Hater thinks this guy is insane but you should listen to him

Mlrtime · Post by **Mlrtime** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:04 am

"An ancient book of stories"

No aa, it is much more than that. The Bible is the Word of God, ordained by God. It is indeed written by men, men that were lead by God to write exactly what God lead them to write. I lay no expectation nor burden on you, nor do I belittle you. I pray for you aa. Sincerely, I will pray for your soul that you might someday soon come to a better understanding of God and his Word.

Johnny

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:16 am

aa, I have strong feelings about this, but see it rather simply: in any situation, who most likely wishes you, as a white american, harm, a muslim or a jew/christian?

not to be a broken record, but when people chant, "Death to America," I listen.

It's a fair question but I hope you can see why I refuse to boil everything down to that. On average, across the population of the world, I imagine a higher percentage of muslims want me dead but I also don't think that portion of muslims isn't terribly large. To condemn them as a group the way many Amerikans do is ridiculous from a human standpoint. It's lazy because we'd rather not be forced to make complex decisions. After 9/11 we wanted and needed an ENEMY so we found one. Yes, they are likely a real enemy. But from a moral perspective I believe it matters that we, at least in notable ways, created these enemies. Maybe if we hadn't created Al-Qaeda all those years ago to fight the Soviets we wouldn't be in this pickle. Maybe if we hadn't installed Saddam as a puppet regime to control Iraq we wouldn't have some of our issues. Or deposed the elected Prime Minister of Iran in favor of the Shah--a pro-western dictator, but a dictator nonetheless. Now, I realize that all of those issues are rather complex and probably shouldn't be boiled down that simply but the point is that if we weren't such assholes it would be much more difficult for the idiots in power around the world to paint us as murderers and infidels.

Amerikans love to pretend that our hands are clean in foreign affairs because we believe we have some sort of moral imperative to impose our will on others around the world because we are the keepers of democracy. All I'm saying is when you continuously fuck with other people, sooner they will fucking hate your guts. You can take the most mild-mannered person you know and turn them into a murderer if you turn the right knobs.

If we weren't the largest, most imposing empire in the history of the world then our hands would probably be clean enough to fight back if/when we were attacked. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury so I think we should be forced to think twice before we start killing folks. Of course, Amerikans can't handle thinking about things this way. Cuz this is Amerika damnit! And "they" flew planes into our buildings and killed thousands of innocent people! Nevermind why, fuck them! Now where's my prescription pills, my chelsea lately and my perezhilton?!

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:34 am

"An ancient book of stories"

No aa, it is much more than that. The Bible is the Word of God, ordained by God. It is indeed written by men, men that were lead by God to write exactly what God lead them to write. I lay no expectation nor burden on you, nor do I belittle you. I pray for you aa. Sincerely, I will pray for your soul that you might someday soon come to a better understanding of God and his Word.

Johnny

Johnny, my point was that the only justification for believing such things about the bible is a feeling you have. I understand where you're coming from as I've had that feeling before (maybe not as strong as your feeling and not as permanent). For some folks, a feeling is enough to believe in the truth of a proposition. Not for me.

I hope someday your worldview can develop a little more.

Wanted to add: Please do not assume my life is wanting when it comes to understanding, experiencing, and living with the almighty. I assure you my relationship with the almighty is far-reaching and possibly even has more depth than most church goers (obviously can't really quantify that in the end). The fact that I do not wholly believe the word you believe on the almighty means nothing as far as my personal relationship with the almighty goes. I need no book nor any church to experience the almighty is very real and meaningful ways.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:20 am

I'm assuming y'all would be cool with Israel if they were using depleted uranium, but wanted to make sure you've seen the story:

Medics tell Press TV they have found traces of depleted uranium in some Gaza residents wounded in Israel's ground offensive on the strip.

Norwegian medics told Press TV correspondent Akram al-Sattari that some of the victims who have been wounded since Israel began its attacks on the Gaza Strip on December 27 have traces of depleted uranium in their bodies.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=80443&sectionid=351020202

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:30 am

Why do you spell "Americans" with a "K?"

Also, DU isn't really that big of a deal unless you are the target, in which case you *might* get poisoned due to fragments in your wounds or inhalation of the smoke. But seein' as how you're being shot at and are probably in a war zone, I would expect some ill effects no matter what they're shooting you with (unless they're shooting you with rainbows and unicorns).

It doesn't have a significant environmental impact.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:09 pm

Why do you spell "Americans" with a "K?"

Because America, as it was supposed to have been, has been utterly perverted. I believe we are, at best, only tenuously a constitutional republic at this point.

Also, DU isn't really that big of a deal unless you are the target, in which case you *might* get poisoned due to fragments in your wounds or inhalation of the smoke. But seein' as how you're being shot at and are probably in a war zone, I would expect some ill effects no matter what they're shooting you with (unless they're shooting you with rainbows and unicorns).

It doesn't have a significant environmental impact.

All's I know is that DU has a seriously questionable legal status as a munitions material. I'm not sure why the most powerful armies in the world would need to resort to questionable military tactics.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:34 pm

If America has been perverted, I think "Q" would be a better letter than "K." Just my opinion, man.

Questionable legal status? Not according to any authority I'm aware of. No treaty bans it. The UN hasn't banned it (though the WHO - part of the UN - has studied the issue and didn't find any evidence that the use of DU has caused any significant health or environmental problems).

Some hippies and conspiracy theorists don't like it because OMG! TEH URANIUM! NO NOOKS!

It weakly radioactive, but not so much as to have any significant health effects or damage the environment.

It is toxic (though less so than other heavy metals) when somehow introduced into the body by way of ingestion, open wounds or breathing in the smoke when it burns. So if you're nearby when a DU round explodes and you inhale the smoke, yeah, you're probably going to get sick. If the bullets and explosions didn't kill you first.

It has a number of military and civilian uses due to its high density. Militarily, its main use is armor-piercing ammunition, but it also makes good tank armor.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:11 pm

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:14 pm

I might try on the "Q" and see how it fits. I'm all for getting it right.

As far as the questionable legal status, I believe you're right that there's no treaty that specifically bans it. However, there is a working paper requisitioned by and presented to the 54th session (2002) of the UN's Commission on Human Rights that seems to make a solid argument that it has similarities to other banned weapons. From the executive summary:

An extensive evaluation of weaponry containing depleted uranium is then presented.
Depleted uranium is defined and places where it has been used in combat are indicated: the Gulf
region, the Balkans, possibly in Afghanistan and allegedly in the Middle East. The author points
out that depleted uranium is included as class 2 material in the Convention on the Physical
Protection of Nuclear Materials, but as there is no specific treaty banning depleted uranium, its
legality must be determined in terms of the rules set out in the paper, including evaluation prior
to use. The author then sets out basic properties of depleted uranium with attention to the fact
that it is pyrophoric (highly flammable) and when it burns it has an “aerosol” effect: the main
reason that depleted uranium weapons are so deadly and indiscriminate. Depleted uranium
particles in aerosol form when inhaled into the lungs will stay for many years, emitting radiation.
Winds can cause depleted uranium that has settled to re-enter the air many years later.
The paper catalogues a number of incidents and studies showing the deaths and serious
illnesses related to inhalation of depleted uranium - the key medical effects being cancers of
those exposed and birth defects of children born of those who have inhaled depleted uranium.
Illnesses reported by Gulf war veterans in the United States, United Kingdom and Iraq, and Iraqi
civilians mirror the known medical effects of low-grade radiation poisoning. The author also
shows that the users of depleted uranium have tried to keep the effects of depleted uranium
secret and identifies a number of flawed studies (one by a military contractor) and misdeeds. He
also points out that owing to pressure from Gulf war veterans and others, there are several
important initiatives under way, including action by the World Health Organization, the
United Nations Environment Programme and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. The
author concludes this section with a list of some of the many calls for a moratorium on the use of
depleted uranium munitions.

Full paper: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/22481f4157de6274c1256c00004c29bb/$FILE/G0214167.pdf

If a treaty banned it, then it wouldn't be of questionable status. It's status would then be clear. As it stands, again, I don't understand why the strongest armies in the world (who could crush basically anyone they so choose) feel the need to use a weapon that's so close to the line of right/wrong. When you're talking about being forced to kill human beings for whatever reason, you better do your damndest to do it properly if you want a chance at absolution, IMO. That's just me.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:25 pm

I also find it interesting that in December 2007 the UN passed a resolution to investigate the effects of depleted uranium munitions (RES 62-30) by a vote of 136 to 5, with 36 abstentions. The 5 nay votes included, you guessed it, the U.S., Britain, and Israel. So far as I know, the U.S. and Britain are the only two nations that have admitted to using it.

Wonder why they don't want it investigated further? Just another thing that seems rotten to me. I dunno. Maybe it doesn't mean shit. Maybe it doesn't hurt people any worse than any other weapon we use. I just hate that we are such chickenshits when we're supposedly the leader of the world.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:36 pm

How is the weapon "close to the line of right/wrong?"

Its effects have been studied over and over again. It's not a WMD. It doesn't hurt the environment or civilians any more than any other substance.

I don't know why any Ameriqan would want to take a weapon away from the US military.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ is a good "fact sheet" about DU.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:10 pm

AA, I would think the last organization you would be quoting would be the freaking UN.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:25 pm

How is the weapon "close to the line of right/wrong?"

Its effects have been studied over and over again. It's not a WMD. It doesn't hurt the environment or civilians any more than any other substance.

Fair enough.

I don't know why any Ameriqan would want to take a weapon away from the US military.

If I had any faith that we used our military properly I would probably be much less skeptical of our weaponry.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:28 pm

AA, I would think the last organization you would be quoting would be the freaking UN.

What is it they say? Politics makes strange bedfellows and all?

Even an entity whose positions I generally disagree with can make valid points, especially considering how complex the world is. Take me and hater...there's one or two issues where we agree totally despite whatever fundamental differences we may have.

And trust me, I felt dirty quoting the goddamned UN.

hiver: O0

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:59 pm

Strangely enough, I too am citing the UN - the WHO is one of its arms.

AA, if you wanna get all up in arms about the questionable use of... arms, look up "white phosphorous." It's only supposed to be used for illumination and smoke, because it can be really nasty stuff if you target people with it.

The rules get kind of hazy when you pitch WP rounds into population centers, intending only to make a lot of smoke but winding up with civilians suffering from chemical burns.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:12 pm

Willy-Pete can be some nasty stuff.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:41 pm

Strangely enough, I too am citing the UN - the WHO is one of its arms.

AA, if you wanna get all up in arms about the questionable use of... arms, look up "white phosphorous." It's only supposed to be used for illumination and smoke, because it can be really nasty stuff if you target people with it.

The rules get kind of hazy when you pitch WP rounds into population centers, intending only to make a lot of smoke but winding up with civilians suffering from chemical burns.

Yea, I've read a little about WP too...I guess Israel's been accused of using it in densely populated centers where there's little chance to not cause bad burns on civilians. Israel says they've needed to use it to provide cover for their assaults. Like I've said, all this shit is too complicated for me to know for sure...I just hate that we as a species have these capabilities to be honest.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:05 pm

Whatever happened to the fucking idea of fighting a goddamn war to WIN the fucking thing? When did we start pussyfooting around and giving a shit what the goddamn UN thinks???

You win wars by killing your opponent and causing his people such harm that they surrender en masse. That is how wars are to be fought and that is how they are to be won. Personally, I don't care what weapons we need to use to win a war...FAEs, tac-nukes, napalm, WP, mines. Maybe...just maybe...if we were as ruthless in war as we NEED to be, there would be less people willing to fuck with us.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:36 pm

If we chose our wars better I doubt I'd have a problem with that, tip.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:02 pm

Once again, AA manages to denigrate a mass populace with a single sentence. Apparently having a nuanced worldview and being a person of faith are mutually exclusive.
Yet another reason to dismiss you as an elitist whose life soundtrack is "Ruffles and Feathers" and the X-Files theme. What an repulsive combination.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:30 pm

Once again, AA manages to denigrate a mass populace with a single sentence. Apparently having a nuanced worldview and being a person of faith are mutually exclusive.
Yet another reason to dismiss you as an elitist whose life soundtrack is "Ruffles and Feathers" and the X-Files theme. What an repulsive combination.

What mass populace did I just denigrate?

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:46 pm

My only comment in this thread is I think no matter what we do as AMERICANS, there will always be some country that hates us. Even if we give more aid and hunger relief...we send more money, medical supplies, vaccines, food, etc. to those people who are less fortunate...we are still the arrogant US of A who wants to impose our will on everyone else. So what are we to do? Stop helping people in other countries? Just stay within our boarders and NOT help when others need it?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:21 am

I think your concern is valid m7.

There is no way to prove that folks around the world would stop hating us if we left them to their own devices, because we've never tried it. Of course, there's no way to disprove it as a viable solution, either. I personally think if we did less imposing of our will using military force that it would have a significantly positive impact on our foreign relations. You're right though, there's still a solid chance that someone somewhere will hate us just for who we are. And there would probably be people, although I have no idea how many, that would have a problem with us NOT stepping in forcefully and trying to clean up all the messes in the world because at this point so many people expect that from us. I just worry that we make it so much worse than necessary fairly often. Maybe I'm a bad Amerikan; I'm sure I am by many folks' standards. All it comes down to is that we've made our bed and now we must lay in it.

What happens when we're no longer The Super Power? Do y'all think people will hate us less and maybe even pity our fall from grace, missing the days when the USA ran the world? Or do you think they will perceive our weakness and attempt to attack us even more because they think they have more opportunity and they remember all the crap we've pulled over the years while policing the world? Obviously we're talking pure theoretical stuff here, but the question interests me because I believe our time as The Super Power is coming to an end at some point.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:11 am

Whatever happened to the fucking idea of fighting a goddamn war to WIN the fucking thing? When did we start pussyfooting around and giving a shit what the goddamn UN thinks???

You win wars by killing your opponent and causing his people such harm that they surrender en masse. That is how wars are to be fought and that is how they are to be won. Personally, I don't care what weapons we need to use to win a war...FAEs, tac-nukes, napalm, WP, mines. Maybe...just maybe...if we were as ruthless in war as we NEED to be, there would be less people willing to fuck with us.

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:58 am

Whatever happened to the fucking idea of fighting a goddamn war to WIN the fucking thing? When did we start pussyfooting around and giving a shit what the goddamn UN thinks???

You win wars by killing your opponent and causing his people such harm that they surrender en masse. That is how wars are to be fought and that is how they are to be won. Personally, I don't care what weapons we need to use to win a war...FAEs, tac-nukes, napalm, WP, mines. Maybe...just maybe...if we were as ruthless in war as we NEED to be, there would be less people willing to fuck with us.
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

PHENOM!

(wishin i had some casino cash to give out right now!)