John Prezioso

Thanks for the chuckle, Matchoo!

quote:I have got to get rid of this NY accent!! Hey there, Echo! Can't say that I've met you before - but congrats!

quote:So you say possesing the power to do something gives you the right to do it by default.Ok than if we expand on this logic and we can say the terrorists were right to attack you because they had the power to do it,right? Wolfheart, that is quite a poor analogy. How in heaven's name does Israel rightfully possessing the land of those who attacked her unprovoked compare AT ALL to terrorism? Did Israel intend to take those lands before she was attacked? No. Did Israel have the right to defend herself against a much larger agressor to whom she had done nothing? Yes. If in said defense, Israel decides to keep some of the land it siezed for reasons of security, national defense, or reparation, then so be it. Sorry there Muslim nations; maybe you should have thought twice before combining your collective might and hurling at Israel.

How about Tony Blair? Prince Charles? William?

The only distinction is that Israel was not the agressor; Germany was. Thus Israel's cause imo was righteous, Germany's obviously wasn't.

quote:Here's a stupid analogy. ( This is a game forum ) Think of starting a war as making a Saving Throw Versus Political/Legal Suicide. If you make the saving throw you get what you want from your victims. If you miss your saving throw then your whole cause collapses like a house of cards from a legal standpoint, and you lose any proclaimed "rights". That's pretty good! Regardless of any legal claims, which admittedly seem to be a little fuzzy to me, I am of the opinion that any land lost due to Islamic agression through Israel totally and righteously kicking their butts is now Israel's by right.

Also, for the slightly more religiously inclined, this web page has some interesting facts.

This is an older article but it actually falls into the approximate time frame that the one Nomad posted - and it's alot shorter! Disregard the part about Arafat currently ruling, of course. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either, just wanted to ensure both sides of the issue are represented. http://www.zoa.org/pressrel/20020510b.htm

Didn't anyone ever tell you the rule about assumptions? I could care less if he worked for the Soviet Politburo. If he is right, he is right. I hardly believe everything he says, but when what he tells me is what I already believe, I nod my head. What I like the most about Rush is that beyond being just a spin doctor, he is an OPTIMIST. There are too many pessimistic, cynical people (like you, no offense) telling me the world has gone to hell in a handbasket and all I can do is accept the fact that everything sucks. There are so many things you and I agree on, its amazing that you choose ONLY to harp on one of our differences of opinion. I get the feeling you thrive on conflict.

http://www.namco.com/games/stargate/ Picked up by Namco. Got my fingers crossed. Good on ya, Perceptions!

Thought this was a relevant (and not unexpected) development. http://www.nysun.com/article/18798 Excerpt: America's newly installed ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, labeled "inappropriate and unacceptable" the United Nations Development Program financing of materials bearing the slogan "Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem."

Kalshion- Do you realize what you're doing? Your asking advice about women from geeks who spend their time playing videogames and posting on forums! But seriously, I think you should stop sweating it and relax. Just be yourself.

Assuming that I only formed my opinion from reading the weekly standard is just that; an assumption, and quite a misinfromed on your part, at that. quote:Everyone forms their opinions based on a variety of things, some of which are what others 'say' or 'write' which is why you formulate your opinion on Iraq based on the "Weekly Standard" which I of course pointed out is a Rush Limbaugh publication. What others say or write is often only ancillary to one's own experiences, which are much more potent catalysts in formulating one's opinion. I agree with Rush, or more to the truth, HE agrees with ME.

Hmmm.... maybe I should be more clear when I'm being sarcastic. Oh well, I guess I'll keep my day job since comedy is not my forte!

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7846 Can a virtual Alan Greenspan be far behind?

And why do keep calling Jag a scarecrow? Strawman n.: an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds [syn: scarecrow, straw man, bird-scarer, scarer]

Silk, I would find it insulting that you think I needed someone else to form my opinions if I didn't find ALL of this somewhat amusing. It's amazing - if someone doesn't see it your way, then "Oh my, he is Brainwashed! He's a DITTO-HEAD!" I'm done arguing this point, as you find it a bit too easy to twist my point in an unfortunate effort to prove me irrational. Instead of asking me how I feel about Bush dealing with the Saudis, you twist what I say until there can be no question I am in support of the Saudis. Why not accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer next? Oh, and I drown puppies and torture small animals, too.

Rush has not been very "Ra-Ra Republican" lately, at least not to the extent he used to be. He often gets on them for being wimps and not standing up to Kennedy and Pelosi. And Savage is anything BUT "ra-ra" when it comes to either political parties. He gives Bush credit where credit is due, but no more. He is as critical of Bush as anyone, when he is wrong. I tend to think he focuses a little too much on the doom and gloom, but he is nothing if not entertaining. The point is, if Jag listens to these guys, he's not just getting fed the "Republican line" as it were.

I must confess, I have become less and less sympathetic to the Palenstinian cause, whatever claim they could possibly make to the land, with each terrorist attack over the last 5 years. I understand that most Palestinians resist without terror but they know enough about Hamas et al, their locations and intentions, to bring them down, if they wished it. In short, they are okay with innocent Isaraelis being blown to bits because it is supposedly done in the name of a cause they agree with. This is reprehensible. When they get serious about stopping the murder of innocents, I will consider arguments for their rights to the land. Also, good posts, Remo. Informative.

quote:Giving away Israeli land which is rightfully theirs to the Palestinians is not the answers IMO. Gaza never did belong to the Palestinians they may have squaded on it claiming it as their own for the last 2000 years, but that land belongs to Israel. The only true solution would have been to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza back to Jordan where they orignated from about 2000 years ago. The people that lived in that land prior to the birth of Israel some where around 4000 years ago were not the Palestinians. Agreed. quote:The only thing that will stop the Terrorists is the complete distruction of Isreal, nothing else. Something that will bear out as Israel gives in more and more to the Palestinians while the terrorism continues unabated.

quote:I'm sorry that you have such a low standard of having decisions made in which thousands of men women and children will die. And although Iran and Saudi Arabia have extensive terror connections, that Iraq's cannot match up to 1/10 of - you'll defend Bush's decision to kiss and hold hands with the Saudis. Disgusting. That's me - the ever unscrupulous, disgusting fellow.

quote: The only thing proven 'fact' that is 'supporting terrorism' is the $25k payments to Suicide bombers families against Israel. Zarqawi's presence in Iraq prior to the war is fact, as is the harboring and aiding the other terrorists. The WTC bombing ties to Iraq are not conjecture. The Salman Pak terrorist camp is fact and has been extensively reported on by MANY news sources. 2 Iraqi defectors have detailed exactly what kind of training was performed at this Hijackers Training Camp. Whether you consider these as enough evidence to support an invasion is what I really believe to be the issue here. I do, you obviously do not. quote:The only thing proven 'fact' that is 'supporting terrorism' is the $25k payments to Suicide bombers families against Israel. I've been mentioning those since last week. Indeed you have. I hereby amend my previous statement to accurately reflect this. As it appears that on the afforementioned difference of opinion there will be no change of stance on either side, I will now bow out of this discussion for today.

This makes me so mad, I don't think I can discuss it without using profanity, so I'll leave it to others. GRRRRR!!!!

quote: BUT: Prez says it's worth it because we: A.) Stopped 3 terrorist camps (maybe) B.) Caught 3 terrorists C.) Captured Saddam Hold, on there, friend. Whether or not it was "worth it" was not the issue. I have you quoting NUMEROUS times that NO ties to terrorism existed pertaining to Iraq. NONE. In this, I feel I have proven you wrong. THAT was what I was arguing. And in case you missed it, PREZ was not the only one with the opinion it was worth it. You have the right to opine that Iraq was an unjust war, but do it on truth. quote: FACT: Iraq had never attacked the United States FACT: At least 30,000 Iraqis have died in the 2 years since the U.S. invasion FACT: On average, 50 - 60 deadly attacks are carried out every day on Iraqi civilians FACT: Women in southern Iraq are forced to wear the hijab or risk being beaten or stoned to death. FACT: The Kurds in Northern Iraq (our allies) had the poorest women's rights record in Iraq prior to our invasion according to Human Rights Watch. FACT: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the U.S. government shall make war to enforce our view on others. Several of the founding fathers can be quoted as saying that we shouldn't. FACT: 50+ U.S. soldiers die each month. FACT: The War in Iraq is going to cost half a trillion dollars (at least) to conclude. FACT: There were no WMD's in Iraq on the scale that Bush said. On these facts, I can agree. I say this not because they are of any import to my opinion, but to show that, unlike you, I am capable of conceding a point to someone I disagree with. There is no mandate that you HAVE to oppose EVERY SINGLE THING that someone who disagrees with you says. They do nothing to prove the injustice of the war, imo. Your continually using the numbers of civilians killed BY TERRORISTS to attack our position that Iraq is at the center of the war on terror is dubious at best, and downright sad at worst. Your implication that Zarqawi had to pass through Iran is just silly - IRAQ is where he decided to roost, 8 months BEFORE THE INVASION. I wonder why? I am tired of being told of how irreputable and untouchable your sources are. Who made you the final arbiter on what source is valid and what isn't, I wonder? You are sourcing by convenience (something we all admittedly do to some degree).

Even more ironic, is that Silk has no qualms about the enormous leaps in logic he has made in his PNAC theory... Or his logic used when posting pictures of Bush being respectful to a world leader, thus unequivocally proving he is a terrorist-lover, I'm sure. Of course, if instead of maintaining relations, Bush decided to invade Saudi Arabia for its terrorist ties, I guess we'd hear more wailing about illegal invasions and such. Oh, the paradox...