Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Huh! Is this an official thread for taking sides?
Who isn't for me is against me, and the like? Do any of you have a saying to start or stop the American/Iraqi crisis?

Can this thread be moved OUTSIDE SEIV, Shrapnel Admins and Moderators, please? Some place like a new area to bash everything you dislike about world politics?

Thanks, guys. Make my day.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Actually Dread, we do tend to discuss all kinds of non-SE4 stuff on this forum. This is quite normal.

Furthermore, this is probably one of the few places you'll find where a discussion like this expressing both sides of the debate can be held without it degenerating into flames...

If you don't like this thread, I respectfully suggest you go read one of the ones not labelled [OT].

[ February 25, 2003, 16:55: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Point taken, Dogscoff. Should this mean that ALL Shrapnel community is to get here and voice their oppinions over this issue? I suggest that this HOT topic is placed somewhere else, that's all, but it's your playground, not mine.

Thanks.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I am not going to lock this down just yet. As an OT thread you guys have a little latitude. I would ask that you try to remain civil. And I am going to edit the title to something a little less inflamatory. The current one is just asking for trouble.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I agree. As long as there is no name calling and everyone remains CIVIL I think there is no problem with having active discussion on stuff like this when it is clearly labeled off topic.

I would voice my opinion on the subject but I have other avenues to argue these issues http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Play nice kids.

(And yes I still read these forums from time to time).

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Since no one has posted anything interesting elsewhere I'll muck rake here -

Polls are polls but. . .

a recent gallup poll found that

"those with postgraduate degrees were the most likely to oppose an invasion of Iraq.

Pew found support among college graduates was 13 points lower than among those without degrees. Backing among rural residents was 16 points higher than among city dwellers. White evangelical Christians were the strongest backers of all -- 85 percent in the Pew poll."

You guys can draw your own conclusions - but it seems that if you are educated and have some level of intellectual curiosity you are more likely to oppose a war.

[ February 25, 2003, 19:16: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Public opinion polls are inherently biased by those asking them, and are never very accurate. Relying on them is a bad idea.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Well, considering that most education is not how to think, but what to think (whether conservative or liberal colleges), it's not surprising that more post-grads would be anti-war. That's like being surprised that most college professors are anti-war--but I don't see the public at large rushing to put them in charge of things. Most people wouldn't give two figs about what "some professor" thinks, because they are perceived (often rightly) as being intellectual elitists who don't know enough common English to effectively communicate with the plumber.

Education != Intelligence
Education also != Correct view on any given issue

[ February 25, 2003, 20:16: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, G.W.Bush proclaimed recently that US will us nuclear weapons as a preventive strike.

No other nation on Earth has such a doctrine and yes, it includes Russia as well, whatever propaganda you have been feeded by western media.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that a link would be in order here. I don't remember him saying that. What I heard was a policy statement.

You might want to look up NATO's policy for responce to bio and chem attack. Also the WP had some very interesting rules about first use.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Official American policy for decades during the cold war was that we would use nuclear weapons first if neccesary to stop a Soviet convetional invasion of our allies in Europe. This is not a change in policy with the current administration.

Geoschmo