Search results

similar? in what way? in that both incidents occurred in the middle east? and let's not forget, the israelis brits and french (for once) were taking care of business...and america had the question of soviet support for nasser to contend with... i always admire the ability to draw...

hmm, i think i've digested (and understood it, even) quite well. you're content to let the international community decide whether an attack is 'legal' or not. and i'd be the last person to deny you the right to change your mind. my question to you is that if america truly is intent on...

i notice you're on 1985. that was a good year for me. not as good as '86, but a good one nonetheless.

but if america is ostensibly attacking iraq out of fear or WMDs while really wanting to steal her oil and spread her empire into the middle east, how does international support for such action lead you to discard your moral concerns simply because such action is now deemed 'legal'? it could...

maybe it does candle... but it wouldn't be clear from reading your earlier posts. your moral outrage at the behaviour of the US is now tempered by, "well, having said all that, if we get license to do it, i'm behind it 100%" that's kinda wishy washy wouldn't you say?

yes, the urge to vote in a poll -- even when told one doesn't actually exist -- is difficult to resist isn't it..

but regardless of whether it's 'mandated' stealing is STEALING isn't it? so if america stealing iraq's oil is wrong, then having a mandate doesn't make it right, does it? i don't recall you sayin earlier screaming that you want a mandate before we can start stealing iraq's oil. i thought...

yes, i agree. i doubt that baron would be a loser like those people that only care about how many posts they have.. maybe he should start by eliminating YOU, and do us ALL a favor

wait.. lemme see if i understand your position here... you'll back a US led attack on iraq if it's approved by the UN? so america going in and stealing iraq's oil and furthering her imperiliast ambitions is perfectly fine with you as long as the global consensus says is okay to do so?

There were a few important discussions that took place here last week discussing, among other things, the counting of posts, the determination of membership status and membership nomenclature. Granted, human beings what they are, not everyone shared the same sense of urgency regarding these...

pheww! the candleman's onboard! quick, i better call the white house and give them the good news! (btw, all this time i thought you were a moralist...)

sure. i do. i don't deny that circumstantial factors play a role, but i think you are over-emphasising their importance. but whatever disadvantage it might be, i simply cannot bring myself to see it as insurmountable. hell, i find it a real stretch to see it as a disadvantage full stop...

excellent. then, instead of ridiculing, why not concede that a non-believer may indeed disbelieve (without claiming certainty) for pragmatic reasons?

what then the ego of those who claim religious truth? laughable?

candle, it's not that us 'war mongers' (read: long term solution seekers) are blind to what has happened, it's just that we don't put as much (none, i guess) emphasis on it as you do.. apparently, you see us as consigned to labor under the failings of the past. why?

which zone defenses are you referring to? btw, kobe. another game, another 40.

it's called 'clutching at straws' i believe

:D i won't disgree with you tampa! but look carefully, there's some gold in them thar hills! ps - looked in the mirror lately?

yeah, for unbiased objective reporting i recommend perusing the news sources msfe/wild follows... (LOL) vlad, the fact is good news doesn't make for 'good news' bad news attracts EYEBALLS. (who doesn't slow down to check out the scene of a 6 car pile up?)

hahahaha oh boy that was fun i haven't read such a delectable hodgepodge of irrelevancies for a long time :) being a panic peddler must be the easiest job in the world