Ten oz

What would victory in Iraq have looked like in 03'. What would it look like today. Shock and Awe did result in a quick taking of Baghdad. A quick demolition of Saddam's regime. Ultimately that did not help the united states in the long run at all. Kennedy patiently stood his ground while the war hawks beat there chests demanding war. Kennedy's victory was actually in his unwillingness to over play his hand and wave America's big stick too hard.

In the western world there are numerous examples of religous sayings and messages intetgrated into our culture. Whether it is placing ones hand on a bible, Ten Commandments in public buildings, "God bless" ending speeches, in god se trust on our money, etc, etc, etc. Despite all the religious symbols and passing acknowledgements of god most people in the westerner world are secular. While there is a lot of religious nonsense mixed into the stated motives of groups like Hamas and ISIS at the end of tye day they are not one dimentional. They, like us, have economic and politicall motives. IMO we should stop viewing them so myopically. They are more rhan religous nuts that wake up pray, kill, pray, clean AK-47's, pray, burn american flags, pray, kill some more, pray, eat goat, and pray some more. We view them in such a cartoonish way. Understanding ones enemy is critical to defeating ones enemy.

Intimidation as a forgien policy is childish. It only creates angry and a desire to become as stronger or stronger than ones enemies whomever they are. America has had the biggest stick for sometime now and it hasnt kept us (USA) out of many conflicts yet.

Self fulfilling prophecies happen all the time. First example, and perhaps a weak one, that comes to mind is George Zimmerman. He carried his gun around thinking he might need to protect himself one day. Got himself into a confrontation and killed someone under questionable circumstances. Now he carries his gun because he absolutely needs protection because millions are angry with him.

Dwight Eisenhower "...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380 In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson: "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 ~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY (Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman) "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. "The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441. http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/docs/quotes.htm @ MigL, you are stating as fact things regarding USA's use of atom weapons on Japan that are not true. This thread is not the appropriate one to debate the reasons for bombing Japan and what it did and or did not accomplished. If the United States used Nuclear weapons today against ISIS we (USA) would be in violation of many international treaties and be war criminals.

The incineration of hundreds of thousands of people in the name of what Japan may have or would've done is the single worst thing humans have ever done. There is a reason why it has never been done again. The suggestion that nuclear weapons could be a solution in the Middle East as a viable topic for discussion is delusional. It defies any regard for human life. Killing an enormous number of people as a means to send others a message is madness.

FERGUSON, Mo. The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch. That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

@ Airbrush, hindsight being 20/20 what good choices in the Middle East has the United States made in recent history? Was it good to have supported Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran? What about arming and training the Talaban in Afghanistan to help them fight Russia? Same question for our assistance given to Al Quada? Those WMDs Saddam used on his own people so often talked about, yeah the United States gave Saddam those Weapons. Just like the United States gave Pakistan nukes. Has the post 9/11 Afghanistan war been a success? Is Iraq better off now that hey have been liberated from Saddam? I don't mean to complain about or blame the United States. My point is that we keep seeming to find excuses to involve ourselves in the Middle East and I can't really think of examples where it has ever worked out well. one problem gets solved but then 2 more are created. We need a different appoarch. I do not want to see my country back in Iraq full force then pushing in to Syria.

@ Airbrush, I don't totally disagree with your post. I just think it is time for a new approach. As linked in post #3 the "terrorist" believed to have killed James Foley was a rapper who grew up in England. His family is from Egypt. He rapped about money and cannabis like all most rappers. That is who a lot of these ISIS guys are. They aren't religious extremists looking to create their own state based on Sharia law. They are stateless criminals who feel disenfranchised. Their goal is violence not Sharia nation building. If the United States fights them in Iraq they with just move to Syria. If the United State follows them into Syria they will move to Afghanistan, then Pakistan, or maybe Iran, etc, etc, etc. Where does it end? If we (USA) could kill every ISIS member would that solve anything or would some other group just fill the void? Countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabi, Oman, and so on are wealthy. They have thrived from the western world oil addiction. They are protected by the western worlds military. Kuwait would belong to Iraq right now if not for Desert Storm for example. Maybe if we were willing buy less oil. Willing to not always do the heavy lifting. Willing to sacrifice dollars rather than lives we could influence the wealthy countries in the region to care and get involved. I think that is the better long term solution. Anything else and it is just a never ending cycle.

A former rapper fighting with the Islamic State (Isis) in Syria is believed to be one of several British jihadists under investigation following the beheading of James Foley. Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, 24, was known as L Jinny or Lyricist Jinn at home in London, where his rising music career saw him appear in videos and have his singles played on BBC Radio in 2012. He came to national attention earlier this year, when he posted a picture of himself holding a severed head on Twitter after resurfacing in Syria. The gruesome picture, believed to have been taken in the Isis stronghold of Raqqa, was captioned: “Chillin’ with my homie or what’s left of him.” Bary reportedly travelled to the country last year from Maida Vale, west London, where he lived with his mother and five siblings. His father Adel Abdul Bary, an Egyptian refugee thought to be one of Osama Bin Laden’s closes lieutenants, was extradited from Britain to the United States on charges of terrorism in 2012 for his alleged roles in the bombings of two US embassies in east Africa in 1998. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/james-foley-beheading-london-rapper-turned-jihadist-believed-to-be-under-investigation-for-murder-of-journalist-in-syria-9687216.html

@ Lucius E.E, I don't believe I will every happens again because I don't believe the universe as it currently exists in infinite. Energy can not be created or destory but it can change states. Just as some energy transformed into matter one day matter may transform and energy will continue to transform. What that transformation will be is anyone's guess. What happens to matter inside a black hole for example? If it is transformed into dark matter or some sort of energy not yet theorized about how can I every exist again? The universe would be changing. Our understanding of physics may no longer apply to the universe in 50 billion years. As such things governed by our physics may never exist again. Even basic things like particles.

@ iNow, those are some very interesting stats. In my personal opinion what makes it difficult for many to digest is the implication that the system is racist. People don't feel like that is true so they arent sure what to make of those numbers. I don't think it is purely about race though, least not color. I think it is about the rat race. It is about capitalism and everyone wanting the best for themselves even when it comes at the expense of others. Many of the numbers you posted turned for the worst starting in the early 70's. Following the civil rights movement and desegregation white flight became a huge economic catalyst. The construction of ever increasing suburbs meant more opportunities for more resturaunts, gas stations, stores, and so on. All the new communities needed infastructure like fire departments, police forces, schools, water, energy, etc. So the migration of whites out of the cities might have initially been racial but quickly turned economic as both industry and politicians pushed for more growth. In its wake the suburban expansion lots of cities were left depressed and dying. Crime was seen as the top concern. The reason everyone was leaving the cities. People wanted safe places to raise their kids. So cities became tough on crime. Stop all the crime and perhaps they could save the cities. It didn't work. Instead it broke up a lot of families, made folks unemployable because of their records, and increased flight to the suburbs. So a divide was created. It is parts racial but mostly parts economic I believe. As a means of managing revenue most suburbs give building contracts to companies looking to build expensive homes. Revenue is mostly property taxes for towns so they want to highest homes values possible. They only allow the highest end homes and condos the market in there town can tolerate. Suburbs don't have low income housing for the most part. So everyone in the suburb are relatively in the same economic boat. Lower middleclass people surrounded by lower middleclass people, upper surrounded by upper, poor surrounded by poor, and so on. There is very little diversity in lifestyle. Which make empathy more difficult when trying to relate to others. It is very difficult for someone who spent there life in a San Francisco suburb to relate with someone who spent their life in Ferguson. Race not even being the main factor. Lifestyles are just worlds apart. The America they know is different. Fortunately increasing fuel costs, education costs, and the housing bubble is making many young adults rethink things. People are slowing moving back into larger cities realizing that an extra bedroom and a green front lawn isn't worth sitting in traffi for two hours a day, a 30 year mortgage, and a cleaner Target or Wlmart to shop at. Young adults today have college loans to pay off. They aren't looking to by over price family home an hour away from where they work. So slowly diversity is returning. As it does I think law enforcement will have to start standing down a little bit. People with tolerate a militarized police force when they see it in the newspaper but not when they see it marching down their street.

Nah, the matter in my body will never come together allowing me to occur again. However, my DNA may allow for some future relative to develop my claustrum or whatever part of the brain that is responsible for my conscious awareness. Perhaps I will be my own great great great grandson? Not that I would know it or have any memory of this life. It would be the conscious spark only. Body would be different as would be all learned behaviors and attitudes. I generally avoid theorizing about how the Big Bang/expantion accorded. The Big Bang theory is about during and after. It isn't about before or how. A lot of people try to debate what came before as a means of implying the whole theory is shaky. I don't get the impression you are doing that here so I will share my thoughts on it. I believe in the free lunch. An energy neutral universe where the universe required no energy to produce. An example would be something akin to diffence of potential in electrical theory. Nothing being the negative and energy (in all forms including matter)being positive. In a universe where there were nothing the negative energy potential would be astronomical. Any Quantum fluctuation would produce a a difference in potential and result in a massive discharge equalizing the astronomical potential negative energy of nothing with the lesser negative energy. The big bang was/is astronomical negative potential energy equalizing to some other astronomical level. That is just my theory anyway.

I had surgery a couple years ago. I remember the Doctor tell me to breath gas and then instantaneously I woke up in the recovery room. It was instant. I experienced absolutely no time. I was under for 5 hours yet it felt like no time had past. No dreams, no dread, no sense of self, no time, no anything at all what so ever. That 5 hours could've been 5 thousand yrs and it would've felt the same. That is death in my opinion. Instantaneous and infinite.

Drug cartels in Mexico are beheading people in Central America. Plenty of stories about mass graves being found. There have been any number of massacres in Africa the United States chose not to get involved with. Why should ISIS be the United States issue to resolve? By that I am not imply I don't care it just seems that when dealing with the middle east a military response always seems to be the only solution. Why is that. Don't we have relationships in the region? How does Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait, and etc feel about ISIS? If they acted it would not nearly be the recruiting tool for ISIS that USA would be.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675 @ Airbrush, Newsweek summarizes what is known and what is not known in the link. Decent impartial review of the case.

"According to the account of the St. Louis County police, Wilson attempted to get out of his car and Brown pushed him back inside. A struggle ensued inside the car, in which Brown tried to take the officer’s gun. A shot was fired from inside the car. The officer then stepped out of the car and shot Brown, who died of his injuries." http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675 So the first shot was fired inside the car. Brown flees and Wilson gives chase. At some point the claim is that Brown stopped running away and aggressively charged toward Wilson who had no choice but to protect himself by shooting Brown 6 times. An average person can sprint between 12 -15 miles per hour or 19 - 24 Kilometers per hour. Brown was a big guy so let's put his aggressive charge at the low end 12mph or 19kph. That converts to more than 17 feet or 5 meters per second. Wilson was able to hit Brown, a moving target, 6 times including 2 head shots. According to a study done by the Force Research Center a person an average can a semi automatic pistol 3 times in 1.5 seconds. Some people fast as 3 times per second. http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/1227784-New-tests-Even-inexperienced-shooters-can-be-fast-accurate-when-shooting-cops/ It took a minium of 2 seconds to fire 6 shots. That means if Brown was charging full speed, 12 mph or 17 feet per second, Brown would've been more than 34ft or 10m at point when the the first round hit Brown. Actually even further away than that if we had the distance between than when Brown fell. I don't know the final distance between them though so I can't add it. keep in mind the 34ft/10m is first shot fired distance. How long Brown was charging before Wilson opened fired would've placed him even further away still at the point when Brown stopped fleeing and turned around. *I understand the above numbers are loose estimates at best. They are based on Wilson's claim of a full speed charge. Benefit of the doubt goes both ways. Both Wilson and Brown get it right? As described in detail above Brown was a significant distance away from Wilson. Brown got to that distance by running away from Wilson following their initial exchange at the car. So according to Wilson's account Brown, in the middle of an open street and unarmed, chose to stop fleeing and instead launch a attack counter attack that required cover a significant distance vs an armed cop. That is viewing Wilson's account only. It doesn't fit that Wilson with no record would gun down an innocent man but it does fit that Brown would try to murder a policeman rather than just following task direction to get out of the street? I doubt believe Wilson was looking to kill an innocent person and I don't believe Brown was looking to murder a cop. Both are one dimensional characterization. You have posted about Brown's past and possible criminal relationships but so far ignored the history of the St. Louis County police. Let's not forget that last year the police Lieutenant there was fired for directed his people to target blacks. Surely that is meaningful history to consider. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-county-police-lieutenant-who-allegedly-targeted-blacks-is/article_691eb995-7247-5c0b-a48b-e7048c777b37.html

Lots of Camera do go out into the wilderness but mostly to well hiked areas. Seldom does a human travel on foot more than 20-30 miles into wilderness. Doing so requires survival gear and supplies that become exponentially heavier the further a person is looking to hike. It is much easier and safer to stay within several miles of towns so you can hike to them for supplies. So even adventure hikers than tackle enormous hikes like the Pacific Crest Trail are seldom further than a several miles from some sort of civilization and are primilary traveling on set trails ment for humans. So assuming Bigfoot is purposely avoiding humans it is not incredible to believe it would be able to. From the Sierra's to the Rockies there are huge ranges of wilderness that are not travest by more than a hand full of people. So theoritically there could be enough of them to reproduce without inbreeding. It also isn't difficult to believe Bigfoot would go out of its way to avoid humans at all costs. Truly any intelligent animal should all things considered. Any trail with human scent, cabin in the woods, cleared road would be avoided. That would make ever seeing one difficult. All of that said I do not believe in Bigfoot. As many have already pointed out evidence like the video in the OP are too poor in quality to concluded anything from. I also think that if there were a Bigfoot there would be some arculogical evidence. Surely humans have moved into areas once home to Bigfoot. So I think we would've dug up a skelton or some teeth by now.

^^Boom Israel is a well financed, organized, well equiped, formal government. Hamas is not. Is Israel properly managing their response? It is a fair question that does not imply blame toward Israel.

The word "if" appears a lot in your reasoning regarding Brown's history and possible motives. Making an honest attempt to entertain "if" I come to different suspicions than you have. Let's assume for a moment all your "if" are correct. That Brown did assult Wilson and go after his weapon while Wilson was in the car. The first shot was fired while Wilson was in the car. All versions agree with that. What followed? Brown was not shot and killed in the car. How did Brown get from wrestling inside the car to where he died? At some point he had to have fled or at the very least significantly moved away from Wilson. At that point what threat did Brown pose to Wislon?

Good point. Whether or not Brown was a nice person has nothing to do with the legality of his shooting. Value judgements about the character of the dead in situations like this are often tossed around as a means to imply they may have had it coming to them. There are 10 of millions of people who post photos of themselves on social media doing stupid things. Just as everyone who has ever taken a nude selfie is not a sexual deviant, everyone who has quoted rap lyrics (pop musics really) or struck a mean mugging pose isnt a gang member. It is silly to think a person's character or physiological state of mind might be evaluted by looking at their Facebook page. I think it is also fair to say that it reflects a lack of empathy.

1. A radiation safe way of converting matter back into energy. 2. A wireless means of distributing the above stated energy. 3. An international fund that ensures free wireless energy globally to everyone.

Legal justification for lethal force and the neccessity to kill someone are not always moral equivalences. I live in the downtown area of a large California city. I do so because I enjoy seldom having to drive anywhere. That also means I am out walking around a good amount. Like all large cities in California there are a lot of homeless people in my city. Lots of them have mental issues. Not a day goes by I don't see someone arguing with themselves, walking in the middle of the street, yelling out to the sky, etc. just the other night I was walking behind a homeless man when he abruptly turned around and squared up to me. He demanded to know who I was working for and why I was following. As I moved to walk past him he positioned himself to block me. So I just crossed the street and continued home. Legally I probably could have justified a variety of violent acts against that man. If I was the sort that carried pepper spray, a taser, or a gun I probably could have used them and then merely explained that I feared for my life and thought the guy might've been armed. Hey, maybe he was. If an autopsy revealed some alcohol or drugs in the guys system I would probably receive some type of citizen award. Rather, just crossing the street worked out just fine. Demanding the man unblock the sidewalk and rightfully allow me to walk by would have created an altercation. One that would have been his fault for blocking the walk way in the first place but also one that I could and did easily avoid. Who is to blame is not a black and white thing. Police are trained to control situations. They have for more training in control techniques, officer presence, and use of force than they do in de-escalation. Police don't cross the street. They don't take a step backward. They are in charge. They control the scene. When tensions are already high police can't often exacerbate a situation in my opinion. The former top cop of Seattle who was in charge during the World Trade Organization (WTO) protests that got out of hand recently reflected on his mistakes while discussing Ferguson - https://news.vice.com/article/seattles-former-police-chief-speaks-out-about-ferguson-and-police-brutality

Unfortunately this conversations seems to have gone some what in to the direction of Christianity is greater than Islam. While I agree that today Muslims appear to be the most represssive of the major religions I view that as a superficial bit of information if the point is a comparison of cultures. There is no place on earth Christians have not split blood. Groups of people who were culturally Christian killed natives in the Americans, Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East. No group has killed more or oppressed more than Christians. One might minimize my point by saying that all my examples are hundreds of years old but segregation in the States just end in the 1960's, Apartheid in Africa ended in the 1980's, China got control of lands back in the 1990's, and the Christian western world still profits off of sweat shops all across Asia and South America today. I understand that nothing I have mentioned was or is being done by Christian organizations. Rather just people who happen to be Christian. Often by a matter of culture more so than practice. I think the same argument could be made about groups in the middle east. Are Palestinians a Muslim organization or a group of people who are Muslim? Besides as a matter of philosophy things like manifest destiny sure seem religious in nature to me. I am not saying Christians are worse than Muslims. I am saying the comparison is pointless. People kill each other over control of: land, technology, food, oil, each other, and so on. If not in the name of God than in the name of something else. Religion is a symptom, not the the disease itself.

Not sure what is considered an educated opinion? I have an opinion though. So I will start by saying I have never traveled to a predominantly Muslim country, attended any sort of Muslim ceremony, or fully read the Quran. In other words I am not a subject matter expert. Wealthy Muslims countries like Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Saidi Arabia, Brunei, and Jordan don't have radical religious oppression throughout. While they mistreat migrant workers they take good care of there own people. Male and female. The terrorism, religious unrest, and brutality many westerners relate to strict adherence to Muslim doctrine primarily exists amongst the poor. I don't consider that a coincidence. Islam is foriegn to westerners so I think it gets extra attention. However civil unrest, violence, war lords, and etc exists every where in the world where the people of a region are repressed and don't freely share in the benifits of their labors and resources. Cities like Dubia show that when comfortable predominantly Muslim people ease into the capitalist western style of living.