It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by skippytjc
I have the answer, have had it for years. The answer is: 42
The answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything, given by the supercomputer Deep Thought to a group of mice, is "forty-two". According to the Guide, mice are 3-dimensional profiles of a pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent race of beings. They built Deep Thought, the second greatest computer of all time and space, to tell them the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything. After seven and a half million years the computer divulges the answer: forty-two.
"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
Originally posted by Jaruseleh
Hindsight is 20/20 my friend. the intellegence wasn't twisted, it was wrong. There's a difference. Also, don't forget that the head of CIA at the time was appointed by Bill Clinton. Why would he want us to go to war with Iraq?
You think the country would be safer if we left? Let me ask you this? Do you think it was safer there before we did what we did? Because if we were to leave, it would go right back to where it was. A terrorist leader butchering millions of people just because he can.
No, read above why we invaded Iraq. All I'm saying here is that the hunt for Osama is still on, and has been the whole time.
Do you think other countries WOULD help? Although I do agree, we could definately use the help of other countries, but I don't think there are any countries that WILL help. I believe we have a little help from the British, but that's about it. I just don't think anyone out there cares that much anymore since so much focus has been put on Iraq.
Are we playing chess? lol
I think you should read the previous post. I disagree with you. It's illogical to fight for oil when new alternative energy sources are being created daily. Not to mention the world's fossil fuel supply is going to run dry in a few years.
And then there is oil. No, we didn't go into Iraq to steal their oil....we went into Iraq to develop long-term stability of the region.
(1) Saddam H. = Deposed, imprisoned.
(2) WMD = None Found.
(3) Western Democracy = Islam prevents this concept.
(4) Beating Terrorists = We will never defeat them globally, and as long as we continue killing innocents in Iraq, more moderates will convert to radicalism and we will continue to fight an unending stream of 'insurgents'
We have left: OIL.
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony.
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.
People never see the GOOD things we're doing there, rebuilding hospitals, getting clean water flowing, getting electricity back online, etc...these are not newsworthy to our media. All the general public sees is the killing, the bombing, the rebellion...that's what gets ratings over here. You never hear about the people who are actually HAPPY that we've done what we've done, and are HAPPY that we're there, trying to keep them safe while the country is rebuilt.
The War on What, Exactly?
We know we're supposed to win the war on terror, we just don't know exactly what it is – and the press isn't helping.
The term "war on terror" began to seriously malfunction when the administration turned its attention to Iraq. Part of the reason for this, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of several books on political rhetoric, including "The Press Effect and Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction and Democracy," is that public understanding of a metaphor like the war on terror rests on the relationship between a specific audience and the moment the metaphor is introduced. In other words, its meaning is dependent on context. One could argue, for instance, that the American Revolutionary War was won by terrorist means, or that the United States sponsored terrorism when it funded the Contras in Nicaragua and Pinochet in Chile. The Iraq war instantly confused the definition of the war on terror and several attendant terms like weapons of mass destruction, Islamic extremism, and even terrorist. Suddenly it was unclear who exactly was a terrorist. Terrorism has been defined as a violent act carried out by a nonstate group (like Al Qaeda) for political purposes. But in light of the war with Iraq and escalating tensions with Iran and North Korea, it is unclear if the definition has come to include hostile states that have ambitions to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The point isn't that the United States is waging a dishonest war. Rather, it's that when the media allow the government – or anyone else – to frame the news in language of their choosing, we end up with phrases like the war on terror that invite conceptual incoherence and cloud the ability of the public, the press, and legislators to assess policy.