TimeTraveler

Here is a good link, hope this helps and good luck on your project! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous_rock P.S. and yes lucky you! I have always wanted to go to Hawaii, it would be awesome to live there.

Came across some other interesting articles: Accusations against Cheney's alleged involvment with 9-11: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050119084227272 Accusation and lawsuit, which has been now thrown out: http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm What is the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity." And can anyone confirm or discredit this information? I am starting to be convinced that something deeper is going on here, and it is scaring the hell outta me.

Exactly, which is pointless because no one knows a morally right or wrong answer. All we have is our opinions. Good point. So maybe it should be illegal simply for the purpose that maybe then 99% of people not wishing to have a baby will use those contraceptives, because as long as it is not illegal there is no real motivation to use contraceptives except your personal morality, which people tend to forget about at times.

Yeah, thats what I meant. Thanks for catching my mistake.

I read this on another forum and thought it was interesting: 10 ways you can help prevent sweatshops

My opinion is there is no right answer that everyone will agree on, instead of debating it maybe we should spend more time researching solutions. Example of a solution (not sure how realistic) - A shot that could be administered at a young age to prevent pregnancy, then when a women is ready to have a child another shot could be administered to reverse the process. I know that is seriously over simplifying it and wishing for things that may not be possible, but I think research into ideas along these lines may be the best way to come up with a solution.

Featured article: http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=CP_2778&ps=1018 Disclaimer: It's a touchy subject when talking about lives lost, families destroyed, and money at the same time. Please use the appropriate level of sensetivity when replying to this thread.

And the media is his magic wand.

Another thing to note is this revision of the doctrine was written in 2000, a year before 9-11. The Bush administration was seeking pre-emptive war with Iraq and 9-11 gave them that opportunity, by being able to tie them to terrorism, a tie which has been admitedly false.

I wouldn't call them anti-americans, I would just call them anti-american-abuse-of-power. I for one would like to see the world become a better place, and don't believe bombing 'the bad guys' without cause is adhering to any form of American ideals. Plus this movie is co-produced by Sut Jhally, whom I feel is the best documentary producer of all time so I am a bit biased. (have you ever seen Advertising and the end of the world? Its great.) I'm not sure, . When I think of global domination I think of control over other countries politics, basically running the show where they disagree with the current political body. When I think of global control through military force, I think of protecting resources and interveining when conflict arises as to 'break it up'. Thats the difference from my point of view. Gah. Sorry about that, I found that link and was going to post it, then I decided it was not relevant so I erased it... I thought, but I erased the link I wanted to post, which is here, it is a three part article: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-kwiatkowski1.html Well if it can ever be proven that the American public was lied to to get them to back the war under false pretenses Bush will find himself spending alot of time with Saddam.

Actually it was made by mostly Americans, and most of the evidence was presented by Americans. Nor should anyone as he was clearly stating opinions, as were most in the documentary, however I don't think that would be any reason to discredit evidence. Although the term world domination was used a couple of times thats not the impression I actually got from the evidence presented, more of global control with military force. Position our military in ways throughout the world for reasons of protecting valuable resources that are of importance to America. Really? hrrm, I find the excerpts of the document quite disgusting, and the cheney re-written version just as displeasing. You do know that the bush doctrine that is in effect in America today is a revision of both these documents together. I had not known of the wolfowitz doctrine prior to seeing this film but I will say, regardless of anything the movie said to me I do realize how sick a couple of these individuals in the Bush administration are. Since there is alot of opinions in the movie lets actually examine just the allegations described for a minute: She says... In hearing this accusation I have to do some research on who she is and what she says, I found the following: Here in this paper she begins telling part of her story: http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html I think the claims presented warrant an investigation. I think us Americans, and everyone for that matter need to at least question the motives of this war with an open-mind. If a conspiracy such as being presented has any basis of truth, we need to do something about it. I will continue to search for information. *edit* posted wrong link, here is link to Karen Kwiatkowski's story: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_i...iatkowski1.html

Good post Demo I am glad you brought this up. The problem here is there are some major descrepancies about what the intelligence showed, unfortanantly I believe most of it is classified so the American people may not really know what really happened. But according to Scott Ritter (Retired former U.S. weapons inspector to the U.N.) we knew with certainty that roughly 95% of the chemical and biological weapons were destroyed (iirc, in 1995). The rest were not accounted for with 100% accuracy but a site was shown to inspectors that allegedly contained adequate material to lead us to believe it was the remains of the unaccounted portion. Now in the media this is mainly a case of he say she say, but I think we are deserving of an explination that explains the descrepancies. Particullarly this part: It says the Iraqi government failed to cooperate fully, We need to know exactly in what way. We had no reason or evidence to believe that what they showed us was not the remaining unaccounted for WMD's, but they were supposed to destroy this in front of inspectors and they chose to destroy it without the inspectors, but showed us the site later. A mistake yes, a cause for war, no. However, cooperation is questioned again later. Again according to Scott Ritter, with no reason to believe Iraq had begun re-creating it's program we sent our inspectors in to 'check up' on Iraq. He claims that the inspectors were not there to inspect for a weapons program but to instead 'spy' on the Iraqi military and it's other programs. In the process they were over-stepping their boundaries and the Iraqi government was suspecting them of spying, they began to become more resistant to the inspectors, which in turn led to the Bush administration accusing them of non cooperation. Here is a link to an article in 1998 in which Iraq accuses Ritter of spying: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/15/iraq.ritter/ I don't know what happened, only a select few actually do. I feel the American people are deserving of an explination of what happened, show us evidence that led us to believe he had them, because really nothing has been shown to the world that would produce enough evidence to justify our attacks. It forces us to ask the question, what is this really about? Here is a reference: I will try to dig up more information.

I ask you please to only respond if you have something to add to the discussion.

I don't know how many of you have seen this documentary but I wanted to discuss some important questions this documentary raises. It's called: Hijacking Catastrophe - 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire A Media Education Foundation Presentation Written & Directed by Jeremy Earp & Sut Jhally Narrated by Julian Bond http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/ Here are a couple exerpts from the film: The Wolfowitz Doctrine was a classified document, some parts of it were leaked to the Washington post and New York times... I have searched and searched and have not and most likely will not find the full document, but here are some parts from the papers written in 1992. I recommend you see this film as there is much that cannot be layed out here, but the film asks you to consider alot of questions about the Bush administration and the motives behind whats happening. Here is a link to some clips from the film: http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=7&meid=1 I'm curious as to what you think of the film or the information and accusations presented in the film.

If you are referring to me, I live in the U.S., born and raised. In the state directly north of you.

Your kidding right? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

Oops, my bad.

I read some evidence in a debate not to long ago about this suggesting it actually costs less to lock someone up for life then it does to execute them. I'll see if I can find it.

It's all about their location in the world, it's just that our government designs its plans to put all the media attention on the locations that they want to hit for the benefits of its overall goals.

/sarcasm on - Yeah yeah, you brits should have seen it when we got to America, there was this great new land, unfortanantly it was full of these savages that were less than human just like the Iraqi's, so we slaughtered them, unarmed women and children even, then we gave small little areas to the survivors to live on so they were out of the way. Then we made a great country! Yay! /sarcasm off Many of us hope for an idealistic future, one without war, one with cooperation and advancement in space of the whole world, one without hunger problems, one where everyone on the planet has the opportunity for a decent education, one where everyone has access to proper healthcare, one where nuclear weapons do not exist, ect. We are not attempting to handle situations properly to achieve these goals. We cannot bomb the world to peace, only pieces. Link to info on the Bush doctrine- http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

Intelligent reply. Are you familiar with the Wolfowitz doctrine? Ya know the one that was created in 1992 that layed out a plan of action you are seeing take place today? The one that depicted Iraq as being the first state needing to be eliminated in order for an American dominance over the world. The one asked for a defense budget expendature of up to 100 billion dollars, the one that was denied and shut down because it was considered radical, even by George Bush sr.? That doctrine has been revised and is very much in play today. Are you familliar with Scott Ritter? The former U.S. chief weapons inspector to the U.N. who has said time and time again, there was never any intelligence given to the Bush adminastration that would give them any reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. There was no falsified intelligence, the intelligence was blatantly manipulated by the Bush administration. Have you ever played the board game risk? The Bush administration is playing a game of risk with the whole world watching as we speak. If you consider yourself American, You have to at least consider the possibility. I recommend you pull your head out ** **** ***, unglue your eyes from your cable T.V. and take a look at what is going on for yourself. Formulate your own opinions based on what you learn, not what you are being told on fox news. Paul Wolfowitz deputy secretary of defense - http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html The wolfowitz doctrine, now known as the Bush doctrine - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine

Yes, I see your point. I'm fairly new to these boards so I missed many past arguements. One thing to note though is people are capable of changing no matter how deep their beliefs in certain things are. Its usually not until a person understands themselves before they begin to understand their beliefs.

Wow excellent links sandi, thanks. I remember reading a little about pangea in highschool, Very interesting.

Why close it? If none has anything to say just don't say anything, if someone comes along down the road and feels the need to add something it should be available to them. (unless you prefer them to start a new thread so we can debate it again from the top)