Religion, Politics, and Armegeddon

Ok, I'll pipe in before this gets outa hand.
You can review the forum rules to be totally clear on this...
but basically, name calling, being abusive and arguing about nonsense like who said what, is the kind of stuff that gets a thread closed. If you want to discuss the subject of the thread which is Religion, Politics, and Armegeddon, you're free to do so. Just be respectfull of other peoples opinions and follow the forum rules.

If it degenerates into people purposely using swear words and being argumentative and disagreeable, that's where it stops.
Just because the language filter on the board puts stars ** in place of objectionable language, doesn't mean you're free to continue talking like that to people. If you cercumvent the language filter by replacing stars with letters for instance or putting spaces between letters, you risk being permanently banned.
If you're asked to stop doing something in a private message from one of the moderators and you continue to do so, you also risk having your internet privelages taken away by your ISP.

We log all IP numbers and even though everybody is using alias's here, it's very easy to find out who sent a message and track it back to your computer. Most ISP's have regulations of their own about internet usage and we follow the same guidelines. You may want to read your own ISP's rules and regulations. You'll probably find points in there such as language usage and other things involving pornography and child abuse that can not only get your ISP cancelled for good, but get you in trouble with the law. ie, posting false information about somebody can easily land you in court with a defamation of character lawsuit.

btw: just so everybody understands what 'banning' actually means.
Every moderator here has the ability to see what IP you are using as well as every IP number you've ever used on your account. We can also look up IP numbers and see if you are registered under more than one name.
If you're banned, it's not just your username that can't sign on here anymore. It's your internet address and every computer you've ever used to access this site.

Originally Posted by: Homebrew1709The UN are a bunch of morons as far as i'm concerned. They had the same reaction to the GENOCIDE in RWANDA in 1994. 800,000 murdered in 100 days. On top of the fact that the UN pulled all but about 200 of their peacekeeping troops out when the murders started, they refused to call it genocide! They danced around the question like they always do. Who gives a damn about a stupid definition of genocide? How many murders does it take to call it a genocide? Genocide is the plan to wipe out a race of people which is what happened in Europe, Rwanda and Sudan. Does it need to be 6 million like the Holocaust? After the Holocaust the world said "never again" and it IS happening in these poor African nations and it was happening in the Balkans w/ Milosovic. The difference is that the America doesnt give a **** about these poor ass countries with no resources. After the debacle in Somalia, the US just didn't feel like getting involved in Rwanda. Its a shame that the entire world turned a blind eye to those people and they hsouldnt do the same in Sudan. The point is to stop these things from happening BEFORE we have to debate whether or not it's "genocide" or not.

Rwanda was eventually declared a genocide. Darfur is not technically a genocide. I'm not saying it's any better, I'm just saying it's not a genocide. It's not the number of murders that constitutes a genocide. Who gives a damn about the stupid definition of genocide? Human rights groups all over the globe might. I guess "the America" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't give a ****, even though there were movements and marches and large organizations lobbying for the US government to aid in the ending of those disgusting actions. Where in the definition of genocide is a specific number mentioned? Or the Holocaust? What are you talking about? I doubt the US "didn't feel like" getting involved in Rwanda, but I agree that Somalia definitely affected the decision. A government's job is to serve its constituents as best it can, and after somalia, US involvement in Rwanda seemed like a bad idea in that it would decrease public support for governmental activities.

Originally Posted by: schmangeOk, I'll pipe in before this gets outa hand.
You can review the forum rules to be totally clear on this...
but basically, name calling, being abusive and arguing about nonsense like who said what, is the kind of stuff that gets a thread closed. If you want to discuss the subject of the thread which is Religion, Politics, and Armegeddon, you're free to do so. Just be respectfull of other peoples opinions and follow the forum rules.

If it degenerates into people purposely using swear words and being argumentative and disagreeable, that's where it stops.
Just because the language filter on the board puts stars ** in place of objectionable language, doesn't mean you're free to continue talking like that to people. If you cercumvent the language filter by replacing stars with letters for instance or putting spaces between letters, you risk being permanently banned.
If you're asked to stop doing something in a private message from one of the moderators and you continue to do so, you also risk having your internet privelages taken away by your ISP.

We log all IP numbers and even though everybody is using alias's here, it's very easy to find out who sent a message and track it back to your computer. Most ISP's have regulations of their own about internet usage and we follow the same guidelines. You may want to read your own ISP's rules and regulations. You'll probably find points in there such as language usage and other things involving pornography and child abuse that can not only get your ISP cancelled for good, but get you in trouble with the law. ie, posting false information about somebody can easily land you in court with a defamation of character lawsuit.

btw: just so everybody understands what 'banning' actually means.
Every moderator here has the ability to see what IP you are using as well as every IP number you've ever used on your account. We can also look up IP numbers and see if you are registered under more than one name.
If you're banned, it's not just your username that can't sign on here anymore. It's your internet address and every computer you've ever used to access this site.

Thanks. I guess I didn't get the point across clear enough in my original post.

"The war's out there, man! Out There! We can't crumble from the inside."-a puppet from Team America

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonRwanda was eventually declared a genocide. Darfur is not technically a genocide. I'm not saying it's any better, I'm just saying it's not a genocide. It's not the number of murders that constitutes a genocide. Who gives a damn about the stupid definition of genocide? Human rights groups all over the globe might. I guess "the America" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't give a ****, even though there were movements and marches and large organizations lobbying for the US government to aid in the ending of those disgusting actions. Where in the definition of genocide is a specific number mentioned? Or the Holocaust? What are you talking about? I doubt the US "didn't feel like" getting involved in Rwanda, but I agree that Somalia definitely affected the decision. A government's job is to serve its constituents as best it can, and after somalia, US involvement in Rwanda seemed like a bad idea in that it would decrease public support for governmental activities.

And I think to myself... what a wonderful world.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonRwanda was eventually declared a genocide. Darfur is not technically a genocide. I'm not saying it's any better, I'm just saying it's not a genocide. It's not the number of murders that constitutes a genocide. Who gives a damn about the stupid definition of genocide? Human rights groups all over the globe might. I guess "the America" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't give a ****, even though there were movements and marches and large organizations lobbying for the US government to aid in the ending of those disgusting actions. Where in the definition of genocide is a specific number mentioned? Or the Holocaust? What are you talking about? I doubt the US "didn't feel like" getting involved in Rwanda, but I agree that Somalia definitely affected the decision. A government's job is to serve its constituents as best it can, and after somalia, US involvement in Rwanda seemed like a bad idea in that it would decrease public support for governmental activities.

Yes, I realize that Rwanda was eventually declared genocide. This is what i found on dictionary.com as the definition of "genocide": "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." So what i meant by "how many does it take to call it a genocide" is that why wasn't Rwanda declared a genocide after 10,000 murders; or 100,000; or 500,000? Genocide is more of an idea than an act, in my opinion. After watching Hotel Rwanda about a month ago, i was inspired to find out more information about the situation so i picked up the book [U]We Wish to Inform you that Tomorrow we will be Killed with our Families[/U] by a guy named Philip Gourevitch. It's quite interesting, actually.

There seems to be like 5 different discussions in this thread right now so I'm not gonna go on any more about this particular topic. But I'd like to discuss it with anyone else who wants to.

weapons of mass destruction can be loads of stuff, bush wants to get rid of them, i don't understand why america has so many of them :confused:

Originally Posted by: Reality_743weapons of mass destruction can be loads of stuff, bush wants to get rid of them, i don't understand why america has so many of them :confused:

Politics have become nothing more than a huge power struggle across the planet.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsPolitics have become nothing more than a huge power struggle across the planet.

Let's analyze the word...

Politics. When broken down into its root words we have poli (or -poly - meaning many) and tics (blood sucking insects).

Originally Posted by: Reality_743weapons of mass destruction can be loads of stuff, bush wants to get rid of them, i don't understand why america has so many of them :confused:

Im sorry, I cant take it. This bothers me everytime I look at this thread. Bush wants wmd out of the hands of terrorists. Wed be virtually a sitting duck if we didnt have the same thing that the enemies had. The US hasnt proposed a threat to anyone with our wmd. The A Bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasiki was just plain over kill. We didnt understand the power of atomic bombs at the time.

I want to talk to the person who honestly thinks the US is a threat with a wmd unless it was in retaliation for somebody hitting us with a wmd. And I still cant see us gassing innocent people in retaliation.

Originally Posted by: stacknyIm sorry, I cant take it. This bothers me everytime I look at this thread. Bush wants wmd out of the hands of terrorists. Wed be virtually a sitting duck if we didnt have the same thing that the enemies had. The US hasnt proposed a threat to anyone with our wmd. The A Bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasiki was just plain over kill. We didnt understand the power of atomic bombs at the time.

I want to talk to the person who honestly thinks the US is a threat with a wmd unless it was in retaliation for somebody hitting us with a wmd. And I still cant see us gassing innocent people in retaliation.

No, we were pretty aware of their power, having tested them.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonNo, we were pretty aware of their power, having tested them.

Overkill none the less.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneyeah, but that's not the point... the point is that we still used them.

What is dumb is that people forget that we are no longer going up against entire nations with militaries, save for North Korea, who we seem to be utterly indifferent to. Do we have an Anti-Terrorist Tactical Doomsday Device (ATTDD) that, when detonated in a city, selectively obliterates every terrorist and every it of its infrastructure? Because anything short of that, we detonate a nuke, and thosuands if not millions of women and children and innocent people are incinerated, and those who aren't incinerated are privvy to all sorts of wonderful maladies for generations to come, not to mention the environmental impact it would have.

WMD's are horrible, horrible things, and no one should have them, that includes us.

I can't believe anyone still rallies behind bush... he's either lied or been dangerously wrong about practically every endeavor he's led this country down, the guy has no interest in "preserving freedom" for anybody but himself and his people, and his people do not include the average American or international citizen. he's the fellow who proclaims to be leading the war against terror and instilling freedoms the world over, and yet he stated that he believes that there should be limits to personal freedom... i just don't get it.

Youre ideas on WMD's are great in theory, but nonetheless still exists. Regardless of who is responsible for creating wmd's in the first place, theyve fallen into the hands of the wrong people. I agree nobody needs WMD's or should have them, but its too late for that.

I still dont understand how you can say that we've done anything wrong. Bush has led us into a war against terrorism and thats exactly what weve done. Im not 100% sure what youre saying about limits on the personal freedom, but in times of clear and present danger, certain freedoms must be limited for the good welfare of the country. Whether its the Patriot Act or something else youre talking about, its for the good welfare and safety of the country.

my dad works at the laboratory where they invented the atomic bomb :rolleyes: other then that, I have no idea what they do there, it's top secret "I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you" kinda thing.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsmy dad works at the laboratory where they invented the atomic bomb :rolleyes: other then that, I have no idea what they do there, it's top secret "I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you" kinda thing.

They Invented the A-bomb in Los Alamos, NM and tested it at the White Sands Missile Range near Alamagordo, NM. Being a New Mexican I know pretty much everything about the Manhattan Project.

Originally Posted by: stacknyI still dont understand how you can say that we've done anything wrong. Bush has led us into a war against terrorism and thats exactly what weve done. Im not 100% sure what youre saying about limits on the personal freedom, but in times of clear and present danger, certain freedoms must be limited for the good welfare of the country. Whether its the Patriot Act or something else youre talking about, its for the good welfare and safety of the country.

Again, he sent us to Iraq to find Saddam who had no such relation to Bin Laden and 9/11. That's not leading us to a world free of terrorists. That's just contradicting words with actions. If he wants a world free of WMDs then he should be the first to give his up. Not the first to take everyone else's away. It's not right that these weapons exist, but it's still a fact that not he nor anyone else has any such right to go into another country and take away their belongings when no one did anything.

And as far as his decisions for the for freedom and welfare. He stated that there should be limits to personal freedom because he read people expressing their opinion of him in a degrading manner. Basically people insulted him and he said they shouldn't have that right. They shouldn't have the right to express themselves with their own freedom of speech. The limitations in that are routed to things that cause panic like screaming fire in a crowded place. Not telling someone else you think they suck. As for the welfare of the country... well, sending jobs over seas does wonders for our economy and employment levels. I live in Ohio where unemployment is at a record breaking low. How is that helping us all as a whole? So by taking away our right to freedom of speech and sending jobs over seas it's making the country better?

And on the atomic bomb thing, there's no way in hell they didn't know just how destructive those things were before using them. They didn't just snap everything together on their first try and drop the bomb hoping it'd blow up the way they wanted to.

Scientist 1: Well if we plug the DooDad into the whatchamacallit and snap these legos together here and seal it with some play dough it should work. Fire when ready
BOOOOOOOMMMMMM
Scientist 2: Whaoh... was it supposed to destroy the entire city?

Yeah they were actually afraid that it would light up the atmosphere and start a chain reaction that would destroy the world! They pushed the button anyway. Imagine that.

Originally Posted by: magicninjaYeah they were actually afraid that it would light up the atmosphere and start a chain reaction that would destroy the world! They pushed the button anyway. Imagine that.

I guess they didn't think the future of humanity was worth letting someone else have the upper hand.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsI guess they didn't think the future of humanity was worth letting someone else have the upper hand.

It will probably happen one day. People are too damn stubborn.

Originally Posted by: Pantallica1It will probably happen one day. People are too damn stubborn.

Isn't it nice to know that our lives are in those peoples' hands?

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsIsn't it nice to know that our lives are in those peoples' hands?

I don't think "nice", is the word I would use. A little scary? Yes. Knowing that the whole world could end with the push of a button.