Creationism, Evolution and the Public Schools

quote:

---

Is there any chance I'll see you there, sweating heavily and shooting in the wrong direction?

---

Not likely. I've found roles in life other than brandishing a gun and getting shot at.Though if you like I can tell some friends to save you if you need it.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-09-2002]

If they are A10 pilots I'm better off without them.

The A10 pilots will most likely be far ahead of you eliminating
Iraqi(?) armor. But you know how much allies and Iraqis look alike from a few thousand feet.But, I'm sure you've noticed, there is a hazard in war of being killed mistakenly by your allies. The only reason it has taken so much press recently is because the enemy has been incompetant.If we accidentally kill 10 Brits and the Iraqis kill 0 because they are so incompetant, we make the news and get all the bad press. If we accidentally kill 10 Brits but the Iraqis manage to kill 1000,
we don't get any publicity at all.

Is this thread degenerating?

The american army writes off 25% of their casualties to friendly fire. The british army wrires off 0% of their casualties to friendly fire. Personally I dont think theres any such thing as friendly fire, just incoming fire.One mans overwhelming firepower is another mans trigger happy moron.A note on Dunkirk, it was a fight we knew we could not win. But our ally France needed help so we spilt our blood slowing the german advance. We didnt wait four years to help them we went in straight away unprepared, undermanned and staring defeat in the face. Thats what allies do, how long did we wait to back you after 9/11 an hour?, two hours?. You shouldnt draw attention to your cowardice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Is this thread degenerating?

---

Whatever gave you that idea? ------------------
compmage

Degenerating? Are you implying it ever had any value?

quote:

---

The british army wrires off 0% of their casualties to friendly fire.

---

So they cover up their mistakes?

quote:

---

We didnt wait four years to help them we went in straight away unprepared, undermanned and staring defeat in the face.

---

You contradict yourself. Right now left-wing Europeans like yourself want the US to adopt a policy of isolationism and not be "trigger-happy", starting wars like in Afghanistan and Iraq.Back then we were isolationist and avoided other people's wars, and of course, you blame us for it. We waited those years doing exactly what you want us to do now and you're criticizing us for it. We're doing what you claim we should have done in 1939, and you're criticizing us for it. In the meantime you forget that you Europeans, doing what you want us to now (appease Saddam) on Hitler, failed to stop him and even wasted valuable time. You should have ousted Hitler before he grew more powerful than you. Yet again, this lesson from history is forgotten.The root of the problem here is not American foreign policy. Some of you, for whatever reason, just hate America.

quote:

---

Thats what allies do, how long did we wait to back you after 9/11 an hour?, two hours?.

---

I'm not sure, but quite a few of your citizenry seems to be opposed to backing us now, yourself included. As you said, "thats what allies do", so I suggest you do it.

I'm a soldier gene90 I'm about as right wing wing as its possible to be. I just think lethal force without reason is wrong. My views on lethal force are based on experience, not John Wayne films. I really don't think invasion of Iraq is justified while they comply with UN resolutions. If they deny weapon inspectors access to anywhere at anytime we should shoot the shit out of them, but not before.You cannot enforce the law (international or internal) if you do not work within legal parameters."Do as I say, not as I do" will never work as a foriegn policy.

quote:

---

I really don't think invasion of Iraq is justified while they comply with UN resolutions.

---

I agree completely. I don't even think Bush will invade without provocation. Right now it basically looks like a staring contest between the UN (mostly US) and Iraq. If Saddam starts playing the WMD Shell Game (which he is very good at) with the inspectors he needs to be "removed". Right now Hussein is doing exactly what we want him to do. We'll see if this lasts.I may disagree with you on what constitutes a breach of resolutions. I don't think Saddam is *legally* shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones but the international community doesn't find that provocative enough to justify war and I suppose they're right. Or at least I tend to agree. This shooting has been going on for years now.

quote:

---

If they deny weapon inspectors access to anywhere at anytime we should shoot the shit out of them, but not before.

---

I find that perfectly reasonable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Read my post to Percy today in my education thread. I give the reason why we don't publish mainstream often. The gist: even the most obvious arguemnts for design cannot be made mainstream although a good proportion of publishing scientists would agree that design is evident.

---

What, exactly, constitutes a "good proportion" of scientists? What fields of science would say this? Not Biologists, and not Geologists, I would wager.If design cannot be made scientific, then why do you expect it to be published in scientific journals?If it isn't scientific, then why do you expect it to be taught in science classrooms?

quote:

---

Actually I think you're the one getting wobbly at the thought of casualties. This country is pro-war right now.

---

Except that it really isn't.There were several protests last month that had tens or hundreds of thousands of people at them and there was basically ZERO national television news coverage of them AT ALL.Small and large anti-war protests are taking place all the time both here and abroad, but you wouldn't know it by watching the US news.Oh, and Gene, we were funding the Taliban right up until the attacks on the WTC because they were fighting the Northern Alliance; the NA were also drug producers.We funded one of the most immoral, oppressive, abusive regimes in the world right up until the time they killed thousands of innocents here on American soil.And guess who we are funding now? The drug lords of the Northern Alliance!When will we ever learn?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

Small and large anti-war protests are taking place all the time both here and abroad, but you wouldn't know it by watching the US news.

---

Actually I am aware of it. Every time it seems a hundred or so manage to get themselves arrested so some of the protests are probably of decent size.It doesn't mean that the majority is anti-war. It just means that some people who don't want war are exercising their legal right to protest.Sort of like some people thought we shouldn't overthrow the Taliban after 9/11. There is always a segment of the population somewhere that is unreasonable.

quote:

---

Oh, and Gene, we were funding the Taliban right up until the attacks on the WTC because they were fighting the Northern Alliance

---

Our "funding the taliban" was in the form of humanitarian aide: Page not found - Chicago Sun-TimesAfghanistan became eligible for it after reducing their poppy exports.Seems reasonable to me. As for the Northern Alliance, I think we should support them while the permanent Afghani army is being trained. It's better than just leaving the place in anarchy.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]

This country is not pro-war.George Bush is, and the lapdog, sycophantic mainstream US media is, too, but the county at large is more wary.This is because there is no clear moral reason for it.Thanks to our pro-war, pro Bush media, in a recent poll only 17% of Americans polled correctly identified the number of 9/11 suicide bombers as Iraqi.None of them were Iraqui. Almost all of them were Saudi.That means that many people think, have assumed because of media coverage of Iraq, that we are retaliating for Sept. 11.Sept 11 is so "last year" according to the Bush administration.The propaganda machine fans the flames of needless war.

quote:

---

This country is not pro-war.
George Bush is, and the lapdog, sycophantic mainstream US media is, too, but the county at large is more wary.

​

This is because there is no clear moral reason for it.

---

A liberal griping about morals? I've seen it all. There are plenty of reasons for war with Iraq, moral or otherwise.

quote:

---

Thanks to our pro-war, pro Bush media, in a recent poll only 17% of Americans polled correctly identified the number of 9/11 suicide bombers as Iraqi.

---

Who conducted this poll? How many people were polled? Did the particpants specifically check mark "Thanks to our pro-war, pro Bush media, I belive all of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi."?

quote:

---

None of them were Iraqui. Almost all of them were Saudi.

​

That means that many people think, have assumed because of media coverage of Iraq, that we are retaliating for Sept. 11.

---

You are assuming others are assuming the war with Iraq is because of 9/11. That is asinine. Stop assuming and worry about your pathetic anti-war protests and coffee shop conversations.

quote:

---

Sept 11 is so "last year" according to the Bush administration.

---

Who said that? When and where? Oh, they are your words. I see. My mistake.

quote:

---

The propaganda machine fans the flames of needless war.

---

You embrace propaganda when it suits your needs. Why shouldn't others?How many British troops have been deployed to the Gulf? Oh wait, the BBC is too busy complaining about the evil pro-war West to worry about how many of it's own citizens are readying for war. Damn that pro-war media!