Hmm, maybe you missed those two events of the 20th century called WORLD WAR I and WORLD WAR II, after which the rest of the world decided Germany couldn't be trusted with military power - and many Germans agreed. In fact, that's one of the reasons why Germany is so liberal - they are cognizant of their country's history and don't want to do it again.

Is that even a response? France and the rest of Europe have been dealing with modern terrorism for more than 2 decades. If anyone's late to the terrorist war, if that's what you're even talking about here, it's us. Again.

Speak for your part of the US. I've only seen it spelled with a k.
That would be like celebrating Sinko de Myo or some such crap. It's cultural unawareness to do so (though obviously not as blatant as my example).

Actually, the only link I've seen offered between al-Qaeda and Iraq is the PKK, who offered refuge to al-Qaeda members fleeing from Afghanistan. So the link is an opposition group to the government? Then why aren't we offering aid like we are to Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia...

Terrorist != hater of infidel. Read The Monkeywrench Gang. I doubt any of them, or the people that followed the example of the book's characters actually cared about the religion of those in government. Terrorism takes different forms, and there is currently over 160 definitions of a 'terrorist.'

<i>You don't seem to be aware of the amount of troops stationed in Germany right now. Do some research before posting, please. </i>

I had thought it was 50,000. It's actually 70,000.

<i>It seems that if you don't actively piss off people, they don't want to kill you.</i>

Unfortunately just *existing* pisses a lot of people off.

<i>Since nobody seems willing to attack the actual content of my posts, rather than the presentation,</i>

I'll tell you what, I haven't had anyone attack me so directly and personally in a long time. Your memory of personal details and willingness to attack on that basis is simply remarkable.

But in the post where you said I must be a Fox News viewer, and then later in the same post, saying I watch too much CNN... I don't know, that was a bit over the top.

Riiiiight. A lot of people? Refer to my earlier post about anti-Americanism.

Before the advent of Fox news, cnn came to be a generic term, much like xerox or coke. So, in those terms, what he said was not contradictory.

Its basicly to say - i havn't address all the points i wanted to so don't think your points are going to go unchallanged. I usually check cellar in the morning befor ei go out and then when i come back, often i jsut don't ahve neough time in the morning, and don't anyone suggest getting up early, thats blasphemy.

Do you accept your cooountry going to war, or even suggesting going to war on teh basis 'oh yes, we have proof, we just can't show you, so beleive us and shut up'?



Yea....study....mmmm..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa. ahem. Ok then....
Ill admit i misquoted one of the first links, claim it was for 'study' all you want, ill just sit here and laugh your pathetic attempts to ignroe the truth, even Tobiasly admit is for crying out loud, theres no point trying to argue with it. I mean in the same breath i'm expecting you to tell me the stuff america sells Taiwan is for 'research purposes' or the US pile of nukes are for 'testing only'. Lets 'study' some VX nerve gas, thats real ambigious eh. Realpolitik. Please.

You know pakistan is pretty kooky and they have nukes. China sells stuff all the time and they have nukes. Russia is full of decaying nukes. The lsit of countires that have chem and or bio weapons is jsut too long, why is there no regime change there?

Kangaroo Court
 

Jaguar, I hereby rule that you use the "I'm too busy" rationale way too much, thereby making yourself look like a crackhead.

The Kangaroo Court of Platanus Occidentalis recommends the following procedure be performed: You should create a notepad file, in which you type the subject of the thread you want to address, the person whose post you want to address, and a few lines about what you want to say in response. The Court believes that you will not only be able to construct better posts, but that they will be almost free of spelling and grammatical errors.

We are adjourned. :)

I accept that if Bush convinces most of the people in the U.N., and most of the Democrats in congress, that there is justifiable reason to use military force to overthrow Saddam, then there probably is justifiable reason.

Why? Because Saddam is a maniac. As much as Xugamad would like to believe he has refuted that notion, one of the dictionary definitions of <I>maniac</I> is "A person who acts in a wildly irresponsible way". Based on the evidence I've seen of Saddam's actions over the past ten years, I'd say that describes him.. wildly irresponsible.

So, I already accept that he's a maniac. I don't need an irrefutable smoking gun; I just need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the maniac may have the means to kill lots of Americans.

He can bully the UN far too easily sadly, doesn't prove much, merely political power. There is a good reason allies on this are few and far between. I mean has anyone looked at the blair dossier? Dossier being a nice word for rehashed version for what we know - how with a flashy new upperclass title. If that is the best they can do i think they're going to have trouble convincing anyone.

syc - ill give it a shot

That definition is stupid. Don't you think it's a little too general?

Maniac, indeed. If that's the definition of maniac, then i've been one for years.

I'm not in favor of you having nukes, either.

So, do you agree or disagree that the definition is overly broad?

juju, that's the definition. That's what the word means. If you fit the definition, then you are one - by definition. None of this "the definition is overly broad" - it can't be, because <b>that's the definition</b>.

I disagree. The dictionary is wrong!

Oh shit...you having another hypoglycemic attack, juju?