The point being that these military bases are located close enough to (if not surrounded by) population centers that any attacks on those bases will have dire consequences for the surrounding populations. I lived on base at Lackland (San Antonio) for a year and know well its proximity to San Antonio (within the I-410 loop) which is a large city and not a "military town".

Arlington is more or less a military town and lies between Dallas/Fort Worth. This is still a major metropolitan area.



Maybe not for you specifically () but the civilian targets would indeed cause an rage throughout ALL the population, I'm sure.

A)

B)


A) Why don't you move? (curiosity)
B) So, again, why wasn't GWB focusing on N Korea rather than Iraq (who didn't have WMDs)? You keep spouting anti-Obama now, but were you equally pissed that Bush ignored N Korea?

True. They also, arguably I'm sure, have the best trained troops in the world and military service is mandatory for citizenship ... 3 years for men, 2 for women. Unless they are excused from military service for any reason, Israelis who haven't served cannot vote or participate at all in politics ... they also cannot work.



False.

Those countries and militant groups in the region that hate us? Primarily because of our support to Israel. Its the biggest reason Iraq has turned out as the fiasco its been.



Not necessarily true. Israel's beaten the $#it out of anyone they've come in conflict with and it takes the UN saying "Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! You can't just take land like that." I think they'll be ok if we stop the hefty donations. I'm fine giving them our outdated systems that we're replacing, but more than that is really unnecessary.

One last thing:



The follow are bases I've lived on or been to and their relationship to population centers:

1) Fort Bragg - home of the 82nd Airborne and basically the launchpoint on the eastern seaboard. It is surrounded by the city of Fayetteville, NC.

2) Lackland AFB - surrounded by San Antonio, TX

3) Fort Worth - Dallas, TX

4) Barksdale AFB - Situated directly between the metropolitan areas of Shreveport and Bossier City, LA

5) Fort Campbell - Surrounded by Clarksville, TN on the southern border and Hodgensville, KY on the northern.

These "military towns" are not only filled with the military and their dependents, but also business owners, civil servants and people from surrounding areas that enjoy the larger population centers and job opportunities.

I never claimed to have solutions, but I'll argue against a nuclear one because I don't feel I have any right to deny innocent bystanders their own right to live. I don't believe you or anyone else has that right either. Just as no one has that right to condemn you or I, either ... so long as we're bystanders and not instigators. :shrug:

You are far too quick to judge entire populations based on their governments. Its selfish, barbaric and emotionally juvenile. Defending yourself is one thing ... going to someone else's house who's a friend of your worst enemy and beating the $#it out of and crippling or killing their entire family is completely different.

So, call me a bleeding heart if you wish, but even if the above example happened to my own family, I'd not vote to condemn the assailant's entire family. Would you?

Think about it.

Properly quoting:


That was discussed. MsHarmony defended that more succinctly.



Anyone who questions religion is (obviously) an instigator. It takes courage to stand up to what so many others believe. Our argument (yes, I'll lump myself over to her side on this ... I'm surprised you haven't already) is that you are NOT a sensible person if you believe you've had experiences with the God of the Bible. It doesn't matter how well-educated you are, where you work, what you do outside of that career or anything else ... insanity is still insanity. Many people from all walks of life have been placed in sanitariums due to different types of psychological illnesses ... a few of them Christians who've killed people in the name of God.



You go to church to hear preaching and that isn't sufficient enough for you not to preach to others. In that same regard , you'll just have to deal with hearing others preach. Its called "freedom of speech". As its been explained before, there is no requirement of "must be religious" to post here. Freedom of speech. So long as you are not being personally attacked, you cannot tell people they cannot post here. Ideals CAN be attacked here, which is, if anything, the argument JB "instigated".



I think a few of us have answered that by joining in the discussion.



The text of the original post for this thread states Christianity as an Abrahamic religion (partaining to the God of Abraham).



The same could be said in reverse. If you're going to be offended by someone questioning your ideals, don't read.



Apparently, not always.



Its called "debate". If I don't agree with something, I'm going to question it. If the answers aren't logical, I'm going to argue the point. If we believed you had the truth, this discussion would not be occurring. Anyone just saying they're telling the truth doesn't make it fact ...

Don't take this as a personal attack, but can you please try to type slower and make more sense when you post? It would be very helpful. If not, at least try to proofread once you're done?

I don't sit on my computer all day. Sorry.



Read: Hate, hate, hate. Your answer to everything is kill a $#!t ton of civilians so YOU and others LIKE you can be satisfied. You "feel sorry" for civilians caught in the middle, but you have no qualms slaughtering them in the hundred thousands or millions ...



You STILL didn't answer the question. Would you nuke a US city because of a small contingent of troublemakers hiding among the population?



I'm convinced you have no idea what racism is. As far as your political affiliations, you're constantly making remarks against "liberals", so the only thing I'm assuming is that you're not. However, you do little more than spew anti-Democrat rhetoric like a Republican, though, and mimic their "I'm more important than everyone else" attitude with perfect clarity. Kudos.



And not a word of this is an actual response to anything I said. Just the same "bomb them!" repetition.



Actually, I'm curious on that mark, as well. We'll never know, but I have the feeling Iraq was going to happen with or without Congressional approval.



So long as we're "returning territory", lets go nuts and give Israel back to the Palestinians. We can recreate Yugoslavia as well. Poland goes back to Germany, etc. and we "Americans" can go back to Europe, Asia and Africa and give the entirety of the U.S. back to the Native American tribes that are left.

That'll solve everything, right?



You've been talking absurd all along.



Again, read: Hate, hate, hate. "Bomb them all so I and others like me feel warm and fuzzy." You do nothing but consistently back your own hatred for anyone who disagrees with your world view with "nuke".

I've lost interest. Like every fundamentalist (and most hardcore political party affiliates), every argument I have and will make you will respond with "you show your ignorance!" Presentation doesn't matter, because unless I say "we need to nuke everyone who hates America", it will not be a presentation you'll agree with. A closed mind cannot breathe.

I'll leave discussion with the only fact I know you can agree with: you are not the only person on the planet.

BTW, as per your questions, Peter:

Genesis 6:17 -- And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Everything that is in the earth = ENTIRE world flood.

Genesis 6:19 -- And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

every living thing = all animals.

Abra handled this rather nicely, but I'll add that the intention of the flood was to wipe out all of mankind and start over ... was that supposed to be accomplished with a localized flood? And where? And the Bible doesn't state "God told Noah, 'Collect all the animals you can see from your house here. I'm gonna flood a few square miles. These people are whack.'"



Fundamentalist: One who believes the Bible is complete and whole truth of the world and its history.

I've "qualified" this by stating beliefs and a particular (and literal) interpretation of the Bible made by a LARGE group of Christians. This does not disqualify my statements as error nor "bust me" for stating them as the "beliefs and a particular (and literal) interpretation of the Bible made by a LARGE group of Christians." If the Bible is to be taken literally as complete truth, these are the ideals of those who follow hold it as such. I'm not going to take the time to write out a hundred pages defining the particular beliefs of every group of Christians, that would be a little silly, don't you think?



My apologies. I did not associate the "lol" in that context.



That part I understood as perpetuation of the joke. This was directed toward others. I should have specified.





If you are not a fundamentalist (the particular group I've been talking about), then I guess you would have no reason have beef with my arguments? And since you're uneducated where the Bible is concerned, how could you possibly accuse me of misrepresenting material you, yourself, are unfamiliar with? Hypocrisy, anybody?



Basically, you're saying I'm misrepresenting Christianity as a whole when I'm not even talking about Christianity as a whole. I'm presenting the views of the Bible in its literal interpretation which is believed by a large group of people as its been explained to me by those people.

I do hear their voices (and see their print) all the time, because these people are EVERYWHERE ... and a some of them post here. So is it wrong of me to state and argue against those beliefs? No, not at all.

If you are not one of these people, what's your beef?

I'll probably not be popular with this reply, but ... "Waaaaah"?

So the couple is raking in 350k/year and I don't really consider them "rich", but when taxing anyone I don't think anything after the colleges for the kids should be considered. For years, the lower and middle classes have been chided for "living beyond their means" just because they wanted a house and/or a new car ... not necessarily because they were picky or greedy, but because they felt they deserved to have reliability and stability just like anyone else. Its one of the reasons Congress approved the bailout for the companies, instead of the homeowners when the housing market crashed.

That said, I don't particularly care if someone owns a yacht (as it doesn't get you to work ... or if it does, its a bit overboard--npi--a way to get there). I don't care if they have a $2M home either and I certainly don't care about his alcoholism and her medication addictions ... there are clinics for both of those.

But in particular, when I think rich, I generally think $500k/year and up. Especially those who make millions a year have little excuse for having no "disposable monies" for taxes. "Its tied up in investments!" "Then untie it ... you have until April 15th LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!"

Psst. Peter, in case you missed my response, its above your second post.

Original post included for context:



Peter:


A) So, what? It was a localized flood that required Noah to gather ALL the animals of the Earth? Well, that clears up everything, then. I hope God made it conveniently next to a zoo, at least? How nice of him. (Really, I hope you did not expect me to avoid being facetious here).

B) Every Fundamentalist Christian I've spoken to (and there's been a LOT of them) all have claimed that the Earth was created between 12k and 13k years ago. Its not dishonesty, I'm merely relaying claims made by the faithful. If that offends you, I'd start talking to the other Christians you know.



So people who have faith in the judicial system, and have never themselves actually dealt with that system, was given their faith by God? This seems to be the new favorite word, so I'll use it: Fallacious! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

You can have confidence your car won't break down if you maintain it properly. You have faith it will start each day and that sounds correct too, for you cannot really experience the wear and destruction of certain mechanisms that wouldn't necessarily give warning. So ... yeah, right, that fits with my description.



This was mostly a silly statement made as a jab at Cowboy's use of quotes and my quoting his name ... not really meant to be something contested. If you re-read it, you can see the joke for what it is. I suppose I could have used a smiley ...

That being said, though, I cannot remember encountering an atheist who throws quotes around "God" or "Christian" (except as I have here because they are grammatically correct in application when referring to the words themselves--something I neglected to do in my last post specifically for purpose of example) as a way to belittle or insult a group ... even inadvertently. So, in that regard, I can speak for other atheists I know because I'm not speaking of their beliefs, merely recognized habits of print. I apologize if that actually offends any other atheist. lol



I am hardly uneducated where the Bible is concerned. Sorry. As I've stated in another thread recently, I was raised Southern Baptist and I know the material better than most of the Christians I've ever spoken with. I've pointed out inconsistencies of the text with belief but it always boils down to the same thing: People will believe whatever they want to believe.

Again, want to be offended? Talk to your fellow believers. They're saying this $#it, I'm just the messenger.

You contradicted yourself. "... can be the result of what a person has experienced ..." That makes it a requirement, which is exactly what I said when I stated "reasonable deduction based on similar experiences".

Faith does not require experience nor evidence (as so many have stated in this thread and others), just the Bible or other religious text.

Actually, I've seen one source recently that claimed all Presidents within the past fifty years or so can be traced back as descendants of John Adams.

Actually, Metalwing summed it up rather precisely:

What's up with you, Jeanniebean? Its ONLY 10 billion dollars. I mean, seriously ... what's 10 BILLION dollars? Its only 1% of our budget ... what could it do? Feed a few MILLION families? Save a few hundred thousand HOMES from being foreclosed? Send a MILLION kids to college?

PSSHHH! How dare you be so selfish ... for other people ...

What kind of American ARE you?







... don'tya love it?

This is the biggest part I did not agree with from your previous post ... marriage. I've read from several sources that 55% of new marriages end within the first four years (this includes annulments, etc). So even if you COULD get people to marry before having kids, it will do little to curb single parenthood (mind you, I did NOT say it would do "nothing" to curb).

What I found even more interesting was that 70% of SECOND marriages fail within the first four years. I guess if you've gone through it before, its no longer such a big deal, so screw it.

Despite my agreement with MOST of that, it's still no excuse for cutting taxes on the rich.

One of those hardcore bigots, aren't we? "Shame on you people for being poor! I don't care about your circumstances or where you came from, you're disgusting and you all deserve to rot!"



Wow ... really? Then why has the divide between the rich and poor grown so steeply since Reagan stepped foot in office? Its so irritating to see so many Americans advocating low taxes for the rich on the OFF-CHANCE that one day they might be one of them.

Reality check: ITS NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN!

Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/income-gap-between-rich-a_n_639984.html

Also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005550/Americas-pay-gap-Inequality-rich-poor-worse-revolutionary-Egypt.html

Those poor fu**ing rich people ...

Keep in mind, the disparity between the rich and the poor was one of the biggest contributors to the fall of Rome, a 1,000 year old empire ... we're just over 200 and we're approaching that level already.

This will be the eternal argument for the people who enable the rich to get richer and not pull their weight because they're 'privileged'.

LP, just so you can understand this statement, I'll point it out carefully: Hard Work -does not equal- rich. You can work (through pain). Congratulations. So can I (without it). That doesn't mean either of us are going to be rich. As I've told my stepfather during several political debates:

"No one's saying the poor should pay NOTHING," or 'skate', as you say. "We're asking that the rich pay a comparable amount along the scale for the privileges they enjoy for being rich." Instead, there's tax cuts for the top 2%, corporate tax cuts that also benefit that top 2%, stimulus packages that are thrown on top of that that most benefit the top 2% and incentives for large corporations that drive small business (and by effect, the rest of us HARD WORKERS) into the dirt.

Maybe you're happy busting your a$$ through constant pain while the Walton family sits back on theirs living it up without having to work a day, but if we're supposed to be a democracy that benefits the majority, then why is it the top 2% get most of the breaks?

Stop idolizing Reagan. Trickle-Down Economics means the top 2% get to pi$$ on you from their pedestals.