Evidence is a material thing, something that can provide for hypotheses, to lead us towards an end result. It can be the pugmark of a Tiger, drops of blood, a video, a recording, or a fingerprint, to name a few. We know that HIV is a virus, Human Immunodeficiancy Virus, and that it is, in theory, curable, as we cure other viral ailment as well. We know there are alternative sources of power: wind, solar, hydroelectric, but these sources aren't ways to power a nation of our size, with our consumption and our infrastructure. We have the access to nuclear power, to natural gas, and when supplemented with these 'renewable' power sources, our future will be secure.

The reason we acquire and stockpile all those nuclear weapons? Because there was another superpower named the United Soviet Social Republic, the Soviet Union, and it was they who acquired equal or more weapons of equal or greater caliber, and to have such an unstable and dangerous threat be a superpower, and to be the greatest threat to the United States and democratic western world, it isn't logical, it isn't stupid, it is foolish not to be as equally prepared as they are, because if we run out before the run out, or they destroy what we have in one place, any victory, and chance to stop them , is over.

The War on Terror was and still is a necessary measure to ensure the safety and security of both the United States and the world. The difference between it an every other war our country and world has faced is that there is no one country, city, or military base to attack. They attacked us on our soil, killing 2,977 civilians, the worst attack in the United States since Pearl Harbor, resulting in more casualties, all civilian. Following an attack, a country with the means must attack back to defend itself; the enemy was Al-Qaeda, and theyaren't a country, or a city, or a military force. They are a vastly interconnected yet sparcely located group that has no headquarters, no base of operations, and no resources aside from money and men. Their leader, as well as almost the rest of them were easily defended by hiding out in the Indus Mountains of pakistan and Afghanistan. What we did was necessary: we had to destroy those who harmed us, and prevent it from happening again, to both us and anyone else. We went into Iraq because it was thought they had WMDs, as did Libya, Syria, and others. They ended up not finding any (some may have existed), but the removal of Hussein was a move that wasn't bad. The mistake taken was that we not only dismantled the regeim, but we dismantled their military, which was the greatest blunder. By taking apart that system, there was no organized body in which to give power to, and to make sure bad things didn't happen. Democracy doesn't work in Muslim society (Turkey is an exception, seeing how western they are), and the idea of installing a successful, effecient democracy that would self-maintain itself was a bad idea, punctuated by the removal of our forces, which were the glue keeping the government in its slippery place. They say we did it for oil, and that was a consideration, but not without importance. Of course we care about oil; any industrialized nation needs oil, it runs our cars, planes, trains, and even produces power and heat. Without it, our society couldn't function. To say we had no grounds for the  War on Terror is a sign of poor understanding of the situation. It took 10 years to locate Osama Bin Laden, because he wasn't hiding in the Indus Mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan, but because the Pakistani government was hiding our greatest enemy, and our 'ally' was not an ally. The things we do in Afghanistan to search and destroy Al-Qaeda are necessary, for that organisation is our enemy, and we cannot have them in strength. Some seek to put democracy in Afghanistan, but it will never work. Since the  times of Alexander the Great, the region has been an ungovernable ground, and will forever remain that way. The War on Terror is not something you can say was a mistake; mistakes were made, as with any large action, but its outcomes provided for the safety of ours, and everyone else's nations.

He wasn't a scientist, nor a physicist, nor a prestigious historian, but he was a highly educated man, who expended much of his time in doing vast amounts of research in what he wrote, and he was a very intelligent, wise man. Much like Mark Twain. Intelligence and wisdom are different that knowledge and education. Being educated doesn't make you intelligent or wise (not to downplay Mr. Hawking by any means).


Quote:

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.” -Michael Crichton