Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?

2007-05-11T03:19:54Z

Rebiu:

I can't figure out this one, and I hope someone here can. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. Since the regions of the world where oil is available have historically been unstable long before the discovery or usefulness of petroleum was discovered, one can only conclude that God likes to see people kill each other. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why can't people, who happen to live in oil rich places, just get along?

Why would God want us to use a limited and polluting substance as fuel?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Maybe God's chosen people are the Arabs living in the oil rich places.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 22:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did God create stars that we can only see and not reach? The authors question should be moved to Funny, maybe? on the debate forum.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The middle east was not particularly unstable during its long years of Ottoman dominance (positively tranquil compared to Europe in the same period), or even in the interwar period - it's current reputation as a problematic area postdates the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938. Texas and Alaska are obviously stable, and the North Sea area is not noted as a hotbed of agitation. [[User:MississippiMud|MisMud]] 23:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps the oil causes the political instability.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?

2007-05-11T03:18:41Z

Rebiu:

[http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBirth100.htm BIRTH THE BIBLE WAY]

Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?

Can anyone read German and are they interested in relaying the info in the citation below:

"The German journal Der Spiegel had a report on the mother’s best position for giving birth.(1986, Number 43, 278-288)"[http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBirth100.htm]

:...the much more interesting problem would be to obtain a copy of an article from an issue that's just a few years younger than I am. Oh, wait, checking with the online archive makes me guess it's this one: [http://service.spiegel.de/digas/find?DID=13521283 Costs 50 cents to buy.] Judging by the title, it's a discussion/debate between a gynecologist and an... ethno-doctor? Not sure how that term translates. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"Ethno-doctor," as you so aptly put it - think "ethnographer" or "anthropologist." [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 21:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Possible - I have absolutely no idea about the terminology in that field. *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

There is no bible way to give birth[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?

2007-05-11T03:17:14Z

Rebiu: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

''Are homosexuals "born that way"? Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?''

==Yes==

"Are homosexuals "born that way"?"

I think the science is not all in on that one. All I do know is that many of them have known they were "different" from a very young age.

"Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?"

What a sick, controlling question. I know it would outrage my personhood to suppress any desire I hold because ''someone else'' finds it abominable or disgusting. As it should, indeed, outrage theirs if I were to expect them to suppress a desire that I think is wrong somehow. Although, now that I think about it, why shouldn't all warmaking people suppress that desire? A bit off topic there. Anyway, yes, I'm certain that it would be a cruel outrage for expect or force someone else to suppress their desires where they do not affect you personally. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, there are elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts. This question is more of a free will versus determinism question than about the science behind homosexuality. People have the choice in whether or not they have a relationship with a person of the same sex. I believe that we have the free will in what we do and so homosexuals have the choice of not committing those sinful acts. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Those that think the acts are "sinful" can make that choice, yes. Those that don't are free to act in a way that increases their happiness. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yea but it's so hard not to do it[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==No==

I believe that there are elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out [[homosexual act]]s. Homosexuals are not "born that way", and it would not outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Answered below.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe==

I think there is a division of homosexuality. I think that some people during their youth are sexually confused by hormones, and they engage is sexual acts that they otherwise wouldn't. I have a friend who is straight as can be, but he's had homosexual sex before, as a teen, and regrets it, because he was not homosexual. Also, I don't believe in "Bisexuality." I can give that people can be attracted to the opposite sex, but I don't think that you can be attracted to both. I think bisexually is just a lack of CARING about what you have sex with, so long as you are having sex.

Now, I am a strong believer in gay rights and I believe that at least some gays are in some way a natural occurrence. I have many gay friends and am a member of our school's LGBTS alliance. I have meet many single sex couples, including a pair of lesbians partners who are currently raising a daughter that is more well behaved than most straight raised couples and she is heterosexual to boot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can bisexuality be a lack of caring? I am bisexual, and besides the fact that I am not legally old enough to have sex, there are plenty of people with whom I simply would not want to do so.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't think you can be both. I think you can be either one or the other. Being bisexual means that you don't care whether or not you are having sex with a man or a woman. Also, if you are not legally old enough to have sex (No such thing btw, sex isn't illegal) then you may not be bisexual. You might be hormonally confused. It happens. But anyway, I just don't think bisexuality is a valid sexual identity. I think its more like you just want to have sex, and its really irrelevant what you are having sex with. I mean, feel free to think me wrong. It just what I personally feel. You can either be gay or straight, but both is pushing it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Obvious Arguments ==
People have said repeatedly that homosexuality is not "inborn" - rather, it appears at a very early age, such that people don't remember it, so they think it's inborn, but it's not. The question is, how does this matter? If the change is subtle, at a young age, and permanent, how is it any different from being "inborn" in the respect it deserves? The trait is still immutable, and discrimination based on immutable traits is flat-out bigotry (racism, sexism). So, does it matter if the trait is inborn, if it can be proved to be acquired early on, as Ed has argued?

Second, the argument is that homosexuals do not have to be "practicing" homosexuals - they can abstain. The request, then, is for homosexuals to live a sex-less life. Hands up who's male, straight, and adult here (*hand up*). Hands up who'd be mad as anything if they couldn't have sex ever again (*hand up*). Now impute that same prospective frustration onto homosexuals. Can you deny someone, even someone with whom you disagree, someone who you think is a sinner, the basic right of expression & love that sexual intimacy is? Plenty of people do voluntarily - but that's entered into voluntarily, not by forcible compulsion.

A closing thought: if it disgusts you, so be it; don't do it. If you think it'll condemn gays to Hell, so be it; according to fundamentalist Christianity, all Muslims & Jews are going to hell anyways, and you seem capable of getting along with them. Ed, maybe "evil" doesn't deserve your acceptance, but you "accept" evil all the time in the form of different religions. The point is that it doesn't hurt anyone to be accepting of '''a right that infringes upon none of yours.'''-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Very eloquent: "You should be a lawyer." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Ed! I try. I've just seen too many good people go through pain & trauma because they've been needlessly ostracized for their sexual orientation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey, I didn't say "correct", I just said "eloquent". ;-)
::Yeah, but in the legal world, you don't have to be correct to be right.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?

2007-05-11T03:14:50Z

Rebiu: /* Yes */

== Background ==

From [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_suspects_guns Associated Press]
<blockquote>The [[National Rifle Association]] is urging the [[George W. Bush|Bush administration]] to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Backed by the [[Justice Department]], the measure would give the [[attorney general]] the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.</blockquote>

The article goes on to say:
<blockquote>A 2005 study by the [[Government Accountability Office]] found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.</blockquote>
That study can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05127.pdf

Background on the bill in question can be found at http://lautenberg.senate.gov/documents/domestic/TerrorGap/index.cfm and the complete text of the proposed bill can be found at http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/terrorgap/Lautenberg_Bill_4_26_07.pdf

== Yes ==

Sure: more terrorist attacks --> more people will want to buy guns --> greater demand for guns, funerals and medical care --> very good for the economy!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:If you mean the lady labeled a terror suspect by Echelon. While talking to her friend over the phone she mentioned how her son bombed in the school play. She was tagged as a potential terrorist since it couldn't be verified exactly what was meant by her use of the word bomb. Suspects, why not? Actual terrorists, absolutely not. Political activists have been labeled as terror suspects and put on no-fly lists. If you're only a suspect, then your innocent of any crime. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone ever hear of that one?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I know what you mean, but since this was only about 44 purchases over the last 5 months, I'd have to say these people were pretty serious suspects.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Every American has a constitutional right to own a firearm.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
This is a fools notion. First of all a) anybody on a terror watch list should not be in the United States to begin with. b) I am quite sure terrorists would not abide by USA law and attempt to by firearms legally, regardless of the GAO articles assertions. This question, an attempt by liberals to mock the conservative NRA, is without merit. We worry about terrorists acquiring weapons, let's just make sure that they don't acquire nuclear, anywhere in the world, first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

On the wire's today "...feared the group was on the verge of carrying out an attack on Fort Dix. The men were arrested Monday night as they tried to buy AK-47 assault weapons, M-16s and other weapons from an FBI informant, authorities said.

Sounds like they were trying to obtain weapons Illegally. Also mentioned that a least one was an illegal alien.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-05-11T03:11:03Z

Rebiu:

{{debate-politics}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Here it is again Ruchki and with the logical examples. The entire "War on Terror" is a farce meant to advance the conservative agenda and enrich the political leaders who started it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html economy saved].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm "The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad."][http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208055.htm Iraqi deal unusualy generous to oil companies][[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Being conservative does not mean blindly supporting the current administration[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Apparently, some conservatives disagree with you. OBEY. CONSUME. REMAIN SILENT. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''': American troops are dying at a rate of 900 per year. Monthly expeditures have risen from $4.4 billion to $8.4 billion without a corresponding decrease in the overall rate of violence (even if there are temporary local successes following tactical shifts in emphasis). Cities that are pacified to much fanfare must be retaken, sometimes several times. The Bush Administration has resorted to a policy of "kill the messenger", sacking any general who admits we cannot win another country's civil war and putting in place the lone general who thinks we can win this civil war, General Petraeus. One by one, our allies in the "Coalition of the Willing" have dropped out, and we are even witnessing the gradual departure of the United Kingdom from the southern theater. Bush got congressional authority to wage war on Iraq by certifying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and posed an existential threat to the United States, yet the WMDs were revealed to be a chimera and the only existential threat is to the Republican Party itself, as more and more Americans grow weary of the war. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No:''' It's not a question that the stated objective of the invasion was to find and destroy WMD's, which we were ''positive'' existed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of WMD's found in Iraq is exactly...0. IN that sense, we failed miserably. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That is twisted liberal thought. The fact that no WMD was found is irrelevent. The only reason it is relevent is because it was used as final justification for invasion. Like icing on the cake. All we ended up with is cake, no icing. Saddam has a long history of playing games with inspectors. If Saddam had never used WMD in the past, then it was all a mistake. To wait until he acquired again, then use it, then decide to invade is just backwards logic. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Saddam would have never used WMD's, even if he had them. He was too smart to do that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Iran Iraq war, Saddam gassed (poison WMD) thousands of innocent Kurdish men women and children. Saddam was a dumb ass, a tyrant, a miscalculating butcher.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sorry, Saddam would have never been dumb enough to use WMD's against powerful Western Nations. To put it frankly, Saddam's actions in Iraq helps to keep Iran in check by destabilizing the region. Now that he's gone, we see possibilities of Arab coalitions and the like, which bodes bad for us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Every time we put together a "coalition" against someone else, it's just us and some other nations as window dressing. By the same token, no coalition of pure window dressing is a threat. But we are learning that America could take all her military technology and prowess, drop back in time to the bronze age even, and still lose every single conflict if the President lacks the willpower to fight. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 21:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"Willpower" isn't the problem here. President Bush '''wanted''' this war, and has been its single biggest booster since day one. Lack of SMARTS is the problem. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: That is a good analysis, but it stops two step short of naming the human problem. An unamed human problem is the core of the difficulty and people are refusing to look at it. We are all human beings, we are all motivated by the same urges and (broadly) feelings. The West has exploited the Mideast. The West grew strong and remains strong because, in general, people earn their own way. In the west, people contribute to other people, through daily work, through creation, through new inventions, and so forth. This isn't what goes on in the Mideast where the population is supported by the mineral wealth pooled beneath their feet. There, people don't have the need to earn their daily bread as in the West. People of the Mideast can, therefore, hang on to those historical ways that worked in the past because there is a vast pool of mineral wealth beneath their feet. Given nothing to do, people don't develop pride. And that is the human value the West's exploitation has undermined in the Mideast. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::::WHAT? Ho Chi Minh died of heart failure, not an American GI. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

::Jpatt--Said democratic government in Iraq will probably be demoted to "lamp-post ornaments" about 48 hours after the US troops leave, and then Turkey will invade the north and slaughter the Kurds (making the SECOND time an American named Bush has left them twisting in the wind) while the Sunnis and Shi'ites blow each other to Heaven on clouds of Semtex smoke. As other people here have pointed out, declaring war on an abstract noun like "terrorism" does not work too well (unless you have Abhorrent Weaponry and the will to use it). Or we can stay there forever. After all, there's a fixed number of Terrorists, and everyone we defeat means one less forever, since no more people will ever sign up, right? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually, Bush Senior's decision to not invade Iraq after expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait was a good decision on his part. Bush Sr. was, unlike his son, a master statesman and knew that by entering into Iraq would go beyond the scope of the UN mission (Sound familiar Georgie?) and would make the US into an international pariah (Again, George, next time listen to Daddy). He also knew that taking the fight from the desert of Kuwait to the streets of Baghdad would result in the death of US troops and unpopularity for the war. After all, the US is fantastic at open ground combat as we have the most advanced weapons on the planet. However, those weapons can't help our soldiers trying to purge buildings of insurgents. Take the US's destruction of the Hammurabi Division on Highway 80 during the end of the Gulf War. It was literally an absolute turkey shoot. You have old Russian tanks and convoy trucks retreating while being pounded from miles away by Apaches and Abrams. However, now, you take the soldier out of the safe tank or assault chopper, and put him in front of a door, and he doesn't know when he opens that door, if there will be no one on the other side, or 12 armed men. And people wonder why the war is unpopular.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Also, Saddam Hussein acted as a buffer between the US, and the regions bigger threat, Iran. Now that buffer is gone...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well LDobbs, you can make the case for falure if we leave and you can make the case if we stay. All hell to break when we leave, maybe. If we don't stand up wherever they are, then its 1996 all over again. The USA too busy and too enept to confront terror. You sound like you favor the Democrats in the House that want to change the wording of 'war on terror'. Let's put aside the fact that the USA is still in Korea after 50 years. Let's talk Iraq and Afghanistan as a launching point against Iran. If there are war moves by Iran, would you rather be launching attacks from America or from the region? 25,000 bandits in Iraq is not a fixed number or one less per each jihadist death. If Iraq is tranformed into the image of South Korea, the region will be a stronger ally of the USA.

:::::Elamdri, Bush Sr. failed America by working through the corrupt UN. The main reason he did not finish the job, besides the mandate, they knew that we couldn't hope for a better leader to emerge that would replace Saddam, Democracy would be hard to establish, formerly occupied by the British, would not welcome English aligned armies. Bush 41 hoped the Iraqis themselves would take control of their leadership. After 9/11, Bush 43 realized that Saddam was part of the problem America had to confront. That Saddam was the last straw of credibility the UN blew away. That Saddam would not be replaced by his people. Bush 43 sought to increase nation states to democracy in the fight against extreme rogue states and their supporters- jihadists. Will it work? Time will tell.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I doubt that. Honestly, the Grand Coalition was probably the greatest success the UN has every had. In reality, Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people. He helps keep Iran in check, and then people started to blow his power out of proportion after 9/11.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I doubt your view as well. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people??? How about the Iranians, how about the Israelis, how about the Kuwaitis? Invasion of Iran, Invasion of Kuwait, 25,000 dollars to suicide bombers families who kill Israelis. I am no expert, can you admitt it?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Let me rephrase, Saddam wasn't a threat to the western world as the Bush Administration tried to make us believe. Should he have been removed? Probably, but right now? Probably not.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::So when ''do'' we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen? Secondly, he was a threat to his own people as you have stated. Do you believe it was an unjust cause to go in and liberate the Iraqis, or should America just focus on pleasing its own free people who have never known oppression? That was a long string of questions - forgive me please - but I would like to hear your opinion. As for me, I believe strongly that overthrowing Saddam was the best thing for America and the rest of the free world. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Its not so much removing him as it is using him to stage proxy wars.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::''So when ''do'' we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen?'' - DavidR See, that's the difference between Hussein and bin Laden--we KNEW where Hussein was, and he had an actual country we could bomb. That made a powerful disincentive to mess with the US. You will note that he didn't actually DO anything to inspire the US invasion besides sit there 'looking at us funny'. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 18:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

What to you Hawks think about your war now hahahahahaahahahahhaahahahah[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?

2007-05-11T03:05:00Z

Rebiu: /* (...and are fundamentalists Christians?) */

==== (...and are fundamentalists Christians?) ====

Did Jesus understand scripture literally? Did he intend for His own words to be taken literally? Being a Christian, surely means following the teachings and example of Christ. Can somebody be a Christian if they do not do this?

Common man, Jesus never said that stuff. The bible was made up to provide a means to control people. Jesus would be lynched in broad daylight by todays Christains.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== YES ==
No kidding, gee do you think? Do you think the Son Of God had a fundamental understanding of the WORD OF GOD? That is what fundamental means. Nobody on the planet would have a better fundamental understanding than Christ. So as a Christian, you'd probably try to conform towards that same fundamental understanding that Christ has. Hence the term fundamentalism. Fundamental Christians believe the literal truth of the bible as revealed by the Christ, the Son of God, to His disciples. Sometimes speaking in parables or allegorical references to the Old Testament, or the Prophets, as well as future events yet to happen.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: ''"That is what fundamental means."''

:You're mistaken. What is meant by Fundamentalism (as it is being used here, in the sense of fundamentalist Christianity, and of other fundamentalist religions too), is the practise of interpreting every word in sacred texts as literal truth. [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalism&db=%2A Dictionary.com, feel free to check the definition elsewhere too.] (See the "NO" section below for a couple examples of how Christ did ''not'' literally interpret Scripture, and did ''not'' intend his own words to taken literally.)

:I'm not disagreeing with your statement that nobody had a better fundamental understanding of Christianity than Christ, by the way. It's His religion, after all; who could understand it better? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 19:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::You would be mistaken to try and use those definitions that include phrases such as militant, extreme conservatives, or intolerance of other views. Gee, I could hardly tell the persons that wrote those definitions don't like fundamental Christians. I still stand by my definition of what FUNDAMENTAL means. You can also read my response to those having a misunderstanding on how to understand scripture literally so as to keep it fundamental. Sort of like conserving the original intent. Kind of what's at the core of being Conservative. Being a conservationalist about religious traditions and preserving God's Word found in the scripture of the Bible. Do you agree with that definition as extreme conservatism?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::''"a misunderstanding on how to understand scripture literally so as to keep it fundamental"''

:::You seem to have trouble with words. You think you're a fundamentalist, but you don't even know what the word means. And "literally" means, without interpretation or embellishment: this is how a fundamentalist reads the Bible. There is no ''"Sort of like"'', no ''"Kind of what's at the core of"''; you simply do as it says.

:::By the way, that's a dictionary (several dictionaries in fact) that you're looking at there, not a liberal organisation with an anti-Christian agenda. Fundamentalist religions do tend to be characterised by militancy, extreme conservatism, and intolerance of other views; the definitions merely reflect the reality of the situation. If you find those traits unattractive, perhaps you need to think about modifying your beliefs. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 19:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not with words, but with people that try to insert their own special meanings into them. Which is the primary reason for conservapedia.com isn't it. Maybe you should try looking at the conservapedia definition? Here is one suggestion on why some people prefer calling some Christians Fundamentalists:
:::http://hallindsey.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemid=52
:::It should give you some clarification on my point of view.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hal Lindsey (amongst other strange ideas) thinks that the Jews are God's chosen people, an odd attitude for a supposed Christian to hold, and one that surely offers little hope of salvation to those who have accepted Jesus. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell46.html] --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hal Lindsey has an excellent fundamental understanding of the Old and New Testament of the Bible. The Hebrew people are His by Covenant, as Judah is only one of their tribes. Because that is what the Old and New Testament says of it. The Christian Church is the grafted on olive branch. The whole tree and root is Israel's Hebrew tribes. To those who believe in replacement theology, amongst other things, I wouldn't bother looking for your place on that tree though. One of the problems here is the application of prejudiced stereotypes to a word in order to give it a negative connotation. It is typical that all I have to do is identify myself as a Christian as well as back it up and some one will be calling me a "Fundamentalist". It is used identically the way a Nazis would have called someone a "Jew". I would suggest to everyone not to use it in this ignorant and derogatory manner. Savy?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:59, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== NO ==

*There are numerous examples of Christ making non-literal interpretations of existing Scripture:

<blockquote>
''And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.'' John 8:3-7 (KJV)
</blockquote>

*And of many of His own teachings being allegorical, ''non-literal'', and declared by Him to be so:

<blockquote>
''And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?''
Matthew 13:3-10 (KJV)
</blockquote>

and <blockquote>
''Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:'' Matthew 13:31-34 (KJV)
</blockquote>

*And of his own words clearly not being intended to be ''literally'' interpretated:

<blockquote>
''Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.'' John 6:53-55 (KJV)
</blockquote>

If Christ '''himself''' does not take scripture literally, and makes clear that his own teachings are '''not be taken literally''', how can it be Christian to read the Bible literally? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:How is it that most Christians, and especially the fundamentalist type can understand what it means to read the Bible literally? Most know when an allegory or parable is being used, and yet are able to still discern fundamental truths from them? Literal, as in a literary sense that is being described by the original writer. Instead of liberally interpreting everything metaphorically in order for it to conform to some politically correct world view. Usually hundreds of years after the original event. But trying to explain the fundamentals to someone that wants it to conform to their own liberally interpreted metaphor is for the most part, a waste of time.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::In Christ's own words,
::<blockquote>''And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.'' Matthew 13:10-13 (KJV)</blockquote>
::(Which is to say, (paraphrased roughly): Those who get it - get it completely; and those who don't get it - never shall.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Right, so that only those people that already have the same fundamental understanding of God's Word as Christ would be able to understand such parables. To those that reinterpret meanings will no longer be able to understand Christ's parables. Which, at that time many religious leaders had already begun to create their own meanings into God's Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::''"only those people that already have the same fundamental understanding of God's Word as Christ"''

:::I can't see that being very many people at all... just Jesus himself in fact. Are you sure this is what He had in mind? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 19:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No? Why not Jeremiah4-22? What about His disciples?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Christ is God the Son, so surely his understanding of God's Word is perfect (and does not need to depend upon a literal interpretation of scripture). Whereas His disciples are only human; I must suspect that though their intentions are good, even with His teaching, their degree of understanding is likely to fall short of perfection. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 21:21, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*No, not if "fundamentalist" means "Bible literalist." The Ten Commandments includes "the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." In Luke 2:23-27, "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?" The Pharisees are interpreting the Bible literally. Jesus replies "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath," and gives reasons for honoring the spirit, rather than the exact letter of the Ten Commandments. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is only plain to see that somehow fundamental and literal no longer have their original meaning to some people. I can see how not knowing the purpose of the "Law" in relation to the Temple sacrifice will cause misunderstandings. Jesus is referring to how corrupted the Pharisees had become with their legalisms and religion for religion sake mentality. They were no longer fundamentalists. That is why Jesus is teaching them the fundamentals of His Word. If you are going to challenge Christians who have a fundamental understanding and know what is being literally said in His Word, keep trying. In the end, you just might learn some fundamentals about the Bible.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Religious Debates]]

Debate:Why the Bible

2007-05-11T03:01:40Z

Rebiu: /* Nothing */

==Nothing==
There is no evidence that the Bible is more trustworthy than any other piece of literature. The Bible is merely a fictional novel which has traditionally been believed and baselessly seen as the infallible word of God for hundreds of generations.
-Helios

What idiot puts page-long geniologies in a novel??!! Whether the bible is true or not (as I know it is) the ''authors'' seemed to think it's true. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 07:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I think it was made by some men wanting to show people morals and values, like Aesop fables.

While some Biblical events may be confirmable by more scientific-based types of knowledge, belief in most of the Bible is contingent on faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Take that for what it's worth. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

"Take that for what it's worth."-Ooooo... I get a free Bible. -Helios

I will watch this discussion and see when it gets deleted. There seems to be a concerted effort at policing even these debate areas. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]] 19:34 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... if we consider the New Testament as Bible 2.0, then would the Koran be Bible 3.0 or Bible 2.1? And where does this leave the Book of Mormon? 4.0? 3.1? 2.2? 3.1.1? --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 07:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well since Christianity actually branched off of Judaism the '''Old''' Testament would be v2.0 -Helios

The bible has been put together by hundreds of authors, over the course of around 900 years, and has subsequently been translated (several times), re-written and "improved" by many other hundreds of contributers and writers since. To put any kind of significance upon it at all is at best misguided and at worst plain idiotic. That is not to say that there are some good messages in there, however the majority is just plain weird. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:02, 19 April 2007

You guys are right, the bible is total garbage.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?

2007-05-11T03:00:09Z

Rebiu:

==Yes==
Of course. Conservative is not a religion. Conservatives believe in individual freedoms. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:I know from personal experience that my transition leftward began a while after I became an atheist.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I strongly oppose that the most important value of conservatives is individual freedom. Actually, individual freedom is the most important principle of liberalism. In addition, you have to differentiate between value and structure conservatism. Most conservatives are value conservatives and as such regard the traditional values of family, religion, honor and truth or at least some of them higher than individual freedom. Structure conservatives prefer everything remains as it is, simply said, whereas value conservatives favor changes that give more importance to the values above. -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

One can't argue from the specific to the general. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
: unless the specific contradicts the general -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

:What? First, my statement was to agree with you. Second, if something happens in one specific case then it must be generally possible.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 15:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:A non-religous conservative is often called a capitalist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::So sayeth you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Who cares you are going to burn in hell for denying Jesus[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?

2007-05-11T02:58:06Z

Rebiu: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

== Yes ==
Jesus, like all of us, was born at a time that best suited the plans of the Grand Architect. It is not God's fault we cannot yet understand those plans. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*Are you kidding. There were many children named Jesus born about that time and place. Just pick one and apply the prevailing myths of the day to his life a wallaaa instant cult.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== No ==

Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication. Don't you get me wrong, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:(I only want to know) [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So if Jesus was born at the wrong time (4 B.C.), does this mean you think God made a mistake? --[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]]

:I think that if we were to say "Jesus was born at the wrong time", we could immediately assume due to God's infallibility that our reasons for saying it are wrong. Taking the example above, there must be a reason why the era of mass communication was not chosen for His incarnation. We might never know it, though. This argument really belongs above under "Yes", but I wrote it as an answer here. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: A point well made. As an atheist, I was using it as an example for the possible fallibility of God (Or Gods in general). Assuming his infallibility there must have been some reason why he chose to allow the rest of the world to live in ignorance until a sucession of violent empires spread (and continue to spread) his message of peace and love throughout the world. Rather than choosing to do it peacefully in an era of mass communication. I can't rationallise what this reason could possibly have been though... [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 16 April 2007 09:38 (BST)

:::We could really use Jesus again right now... why only one visit? - BornAgainBrit

::::I'm not an expert on this, but isn't He supposed to return one more time? And as to the theology of "We could use Him now", isn't he "with" anyone/everyone who accepts Him into their hearts as their saviour? I guess there are also many stories in the Bible of the challenges to Faith and the obstacles in the Faithfuls' walk. But as to your basic sentiment, yeah, I don't really think there has ever been a time that wouldn't possibly have been made better by His incarnate presence. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Even when talking about Jesus, scripture is garbage. For example, the gospels of Matthew and Luke give two different lineages between David and Jesus (28 and 47, resp.) Also, they make reference to a census by Caesar Augustus around the time of Mary and Joseph's move to Bethlehem, but this never happened (There was a census by Qurinius, but it was in 6 AD). Also, in order for Jesus to be the messiah, he needs to be directly descended from David (Joseph's side), but if Mary was a virgin, how could Jesus fulfil the prophecy and actually be the messiah? Case in point, I'd be surprised if anything in scripture is accurate. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 22:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?

2007-05-11T02:55:02Z

Rebiu:

God is divorced. See Is.54:5 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=9] and Jeremiah 3:8 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%20-%203:8;&version=9;]
*thy Maker is thine husband
:*for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce

Christianity is full of contradictions. I suggest you develop schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder to deal with the impossibilities of religion. That is certainly what most Christians do.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2007-05-11T02:52:05Z

Rebiu:

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-05-11T02:40:41Z

Rebiu:

God, as understood and accepted, is everywhere, knows everything, is all powerful, can do anything, to anyone, at anytime. So, why should God have to instil fear in humans? If God can do anything, to anyone, at anytime, why instill fear? There is nothing anyone can do about it anyway, according to that belief system. [[USer:Seekcommon]]

*Your right. Come to think of it why would God do anything. What possible purpose could his existence serve. If God is pointless then what is the point of Conservapedia? What is the point of this article?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Be Not Afraid ==

1 John 4:18 '''There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'''

-That's deep man.

:When the Bible says things like "knew that he feared God" I think it's using archaic language indicating [[respect]] - not "[[fear]]" in the sense of terror. But that's just my own [[Universalist]] interpretation of scripture. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Be Very Afraid ==
Certainly we should love God for all the love he shows (and has shown) us. But you have to remember that God does set a standard of living that we should try to live up to. God choose to do many things to show his justice, he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden because they choose to sin. Because God is justice we should fear him because many times we choose sin which is unjust.

Double Edge

* What about all the rules to live by as stated in the Old Testament? If those rules are followed today, I wonder if anyone will be alive - since death seems to be the punishment for so many things, including, working on the sabbath. I wonder how long this post/response will last before it is moved/deleted. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Don't you think that if everyone were being killed for their sins, the amount of sins would decrease? Death is a powerful crime deterrent.

P.S. I don't know why you fear that your posts will be deleted. Posts will only be deleted if they are obscene. Your questions are welcomed, at least by me. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
* I am glad to find some interest. There have been deletions that do not make sense, I wish I had saved some of the posts. It has been my experience that on the right AND the left, often when discussion/debates veer into uncomfortable territory, wham, the hammer comes down. [[User:Seekcommon]]

* How can an infinite span of time suffering the torment of fire be justice for a mere 70 or 80 years on Earth spent under confusing circumstances with conflicting "gospels" to choose from? [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
** Good question. Seems unreasonable to me. Then again, it's the issue of instilling FEAR, perhaps there is nothing to fear from the Almighty Himself but from the mortals that helped write the books/scriptures and changed them over the years. [[User:Seekcommon]] (Wonder what the life of these words will be? A day? Two perhaps?

The word fear applys to different emotions. Firstly, we should fear the Lord in the sense of the word meaning to have reverential awe (after all he created the universe). Secondly, as his children, we have no reason to fear him (using the common definition of terror and fright) unless we pursue that is perverse and sinful. It's good to fear the Lord, not to be afraid of the Him (unless you're sinful.)[[user:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

*Perhaps you could provide a source for your definition of fear Dfailyxed13 as it sounds like total B.S.. I mean really, fear = reverential awe, what a contortion.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

We should fear the corruption which stems from the universe, but fear no god, for the power of the divinai will fall to the wrath of Sathience.

*Please explain what "corruption which stems from the universe" is supposed to mean. You might also define you pretend term or Sathience.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You better be afraid. God destroyed every living thing on the planet, save those in a boat, on a whim. God has shown a pattern of punishing those who displease him by killing their children, family and associates so do not fool yourself into thinking a righteous existence will save you.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-05-11T02:40:30Z

Rebiu:

God, as understood and accepted, is everywhere, knows everything, is all powerful, can do anything, to anyone, at anytime. So, why should God have to instil fear in humans? If God can do anything, to anyone, at anytime, why instill fear? There is nothing anyone can do about it anyway, according to that belief system. [[USer:Seekcommon]]

== Be Not Afraid ==

1 John 4:18 '''There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'''

-That's deep man.
This is the being that visited plagues on the Egyptians and drowned the all the people in the world? Where does perfect love fit into that?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:When the Bible says things like "knew that he feared God" I think it's using archaic language indicating [[respect]] - not "[[fear]]" in the sense of terror. But that's just my own [[Universalist]] interpretation of scripture. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*I suppose your interpretation is better that what the bible actualy says[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
== Be Very Afraid ==
Certainly we should love God for all the love he shows (and has shown) us. But you have to remember that God does set a standard of living that we should try to live up to. God choose to do many things to show his justice, he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden because they choose to sin. Because God is justice we should fear him because many times we choose sin which is unjust.

Double Edge

* What about all the rules to live by as stated in the Old Testament? If those rules are followed today, I wonder if anyone will be alive - since death seems to be the punishment for so many things, including, working on the sabbath. I wonder how long this post/response will last before it is moved/deleted. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Don't you think that if everyone were being killed for their sins, the amount of sins would decrease? Death is a powerful crime deterrent.

P.S. I don't know why you fear that your posts will be deleted. Posts will only be deleted if they are obscene. Your questions are welcomed, at least by me. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
* I am glad to find some interest. There have been deletions that do not make sense, I wish I had saved some of the posts. It has been my experience that on the right AND the left, often when discussion/debates veer into uncomfortable territory, wham, the hammer comes down. [[User:Seekcommon]]

* How can an infinite span of time suffering the torment of fire be justice for a mere 70 or 80 years on Earth spent under confusing circumstances with conflicting "gospels" to choose from? [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
** Good question. Seems unreasonable to me. Then again, it's the issue of instilling FEAR, perhaps there is nothing to fear from the Almighty Himself but from the mortals that helped write the books/scriptures and changed them over the years. [[User:Seekcommon]] (Wonder what the life of these words will be? A day? Two perhaps?

The word fear applys to different emotions. Firstly, we should fear the Lord in the sense of the word meaning to have reverential awe (after all he created the universe). Secondly, as his children, we have no reason to fear him (using the common definition of terror and fright) unless we pursue that is perverse and sinful. It's good to fear the Lord, not to be afraid of the Him (unless you're sinful.)[[user:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

*Perhaps you could provide a source for your definition of fear Dfailyxed13 as it sounds like total B.S.. I mean really, fear = reverential awe, what a contortion.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

We should fear the corruption which stems from the universe, but fear no god, for the power of the divinai will fall to the wrath of Sathience.

*Please explain what "corruption which stems from the universe" is supposed to mean. You might also define you pretend term or Sathience.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You better be afraid. God destroyed every living thing on the planet, save those in a boat, on a whim. God has shown a pattern of punishing those who displease him by killing their children, family and associates so do not fool yourself into thinking a righteous existence will save you.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-05-11T02:31:02Z

Rebiu:

God, as understood and accepted, is everywhere, knows everything, is all powerful, can do anything, to anyone, at anytime. So, why should God have to instil fear in humans? If God can do anything, to anyone, at anytime, why instill fear? There is nothing anyone can do about it anyway, according to that belief system. [[USer:Seekcommon]]

== Be Not Afraid ==

1 John 4:18 '''There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'''

-That's deep man.

:When the Bible says things like "knew that he feared God" I think it's using archaic language indicating [[respect]] - not "[[fear]]" in the sense of terror. But that's just my own [[Universalist]] interpretation of scripture. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Be Very Afraid ==
Certainly we should love God for all the love he shows (and has shown) us. But you have to remember that God does set a standard of living that we should try to live up to. God choose to do many things to show his justice, he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden because they choose to sin. Because God is justice we should fear him because many times we choose sin which is unjust.

Double Edge

* What about all the rules to live by as stated in the Old Testament? If those rules are followed today, I wonder if anyone will be alive - since death seems to be the punishment for so many things, including, working on the sabbath. I wonder how long this post/response will last before it is moved/deleted. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Don't you think that if everyone were being killed for their sins, the amount of sins would decrease? Death is a powerful crime deterrent.

P.S. I don't know why you fear that your posts will be deleted. Posts will only be deleted if they are obscene. Your questions are welcomed, at least by me. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
* I am glad to find some interest. There have been deletions that do not make sense, I wish I had saved some of the posts. It has been my experience that on the right AND the left, often when discussion/debates veer into uncomfortable territory, wham, the hammer comes down. [[User:Seekcommon]]

* How can an infinite span of time suffering the torment of fire be justice for a mere 70 or 80 years on Earth spent under confusing circumstances with conflicting "gospels" to choose from? [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
** Good question. Seems unreasonable to me. Then again, it's the issue of instilling FEAR, perhaps there is nothing to fear from the Almighty Himself but from the mortals that helped write the books/scriptures and changed them over the years. [[User:Seekcommon]] (Wonder what the life of these words will be? A day? Two perhaps?

The word fear applys to different emotions. Firstly, we should fear the Lord in the sense of the word meaning to have reverential awe (after all he created the universe). Secondly, as his children, we have no reason to fear him (using the common definition of terror and fright) unless we pursue that is perverse and sinful. It's good to fear the Lord, not to be afraid of the Him (unless you're sinful.)[[user:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

*Perhaps you could provide a source for your definition of fear Dfailyxed13 as it sounds like total B.S.. I mean really, fear = reverential awe, what a contortion.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

We should fear the corruption which stems from the universe, but fear no god, for the power of the divinai will fall to the wrath of Sathience.

*Please explain what "corruption which stems from the universe" is supposed to mean. You might also define you pretend term or Sathience.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You better be afraid. God destroyed every living thing on the planet, save those in a boat, on a whim. God has shown a pattern of punishing those who displease him by killing their children, family and associates so do not fool yourself into thinking a righteous existence will save you.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?

2007-04-27T15:31:50Z

Rebiu:

Adam ate the apple because of president Bush. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Hahahahah this is great. Were the tainted peanutbutter illness cause be president Bush's shrinking of the FDA?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Snicker TeeHee. Was the Quagmire in Iraq caused by bush ignoring and then firing the general who told him he needed half a million troops?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

''Which'' President Bush? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Har Har Har that is hilarious Dpbsmith. I guess the answer is both yeeehaaaaw.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:40, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Was a strong economy and no new terror attacks President Bush's failed strategy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Now that is funny Jpatt[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Know what else is funny, every Bush hater can't say a single good thing about GWB, not one thing.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Should the Virginia Tech incident be considered a Terrorist attack that occured in the homeland? Should it be considered a major terrorist attack?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:49, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Since in the eyes of the conservatives, there is nothing redeeming about those Liberals, I suppose in the eyes of Liberals, everything is Bush's fault. Something just occurred to me, we are perfectly polarized and talk past one another. Time for someone else to take over. [[User:Seekcommon]]

:That is not really funny. GWB is a solid conservative and a shining example of what a conservativly lead world can be[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::GWB is a senile old bat. Now, his FATHER was actually a decent leader.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Hahaha, maybe he's responsible for me losing my car keys this morning too ; )--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 12:19, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

That really lame Fingermouse. You are like the slow guy that ruins the ride for everyone else[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:31, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not Many Are Claiming it Is ==

I've not seen many people directly blaming President Bush. I do see many conservatives like Rush Limbaugh bending over backwards to blame liberals and even the liberal arts department where Cho studied, even though his instructors seem to have done everythiing they could. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?

2007-04-23T15:54:32Z

Rebiu:

Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?

2007-04-21T15:49:01Z

Rebiu:

Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?

2007-04-21T15:45:49Z

Rebiu:

Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?

2007-04-19T16:40:50Z

Rebiu:

Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?

2007-04-17T17:28:58Z

Rebiu: New page: Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them....

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them. Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?

2007-04-17T17:14:43Z

Rebiu:

Debate:Is atheism morally wrong?

2007-04-11T15:22:41Z

Rebiu: /* No */

==Yes==

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
...well of course the bible would say so. If atheists such as myself regard the bible as a very long and boring novel the most useful purpose of which is a very painful (trust me on this one) game of dodgeball, how will you show us that we are morally wrong? What makes us think it isn't religion that is morally wrong. Helios-for those who answer to God, for those who are so horribly decieved-Helios

I don't see how Thomas Jefferson quotes can compare to Bible quotes on this matter. Clearly atheism is completely immoral. Notice how the world (at least outside the United States) has gone downhill? Notice how religion is also losing its grip outside the United States? There has to be something in that.
...to quote you "I don't see how Thomas Jefferson quotes can compare to Bible quotes on this matter." I think you may need your proverbial vision checked. On this matter the bible is the most bias source possible. Helios-for those who answer to God, for those who are so horribly decieved-Helios

==No==

To throw another quote out:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. -[[Thomas Jefferson]]

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I wonder how Thomas Jefferson is feeling about his eternal damnation in hell for that little pearl of wisdom.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

... what eternal damnation? What hell? That pearl of wisdom, sadly, was not taken by you to mean anything. That pearl of wisdom displays one of the clear and numerous pieces of evidence that there is no god, no heaven. Heaven is merely wishful thinking that stems from the wishes of our ancestors for eternal life, god is merely a way to explain the universe which is no longer necessary. Religion is no longer needed in this world. Helios-for those who answer to God, for those who are so horribly decieved-Helios

It is an unforgivable sin to deny the holy spirit even for a nanosecond. He who dies without being forgiven will be eternaly damned.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?

2007-04-09T19:17:28Z

Rebiu: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==NO==

Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Right on. If you see a bias on Conservapedia it is only you liberal nature exerting itself[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was '''NOT'''a conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==It's a meaningless question==

Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?

2007-04-09T19:14:31Z

Rebiu: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

==NO==

Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was '''NOT'''a conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==It's a meaningless question==

Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

2007-04-08T19:28:27Z

Rebiu: /* Yes */

== Yes ==
The bible is an interpreted work and poor interpretation lead to a poor set of ethics derived from that interpretation[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
The bible defines the standard of morality therefore one cannot apply a assesment of the bible ethics from a moral perspective.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

2007-04-08T19:27:28Z

Rebiu: /* No */

== Yes ==

== No ==
The bible defines the standard of morality therefore one cannot apply a assesment of the bible ethics from a moral perspective.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?

2007-04-06T18:44:22Z

Rebiu: /* YES! */

{{debate}}

In other words, if the Bible started with the story of Abraham and never mentioned how the earth was created, would anyone consider the idea that the earth was not millions of years old? Or does a desire to prove the Bible correct form the basis of creation science? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==YES!==
Young earth is a fact that is validated by an unbiased and accurate assesment of the evidence. The bible may have provided the clues but it stands on its own.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==No!==

In the bible, outside of Genesis, God rhetorically inquires of Job if he was present when God laid the foundations of the Earth, and the theological point he is trying to make is that the earth predates man by many years and includes wonders and mysteries that Job could not even begin to imagine. Based on this evidence, it is likely that an old earth doctrine would have been established. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 07:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
The questions seem to contradict eachother, so I'll post here. If there was no creation story, then the literal biblists wouldn't immediately throw out all the scientific evidence of evolution. Most likely they'd accept it and go on with their lives. But since the story does exist, they feel it necessary to accept this as the literal truth and refuse to believe anything contrary to what they read. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is atheism morally wrong?

2007-04-06T18:40:08Z

Rebiu: /* No */

==Yes==

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

To throw another quote out:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. -[[Thomas Jefferson]]

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I wonder how Thomas Jefferson is feeling about his eternal damnation in hell for that little pearl of wisdom.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?

2007-04-06T18:33:32Z

Rebiu:

'''Damnation Warning'''
If you consider this hypothetical you will be committing the unforgivable sin. You will not be able to take back this mistake so for the sake of you immortal soal do not go any further.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
{{debate}}

==NO==
Aside from God, might makes right. God dictates morality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

It really depends how you define morality. If morality is what is right and wrong, as set down by God, then of course no morals exists if God does not exist. However, many people would give morality a broader definition. For example, most atheists would say they attempt to hold to some set of morals which they believe to be right. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
Man is still answerable to his fellow man. A morality dictated by God is replaced by a morality dictated by the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In other words majority rules... might makes right. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ummm.... no? Might makes right is a little over simplistic. Look back in to the origins of religion and you will see that the moral code was based on how best for a community to survive. Fragile communities fragment when people steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, etc. God telling people what is right and wrong... that is might makes right. Morality ''not'' from God is people deciding what is best not just for themselves, but for the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Your view that "God telling people what is right and wrong... is might makes right" reveals a very limited view of God and implies that His motives are those that a selfish man would have were he to be given infinite power. Who would be better qualified to inform creatures who are limited in understanding and moral character than the infinite God who created them? Surely His wisdom is far superior to ours and although He is indeed mighter than we shall ever be, His credentials for informing us of what is right and wrong flow not primarily from His infinite power but rather from His infinite knowledge and perfect moral purity. We would do well to listen to Him. God (I am talking about the God of the Bible here, not the god of one's own understanding or definition) is by definition Holy, Right and Good. These things cannot be defined or have meaning apart from the Creator of the universe. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

In the absence of God's morality, what incentive does a man have to do anything other than that which gratifies himself? Why should anyone care about the good of the community?--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Examine the golden rule and you will see some form of it in almost every religion and philosophy from Aboriginal beliefs to Zoroastrianism. Life is not necessarily defined by personal hedonism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::It doesn't take much intellect to realize that that which benefits the community benefits the members of that community. Including your straw man hedonist. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe in god but I still believe everyone should be a good person no matter what. Just because god doesn't exist doesn't mean anything. You shoudl treat others how you want to be treated. What goes around comes around. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:But how can you know what "good" is without God? Anything else is just something made by a flawed human being. A perfect moral code can only be created by God. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 20:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you wish to take that stance, one could argue then how could man be imperfect? One of the biggest criticisms of Plato's forms was that imperfect cannot be derived from true perfection (an absolutely perfect being cannot create imperfection, it's not in their nature), thus if God is truly perfect, then humans must be perfect, yet Christians argue that is not the case. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I do not recognize the existence of god. I do however have morals, thanks to [[Aesop]], the legitimate father of morals. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questioning the Question==

If God does not exist, then all material in the bible, all theology and all material written by an army of believers is of highly dubious origin. At the very least it is 'informed speculation'; at its worst it is dangerous nonsense. That could (but does not have to) potentially mean that all 'morality' derived from a fear of hell, damnation and/or a vengeful god is invalid, and therefore irrelevant or even subversive. Many of our 'Rights and wrongs' are derived from this belief system, and our morality is the code which encapsulates the 'rights' (as opposed to the 'wrongs'). The 10 Commandments for example are an encoding of such values, which appear to rely for their validity and upon their enforcement upon a belief in an aggressive and vindictive deity.

However, there are alternatives. Humanists also derive moral codes without the need for a supporting deity. Transhumanists who believe that after a [[technological singularity]] has occured, human beings will transcend the form that we currently inhabit, are intensely concerned with ethical issues. God is nowhere in these debates; they are all about how we have a responsibility to the universe, the earth and our fellow creatures, both now and in the future. This is not about being 'right' or 'wrong', it is pragmatism and it is the responsible use of intellect and the application of prudence and common sense.

This means that morality based purely on a belief in God is highly fragile, for if someone chooses NOT to believe in God, their moral code fractures and they can basically behave with impunity. In medieval times where theological & scientific understanding of the world was in the hands of a few, and the horizons of the common people were limited, and the idea of God was an understandable extrapolation of the patriarchal system of family and local government, a god-based morality might have worked extremely well.However, a simple belief in a universal God in a world where we are citizens of a global community with different sets of core beliefs, different religions and therefore different moral codes, does not work at all, and, it can be argued leads to the very situation we find ourselves in today, with disillusioned sections of society who do not accept conventional moral and ethical norms of behaviour.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Common Good==
So then as your own deity you can transform morality to fit your own worldview? You also seem to say there is no right or wrong to base common sense on. Then as a Humanist you can create your own morality to whatever you feel will benefit your universe. I would question where you feel responsibility toward something greater, such as the universe, while at the same time rejecting something else greater than yourself that is acknowledged by your fellow creatures.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:No man or woman is an island. There is society, and there is consensus. Whatever makes society work, and perform its functions will be an effective moral code. Different societies will do it differently. It is not an individual choice. Look at it this way. In England we drive on the left; all other European countries drive on the right. This is purely convention and is completely arbitrary, but we do it to allow traffic to flow smoothly. It is also convention that we do not murder, pillage and rape. However, there are (and have been) occasions where moral codes have allowed these. In war we are allowed to murder people. Pillaging was a common event in historic times: the Romans, Greeks, the Vikings all engaged in it. Rape was a feature of life in medieval England; at one time the Lord of the Manor had the right to sleep with any new bride. All of these people had gods, and their behaviour was condoned by their theology. The fact is that some theologies (such as that of the Aztec's) required murder. Abraham was quite willing to kill his son, because he expected his god to require a sacrifice.
Morality = the set of conventions which allow a particular society to operate, that's all. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 20:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Of course?==

Anyone can come up with a moral code. The problem is that since its source is only human then it will subject to anyone wanting to change it. Inalienable rights will no longer exist since they merely come from people who will give or take them away whenever it's politically beneficial to whomever is in charge at the time. That would not be good for morale, would it? But of course, the question begins with the word if. If you are a godless individual then morality will be something you can change whenever it will benefit your behavior. A person who acknowledges God will not be able to play free and loose with morality set in stone. So then, who would you tend to trust your children with?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think I would trust my children with people who I know and have grown to trust, regardless of whence came their morals. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 19:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Anyone can come up with a moral code, and many do. However, society invents moral codes for its effective functioning and continued survival. It is not in our collective interest to have murder, mayhem and thievery rife. We need at least a consensus of behaviour from most people to have society function effectively, and in the main the moral code is devised to do just that. However, there are some biblical moral codes, such as 'an eye for an eye', which we have dispensed with because they are now deemed inappropriate. To kill a member of someone's family because one of their family has killed one of yours may have worked in biblical times, but not in today's society, where families are nuclear, and the code would end up destroying two families. Even the bible recognised this, when it was superseded by 'turn the other cheek'. Moral codes need to change according to circumstance and need. If there is an absolute code, backed up by a deity, things can never change, because there is always some sacred text which is held inalienable. A hard & fast code tied to a supreme deity also runs the risk of subversive re-interpretation of the code by deviants with vested interests (witness the re-interpretations of the Q'uran by radical scholars). We have seen how this can happen, and should not think that it is impossible to happen in the West. The existence of the US is testament to the fact that there were radically different interpretations of biblical moral codes in the 16th & 17th Centuries. In reality whatever moral code exists, and whatever its basis it will always be coloured with political expediency.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So you say that you would do away with having inalienable rights? Just because people have their own liberal interpretations of moral codes negates their usefullness? --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You keep on bringing up inalienable rights? What do inalienable rights have to do with God? One can believe in the inalienable rights of freedom of expression and self determination without acknowledging God. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: "Inalienable" (or "unalienable") is a term in English common law. Property rights were alienable (could be sold) or inalienable (could only be inherited). Inalienable here simply means something which is taken to be fundamental, and therefore unquestionable. The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundlesss. claiming that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. In the piece above I was pointing out that some people hold their sacred texts to be unalienable, that is they cannot be questioned. This is a ''very bad thing'', especially where sacred texts are in conflict with one another, as it denies discussion and negotiation. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It can be argued that those who accept Christianity are far more dangerous in straying from their morals than others, since any sin (aside from blasphemy) is forgivable. This, in effect, grants Christians a free pass to do whatever as long as they ask for forgiveness. I know the common responses, that repentance means making an effort not to commit such sins again, that Christians should want to live like Jesus and try not to sin, etc., but the fact remains that Christianity gives its followers the right to do almost anything they please. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: But not only Christians - any religion can be guilty of this. Look at the way that radical Islam has subverted the Q'uran to its own ends. It is the presupposition that there is a text 'revealed by God' which is the problem. By the very nature of language and human development, words change meaning over time, we constantly interpret and re-interpret. What words mean to one generation, may mean something completely different to another. The word 'gay' used to mean, light, jolly and carefree. 'Groggy' was a description of a course-grained material (grossgrain), not a state of semiconsciousness. If you suppose that a deity has revealed to you a text for all time, then because words change in meaning, it is clear that each generation will, by necessity, be forced into creating their own meanings from that text. This is where the danger lies. Let us assume that the 'revealed' word ''is'' the word of God. It is absolutly clear that not all re-interpreters of the code do, or even in principle ever could, agree; many are in conflict with each other, and some appear to be in direct contravention of the fundamental tenets of their faith. How can an ordinary person possibly be expected to decide what is right and what is wrong in this maelstrom? The fact is that we don't; moral codes are informed by, but not dictated by, religious beliefs. Moral codes are basically human social constructions, and are shared understandings of what is required to live peaceably, and ensure the continued survivial of our genes and memes into the next generation. A believer might claim that their 'god' has inspired them to do this, and I can't argue with that, as it is their belief. However, that does not explain why atheists, pagans and other non-monotheists would choose to live their lives according to the same shared moral codes as them. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 05:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Christianity does not give its followers the right to do almost anything they please. Nor do Christians have a free pass to do whatever. Anyone that hides behind a label they think will protect them from harm are mistaken. Chances are that they have abandoned all morality their religion requires of them. It seems that everyone here lives in some sort of Christianized society here. So that when the God word is invoked only the Christians are thought of. The Inalienable rights of morality that are common to all such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't need to come from God. You can let those things be given or taken at the pleasure of your local autocratic official by invoking the common good. Since there is no such thing as a moral right or wrong. When people are unable to discriminate between good or evil they will not recognise any moral wrong. A Humanist doesn't recognize any higher authority and may change the morality at their pleasure, whatever that may be. From the 1st Humanist Manifesto to the Amsterdam Declaration. The Christian can't do this since their original texts don't change. If you're a Humanist, what moral rights do you have that are guaranteed permanent? Or considered to be inalienable that won't be changed with a subsequent manifesto?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For the love of all that is good and decent, now you're saying a humanist can't recognize good and evil? These are not concepts that require a God! You are slandering large portions of the world population.

:::*Humanists can change their morals at a whim
:::*Humanists can't recognize good and evil

:::It's a shame your concept of God-given morals doesn't include one about civil behavior. Mine does, and my morals don't come from God. Funny how that works out. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Right, but it's alright when Christianity is being slandered here. I don't object to different viewpoints, even incorrect ones, without accusations of slander. I'm being as civil as anyone else on this. If you are a Humanist, you still haven't answered my question. It's an honest question? But if you won't then yes it would funny indeed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, no, it's not all right for Christianity to be slandered. You have made too points which are deeply offensive to people and aren't true. That's slander and it is uncivil. As for your question, please define "moral rights" and I'll give it a swing. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Human rights are basically moral rights. But how do you claim to derive these rights from? I claim inalienable moral rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being endowed upon me by my Creator. Freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to defend oneself would be moral and human individual rights. Are yours from God or an institution? If from God then they can't be taken away by others. If from an institution such as a government then they can be taken away in an instant. What is the guarantor of your rights that are human and moral? If God doesn't exist then moral rights and wrongs can be considered relative to the whim of those in authority over others. So that an individuals morality of right and wrong will be rendered meaningless. Savvy?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I derive those rights based on a couple things. The fact that, in general, my fellow man knows that the benefit of the community is to his benefit as well. And, failing that, that my fellow man knows that if he denies those rights to someone, that those rights will be denied him.

::::More importantly, morals are not rights. They are responsibilities. They are the responsibility of everyone that lives in a community.

::::And while the Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges a creator, enumerates those rights in a general way, it also dictatates that: to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And that it is the Constitution of the United States, which does not mention a creator, which delineates and enforces those rights. Both documents, of course, are products of the Enlightenment. You should learn about the Enlightenment. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2007-04-05T16:46:49Z

Rebiu:

So there must exist some objective truth? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is the ultimate failing point of postmodernist thinking. In philosophical terms, they say that each person has their own narrative (story), but any push of a meta narrative (overarching life story... eg. The Biblical God created the world and hs a plan for each of us) is viewed as oppressive. Of course then they become the oppressors because their meta narrative is that there should be no meta narrative :-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the problem with all absolutes. They contradict themselves. We conservatives have the God given privilege to apply different standards to out own arguments than we apply to the arguments we oppose. How else could conservapedia be so incredible conflicted.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::If all absolutes contradict themselves, then is the claim "all absolutes contradict themselves" also a contradiction? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure what Rebiu meant, but I think it is important to realize (at least from my current understanding of it) 1) a meta narrative is required (without meta narrative, we have no purpose other than what we happen to scramble together ourselves), and 2) there can be only one meta narrative. In other words, saying there are multiple absolutes is a contradiction because there can only be one absolutely absolute. In terms of belief systems, it could be said that either Islam or the teachings of Jesus Christ are correct, or neither of them are. They cannot both be correct. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I said God has given me, as a conservative, the privilege to apply different standards to my arguments[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I sense some facetiousness in the tone of your writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I am very interested in where you got this message from God. Can you cite a bible passage? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That is facetious to me as I sense some facetiousness in all remarks that invoke divine inspiration in others, they usually do not agree. One does not need to validate their faith to other mortals. My relationship to god is between He and I.[[unsigned|Rebiu]]

::::God gives you the privilege because you are a sentient '''human being'''. Your privilege to "adjust" your reality to your political views is between you and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your facetiously toned attack on my faith amounts to a violation of the spirit of conservapedia. Your obviously facetious attitude towards faith base understanding is an attack on the foundations of the conservative movement. "The Devil hides behind a facetious tone."[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not only that, but he also hides behind liberalism, homosexuality, evolutionism, Islam, and The Omen. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Contraception

2007-04-03T03:17:00Z

Rebiu: /* Other */

''Statistics on various methods under construction.''

'''Contraception''' (Lat. ''against conception'') generally refers to methods of preventing pregnancy (birth control). There are many different methods, each having its own level of effectiveness and safety. The safest and most effective form of birth control is [[abstinence]]. The argument could be made that this is not actually "birth control" as there was never a risk for a pregnancy, but in common parlance, abstinence is the first line of protection.
Except for condoms, most methods offer little protection against [[STD|sexually transmitted disease]]s.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control</ref>

== Barrier Methods ==

*Male condom: latex condoms are the most effective method of preventing STDs. 85% effective against pregnancy, increased to 95% if used with intravaginal spermicide.
*Female Condom
*Sponge: 85% effectiveness
*Cervical cap: about 85% effectiveness
*Diaphragm: about 84% effectiveness
*Shield: 85% effectiveness

== Hormonal Methods ==

*Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCPs): 92-99% effective when used as directed
*Depoprogesterone
*Vaginal ring
*"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence")
*Patch: 99.7% effective

== Other ==

*Intrauterine device (medicated and unmedicated)
*Withdrawal
*Spermicide: about 70% effectiveness when used alone
*Sterilization
*nonvaginal intercourse(oral and anal intercourse)

== Religious Perspectives ==

[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/birthcontrol.html Information on Birth Control]

==References==
<references/>

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-04-03T02:24:10Z

Rebiu: /* No */

{{debate}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Here it is again Ruchki and with the logical examples. The entire "War on Terror" is a farce meant to advance the conservative agenda and enrich the political leaders who started it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html economy saved].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm "The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad."][http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208055.htm Iraqi deal unusualy generous to oil companies][[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Being conservative does not mean blindly supporting the current administration[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-04-03T02:21:42Z

Rebiu: /* No */

{{debate}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html economy saved].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm "The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad."][http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208055.htm Iraqi deal unusualy generous to oil companies][[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Being conservative does not mean blindly supporting the current administration[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-04-03T02:06:01Z

Rebiu: /* No */

{{debate}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html economy saved].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm "The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad."][http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208055.htm Iraqi deal unusualy generous to oil companies][[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left thre after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-04-03T01:54:14Z

Rebiu: /* No */

{{debate}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html economy saved].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left thre after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-04-03T01:51:19Z

Rebiu: /* No */

{{debate}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].

== Yes ==

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left thre after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-04-03T01:49:40Z

Rebiu: /* No */

{{debate}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left thre after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?

2007-04-03T01:41:37Z

Rebiu: /* Yes */

==No==
Not at all. In fact the two go together... God's wrath being poured out on Jesus Christ, who was bearing our sin willingly. Then, conquering death, which was the last enemy to conquer, He rose bodily from the dead. If He was not risen, that means basically everyone in the New Testament, including Jesus Himself, was a liar. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If he rose was resurrected from death what was the sacrifice.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Only sons are sacrificed all the time and without the benefit of resurrection. What made this one so earth shattering.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The difference is that this one had a message of salvation for humanity that nobody had ever considered before and his death gave the weight of ultimate conviction to that message.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
====This has the sound of a "trick" question====

Like: Lets see who answers "yes" and jump 'em!

This might sound like Roman Catholic bashing but I do believe this is the actual teaching of the RCC:
Christ is sacrificed anew at each Mass. The Liturgy is called "The Sacrifice of the Mass." There are those who disagree with this POV citing Hebrews, (mainly), to repudiate this specific teaching. I'll get you chapter and verse if we actually need it. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looks like you were wrong as someone posted yes and they were not attacked. Perhaps this conspiracy would have played out if you had not spoiled the trap.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?

2007-04-03T01:39:39Z

Rebiu: /* This has the sound of a "trick" question */

==No==
Not at all. In fact the two go together... God's wrath being poured out on Jesus Christ, who was bearing our sin willingly. Then, conquering death, which was the last enemy to conquer, He rose bodily from the dead. If He was not risen, that means basically everyone in the New Testament, including Jesus Himself, was a liar. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If he rose was resurrected from death what was the sacrifice.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Only sons are sacrificed all the time and without the benefit of resurrection. What made this one so earth shattering.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
====This has the sound of a "trick" question====

Like: Lets see who answers "yes" and jump 'em!

This might sound like Roman Catholic bashing but I do believe this is the actual teaching of the RCC:
Christ is sacrificed anew at each Mass. The Liturgy is called "The Sacrifice of the Mass." There are those who disagree with this POV citing Hebrews, (mainly), to repudiate this specific teaching. I'll get you chapter and verse if we actually need it. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looks like you were wrong as someone posted yes and they were not attacked. Perhaps this conspiracy would have played out if you had not spoiled the trap.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-04-02T19:41:52Z

Rebiu:

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-04-02T19:39:10Z

Rebiu:

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

==No==
Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.

:Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

<<...Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it...>>

Only then? So, why do you (Global you, aimed at Christian Conservatives...) keep telling people not to do it? If you just stop telling people not to do it, it will stop happening, Yes?

Citizzzen

:Only if those animals are told not to do it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly correct.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2007-04-02T15:27:17Z

Rebiu:

Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?

2007-04-02T14:56:23Z

Rebiu: /* Yes */

==No==
Not at all. In fact the two go together... God's wrath being poured out on Jesus Christ, who was bearing our sin willingly. Then, conquering death, which was the last enemy to conquer, He rose bodily from the dead. If He was not risen, that means basically everyone in the New Testament, including Jesus Himself, was a liar. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If he rose was resurrected from death what was the sacrifice.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Only sons are sacrificed all the time and without the benefit of resurrection. What made this one so earth shattering.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
====This has the sound of a "trick" question====

Like: Lets see who answers "yes" and jump 'em!

This might sound like Roman Catholic bashing but I do believe this is the actual teaching of the RCC:
Christ is sacrificed anew at each Mass. The Liturgy is called "The Sacrifice of the Mass." There are those who disagree with this POV citing Hebrews, (mainly), to repudiate this specific teaching. I'll get you chapter and verse if we actually need it. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2007-04-02T14:53:08Z

Rebiu:

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2007-03-31T20:39:47Z

Rebiu:

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-03-31T20:18:18Z

Rebiu: Was a personal attack

Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?

2007-03-31T20:15:16Z

Rebiu: /* No */

Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?

2007-03-31T15:00:09Z

Rebiu: New page: ==Yes== ==No==

==Yes==

==No==

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-31T14:59:13Z

Rebiu:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a specie?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a specie?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# I heard a story on the news about an american company sending international mercenary troops into Iraq. [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothng?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Should the Dies committee be reconvened to combat terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Single Sex VS Co-ed Schooling]]
# [[That Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [[Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
Feel free to add additional debate topics

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-31T14:57:45Z

Rebiu:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a specie?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a specie?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# I heard a story on the news about an american company sending international mercenary troops into Iraq. [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothng?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Should the Dies committee be reconvened to combat terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Single Sex VS Co-ed Schooling]]
# [[That Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [http://www.example.com Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]
Feel free to add additional debate topics