not following your reasoning. The US had far more religiously active leaders in the past, especially when we had nukes on targeted hair trigger and we're still here. What makes you think that the future will be different with the US? After all, there's currently a huge backlash against religious fundies across the nation.Even if Pakistan managed to reconstitute its nuclear weapons (Pakistan's military keeps the components separate in places across the country), a exchange with India wouldn't end life on the planet. Sure it would make life pretty awful for the rest of us, but it wouldn't be the end.

Maybe, but Pakistan's hatred has always been geared towards India first and then Israel. They've fought three wars, with the last one almost going nuclear. I'm having a hard time believing they'd use one of their few nukes on Israel rather then on India. Plus Israel has more then enough nukes to turn Pakistan into a radioactive waste. The US wouldn't be necessary, unlike a MAD defense for a country like Britain who's nukes were less the the number necessary to completely eliminate the USSR.I think the bigger problem is the long term decline in American education leading to the country becoming a 3rd world power and a politician using that fear to start some ****.

Be that as it may, our history doesn't support that notion. US presidents in the past have been far more religious then Dubya is. Also, Russia has enough nukes to destroy the world.

Dwight D. Eisenhower for crying out loud added under God, added God to the legal tender, was the only baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant president, and cited God in various WWII letters. True that Eisenhower was far more intelligent then Dubya, but that's the issue here.McKinley justified the occupation of the Philippines on Christanity.Plus Dubya's religion is real questionable.He's flip flopped on abortion, especially when it came to the presidential campaign
http://www.commondreams.org/views/061600-104.htmHis anti-homosexual views are even more questionable as he railed against homosexual marriage and after 2004, he did absolutely nothing to pass legislation banning it.And his governor campaign hardly uses scripture or biblical arguments or even cited religion. He lost to a candidate who argued that Dubya was a liberal, secularist, elitist.So the real question is does bush actually believe or is he using it as a tool for votes? It wouldn't be the first time a politician whored himself on religion for votes.Page not found – Rolling Stone

But do we know that Bush actually believes in that or is merely using religion to get votes?I suppose we could argue purely on capabilities, but if we did that, we would have to argue we should be dead right now.

I suppose, but you turn off a large amount of moderate voters as well as every secular person out there.How big are we talking about?The Tsar Bomba was around 50mtTsar Bomba - WikipediaFrom what I hear, it's actually pointless to build a huge air burst bomb as allegedly at some point, most of the explosive force is channeled up, and away from the target. It's more practical to build alot of little nukes and pelt the area.

But based on his history, Dubya wasn't a nutjob. Only after starting to think about the presidential election did he start to use religion, and even now I have problems accepting he's anything more then just incompetent. IMO, that's just a whoring tool for votes. And how do we remove people who do turn into nutjobs after gaining the presidency?Remember that Iraq was Wolfitz's idea. Not dubya's. And that Rove was the source for many ideas, not Dubya. He just seems like a incompetent moron who just does what his advisers tell him to do, not a nutjob threat who comes up with crazy ideas on his own.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

You misread it, he was the only one to have all three at the same time in office,, not the only president who had all three at some point in their life.

quote:

---

Second. Mentioning god in a letter qualifies as "more religious"? If that's the case, then EVERY President is guilty.

---

Have you even read any of those letters? Especially those to the 101st?

quote:

---

Both Blair and Bush justified the Iraq invasion in the name of god.

---

Can you read? Blair did not justify it in the name of God. Blair stated that his decision will be judged by people and by God. Not that God told him to do it.

quote:

---

You've just nullified the entire argument for any President.

---

That was the point. Just because we have a religious president doesn't mean the world will end.

Based on what? Virtually all of the crap that people hammer Bush on came after he openly started his campaign. Do you have evidence that he was a crazy before the election trail?Note, this doesn't mean he wasn't incompetent before. Anyone who looks at this time at the Rangers can figure out that man cannot be trusted with any amount of money.

quote:

---

Impeach their ass.

---

You can't impeach someone for being a crazy. Nor for stupidity!

No, you can't.

quote:

---

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

---

Article Two of the United States Constitution, Sc 4.Being a incompetent moron who can't do the job right is not a impeachable offense unless they can be convicted on the above grounds.Someone who doesn't believe in end times could easily kill us. Don't discount basic human corruption and greed as well as misinformation. There are several instances where the Russians almost wiped everyone out over computer glitches. Everyone on the planet owes their lives to a half bird Russian colonel. Stanislav Petrov saved the world.Besides education, a major way to prevent annihilation is to go to virtual nuclear arsenals. With no active weapons, and the timetable for making one several weeks, there would be no threat of rapid nuclear annihilation. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

A VP cannot relieve the President of command unless there are medical reasons.If we went to virtual arsenals, the damage a religious whackjob can do is very little.You put too much fear in a believer in the end times.A computer glitch in 1983 almost killed everyone. That's a hell alot more dangerous then a religious crazy.Plus, even if we impeached Dubya, we'd get Cheney. If we impeached him, we'd get Pelosi. You need to gun down a very long list of people in the US succession leadership to get a decent person.Essentially Jar, it's very difficult to figure out the honesty of religious people, or figure out which secular people are actually hiding their beliefs, but it is easy to deny them access to capability threats. Thus, we need to eliminate active nukes.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't think anything is more dangerous than religious nutjobs.

---

The Iranian Mullahs have run Iran for three decades. We're all still here and they have biological and chemical weapons. No religious crazy since the invention of deliverable nuclear weapons has brought the world close to annihilation. Several instances of computer failures/glitches, bad procedural planning and poor communication has. If that Russian Half bird Colonel had followed procedure based on info from that computer glitch, none of us be here. That's a hell of a lot scarier then a religious whackjob.

quote:

---

I don't think anything is more dangerous than religious nutjobs.

---

The medical community doesn't agree.

quote:

---

Wrong. Kennedy.

---

Alright then, wiki is wrong. Isn't the first time.http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/.../dm/images/Ikes_Message.pdfBtw, what's your blood pressure?How does your first quote even relate to justifying the invasion?

quote:

---

Because of this, the president's argument for the war has come to rest primarily on the spread of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. And he has repeatedly linked this justification to God's plans for the world.

---

Bullshit. The PRIMARY public reason for invading was because Iraq was a imminent threat with its WMD it could use on our allies and give to terrorists (never mind the actual reason). All you did was cite one of the various changing reasons for the war that Dubya came out with. Bush sold the war to Congress on the claim that Iraq had WMD and its associated risks with terrorism. Not because God said so.Just because we have a religious president doesn't mean the world will end.Why you people are incapable of seeing the real issues and big picture astounds me.