Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Mockery

2007-05-15T06:40:55Z

Cgday: cmt

'''Mockery''' is a kind of [[jeer]]ing or showing [[contempt]] by [[derision]] or [[parody]], often in the form of a composition that imitates somebody's style in a [[humor]]ous or [[satire|satirical]] way.

Mockery is not always a sign of a defect in the thing being mocked. The tactic of mocking someone or their work is multi-pronged.

It is used to dismiss the person's work, so that others don't even take a look at it. It is often used as a political tactic to distract people from seeing the real [[fact]]s. It's a variant of [[ad hominem]], like saying [[scientist]]s who disagree with the [[United Nations]] are "in the pay of Big Oil" or saying scientists who believe in evolution are all atheists so their views can be discounted.

It is used to make the person lose confidence in what they are doing. "Ha, ha, you're [[stupid]]! Give up! You'll never succeed!" The idea is to bring someone down to one's own level, i.e., a "do nothing".

Mockery is also used to create confusion. Each of the books on Bushisms published during the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns was a subtle blend of [[gaffe]]s and digs. The gaffes were just verbatim transcripts of the sort of error any [[politics|politician]] makes when replying too quickly to a reporter's question. "One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." (Obviously by ''not be'' he meant ''is not'') There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the '''false point''' that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent. The digs were [[grammar|grammatically]] correct statements of fact, which the author of the book simply disagree with. The point of including them among the [[malapropism]]s and slips of the tongue is to insinuate that these statements were indications of incompetence. Actually, they only reveal the [[prejudice]] of the author.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.answers.com/topic/mockery a dictionary definition] ''Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision.''

User:Cgday

2007-05-02T22:40:24Z

Cgday: give up I think

I give up - Britain is a socialist nation it appears. When basic facts like that are so wrong - what hope for the rest of the articles!

Game over!

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T22:38:50Z

Cgday: /* "Socialist" Britain */

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Socialism

2007-05-02T22:27:17Z

Cgday: /* British socialism */ 1) please spell the country correctly and 2) since the conversatives have not tried to fix this how is the crit of socialism - unless the tories are now classed as socialists?

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, ''Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!'']]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "progressive" social policy or directly via nationalisation and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accummulating income.

Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal healthcare, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian comunities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that coud be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,

:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian.

Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favour of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America.

== British socialism ==

British socialism alleges to maintain benefits and incentives that existed in a free economy while promoting reforms intended to provide better working and living conditions for workers. The British government of 1945-1951 under Clement Atlee were stringent socialists who implemented the "nationalisation" of several industries. Nationalising the health care industry made it more accesible to all in theory, however the system has been plagued by long waiting lists and lack of modernization and improvements. Subsequently, the introduction of the NHS led to a sharp rise in life expectancy and a dramatic fall in infant deaths.{{fact}} As a result of these socialist elements, Britain maintained a healthy mixed economy, ensuring that the economy grew substantially {{fact}} while supporting through the welfare state to protect the poor.

The supposedly socialist Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], [[Tony Blair]], is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref>. In Britain, Catholics are [[discriminate]]d against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but Blair has never done so.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T22:25:52Z

Cgday: /* "Socialist" Britain */ bonkers

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T22:02:44Z

Cgday: /* "Socialist" Britain */ no idea what you are talking about

Socialism

2007-05-02T21:59:21Z

Cgday: /* British socialism */ just plain silly Britain is not a Socialist nation

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, ''Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!'']]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "progressive" social policy or directly via nationalisation and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accummulating income.

Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal healthcare, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian comunities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that coud be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,

:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian.

Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favour of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America.

== British socialism ==

British socialism alleges to maintain benefits and incentives that existed in a free economy while promoting reforms intended to provide better working and living conditions for workers. The British government of 1945-1951 under Clement Atlee were stringent socialists who implemented the "nationalisation" of several industries. Nationalising the health care industry made it more accesible to all in theory, however the system has been plagued by long waiting lists and lack of modernization and improvements. Subsequently, the introduction of the NHS led to a sharp rise in life expectancy and a dramatic fall in infant deaths.{{fact}} As a result of these socialist elements, Britain maintained a healthy mixed economy, ensuring that the economy grew substantially {{fact}} while supporting through the welfare state to protect the poor.

The supposedly socialist Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], [[Tony Blair]], is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref>. In Britian, Catholics are [[discriminate]]d against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but Blair has never done so.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T21:56:37Z

Cgday: /* "Socialist" Britain */

Socialism

2007-05-02T21:51:30Z

Cgday: /* British socialism */ gossip - find a source or don't include it - this whole section is a bit of a disgrace.

'''Socialism''' is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "progressive" social policy or directly via nationalisation and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accummulating income.

Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal healthcare, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian comunities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that coud be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,

:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian.

Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favour of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America.

== British socialism ==

British socialism alleges to maintain benefits and incentives that existed in a free economy while promoting reforms intended to provide better working and living conditions for workers. The British government of 1945-1951 under Clement Atlee were stringent socialists who implemented the "nationalisation" of several industries. Nationalising the health care industry made it more accesible to all in theory, however the system has been plagued by long waiting lists and lack of modernization and improvements. Subsequently, the introduction of the NHS led to a sharp rise in life expectancy and a dramatic fall in infant deaths.{{fact}} As a result of these socialist elements, Britain maintained a healthy mixed economy, ensuring that the economy grew substantially {{fact}} while supporting through the welfare state to protect the poor.

The supposedly socialist Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], [[Tony Blair]], is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref>. In Socialist Britian, Catholics are [[discriminate]]d against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but Blair has never done so.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Scotland

2007-05-01T19:05:15Z

Cgday: homosexuality and the kilt - the link

One thing; it's slightly disputed that Golf is a Scottish invention, just wondered if it should be in there... btw no offence to Scots genuine concern --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

in scottland, the kilt(that spelled right?) isnt that like your family's colors? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes Will N, the kilt is a tradtional dress still worn at weddings and social functions that is made in the clan (think family) tartan. Each tartan is comprised of colours specific to that family.

And Ed Poor, please can you stop removing the kilt picture. It is incredibly disrespectful to the Scots to remove not only a picture depicting their National dress but also their First Minister. The kilt has nothing to do with homosexuality, which frankly, is a topic that is discussed far too often on this site. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 12:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Kilts ==

Kilts are an item of dress, it is the tartan that has an association with families, or more accurately, Clan. In addition many public bodies have their own particular tartan. In the picture, Jack McConnell is seen wearing a pin-stripe kilt as part of an effort to promote Tartan Day.

Kilts are often made from Family/Clan Tartans, though not exclusively - there are many designs that have no particular family affiliation (such as Regimental designs) - Kilts are aso worn with somewhat plainer designs as well, and have even been made from leather..
I think the map is more appropriate than the pic of Jack McConnell - he is an elected representative, and does not necessarily epitomise Scottishness (indeed - pending the outcome of the general election on Thursday 03-May-2007, he may or may not continue as First Minister.) --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 17:45, 01 May 2007 (BST)

== homosexuality and the kilt - the link ==

em there is none - and I suggest any americans who visit scotland don't make suggest that linkage to members of, for example, her Maj's 51 (Scottish) Brigade. A frank and full exchange of viewpoints might then occur! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 15:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Scotland

2007-05-01T18:58:43Z

Cgday: /* Fame */ what? homosexuality? It's a kilt, the traditional attire of a scottish gent! please don't project onto articles!

[[Image:Scotland.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Scotland.]]

'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbor England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nations highest mountains. Those with heights above 914m (300 feet) are eponymously named [[Munro| Munroes]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile such a list.<ref> for a complete list of Munroes see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

==Union with England==
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. The formation of the [[Irish Republic]] in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament(MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], and expected future prime minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish

==Fame==
Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the first country to adopt English as its official language decades before England{{fact}}, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]] and the [[Loch Ness Monster]].

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]][[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|First Minister Jack McConnell wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)]]([[tartan]] skirts worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]], toleys and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation is football ([[soccer]]). Other diversions include [[rugby union]], lawn bowls, [[chanty wrassling]] (a native form of [[wrestling]]), [[pocket billiards]], shinty (similar to hockey), [[cricket]], curling, tossing the caber and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

[[Scotland]]'s 'other' national drink, Irn Bru (formerly "Iron Brew"), is a bubblegum-flavored carbonated drink manufactured by A.G.Barr of [[Glasgow]], and claims to be "made in Scotland from girders". An advert for it uses the music and animation style of "[[The Snowman]]".

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Seung-Hui Cho

2007-04-24T08:21:57Z

Cgday: who cares? what's it to do with building a factual article?

[[Image:Cho.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Seung-Hui Cho''' was a
23-year-old
socially isolated
[[South Korea|Korean]] man
who committed [[suicide]]
after murdering 32 people
at [[Virginia Tech]]
on April 16, 2007. The massacre was evidently motivated by the killer's intensely anti-Christian views. "Jesus was crucifying me. When the time came, I did it. I had no choice…."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/19/wshooter819.xml</ref>

The killer "railed against his parents' strong Christian faith."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HMELLN1I0ZVSDQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/04/19/wshooter419.xml</ref> According to one report, Cho Seung-Hui had left a note in his dormitory which contains a rant against Christianity<ref>It requires a close reading of the article to realize that his rant was against his "own religion," which really means Christianity. See http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=f9838ae8-a496-4ca2-a19f-8b8d7f3ab022&k=18395&p=2</ref> and "rich kids". He stated that ""Thanks to you I died like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people." <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.nbc/index.html</ref>

The spark to the killer's rage was apparently jealousy and anger towards an attractive 18-year-old student named Emily Hilscher.<ref>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392980-details/Gunman%20shot%20his%20fellow%20students%20three%20times/article.do</ref>
Cho had lived in the U.S. for fifteen years, since his parents immigrated when he was eight years old.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1 ABC News Seung-Hui Cho, 23-Year-Old Shooter, Wrote 'Disturbing' Note and Violent Plays], ''ABC''</ref> He had the name ''Ismail Ax'' written in red ink on his arm before the shooting.<ref>http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=041807B</ref> "Ismail" is the Muslim spelling for Ishmael, a patriarch for the Muslim religion and an outcast in the Old Testament.

His creative writing teacher said she notified authorities about Cho based on disturbing writings that he had submitted as classwork, but said she was told that there would be too many legal hurdles to intervene<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1</ref>. [[Image:Gal 06 cho nbc.jpg|right|thumb|200px|One of the photos Seung-Hui Cho sent to [[NBC]].]]
According to Cho's former roommates, Cho has been investigated by police in 2005 for stalking several female students on campus including a female student he had been communicating with via [[instant messenger]] under the pseudonym ''Question Mark''.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:criminals]]
[[Category:school violence]]

'''See''':
*[[Virginia Tech shootings]]

==Further Readings==
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6564653.stm BBC profile of Cho Seung-Hui]
*[http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/ Text of ''Richard McBeef'' and ''Mr. Brownstone'' on AOL]
*[http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/04/17/warrant.pdf Search warrant for Cho's on-campus residence]
*[http://www.cho-seung-hui.info/ Information on Seung-Hui Cho]
*[http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=925bc281-ce20-439e-9682-8cc58066b2bf&p=hotvideo_m_vatech&t=c3556&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/&fg= Clips of the video tape Seung-Hui Cho mailed to NBC]
*[http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/pdf/cho_mentalhealth.pdf Seung-Hui Cho's mental evaluation form]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-04-23T11:20:34Z

Cgday: /* The Surge */ + ref

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "coalition of the willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

==Background to regime change==

In the post-9/11 analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[Jihad|jihadists]], the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason. <ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Santions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Afairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirtieen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', refering to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found this,
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War <ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] programs which were credited with insuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millenium changed, Saddams top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Stategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>

==Arguments for regime change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Koki Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

==Liberation from Ba'athist tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. It also found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The survey, published March 19, 2007, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been caught in the middle of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. As the Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

==The Surge==
[[Image:Cuncil.jpg|right|thumb|Iraqi governing council as of July 15, 2003]]
Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not suprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he wasuncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed. <ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?" (See the Conservapedia entry "Opinion Poll" <ref> http://www.conservapedia.com/Opinion_poll </ref> for further elaboration on the importance of the phrasing of questions, etc.)

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign assistance is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-milimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime intent===
The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a Chemiclal Weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded Chemical Weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref>

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

Coalition Troops

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,300 U.S., and over 260 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 24,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

Enemy Casualties 

Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, has calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

Civilian Casualties

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]

Talk:Seung-Hui Cho

2007-04-23T10:11:14Z

Cgday: Bill Buckley

We should probably mention (somewhere) that Chinese, Japanese and Korean names go in [family, given] order. So that "Mr. Cho" is would be called Seung-Hui by his parents or close friends (not this this kid had any close friends, but ...) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:For the purposes of the article, I believe the (first, last) combination will be searched much more, and as the Anglicized version, can stand to stay on Conservapedia. I don't have a grasp of east Asian languages, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think it should go back to Seung-Hui Cho, given that the source cited, and most of the news, calls him that. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 19:55, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What news are you looking at, Colin? I've only seen Cho Seung-Hui on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and the Today show :/. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at the source the article cites. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Either way, a redirect can be set up. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:56, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==32 fellow students?==

I think at least one of the casualties was a professor, if not more. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:Fixed. You're right, Dan, one was an Israeli-American. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== New article? ==

Perhaps one article on the shooting qua the shooting - with timelines, victims, etc, and this one on the human-piece-of-crap (sorry, a little editorialisation there) that did it? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Overlooked?==

They have been trying to get stricter gun laws in Virginia, as they don't keep records on bought shotguns, rifles or private handguns. And they don't check the amount of guns bought against recent crime waves. But Bush vetoed the decision.

Funny this doesn't seem to be widely known.

==Other mass murderers==

This case reminds me of [[Gavin de Becker]]'s account of the postal worker who (the media said) "suddenly" went besersk and "without warning" killed several co-workers. The media account was wrong, of course. The postal worker had shown anti-social signs for '''years''' before the incident. But everyone was afraid of the legal repercussions of dismissing him. I'll have to look it up, I have the book in a box somewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:The sad truth is that hind sight is 20-20. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference between a potential psycho and a harmless crank until it's too late. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gavin de Becker disagrees with you.
::*Attackers do not “just snap,” but progress from forming an idea, to planning an attack, to gathering weapons. This process can happen quickly, but sometimes the planning or gathering weapons are discoverable. See [[Mosaic threat assessment method]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Removal of some details==
I thought those details were useful, why did you get rid of all that? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Tell me what purpose they serve. Do they explain why he did it? Do they show a pattern, or an indication of a larger problem? This is not Eyewitness News ("details at ten!"), and we do not need to generate an audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Disagree--people come here for encyclopedic content. Details are encyclopedic. Why remove any of his personal history or the details surrounding his crime? Further, if this topic were less-vulgar, we would make sure to stuff the page with detail (I assume). Why not continue that practice here? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd love to see some more information about his personal history, especially anything that would shed light on why he would hurt himself or others. As for the crimes he committed in Virginia, perhaps on article on the day's events would be good to start. Shall we call it [[Virginia Tech shootings]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Thanks [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Signs of disturbance==

:he had been communicating with via instant messenger under the pseudonym Question Mark.

Didn't he sign a questionnaire with just a question mark? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Christain==
where does the NPR article mention his religious affiliation?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Zealot ==

Not in the article but the front page. I'm wondering if Zealot is actually the word for him. I'm not even disputing anti-christian (although I will point out that he killed at least one jew, which I would read as him being sort of indiscriminate) but since it was his own religion even that seems more anti-self, like alot of his morbid writings. Also... don't Zealots... I dunno, talk to people? Aren't they kind of known for not being able to shut up? My thesaurus has Advocate, Drumbeater, Dogmatist... just saying that word doesnt really describe him accurately. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Cause of Massacre? ==

[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No.1 ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable. '' and No.2 ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry'' This article contains the sentense ''The massacre was evidently caused by the killer's intensely anti-Christian, and perhaps anti-American, views.'' The source gives no reason for the massacre. The above contravenes [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]. When is the Trustwothy Encyclopedia going to get trustworthy? [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:58, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Wiki collaboration==

I just now read every word of every edit made to our [[Seung-Hui Cho]] article. With the exception of a few reverts, every edit was constructive and brought the article closer to "being good". I consider it an honor to have had the chance to collaborate with Mr. Schlafly and also enjoyed working with Dan (aka MountainDew) and Jaques. --[[User:Ed Poor|User:Ed Poor]] 12:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I trimmed and tweaked a bit, because this is an article that has been accessed 2,323 times. Let's be extra careful with popular pages. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:53, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bill Buckley ==

Who is he? and why should we care what he thinks? If we get into cherrypicking op-ed pieces we are going to end up with a very long article full of soundbites. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Suicide bomber

2007-04-22T22:31:56Z

Cgday: fmt

"Suicide bombers are normally Muslim men" - actually I'm not sure that's true - I seem to remember that the tamil tigers commit as many if not more, I'll try and dig out a source later. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:29, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/usscole/jir001020_1_n.shtml
[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:31, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Suicide bomber

2007-04-22T22:31:42Z

Cgday: see

Talk:Suicide bomber

2007-04-22T22:29:43Z

Cgday: not sure about that.

Free rider

2007-04-22T21:24:03Z

Cgday: copyedit

A lighthouse and national defensce are examples of [[public goods]]. The market would not provide those goods as it would be unable to charge a price to all users/consumers. It would be both unprofitable and impractical to attempt to do so. They suffer from what is known as the '''free rider''' problem.

The free-rider problem is often cited in economics as justification for taxes in order to compel most people to share the costs for public goods such as national defense or public education.
[[category:sociology]]

Free rider

2007-04-22T21:19:11Z

Cgday: wonky analogue - why is this in a social cat rather than economics?

A '''free rider''' is someone who seeks a benefit without paying or working for it, on the assumption that others will endure the trouble or expense.

The free-rider problem is often cited in economics as justification for taxes in order to compel most people to share the costs for public goods such as national defense or public education.
[[category:sociology]]

Merit good

2007-04-22T21:11:16Z

Cgday: No that's not quite right and based on a bit of a misconception of what a merit good is.

Goods that some elite deems so desirable that the government intervenes, even though markets could satisfy consumer wants efficiently. However, if left to the individuals ability to pay, these services would not be produced in sufficient quantities. This would be undesirable for a society that benefits from a well educated, healthy and housed population. The state is concerned with maximising the consumption of certain goods which it deems to be desirable; goods and services where the social benefits exceed the private benefits. Examples are public hospitals, libraries, parks and municipal golf courses.

Seung-Hui Cho

2007-04-21T16:17:39Z

Cgday: added quote

Cerne Abbas Giant

2007-04-14T14:07:23Z

Cgday: added image

[[Image:cerne.jpg]]

The Cerne Abbas Giant, also known as the Cerne Giant, is a chalk drawing of a man wielding a club upon a hillside in Cerne Abbas, Dorset. It is the most-visited site in the entire county. The origin and purpose of the man is unknown but it is thought by some experts that he represents the mythical figure of hercules.

Cerne Abbas Giant

2007-04-14T14:04:55Z

Cgday: created page - was reading a book about this over breakfast

The Cerne Abbas Giant, also known as the Cerne Giant, is a chalk drawing of a man wielding a club upon a hillside in Cerne Abbas, Dorset. It is the most-visited site in the entire county. The origin and purpose of the man is unknown but it is thought by some experts that he represents the mythical figure of hercules.

BBC

2007-04-14T11:46:44Z

Cgday: rm nonsense

BBC

2007-04-14T11:46:29Z

Cgday: public sector but not state owned.

The BBC (The British Broadcasting Corporation) is public sector [[television]] and [[radio]] broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]]. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927 by horrible British people who spell funny. Its previous Director General, [[Greg Dyke]], left the company on 29th January, 2004 after considerable stick from the Hutton Enquiry for various things, including being too English. The current D-G is Mark Thompson, who is [[really nice]].

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

House of Commons (UK)

2007-04-14T11:34:33Z

Cgday: terminology

The '''House of Commons''', or, strictly speaking, ''the Honourable the House of Commons'', is the [[lower house]] of the British [[legislature]]. Together with the Queen and the [[House of Lords]], it is one of the three components of the British [[Parliament]]

The House consists of 646 elected members, who are known as Members of Parliament or MPs. Each MP is elected by a particular geographical area known as a ''constituency''. By convention, the leader of the party which has the majority of MPs becomes Prime Minister and forms a government, while the party with the second-largest number of MPs becomes the official Opposition ("Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition").

==Elections to the House==

Elections to the House of Commons are held when the Queen (in practice, acting at the request of the Prime Minister) dissolves Parliament. Elections must be held at least at five-yearly intervals.

Because Britain has three main parties (and a number of minor parties) and because each MP is elected to the House of Commons on the basis of winning the largest number of votes in his constituency (known as "first past the post"), the link between the overall number of votes won by each party nationwide and the number of MPs that it is able to return to the Commons can be relatively weak. The electoral system for the Commons has historically been criticised by the [[Liberal Democrats]], who do particularly badly out of it.

==Composition==

The last elections to the House of Commons took place in May 2005. The current distribution of MPs is as follows:

[[Labour Party]]: 352 seats

[[Conservative Party]]: 196 seats

[[Liberal Democrats]]: 63 seats

[[Scottish National Party]] (Scottish nationalists): 6 seats

[[Plaid Cymru]] (Welsh Nationalists): 3 seats

[[Democratic Unionist Party]] (Northern Irish unionists): 9 seats

[[Ulster Unionist Party]] (Northern Irish unionists): 1 seat

[[Sinn Fein]] (Irish nationalists): 5 seats

[[Social Democratic and Labour Party]] (Irish nationalists): 3 seats

Others (inc. independents): 8 seats

TOTAL: 646

==See also==

* [[Parliament]]
* [[House of Lords]]

Monopoly (board game)

2007-04-13T18:57:58Z

Cgday: overseas

'''Monopoly''' Based on [[Atlantic City NJ]] is one the best-known American [[board game]]s. Although [[checkers]] and [[chess]] are better-known, neither is an American invention.

In Monopoly, 2 or more players take turns rolling dice and moving their tokens clockwise through boxes drawn around the edges of a square board. Upon landing in a box, a player:
#may buy the property if no other player owns it
#must pay rent to the player who owns it
#draws a Chance or Community Chest card

When you pass Go you collect $200. If you land on Jail or Free Parking, nothing happens. The box marked Go To Jail is self-explanatory. Overseas versions have cities appropriate for the their marketplace, for example the British version of the game has squares based upon areas within London.

Talk:Speech codes

2007-04-13T17:45:51Z

Cgday: question

I'm still not really sure what a speech code is after reading this? can someone provide an example? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 13:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Has conservapedia failed to reach a critical mass?

2007-04-12T11:05:19Z

Cgday: dropped off Alexa

Did Conservapedia fail to capitalize on it's recent publicity and has it failed to reach a critical mass?

Is [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.conservapedia.com this] downward trend likely to continue?

Update: Conservapedia has dropped below the level at which Alexa tracks. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 07:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss.
==YES!==
Yes, I think so. It's possible that Conservapedia gets a second growth phase with better results, but the first one ended with many editors running straight against a wall.

The reasons are too complex to list here (though I might try to write an userspace article some time), but the short version is: The mix of policies (or lack thereof), extremely fuzzy site goals, clear favoritism of sysops, general hostility against science (or even simple concepts like "balance"), the complete unwillingness to learn from mistakes, and the fact that Conservapedia ''still'' defines itself directly through Wikipedia drove a good deal of people away or lowered their motivation to levels where actual content edits are a rarity.

I admit that the odds had been against Conservapedia in the beginning. All the attention in the beginning was of the "Hey, look at that if you need a good laugh!" kind. Still, quite a few people joined with the honest intent of helping. How many of those people are still here? How many are still contributing content? Conservapedia had ''international press coverage for weeks'', and how many editors who joined during those days are still active?

If there was another wave of press coverage RIGHT NOW, things would not be better. Before the next visitor wave arrives, things in here have to improve. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

+ Yes. Wikipedia atracted the mass coz comic book fans, anime fans and music fans could talk abouit their idols there - and learn stuff too. Conservapedia is too tight about that.

==NO!==

All the curiosity seekers have come and gone, leaving a stable of serious editors who can build the Conservapedia in relative peace. When the article count approaches 100,000, perhaps in a year, then many will take another look and hopefully like what they see. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 13:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: do we have any figures on article growth? trends in editor numbers? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 13:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have two snapshots of the Top 50 at [[User:Sid 3050/Popularity]], spanning one week. But that's just that: One set of snapshots. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:38, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: It would be interesting if see the data on Wikipedia in its first few years. I did learn that Wikipedia did not reach 450,000 entries, many of which are/were complete trivia (like the title of a rock song), until more than 4 years after it began. Also, I think Wikipedia copied tens of thousands of entries directly from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and many of those outdated entries remain to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=www.wikipedia.org&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=max&size=Medium&url=rockstargames.com something like this is the best I can do] --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 15:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, You're slightly off here. We're not talking about article count, unless you imply that the copying from Britannica led to tons of people suddenly contributing like crazy. And the landscape has ''radically'' changed. Wikipedia was effectively the first of its kind. People were not used to the concept and had general doubts that an open encyclopdia could work at all. Conservapedia builds up on ''years'' of foundation - hundreds of thousands of people know the wiki concept, and Wikipedia is the proof that it can work. Conservapedia had international press coverage and a massive traffic spike. And then... it ended. Very few people outside this site are paying attention to Conservapedia. Even the more recent press coverage mocks the site or just reports your choice quotes and doesn't dare to touch the issue of quality. Ask yourself why that is so.
::And you have one problem that Wikipedia didn't have: Serious competition. Conservapedia has to answer a tough question: "Why shouldn't I simply go to Wikipedia?" - Your ominous "liberal bias" didn't cut it. It attracted a few people who share this view to some degree, but... that's it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:23, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
I think there is still time to reach a self-sustainable level wherein the editors and sysops could both add significant material at the same time reverting vandalism and generally keeping the place "tidy".
A problem of sorts rears it's head because it seems as if there is an unwritten "policy" that seeks to ''control'' at all times, what is being placed upon these pages.

Just like a lawn, one has to expect a certain amount of weeds. One needs to start out with good soil from which grass seed can germinate and flourish. If one trods upon the seeds trying to ferret off each and every weed seed, the grass will also suffer, growing in clumps and spot and dying in other places.

Perhaps the thing to do is let the yard go? Let all that is to grow, grow; after a time it will be necessary to go in and pull weeds and allow the healthy good grass to fill in the spots left bare from this weeding. [[User:Rob_Pommer| Chance the Gardener]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer| Talk]]

: There is no "control" here. But we do adhere to our simple, clear [[rules]]. The numerous, repeated attempts to have obscene entries in violation of our rules have been astounding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2007-04-12T10:49:38Z

Cgday: /* No */

{{debate}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==No==

That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Whale

2007-04-11T11:07:50Z

Cgday: opps should make it clear that I'm talking about mammals

Whales are an order of marine mammals, the [[Cetacea|Cetaceans]].

Living whales are seperated into the toothed whales (which includes [[dolphin]]s, [[porpoise]]s, [[narwhal]]s, [[beaked whale]]s and [[sperm whale]]s) and the whalebone whales; those (mostly very large) cetaceans which have teeth replaced by baleen (whalebone) to filter small prey from the water, which are what people generally think of when the word whale is used. The whalebone whales include the rorquals - the [[blue whale]], fin whale, sei whale, Bryde's whale, [[minke whale]], [[grey whale]]; the [[humpback whale]]; and the various [[right whale]]s.

Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, such as the blue whale (the largest animal to ever live), others are relatively small like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are in fact [[mammal|mammals]] and accordingly breath air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable [[adaptation|adaptations]] including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

* Whales along with Humans and horses are some of the few mammal species that do not possess baculum

== Evolution and taxonomy ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestrial [[mammal|mammals]] has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears. In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has combined to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being hippos<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>. This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists estimate the last ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago <ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref>, which is contrast with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that that whales were [[creation|created]] about 4000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]]. Other creationists are not convinced that the available fossil evidence supports the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] but make no reference to the corroborating molecular evidence. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>

== Whales in the Bible ==

The great fish that swallowed [[Jonah]],
<blockquote>
''Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.'' Jonah 1:17
</blockquote>
is generally regarded as being a whale (which were historically classified as fishes) although [[Great white shark]]s are also present in the [[Mediterranean Sea]], offering an alternative swallower that is a true fish.

== Whales in literature ==

Probably the most famous book about whales is [[Herman Melville]]'s ''[[Moby-Dick|Moby Dick]]'', about sperm-whaling.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Marine mammals]]

Whale

2007-04-11T11:06:16Z

Cgday: Baculum - althought I seem to remember that maybe blue whales have them

Whales are an order of marine mammals, the [[Cetacea|Cetaceans]].

Living whales are seperated into the toothed whales (which includes [[dolphin]]s, [[porpoise]]s, [[narwhal]]s, [[beaked whale]]s and [[sperm whale]]s) and the whalebone whales; those (mostly very large) cetaceans which have teeth replaced by baleen (whalebone) to filter small prey from the water, which are what people generally think of when the word whale is used. The whalebone whales include the rorquals - the [[blue whale]], fin whale, sei whale, Bryde's whale, [[minke whale]], [[grey whale]]; the [[humpback whale]]; and the various [[right whale]]s.

Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, such as the blue whale (the largest animal to ever live), others are relatively small like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are in fact [[mammal|mammals]] and accordingly breath air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable [[adaptation|adaptations]] including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

* Whales along with Humans and horses are some of the few species that do not possess baculum

== Evolution and taxonomy ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestrial [[mammal|mammals]] has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears. In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has combined to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being hippos<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>. This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists estimate the last ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago <ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref>, which is contrast with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that that whales were [[creation|created]] about 4000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]]. Other creationists are not convinced that the available fossil evidence supports the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] but make no reference to the corroborating molecular evidence. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>

== Whales in the Bible ==

The great fish that swallowed [[Jonah]],
<blockquote>
''Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.'' Jonah 1:17
</blockquote>
is generally regarded as being a whale (which were historically classified as fishes) although [[Great white shark]]s are also present in the [[Mediterranean Sea]], offering an alternative swallower that is a true fish.

== Whales in literature ==

Probably the most famous book about whales is [[Herman Melville]]'s ''[[Moby-Dick|Moby Dick]]'', about sperm-whaling.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Marine mammals]]

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-04-11T10:41:46Z

Cgday: /* List of criticisms */

== List of criticisms ==

Despite suggesting that this is the place for criticisms of flood geology, I'm deleting the list that Cgday put in this article for the following reasons:
* Because it is a copy and paste from a discussion forum on [http://uselessjunk.net/viewtopic.php?p=2459938&sid=3fc7ec562d310602fdb812187fb662ab another web-site]. Conservapedia articles are supposed to be original content.
* Because a list of this format and length is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
* The list is introduced with the comment, "'This list is to establish that those criticisms have been raised, not to suggest they have any weight". If that is all, then ''mentioning'' the fact and putting a link in a footnote is sufficient.
* Also on that comment, and to use an analogy, an article on the moon landings that listed criticisms (that they were faked) simply on the grounds that they have been raised is ludicrous. Surely the criticisms should have some validity before being included/mentioned/etc.
* I doubt that a forum post would be considered an acceptable source even for linking to in a footnote.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:: just as a point of clarification - it's not copied from there but they did copy that from my original source. Never mind, I'll construct the list from scratch - Peer reviewed journals are fine as sources right? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:"How the Other Half Lives," or, Conservapedia from the Liberal Perspective

2007-04-11T08:58:47Z

Cgday: comment

<nowiki>*</nowiki>watches this page* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep - --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Don't expect anything big until the end of the day. But guys, I would appreciate it if you, as liberals on Conservapedia, would contribute paragraphs about how you feel about Conservapedia. I'll integrate them into the final essay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify I'm on the right in the UK but that seems to make me some form of Pinko commie here ;-) --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 13:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I consider myself outside the US political spectrum, but I'm most definitely not "conservative" in the sense that this site pushes. I'll try to add something here later. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::As a liberal as Conservapedia, you live in a constant state of worry; when will Andy choose to block all of the liberals? When will the next RightWolf2 come along and make a fool out of himself? And worse of all, we were told that this was actually going to be an encyclopedia, not a neocon propoganda tool (which it is). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Its really only the controversial articles that have a conservative bias really. If the article isn't on the top 100 most popular pages list, then it has no bias. However, I'm not sure if thats because no one cares about those pages, or if it's because they are all 2 sentences long. Honestly, the problem that exist here is that no one is USING the site. Everyone is either vandalizing it or caught up in the debate pages. No one, outside of maybe Andy's students, is actually using this site as reference, most of our traffic probably comes from Slashdot, 4chan, Newgrounds and the like. The site is never going to grow when people spend decades discussing whether or not abortion can cause breast cancer, when we don't even have the most basic of articles.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I think the breast cancer article is important because it reveals quite a lot about the actual function of the site. Notice how the only medically qualified person on there is pilloried for "acting outside his expertise" but strangely not one of the sysops wants to explain what it is about ''their'' education that allows them to make this determination. It's a very interesting lens to look at the double speak that you fight here. The other thing is it brings to light is that many of the sysops do not seem to understand the function or construction of an ecyclopedia article - a very common answer to question is "well it's obvious to me!" or "it's pretty logical to me!" totally missing the fact that a good article does not rely on something being obvious to the writer but actually being explained to the reader!

That's leaving aside racist articles such as [[Federal Reserve]] --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 04:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Breast cancer

2007-04-10T22:03:03Z

Cgday: COI

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 17:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

:::I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer. ''However, most studies show that they are not.'' That's the bottom line. Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise. We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== some studies ==

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Breast cancer

2007-04-10T21:46:41Z

Cgday: /* Who has a financial horse in this race? */

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

:::I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== some studies ==

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Breast cancer

2007-04-10T21:40:31Z

Cgday: some studies

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

== some studies ==

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Breast cancer

2007-04-10T21:26:53Z

Cgday: /* Who has a financial horse in this race? */

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Breast cancer

2007-04-10T20:24:38Z

Cgday: /* Who has a financial horse in this race? */ conservagate?

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-04-10T17:53:50Z

Cgday: argument to the future - just the facts thanks.

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], [[Horn of Africa]], and [[Somalia]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "coalition of the willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

==Background to regime change==

In the post-9/11 analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[Jihad|jihadists]], the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason. <ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Santions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Afairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirtieen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', refering to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found this,
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War <ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] programs which were credited with insuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millenium changed, Saddams top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Stategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>

==Arguments for regime change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Koki Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

==Liberation from Ba'athist tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. It also found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The survey, published March 19, 2007, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been caught in the middle of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. As the Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

==The Surge==
[[Image:Cuncil.jpg|right|thumb|Iraqi governing council as of July 15, 2003]]
Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?" (See the Conservapedia entry "Opinion Poll" <ref> http://www.conservapedia.com/Opinion_poll </ref> for further elaboration on the importance of the phrasing of questions, etc.)

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign assistance is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-milimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime intent===
The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a Chemiclal Weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded Chemical Weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> Undeniable is the fact that the true cost of the war cannot be measured by a simple dollar amount.

==Casualties==

Coalition Troops

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,200 U.S., and over 300 troops from coalition countries have died in the war.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

Enemy Casualties 

Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, has calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

Civilian Casualties

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> Other sources list a much higher figure. However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]

Great Flood

2007-04-10T17:13:58Z

Cgday: /* Flood geology */ fmt

[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|300px|right|''The Flood'', by Michaelangelo, detail from the Sistine Chapel, 1509.]]
Cultures around the world record a world-destroying '''flood''' in their oral or written histories. Today 60% of Americans accept as true the Biblical account of the Great Flood.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref>

== The Flood accounts ==

The best known of the flood accounts are, the two intermeshed versions found in the book of [[Genesis]], and the version found in the [[Gilgamish Epic]]. Both are written accounts.
The Genesis account is the most detailed of any of the accounts, and the one against which others are usually compared.
It has also been studied the most, with a number of terms used in reference to it, including the '''Flood''', '''Noah's Flood''', the '''Deluge''', the '''Great Flood''', and the '''Noahic flood'''.
The terms ''pre-diluvian'' and ''post-diluvian'' are used to refer to the times before and after the flood respectively.

A table comparing specific details in a number of different flood accounts can be found [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 here].

== The Genesis account ==

The Genesis account is the most detailed account.
In it, God warned Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a flood, because of the wickedness of mankind. Noah was to build an ark and take on it his family and representatives of all air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures. The ark was to be 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits high<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref> (approximately 450 feet long, by 75 feet wide, by 45 feet high), have three decks, and rooms.

God brought the animals and birds to Noah, and there were, per Gen 7:2 two of the "[[unclean (animals)|unclean]]" animals and seven (or seven pairs) of the "[[clean (animals)|clean]]", and per Gen 6:19-20 "two of every sort".

After Noah and his family and all the creatures were on board, God shut the door of the ark.
The flood was brought on by the eruption of subterranean water ("''the fountains of the deep were opened''"), and rain.
The rain lasted nearly six weeks (40 days and nights).
The flood waters apparently continued to rise for 150 days, but it was just over a year before the waters had receded enough for the occupants of the ark to leave.

The ark is recorded as having come to rest on the mountains of Ararat, taken by many today to be the existing mountains of that name.
God put a rainbow in the clouds, and said that it was to be a reminder that he would never again destroy the world in a flood. (Genesis does not say that this was the first ever rainbow.)
He also told Noah that it was now okay to eat meat.

== The Gilgamish Epic account ==

The council of the gods decided to destroy mankind with a flood, but Utnapishtim was warned by the god who had made man, Ea, to build a boat to take all living being. The length, width, and height were each 120 cubits (about 180 feet). It had seven stories.

The gods got frightened by the flood and retreated to heaven where they cowered and wept.
The flood lasted six days and seven nights, and was accompanied by wind and storm.
Utnapishtim send out a dove followed by a swallow, but both returned, unable to find land. He then sent a raven, which didn't return.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati comments on the Gilgamish Epic:
:It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. ... For instance, in Genesis, God’s judgment is just, he is patient with mankind for 120 years (Genesis 6:3), shows mercy to Noah, and is sovereign. Conversely, the gods in the Gilgamesh Epic are capricious and squabbling, cower at the Flood and are famished without humans to feed them sacrifices. That is, the human writers of the Gilgamesh Epic rewrote the true account, and made their gods in their own image.<ref Name="JS_GE" />

== Other ancient references ==

The Assyrian King [[Ashurbanipal]], who lived in the seventh century B.C., recorded, "I have read intricate tablets inscribed with obscure Sumerian or Akkadian...inscriptions on stone from before the Flood."<ref>[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1032092 Ashurbanipal]</ref>

== Common Themes for Flood Accounts ==

=== Cause ===

Many of the accounts say that the flood was caused by God or some equivalent being.
In Genesis, it was Yahweh<ref>Genesis 6:3</ref>.
In the Gilgamish Epic, it was the council of the gods <ref Name="JS_GE">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic] by Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'', vol. 28 No. 4 pp.12-17</ref>.
In the Bundaba (Australian aboriginal) flood story, it was Ngowungu, the Great Father. <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1468 Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories], ''Creation'' Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 6-9.</ref>
The Greeks recorded it as being [[Zeus]].<ref name="Greek">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Greek Greek], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>

=== Purpose ===

When the cause of the flood is attributed to a god, the reason is frequently said to be for [[mankind]]'s wickedness.
Genesis adds that "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time".<ref>Genesis 6:5 (NIV)</ref>
The Miao account from China says, in verse, "These did not God's will nor returned His affection. / But fought with each other defying the Godhead. / Their leaders shook fists in the face of the Mighty."<ref>[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=341 Genesis According to the Miao People], by Edgar A. Truax, ''Impact'', April 1991</ref>
A Navajo account says that it was because of "their sins of adultery and constant quarreling". <ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Navajo Navajo (Four Corners area)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak</ref>

=== What saved the people ===

People were generally saved either by floating out the flood, or fleeing to the top of a mountain. In the former case, the vessel took a variety of forms.
A Hopi Indian story has them surviving in the hollow stems of giant reeds<ref name="Hopi">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hopi Hopi], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
The Greek story has them surviving in a chest. <Ref name="Greek" />
In Genesis, Noah was instructed by God to build an ark to dimensions and other specifications included in the account.

=== Who was saved? ===

The survivors were often a single family.
An Australian aboriginal account has Ngadgja, the Supreme One, telling Gajara to take his wife, his sons, and his sons' wives.<ref name="Wunambal">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1467 Aboriginal Flood Legend], by Howard Coates, ''Creation'' Vol. 4 No.3, pp.9-12</ref>
The Masai account from East Africa has Tumbainot taking his two wives, his six sons, and their wives.<ref name="Masai">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Masai Masai (East Africa)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
A Hawaiian story has Nuu taking his wife and three sons. <ref name="Hawaii">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hawaii Hawaii], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
Noah took his wife, his three sons, and their wives.<ref>Genesis 7:13</ref>

=== Birds sent out ===

Genesis describes Noah sending out birds to see if there was yet dry land.<ref>Genesis 8:6-12</ref>
Initially this was unsuccessful, but a subsequent attempt was successful when a dove didn't return. In the Hopi account also, they unsuccessfully sent out birds to find land.<ref name="Hopi" />
An Australian aboriginal account has a cuckoo not returning because it found land.<ref name="Wunambal" />
The Masai account has Tumbainot sending out a dove, which returned because it had no place to rest.<ref name="Masai" />

=== A rainbow ===

The Masai account has four rainbows signifying that God's wrath was over.<ref name="Masai" />
A Hawaiian account has the god Kane leaving a rainbow as a perpetual sign of his forgiveness.<ref name="Hawaii" />
From an Australian aboriginal story comes this account:
:Ngadja, the Supreme Being, put the rainbow in the sky to keep the rain-clouds back. The rainbow lies bent across the sky; he ties up the clouds behind it and the rain does not come. The rainbow keeps the clouds back and protects us so that the rainfall does not rise too high. Our people understand the significance of it. When we see the rainbow we say, ‘There will not be any abnormally heavy rain.’<ref name="Wunambal" />

Genesis says that the rainbow would be a reminder that God would never again destroy the world with a flood.<ref>Genesis 9:12-17</ref>

=== Criticisms ===

''See also criticism in [[Noah's Ark#Controversy|Noah's Ark]] and [[Flood Geology#Controversy|Flood Geology]].

Critics of the global flood suggest that the flood accounts are unrelated accounts of local floods, or stories influenced by the arrival of missionaries.

However, Nozomi Osanai responds that "''...the detailed nature of the widely spread statements has common elements to the Bible. In fact, even people who live far from the sea or in mountainous areas have flood traditions which are similar to the Genesis account.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4089/ A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, chapter 7], by Nozomi Osanai.</ref>

And Murray Adamthwaite responds regarding the missionary influence, "''...that explanation fails since in many cases secular anthropologists gathered the stories before missionaries reached these tribes with the Gospel. In other cases missionaries have related how they indeed told the story of Noah, only to find that the tribal folk already had a similar tale in their own legends.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2538 Animals, a Deluge and Noah’s Ark]</ref>

== Modern explanations ==

===Black Sea theory===
In 2000, explorers discovered evidence that humans lived where the [[Black Sea]] now is and speculated the sea was created during a great flood <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/</ref>. Dr. Robert Ballard expanded on this theory, postulating that the Black Sea was much lower during the Ice Age (including the finding of a beach thousands of feet underwater), and when the walls holding back the Mediterranean Sea at the Bosporus broke, the sea rushed in and drowned the inhabitants; those who survived told the tale orally, and according to Ballard this became the basis for the flood accounts of Genesis and Gilgamesh [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html]. This theory is for a local flood, and not the world-wide flood as recorded in Genesis and many other cultural traditions. It also doesn't fit with many other details of the Genesis account.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392 Proof of Noah's Flood at the Black Sea?] by Creation Ministries International.</ref>

== Flood geology ==

''See main article: [[Flood Geology]]''

Flood geology is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Genesis account is true and accurate, and that evidence of the Flood can be found in the geology of the Earth.

Until the rise of [[uniformitarian]] geology in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology.
But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration.
During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologists]]" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles,<ref>The Great Turning Point, by Terry Mortenson. See also a series of articles in the ''Journal of Creation'', commencing with "British scriptural geologists in the first half of the nineteenth century: part 1" by Terry Mortenson, ''Journal of Creation'' Vol. 11 No. 2 pp. 221-252.</ref> but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.

Flood geologists propose that such a world-wide, year-long flood would have caused massive erosion, sedimentation, and geological movements, and leaving plenty of evidence in the [[geology|geological]] record.
Many propose that there was a single continent before the flood that broke up during the flood.
The idea of tectonic plate movement was proposed by creationary scientist Antonio Snider in 1859,<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3670 What About Continental Drift], Chapter 11 of The Answers Book Updated & Expanded, Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> although it was not until several other scientists had proposed similar ideas that the idea was adopted by mainstream scientists in the last few decades of the 20th century.

According to flood geologists, the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("''the springs of the great deep burst forth''"—Genesis 7:11, NIV), combined with 40 days and nights of rain.
Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave.<ref>The flood began on the 17th day of the second month of the 600th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) and the ark's passengers alighted on the 27th day of the second month of the 601st year of Noah's life (Genesis 8:13-15)</ref>
During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans.
All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became [[fossil]]s, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

Flood geology also proposes that the flood waters swept together and buried large mats of vegetation ripped from the surface of the Earth, forming the [[coal]] beds that are mined today.

==External Links==

*[http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html Greek Myths: Deucalion and the Flood]
*[http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11 (Flood Story)]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html Geological evidence from Northwest Creation]
*[http://www.genesisfiles.com/Library.htm#B Genesis Files website]
*[http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2631]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp Was the Flood Global? Answers in Genesis article]
*[http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html Black Sea theory, from Dr. Robert Ballard and National Geographic]
*[http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore64.html Native American flood story]
*[http://wovoca.com/myths-flood-1.htm Collection of Flood myths]

== Notes ==

<references />

Flood Geology

2007-04-10T17:12:56Z

Cgday: added further detail.

Flood geology is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Genesis account is true and accurate, and that evidence of the Flood can be found in the geology of the Earth.

Until the rise of uniformitarian geology in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But James Hutton proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "scriptural geologists" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles,[22] but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.

Flood geologists propose that such a world-wide, year-long flood would have caused massive erosion, sedimentation, and geological movements, and leaving plenty of evidence in the geological record. Many propose that there was a single continent before the flood that broke up during the flood. The idea of tectonic plate movement was proposed by creationary scientist Antonio Snider in 1859,[23] although it was not until several other scientists had proposed similar ideas that the idea was adopted by mainstream scientists in the last few decades of the 20th century.

According to flood geologists, the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth"—Genesis 7:11, NIV), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave.[24] During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

Flood geology also proposes that the flood waters swept together and buried large mats of vegetation ripped from the surface of the Earth, forming the coal beds that are mined today.

== Common Criticisms ==

Sceptics of a global flood have raised the following issues (This list is to establish that those criticisms have been raised, not to suggest they have any weight):

Critics of the global flood suggest that the flood accounts are unrelated accounts of local floods, or stories influenced by the arrival of missionaries.

Other critisisms that have been posed by skeptics include:

1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

2. Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column is vastly older than any postulated flood.

3. Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.

4. Varves – How does one create 20 million annual layers, each layer which would have taken at least a month to settle due to hydrodynamics as is observed in the Green River Formation? How does one explain seasonal of pollen grains found in the layers?

5. Sedimentation rates – Why would there be Precambrian rocks below ones feet in the Canadian Shield area, yet the entire geologic column in the Williston Basin in North Dakota? Why would a global flood scour down to the Precambrian in one place yet at the same time deposit tens of thousands of feet of sediment in another when it is exactly the same process? Giant post-pyramid ice ages are not an explanation as there is no written record or other evidence of increased historical glaciation to the extent needed to scour the Canadian Shield down in the last 4500 years, not to mention such Precambrian rocks elsewhere on Earth like South Africa.

6. Lava layers with ancient soils between flows – How could lava forms which only exist with a land surface interface create interbedded deposits with paleosoils?

7. Ice sheets – Ice caps can’t reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.

8. Ice core data with correlated known volcanic events – Ice cores can be dated back by multiple methods nearly a million years, yet show no evidence of a global flood.

9. Ocean core data – Ocean cores would show unsorted piles of terrestrial life and different distributions in grain sizes than observed. They would also show little difference in thickness between the mid Atlantic ridge and near subduction zones, which is not what is observed.

10. Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.

11. Volcanism – According to ‘flood geology’ every igneous rock layer that overlays sedimentary rock would have to be less than 4500 years old. Yet, historical records indicate this tremendous amount of simultaneous volcanic activity could not have occurred in recent times because someone would have noticed, becoming extinct and all when the atmosphere becomes unbreathable. Such a position directly contradicts the existence of the Deccan Traps which are up to 2 km thick and 500,000 square km in extent, yet supposedly erupted in India despite any historic evidence, after such a flood.

12. Ore deposit formation rates – Most ore deposits require a longer period of time to separate their constituent elements and then cool to create an economically viable source of minerals.

13. Evaporites – The existence of evaporate deposits thousands of feet thick are incompatible with any global flood as they are formed through evaporation rather than through the addition of fresh water.

14. Carbonates – The huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to being locked into carbonate rock would have made the planet resemble Venus. There would have been no life to drown.

15. Microfossil deposits - Thick deposits of microfossils in limestone, diatomaceous chert, and chalk that could not settle to such a degree of thickness in the time allotted for any global flood.

16. Thick deposits of sand - Sand is the result of weathering and working of formally solid formations, requiring long long times to form and accumulate.

17. Aeolian sand deposits – Wind deposited sandstone is found above and below water deposited limestone. One example is the Cococino formation which is both overlain and overlies limestone.

18. Overthrust formations – the time and pressure required to cause overthrust formations is far greater than can occur in any post-flood historic time.

19. Formation of geologic features such as mountains and valleys – How did something like the Himalaya Mountains form without anyone noticing all those earthquakes? How were valleys cut between such mountains in less than 4500 years?

20. River meanders – River meanders incised in rock can only be caused by gradual uplift, not through a year’s worth of soft sediment deposition.

21. Glacial weathering – glacial deposits and weathering such as U-shaped valleys require longer than 4500 years to form.

22. Batholith formation – Why isn’t the Sierra Nevada granitic batholith still hot as it would have taken several million years to cool?

23. Differential weathering – How could the Sierra Nevada and the Appalachians show such different weathering if each are the exact same age of only 4500 years old?

24. Banded iron formations and red beds – Banded iron formations can’t form in the presence of significant oxygen. Yet they were supposedly deposited in a flood which supposedly allowed animals to breathe both before and after.

25. Water in confined aquifers – The chemistry of water may be measured as to its constituents, as any municipal water authority already knows. Under flood conditions, the water chemistry in a confined aquifer would have changed as lower elevation aquifers would contain more salt than higher aquifers as the flood waters diluted the salt content in the recharge zone. Not only is this behavior not shown by any known confined aquifer, but the age of such water according to the laws of physics is vastly older than any flood may have deposited.

26. Worldwide iridium layer – Although any worldwide flood evidence is lacking, there is a worldwide iridium layer at the K-T boundary where it exists. How could this iridium layer have been deposited among all those swirling waters in a flood?

27. Deformed structures in metamorphosed sediments – There are areas in metamorphic rock where pebbles and even fossils have been stretched and deformed in processes that would have taken several times any 4500 years since a global flood.

28. Compression of all fossil life into too short a time period – If all species represented by fossils, coal, and petroleum from throughout the geologic record lived simultaneously, they would have been standing on each other, an ecological impossibility.

29. Differential mineralization of fossils – Remains of buried humans in historic times show minimal mineralization. This increases overall with extinct mammals, then extinct dinosaurs, then extinct trilobites and ammonites.

30. Existence of soil after flood – Soil is a delicate mixture of organic and inorganic materials. How could any soil exist after an environment that was supposedly turbulent enough to destroy all the earth’s crust?

31. Tectonic spreading rates – Observed tectonic spreading rates indicate that there is no evidence of any disturbance due to any global flood 4500 years ago.

32. Tar pits – If all petroleum was caused by some global flood, how can there be tar pits filled with land fossils that have not become coal or oil?

33. Caverns – Caverns carved from dolomite such as exist in West Texas can’t form in as little as 4500 years.

34. Multiple glaciations – There are at least four major separate evidences of glaciations in the geologic record separated by eons. How could all four occur during a flood while supposedly underwater?

35. Meteoric impacts – For the evidence of meteoric impacts to be buried under sediments indicate that such impacts all occurred in the span of one year. Such a bombardment would allow for no life due to a lack of sun.

36. Hydrocarbon formation – The amount of hydrocarbon deposits in the ground from organic causes represent a greater biomass than is possible to have formed within 4500 years.

37. Conglomerates within conglomerates within conglomerates within conglomerates – Conglomerates are made up of diverse weathered rock that is eroded then recemented. In order to have a 4th level conglomerate there needs to be four episodes of weathering and recementation of rocks which are often impossible to form and erode in 4500 years such as when some within the conglomerate matrix are igneous or metamorphic rock.

Talk:"How the Other Half Lives," or, Conservapedia from the Liberal Perspective

2007-04-10T17:01:49Z

Cgday:

Talk:"How the Other Half Lives," or, Conservapedia from the Liberal Perspective

2007-04-10T16:47:30Z

Cgday: surely will be.

<nowiki>*</nowiki>watches this page* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep - --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservative Party (UK)

2007-04-10T16:38:51Z

Cgday: copyedit

[[Image:Conservatives.png|thumb|The Conservative Party logo]]
The British Conservative Party, commonly nicknamed the Tory Party after their political ancestors, is the major right wing party of the [[United Kingdom]]. Its leader is [[David Cameron]].

The modern British Conservative Party ran the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years, beginning with Margaret Thatcher's victory for the Party in 1979. She came into office facing a British economy that had been crippled by decades of liberal policies and militant trade unions. Thatcher turned that around, broke the iron grip of the trade unions, and restored the British economy to a free enterprise system that has thrived to this day. She was succeeded by John Major in 1990, and, to the surprise of the media, Major won the general election in 1992 and extended the Conservative Party's power until 1997.

By 1997 the Labour Party had finally embraced the more conservative direction for the country and abandoned many of it's socialist economic policies of the past. Economic difficulties, including a dispute over whether England should join the currency of the European Union, hurt the Conservative Party further. This was coupled with a perception that the party had become corrupt, with a number of high-profile members of the party being involved in financial and sexual scandals. The Labour Party won in a landslide in 1997 and has held power ever since.

Since the early 2000s, the Conservative Party leaders have softened its conservative stance on social issues and this may have hurt its popularity with voters. While the successful elected leaders of the Republican Party in the United States tend to be conservative on social issues, liberals have enjoyed greater power in the British Conservative Party, and that may explain its weaker performance in elections.{{fact}}

==Conservative party in the USA==
Also a party in New York State (USA) formed during the early 1960's in response to the liberal leanings of the state Republican Party (which was dominated by then Governor Nelson Rockefeller). The Conservative Party of New York State remains an influential third party in that very liberal state. Though it keeps its independence from the state Republican Party, it cross endorses the Republican Party for President consistantly. In state elections, ever since Nelson Rockefeller left the Governorship, it also has been cross-endorseing Republican candidates for governor (but not always without interparty strife with the Republicans and intra-party strife within the Conservative Party). [http://www.cpnys.org/]
[[category:political Parties]]

Conservative Party (UK)

2007-04-10T16:37:03Z

Cgday: later than that.

[[Image:Conservatives.png|thumb|The Conservative Party logo]]
The British Conservative Party, commonly nicknamed the Tory Party after their political ancestors, is the major right wing party of the [[United Kingdom]]. Its leader is [[David Cameron]].

The modern British Conservative Party ran the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years, beginning with Margaret Thatcher's victory for the Party in 1979. She came into office facing a British economy that had been crippled by decades of liberal policies and militant trade unions. Thatcher turned that around, broke the iron grip of the trade unions, and restored the British economy to a free enterprise system that has thrived to this day. She was succeeded by John Major in 1990, and, to the surprise of the media, Major won the general election in 1992 and extended the Conservative Party's power until 1997.

By 1997 the Labour Party had finally embraced the more conservative direction for the country and abandoned many of liberal economic policies of the past. Economic difficulties, including a dispute over whether England should join the currency of the European Union, hurt the Conservative Party further. This was coupled with a perception that the party had become corrupt, with a number of high-profile members of the party being involved in financial and sexual scandals. The Labour Party won in a landslide in 1997 and has held power ever since.

Since the early 2000s, the Conservative Party leaders have softened its conservative stance on social issues and this may have hurt its popularity with voters. While the successful elected leaders of the Republican Party in the United States tend to be conservative on social issues, liberals have enjoyed greater power in the British Conservative Party, and that may explain its weaker performance in elections.{{fact}}

==Conservative party in the USA==
Also a party in New York State (USA) formed during the early 1960's in response to the liberal leanings of the state Republican Party (which was dominated by then Governor Nelson Rockefeller). The Conservative Party of New York State remains an influential third party in that very liberal state. Though it keeps its independence from the state Republican Party, it cross endorses the Republican Party for President consistantly. In state elections, ever since Nelson Rockefeller left the Governorship, it also has been cross-endorseing Republican candidates for governor (but not always without interparty strife with the Republicans and intra-party strife within the Conservative Party). [http://www.cpnys.org/]
[[category:political Parties]]

Conservative Party (UK)

2007-04-10T16:36:27Z

Cgday: added detail.

[[Image:Conservatives.png|thumb|The Conservative Party logo]]
The British Conservative Party, commonly nicknamed the Tory Party after their political ancestors, is the major right wing party of the [[United Kingdom]]. Its leader is [[David Cameron]].

The modern British Conservative Party ran the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years, beginning with Margaret Thatcher's victory for the Party in 1979. She came into office facing a British economy that had been crippled by decades of liberal policies and militant trade unions. Thatcher turned that around, broke the iron grip of the trade unions, and restored the British economy to a free enterprise system that has thrived to this day. She was succeeded by John Major in 1990, and, to the surprise of the media, Major won the general election in 1992 and extended the Conservative Party's power until 1997.

By 1997 the Labour Party had finally embraced the more conservative direction for the country and abandoned many of liberal economic policies of the past. Economic difficulties, including a dispute over whether England should join the currency of the European Union, hurt the Conservative Party further. This was coupled with a perception that the party had become corrupt, with a number of high-profile members of the party being involved in financial and sexual scandals. The Labour Party won in a landslide in 1997 and has held power ever since.

Since the 1990s, the Conservative Party leaders have softened its conservative stance on social issues and this may have hurt its popularity with voters. While the successful elected leaders of the Republican Party in the United States tend to be conservative on social issues, liberals have enjoyed greater power in the British Conservative Party, and that may explain its weaker performance in elections.{{fact}}

==Conservative party in the USA==
Also a party in New York State (USA) formed during the early 1960's in response to the liberal leanings of the state Republican Party (which was dominated by then Governor Nelson Rockefeller). The Conservative Party of New York State remains an influential third party in that very liberal state. Though it keeps its independence from the state Republican Party, it cross endorses the Republican Party for President consistantly. In state elections, ever since Nelson Rockefeller left the Governorship, it also has been cross-endorseing Republican candidates for governor (but not always without interparty strife with the Republicans and intra-party strife within the Conservative Party). [http://www.cpnys.org/]
[[category:political Parties]]

Conservative Party (UK)

2007-04-10T16:35:08Z

Cgday: just not true removing.

[[Image:Conservatives.png|thumb|The Conservative Party logo]]
The British Conservative Party, commonly nicknamed the Tory Party after their political ancestors, is the major right wing party of the [[United Kingdom]]. Its leader is [[David Cameron]].

The modern British Conservative Party ran the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years, beginning with Margaret Thatcher's victory for the Party in 1979. She came into office facing a British economy that had been crippled by decades of liberal policies and militant trade unions. Thatcher turned that around, broke the iron grip of the trade unions, and restored the British economy to a free enterprise system that has thrived to this day. She was succeeded by John Major in 1990, and, to the surprise of the media, Major won the general election in 1992 and extended the Conservative Party's power until 1997.

By 1997 the Labour Party had finally embraced the more conservative direction for the country and abandoned many of liberal economic policies of the past. Economic difficulties, including a dispute over whether England should join the currency of the European Union, hurt the Conservative Party further. The Labour Party won in a landslide in 1997 and has held power ever since.

Since the 1990s, the Conservative Party leaders have softened its conservative stance on social issues and this may have hurt its popularity with voters. While the successful elected leaders of the Republican Party in the United States tend to be conservative on social issues, liberals have enjoyed greater power in the British Conservative Party, and that may explain its weaker performance in elections.{{fact}}

==Conservative party in the USA==
Also a party in New York State (USA) formed during the early 1960's in response to the liberal leanings of the state Republican Party (which was dominated by then Governor Nelson Rockefeller). The Conservative Party of New York State remains an influential third party in that very liberal state. Though it keeps its independence from the state Republican Party, it cross endorses the Republican Party for President consistantly. In state elections, ever since Nelson Rockefeller left the Governorship, it also has been cross-endorseing Republican candidates for governor (but not always without interparty strife with the Republicans and intra-party strife within the Conservative Party). [http://www.cpnys.org/]
[[category:political Parties]]

Talk:Conservative Party (UK)

2007-04-10T16:34:34Z

Cgday: guns

Aren't there any disambiguation pages on Conservapedia??? --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

does this have any factual basis?

As a British person living in the US, I can only say that the two last paragraphs of the first section of this article certainly don't represent matters the way most British people would see it. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:08 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== guns ==

''It also benefit from a much-publicized slaughter in Scotland of 16 children and a teacher in 1996 by Thomas Hamilton, who used four handguns and several hundred rounds of ammunition. Gun control was enacted afterwards and the entire United Kingdom, horrified by the massacre, moved to the left politically.''

This is just - well nonsense, this has never been mentioned as a significant fact by any serious politician commentatory. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Noah's Ark

2007-04-10T16:27:57Z

Cgday: /* Objections */ em no.

{{protect|MountainDew}}

"asswaged"?
:Yes. ''Asswaged'' is the proper Biblical spelling of the modern ''assuaged'', as it is in the original authorized English translation of the Holy Scriptures. Many modern "King James" Bibles actually alter the text, which can lead to confusion and errant exegesis (see [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james_glossary.htm "King James Glossary"] & [http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html "Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles"] for other spelling alterations).

:: Um, how can changing the spelling in a translation result in exegetic problems? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:57, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:King James-onlyism is not an official position of Conservapedia last I checked. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: Oh my, was that the logic behind the user's comment. *checks link*. Yep, wow. I don't know what to say to that. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: In fact, looking at that website in detail it argues for among other things the old-style British spelling of "Savior" as "Saviour" so per Conservapedias rules about British and American English if anything Conservapedia is anti-KJV onlyism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::By that reasoning, any edition claiming to be the King James Version that omits the Apocrypha is counterfeit. What do they have to say about the Apocrypha? Is it OK to omit them? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::(Sigh) Why do I even ask? Yes, they have [http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answer/gipp_answer_34.html a pat answer]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:::: Well at least they are aware that the apocrpha was in the original KJV. Many KJVist don't even know that. I can spot at least 4 factual errors in that piece though (ignoring things that aren't factual errors per se but just very odd language choice like the "Jewish Church"). What fun. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Conservapedia is obviously '''not''' King-James-only, since the article on the [[Ark of the Covenant]] says it was made of "acacia" wood. :-) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Dates ==

Excuse me but where the heck are the Roman calendar dates coming from? There is no way that that was the calendrical system in use. Most likely the system refferred to is a lunar calendar or lunar-solar calendar like that that Jews currently use. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:59, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Post-Diluvian Content ==

I am unsure that the explanation of the dispersal of animals from after they exited the Ark is within the scope of this article as it isn't really ''about'' the Ark itself. I think instead a separate article on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas should be created and linked to from here. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 08:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I agree. Started article [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:23, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Polar Bears? ==

Were polar species such as [[Polar Bear]]s and [[Penguin]]s to be found on the ark? I'm guessing they would not be friendly with their cell-mates for 40 days: Feeding regiments must have been tricky, but above all the middle-eastern climate must have been damaging to their well-being.

If God can flood the Earth, he can keep penguins alive. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If God can keep penguins alive, he could've just let all chosen animals and humans survive miraculously without the need for an ark. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I included a comment about dinosaurs, which conceivably could have had difficulty coexisting on the Ark with other animals, as another controversial issue about the Ark. However, I'm not sure why it was removed. [[User:Fairandbalanced|Fairandbalanced]] 22:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Not being the one who removed it, I couldn't say for sure, but it was a fairly vague criticism (what "difficulty"?), and not worthy of an encyclopedia article as it stood. However, I don't think locking the article was justified; apart from your (presumably well-intentioned) edit there was only ''one'' attempt at vandalism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Thanks. It seems like a fair amount of content on Conservapedia is locked from editing. In addition, it may be worth pointing out that as one possibility, the reason why dinosaurs are extinct is because they were not allowed on the Ark. [[User:Fairandbalanced|Fairandbalanced]] 10:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I was premature in the above comment, as according to this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp, dinosaurs were definitely on the ark. [[User:Fairandbalanced|Fairandbalanced]] 14:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are aware that this is a hotly debated topic, yes? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::It is important to consider that, pace Carl Everett, that dinosaurs and their fossilized 'remains' might well be red herrings of a sort, designed by Satan to trap or confuse the believer. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hmmm, I'll just point you to [[Theistic Evolution]] and [[Old Earth Creationism]], both classes consider themselves Christian. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Fairandbalanced''': Yes, the Bible says that two (or more) of ''every'' kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature were on the ark. This leaves two possibilities: (a) Dinosaurs were on the ark, or (b) dinosaurs were extinct before the flood. However, the second option is ruled out because there are fossils of them in flood-laid deposits, indicating that they were around at the time of the flood.

'''Hojimachong''', I'm not sure what you are getting at there. What is hotly debated? That dinosaurs were on the ark? Although there is a debate over whether the ark existed (as described in Genesis at least), I'm not aware of any real debate on, if the story is true, whether dinosaurs were on it.

'''DunsScotus''': No informed creationist claims that dinosaurs were designed by Satan to trap or confuse believers.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pic added==
And other improvements will follow. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Disambig [[Great Flood]]==
Great Flood should be a separate article, and the title should not have to redirect here. Noah's ark should be about the ark, it's description, and a history of searches for it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, and I've actually started drafting (off-line) an article for the flood itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Objections ==

This isn't a troll, though it may seem like one at times such is my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view. Bear with me, I'm genuinely interested in the answers to my objections. From my observations, it seems to me that creationists prefer answers to objections that don't break any known law of physics over the ultimate fallback, "god made it so with magic" wherever possible. For example, when it is pointed out that naval engineering even thousands of years later was not up to producing such a large vessel, fundamentalists seem to prefer to postulate that Noah used space frame construction rather than, say, god used magic to bring about a localised increase in the molecular binding force. Of course, none of the so-called "creationist scientists" would actually break out mathematica and attempt to prove such construction is possible, because I suspect in their hearts they know it is not. So, given this, I wonder how the following objections are reconciled with the real world:

: The Ark was supposed to be what amounts to a closed system for a year. In a year, animals will eat several times their body weight in food, especially grazers such as rabbits or cattle which derive very little nutrition from that food they eat. It follows that most of the Ark must have been given over to the storage of fresh water and food supplies, thus drastically reducing the space available for animals. Fresh water is always a problem in such situations, humans can drink spirits such as rum, which keep far longer than water does. However, most animals can not. By the second month, the fresh water supplies would be brackish and undrinkable, disease would quickly spread. Similarly, food would rot. It is not possible to preserve fodder for animals for an entire year. How is this reconciled with the rosy picture the bible paints?

: As already noted, most of the Ark must have been devoted to stores. It is accepted even by creationists that the Ark could not have contained even one pair of every species, instead they fall back on that ultimate moveable feast, [[Baramin]]. Personally, "kinds" simply sounds to me like a pre-scientific word for species, but lets accept the creationist definition for now. Given that we see from the debate topic that creationists do not believe in evolution to the point of a wolf becoming a domestic dog, how is this notion reconciled with the current diversity of species? Even if we accept evolution, how is it possible to reconcile the idea that all existing species descend from the occupants of the Ark, with the idea that all this happened only 5000 years ago? Observably too little time to account for the present diversity.

: The flood waters covered the entire world, yet once they had receded the occupants of the Ark were able to exit and continue with their lives much as they had done previously. Considering all vegetation must have been wiped out, how is this possible? As you can observe at any local beach, it takes a pretty hardy type of plant to thrive in a saltwater environment, these plants would be the first to return. Very little else would grow in the immediate aftermath of a global flood. It would take hundreds of years for vegetation to return to anything like what it was pre-flood. In the mean time, how did the animals survive? How did humans manage cultivation in an environment saturated with salt?

--[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 13:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Abrown, I'm sure it would have been possible for Noah's wife and daughters to have tended a vegetable and herb garden, perhaps with some (salt-sensitive) citrus trees for the duration of the flood. This would have reduced scurvy among the animals and family members, and provided fresh foodstuffs for the animals. It is important, moreover, to remember that this was the Lord's work, and what the Lord set asunder, He certainly worked to repair. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Scurvy can also be kept in check through the vitamins and minerals that are absorbed in the body through the consumption of various organs, such as: eyes, hearts and livers. Noah's family clearly ate some of the animals to provide necessary nutrition and disease prevention, although some animals unfortunately went the way of the Dodo. I think this makes a lot more sense than salt-sensitive citrus. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::: That might explain why the unicorn didn't make it. There's that story of it being late and missing the boat but perhaps they sacrificed it for the greater good. A scapegoat of sorts. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]
::: See, that only sounds reasonable until you think about it. Think about the number of animals vs. deck space. Maybe that would work with hydroponics and full spectrum lamps, but the bible mysteriously fails to mention any of those. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 21:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

ABrown, thank you for putting your questions in a fairly civil manner. I couldn't count the number of times I've had sceptics be downright rude about such things. However, I will chastise you a bit, for having such a negative attitude about creation ("my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view") when you obviously have little idea of the concept that you have so much contempt for. Answers to your questions are readily available from creationist sources, so if you don't know them, you haven't looked for them, yet you seem to think you know enough about creationism to have contempt for it! And I'll also chastise you for your putting the term "creationist scientist" in quotes, as though they are not scientists—that's not nice and not fair.

I have to go out shortly, so may not get to answer everything now, but I will be back.

The observations that you mentioned in your third sentence is correct. Despite frequent accusations to the contrary, creationists do not fall back on "God did it", except is certain circumstance (such as the Bible ''saying'' that God did it).

I disagree that none of the creationists would do the maths on space-frame construction. They may not have yet, but creationary scientists are relatively few in number and get virtually no government or other funding (except for donations from supporters), which severely limits the research that can be done. If you'd like to fund this research... :-)

Gotta go now; I'll be back. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think it is fair to cast doubt on so-called "creationist scientists" scientific credentials. How can any process be called scientific when the theory is pre-existing and unmodifiable? A scientist doesn't start with a theory, and attempt to manipulate the data to fit it. They observe facts and attempt to draft a theory to fit it. The very phrase "creationist scientist" already predefines their views, and those views are unchanging regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I think the space frame example is a good benchmark for the whole of "creation science", the Bible suggests there existed a man called Noah who build a vast boat. Sceptics of this view have pointed out that there has never existed a wooden boat of similar size, and that it seems that such a boat would be beyond the tolerances of a purely wooden structure. Creationists respond with a theory that it was constructed using techniques humans have only discovered during the 20th century. At this point a real scientist would attempt to create a model to prove his theory is at least possible, but so-called "creationist scientists" do not. All the creationist "evidence" is like this, unfounded speculation with a thin veneer of plausibility. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 21:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Part 2:

I don't know the specific answers to your questions about life on the ark, but I do know that a creationist has studied these issues extensively and published a book on them. The book is ''Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study''. If you really are interested in finding the answers, I suggest you read that book. He does calculate, if I recall correctly, that only about one third of the space on the ark would be needed to house the animals themselves.

I dispute your characterisation that creationists "fall back" on using ''baramin''. This suggests that ''species'' is the obvious intention, and ''baramin'' is an unlikely alternative. But why is this so? I know of no reason whatsoever, except for an irrelevant etymological one, for supposing that ''species'' was the intention. I also dispute that it is a "movable feast" any more than ''species'' is.

You are simply wrong to assert that creationists don't believe in speciation, and they do accept that wolves and dogs are related. Speciation can happen quite rapidly, and the time available since the flood is quite sufficient.

I think the afore-mentioned book also explains how the people and animals survived after disembarking, but the Bible actually explains that they didn't leave the ark until there was new growth. Clearly it wouldn't take hundreds of years for vegetation to return in sufficient quantities to feed the relatively few creatures that had been on the ark. And I also see no reason for supposing that life continued much as it had done before; I expect that life was quite different. The flood waters would have been nowhere near as salty as they are today, so the salt was likely not a problem at all, or a minor one at worst.

What makes you think that creationism is unmodifiable and unchanging? This is nothing more than a sceptic-spread furphy, and is dead wrong. Your rosy picture of impartial scientists observing facts and drafting a theory to fit it is the ideal, but far from reality. If "creationist scientist" predefines their views, then can the same be said of "evolutionist scientist"?

You say that sceptics point out that there has never been a wooden boat of that size, but surely that is (a) an argument from ignorance ("we don't know of one so there must not have been one") and (b) begs the question ("we reject that the ark—a wooden boat of that size—existed, so we therefore know of no wooden boats of that size").

Your comment about space-frame construction only being discovered in the 20th century is itself ''based'' on your evolutionary views. Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology. Creationists, conversely, believe that man was created without blemish, and has ''deteriorated'' since. It follows that man was ''smarter'' in the past (although lacking the accumulated knowledge that we have built up over time). Therefore, how do you know that Noah (or God for that matter, as he gave Noah the instructions) didn't know about space-frame construction, and that it wasn't ''rediscovered'' in modern times? Your basis for rejecting this possibility seems to be your evolutionary paradigm, not any inconsistency with the facts nor the creationary view.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

"Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology." - em.. no, what on earth gave you that idea? average IQ has increased for a number of reasons but nowhere near the levels required to make that statement true. Why is this article locked? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)