Aardvark

Your evidence consisted of CNN reporting that the USA didnt want Iran to win in the Iran-Iraq war. That doesnt seem enough to talk of the West backing Sadaam Hussien and so being terrified of an open trial with the details emerging, it all just seems a bit weak. I havent seen anything which indicates the Iraq was in any way a client state of the West. I'm not arguing that the West or the USA have never done anything wrong or got their hands dirty, merely that we need to be more rigourous if we are going to hold our governments accountable when they genuinely do behave badly. On another topic, that statement that Bin Laden received $3 billion aprox from the USA is intriuging. Where do those figures come from? I was under the impression that Bin Laden was independently wealthy?

I've never heard of a democratic concentration camp. In democracys people vote in secret ballots for the government of their choice. In concentration camps people are controlled and ordered by an arbitary authority. Israel may have done some questionable things but it doesnt meet the definition of a concentration camp.

You say you could find thousands, just one will do.

Ah, so i'm a 'screwball' because i ask you to back up your assertions with somekind of evidence. If that makes a screwball then i'm proud to be one. I'm not asking for swathes of evidence, it's just when you make vague statements about the West backing for Sadaams regime something more than the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1984 seems necessary to back up your assertion.

Just out of curiousity. Can you really find a single economist prepared to say that WW2 'saved' the US economy? At the very least i think you are overstating your case. PS, trumpeting a decrease in private investment seems a bit of an odd point to make in support of war being economically benefical.

But it does invalidate the statement that Israel is a concentration camp.

Yes, we're talking about Germany here, not the Aztecs or Armenians. That is the topic of the thread so i assumed it didnt need restating. sheesh.

A sort of selective breeding, like prize cattle? A possiblilty, i'm not sure how attractive people would find it.

Fair enough, i think we've made our cases clear to each other. It wouldn't do to start shedding blood over our keyboards would it?

I'm curious as to how cloning could be used to 'further human evolution'. Surely making exact replicals of individuals would have no effect at all on evolution?

I've been finding this thread quite interesting, but we can switch back more closely to the original topic if you prefer.

Wall fitted TV set installers would probably have a pretty good time of it too.

I thought you'd admitted defeat. Putting men in a factory making bombs isnt an economic boon. A temporary increase in demand for materials from some countries at the expense of mortgaging the future of other countries also isnt an economic boon. It's unsustainable and ultimately economicaly disruptive and destructive. WW2 was not an economic boon. Or perhaps you think we should have perpetual war, 1984 style, gosh, just think how good that would be for the economy!

Just keep handing out the pills. Suddenly everything will seem just right.

Efficent, quality controlled, conveyor belt babies. What could more exemplify humane rational progress? I feel such optimism and hope for the future just considering it.

It is possible that homosexuality could be a biological adaptation in certain circumstances. Homosexual men would bond and so display loyality to each other (some ancient Greek warriors only went into battle with their gay lovers), useful in a hunting group. These homosexual men might not breed themselves, but act as protectors and providers for the young in their group who are likely to be closely related to them if people operate in small family based groups as it is possible our paleolithic ancestors did. This theory might not be correct but it does show that there is a mechanism for natural selection to work without directly breeding, kin selection, the protection and promotion of others who are related to yourself, nephews and nieces. A Gay uncle who successfully feeds the family will pass on more DNA that a unsuccesful straight Dad whose family faces starvation. As such homosexuality is not necessarily selected against and it might be wrong to consider it unnatural or even a perversion.

I'm amazed how wrong you guys can be. Yes, the war did lead to a spurt of technological development. Inventions such as radar and jet engines were introduced more rapidly than they would have been otherwise. But at huge economic cost. World trade was totally disrupted, large areas were physically devasted, government debt rocketed, the subsequent recovery was despite the war not because of it. The socio economic changes 'facilitated' by the war were already underway, Henry Ford had shown mass production and quality control quite some time before the war. The USA was already on the road to being a developed superpower without the need for a destructive war. Incidentialy i think i do appreciate economics and its effect, i just dont appreciate mindless drivel. I repeat, anyone who thinks that WW2 was an economic boon is a fool.

That's your problem, lack of facts. A photo of a handshake doesnt mean anything and the link atinymonkey gives is of a chemical order being CANCELLED because of fears it could be used in chemical weapons. I'm not saying the west has never done anything wrong but none of you have produced any hard evidence of support and backing for Saddams regime that you keep vaguely refering to. Yes, during the Iran-Iraq war the west did not want to see an Iranian victory, that doesnt extend to being major supporters of Sadaam. Like i said, a load of lazy hot air.

A great many words to simply say that in the Iran-Iraq war the USA saw Iraq as the lesser of two evils. Big deal.

Anyone who has never met a dumb blonde must have a seriously limited social life. In which case i pity them. Perhaps you should try and get out some more?

Ah Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.

If thats all you can come up with it's pathetic. Donald Rumsfeld made a weak protest at Iraqs use of chemical weapons, maybe a bit feeble but not support. Removing Iraq from a list of nations supporting terrorism in 1983, perhaps because Iraq didnt support any terrorists in 1983! Establishing diplomatic ties, GASP! How wicked. Selling a small quantity of weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. A simple case of the lesser of two evils. If thats the case for the prosecution, then there is no case to answer. As i suspected, a lot of lazy hot air.

If you cant back up your opinions why are you bothering to post at all?

I'm not arguing that the West has no guilt here, ( how do you know if i'm a liberal or not? ) i'm simply asking for some kind of evidence. A handshake doesnt count.

It's an interesting moral choice. Would inflicting some pain on one person be justified if it would prevent or relieve a greater quantity of pain from another person or peoples? In practice i think torture is wrong for both practical and moral reasons, but it's possible to imagine certain circumstances where the moral argument would be difficult. The old saying that 'hard cases make bad law' seems to apply. Better to stick to principle and simply reject all torture as unjustifiable, even if in certain ciurcumstances arguments and justifications could be attempted.