Canada says no to missle defense scheme

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

This is where your argument is completely flawed. To ignore the facts that we were attacked first (Thusly NOT the aggressors) and we had fought this war for 3 years and were desperately trying to end it with the least amount of lives lost. Our justification for dropping the atomic bomb: Millions of lives would be lost any other way. I don't see how that morally relative.

 

The aggressors in a nuclear war, you certainly were. Which is the context of the current discussion. Where is the proof that millions of lives would have been lost any other way? That sounds like a dumb question and will probably be dismissed as such cause that's how this section is, but in the end it was speculation. Comparing "1,000,000 potential lives" and "100,000 actual lives" is morally relative.

 

It was the equivalent of bringing a knife to a fist fight. They may have punched you first, but that doesn't give you a reason to go and cut on them. But it did. The initial question was "do you believe the US would shoot first", and my answer was yes, because the US will find a reason to shoot first, and the American public will be content with that reason. It will be under the banner of "protecting America". And for Americans, that's just great. For Canada too. For the rest of the world? Not so much.

 

Perhaps you could justify why we shouldn't have dropped the bomb. Maybe that'll help me out here.

 

It killed about 300,000 people. Wow. That was easy. Can't believe you didn't see that. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, those were 300,000 actual lives.

[Boon 0]

The statement was in response to starting a "nuclear war". Whether Japan striked first is irrelevant, they didn't use nukes. The US did. They introduced it into warfare. Precident is set. The missile defense shield, in theory,

Umm, no. See, you're wrong. Whether or not Japan struck first is relevant, because establishing a defense system like this has everything to do with first- and second-strike capability. You can't use H&N to back up your claim that the US would launch nukes first, b/c like i said before (which you ignored) the technology has changed drastically. Dropping an A-Bomb and dropping some of the nukes we have now are completely different. And seeing as how the shiled isn't in place, MAD is still very much a concern. I agree that it might not work properly or destory all nukes, hence, MAD is still an issue.

 

What, exactly, does America have to deal with?

 

Well, let's start with how much money the US contributes to the Int'l economy, including the majority of contributions to the World Bank.

 

Then we can talk about the military contributions, the cultural contributions, poverty/disaster relief, diplomacy, etc.

 

Must I go on?

 

This "the best defense is a good offense", which was used in WWII and in Iraq now, reasoning is shit, because ultimately the aggressor -the country in the wrong- is the US.

 

Your dislike for America blinds you from the facts. At the very core, experts agree, a defensive-shield like this is an offensive move as much as defensive. I can explain it to you again, if you'd like.

 

But you'll manage to come up with some excuse for killing 10,000 people. For killing 100,000. And no doubt, if it ever happens, you'll find a reason for killing 1,000,000 people... And I'm sure it will be a great reason

 

The excuse for killing the thousands in H&N was to prevent the death of millions... I think that's a decent reason.

[Boon 0]

Where is the proof that millions of lives would have been lost any other way?

 

]

Umm, ask anybody that knows about Japan/WWII. They'll tell you.

 

Comparing "1,000,000 potential lives" and "100,000 actual lives" is morally relative. 

 

Yeah, you're right. I guess we just have different morals, b/c I'd try to save the 1 million, while you'd rather wait and see how many died before doing something about it.

 

It's really basic military strategy. Taking out 300,000 of your enemy to save 1,000,000 of your own makes sense, I'm sorry.

 

It was the equivalent of bringing a knife to a fist fight.  They may have punched you first, but that doesn't give you a reason to go and cut on them.

 

HAHA. If you're stupid enough to punch somebody who has a knife, you deserve to get cut. This isn't the movies, kid. Fighting with honor went out w/ the Old West, hate to break it to you.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Umm, no. See, you're wrong. Whether or not Japan struck first is relevant, because establishing a defense system like this has everything

to do with first- and second-strike capability.

 

Umm, yeah, see I'm not. Did Japan use nukes in their attack on pearl harbour? Or at any time during the war? The question was "do you think the US would strike first in a nuclear war", they already did, so there's your answer. Simple stuff.

 

You can't use H&N to back up your claim that the US would launch nukes first, b/c like i said before (which you ignored) the technology has changed drastically. Dropping an A-Bomb and dropping some of the nukes we have now are completely different.

 

Of course. I keep on forgetting that 100,000 is a tiny number and therefore the willingness to kill that many is rather insignificant..

 

And seeing as how the shiled isn't in place, MAD is still very much a concern. I agree that it might not work properly or destory all nukes, hence, MAD is still an issue.

 

Yes, which means the US would use them where their enemies are not able for a counter-attack using nukes. So the US could cripple their enemy. Like WWII. Very much relevant.

 

 

Well, let's start with how much money the US contributes to the Int'l economy, including the majority of contributions to the World Bank.

 

Then we can talk about the military contributions, the cultural contributions, poverty/disaster relief, diplomacy, etc.

 

Must I go on?

 

Yes. Still doesn't explain the whole "World Police" thing.

 

 

Your dislike for America blinds you from the facts.

 

Nah, I love youze guyz. I think you have a tendancy to put yourself in the hero role way too much, though. That's why I responded to the questioned posed. "America couldn't possibly strike first with nuclear weapons, we're the good guys!"

 

At the very core, experts agree, a defensive-shield like this is an offensive move as much as defensive. I can explain it to you again, if you'd like.

 

Please do. It doesn't seem to connect with what I said, so some more explanation may be in order. The "Good Defense/Offense" thing was more of a "He's going to hit me so I will hit him first!" kinda thing. In the end, you still hit first.

 

The excuse for killing the thousands in H&N was to prevent the death of millions... I think that's a decent reason.

 

Of course you do. I don't think the families living in "H&N" at the time agree, though.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Umm, ask anybody that knows about Japan/WWII. They'll tell you.

 

They don't "know" that millions would have died. Because it never happened.

 

Yeah, you're right. I guess we just have different morals, b/c I'd try to save the 1 million, while you'd rather wait and see how many died before doing something about it.

 

I don't think I ever put my own person opinions in this. Both are horrible situatons. Both are wrong. When it comes down to survival of the fittest, of course you are going to be looking out for you and yours. To think otherwise would be downright stupid... or Christ-like. Whatever . It's still a sad situation.

 

It's really basic military strategy. Taking out 300,000 of your enemy to save 1,000,000 of your own makes sense, I'm sorry.

 

I don't see how killing that many people could "make sense".

 

HAHA. If you're stupid enough to punch somebody who has a knife, you deserve to get cut. This isn't the movies, kid. Fighting with honor went out w/ the Old West, hate to break it to you.

 

That's the nature of war. Which is why the US could strike first. You guys play dirty. But somehow you still feel you're coming out clean. Because it "makes sense".

[Boon 0]

Umm, yeah, see I'm not.  Did Japan use nukes in their attack on pearl harbour?  Or at any time during the war?  The question was "do you think the US would strike first in a nuclear war", they already did, so there's your answer.  Simple stuff.

They didn't strike first in a nuclear war. WWII was not a nuclear war, it was a war that ended w/ an A-Bomb. There's a difference. In 2005, a nuclear war would mean that we've got nukes, they've got nukes, and everybody's using them. Sixty years ago, we had nukes, and that was it. We used them to end the war, we did not start a war where everyone had nukes. Was it "playing dirty?" That depends on your own opinion. I'm sure the folks in H&N don't think that it was reasonable for their families to die, just like the families of those stationed in Pearl Harbor, and every other single person that has lost somebody to a war. But that's the way it war is, like it or not. Yeah, war sucks, we all agree. But once you're there, you do what you have to do to stop it.

 

Of course.  I keep on forgetting that 100,000 is a tiny number and therefore the willingness to kill that many is rather insignificant..

 

Please-spare us. Nobody on the planet likes the idea of killing 100,000 people, saying that is just bullshit nonsense.

 

Yes.  Still doesn't explain the whole "World Police" thing.

 

Not that this is relevant to what we're talking about, but I'll go with you. It is a popular opinion that it is the hegemon's responsibility to step in with aid, financial and military, when there is a major problem with a country that cannot help itself, e.g. Iraq.

 

Nah, I love youze guyz.  I think you have a tendancy to put yourself in the hero role way too much, though.   That's why I responded to the questioned posed.  "America couldn't possibly strike first with nuclear weapons, we're the good guys!"

 

Until someone else steps as the hegemon, there's not much the US can do other then take on the role that it has. W/o a hegemon, the world kinda falls apart. And I still don't see how America would launch nukes first. You haven't convinced me.

 

Please do.  It doesn't seem to connect with what I said, so some more explanation may be in order.  The "Good Defense/Offense" thing was more of a "He's going to hit me so I will hit him first!" kinda thing.  In the end, you still hit first.

 

The argument is that the best offense is a good defense, not the other way around. People will get pissed off at America for taking away their ability to hit back, not because we hit first. That's the essence of the shield- don't let them hit you back, not you hit them first.

 

I don't see how killing that many people could "make sense".

 

Again, from a military standpoint. I already said that nobody enjoys killing thousands of people.

 

That's the nature of war. Which is why the US could strike first. You guys play dirty. But somehow you still feel you're coming out clean. Because it "makes sense".

 

Yeah, it is the nature of war. I can see where you might argue that it "isn't fair" and that we're "playing dirty," but if it means the preservation of a good quality of life, the ends justify the means. When WWII ended, we all "came out clean," the world benefited. Sometimes you smell like shit before you smell like roses.

 

Jesus Christ, this is a long post- sorry.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Boon, almost everything you have said explains why US would attack first in a nuclear war. My position is not to "convince you", it is to explain my reasoning to the answer I provided to the question. I understand the reasoning to dropping the bombs on "H&N", and I understand the reasoning as to why America wouldn't strike first and MAD. I just think that history and the mentality of Americans says otherwise. You displayed that mentality in this thread again and again and again. If America feels justified in a first strike nuclear attack, they will do so. There is no barrier preventing them from doing so.

[Jingus 0]

RRR, America will never strike first with nuclear weapons, simply because that's our policy. We do not start thermonuclear wars. Period. If someone else wants to play that card, then sure, we'll turn their country into the world's biggest skating rink. But there is no other reason that we'd use them at all. America only has nukes in order to keep other countries from nuking us. That is their sole purpose for existing.

 

The arguments about World War II are completely irrelevant. The situation, the context, the politics, the technology, what they knew at the time, everything is completely different from how it is now. Fat Man and Little Boy were firecrackers compared to some of the monsters that the US and USSR have designed throughout the years. (And the death tolls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mere fractions of the casualties from conventional bombs dropped on places like Tokyo or Dresden.)

[Justice 0]

The aggressors in a nuclear war, you certainly were. Which is the context of the current discussion. Where is the proof that millions of lives would have been lost any other way? That sounds like a dumb question and will probably be dismissed as such cause that's how this section is, but in the end it was speculation. Comparing "1,000,000 potential lives" and "100,000 actual lives" is morally relative.

There is no 'in context of nuclear war'. It's simply war in general. Just because you bring tanks first doesn't mean 'in the context of armored warfare you were the aggressor'. The war itself was started by the Japanese. We WEREN'T the aggressors, no matter how much you try to twist the matter.

 

Secondly:

 

Casualty figures were a guess that changed with time. There are sufficient numbers available to support any post-war position that any author chooses to take. Low numbers are quoted as reasons to do the invasion, 125,000 for Olympic and to end the war. High numbers, one million US casualties for Downfall, are quoted to justify the a-bomb and end the war. Typically, 25% of casualties are deaths. On average, 5 Japanese soldiers died for each American death.

  Japanese casualties were not subjected to planning. If all troops resisted to the death, then the typical survival rate would have only included injured and unconscious soldiers. 216,627 troops were surrendered on Kyushu alone -- more than were expected -- and this was two months before the planned invasion. Civilian casualties are a real unknown. 97,000 were killed in the bombing of Tokyo on March 9; the numbers from land warfare would also be high. Consider ratios of any proportion you desire. Civilian losses in some European cities were considerable; certainly Japanese casualties would be in the multiple millions. [/size]

 

Thirdly, no it isn't. Comparing 300,000 potentially dead in one course of action to multi-millions potentially dead is not that relative. It's simple math. You seem to forget that they hadn't dropped the bomb when they did this calculation. It's not "This many dead vs. this many potential", it's "This vs. This". There isn't any relative part about it: People will die, more people will die one way than another. Make your choice.

 

It was the equivalent of bringing a knife to a fist fight. They may have punched you first, but that doesn't give you a reason to go and cut on them. But it did. The initial question was "do you believe the US would shoot first", and my answer was yes, because the US will find a reason to shoot first, and the American public will be content with that reason. It will be under the banner of "protecting America". And for Americans, that's just great. For Canada too. For the rest of the world? Not so much.

 

I don't see it as being exactly the same way. A fist-fight, the only person involved is you two. War on a whole is much more complex than to simply try to bring it down to that equation.

 

And I find your conclusion to be bs, but since that's pretty much completely subjective, I won't try to argue it. I personally found, though, your justification through the A-Bomb argument to be flawed.

[Boon 0]

Boon, almost everything you have said explains why US would attack first in a nuclear war... You displayed that mentality in this thread again and again and again.

 

Can you elaborate on this please? Maybe I need to hear more about the "American mentality" from someone who doesn't live in America and seems to know more about it then me, an American who has lived here for my entire life.

 

I understand the reasoning to dropping the bombs on "H&N", and I understand the reasoning as to why America wouldn't strike first and MAD.

 

If you understand MAD, and you believe that the shield wouldn't protect against all weapons, it seems to me like you would see why America won't be the ones to start a war using nukes. It will be somebody like the DRNK, w/ much less to lose and more to prove.

 

I just think that history and the mentality of Americans says otherwise.

 

History shows that the US typically gets into war for two reaons. 1) America is brought into the war (WWII) or 2) America directly benefits. What benefit comes from blowing the shit out of everybody? If America gets into a nuclear war, it will be to stop somebody else from using them.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

RRR, America will never strike first with nuclear weapons, simply because that's our policy.

 

1. You have shown a willingness to use Nuclear Weapons.

2. You have shown a willingness for pre-emptive strikes.

3. HA! "That's our policy". Well gee, if you put it that way...

 

"Never" is a strong word.

 

We do not start thermonuclear wars. Period.

 

Of course not. You're the good guys. You would never do such a thing. Never.

 

If someone else wants to play that card, then sure, we'll turn their country into the world's biggest skating rink.

 

What if there was speculation that North Korea was planning on nuking you?

 

But there is no other reason that we'd use them at all. America only has nukes in order to keep other countries from nuking us. That is their sole purpose for existing.

 

THAT's why you have so many of them.

 

The arguments about World War II are completely irrelevant.

 

The fact that America was the first one to use nuclear weapons is irrelevant to the discussion of America launching a nuclear first strike? You guys are seriously fucking nuts.

 

The situation, the context, the politics, the technology, what they knew at the time, everything is completely different from how it is now.

 

Situations can change. Fact is America has been willing to use nuclear weapons in battle. You won't even consider the possibility.

 

Fat Man and Little Boy were firecrackers compared to some of the monsters that the US and USSR have designed throughout the years. (And the death tolls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mere fractions of the casualties from conventional bombs dropped on places like Tokyo or Dresden.)

 

Nice to see you dismissing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

There is no 'in context of nuclear war'. It's simply war in general. Just because you bring tanks first doesn't mean 'in the context of armored warfare you were the aggressor'.

 

What question started the discussion? It has been the context from moment 1.

 

We WEREN'T the aggressors, no matter how much you try to twist the matter.

 

You introduced nuclear warfare. How is that not being the aggressor when it comes to nuclear warfare?

 

*snip, SPECULATION.*

 

Thirdly, no it isn't. Comparing 300,000 potentially dead in one course of action to multi-millions potentially dead is not that relative. It's simple math. You seem to forget that they hadn't dropped the bomb when they did this calculation.

 

The fact that you say it is "simple math" shows the state of mind you guys have in regards to this subject.

 

It's not "This many dead vs. this many potential", it's "This vs. This". There isn't any relative part about it: People will die, more people will die one way than another. Make your choice.

 

But my point is that _today_ people believe "This many dead vs. this many potential" was justified. Which is why I said "still". Even in retrospect you feel that killing that many people was justified. You can see it in the past 2 pages of this thread.

 

I don't see it as being exactly the same way. A fist-fight, the only person involved is you two. War on a whole is much more complex than to simply try to bring it down to that equation.

 

So now war is more complex than an equation. What happened to simple math? The analogy fits, the US changed the rules of war when they dropped the nuclear bomb. They also showed a willingness to use a nuke when they felt it was justified... and that justification was based on speculation.

 

And I find your conclusion to be bs, but since that's pretty much completely subjective, I won't try to argue it. I personally found, though, your justification through the A-Bomb argument to be flawed.

 

"Do you think the US would be capable of a first strike nuclear attack?"

 

"Yes. You used them before. Infact, you were the only country to ever use it on another country."

 

Do you guys take _any_ responsibility for dropping the bomb?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Can you elaborate on this please? Maybe I need to hear more about the "American mentality" from someone who doesn't live in America and seems to know more about it then me, an American who has lived here for my entire life.

 

Trying to justify your actions, no matter how terrible, and thinking you were in the right when its over. Like I said, self-righteous. The Good Guys. Heroes.

 

This is why the US is capable of launching a first strike nuclear attack. You will think it's the right thing to do and that you had no other choice.[/b]

 

 

If you understand MAD, and you believe that the shield wouldn't protect against all weapons, it seems to me like you would see why America won't be the ones to start a war using nukes. It will be somebody like the DRNK, w/ much less to lose and more to prove.

 

I see America launching a nuke as a pre-emptive strike under the reasoning of "preventing" them from getting hit first. Of course, this is all hypothetical, but if a country was to launch a first strike, it'd be the US.

 

History shows that the US typically gets into war for two reaons. 1) America is brought into the war (WWII) or 2) America directly benefits. What benefit comes from blowing the shit out of everybody? If America gets into a nuclear war, it will be to stop somebody else from using them.

 

What about Iraq? The initial justification was "they have chemical weapons and will use it on us".

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

At least some of our elected officials are being sensible about the use of nuclear weapons. Rep. Sam Johnson:

 

Speaking at a veterans’ celebration at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas, on Feb. 19, Johnson told the crowd that he explained his theory to President Bush and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) on the porch of the White House one night.

 

Johnson said he told the president that night, “Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ‘em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”

 

Rollcall.com

[Boon 0]

Trying to justify your actions, no matter how terrible, and thinking you were in the right when its over. Like I said, self-righteous. The Good Guys. Heroes.

 

We're talking about H&N, not every thing that the country has ever done. If you knew anything about American culture, you'd know the regret that is in the hearts of all Americans for things like Vietnam. We're not proud of everything we've done- you just like to perpetuate the stereotype that we always think we're right. We know we've done some wrong, but people like you ignore our regret b/c it doesn't fit the bill that we don't second-guess things we've done.

 

This is why the US is capable of launching a first strike nuclear attack.  You will think it's the right thing to do and that you had no other choice.

 

I guess I have to beat a dead horse, here. From a military standpoint, it was the best option to end the war.

 

We've had the opportunity to use nukes, lots of times, all across the Middle East. Did we use them?

 

I see America launching a nuke as a pre-emptive strike under the reasoning of "preventing" them from getting hit first.  Of course, this is all hypothetical, but if a country was to launch a first strike, it'd be the US.

What about Iraq? The initial justification was "they have chemical weapons and will use it on us".

 

I'd like to point out that you're contradicting yourself. Not only was it in the best interest of America to go to war w/ Iraq (whether it was for WMDs or oil or w/e you want to say it was for, doing what we did was in our best interest), but we didn't use nukes. According to your logic, America would have nuked Iraq. But did they?

[Vyce 0]

It's pointless to argue, Boon.

 

I think it's CLEARLY been proven by this thread that the non-American OBVIOUSLY knows far more about the American psyche, on all of its myriad of levels, than an actual, you know, American citizen does.

 

If you will excuse me, I'm going to go sit quietly in the corner and reflect upon my latest epiphany, that being that I am an awful person simply because I was unfortunate enough to be born on this side of Niagra Falls.

[2GOLD 0]

At least some of our elected officials are being sensible about the use of nuclear weapons. Rep. Sam Johnson:

 

Speaking at a veterans’ celebration at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas, on Feb. 19, Johnson told the crowd that he explained his theory to President Bush and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) on the porch of the White House one night.

 

Johnson said he told the president that night, “Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ‘em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”

 

Rollcall.com

 

A rep from Texas who wants to blow something up?

I'd be shocked...but what's the point.

 

And Mr. Johnson wonders while he'll never get to be voted on for president.

[cbacon 0]

It's pointless to argue, Boon.

 

I think it's CLEARLY been proven by this thread that the non-American OBVIOUSLY knows far more about the American psyche, on all of its myriad of levels, than an actual, you know, American citizen does.

Considering most of your country has no idea what their government had done in the past 30 years or so on the international scale (terrorism, conducting coups and installing brutal regieme), i'd say thats a pretty accurate assesment.

 

Hell, half your country thinks the Earth was created a couple of thousands of years ago. Many also believe the force fed lies and a good number still believe Iraq had a connection with 9/11 for example. But I guess they must be right, after all they do live in the country, right?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

That's the essence of the shield- don't let them hit you back, not you hit them first.

 

Maybe this was just a typo, but seriously; how the fuck are they gonna hit you BACK unless you hit them FIRST?

 

but we didn't use nukes. According to your logic, America would have nuked Iraq. But did they?

 

Of course not. But you guys can still get nuked yourselves.

 

But if you couldn't get nuked back, then the scenario would be different. Not saying that the US would have nuked Iraq, but honestly, with all this world policing, I *really* would not be shocked if the US came upon a situation where they felt they would be justified in nuking someplace. And if there's a shield that actually works, then they're gonna feel like they can, because no one can nuke them back.

[cbacon 0]

In theory.

[Boon 0]

Considering most of your country has no idea what their government had done in the past 30 years or so on the international scale (terrorism, conducting coups and installing brutal regieme), i'd say thats a pretty accurate assesment.

 

I think the point Vyce is emphasizing is that it is presumptuous as well as pompous for people who are not Americans to be telling Americans what our psyche is, regardless of what has been happening over the past 30 years.

 

I don't know anybody that thinks the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago, I really don't see how you can claim that half the country does...

 

What force fed lies are you referring to? I'd love to hear examples. I'd argue that more people distrust the gov't then believe these "force fed lies."

[The Metal Maniac 0]

This is how he can, Boon:

 

"Only 35% of Americans accept Darwin's theory of evolution, while 45% prefer the creationist view" (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

 

I stole it from that thread with that article about Americans getting dumber.

[cbacon 0]

I think the point Vyce is emphasizing is that it is presumptuous as well as pompous for people who are not Americans to be telling Americans what our psyche is, regardless of what has been happening over the past 30 years.

 

Well, we can observe this through the actions of the country and their elected officials.

 

I don't know anybody that thinks the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago, I really don't see how you can claim that half the country does...

 

As Metal Maniac noted, the number is frightening. Nowhere in any industrial society is this number even close.

 

What force fed lies are you referring to?  I'd love to hear examples.  I'd argue that more people distrust the gov't then believe these "force fed lies."

 

Nearly everything regarding the war on Iraq? The reasons for going to war, drawing parallels between Iraq and 9/11 (as proven by the fact that many still belive this) the goals, the prisoner abuse scandals, pretty much everything that comes out Bush and co's mouth?

[Boon 0]

What about the other 20%?

 

I'd like to see how those numbers were reached, demographics, etc.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Those numbers seem awfully high, though.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I would imagine that the other 20% are undecided, and that the stat was found the same way they find other stats...whatever the hell that is.

[cbacon 0]

For polls on Americans' religious beliefs, see for example, George Gallup, Jr. and Jim Castelli, The People's Religion: American Faith in the 90's, New York: Macmillan, 1989, pp. 46-48, 4, 14.  This study gives the United States a rating of 67 on its "Religion Index," based on various indicators -- whereas West Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and France all had scores in the thirties, and Denmark brought up the rear with a 21.  It also finds that:

 

• Nine Americans in ten say they have never doubted the existence of God.

 

• Eight Americans in ten say they believe they will be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for their sins.

 

• Eight Americans in ten believe God still works miracles.

 

• Seven Americans in ten believe in life after death.

 

Richard Severo, "Poll Finds Americans Split on Creation Idea," New York Times, August 29, 1982, section 1, p. 22 (reporting a Gallup poll which found that 44 percent of Americans believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," 38 percent accept divine guidance of evolution, and a mere 9 percent accept Darwinian evolution -- a number not much above statistical error).

[Boon 0]

Alright, so people don't believe in evolution and choose creation, I'll accept that. You can stop w/ the stats. Still, I don't think it's accurate to say that people believe the world was created two thousand years ago, unless people are ignoring the dinosaurs, ancient Greece, etc. Find for me evidence that says half of Americans believe that there were no dinosaurs, no ancient Greece, etc. and then I'll bow down and revel you as Gods.

 

Well, we can observe this through the actions of the country and their elected officials.

 

How quickly people forget how divided our country is right now when it's convenient for them.

 

Do me a favor, go check amazon.com and see how well all the books revealing "the truth" are doing. You'll find hundreds of publications that oppose the current gov't. This isn't Nazi Germany, where we do what we're told. I think you're really trying to stretch this "Americans are slaves for their evil gov't" into something it's not.

[Justice 0]

For polls on Americans' religious beliefs, see for example, George Gallup, Jr. and Jim Castelli, The People's Religion: American Faith in the 90's, New York: Macmillan, 1989, pp. 46-48, 4, 14.  This study gives the United States a rating of 67 on its "Religion Index," based on various indicators -- whereas West Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and France all had scores in the thirties, and Denmark brought up the rear with a 21.  It also finds that:

 

• Nine Americans in ten say they have never doubted the existence of God.

 

• Eight Americans in ten say they believe they will be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for their sins.

 

• Eight Americans in ten believe God still works miracles.

 

• Seven Americans in ten believe in life after death.

 

Richard Severo, "Poll Finds Americans Split on Creation Idea," New York Times, August 29, 1982, section 1, p. 22 (reporting a Gallup poll which found that 44 percent of Americans believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," 38 percent accept divine guidance of evolution, and a mere 9 percent accept Darwinian evolution -- a number not much above statistical error).

I really doubt that those are still the real deal, considering they are around something like a decade to two decades old.

[Justice 0]

Nearly everything regarding the war on Iraq? The reasons for going to war, drawing parallels between Iraq and 9/11 (as proven by the fact that many still belive this) the goals, the prisoner abuse scandals, pretty much everything that comes out Bush and co's mouth?

 

So, we should believe your lies instead? Dude, no offense, but anonymous sources at commondreams.org don't really cut it as the 'most truthful' or 'unbiased' sources.

 

Just a thought, though.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Justice

[cbacon 0]

Alright, so people don't believe in evolution and choose creation, I'll accept that.  You can stop w/ the stats.  Still, I don't think it's accurate to say that people believe the world was created two thousand years ago, unless people are ignoring the dinosaurs, ancient Greece, etc.  Find for me evidence that says half of Americans believe that there were no dinosaurs, no ancient Greece, etc. and then I'll bow down and revel you as Gods.

 

Well, if your going by the Bible and believe in creationist theory, then you have to accept that the Earth is a couple of thousand years old. They go hand in hand. I don't believe they refuse to acknowledge previous civilizations and dinosaurs, but rather they were around much sooner than scientists claim and things like fossils are God's way of 'testing' our faith. But i'll check for some figures that i've seen before in regards to this and Justice's query.

 

How quickly people forget how divided our country is right now when it's convenient for them.

 

Do me a favor, go check amazon.com and see how well all the books revealing "the truth" are doing. You'll find hundreds of publications that oppose the current gov't. This isn't Nazi Germany, where we do what we're told. I think you're really trying to stretch this "Americans are slaves for their evil gov't" into something it's not.

 

I'm well aware that there's large dissent movements in the States. That still dosen't overrule the fact that the incumbent goverment and relgious right still managed to remain in power and the fact that this can happen despite such atrocities is concerning. Obviously, outsiders such as myself can see the majority adopting the psyche in regards to American interests.