By stating the war is "illegal" this man has proven he knows nothing of
legalities, and is merely propogandizing. He's no longer a viable
"truthsayer" of any sort, so can (and should) be ignored without
consequence.

Heh. Stupid useless movements. If these guys have to crybaby, you'd
think they could find something important. With all this time on their
hands, a "feed some third world nation" campaign would be some much more
admirable. I'll address the 12 reasons now.


1. Wrong. Technically, they did win. Even if they lost the popular. The
system is flawed.

2. Congress was NEVER lied to. And Saddam was provoking since the end of
Desert Storm.

3. This one you have an argument on. But these were authorized by the
congress and senate post-haste. So EVERY congressman and senator is just
as guilty.

4. Except those "civilian" areas were also war zones. With your enemy
using children as human shields- the rules of war change, and
understandably know.

5. Only according to the nutjobs who are too stupid to know the true
facts.

6. The "freedom of information" act only applies to things that no
longer have tactical value. An ongoing war is ALWAYS on that list.

7. Undermining? The ones who undermined New Orleans were the leaders of
the city who never maintained or upgraded the system (because of costs).
And, yes, we were untimely- but that's merely a mistake, not deliberate.

8. Psst- that's every president that's ever run america since the
concept of global warming ever showed up.

9. Except that "seperation of church and state" is not a constitutional
concept. Never mentioned. Not once.

10. Whatever. We didn't have an effective communications system. Once
you put the materials together, it's true, we had a warning. But that's
like handing someone a jiggsaw puzzle and expecting them to know the
picture without assembling it. And I'm not happy about the
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, either, but it's not an impeachable, or even
criminal, offence.

11. Psst- it's not "illegal" to make WMD's. And every country promotes
their interests in the world. That's the nature of countries.

12. First- he was a bastard. Second- if you call that "duely elected"
then I call you insane.

Except that it's not. Cults are limitted to small organizations.
Fledgeling religions. Some become full religions in their own rights.
Others simply fail. And others still are run by psychopaths.


The "Branch Davidians", for example. They were a cult. They were also
christian.

The "Heaven's Gate" cult was.... I'm not entirely sure. Probably
easiest to classify them as a form of scientology.


In theological nomenclature- even christianity was once a cult. And any
new "sect" of christianity will be considered a cult until it has lasted
for over 20 years and gathered over 1000 members.

Also, you can have "sects" in other religions. Judaism has over 30
major sects- most of which I'm unfamiliar with. Islam has at LEAST 40
sects, and maybe another 1000 cults, if you count certain terrorist
organizations. Buddhism has dozens of sects. Taoism has only a few.


Sorry, AB, you're just wrong on that accusation.

If everyone agreed that there should be no war, there would be no war.
But that's a work in progress going back to when the first two cave men
chucked rocks at each other. And even before, to the first
micro-organism that ate another.

Oh. You're absolutely right. High and lofty ideals can be subverted by
evil men. "Even the devil can quote scripture" isn't just a religious
truth. Hell, if it was, it wouldn't be accurate in my religion anyways.
No devil to do the quoting.


But it isn't just religion that can do this. Patriotism is a much, much
crueler method. Look at Stalin's impergium. Claiming to install
communism- a philosophy that promised prosperity to the poor, scientific
progress, the premise that all men deserved to be free and equal. People
committed horrific acts, many of them believing what they did was right.


Or are we going to claim that those ideals are responsible for the
cruelties, too?

I am a *PROUD* American. Not so happy of her policies. I think this war
was a tactical error. But we had no choice. It was decided for us by
Saddam's actions, over the course of about a decade and a half.


Was it a good war? No. Was the alternative worse? Hell yes.


Oh- and "commie" is short for communists. For those who know proper
communist philosophy, they are pro-working man.... pro-peace.... and
anti-religion.


Everything that liberals claim to idolize.

Ahlimay su eline laray. (Walk in peace, knowlege, and meaning)

I always am. Or, at least, I'm always content. And She already has.

Oh. Wait. There has been plenty of wars with those without power trying
to take it from those who did have it.

Oh? Name ANYTHING that was truly about religion. Any war, any conflict.
There are things where liars claimed they were doing it in God's name.
But never a war was fought that wasn't about those in power either
getting more power, or trying to prevent the loss of their power.

Good point on the resolution votes. Didn't even think of that. And
you're absolutely right. Then again, in all fairness, no one in the
"atomic powers" club likes the idea of more competition.


I don't like the idea of nukes in general. But I can understand why
Iran feels threatened enough to try and acquire the capability. A
unanimous UN vote is a very, very unfriendly sign.

That's not nice. He's bringing up valid information that (americans at
least) should be more aware of. Not always these specifics- most of them
are useless- but in general. And I'm putting them in proper contexts.
It's intelligent, and doesn't deserve any insulting comments.

And all this occurs a million generations before any "flying squirrel"
gets a chance to glide even an inch further than their membraneless
counterparts.

Now, to the squirrels, just for fun.

Example- ordinary squirrel. For some reason, with tiny membranes. It
can survive normally, and breeds.

Its children cannot leap any further, or fall any better, than normal
squirrels. They're not better.

By some (evolutionarily impossible) miracle, the membranes get larger-
this takes thousands of years.

These new, partial-winged squirrels still cannot leap further, still
cannot fall better. And the membranes cause problems. Get infected. Get
torn.

The partial winged squirrels go extinct. End of story.



The only way wings can "evolve" is if they do it in a single
generation. Period.

As you fail to pick up. EVOLUTION lacks the ability to "work uphill" so
to speak.

There's plenty of half-wings. But those wings are evolving "backwards"
into non-existence. They're NEVER getting larger in any species that
can't actually fly.

So, wings fall under the evolutionary umbrella once they've already
existed.

But until they come into being, evolution does its best to make sure
they don't come into being. So something that can blatently defy the
laws of evolution and natural selection created flying animals.

This does not mean that evolving wings cannot be natural- it merely
means they can't under any observed biological law or theory. For all we
know, there's a perfectly natural way. But it isn't evolution or natural
selection or anything CLOSE to them.



Now, if you could be so kind as to explain why wings exist, despite
the *fact* that all observed evolutionary examples show wings being
phased out in all life that cannot already fly.

Discrimination is a talent of every creed, color, organization, and
whatever other distinction humans have. We, like all primates, don't
like things we percieve as "different" than us.

Thanks. The biology lesson notwithstanding, I rather thought the final
line was inspired.

And (to everyone else) Jess and I took care of the misunderstanding via
email, so it's all good.

Ok- now IRAN- is an issue. However, if this information is true, then
whomever leaked some of this stuff should be executed for incompetence
bordering on treason.


So, I'm going to presume a lot of it is deliberate misinformation that
you always see when dealing with these kinds of events. You NEVER let
your enemy see all your cards. And the media is like an annoying 10 year
old at a poker game, running around the table asking dumb questions. We
can't just hit them and make them go away, like many of our enemies can,
so we make stuff up to confuse them and at least reduce the damage they
do.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Doesn't really matter, though. We've tried
peaceful arrangements with many terrorist organizations. And would deny
every one that fails. Maybe we did, maybe we didn't, doesn't make a
difference.


So, what's your point with this one?

Yeah. It happens. Happened with that jerk in south america. Happened
with Castro. Happened with various chinese and russian leaders during
the cold war. Happening as we speak, no doubt, with Kim Jung il....


We don't assassinate every "enemy" of America at every given chance.
Because usually it results in a horrible war that just isn't worth
fighting.


In Osama's case.... well, they say hindsight is 20/20.