-Demosthenes-

I think that we all have a different veiw of what the Theory of Creation is. I think that we should set down exactly what we mean when we say, "Theory of Creation" or "Creationalist". It would be helpfull.

Pretty much. I didn't say it was a bad thing, just a funny thing I noticed.

I wasn't implying that there was any.

Gnieus' posts seem to be full of fun little slams that have little to do with the argument.

The media may be a bit more conservative during a war, like right now, it is usually very liberal.

How did this thread get so far so fast? Natural selection is the main part of evolution. Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles, natural selection is means by which alleles are decided to go on to the next generation in the species. I think that evolution just is, it's part of nature, like gravity. Evolution is just genetically fitter organisms living and reproducing, along with the ocasional mutation. Nothing special. What other kind of life is there? When people ask a question about "evolutionists" they don't mean just by the evolutionary theory, the mean "evolutionist" in the same way you mean "creationist", I laugh that you both tag eachother like that and then nit pick about wich theory you're talking about You repeatedly use the same "tactic" that you blaim creationists for using' date=' I laugh at you, I laugh at you all . It's not creationalist that have flaw in their arguments, its unintelligent people irreguardless of which side they argue. It's just that [b']most[/b] unintelligent people are the same people that argue for creationalism in this way.

I doubt it. http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r9102a.htm

Sorry about that, I think that if it is in self defense or the defense of others then it would be ok. Sorry, I didn't think of that.

Not only did Saddam commit the above said atrocities, there was the whole WMD's (Wepons of Mass Destruction) problem. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue1/jv7n1a5.html Talks about Saddam's foolish disregard of UN resolutions regarding WMD's and other wepons. Iraq would not cooperate, and the inspectors were withdrawled. http://www.armscontrol.org/events/iraq_july03.asp Then it goes on to say that wepons were never found, but that's not the point. The point is that Saddam failed to comply with many of the resoluitons, and failed to cooperated with inspecters. What are you supposed to do if he won't let you know if he has wepons or not? You have to go in yourself and look.

Use a paintball gun. They hurt. A lot.

Man used to have to hunt for food, therefore it was useful for man to enjoy hunting.

In defense of someone else, or myself, of course. But not for revenge.

He asked sayo and he doesn't live in the US, sry for the confusion.

Okay, the atrocities commited by Saddam can't be measured in lives lost, because millions were oppressed and withour freedom. (good enough?)

Of course. I am merely working with Budel's logic.

It all comes down to this: Is murder for the right reasons okay? I say not, murder is always wrong.

Maybe Saddam killed 5000 Kurds in that one event, but there are many other events over his years of rule, and any more were killed.

Plus he lives in England!

Why can't you talk directly? Obviously there aren't going to be 0 casualties (like your version of Saddams rule) and obviously things won't go 100% perfect. According to you rule under Saddam was pretty much perfect, well good for you. The rest of us don't like rape, murder, and other atrocites under the absolute rule of a madman. TimeTraveler: I wouldn't call them atrocities. There was no intent to hurt these people, bad things have happened, but not atrocities, we are trying to help.

What atrocities? The things that happened under Saddam don't happen anymore. It was well worth it.

I agree, no one should be able to decide if another person will be killed or not. If someone starts a fight and breaks another person's arm should we break his arm? No its barbaric.

Read my post before you start posting.

Nevertheless, there are many other examples of tyranical activities in Iraq.

He gassed his own people becuase they were Kurds.

Why can't we take a tyrant out of a government? Saddam is a tyranical leader who abused his power. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1 This is about Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, they are Iraq citizens. What was wrong with taking him out of power? http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/#Recent There many other problems of this tryranical government under Saddam. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0703/ http://hrw.org/press/2003/04/iraq040403.htm http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.htm Its not like Iraqis don't want us there. http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?id=1825&l=1