Dr. Dalek

I ment they were foundless and therefore worthless in my eyes because you have not presented your "information" as evidence to me. You need to support your claims of conspiracy with evidence. I have heard that also, even dug up an article on it once, I usualy do not present that because I always got shot down with a Time Magazine article that said "We were Wrong". I have no idea why people think that Time Magizine is more credable than my sources but they do. What sources do you have, cause if they are good ones I want to use them. War can be good for the economy actualy.

But isn't that just a "Black and White veiw of things anyway? That wan't a lie it was an international mistake. The White House believed it, the senate believed it, other countries believed it! It was an honset mistake not a crazy conspiracy theory! Then your opinion is foundless and therefore worthless. It is not the dishonesty that I find unliky any idiot can see that a war would do very little to help us get Oil,

Doesn't mean it was the intention either, but you don't seem to open to that possibility, at all. You seem to assume that they must have planned to profit from the oil and it didn't "work out for them" but where is the evidence of this planing? Where is the evidence that this plan for oil was put into action? Were is the evidence that it failed? If they had planed to profit from Iraqi oil they made one crucial error. WE GET OUR OIL FROM VENEZUALA! The point isn't to kill all of them, just kill enough so that the rest are left scattered and dispirited. Are you talking about the problem with Saddam, or the terrorists? If the terrorists then we have to respond in force because we know for a fact that their primary motavation is to see us dead. How can you negotiate with someone who wants you dead? If Saddam, and the Iraqi military, they obviously had it coming, the people were mistreated, miserable, killed senslesly, and he was bribing the UN through the Oil for food program. Thats wh I don't think we should help other countries unless we have to like in the case of Iraq. Someone has to do it and the UN sure isn't going to do it. Whats G. I. Joe have to do with this? Again, evidence, where is the evidence for these conspiracy theories? Whats wrong with that? What you think we can handle every country in the world at once? Come on do you seriously think the re alignment of every country in the world is this countrys top priority? If it is a seriously problematic country like Iraq and we happen to be in the area we go after it. In the case of North Korea, Bush probably would have gone after it already. However he might just be trying to use more diplomacy than Iraq because of all the complaints he got last time for acting when he did.

Because a false threat planted in their minds by Al Quead Propaganda, or they could just be predisposed to hate Americans. The thing is you are assuming that Terrorists follow logical lines of reasoning. THEY ARE RELIGIOUS FACISTS! They don't need logic just passion and hate. Compairing a bank robber to the United States is like compairing Swiss cheese to Ross Perot. Bank robbers expect to get away without getting caught; since money is the part of this argument we could say that the robber expected to get free money. The US government cannot make that assumption because in the past Oil prices had increased along with events in that region, so it could be expected that it would happen again. Furthermore there is the cost of the War itself to consider, if the governments motavation was Oil they can't be making much money from it if it costs so much, or if they are spending all sorts of money overseas to fix the stuff that got blown up during the invasion. So the administration must have expected to lose money, both in the government, and in the private sector because of gas, and energy costs. You may not know this, being from New Zealand as you are, butTHE UNITED STATES DOSN'T GET ITS OIL FROM THE MIDDLEAST! IT COMES FROM VENEZUELA! The only people I have ever seen defend the Oil motavation theory are conspiracy theorists, I know your smarter than that. But we are flushing out who are predisposed to want to kill us fourign devils, probably because of their upbringing. And we use the oportunity when they come out to attack to kill them.

I read about a study done that sugested most invetabrates are incapable of feeling pain, their neurological system isn't sophisticated enough. The thing was the study caused an uproar from PETA because they believe that lobsters can feel pain and don't deserve to be boiled. Don't ask me why. Actualy they don't have brains as we kn ow them at all just a nervous cluster called a ganglion.

We hardly took his walet, the only thing Iraq had in terms of value to us was oil, but get all of our oil from Venazuala, and the war only made it worse in terms of oil prices. If you look back you would see that oil prices took a sharp spike around the same time as the war, same goes for the Persian Gulf War. Given this it seems unlikly that Oil was the motavation. Of course they were terrified, they were being attacked. Also you seem to be forgeting that our government is Us. We are the government, who we elect and what we vote for determines the course of events, for the government to "Take advantage of the situation" would be futile and useless because these days all a war realy does back home is stir up protesters and propaganda, and over seas we had little other motavation asides from terrorists and other enamies such as Saddam. True, but even that is a step forward. ONce they start acting a little less barbaric I feel it is only a matter of time before they take things down a few more notches. If they get positive results it will only fule more support towards human rights.

Thats the point, we have gotten rid of a hostile foe (namly Saddam) and created a place to fush out Al Queta members in the east to attack us on a new front. The people who are joining Al Queda now probably would have joined Al Queada anyway, we are just creating a situation to flush them out and kill all that attack us. You may consider this underhanded, but I believe we are moraly superior to Al Queada, even with these methods and I can support this point with logical evidence if you wish.

Ok, I'm going to try and jump inot your head here. You are interested in werewolves, and now you have learned about these furries and find the concept of their sexualy based fantasies disturbing. So you are trying to keep your interest in werewolves but are still worried about being associated with these furries whose fantasies are related but serve a sexual purpose as opposed to your interest in werewolves which I would assume has a different motavation.

Yes but that dosn't matter. No one panicked for one (except maybe the UN who generaly finds any action other than passig resolutions to be bad), for another thing the attack on Iraq was an attack on terrorism, just not a direct one. Its called multi-tasking. We get rid of one UN bribing, people killing, skud missle firing sleeze bag, then we give the a place to pour into, over the boarders or from there homes in the area, and use it as a second front to fight on, divding there forces so there will be less attacks at home. Yes there are alot of sheeple out there, but if you don't think that the resons the Government gave us, or the reasons I have sugested, then what reasons do you think they have? Yes it does. China has been getting better and they already have effective nuclear technology.

So how is this George Bush's fault? So he was Lawful Evil, all the more reason to get rid of him. It was well known before hand that getting rid of a government in such am unstable region and trying to replace it would result in stuff like this. Moreover when we have to do something we can't controll how people will respond to it, and we know for a fact we needed to git rid of Saddam. He may not have had WMDs but he did want them and we do know he was bribing UN officals through this Oil for Food thing, so he could have eventualy got them if he put the right bribes in the right places and waited long enough. So you can see we needed to get rid of him so it only makes sense that while we were in the region fighting terrorists we might as well have taken him out while we were there.

You don't need to stop. Politicans are like little annoying siblings; ignore them and they go away.

I know I'm just being a smartalic. (pardon my language) I was just hoping for a disscusion that involved as little religion and politics as possible. Yet I am foiled.

Let me pop you a quick question though, how many of those deaths were terrorists. (not just Al Qaeda)

There are many polticans whose names arn't Alen, but that is not the point.

How did I know someone was ging to make this political?

I resent that. EX-TER-MIN-ATE! EX-TER-MIN-ATE! EX-TER-MIN-ATE! (Just kidding)

I Have Returned!

Okay for a second lets assume that there is intelligent life out there in the Universe besides us (if you count us), and these aliens want to investigate our planet for some odd reason. Such a visitation would be the cliche "Most significant event in human history." However, how would we be able to tell this event from every other UFO that turned out to be a mistake, or an aircaraft, or a hoax, or was discredited because of the involvement of conspiracy theorists?

What if you apply Naturalistic Logic? Then wouldn't the Logical morality seem illogical.

Well I'm back, I have my "Ducks in a row" as it were and I will try to embrace the more rational side of my personality that seriously considers posts and dsn't post on a whim. Dispite my belife in the importance of industry, technology, and human life I often wonder how long we can continue at the pace we are going. I tend to think that eventualy we will go through a time were our population is so dense that as a society we will be suseptable to diseases, or we run out of food and our population dies back. My ultimate vision of humanity is a species that has figured out that they don't need a population of six billion to accomplish a rich culture amazing feats science and technology. I have no idea if this goal is acheivable, or even possible, but I think if it was we would be a lot better off for it. At the same time I tend to think that we humans might have an inflated veiw of ourselves and at times exagerate the certanty of our negative effects on the environment. I think I read an artical that supports my point a while ago. I'll dig it out if I can. Yes, but in the context of the "Accuracy of an Inconveinient Truth" Bascule was trying to use the the Scientific concensus as evidence to support his point. Or at least thats how it seemed to me.

Just to let you know, your right. I won't leave, but I'm taking a sebatical. I need to remind myself of a few things. I'll be gone a week or two. Hope no one misses me too much, bye

Opps, Is there a way I could cancel an account or transfer my satus to a new one with a different screen name and password? All this ammounts to is that I feel bad, I've made mistakes on this site that I know I'm smart enough to avoid and I feel somewhat humiliated and ashamed that I have offended people that don't deserve it. I just would like a chance to make another first impression and learn from my mistakes without being defined by them in other people's eyes.

I've heard so much stuff about global warming over the years it all just sounds the same to me. My opinion has been for quite a while, based on what I have learned from reasearch online, that since most of the scientic conclusions reached on global warming are labeled by the scientists as "Uncertain" I see it as fairly reliable to consider that there is a natural reason for it as we are at the end of a warming cycle that started at the end of the last ice age. Granted I'm no expert, but I've kind of been galvinized into ridiculing people who always seem to believe that gloabl warming is a distaster becasue I know that the atmospheric scientists call it uncertain but average joes on the street, smart people I know, and news media always treat it as a major disaster just over the horizon. Also people tend to attibute almost everything to global warming.

Not quite. What I was trying to say is that a scientific concensus dosen't prove anything.