blike

Well, even though I think its retarded that we have to wait for the UN, I think we should in order to do things properly, and not be so hypocritical. I will enlist if I'm drafted.

It should be noted that I ONLY support this war if Iraq is connected to Al-Quaeda, directly or indirectly, or Iraq is somehow a direct threat to our security. IF there is no connection, then I cannot support this war. At this point, I have to take my government's word for it that they are a threat. I lean towards the side that they know way more than we armchair politicians do.

Is it illegal, or are we breaking agreements? If it is illegal, then yes, we are committing illegal acts, and yes, we are terrorists. Indeed, by definition it will. Though this title is being used as a catch-all group to put us on the same level as Al-Quaeda. We do not intentionally target civilians, which would set us apart from known "terrorist" groups. I do not have a problem, morally, with being called a terrorist in this context. If the government were to fund someone to attack my home and my children, and I struck the funder and the attacker, then yes, I am a terrorist, and a very proud terrorist for doing my best to protect my home and my children. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this. Even with the UN's approval of war, this would still legitimise an Iraqi counter-attack. I've never heard of an illegitimate counter-attack. What is ludicrous is the American government allowing a nation that is a threat to national security continue to exist while nations who are not directly threatened sit around and argue over whether we have the right to remove threats. That being said we should wait until a decision is reached, that way we can at least say we did.

do they give the pHs of reactants??

It could probably be a number of things.. Was the meat cooked? How long were the jars left out? Did you have any control jars? If you had one with soda alone, and then one with the stew meat in some water, you could have narrowed down the possibilities. Its likely a mixture of things. The acid probably did break down some of the meat. It probably does contain some blood too. As you mentioned, the soda lost its color. This is probably due to the soda not being fully homogenous. I don't think it was a precipitate caused by a chemical reaction. I'm assuming this is a highschool or lower science project, so you probably weren't thinking much about control groups, but they really help narrow down possibilities for results. what color was the sludge? What was its consistency?

play nice

heres another example: the sentence below is false the sentence above is true

I'm trying to find examples of statements that are neither true or false. The criteria for the statement is that it must state something about the nature of an idea or physical object, and it cannot be something subjective (i.e. feeling, emotion, etc). Can you guys think of any?

This is what I see all over the place. On an international level, sometimes I wonder who is really against war, and who is on the bandwagon against america. 45% of britons against war without UN mandate edit: could be dated

Haha, he seems pretty knowledgable, why not?

lol rahul_rudani gardengnome, hendrix fan?

Yes. The issue I am making is that if we are prohibited from taking action we feel is necessary to ensure national security, the law be damned. Definatly. Muslims are not ones to enter religious wars with

Images of the slopes around Olympus Mons, Mars' largest volcano, appear to show water flowing down them. A researcher named Tahirih Motazedian speculates that geothermal activity melts the subsurface ice. The water then dissolves some of the surrounding minerals to form a brine with a depressed freezing point. BBC has a full writeup here.

Pointing out that its not a lame accusation, but a valid threat to national security. If the UN isn't going to sanction it, the US should not have to keep sitting on its hands while Saddam is funding or supplying chemical or biological agents to terrorist projects against us. This is, of course, assuming this was going on. In this case, the only people the American government is responsible to are the American people. If the US government does nothing because of international formalities while Saddam continues to be a threat to our country, directly or indirectly, it will have failed the sole purpose of its existence.

Its not like Saddam wouldn't know where the funds were going if he was somehow monitarily involved. "Gee, wonder what they'll do with that money". The ONLY reason he would give funds is because we are their sworn enemy, and they are probably planning something on our soil. Kinda like hiring a hitman, which most civilized countries would claim is a crime. Wasn't really part of my argument, just an observation. In the US its hard to sort out what is anti-americanism and what is anti-war. In other words, its hard to sort out who is really against war, or who is just against america, and hence, against war because its trendy and America is leading it. Pointing out the lack of million-man worldwide protests against Saddam's oppression was an attempt to sort out those who are really protesting for humanitarian reasons, and those who want to be trendy. If all these people were really concerned for the Iraqi people, wouldn't they be organizing world protests against Saddam's regime? This is something I have not seen. Perhaps it has happened in the past around the time of the gulf war, but my only memories from that time are of a 3rd grade classroom. I disagree. Just like North Korea, close our eyes and they will disappear!

if Al Quaeda did have some connection with Saddam, would this be enough to call it "defending ourselves"? (not making any claims, just asking). What about this war on a humanitarian level? Where are the protests against Saddam's genocide? What about his plans to kill Iraqis and blame it on the US if there is an invasion? How can you not want to remove this guy from power? You may not agree with the means, but does anyone agree that he needs to be removed?

So then, why are we going to war?

It would be quite bloody.

Quite true in a sense, and a very good argument, but the provision of proof is merely a formality. Even if Iraq provided proof, I'm still sure we'd be marching into war. The reasons that are being given regard national security, not necessarily breach of rules (see above). Our president feels national security comes before the United Nations, and that we don't need to ask to protect ourselves from potential threats. I think we should be looking more towards a North Korean smackdown right now. They at least have long range missle capabilities (or soon), functional reactors, and are threatening us.

..and theres always more where they came from

Perhaps currently stabilizing selection is putting limits on diversity, but environmental factors around early ancestors of whales were obviously favoring diversifying selection. In such a scenario, what is to prevent whales from developing some sort of gills, especially when such diversity is being encouraged environmentally?

Tried that, no success.

Yes, I would say that the US was wrong about the WMD. However, I still might agree that Saddam should be removed, maybe not through war though. Yes, it probably would, assuming Saddam had no WMD as well. I'm not sure if I would vote him out, I still tend to agree with some of the things he stands by, but it would change my opinion of him.

use PMs guys

could we refrane from using racial expletives in the titles next time please ?