"...Again, "non-creationism" != abiogenesis. Regardless, the improbability of abiogenesis doesn't mean it's not true. "When you have eliminated the impossible..." and all that jazz.
Well, ok. Tell me ONE theory for the origin of life that does not either require a supernatural creator, or spontaneous generation from "primordial soup." I'm not aware of any, and intuitively cannot even conceive of another possible explanation. God and abiogenesis are, exhaustively, the two possible theories.
Also, if you take a moment to consider the demonstrably infinitessimal probability of abiogenesis, I argue that is IS impossible. It is proven improbable, and has yet to even be proven possible. I submit that it is, in fact, impossible. You're actually better off, probability-wise, believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.
You are still visible, a port scan will show it - it's not *obscure*. If you want *obscure* you should consider port knocking (http://www.portknocking.org/) or such other methods.
I like the portknocking idea. But, you are wrong -- it is obscure. In this case, either exhaustive, manual search or a tool (in this case a port scanner) is required to find the port. By definition, because it is more difficult to find, it is obscure. And, my server logs reflect the effect.
I find it a much much smaller probability the possibility of spontaneous generation of an entity able to create life by design.
I understand what you're saying. But, creationists typically do not subscribe to the idea of a Creator who was spontaneously generated. I believe God to be extra-temporal (outside of creation's time continuum) -- thus without beginning or end. Time is required for a measurement of frequency of occurance, and so without time there is no way to calculate a frequency of occurance or probability. Therefore, a creationist's belief places God outside of time and, in turn, probability.
So, you have us creationists who believe that the universe was created by a Creator, who is outside of our capacity for calculation. The generation of life, the complexity of the cell, and the harmony and balance of nature all being explained by this single concept. On the other hand are the non-creationists, who believe that the universe was assembled by random happenstance, which is [also] outside of our capacity for calculation. The generation of life, the complexity of the cell, and the harmony and balance of nature all being dependent on incalcuably numerous occurances of incalcuably miniscule probabilites. Which one, mathematically speaking, requires more faith?
You're right -- I was talking about abiogenesis. I never mentioned evolution. But, abiogenesis IS a prerequisite to rejecting creationism, and therein lies my point.
As for your last sentence, if you include supernatural in your definition of "living being", then you are once again correct. If, however, you assert that creationists must believe the Creator to be a mortal creation Himself, then you're stuck back at the problem of God's spontaneous generation. In that case, nothing is gained and, as you stated, creationism would be abiogenesis.
So, as I understand it, the non-creationism standpoint relies on the improbable concept of abiogenesis. The creationism stanpoint relies on the as yet unprovable concept of the supernatural -- an extra-temporal God who has no beginning or end. Thus, the Creator of the beginning does not Himself depend on His own beginning.
Ah, the new buzzword of the day, "consensus." There is hardly consensus on the superiority of openness in a security model. The scrutiny of many eyes argument is valid, but is arguably countered by a "probing of many eyes" for exploits argument.
And, there are good arguments for security through obscurity -- a concept all too quickly shot down here at Slashdot. For example, leaving a house key inside a fake rock in your garden is arguably more secure than leaving the key under your welcome mat. Another example, in which I have personally experienced the behefits of security through obscurity, is network ports. I used to have ann SSH server running on the standard, port 22. Every day, my logs showed numerous login attempts by unknown individuals trying to gain access to my system. Once I moved the server to a different, more _obscure_ port, though, my logs rarely show any connection attemps. Now, is this new port more secure? No. But, because it's further hidden it does afford _more_ security.
And, as for your final, fanny-pat statement to the "consensus" of the "scientific" world: I'm a creationist, and I'm not out of touch. For me, the incalcuably small probability of spontaneous generation of a lifeform able to be nourished by it's environment and then able to reproduce is not a large-enough foundation on which to build a scientific consensus.
Why would you need to do this? Why not just rely on random, fortunate happenstance to create life? I mean, come on, have a little faith in spontaneous generation.
Also, it might increase the accuracy and validity of your experiment if you place your planets next to stars that have cyclical energy output. Then, be sure to employ a large group of politically-motivated elitists to gather your data for you. They should completely disregard the aforementioned stars in their conclusions, and quickly form a "concensus" of irrefutable judgment. And, any data gatherer who questions said "concensus" shall be labeled a zealot and expelled from the community.
Just some suggestions. Of course, you run your experiment the way you want to.
Ok, so now when you purchase a whole album, you get:
)) Pay as much or more than you would for the CD )) Lossy compression (maybe better quality, but still not as good) )) No album art )) Save the producers the cost of stamping CD/printing art/distribution
Why am I paying _more_ for this? Hmm. Buying/ripping CDs is starting to look like a good idea again.
I just can't use a product associated with the name "GravityZoo." GravityZoo sounds too much like GravityGlue... which sounds too much like CavityGlue... which sounds just a little too close to CavityJew... which reminds me of the dentist (sorry for the anti-Semitism -- I needed this for the joke to work. I love you guys. Shalom!) Anyhoo, so... the dentist. I don't like the dentist, and so, logically, I don't like GravityZoo. QED.
Your post is interesting, but I'm trying to figure out what you meant by...
"...That puts Word documents on the same footing as, say, PDF files for archival purposes."
I can open a PDF on my Pocket PC, my old Handspring Visor, any Linux distro... heck, OOo and PDFCreator freely save in PDF, and WordPerfect (the latest) (apparently) allows you to edit PDF.
So, I don't get it. I love PDF. Or, was I missing your embedded sarcasm? If so, then my bad.
That may be true if you don't live in a capitalist society. There are many people (I suspect, as I am one) who enjoy using OSS, but don't believe that absolutely everything must be done in accordance with RMS's communist (and I use that word in the sense of the theory of communism, not the Soviet Russia sense) ideals. I'm a firmware engineer by trade and, while I enjoy using Linux, I do believe that there is a place for closed-source, money making, IP-protecting code -- especially in a capitalist setting, where company A makes money and provides jobs because they do something company B can't.
And, I believe that most people are at least somewhat ok with the idea of closed-source whether they realize it or not. I don't hear many people complain that their BIOS, or HDD firmware or [insert any other peripheral]'s firmware is closed-source. (Yes, I'm aware of the Linux BIOS project.) Really, many of these pieces of software are lower-level than even the kernel and are located in potentially dangerous areas of the system architecure.
So, while I may agree with your statement in a near-sighted way, I believe that ultimately closed-source is necessary for companies, and the people who work for those companies and the companies that sell products to those people, and (deep breath) the people who work for the companies that sell products to the people who work for the companies that have closed-source software. And, the people who live on the welfare provided by the taxes paid by the people of said companies. In short, capitalism. Yes, Linksys opened it's firmware and has arguably sold more routers as a result. But, not all of their IP (the HDL that went into making their (or Broadcom's) ASICs, their PCB designs, etc.) was opened. If that were made available, how could that possibly benefit them? It wouldn't. It would hurt them as a company, and then their employees, and ultimately the "public good."
No. Here's how it works. In order for this global warming hysteria to succeed, all readily-observable evidence of it must be quelled. So, for instance, if "scientists" claim that polar ice is melting, they must also say (A) it's only happening on the North pole, and (B) this won't cause sea levels to rise, because North pole ice is not on land. This is because regular people (ie. non-"scientists" -- you know, we uneducated folk) can easily go to the beach and see that sea levels are not rising.
Other forms of suppression of evidence to the contrary involve the paradox that if you have a mild winter, it's caused by global warming. But, if you have a heavier winter (you guessed it) it's also caused by global warming. Freak hail storms? Global warming.
Somebody *cough*ALGORE*cough* really screwed up by predicting an even worse hurricane season this year. Oops. If you can't even predict the results of climactic change one year in advance, how can you make such a bold statement about 2040? Alarmism. Chalk this up with the overpopulation and ice age scares of the past.
I've never persisted this long on a Slashdot thread before. But, I've enjoyed our conversation so much that I think I'll continue;)
Are you suggesting that chemical weapons were sold to Iraq on the assumption that they would never be used period, or that they were only intended to be used against Iran?
The first option is just plain dumb, and the second is quite evil.
On the assumption that they would be used to defend Iraq against any attackers. But, Saddam used them on his own people and, along with other more brutal methods like plastic shredders, killed upwards of 300,000 of them.
Well, if you were interested in how well your chemical weapons actually performed, why not try them out on real people in real-world conditions?
Seriously, do you REALLY hold the opinion that this was our plan? Or, do you think that maybe there's a possibility that Saddam decided to kill his own people without us telling him to do it?
Of course oil was a primary consideration, of not the most important one. Sheer incompetance and non-existant planning lead Bush et. al. to believe it would be child's play to remove the existing government, and replace it with a subservient one. Reality turned out to be rather different however.
Actually, investigations into the dealing of Kofi Annan's son, as well as the French and Russian governments revealed that they and a few other key UN players were the only ones intersted in oil. I could provide a link, but then you'd just dismiss it as conservative lies (eg. Fox News). So, just go ahead and google "kojo annan" to see for yourself.
Agreed. What do you think the answer would be if they were asked whether they preferred life under the previous regime (which offered security at the cost of freedom) to the anarchy and civil war they are now forced to endure?
Unfortunately, those who have lived under an evil dictatorship all their lives are usually willing to trade one despot for another. But, if you consider what has already been established in this conversation before -- the fact that less people have died in the ACTUAL WAR than did under the reign of Saddam and his lunatic sons -- the math alone yields the better situation. Under Saddam's rule, there was NO HOPE of any improvement. One of his sons would have succeeded his madness. But, under the current situaion, where the UN (yeah, they're there now) are helping to get a fledgling government installed (not a US-subservient one, mind you) there IS HOPE for the Iraqis.
Dude, get your news from somewhere other than Fox.
This retort really has gotten to be a stale reaction from the [may I call you liberal?] side. I see it on Slashdot at least once daily.
Actually, I don't have Fox News. I only have Dish Network top 60 and that's not included unfortunately. Most of my news comes from online. But, tell ya what... I haven't seen any blogs uncover Fox News photo fraud (BBC, CNN), or Fox News forged documents( CBS), or Fox News staged battles. CNN, Newsweek, Time, Forbes, CBS, BBC and many others have all been forced to fire photographers and reporters because they've all been caught in fraud. Show me a blog that PROVES any dishonesty of Fox News and it will be news to me. Meanwhile, take a look at this: LINK, it will blow your mind. Also, do a search for "pallywood", another shocker.
According to what I have read, Al Queda is more of a label than an organization. Anything western government consider to be remotely terror related is automatically branded as Al Queda...
I don't believe Al Qaeda would consider their name just a "label." And no, we do distinguish between Al Qaeda, Hamas (Political party moonlighting as terrorists), Hezbollah (What kind of pol
What would you say if I told you that observers from the US military were present when those same chemical weapons were deployed?
I wouldn't be surprized if the US military observed the action. But, if you think they recommended, approved or condoned the action I would vehemently disagree. What possible purpose would it serve? This is the same mentality that still holds to the tired, old argument that we went to Iraq for oil (and, coerced several other nations to go along with us.) Well then, where is all this Iraqi oil we are supposed to be enjoying? How come the US still gets the majority of its oil from Venezuela and Canada?
That is your opinion [that the Iraqis are better off with Saddam gone.] I wonder what the average Iraqi would say?
I'm sure it would depend on how the question was asked. If you said, "Do you approve of the US occupation of Iraq?" I'm sure many would say NO. But, if you said, "Do you want the US military forces to leave Iraq at once?" I'm confident that most, overwhelmingly, would answer NO. The ongoing insurgent force from Al Qaeda makes it apparent that immediate withdrawl would result in an immediate influx of terrorism, an overthrow of the Iraqi government and the installation of another dictatorship -- from the new Al Qaeda leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajer (an Egyptian)
My admitted conjecture is supported by the fact that the insurgency is not lead by Iraqis (Iraqi people aren't attacking the Iraqi government and US forces.) The attacks are coming from Syrians, Egyptians (the above-mentioned Al Qaeda leader) and possibly others. If it were Iraqis leading the attacks I might agree with you.
Well, from the numbers I'd say we saved Iraq from Saddam. Again, they're better off. It's apparent the insurgents from Syria don't want us there. And, certainly Al Qaeda doesn't want us there (remember Al Zarqawi? Yeah, Al Queda presence in Iraq - go figure.) If the Islamo-fascists don't want us in Iraq, it's probably the right thing to be there.
"US history is littered with civillian deaths."
Whose history isn't? But, there is a difference. The US does not actively target civilians (except for when Clinton bombed that aspirin factory in Iraq to get the heat off the whole Monica thing.) Neither do any of the other Western countries I can think of. But, do any of the Islamic nations hold such a policy? No. Islamo-terrorists do all they can to maximize civilian casualties. So, when you're fighting a group that uses these tactics (ala Israel vs. Hezbollah) you have two choices: Bow their wishes, or fight and risk killing the civilians that the terrorists hide behind. For any sovereign nation interested in self-preservation, the choice is clear.
No, it isn't. But, my point was not dealing specifically with Iran. Iraq IS an Arab country, and my point is that Saddam has killed more Iraqis than anyone else. Say what you (or anyone else in this thread) will about the US arming Saddam, it was never our intent for Saddam to use weapons on his own people. Say what you (or anyone else in this thread) will about Iraqi death tolls since Saddam was taken out of power -- the Iraqis are better off now that he is gone.
"Rally? this site says between 40,000 and 45,000 people's relatives would disagree with you if every given the chance."
Heh, compare that to the 150,000 to 340,000 (depending on who you ask) Iraquis Saddam killed. Then, there were the 450,000 to 700,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq war. Sorry, but regardless of whether US is involved in a middle east war, Arabs always kill more Arabs than anyone else.
"Jews for Jesus is a cult and is not recognized by any mainstream denomination as anything but a cult.
I just call them Christians.
What do you mean by indoctrination, anyway? Sharing your ideas? Stating things as you see them? By that logic, you're indoctrinating everyone who reads your post.
Just because it's religious in nature, it's not, prima facie*, indoctrination.
(*Invoking a Latin phrases always makes your/. post more legitimate.)
Slashdot Mirror
"...Again, "non-creationism" != abiogenesis. Regardless, the improbability of abiogenesis doesn't mean it's not true. "When you have eliminated the impossible ..." and all that jazz.
Well, ok. Tell me ONE theory for the origin of life that does not either require a supernatural creator, or spontaneous generation from "primordial soup." I'm not aware of any, and intuitively cannot even conceive of another possible explanation. God and abiogenesis are, exhaustively, the two possible theories.
Also, if you take a moment to consider the demonstrably infinitessimal probability of abiogenesis, I argue that is IS impossible. It is proven improbable, and has yet to even be proven possible. I submit that it is, in fact, impossible. You're actually better off, probability-wise, believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.
You are still visible, a port scan will show it - it's not *obscure*. If you want *obscure* you should consider port knocking (http://www.portknocking.org/) or such other methods.
I like the portknocking idea. But, you are wrong -- it is obscure. In this case, either exhaustive, manual search or a tool (in this case a port scanner) is required to find the port. By definition, because it is more difficult to find, it is obscure. And, my server logs reflect the effect.
I find it a much much smaller probability the possibility of spontaneous generation of an entity able to create life by design.
I understand what you're saying. But, creationists typically do not subscribe to the idea of a Creator who was spontaneously generated. I believe God to be extra-temporal (outside of creation's time continuum) -- thus without beginning or end. Time is required for a measurement of frequency of occurance, and so without time there is no way to calculate a frequency of occurance or probability. Therefore, a creationist's belief places God outside of time and, in turn, probability.
So, you have us creationists who believe that the universe was created by a Creator, who is outside of our capacity for calculation. The generation of life, the complexity of the cell, and the harmony and balance of nature all being explained by this single concept. On the other hand are the non-creationists, who believe that the universe was assembled by random happenstance, which is [also] outside of our capacity for calculation. The generation of life, the complexity of the cell, and the harmony and balance of nature all being dependent on incalcuably numerous occurances of incalcuably miniscule probabilites. Which one, mathematically speaking, requires more faith?
You're right -- I was talking about abiogenesis. I never mentioned evolution. But, abiogenesis IS a prerequisite to rejecting creationism, and therein lies my point.
As for your last sentence, if you include supernatural in your definition of "living being", then you are once again correct. If, however, you assert that creationists must believe the Creator to be a mortal creation Himself, then you're stuck back at the problem of God's spontaneous generation. In that case, nothing is gained and, as you stated, creationism would be abiogenesis.
So, as I understand it, the non-creationism standpoint relies on the improbable concept of abiogenesis. The creationism stanpoint relies on the as yet unprovable concept of the supernatural -- an extra-temporal God who has no beginning or end. Thus, the Creator of the beginning does not Himself depend on His own beginning.
The problem with the closed source models is that inevitably, all of the targets are the same as what the attacker has...
This is not necessarily true with closed source, but is ALWAYS true with open source.
Ah, the new buzzword of the day, "consensus." There is hardly consensus on the superiority of openness in a security model. The scrutiny of many eyes argument is valid, but is arguably countered by a "probing of many eyes" for exploits argument.
And, there are good arguments for security through obscurity -- a concept all too quickly shot down here at Slashdot. For example, leaving a house key inside a fake rock in your garden is arguably more secure than leaving the key under your welcome mat. Another example, in which I have personally experienced the behefits of security through obscurity, is network ports. I used to have ann SSH server running on the standard, port 22. Every day, my logs showed numerous login attempts by unknown individuals trying to gain access to my system. Once I moved the server to a different, more _obscure_ port, though, my logs rarely show any connection attemps. Now, is this new port more secure? No. But, because it's further hidden it does afford _more_ security.
And, as for your final, fanny-pat statement to the "consensus" of the "scientific" world: I'm a creationist, and I'm not out of touch. For me, the incalcuably small probability of spontaneous generation of a lifeform able to be nourished by it's environment and then able to reproduce is not a large-enough foundation on which to build a scientific consensus.
Nope. I pay for listings and sales through paypal.
It seems that now, Linus wishes he had gone with a more lax license.
No. Linus has stated that he's happy with GPLv2. No regret there.
Also, if you read the article, you'd have learned that that RMS doesn't try to force anyone to think his way
And yet, he continues to whine about it. Does RMS respect Linus' decision to stick with GPLv2? If he did, this would be a non-issue.
"seed them with single, cell life"
Why would you need to do this? Why not just rely on random, fortunate happenstance to create life? I mean, come on, have a little faith in spontaneous generation.
Also, it might increase the accuracy and validity of your experiment if you place your planets next to stars that have cyclical energy output. Then, be sure to employ a large group of politically-motivated elitists to gather your data for you. They should completely disregard the aforementioned stars in their conclusions, and quickly form a "concensus" of irrefutable judgment. And, any data gatherer who questions said "concensus" shall be labeled a zealot and expelled from the community.
Just some suggestions. Of course, you run your experiment the way you want to.
Nokia 6030. Small, yet the buttons are easy to work with. Great reception. Great battery life. Simple. Free with a new plan.
Here.
Ok, you caught me :) I own a Sansa e280 and I've never used iTunes [crowd sneers]
I was not aware of the $9.99/album price. That's cool. And, your point about immediate delivery is well-taken.
Ok, so now when you purchase a whole album, you get:
)) Pay as much or more than you would for the CD
)) Lossy compression (maybe better quality, but still not as good)
)) No album art
)) Save the producers the cost of stamping CD/printing art/distribution
Why am I paying _more_ for this? Hmm. Buying/ripping CDs is starting to look like a good idea again.
I just can't use a product associated with the name "GravityZoo." GravityZoo sounds too much like GravityGlue... which sounds too much like CavityGlue... which sounds just a little too close to CavityJew... which reminds me of the dentist (sorry for the anti-Semitism -- I needed this for the joke to work. I love you guys. Shalom!) Anyhoo, so... the dentist. I don't like the dentist, and so, logically, I don't like GravityZoo. QED.
Are you implying that all native American tribes were cannibals? That is so blatantly racist!
Ha ha. How does that foot taste?
Your post is interesting, but I'm trying to figure out what you meant by...
"...That puts Word documents on the same footing as, say, PDF files for archival purposes."
I can open a PDF on my Pocket PC, my old Handspring Visor, any Linux distro... heck, OOo and PDFCreator freely save in PDF, and WordPerfect (the latest) (apparently) allows you to edit PDF.
So, I don't get it. I love PDF. Or, was I missing your embedded sarcasm? If so, then my bad.
That may be true if you don't live in a capitalist society. There are many people (I suspect, as I am one) who enjoy using OSS, but don't believe that absolutely everything must be done in accordance with RMS's communist (and I use that word in the sense of the theory of communism, not the Soviet Russia sense) ideals. I'm a firmware engineer by trade and, while I enjoy using Linux, I do believe that there is a place for closed-source, money making, IP-protecting code -- especially in a capitalist setting, where company A makes money and provides jobs because they do something company B can't.
And, I believe that most people are at least somewhat ok with the idea of closed-source whether they realize it or not. I don't hear many people complain that their BIOS, or HDD firmware or [insert any other peripheral]'s firmware is closed-source. (Yes, I'm aware of the Linux BIOS project.) Really, many of these pieces of software are lower-level than even the kernel and are located in potentially dangerous areas of the system architecure.
So, while I may agree with your statement in a near-sighted way, I believe that ultimately closed-source is necessary for companies, and the people who work for those companies and the companies that sell products to those people, and (deep breath) the people who work for the companies that sell products to the people who work for the companies that have closed-source software. And, the people who live on the welfare provided by the taxes paid by the people of said companies. In short, capitalism. Yes, Linksys opened it's firmware and has arguably sold more routers as a result. But, not all of their IP (the HDL that went into making their (or Broadcom's) ASICs, their PCB designs, etc.) was opened. If that were made available, how could that possibly benefit them? It wouldn't. It would hurt them as a company, and then their employees, and ultimately the "public good."
No. Here's how it works. In order for this global warming hysteria to succeed, all readily-observable evidence of it must be quelled. So, for instance, if "scientists" claim that polar ice is melting, they must also say (A) it's only happening on the North pole, and (B) this won't cause sea levels to rise, because North pole ice is not on land. This is because regular people (ie. non-"scientists" -- you know, we uneducated folk) can easily go to the beach and see that sea levels are not rising.
Other forms of suppression of evidence to the contrary involve the paradox that if you have a mild winter, it's caused by global warming. But, if you have a heavier winter (you guessed it) it's also caused by global warming. Freak hail storms? Global warming.
Somebody *cough*ALGORE*cough* really screwed up by predicting an even worse hurricane season this year. Oops. If you can't even predict the results of climactic change one year in advance, how can you make such a bold statement about 2040? Alarmism. Chalk this up with the overpopulation and ice age scares of the past.
Another great use case for virtualization.
On the assumption that they would be used to defend Iraq against any attackers. But, Saddam used them on his own people and, along with other more brutal methods like plastic shredders, killed upwards of 300,000 of them.
Seriously, do you REALLY hold the opinion that this was our plan? Or, do you think that maybe there's a possibility that Saddam decided to kill his own people without us telling him to do it?
Actually, investigations into the dealing of Kofi Annan's son, as well as the French and Russian governments revealed that they and a few other key UN players were the only ones intersted in oil. I could provide a link, but then you'd just dismiss it as conservative lies (eg. Fox News). So, just go ahead and google "kojo annan" to see for yourself.
Unfortunately, those who have lived under an evil dictatorship all their lives are usually willing to trade one despot for another. But, if you consider what has already been established in this conversation before -- the fact that less people have died in the ACTUAL WAR than did under the reign of Saddam and his lunatic sons -- the math alone yields the better situation. Under Saddam's rule, there was NO HOPE of any improvement. One of his sons would have succeeded his madness. But, under the current situaion, where the UN (yeah, they're there now) are helping to get a fledgling government installed (not a US-subservient one, mind you) there IS HOPE for the Iraqis.
This retort really has gotten to be a stale reaction from the [may I call you liberal?] side. I see it on Slashdot at least once daily.
Actually, I don't have Fox News. I only have Dish Network top 60 and that's not included unfortunately. Most of my news comes from online. But, tell ya what... I haven't seen any blogs uncover Fox News photo fraud (BBC, CNN), or Fox News forged documents( CBS), or Fox News staged battles. CNN, Newsweek, Time, Forbes, CBS, BBC and many others have all been forced to fire photographers and reporters because they've all been caught in fraud. Show me a blog that PROVES any dishonesty of Fox News and it will be news to me. Meanwhile, take a look at this: LINK, it will blow your mind. Also, do a search for "pallywood", another shocker.
I don't believe Al Qaeda would consider their name just a "label." And no, we do distinguish between Al Qaeda, Hamas (Political party moonlighting as terrorists), Hezbollah (What kind of pol
I wouldn't be surprized if the US military observed the action. But, if you think they recommended, approved or condoned the action I would vehemently disagree. What possible purpose would it serve? This is the same mentality that still holds to the tired, old argument that we went to Iraq for oil (and, coerced several other nations to go along with us.) Well then, where is all this Iraqi oil we are supposed to be enjoying? How come the US still gets the majority of its oil from Venezuela and Canada?
I'm sure it would depend on how the question was asked. If you said, "Do you approve of the US occupation of Iraq?" I'm sure many would say NO. But, if you said, "Do you want the US military forces to leave Iraq at once?" I'm confident that most, overwhelmingly, would answer NO. The ongoing insurgent force from Al Qaeda makes it apparent that immediate withdrawl would result in an immediate influx of terrorism, an overthrow of the Iraqi government and the installation of another dictatorship -- from the new Al Qaeda leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajer (an Egyptian)
My admitted conjecture is supported by the fact that the insurgency is not lead by Iraqis (Iraqi people aren't attacking the Iraqi government and US forces.) The attacks are coming from Syrians, Egyptians (the above-mentioned Al Qaeda leader) and possibly others. If it were Iraqis leading the attacks I might agree with you.
"Still, who are they then saving? And from what?"
Well, from the numbers I'd say we saved Iraq from Saddam. Again, they're better off. It's apparent the insurgents from Syria don't want us there. And, certainly Al Qaeda doesn't want us there (remember Al Zarqawi? Yeah, Al Queda presence in Iraq - go figure.) If the Islamo-fascists don't want us in Iraq, it's probably the right thing to be there.
"US history is littered with civillian deaths."
Whose history isn't? But, there is a difference. The US does not actively target civilians (except for when Clinton bombed that aspirin factory in Iraq to get the heat off the whole Monica thing.) Neither do any of the other Western countries I can think of. But, do any of the Islamic nations hold such a policy? No. Islamo-terrorists do all they can to maximize civilian casualties. So, when you're fighting a group that uses these tactics (ala Israel vs. Hezbollah) you have two choices: Bow their wishes, or fight and risk killing the civilians that the terrorists hide behind. For any sovereign nation interested in self-preservation, the choice is clear.
No, it isn't. But, my point was not dealing specifically with Iran. Iraq IS an Arab country, and my point is that Saddam has killed more Iraqis than anyone else. Say what you (or anyone else in this thread) will about the US arming Saddam, it was never our intent for Saddam to use weapons on his own people. Say what you (or anyone else in this thread) will about Iraqi death tolls since Saddam was taken out of power -- the Iraqis are better off now that he is gone.
"Rally? this site says between 40,000 and 45,000 people's relatives would disagree with you if every given the chance."
Heh, compare that to the 150,000 to 340,000 (depending on who you ask) Iraquis Saddam killed. Then, there were the 450,000 to 700,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq war. Sorry, but regardless of whether US is involved in a middle east war, Arabs always kill more Arabs than anyone else.
"The moon belongs to America, and eagerly awaits the arrival of our astro-men."
"Jews for Jesus is a cult and is not recognized by any mainstream denomination as anything but a cult.
/. post more legitimate.)
I just call them Christians.
What do you mean by indoctrination, anyway? Sharing your ideas? Stating things as you see them? By that logic, you're indoctrinating everyone who reads your post.
Just because it's religious in nature, it's not, prima facie*, indoctrination.
(*Invoking a Latin phrases always makes your
Sounds like somebody need an Easter afternoon nap.