Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Hmm, seems to me he's going to attack Iraq, i.e. wage war on Iraq. :

The war against Iraq's government/military and not its civilian population.

Is a war ever not against a government? The point is, which you clearly agree with, it is an attack on Iraq.

Please qualify your claim that oil is not a major factor. :

The claim that the pending war on Iraq is a "major factor" is on the shoulders of those who say it is. Smells like you are asking for proof of a negative: "prove it is not a factor", when no one has hard evidence that it is.

Please give me evidence of a "smoking gun". :

We do not need a "smoking gun." Iraq has failed to produce evidence that it has destroyed missing WoMD. Where did they go?

Failing to produce evidence, and having them are two different things.

iraq is in material breech of the u.n. resolution and their own statements.

The inspections were designed to make sure Iraq complied...and they were kicked out in '98.

Actually the inspectors left in 1998. And this is pointless anyhow since we are talking about the current resolution.

Iraq's recent report does not document the missing WoMD. So far they are in limbo.

This goes against the claim that they are in material breech.

they are known to have been directly invovled in 9/11.

Who by? With what evidence? :

We will know if this is true once Powell delivers his evidence to the UN this week.

Then it would be false to claim so until that evidence is presented.

bush is not just going to war with iraq.

Let's just seperate this from the rest of the text. Where does Bush want to invade? Iraq. Who will be killed? Iraqis. Who does he want to get rid of? The Iraqi leader. Hmm, seems to me he's going to attack Iraq, i.e. wage war on Iraq.

the war on iraq is a part of the war on terror. don't try to say that bush only wants iraq's oil because that's not a major factor. it's just the easiest way for democrats to make him looks bad, and God knows they'll do anything to make him look bad.

Please qualify your claim that oil is not a major factor.

and don't try to say it anyway because we're not waring with north korea because they haven't done anything directly towards us. true, they are a threat and they should be dealt with, but they haven't done anything yet.

Iraq hasn't done anything to you.

and about the whole "smoking gun" crap, the only reason you idiots say that there isn't a smoking gun is because the democrats have pushed their "peace" cries for so long that the dust from 9/11 cleared out.

Please give me evidence of a "smoking gun".

iraq is in material breech of the u.n. resolution and their own statements.

How so?

they are known to have been directly invovled in 9/11.

Who by? With what evidence?

we need to take sadaam out along with all those who share his anti-american attitude. we're not at war with iraq, though.

Because people are not allowed opinions?

we're at war with terrorism. iraq seems to have an abundance of it.

Actually Iraq has pretty much nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Saddam was supported by America because he was against fundamental Islam. He chopped most of their heads off(in Iraq) and waged war on the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran.

He said it, so if his own words embarrass him, that's too bad.

Please, can you give me the entire message, I don't quite remember saying this.

Thoughts are rather subjective and if you want to call that "superior" then that is your choice. Bet that as it may, this is nothing more than a red herring.

Depends on the subject matter, the subject, as defined quite a while ago, is the uselessness of philosophy.

And isn't this a shocker....this is a politics forum, not the "body of science." :

Dude, shut the hell up. A stupid BBS forum or for that matter, a stupid NG user does not change the conotations of the words in respect to the body of science.

I didn't say it does. I'm saying that connotations are different in different contexts. Finally English Language is coming in useful!

I ain't disregarding no connations. Infact I'm using a different definition. :

It does not matter how you use them. It only matters how they are used in respect to the body of science. You and your personal feelings do not override the conotation of the word, or how it is understood; especially in the body of science.

Again I am not saying that I want or it should be changed in this so-called "body of science". I am merely stating that there are many different meanings to words and connotations which go with them.

The real question is, do you understand what a connotation is?

No I mean that it is objective truth, something which is 100% true. Not that I believe there is such a thing. :

And of course, once again, you abuse the meaning of the word. Who gives a damn what you think? Certainly not the entire body of science.

What's this? You say my view is wrong, then add that it is irrelevant. Do you want another dictionary definition to shut you up?

Now you are an official laughing stock. I will have to post this on my website.

Ooh, are you then going to start the "We hate Slizor club". Actually I think there was oe of them started by NewYorkGuy, ah sad people crack me up.

Please, please, I beg of you stop using words which you don't understand. A connotation is a contextual-based idea linked to a word. :

The context of the words "truth" and "proof" have a different meaning in the body of science.

And isn't this a shocker....this is a politics forum, not the "body of science."

I'm not saying what they should mean in science, I am saying what they mean. :

You are disregarding their conotation

I ain't disregarding no connations. Infact I'm using a different definition.

As to your pathetic attempt to complain about the word "objective", my stance remains correct. You want to argue that "something is real indepently whether we have proof or not."

I didn't say that. :

You imply it, you stated that you prefer the second defintion of "objective" i.e. that something exists.

Look below, you misunderstood, as seems normal with you.

If you mean that it independently exists of our observations

No I mean that it is objective truth, something which is 100% true. Not that I believe there is such a thing.

Then your dirty n00b self enters the debate trying to support philosophy because it seeks "absolute truth" i.e. "objective", accepts things as "true" before any verification is given, and ultimately is greater than science. But later you admitted that you were wrong, and that science is the best tool possible.

I have not once said philosophy was better than science, I have not said that I would use philosophy to understand how the universe is made or anything like that. I was defending the merits of a subject you called "subjective poppycock" in your supreme ignorance.

Being accepted as truth and going through the scientific method are two vastly different things. :

This is why laymen are such boneheads. In the body of science does not accept theories out of hand even with evidence. It must be rigorously tested to meet expected predictions. If so, then the theory gains weight and it "true." You stated that "Philosophy accepts theories as true, and then they must be disproven." This is the antithesis of scientific method. If this is the case, then practically anything is true based on the most minute of evidences.

This is actually a word game, and a long continued one. True, my wording was unelloquant, yet I'm sure the meaning was understood.

Being in a politics forum does indeed change the connotations. It is a lingistic fact that the connotations of a word change with the context of their use. :

I have clarified my useage of the words according to what they mean in the body of science. Simply posting them on a BBS forum does not change the conotation of the word.

Please, please, I beg of you stop using words which you don't understand. A connotation is a contextual-based idea linked to a word.

Stop trying to manufacture a weakness so you can claim victory on your personal opinion on what you think they should mean in science. :

I'm not saying what they should mean in science, I am saying what they mean.

As to your pathetic attempt to complain about the word "objective", my stance remains correct. You want to argue that "something is real indepently whether we have proof or not."

I didn't say that.

Before you continue with your attempt to redefine what I have been talking about I will show you the thing that I have been debating the entire time.

Immediate VS. 2500 years.

Look at how far we have come in the last 100 years vs. the philosphical nonsense of 2500 years. Philosophy cannot, and will not ever answer its own questions. It is subjective poppycock, designed only to make one think, not to answer objective questions.

Here you have clearly used objective(as its meaning in truth), not in a "scientific" sense. So before you try you "red herring/strawman" crap again and your changing the subject crap, remember, don't fuck with Slizor.

Ah, a change of topic, how clever of you! Having been absolutly and utterly humiliated in an area which you know asolutely JACK SHIT about you have decided that you won't defend your disdain for philosophy. :

You filthy liar. You have already admitted that science is superior in aspects as the creation of the universe [and other scientific concepts]. It has remained my point since the beginning.

And I have not debated this point, I joined this thread when you said
Immediate VS. 2500 years.

Look at how far we have come in the last 100 years vs. the philosphical nonsense of 2500 years. Philosophy cannot, and will not ever answer its own questions. It is subjective poppycock, designed only to make one think, not to answer objective questions.

Something which has been the topic for a good few posts now. I have not said anything about the Big Bang or God, I have not claimed that the Big Bang didn't happen, I don't think I even posted on this subject till you mentioned philosophy. :

Since my core arugment was that science is superior to other "branches" of philosophy in this regard...I am correct. Deal with it.

But I have not been arguing with that.

Frankly you've just left hundreds of unanswered questions while trying to pick out little points in arguements, or claiming that people are wrong and you are right. :

When your arguments are nothing more than red herrings or strawmen...yes I will. Deal with my argument, or do not post at all.

Deal with my argument! I have NOT ONCE attacked your position on science being the best tool.

Atleast you should come away from this "debate" with the idea that you really shouldn't fuck with me. I bid you good day!:

Your ill use of logic does not frighten me, it entertains me.

I said good day!(Ah I love Fez.)

And strangely enough...I am home!

Anyhow, it may not gain weight in the scientific community, but if it has good proof and can not be disproved then it is still true. :

I am sorry laymen, it is not "still true." There is always a possiblity that it is true independent of our observations, and experimentations...but until it has been rigorously tested it will not be accepted as "truth."

Being accepted as truth and going through the scientific method are two vastly different things.

You are not using the connotations of the words in the body of science. You are using it on a POLITICS FORUM. The words then have different connotations. :

Strawman. In the body of science the words "truth" and "proof" carry a different meaning which I have already explained. Being in a politics forum changes nothing.

Being in a politics forum does indeed change the connotations. It is a lingistic fact that the connotations of a word change with the context of their use.

It is in the objective/subjective truth definition of the word. :

Um no. The definition of "objective" means to be free from personal opinion, bias, and interpretation. Science although can be affected by subjectivity, is rather objective in its nature.

Urm no. There are many definitions of the word "objective".

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
1 Of or having to do with a material object.
2 Having actual existence or reality.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

I use the second one, which means something is true, if you can't interpret.

Acutally, all your idiotic posts are red herrings because you never answered my question. I could care less if philosophy is useful in any other aspect of human life. However, I am talking about the current topic: The Big Bang.

Ah, a change of topic, how clever of you! Having been absolutly and utterly humiliated in an area which you know asolutely JACK SHIT about you have decided that you won't defend your disdain for philosophy. Something which has been the topic for a good few posts now. I have not said anything about the Big Bang or God, I have not claimed that the Big Bang didn't happen, I don't think I even posted on this subject till you mentioned philosophy.

Frankly you've just left hundreds of unanswered questions while trying to pick out little points in arguements, or claiming that people are wrong and you are right. Atleast you should come away from this "debate" with the idea that you really shouldn't fuck with me. I bid you good day!

Get with semantics! A hypothesis is a proposed theory, but not a theory in itself. :

You orginally posted that philosophy says "a theory is true unless proven otherwise." If this is true, then philosophy is again proven useless in the realm of scientific discovery. A theory, even if it is one person who validated it, is NOT AUTOMATICALLY accepted as true only to have others to disprove it. It must go through a rigorous process of experimentation in order for it to be accpeted as true.

I really should start defining philosophies. Anyhow, it may not gain weight in the scientific community, but if it has good proof and can not be disproved then it is still true.

Really, you should read what I wrote, I said "I am paraphrasing" this means that you did not actually say it! :

You are implying that I mean this according to the current topic.

No I'm not. Heh, strange that I can just disagree with you. I have said nothing of the "current topic".

You are giving two contrary views! You are saying we can never grasp absolute truth, then claiming you have it. :

The words of a laymen. You clearly misunderstand the conotation of the words "proof" and "truth" in the body of science.

You are not using the connotations of the words in the body of science. You are using it on a POLITICS FORUM. The words then have different connotations.

science, apart that it is subkjective by definition while you claim it is objective and sujective:

Science is not subjective by nature.

It is in the objective/subjective truth definition of the word.

Science is being as objective as possible [free from personal bias, opinoin, and interpretation] of observed phenomena. This is either rejected or verified through rigorous experimentation.

Please qualify then, your earlier statement that philosophy is subjective.

This is not science, this is philosophy. :

Wrong, it is how science seeks to understand the universe. By accepting the fact that it is useless to prove with 100% certainty that what we find is absolute. We use our senses to do the best job.

Which is philosophy!

Please, if you want to debate the merits of science over philosophy, please learn about philosophy and not one, popular phrase which has been discredited. :

When it comes to the creation of the universe, gravity, speed of light, electron movement, or evolution

Where is the response? Sorry but that is not a response to what I wrote. Actually you've missed out many of my points, probably because you couldn't respond to them and will now arrogantly claim that they were inane, or something to that effect.

For something to be called "objective" it must be provable beyond doubt :

Wow, you do not even read what I have been posting do you?

I get a similar feeling with you.

If you want something to be absolute, then you are nothing more than a solopisist. When science is being "objective" is does its best to make sure people's bias does not affect its evidence.

Can you make an argument that philosophy does not do this also?

Philosophy on the other hand actually seeks to be objective, believing in that which is proven beyond a doubt. :

Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha. Wrong! You just proved to me that Philosophy is nothing more than solipisitic bullshit, just like I posted earlier! Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha.

Hmm, I meant to say rationalism.

In conclusion Philosophy > Science. Thank you good day. :

Red herring? Strawman? Nothing but a big giant fallacy from someone who does not pay attention to what I post.

All of your posts are red herrings. I'll type this in caps since you seem unable to read it in lowercase. I HAVE, NOT ONCE, DISPUTED THAT SCIENCE WAS THE BEST TOOL, NOT ONCE! Please, do not bring this subject up again as I have now made it as explicitly clear as possible. I thought you would have realised at the start, but jesus you're dumb.

Science is the best tool possible to help us describe the universe. It is a YES or NO answer. If NO, then why not Slizor?

I have never disputed this, not once! Again you try to confuse the issue, the issue is that philosophy is subjective poppycock.

I said a theory. As you should know a theory already has supporting evidence... :

Wrong again as usual. When people have evidence that seems to support their proposed theory, it must continually be tested by the scientific community. Once the theory fails to be disproven, then, and only then, does it gain weight and finally accepted. It is not automatically correct simply because one person claims to have evidence.

Get with semantics! A hypothesis is a proposed theory, but not a theory in itself.

You said that Philosophy is crap and science is great :

Once again, you are wrong. Why? You do not pay attention to what I have been posting for the last several days. I said that science is the best tool to use to describe the physical universe because of its objective nature to seek out the "rules" on how it works. Philosophy can pose questions in this regard. Get with it...

Really, you should read what I wrote, I said "I am paraphrasing" this means that you did not actually say it!

Both religion and science want to answer the questions of the world, but do so in different ways and they both claim objectivity. :

Oh looky here...a strawman argument. Who in the hell is going to say that gravity is a figment of ones imagination, or is made up of pink marshmellows? The systematic observation, theorization, and conclusions help scientists to answer such fundamental issues of the universe in the most objective manner. Unlike religion, scientists do not say "I think this is the way it works...no I think its the other way!" Once a theory has been tested repeatedly it is accepted as true. They can prove it.

You are giving two contrary views! You are saying we can never grasp absolute truth, then claiming you have it.

Do you know that the Big Bang happened? Science seeks to be objective, but is just as subjective itself. :

Again, a straw man argument.

I asked a question.

You claim that science [notably hard science in this regard] is "just as subjective" yet you give me no example. I already know that science can be affected by bias, and can be wrong...my point all along is it is the best tool possible.

Again, you confuse yourself and the matter. I have never said that there is anything wrong with science, apart that it is subkjective by definition while you claim it is objective and sujective at the same time, kind of stupid of you. I am merely defending philosophy from your ignorant view.

The problem with this "green oil" as they call it is;

I'm not talking about green oil, I'm talking about plastic actually being grown...on the plant.

On a sidenote you can actually use cooking oil in a diseal engine, but beware, you still have to pay tax on it.(This was done in wales, there are numerous news stories on it at The Guardian(guardianunlimited.co.uk) but I can't be fucked to pull up a story)

Then use solar power!

easier sad than done.. But if solar energy and/or wind energy would be used. Hydro-cars would really be enviromental friendly.

Solar engery can at least be used to aid the main source of energy.

This Bush topic ownz all the others.

Sidenote: There are 99 Bush topics on the BBS.

I must disagree with this statement. The Iranians do despise the U.S. since they celebrate "Death to America Day" once a year but they despise Iraq more than any other country in the Middle East (with the possible exception of the Kuwatis). The Iranians fought a very bitter war with the Iraqis back in the 80s (70s? I don't feel like looking it up) and still despise them and Saddam Hussein to this day.

The Iran-Iraq war(80s) did produce some animosity towards Saddam, but more to America(to be fair, in this case, America has been scapegoated(not totally though).) The West, especially America, provided arms, intelligence and biological weapons to Iraq, as they wanted to end the fanatical regime in Iran. But at the same time America also sold weapons to Iran, so were seen as masterminding the whole war.

Well, is Osama bin Laden wrong for hating America and 'masterminding' September 11th? Is he a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

I'm pretty certain a freedom fighter has to be fighting for the freedom of something. While some of you may say he is fighting for the freedom of the Palestinians, I would say, fight the Israelis.

A common philosophical rebuttal of science (particular evolutionary science, which faces powerful religious opponents) is that it lacks certainty. It is not proven. There is no guarantee of its truth or falsehood. And guess what: surprise! It's all true.

Isn't that one of those absolutes you talk about? To say that it is all true, you don't seem to be following your later idea that it's as close as we can get.

So why is science great, if it's not certain or proven or guaranteed true? The short answer is that these criticisms are meaningless, because nothing outside the existence of your own thoughts is certain, proven, or guaranteed true.

You have weak philosophical knowledge. Descartes did say that "I think therefore I am", but Sartre changed it to "I think therefore there are thoughts". Thus showing the complete and utter uselessness of methodological doubt.

If you wish to use absolute proof, certainty, or guarantees of truth as your litmus test for validity, then you have just subscribed to solipsism: the belief that nothing can be reliably known besides the existence of your own thought. Why? Because nothing can be absolutely proven beyond "I think therefore I am". Nothing is absolutely certain beyond "I think therefore I am". Nothing can be guaranteed true beyond "I think therefore I am". For all you know, nothing exists beyond your own mind, and the entire universe is but a figment of your imagination.

You really should look more into philosophy. Descartes was dead a hell of a long time ago, philosophy has moved on.

"But that's absurd," you might object, and you would be right. Solipsism strikes virtually any reasonable observer as patently absurd. For most people, solipsism smacks of philosophy gone awry, or perhaps a perverse desire to denigrate every other field of study by declaring all of them to be uncertain supposition in one fell swoop. The salty description of solipsism is "useless smart-assed philosophical bullshit", and to be quite frank, that's a fairly reasonable description. But since solipsism is the inevitable outcome of the demand for absolute proof, certainty, or guarantees, one cannot demand such things without inadvertently sliding into solipsism!

You are only attacking methodological doubt! It is the work of one philosopher hundreds of years ago and generalising that that is the whole of philosophy! You are talking about Rationalism, which has been discredited for many many years.

Science is great because it accepts that we cannot have absolute knowledge of truth, so it discards the hopeless quest for absolute truth and it seeks the next best thing: the most accurate possible descriptive model of the observable universe.

This is not science, this is philosophy.

It discards the useless question of whether the observable universe is real, and seeks only to describe that universe as accurately as possible, with no regard for whether it is real or not.

Please, if you want to debate the merits of science over philosophy, please learn about philosophy and not one, popular phrase which has been discredited.

As for the "objectivity of science" and "subjectivity of philosophy". For something to be called "objective" it must be provable beyond doubt, and this is not what science seeks to do, even by your own admission. Philosophy on the other hand actually seeks to be objective, believing in that which is proven beyond a doubt.

In conclusion Philosophy > Science. Thank you good day.

This idea that a theory is right until proven wrong is from....philosophy! :

And you are proud of this? Thanks for showing me that science is better than philosophy considering that you just implied to me the impossible proof of a negative.

I said a theory. As you should know a theory already has supporting evidence, when evidence comes forward that goes against the theory then a new hypothesis is made.

I am not offering an alternative method :

Then there is no point to continue. Science is the best method we have to describe the universe.

Philosophy does not offer this and it does not matter if science is related, dirived, or "owes" its genesis to philosophy.

You are muddling the issues. You said that Philosophy is crap and science is great(I am paraphrasing here.) I am just pointing out that the two are infact the same. Modern Science is a branch of philosophy, it is philosophy.

If I want to ponder the greater subjective questions of life concerning existance, justice, love ect., I will pick up a philosophy book...perhaps Plato's Republic.

Nah, Plato's republic is weird. See, now while I say that Science is a branch of Philosophy, Religion is also a branch of Philosophy. Both religion and science want to answer the questions of the world, but do so in different ways and they both claim objectivity.

There is no point on you or anyone else rehashing the friuts of phiolosphy when taking objective reality into consideration, especially when we are talking about the Big Bang, and the universe in general.

Do you know that the Big Bang happened? Science seeks to be objective, but is just as subjective itself.

I would answer you point by point, but you, like others on the BBS, do not even understand what science is and what it seeks out to do. So I will only give you a brief summary. We all know that the sciences [hard, and soft] can be wrong and can be subjected to personal bias. However, like I have earlier stated in other threads, science is the best tool we have to help us find answers concerning the universe. Disagree all you want, but none of you have even begun to offer an alternative method.

While I am more of a politics poster I will also defend philosophy. You really should look at philosophy, philosophy is about a way of looking at the world. You may think "philosophy = "I think therefore I am" but that's a very limited view of philosophy. My point is that modern science came from empiricism, the work of Hume and others. Science came from philosophy, infact I think philosophy actually means "Science's friend". The two things are interrelated. This idea that a theory is right until proven wrong is from....philosophy!

I am not offering an alternative method, I am not critisizing science, I am saying that science owes a lot to philosophy and should not be ignorantly cast off.

Politics also owes a lot to philosophy, works such as the Communist Manifesto, The Social Contract, etc are all philosophical works that have had a great influence on politics. Infact the British constitution is part based on great philosophical works.

Mushroom: While I wholeheartedly agree with your point of view you really need to get different sources. People like no better than to change the focus of a debate to the validiaty of your source. Quoting things which show a clear bias is not a good idea. This often happens when a left-winger tries to debate a right-winger. Naomi Klein recognised this once, so she decided to totally fuck this person she was debating over. This person was from like USA today or something, so Naomi backed up all her statements with quotes and sources from USA today.

Immediate VS. 2500 years.

Look at how far we have come in the last 100 years vs. the philosphical nonsense of 2500 years. Philosophy cannot, and will not ever answer its own questions. It is subjective poppycock, designed only to make one think, not to answer objective questions.

Science uses philosophy, modern science comes from philosophy. You do infact have a philosophical viewpoint which you are seemingly unwilling to discuss. You seem to me to think that there is an answer for every question and that your senses can get you these questions.

You surely are not claiming that science is objective are you? How many times do people revise scientific theories? It seems to be on going. Especially with space and the big bang, it is based on loads of different unproven ideas.

GameBoyCC! Woo!
All we need now is for Shrap, Perdix and shorbe to come back! Bloody people, always leaving.

If you ask me, you are only doing this because you are outmatched not only by sheer numbers, but also by knowledge.

I don't think he did ask you. You're quite the little arrogant sod, aren't you? To claim that you have more "knowledge" than someone else on issues that people have debated for thousands of years. You sir need a course in philosophy to sort you out.

With reference to the Israeli it seems an unfortunate coincidence that he was on it. Firstly because it was a big thing for Israelis and secondly it could be viewed as a terror attack. However, how this could be caused by a terrorist I don't know, it seems to be more likely that they just screwed up.

Think of plastics. Your keyboard, mouse, chips, Tv, Cd's, cell phone, actionfigures, PCP, condoms, flavours in milkshakes ect ect are all made out of .. yes OIL!

Plastic can now be made by plants...yes plants! They are currently making biodegradable plastic for packaging, but probably could make fairly permanent plastic.

secondly Hydro cars run on socalled "fuel cells". Fuel cells full of H2 gas. The H2 gas is burned and the byproduct is harmless H20. To creat fuel cells with H2 gas, people need lots of energy(think of your chemestry lessons!!) and were do you think we get the energy to creat H2-gas? from OIL-based electricplants or neucliar enery ofcourse... so Are Hydro-cars really all that Enviroment friendly?

Then use solar power!

In the United States the people control their government through elections

Hah, an election every four years really scares people!

Yes it scares the fuck out of politicians. If a politician does something truly against the will of the people he has no chance in hell of getting re-elected.

Unless he does it early on in his term, or the opposition is weak, or he spends more money than them.

Well that's what happens when you arm people like that.

Yes they are armed with all sorts of lovely soviet made weapons.

And US made chemical weapons.

You overestimate Iraq's power.

No, my analogy is refering to the Middle East.

I doubt that the entire Middle east would take up arms on behalf of Saddam Hussein. The Iranians hate him the Kuwatis hate him and everyone else in the middle east trust him even less than they trust the U.S.

While sections of the Middle East may not like Saddam, they like him more than the US. Especially the Iranians.

How long would it take this time with the just the United States....three weeks maybe four?

Speed is not indicitave of deaths. I'll have a look, but I think Iraq lost 150'000 people in the last war. Don't hold me to that figure though.

I doubt it was that high. I wouldn't argue with 50,000 but 150,000 is a bit high.

Sorry, my number was from Bill Hicks in 1991. The estimate now a days is about 100'000, but they can never be sure. The US lost 79.

Where is this intolerance of other cultures and other religions? Palestinians are both Christian and Muslim, yet they get along fine.

They hate the Jews....not just the Israelis all the Jews.

You would really have to qualify this jews thing. I can understand why Palestinians hate Zionists....them having stolen their land and all. That's not an intolerance of culture or religion.

Intent is a very big part of morality.

Adolph Hitler believed he was ridding the world of a "degenerate race" does that make him right?

How was he doing it? By killing people. Therefore he had the intent to kill in cold blood, doesn't seem very right to me.

Saddam holds elections, is he a popularly elected government? Ariel Sharon is popularly elected, is he not corrupt?(If you don't agree with this, imagine it is any of Italy's leaders)

Saddams elections are a joke....he got 100% of the popular vote in his last election. You know there is something flawed in a system like that.

Indeed, like you know a system is flawed because there are only two major parties which get all of the votes and all of the seats(together).

As for Sharon his militant ways have pissed off enough Israelis that he probably won't get re-elected when his term is over.

Ahem

The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over THREE TIMES!

I have to call bullshit on that one.

Did you not read the papers? They said they would hand him over to a neutral country, but the US rejected!

BTW, I am in full favor of capital and corporal punishment, but that is because I know a lot of the ignorant who don't fear prison time. Losing a few years to be fed and housed and taken care of doesn't bother them.

Don't prisoners work as well? If they don't then they damn well should!
.

Hopefully this will make you think a little bit about the effectiveness of "barbaric" practices. If a man can lose his hand for stealing, he steals a whole lot less, now doesn't he?

Effectiveness is not a justification for morality. For example, to stop George W. Bush talking crap I could A) Stitch his mouth up or B) Educate him. Educating him would take a lot longer and could possibly fail, but people should atleast try.

Capital punishment should not be allowed, especially for murderers because the logic is just too stupid. "We're killing you because your actions went against the sanctitity of life.