blike

Jana is in Toronto, and is not Winkler

Homer spilled beer on the server. Database went wack, that's all I can confirm at the moment :\

All the posts have been restored and the database is back to normal, so post away! Sorry about that!

FP = first post

I took the ministats down to test something and forgot to put it back up Sorry about that!

If you've got any recommended science sites, post them here. They'll be a new side-block with the site of the month link, and the member who suggested it.

Essentially the same crimes that warrant the death penalty also warrant life in prison. Thus, there really is not much opportunity for an innocent person to have their life back, unless they are excused later due to other evidence (which certainly is a reality, but not very common). You argued that life in prison is more punishment than the death penalty, but then you argue that the death penalty might execute innocent people. What happens if an innocent person gets life in prison? They are, according to the argument, being punished more than if they were put to death. Thus, you should not advocate life in prison either. Do you see what I'm saying?

As far as the FP, I don't think it's really relevant to what this board is for. I see lots of forums that have them, but they're rarely used, and I can't see them being especially relevant here.

Well, those are no problem, but we'd need a cool design/quote/something to put on there first, and I'm not exactly captain creative.

In the event that you need to contact an admin or moderator, please use the private messaging system. A list of administrators and moderators is available; click the icon to the right of a name to send a new message. If you cannot log in or need to contact us by email, send your message to staff at scienceforums dot net.

Start by spelling skills right Reading good writing always helps.

Hey, no using those tags outside the general discussion area.

Mikel, invite him to the forum

Reference sayonara (props for predicting it sayo).

Be careful with the oxygen/acetylene bomb. Someone blew one up down here for the fourth of July that shattered windows and sent people to the hospital.

Sit up straight in your chair. Lift your right foot off the ground and move it in clockwise circles. Now, draw the number 6 in the air with your right hand. Your foot will change directions. LOLLYROFFLE!

I wonder where Adam is these days. I knew him before science forums. We used to idle in the same AOL chatroom (back when AOL was cool...or was it ever?). He often tried to send me thoughts remotely through the computer. I never got any though :/

nm

Perhaps, I don't know. I think the administration has pretty much moved on past the WMD thing and wants out as soon as possible. I really don't see any evidence that the US government intends to stay until they find WMD.

1991: UN weapons inspectors report that that Iraq has concealed much of its nuclear and chemical weapons programs. It is the first of many such reports over the next decade, pointing out Iraq's thwarting of the UN weapons inspectors (July 30) 1997: The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23). Iraq expells the American members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13). 1998: Iraq suspends all cooperation with the UN inspectors (Jan. 13). UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. (Feb. 23) Saddam Hussein puts a complete halt to the inspections (Oct. 31). Iraq agrees to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors (Nov. 14), but by a month later, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise (Dec. 15). 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb. Richard Butler, former head of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to disarm Iraq is an expert in arms control, international security issues, the United Nations and the Middle East

"His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting." "Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights."" "Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons". Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later""

Forswear: 1. To renounce or repudiate under oath. 2. To renounce seriously. # To disavow under oath; deny. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

No, it's the only moral choice. Off with his head. Nothing else needs to be said. In return for us to stop shooting at him, Saddam agreed to a certain checklist. Unfortunately, he didn't quite follow through on his word (suprise suprise), and the UN didn't really care. They were too busy smuggling funds from the food-for-oil program. All major intelligence at the time (yes, that includes foreign intelligence) indicated that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD (post-1990) and that he might have even had some already. He even sought enriched uranium. Must have been for the National Iraq Nuclear Plant which was going to be dedicated to "the Iraqi people, for their wonderful dedication to me". The fact that Saddam kept kicking out inspectors rightfully raised some eyebrows. But hey, I'm sure he wasn't hiding anything. He's an honest guy and stuff. We'll give the mass murderer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he didn't have any, but the fact of the matter is everybody thought he did. It's real easy now to sit back and proclaim "Teh US SUX, NO WMD". Hindsight has 20/20. Ok then. Iraq is better off now than before. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections. President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002.

rofl.

There were 648 new posts yesterday!