The Black Vault

rath wrote:Australia owns/controls 60% of the world supply of uranium ....... & who gets it.

Tairaa wrote:

screamzero wrote:You suffer an excessive ("sophistic") preference of argument over the love of true wisdom.

Are you so sure then?

Or perhaps my goal is to show people the things they ought to consider? I rarely offer my opinion, merely what, in my eyes, should be considered by people. Therefore, I never give you something to consider that you've already considered, instead I bring another possible side to things.

My percieved preference for argument over wisdom is actually a preference to stir thought in others. My own wisdom is something I don't share nearly as often as you figure I do. Hahaha..

It's funny really. You've got no idea what I think of the situation in the ME, beyond a very vague set of facts, like I don't think the Iraq war was necessary. You where lied into it, just like 'Nam. But you're too into it to see or understand that. I can't think of anything else regarding that situation that you would know my thoughts on. This was proved very recently by your assuming my opinion about the Marine firing at and killing the Iraqi insurgent who was pretending to be dead.

Contrary to what you're so sure you know about me, I think that situation was handled quite well.


You don't know me nearly as well as you think. However, I will say you seem to be rather observant. You just simply don't have enough information on me to go off of. Keep it up though, you might get incremental bits more.

Aquatank wrote:I'm just trying to sort through your arguments, Screamzero.

Its my opinion (unaligned socialist that I am )

1) That spreading nuclear reactors around is not only a waste of money but a global security risk.

2) Bombing said reactors causes a radiological health risk to local populations.

can we agree those two points?