Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

the whole middle east will soon be occupied by UN forces


all your oil are belong to us




I for one say grow hemp, the future will be all hemp

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

Religion plays big part in Ameriacn politics and life, overtly or not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

DIDM wrote:the whole middle east will soon be occupied by American forces upholding a UN mandate.


all your oil are belong to us




I for one say grow hemp, the future will be all hemp

fixed.

Mr. Burning wrote:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

Religion plays big part in Ameriacn politics and life, overtly or not.

"God Save The Queen" and all that...

lots of countries have antiquated traditions that reference god, doesn't mean that every person living in said places is a religious zealot.

Which is the point: not every person living in a Muslim country is either, and wishing blanket destruction on them based upon said false assumption is idiotic at best...

The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's

AustonT wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's

And most kids loathe repeating it and/or could care less about it or even know what it means or refers to. In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.

It is far from expressing the current sentiment of the majority of the population, which again is the point being missed: not everyone who live sin a given places agrees with or supports those things that outsiders want to take issue with.

AustonT wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's

Actually, its a lot older than that. The original version was written in the 19th century, and it was adopted by Presidential Proclamation in the same time period; though Congress didn't adopt it formally until 1942. What happened in the 50's was the addition of "under God".

Also, whether or not something is 20 years old or 200 years old has no bearing on whether or not its antiquated.

CT GAMER wrote:

AustonT wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's

And most kids loathe repeating it and/or could care less about it or even know what it means or refers to. In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.

It is far from expressing the current sentiment of the majority of the population, which again is the point being missed: not everyone who live sin a given places agrees with or supports those things that outsiders want to take issue with.

I guess in place of a pledge of allegiance to thier country and it's flag they could pay for thier own education.

AustonT wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

AustonT wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance isn't antiquated, it's from the 50's

And most kids loathe repeating it and/or could care less about it or even know what it means or refers to. In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.

It is far from expressing the current sentiment of the majority of the population, which again is the point being missed: not everyone who live sin a given places agrees with or supports those things that outsiders want to take issue with.

I guess in place of a pledge of allegiance to thier country and it's flag they could pay for thier own education.

Which is why most people pretend and go along with what is very often a hollow tradition that few care about...

Your point?

AustonT wrote:
I guess in place of a pledge of allegiance to thier country and it's flag they could pay for thier own education.

Public education predates even the actual date of origin for the pledge, and is far older than the current incarnation of it, which seems to indicate that they are not closely connected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:
Which is why most people pretend and go along with what is very often a hollow tradition that few care about...

As far as I know, it isn't even a requirement of public schools anyway, at least not at the federal level.

How many people here are actually in school and know what theyre talking about?
The pledge is quite far from an obsolete tradition. In fact, i believe its mandatory to stand for the pledge whether you say it or not.
Also, i highly disagree with the implication that religion is a big part of american government, because youre not even close.

Jollydevil wrote:The pledge is quite far from an obsolete tradition. In fact, i believe its mandatory to stand for the pledge whether you say it or not.

By law no. Lawyers had it done away with awhile ago. You neither have to stand or say the pledge at least as a matter of law. No school I attended even did the pledge after the 6th grade. I imagine there are probably still some schools that do the pledge, but I haven't seen any. Of course, I'm not everywhere at once

Jollydevil wrote:
The pledge is quite far from an obsolete tradition. In fact, i believe its mandatory to stand for the pledge whether you say it or not.

Being made to do something is not the same as people caring about and liking what they are doing.

In many cases it is a hollow act for many people who do it because they don't want to be seen NOT doing it...

Kids do it because they are made ot do so before they even know what it means. It becomes an almost robotic response and action in the early years. Now some may becpome patriotic and desire ot do it, but for many it is public peer pressure that motivates them and little more...

CT GAMER wrote:In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.

This says far more about the teachers in the school where you work than it does about the pledge.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:

As far as I know, it isn't even a requirement of public schools anyway, at least not at the federal level.

That is my understanding as well.

On the local level it is often parents and others who make a big stink if it isn't happening, and school admins who pressure teachers to make sure it is happenign so that they don't have to field calls from angry parents/grandparents...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:In fact half the teachers in the school I work at would prefer to skip it.

This says far more about the teachers in the school where you work than it does about the pledge.

It has everything to do with the pledge and the general perception of it's importance by the public (particularly younger generations).

Teachers in my current school are little different from any of the schools that i did internships, reasearch project or subbing in, nor much different from any other schools who Ihear about, read about or know people at.

And also, this is not limited to school teachers.

Take a look at any sporting event you attend or see televised during the anthem. If you can't see the level of disinterest and feigned patriotism (half are laughing, talking, texting, and another fourth are roboticly going through the motions) while the anthem is playing, then well, your fooling yourself...

LordofHats wrote:
By law no. Lawyers had it done away with awhile ago. You neither have to stand or say the pledge at least as a matter of law. No school I attended even did the pledge after the 6th grade. I imagine there are probably still some schools that do the pledge, but I haven't seen any. Of course, I'm not everywhere at once

Yeah, I think my district stopped saying the pledge every morning in 5th grade, and stopped requiring kids to stand and recite it after 2nd. Looking back, I imagine the requirement was more about maintaining control of the classroom than it was about the pledge itself; ie. do this because you have to do what we say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
This says far more about the teachers in the school where you work than it does about the pledge.

It indicates that a significant number of teachers at the school in question consider the pledge to be a waste of time, which is anecdotal evidence speaking to the idea that the pledge is obsolete.

I'm not sure it says all that much about either the teachers, or the pledge. Though, if the trend were found to extend across the entire electorate, then that would be different.

In general, though, I imagine that the pledge is of far less significance to most people than the national anthem, and certainly lacks the anthem's cultural prominence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jollydevil wrote:
Also, i highly disagree with the implication that religion is a big part of american government, because youre not even close.

Part of American government, no. Part of American politics, yes.

Are people comparing Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose governments are RUN by Religion, whose people take 5 breaks daily to pray, to the United States who just have "under god" in their pledge?

Yes, I realize Religion is a big thing over here in the United States of Christianity, but it doesn't run our government like it does over there.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
By law no. Lawyers had it done away with awhile ago. You neither have to stand or say the pledge at least as a matter of law. No school I attended even did the pledge after the 6th grade. I imagine there are probably still some schools that do the pledge, but I haven't seen any. Of course, I'm not everywhere at once

Yeah, I think my district stopped saying the pledge every morning in 5th grade, and stopped requiring kids to stand and recite it after 2nd. Looking back, I imagine the requirement was more about maintaining control of the classroom than it was about the pledge itself; ie. do this because you have to do what we say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
This says far more about the teachers in the school where you work than it does about the pledge.

It indicates that a significant number of teachers at the school in question consider the pledge to be a waste of time, which is anecdotal evidence speaking to the idea that the pledge is obsolete.

I'm not sure it says all that much about either the teachers, or the pledge. Though, if the trend were found to extend across the entire electorate, then that would be different.

In general, though, I imagine that the pledge is of far less significance to most people than the national anthem, and certainly lacks the anthem's cultural prominence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jollydevil wrote:
Also, i highly disagree with the implication that religion is a big part of american government, because youre not even close.

Part of American government, no. Part of American politics, yes.

Organization and ritual help kids develop early behavioral skills. It introduces them to the act of obeying superiors and functioning within a group away from their birth family, whatever the activity is.

ShumaGorath wrote: and ritual help kids develop early behavioral skills. It introduces them to the act of obeying superiors and functioning within a group away from their birth family, whatever the activity is.

The current thinking is on teaching children to be invsted in building and respecting their own community and their part in it not in blind obedience per se. Kids will often come up with the same rules that adults would want/expect if asked for input, and are far more likely to follow said rules and routines if they feel invested in and to have ownership of them.

Behavior modification and the use of things like PBIS are far more effective (as seen by the data regularly collected in their use) then hollow routines like"pledging allegience to a nation under god" which has no relevance to school activity on a daily basis.

CT GAMER wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: and ritual help kids develop early behavioral skills. It introduces them to the act of obeying superiors and functioning within a group away from their birth family, whatever the activity is.

The current thinking is on teaching children to be invsted in building and respecting their own community and their part in it not in blind obedience per se. Kids will often come up with the same rules that adults would want/expect if asked for input, and are far more likely to follow said rules and routines if they feel invested in and to have ownership of them.

Behavior modification and the use of things like PBIS are far more effective (as seen by the data regularly collected in their use) then hollow routines like"pledging allegience to a nation under god" which has no relevance to school activity on a daily basis.

True, but they're a lot harder.

Huffy wrote:Personally I don't think the US would even bother getting involved in Iran, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan....would likely turn into political suicide for whoever's in power over here.

What might be seen is limited air strikes against specific facilities, to stop Iranian nuclear ambitions. Exactly how effective those strikes might be, and how Iran will respond and whether the whole thing will end up lurching into a giant clusterfeth is anyone's guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:I wasn't speaking of the Bible Belt.

Countries that are governed on a religious basis should be obliterated, was my point.

People live in those countries. Seriously, like people with families and children and all that stuff.

Religion was reasonable when everyone didn't know gak about the world and the universe, and we just said "God made us, god created us, dats the truth" hundreds of years ago.

Uh huh. Lovely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:I guess in place of a pledge of allegiance to thier country and it's flag they could pay for thier own education.

Or they could look at the schizophrenic nature of a country that continuously praises it's own freedom before making children pledge alliegance to it.

At the end of the day, pledge or don't pledge. It's no biggie and the occasional kid making headlines by going to court because he doesn't want to say it is being ridiculous, quite frankly.

But y'all have got to admit, it is a weird thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:Are people comparing Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose governments are RUN by Religion, whose people take 5 breaks daily to pray, to the United States who just have "under god" in their pledge?

Comparing is not equating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

That's my concern, Iran's leadership might be a little on the crazy side, but they're far from stupid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On June 29, 2008, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Ali Mohammed Jafari, said that if Iran were attacked by Israel or the United States, it would seal off the Strait of Hormuz, to wreak havoc in oil markets. This statement followed other more ambiguous threats from Iran's oil minister and other government officials that a Western attack on Iran would result in turmoil in oil supply.

In response, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet stationed in Bahrain across the Persian Gulf from Iran, warned that such an action by Iran would be considered an act of war, and that the U.S. would not allow Iran to effectively hold hostage nearly a third of the world's oil supply.[7]

On July 8, 2008, Ali Shirazi, a mid-level clerical aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted by the student news agency ISNA as saying to Revolutionary Guards, "The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned."[8]

An article in International Security contended that Iran could seal off or impede traffic in the Strait for a month, and an attempt by the U.S. to reopen it would likely escalate the conflict.[9] In a later issue, however, the journal published a response which questioned some key assumptions and suggested a much shorter timeline for re-opening.[10]"

Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"

Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.

As long as you are not a Korean, a Vietnamese, an Iraqi, an Afghan, a Haitian, or a civilian of numerous South African and especially South American countries.

Although I realise however that 'sticking the oar in' is an old tradition, and my natural citizenship (in the UK) is from a country that re-wrote the book on practising barbarity on foreign nations, and is responsible for so many of the continuing pockets of strife around the globe even to this day.

All I know is Iranian 'republic' is all but a twisted Monarchy, just like North Korea. or Gaddhafi's Libya (he had his son a successor)

In Iran, The so called 'Cardinal' (i don't know the real title but it's more or less Richielieu ones) has its own dynasty. having the power and authority that even surpass the presidency!

What kinda republic has the law that the member of some particular clan has the legitimacy to claim leadership??

Pacific wrote:As long as you are not a Korean, a Vietnamese, an Iraqi, an Afghan, a Haitian, or a civilian of numerous South African and especially South American countries.

Yes because we never sent aid to Haiti or any other foreign country. Besides you do know that in the Korean and Vietnamese War the US was not the aggressor right? Seriously when the US evacuated we tried to take as many civilians with us as possible so the Northern forces wouldn't execute them.

But I guess that people can retain the right to think that way, we did fight for you guys to have that right anyways.

halonachos wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"

Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.

It helps to be a massively populous country with a large economy that always enters the war late. Or we just pick on a country a fifth our size and a six thousands our economic might.

Yes, the US does a lot of heavy lifting in foreign aid. Sure, it isn't as much as other developed countries as a proportion of GDP, but telling other people off for giving but not giving as much as you is a pretty gakky way to go about life. The issue here isn't that the US does or doesn't help other countries, it isn't even about what the US actually does. It's about every time we see a mention of a country that is presently deemed a bad guy, lots of people start talking about the need to blow it up. It'd just be nice if we could all stop that nonsense.

halonachos wrote:Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.

Heh, you're correct, but basically by accident.

Australia had almost no armour in WWII. There were three tank regiments, and between them all we had about 40 light tanks. These were US tanks, so you got that part right, but they were hardly relevant to our war effort.

Not that that matters, considering ParatrooperSimon is a kiwi (if his flag is anything to go by). They actually did have tanks, a fully formed armoured brigade, constructed entirely of medium tanks... US built Shermans

halonachos wrote:
Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.

Well, I think the United States first of all has to recognize the world for what it is.

Sam Huntington

sebster wrote:Not that that matters, considering ParatrooperSimon is a kiwi (if his flag is anything to go by). They actually did have tanks, a fully formed armoured brigade, constructed entirely of medium tanks... US built Shermans

They presumably also had sheep cavalry.

I had expected that their tanks were also constructed of sheep.

Yes, I assume that New Zealand is like Settlers of Cataan where every tile is grassland.