Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61

Thread: Palin and Dinosaurs

  1. #1 Palin and Dinosaurs 
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

    The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1440865.story

    Admiting we were living around with Dinosaurs, it would make that the strongest and smartest would have survived. Seing palin I doubt it.

    extra bonus on palin
    http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cP12aNzocSc


    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    That still seems pretty narrow. You don't need a young Earth theory to allow humans and dinosaurs to walk the Earth together.

    The warmest places during the ice age would have been the lower altitudes. Since we can't really dig for fossils under water very well, paleontologists love to insist that there's nothing to find there.

    A very popular theory about how Homo-Sapiens managed to arrive on far away islands in the pacific, as well as Australia, despite it being seen as unlikely that they could have navigated those distances after the ice age was over, is that Homo-Erectus were evolving separately and independantly into Homo-Sapiens on each of these islands. (IE. some ridiculous theories are used to patch that concern, since not every continent has a bearing straight ice bridge like America does)

    Nobody wants to admit that, quite possibly, the Sapiens habitations during the ice age were all below the current sea level, because it was better for agriculture, and they were strong enough to be able to force the other pro-humans to live elsewhere.

    -- And the same could go for a few select species of dinosaur. The cold of the ice age would kill them if they lived in the colder upper altitudes, so any bones left over from them during the ice age would have to be in places that are under water now.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Kojax,
    have you been infected by Total Science and jollybear.

    Fact. We have discovered no dinosaur fossils younger than sixty five million years.
    Fact. Prior to 65 million years ago dinosaur fossils are sufficiently common that they have been found in numerous locations around the planet.
    Fact. Around sixty five million years ago a major extinction event killed a large proportion of life on the planet.
    Fact. All of the data confirm that the dinosaurs were destroyed at this point, though some reseachers maintain they were already declining for a couple of million years prior to their eventual demise.
    Fact. The possibility that some dinosaurs survived is so infinitesimally small that it does not constitute a viable option.
    Fact. The end of the dinosaurs sixty five million years ago is as close to being a fact as we ever get to in science.
    Fact. Man has been around for 200,000 years (I am not going to go through the same tedious set of caveats I did for dinosaurs.)
    Fact. The only way man and dinosaurs could have been on Earth at the same time is if one or other group had a time machine.

    P.S. I am excluding the observation that we live with dinosaurs today, since birds are dinosaurs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Palin is a Christan, who happens to believe in Creationism. Think about 65% of Americans, feel the same to some degree. She has also said, that evolution should be taught in schools, as a subject in SCIENCE.

    I won't argue her case, that of jollybear or in fact the Scientist who preach on the religious channels daily, since I happen to disagree, but the attitude is an acceptance of a religion and very common.

    Ophie; Do you want a list of scientific facts from history (not very long ago), that are no longer facts...In fact, last I heard human ancestry to upright vertebrates is placed at 3 million years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    If the quote is accurate it is consistent with other evidence that Palin is an unread and incurious ideologue. The similarity with G.W.Bush is notable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Ophie; Do you want a list of scientific facts from history (not very long ago), that are no longer facts...In fact, last I heard human ancestry to upright vertebrates is placed at 3 million years.
    science can only deal with the evidence as it is known at the time
    at present there is no evidence whatsoever that any non-avian dinosaurs survived the extinction event of 65 million years ago

    people who doubt this have the onus placed upon themselves to provide the evidence of their existence post the K-T event

    until such evidence comes to the fore, ophiolite's list is the closest we can come to scientific fact
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    .
    Ophie; Do you want a list of scientific """FROM HISTORY""" history (not very long ago), that are no longer facts...In fact, last I heard human ancestry to upright vertebrates is placed at 3 million years.
    marnix; Think you know what was meant and know Ophie does. Its not that anything is wrong with the scenario, but that in the past many ideas set in stone, were later found to be different or totally incorrect. When I was in School, think you call that the stone age; I recall a special 'Auditorium' gathering where alchemist lectured us on 'Over population' and Global Cooling'. They said the planet could not accommodate 3 Billion people, we would be dieing from starvation and all sorts of problems, BUT it wouldn't matter anyway has we would all be dead in a few years as the planet heads into an new Ice Age....On the more practical level, we were told salt did all kind of bad things and to quit using it, or that sugar substitutes would cause all sorts of problems and to stop using them.
    Well, salt also has iodine and our main source for a needed element and there is now nothing wrong with sugar substitutes. Please don't argue moderation, as Ice Cream will kill you if you eat 100 pounds and lately we are being told to much water is bad for you.

    Bun; Palin reflects the attitudes of the American people and the traditional belief that any one can achieve an ultimate. Take this on to the levels in more than one area. As a graduate of Journalism, I have to assume she understands many things, including research and analysis prior to making decision or writing or delivering a text. Think you already know, last nights debate drew a much larger audience (80M households) than any political event since TV ratings have been available.
    (Well after 1932 when FDR addressed American's of the 1929 Market Crash- Biden)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i know what you meant, just wanted to make sure it was made clear for all to see

    btw, many items you list there as once having been fact tend to be of the type that made headlines in the press, but tbh more resemble factoids that never fully coalesced into fact

    there often is a period where evidence is under evaluation and remains in a temporary limbo
    it all depends on whether further investigation brings confirmation or not : if the former, the factoid has a chance of becoming fact, otherwise it remains in limbo until it shrivels on the vine or eventually becomes accepted as probably true

    the problem is that press attention often reports on topics that are still far from settled but sound exciting and therefore are considered newsworthy
    the subsequent falling from grace often is far less newsworthy and hence fails to make it in the press (unless there's an almighty argument involved)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    [quote="jackson33"]
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    .


    Bun; Palin reflects the attitudes of the American people and the traditional belief that any one can achieve an ultimate. Take this on to the levels in more than one area. As a graduate of Journalism, I have to assume she understands many things, including research and analysis prior to making decision or writing or delivering a text. Think you already know, last nights debate drew a much larger audience (80M households) than any political event since TV ratings have been available.
    (Well after 1932 when FDR addressed American's of the 1929 Market Crash- Biden)

    Well, I guess everyone was expecting to get a show after all the wierd interviews she gave out before the debate. It's explains the numbers of people who followed that.

    Debate = Show (by the way!)


    I'm not saying she's stupid either, I'm sure too that there were loads of people surrounding her to help on preparing answers for the questions of the debate.

    I keep maintaining that intelligent or not, her ideas like Mc Cain are completly phreaky thinking this people will governe one of the most powerful office in the world.

    Few Quotes of Palin

    "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made. "

    "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
    (speaking of Creationism)


    She urged students to pray “that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”
    She added, “That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.”

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...2/1327574.aspx
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    marnix; You should follow me around on any average day. People believe what they hear/read or are taught. They don't easily forget and practice in life what they tend to agree with. You have been on this forum, probably others, where any deviation from the ACCEPTED is met with reprimand, censure or banning from the forum itself. I don't care how far "outside the mainstream" 'Ophie quote', you can find something to back up that opinion. Flat earth to No moon landings or whatever and in life these ideas are a dime a dozen...

    timel; I think that one debate reflected both the VP nominees, true character and insight into many things. Neither IMO, showed any signs of what otherwise can be verified or that they had spoken similar thoughts in the past. I also think the 'let Palin be Palin' got through to the campaign management and very little coaching was involved. Sure they would try to instill in her, the talking points or the purpose she was picked, but what came out was primarily the person or persons (both) real inner feelings. Biden a loyal liberal and Palin an obvious Christan. I found both to be likable as I do the main characters, but prefer the policy of the Republican Platform over that of the Democrats, finding neither to 75% of my total acceptance...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    You have been on this forum, probably others, where any deviation from the ACCEPTED is met with reprimand, censure or banning from the forum itself.
    as far as intolerance of outlandish views is concerned i don't think this forum is all that bad - i've seen far worse
    i have also learnt from recent discussions with the likes of jollybear, newcastle or Total Science that there's just no getting through to some people, so a discussion becomes pretty pointless
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    You have been on this forum, probably others, where any deviation from the ACCEPTED is met with reprimand, censure or banning from the forum itself.
    as far as intolerance of outlandish views is concerned i don't think this forum is all that bad - i've seen far worse
    i have also learnt from recent discussions with the likes of jollybear, newcastle or Total Science that there's just no getting through to some people, so a discussion becomes pretty pointless
    Heya Jackson!
    Socrates said it takes two people to think. Thinking comes by speaking to someone else.
    I do agree with that!

    I have come to anderstand your point of views in different topics or even learnt things from you it doesn't mean I won't go once and more against your opinion which is believe isn't a sad thing! That's the whole point of discusing and learning; In the end to orientate your views in a better way!
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    You have been on this forum, probably others, where any deviation from the ACCEPTED is met with reprimand, censure or banning from the forum itself.
    as far as intolerance of outlandish views is concerned i don't think this forum is all that bad - i've seen far worse
    i have also learnt from recent discussions with the likes of jollybear, newcastle or Total Science that there's just no getting through to some people, so a discussion becomes pretty pointless
    There are by far worse forums on restricting opinions and they tend to become parties where each glorifies the others opinions. This to me is a waste of time, since for me to even post, I require an interest in the topic and a different opinion.
    If that then is outside the accepted, whats the purpose of discussion. As for jolleybear, he must have the same opinion. He does post on religious forums and is highly regarded by fellow members. (checked him out before trying to argue his points). Total Science, also would be of the same opinion and argues points that are interesting IMO, such as Abiotic Oil or indirectly on how planets formed pre star ignition/explosion (which he never states). Remember in your trying to make an argument, more folks read your post than respond. Its those people your influencing, not the author your responding to....Also that person is probably is equally frustrated that you/others don't understand what he/she is trying to explain.

    timel; As just told marnix, if you state opinions equal to mine, what could be the purpose of any response. You being from Canada, probably Quebec and in talking politics, your opinions count a little more than my fellow American's. I can explain their opinions but still learning how folks not from here, understand our system...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    As a graduate of Journalism, I have to assume she understands many things, including research and analysis prior to making decision or writing or delivering a text.
    That's not a safe assumption, and in her case is unwarranted. She's interviewing for a job - I expect her to at least attempt to answer reasonable questions, and I don't assume undemonstrated understandings or capabilities.

    So far, no hire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    As a graduate of Journalism, I have to assume she understands many things, including research and analysis prior to making decision or writing or delivering a text.
    That's not a safe assumption, and in her case is unwarranted. She's interviewing for a job - I expect her to at least attempt to answer reasonable questions, and I don't assume undemonstrated understandings or capabilities.

    So far, no hire.
    First, welcome to this forum and your input...

    Obama, in his first six months of campaigning, said absolutely nothing related to the position of president of the US. He became a symbol for anti-war, big government, cradle to death care by government, offering change, hope and slogans that inspired the disgruntled Democratic base. In one night, Palin did no less for the Republican base, inspiring their based to the same things, but with a positive narration. No doom and gloom or negative mention of the country and its people.
    In short she has had two interviews that have been REPORTED as failed attempts to orate her opinions, while Obama over those first six months and many times since, has mumbled through hundreds of interviews, rarely reported. My problem is those mumbles were in his EDUCATED FIELD, practiced this by teaching that subject, the Constitution of the US, the History of this country and the traditional values of a 230 year old Nation. He should be able to speak fluently on these subjects, speak in constant personal opinion statements and base his ideology on the principles of this countries founding. HE HAS NOT and IMO, has no intention of following tradition, cultural practices or in fact THAT CONSTITUTION.

    I would be hesitant to hire McCain, would have considered Ms. Clinton and would hire Palin on future potential. Obama, well if he wants to be a leg man for a law firm (which he was once hired for) I might consider that job...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    In short she has had two interviews that have been REPORTED as failed attempts to orate her opinions,
    Unfortunately for your attempts at description, I saw both those interviews. She presented herself as profoundly unlearned and inexperienced, and refused to answer questions that I wanted to hear answered.

    That impression is borne out by examination of her resume.

    Perhaps she could improve her image by doing more than a couple of carefully staged "interviews" and "debates", and in particular submit herself to serious questioning instead of these pop culture magazine quality affairs. But her position is that such interviewing is beneath her, and the hostility of such events objectionable.

    So be it. I'll hire someone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    In short she has had two interviews that have been REPORTED as failed attempts to orate her opinions,
    Unfortunately for your attempts at description, I saw both those interviews. She presented herself as profoundly unlearned and inexperienced, and refused to answer questions that I wanted to hear answered.

    That impression is borne out by examination of her resume.

    Perhaps she could improve her image by doing more than a couple of carefully staged "interviews" and "debates", and in particular submit herself to serious questioning instead of these pop culture magazine quality affairs. But her position is that such interviewing is beneath her, and the hostility of such events objectionable.

    So be it. I'll hire someone else.
    You do know in her running for VP under McCain, its her job to express his views.
    She has personally known McCain less than one month, she has some very conservative views and probably agrees with McCain on about half the issues. Drilling in Alaska, a minor one. She cannot just spout out personal opinions, in an interview or in public, if it disagrees with his policy or the Republican platform.

    Additionally, her experience is as an executive in government, where the buck stops. As a mayor and Governor, where McCain has no practical experience and she has been in business, making out payrolls etc, where again McCain has never been. It may be a little more difficult to explain things from one perspective, when promoting policy.

    Think its obvious we are not wishing the same hire and our board of directors has about 160 million members. In keeping with your scenario, I do hope some of them will look very close at those top two resume's and vote for the most experienced, since we have some very real problems today and pending problems, I am not sure anyone can fix....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    It is remarkable that Palin believes dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. Truly remarkable. Add it to the list of her other remarkable beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Not to worry. She and her ticket-mate are headed for the dustbin of history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    We're failing to see the problem here. The American people, or at least a lot of them (perhaps an overwhelming majority) have been developing a profound fear of "elitism".

    They want stupid people to lead them, so the smart people will have to back down and do what they want. They're all terrified their kid will be the one who can't pass math, or get into the TAG (talented and gifted) or other honor programs.

    Conservatives are largely social Darwinists, and as technology makes IQ more and more important to a person's power, wealth, and status in society, I'm sure a lot of them are becoming afraid they'll get left behind, or stepped on, or otherwise screwed by the trend. (Because.. as social darwinists, that's exactly what *they* would do)

    Show you're intelligent, or highly educated, and they start to see you as "one of them", instead of "one of us".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Surely the sense of having one's worldview squashed out of relevance is frightening on both sides of the intelligence debate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    We tend to think of our history in terms of what exist today. Those that survived the Great Depression, WWII, Korean War, The Cold War even the Vietnam War are slowly fading and we are left with a majority of self absorbed society. National concerns are important only to those that are involved and troubles that exist around the world are of no importance. The pendulum will swing....

    Bun; Palin, will not fade into the dust bin of history, but has made history and will be around for years to come. Frankly even I am so concerned enough about McCain, that to see Obama win, may be a blessing to society on down the road. I am seeing a lessening of difference between the two (Obama/McCain), that with the built in restrictions of the Executive, either would lead us down the same path and I prefer it be blamed on him....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    We tend to think of our history in terms of what exist today. Those that survived the Great Depression, WWII, Korean War, The Cold War even the Vietnam War are slowly fading and we are left with a majority of self absorbed society. National concerns are important only to those that are involved and troubles that exist around the world are of no importance. The pendulum will swing....
    This is easily balanced out by the globalisation that has occured via the internet/instant global communication, and trade. The world is much more interconnected to-day than in past years.

    (not to mention the increase in numbers of vets from current wars not just between the west and the middle east but within the middle east and throughout asia and china and africa.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    We tend to think of our history in terms of what exist today. Those that survived the Great Depression, WWII, Korean War, The Cold War even the Vietnam War are slowly fading and we are left with a majority of self absorbed society. National concerns are important only to those that are involved and troubles that exist around the world are of no importance. The pendulum will swing....
    This is easily balanced out by the globalization that has occurred via the internet/instant global communication, and trade. The world is much more interconnected to-day than in past years.

    (not to mention the increase in numbers of vets from current wars not just between the west and the middle east but within the middle east and throughout asia and china and africa.)
    Not to the electorate as a whole, those that vote. Certainly the world is interconnected and my point. We are not an isolated country and will never be again, but Obama, his party and their followers are pretending we should be. Never mind their are bad people out there trying to undo all the good Americans have paid dearly for with lives and money. Let them fend for themselves, protect themselves or trash the treaties we have with so many countries. NAFTA is a bad thing and Free Trade Capitalism a failure.

    No sir, until 1972, we all served in the Military in some manner or had good excuses not to. These numbers have decreased...............BUT, as it was before, those that do serve understand just what I am talking about. The Military in the US or serving abroad will vote 65-35, even for McCain, probably would vote 80-20 for Palin, if they could. I would add, any person joining any branch of the service since 2001 and there are many, 90% would vote against the Democrat policy, at least presented by OBAMA. Frankly, my 'self serving' comment applies to the many younger folks that are scared they MAY have to serve someday....Ironically there probably will be a return to the draft as we move from pre-emptive to a reactionary Nation............
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    We tend to think of our history in terms of what exist today.
    Well, it's right. Long term wise, maybe the fact that US is messing around all the planet will probably slow down emerging country \ over taking economies (China- India etc..)

    The fact that US keeps an hand on oil will probably also make sure they keep an hand on this countries that more and more are in huge demand of this resources.

    It's also keeping American army all around ready in any circonstances.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    timel, are you new to Canada or is your first language French? I don't mind replying to your opinions, but need a better understand, just where on earth they are coming from....

    The US Military is stationed around the world, understand on some 300+ different installations. Most all by treaty and for the protection of others. US Business are involved worldwide, either selling or producing products and with the consent of those governments, paying their taxes and following their law. In the US, we have an open market. You or any person on this planet can buy stock (equity) in any US Public Corporation, or with some minor restrictions build or buy any business. We are the home of the United Nations, have representation from most every Nation on this planet in Washington DC, New York and most every State. We have 100's of treaty with both friendly and unfriendly countries and all of the above is entitled with out restriction to travel anyplace, other than a passport. Even your drivers license is valid in the US and we have millions living here or abroad with dual citizenships. Our oil companies, help ALL countries in the exploration, drilling and storage of crude around the world, even the majority of which are government owned. In our history, we have fought two world wars, helped rebuild those defeated or destroyed in the process and yet have never claimed one square foot of land. I have no idea what you mean, since the people of this country, would rather not be so many places, under so many treaties or depended in anyway on another country. We are in emerging countries so they CAN emerge and in hopes they will join in the world economy. None are charged for this service and capitalism pays for the privilege to do business, in many cases, taking serious changes for success or at great risk for the life of our workers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    timel, are you new to Canada or is your first language French? I don't mind replying to your opinions, but need a better understand, just where on earth they are coming from....

    Well, one of those is Jean-Francois Susbielle. I read a bit of his writting. Even if it sounds a lot pessimistic it comes with good sens and good thinking. (good structure)

    Yes, I'm a French from France originaly that spend 4-5 years in Lebanon and now living in Canada
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    We tend to think of our history in terms of what exist today. Those that survived the Great Depression, WWII, Korean War, The Cold War even the Vietnam War are slowly fading and we are left with a majority of self absorbed society. National concerns are important only to those that are involved and troubles that exist around the world are of no importance. The pendulum will swing....
    This is easily balanced out by the globalization that has occurred via the internet/instant global communication, and trade. The world is much more interconnected to-day than in past years.

    (not to mention the increase in numbers of vets from current wars not just between the west and the middle east but within the middle east and throughout asia and china and africa.)
    Not to the electorate as a whole, those that vote. Certainly the world is interconnected and my point. We are not an isolated country and will never be again, but Obama, his party and their followers are pretending we should be. Never mind their are bad people out there trying to undo all the good Americans have paid dearly for with lives and money. Let them fend for themselves, protect themselves or trash the treaties we have with so many countries. NAFTA is a bad thing and Free Trade Capitalism a failure.

    No sir, until 1972, we all served in the Military in some manner or had good excuses not to. These numbers have decreased...............BUT, as it was before, those that do serve understand just what I am talking about. The Military in the US or serving abroad will vote 65-35, even for McCain, probably would vote 80-20 for Palin, if they could. I would add, any person joining any branch of the service since 2001 and there are many, 90% would vote against the Democrat policy, at least presented by OBAMA. Frankly, my 'self serving' comment applies to the many younger folks that are scared they MAY have to serve someday....Ironically there probably will be a return to the draft as we move from pre-emptive to a reactionary Nation............
    It has nothing to do with fear of getting shot or dying. That's pure BS. It has to do with fear of a cascading failure of diplomacy leading up to full nuclear exchange, that would almost certainly happen if the people in our military had their way about things.

    Oh, they wouldn't do it on purpose, of course. They're just too stupid to know when to stop. They'd do it on accident, and then expect that we shouldn't hold them accountable for the smoldering heap of nuclear waste we get reduced to, because it was a "mistake".

    Look at the idiotic mistakes we've made with just Iraq. If we can blunder an occupation that badly, how safe should I feel letting my leaders make other diplomcay related decisions. When they say Russia or China or Korea are just "sabre rattling", I think back to when they predicted all the people of Iraq coming out and welcoming us as liberators.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; We probably have read different history books, so I'll address your post accordingly...

    Pacifist have existed since wars began or when one tribal chief decided to invade another. In more modern times 25% of the people in those original 13 colonies were loyal to the English, 20% of both the slave states or the union were opposed to war and of course before and during both WW, they demonstrated in the streets of the US. No less over the Korean, Vietnam or First Iraq or the two current wars.

    Your adding words to my "scared they may have to serve" is fine, I think it has more to do with disruption of some social life, next weeks ball game or a new TV show. Pretty much the same attitude in France in the 1940's, when Germany just waltzed in, taking over. Like it or not complacency will get you a whole lot of things your not going to like...

    MISTAKES in times of war. My goodness, war strategy alone have changed and in changing has created a multitude of mistakes. BUT, wars are proned with error, take this hill, only to find out that hill would have been better...oh! sorry we lost 200 men taking the wrong hill. In urban areas, we no long drop nuclear weapons on so called """innocents""". but try to convince them of some emotional logic, that Americans would never accept, if invaded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Your adding words to my "scared they may have to serve" is fine, I think it has more to do with disruption of some social life, next weeks ball game or a new TV show. Pretty much the same attitude in France in the 1940's, when Germany just waltzed in, taking over. Like it or not complacency will get you a whole lot of things your not going to like...
    Why can't we have the ball game going on and have diplomats to do their jobs.
    I have to agree with Kojax, maybe it's a different generation of mentality.(the pink one)

    And 2nd world war was a different issue. 1st world war had just finished than an other one started and noone planned it out. In that case response was imediate for some (French resistance) and many enrolling with the english to respond. (case of my Grand Parents who all toke the weapons, some lost legs and all).

    They didn't have the choice. Maybe cold war could have been a problem but now it's byebye!

    We won't face this issues again.

    """innocents""". but try to convince them of some emotional logic, that Americans would never accept, if invaded.
    A bunch of islamist terrorist of the poorest country won't invade.

    Indian Ghandis and Chinese in their case which never invaded a countries won't start either now. Brazil and Canada either won't.
    So this whole thing about preventive invasion doesn't match at all.
    We have to start to talk and stop firing.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    timel; As you said, WWII is another issue and no an end result of invasion of the US, Russia or China would be the end of that invader. The point then, wars are fought on idealogical differences, terrorism or possibly in some substitute nation.

    I disagree its an age thing...rather ignorance. Pakistan, may not invade India but can certainly disrupt their economy and doing just that today. Inflation running ten+%, little terrorist attacks now and then to keep the Government/Populace off track. Venezuela/Chavez, may not attack the US, or Mexico or Canada, but can play games with Columbia, which is friendly with the US. I could go on with Iran, North Korea or a number of African Nations which will in time cause international chaos, where the US by treaty will intervene.

    It seems to me those that use freedoms to voice their opinions for what ever reason and are tolerated by all the rest, have no understanding where those freedoms came from, the cost or just how fragile those privileges are...We see the very reason all industrialized nations can get along today, being attacked on many levels. Capitalism or the interdependence of society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Inflation running ten+%, little terrorist attacks now and then to keep the Government/Populace off track. Venezuela/Chavez, may not attack the US, or Mexico or Canada, but can play games with Columbia, which is friendly with the US. I could go on with Iran, North Korea or a number of African Nations which will in time cause international chaos, where the US by treaty will intervene.
    Well, sometimes it feels like US doesn't want many of this conflicts to get solve.
    I mean Bush politics has been all about securing the planet against threat. If things are all peaceful the speach doesn't work anymore.
    I'm no agency so I can't really know.


    Now it is a case by case of course. But if I follow your logic it doesn't work.


    North Korea is a headeach, my question will always be, why didn't US invade N.Korea instead of Irak? The guy down there is a crazy Red Coco worst than Hitler and Stalin together. I might support that.

    Following G.W. judgement for invading Irak it would have been more logic to invade North Korea.


    I have a few friends from Iran. Very brilliant people.
    One of them told me once that as long as Iran would feel treathened by Israel they would do as much to protect themselves.
    In the era where oil is becoming less and less I would do same.


    Africa is a mess but they only have AK-47, and having them killing each others hasn't bothered any G8 countries so far (Darfour an estimate of 200,000 death in 2006 of a population of 6 million)


    I think countries will keep intervening in other countries as long as it will represent their interrests. US, France, Germany and all included and that's the way it works for coorporate interrest to go on and same for economies.

    This whole thing about keeping peace in the world by preventive conflict in a fallacy in my opinion.


    It seems to me those that use freedoms to voice their opinions for what ever reason and are tolerated by all the rest, have no understanding where those freedoms came from, the cost or just how fragile those privileges are...
    I fully agree.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    What you agree with, is the base of my argument. The process we in the US, Canada and most all industrialized countries got to this point came with total world opposition in the beginning but has decreased worldwide over the past 200 years.
    On several occasions violent opposition bring on two world wars and creating movement of some societies against the freedoms we now ALL have and in laws created by man.

    Near 2 Billion live under Islamic Law and/or the cleric of that religion. Another 2 Billion live under some form of dictatorship or where government controls many of the natural instincts of the human spirit. Keep in mind, I am arguing forms of Government, not religious convictions.

    You have mentioned Iran, where at one time their people enjoyed most all the freedoms, we have in the West, for the most part now lost. Those that hold power in Iran are the cleric, think you know this and in Israel the power is held by politicians, who cannot separate government from religion. Two religious forces, both fighting the same fight their ancestors have for 2000 or more years. Israel, won't invade Iran and Iran can only invade/disrupt or menace Israel through terrorism. Both are also driven by some notion, mankind by prophecy will come to an end with purpose. Neither is concerned with the rest of the world, other faiths or the reality they could both be wrong.

    The Bush Doctrine is really quite simple; Any country that harbors or aids acts of people professing terrorism against the US or its allies, will be targeted in some manner by the US and their coalisn. Iran has not only aided and harbored, but publicly stated their intent.

    As for Iraq; Saddam invaded Kuwait, threatening to move on to Saudi Arabia and no doubt felt he could take over any nation, with the added power of the oil revenues and very possibly could have. During the Clinton years, terrorism was dealt with as a Law Enforcement problem and buying cooperation from unfriendly place the norm. The United Nations was used as a last resort and when used, was not backed with resolve. GWB and 9/11 changed the attitudes of the American people, the Bush Doctrine adopted and Afghanistan invaded after negotiations with the then government had failed. In the meantime, Iraq and Saddam continued to harass the west, taking pot shots at 'no fly zone' patrolling A/C, killing off decenter in their society and throwing out UN inspectors. Whether to keep the flow of oil steady, to liberate a people from obvious ethnic cleansing or any of the then acceptable reasons, he invaded Iraq. If this works out we or the West, will have an influence in an area, where many trigger happy segments of one religion are and have for those 2000 years started wars, but until then would not disrupt the rest of the worlds progress.

    North Korea, is in short a problem for China. The US, under UN mandate remains in the area to protect South Korea and South Korea would rather North Korea join them in their democracy, not destroying what little is left by war. Also China does NOT want the refugees that would certainly head for China's boarder. From the practical angle, North Korea, presents no major problem to any one short of nuclear weapons and China will not allow this end.

    Preventative actions, by all accounts would have prevented WWII, the most destructive ever by mankind. Depending on your source up to 50 Million people died as a result, a billion injured/lost property and every Nation on the planet was in some manner effected. Even today Eastern Europe (former soviet block) is just recovering and debts of many nations, yet unpaid or recently forgiven.

    On Africa, reality has to set in and soon. I don't know the answers but little the little tribal leaders that have influenced small societies are becoming bigger. Oil and other resources are being found and the power structures increasing. It won't be long and one or more groups will become more aggressive in cleansing opposition, which WILL spill out into the rest of the world. Not to mention the general humanitarian attitudes of todays world society...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Jackson; The only thing that frustrates me is that we aren't inocente in what's happened and in what's still happening.


    Trying to prevent communism, we did create talibans and helped Saddam to come into power. Same on Saddam Hussein that was also keeping a strong hand on the different arabic groups which was a base for stability in Irak. Iran, S'sha?


    We intervened in Afganistan, we're still fighting down there and as a result we have a super corrupted governement and strong talibans that don't want to have to do anything with this governement. Admiting there will be ever stability down there, a proper governement will work out in probably 30 years not to speaks of people scars that will remain for life; What will follow than? Same story?


    Lebanon's war is finished since 25-30 years and there is still no working governement down there. Hezbollah is partialy responsable of this, second one is corruption. Ideology and money. beautiful.


    I'm even pessimistic on this countries to be able to develop economicaly, it is probably the only way they will really develop.



    Iran is definitly putting the mess everywhere. It's a fact. As much for Syria, both provide weapons to hezbollah and intelligence to palestine and lebanon. Defeat Israel? where ever this is going. No clue. Religious beliefs. (same point as you)


    Same thing for Afganistan, Iran ain't inocent. What do they want I don't know. I'm not as serious as you are on their threat.
    It's really hard to say what do they want exactly. Is it to keep sovereignty and safety of their values or to impose an Islamic ideology all around middle east and further. I don't know.

    For them stoping US in afganistan is a way not to have them on their borders.
    If a form of safety for their values.


    And I don't consider Islamic threat as terrible as Communism would have been.


    9\11 is a mix of confusion between conspiracy theories and reality.
    To finalize:
    US governement as lost it's credibility with Irak with massive destruction weapons and all the rest and securing oil facilities in first place + past actions as previously described.


    North Africa. maybe?
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    timel; Your expecting to much to soon. World affairs are not some 30 minute TV show or a two hour documentary. Things happen today in fractions of time to what has happened not many years ago. In 1776 there were no practical democratic forms of Government, while today there are over 180. Capitalism didn't exist and for all practical purposes, very very few individuals ruled the world. There were over 100 wars in each the 1400's, 1500's 1600's and 1700's. Millions died and the worlds populations was stagnant around 800-900 million people, compared to 6.6 billions today.

    We could go back through history and pick out every cause that caused a reaction and determine only that circumstances do change. Yes, the US supported Iraq and yes the USSR supported Iran and yes that was where part of the 'Cold War' was fought. Yes, the US was/is interested in Iraq's oil reserves, but not for the sake of the US. Your new home, Canada is energy self efficient and along with Mexico and our own supply 2/3rds of our needs and the three could supply each other for years to come, if ever required.

    Islam is not a threat to the West, the problem is West is a threat to Islam. Culturally speaking, woman are equals, little baby breeders go to school, religious freedom, right given to all peoples and an affluent society. Laws are for men and made by man, not found in writing hundreds of years old, determined by courts made up of common folks, not interpretations of social engineers expecting an end to all in the near future.

    Lebanon, will pull through in the future, just as Turkey did or the best example Dubai and so will Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan and India is kind of like the old US north and south and were once one country, under British rule (1946).

    Communism, as in the 1940's and 50's or as in Cuba won't come back. Once people have experienced freedoms its hard to let go and they won't. Adjustments will be made to Democracy and in the end an acceptable compromise between the two will be reached.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    kojax; We probably have read different history books, so I'll address your post accordingly...

    Pacifist have existed since wars began or when one tribal chief decided to invade another. In more modern times 25% of the people in those original 13 colonies were loyal to the English, 20% of both the slave states or the union were opposed to war and of course before and during both WW, they demonstrated in the streets of the US. No less over the Korean, Vietnam or First Iraq or the two current wars.
    True, and don't forget that many Americans wanted to continue the long standing tradition of isolationism with respect to European affairs.

    Your adding words to my "scared they may have to serve" is fine, I think it has more to do with disruption of some social life, next weeks ball game or a new TV show. Pretty much the same attitude in France in the 1940's, when Germany just waltzed in, taking over. Like it or not complacency will get you a whole lot of things your not going to like...
    The thing of it is, if you're gonna do it, you want to feel like you accomplished something. All we accomplished in Vietnam was kill a lot of people, and lose young men in the process.

    If a US politician could demonstrate that he/she or a group within the government had come up with a way to start *winning* hearts and minds wars, instead of just consistently losing them, we might get more volunteers.



    MISTAKES in times of war. My goodness, war strategy alone have changed and in changing has created a multitude of mistakes. BUT, wars are proned with error, take this hill, only to find out that hill would have been better...oh! sorry we lost 200 men taking the wrong hill. In urban areas, we no long drop nuclear weapons on so called """innocents""". but try to convince them of some emotional logic, that Americans would never accept, if invaded.
    And nuclear war/politics is the ultimate battle technology for which we have little experience. It's prime opportunity for a "blunder" to happen, if we don't stay really really really deep inside the safety margins.

    The problem is that "Emotional Logic" may guide the enemy's perception of what's going on. Back anyone far enough into a corner, and they may actually come to see the nuclear option as being better than the one they're facing. (Especially if what they think they're facing is genocide anyway.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; There will always be a percentage of any society that feel they stay out of others affairs. This was true in 1776, when they drafted a document to unite what were 13 sovereign/independent States. As other States joined that Union, isolationism was as prevalent as is today by a small number of the total. This continued until the Civil War and society has slowly realized all States (still sovereign/independent are truly DEPENDENT. If we want anything close to a World at some degree of peace with each other and a tolerance of each Nations cultures and/or tradition, the Nations of the World will follow what happened in the US. I still prefer the United Nations or something similar would be the best solution to this end, but until those world governments give this institution the clout to enforce their decisions, the US and some others will need to enforce their own agreements, obligations and treities...

    Vietnam, of course was fought over to prevent the ideas presented in the "Domino Theory'. If one 'wanna be' democracy falls to communism, there would soon be others. Failure in Vietnam now is a matter of History and most feel that POLITICAL decisions in the US, or that politicians were running the war with a political agenda, NOT TO WINNING THE WAR. It nearly happened again in Iraq, where Congress was a very few votes from pulling funding (cause for withdraw from VN). In this case however the war was fought with primarily the military in charge, of decisions on the front. Like it or not a purpose was achieved, in that any entrance into war with another society, should be done so with a stated purpose and exit strategy.

    As for winning the hearts/souls of another society, it doesn't matter if the Government of those people refuse to acknowledge their own populace. You don't think the people in North Korea are ignorant of the success in South Korea, or do you...

    Nuclear weapons, are useless to all the major powers that have them. I think your have trouble explaining how any mistake could be made, to start a Nuclear War, other than some movie explanation. Even small Nations that could achieve this technology, know that any use of them, would mean their own total destruction. The danger in Iran, is the stated end of humanity and may not care if they are destroyed. Personally I don't think any nation will ever again use nuclear weapons (other than some dirty bomb) and if the anti missile program (star wars) is ever accomplished, the threat would cease to exist as the desire to produce. I might add my first two paragraphs would also be helpful in limiting your emotional theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    ... I still prefer the United Nations or something similar would be the best solution to this end, but until those world governments give this institution the clout to enforce their decisions, the US and some others will need to enforce their own agreements, obligations and treities...
    Well the biggest monkey wrench in that plan is actually the USA, which can and will openly refuse to obey the UN's orders no matter how much support they get. If they do something without us, and we don't like it, we'll tell them they can't and they'll have to listen.

    That's a lot of why the UN is such a sham.

    Basically, we've elevated ourselves to the position of King, and now we refuse to rule, which is the same as forcing anarchy on everybody. I think we just don't like the responsibility. We like the power, but prefer not to have to be responsible for how we use it.


    Vietnam, of course was fought over to prevent the ideas presented in the "Domino Theory'. If one 'wanna be' democracy falls to communism, there would soon be others. Failure in Vietnam now is a matter of History and most feel that POLITICAL decisions in the US, or that politicians were running the war with a political agenda, NOT TO WINNING THE WAR. It nearly happened again in Iraq, where Congress was a very few votes from pulling funding (cause for withdraw from VN). In this case however the war was fought with primarily the military in charge, of decisions on the front. Like it or not a purpose was achieved, in that any entrance into war with another society, should be done so with a stated purpose and exit strategy.
    Would you want to be one of the soldiers who died for that?!?!?

    When an organization like the US government loses so much trust in one generation like that, you kinda gotta figure.... it might take a little while to win it back. You can't just demand that people trust you. You have to earn it, and maybe the government will have earned it after a few more decades, but not yet.


    As for winning the hearts/souls of another society, it doesn't matter if the Government of those people refuse to acknowledge their own populace. You don't think the people in North Korea are ignorant of the success in South Korea, or do you...
    It's not that they think Sadaam was good, or any of the insurgencies are good. They simply doubt we can deliver on what we say we plan to do.

    It's like if somebody hotrods your car to make it go a whole lot faster, but then it doesn't even turn on.

    If they believed we could do it, and that we would do it, they'd be willing to help us, but nobody wants to stick their neck out for some pie in the sky bag of magic beans that never becomes anything even after they've died fighting for it.

    It's sad, but people want to be on the winning team, even if its the bad guys, or they'd rather not fight at all.

    Nuclear weapons, are useless to all the major powers that have them. I think your have trouble explaining how any mistake could be made, to start a Nuclear War, other than some movie explanation. Even small Nations that could achieve this technology, know that any use of them, would mean their own total destruction. The danger in Iran, is the stated end of humanity and may not care if they are destroyed. Personally I don't think any nation will ever again use nuclear weapons (other than some dirty bomb) and if the anti missile program (star wars) is ever accomplished, the threat would cease to exist as the desire to produce. I might add my first two paragraphs would also be helpful in limiting your emotional theory.
    I don't think any official government will do it.

    I think the technology will go the way of the cell phone. Smaller and smaller countries will get the bomb. Someone will find a way to extract the trace amounts of uranium that are found in most soil, then they'll come up with a more innovative kind of centrifuge that separates out the U235 more easily, and eventually the bomb will be a regular weapon.

    Its better to treat every large organization or group of people as though it were potentially nuclear. Our tendency to only worry about formal governments is what got us into the trouble with terrorists we ourselves in. The common people under those governments didn't feel represented, and decided to take matters into their own hands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; Think you will find Government (Democratic/Republican) supports to ideas the UN was formed on. Media, the parties and many high profile speakers, do oppose many of their findings and/or issues. I also think some, is not the majority of members try to use the UN to further their own interest, to much higher degrees than the US. Whether it be the UN, NATO or some new entity, world governments require a means to communicate between themselves...IMO.

    Please do study a little more 'WORLD HISTORY'. Wars didn't start in the 1960's, in fact wars have declined over the years. For Centuries most males were raised to just fight in wars and in many places wars lasted many generations. I wouldn't want to give birth either, and was not interested in dieing FOR ANY REASON when I was in the Air Force. It was even then (50's) what was expected. My family name is said to have lost 1056 people (not a common name) in the Civil War, on both sides the conflict. That makes no sense, but part of history. Ignorance may be bliss, and we may have come to the point where all our freedoms are just being taken for granted.

    Winning the hearts and minds; Every year a million people move to the US from all parts of the world legally and millions more visit for whatever reason. Add in the illegals, whatever your guess may be. Whatever the reasons, they form opinions and many return home, passing on their viewpoints. As mentioned before where our government was the first of this nature, there are now 180 others that have followed and many others trying to follow. We have a presence on 350 installations worldwide and contribute to local and national economies and the their very presence is influential. Our industry has helped increase other economies and our people buy products made from most every country on the planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    16
    Quelle CLOWN cette Palin looooool

    Dinosaure et l'homme...
    « SOLDATS !!!
    je vous ramènerais en France; là , vous serez l'objet de mes plus tendres sollicitudes. Mon peuple vous reverra avec joie, et il vous suffira de dire, "J'étais à la bataille d'Austerlitz", pour que l'on réponde, « Voilà un brave» Napoléon 1°
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41 Re: Palin and Dinosaurs 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by timel
    Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

    The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1440865.story

    Admiting we were living around with Dinosaurs, it would make that the strongest and smartest would have survived. Seing palin I doubt it.

    extra bonus on palin
    http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cP12aNzocSc
    Traditional science have proved that dinosaur lived at least in 65 million year but we human being maybe only several million years.And our civilization is only 5 thousand years even though we have acclaimed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That still seems pretty narrow. You don't need a young Earth theory to allow humans and dinosaurs to walk the Earth together.

    The warmest places during the ice age would have been the lower altitudes. Since we can't really dig for fossils under water very well, paleontologists love to insist that there's nothing to find there.

    -- And the same could go for a few select species of dinosaur. The cold of the ice age would kill them if they lived in the colder upper altitudes, so any bones left over from them during the ice age would have to be in places that are under water now.
    The geography I was taught in my middle school told me dinosaur is extinced by asteroid attacking the earth from the space.The large part of species had dead in the disaster,and the other still survive for several million years with the forthcoming of ice age.Assumed that last dinosaur is killed by our ancients for the food.I don't know whether it is true but teacher had told us that.
    From the information I have,your opinion sound pretty right.We never possible to meet the dinosaur in any time.Our earth maybe is youger than the other planets,but we society is just several seconds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornichon
    Quelle CLOWN cette Palin looooool

    Dinosaure et l'homme...
    Avec un nom pareil c'est clair qu'il y a un autre Francais dans ce forum!
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    kojax; Think you will find Government (Democratic/Republican) supports to ideas the UN was formed on. Media, the parties and many high profile speakers, do oppose many of their findings and/or issues. I also think some, is not the majority of members try to use the UN to further their own interest, to much higher degrees than the US. Whether it be the UN, NATO or some new entity, world governments require a means to communicate between themselves...IMO.
    It does serve as a means to communicate. It just can't ever grow teeth. It's teeth would actually have to be sharper than the teeth of the strongest nation it rules over in order to ever be a credible world government.

    Imagine the US government trying to rule over us if a private citizen actually had a military stronger than the US military at his/her command, and openly refused to obey the laws he/she didn't want to obey.


    Please do study a little more 'WORLD HISTORY'. Wars didn't start in the 1960's, in fact wars have declined over the years. For Centuries most males were raised to just fight in wars and in many places wars lasted many generations. I wouldn't want to give birth either, and was not interested in dieing FOR ANY REASON when I was in the Air Force. It was even then (50's) what was expected. My family name is said to have lost 1056 people (not a common name) in the Civil War, on both sides the conflict. That makes no sense, but part of history. Ignorance may be bliss, and we may have come to the point where all our freedoms are just being taken for granted.
    But none of those generations had to worry about the A bomb. The A bomb makes all military conflict seem pretty futile. It's like trying to have a knife fight with somebody you know owns a gun. Any time you win it's only going to be because they were trustworthy enough not to bring the gun. Does that feel like a real victory?

    True nobody wants to die, but even less so if you know in advance it's going to be for nothing. Even if we'd won Vietnam, all we'd have managed to do is install a dictatorship (probably just another Sadaam Hussein) to keep out the communists.

    Now compare that with WW2 or even Korea.

    Basically, war is a gamble. You bet your life against the possibility that you'll live to see something good come of it. It's a pretty bad bet if you don't stand to win anything.


    Winning the hearts and minds; Every year a million people move to the US from all parts of the world legally and millions more visit for whatever reason. Add in the illegals, whatever your guess may be. Whatever the reasons, they form opinions and many return home, passing on their viewpoints. As mentioned before where our government was the first of this nature, there are now 180 others that have followed and many others trying to follow. We have a presence on 350 installations worldwide and contribute to local and national economies and the their very presence is influential. Our industry has helped increase other economies and our people buy products made from most every country on the planet.
    Maybe the problem is that we think that's what "winning hearts and minds" means. It's not really about whether they like us or not. It's about whether they think we can actually deliver the goods we promise.

    The Iraqis are mad because we removed a functional, though somewhat unjust, leader and replaced him with our good intentions. The thing of it is, it turns out that good intentions don't put food on the table, or keep crime down. You need results for that, and right now nobody over there believes we can deliver results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Kojax, Jackson33;

    UN is definitly a great project, and I agree that it is used many times in order to protect other countrys interrest like France and Germany did for Irak with Saddam Hussein(oil), or like Chinese and Russia do too in order to keep their interrest in other cases.

    UN is also quite a source of frustration if it comes to help African countries or others and when it comes to prevents or stop genocides(ex: Rwanda?). I wonder if it will continue to have a futur, except the symbolic part it stills represent.



    Irak; Kojax it is true that Irak was stable, but Saddam surrounding was sick. Weapons and Drug trafficing by his sibbling or cousins. Driving fabulous cars. It was a dirty dictatorship down to the roots until up the tree.
    In a long term thinking, this people would have inherited Saddam dictatorship and Irak would stay the same for a very long time with probably even worth people leading it. Pure speculations, I admit.


    I saw reports on Irak recently. It seems to go better, I don't know if US governement is trying to create a good image or not of the situation.

    In this report people attitude seemed to have changed. We can still question the fact of invading Irak, but now that you guys are there. Get the job finished.


    Few reasons why things are working down there is that US as turned around militias and proposed them some salaries and stability. Now if US don't provide surpport to the goverenement and don't make sure this militias get paid for what they are doing it will go back to what it was. A proper mess.

    Corruption, always. It's the Achilles heel of all this countries and of stability in a country.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; The US Congress has no teeth either, yet people living in the 50 various States and territories seem to follow the dictates of which ever party is in control.
    Each State has only its representation and the powers are definitely dominated a few, California, Texas, Florida alone hold 25% of the power and S/N Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and a couple others hold 1/435th each, at least in the House. Territories with token representation, no vote, yet peacefully go along with the rest...

    The UN is effective, but currently to a lesser degree, with many of the 192 members having agenda other than peaceful coexistence. Financial assistance, religious viewpoints to differences in political systems. There purpose (original) was to enforce the 'Human Rights' or social issues with additional duties taken on through the years and as mentioned a World Platform to give opinion. Where common interest, that of the Congress or Federal Government and those of an International Community of Nations are different, there are interest that are common to all and will increase over time, if any true means to World Peace can be achieved.

    The Romans 'Bomb' was brute force, as were many of the Empires through History. The English Empire was built on a Navy which no other Nation could defeat and today most all powers have similar deterrents to advocates of ideology. Where most War and or control of other societies were based on resources needed by one segment, Capitalism or the buying a product/man power has taken over. I really don't believe any government fears atomic weapons, even Israel and Iran, but does fear the threat, no more/less than that original brute force.

    Most people in Iraq, during Saddam's period lived in fear of emanate death and a good many did die. Saddam and his paid for loyalist knew this and controlled the people with periodic showing of what would be if disobedience was to occur. He certainly was not or is not the only person who used these tactics. It just happens that he was in the middle of a source (oil) for the modern day economical engine and had tried to increase his power over that fuel (Kuwait). As for delivering prosperity, its up to what their people do with any freedoms they gain. If they continue to place religious interest ahead of a National need or pride, then all this was in vain. I do know little girls are going to school in Iraq, women walk the streets and show pride in participating in election TODAY, and all would have been shot, NOT THAT LONG AGO.

    Who knows what history or todays world would look like, if any number of wars had not been fought and remember each war had a loser. None of us and in particular no politician can predict the effects if some problem is negotiated or fought over. There would be no USA, IMO if the French Navy had not taken on the British Navy in our Revolution and its possibly Europe would look a lot different if Hitler had won.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    kojax; The US Congress has no teeth either, yet people living in the 50 various States and territories seem to follow the dictates of which ever party is in control.
    Each State has only its representation and the powers are definitely dominated a few, California, Texas, Florida alone hold 25% of the power and S/N Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and a couple others hold 1/435th each, at least in the House. Territories with token representation, no vote, yet peacefully go along with the rest...
    Congress has the power to shut down the military. That's pretty good.


    The UN is effective, but currently to a lesser degree, with many of the 192 members having agenda other than peaceful coexistence. Financial assistance, religious viewpoints to differences in political systems. There purpose (original) was to enforce the 'Human Rights' or social issues with additional duties taken on through the years and as mentioned a World Platform to give opinion. Where common interest, that of the Congress or Federal Government and those of an International Community of Nations are different, there are interest that are common to all and will increase over time, if any true means to World Peace can be achieved.
    What they all want is the same as what we want: peace, on their own terms.

    Trouble is, no two nations have exactly the same terms, so they bicker, because they don't want to have to concede to the others. The question is, Jackson: do *we* want to concede to any of the others?


    The Romans 'Bomb' was brute force, as were many of the Empires through History. The English Empire was built on a Navy which no other Nation could defeat and today most all powers have similar deterrents to advocates of ideology. Where most War and or control of other societies were based on resources needed by one segment, Capitalism or the buying a product/man power has taken over. I really don't believe any government fears atomic weapons, even Israel and Iran, but does fear the threat, no more/less than that original brute force.
    Well, the bomb, in that sense, only existed until the second country who learned how to build nukes. There has never in the history of the world been MADD, until the bomb.

    If we attack another nuclear country, and they don't use their nuclear weapons, that's exactly like a person choosing to fight with a knife when they have a gun.

    (Like at the end of a round of Counter Strike, sometimes the last 2 people standing will go knife as a sort of honor thing)

    If we crowd out another nuclear country economically (say by seizing world wide oil resources for ourselves and then not sharing), what we're effectively doing is provoking them to war and then hoping they don't do it. It's a very dangerous thing to do, because their agitation can build without us seeing it, nor being ready when it finally spills over.


    Most people in Iraq, during Saddam's period lived in fear of emanate death and a good many did die. Saddam and his paid for loyalist knew this and controlled the people with periodic showing of what would be if disobedience was to occur. He certainly was not or is not the only person who used these tactics. It just happens that he was in the middle of a source (oil) for the modern day economical engine and had tried to increase his power over that fuel (Kuwait). As for delivering prosperity, its up to what their people do with any freedoms they gain. If they continue to place religious interest ahead of a National need or pride, then all this was in vain. I do know little girls are going to school in Iraq, women walk the streets and show pride in participating in election TODAY, and all would have been shot, NOT THAT LONG AGO.
    This is a solid point. The only problem with freedom without order is that people can't act freely unless they have protection from their own criminal element.

    I think most of the insurgents are see as just thugs, even by the general population, but they're very scary thugs. Until the USA makes them believe that we can really stop the thugs, I think most of them will prefer not to see their families shot in front of them rather than help us.



    Who knows what history or todays world would look like, if any number of wars had not been fought and remember each war had a loser. None of us and in particular no politician can predict the effects if some problem is negotiated or fought over. There would be no USA, IMO if the French Navy had not taken on the British Navy in our Revolution and its possibly Europe would look a lot different if Hitler had won.
    Such is the cost of inaction.

    A truly balanced view has to weigh both concerns against each other. MADD is a lot like a game of chicken with very high stakes. If you're the first to flinch, you lose whatever is being competed over. If nobody flinches, both contestants die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48 Re: Palin and Dinosaurs 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9
    [quote="timel"]
    Admiting we were living around with Dinosaurs, it would make that the strongest and smartest would have survived. Seing palin I doubt it.

    extra bonus on palin
    http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cP12aNzocSc
    I can't believe that she actually said that. That woman is just ridiculous - I can't understand why she was pushed forward so much by her party! :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Her home town newspaper (Wasilla is jsut up the valley from Anchorage) endorses Obama.

    Yet despite her formidable gifts*, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

    *The Anchorage Daily News after all has to co-exist in Alaska with her when she is sent back there after losing the election.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    While McCain was not astute enough to avoid his dumb ass selection of a running mate he is probably astute enough to recognise now what a fumble it was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    While McCain was not astute enough to avoid his dumb ass selection of a running mate he is probably astute enough to recognise now what a fumble it was.
    While I am sure McCain appreciates your speaking for him, he has voiced quite the opposite. I remind you she (Palin) is still pulling large crowds in the face of emanate defeat...acoording to other spokespeople.

    I do admit, the polls are reflecting the 'economy' for some reason usually its against the incumbent party. Add a little of 'Ted Stevens' senator from Alaska, now having been found guilty on all charges of corruption and there may be no saving McCain's chances, but I would bet you will never him blame Ms. Palin and would also bet your going to hear a lot more of her in three/four years. If nothing else the eventual Senator from Alaska...


    kojax; The UN can fund anything it wants or pull funding, no more or less than the US Congress. Congress can establish law and create funds, but must rely on Law Enforcement for its teeth.

    The US has since the end of Vietnam been untrusted my many powers in the world. What we say is good only as long as that administration remains in office.
    Unfortunately the Iraq people MAY have to go it alone in the near future, our treaties around the world (protection/trade) may be worthless and the value of our word, worthless. Israel, at least has had the time to develop its own power and may survive the next few years, in the event of a Obama/Biden/Polosi/Reid control of US Government. Those four rank 1-4 on liberal/socialistic attitudes or if you prefer a rather strong isolationist form of government. Others in their party are now talking GENERATIONS of control...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    she (Palin) is still pulling large crowds
    Obama pulled 100,000 in Denver yesterday. How big was Palin's crowd?

    and would also bet your going to hear a lot more of her in three/four years. If nothing else the eventual Senator from Alaska...
    I'm betting we'll hear a lot more from her as a talk show host, or a talk radio blabbermouth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Compared to Mr. O....after a month on the National scene? About ten to fifteen times his crowds. 50K pretty regular and also has had overflows, 70M in a VP debate (near double the P debates), giving SNL their best ever rating , on and on...

    Well the last true advocate opposing socialism, did have a weekly radio show for years. Reagan, by the way also started out broadcasting sports, had some rather large audiences and that took it to the white house...To go further, bet he will be recognized for generations (if the Republic last) as one of the greatest LEADERS, this Nation ever had. To give credit where credit is due, Obama will be up there with Elvis, Ross, Dino and the pact, in Rock Star Status, or possibly with the great Carter administrations efforts. Take your choice...I have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    About ten to fifteen times his crowds. 50K pretty regular and also has had overflows
    Really?

    Washington, Pennsylvania: 10,000 claimed, disputed by Secret Service
    Fairfax VA: 23,000 but Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher estimated the crowd to be 8,000, not the 23,000 cited by the campaign.
    Orlando: 25,000
    Virginia Beach: 12,000
    St. Louis: 17,000
    Colorado Springs (Republican bastion): 10,000
    Loveland, CO: 9,000

    Not that size matters, but I would be interested to know about the regular 50K events. Links?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    During Obamas first several months, long before the first primary/caucus he was drawing crowds in the hundreds, if that many. From day one Palin has been doing quite well; In California, just ahead of the Orlando rally (I heard 60K) she drew overflow crowds. I understand political interest should be considered, but if you realize McCain was drawing very small crowds, after the primary season, her entrance was quite effective...I might also add, Obamas largest crowds were preceded by concerts, which the McCain bunch has now gone to, which questions who is there to see who....

    If you appreciate the Johnson/Carter years, the growth of government and there effects on the economy and growth in the federal government, then I have no argument for you. What is pending is a Federal Government, led entirely by one party, with the only precedent those two people. A great deal of whats going on in this Nation today is a result of those administrations at the domestic level.

    Its no longer important whether Obama is a socialist, liberal or an outright Chicago Politician. He has shown ME, that the Country itself has turned left, the populace in deep search for socialism or a desire for personal benefit from government. This was never the intent of the US system, or (main reason) what has made this country great. I will add in fairness, that even if McCain pulls this election off, he will not be do much better than Obama and was perceived the most liberal of the ten republican candidates, this cycle...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    He has shown ME, that the Country itself has turned left, the populace in deep search for socialism or a desire for personal benefit from government.
    By "He" I assume you're referring to Bush, who is in the process of nationalizing the banks. Or did you mean Jerry Ford, who introduced the Earned Income Tax Credit to redistribute the wealth to poorer people? Originally Nixon's idea, then built upon by Ford and Reagan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    And much of Johnson's 'Welfare Reform Act (1965)' was taken from an Eisenhower 1953 review. Frankly, its hard to argue Johnson's original plan, but that plan was purely for short periods, not for the three generations it turned into. SS was also a very simple plan, which turned into near total support for many people. We now support millions with SS + Disability + Medical + Nursing Homes, many receiving hundreds of thousand dollars in benefits, even millions each year, where 50k or less was paid into the system. Top this off with an aging population and some effort to keep a younger workforce OUT of the country. Do the math...

    The problem today is both parties are trying to out promise the other with hand outs, deductions or some form of welfare to gain votes and the people are now buying into the idea. Both are declaring the hands that feed the economy are bad and that they should control business in general, the CEO's pay to the lobbyist in Washington.

    I'm not sure where the 'bailout' got involved with comments on Palin, but I am on record a hundred time in opposing all aspects of Federal Government's involvement. Whether Bush, Paulson or who ever and I really question why all this came to a head in an election year. It won't work, is not a legal operation of any branch (unconstitutional) and only prolonging an inevitable conclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The point is that we live in a mixed economy - always have and always will - ever since Jefferson forcefully advocated public funding for schools. Attempts such as we have seen the past eight years to go to the extreme right will fail as Greenspan has now admitted. Any attempt to go to the extreme left would also fail, but no one is advocating that.

    Regarding Palin, well she is just an ignoramus. Nothing more to be said really.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The point is that we live in a mixed economy - always have and always will - ever since Jefferson forcefully advocated public funding for schools. Attempts such as we have seen the past eight years to go to the extreme right will fail as Greenspan has now admitted. Any attempt to go to the extreme left would also fail, but no one is advocating that.

    Regarding Palin, well she is just an ignoramus. Nothing more to be said really.
    Many issues were advocated by one founder or another, public schooling just one.
    On public schooling, Jefferson lost on the Federal level and spent years, getting the Virginia plan started. Will add that the Federal is still not involved in public education, other than special programs, testing, pre/after school programs or funding mandated programs concerning more than just schools. The 2006 Budget for the Education Dept. was 53.3B (very little of 2.7T Budget) with 5000 department employees getting the bulk of this and 13.4B going to the total 50 States/4 territories legislatures for distribution to well over 2000 school districts.

    IMO, its not left/right but the speed of change. The system is built for slow change and failed terribly during the Johnson/Carter period. May not recover.

    On Palin, you will have some one other than Bush to pick on for a generation to come...have fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    On Palin, you will have some one other than Bush to pick on for a generation to come...have fun.
    I don't watch daytime TV so I doubt if I'll ever think about her again after this election.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    On Palin, you will have some one other than Bush to pick on for a generation to come...have fun.
    I don't watch daytime TV so I doubt if I'll ever think about her again after this election.
    Hopefully not!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •