Nitron said it a bit too bluntly, but it is a good thing to protect the oil fields. In order to safe guard the world economy, oil needs to be protected. It's not about greed. It's about jobs. Like it or not, oil moves the machinery of the world economy. Unless that oil is protected, the world --- not just America would suffer economic loss.

Colin Davies wrote: Emcee Lam wrote: It's not appropiate to say that Chinese and Japanese are the same. Since I never did say that, I can only assume you are wishing to post with an agressive intent. I'm sorry. I mistook your statement about Chinese, Japanese does not matter to be something other than you intended. My apologies.

Reminds me of the pictures of the American Civil War. With the invention of the photographic camera, people began to understand that war is not all guns and glory.

Colin Davies wrote: Japaneese, Chineese , it doesn't matter Marc. The Japs probably claim the Chineese stole it from them anyway. Just as all European nations are different, all Asian nations are different. It's not appropiate to say that Chinese and Japanese are the same. Just as Europeans have historical rivalries, Asians also have rivalries as well. Some of those smaller Asian nations had to fight tooth and nail to remain independent of China. Some Asians may consider your statement to be insulting.

The Art of War is written by Sun Tzu. The man is Chinese, not Japanese.

Paul Watson wrote: I wonder how much of that energy consumption is used to create export goods that the rest of us consume? Indeed, and how many jobs are dependendent on this flow of oil?

Gary Kirkham wrote: I prefer large diameter hole punches...Colt Gold Cup .45s make me It's obvious that none of you play enough first person shooters. I'd like a rocket launcher, please. Oh wait, my family might get caught in the blast radius. Okay, make mine a chain gun then. I play enough games to know that one shot is never enough to take down a man. Only a steady stream of bullets would be sufficient to kill a bad guy. Now if the knife wielder is a boss character, I may need two chainguns, one for each hand.

True enough some things can be better. Nevertheless, it is a victory. Taliban and Al Qaeda have ceded their territories and have been forced to hide in the mountains. The entire Afghanistan campaign has been nothing but losses for them. They lost men, equipment, and morale. Their cause is weakened, and extremist Islam has been humiliated. You are right in saying that a lot of things have not been accomplished. It's far from perfect, but the results are still good. America is the victor. Taliban and Al Qaeda are the losers.

Perhaps not. Bush is not so foolish. He knows that casualties must be low. Bush has not worked this hard to see his plans upset so easily. I don't see Saddam getting away this time. In the first Gulf War, America relied too much on internal rebellion to unseat Saddam. Bush will not repeat that mistake. When it comes to war, America relies heavily on overwhelming victory to demoralize enemies. Marginal and partial victories are unacceptable. Only by gaining overwhelming victory, can America attain an aura of invincibility. Such an appearance of invincibility will convince many enemies of certain failure if they challenge the US. Nothing less than a repeating pattern of overwhelming victories will satisfy an American president. I don't see Iraq as being an exception. Saddam will be yet another demonstration piece to build the aura of invincibility.

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Tibor Blazko wrote: do you know buddha left his wife and small child? nobody's perfect I know he left his old way of life, so I am not surprised by this fact. But I suspect that he realized himself that nobody is perfect. From what I remember about Buddhism, all things are suffering. Even love is suffering. The solution is detachment. From my amateur interpretation, I think Buddha was trying to detach himself from the suffering associated with family life.

I'm fully confident in Bush. Bush is not a foolhardy man, and he would never commit so much to see it end in disaster. Bush is attempting to repeat his success in Afghanistan. Kick out the bad guys and liberate the country. Then the TV audience will gawk as Iraqis dance in the street. There's a possibility that there will be no weapons to be found, but I find that very unlikely. Saddam is not a reformable man. He says he has no weapons of mass destruction, but why should one believe a Saddam who has a history of telling lies? I'm convinced that he's buried his weapons in the sand dunes until he can find a way to convince the inspectors to leave. Bush's strategy does entail some risk, but if it works, Saddam will be gone and Bush will be vindicated.

Paul Watson wrote: Would the US let China get anywhere near the level to challenge the US militarily? It's not just China. The US is not letting anybody get anywhere close to challenging the US militarily. The US outspends everybody for military spending. The difference in spending is so overwhelming it's ridiculous. If this keeps up, even the NATO partners will become militarily irrelevant. Paul Watson wrote: Last time I checked the US still did not like China that much. Well, it's really a love hate relationship. China is a great place to sell products. China is also the nation known for diplomatically manipulating foreign barbarians. Currently China is an ally to the US, but I suspect that China may still be playing tricks to extract out military and technology secrets from the US. It's no secret that China wants to unseat America as the strongest power in Asian pacific waters. China is tired of being humiliated by the West, and it desires greatly to reclaim its domination over Asia.

Ah, Bush is planning a strategy. When Bush goes to war, he will kick out Saddam and find the weapons. Then for several days, there will be a parade of weapons and weapon making equipment in front of the cameras. This will vindicate Bush and restore his reputation. Current popularity is not important. What is important is the popularity at the end of the scenario. As long as Bush comes out on top as the destroyer of evil, people will flock to him. Bush's strategy relies on recovering the weapons. What if there are no weapons? Then the strategy would be a flop. The fact that Bush has invested so much of himself in fighting Saddam tells me that Bush is fully convinced that weapons do exist.

Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: You'd have to ask an American. Plenty of Americans on CP have said that the US is overdue for a revolution , so I wouldn't rule out a popular uprising if the government went all Nazi on them . This sounds really strange. Isn't the US supposed to be the model of government stability? This is a county of freedom and democracy, not a dictatorship. Everybody has a chance to advocate a viewpoint. If that viewpoint doesn't have enough votes, then that's too bad. One shouldn't talk about taking up arms if they don't get enough votes for their viewpoint. This is America, not Venezuela.

Christian Graus wrote: Emcee Lam wrote: This must be digested and a decision made. I don't disagree at all. In fact I regard this as an about face from 'abortion should not be allowed even for rape victims because some women feel bad about it afterwards'. I'm glad we could agree on the informed decision. I'm hardly making an about face. I spoke only of morality rules. Now whether morality rules should generate prohibition is a different question. I currently do not advocate prohibition. I only advocate an informed decision that takes into account a full moral reasoning. The reasoning process will instruct the mother as to what should and should not be done. You must forgive me if I was not very clear about this in my earlier statements. I'm sorry I didn't answer your questions in the way you expected. I have no interest in getting involved with very sensitive scenarios. Such scenarios should be approached with great respect. They can easily become very heated, and that is something I wish to avoid. I see that you have spent much time thinking about this subject, and I respect your thinking. Your experiences have taught you many things and I'm glad you shared them. Though we may have some disagreements, I would hope we could respect each other.

Christian Graus wrote: This is SO frustrating. All I am saying is that the mother have the right to choose. Then so be it. In this current age, the mother must choose. But if the mother chooses, let the mother struggle with the question of whether the fetus is human or not. A mother should be equipped with all information so as to choose between yay or nay. A mother should be aware that if the fetus is human, then there are grave consequences. If the fetus is not human, then one can live in peace. What can not be allowed is a decision based on no thinking. A mother must learn the reasoning behind the pro and the anti. There is intellectual thinking for and against. This must be digested and a decision made. Failure to make an informed decision could result in great distress later. A woman with an abortion may later conclude she aborted a human. This can result in imaginations of the what-if appearance of her baby if the baby wasn't aborted. A woman can be haunted by images of yearly changes in height of an imaginary what-if child. Do you think I am making this up? I am not. Women of regret do exist, and they can tell stories of their post-abortion distress. Not all women are happy customers, and any woman considering abortion should know about the stories of unhappy customers. Even though we disagree on many points, I hope that we can at least agree on the notion of the informed decision. Christian Graus wrote: You want to take that right away by legislation. This current political climate is unacceptable for legislating away abortion, and I will hold my tongue on this topic.

Credibility also suffers because criminals are viewed as untrustworthy. You hide your daughters from this type of man. Why should one give their trust to him? Perverts are also viewed as being secretive, having something to hide. That inability to be open and frank casts doubt on everything within his character.

Brit wrote: I was kinda bummed when I saw this. Hopefully, it doesn't change perceptions about things that he has said about Iraq. No, it gets worse, much worse. http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2002/09/12.html http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2002/09/19.html

Christian Graus wrote: My core argument, which you're yet to address, is the rights of the mother. What you call your core argument is not your core argument. This is merely an extension of your original judgement that the fetus is not human. From this, you generate all your other statements. If the fetus is not human, then the mother has complete authority to do what she wishes with the fetus. The reason why you are frustrated in speaking with pro-life supporters is because you take it as a general truth that the fetus is not a human life. You speak of every extended issue, but you miss the original question of whether the fetus is human. That original question will resolve all the other questions. Christian Graus wrote: Emcee Lam wrote: Rather than being a method of alleviating the emotional distress of rape, the abortion could very well be an amplification of emotional distress. This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. You have the right to make these airy fairy judgements, on behalf of a girl who you would condemn to spending the rest of her life seeing her attackers features in the child she is forced to raise ? You need to wake up and smell the coffee. No, this is quite plausible what I have said, and it has happened. Not every rape victim believes that the fetus is just a pile of cells. Rape victims who believe the fetus to be a human life will suffer additional distress if the fetus is aborted.

Christian Graus wrote: Emcee Lam wrote: By saying that some people have more a right to live than others implies different classes of people. There goes the emotional argument again. It's not an emotional based argument. It's a rule based argument. One either accepts or rejects the rule. If you accept the rule, then a class of lesser humans is created. If you reject the rule, then you declare that all humans have a right to live. Christian Graus wrote: Emcee Lam wrote: Those that are happy and are capable of contributing to society deserve to live. Those that are burdensome to society deserve to die. ARGH AGAIN !!! I said NOTHING like that. If you want to discuss something with me, please don't put words in my mouth to add strength to your argument. I'm sorry, but adding economics and convenience to this discussion does imply that some people have more of a right to live than others. I understand it's not your intention to designate a lesser human class, but that is what you have done. Human life is human life. Every human life no matter its state is worthy of living. The question centers around whether the fetus is human life or not. Whether an individual grows up in poverty or prosperity does not matter, all humans have a right to live. Christian Graus wrote: Emcee Lam wrote: If the fetus has the same rights as a baby, then abortion is equivalent to infanticide. Could you answer me a couple of questions. 1. At what point does the mother have no rights ? 2. Your logic can easily be extended to my sperm. Should I go to jail for all the whacking off I did as a teenager ? 3. How about women for having periods ? 1. One human can not take the life of another human. If the fetus is human, then the mother is disallowed from taking the life of the fetus. 2,3. The question centers around what is human life. No one believes that sperm and egg by themselves are human life. Because they're not human life, the individual sperm and egg have no rights. Christian Graus wrote: It's just silly. A group of cells that has no shape is not a human being, and while abortion remains personally abhorent, I don't think it's a sitation for legislation. Seeing as you're big on the emotional argument, what's *your* response to my (non-hypothetical BTW) 12 year old who has been raped ? Whether a fetus is human, is not a question for which I have answered. I choose not to pro