Thread: Operation Iraqi Freedom

thank you scotcher !

Originally Posted by kostya

Here is the reason I believe in the war: RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Is there anyone who can say that Iraq has complied? It's been 12 years, and there is little evidence that the weapons have been destroyed.

Well, there's this: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html
And this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2830505.stm
There's also the fact that Iraq has not used any of those weapons it has even though now is the best time for it, the al-Samoud II missiles that were destroyed, the unearthed remains of a site where chemical agents had been destroyed and dumped. The fact that those chemical-dispersing long-range drones Powell talked about turned out to be made from balsa wood and duct tape. How's that for starters?

[quote:23a9scz1]Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?

See above.

Sure the US will gain better access to oil, but I see it childish to call that the sole reason. That alone will not pay for the resources used for this war (well, maybe after a decade or 2).
World domination is definitely US's purpose though. We are the biggest baddest boys on the block, and will own all . Please...

I feel that UN is sitting back, and is denying support because they don't want anything to do with causing a war, when the line isn't clear, and the evidence isn't blinding. But anyone in the right mind can see that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, as well as means of producing them.[/quote:23a9scz1]

I'm sure he has some old ones. That's what the purpose of the inspections is--to get rid of them. But where are these new ones he's creating supposedly? Share some of your infinite wisdom with the weapons inspectors and the CIA. Because they sure can't find them. You and the other hawks must have psychic powers.

And now tell me, how can a handfull of inspectors find these? Especially when they can be monitored, and their arrival can be easily prepared for.

With spyplanes, satellite imaging, and more conventional intelligence. In fact, the Blix team already had this cooperation and the Russians had planned to contribute more spyplanes to the inspections last week until the outbreak of war occurred. Guess what? Even with all of this state of the art spying the US was still unable to find doodly squat.

Saddam is like that bully that will punch you in the back, and when you turn around will say it was someone else, then just to do it again later.
Kinda reminds me of the prelude to ww2, and especially Russia initial involvement ("oh but he promised he wouldn't hurt us")

Uh, yeah. Except Russia had to sign the non-aggression pact in the early years of the war. It never would've stood a chance otherwise. Stalin was an idiot and underestimated the Nazis. But had he not signed an agreement with Hitler promising not to fight (all the while building up massive arms, mind you) the USSR would've easily fallen to the Germans.

War is bad, but in this case someone needed to step up, and I'm proud to live in a country that will not tolerate being toyed with.

Yeah, our leaders are too busy playing with themselves to need toys.

Originally Posted by Rahul

Originally Posted by scotcher

Rahul:

Next time you wonder why people are willing to slam commercial airliners into US buildings in order to hurt your country, take a good, hard look in a mirror.

What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building?

Besides, I feel this is completely off topic. Since you guys can't come up with reasons to support all the things you said, I guess you're just resorting to cheap statements.

And you haven't come up with even a single fact, Rahul. That's what I love about you and redchupacabra. You make this big argument out of a simple politics debate, then when I sit here and make 100 points you will focus on 1 or 2 of them, then call it a victory when I lock up the topic because you're stonewalling for a week. Or somebody else makes 10 points and you ignore all of them and continue whining about how they aren't giving you any facts. The facts are right there, you just aren't responding to them.

How's this for a cheap statement: You do make me feel like ramming a jet into a building.

Originally Posted by Rahul

Mike I think you are kidding yourself by saying the US is an expansionist and imperialist country. How many democratic countries has the US ever invaded and occupied? How many countries does the US claim as its land?

With US forces or just through financing foreign rebels? By the way, the US probably learned from the French, Belgian, and English the valuable lesson of colonialism: It's better to control a foreign country from afar, so that you don't suffer the financial burdens of management and putting down local rebellions. Just as long as the leader doesn't start nationalizing your businesses or getting too liberal everything is hunky-dory.

Manifest Destiny was a policy that the government used over 200 years ago. It doesn't even exist now just as slavery has ceased to exist in the US.

Over 200 years ago? Do they teach basic mathematics where you live?
Because to me, the 1840s was not "over 200 years ago." Or maybe you are posting messages from the future, and that is why you know all these things about Iraq that no one else does.

Over forty countries in the coalition iclude United States, UK, Spain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Poland. These are definitely much bigger and more prominent countries than Lithuania.

Why did you include the United States in the list? By the way, how many countries aren't on the coalition of the wiling? 120? 130?

And I will repeat what people mentioned earlier, that nobody has yet to say why there is reason to go against this war.

There are plenty of reasons on this board. Maybe if you honestly wanted to debate you'd bother to read the posts. But I think you fear actually having to acknowledge that you've seen them, otherwise it will become obvious you can't reply.

Oh by the way, France, Germany and Russia is not a reason. They all have their own political interests in mind just like the US and are not doing this for "world peace" as they claim.

So then I guess you're conceding that the US is not doing it for world peace?

Originally Posted by mike

By the way, V, why did you remove the poll from this topic? Were you upset at the results?

Nope, I didn't remove it.

Weird. I wonder if Admin took it down. I can't see why it would violate any rules. Maybe it's just a bug.

Yeah maybe there's a bug, because I edited it for a spelling mistake.

There it is again, I got it to work, but there are now two yes options and two no options. Not my fault!

Then we'll just use simple math to find the results. This should be easy for everyone but Rahul, who thinks it is the year 2050.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Originally Posted by Rahul

What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building?

Not at all, but such a thing has happened, and it happened as a result of resentment and hatred built up by many years of short-sighted American foreign policy. Americans who, like you, either deny the resentment and hatred exists, or are happy to live with it, are as responsible as the administration who implements it, because you legitimise their actions. This attack on Iraq, seen from the rest of the world, is just a further escaltion of that same foreign policy that saw the US become so vastly unpopular in the first place.

Yah we all know how much freedom and liberty exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Those people became terrorists because of the lack of education they receive and the huge amount of propaganda that people who call themselves "servants of God" give them. Their entire lives live around a misinterpreted conception of a religion that is so perverse, they believe killing innocent civilians will make them go to heaven or paradise. They do not use reason and logic. I believe that Bin Laden and any other member of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have no clue of what Islam really is meant to represent.

Originally Posted by mike

Then we'll just use simple math to find the results. This should be easy for everyone but Rahul, who thinks it is the year 2050.

Yah real funny. The US started all expansionist movements into the Americas around 1800. Thats why I said around 200 years ago.

Originally Posted by mike

I'm sure he has some old ones. That's what the purpose of the inspections is--to get rid of them. But where are these new ones he's creating supposedly? Share some of your infinite wisdom with the weapons inspectors and the CIA. Because they sure can't find them. You and the other hawks must have psychic powers.

Do you think you can find a dozen missiles hidden in a country the size of Texas? They could be hidden in schools, homes, even somewhere away in the desert. Even spy drones have their limits. They cant look through trucks and neither can satellites. Their arrival can be predicted.The weapons inspectors were wasting their time. Oh wait, I forgot, Hans Blix has X-ray vision and Saddam won the Nobel Peace Prize . Back in 1998, there was a huge scare from Iraq that they would use biological and/or chemical weapons on Kuwait. Saddam Hussein loves weapons. That's why he was developing a huge cannon to shoot massive shells onto Israel. This also violated the clause describing the 100 km limit in the treaty Hussein signed back at the end of the Gulf War.

Oh and by the way, websites like fair.org or whatever its called, are usually founded by people who have some personal vendetta against a country. And if there is such "censorship" in the media, how come the Monica Lewinsky scandal ever got out?

Originally Posted by mike

Weird. I wonder if Admin took it down. I can't see why it would violate any rules. Maybe it's just a bug.

It's a bug.

Originally Posted by Rahul

Do you think you can find a dozen missiles hidden in a country the size of Texas? They could be hidden in schools, homes, even somewhere away in the desert. Even spy drones have their limits. They cant look through trucks and neither can satellites. Their arrival can be predicted.The weapons inspectors were wasting their time. Oh wait, I forgot, Hans Blix has X-ray vision and Saddam won the Nobel Peace Prize . Back in 1998, there was a huge scare from Iraq that they would use biological and/or chemical weapons on Kuwait. Saddam Hussein loves weapons. That's why he was developing a huge cannon to shoot massive shells onto Israel. This also violated the clause describing the 100 km limit in the treaty Hussein signed back at the end of the Gulf War.

OK, but there aren't a dozen missiles. There are several thousands of pounds of chemical agents and a hundred missiles. We found the missiles and had destroyed about 50 of them before Bush called out the war everyone expected would happen 4 months ago. The UN was also in the process of testing the pits in which the chemical agents were allegedly destroyed to determine how much of them had actually been disposed of. Again, until Bush decided the diplomacy we all know he didn't care about to begin with "wasn't working."

Oh and by the way, websites like fair.org or whatever its called, are usually founded by people who have some personal vendetta against a country. And if there is such "censorship" in the media, how come the Monica Lewinsky scandal ever got out?

Yes, that is a very rational and well-proven argument. I suggest you read news from other countries and then ask yourself why the same stories aren't breaking the front pages in the US.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal "got out" because the GOP was so set on discrediting Clinton and getting him out of office that they spent years looking for any excuse to ruin him--and finally settled on successfully impeaching him for a crime that probably every politician in history is guilty of. One of the conservative journalists they hired, David Brock, wrote a book about it called Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. It also discusses the stress that was put on him during the Clarence Thomas (the conservative supreme court judge from the early 90s who sexually harassed one of his employees) hearings to discredit the lead witness against him as a slut. He wrote a book on her, in which he admits he made up or altered hundreds of facts to destroy her credibility, and the Republican Party succeeded in getting Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court. Despite their moral self-righteousness, the conservatives that fill mainstream American media seem to be willing to resort to the lowest common denominator in their crusade against people who resort to the lowest common denominator. I guess it takes unethical sleaze to fight unethical sleaze. Take a look at Rupert Murdoch's New York Post sometime if you don't believe me. Personally I think conservatives must be so sexually and socially repressed that it turns into deviance elsewhere. But, like most of your beliefs, I can't really back that up with any scientific proof and it is more of an opinion so I withdraw it.

Originally Posted by Rahul

Originally Posted by mike

Then we'll just use simple math to find the results. This should be easy for everyone but Rahul, who thinks it is the year 2050.

Yah real funny. The US started all expansionist movements into the Americas around 1800. Thats why I said around 200 years ago.

It's one thing to say expansionism started around 1800, and it's quite another to imply it ended "over 200 years ago." After all, how can something end before it's started? Or are you saying it only lasted for 3 years? If so, how do you explain Texas, turn-of-the-century Cuba, and the Phillipines? What about the slicing up of China we did? Hawaii and Alaska? Puerto Rico? Guam? The Virgin Islands?

Originally Posted by Rahul

Yah we all know how much freedom and liberty exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Those people became terrorists because of the lack of education they receive and the huge amount of propaganda that people who call themselves "servants of God" give them.

Yes, and who allows those countries to exist? Who made the Saud family billionaires with their dependence on oil, instead of focusing on alternative energy sources? The blood of every woman that is stoned to death, every drug dealer publicly decapitated, and every thief whose arm is cut off is on the hands of us all, because we drive automobiles and finance their brutality. If you're so intent on bringing democracy to countries like Iraq and ending terrorism, I have a suggestion: buy a bicycle and carpool to work.

Their entire lives live around a misinterpreted conception of a religion that is so perverse, they believe killing innocent civilians will make them go to heaven or paradise. They do not use reason and logic. I believe that Bin Laden and any other member of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have no clue of what Islam really is meant to represent.

al-Qaeda is not really about getting to heaven. That's bullshit. They are fighting because they see the Saudis as immoral hypocrites who let the US occupy their holy land. It is the symbolic equivalent of the Nazis building a headquarters in downtown Jerusalem. I don't condone violence, and I think religion and caring about territories and holy lands is idiotic (or as George Carlin puts it, "I leave symbols to the symbol-minded"), but 9/11 was not about a bunch of guys thinking if they kill themselves for Allah they will get into Heaven and live with 72 virgins. It was about the US being in Saudi Arabia and turning a blind eye to the blatant Israeli aggression against Palestine that only now are we bothering to acknowledge exists.

Hey Rahul, check out this picture of your brave heroes fighting for freedom and peace: http://66.206.162.110/photos/surrender.jpg (btw, I do not recommend any children or easily upset people look at this as most of the Iraqi soldiers' heads have been torn off by gunfire).

Why...that gun the one guy is holding looks an awful lot like a big white flag, doesn't it? Actually, I can't see either of them holding guns. Hmm, I wonder where they are hiding them!

[quote=mike]

I've never choked on food to the point where I black out for 20 minutes and injured my eye. He must've been really eager to swallow those Rold Golds.

Mike you later criticized my comment about the comparison of a similar situation about Germany in WWII commenting that "This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war." How does this comment concerning Bush even shake a stick to my comment? Please fill free to respond with more foolishness thats the majority I have heard conecerning quite a few posts.

[quote:180b6seh]
1. Check out the domestic abuse statistics for the United States. Those numbers ain't low.
2. Ask a Cherokee about this one.
3. Ever hear of Manifest Destiny? How about the fact that when we first started the war on terrorism Bush called it a "crusade?" By the way, you're oversimplifying to say religion is the only reason terrorists attack. There are plenty of political reasons for it as well.

I was referencing to Ethnic clensing. I disagree that was THE motive. And I as well think that you can still see this, left over from the hundreds of years ago that this happend. We wanted their lands and their resources as quick and easy as possible. Sometimes they thought shooting them was the best way other times...putting them in a reservation. THE ATTROCITIES! People cared not for their individual lives at all!!! WHAT IS THE MANIFST DESTINY!!!! Its about pure greed mike. It never was about God but Gold. If their main goal was an ethnic clensing you would not see native american indian reservatinos today. That was a hearding of what they considered a problem to their goal or a pot hole on the road to hell.

[Quote=mike]

Uh, no. The inspectors were given free access to go anywhere they wanted, and the intelligence communities of the United States (among others) gave plenty of information to the inspectors about suspected sites. Know what happened? None of them turned out to be producing anything.

My comment: i think you have been watching too much CNN.

Originally Posted by mike

This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war. Hitler made it perfectly clear in Mein Kampf that he wanted to reclaim all of the areas stolen from him in World War 1.

Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Perhaps you missed a chapter or two or maybe half the book to miss the part about world domination, ethnic clensing, and his arian race.

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:180b6seh]
Where is any microscopic strand of evidence Saddam Hussein is planning to conquer the world with these alleged weapons?...

Since I didn't even make this comment that he was trying to take over the world then the rest of your paragraph is nullified. But who cares? So you want to see a statement where saddam gets up infront of the whole world and says, "you know? I think I would like to take over the world." Besides what do you think he would do with them keep the peace? Maybe he doesn't want to world, maybe he does. And if he does want it why would he declare it? Maybe he would take it say, one step at a time like kuwait.

Originally Posted by mike

[quote:180b6seh]
I would say there's nothing logical about religion in general, but that's just me.

Well, mike, thats what I would consider a dissenting opinion; then basically you are in dissagreement with over 80% of the rest of the world. You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?

Besides, I see it this way. If there is no such thing as right or wrong then who cares about who suffers and wars period. Please if you have something nasty to say don't comment because I dont want this to go into a "why you should be converted" conversation.

[quote:180b6seh]People declared holy wars less than a thousand years ago. Take a look at the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the conquest of Africa, South and North America.

yes, thats a point I was trying to make. Thanks.

Originally Posted by mike

The problem is, Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons.

I doubt it as well but be certian of nothing in the type of world we live in today.

Originally Posted by mike

He has chemical weapons that he can only launch at most 100km. If a terrorist plans to use a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies it isn't going to be in a conventional bomb coming from someone as obvious as Iraq. It's going to be on a suitcase in a bus in downtown Manhattan. But we don't care about stopping those kinds of things. They aren't profitable.

I supose your right. America could have cared less about September 11th.

Originally Posted by mike

And you haven't come up with even a single fact, Rahul. That's what I love about you and redchupacabra. You make this big argument out of a simple politics debate, then when I sit here and make 100 points you will focus on 1 or 2 of them, then call it a victory when I lock up the topic because you're stonewalling for a week. Or somebody else makes 10 points and you ignore all of them and continue whining about how they aren't giving you any facts. The facts are right there, you just aren't responding to them.

[/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh]

I am sorry I am working right now very hard to save money for college. I work and do homework constantly while I try not to neglect my other hobies. Infact mike I don't ignore what you say at all. I reply. I know the facts which you use to aid your conversation. And I know some things about histroy as well. I am more interested in truth I guess. I want to find out what the truth is not constantly battling other people because I want to be proven right. I have posted many things latly because I want people to see both sides. Are you worried they will come to a conclusion themselves? Mike i have been wrong about many things before. And you know what I will tell everyone right now that guess what? I don't have all the answers. And I dont claim to either.

I have signed all my posts as your friend because I want to you to remember that incase you ever become angry at me. I enjoy this message board and if I didn't I wouldnt be here. I am here so we can build each other and give positive comments as well to each one. My positive comment to you is its quite clear your very bright. The only thing I would say is that when you quote history and things you should look at history and try to apply it to your life instead of using your life and justifying it by history. I know thats is sort of vague but I am not real good at expressing myself publicaly either.

Your friend,

Red Chupacabra

excuse my spelling errors. I typed this in haste I will return to check the message board at a latter date. cya

Mike you later criticized my comment about the comparison of a similar situation about Germany in WWII commenting that "This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war." How does this comment concerning Bush even shake a stick to my comment? Please fill free to respond with more foolishness thats the majority I have heard conecerning quite a few posts.

Well, the simple truth is my comment was a joke (which was obvious to I think every single person who read the post) and yours was serious. Both lacked any substance, but mine wasn't meant to.

I was referencing to Ethnic clensing. I disagree that was THE motive. And I as well think that you can still see this, left over from the hundreds of years ago that this happend. We wanted their lands and their resources as quick and easy as possible.

Well, then I suggest you come up to New England some time. You see, our Puritan settlers didn't take kindly to the Indians and successfully wiped out several tribes from the face of the earth. Sure, you can say it was about land, but if that were the only case why did they make sure every last one of them was dead?

Sometimes they thought shooting them was the best way other times...putting them in a reservation. THE ATTROCITIES! People cared not for their individual lives at all!!! WHAT IS THE MANIFST DESTINY!!!! Its about pure greed mike. It never was about God but Gold. If their main goal was an ethnic clensing you would not see native american indian reservatinos today. That was a hearding of what they considered a problem to their goal or a pot hole on the road to hell.

If the savages acted civil and accepted the gospels we paraded them around as proof to the rest. If they were too obstinate we just got rid of them. Unfortunately, the former group was never truly accepted by either society. I used to have an interesting book from college that was a compilation of writings by people from the "civilized tribes," but I sold it back to the bookstore years ago.

My comment: i think you have been watching too much CNN.

Mine: I don't watch CNN, at least not for Iraq coverage. It is the official mouthpiece of the Pentagon.

Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Perhaps you missed a chapter or two or maybe half the book to miss the part about world domination, ethnic clensing, and his arian race.

Probably not as enthusiastically as you, but yes, I have. And that was my point exactly. Hitler fully planned on dominating the world and bringing the Aryan race to its rightful place on top. What I am asking is, if this situation is so similar to that one, where is Saddam's claims that the Iraqi people should be ruling the world? Or his attempts at trying?

Since I didn't even make this comment that he was trying to take over the world then the rest of your paragraph is nullified. But who cares?

No, but you made the allusion to Hitler. All I'm asking is besides the letter H and the ethnic cleansing, how is European appeasement anything at all the same in this situation as it was 60 years ago. That is the question I'm still waiting for you to answer.

So you want to see a statement where saddam gets up infront of the whole world and says, "you know? I think I would like to take over the world." Besides what do you think he would do with them keep the peace? Maybe he doesn't want to world, maybe he does. And if he does want it why would he declare it? Maybe he would take it say, one step at a time like kuwait.

Still, for your analogy to work one would have to believe that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed Kuwait belonged to Iraq and was taken away from him by his enemies. In reality, Saddam accused Kuwait of slant-drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing their oil. A claim that has some merit to it in retrospect.

Well, mike, thats what I would consider a dissenting opinion; then basically you are in dissagreement with over 80% of the rest of the world.

So is Bush. What's your point?

You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?

I consider a book full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies that is no more scientifically provable than all the other religious tomes in existance not something I put a whole lot of stock into. Also, I am not an atheist but an agnostic, however you are incorrect to say atheism is a leap of faith. This is a logical fallacy that redefines the word faith halfway through the argument (called equivocation). Faith in the scope of Christianity is a belief based entirely without scientific evidence. Faith in atheists is nothing more than deduction based on this same lack of evidence. You can say there is a Mountain Dew can floating around Mercury and I can deny it from a lack of evidence. However, the burden of proof is upon you, not me, as you are the one making the assertion.

By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design. It lacks a lot of basis scientifically, most pointedly because all of these "complexities" can be explained perfectly well by biology and evolution. Simple microorganisms, for example, have been created under laboratory conditions from basic elements and a reproduction of lightning in a controlled environment. I really don't know why Christians oppose evolution so virulently for two reasons: 1) Evolution and Darwinism (like Kropotkin, while Darwin is considered very important to evolutionary theory, some of his views are actually discredited by more recent biological observation) are not synonymous, and unless you are one of the few people who still believe the world is only 6,000 years old despite the overwhelming evidence--I should also point out that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest the earth is this young, it was just the number calculated by a clergyman and added to the original King James Bible--there is no reason to oppose evolutionary theory; and 2) Darwin was not an atheist, and believed that the origin of life came from the "breath of the Creator."

It is not an argument taken very seriously these days, and creation scientists have mostly abandoned it for the more popular (yet similar to the AFD) "Irreducible Complexity" argument put forth by Michael Behe. I won't get it into that because you didn't bring it up, but if you do then don't bother using the "flagellum of bacteria" example, as it has recently been proven that several of the separate parts of the flagellum do in fact act independently.

I don't believe in a God, but I do not deny one (or two, or five) exists. It is just more of a safe bet considering the total lack of evidence or divine presence.

I supose your right. America could have cared less about September 11th.

No, I'm saying the American government will gladly fight a war on terrorism in a country our intelligence agency denies has any links to terrorism if it can put some coin in its pocket in the process, but its only real solution to cracking down on domestic terror threats is to establish useless token organizations like Homeland Security and pass amendments that reduce civil liberties and make it legal for the FBI to--among other things--request a list of all the books and websites you've visited or checked out at the library upon threat of termination to anyone who refuses (by the way, aren't the Republicans the party that hates big government?) This latter example reeks of irony after those annoying commercials last year with the kid coming up to the librarian and asking for a book, then getting escorted out by men in black suits with the scare-tactic ending, "FREEDOM. CHERISH IT. PROTECT IT." I guess the end where it says, "BY HAVING YOUR CONGRESSMAN ENACT LAWS LIKE THIS ONE" got cut out for time constraints.

I am sorry I am working right now very hard to save money for college. I work and do homework constantly while I try not to neglect my other hobies. Infact mike I don't ignore what you say at all. I reply. I know the facts which you use to aid your conversation. And I know some things about histroy as well. I am more interested in truth I guess. I want to find out what the truth is not constantly battling other people because I want to be proven right.

All of the things I've said are true. "Constantly battling other people" is called debate, and it leads to productive results.

I have posted many things latly because I want people to see both sides. Are you worried they will come to a conclusion themselves?

What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.

Mike i have been wrong about many things before. And you know what I will tell everyone right now that guess what? I don't have all the answers. And I dont claim to either.

Yes, that is one of the values of open-ended discussions like this one. To arrive at answers from opposite sides of the question.

I have signed all my posts as your friend because I want to you to remember that incase you ever become angry at me.

I don't really believe you can be friends with someone you've never met, but to each their own. And no, I do not get mad. Even when I told Rahul he made me want to crash a jet into a building I think it was clear I was being playful.

I enjoy this message board and if I didn't I wouldnt be here. I am here so we can build each other and give positive comments as well to each one. My positive comment to you is its quite clear your very bright. The only thing I would say is that when you quote history and things you should look at history and try to apply it to your life instead of using your life and justifying it by history. I know thats is sort of vague but I am not real good at expressing myself publicaly either.

Yes, it is vague. I really have no idea what it meant.