Messages

1

Precursors / Re: just some screen shots of what i been doing!

« on: December 21, 2006, 10:35:24 am »

I'm not exactly sure what I'm looking at here...

2

The Wallth Are Thoundproof / Re: Things you just can't say....

« on: November 10, 2006, 06:54:43 pm »

"Don't force it in!"

3

The Wallth Are Thoundproof / Re: Favorite Quotes

« on: November 07, 2006, 12:26:53 pm »

I think we're done.  We'll now return you to your regularily scheduled thread.  8)

4

The Wallth Are Thoundproof / Re: Favorite Quotes

« on: November 06, 2006, 07:45:50 pm »

Yeah, I know you weren't trying to start a flame war.  I just wanted to make sure you knew that I was taking a 'Devil's Advocate' approach to give the position on both sides.  There really is logic on both sides of the issue and rather or not you agree or disagree is up to you, but as I said before the only way to make an informed decision is to know and understand both sides before deciding for yourself.  Maybe I need a 'Devil's Advocate' title under my name so everyone knows my post may contain non-mainstream views in order to inform and are not intended to spark a flame war.

It's a funny thing about forums.  Four years ago, right before we invaded Iraq, I presented the facts of how the CIA had infiltrated the UN Inspectors, that they didn't have WMD's, have not been proven to use biochemical warfare, and how Saddam was actually hunting Bin Laden to kill himself (so a terrorist tie would be completely illogical) and I was immidiately labeled unpatriotic, a moron, etc.  Many of my own family members 'disowned' me for a while.  Even now, that they know I was right all along (not that I've gloated or anything, but simply because it's been all over the news), I haven't recieved one appology.  I know that certain people don't want to hear certain things.  Yet, at the same time, I feel that I have an ethical duty to present them with the facts, regardless of what I'm then labeled.  Incidentally, I've learned that (other then religion, I'm Christian, BTW) people don't like for people to shake the 'Ivory Tower' of science (especially Physics).  As much as I hate to see the ignorance and muffling of progressive scientific theory, I've decided to stay out of such debates altogether.  I have my 'thoughts' and 'opinions' and if anybody is interested in me adding them to a debate then I'll do it per request, but beyond that, I'll stay out of them.

5

The Wallth Are Thoundproof / Re: Favorite Quotes

« on: November 06, 2006, 12:20:37 pm »

"Many see things as Black and White, while few see the Gray in between." ~Myself

I'm sorry you took such great offense on this issue.  I don't believe anyone was specifically generalizing soldiers as being unintelligence.  T do such would be ignorant of the system in which they become soldiers inthe first place (the ASVAB for starters and not to mention post basic training schools "job trade" training).  This is also not to say that they are not "free-thinkers."  However, in saying that, ones ability to make a "free-thought" decision is based largely on ones source of information.  Gen. Ret. Colin Powell, for instance, was a General that demanded the facts and only the facts.  He didn't want your opinion and he didn't want your thoughts, just the facts.  He knew that the only way he could make a good decision is if (and only if) he had the facts and as many of them as possible.  As the Secretary of State, he was constantly lied to and mislead causing him to do and say things that he would not have done otherwise if he'd had been given the truth.  So, with that in mind, let's take a step back for a moment.

In the time after 9/11 and leading up to the invasion of Iraq, anyone who believes the media was not being censored (indirectly through intimidation) by the government, is seriously ignorant of the facts.  In that time period FOX news, a strong conservative news source, rose to great popularity due to the popularity of 'denouncing the pacifist' or anti-war people (besides the fact that there was strong evidence before the invasion of Iraq that there were not any Weapons of Mass Destruction, hence the change shortly before the invasion from "WMD's" to "Iraqi Freedom").  This lead to the 'facts' being pushed out of the way in favor of so called 'Patriotism'.  It would be nearly two years before the brave few in jurnalism began breaking news of the facts of how badly the war is going, abu ghraib, no wmd's, ect.  Even to this day, most Representitives don't know the difference between Shiites and Soonees OR even Alkida and Taliban.  So, again, it has nothing to do with 'intelligence' or 'free-thinking' and everything to do with being informed (which the government limits to everybody, not just the military personel).  By limiting sources of information, you limit the 'options' people preceive that they have and in this way, a government can 'brainwash' it's population.  In fact, we've seen the effect of the news media finally revealing information about the 'truth' of the government that has resulted in a slow decline (it debrainwashing occurs slowly) of the Bush Administrations support, not only in the general population, but in the military as well as they begin coming home between tours and getting more informed information.

The other form of brainwashing targeted solely at the military is loyality to the military and the commander in chief.  The military instructors drill that in, drill that in, and drill that in.  While this is understandable to a certain degree, it is assumed that the 'commander in chief' is not misleading the country and sending the military into the face of death without first being honest with the american people and having full congressional support.  This is why soldiers are sworn to take an oath.  I took this oath once. The oath is sworn to the Constitution of the United States.  Not the Comander in Cheif, not the military as a whole, not to each other, not even to the people of the United States.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to deceive the people to garner support for entering into a war were soldiers will face death.

Ironically, there are still misconception on the reasons for invading Iraq, Saddam as a 'dictator', and the (unsupported) accusations of Saddam's 'atrocities'.  Most people think Saddam was on trial for Kuwait and the use of biochemical weapons.  In actuality:

"The seven defendants were charged with crimes against humanity during a brutal 1982 crackdown on the Shiite town of Dujail after a failed assassination attempt on Hussein.

The crackdown included the executions of 148 males. According to court documents, the military, political and security apparatus in Iraq and Dujail killed, arrested, detained and tortured men, women and children in the town. Homes were demolished and orchards were razed. "

Keeping in mind that this alleged event took place only 3 years after Saddam came into power and at a time when the US was, at that time, allies with Iraq.  Just another prime example of how gevernment drowns out facts (even in the media) with other stories to control the information it's people receive.  But let's face it, there will always be a percentage of people that are so closed minded even in the face of tremendous evedience, that they will remain loyal to a government regardless (rather civilian or military personel).  There's a variety of reasons for this, but I won't go into them because it will just make this post lengthier then it already is.

On a note of military psycological trauma, those trauma's have been proven to come from events they encountered during the war and NOT the public humiliation they faced at home.  I've known many veterans and have talked to them at length.  The humiliation they faced at home (if any) was a shadow of what they were witness to in the wars they faught in.

Of the AWOL point, I think you missed the point that was being made.  It boils down to why continue supporting a war on the front lines when the war is not supported at home?  IE, why continue to do something in contridiction to the oath you gave (to uphold the will of the people)?

Now if you want to talk about the best direction for Iraq with respect to our armed forces, these are the three best options based on my informed research:

1.  Allow Saddam to regain the control he once had of the sectarian differences in his country along with a slow phase out of troops as he regains control of the situation.

2.  A full commited effort on Iraq (which we have yet to see even since the beginning) by trippling the number of troops and equipment already there even if it means pulling troops and equipment from afghanistan temporarily to do so.

3.  A full and complete withdraw from the country.  There are no WMD's or Biological weapons so there is limited risk to our nearby allies.  Everything eventually reaches equilibrium given enough time.

Options 1 and 3 aren't going to happend for a variety of politically motivated reasons, so option 2 is the only one we can actually even hope for.

This is all I'm going to say on the subject.

6

The Wallth Are Thoundproof / Re: Favorite Quotes

« on: November 04, 2006, 07:41:31 pm »

Well, yes and no. They CAN lay down their arms in the middle of a fire fight, but they WILL get shot. (Possibly by other soldiers who see this as dereliction of duty.) Which is nobler, laying down your life for your beliefs, or fighting for them? IMHO, they are equal, but some view death as a coward's way out.

I mostly meant figuratively.  Anyone who did 'lay down their arms' (I think there's only been a handfull to do so thus far (mostly Officers)) would do so during 'down time'.  But I agree with what you said.  On a side note, though, where does Dereliction of Duty and Service to Country (or to it's will) begin and end when they conflict with each other?  I suppose that would be an arguement saved for during a Tribunal.  At any rate, the risk of being shot for Dereliction of Duty would also count as another reason for how the government (indirectly) makes it a difficult choice.

While true, ask any soldier in Iraq currently if they think we should be there. Most will say no. That tells me that they're free thinking enough, and bright enough to develop their own conclusions and opinions based on their experience.

Interestingly enough, another forum I belong to has a couple of regular members who are currently serving in Iraq and whom firmly believe and are committed to the Bush Administrations agenda.  Many people here even still believe we should remain 'until the job is done'.  Granted, that is changing now that CNN and others have stopped letting the government intimidate them in the last year and a half.  The government has many fronts in it's propaganda machine, which is what makes it so difficult to stop.  Again, I do agree with you on that, along with the US general population, soldiers serving in Iraq have started changing their opinion.  Most of them will likely wait out for their contract to expire versus going AWOL.

(It was the same way in the Vietnam War)

Very true. There are reasons for charging them with a crime, and honestly those reason are sound, and I wouldn't wish it differently, but that doesn't make it 'good'. And just imagine the tribunal's task... if they let Soldier A get away with walking off the battlefield, then how can they charge Soldier B who goes AWOL, getting his entire squad killed? What moral ground do they have to stand on? Tough call, imho.

Again, I agree.

To me, risking your life for any cause, including immoral ones still retains a level of nobility. Now, when it comes to doing a the job of a soldier, on both sides I feel those who fight and die are a higher caliber of humanity then most. They may not be good men, they may not even be decent men; they are men willing to die because they are told to. That takes a special (if not disturbing) mentality, and most of the people I've met who've faced that have been better because of it. They might still not be good or just men, but they're more good, more just then if they'd never had to face death like that. That alone is why I think all soldiers should be treated with honor and respect.

To a certain extent I would agree for which it applies.  There have been, however, numerous cases where the psycological trauma remains with them for their entire life.  This has (in some cases) turned good men bad, becoming members of the criminal population within 5 years after their return.  In other cases, such as for the majority of Marines (even if by a slim majority) are so brainwashed during 'boot camp' they are changed psycologically from the beginning (more so then other branches).  My brother, for instance, only saw a small amount of action during his 5 years (2 years spent stationed in Somalia).  Yet, he is far more arrogant, conceded, and tempromental then he ever was prior to entering service.  It may be sad, but as far as I'm concerned, the brother I admired and looked up to as a kid, died the day he stepped on that bus destined for Parris Island.

No doubt, all in all, it's a complex issue.  There are so many varibles and statistics to consider and it's very difficult to try and not make 'sweeping generalizations' and still address the real issues; all while acknowledging your respect for soldier's choices (or situation they were forced into).

7

The Wallth Are Thoundproof / Re: Favorite Quotes

« on: November 04, 2006, 12:02:50 pm »

I just thought it was ironic because the Bush Administration used the 9/11 attacks to rally the people to their own will and then denounced the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.  It's actually sad because they took the rational of a Nazi to achieve their goals.  How twisted is that?

The soldier issue I'm torn on.  Soldiers can lay down their arms and walk away at anytime.  HOWEVER, the government makes this difficult for several reasons:

1.  To a large degree they brainwash and censor the information the soldiers receive.

2.  They charge the soldiers with a military crime if they walk off the battlefield.  What's terribly wrong with this is that the military tribunal does not take into account rather the war is popular or not NOR that soldiers own moral or ethical reasons for laying down his/her arms.

What ends up happening is that the ones who do not feel they are rightfully serving the will of the people with their actions, wait until their contract runs out to leave.  Of course, since this has become a common occurrence, the government has restricted their ability to do so by extending their contracts (regardless of the legality and taking advantage of the soldiers ignorance of law).  So there's a lot at play here that complicates the issue.  However, it is never okay to 'spout very hateful things at soldiers' for any reason.  The people that do so should use pamphlets to inform the soldiers.  On the otherside of the arguement, though, the ussual rational of those that 'spout very hateful things at solderis' is to strongly reinforce the unpopularity with the war in the hopes that they'll say "enough is enough, this isn't worth the unpopularity I face at home, I'm laying down my weapon and facing my (nobel) consequences like a man."  Not to say I agree with it...I'm just saying...

8

The Wallth Are Thoundproof / Re: Favorite Quotes

« on: November 03, 2006, 03:08:23 pm »

Right before mid-term elections here in the states's:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

9

General Discussion / Re: Proof that anything really is possible...

« on: November 01, 2006, 08:49:18 pm »

String Theory is an interesting exercise in the problems of science and establishing the 1:1 ratio with the universe that is required.

String Theory was intended to unify all of the major Laws of Physics and for a while, it did.  String Theory predicted that there were tiny strings at a deep sub-atomic level even beyond quarks that vibrated in a harmonic manner.  While an interesting prediction in itself, the original theorist had no mathematical proof.  This is where it became even more interesting and astonding.  As they began to plot out the math to prove their theory, they began to run into road blocks.  One of the solutions to getting around these road blocks was to assume that extra dimensions existed beyond the usual 3.  This opened up the math and allowed them to proceed further until they hit another road block.  "Well there MUST be another dimension!"  In fact, they ended up assuming around 4 extra dimensions existed beyond the usual 3, 7 in total (IIRC).  This was amazing and they were on their way to winning the Nobel Prize!  Then others began attempting to varify by duplicating their work.  The only problem is that the results, while mathematically provable indepandantly, were slightly different.  In fact, between the 6 or 7 mathematically provable String Theories, they predicted all sorts of different shapes and between 6 and 9 different dimensions respectfully.  Surely, 7 Mathematically Provable theories, each with their own unique result, could all be right, could it?  Of course not.  String Theory became the laughing stock of the Scientific Community (ironically, where it started from).

The one thing I think String Theory did prove (or teach us) is that just because you can prove something mathematically, doesn't mean that that's the way it is (even by approximation).

Unfortunately, some did not learn this lesson.  There is currently a group effort to unite all 7 of the String Theories into what's now being called M-Theory.  Last time I checked, they were up to around 23 dimensions in the math (IIRC).  "There just MUST be another dimension!"