OK, let me rephrase to try to make this amiable (since, y'know, I'm not trying to be a dick about this):

-Your point is both strong and established on its own.
-The post you quoted made a comparatively weak point.
-The two points are quite disimilar.

Therefore
-In my opinion, your argument can stand on its own, so I'm curious why you would even try to "piggy back" here?

-RC
--I'll apologize for the shot I took in the other thread, if that helps - I didn't think that was all that bad, but I must have been wrong.

RC, why are you asking about my intentions to contribute to a discussion? second, why do you even care enough to overanalyze? I'm flattered by all this attention you're giving me, but it's really not a big deal. Like this discussion. Now, I must head back and gain my western views via Glenn Beck.


PS: it doesn't help. It's the thought that counts.

Do what you have to do - but don't play 'ivory tower' and expect agreement.

I'm interested because, well, that's the definition of 'discussion,' counselor.

-RC
--Glenn Beck? You're so cute when you call the kettle black

1. there is a difference between discussion and analysis of one's motive behind their posting.

2. The Glenn Beck thing is a joke. Stop taking things so seriously.

H & A
 

Hitler May 21, 1935:

If present-day Germany stands for peace . . . Every war means a drain of the best elements. . . . What could I wish but peace and quiet? If anyone says this is only the wish of leadership, I can reply, "the people themselves have never wished for war."

Ahmadinejad Sept. 19, 2006:

We have the same desire, to be together for the cause of world peace ... I am a normal person. A very average, regular person in Iran. The nation decided that I become the head of the state. The nation and the government are one and single. And together, we share everything. But we too like to rise at a point where we can pursue the cause of world peace.

I get that Iran is on the hit list for the war on "terror". But I don't see how those words (looked at from an objective point of view) is of significance. I believe that Bush said some of the same things before. Should we also compare Bush to Hitler?

Bush compares very well to Hitler:

Hitler: invades neighbors, seeking natural resources; believes in Master Race, wants to stomp out Jews and Gypsies and opponents; lies about seeking peace.

Bush: invades Afgans. and Iraq, not seeking resources or territory, but seeking to enforce UN resolutions; believes in freedom and democracy for all peoples, sponsors elections in Afgans. and Iraq; seeks peace for all.

This, above all, made me laugh. Thank you for making my day. Have a great weekend, ann2.

Trying to figure out what the heck everyone is talking about in this messed up thread?:confused:

When the American economy is down, the old adaged is lets have a war.

To begin with, when Bush Senior had a chance to invade Iraq, He did't. Oh, does anyone remember Desert Storm?

Secondly when Iran took over the American Embasy, we did nothing, because of the Viet Nam Conflict, did not want to look bad.

Actually, how many mistakes have the Intelligence Community made? TONS.

Do not share Intel as may help a fellow Spy group get more money from congress!

So, basically whose fault is it? Hell, it is ours and no one elses is it?:o

I was told one morning on the deck of the Chapter House that North Korea was much more a thought for being stupid than Iraq when it came to Nukes!

This was 6 years ago.

There was no doubt that Saddam was a Despot and a killer of his country people who were not aligned with him and his.

If this now War and Democracy is ever put in place (?) it will be interesting to see how other countrys will go with the Mullah's in charge.

Calling Godwin's Law on "ann.coulter2."

And the thread was only three pages long. :rolleyes:

Congratualtions, that was the most obscure reference ever. :D

(I geninuenly appreciate obscure references)

Godwin's? I didn't think it was that obscure.

For the record, the concept is as follows:Traditionally, whoever makes the Nazi/Hitler reference is considered the "loser" and the argument is over.

Wikipedia on Godwin's law