Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dilmah G on October 21, 2011, 08:12:03 pm
-
Not sure if this was announced in some depth earlier,
BARACK Obama intends to withdraw all 39,000 remaining US troops from Iraq by the end of this year.
The US President's decision, announced today, follows a failure to reach agreement with Iraq's government about leaving several thousand American soldiers behind after this year's intended withdrawal deadline to continue special operations and training.
“Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq - tens of thousands of them - will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home,” Mr Obama said at the White House today.
The US withdrawal will bring to a close US involvement in a war that has lasted almost nine years, at a cost of $US1 trillion and the lives of 4,400 American soldiers.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/obama-announces-iraq-troop-pullout-by-the-end-of-2011/story-e6frg6so-1226173695959
Part of me started to rejoice before I remembered the implications here. Read later in the article and elsewhere that Iran may fill the gap - does anyone know if this is a valid fear?
-
Not sure how I feel about this coinciding with the war drums for Iran and the upcoming presidential election. For the longest time they wanted to keep them there; and the status of our mercenaries are still unknown; I couldn't tell whether or not they will be paid to maintain a USA foothold in the area, which at one point was a major part of the plan for Iraq during Obama's first few years.
-
and the status of our mercenaries are still unknown;
You're going to have to elaborate on this or sound like a paranoid delusional.
-
Well colloquially they're known as "private military contractors" (or companies). An example being Blackwater ("Xe Services, LLC." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xe_Services) now).
-
Yes.
It's the idea that they're "ours" somehow that makes you look paranoid, however.
-
Yes.
It's the idea that they're "ours" somehow that makes you look paranoid, however.
The US is paying the bill, wouldn't that make them "ours" as shameful and disgusting as that situation is
-
The US is paying the bill, wouldn't that make them "ours" as shameful and disgusting as that situation is
That's like saying Wall Street is ours.
More seriously, acting like a Blackwater is in any way under the control of the US government is farcical for the simple reason that things under the control of the government are held to much higher standards. At the time, when things started, they were a necessary stopgag because there was no local equivalent to provide hired security for people that needed it. I sincerely doubt that Iraq is lacking in home-grown private security outfits these days, though they may not be quite as...legitimate as Blackwater/Xe is. (And isn't that a fun thought?)
-
The US is paying the bill, wouldn't that make them "ours" as shameful and disgusting as that situation is
That's like saying Wall Street is ours.
More seriously, acting like a Blackwater is in any way under the control of the US government is farcical for the simple reason that things under the control of the government are held to much higher standards. At the time, when things started, they were a necessary stopgag because there was no local equivalent to provide hired security for people that needed it. I sincerely doubt that Iraq is lacking in home-grown private security outfits these days, though they may not be quite as...legitimate as Blackwater/Xe is. (And isn't that a fun thought?)
The person who hires the mercenary is sort of expected to call them 'my mercenaries' aren't they? And theoretically speaking (although that's not how it works out) the US government isn't supposed to by paying Wallstreet.
-
things under the control of the government are held to much higher standards.
you must be joking.
-
The person who hires the mercenary is sort of expected to call them 'my mercenaries' aren't they?
That assumes there are still major US contracts out to Xe/Blackwater in Iraq, which I honestly don't know is true (and sort of doubt).
Also it's less the hiring party and more to whom they're providing services. If the US has pulled out, they're not "ours" anymore even if we were paying for them.
you must be joking.
With guns? The United States military. The FBI. Let me show you them.
-
I thought the US Gov't employed something like 200,000 contractors in the Middle East at some point? Can't cite source but I believe this was a few years ago, has the PMC presence really died down? I think those contracts may have been transferred to the Iraqi government, however. :doubt:
-
Plus we're still keeping troops in Afghanistan, aren't we?
On the subject of Iraq, I know a key point of contention was that the US wanted all it's troops that were staying to be immune from trial in Iraqi courts.
It just seems to me that while this move was eventual due to the US's already unstable resource supply, and the seemingly ever-growing sappage of corruption, that this Iraq withdrawel feels of political as well.
-
I thought the US Gov't employed something like 200,000 contractors in the Middle East at some point?
Yeah, but that number included a huge variety of noncombat roles in construction and supply from what I understood of how they arrived at it. I doubt US contracts for combat personnel ever went over ten thousand.
You have to understand, nobody ever particularly liked or wanted Blackwater and its ilk to be running around with guns on the streets of Baghdad. They simply didn't have alternatives.
-
Um unless I'm mistaken we still have a military base in Kuwait not that far from the Iraq border so It's not like we wouldn't have troops in the area should the need arise. With the withdrawal of troops from Iraq I'm sure the Kuwaitis will want us to beef up our presence there. In all seriousness though do we really want to get involved in any more Middle Eastern squabbling. I mean we've fought 3 wars in the region just in my lifetime with 2 of them being long drawn out insurgency/guerrilla wars and what has it gained us exactly?
-
Well, I think the US did more harm than good to Iraq.. It's about time for the US to leave, it should have done so when they failed to found the alleged WMD..
-
Well, I think the US did more harm than good to Iraq.. It's about time for the US to leave, it should have done so when they failed to found the alleged WMD..
Yes, leave the country without a functional government or society.
You break it, you buy it.
-
Perhaps whatever government that they create while we are still there will not be the best government for the area? Perhaps they would form a better government in time if we left them alone to form it, instead of pushing them along paths that the US deems as "good for them"?
Just playing devil's advocate here.
-
instead of pushing them along paths that the US deems as "good for them"?
You may not have noticed, but very little of this has actually happened, and that is one of the reasons we've left Iraq completely at this point in time. Anyone who's ever watched Karzai in Afghanistan would also not hold this notion.
In fact the situation would probably have resolved more quickly and with less loss of life had the United States functioned as an occupying power in such a fashion. (And then everything would have collapsed when we left.)
-
Do Iraq has a functional government and society now??? I doubt it.. What the US did is create more Muslim radicals and haters because of their actions and because of GW Bush "Crusade".. Now we left them to their misery,, oh, let't not forget that we left them to Iran. We chewed the lump "Iraq" for them, Iran just have to swallow now.. I just feel sorry for the poor Iraqi people due to the chaos we did to them
US troops lives are wasted on a "False crusade, personal presidential ambitions"
-
A delightfully inept posting. Let's break it down.
Iraq has had very minimal US presence for at least six months now. The Iraqi government's ability to exercise and control its monoply on the use of violence far exceeds that of a number of countries in the Western Hemisphere. Mexico comes to mind.
People are getting fed, housed, and clothed. Famine and disease are controlled or nonexistent.
No enemies foreign or domestic are able to pose a realistic challenge to governmental power.
Yes, the Iraqi government is functional. I daresay it's more functional than that of most of Central America.
On the topic of the Iraqis being pushed along lines we regard as good, step back for a moment and think of why this thread exists. The government of Iraq and the government of the United States are unable to come to mutually acceptable terms regarding the basing of US troops in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were wholly or even mostly a US creation, would such a thing even be possible? Would such negotiations even be necessary, much less break down?
-
How about that Kurds business?
-
How about that Kurds business?
You're gonna need to be way more specific.
-
A delightfully inept posting
I loved this one ;7
Alright, let me break it down to you
Being an SF lieutenant in Iraq for 2 and half years.... Unlike you and the others, I don't watch the news, I'm the news. So while the US is here in Iraq, how many Iraqis are dead due to US presence with lack of control and wrong policies?? I can assure you, at least 6 digits.. People are being fed? Iraqis had no problem in founding food, even when Saddam was around.. Where did you get that "disease non existent?" have you been to the South of Iraq?? I don't want to bring up the topic about pollution due radiation and subsequent "genetically enhanced offspring, huh" the Iraqis are having now from depleted Uranium..
No enemies, I won't talk about domestic, because your claim is obviously bogus.. but no foreign?? How about Turkey and Iran bombing the Iraqi northeastern borders everyday without the US moving a finger?? Kuwait and their future Mubarak harbor, which will hurt Iraq for the long term... Ok, How about some Iran funding militias to kill Sunnies and Saudi Arabia and Syria funding and supporting the extremsits to kill Shia'a,, dude, we almost got a civil war starting. We also created the ultimate and No.1 country in corruption..
And the part I hate the most is "Iraqi government is functional". I left Iraq a year ago, people have 2 hours of power a day and no driniking water at least 8 hours a day in country that has two rivers.. Oh, did I forget to mention the water war from Syria, Iran and Turkey.. These countries were afraid of even looking towards Iraq 10 years ago, good work of a government the US has supported in Iraq while it was occupying.
I totally agree with Unknown Target saying "It just seems to me that while this move was eventual due to the US's already unstable resource supply, and the seemingly ever-growing sappage of corruption, that this Iraq withdrawel feels of political as well"
I'm surprised that people are ignoring the first goal of this war, WMD. Was Saddam's mind the weapon we were afraid of?? or the Iraqi scientists being killed everyday while the US goverment looking the other way "as an occupation force would do?"...
Why simply attacking Iraq? not even one Iraqi was involved in 9/11, why not attack Saudia, oh I forgot, we already secured their oil...
-
Being an SF lieutenant in Iraq for 2 and half years....
That actually makes you significantly less qualified to assess what's going on then a number of the members of this forum.
(And the idea that your low-level first-hand experience gives you some kind of special insight into a situation as complex and large as Iraq is laughable. Maybe if you were a regimental staff officer I'd think you had things of value nobody else here can bring. If you're telling the truth: I'd like to note that I'm really used to better quality writing from somebody who's claiming they were an officer.)
People are being fed? Iraqis had no problem in founding food, even when Saddam was around..
Which in no way detracts from the point that a significant portion of a government's duty to its people is to feed, cloth, and house them. This comment is meaningless.
Where did you get that "disease non existent?" have you been to the South of Iraq??
I did not. But if you want to lie about my posting, please continue.
I don't want to bring up the topic about pollution due radiation and subsequent "genetically enhanced offspring, huh" the Iraqis are having now from depleted Uranium..
Cite a source. No, really, do it, right the **** now.
No enemies, I won't talk about domestic, because your claim is obviously bogus.. but no foreign??
You are literally unable to read or you are deliberately arguing in bad faith by misinterpreting my postings.
This discussion is over. You are unworthy of serious consideration in an argument due to your inability to argue your points and/or your willingness to lie about your opponents.
And I renew my objection to your claiming the mantle of military experience as a officer. Your behavior denies this with practically everything you do. I daresay you are incapable of having been one.
-
:D
:lol:
Another one is afraid from the truth
Keep Having those shades on :pimp:
-
:D
:lol:
Another one is afraid from the truth
Keep Having those shades on :pimp:
I'd pat you on the head for your childlike inability to grasp a qualifier, but the inability to make a nuanced argument or a supportable one isn't that cute.
So we're not quite done. What did I actually say? I said no enemies foreign or domestic able to challenge the government. If they exist, where are they?
If disease is running rampant, where is it? Epidemics? Massive death?
The lack of electricity? Again, they're doing better than a lot of places in Mexico. (Actually they're not far behind some of the nicer neighborhoods in Johannesburg in South Africa. I have friends there who complain about it.)
The country has two rivers! Congratulations, you can read a map. If you can use a compass, perhaps you really were a lieutenant. But really, saying you can give a whole country water from two rivers is giggleworthy even if they're the Tigris and Euphrates. Iraq had water problems long before Gulf One, never mind the US invasion. You've proved you can't do research. (And in regards to the water war, heaven forbid there be some attempt at equitable distribution now instead of whoever has the most guns taking it all.)
Iran funding militias: probably true. Saudi funding militias: possible. Syria: no I think they've got a bit of a problem at the moment and wouldn't want to give anybody guns they might have to fight later. Civil war? It's been years since Iraq was near civil war. Ask the Iraqis about it. (****, I have.)
Turkey's history of cross-border misbehavior is well documented. It's not nearly as extensive as you suggest. Or lie about, either way. Iran's history of cross-border misbehavior less so, but then there's a lot less to document.
You can make all the arguments you want. They're bad ones, though, and saying you have some special understanding of thousands of miles when you stood in the dirt of one is hardly creditable, and you've gone a long way towards proving it.
-
and how'd a kid in your age would be more qualified to assess the situation.. First,, you need to leave your mom's house and join the Armed Forces so you can better see the world.. Not just sitting as a spectator...
Go educate yourself... and learn to argue.. I didn't offend you in anyway... but you need to grow up
-
and how'd a kid in your age would be more qualified to assess the situation..
Ah, a fool and his age arguments.
A kid? I'm rapidly getting closer to thirty than to twenty-five now. I might well be older than you. I might well be better-educated. I might well be smarter. You have no idea who I am or what I do, just that I haven't got anything better to do on a weekend then arguing with you. For all you know I'm State Department, military, part of the goddamn CIA. I'm not, for the record, but that hardly makes your analysis automatically superior to mine.
Particularly since my job actually does involve a lot of interacting with servicemembers so I hear a lot about Iraq and Afghanistan, ask a lot about it. You have one impression. I have many.
First,, you need to leave your mom's house and join the Armed Forces so you can better see the world..
Yes. Being in the trenches gives you a good view. Oh wait you're in a trench and you can't see **** from there. Personal impressions are useless, often even counterproductive, in assessing large complex problems. There's a reason I said if you were regimental staff (hell, I'd have even settled for battalion) I'd consider your viewpoint a unique and useful contribution: they get told endless amounts of stuff about what's going on.
The rest of this is pure ad hominem drivel.
-
How about that Kurds business?
You're gonna need to be way more specific.
The PKK. Turkey is quite pissed of at them. How is that handled?
and how'd a kid in your age would be more qualified to assess the situation.. First,, you need to leave your mom's house and join the Armed Forces so you can better see the world.. Not just sitting as a spectator...
Go educate yourself... and learn to argue.. I didn't offend you in anyway... but you need to grow up
Atleast one of members here is part of the US Air Force intelligence service AFAIK --- just thought I'd put it out there. But these sort of points have been brought up before - All of them by people who thus far had no idea who they were actually dealing with.
-
and how'd a kid in your age would be more qualified to assess the situation.. First,, you need to leave your mom's house and join the Armed Forces so you can better see the world.. Not just sitting as a spectator...
Go educate yourself... and learn to argue.. I didn't offend you in anyway... but you need to grow up
This is the only warning you're getting. If you can't remain civil, you're not going to be posting on here.
If you think NGTM-1R is wrong you need to attack his arguments. If you're going to attack him, you won't be allowed into the debating forum any more.
-
I don't want to bring up the topic about pollution due radiation and subsequent "genetically enhanced offspring, huh" the Iraqis are having now from depleted Uranium...
I'm sorry, but if you want to continue with any credibility in the future you need to post a source for this absolute nonsense immediately. And before you try to brush this off as a childish post from someone with no life experience (which NGTM-1R isn't either), I'm an employed adult with a degree in... Genetics. And what you've said is completely nonsensical, so I suggest you clarify and source it more than adequately.
Let the backpedaling begin.
-
Not sure if this was announced in some depth earlier,
BARACK Obama intends to withdraw all 39,000 remaining US troops from Iraq by the end of this year.
The US President's decision, announced today, follows a failure to reach agreement with Iraq's government about leaving several thousand American soldiers behind after this year's intended withdrawal deadline to continue special operations and training.
“Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq - tens of thousands of them - will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home,” Mr Obama said at the White House today.
The US withdrawal will bring to a close US involvement in a war that has lasted almost nine years, at a cost of $US1 trillion and the lives of 4,400 American soldiers.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/obama-announces-iraq-troop-pullout-by-the-end-of-2011/story-e6frg6so-1226173695959
Part of me started to rejoice before I remembered the implications here. Read later in the article and elsewhere that Iran may fill the gap - does anyone know if this is a valid fear?
...YAY! \o/ It's about Goddang time!
-
Isn't this pullout right on schedule? The schedule we've had since 2007 or so?
Not that it being so diminishes it as a Good Thing in any way. Glad we're getting out, glad it's happening on good terms, and glad it's going according to schedule.
-
I wonder what Turkey's role will be in this after the Americans leave. As far as I know, they already have substantial financial investments in the Kurdish north, which is kind of ironic due to the whole PKK thing.
-
need to pull out so we can go to our next war.
-
The PKK. Turkey is quite pissed of at them. How is that handled?
Much the same way the US handles the problem with the Taliban in Pakistan, which is hardly an ideal solution but Iraq's actually in a pretty poor position to go play stormtrooper with its own Kurdish populace, as they represent one of the most economically active (aside from oil) and (otherwise) law-abiding parts of the country. The Kurdish part of Iraq was one of the first to recover after Saddam fell and both the Iraqi government and the US used it as a laboratory to find out what worked and what didn't. (It's also of note that a number of prestigious national institutions gravitated there: there was a good article about the Kurds resurrecting the Iraqi National Observatory in Sky & Telescope two or three years back.)
If Iraq cracks down on the Kurds now they'll have a big problem not only with public order but with credibility. As far as they're concerned the answer is to cross their fingers and see no evil; they haven't got a dog in the fight yet.
-
MetalMilitia, thanks for speaking up!
This discussion starts to have a similar echo from Spanish Civil War as described by Eric Blair here (http://www.george-orwell.org/Spilling_The_Spanish_Beans/0.html). Might be a good read for all of you. I do recall that Blair is well-known for being academically educated and from never participating in combat himself...
MP-Ryan, MetalMilitia probably means something else with "genetics" than you think. I know your definition is right, but what he says might not be wrong either!
Things start to get better only when the facts are admitted.
Salute
-
At the end, I wanted to say,,,, Was it really worth it??? the loss of over 4000 of our men and women and the tenths of thousands physically crippled and mentally traumatized all because of the horrors of Iraq war??? Not to mention the Billions of tax payers $$$$ spent to interfere in another country, thousands of miles away from the US shores. That money should be spent on other areas like "Space Exploration, for example :p, sorry I love freespace", or medical care...etc
We had no business in that country in the first place, and the whole war started based on a lie... :nono:
MP-Ryan, wish I had my hands on the reports on the increasing numbers of malformed newborns from Fallujah.. by just googling "Iraq nuclear pollution" you will find disgusting photos.. The Iraqi government requested the WHO help to asses the damage from pollution on people's health.. that's all I meant.. So if, like you said, have a degree in genetics you'll know that even depleted uranium causes genes alterations to some degrees..
Did I mention that we removed a secular government "where people lived in peace" and supported a new government with ideology similar to that of Iran, the same enemy we're trying to get next??
See this link for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYdD37wryW8
This is the same army we fought in Al-Sadr city in Baghdad, supported by Iran and Muqtada Al-Sadr, in 2011.. Having a parade in Baghdad main streets with the Iraqi government blessing.. The same army that attacked our soldiers and killed them.. Huh, that's a nice outcome.
Just think about it, what made people "Iraqis" who welcomed us with flowers and praising us like their saviors our enemies?? isn't this worth giving it a thought? If you work closely with Iraqis, you'll see that they don't hate us, they hate our politicians who promised them a lot, and accomplished almost nothing for them.. Damn, they even started seeing Ba'ath party era better than this one... Doesn't this ring a red alarm?? What the hell did you expect from invading a country without a post war formulated plan??
karajorma Don't take sides.. If you go back to page one it will all become clear to you.. even if you ban me, pfff, like I give a ****. I will not come here again. As it's obvious the truth is making some people mad, while they're clearly ignoring the facts. I came here to see what people thought about Iraq war and sadly found some who looks like enjoying the outcomes of this war.. But if they were in the field, they would think otherwise, not just following what the media is feeding them..
-
I'm not taking sides. We take a zero tolerance approach to insults. Had NGTM-1R insulted you in the same way he'd be just as banned.
-
Ohh the hotness of a gaming forum. :p
-
need to pull out so we can go to our next war.
No. The United States needs to stop sticking its nose in everyone else's business. That's why so many countries despise us. A lot of the wars we get involved in (like Vietnam and Libya) are none of our concern. It's just for publicity. And we get no benefit out of it. In fact, we just get more of our people killed and dig ourselves deeper into the hole. Wars are expensive, and the general consensus is that the United States citizens are tired of wars.
Unless, of course, your comment was meant to be sarcastic.
-
on, it was more resigned to the inevitable.
he knows no matter how many wars we get into none of them will lead to the thermonuclear eradication of the human race.
-
on, it was more resigned to the inevitable.
he knows no matter how many wars we get into none of them will lead to the thermonuclear eradication of the human race.
Because nobody wants to push the big red button with MAD written on it.
-
Except Nuke.
-
I vote Nuke for president...
-
i feel like he would get something done. . .
-
need to pull out so we can go to our next war.
No. The United States needs to stop sticking its nose in everyone else's business. That's why so many countries despise us. A lot of the wars we get involved in (like Vietnam and Libya) are none of our concern. It's just for publicity. And we get no benefit out of it. In fact, we just get more of our people killed and dig ourselves deeper into the hole. Wars are expensive, and the general consensus is that the United States citizens are tired of wars.
Unless, of course, your comment was meant to be sarcastic.
It may be the unpopular thing to do around these forums these days but I actually completely agree with you. We humans have a nasty habit of creating our own worst enemies. If we, as a nation, would quit trying to pretend that we're the world's police and sticking our thumb in everyone else's pie, and if we would silence the idiot fundies that keep claiming the U.S. is a "Christian" nation (most of the founding fathers were absolutely not Christian), we probably wouldn't have quite as many terrorists wanting to destroy us, and the ones that still did wouldn't have such a strong religious basis for wanting to do so.
Also, I can't believe no one has made this joke yet: Is Iraq pregnant? The pull-out method doesn't work. ;7
-
I'm curious how many permanent bases they'll really let us keep up over there after eight years of effort and investment.
-
need to pull out so we can go to our next war.
No. The United States needs to stop sticking its nose in everyone else's business. That's why so many countries despise us. A lot of the wars we get involved in (like Vietnam and Libya) are none of our concern. It's just for publicity. And we get no benefit out of it. In fact, we just get more of our people killed and dig ourselves deeper into the hole. Wars are expensive, and the general consensus is that the United States citizens are tired of wars.
Unless, of course, your comment was meant to be sarcastic.
It may be the unpopular thing to do around these forums these days but I actually completely agree with you. We humans have a nasty habit of creating our own worst enemies. If we, as a nation, would quit trying to pretend that we're the world's police and sticking our thumb in everyone else's pie, and if we would silence the idiot fundies that keep claiming the U.S. is a "Christian" nation (most of the founding fathers were absolutely not Christian), we probably wouldn't have quite as many terrorists wanting to destroy us, and the ones that still did wouldn't have such a strong religious basis for wanting to do so.
Also, I can't believe no one has made this joke yet: Is Iraq pregnant? The pull-out method doesn't work. ;7
that's very naive. those aren't the reasons many hate the USA, those are the most convenient excuses to hate us. take those away and the hate remains, with a new reason.
-
Actually he's quite right about the sticking their thumb in every pie.
Hell look at Bush's Axis of Evil and name a single country on it that wasn't in that situation due to America's meddling.
-
Then there's that massive support of Israel thing... Although that probably also counts as sticking fingers into someone else's pie...
Hmm. I wonder. What would the world be like if the USA kept to itself most of the time? Let's say that they never invaded the philipines - did not interfere in WW1, etc..
-
We'd probably be complaining about the British doing it instead. :p
-
i feel like he would get something done. . .
like all the female interns at the white house, and dope would be legalized, and civilization would be reduced to a smoldering ruin.
We'd probably be complaining about the British doing it instead. :p
or the nazis.
-
or the nazis.
Dunno - Russia might have been them down eventually - but thank god for those flanking manouvres.
-
MP-Ryan, wish I had my hands on the reports on the increasing numbers of malformed newborns from Fallujah.. by just googling "Iraq nuclear pollution" you will find disgusting photos.. The Iraqi government requested the WHO help to asses the damage from pollution on people's health.. that's all I meant.. So if, like you said, have a degree in genetics you'll know that even depleted uranium causes genes alterations to some degrees..
Depleted uranium has very small residual levels of radioactivity and while it's dust has been partially attributed to human health effects when exposure occurs in large quantities, the link between DU exposure and birth defects is not documented in humans. DU has about 60% of the radioactivity of naturally-occurring uranium (as it has a different isotope composition). Uranium produces ionizing radiation, which is capable of damaging DNA under the right circumstances; DU produces a hell of a lot less. The WHO actually notes that DU is more chemically toxic than radiologically (Full report, 2008, WHO conclusions), and tends to affect organ systems like kidneys and not the reproductive system.
The chances of a higher incidence of birth defects (if indeed there is, and I see no sources illustrating that assertion posted thus far) being attributable to DU from munitions used in Iraq are pretty slim. There are lots of potential other sources. And again, you need to actually establish that the levels of birth defects are elevated above background.
Some good reading on DU (which I used myself, and apologies as it seems to be a few years old):
WHO Fact Sheet - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
IAEA Website - http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/depleteduranium/
2001 study on the health effects of DU [note the abstract] - http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/depleteduranium/properties.pdf
UN Secretary General 2008 Report on Uranium Weapons - http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/docs/52.pdf
TL;DR: My earlier-planted bull**** flag remains on the field.
There are a lot of good reasons to oppose the invasion of Iraq and subsequent military actions, but birth defects among Iraqi children don't appear to be one of them. Making silly broad statements like that just undermines the legitimacy of other points you raise at the same time.
-
Because nobody wants to push the big red button with MAD written on it.
Actually... a not unsignificant portion of the electorate might want to do just that.
The growing amount of radical Christians in the US who wouldn't really mind or even want some kind of "Apocalypse" to herald the 2nd coming of Christ is getting somewhat worrying...
MAD only works as long as people aren't...
-
Because nobody wants to push the big red button with MAD written on it.
Actually... a not unsignificant portion of the electorate might want to do just that.
The growing amount of radical Christians in the US who wouldn't really mind or even want some kind of "Apocalypse" to herald the 2nd coming of Christ is getting somewhat worrying...
MAD only works as long as people aren't...
Oh please. :rolleyes: Do you really believe that?
Actually he's quite right about the sticking their thumb in every pie.
Hell look at Bush's Axis of Evil and name a single country on it that wasn't in that situation due to America's meddling.
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address.
Membership closed
Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.
"They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.
Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.
With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Sometimes Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.
"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
Source: http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml
-
I haven't been this relieved about a pull out since that time I didn't conceive a child
-
need to pull out so we can go to our next war.
No. The United States needs to stop sticking its nose in everyone else's business. That's why so many countries despise us. A lot of the wars we get involved in (like Vietnam and Libya) are none of our concern. It's just for publicity. And we get no benefit out of it. In fact, we just get more of our people killed and dig ourselves deeper into the hole. Wars are expensive, and the general consensus is that the United States citizens are tired of wars.
Unless, of course, your comment was meant to be sarcastic.
It may be the unpopular thing to do around these forums these days but I actually completely agree with you. We humans have a nasty habit of creating our own worst enemies. If we, as a nation, would quit trying to pretend that we're the world's police and sticking our thumb in everyone else's pie, and if we would silence the idiot fundies that keep claiming the U.S. is a "Christian" nation (most of the founding fathers were absolutely not Christian), we probably wouldn't have quite as many terrorists wanting to destroy us, and the ones that still did wouldn't have such a strong religious basis for wanting to do so.
Also, I can't believe no one has made this joke yet: Is Iraq pregnant? The pull-out method doesn't work. ;7
that's very naive. those aren't the reasons many hate the USA, those are the most convenient excuses to hate us. take those away and the hate remains, with a new reason.
Oh, I'm not naive enough to think that we could get rid of hate entirely. It's ingrained into human nature. Notice that I qualified my statement by saying we wouldn't have as many people hating us, and the reasons for doing so just wouldn't be as convenient. There will be plenty of hatred left over to go around. But if I were the President, I would bring our troops home and, in a speech, announce that the days of the U.S. meddling in world politics were over. We have plenty of our own problems here at home, we don't need to make more.
-
Also, I can't believe no one has made this joke yet: Is Iraq pregnant? The pull-out method doesn't work. ;7
****
-
Because nobody wants to push the big red button with MAD written on it.
Actually... a not unsignificant portion of the electorate might want to do just that.
The growing amount of radical Christians in the US who wouldn't really mind or even want some kind of "Apocalypse" to herald the 2nd coming of Christ is getting somewhat worrying...
MAD only works as long as people aren't...
Oh please. :rolleyes: Do you really believe that?
Believe? No. Know? Yes.
Something to worry about in the shortterm? Nah not yet. In the longterm? A worrying trend.
The amount of nutcase preachers and the sheer number of their followers is really getting somewhat worrying.
So is the number of politicians who hold strong religious (if not quite as extremist as the complete basket cases) belief.
So is the idiotic vicious "fight" of "Creatonism" vs. "Darwinism".
So is the attitude of extremist Islamist and extremist Christians towards each other... giving this euphemistically labeled "war on terror" an uncomfortably active religious "fuel source".
Heck... considering couple of years ago you had a frigging president who communed directly with god and by his own words based his decisions on divine advice should really be worrying enough all by itself.
Short of (granted, right now quite unlikely) actual nuclear apocalypse what people should really worry about is an evolving American Theocracy.
-
Also, I can't believe no one has made this joke yet: Is Iraq pregnant? The pull-out method doesn't work. ;7
****
Tsk tsk, Slowttuta.
-
Because nobody wants to push the big red button with MAD written on it.
Actually... a not unsignificant portion of the electorate might want to do just that.
The growing amount of radical Christians in the US who wouldn't really mind or even want some kind of "Apocalypse" to herald the 2nd coming of Christ is getting somewhat worrying...
MAD only works as long as people aren't...
Oh please. :rolleyes: Do you really believe that?
Believe? No. Know? Yes.
Something to worry about in the shortterm? Nah not yet. In the longterm? A worrying trend.
The amount of nutcase preachers and the sheer number of their followers is really getting somewhat worrying.
So is the number of politicians who hold strong religious (if not quite as extremist as the complete basket cases) belief.
So is the idiotic vicious "fight" of "Creatonism" vs. "Darwinism".
So is the attitude of extremist Islamist and extremist Christians towards each other... giving this euphemistically labeled "war on terror" an uncomfortably active religious "fuel source".
Heck... considering couple of years ago you had a frigging president who communed directly with god and by his own words based his decisions on divine advice should really be worrying enough all by itself.
Short of (granted, right now quite unlikely) actual nuclear apocalypse what people should really worry about is an evolving American Theocracy.
What exactly is your issue with Christianity? Based on your statement that we'd love nothing better than to unleash an apocalypse to get Christ to appear again... I'd say you don't know enough about us to make any sort of pronouncement. Either that, or you've only been exposed to some weird cult claiming the title of Christian.
Let me give a brief over-view (not a defense or convincing argument, mind you, an overview) of Christian beliefs as it relates to your fear of global holocaust:
Christ's second coming doesn't start an apocalypse. All that happens is the church (that is, people who believe and trust in Christ to rescue them from their corruption and sin) gets taken from the world.
So, those that don't believe will have the world all to themselves... although, with something as blatantly obvious as people all over the globe disappearing into thin air, I'm sure there will be a few converts right away.
The world will set up a unified government under one leader, whom Christians refer to as the Anti-Christ (no, there is no excuse for freaking out about this leader or that leader today being the anti-christ; the anti-christ will be plain as day -- if you don't have his mark on your forehead or right hand, no buying or selling for you, and if you don't worship him, he'll take off your head.) The Anti-Christ will make a 7-year peace treaty with the nation of Israel (they do not get raptured with the believers, as they do not trust Christ as their Savior, they think He was just a good teacher / prophet).
There will be a war 3.5 years into the treaty, as the Anti-Christ will break the treaty and attack Israel. More detail on how that goes, etc, etc, but to get to what you mentioned earlier;
7 years after the Anti-Christ takes over and makes his treaty with Israel, God (Jesus, Holy Spirit, 3-in-1 yes I know that's confusing) returns to judge the Earth (which has been show numerous times throughout the 7-year period that God is REAL and is punishing the Earth for its refusal to acknowledge Him as God) to bring judgement. This will be the Apocalypse (well, the punishments during the 7-year period come close but this is the final Game Over part). Basically, that is when God kills those who still have refused to surrender to Him and insist on rebelling.
Now, what does that have to do with any of God's followers launching some sort of WMD?!? The task of God's followers at this current time is to be witnessing to people about God's plan to save them. Why do they need to be saved? Well, God cannot tolerate sin. Unfortunately, man is by nature sinful, because our ancestors Adam and Eve decided to do things their own way and break God's rules. Since God still loves man, He chose to buy them back by paying the price for their sin (which is death) Himself. He sent His Son (second person in the Trinity, still fully God) to be born as a human, live a perfect human life, and then die for our sin, taking it on Himself so that we could go free, if we choose to accept that gift and submit to His ways, acknowledging that He is the one who deserves to be Lord of our lives.
Needless to say, this conflicts with the theory of EvolutionTM, which is another topic. However, I do believe from what I have posted, you can see that launching Weapons to produce mass casualties should not be on any true follower of Christ's to-do list. No? :P
-
except that is "what Jesus would do"TM.
"God kills those who still have refused to surrender to Him"
-
You can pull peace love and grace out of the New Testament. . .
if you really squint.
-
However, I do believe from what I have posted, you can see that launching Weapons to produce mass casualties should not be on any true follower of Christ's to-do list. No? :P
You're making the mistake of assuming that self-proclaimed Christians actually know the bible. Quite a few of them do not. That whole thing about the Rapture being deferred to earlier this week wouldn't have happened if they did.
-
You're making the mistake of assuming that self-proclaimed Christians actually know the bible. Quite a few of them do not. That whole thing about the Rapture being deferred to earlier this week wouldn't have happened if they did.
You're making the mistake of treating them like a significant faction of the religion, much as Mika does. Between the RCC, the Lutherans, the Orthodox Catholics, and most mainstream Baptist congregations there is a more than comfortable majority who aren't on board with Mika's fears.
And the substance of the Rapture Ready crowd makes them by nature an endangered species. Their beliefs or the beliefs they dabble in are such that simple contact with reality places those beliefs in danger. The closely-held desire for Biblical inerrancy means that only the Bible can be a valid source of knowledge, which not only undermines their own structuring (why should we believe the preacher, he's not the Bible!) but a simple glance around their daily lives puts it in grave danger. The Bible didn't make their televisions, radios, or phones possible.
They pose no threat because they are unable to pose a threat. Simple day-to-day life requires that they willfully ignore vast numbers of contradictions. Put the blinders on and see how far one gets in life. We imagine it as the province of the retired because only they could even function like this.
-
You're making the mistake of treating them like a significant faction of the religion, much as Mika does.
No, you're making the mistake of assuming that numbers matter. These people can be dangerous in very small numbers. Look at pretty much any doomsday cult if you need proof of that.
-
No, you're making the mistake of assuming that numbers matter. These people can be dangerous in very small numbers. Look at pretty much any doomsday cult if you need proof of that.
Doomsday cults are dangerous to themselves. Seriously, find me a doomsday cult that actually had a wide-ranging effect amongst society.
Find me one that even managed to carry out the doomsday part with more than fifty people.
-
one of the big issues i have with doomsday cults is their inability to deliver. come on! do some damage already!
also my cult is accepting resumes/donations/warheads.
-
Doomsday cults are dangerous to themselves. Seriously, find me a doomsday cult that actually had a wide-ranging effect amongst society.
Find me one that even managed to carry out the doomsday part with more than fifty people.
You could make much the same argument about terrorism pre 9/11. It might not be a great argument, but people have made it before. Now it's unlikely anyone would.
It only takes one group getting successful.
-
it only takes one doomsday cult stealth candidate to get into office with the goal of starting a nuclear war.
-
or the nazis.
Dunno - Russia might have been them down eventually - but thank god for those flanking manouvres.
Even if they didn't, Hitler was an idiot who had no idea how to create a line of succession, and was by the end of the war drugging himself to death, so without the US it's basically a race to see whether the Soviets can take Germany before Hitler croaks and Germany dissolves into civil war.
-
However, I do believe from what I have posted, you can see that launching Weapons to produce mass casualties should not be on any true follower of Christ's to-do list. No? :P
You're making the mistake of assuming that self-proclaimed Christians actually know the bible. Quite a few of them do not. That whole thing about the Rapture being deferred to earlier this week wouldn't have happened if they did.
Also the premillennial dispensationalist theology with the rapture and tribulation is only popular among evangelicals, most other groups have different views.
-
The problem with jr2's argument is that he's simply making a rather longwinded "No true Scotsman" argument where he's saying that only true Christians believe in his interpretation of Revelations. I pointed out that the Rapture nonsense is a very recent example that quite a few people managed to believe in a rather different interpretation. It is by no means the only example of Christian denominations with beliefs that aren't in the bible or which are due to giving some part of the bible undue relevance.
-
Every HLP thread inevitably turns into a discussion of religion
-
Only cause they usually go through American politics first. If you lot could figure out how to have the secular government your founding fathers actually wanted, the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with this nonsense. :p
-
Every HLP thread inevitably turns into a discussion of religion
Only cause they usually go through American politics first. If you lot could figure out how to have the secular government your founding fathers actually wanted, the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with this nonsense. :p
...and the Karatutta Postulation is born.
-
Doomsday cults are dangerous to themselves. Seriously, find me a doomsday cult that actually had a wide-ranging effect amongst society.
Find me one that even managed to carry out the doomsday part with more than fifty people.
You could make much the same argument about terrorism pre 9/11. It might not be a great argument, but people have made it before. Now it's unlikely anyone would.
It only takes one group getting successful.
So the correct response is what, exactly?
I can tell you this, the way the US responded to 9/11 is NOT the correct response. It's not the right response for doomsday cults either. "It only takes one" scaremongering is a very bad approach, especially when lawmakers get their hands on it.
-
The correct response is the same as it should be to terrorism. Eternal vigilance for it but a measured response to it. NGTM-1R's comment is too far in the opposite direction. "No Doomsday cult has ever done much damage so none ever will." That's an incredibly bad way to look at the danger they pose. Especially considering how close certain Doomsday cults have got to death tolls in the same region as 9/11.
...and the Karatutta Postulation is born.
Maybe we should make this into our very own Godwin.
-
Only cause they usually go through American politics first. If you lot could figure out how to have the secular government your founding fathers actually wanted, the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with this nonsense. :p
Believe me, a lot of the non-idiots among us Yanks would prefer this, too. And we also with someone would step up and correct the historical revisionism about this being a "Christian" nation. I correct everyone I can, but I'm not exactly influential.
-
The correct response is the same as it should be to terrorism. Eternal vigilance for it but a measured response to it. NGTM-1R's comment is too far in the opposite direction. "No Doomsday cult has ever done much damage so none ever will." That's an incredibly bad way to look at the danger they pose. Especially considering how close certain Doomsday cults have got to death tolls in the same region as 9/11.
...and the Karatutta Postulation is born.
Maybe we should make this into our very own Godwin.
As in, "this thread just got karatutta'd?" Works for me. :)
-
it only takes one doomsday cult stealth candidate to get into office with the goal of starting a nuclear war.
Checks and balances. Government 101?
EDIT: And kara, other denominations / factions may not believe the same interpretation that I do, but you would have to twist the Bible pretty far (as in, delete large portions and cut - copy - paste the rest to tailor-fit what you are trying to get it to say) in order to justify what was being proposed that "those wacko Bible-thumpers" are all supposedly out to do.
-
Checks and balances. Government 101?
Has a spotty record of stopping unilateral war.
-
EDIT: And kara, other denominations / factions may not believe the same interpretation that I do, but you would have to twist the Bible pretty far (as in, delete large portions and cut - copy - paste the rest to tailor-fit what you are trying to get it to say) in order to justify what was being proposed that "those wacko Bible-thumpers" are all supposedly out to do.
As I keep pointing out, none of the stuff you had mentioned had actually happened but people were listening to some guy claiming The Rapture was going to happen. How do you explain that?
-
The Rapture is something that no one knows when it will occur. Literally, "no man knows the day or the hour, only the Father in Heaven knows" (that will probably be a bit off, I did that from memory, feel free to Google the exact translation). Therefore, if someone claims they know when the Rapture will occur, they have decided to disregard that passage. And if they are disregarding that, why should I pay any attention to the rest of their claims? If your source of truth is supposed to be reliable, you can't pick and choose. Either the source or the messenger is wrong. Or both. In this case at least the messenger is wrong, as he claims to have knowledge on something that his source of truth clearly states he cannot have.
-
At which point you disprove your entire argument that the content of the bible precludes doomsday cults based on Christianity. There will always be people saying that they are Christians who are ignoring one part or another of the bible. You are simply making a No true Scotsman argument that they aren't true Christians.
Oh and while we're at it, AFAIK the rapture isn't even mentioned in the Bible at all. What you're referring to is the date of Judgement Day.
-
Is heaven mentoined in the bible as the place where we will all go when we die (now that we are on the subject)? I never seem to recall that it actually did...
-
Actually the bible expressly states that only around 100,000 people are getting in.
-
ever? I thought that was 100000 getting raptured?
-
You could make much the same argument about terrorism pre 9/11.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are a Brit right? The Troubles? Lockerbie and the Pan Am bombing?
There would be no reason to make such an argument pre-9/11, and many reasons not to. In fact this whole setup is highly terrible and stupid because you're comparing the ability to crash an airplane to the ability to orchestrate the end of the friggin' world.
This is many orders of magnitude more difficult, to the point your comparison is meaningless. The problems of scale and obstacles are dramatically, incredibly different.
Actually the bible expressly states that only around 100,000 people are getting in.
Perhaps if you have a Schofield Reference Bible, but Rapture theology isn't all that Biblical when you get right down to it.
-
Ignoring the fact that a man who believed he talked to God was president of America for 8 years doesn't exactly do much to to make me believe you. Especially given that Reagan's Evil Empire speech actually did come quite close to causing a nuclear war. Put those two together and you should be able to see that a single crazy in the right place could cause the massive devastation you seem to consider unlikely.
Perhaps if you have a Schofield Reference Bible, but Rapture theology isn't all that Biblical when you get right down to it.
I'm referring to the number who get into heaven. Ever. Including those already dead. Not the number raptured in.
Revelations 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Of course other people have different interpretations of what that number means, but that's the subject of the other thread. :p
-
That passage clearly says "tribes of the children of Israel." That doesn't just imply, but outright states that the number in question is Israelites of whatever tribe. And yet, Jesus, no matter what version of bible you care to use, no matter what sect of Christianity you care to reference, clearly preached to and converted non-Israelites, and told them they would be able to get to heaven through believing in him.
Sorry, but Jesus trumps John's bad acid-trip. Try again.
-
That passage clearly says "tribes of the children of Israel." That doesn't just imply, but outright states that the number in question is Israelites of whatever tribe. And yet, Jesus, no matter what version of bible you care to use, no matter what sect of Christianity you care to reference, clearly preached to and converted non-Israelites, and told them they would be able to get to heaven through believing in him.
Sorry, but Jesus trumps Pauls bad acid-trip. Try again.
So you're saying Christianity pulled a Jesus out of the hat to get more followers... kinda like Scientology pulled a Tom Cruise ? :)
What's next? Believe in ME if you want 73 experienced courtesans AND a free washing machine... in heaven?
-
That passage clearly says "tribes of the children of Israel." That doesn't just imply, but outright states that the number in question is Israelites of whatever tribe. And yet, Jesus, no matter what version of bible you care to use, no matter what sect of Christianity you care to reference, clearly preached to and converted non-Israelites, and told them they would be able to get to heaven through believing in him.
Sorry, but Jesus trumps Pauls bad acid-trip. Try again.
So you're saying Christianity pulled a Jesus out of the hat to get more followers... kinda like Scientology pulled a Tom Cruise ? :)
What's next? Believe in ME if you want 73 experienced courtesans AND a free washing machine... in heaven?
Holy **** I need a ****ing washing machine
-
So it's just the Jews for Jesus who are ****ed then? :p
-
Ignoring the fact that a man who believed he talked to God was president of America for 8 years doesn't exactly do much to to make me believe you. Especially given that Reagan's Evil Empire speech actually did come quite close to causing a nuclear war. Put those two together and you should be able to see that a single crazy in the right place could cause the massive devastation you seem to consider unlikely.
Cite sources. Credible sources. And that will be a believable argument.
However as it stands the entire system is set up to prevent exactly that. You can't simply give the order; it has to be validated, approved, etc. The two man rule, and so forth. There are very few nuclear powers who don't go to extreme lengths to prevent this exact scenario from ever coming about. I suppose if you were in Pakistan or something you could try to trigger the end of the world, but that'd be somewhat difficult because people retaliating against Pakistan isn't going to provoke everyone else.
I could go to absurd lengths describing the problems someone would have had starting a nuclear war on their own and my information on the subject dates back to 1970. The failsafes have only gotten more elaborate. (And both Russia and China maintain more complex systems than the US for political reasons.)
In fact I'm reasonably sure of all the Western powers only the Brits have a methodology in place that would permit the use of nuclear weapons on one person's word, and even then it's dependent on there being no one left to give orders to the strike assets, which would be difficult to engineer.
I'm referring to the number who get into heaven. Ever. Including those already dead. Not the number raptured in.
Yes but you're quoting the psychedelic madness of Revelation out of context, which is the first step on the road to insanity. :p Nevermind the number; the sealed could mean damn near anything.
-
Holy **** I need a ****ing washing machine
Woot, I have my first follower!!!! :)
-
it only takes one doomsday cult stealth candidate to get into office with the goal of starting a nuclear war.
Iran's leaders actually built a whole palace for the return of the 12th Imam... Ayatollah Hussein Nuri Hamdani explicitly said in 2005 that “the Jews should be fought against and forced to surrender to prepare the way for the coming of the Hidden Imam.”
Now are you gonna sleep better at night knowing that a potential future nuclear power is bat**** religious crazy?
-
Cite sources. Credible sources. And that will be a believable argument.
Read up on Able Archer 83. Reagan, almost completely by accident, managed to bring the world to the brink of a nuclear war. Bush managed to lead his county into 2 different wars and might have managed a third if he hadn't ****ed up Iraq preventing him going into Iran. If you're going to say you aren't resourceful enough to combine the two and deliberately start off a large war then I'd have to say that simply means you're admitting that you're not very good at the Xanatos Gambit. :p
-
i like to view hey-sus and his disciples in the same light as the manson family. both were groups of hippies, both were opposed to the establishment, both groups used psychoactive substances, both thought they were or were following a prophet and were stupid enough to buy it. needless to say no good can come out of drug addicted hippies. also thank you for destroying the culture of my pagan ancestors, now i dont know how many goats im supposed to sacrifice in order to get the gods to fertilize my garden.
-
How about applying some wish genie logic to all these promises of heaven? Family Guy did it :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S7ddl1tGg4
-
I'm referring to the number who get into heaven. Ever. Including those already dead. Not the number raptured in.
Revelations 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Of course other people have different interpretations of what that number means, but that's the subject of the other thread. :p
Even if you were to take Revelation completely literally, the very next passage talks of "a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation" standing before the throne of God. That would seem to suggest that the 144,000 refers to a specifically chosen group from the Israelites, not the limit of everyone who will get into heaven.
(Oh, and Scotty, Revelation is generally attributed to John, not Paul. :p)
-
(Oh, and Scotty, Revelation is generally attributed to John, not Paul. )
Whoops. fix0red. >_>
Point still stands though, I think.
-
Read up on Able Archer 83. Reagan, almost completely by accident, managed to bring the world to the brink of a nuclear war.
I have. It's very much overblown by people who again have no concept of the safeguards in place. We've come much closer to nuclear war by accident than Able Archer ever brought us.
Bush managed to lead his county into 2 different wars and might have managed a third if he hadn't ****ed up Iraq preventing him going into Iran.
It's selling it a little high to say Bush lead the US into Afghanistan. He may have been at the head of the country at the time, but it's doubtful he had a choice and you know that.
If you're going to say you aren't resourceful enough to combine the two and deliberately start off a large war then I'd have to say that simply means you're admitting that you're not very good at the Xanatos Gambit.
And again, this is saying that you can trigger a nuclear war...how? The failsafes in place mean nobody can simply give an order. The means to push somebody into a conventional war exist, maybe, if you squint really hard. It's not like Bush lead us into a war with China and it's doubtful he or anyone else could have.
But opening the nuclear doorway isn't as simple as you want to believe. Even getting close to isn't as simple as you want to be. Even if they were, we're all operating on faith that it would actually be an exchange rather than an attack of sanity breaking out and someone refuses to retaliate.
And you know David Xanatos was a fictional character and reality doesn't conform to one's needs well enough for that sort of thing to actually work most of the time even on the scale he practiced, much less with nation-states. You propose undertakings of incredible scale and length, whose vulnerability to pure random chance is impossibly high, never mind the systems and measures in place to actually prevent them.
-
Actually the bible expressly states that only around 100,000 people are getting in.
ever? I thought that was 100000 getting raptured?
...Wow. OK, during the Tribulation (when God is judging the Earth and trying to get their attention), there will be 100,000 witnesses... {EDIT: 144,000, darn you, kara} what you are saying, kara, is what the cult called the Jehovah's Witnesses aka The Watchtower Society believe.
And, while it's true that you will always get some wacko who will use religion as an excuse to vent their personal hate, it's also true that there are cases of atheists doing the same thing. (Columbine High)
I just don't like it when someone comes along and basically states that if you really believe what the Bible says, you are (implied to be) an indecent human being who is a threat to all that is good, peaceful, and orderly. I wince every time I hear of things like Westboro Baptist.
Here, have a (not so) random verse (http://bible.cc/romans/12-18.htm): "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." ~Romans 12:18, NIV
EDIT: And, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#Etymology ~the word isn't used, it's a reference to:
Greek
The Koine Greek text[which?] of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 uses the verb form ἁρπαγησόμεθα (harpagēsometha), which means "we shall be caught up" or "taken away", with the connotation that this is a sudden event. The dictionary form of this Greek verb is harpazō (ἁρπάζω).[8] This use is also seen in such texts as Acts 8:39; 2 Corinthian; Revelation 12:5.
[edit]Latin
The Latin Vulgate translates the Greek ἁρπαγησόμεθα as rapiemur,[9] meaning "to catch up" or "take away".[10]
-
And, while it's true that you will always get some wacko who will use religion as an excuse to vent their personal hate, it's also true that there are cases of atheists doing the same thing. (Columbine High)
You will find people who kill for *religion*. You will also find people who kill for all kinds of secular *reasons*. But proposing that atheists would kill for *no other reason* than atheism? Really? How? LOL.
Your argument is lacking the cause for your observed effect... and you will find Columbine had several *causes*.
People do good deeds and bad deeds... no matter what their belief or lack there of. The difference is that a lack of faith will hardly make a good person do horrible deeds, while some sort of religion/dogmatic belief happens to manage that feat pretty much every day.
Aside from that one could argue that we are all atheists anyways... some of us just go one religion further than the rest. :)
-
I have. It's very much overblown by people who again have no concept of the safeguards in place. We've come much closer to nuclear war by accident than Able Archer ever brought us.
When?
I won't comment on the rest since I'm now waiting for you to back up that statement.
...Wow. OK, during the Tribulation (when God is judging the Earth and trying to get their attention), there will be 100,000 witnesses... {EDIT: 144,000, darn you, kara} what you are saying, kara, is what the cult called the Jehovah's Witnesses aka The Watchtower Society believe.
And again, when they don't believe what you believe you pull out the No true Scotsman again and relegate the Jehovah's Witnesses to a cult. Doesn't matter that there are millions of them.
-
People do good deeds and bad deeds... no matter what their belief or lack there of. The difference is that a lack of faith will hardly make a good person do horrible deeds, while some sort of religion/dogmatic belief happens to manage that feat pretty much every day.
Yeah right. I keep telling you, there were several god-less ideologies where millions of people were killed for.
-
no one, as far as I know, has used atheism as a cause that led to a genocide, this is a thing that religion cannot claim. now just because atheism is a subset of an ideology does not mean it was the driving force, just like religion being a subset of a belief system does not mean it is a the driving force. for instance the Nazi's all had the phrase "God is with us" on their belt buckles, Hitler was Catholic and talked about god all the time, and argument could be made that religious hatred for Jews helped the Holocaust, but it was not what really pushed it. now likewise just because the USSR, or the Khmer Rouge was atheist, does not mean that that had any motivating factor on any action they took. It is very hard for a lack of belief in something to motivate you to do anything, for instance has your atheism in regards to Vishnu or Isis led you to do anything? however when you believe you are favored by the ruler of the world who will smite all who oppose him, it is very easy to think you should follow his example. As far as I am aware there has never been the atheist equivalent of a crusade, their might be examples of people who had a hatred for religion strong enough to make them go on a rampage, but there has never been an organized group that went on a war because of their lack of belief.
-
WWI was fought between countries that were mostly Christian. But no one really claims that it was a religious war.
The Crusades on the other hand are a different matter. As is the current war on terror.
-
As is the current war on terror.
wut
-
The roots of the current war on terror lies in the desire of certain terrorists to end Western interference in the Middle East so that they can establish theocratic governments in their own countries.
Now while that might not be the goal of the current crop it is the reason why they took up arms against the West originally.
-
And our response (which is what makes it a "war on terror") certainly isn't religiously motivated. also I will add more to this post when I get the time, but nothing to do with the war on terror.
-
People do good deeds and bad deeds... no matter what their belief or lack there of. The difference is that a lack of faith will hardly make a good person do horrible deeds, while some sort of religion/dogmatic belief happens to manage that feat pretty much every day.
Yeah right. I keep telling you, there were several god-less ideologies where millions of people were killed for.
Exactly... you go die and kill for an ideology or a religion... but atheism, by its definition merely the absence of supernatural belief, is neither. QED.
You pretend that any evil that was not caused by religion was therefore caused by the absence of it, which is of course a false dichotomy.
In the simplest terms: You put religion like a feather on a hat and then, as soon as someone without a feather commits an evil act, claim that the reason for their evil must clearly be the lack of a feather. Bravo.
And our response (which is what makes it a "war on terror") certainly isn't religiously motivated. also I will add more to this post when I get the time, but nothing to do with the war on terror.
Considering the president you had during that time communed with god in a literal sense I would say that point is highly debatable.
How can we claim that the actions of someone who literally states to do the will of god... are NOT be religiously motivated.... at least to..... uh... *some* extent? ;)
I mean just look at those speeches again... even if he had no choice in doing what he did I would say it becomes pretty clear that his motivation was to no small extent to do nothing less than the will of god.
You can even argue that an atheist in the same position may have had no choice and would have HAD to do the same.... however, since this question is not about rationalizing a choice but about questioning motivation I really find it hard to argue that George W. Bush was not religiously motivated in uh... well most things he did. ;)
i.e. Just because in your opinion secular motivation is more than adequate to explain a course of action doesn't really rule out the possibility that the people who actually made the decision were raving zealots - at all ;)
You can of course ask now if the distinction matters and who knows. ;) But still... if you explore the motivation of George W. Bush,... I see how you can argue whether or not his religious motivation had a significiant influence on the war on terror,... but I really can't see how his religious motivation, in everything he did, can be denied. As such, the response of your head of state certainly was religiously motivated, as all of his responses were. His display of religion on TV certainly gave his decisions a religiously motivated appearance, which just strikes me as somewhat unwise, if the goal is to quench religiously motivated terror... and not to incite it further.
-
but atheism, by its definition merely the absence of supernatural belief, is neither. QED.
Why? Atheïsm simply means that one does not believe in gods or a god. One can still follow an ideology without believing in a god. Therefore, believing in a god is not a neccesary pre-requisite to go out and kill people out of blind ignorance. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that religion is the sole or major cause of evil acts, whilst I try to explain that religion is certainly not always the case. I never stated that the lack of religion would be a case, I try to state that any ideology, whether or not it is based on supernatural belief, can cause evil acts.
-
ok, so then we are all in agreement, religion can be a motivating factor for atrocities, but is not required.
-
The roots of the current war on terror lies in the desire of certain terrorists to end Western interference in the Middle East
Correct...
so that they can establish theocratic governments in their own countries.
...but needs more nuance.
Theocratic government was never so much the goal as a inevitable step along the way. If we look at Iran's sordid history, the current crop of loons ended up in power after they ousted the corrupt Western-backed dictator, and then reneged on their promises to establish a democracy (admittedly with Islamic ties) for the sake of maintaining power. It was the promise of a Republic that led to significant support for the revolutionaries, not the promise of a theocratic state.
Even the terrorism following the collapse of the USSR which has prevailed until today is rooted more in desire for self-directed power than in a fundamentally religious goal; religion just tends to be the way the leadership brings the peons on board. Theocratic aspiration isn't the endgame, but it's a useful propaganda tool to recruit assistance, and religion tends to be a [somewhat, considering the different branches of Islam] uniting force in the region against a predominantly Christian-rooted outside force.
The Saudis are another good example. Al Saud isn't all that fanatically religious as power factions go, but pandering to fundamentalist religion has become necessary for them to retain the support of the Wahabbi clerics and maintain a grip on the country. I don't think the ruling family in Saudi Arabia ever really intended to establish a theocratic monarchy, but it's what they got stuck with.
-
Actually no. I'm going back further than you are, that's all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyed_Qutb)
And our response (which is what makes it a "war on terror") certainly isn't religiously motivated.
So?
If I say that an investigation into Jack the Ripper has something to do with psychopathy are you going to say that the police investigating him weren't psychopaths? :p
The terrorists have religious reasons for starting the war. Whatever the motivation of the other side is, it really doesn't matter. Given that one of the sides clearly does have religious motives, it would be pretty stupid to claim that there are no religious motives involved in the war.
WWI on the other hand didn't have the same kind of religious causes.
-
WWI on the other hand didn't have the same kind of religious causes.
So the poor ole' ostrich died for nothing.
-
WW1 was wierd, it was kind of all started by a Documental Domino effect. Kind of like a car crash in slow motion, everyone could see that this was going to end in a completely avoidable mess, but no-one knew how to put on the brakes.
-
WW1 was wierd, it was kind of all started by a Documental Domino effect. Kind of like a car crash in slow motion, everyone could see that this was going to end in a completely avoidable mess, but no-one knew how to put on the brakes.
Just like the current self-destruction that Europe is steadfasting into...
-
ok, so then we are all in agreement, religion can be a motivating factor for atrocities, but is not required.
Kinda like high cholesterol can be a motivating factor for hearth attacks, but is not required? :p
-
Actually no. I'm going back further than you are, that's all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyed_Qutb)
Qutb may have had ideas which have influenced Al-Qaeda, but the roots of the current war on terror extend well beyond the narrow confines of Al-Qaeda. The insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq have been inspired more by nationalism than religious coherence (though again, it's a useful tool that the leadership has to bring people in the region together against a common enemy, before returning to factional infighting).
-
I won't disagree with that, but no Al-Qaeda, no invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, no insurgencies.
-
WW1 was wierd, it was kind of all started by a Documental Domino effect. Kind of like a car crash in slow motion, everyone could see that this was going to end in a completely avoidable mess, but no-one knew how to put on the brakes.
Just like the current self-destruction that Europe is steadfasting into...
Brakes have been put on. Were fine for now (emphasis on the for now thing). Wonder how things are over in the US - Last time I heard was that the Republicans and Democrats were shooting each other's plan down.
ok, so then we are all in agreement, religion can be a motivating factor for atrocities, but is not required.
Kinda like high cholesterol can be a motivating factor for hearth attacks, but is not required? :p
There's plenty of other ways to get terminal diseases.
-
The insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq have been inspired more by nationalism
Iraq maybe, but Afghanistan? Nationalism? I seriously doubt that's correct.
-
Wonder how things are over in the US - Last time I heard was that the Republicans and Democrats were shooting each other's plan down.
Well, only two parties are doing this out there.
Poland is still standing (though I wonder how long) despite having more than four of these bunches of idiots constantly arguing over the smallest things, a rather silly president, charismatic but useless prime minister, completely incompetent normal ministers and opposition that prefers to debate about the plane crash from a year ago instead of current problems.
I think that US will be fine. They at least had admitted that they're going bankrupt, while Poland still says that it's "doing well" (Well, it is. Compared to Greece). :)
-
Compared to Greece
Africa is doing well...
-
Compared to Greece
Africa is doing well...
What - the entire continent?
-
The insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq have been inspired more by nationalism
Iraq maybe, but Afghanistan? Nationalism? I seriously doubt that's correct.
What do the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and a large chunk of ordinary Afghans have in common? That's right - a desire to throw everyone else the hell out of Afghanistan and run the country as they see fit. That's pretty much the definition of good-old-19th-and-20th-century nationalism, the kind seen quite ominously in the lead-up to both of the world wars.
-
WW1 was wierd, it was kind of all started by a Documental Domino effect. Kind of like a car crash in slow motion, everyone could see that this was going to end in a completely avoidable mess, but no-one knew how to put on the brakes.
Just like the current self-destruction that Europe is steadfasting into...
Actually, it's quite the opposite, the first depressions were part of the fuel for a war that cost millions of lives, this time round, Europe has fallen back into the 'married couple' relationship of pointing fingers and complaining. Whilst far from perfect, it's a safer solution than we came up with last time. I'll agree to a certain degree that this should have been seen coming, but then, it is a global depression, it's far more than Europe involved. It's possible the EU won't come out of this the same shape, I'll agree, but I don't see the cataclysmic chain reaction of events happening that led to a world war this time round, the solution is assumed to be Systemic, not Imperial.
-
our tendency to avoid world war will only last until the memory of those wars fade. when the last of the people who remember it die out and there is no one left to defend the history we have of those events. then we will turn to world war once more and nukes will fall from the sky. it will be a glorious end to this so called civilization of ours.
-
our tendency to avoid world war will only last until the memory of those wars fade. when the last of the people who remember it die out and there is no one left to defend the history we have of those events. then we will turn to world war once more and nukes will fall from the sky. it will be a glorious end to this so called civilization of ours.
This post made me wonder - How war eager would the Americans be when the American civil war was not the last war to be fought on American soil?
-
Depends on whether they won or lost.
-
Too bad we weren't a little less eager for war in the forties... Sprechen ze Deutsch, anyone? :P
-
Yeah, because we all know Russia wasn't the major player in WW2... oh wait!
-
Like Russia wasn't on the brink of collapse themselves during WWII.
I am NOT saying that America WON WWII, I am saying that it definitely helped.
-
id say that america lost the least in the second world war. when you think about it nobody really wins a war. you might have a war where you loose less fighting it than you would not fighting it, wars for independence for example, even the civil war could fall into this category. but war always has a cost.
-
Like Russia wasn't on the brink of collapse themselves during WWII.
I am NOT saying that America WON WWII, I am saying that it definitely helped.
The Soviets certainly benefited greatly from the massive influx of materiel from the US and UK. Especially since most of it was logistical and allowed there factories to focus on building weapons such as the T34 and IL2s. Certainly the Germans had a high degree of tactical mastery, much better then the Soviets but from Stavka's Operational Art from a strategic level was far beyond that of the German or the rest of the Allies. The West never really appreciated it and like to believe the Russians won solely on having more men the the Wehrmacht had bullets but Soviet Strategic Offenses where brutally powerful and well coordinated and essentially ate entire German Army Groups.
-
It's fashionable to say that Stavka had it in the bag, but they really didn't. The war for the Soviet Union was won on the back of the Soviet economy pulling off a miraculous recovery by moving the factories and getting them running better than before they moved, despite losing access to a great deal of materials. There were an awful lot of things that could have gone wrong in that process and cost the Soviets the ability to rebuild their armor and artillery forces for 1942.
There was only one place where you can really get deterministic in World War 2, and that was that the United States was going to beat Japan. The ship hulls that would destroy the Japanese Empire were laid down before the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. The entire conflict was folly.
-
It's fashionable to say that Stavka had it in the bag, but they really didn't. The war for the Soviet Union was won on the back of the Soviet economy pulling off a miraculous recovery by moving the factories and getting them running better than before they moved, despite losing access to a great deal of materials. There were an awful lot of things that could have gone wrong in that process and cost the Soviets the ability to rebuild their armor and artillery forces for 1942.
There was only one place where you can really get deterministic in World War 2, and that was that the United States was going to beat Japan. The ship hulls that would destroy the Japanese Empire were laid down before the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. The entire conflict was folly.
I wouldn't say that they had it in the bag, the Soviets where certainly eaten alive in the initial German offensives. If the Germans didn't go into the the war with the mindset to purge all the Slavs and instead played the rest of the Soviet satellite nations off the Russians it really could have gone the other way. From what I've read though once they had the tools in hand the Strategic Offences put together by the Soviets where basically what broke the Wehrmacht and where more successful then the Operations of the Allies in the West. I was given the impression the success of Cobra and the offense in the Lorraine happened in spite of Allied High command rather than because of them. Not that Stavka could have put together something like D-Day, but in terms of moving the men and materiel into position to brutally rip a giant gaping hole in the front, pour combined arms formations to play merry hell with the behind the lines C&C and logistics and have enough forces to keep the attack in motion and forestall the enemy from counterattacking wasn't something the Germans or the Allies really attempted, and the Soviets did it regularly. That at least is what my understanding was.
Actually, on the Pacific note, certainly the fact that we pumped out 24 Essex class carriers alone where more then the IJN was ever going to beat, but I was curious, if they managed to catch a flattop or two in Pearl, and/or pull off Midway, would they have been able to at least seal off the Pacific, albeit temporarily?
-
The thing is Stavka could do that (and did do that) because they had "more men then the Wehrmacht had bullets" to use your commentary. The Western allies at the point of the Bulge only had the Airborne divisions as a reserve.
Here's a fun layout of carrier strengths supposing the Japanese had wiped out the US at Midway. (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm)
Using the same criteria as above. (Which excludes Ranger and anything not able to make 28 knots or both launch and recover aircraft, otherwise this gets really nasty.) Say they bit off an extra carrier at Midway. We'll say...Hornet, perhaps.
Saratoga (88), Wasp (76), Enterprise (85), grand total of 249 aircraft.
Meanwhile we'll give them back one of the IJN's carriers, say, Akagi (Dick Best missed in this reality), and Hiryu to do it.
Zuikaku (84), Shokaku (84), Ryujo (38), Zuiho (30), Hiryu (73), Akagi (91), grand total of 400 aircraft.
By January 1st 1943, the United States has added Essex, Princeton, and Independence, with another 148 aircraft for a grand total of 397 aircraft. The IJN has received no new fleet carriers.
By 7/1/43, the United States has further added Bunker Hill, Yorktown II, Lexington II, Intrepid, and five light carriers of the Independence class, for another 529 aircraft and a grand total of 926. The IJN still has not commissioned a new fleet-capable carrier and remains at 400 aircraft. (They will not commission a new fleet carrier until Chitose, in November. She and her sister Chiyoda, which will be ready in December, will carry a mere 60 aircraft combined.)
But it's worse than it looks. The US ships are mechanically superior in pretty much every way. US doctrine regarding antiaircraft defense, damage control, and even basic shiphandling as part of a task force is markedly superior. Japan's one doctrinal advantage, being able to successfully mass aircraft from multiple carriers into coherent strikes from long practice, will have been matched. Japan's love of complex maneuvers and dispersed forces mean that even when outnumbered US carrier forces can hit and run, taking on small groups of Japanese carriers that are isolated. By early 1943 the US is issuing the new Avengers (which first saw action at Midway) and Hellcats to carrier air groups, meaning they have erased the Zero's margin of superiority and presented it with a lineup of strike aircraft that can run the defending Zeros of useful ammo very quickly, as only their cannons are truly sufficient to damage an aircraft like an Avenger or Hellcat and they only have sixty rounds.
During the entire war, Japan would build only one carrier truly fit to fight an Essex, Taiho.
-
Yep, that makes since, factor in the fact that the aircraft available are being flown by an increasingly less skilled pool of pilots and it gets even worse.
-
That might explain the Hellcat's 19:1 K:D ratio.
(Honestly, that's one INSANE ratio...)
-
It's worth noting that Japan knew full well before the attack on Pearl that it could not hold the Pacific theatre or beat the combined Allied forces on the sea. Japan's strategy going into the war was to strike a devastating blow, grab as much territory as possible, and then fight to a point where the Allies would be willing to make concessions and allow Japan to retain control of the Chinese territories it captured, while returning the other areas taken in the war. The pre-war strategy had no real belief that they would be able to retain territorial expansions, but planned to use them as throw-away bargaining chips in a conditional peace settlement.
That plan hinged on two issues: the destruction of the US naval airforce at Pearl, and the prediction that this would knock the US effectively out-of-theatre for between 6 and 12 months. As we all well know, they failed, which prevented them from establishing enough territory expansion and resource acquisition to hold a position and allow for a peace settlement. They also failed to predict just how much the attack on Pearl would piss off the US.
Even Japan knew that the Pacific war was lost well before it even started; they simply attempted to use it as a pretex to make land grabs in mainland Asia. The conflict wasn't necessarily folly - had the Japanese strategy worked, they would still likely possess a large chunk of what is presently China - but the strategy didn't anticipate a couple of crucial developments. They took a gamble, and it bit them square on the ass.
-
That might explain the Hellcat's 19:1 K:D ratio.
(Honestly, that's one INSANE ratio...)
the zero was more maneuverable in the horizontal. but a hellcat can maneuver well in the vertical. zero is too light so it has trouble with diving, it doesnt like going too fast, and the engine is so weak it cant climb quickly, granted it could out turn anything we had. so if you were in a hellcat and had a zero on your six, all you had to do was climb or dive to evade. our planes were so well built and had so many backup systems and more armor, and only the 20mm cannons could scratch it. where as the zero was essentially like shooting at cardboard, and your six pack of .50 cals is all youd ever need. it was a good plane early on, its just that we made better planes as the war progressed.
-
The conflict wasn't necessarily folly - had the Japanese strategy worked, they would still likely possess a large chunk of what is presently China - but the strategy didn't anticipate a couple of crucial developments. They took a gamble, and it bit them square on the ass.
Quite the contrary, the conflict was folly. The United States' support for British and Dutch imperial holdings in Asia was slim to none, and using it as a casus belli would have been nearly impossible in the political climate pre-Pearl Harbor. It is entirely possible that Japan did not have to fight the United States to accomplish their war aims.
But the Navy had become rather unhealthily fixated upon a war with the US back in the '20s. Even so, there was a chance they could still have fought the war they desired to fight...if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. But Yamamoto hijacked the strategic planning process with his threat to resign if not allowed to carry out the operation, and in so doing signed the death warrant of his service and very nearly his country.
If you want to fight a limited war, you don't include people who don't directly own things you need, and you don't attack things that will provoke an unlimited response. Japan's stated strategy and its actual actions were completely out of synch. Midway in a very real sense came about from the realization of this, with Combined Fleet going for the "Decisive Battle" because they didn't know what else to do.