Seahawks

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any noise?

Let's all add KBoner to our ignore user list and see how long it takes him to give up and go away. skull Best idea yet.

Cause I don' think like you. Thank goodness.

amen. Real peace.

Sound like the words of a true communist. Hell they proved it worked.

Shit another Rosie O'donald.

Going to go ahead and disagree with you here. Do you think if the US (or any country) told its people "we need to invade this country to secure control of its resources to help keep our economy strong and ensure profits for specialized industries!" that the populace would support that? Telling the people "that country is full of barbarians who want to kill you and your family and they pose an imminent threat to our way of life!" is a much easier way to channel uninformed support. Iranians have national pride and identity. They want their piece of the pie and with Iraq gone, here's their chance. But the US stands in their way. So they posture, and we posture back. Do we forge cooperation, or have a war? There are options here, contrary to what the posturing of each would suggest. The people we, and everyone, should be concerned about are the religious zealots who have no country- al Qaida. These people have nothing to lose by destroying shit. It's what they live for. In return, no country- including Iran- wants them. Except maybe Afghanistan. Where we should have been focusing our efforts all this time. Thats cool, I disagree with part but at least you can back it up with a thought. I personally think we got a little over abitious in trying to stablize a part of the world that has never been stable in trying to stop the spread of this kind of fanatical Muslim crap. I think the Oil thing works in favor of the democrats to get the white house in '08 so they use it. But regardless of reasons, we are there. Dems want to cut and run. I personally think this is not smart. I want them to come up with some better answers than cut and run. They need to stop thinking about political gain and thinking about all of us that could pay the extreme price for all this some day by a real nuke in one of our own cities. My thoughts.

Kevboner, if your a democrat how can you sleep at night when Clinton let 20 million africans die in ethinic cleansing and did nothing??? Come on your argument has no merit. personally I like things about both sides but the dems need to come up with solutions instead of nothing.

What I was saying was that I don't beleive that is the underlining reason why we went to war in Iraq. That said I also beleive that by developing these cars this will take away money and political clout to these countries that we have problems with. Make sense?

Iran is and always has been the regional power. Iraq was a colonial state created by the British. The division is more about "Sunni" and "Shiite", or "Persian" vs. "Arab". The reality is that Iran is probably destined to have a major influence over Iraq- they are next door neighbors. At this point, I would rather see us make a deal with the devil- negotiate from a position of strength (at this point that's shaky...) and forge a cooperative relationship with Iran to share the oil profits- than see another bloodbath with millions of dead people. Get real- oil is what this is about after all. The government wants us to believe it's about security and threats. Yes, it's possible Iran could develop a bomb and pass it off to extremists who would try to nuke New York or something. But I don't think it is in Iran's, or any nation state's, interest to see the US go down, and Iran knows it. They depend on our economy behind all the posturing. The posturing is about threats and nukes when the reality is about who controls the resources- oldest story in the book. There are those who saying negotiating with Iran makes us look weak...do we look strong in the region right now??!? If we did I doubt Iran would be challenging us as they are. The emperor has no clothes here and everyone knows it. The ironic position of strength may be the US' willingness to suck up it's pride and start talking. Not from this administration though- they won't do it anyway, and they aren't credible or trustworthy. It HAS to be someone else- anyone but Bush. He's done, stick a fork in him. I don't buy it was all about oil bizz. 80 to 90% oil from that area goes to Europe. To me that more of the shreik cries of the Democrats. I think really what it comes down to is we need to develop something like this http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070321/tc_nm/hydrogen_cars_dc So that we take all the money and political clout away from these countries.

Go back and read. I wasn't the only one asking.

Thought this was funny article just another example why Europe will do nothing becuase they are so corrupt and in bed with these Mid-east countries. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_bi_ge/france_total

Answer the question boner. Can you think??? Do you think we will make fun of you? bring something.

I would have to agree with most of this. What worries me the worst is that somehow Iran would get control of Iraq. That should worry America Democrat or Republican.

Thanks Seagal to have a thought out response.

Were there brows pointed at a downward angle? How concerned were they? Kevbone no wonder Arch dislikes you. You ask others to be serious and answer you and when others ask the same you, nothing. Can you answer some of the previous questions??? I want to hear some of your intelligent answers. Please. Lets hear it.

In January of 1939, the German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann published the results of an historic experiment: after bombarding uranium with neutrons—neutrally charged particles—they found barium, an element roughly half the size of uranium. Their former colleague Lise Meitner, who a few months before had been forced to flee Germany and seek refuge in Sweden, and her nephew Otto Frisch realized that the uranium nucleus had split in two. These revelations touched off a frenzy of scientific work on fission around the world. The German "uranium project" began in earnest shortly after Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939, when German Army Ordnance established a research program led by the Army physicist Kurt Diebner to investigate the military applications of fission. By the end of the year the physicist Werner Heisenberg had calculated that nuclear fission chain reactions might be possible. When slowed down and controlled in a "uranium machine" (nuclear reactor), these chain reactions could generate energy; when uncontrolled, they would be a "nuclear explosive" many times more powerful than conventional explosives. Whereas scientists could only use natural uranium in a uranium machine, Heisenberg noted that they could use pure uranium 235, a rare isotope, as an explosive. In the summer of 1940, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, a younger colleague and friend of Heisenberg's, drew upon publications by scholars working in Britain, Denmark, France, and the United States to conclude that if a uranium machine could sustain a chain reaction, then some of the more common uranium 238 would be transmuted into "element 94," now called plutonium. Like uranium 235, element 94 would be an incredibly powerful explosive. In 1941, von Weizsäcker went so far as to submit a patent application for using a uranium machine to manufacture this new radioactive element. Researchers knew that they could manufacture significant amounts of uranium 235 only by means of isotope separation. At first German scientists led by the physical chemist Paul Harteck tried thermal diffusion in a separation column. In this process, a liquid compound rises as it heats, falls as it cools, and tends to separate into its lighter and heavier components as it cycles around the column. But by 1941 they gave up on this method and started building centrifuges. These devices use centripetal force to accumulate the heavier isotopes on the outside of the tube, where they can be separated out. Although the war hampered their work, by the fall of the Third Reich in 1945 they had achieved a significant enrichment in small samples of uranium. Not enough for an atomic bomb, but uranium 235 enrichment nonetheless. Nearing a Nazi bomb Uranium machines needed a moderator, a substance that would slow down the neutrons liberated by chain reactions. In the end, the project decided to use heavy water—oxygen combined with the rare heavy isotope of hydrogen—instead of water or graphite. This was not (as one of the many myths associated with the German nuclear weapons effort had it) because of a mistake the physicist Walther Bothe made when he measured the neutron absorption of graphite. Rather, it appeared that the Norsk Hydro plant in occupied Norway could provide the amounts of heavy water they needed in the first stage of development at a relatively low cost. Heisenberg and his colleagues did not push as hard as they could have to make atomic bombs. The Norwegian resistance and Allied bombers eventually put a stop to Norwegian production of heavy water (see Norwegian Resistance Coup and See the Spy Messages. But by that time it was not possible to begin the production of either pure graphite or pure heavy water in Germany. In the end, the German scientists had only enough heavy water to conduct one or two large-scale nuclear reactor experiments at a time. By the very end of the war, the Germans had progressed from horizontal and spherical layer designs to three-dimensional lattices of uranium cubes immersed in heavy water. They had also developed a nuclear reactor design that almost, but not quite, achieved a controlled and sustained nuclear fission chain reaction. During the last months of the war, a small group of scientists working in secret under Diebner and with the strong support of the physicist Walther Gerlach, who was by that time head of the uranium project, built and tested a nuclear device.

Uh, not that I need to point out Seahawk's ignorance to anyone here, but Nazi Germany did not have a viable nuclear weapons development program. They actually did. Do some reading. They were making heavy water. US and Britian were very concerned. They were pursuing the bomb.

Very good. 10 for creative.

Answer my question then. You will not becuase you have no answers. You just like to hear yourself complain.

Nazi's? I thought we bombed Japan……mmmm…I must have missed that day in history class. Again….I must have missed that day in history class…..is there another documented use of a nuke on this planet? Thought so, nothing in there.

I'm sure its just like the other Irainian that runs the country that says the Holocaust never happened, That Isreal should be whipped off the face of the earth just like America. Yea he wants you dead too. Problem is the ones you talk about aren't running things the Mullies are.

'Bone, have you put as much thought into this particular issue as you have into...refusing to vaccinate your child? Let's explore the sentiments that you've put forward here a bit. Is this an argument against any restrictions on the production or distribution of nuclear weapons? Are you proposing that it should be restricted to nation states, or should group with the means and the will to acquire them be able to, no matter what their intentions? If you'd restrict membership to nation states, what criteria would you use to limit access? The ability to safeguard them? The political stability of the said nation state, and the likelihood that the whomever is currently in control will be overthrown by actors whose ideology and behavior cannot be predicted with any certainty? The probability that they will transfer the weapons to those who would use them against others? Even if you are convinced that the principle of "fairness" supercedes rationality and that any group that wants nukes should have them, regardless of their character or intent, do you think that this is an ethically sound position? As an example, assume that country B wants nuclear weapons so that they can anihiliate country A, and tens of millions of people in country A will be killed if country A makes good on its threats. Is it ethical for the rest of the world to support country B's nuclear aspirations because it's not fair to deny country B access to the technology that other countries already have access to. If you resided in country A, would this change your thinking at all? JayB…I agree that not all the crazy Islamic freaks out there get to posses nukes, but to for the USA to come across as the sane ones here is crazy. Let’s not forget of all the countries that have nukes, WE ARE YOU ONLY ONES TO USE THEM. Bush might not wear a turban, but he is in the same league as Binladin and all the other FREAKS out there. What makes us in the righteous to have them over some other country? Why do we get to stand on the moral high ground? Why? Have we (USA) proven that we are saner than the rest? FUCK NO. And you all know it. Lets all agree, they ALL need to be destroyed. Boner do you know why we used the bomb in WWII???? Your ingnorant. You don't think that was thought out?? You don't think the Nazi's who were making the same bomb would not used it?? How Many soldiers were we losing on each island on the way to Japan???? Where we to invade Japan in light that they would never surrender??? Answers. Stop your stupid answer of we are the only ones to ever use it. Thats just stupid.

Okay lets say we go Kevboners way, then when Bid laden gets his bomb how do you keep it out of NY or LA or elsewhere? Becuase they don't care and you and everyone who not a muslim deserves to die. How would you then police that situation??? What are your answers???? Lets here then instead of the stupid not thought out bitching of a liberal. I'm not talking about Iraq here I want to know how you handle these type of countries with nukes. Hey Sea....the Bush crime family and all the Rep...who voted to go to war have killed more people than Sadam and Binladin TOGETHER. Once again that is a typical Liberal answer. No thought. Face it the democrats want the whitehouse in '08 and are willing to sell there country for it. Iraq sucks but they think the answer is to just leave. Stupid. They have to answers. They want Iraq to fail and that where its sad. They would rather have there politics over what good for the US. They know that stabilizing Iraq is what needs to be done and then get out but they are pussies.

'Bone, have you put as much thought into this particular issue as you have into...refusing to vaccinate your child? Let's explore the sentiments that you've put forward here a bit. Is this an argument against any restrictions on the production or distribution of nuclear weapons? Are you proposing that it should be restricted to nation states, or should group with the means and the will to acquire them be able to, no matter what their intentions? If you'd restrict membership to nation states, what criteria would you use to limit access? The ability to safeguard them? The political stability of the said nation state, and the likelihood that the whomever is currently in control will be overthrown by actors whose ideology and behavior cannot be predicted with any certainty? The probability that they will transfer the weapons to those who would use them against others? Even if you are convinced that the principle of "fairness" supercedes rationality and that any group that wants nukes should have them, regardless of their character or intent, do you think that this is an ethically sound position? As an example, assume that country B wants nuclear weapons so that they can anihiliate country A, and tens of millions of people in country A will be killed if country A makes good on its threats. Is it ethical for the rest of the world to support country B's nuclear aspirations because it's not fair to deny country B access to the technology that other countries already have access to. If you resided in country A, would this change your thinking at all? LOL that much too deep for Kevboner. his reply will be "This thread sucks!"