The AK-47 is a superior weapon, but the MIGs and T-34's are admittedly old.

Still, from a battlefield view, Iran has more difficult terrain than Afghanistan. Keep in mind our brave soldiers have struggled while using our most advanced weapons opposition which are effectively using sticks and stones when compared to Iran's weapons.

My support was, at one point, the polar opposite and I believed the Iran threat to be a fabrication by war mongering politicians. I have since learned, after talking to several friends who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, that Iran forces are indeed well trained and certainly a threat. It turns out what they lose in out dated weaponry, is more than made up by their training and geography. Addition to my online research, my sources have been several Marines and Army soldiers who are enlisted and Officers. I have gathered very similar feedback from both.

Bring in the Russians! Now, things get very ugly. Russians and other Iranian friends have a steady supply of new, modern weapons that are made in Israel and France. Similar to the weapons used against our soldiers in Iraq, these weapons are no problem for Iran's rich friends who share similar interests.

While I agree Iran does not currently have modern weapons, they have powerful allies and they are well on their way to developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran is the only country who has a chance to become a nuclear power that is actually seeking nuclear capabilities.

NUCLEAR = VERY BAD

Iran is the only politically unstable government that is approaching nuclear capability.

UNSTABLE + NUCLEAR = HORRIFYING

Iran is the only government with significant influence by radical religious sects that is approaching nuclear capability.

UNSTABLE + RADICAL RELIGION + NUCLEAR = CATASTROPHIC

Iran has allies who have cash, support nuclear development, and hate the USA.

UNSTABLE + RADICAL RELIGION + NUCLEAR + ALLIES = HOLY S%&T;

I noticed you have used strong language to make your point. I certainly admire the passion with which you frame your argument. However, if the debate is entitled Satanism vs Christianity, then, from a purely academic standpoint, the results are interesting:

1. By your admission in your last dispute, Christianity is well organized religion with broad membership. Satanism is not as cited in your last post stating, "many Satanist keep their thoughts to themselves."

2. Christianity teaches a focus on subservience to a purpose larger than one's self. I noticed other posts by you which show Satanism is a "me-first"religion. Anything left over can help others... if you want.

3. Christianity, with only 33% of the world's religious population, is responsible for more philanthropic endeavors than all other religions or non-government charitable giving COMBINED. According to your post, Satanists may give, but we do not know.

4. Despite holding only 33% of the world's religious population, Christianity is the most well funded religion in the world. This is because Christian's are one of the most well educated and wealthy followers; or to put it another way, Christians are more successful and share more of that success than other religions. According to your post, Satanism is not organized and, therefore no concerted efforts is possible.

It is easy to see that, when the religions are compared head to head in a "Consumer Reports" style analysis, then Christianity wins hand down.

In your rebuttal, you also mention that many of the stories are not moral, but you cite a few passages out of context. In fact, all of the stories in the Bible result in a moral lesson. I understand, however, how this may seem when one interprets the religion literally. The good news is that, if taken literally, the lessons remain helpful.

To understand the argument, one must understand the fundamentals differences of Christian views. Those who have the ability to think more abstractly understand that, while the Bible has stories seem unsavory or impossible, Christians accept the images as fact while understanding there is an overall lesson. You mentioned Job and he was a great example of this. Job's story was elaborate and extreme to show that a Christian's faith in God will yield God's blessings in the end. Admittedly, many Christians do not have the capacity think abstractly and simply glean a lesson from these stories. From my experience, these are usually sweet people with simple minds who need the ability to absorb a lesson, but cannot understand imagery. As a result, your comment about disregard for human lives and emotions is mute and immaterial at best. It is equal to complaining about the treachery of the tortoise when he tricked the hare or to complain a tortoise cannot talk. Should let our kids learn that "slow and steady wins the race" or should we cry foul?

Understandably, thousands of years later we notice scientific flaws or criticize the text, but I think most agree the authors were well beyond their time.

Many Christians just are not capable of understanding the abstract view of God and must see Him as a grand puppeteer. It is important to note that Christians who are capable of thinking in more sophisticated terms understand God and more of an entity or a positive energy with intelligence. Simply put, Christian doctrine explains God as the embodiment of good. That is pretty much it! It is important to mention this, because your rebuttal complains that Christianity is centered around worshiping God. In that lens, if the Bible is moral imagery and the Christians believe that God is good, then it is Christianity must be inherently good. I must reiterate, the focus is on the premise of God's good will, not on the technical details the authors seemed to have missed a few thousand years ago.

So, from the Christian viewpoint, subservience to God is about believing in a greater good larger than yourself. It is serving the world, the universe, mankind, everything and everyone.

You must understand also the being Christians call "Satan" is basically the Kleenex of the religion. Other words used are "evil", "the enemy" or "the devil." The Bible talks about darkness, a serpent, and a fallen angel. Christian doctrine does not even describe anyone in particular. Job's story uses satan as an enemy of God, but one character in one story. The character could have been named "Bob." This is not the same satan that is referred to in other Christian rhetoric. Instead, this is a collective term. In another post you mentioned that Christians do not understand Satanism. That is because your Satan and our idea of an enemy, sometimes called "Satan" are not the same entity.

I was particularly puzzled in your rebuttal when you mentioned "I don't know where your getting your ideas that satanism is usually a selfish and antisocial thing." and you calling this a "hasty generalization". Meanwhile, you posted in this same debate that Satanism "preaches putting yourself and your priorities above others". Your post describing Satanism defines selfish and antisocial behavior. I do applaud you for your efforts and community service. (Incidentally, Christians are told to do good acts in secret. This helps keep a Christians' focus on his mission for good and not self promotion.) Christianity teaches that we must focus on the greater good and have Faith we will be provided for. This is a COMPLETELY selfless doctrine and, believe me when I say, it is beautiful to see people who have totally dedicated themselves to the greater good.

You hoped I was joking that Christianity is a minority. I was not. The fact is that Christians only account for 33% of religious believers. It may be one of the top 5 religions and it may dwarf Satanism in membership, but 33% is still not a majority. It is just a math thing, not a joke.

I can understand why a Satanist must enjoy this debate. A self serving religion is certainly threatened by putting other first or social welfare. I have read tenants of many other religions, including Satanism. I can see great qualities in all of them and some matters with which I do not agree. I can also understand how some people may question Christianity. However, if the debate is about adding up Christianity and Satanism in a head to head comparison, then the choice is clearly pro-Christianity. Just as some people still actually spend money on Blackberry phones, one cannot argue with a preference.

Many of the opposing responses are disappointing at best. While some of the remarks are just plain juvenile, I notice a common bond. Most who support the idea of satanism simply enjoy antisocial behavior and the ensuing attention it generates. It is similar to the sensationalism of a shock jock on the radio who seeks only a reaction; yet many Satanic practicioners will profit only with short loved attention. This is evidenced by the lack of any organizational structure or platform of beliefs.

On the other hand, whether you subscribe to the beliefs of Christians or not, one can not argue with the facts that Christ was actually a man with recorded acts of good will. Also, despite many negative actions by a noisy fraction of Christians, the Christian doctrines teach love, acceptance, and acts of charity in order to spread its demise. In contrast, a unified theme in Satanism, besides antisocoal behavior, is self centered behavior.

I should also mention as further evidence of the overall Christian benifits, in the last 7 years, Christianity was the only religion with massive organized responses to major natural disasters across the globe, while the Christianity is an absolute minority among religious populations.