Yes. I was trying to clarify the context or to what my original post was refering. Iraq in the last decade has done nothing with their WOMD. They didn't invade Kuait in the last decade, technicly it's 12 years. Iran was before that.

Incidently, we're the ones who aided them against Iran, no? Also, we're the ones who sold them the shit they used on their own people, correct?

So really, again, you're only the bad guy if we decide you are. Today Iraq is again the bad guy. For the past ten years, they weren't.

Or maybe they weren't important politicly at the time because there wasn't a Bush in the Whitehouse? One can only speculate...

I'm sure some day Korea will be worthy enough of us attacking them for an equally good reason. We'll all argue that we're liberating the North Koreans from their horrible goverment.

We'll wave banners and declare ourselves the champion of the day.

The fact will still remain: You're only a bad guy if today we decide you're worth attacking. Otherwise, we don't care about you.

Well I still believe it's about oil. But that aside, I never intend to change anyone's mind or even have them agree with my opinion. It's against my philosophy. Politics, religion, etc, it's not my goal or wish to change anyone's view. Just to give pause for thought. I don't really care if anyone agrees or disagrees with me. I just provide food to chew on.

We in this context describes America. Obviously I didn't invade, but if you were to take 'we' literally, I'd be including myself. It is a common genralization. People use 'we' to reference their country, their company, etc.

No. This is again a common generalization. Or maybe it's just my understanding of the English language. The generalization here was in the same line of thought as described previously in the same post. I stated that Iraq had done nothing with their WOMD, or hell, with any weapons, to the rest of the world (as I was trying to outline the context of the original post's intent). This thought was held over to this repeated text later in the post (the item you quoted). I figured it was a common understanding that when you've detailed context, you don't need to repeatedly do so throughout the rest of the pharagraph(s) on the same topic.

I'll be more specific next time.

TTFN.

Quzah.

It's been pointed out to me repeatedly throughout my stay here at the Cellar that you cannot make generalizations without some debate-monger getting all up in a tizzy.

Just doing my part. :)

Amen.

(I'm the only one who finds semantic rebuttals boring?)

No you're not; sometimes I wish we had A section dedicated for the semantic rebuttal arguments.


*sigh* ---editing; Most of the time i don't care about this type of stuff cause i'm in too much of a hurry or my mind is too busy with the content to care about the gramatics. But your right Elspode
that was lazy and sloppy of me... I'm a sloppy, sloppy Bitch. --er Bastard.
See I prefer the Shut-up and agree, Because your not going to change any one's mind, method than to bother with the whiney, beligerant rehtoric.

Sometimes is properly spelled as a single word, the appropriate contraction for 'you are' is you're, it would have been more proper to use a semicolon following 'your not', the personal pronoun 'I' should be capitalized, and a proper sentence is begun with a capital. {insert icon of someone ducking here}.

Kidding! I'm kidding!!!

You take that back or I'll kill you.

Glad to see we have recovered our composture ;)