CommanderJohnson

I'll respond more in-depth later, but: Bush can attack! Saddam's gonna die! Yeah!

AHH!! This is going to be long. Maybe God will be nice and Armageddon will happen by the time I finish this so I don't need to type for hours. quote:Originally posted by Litvyak: [QB] quote: My arguments were centered on the effect of that on women and society, so it'd still be bad on that level Are you saying that it would be bad if a woman had been with 3 people in an 8 year time period, but it's alright for me, since I'm a guy? I'm saying that it's reentrtenching an oppress patriarchal system when it occurs. I'd expect women to be more worried about that than men. quote: 1. People can be trained, well in fact. 2. Look at some statistics about marriages where there was no pre-marital sex at all and see how the statistics change. Also add in factors concerning religion and faith, and you'll be surprised at how low the divorce rate drops. 1. Have you ever tried to stick one of those electro-shock training collars on somebody? It's no small feat, let me tell you.

We need to send a strike team to take out his mom so he can get back on broadband!

Yes, and those who fight in the war should never be the ones passing judgement on those who plan it since those fighting are always going to have a vested interest in saving their own lives even if it has more problems because of it. Oh yeah, and don't forget those who REALLY plan the war have already BEEN in the postitions where they'd have to fight it. Gotta love the concept of rank in the military.

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: quote: That arguement makes no sense and you contradict your previous position. You assume that science will be able to explain everything, but then you discount the most obvious point of science, that every effect has some sort of cause. No matter how many other explanations you can think of, if you believe in science, you have to believe that there was an ultimate cause, and there's no way that cause can be WITHIN SCIENCE since if it was, it would ALSO need a cause. Actually, this is in perfect keeping with my previous explanation. Current scientific theories donÔÇÖt provide a very plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe, and religious explanations (while quite prolific) are even more spurious (considering that there is a long history of religious explanations being discarded). So, seeing as both known groups of possibilities are unlikely, it stands to reason that there is probably another explanation. It may be scientific, it may be religious, or it may be something else, but there is an explanation. We, however, do not know what this explanation is, and thus can only guess. Perhaps the universe exists in an infinite loop and has done so for all of eternity, perhaps it is a paradox like something out of a bad sci-fi film in which the universe, at some later date, causes its own creation. I can guess until IÔÇÖm blue in the face, maybe we are a scientific experiment in some alien laboratory with no real connection to whatever created the aliens and thus no real way of determining how they came to be. I could go on, but why bother? These are all possible but highly improbable explanations, and so rather then picking one, I will instead admit that I do not know and be done with it. But they aren't both as unlikely. The much, much, much greater probability of there being a higher being is obvious. Your attempting to claim that the existance of a higher power is unlikely because it is possible that everything science is based on is wrong (your saying cause-effect doesn't always apply, even though it does in every other instance). At the same time, you claim that you don't believe in God/God doesn't exist because science, as we understand it, can't explain it. Your attemping to prove that God doesn't exist because of science, while you maintain that science is fundamentally wrong at the point it proves the existance of a higher power. You seem to be changing your advocacy in order to deny the existance of a higher power, even though under your original premise it is obvious that it's almost certain that some sort of higher power/being beyond our comprehension, exists. quote: quote: You also fail to point out how a third explanation is at all "probable". That doesn't make sense in itself, since you can't even point to a third explanation. You seem to be trying to disprove God by making a blind assumption that there's something we haven't thought of. Actually, I do nothing of the kind. You are trying to prove that god MUST exist because we donÔÇÖt know, and if we donÔÇÖt know then it MUST be god. That is flawed logic, and IÔÇÖm simply pointing out that we donÔÇÖt know enough about the beginning of the universe. No, i'm not saying that *God* *must* exist, at least not anymore. I'm saying that a higher power/being beyond our comprehension that is outside of the realm of science MUST exist, and i'm saying that from THAT premise it needs to be decided what type of higher power there probably is, and what he/she/it may want from us, if anything. We know enough about the beginning of the universe, that it had to be created, to come to the conclusion of a higher power. There's no unique reason why the existance of matter/energy would NOT fall subject to having to have a cause. quote: As I have said before, this neither proves nor disproves god, it simply shows that we donÔÇÖt know enough to argue about it. Please do not peruse this point unless you have some new logic, the logic your using right now is the same logic that you have been using for the last few posts, and I tire of repeating my counter to it. Your counter is amorphous, first you say there is no scientific proof of a greater being, thus it's improbable that one exists, now your trying to make the argument that our whole concept of science is probably wrong, thus there can never be a decision. This is flawed for a number of reasons: 1. Your purposely trying to construct a "no one knows" situation (when it's not true) in order to deny the high probability of a higher power/very/all powerful being beyond our comprehension, by suddenly saying: cause-effect could be wrong 2. Cause-effect is the basis of just about all science since the beginning of time, and it applies to everything EXCEPT an entity beyond science (God/higher power/etc). The possibility of the concept of cause-effect being false is so small that it can't even be considered an issue. As i've already said, we know enough to prove that there is a higher power, at least if you accept science. If you don't accept science, then you can't use the argument "there is no evidence", since all evidence would be flawed at the point you reject a critical premise of science. Then, the only way to be able to reject God would be arbitrarily, with no logical reasoning behind it, except for maybe selfishness and fear. quote: If everything has a cause, then god has to have a cause as well, and thus he cannot exist (but the universe could have caused itself, such as in the infinite loop scenario). If God is outside of science, as i've contended from the beginning, which the ultimate creator/the original cause would HAVE TO BE (for science to be true), then God would not need any cause. At least not any cause that we would ever be able to comprehend. The infinite loop scenario makes no scientific sense. quote: If, on the other hand, not everything needs a cause then the universe could have come into existence without cause, and thus god isnÔÇÖt necessary (or even a higher power, since it COULD simply be an as of yet unexplained causeless phenomenon). You've been claiming/implying/operating under the assumption for the past three pages of posts that science is critical/true to some degree. If not everything needs a cause, then 1. Your ignoring empirical evidence since the beginning of recorded human history, 2. You are denying science specifically to deny the possibility that your wrong and that there is a higher power , and 3. You are denying a central premise of science, claiming that we can know NOTHING about the universe. quote: Ridiculous, is there any reason to believe that godÔÇÖs actions are not bound by time? I mean, sure, he CLAIMS to be all powerful, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean he is, only that he is really powerful (if, of course, he exists at all). God/a higher power, in order to create the universe, would have to be outside of science/our comprehension. If he/she/it is that powerful and outside of science, he/she/it would not be subject to our comprehension of power, time, or science and would be able to do whatever he/she/it wants. Once you notice that God/a higher power would HAVE to be outside of science, you can't start using science to try and disprove him. quote: quote: No, my quote from above is true. It's proven by just about everything that happens in this universe. It cant be false. Note in my last quote (at least the part you quoted), I never said that it was God. I said that there had to be a cause outside of science, and there's no way that isn't true. Outside of current science, sure, but so say that it is impossible for science to explain it is presumptuous. And you say that assuming that God exists is illogical? Your assuming that every person's intrinsic conceptualization of the universe that every effect has a cause is WRONG? Every animal on the planet, and every person, understands that every effect has some sort of cause. Your trying to make the case that there's some magical reasoning that exists in relation to the beginning of the universe that science will be able to explain without contradicting our current understanding of science. That's impossible, and I bet you'd be hard pressed to find any scenario that would make logical sense. Sure, all of our science could be totally wrong, but I doubt it'd be possible to find some version of science to replace it that would also explain everything as it is now. Saying it is impossible for science to explain is true. Science can never explain the ultimate cause since it would have to be caused by something outside of science. I've already explained that in very great detail. quote: We are simply the most evolved species on the planet, and we are only powerful when compared to inferior species. There is a certain degree of chance involved, but no invisible bunnies. But why? For the hell of it? If that's true, I don't see why we made civilizations. quote: Actually, this is history, which is a science. And while I may not be able to disprove god, it does provide an alternate explanation. Your saying God is a myth even though it is impossible to acknowledge science without admitting that there had to have been some sort of greater power that caused all of this. You fail to prove an alternate explanation since a muth couldn't exist outside of this universe and outside of science and then start it all, unless your using "myth" as a replacement for "true higher power". quote: Both true and untrue. True because you can help society while helping yourself, untrue because you would do better at helping yourself if you ignored society. There's still advancement forward though. You aren't HURT for not advancing as fast in terms of pleasure. quote: ItÔÇÖs an expenditure of time, a limited commodity which is impossible to reclaim. You may think it is worth a bit of your time to help some hag across the street, I shanÔÇÖt bother. Still doesn't harm you or give you pain. It's neutral, thus there's no reason not to do it and help society. quote:It may not be bad, but wouldnÔÇÖt it be better if you didnÔÇÖt have to wait? As for the car, again, not bad to go without one, but it would be preferable to have one. Just because it'd be better doesn't make the opposite bad, just like getting $5000 isn't *bad* or harmful just because I could have gotten $5100. The possibility of the existance of God outweighs any extra time frame for sex, as do previously stated harmful effects of pre-marital sex. quote: As for backstabbing, all of my friends know IÔÇÖm capable of backstabbing them without remorse, but I donÔÇÖt do it in a major way very often, because, believe it or not, friends are valuable. Ever hear of Kohlberg (sp?)'s theory of moral development? Anyway, I was operating under the premise that friendship actually meant more to you than utilitarian value. My mistake. quote: Darling, your wrong, virtue and ÔÇ£internal happinessÔÇØ (whatever that is) can disappear just as easily as joy from causing harm to others. Easier to loose, really, after all there will always be people to prey on no matter what happens. Not really. It's much more pleasurable to think about a good thing I did for someone that will have a long lasting significant impact, which I will always be able to remember and draw happiness from, as opposed to remembering some poor sap who I briefly ruined due to my own inadequacies who I probably didn't affect for long and won't even be remembered by. quote:Not at all, if anything it lets them get away with harming you for a while, which isnÔÇÖt the kind of thing to be tolerated. It's not really harmful if your a cynic to begin with and expect it to be coming. It's sorta pleasurable to know that someone is stupid enough to *try* to betray you, and then keep doing it when warned many times. quote: If you make a point of reacting swiftly and harshly to wrongs, then people will avoid wronging you (I know it works for me).Only problem is you make long-term enemies that can band against you. Better to make them have a mental breakdown by doubting all of their "friends" sincerity while hiding in the shadows than letting them have a target. quote: What about polyamory? There are individuals who can have long-term relationships with more then one person. Makes formal marriage a pain, but it differs from promiscuity in that all of there relationships are long term (and, presumably, everyone involved is aware of everyone else involved). Again, it reinforces gender roles and all of my arguments against pre-marital sex apply. quote:Well, there is a biological reason for people to not be attracted to members of the opposite sex, and again, this is a fact. Sexual orientation is determined by a part of the brain that can, if the circumstances are correct during the correct point in fetal development, can end up switched, leaving a female child that is not sexually attracted to mails, but to females (or a man who is attracted to men, not women). This is a scientifically accepted fact and most any competent doctor could confirm this. Things can also end up a little muddles, resulting in an individual who is attracted to both male and female partners. Tough luck for him/her that he/she is a freak. It doesn't change the fact that it's against intended biology and serves no real purpose. quote: You may not be uncomfortable with them, but you are uncomfortable with what they do, otherwise you wouldnÔÇÖt find it disgusting. Homophobic=fear of homosexuals Being uncomfortable from certain activities=personal preference Being disgusted with homosexual activities=being disgusted with people eating live cockroaches (that doesn't make me afraid of live cockroaches or eating them either, it's just so far outside of a logical norm that i'd never consider it) quote: Does this mean that youÔÇÖre against masturbation as well? No, it means that you can't justify sodomy with "they are attracted", since it's still not the correct thing to do. quote: Sorry to break it for you darling, but things are a lot more messy then just boys and girls. The most obvious example would be intersexed individuals (what used to be called hermaphrodites), and incase you donÔÇÖt know IÔÇÖm referring to people who are some combination of male and female (and, rarest of all, a true mix that has both male and female primary and secondary sexual characteristics). This alone makes it clear that things are more complex the male and female, but there is also a deeper distinction. As with sexual orientation (as I covered above), the part of the brain that covers gender identity can be out of sync with what gender the rest of there body is (the cause is similar to homosexuals, a chemical imbalance during the critical point during development, the result literally being a physically male individual who is mentally female). Such persons are called transsexuals. There are a few more deviations that I know of, such as transgendered individuals who are some mix of male and female (kind of like how bisexuals are a mix of being straight and gay), and neuters and such, but I think I have made my point. And before you doubt anything IÔÇÖm saying here, any competent doctor could confirm the existence of intersexed and transgendered individuals, and probably the rest of it as well (it would be really easy to research as well). And why do I know you ask? Because I took a human sexuality class in the not so distant past and because I tend to be good at academics (and because it was a topic of research that I had to do).Sorry to break it to you, but transsexed/intersexed, etc people are not the main people who commit sodomy, and regardless of how defective people are born, it doesn't mean that they are doing the correct/right thing. quote:Originally posted by Litvyak: Umm... lets see... I had sex for the first time when I was 16, I'm 24 now and I've been with three people in that span of 8 years and I've never been married. Is a new girl every 2-3 years on average considered promiscuous sex or are you just saying that some day I'm going to wake up and have the sudden impulse to jump anything with a pulse?My arguments were centered on the effect of that on women and society, so it'd still be bad on that level (also the arguemnts I made in previous posts) I'd also get into arguments about how it is harmful to society in general, but that really isn't the focus of this topic, and the only arguemtn i'd probably win (since it's the only one i'd believe strongly in), is that if you aren't careful you can get a disease and die from it. quote:Unfortunately it's absolutely true that human life isn't as valuable as cattle. Nobody wants to pay for a side of human these days. There's always hope that cannibalism will come into style and the price of human life will go up, though. I hope that was sarcasm. If not, you and Dragon Lady would make a great couple. quote: Yeah, given that most marriages are likely to end in divorce, which is certainly not a pleasent experiance. Not to mention, who wants to marry somebody who doesn't know what they're doing at all?1. People can be trained, well in fact. 2. Look at some statistics about marriages where there was no pre-marital sex at all and see how the statistics change. Also add in factors concerning religion and faith, and you'll be surprised at how low the divorce rate drops. quote: quote: Just because it may be pleasurable for some to have sodomy, doesn't make it the "correct" thing to do, just like it may be pleasurable to "have sex with a hole in the wall", doesn't make it correct. There are two distinct biological genders for a reason. Birth control and recreational sex accept the fact that there are TWO GENDERS that have sex and it is pleasurable to each other. Sodomy does not recognize the inherent truth of male/female. So, where does masturbation fit in that scheme, or is that same as sex with a hole in the wall? Again, i'm using it to point out the inherent problem with sodomy, you can apply to masturbation if you want too, I really don't care. After all, I apply each of your arguements to everything else you say and to unmentioned possibilities, your welcome to do the same. quote: To my knowledge there's no evidence it jumped species, unless homosexuals are considered another species in your book. The only other species affected with similiar virus is cats, and it's known that though similiar the viruses aren't the same and didn't jump species. Not saying it didn't jump species, but the mainstream opinion is against such a notionWhere/when/how did the AIDS virus develop, then? I know that it was first popular with homosexuals, but i'm wondering where it came from prior to that.

FAST DSL connect here. JK2 is good.

Jedi Outcast!!!

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: quote:

I might be in for TFC...what about Jedi Outcast? YEAH!

quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: The government tried to pass an anti-terrorist law where the government could declare martial law within an area without a clear and present danger of some sort, but it hardly passed the house of commons (even though the current government party has a majority of sieges), and it had no chance of going out of the senate. So I think we're safe.[/QB]Canada has a big enough military to declare martial law?!?! Your KIDDING!!! I thought Canada relied on us to protect them. quote:I don't think it is constitutional, and if anyone wants to pass laws that make what I'm doing one day legal, and the next day illegal, they can kiss my ***. What's the Supreme's Court justification for allowing concealed carry permits? I'd apply for a permit, not go on without one, but i'm wondering if you ever got arrested for it, you'd have grounds to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

quote: Your also failing to recognize he is oppressing his own people. Regardless of the *PERCIEVED* intent of the attack, a few facts remain that justify an attack: Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.Would you please ANSWER the above argument (slight edit to #2, HAS historically ignored UN resolutions)? You keep talking about the Bush administration being evil, but you ignore the above, and you ignore the analysis in Jaguar's article about the Leftists position on a war on Iraq. You ALSO fail to respond to the argument that if Saddam is against letting inspectors into civilian facilities, he is OBVIOUSLY hiding something, since he doesn't allow property rights, and it'd be a perfect opportunity to blame the US for another "atrocity" if people's homes are searched. He also doesn't care about his people, so he wouldn't care about letting civilian facilities to be searched. You keep repeating leftist rhetoric while ignore the facts. Ok, the reason why destroying his own oil with nukes wouldn't make any sense: 1. Destroying oil would destroy the economy of his own country. 2. Threatening to destroy anyone else's oil would just cause a war to be waged against him. 3. It'd be more profitable to continue selling oil instead of destroying it. 4. The amount of oil we need can not be attributed to an attack on Iraq, since there is no direct relationship between Invading Iraq=more oil for the US. Not to mention that would just cause prices to drop for the oil due to less supply. Big business would = less happy/rich. quote: Cheney's/Rummy's administration could care less about the humanitarian issues....plus they have no real evidence that Iraq is close to a bomb...Iran is probably closer. Ok, who cares what the administration cares about as long as it benefits us? I may want Saddam dead because of the human rights violations, the guy next door may want him dead to help his stock portfolio, US troops stationed in the Middle East may want him dead because they dont want to be hit by bio-weapons. It doesn't matter WHY they want him gone, it matters that according to the facts, he SHOULD be gone. quote:Would it surprise anyone to know that all the people (more killers really) Cheney would install in New Iraq (the peoples republic of something) have vowed to cancel oil deals with any foreign powers that do not support America.no matter what we do.....imagine that.... Good, he's not replacing em with people who are going to hurt our economy and start a new dictatorship that oppresses the people and kills them. I'm glad. quote: Anyone who thinks that Saddam is actively supporting terrorists is just wrong. The reason Regan/Rummy set this loser up is because they knew he is an opportunist scum bag that is all about self preservation....he was an asset....that has now become obsolete. Yes that proves...proves.... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING . It doesn't even slightly relate to not attacking Iraq. Do you throw out liberal rhetoric for fun just to see us point out how it doesn't make sense? quote: This is about money for the policy makers and revenge for the patriots. Supported by the faithful crusaders and those that believe in the abstract notion of freedom.....but not necessarily in the Constitutional version of itand it stinks. 1. You fail to explain exactly how the policy makers are going to make money off of this. 2. You fail to explain how we aren't supporting freedom for the Iraqi people by stopping Saddam. 3. You fail to explain how we aren't supporting freedom for our people by getting rid of threats to their life. 4. You fail to explain how we aren't supporting freedom by stopping someone who is funding suicide bombers who kill innocent Israeli women and children. 5. You fail to explain how attacking Saddam is not going to solve the problems I listed above and posted TWO OTHER TIMES ON THIS THREAD . quote: No one should have WMD.from the petty and evil dictatorial regime to the God inspired fundamental/militaristic "democratic" one.Hebrew or Christian. 1. WMDs stopped all actual wars between superpowers. This has saved many lives and forced people to use diplomacy and economics instead of weapons, death, and destruction. 2. Sure, no one should have WMDs, but there's no way to disinvent them, so if anyone has them, it should be democractic nations that have freedom for their people and probably wont use them. 3. Totalitarian dictators should not have them, especially Saddam, because: a. He used them before. b. He is irrational and would have no problem using or selling them again. quote: Truth, law, due process, and fairplay.....this is what I value. This is my stance as a patriot. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: quote: Truth, law, due process, and fairplay.....this is what I value. This is my stance as a patriot. Patriot to what? The UN? Sad Lothar, very sad.... quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Nope I'm a combatant....I just fight. No clearance required....and I'm an NCO. I take care of my soldiers and accomplish the mission. I could care less what you think my views mean to you....because its clear your just a trigger happy fascist while I'm still in the Guard and you just sit around and talk junk that your not even educated on.Jaguar is right, again. If someone questioned my commitment to the country, i'd get rather upset. You on the other hand seem to think that supporting the UN as opposed to America is the RIGHT thing to do. You don't even have any qualms with not supporting the US constitution. You took an oath to the *CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES* not to the United Nations. The second you forget that, is the second you betray our country for the benefit of other countries, and I don't think any of us would WANT you "fighting for us" under that scenario. quote: He's like too many in this country...his ignorance (lack of knowledgeto be PC) is second only to his aggressiveness....I am not trying to insult him but rather put him in perspective. 1. Calling someone ignorant is an insult. 2. Jag may get emotional/reiled about his beliefs, but he also supports it with logical analysis while pointing out flaws in your rhetoric, while at the same time posting articles. quote: I really don't care what he thinks about my being a soldier...he thinks my views bring some kind of shame to the profession. Being a soldier in the American Army is about defending the ideas of democracy, freedom, law, and equality....we have not fully realized these ideals but with time I believe we will....I'm sounding off with my beliefs and so is he....however, where as I realize this is what this country is all about....it seems to scare and offend him. 1. Being a soldier in the American Army is about defending the *CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES* and the *PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*. 2. It's offensive and shameful when you openly profess to care more about a "world of peace and harmony" rather than the people of the United States. 3. a. Democracy-if you profess belief in the idea of democracy, you wouldn't advocate letting totalitarian dictatorships such as the one in IRAQ continue. b. Freedom-same concept as democracy, especially when the people are free to do what Saddam wants or they are shot, gassed, or tortured. And the people do not have freedom to gain information as we do in the US, so they are never free. c. Law-same as freedom. d. Equality-and again, no one will be equal when there are nations OPPRESSING THEIR PEOPLE via TOTALITARIAN REGIMES. quote: We dont know how many American will be killed in an urban assault. Or in a WMD attack on America or our allies. At least the soldiers signed up for it. quote: We have no plan to get out.like Vietnam. I'm not going to repeat myself AGAIN. I think I posted about 2 paragraphs earlier on this topic about how there is NO COMPARISON to Vietnam, including but not limited to the political situation of the time (no China threatened by us to nuke us), geographical location (jungle vs desert), training (untrained vs gone to IRaq before), equipment (inaccurate and weak vs advanced and strong), desire (draft vs volunteer). quote: We dont know how much it will cost. Now you care about money? Which is it. Is life more important than money or is money more important than life? If he attacks us, one life would justify any cost. Also, we're going to lose a lot more money if we getting attacked by WMDs. quote: We dont have real linkage of Saddam and terrorists. Read the first quote I have in this post. Why, exactly, are you focussing on terrorism so much? There are plenty of non-terroristic reasons to justify attacking him, and there's always the possibility (at *least* 20% risk, i'd say), that he supports terrorists. quote: Blowback is a real issue that is not being discussed. That's because it's not a real issue. Please, give me a specific series of events that will be invovled in this "blowback" and why it would be bad? quote: We dont have any clear evidence that he has WMD or how close he is. Refer to first quote. Also, how close he is doesn't matter since we shouldn't wait till he's close to do something. That's taking a big risk. Sooner we stop him, the beter. quote: We have a group that has attacked us and we cant seem to make much progress in apprehended them so we look for an easy target..and more importantly securing oil for our future use. There is absolutely NO TRADEOFF. There are sleeper cells and terrorists spread throughout the world throughout many different nations, some our allies and democratic. Using the armed force to attack Iraq doesn't draw effort away from that since we can't/won't have army troops searching house by house in the United States, Canada, etc. Regardless, read the first quote on this topic about 10 times and understand that just because he's not a proven terrorist doesn't mean it's less important to attack him. Not to mention if you believe in freedom, democracy, etc, you wouldn't be making the argument that it has to be solely for stopping terrorism. Which is it, is all human life and freedom valuable (aka we attack Iraq) or is it not? (you don't support your own values) As for the oil argument, we get Iraq's oil now, and i've already responded to it earlier. quote: To ask American service members to risk their life without even a real discussion of the FACTS is inappropriate. The facts are clear. Your advocated nihilism until we get hurt. quote: When American generals, on the job right now, express doubts before being stifled SERIOUS doubts are raised in my mind. Ok, lets think about this. The American generals MADE THE WAR PLANS. Bush can't, won't, and isn't trained to make war plans. They are the military sphere. They plan the battles, and send in the troops when ordered. Their concerns about attacking are based on the argument that we shouldn't attack. Whether or not we should attack is NOT a military issue. That is a political issue. The GOVERNMENT runs the country, not the military. The elected officials act (supposedly) in the best interests of the American people after getting all the facts about the problems and dangers from Iraq, including info from the CIA, FBI, experts, satelite recon, Saddam's statements, etc (not all of which the military has access to). If they choose to attack Iraq, the generals have to make war plans, and they will make the best ones possible, but their opinion over how hard it is doesn't matter. What matters is it needs to be done, and they have to do it. Personal concerns don't factor in, since the military doesn't have all the facts. quote: Jag acts like a chicken-hawk and should try to get a job in the Pentagon. As for your responses to Jaguar's article, they don't even answer the arguments IN the article. You copy and paste the first 5 words and then make a statement without answering any of the arguments. I will respond to one argument, however: quote: Focus on the war on terror. Do not make more terrorists by foolish unilateral actions. Do not alienate those countries we need in order to be effective in the real war on terror. Hopefully "elect" a new president that can a least read a teleprompter. 1. Focus on the war on terror...so you've already stopped believing in freedom, democracy, law, and equality? Well, that means either: a. You only believe in it for the American people...but wait, you advocate it for the UN/everyone. b. You don't really believe in it, and are using it to hide a clearly pacifist attitude. c. You fail to see the atrocities in Iraq. 2. Don't make more terrorists? Please explain how this is going to uniquely happen from us attacking Iraq. Are the Germans going to start suicide bombings? The French? The British? Wait, the Mexicans are going to get mad and start coming from Mexico and carrying out suicide bombings because we attacked Iraq . The government's media in the Middle Eastern countries control what they see anyway. If we attack Iraq or not is irrelevent, the people that are going to be terrorists would have already done it due to the previous media propoganda in those countries, not to mention it's empirically denied cause terrorism didn't increase after Afghanistan. [ 09-30-2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

I just wrote a huge response to the posts but it wouldn't let me post it because I had too many smilies total, and then when I hit back, I lost all my responses. So, i'm not going to worry about quoting, and just respond to important stuff in order. To Dragon Lady's post: -Ghosts and other supernatural phenomena can be explained by science, but their actions can never be on the level as those of god. (creating matter out of nothing, healing someone, etc) -Only computer games of AD&D, too lazy for Pen and Paper -Believing in God is much more likely than it being some other dimension that created us that isn't subject to the laws of science, because of all the clues i've been mentioning. -If God is all powerful, he could have created the universe at any point in time (using our concept of time). In no way would God be unable to do whatever He wanted, whenever he wanted, since He would be all-powerful. The concept of infinity doesn't stop God from creating the universe. Replace "infinity" of time with "neverending". -It is necessary for there to be a being outside of science. There can't be an "uncaused cause" in science. There has to be a cause for everything within the realm of science, so whatever caused the creation of the first atom/molecule/bit of energy had to be from outside of science. -Not everyone has the same view of right and wrong. Without a higher power to be responsible to, popularity would define morality and would let atrocities that people currently think of as bad, exist, including racism, sexism, murder, rape, etc. -Humanity is a general flaw in science because it can't explian why we are here, why we are as evolved as we are, and why we can comprehend abstract thoughts and are so far above animals, especially in regards to morality. -Also, my analogy about the car makes sense. If the person with all that experience said "I can't fix the car, and I won't be able to", i'd believe him. Just like when scientists know they'll never be able to explain God/very creation of the universe, they won't. -Your right, God exists or he doesn't, but there's a very high chance that he does exist due to the creation of the universe. You can't just write off one of the greatest clues to God's existance as "I don't know", without ignoring fact based in science that you seem to advocate. -Parents were Christian but never taught me about it or practiced/went to church. Lived with mother and grandparents, parents never married. Saw father sometimes, but he kept dragging me to Church which I hated. Stopped seeing him by my own choice due to that reason. Started attending Catholic school, disagreed with lots of Catholic teachings but realized the very high probability of the existance of God and the benefits of morality. -No strong roll models really, except that everyone I associated with had a view of morality that was somewhat mainstream. (although my mother/grandparents didn't really know about believe in God, or abortion, etc, my views are opposite) -I did do things that society didn't like but were still moral under Christianity. I didn't really get away with any immoral/anti-socitial acts though, since I realized the rational behind them being immoral/bad for society, so I didn't do them. It was based in logic for the most part. -Morality is a hinderance, but it is Good: Morality=Hinderence=Good: (including, not limited to) 1. People like you better if your moral. 2. God/Hell/Pleasure on that level. 3. Keeps me consistent (I hate inconsistance and lack of advocacy, so I like staying somewhat in bounds of a moral code) 4. Pleasure from greater meaning, etc. 5. Helps soceity. -People don't wrong me, they think they do, I see that, then I gain vengance. EX. Someone lies to me when I know they are, I tell them multiple times that friends who lie to me are betraying me and I always get back at them. I warn the person about 5-10 times about how I really ruin people who lie to me. They keep it up. I ruin them. Vengance is best when they don't even know who did it and you give every possible opportunity to forgive them. -Non-promiscuuous pre-marital sex is fine in my eyes as long as it stays that way, except that it almost never does and it leads to promiscuous sex. -Cars and BCM have functions (travel/entertainment), both of which are needed. -Sodomy is not needed for any biological function or pleasure (that's why there are two genders) -I think that people who commit sodomy can do it if they really want to, but I don't want to know about it, I think it's digusting (like eating live cockroaches are disgusting), and it's unnatural and biologically pointless. -Dont you have anyone you care about or respect that you'd want to be able to live a better life after your gone? -Don't you gain pleasure from having lasting positive impacts on people's lives and the attention and respect and admiration you get from it? -Maybe a lot of the diseases we do have DID come from animals. -AIDS i'm pretty sure jumped species. -Life is one of the inalienable rights which should be protected and guarded. -You have to find murder wrong first to even consider abortion wrong. If you admit that it COULD be a life, the risk of murdering that life, and the protection of that life, is much more important than some woman's choice that was too horny to think that she could get pregnant. -Women who have abortions may think they are prepared for the consequences, but they are one step too late. If that life is a person/soul (which has 46 chromosomes), then she should have thought about the consequences BEFORE she had sex. It's her own fault she would be forced to have the kid. -Plenty of people believe in the right to life and would help pay to keep them on life support. -Fetus could POSSIBLY be human, and that risk outweighs a mother's "inconvience". Also, it has 46 chromosomes, as opposed to when birth control is used and there is no human life even possibly formed yet. quote:Originally posted by Litvyak: My thought on religion is that it serves an important purpose in the lives of many people by being a catch all to explain everything the can't comprehend or are unwilling to face. It's also served many people well as a tool to manipulate and control others. -Historically it has been, but in the information age it can't really do much if the people are informed. -There's no logical power that the Church gains from telling people to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and not to murder, steal, lie, etc. That doesn't benefit the power structure in any way. quote: Religion is typically used as a means to explain what happens when you die, an attempt to make it sound happy. And in some religions, where there's a concept of a place of punishment (such as hell), it's further used to help control the followers of that religion. "Do what I say or you'll go to hell," type of deal.-The concept of hell makes many people scared due to the immorality in their lives and doesn't sound "happy". -A concept of hell doesn't have any ultimate CONTROL over followers. If the Pope told us to rise against our government, a lot of people would convert or ignore him. quote:I find many older people turn to religion for this reason. I think it's kind of the knowledge that they're going to die soon, and they want to believe their whole life wasn't meaningless.I find that many younger people dismiss religion because they don't want to have any restrictions on themselves or accountability to anyone above them. I think it's kind of the knowledge that if there's a Christian God, they'd quite possibly go to hell, and they want to believe that their whole life hasn't been wrong and immoral, and they don't like thinking beyond the present here and now, because it scares them. quote:The human race is naturally self-centered, and has a hard time coping with the belief that we don't serve a purpose any grander than that of bacteria. The human race IS naturally self-centered, which is why people automatically dismiss God. They think that THEY are the ultimate, and that they are all that matters. Obviously, by overcoming that "self-centered" tendacy, people come to realize that there is a greater purpose to our lives than ourselves, and that there is greater accountability to the rest of soceity and to God. People like answering "Why are we here?" with "For ourselves", so they don't need to worry about responsibility or death or God, instead of "For God or others" Your right about being self-centered, but you misinterpret the reality of it. quote: they help make people like John Edwards rich, and they help everyone from Bin Laden to the Pope maintain armies of loyal sheep. Bin Laden can use religion because his people are in the dark and oppressed by totalitarian regimes. If they were well informed and not oppressed, they would no longer be manipulated by untrue religious beliefs. As for the Pope, he gains no advantage from professing Christianity and upholding Christian morality. Bin Laden gets troops, the Pope doesn't. quote:Call me an athiest if you want, but really I think of myself as a realist. Realist...hmm...care to explain how the universe originally came to exist? (aka, what created mass/energy/particles that made up the Big Bang) After all, realistically, it should be able to be explained by science. P.S. Aren't there any more non-atheists reading this who can profess their believes? I'd expect this to be a more varied/heated discussion. [ 09-29-2002, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

It's a really simple concept. When there aren't bombings, the Israelis don't invade Palestinian towns, they talk about peace agreements, and there is a period of peace. Then the stupid Palestinian groups bomb Israeli civilians in busses, so the Israeli's occupy Palestinian areas. The Israelis are not unprovoked. They can't sit back and NOT ACT when they are attacked, that's like if we didn't attack Afghanistan after 9/11.

That was cool.

So, is SAAB still being played? If so, when?

I'll post again here when I have more time. Only posted on other threads because they are a lot shorter than this enormous beast.

I just read all of the articles on that site. Talk about a bunch of liberal **. Their main argument is that he didnt have a right to kill the kid, and the kid shouldn't have been killed. Well, the kid wouldn't have been killed if he didn't invade the guy's house. Whose fault is it? THE STUPID KID'S! Also, didn't Locke establish property rights awhile ago, and most law is based on those rights? What is British law based on? "Lets hope everyone is nice"?!? Read all of those links about the case on the website that's linked to above. It makes me want to cry because of how stupid some people can be. The guy felt like he was in danger in his OWN HOME, he took a gun and shot it at the threats, and one got killed. The argument i've been hearing from those news stories is "theft isn't a justification for killing someone", but again, what are you supposed to do, ask "Are you planning on stealing something, or do you have a gun and are going to kill me?" If I was the burglar, i'd take that opportunity to pull out a gun if I had one and shot the guy.

I'd have to disagree that they are in order of importance, since getting rid of racism was probably more critical than some, but I find em all important really.

The first season or two of seaquest was cool, but then it seemed to go downhill... Favorite sci-fi shows, in some semblence of order: Babylon 5 Farscape Space above and Beyond Stargate SG-1 Andromeda First 4 seasons of Sliders (all 6 of these are about equal) Earth: Final Conflict Star Trek Series (all of em) (these 2 right below the above 6) Seaquest was OK I think that covers em all. I like sci-fi shows.

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: From what I've heard, these "Civilian Buildings" are really military facilities that house a few civilians as well.If what you say is true, Saddam must think everyone else is STUPID. It made him look guilty (although circumstantially), when he didn't let inspectors come back, but it is a somewhat fair concern (although still not strong enough to really refuse inspectors) that we could be spying. So, as a dictator of a totalitarian country, what's his objection to looking in CIVILIAN buildings? I *know* they don't have property rights over there in relation to the government, so what the **** is he trying to pull? It's OBVIOUS he's trying to hide something, I hope everyone can see that.

What a bad argument. The kids couldn't have gotten the food except from adults in charge of them providing them with the food, money for the food, and transportation to the restraunt. *THEY* could read, and *THEY* knew how fattening it was, or should have. Just because some people forget the idea of personal choice because things look good doesn't mean that the people making it look good are liable. That's like suing a car company because they made a car that looked real good, like a corvette, your wife bought it, and died in a car wreck because she drove it too fast because of how good it looked, and it wasn't as sturdy as a semi. No jury in their right mind would convinct McDonalds. (although you should read the book "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser. Talks a lot about how bad fast food is....

quote:Originally posted by Litvyak: quote: remember space above and beyond? Probably one of the better Sci-Fi shows that's been made, really. I think the only thing that bothered me about it was why the Marine Corps would send highly trained fighter pilots in as grunts every other episode... it was one of those things that just seemed to defy logic... it would be like giving a bunch of F-14 pilots M-16s and sending them in to fight as a rifle squad. Sure they might be able to handle the mission, but why the heck would you send them?? I always wondered about that too. I would have expected em to take those fighters and do bombing runs to complete their missions for the most part. Also, McQueen rocked. Remember Chiggie von Ricktophen? That episode rocked.... Is SAAB being played at all anymore?

quote:Originally posted by Litvyak: Then again, I don't think I'd personally loose any sleep if Israeli F-16s where to drop napalm on Palestinian settlements, anyways. Really, those are the same people I remember seeing dancing in streets on CNN just over a year ago inbetween footage of Boeings slamming into the WTC.The funny thing is that after that footage, the media said it was taken out of context. Sorry for resorting to stereotyping liberals, but think the people in charge didn't like the idea that maybe we should sympathize with Israel?

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Anyway, I believe Saddam enjoys life. To think he would give away nukes if he ever got them is kinda silly...he needs them under his control..why would he give them away? That makes no sense.. It'd make him extremely popular with radical Islam to strike a blow against the West, or to help someone strike a blow against the West. Also, once he has them, what's to stop him from getting ICBMs and starting another Cold War? Not to mention he is NOT rational and if his power base was ever threatened by a rebellion, he would be faced with a use em or lose em scenario, in which case he would use em against US population centers. Your also failing to recognize he is oppressing his own people. Regardless of the *PERCIEVED* intent of the attack, a few facts remain that justify an attack: Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about. quote:Nukes work too well. If anyone were to use nukes on the oil it would most likely take enormous resources to get oil production going again...not cost effective.... Your making the assumption that Saddam is going to nuke his own oil if he gets WMDs. Great idea....really....why? quote:So if he gets them he can threaten to destroy those resources for everyone....a nightmare for big oil and ever economy that needs oil. That is the reason we are moving as strongly as we are. Ok, he ruins the economy by destroying all the oil in the Middle East? (just destroying Iraq's isnt going to be THAT bad) Thanks for adding ANOTHER justification for attacking Iraq, keeping the global economy stable. (if it goes down, people starve and die, and empirically it causes war...remember that). You also fail to recognize that the OTHER Arab nations are going to decrease oil production in response to an attack, which is going to cancel out any gains from an attack (which I still doubt would even occur). quote: How much oil we use do you think comes out of the Middle East? I would bet almost all of it....or maybe it stabilizes the market so we don't have to pay exorbitant prices from other places.... So why are we going to get all of the other Arab nations mad at us by attacking Iraq, and get them to reduce their oil production? quote:So we turn Iraq into little America....problem solved...except for the thousands upon thousands of enemies we may have just made.... We're still doing the right thing by freeing the people from oppression. The only reason why we'd make enemies is because the existance of a *FREE* Iraq would threaten the stability of the surrounding *TOTALITARIAN* regimes which *OPPRESS* their people. If we make enemies like them and justifies us bringing their regimes down, so be it. There's never going to be a peaceful world when people still have no voice in their government and are kept oppressed by them. quote: State funded terrorism is mostly out of Iran that is a fact. Then I bet they are pretty high on the list too. Iraq is closest to WMDs though, and that's why we're going after him first. It's been said Iran may speed up their programs when we attack Iraq, but if that happens, I bet we'll just march our troops into Iran. quote: War would only hurt in the short term. Full control of the area would let us act like...well...like the UK to America a few years ago....controling that area has some real power.... We aren't going to keep full control of the area. The public and the international community wouldn't allow it, and the US knows that keeping full control will just breed more terrorism. We're just going to go in take out his power base , and then get some sort of government like in Afghanistan, and leave. Colonialism will never work again, and it wouldn't be tried with Iraq, because any gains from Iraq's oil would be offset by decreased production by ALL THE OTHER ARAB NATIONS. quote: Anyone having WMD is bad....anyone...even this country....and especially Israel....they don't need it....but if they do why wouldnt everyone else want them also?!? Ok, you think that it's UNFAIR that weapons that can be used to DESTROY THE WORLD aren't EVENLY DISTRIBUTED? Currently, all nations with nuclear weapons are committed to disarmament as stated in the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), and those without them are not allowed to build them or attempt to build/develop them. Attempting to gain them violated that, and risks a new cold war and the end of the world. Especially with a leader like Saddam who cares about nothing except his own power. quote: Anyone who violates international law needs to be held to account...anyone. Who *really* makes international law? Who *enforces* international law? The country with the most power. Lets see, power is usually based on the ability to control life and death, and the country with the most power would be, oh, wow....THE UNITED STATES. International law only survives because the United States agrees to let it survive. At the point international law is replaced by liberal, non-committal, passivist BS when dealing with people like Saddam, the UN, and international law, are going bye-bye. quote: Of course international law needs to be defined fairly and equally by the free world. Under that logic, if radical Islam spreads to more than 50% of the population of the world (which can easily be done by Islamic families increasing the rate of reproduction), then American women are going to start to be required by law to cover every inch of their bodies. International law means nothing when there are so many cultural and religious divisions. Those honestly mean nothing though...the real problem is that international law means nothing when there are TOTALITARIAN REGIMES who refuse to follow it, and pacifist countries that refuse to act to remove those regimes. You say we need to play nice with everyone and be fair, always acting with what the majority thinks. I say we need to do what's right for the people of the world, even if it requires us being mean to do it and not having everyone's support. Lets use an example to show the lunacy of your concept of international law: International law option 1: Decided on by majority vote of all countries in the world- Thus, 75% of countries vote that the United States should export half of their existing cars to developing nations, United States has to do it or be in violation of international law. If US has the power to veto, then it defeats the purpose. If there are restrictions on what can be voted on, it destroys any sort of effectiveness. Option 2: Voted on by consensus of nations- Nothing would ever get done. One country just needs to disagree. INTERNATIONAL LAW DOESNT WORK WITHOUT A SUPERPOWER. quote: Until the world realizes a fuller sense of equality this crap will go on and on and on...while law is used by the wealthy to sustain and further its own ends any real democracy/self governance will not be fully realized...I am not saying capitalism is wrong....I just saying that money and politics do not mix with freedom and liberty. In any countryeven one that believes itself to be so pure.I would agree with you, but you have the order mixed up. The lack of equality is NOT what is causing the problems in the world, at least not with terrorists. What's causing the problem is that the United States and Israel advocate FREEDOM for people, and SELF-GOVERNANCE. The TOTALITARIAN ISLAMIC REGIMES are THREATENED by their people HAVING A VOICE. Israel is a constant threat to them because of the concept of freedom, as is the United States. They hate us because we are contrary to their regimes, and the way they keep their people oppressed is by blaming the people's hardship on the United States, or attributing religious violations to the United States, while their governments are the ones making tons and tons of money. How do you think the Arab princes make all of their money while their people starve? Because the United States is "unfair"? quote: It hurts the consumer certainly. The oil companies will do just fine. Yes, the oil companies will do just fine, probably better WITHOUT an Iraq invasion though, since then they don't need to worry about decreased oil production. quote:Thanks for the amount....1/4 is still huge money....huge....if America grabs it I wonder who will reap the economic windfall....and wield that power over the economies of others.... You talk about these concepts abstractly and without applying it to logical real world scenarios. "weild the power over the economies of others", "America grabs it", HOW DO YOU EXPECT ANY OF THIS TO HAPPEN? How would it be applied? What are you *TALKING ABOUT*? America can't "grab the oil", and even if we could, we aren't going to, and would never have enough public support in America to do it. We've BEEN getting oil from Iraq, what's the difference going to be if we invade? The people might produce more oil because they are free from totalitarianism? Well, that's a benefit, but it will benefit a lot more than just the US.

Is the full version available, or still copyrighted?