abneo3sierra

Our unit came up through Kuwait and into western Iraq, not in Kurdish areas. I did not get the info "from the news", got it in person...what I said, was it had been"on the news",was reported on because there were reporters embedded with us from Fox, and from CBS, both reported it, both networks ran the story briefly,then dropped it. As for the Texas registration..anyone familiar with the US knows that the Texas/Mexico border is easy enough to get across, but I would be guessing only if I were to imply that was the intent. Intent or not,however, they were found by units of the 3rd Infantry Division, and also reported on, but not very much, this story ending after the first day. Bush's administration had, as it's major flaw, the refusal to talk about things like this,instead trying to bury everything in secrecy. Now I am not sure what the story was with regards to either of these disappearing from news, they could not have been secret, because nobody who was involved was ever told to keep it as such,and the imbedded reporters did run the story initially in both cases.

Diesel..you CAN actually be charged, for example, with TWO counts of homicide, for killing a pregnant woman who WANTED the baby..so, I find the idea that if the only difference, is that the other women did not want it, to be ludicrous reasoning, to say the least. Not to mention that there are recorded cases of fetuses at quite young age, surviving. There is a heartbeat,etc, as well. To equate the eating of meat, with the murder of fetuses, is outrageous. That said, I also find it amusing that many(most?) of those who support abortion, to be against war,and against the death penalty, in both of which cases, the guilty are punished,yet to openly support the killing of an innocent life, this is quite hypocritical of most of that group. As for the Iraq war, the intelligence agencies of most of Europe and the US, believed him (Saddam) to be a threat. This also included then President Clinton, as well as the current US Vice President Biden, neither of whom can be called remotely Bush supporters. It was only afterwards, when it became politically expedient to do so, that they switched their tune on the matter, as most politicians will do,when they see the winds change direction. Also in reference to the al Qaeda issue and Iraq, having been among the forward units into Iraq, there were al Qaeda camps which we overran. There were also trucks with vehicle registrations for the US State of Texas,which were being prepared with explosives. Both of these made the news as well, in the USA, but then vanished from the news. But those of us there, in those months, did see the reason, or at least one very valid reason, for invading Iraq.

My points have been made in capitals,cannot seem to make the bold font work.. MONEY IS BUT ONE REASON TO OVERRIDE..FOR CERTAIN,SOLDIERS IN THE FIELD ARE NOT PAID WELL ENOUGH TO RISK OUR LIVES,SO OURS IS NOT FOR MONEY.

Diesel, you and I are both speaking the same language, but what you get from what I said, is entirely different than what I said. To try to make it short:some points 1. There is a vast difference between "having" a religion,and actually following it..Christianity, as the example I know most about, but certainly not alone in this..has a "moral code" attached,that probably 90% of people claiming the religion, do not follow..this is NOT the fault of the religion, it is the fault of people being hypocritical. If you have,say, a process for doing something, and you write a book, to instruct people how to do it..say simple example,driving..you write a book, on how to be a great driver...many people buy your book, they read it, talk about it,imagine how they will become great drivers, but when actually driving,they disregard what you wrote,and have an accident..does it mean your book was wrong? no, it means the person was a bloody idiot lol...and that just because they purchased your book, it did not make them a better driver, because they did not actually follow your guidelines. 2.Not sure what you mean about modern US politics pointing to "enforcement of one's religious viewpoint" ..while this was indeed,historically a problem here, it is not even on the radar screen,so to speak, in "modern US politics" 3.Also,not sure where you get the data that shows southern countries(falsely implied as Catholic,more on that in a second) as bloodier than northern countries. The primary "Catholic"continent is S.America probably,and has had fewer wars, by far, than "northern" countries, your own, as a good example,which is not Catholic,and has a rather long history of markedly cruel imperialism,throughout Africa,the Middle East,etc. Africa and the middle East,both could be considered southern, and both are fairly violent places, probably the most violent in the world in these days, however, neither are Catholic. 3. I agree with your point on the animal trained to kill, if left on his own...however, this proves my own point, as I said he will either follow his training, or his instinct..in this case, the instinct will be as you said, only killing as needed...while the human,also trained,still can,and often does,make the choice that goes against both training,and instinct. 4. Democracy vs Dictatorship being ordered to kill an "innocent"person..I think this question must have been just a joke on your part,as I know you must be intelligent enough to know that in a democracy, people are not ordered to kill "non-threatening"people..if you can find an example otherwise, I would love to hear it.I would suspect that your definition of non-threatening may be off some though.

Stalin's Organist..that is true...but the reason it does not kill the mouse, has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of said mouse, and everything to do with the cat's own rather playful spirit.

I think that any man who kills a "non-threatening animal or person" FOR SPORT, should be killed himself. Where in the ^%&& did I ever say that was an example of being "superior morally" ?????????? and "obeying orders"?no...but here is a good one for you..a man who lives in a dictatorship(the only place where you would be ordered to kill a "non-threatening person" is ordered by his dictator to kill a non-threatening person, on pain of death,himself, if he refuses...survival instinct would be to survive,hence,doing what he is told,this is the exact opposite of what I just stated above, so it is your argument that is "suspect" as it actually proves my own to be correct. The man has the ability to stop, in our pretend dictatorship,think,realize that what he is told to do, is wrong,,realize that if he does not follow the order, he will be killed,and still,can reason his thoughts,and do it,at the expense of his own survival instinct. Now, an animal, trained to kill, will never once hesitate to follow the kill order..will it matter that the "target" is innocent?no..THIS is what I was saying, and THIS is also proof of man's moral superiority, assuming he actually uses it,which,as your example of killing "non threatening animals and people for sport" shows we do not always use it, but we have the ABILITY to do so,which animals do not. They will, everytime, follow either their training, or their instinct.

I think that one key component is also the willingness to do something which sacrifices your own good, for another...basic instinct normally is seen as doing what is necessary to survive, where reasoned behavior would allow a person to stop, think,realize that what he will do, will hurt him or kill him, and still make the choice to do that. This action occurs with even some insects , but it mostly is a non-thinking action there. This ability to go against "survival instinct" in a reasoned,thought out way, I believe to be entirely human, and one of our greatest assets. I have seen guard dogs, etc also display "selfless"behavior,and while I greatly admire the dogs, I still would conclude that they are simply following their training, and have not the ability to reason that they are risking their lives..I may be wrong, but there is no real way to prove it in either direction I believe, and on my side of the argument, you will not see UNTRAINED dogs generally doing things like this.

That is what I meant. As I wrote that, I thought about some animals I have had the pleasure of knowing, including my forever favorite, a boxer that I got as a pup,and shared many very happy memories with growing up. I remember playing a game with him, where we would chase each other around the house...for a few minutes, I was the "chaser" and then somehow we both knew when to switch, and he chased me. I recall him on several occasions, 'pretending' to tire out,then switching to a burst of speed, that always had me wondering if it was a trap..He was without a doubt the smartest animal I have ever seen, even almost able to use tools..ie. he was able to push something over to our fence, and then climb onto whatever he had pushed, and get over the fence.

I agree with alot of that Diesel...it does make it hard to accomplish much, I think,when every 4-8 yrs there is a change in agenda...sometimes this is a good thing, as if someone is doing a bad job, it is good to know you are not "stuck with them for life" as was once the case. There are better ways, almost certainly, to do things, but most seem to require people to live in a Utopia, in order to work...it is said that democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb, voting on what to have for dinner...in the end, this is still often the case, because no matter what happens, there will be people who will "lose", and people who will twist everything in heaven and earth, to "win".

While on the other hand, we have ability to REASON,rather than to just THINK...this, I think, is the primary difference. Also..see my above reply..it does not mean that those with no religion have no "moral compass points" but rather, it means that those who actually follow the religion, do,those who do not follow any "code" may, or may not. Those who follow religion will be TRYING to be good, while those who follow none...what incentive to be good? No hope of "heaven" or "after life rewards"..maybe can still be good, but it is not a guarantee, for sure.

Actually am equating those who follow religion(actually follow it, not just pay it lip service) as having morals...does not mean those who do not follow it have none, as the old school exam question "if all A's are also B's, and some C's are A's...it does not mean that all C's are B's."

sad but true....

I would probably take that choice some days..at least they all would be "real people" who are acquainted with buying gas for their cars, paying a mortgage,etc.

I agree with your "contrary" view lol... the difference between Utopia and the real world unfortunately....

MSBoxer, I agree with that entirely..I do not believe that those who contribute nothing, should gain anything..and usually the way it works, is they gain the most.

Diesel, Not sure how they decide happiest nation in Europe...I have alot of very happy relatives in Germany also lol. My point was actual Christian base(really, actual RELIGION base) to politics to give a moral backing..this does obviously not count for the hypocrites who would see it as a weekly confession to make them feel good over their sins of the week lol. This means rather, people who actually follow the morals,which are generally the same in all major religions...do not steal(this rules out most current politicians) do not covet what others have, do not lie(wow,again ruling out most current politicians) love your neighbor as you love yourself..etc...this general moral code, actually FOLLOWED, would make people, their politicians, and their countries, much better overall.

I think that in general America has remained Christian, recent polls have placed near 70% of people claiming they are some form of "Christian". For myself, I prefer government based on at least the foundation, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence"people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." This means to me,that no government can take those rights away,rather than to have a government claim THEY gave you rights,because in that case, they can take them away as well. So I am quite in favor of Christian basis for a government, PROVIDING that they do not , as the constitution prohibits, establish a state religion...the original US founders were very strict Christians, who even had laws for many years prohibiting most things from operating on Sundays, etc. I actually think this goes too far, and comes dangerously close to "establishing state religion" but as long as that can be avoided, I am glad if people can apply some sense of morals to their governmental duties,wherever they get those morals from,generally, some form of religion.

Aff..probably neither of those choices..nothing wrong with "collective views" except that it seems these always end up hostage themselves to the "party line" As just an example..generally I would consider myself a conservative..here, a "Republican"..yet there are many things Republicans as a party favor, that I do not..they are anti-abortion,anti-gay marriage,etc...while in these I am mostly on the other side of believing government should stay out of people's way...but if I were a politician, I would find myself,because of my 'overall' views, having to support things that I really do not support at all. So my 'ideal' system, would be say..Joe the doctor, or Marty the lawyer, or Ted the mechanic...running as "themselves"...novel thought....expressing their own views on subjects...maybe they are "right wing" in something, and "left wing" in another thing, such as myself,and, I suspect,most everyday people....they should not have to toe a party line, in order to even be considered as a serious candidate.

Is probably one of the best arguments there, for an end to "parties"..give people real choices...ahh,maybe just a dream, but yeah..parties pretty much suck, in my view..well, the political kind, anyway..nothing like a good keg party.... Actually...come to think of it, that WOULD be an awesome name for a political party.."vote for the keg party...we guarantee you will at least have a real fun next 2 years..."

Michael, you are older than I thought lol...not a bad thing though.

hahahaha..THAT would be worth the price of admission. Was wondering if they would have a "Guiness Book" of sorts....??

The sad thing is (and, some of these people I would actually like as PEOPLE, just dont like as politicians...I could see having a drink with the Palins, the Obamas, etc) that most people will vote for a party, no matter who is on the ticket..it could be Satan on the Dem ticket, against God on the Repub side, or Hitler on the Repub side, against God on the Dems...and the elections would still be fairly close as 40%+/- vote always Dem, 40%+/- always Repub..so it is only that extra 20% that really think about things.

Isn't really architectural symbolism I mentioned, it was ordered specifically for this building, again, because of the "Christian heritage" they wished to impart.

The story says it all... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110412/ap_on_fe_st/eu_iceland_*****_museum

ha,Aff beat me to it