no. The French deserved to be attacked because they are French. It was only a matter of time until they were attacked by SOMEONE.
no falk, that guest was not me. the beatles thing was both a misunderstanding and a mistake on my part. I actually forgot briefly that the Beatles came from England! i know i know, you can all mock and ridicule me, i deserve it, but my point remains valid (at least if you see it from my view) while the beatles are in fact british, they became such a major part of american culture, and were so involved in america, that it is like adopted american culture.
9-11: I actually agree with you on this point Falk. I think the US has made a much bigger deal over this than it actually was. Yes, it was a terrorist attack, yes, it was done on innocent civilians, and yes it was very horrible. but i think it became much bigger a deal in the eyes of the people than it was. America does have this whole idea of itself as being untouchable, and above things because it is powerful. in this way, this nation is unable to handle any loss of life, which is ridiculous. any casualties in combat, and the Country takes a figurative shit in its pants. any loss of life not in combat, and it infuriates people to the point of insanity (im talking terrorism, or guerilla attacks on soldiers not in combat, not murder). and you may tend to throw me in with the
“USies” because i support the war in Iraq. but not for the same reasons. i dont think the US automatically has a right to invade another country and involve itself just because we are powerful, in most cases, i would keep us out. but Saddam was a dictator that used terror, murder, slaughter, and torture to control his population, and he and his sons were sick twisted SOBs. Thats why i supported war in Iraq. in a similar vein, i dont like bush, i borderline despise the man. i think he is the best presidential candidate that i have yet seen, and i think hes doing a decent job, and no he is not a moron, but i dont like the man, and im not a gungho bush supporter like some others <cough>texas.
Vietnam: of course the US cant admit it lost a war, would you want to? and the police action was so unpopular, its trying to save face in every little way it can. but it was not a war, its not twisting facts or anything. war was never declared on Vietnam. congress never declared war, so we were never at war with Vietnam. Naturally, the action was essentially a war, but since it was never declared, it was not technically a war.
Pearl Harbor: well i think you took care of yourself on this one, but again, it was a military attack during a time of peace, and the government wanted to go to war anyway, and the “unprovoked” attack (there was not any particular action that provoked japanese attack, more a need of oil) so people wanted to teach them a lesson.</cough>
has anyone read the series “The Animorphs”? its actually pretty good, even though it is aimed at young teens, and even though it fell off a cliff at the end. but anyway, it is quite unrelated to the topic, except in one aspect, and in one book, where im going to take an idea and apply it. There was a creature that often appeared in the book called the Ellimist. It was a seemingly divine being as it seemed to have limitless power. but in one book in the series, an explanation was given that i think has an application here. Someone asked about the Ellimist, and someone else gave a brief but excellent description. he said (not an exact quote) “I draw a person on a piece of paper, he has 2 dimensions, so we will call him a “flatty”. if i draw a box around him, he would be trapped forever, because he only knows 2 dimensions. if someone came along that existed in 3 dimensions, they could get him out of the box. but he only knows two, so he would not know what was going on. the 3d person would be able to do things the flatty would never understand, and had never dreamed of. so if the ellimist exists in 4 dimensions, he is able to do things we cannot comprehend, because we only know 3.” i think that if there is a being “god”, that it is more like this than some all powerful creature. like falk was saying earlier, there was no creator of the universe, it emerged or began. “god” would have been created afterwards, or emerged with the universe, and would only exist in more dimensions then we, and so is not divine or all mighty, but simply a more complex being that exists in ways we cannot understand. it is therefore concievable that if there is a god, then there is some being that exists in more ways even than the god we know, and is like a “god” to our god. if any of that made any sense at all.
Emugod, your points have some validity to them, but i reject the concept of mathematical impossibility. true, some things have so low a probability that it is logically impossible. but no matter how low the probability of something, there still exists a possibilty for it, and therefore could happen. your raindrops example is a good one. the likelihood of a shaekesperian sonnet being written on a typewriter by rain is so low, it seems impossible, but the randomness of the rain means that it could happen, even if it was never recorded in your lifetime.
Emugod, thats all well and good, but the inability to prove things does not mean that they are not able to be proven, nor does it mean that there must be a god. (if i understand it correctly, the religions do claim to have all the answers, but not necessarily good ones (i.e. if something cant be understood or proven, it is god’s will, and not for us to know)) naturally, there are problems with scientific and mathematical theories. they are developed and tested to understand the world the way we know it. as our knowledge expands, we learn new things, and old theories may be disproven. also, as we learn new things, we are able to prove new things that we were previously unable to. science does not pretend to have all the answers, that would be ridiculous. rather, it says that there is a scientific explanation for everything, which we may or may not have yet obtained
you misunderstand me falk, (i was the last guest that posted) perhaps a bad choice of words to say isolationist. i simply mean do exactly what so many people seem to want, and leave the rest of the world alone, that is, stay out of the problems of other nations. so many people in so many countries seem to think the US has no position to interfere with the affairs of other nations, so let them have their way, the US will stop interfering, and i guarantee people would not be happy. obviously falk, we could not survive completely isolationist, we get so many raw materials and products from other nations, that of course we would collapse without them. and whether or not other nations would collapse without US trade is debatable, but at any rate, so many people in so many nations like so much americana, i would not be surprised to see rioting if US products (including entertainment) were no longer available.
actually, mensa requirements are the top 2% of whatever test you are taking. there are a lot of different IQ tests, with many different scoring methods, so to standardize it, the people that qualify for mensa must score in the top 2% of any of the mensa approved tests. and 127 is a respectable IQ. the range for average is around 90-110, or something close. at any rate, 127 is in the above average range, and depending on your source, genius tends to start at around 136. and also, you shouldnt place any stock in an internet based IQ test. (I personally have taken a number of them, and scored everywhere from 120 to 180, and that excludes any repeats) so clearly, they are not reliable. if you want to know your IQ, take a written one, probably best to take a mensa accepted one.