Zep

Joined

• started 68 topics
• posted 531 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Zep

• 
  4

  2 concerns about the war

  by Zep in

  1. social
  2. current

  ex-general recently described urban warfare as like having a knife fight in a phone booth.

  yikes!.

  ex-cia described imposing democracy on iraq at this point in time as crazy.. hope they are wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  oh well thanks 7. Glad to be appreciated.

  I lurk a little bit here - when i'm on the net. Haven't got a huge deal to say these days.

  hope things are cool
• 
  4

  2 concerns about the war

  by Zep in

  1. social
  2. current

  ex-general recently described urban warfare as like having a knife fight in a phone booth.

  yikes!.

  ex-cia described imposing democracy on iraq at this point in time as crazy.. hope they are wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  ex-general recently described urban warfare as like having a knife fight in a phone booth

  yikes!

  ex-cia described imposing democracy on iraq at this point in time as CRaZy.

  Hope they are wrong.
• 
  2

  2 concerns about the war

  by Zep in

  1. social
  2. current

  ex-general recently described urban warfare as like having a knife fight in a phone booth.

  yikes!.

  ex-cia described imposing democracy on iraq at this point in time as crazy.. hope they are wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Zep

  ex-general recently described urban warfare as like having a knife fight in a phone booth

  yikes!

  ex-cia described imposing democracy on iraq at this point in time as CRaZy.

  Hope they are wrong.
• 
  30

  17 reasons why US should not invade Iraq

  by back2dafront in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  check out this article from a pakistan newspaper:.

  http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-1-2003_pg4_2.

  17 reasons why us should not invade iraq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  I would like to know what the US is going to do once they get into Iraq. Just impose democracy with the click of finger, just like that. We had a documentary down here in Australia recently. On it was a highly respected former CIA agent. I forget his name, but I think it was Bauer (not related to the 24 dude). He said that it would crazy and next to impossible to impose democracy on Iraq at the moment. You have the sunni, and kurds, and the shi-ites all struggling for power. A recipe for disaster and civil unrest.

  Thomas Friedman, of the NY post(correct me if I'm wrong), in 91 argued the case that the US should NOT go all the way to Bagdad and depose Saddam because of the potential fracturing and destabilisation it could result in. I'd like to know what has changed since then.

  A former prime minister down here in Australia was few months ago citing CIA reports that anticipated casualties as high as 300,000. I dont know if the Iraqi people will be too willing to jump on the US band wagon with that much death going on. Lets not buy into this smart weapons nonsense some likes us to swallow either. There is going to be a lot of death over there.

  The country is going to be potentially wrecked. With much death and civil unrest there is very real possibility that peace keepers are going to be needed for quite some time. Thats the down side. Of course the up side is that Saddams WMD capabilty is going to be gone for sure.

  But there is a question as to how much of a threat Iraq really is. Yes, Saddam is a nasty piece of work. But UNSCOM did remove a large degree of his capabilities, far more than the Gulf war ever did. This seems to be forgotten.

  I honestly dont know. Saddam has to go. He is an evil SOB, but so are a lot of other world leaders. How much of threat he really poses I am uncertain, but I think the Bush camp is over stating the threat somewhat. I am certainly worried about the potential fallout a conflict with Iraq could bring, it doesn't look all rosy to me.

  But lets talk about WMD and the bigger picture. A lot is said of how dangerous Iraq is. What about the US. They have more nukes than anyone. The non proliferation treaty says that nations, like Iraq, who dont have nukes should never get them. It further says that nations that do have them should get rid of them. I dont see the US doing much on the disarmament front. They have about 7000 plus nukes...(about 7000 more than Saddam) and they want to FURTHER inspire the arms race with a reagan like star wars program. Yes, Saddam is dangerous, he shouldn't have nukes. But I think the bigger picture is being lost a little.

  I also think that a lot of really important issues are being relegated to the backburner. Things like GLOBAL disarmament. Things like Green house, of which Bush is also dragging his heals on. These are real problems and not much seems to be happening.

  A lot of people seem to think its ok that the US has all these nukes. Of course lets not forget what causes other nations wanting nukes: its the fact that other nations have them. Oh, people say, the US wont launch an attack, we trust them. Well dont forget about what the US did to japan. Now you may be able to justify to me one one nuke being dropped on Japan, but not the second one. Apparently very good people can do very evil things, people shouldn't forget this little lesson. People shouldn't forget Chernonbyl (sorry for the spelling) either. A nuke crisis doesn't have to be caused deliberately.

  A lot of people like to chastise Saddam for keeping his people in poverty while he builds all those mansions. Of course Saddam is a tyrrant. But lets look in our own backyard. How many people in the west live an opulent lifestyle while millions, hell, billions live destitute lives both within and outside the country. Are we that much better than Saddam on this front.

  Heres a little stat we humans shouldn't be too proud of. We are all amazed at the extent of scientific development that humans have accomplished. Just remember that 60% of scientists work in the military, they are in the job of killing people. About another 30+% work for private firms, they are in the profit game. A handful of scientists are actually doing research for its own sake...for the sake of learning. I dont know, 60% of science is devoted to bomb making,,,,,hmmmm.

  Edited by - Zep on 4 January 2003 5:20:19
• 
  38

  some old wise sayings

  by heathen in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i thought it might be interesting to see how much of the worldly wisdom we have aquired .there are alot of quaint sayings that go way back in time here are some of my favorites to give an example - an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure , a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush ,what's good for the goose is good for the gander .feel free to add your favs .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!!!
• 
  9

  what is atheism?

  by Zep in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i use to think that atheism was a denial of the existence of god, or any divine deity...whatever, take your pick.

  however, i now believe this is not the full picture.. atheism is the denial that any proof exists to confirm the existence of god.

  it doesn't deny that god may exist, only that there is no proof of his existence, and therefore no reason to believe.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  Gopher,

  your above definitions seem to be fair. And I dont to nit pick here, but I probably am gunna.

  I moreorless consider myself to be an atheist. Atleast thats what I told the mormons that came to my door the other day. I dont think there are any Gods of the traditional kind around, thats what I feel in my gut based on the evidence at hand. Though I do allow for the fact that they may exist (however unlikey), or that there may be a being/creature around in the great cosmos that could fit the definition of 'God'. Just show me the evidence and I'll believe, thats all I say. Until then, I cant.

  And just to add to this. If you want to define 'God' as the 'unity of the cosmos', or as 'nature', or as something 'within' man/woman, then maybe I'm a theist?

  so...

  After having done a little more research here:

  http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

  It seems i am what is called a 'weak atheist', though not all the time.

  Atheism is defined as:

  '...an absence of belief in the existence of gods.'

  to hold the above position would be enough to qualify you as a 'weak atheist'

  Some atheists go to the point where they 'actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist'. This postion is called the 'strong atheist' postion. This would sum me in respect to Christianity.

  So to put it all in a nutshell:

  "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist.

  So says infidels.org

  An agnostic can be defined as:

  "someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists."

  I'll go so far as to agree that we "do not" know, atleast in certain cases, as to whether a certain God exists or not. But I dont agree that we "cannot know" whether a certain God exists, unless some evidence is provided that proves we cannot know.

  An agnostic can also be defined as someone who:

  believes that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore is undecided about the issue.

  I guess this could define me in a certain sense too.

  So to sum up. I believe that some Gods do absolutely not exist, and I think the evidence bears this out. I think for others Gods, there is no evidence they exist, and therefore no reason to believe, though I allow for the fact they may exist while at the same time doubting it in the extreme. Other times I think that the evidence is inconclusive either way on the matter of Gods existence and I therefore remain undecided as to whether God exists or not. And still other times, depending on how you want to define the term 'GOD', I am a theist.

  So maybe it could be said I am:

  25% strong atheist
  25% weak atheist
  25% empirical agnostic
  25% theist

  It all depends on what day you catch me, and what religion we are talking about, I suppose. But I usually call myself an atheist.

  I've never really made sense to begin with. I dont see why I should start now!
• 
  9

  what is atheism?

  by Zep in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i use to think that atheism was a denial of the existence of god, or any divine deity...whatever, take your pick.

  however, i now believe this is not the full picture.. atheism is the denial that any proof exists to confirm the existence of god.

  it doesn't deny that god may exist, only that there is no proof of his existence, and therefore no reason to believe.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  I use to think that atheism was a denial of the existence of God, or any divine deity...whatever, take your pick. However, i now believe this is not the full picture.

  Atheism is the denial that any proof exists to confirm the existence of God. It doesn't deny that God may exist, only that there is no proof of his existence, and therefore no reason to believe.

  Some guy called Clash_city_rocker, or whatever, seems to think that atheism is dogmatic. huh???? What is so dogmatic about my definition of atheism, which I believe is actually the correct definition.

  Having said that, there really seems to be no difference between atheism and agnosticism.

  agnostics are really just closet atheists to me. Thats how i'm seeing it. there really is no difference between the two. Or am I wrong here??????????
• 
  95

  So, what's your I.Q?

  by nakedmvistar in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  be honest if you know it.

  and yes, we are all aware of how insignificant this number can ultimately be.

  but i'm still curious so please share.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  BTW, my IQ = not quite smart enough to see through dub bullshit at first sight. But smart enough never to become a true dub and get baptised etc etc
• 
  95

  So, what's your I.Q?

  by nakedmvistar in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  be honest if you know it.

  and yes, we are all aware of how insignificant this number can ultimately be.

  but i'm still curious so please share.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  Mensa is a great place to pick up chicks
• 
  11

  Another Melbourne Bomb Scare!

  by Beck_Melbourne in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the rialto building located in the city business district of melbourne has had another bomb threat.

  all those who work for the law firm we work with who are located in that building, have been given the day off.

  the authorities are treating the threat as a hoax....but to be on the safe side, some are taking precautions.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Zep

  Shera:

  "Is it terriost(sp...) threats? Meaning from radical Muslims?"

  Nah, its just school kids and drunks.