Well it's good thing that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it does. The disarming of Iraq should be done legally. If you don't care about that, then you're a fascist. There are rules and laws to follow in a democracy, and that includes international law.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
Good question. What is it? Iraq is in material breach of the resolution. Ergo, serious consequences are to ensue. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And they will if the U.S. doesn't make a mockery of the situation.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
Well we've had 12 years (why does that not register with you? 12 freaking years!!!) of nothing so I guess you are right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is something that keeps coming up. We haven't had 12 years of the current situation. The U.N. dropped the ball. Everyone knows it. It's good that Bush wanted to press the issue. It's good that there is now a credible force behind the issue. Inspections can now work, and are working, because even though the same word (inspections) is used to describe the first 12 years AND the past three months, they're actually two different acts.
I don't know what that's so hard for the hawks to understand. You're not dumb, you're just choosing to ignore the truth. You're pretending (lying?) that the current inspections are the same and have the same effect as the past. You know it's not true. Bush knows it's not true. And thank goodness Russia & France know it's not true.
So I was fed up with 12 years of sloth too (OK, it wasn't all sloth, it was a slow decline of effectiveness.) The U.N. (and the U.S.'s leadership) failed. That doesn't mean we can go to war. Step up the pressure, step up the leadership, get the job done.
This is something that keeps coming up. We haven't had 12 years of the current situation. The U.N. dropped the ball. Everyone knows it. It's good that Bush wanted to press the issue. It's good that there is now a credible force behind the issue...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know what's so hard for you to understand. Credible force doesn't mean the same damn game only this time with 300,000 troops indefinitely parked on Saddam's doorstep. Credible force means war ensues if Saddam doesn't comply with the terms of 1441. He hasn't. Sorry, I know you want to believe that if we give him one last chance (and after that one more last chance and after that...) this time (really, really, really!!!) he's going to play nice. He won't. That's who is is. And pretending that the real problem is the U.S. doesn't help your credibilty any. That's the truth of the matter. Time for you to stop ignoring it.
[quote]I think that the way that you disuss this shows a shallow understanding of God, of Christianity and of Religion.
God speaks throught the Bible, Yes?
When God starts talking to you in your bedroom its time to either go to a monestery or the pharmacy in order to get some Lithium. <hr></blockquote>
God does not only speak through the bible. We aren't talking about God appearing in your bedroom with a nice white beard and a booming voice. It's a different kind of "speaking" (i.e. not the literal kind).
It amazing that the Left gives Leiberman a free pass....a man who is publicly religous. And yet, when Bush says he prays for guidance and wisdom, the Left dismisses him and mocks him. I think I understand now.
Oh, and by the way: Anyone who "doesn't know" if he is a Christian most definitely isn't. Who doesn't understand now, pfflam? One doesn't need a degree in theology to understand the topic.
Let's not. The Agreed Framework wasn't the magic document that you imagine it to be. North Korea signed it and they signed the NPT. Neither signature prevented them from going ahead and building a nuke anyway.
BTW, Iran also signed the NPT. Their program is in violation of that treaty too.
Neither signature prevented them from going ahead and building a nuke anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I don't think the signatures are supposed to stop anything. It gives you recourse, that's all.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
BTW, Iran also signed the NPT. Their program is in violation of that treaty too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's absolutely not true. They haven't violated anything. They're putting themselves in a postion to be able to, but that's it. Their current program is all in the open and 100% legit.
That's absolutely not true. They haven't violated anything. They're putting themselves in a postion to be able to, but that's it. Their current program is all in the open and 100% legit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Iran announced last week that it intends to activate a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan (under IAEA safeguards), a step that produces the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the enrichment process. Sources tell Time the IAEA has concluded that Iran actually introduced uranium hexafluoride gas into some centrifuges at an undisclosed location to test their ability to work. That would be a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. <hr></blockquote>
This is something that keeps coming up. We haven't had 12 years of the current situation. The U.N. dropped the ball. Everyone knows it. It's good that Bush wanted to press the issue. It's good that there is now a credible force behind the issue. Inspections can now work, and are working, because even though the same word (inspections) is used to describe the first 12 years AND the past three months, they're actually two different acts.
I don't know what that's so hard for the hawks to understand. You're not dumb, you're just choosing to ignore the truth. You're pretending (lying?) that the current inspections are the same and have the same effect as the past. You know it's not true. Bush knows it's not true. And thank goodness Russia & France know it's not true.
So I was fed up with 12 years of sloth too (OK, it wasn't all sloth, it was a slow decline of effectiveness.) The U.N. (and the U.S.'s leadership) failed. That doesn't mean we can go to war. Step up the pressure, step up the leadership, get the job done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Resolution 1441 calls for Saddam to disarm or face serious consequences. There is no man, woman or child on the face of this Earth that can say he has done that voluntarily.
2. Resoltution 1441 called for a "complete and accurate" accounting of Saddam's weapons. The resolution speciffically said that no omissions would be acceptable.
3. We later learned that there were, in fact, omissions...the likes of which had not been seen since Willie Nelson's 1983 tax return.
4. The inspectors found chemical warheads on their own. Now remember, he said he didn't have any WOMD. None. Zero.
5. The US presented intelligence proving the intent of Saddam to deceive inspectors.
6. Saddam continues to fire upon coalition aircraft. He has recently disallowed U2 flights as well.
Inspections are not, IN ANY WAY, working. They are INDEED the same thing that took place for the last twelve years. Finding some weapons and destroying them....that's success? Now, wait...he said he didn't have any. Hmmm...
The only thing that is working is the 300,000 troops we have at his door. Do you honestly think anything would have happened if we were not over there? Why should it even come to that? The man is not cooperating. Period. He is only doing what he is being forced to do....put on a show until the audience leaves again.
As for Russia and France: Their credibility is suspect. France is pacifist and has always been so. They also have many deals with Iraq in the business sector. Russia has the same.
<strong>pfflam:God does not only speak through the bible. We aren't talking about God appearing in your bedroom with a nice white beard and a booming voice. It's a different kind of "speaking" (i.e. not the literal kind).
It amazing that the Left gives Leiberman a free pass....a man who is publicly religous. And yet, when Bush says he prays for guidance and wisdom, the Left dismisses him and mocks him. I think I understand now.
Oh, and by the way: Anyone who "doesn't know" if he is a Christian most definitely isn't. Who doesn't understand now, pfflam? One doesn't need a degree in theology to understand the topic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>So what kind of voices are we talking about?
Are you seeing that all of the red junk mail piled up against all the Blue and white in a particularly auspicious way this morning in your mailbox?
By the way, I never said I didn't know, I just don't pretend for a public, don't pray in the market-place, and could care less what you think about wether I am or am not a Christian.
By the way I dislike Lieberman a great deal, he's been the Insurance Companies spokesman there in his staqte for years
. . . and stop calling me "the Left" that's just stupid catagorization on your part . . .
Oh, and I dissagree, a degree in theology would probably make you understand a great deal better . . . but then perhaps that's one thing that differes in our religious belief, you think that its all about thoughtless acceptance of voices I think that it involves intellegent introspectiona and critical thinking
" God does not only speak through the bible. We aren't talking about God appearing in your bedroom with a nice white beard and a booming voice. It's a different kind of "speaking" (i.e. not the literal kind). "
So you mean he gets a feeling that could be a misfireing synapse or something from his own subconcious?
As a matter of fact it could be his own selfish motivations speaking to him.
Inspections are not, IN ANY WAY, working. They are INDEED the same thing that took place for the last twelve years.... The only thing that is working is the 300,000 troops we have at his door. Do you honestly think anything would have happened if we were not over there? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Now with the first part, that they're not working, we just disagree. If I really thought there were no progress, or a regression, I'd say it were time for war.
As for the 300,000 troops we have at his door, that's fine. That's a credible threat that I believe is helping push towards disarmament. I think that's a good thing. And without them there would certainly be no credible threat.
Perhaps it would have been better for Bush to leave the troops here so the UN would see absolutely no progress? As it stands now, most people do see some progress, enough to avoid war. So, perhaps the troops in some way are backfiring for Bush.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001, after agreeing "Yes, it was" to in a way that sounds a whole lot like acceptance of determinism:
<strong>
pfflam and company: You proceed from a false assumption. Most Christians beleive that there IS such a thing as free will. We CAN alter world affairs and we CAN make mistakes. God gave us free will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So if every single thing that happens, good or evil, monumental or mundane, is part of God's Plan, unfolding just as God wants it too, just what exactly are we able to do with our free will? Choose what color shirt we wear today? Maybe once in a while something more important? Has God decided that John Doe is going to die today at 2:57, and this death has to happen because it's part of God's Plan, but maybe if Joe Schmoe changes his evil ways and doesn't gun Mr. Doe down, God will put The Plan back on course with a carefully aimed bolt of lightening?
[quote]<strong>What Bush (I imagine) prays for is the wisdom to make the correct decisions and the strength to carry them out. He's not saying "I'm a puppet of God and therefore I can do no wrong". He is saying that he has analyzed the situation and prayed for guidance to deal with it. He then came to a decision that he feels comfortable with and confident about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, just the way the 9/11 highjackers prayed and prayed and felt confident that they were doing God's Will when they slammed into the WTC.
Oh, but wait... Bush has Good Religion™ guiding him, while the highjackers were using Bad Religion™, so I can feel safe and comfortable that all of those warm feelings of confidence that Bush gets when he prays are guiding him down The Righteous Path. No need for me to worry at all that it's just, like, George's own preconceptions and desires about what he should do doing the talking.
[quote]<strong>God does speak to people and yes, MOST THINGS [emphasis mine] in this world are part of "the plan".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait a moment. It's only most things? Are you sure it's not all things? What's the deep theological distinction between what is and is not part of The Plan? How do we tell which is which? Can we do anything that goes against The Plan, or is our free will confined to inconsequential meanderings from otherwise fixed events?
[quote]<strong>That's a belief of mine and of millions across the nation and world. You don't have to share it. I used to think the same way you do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may have had an opinion roughly equivalent to one of my own opinions at some time in the past. I see no evidence that you ever could have engaged in a thinking process similar to mine.
I have to ask you this: You seem to get all worked up over these damned lefties who can't see the clear, obvious TRVTHS you see. If you really believe everything is working out according to God's Plan, why get riled up about anything? It seems to me at most you might use your own free will to be one of the Good Guys or the Bad Guys in The Plan, but war will happen or not regardless of what you say, people will think well or ill of our Illustrious Leader regardless of what you say... In short, why all the anger instead of the Beatific Happiness that should come from accepting that God's got it covered?
[quote]Just don't know a thing about this subject do you? <hr></blockquote>
Hilarious. Did you read the quote? Try again. Then next time think for at least one second before posting please.
Then if you still disagree maybe we can fight over it if you are not a pacifist like France. Perhaps we can meet to brawl in say Kosovo or Iraq or perhaps near the Suez Canal or Indochina or various African locales or pretty much anywhere in Europe. Those would be appropriate places to fight. Beware though, I am the self-described Napoleon of AppleInsider.
I swear, people in one thread claiming the French military contribution in the Revolutionary War is undervalued (in Hardee's commercials no less) by Americans and people in another thread arguing that the French have always been pacifists. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Hilarious. Did you read the quote? Try again. Then next time think for at least one second before posting please.
Then if you still disagree maybe we can fight over it if you are not a pacifist like France. Perhaps we can meet to brawl in say Kosovo or Iraq or perhaps near the Suez Canal or Indochina or various African locales or pretty much anywhere in Europe. Those would be appropriate places to fight. Beware though, I am the self-described Napoleon of AppleInsider.
I swear, people in one thread claiming the French military contribution in the Revolutionary War is undervalued (in Hardee's commercials no less) by Americans and people in another thread arguing that the French have always been pacifists. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok I guess you're not one of those french bashing people. I just get sick and tired of this anti french rhetoric. And no I don't have any french blood. Besides I happen to think being a pacifist isn't so bad considering all the primative saber rattling that's going on in this country.
[quote]Ok I guess you're not one of those french bashing people. I just get sick and tired of this anti french rhetoric. And no I don't have any french blood. Besides I happen to think being a pacifist isn't so bad considering all the primative saber rattling that's going on in this country.<hr></blockquote>
I completely support France in everything that they do and I think that Chiraq's detractors are absolutely wrong to label him as a modern day Joan of Arc in drag.
I've fixed my signature to reinforce my love for all things French. I'm shopping for a poster of that Z guy who plays soccer right now to place alongside my Tony Parker autographed jersey.
Comments
<strong>
Well it's good thing that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it does. The disarming of Iraq should be done legally. If you don't care about that, then you're a fascist. There are rules and laws to follow in a democracy, and that includes international law.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
Good question. What is it? Iraq is in material breach of the resolution. Ergo, serious consequences are to ensue. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And they will if the U.S. doesn't make a mockery of the situation.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
Well we've had 12 years (why does that not register with you? 12 freaking years!!!) of nothing so I guess you are right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is something that keeps coming up. We haven't had 12 years of the current situation. The U.N. dropped the ball. Everyone knows it. It's good that Bush wanted to press the issue. It's good that there is now a credible force behind the issue. Inspections can now work, and are working, because even though the same word (inspections) is used to describe the first 12 years AND the past three months, they're actually two different acts.
I don't know what that's so hard for the hawks to understand. You're not dumb, you're just choosing to ignore the truth. You're pretending (lying?) that the current inspections are the same and have the same effect as the past. You know it's not true. Bush knows it's not true. And thank goodness Russia & France know it's not true.
So I was fed up with 12 years of sloth too (OK, it wasn't all sloth, it was a slow decline of effectiveness.) The U.N. (and the U.S.'s leadership) failed. That doesn't mean we can go to war. Step up the pressure, step up the leadership, get the job done.
<strong>
Why did the Agreed Framework create these grounds and NK's violation of the NPT did not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Boh. Why don't we investigate it and find out?
The U.S. has a legitimate nuclear beef with North Korea. The U.S. doesn't have a legitimate nuclear beef with Iran. That's the easiest I can put it.
<strong>
This is something that keeps coming up. We haven't had 12 years of the current situation. The U.N. dropped the ball. Everyone knows it. It's good that Bush wanted to press the issue. It's good that there is now a credible force behind the issue...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know what's so hard for you to understand. Credible force doesn't mean the same damn game only this time with 300,000 troops indefinitely parked on Saddam's doorstep. Credible force means war ensues if Saddam doesn't comply with the terms of 1441. He hasn't. Sorry, I know you want to believe that if we give him one last chance (and after that one more last chance and after that...) this time (really, really, really!!!) he's going to play nice. He won't. That's who is is. And pretending that the real problem is the U.S. doesn't help your credibilty any. That's the truth of the matter. Time for you to stop ignoring it.
[quote]I think that the way that you disuss this shows a shallow understanding of God, of Christianity and of Religion.
God speaks throught the Bible, Yes?
When God starts talking to you in your bedroom its time to either go to a monestery or the pharmacy in order to get some Lithium. <hr></blockquote>
God does not only speak through the bible. We aren't talking about God appearing in your bedroom with a nice white beard and a booming voice. It's a different kind of "speaking" (i.e. not the literal kind).
It amazing that the Left gives Leiberman a free pass....a man who is publicly religous. And yet, when Bush says he prays for guidance and wisdom, the Left dismisses him and mocks him. I think I understand now.
Oh, and by the way: Anyone who "doesn't know" if he is a Christian most definitely isn't. Who doesn't understand now, pfflam? One doesn't need a degree in theology to understand the topic.
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
Boh. Why don't we investigate it and find out?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's not. The Agreed Framework wasn't the magic document that you imagine it to be. North Korea signed it and they signed the NPT. Neither signature prevented them from going ahead and building a nuke anyway.
BTW, Iran also signed the NPT. Their program is in violation of that treaty too.
<strong>
Neither signature prevented them from going ahead and building a nuke anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I don't think the signatures are supposed to stop anything. It gives you recourse, that's all.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
BTW, Iran also signed the NPT. Their program is in violation of that treaty too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's absolutely not true. They haven't violated anything. They're putting themselves in a postion to be able to, but that's it. Their current program is all in the open and 100% legit.
<strong>
That's absolutely not true. They haven't violated anything. They're putting themselves in a postion to be able to, but that's it. Their current program is all in the open and 100% legit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(sigh)
from <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html"; target="_blank">Time</a>:
[quote]Iran announced last week that it intends to activate a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan (under IAEA safeguards), a step that produces the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the enrichment process. Sources tell Time the IAEA has concluded that Iran actually introduced uranium hexafluoride gas into some centrifuges at an undisclosed location to test their ability to work. That would be a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. <hr></blockquote>
(my emphasis)
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
This is something that keeps coming up. We haven't had 12 years of the current situation. The U.N. dropped the ball. Everyone knows it. It's good that Bush wanted to press the issue. It's good that there is now a credible force behind the issue. Inspections can now work, and are working, because even though the same word (inspections) is used to describe the first 12 years AND the past three months, they're actually two different acts.
I don't know what that's so hard for the hawks to understand. You're not dumb, you're just choosing to ignore the truth. You're pretending (lying?) that the current inspections are the same and have the same effect as the past. You know it's not true. Bush knows it's not true. And thank goodness Russia & France know it's not true.
So I was fed up with 12 years of sloth too (OK, it wasn't all sloth, it was a slow decline of effectiveness.) The U.N. (and the U.S.'s leadership) failed. That doesn't mean we can go to war. Step up the pressure, step up the leadership, get the job done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Resolution 1441 calls for Saddam to disarm or face serious consequences. There is no man, woman or child on the face of this Earth that can say he has done that voluntarily.
2. Resoltution 1441 called for a "complete and accurate" accounting of Saddam's weapons. The resolution speciffically said that no omissions would be acceptable.
3. We later learned that there were, in fact, omissions...the likes of which had not been seen since Willie Nelson's 1983 tax return.
4. The inspectors found chemical warheads on their own. Now remember, he said he didn't have any WOMD. None. Zero.
5. The US presented intelligence proving the intent of Saddam to deceive inspectors.
6. Saddam continues to fire upon coalition aircraft. He has recently disallowed U2 flights as well.
Inspections are not, IN ANY WAY, working. They are INDEED the same thing that took place for the last twelve years. Finding some weapons and destroying them....that's success? Now, wait...he said he didn't have any. Hmmm...
The only thing that is working is the 300,000 troops we have at his door. Do you honestly think anything would have happened if we were not over there? Why should it even come to that? The man is not cooperating. Period. He is only doing what he is being forced to do....put on a show until the audience leaves again.
As for Russia and France: Their credibility is suspect. France is pacifist and has always been so. They also have many deals with Iraq in the business sector. Russia has the same.
<strong>pfflam:God does not only speak through the bible. We aren't talking about God appearing in your bedroom with a nice white beard and a booming voice. It's a different kind of "speaking" (i.e. not the literal kind).
It amazing that the Left gives Leiberman a free pass....a man who is publicly religous. And yet, when Bush says he prays for guidance and wisdom, the Left dismisses him and mocks him. I think I understand now.
Oh, and by the way: Anyone who "doesn't know" if he is a Christian most definitely isn't. Who doesn't understand now, pfflam? One doesn't need a degree in theology to understand the topic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>So what kind of voices are we talking about?
Are you seeing that all of the red junk mail piled up against all the Blue and white in a particularly auspicious way this morning in your mailbox?
By the way, I never said I didn't know, I just don't pretend for a public, don't pray in the market-place, and could care less what you think about wether I am or am not a Christian.
By the way I dislike Lieberman a great deal, he's been the Insurance Companies spokesman there in his staqte for years
. . . and stop calling me "the Left" that's just stupid catagorization on your part . . .
Oh, and I dissagree, a degree in theology would probably make you understand a great deal better . . . but then perhaps that's one thing that differes in our religious belief, you think that its all about thoughtless acceptance of voices I think that it involves intellegent introspectiona and critical thinking
" God does not only speak through the bible. We aren't talking about God appearing in your bedroom with a nice white beard and a booming voice. It's a different kind of "speaking" (i.e. not the literal kind). "
So you mean he gets a feeling that could be a misfireing synapse or something from his own subconcious?
As a matter of fact it could be his own selfish motivations speaking to him.
<strong>
Inspections are not, IN ANY WAY, working. They are INDEED the same thing that took place for the last twelve years.... The only thing that is working is the 300,000 troops we have at his door. Do you honestly think anything would have happened if we were not over there? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Now with the first part, that they're not working, we just disagree. If I really thought there were no progress, or a regression, I'd say it were time for war.
As for the 300,000 troops we have at his door, that's fine. That's a credible threat that I believe is helping push towards disarmament. I think that's a good thing. And without them there would certainly be no credible threat.
Perhaps it would have been better for Bush to leave the troops here so the UN would see absolutely no progress? As it stands now, most people do see some progress, enough to avoid war. So, perhaps the troops in some way are backfiring for Bush.
I wish I could think of a way in which to mock this quote that is worthy of such a statement.
<strong>
I wish I could think of a way in which to mock this quote that is worthy of such a statement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pictures speak a thousand words.
<strong>
I wish I could think of a way in which to mock this quote that is worthy of such a statement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just don't know a thing about this subject do you?
<strong>
pfflam and company: You proceed from a false assumption. Most Christians beleive that there IS such a thing as free will. We CAN alter world affairs and we CAN make mistakes. God gave us free will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So if every single thing that happens, good or evil, monumental or mundane, is part of God's Plan, unfolding just as God wants it too, just what exactly are we able to do with our free will? Choose what color shirt we wear today? Maybe once in a while something more important? Has God decided that John Doe is going to die today at 2:57, and this death has to happen because it's part of God's Plan, but maybe if Joe Schmoe changes his evil ways and doesn't gun Mr. Doe down, God will put The Plan back on course with a carefully aimed bolt of lightening?
[quote]<strong>What Bush (I imagine) prays for is the wisdom to make the correct decisions and the strength to carry them out. He's not saying "I'm a puppet of God and therefore I can do no wrong". He is saying that he has analyzed the situation and prayed for guidance to deal with it. He then came to a decision that he feels comfortable with and confident about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, just the way the 9/11 highjackers prayed and prayed and felt confident that they were doing God's Will when they slammed into the WTC.
Oh, but wait... Bush has Good Religion™ guiding him, while the highjackers were using Bad Religion™, so I can feel safe and comfortable that all of those warm feelings of confidence that Bush gets when he prays are guiding him down The Righteous Path. No need for me to worry at all that it's just, like, George's own preconceptions and desires about what he should do doing the talking.
[quote]<strong>God does speak to people and yes, MOST THINGS [emphasis mine] in this world are part of "the plan".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait a moment. It's only most things? Are you sure it's not all things? What's the deep theological distinction between what is and is not part of The Plan? How do we tell which is which? Can we do anything that goes against The Plan, or is our free will confined to inconsequential meanderings from otherwise fixed events?
[quote]<strong>That's a belief of mine and of millions across the nation and world. You don't have to share it. I used to think the same way you do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may have had an opinion roughly equivalent to one of my own opinions at some time in the past. I see no evidence that you ever could have engaged in a thinking process similar to mine.
I have to ask you this: You seem to get all worked up over these damned lefties who can't see the clear, obvious TRVTHS you see. If you really believe everything is working out according to God's Plan, why get riled up about anything? It seems to me at most you might use your own free will to be one of the Good Guys or the Bad Guys in The Plan, but war will happen or not regardless of what you say, people will think well or ill of our Illustrious Leader regardless of what you say... In short, why all the anger instead of the Beatific Happiness that should come from accepting that God's got it covered?
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
<strong>Bad Religion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I doubt those hijackers had such good taste in music.
Hilarious. Did you read the quote? Try again. Then next time think for at least one second before posting please.
Then if you still disagree maybe we can fight over it if you are not a pacifist like France. Perhaps we can meet to brawl in say Kosovo or Iraq or perhaps near the Suez Canal or Indochina or various African locales or pretty much anywhere in Europe. Those would be appropriate places to fight. Beware though, I am the self-described Napoleon of AppleInsider.
I swear, people in one thread claiming the French military contribution in the Revolutionary War is undervalued (in Hardee's commercials no less) by Americans and people in another thread arguing that the French have always been pacifists. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
Hilarious. Did you read the quote? Try again. Then next time think for at least one second before posting please.
Then if you still disagree maybe we can fight over it if you are not a pacifist like France. Perhaps we can meet to brawl in say Kosovo or Iraq or perhaps near the Suez Canal or Indochina or various African locales or pretty much anywhere in Europe. Those would be appropriate places to fight. Beware though, I am the self-described Napoleon of AppleInsider.
I swear, people in one thread claiming the French military contribution in the Revolutionary War is undervalued (in Hardee's commercials no less) by Americans and people in another thread arguing that the French have always been pacifists. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok I guess you're not one of those french bashing people. I just get sick and tired of this anti french rhetoric. And no I don't have any french blood. Besides I happen to think being a pacifist isn't so bad considering all the primative saber rattling that's going on in this country.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
When NK broke the agreement with the U.S., it gives us a grounds for a response be it in the courts or ultimately (hopefully not) on the battlefield.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge, would you then say that the US would require UN approval to take action? (assuming military action here)
I completely support France in everything that they do and I think that Chiraq's detractors are absolutely wrong to label him as a modern day Joan of Arc in drag.
I've fixed my signature to reinforce my love for all things French. I'm shopping for a poster of that Z guy who plays soccer right now to place alongside my Tony Parker autographed jersey.