1_man_army

#1 If morals depend on the person then why doesn't our government allow incest, prostitution, [assault], ect. Because the role of the government is to protect the interest of its people. Its pretty obvious that they need morals to protect our interests. #2 Homosexuality is dangerous to society because it is morally wrong. If you don't agree that morally wrong issues are dangerous to society then why isn't prostitution legal? Prostitution, drug trafficing etc. are widely looked upon by most people as being wrong. Therefore it is a shared moral value among society, since this moral is shared by most - it is illegal. Homosexuality used to be considered as morally wrong by most people and when this was the case homosexuality was illegal. However, as the veiw of society has become more tolerant of homosexuality, it has become legal. In short - the views of society do not reflect the laws of the land, instead the laws of the land reflect the view of society.

Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31 Im pretty close to where Gandhi is.

Yeah killing somebody a truly light hearted subject........

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully. War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage. I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance. Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true. No one gets "owned" in war. On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss? yes, this may be true, but i know what i believe in and am willing to fight and die for it. im sorry if you arent. btw, that really is off topic. I don't think the problem was your willingness to "fight and die" for your country, it was more to do with your nonchalant attitude towards killing somebody, or your willingness to 'own' them as you put it so eloquently.

Young people wont get the joke :P "He can't see man, he can't see!" :D

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully. War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage. I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance. Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true. No one gets "owned" in war. On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss? Dusqi.. You raised all the points that weren't needed.. It was quite obvious the post should've just been ignored. Actually I would disagree with you there at 14 you're only 2 years short of being able to sign up for military service. Teenagers with unrealistic visions of what war is in reality are the same people who are targeted by recruiters (in USA specifically) who try use that same image to mislead them into singing up. The kids of my generation (late 80's babies) and younger are so used to seeing war in films, games & on the news that we tend not to realise the full scope of what soldiers have to do. Killing somebody on a game is easy, watching it on TV is pretty horrific (even if we're used to it), looking in somebodies eyes and knowing your responsible for their death.....I couldn't even imagine it. I mean just look at the violence in Iraq, the first few news reports of car/suicide bombings were shocking in 2004/2004 now we get forward to 2007 and nobody bats an eyelid. I know that probably wasn't excactly what you meant (if at all) but I wanted to make the desensitisation point really. I have a tendancy to go off on a tangent.

.I went paintballing for the first time a few weeks ago with a group of mates, it was brilliant. The place we went to had acres of land that had little buildings, tree's and all sorts of obstacles. After a few hours of shooting each other mercilessly we had the opportunity of battling a different group - ASBO kids on a special behavioural school trip :D, it was a massacre. It does hurt a bit when you get shot, especially the first time but it's not agonising (unless like me you get hit clean in the kneecap first). At worst you'll be left with a few bruises if the pain bothers you just try not to get shot.

The correct answer to your question would be zero True, but some of the recruiters are quite aggressive and persuasive. They will intentionally go to malls and other places favored by young people who have nothing better to do than hang out, and tell them about the perks of "military life". Not all young people have an entirely free will especially if they come from poor conditions. They can be easily persuaded to throw away their lives in the name of patriotism. Excactly, alot of people who have had the benefit of a middle class upbringing (which seems to be the majority of Internet users, although thats changing) don't seem to understand that alot of people who grow up in poor area's just don't have the same career opportunities as they do. You can argue education all you want but at the end of the day, less well off areas tend to have poorer schools, less opportunity, higher crime/drug/unemployment rates. All these factors lead to the lower ranks of the military to become a cross section of the working class. If you disagree with that just think to yourself how many people who grew up in upper/middle class homes become regular soldiers.....I'm thinking that there won't be many. Infact I was speaking to my own Dad a while ago about why he joined the Army (UK) when he became old enough and it was for that reason. At the time, where he grew up (which is close to where I grew up/live now) he could have either worked in the mines (which are all now closed) or join the army. Considering the miners strikes during the 70's and 80's that meant he really had no choice.

You're missing my point though by even just going to Afghanistan(which I feel was right) he was always going to create more tension. The idea of a superpower like USA going into any Islamic nation was always going to stir up anti-American sentiment within the Middle East and in the Islamic world as a whole. That tension was always going to have a ripple effect, THAT is my point. I agree that Iraq is and always has been wrong.

Thats the difference in tradition but the history behind their bad relations can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Shia-Sunni_relations In Iraq specifically though is simple, Sunni's are a minority in Iraq but Saddam was a Sunni therefore they had the power in Iraq. Shia's are the majority and since democracy reigns, they now have the power. The Sunni's resent this and want the power back - and we have war. It's a classic case of a power vaccum situation - the despotic ruler is deposed and the oppressed factions want the control.

Well, beating Bush's last four years won't be too tough a job. Anyone who tries to end the confict as soon as possible would leave the place in all out civil war. However even sorting everything properly will still cause rifts between the three groups and whoever gets the oil. To be fair to Bush he did come into office at an incredibly difficult time first time & in this last term he's pretty much between a rock and a hard place. If he leaves Iraq he'll be seen as weak and if he stays the bodies will keep piling up - quite literally a case of "damned if you do & damned if you don't." I'm curious how he came into a "hard time"? The 9/11 attacks, or what? That wasn't a hard time, that was what started the hard time he created... Wait, so you don't think its been a difficult period. Lets face it whatever he did after 9/11 was going to look bad. In the eyes of the world he had no choice but to take a hardline or he was coming across as a soft touch eventhough that same hardline was just going to create more problems to deal with. I'll grant you that he's made such massive errors (Iraq) which have themselves created more problems, but all I'm saying is that the point in history that he came into the Presidency at would have been difficult for any previous President. The next President regardless of who they are or their political ideology is going to face the same problems.

Well, beating Bush's last four years won't be too tough a job. Anyone who tries to end the confict as soon as possible would leave the place in all out civil war. However even sorting everything properly will still cause rifts between the three groups and whoever gets the oil. To be fair to Bush he did come into office at an incredibly difficult time first time & in this last term he's pretty much between a rock and a hard place. If he leaves Iraq he'll be seen as weak and if he stays the bodies will keep piling up - quite literally a case of "damned if you do & damned if you don't."

The paradox is that none of this is based in reality. New Yorkers know that there are still many unanswered questions about 9/11, and that Giuliani failed them. He is a corrupt politician who preformed poorly under pressure and failed to confront the governments scandalous lies in the 9/11 Commission, probably because he felt so blessed by the Commissions lack of tough questioning in his own case. It doesn't matter what really happened though, thats my point, as long as the myth is still perceived to be reality by enough people outside of NYC then it doesn't matter. Although to be fair in the glare of a Presidential campaign it would eventually come out anyway.

It's not impossible, even nowadays I can't see alot of the Southern States voting for a non-white President (Obama) especially considering all the idiotic allegations that are being hurled at him, such as him going to a "terrorist training school" which was just an Islamic school abroad (I think it was in Indonesia). On top of that Hilary Clinton is hated by alot of people from what I see on TV, actually can anybody explain why? Guiliani came out of 9/11 really well that will really be good for his campaign since terrorism and homeland security is so over-emphasised in American politics at the moment. His previous zero-tolerance to crime and particularly organised crime won't do him any harm. The guy is seen as a strong leader and personality and thats what alot of people look for when deciding how to vote......stranger things have happened.

First of all, I think by now (after the almost daily attacks on coalition troops) that its pretty clear that Iraqi's dont want them there. They may have liked it when Saddam was removed but now they seem to be making the problem worse in the eyes of the Iraqi population. Secondly do you think that soldiers are phsychopaths? Yes they may be trained to kill but do you really think that most soldiers dream of having to kill somebody, I dont think so. If they've or their comrades have been been attacked then maybe they'll want to fight but most people now see this bs war for what it is, and therefore dont want be put into harms way for no reason.

More proof that the politics of fear DO still work. What was it Goering said again... Stirring up fear of attack? Check! Achieved by the constant movement of the national security level(not so much in the last few months.) The threat of WMD's, the complete stereotyping of all Muslims(and therefore all people who 'look' Middle-Eastern) among other things. Denouncement of "Pacifists"? Check! Acheived pre-war by claiming that by not supporting the war or its continuation you are either; A)Sympathising with "THE TERRORISTS!", B)Unpatriotic or C)Not Supporting the Troops. Hermann Goring was right after all, it can be done anywhere. I'm sure if there is an afterlife the Nazi's will be having a laugh right now at the state of Iraq and how USA & UK dragged their countries into a needless war over nothing. Infact Bush and Blair improved on Gorings plan because they've exploited the fear they created amongst the people to force through legislation that effectively will help destroy civil rights - the Patriot Act(The name says it all :roll: ) and the biometric ID system in UK.

Oh yeah I remember when those flood controls first came in, it was a 5 second rule as far as I can remember. That really annoyed me I used to like to type out all my replies to the topics I was interested in then hit submit to them all one after another so all my posts were up at the top of the forum. It ruined my immature juvinile fun.

I saw this on Sky Sports News last night, the city seemed to turn into a full scale riot. There was tear-gas thrown onto the pitch as well, the players were running and covering their eyes to avois it. It's terrible that somebody has died over this, some things are bigger than sports at the end of the day. Italy at the moment seems to have the same hooliganism problem that England had during the 1980's, it's something they're going to have to clamp down on immediately.

Yep, thats the beauty of an evolving forum - nobody can use old posts to make you look stupid. Im lucky my old posts are lost - I used to be overly argumentative on the forums and post too often (not spam but just not add too much to a topic.) I'm also lucky that most of the people who endured some of my old posts no longer use the forums, and therefore can't recall example of me being an idiot.

Are you talking about during or after (now)? Right now I'm pretty much fine, but then I did have some pain standing fully erect and walking. The arm tingling lasted only a few minutes. Usually pneumothoraxes aren't tension related, so if you'd have one it probably wouldn't be related to your heart. Yeah it hurts when I move during the chest pains. I dont think I have pneumothorax or even anything that serious, but it had me wondering a bit. I get those pains I was talking about from time to time though and they pass after a few minutes so I doubt they're serious. Anyway, its nice to see that you're alright though.

Is it more painful when you try to move your torso as well? And it hurts up the left side of your chest right? If so it sounds similar to a pain I occasionally get as well although I've never had the tingling in the arm.

You reckon 36 chambers is the best ever? Its good but Id have to go with Illmatic, its pretty much a flawless hip hop album. I do agree that hip hop isnt dead I was exagerating a bit but theres definately been a big downturn in quality. Are you kidding? 36 Chambers was great, it didn't have 1 bad track. It's my favorite album, and Illmatic only had around 8 songs I believe... Don't get me wrong I love 36 chambers (Can it be so simple is brilliant), I just prefer Illmatic. Illmatic had 9 tracks and an album intro.

The way I see it only a complete and utter chump would be willing to pay ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã1/ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã1.50 for something that they can get for free. Bottled water is the biggest scam going. Water out of the tap is absolutely fine, nobody bothered about it until companies tried to sell bottled water. It reminds me of the 'Only Fools And Horses' episode where Del Boy & Rodney put tap water in bottles and sell it as 'Peckham Spring' water.

I've seen my nickname come up once or twice online when somebody else has used the name. I used to get pm's now and then from people asking me the origin of the name as well - everything from song lyrics to band names and film references have been banded around as theories. I was annoyed that I had to add the underscores to use this nick on this version of the forums though, I didnt need to when we were on dk3 or on the original version. --------------- Funnily enough I was reading another forum a few days ago and somebody was using the nickname Merciful (cant remember the number of L's used though), strange coincidence.

This doesn't refer to you but I have met some very well educated morons.