I know. What would I have ever done if he didn't show up?

They don't. If I have learned anything from reading Ranger's posts it is that the general military has a very small role in the proper prosecution in the war against terrorists. Since it is vital to "acquire" and "eliminate" terrorists without creaing more by accidently killing civilians, bombs should be left at home.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

Uh... can you look at how "terrorists" are persued in Afghanistan? The US has bombed several civilian targets throughout that were by "accident" civilians. I think that would be in the statistics as collateral damage....

__________________
_____________________________________________

Do you see the part at the bottom that says, "Under no circumstances would an invasion be called for?" I made it bold for you when I posted it (again) but I'm sure it was easy to miss. Then, I have to assume that you read it too, since you posted it (again). Does this apparently contradictory statement somehow fall into the theory that I am "defending the invasion of any country harboring terrorists"?

And you didn't mention any of the other some 10 other options I posted. How come I don't support any of those?
As is often the case with you, SwamP-ThinG, I have to take great pains to clarify the translucent and define the straightforward. Which I did here.
Nice spin. You forgot the part right before this where you assumed that I favored invasions. There's an allusion to it in this post, you know, the first part, where I wrote, "There are other ways of taking someone out."
It's pretty clear in my mind that I agree with the denial part. Which I made as painfully clear as I possibly could with this post:
I clearly supported another plan AFTER YOU STARTED YOUR ASSUMPTION RANT THAT I WANT TO INVADE EVERY COUNTRY. You're familiar with the concept of time passage, are you not? Go to "User CP" at the top, choose "Edit Options" from the left, go down to "Thread Display Options" and change the Thread Display Mode to "Linear - Oldest First". See, I actually posted this message AFTER the thread was started. It's confusing, I know. Just stick with it and you'll get it.
As usual, you're wasting everyone's time with your inability to follow a conversation and your need to have everything explained to you twenty times. However, I'll make you a deal. I leave it up to the group. Whoever wants to sound off can: if more people agree with you then I'll go. If only one person replies that I should go (you can vote too) then you'll never read from me again (not that you ever did). Deal? Personally, I hope you win.

I'm really confused then. This started with you saying I was a loony. When I asked why you said it was because I advocated invasion as a way to solve terrorism. Then I asked you to show me where I said that and now you say I didn't.

So I guess I'm back to the beginning. Why am I a loony?
I agree.

How do you mean, "manipulate the effect"? Just simple understanding won't work, right? There has to be something changed, right?

Hey, you´re the one who said you would leave if proven in contradiction! Not me! I hope you didn´t have a hard time eating all that plastic, Fatboy. I know it must be quite indigestive (want some Pepto Bismol or a Rennie?), you should have gone for something easier, like a hat or an old shoe.
I have no intention of voting, simply because i have no wish to see you go. How else would i get my daily doseage of laughter?
No, my friend. If you get a vote, it won´t come from me. It´s not fun to argue with people with whom you agree on most things. The real fun is in arguing with your opponents, and that means you.
Actually, i think you should call upon some of your rightwing friends, to balance the forum, otherwise you´ll have to spend half the time dodging everybody!

Like i said, i have absolutely no intention of holding you to your word, although i think a man´s word should be held sacred. A man´s word is his honour and his castle, and loosing it means loosing face.
Aside from our diferences, i still feel some respect for you for holding to your beliefs and sticking to your guns, despite how much others try to change that, and no matter how wrong we might think those beliefs are.
But i´m tired of bumping heads all the time. We will eventually get a headache, both of us. I guess we are both hardheads, uh?
Anyway, i really don´t want you to leave on account of such rubbish. The forum would be poorer by the losse of any of its members, and we have lost too many already.And i never hold a grudge anyway.
Wich reminds me, where´s Lictor?? Hey Startup, didn´t you PM him?

Anyway, i think it´s time to drop this "invasion" issue. It´s not fun anymore, nor educational.
As much as i like a good fight, maybe it´s time for you to shift your sights over to some other target, as this "hardhead" is almost burnt out.
Just be more carefull how and where you gamble your word away, Fatboy.
I don´t want you to get an indigestion over eating too many hats!!
Live long and prosper.

:gun: :dog:
Dance you dawg, dance!!!

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Of course something has to be changed. But a country, universally despised throughout the world, should realize that trying to change the status quo through sheer force will actually change nothing at all, except for strengthening the hatred even further.

Why do YOU think so many people hate your country, BTW?

__________________

You didn't prove it. But of course, I'm a bit biased in that regard, so let's let the room decide.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

So, what would be changed? What if the changes requested are either impossible or simply not acceptable to any reasonable person?
Meddling in their domestic affairs.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup