"attacking" Some of us have family members over there and I find it quite insulting that you are making the charge that they "attacked" the Iraqi people. Then again, it doesnt surprise me coming from you. You are chalk full of anti America wording so it goes without saying... The rest of the world? You mean all the countries that supported us until the terrorists attacked them on thier own land so they tucked tails and ran? Or do you mean the UN which created the documents that made the war a legal war? I guess you could be speaking of Britain, which is one of our biggest allies. Oh wait, that doesnt work then. To sum it up, you are just protecting your terror buddies by painting the good guys as the bad guys and the bad guys as the good. This can be explained in my post about liberal terms. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=32562 I really love that thread.
Most of the world would be a majority, I am looking back through all previous posts and am not finding an article or link posted by you. Maybe I'm simply missing it but I'm not finding it or at least one that states a majority of the world anywhere.
I think it will be more appropriate to offer the tissue to thousands of Iraqis people that have lost their mother, father, brother, sister, children and other member of their families. You can also offer that to many thousands more that to live the rest of their life with imputed hands and Leg and will never have a chance for a normal and healthy life. But may be it is too much to ask you to have sympathy for other people's pain and suffering.
hrbl, I'm not going to do your work for you. A majority would be more than 50%, but I didn't use that term. I've only posted a few links in this thread. You'll know it when you see it. Look for one third and two thirds.
zarqawi has been hard at work, hasn't he? Are these the same mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children you want terrorists to have their way with, because you want the US to pull out? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090500313_pf.html Witnesses in Qaim said Zarqawi's fighters were killing officials and civilians whom they consider to be allied with the Iraqi and U.S. governments or anti-Islamic. On Sunday, the bullet-riddled body of a young woman dressed in her nightclothes lay in a street of Qaim. A sign left on her corpse declared, "A prostitute who was punished." Zarqawi's fighters have shot and killed nine men in public executions in the city center since the start of the weekend, accusing the men of being collaborators with U.S. forces, said Sheik Nawaf Mahallawi, a leader of the Albu Mahal, a Sunni Arab tribe that had clashed earlier with the foreign fighters. Dozens of families were fleeing Qaim every day, Mahallawi said. How about those left without a head? Or those thrown off third story buildings, or those forced to have their tongues cut out, or place their hands on boards to have them chopped off? How about those in mass graves? ...says the man (termed use very losely) who wants the US to pull out so terrorists can take over Iraq and do what was noted above.
So predictable. You really have a hard time with questions don't you? Lets try that again... Gworld, please respond with a YES, or a NO. Have you been to Iraq?
Most would be a majority would it not? most (mÅst) adj. Superlative of many., much. Greatest in number: won the most votes. Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: has the most compassion. In the greatest number of instances: Most fish have fins. n. The greatest amount or degree: She has the most to gain. Slang. The greatest, best, or most exciting. Used with the: That party was the most! pron. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The greatest part or number: Most of the town was destroyed. Most of the books were missing. adv. Superlative of much. In or to the highest degree or extent. Used with many adjectives and adverbs to form the superlative degree: most honest; most impatiently. Very: a most impressive piece of writing. Informal. Almost: Most everyone agrees. I have looked and looked, read your posts, your links and do not see anything about most of the world, majority of the world or anything of the sort. Not asking you to do my work, but point to it. You demanded it of me in the past within this very thread, yet now you're to good to do the same. --edit I'm not even disputing this, just trying to find out where this information is or how you came up with it.
It must have been Iraq's people themselves. Some of them just killed themselves, others amputated their own hand and leg and some succeed to steal American laser guided missiles that they exploded in their own home, killing their whole family and the neighbors. They did all this just to tarnish American's image while American airplanes where bombing them with candy and flowers.
I suppose *someone* might argue it's not absolute fact. The difference, of course, being that you never produce. It's always "i read somewhere" and yes, I did call you on it, and you never produced. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=361835&postcount=118 Meaning, of course (except for the most skilled in nuance) that less than 2/3rds did support putting Iran before the security council. Or, that more than 1/3rd supports Iran, but not the majority. Care to go back and show where the US said Iran deserved nuclear power in the 70s?
He wouldn't even clarify if he supports Iran's nuclear program, let alone their making nuclear weapons. I can't image why though
No I don't have a hard time with question but the question is very stupid. If you must know, I have visited Iraq long time ago in the mid-1970's as I have visited Iran, turkey, Israel, Egypt and many other countries in that region. I still regularly travel to Europe, South America, South East Asia and many other countries. Since I have answered your question, you can answer mine: Have you ever been outside of USA with possible exception of charter trip to Mexico?
On the board is not the world, nice try though. I've actually responded to this multiple times of which you finally stopped asking the last time I pointed to a link of which you never disputed? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=360170&postcount=92 My original post with just some of the article, it is a long read. I then linked back to it at least 2 times, both times you however must have forgot to follow the link as you never disputed it? I even state in my post it might not be factual but I've read many other articles stating the same info, but again you never disputed it? The article might be total bs, you however never disputed it or from what I've read of your posts but you continue to state I didn't post where I got it from which is incorrect as I did multiple times to this one article, I could find others I've read I'm sure but that again would be posted and would you read it or continue to demand for it after I post it again? I have actually posted links to many of the key points where I disputed early on in this thread, I believe much more than you have, but again go on believing what you wish as it's obvious you know it all.
Sure I'll answer. I have stamps in my passport from the following. Thailand Australia Greece Turkey (outskirt beaches) Italy France Germany (just bought plane tickets to Germany for Oktoberfest 2006 and cant wait to go back) Belgium UK (8 times) Holland (pot wasnt as good as I thought it would be) Spain Brazil (met a girl and brought her back to the states for 7 weeks, she was a teacher in Fortaleza and she was HOT!) Korea (Kimpo International lost my backpack) and I lived in New Zealand for 13 months (Papakura and Takanini to be exact) I also own and operate 7 student travel websites I flew to London on my 18th birthday so that I could drink legally and ended up circling the globe for 5 years off and on. Since then I try to leave the country at least twice a year. Anymore questions? This is fun.
Some articles about the US being involved at least to the extent of pressuring the IAEA and EU into their decisions and how to go about them, not to mention I have watched many news programs on the subject which of course are impossible to post on here, not to mention I no longer have them. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/18/iran.nuclear/ http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-5-2005_pg4_9 http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/blink_iran.htm http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/20503 http://www.dawn.com/2004/11/19/int5.htm http://www.rense.com/general67/usindia.htm These are but a few links that show at least some part on behalf of the US pressuring countries into siding with us which is fine and dandy and great to get our position acrossed, it however goes directly to your previous points 'unless I misunderstood?' that the IAEA and the EU were the primary forces and the US is only backing? There are many articles and I've watched many programs, interviews etc showing the US putting pressure for others to act. Again maybe I read your posts wrong, if I did I'm willing to admit it instead of going into a pissing war trying to be right on the matter.
When it comes to dealing with nuclear threats, it is the world. I don't recall seeing you refer to it any time when I brought it up. The post you refer to was made before I joined the discussion. And rightfully so, you posted it before I joined the discussion. Not after you continued to suggest such and which I asked to verify. You may very well have though. As we continue to see, posts are not always integrated to the thread immediately. Thanks, I appreciate the lattitude you've given me.