FSPilot

Is this the same ICC that attempted to convict, and I think did convict, George Bush Sr. for the gulf war?

The ICC is NOT this ICC!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, dear lord. Â Not that ICC this ICC. The UN International Crime Court.<span id='postcolor'> *slaps forehead* D'oh! </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not talking about ignoring the terrorists. I am talking about not soaking your pants all the time. There is quite an irony in the situation, the more you fear the terrorists, the more you help them to achieve their goals.<span id='postcolor'> What gives you the impression that I am afraid of terrorists? Â I was actually an advocate of not giving them much media attention as it fuels them too much and makes everyone afraid. But just because you shouldn't be afraid of it, doesn't mean you should let it happen without a fight. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if we assumed that they all were Taliban soldiers does not make them connected to the AQ. The US is for instance sheltering Chinese dissdents that the Republic of China considers to be terrorists. Does that make all the American soldiers connected to Chinese terrorists?<span id='postcolor'> The Taliban was sheltering the AQ, therefore the Taliban, and it's soldiers, were fair game for the U.S. and it's allies. And it depends on what you mean by "Chinese terrorists". Â Are these people attacking civilians, or are they waging a war against China? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Proof by US intelligence agencies<span id='postcolor'> Well, I had heard otherwise on the radio, but I can't find a source/ But anyway, so what if he's alive? Â If we take down the governments that support terrorists, eventually they'll stop supporting terrorists. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They have not connected Saddam to any terrorist cells at all.<span id='postcolor'> So we're supposed to wait until after he gives his WMDs to terrorists to connect him to them? If you ask me, we should get Saddam out of power regardless of if he's connected to terrorists or not. Â He's broken his terms of surrender numerous times. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arafat Tell Bin Laden: Don't Use Palestine Issue Thought that was quite interesting...<span id='postcolor'> Looks like Bin Laden's going to need to issue another fatwa.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, what I am saying that even if you are killing an innocent person, there is no reason for fear. The probability for somebody getting killed by you would be very small. You would be an insignifican threat to the overall society.<span id='postcolor'> It's not only human lives that we're worried about, but the effects it has on our economy and our country. Â Besides, just because terrorist attacks don't get a high body count, doesn't mean we can ignore them. Â It's like a murderer. Â Sure he kills people, but only 1 or 2. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really? A lot of them? Can you provide a list?<span id='postcolor'> For the U.S. or worldwide? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many people of the ones killed in Afganistan do you think were connected to AQ?<span id='postcolor'> Well all of them if they were Taliban soldiers. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the international court, it's the ICC that Bush decided not to join. Terrorists are criminals and should be dealt like criminals.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">From http://www.iccwbo.org/home/intro_icc/how_works.asp The ICC World Council is the equivalent of the general assembly of a major intergovernmental organization. The big difference is that the delegates are business executives and not government officials.<span id='postcolor'> According to their website, ICC is more business oriented than government oriented. Why should we go to them with terrorists? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As Afganistan showed, attacking the country where they might or might not be staying at the moment doesn't help at all. Osama is still alive and kicking.<span id='postcolor'> Nobody can prove that either way. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And nobody has managed to produce any proof that Iraq has ever had any connections to AQ.<span id='postcolor'> Is AQ the only terrorist cell in the world? What makes you think that Hussein wont give away his WMDs to another anti-U.S. cell?

If they give the server's admin control, then VC MP could be doable. But it still has a lot of bugs, some less serious than others. I'd buy it just for the SP anyway.

Can someone tell me what SCUD stands for?

Yes Denoir has a big stick, but when was the last time he spoke softly? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The deaths of those in the WTC were of course tragic, but in absolute terms insignificant. They did make good TV of course and its always easy to be scared of the 'barbarians who are going to kill us all'. While I am sure part of that irrational fear is real, it is fueled by those in power. Joining against a common evil enemy makes you forget your other problems, right? I mean Bush's approval rating sky rocketed from under 50% to over 90% in one day. And what had he achieved? Failing to protect his people from terrorist acts. But who cares, we have the 'evil doers' now to blame.<span id='postcolor'> Ok, so by this logic I can shoot an innocent person in the head each day for the rest of my life. Hey, I'm not making any big statistics, I'm not hurting anyone. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, where are all the terrorist acts? It's been over a year and a lot of threat warnings have come and gone, without anything happening.<span id='postcolor'> Nobody said we were going to have a new attack each week. And we've also been stopping a lot of them before they happen. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly, so why go invading countries then? The terrorists can and will get caught through international policing. Since the terrorists are spread out through the world and not associated with any specific country, what's the point of running around invading other countries? As you said, its useless against somthing like terrorism.<span id='postcolor'> The governments we're attacking support terrorism. I guess what I said earlier was sort of an overstatement. Armies can be used to take out a government that supports terrorism, but probably not to do a lot of investigating and charge people for terrorism in some international court.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is if there had been no war in the first place neither those bombs nor the civilian casulties would have been there.<span id='postcolor'> And you have a solution to stop all the war in the world? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, my point. Don't do things that will come to haunt you later. Don't shoot first and ask questions later.<span id='postcolor'> Again, my point.  We don't know whats going to haunt us in the future.  We can't look into the future and know that Osama Bin Laden is going to get pissed off at us for some wierd reason. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">..or sell weapons to the highest bidder  <span id='postcolor'> How is that a relevant argument? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where does all this fear come from? Why do you constantly need to defend yourself? You are a strong country. Do you really think that Osama or Iraq really could hurt you? Come on!  Why are you so afraid?<span id='postcolor'> Why are we so afraid?  Were you living under a rock on September 11th?  The U.S. has a serious issue here.  Yes Osama or Iraq could really hurt us.  No, they're not going to storm our western front with so many troops, but they could very well (if they havent already) put terrorists in the U.S., and use them to attack us, like they did on Sept. 11th.  The U.S. has one of the mightiest militarys on the planet.  But that's useless against something like terrorism.  It's like telling the police to check the grammar in the library.  They can try, but it's not what they're made for.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course I can when you drop it where I am expected to walk! <!--emo& And the question wasn't of blame assignement, but how good the US policies are for its friends and allies.<span id='postcolor'> Well hey, at least you're overrunning enemy positions. And maybe it was just me, but I thought you were blaming the U.S. for things it couldn't help. Probably just me. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Say we have a hostage situation. A bank robber has taken 100 hostages. The police storms the place and in the action kills 50 hostages. Was it a good action? No. That was exactly the case in Kosovo. NATO bombs killed far more Albanians then the Serbs did, and the Albanians were the people you were supposed to help, remember?<span id='postcolor'> The U.S. has spend millions if not billions of dollars designing super accurate weapons that only hurt what they're aimed at. Yes, the equipment malfunctions, yes, the pilot might simply miss, but still, it's not like they bombed civilians on purpose. The U.S. puts a great deal of care in bombing around civilian areas. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Homer Simpson? Is that you? <span id='postcolor'> D'oh! I mean, no! </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is a very dangerous attitude to have, saying "what I don't understand must be good". Bush got into power largely by financing from the oil industry. The Kyoto agreement was on reducing the exhaust of gases created by burning fossile fuel. You do the math.<span id='postcolor'> Then again, there's someone else out there saying the exact opposite of what you just said. That isn't math, it's algebra. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point exactly. With this current policy you are digging another hole for yourself, just like you did that time. Shoot first, ask questions later does not work in every case. Sometimes you have to think first.<span id='postcolor'> I agree, but how were we supposed to know that, even though we helped him in the 1980's, he'd go off on a tangent to us landing planes near him in the 1990's? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course they can. Think twice before going to war.<span id='postcolor'> We do, if we didn't Iraq qould be a democracy right now. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me get you started: Sweden produces and sells cluster bombs. These bombs were widely used by all sides in former Yugoslavia. How does that go together with the peace loving political message that Sweden likes to project?<span id='postcolor'> Well, just because you love peace doesn't mean you won't defend yourself, or help your allies/customers defend themselves. IMO if you love peace, you won't try to start any wars. That doesn't necessarilly mean you wont defend yourself, or your allies.

Well, when I lived on an Air Force Base, the MPs went around with M-16s. SPs only had the Beretta 9mm.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 16 2002,08:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That your policies are good for me as a Swedish KFOR soldier and allied of the US was all that I could think of when the greatest danger to my life came from unexploded American bombs...<span id='postcolor'> You can't possibly blame us for when our equipment accidentally malfunctions. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am sure that you can convince the numerous Albanians who lost their families to American bombs. Woohoo for US help!<span id='postcolor'> Those were accidents. You'd think someone with yoru experience would realize this. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You backing out of the ICC agreement and the Kyoto agreement was soooo benificial for us. Yeeehaa, my children will be breathing the shit that you spew into the air. I am simply speechless from gratitude.<span id='postcolor'> I really don't know anything about the ICC agreement or the Kyoto agreement, so I'll just sleep tight tonight knowing that my president probably had a good reason to do what he did, I just don't know it. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the other hand, I think Osama might agree. Who knows if he would have ever became anything without US support back in the good ole' days in Afganistan, fighting the Soviets. On the other hand, it kind of rules out the "good for you" part, doesn't it? <span id='postcolor'> Not at the time it didn't. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, I'm not saying that your foregin policy and actions have always and in every case sucked, but the current administration is a disaster.<span id='postcolor'> Is this an anti-U.S. or anti-Bush comment? Look, as one of the most powerful nations in the world, the U.S. has a lot of responsibility. No matter what we do we're always going to piss people off on one hand and make people happy on the other. Just remember that no matter what the people who didn't vote for him tell you, our president knows this and is trying his best to do a good job. Let's look at reality here, he's not some kind of boogey man that enjoys bombing people or sending his troops to go off and die somewhere while he sits in a mansion and drinks oil for breakfast. Anyway, it seems to me that a lot of the reasons you don't like the U.S. couldn't be helped. Unexploded American bombs cant be helped, neither can civilian casualties.

No, but I'm not making statements about what terrorists are going to do next.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Dec. 16 2002,06:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> I don't think it makes any difference how China treats it's people, just it's economy. Although the two may be directly interlaced. I think as China's economy changes it will eventually at least start to consider democracy. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You do claim to be very democratic, open minded and such but you are pretty ignorant when it comes to countries abroad US. Was this comment serious or are you drunk ?<span id='postcolor'> I'm really getting sick of these immature comments. If you don't like what I say fine, but don't call people ignorant. Anyway, I still dont know whats wrong with the U.S. economy and way of life. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's better than a lot of other things. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sarcasm maybe an option when you run out of ideas but it will certainly not contribute to a discussion. If you run out of facts remain silent.<span id='postcolor'> Oh so now you're going to dictate to everyone when they can talk and can't talk? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We had around 6 possible "thumb on the button" situations within the last 2 years. You maybe want to check out facts on the Kashmir area to find out more. It is a hot situation down there for quite a while now and it´s unlikely it will calm down soon. And yes both, Pakistan and India tend to use their weapons as they dont have the historical background to know about the consequences of a nuclear strike and are additionally religious motivated. You know, not everyone on this planet has the possibility to get educated in a school.<span id='postcolor'> What difference does it make how they're educated or not? And again this all boils down to never making everyone happy about the U.S. If we're isolationist, people get pissed off, if we stick our nose in everyone's business, people get pissed off. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also really hope you were joking about the American governement working out well,thus,that giving them the right to dictate others...<span id='postcolor'> Well first I don't think we were dictating to anyone. If they wanted to resist they could of, and in a sense eventually did. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Their policy is so good that most of the world disagrees with them,and a small part wants to see them shot,blown up or something like that.(them being the us)<span id='postcolor'> Our policies are good for us and our friends. The only people who want to shoot and blow us up are religious fundamentalists, apparently, most of which are not politically motivated. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something has got to be wrong if almost noone likes you,no?Oh right,it's just them,I forgot about that.<span id='postcolor'> Almost noone likes us? I think plenty of people like us. But either way I don't think it matters. Everyone's going to look out for themselves and their friends, that's what we're doing. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">b)Cuba is all but being let be,putting an EMBARGO pretty much rules out the term 'being left alone'<span id='postcolor'> What difference does it make?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Dec. 16 2002,05:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Only being benefficial for America it self of course, yes you can say that you've helped everyone with their troubles but who is giving more, the rich lord with a hundred pieces of gold or the old woman with her life savings of tuppence?<span id='postcolor'> What do you mean? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway America has an eagle as it's national symbol, a symbol of supremacy and power. But every empire that has had the eagle as it's symbol has fallen........need i emphasise?<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, the national symbol has a lot to do with whether or not a country will prosper. And, just so I can understand you better, can you define "income inequality" for me?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 16 2002,04:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What gives the US the right to set up/maintain a government for the Cuban people? You think this is right?!? It surprizes you that they took it down??<span id='postcolor'> Well what's wrong with it? It's obvious that the American government and economy has worked wonderfully so far. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And my point is that the Truman doctrine is just wrong.<span id='postcolor'> Well, I agree in part. I don't think Truman should of made a blanket statement like that, but he did. It may have been a mistake. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cuba has wanted nothing from the US except to be let be, and in fact it has great relationships with many democratic countries such as Canada, Spain, and basically all of Latin America.<span id='postcolor'> Cuba is being let be. As a matter of fact we're not even trading with them. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mentioned before that the US softened up on China and Russia because "they were moving away from communism"....as wrong as that statement is, Cuba has also had reforms.<span id='postcolor'> Well first off I dont' see that statement as wrong at all. It's obvious that Russia was moving away from communism, I have no idea how you could think otherwise as they've departed from that form of government. And I believe that, as China's economy changes it will become democratic. But that's just my personal opinion. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Limited small private business has been legal in Cuba for much longer than in China for example. And don't forget the Pope's visit. Religion is now much more accepted in Cuba than it is in China *points to Falun Gong*. So my point is, we CAN all get along, if we respect certain differences and abandon draconian foreign policies.<span id='postcolor'> Well maybe you're right and maybe your wrong. Yes, Cuba has made some changes, but they are still communist. It's probably just a matter of time before we forget the embargo and get along nicely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Dec. 15 2002,22:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, i think if america has to fear someone detonating nuclear weapons near them it's probably going to be them.<span id='postcolor'> No, only in retalliation. I really only think we'd do it if we had been struck first. There'd be no reason to otherwise. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">See if you ask me there is more threat of a new disease striking up than some nutters blowing up a nuke in a city.<span id='postcolor'> Then again you're not an expert on terrorism are you?

*gasp* only one person replied to what i said! I... I don't know what to do with myself... I can't nitpick everyone's arguments beyond all recognition... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh no, heaven forbid, no one could envision India or Pakistan using their nukes, could they? <span id='postcolor'> Well, I figure they'd only retaliate with a nuclear strike. Meaning someone would have to be pretty pissed off to strike first. At least that's my opinion, I don't know what the president thinks about it.

So sue me, I misused a word. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">P.S. After that I am even more anxious to read your explanation of why Communism and Democracy are mortal enemies <span id='postcolor'> Communism and democracy are not mortal enemys, the U.S. and democracy are mortal enemys, at least according to the truman doctrine. anywho, communism is, more often than not, a dictatorship, democracy is the opposite of that, they let the people decide who will gain power, and only then for a period of time (at least in the U.S.). Â a communist economy is essentially the opposite of free trade (or capitalism, if you like that term better) which is, essentialy, a democractic economy. basically they're just opposites. Â they belief in different things and, like most cases with religion, conflict ensues.

I haven't seen it, but I think the concept is just bad, mainly for timing. I mean come on, right now we're all riled up about WMDs and crap, so someone makes a movie about it.

Just because they weren't from the military doesn't mean it wasn't a military coup. If you're going to nitpick my semantics I think I'm going to start laughing as hard as you say you are.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 15 2002,09:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Military coup? Military coup??That's absurd to the point of hilarity.......christ go out and read some history books before it's too late!<span id='postcolor'> You asked for it. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/time/timetbl3.htm 1953 ...July 26. Fidel Castro leads a revolt in which 100 men and women attack the Moncada army barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack is a failure and Castro is arrested. Most of his men are tortured and killed. ... 1956... November 30. In Santiago de Cuba, three hundred young men led by Frank País, wearing olive green uniforms and red and black armbands with the July 26 emblem attack police headquarters, the Customs House and the harbour headquarters.<span id='postcolor'> And yes I was aware of the missiles in Turkey, you do have a point there.

But the true meaning of Christmas is Christian. It's just that it's sort of a mixture of a lot of cultures and religions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 15 2002,08:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hahaha, I didn't reply to this because it is wrong. First of all I can not back that statement up, BUT you can check it out for gods sake. Why are you being so unwilling to check out the other side? The inspectors are checking out the U.S. claims.<span id='postcolor'> I'm not unwilling to check out the other side. If I were I wouldn't be talking to you. The inspectors are checkign out the U.S. claims because the U.S. CANNOT back up its claims for the reasons I've explained before. You can, you're just not willing. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I wanted to insist and kill people because of my statement, I would do what I can to prove it first, even if it meant compromizing myself. Or, if the compromize price was too high I would keep my mouth shut and not act.<span id='postcolor'> But the U.S. DID prove it, just not to the public. The president proved it to our senators, our elected officials. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, so until I see something like; you realizing you are wrong here, or until you post something of real weight, I am done chatting with you personally.<span id='postcolor'> Let's see if you can do a better job than Tovarish. j/k </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: I guess you are now going to post a 25Kg dumb bell?<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm still waiting to hear how Iraq has directly threatened America.<span id='postcolor'> Iraq could give them to terrorists who could use them on the U.S. or it's bases and interests, or anyone else they wanted to for that matter. I have no idea how they'd get them through customs just like I have no idea how they got through the first time. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">India and Pakistan have WMD, why aren't US forces barging in there "to make the world a safer place"? How about China?<span id='postcolor'> India, Pakistan, and China probably won't use WMDs in the near future. And why are all these people complaining about an isolationist U.S., then wondering why we don't barge into India and Pakistan? Not necesarily saying YOU do, but just goes to show that we can't make everyone happy. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only connection I can see between Iraq and Al Queda is that they are both Arab/Muslim entities...please tell me I am wrong, and this isn't the reason for the US stance against Iraq. <span id='postcolor'> It isn't. If it were we'd be attacking arab/muslim entities in the U.S. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To the second, well, you are proving my point more and more. You aren't even bothering of thinking "why" someone is your enemy, they "just are" and that's good enough to to as you wish. Adolf Hitler once said "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."<span id='postcolor'> I don't think I have to explain to someone like you why communism and democracy are enemys, or do I? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cuba got on the US's bad side not because it became communist, that was just a handy little pretext after the fact. Cuba didn't declare itself communist until after diplomatic approaches to the US were unsucsessful and they had to turn to the Soviets for defense.<span id='postcolor'> So let me get this straight, the U.S. sets up a government in Cuba, a military coup takes place and the government is destroyed, so the U.S. reponds with military force. Makes sense to me. Then Cuba holds the Soviet's nuclear missiles, essentially keeping their shotgun pointed at our chest for them. And you expect us to be their friends?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 15 2002,07:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> Either way, I thought you weren't making any points and only trying to make me feel bad. But like I said, it's irrelevant. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I missed it, I looked at the posts and I don't see anything that actually counters my reasoning. I forget, which statement is the "logical statement"?<span id='postcolor'> This one. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am pissed at you pilot because you want to accept the U.S. + British claim of WMD in Iraq without proof just because they flash a term at you like "top secret". Yet you don't want to even pursue my hint of Iraqi families getting personal weapons from the Iraqi government when I do not disclose my information source, which could be "top secret" to me. (which it is not, and I am not acting nor insisting on this information)<span id='postcolor'> Which I replied to. This is all in the same thread.