Aileron

*climbs out of the rubble* !@#$%^&* Econ-o-Save...you just made my list!! *scrawls Econ-o-Save on a notepad* *suddenly relises that the vehicle's name is "SCV", not "MCV" From out of nowhere, an angry mob of starcraft fanatics attack *runs* The mob of starcraft fanatics run out of breath after about 50 ft, collaspe and lose conciousness. *Takes out mind control device* *Uses mind control device to control the mob of starcraft fanatics* *Modifys a version of Starcraft to actually run a real base* *Gets mob of starcraft fanatics to build their starcraft army* *sends 100 scourges after Paine's black mecha* *

*revives Raem prematurely* *blows Raem's brains out again* (wonders how I suddenly ended up in Raem's secret moon fortress)...meh *fires the death ray at Paine* *death ray malfunctions and instead starts fortress self destruct* 10 9 8 *shoots the speaker for the countdown timer* *gets in mecha and escapes as facility is destroyed in catastrophic explosion* *suddenly relises that the mecha is only a MCV (Starcraft)* *quickly paint's Paine's mech pink* *runs* *abandon's MCV* *moves to secret fortress on Mars* *activates security system*

Monte, I'm holding the people who actually did the bombings responsable...not the people who occupy a similar seat 70 years later. If you quoted the people from Japan who were actually participated in the massacre, I wouldn't pay attention to what they had to say either. I'm holding Goering, not the modern German military, responsable for the bombing of London. My logic is simple and irrefutable...hold people accountable for their actions and their decisions. I don't hold the modern Japanese or German governments responsable because it wasn't their actions, but the actions of their predecessors. Anglo? Nope....I'm caucasian, but not anglican. I only have 1 of the 4 letters of WASP. I am insulted by the inference of racism too...judging by actions is the opposite of racism - racism ignores actions and judges by genetics. Not judging by actions seems "nice", but such judgement is really half-racist, for one who holds such opinion is ignoring the person's actions. The difference between Nazis and Jews is social conditioning? I will admit that there is a lot of social conditioning on the subject, but there is also a lot of substance. The Jews weren't putting the Nazis in gas chambers. The Jews didn't attempt to take over the world by force. Most importantly the Nazis were not a race, they were a political party. Those who did not want to participate in the Holocaust did not have to...it was their choice, and while there were consequences of not being a Nazi, it was still a decision. Again this comes back to actions. The Jews were merely born Jewish an by and large did nothing to anybody. The Nazis became nazis by action, they signed up, and each contributed to the vast machine of genocide that was the Holocaust. By the way, other than the fact that Nazi's committed genocide and started a huge and costly war, I really have no problem with them...I mean, there are disagreements other than that, but not enough to blacklist them. How about I sidestep this whole thing and analise Goering's quote for just a moment? Now, if his quote applies to communism and democracies as he said, then certainly during WWII the same thing would have happened. France and England entered WWII when Germany invaded Poland, a final step in a PATTERN of invading neighboring countries. The Soviet Union started by invading Poland with Germany, but didn't REALLY enter teh war until Germany attempted to invade them. The United States entered WWII with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt didn't persuade their people and convince them of an imaginary threat...the threat was real and shooting at them. Stalin didn't convince the Russians that Germany was a threat...German bullets convinced the Russians that Germany was a threat. Roosevelt didn't convince the American people that Japan was a threat, Japanese bombs convinced the Americans that Japan was a threat. Goering's quote wasn't universal even for the time he lived in...it only was an accurate description of what Hitler did to start Germany's involvement in the war. It describes how facism works, but did not offer any correct insight into democracy or communism. The reason the quote is inaccurate is because of Goering's nature, an nature that be know by Goering's personal actions. Goering's nature of putting himself first will assume that his struggles and experiences are the most important. To him, if he experienced something, everybody experienced it, because to him the world revolves around Goering. Thus, if that's how his government worked, that's how all governments work.

Erm...just make 7 coins...every ship except the Javelin.

Nanjing is an excuse and nothing more...the modern Japanese government is no more responsable for it than the current German government is for the holocaust, and no one proteseted Germany's recent seat on the council. They are different people 70 years later who just happen to govern the same spec of land. If it was the same government, maybe, but its a completely different government. You can't hold the democratic government of Japan responsable for the past actions of the previous imperialist government of Japan, especially not after 70 years...the only thing the two governments have in common is that they both rule an island named "Japan". Its anti-social college students who want to topple a Nissan, nothing more. The Chinese government can't be honestly behind them. The last time, they ran over one of these anti-social college students with a tank. Maybe they are using this opportunity to gauge world opinion, seeing who will side with China and who with side with Japan, or maybe they are siding with the anti-social college students to make up for the last time. They are being sneaky here, though in a very smart and intelligent way. Siding with their people, even if their people are wrong, is a pretty good role government should play...so, even though the rioters were wrong, the Chinese government isn't going to suffer any internal political problems from supporting them. Thus, all I can say about the Chinese backing of the students is that they are being smart and clever.

He's mostly ugly from age though. That's what I love about the Catholic Church though...only they can judge a person by substance rather than appearance enough to elect a man THAT ugly to run the organization.

You just changed your definition of the herd instict! At first, you define it as a synanym to the term "groupthink", and now you changed it to virtually any adaptation to an evironment with atleast one other person in it. As for the first part...are you sure you have other proof of his statement and that he isn't telling you what you want to hear? However, the better approach to your statement is that if you had independant proof of his statement, you would rely on that proof instead of the word of s!@#$%^&*, and quoting the s!@#$%^&* would be unessesary and probably a negative in your arguement. You would pity the nazi in your example because he is pathetic and annoying and really of little harm to anybody. Supposing said nazi took your family to the gas chambers and murdered them, I'm pretty sure you would do more than pity him. Granted I have been fortunate to have suffered no such loss, but I do feel something even when a stranger suffers. Imagine crowds of London's populace hiding in the subway tunnels during the Battle of Britain...night after night of bombardment of civilian targets. Millions dead. All because some pig was egotistical enough to feel that he deserved a reich to worship him, and if people suffered and died for it that was too bad. Goering oversaw those bombings and was a weak lapdog of that pig. Goering should have been crammed into the gas chambers his cohorts were using and buried beneath a sidewalk, so that everyone can walk all over his cold corpse. He certainly does NOT deserve to be ressurected in the form of a quote next to Goering's best picture with a beutiful countryside in the background. Besides, I said "I hate evil", not "I hate nazis"...there's a difference. About judging nazis by their actions...yes, said interpretation would be imprecise, but only because you made an imprecise interpretation of their actions. You have to study ALL of their actions on a person by person basis to get a perfectly precise estimate. If you only use the fact that they murdered jews, you do indeed come to a pretty crude !@#$%^&*essment. You came to a sloppy conclusion because you took a sloppy !@#$%^&*essment of their actions. Don't blame the method...it works...you just didn't use it right. For a proper example of how to judge someone by actions: Goering wasn't exactly the greatest military mind the world has ever seen. He showed repeated failures throughout the war...the greatest of which was allowing the British forces to evacuate after France's surrender. Frankly, Hitler kept him around because he was a bit of a brown-noser. Now, you can judge the fact that he fought for people who were commiting genocide and come to a crude conclusion. However, if you enter in Goering's brown nosing, you come to the conclusion that he put priority to his career over the lives of civilians. This is still a pretty crude !@#$%^&*essment, but you can understand his nature a lot better than the last one. Goering's career was his number one priority. It didn't matter to him if the jews were being gased. It didn't matter to him that civilians in London were having bombs dropped on their heads...all that mattered to him was that at the end of the day he was Reich-Marshall. He didn't regret the war, or dislike Hitler for starting it, or atleast not enough to risk his precious position over it. He didn't do it for Germany like some of the other axis commanders did either, otherwise he wouldn't have weaseled himself into a job he wasn't capable of doing. Goering just supported his career above all else. Now, I could make an even better conclusion if I studied his biography, but I don't have time. The point is that if you learn of his actions, you understand the man, and if you understand the man, you can tell whether you should bother with his quote or should fish out for a better one.

Well, sorry...I'm not familiar with this "herd instinct", by virtue of the fact that I personally don't have one (if I did I would have stopped argueing here long ago). Maybe I'm just an anti-social rogue, in which case my sense of morality would disprove Neitzches' statement. The point about it being difficult to tell the difference between a quote from s!@#$%^&* and a quote from someone worthwhile is infact essential to my reasoning. Its very difficult to tell the truth from a lie. Put it this way: Suppose you were traveling by foot to a certain town, when suddenly you come to a fork in the road. The roadside has rotten away and you have no map, so you have no way of telling which way is the right way. Suddenly, a hooded figure with a gun leaps out of the bushes and points the gun at your face...demanding your money. He robs you of 50 dollars, but before he walks away you ask which way is the town. He says its to the left. A few minutes later, another man comes by. Upon hearing your story, he decides to give you 50 dollars out of his pocket, by the reasoning that you need it more than he does. Before you part ways, you ask him which way the town is, and he says its to the right. Based on that information, would you flip a coin, or would you give extra credibility to the man who helped you and go right? Everyone has an agenda. The robber has agenda of putting himself before others. To that end, he gives you directions to where HE wants you to go. The saint on the other hand has only an agenda of serving others, and has no interest in giving you false directions. Now sometimes the person giving you money may have a more complicated selfish agenda, but even so, we KNOW the robber has a selfish agenda, so its safer to stick with the possibility than the certainty. Note how that if you only knew the words and not the person who gave them to you, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If all you knew was that one man said 'left' and another said 'right', you would have no idea where to go. I don't know why Ducky pointed that out...because it proves my point. Ofcourse you can't tell the difference! Words don't have a convenient label of "true" or "false" on them, you have to judge the character of the person giving them to tell the difference. If they did (and sometimes they do), then a character judgement is unnecessary. About Ducky's hypothetical situation, spreading racial profanities is in itself an action. By the definition of good that I am using, the wrong action of insulting by race removes the person from the definition. Now, clearly what he means to say is that a person of good actions isn't ALWAYS right, and a person of evil actions isn't ALWAYS wrong...but just because there is some amount of water in the Sahara doesn't make it wise to try to move there to build a cantalope farm. As for understanding nazis...you can get plenty of understanding by their actions, which are a much clearer window to a person's nature than whatever they may say. There is a VERY good reason why I am bothering to argue here. Its good to be tolerant of others, but tolerance ironically requires a certain amount of intollerance as well. To go back to the civil rights issue, it wasn't really solved until the government became intolerant of racial predudices. World War II would not have happened if the League of Nations was intolerant of aggressive nations. And most importantly, Europe didn't become tolerant of Jews until they became intolerant of Nazis. Tollerating everything is apathy. Apathy is not only a sin but one of the things that destroy democracies. If you wish to be right (and promote civilization in general), you have to unfortunatly judge right from wrong, and if you make the wrong decision it does do a lot of damage. Judging somebody by their actions is a practically no-fail approach. To sum up why I am arguing, if you haven't noticed by now, I hate evil. I can't stand it, and the world would be paradise without it. I do indeed fear making wrong judgements and becoming what I hate, but I can't just sit on the sidelines and watch as it infects our world. Apathy is an evil...and if what I do here diminishes its influence, then the world will be that much of a better place.

That last idea is a good one...except Europe generally isn't stupid enough to get on board with it. the .99pp coin won't help...the stores will switch their prices to increments of .98 to be !@#$%^&*es. That one cent of change is the reason why the stores marked them down to .99 in the first place. Granted, back then they were trying to prevent clerks from pocketing the money, and the reason they do it today is that they are arrogant enough to think no one else knows that 1.99 + .01 = 2.00. Still, it shows that they care about practical issues, which really looks well upon them...I hope they get a few seats. It does seem like you are correct about the two major parties here...but I don't know enough about the s!@#$%^&*uation to really agree with you. Yes, I am a foreigner. Yes, this election means precisely dildo to me...but, when the US was having our elections, you annoyed us, so its fitting I return the "favor".

Drat, no you stupid machine! *watches as mecha auto-destructs on a third parties' robot* Do'h! *gets a HAL 9000 program* *sneaks up on Paine's robot and uploads it via zip drive that was conviently placed on the robot's ankle for some strange reason* *robot stops dancing and every machine inside goes hostile to Paine* HAL 9000> I am your friend Paine. Push that red button there. *pokes Manus in both eyes with classic index/middle finger attack*

What part of m!@#$%^&* genocide is a "preconcieved notion" Sever? I DO have a right to judge this guy, because as of yet, I have not killed any innocent people! I'm not basing my judgements on notions of who is right and wrong, I am basing them on the Goering's ACTIONS. GOERING KILLED PEOPLE!!!! LOTS of people. He organized the bombing of London, and contributed to the deaths of 6 million jews and I don't know how many soldiers, both Allied and Axis. He wasn't some punk kid !@#$%^&*uming the !@#$%^&*le "nazi" to be intimidating...he got the !@#$%^&*le by the blood of millions. The !@#$%^&*le does usually mean something - people are not elected pope by murdering jews. However, I am not judging Goering by his !@#$%^&*le, I don't have to. I am judging him by what he did. If Goering was a pope I'd still hate him, the only difference is I'd wonder which group of idiots made him pope in the first place. The only preconcieved notion I am using is "murder is wrong". Everything beyond that is based on Goering's actions. That's why I'd rather the quote be from the late pope John Paul II...he HELPED people. He SAVED lives where Goering killed people, he brought peace where Goering brought war, he advanced humanity and civilization where Goering was one of those who attempted to destroy it. John Paul II opposed the War in Iraq too, so I'm not asking you to sacrifice anything politically - I'm just asking that you look at a person's actions before you look at what they may speak, because putting some words together that sound like a correct statement is easy...but it takes a true person to speak the true truth, and you can only judge a person by his or her actions. Words do indeed speak louder than preconcieved notions, but actions speak even louder than words. I don't judge this man by his political choices...I judge this man by his actions. Nietzsche was wrong with the first quote...human beings don't even HAVE a herd instinct, because we are a predatory species. We have no more of a herd instinct that a pack of wolves or a pride of lions...they do form groups, but mostly to promote higher yields out of hunting. We may have a pack hunting instinct, indeed after seeing 17th pub, I'd say we absolutely have one...but no herd instinct. And his second quote requires the first one. PS: Don't try to compaire Goering with Bush either, Bush waged war to stop genocide and to stop a regime that itself was trying to set civilization back a few steps. Bush's actions did indeed lead to some deaths, but his actions also saved lives too...its hard to pin a "good" or "evil" label on him...which is probably why 3 years later we are still debating. Ducky, I've already replied to your last quote...if you would read more out of it than "blah blah", you'd be smart enough to see that, but you aren't...that's your loss, not mine.

Well, they started sailing from Korea...the Mongols were in charge of virtually all of Asia at the time.

I know nothing of this matter and haven't been following the UK's elections at all, but... It sounds like you guys are being overly pessimistic. You only pay attention to your major parties' weaknesses and are ignoring their strengths. If they were really that bad, I'm sure somebody would have organized some effort to get everyone to vote Lib Dem by now. But that's the brilliance of having multiple political parties...if two or more are controlling the government, the weaknesses of one will be covered by the other. Its kinda like the difference between Superman and the X-men. If there's multiple superheros, then each individual doesn't have to all be strong, fast, or be able to fly, etc...they just need one of them to have a talent in that area that can cover the situation for everybody. The fact that these political parties have weaknesses doesn't matter as long as one doesn't dominate too much, because people are smart...they WILL follow the best suggestion taken at any given moment, believe it or not, and this even applies to members of Parliament. (Though they may take longer to figure the correct decision out than the average group of people.) So, focus on the strength of the political parties' platform and vote on that.

I'm somewhat concerned about his age as well...the Catholic Church appoints leaders for life, not 4 year terms. I guess their reasoning is that they want a few years to decide who the next pope after this one will be. Or maybe they felt this man deserved the position, and wanted to give it to him before he died. Still, their decisions were based on profound reasoning. In another topic I suggested that they elect one of the africans...I realise now that was a mistake, because then you are judging the man by the continent he has come from, which positive or negative, is little more than racism. Basically, we are discussing the surface of this guy, but the cardinals were judging candidates by knowing them on a personal level, and knowing what they each have done. We all know that there is really nothing we are qualified to discuss on this matter, even though its so important.

Japan's aggressive history? The chinease are just mad because when the Mongols tried to invade Japan, they had a little sailing accident. One has to wonder which is stronger - the divine wind protecting Japan or the divine wind protecting Britain - or do they both come from the same place? The "aggresive history" arguement, is, was, and always will be a crock of crap...every nation on Earth was "aggressive" at one time or another...and old nations like China have a lot of said history to work with. I've heard about the riots...I don't quite know if Japan is going for one of the regular seats or is trying to change the UN cons!@#$%^&*ution to get a permanent seat. If Japan is going for a regular seat...that's certainly no cause for rioting, especially from the Chinease, who have a permanent seat. I'm !@#$%^&*uming Japan is after a permanent seat then...correct me if I'm wrong here. I mean, what does China care if Japan gets a seat on the security council? Its not like there's a chance China is going to lose their seat...odds are its gonna be France, and at the moment it looks like Russia and maybe even the UK are less influencial than China...and I think that all three of them are in the "!@#$%^&* no, keep them on the council" catagory. The real question is whether France's seat should be given to Germany or Japan. On one hand Japan is slightly more influencial, on the other, Germany is politically similar to France, mitigating the change. Really though, if we are going to change the UN cons!@#$%^&*ution we might as well add another permanent seat. Maybe China is just afraid of generally changing the UN's cons!@#$%^&*ution...but most likely its just a bunch of anti-social college students looking for an excuse to topple a Nissan.

That chicken dance can't be stopped! The only way to stop it is....the auto-destruct device!! *ejects from mecha as it starts to dance the tango with Raem's robot* *sits back at a distance with sungl!@#$%^&*es and a bowl of popcorn* Mecha> T minus 7 seconds...6....5... [walks closer to mechas, under an odd compulsion]

Yes, but the United States has about 50,000 sharks patrolling the Pacific Ocean. It may SEEM like the sharks are outnumbered, but 50,000 sharks can take out an unlimited number of Kangoroos - if the Kangoroos were swimming in the middle of the ocean. Besides, the US has something no other country has - a bunch of hicks who will hunt and shoot any animal and eat it. Australia would only feed our hicks...if they are lucky, they might take out vegitarian California...to that I can only say, please do! They are annoying the rest of us. Seriously, now that I think about it further, if ever constructed, a mecha would definitely have a human shape...they may even be custom proportionalised to the pilot. Why? It allows greater control without as advanced computers...remember those NES power gloves that were made in the 80s? They could make something similar for the pilot's whole body, then rig the mecha to follow the exact same movements. This would allow phenomenal control over pretty heavy equipment. Also, they wouldn't have weapons for arms...it would be worth it to mount the weapons at the hand, because it would make it more accurate at longer ranges. Now, there' a conspiracy for ya....how comes in the 80s they could make something like the power glove, but today's game controllers aren't nearly as 1337? Seriously, you could make something similar for a fighting game and match the video game character's movements to the player's movements - that would be friggin awesome!!! Though, I don't know what would happen if the video game character got knocked down.

IN YOUR OPINION, that's how Bush got support for the war in Iraq. I cannot speak for all supporters...but I support this war for my own reasons. Hussein's tyranny justifies the loss of life to remove him, and the new democracy will show the citizens of neighboring countries that they don't have to accept the !@#$%^&*ty tyrannys they live under. (In my opinion, this was Bush's true motive all along, but I have no way of proving this.) And the point is that the fact that this guy was a nazi DOES mean !@#$%^&*. I mean, at first glance you see the word "nazi" and figure...aw !@#$%^&*, that doesn't dismiss the statement. However, study it deeper and you can understand my thinking here. Its easy to see the word "nazi", its harder to understand what the !@#$%^&*le represents. This guy murdered thousands of innocents in a multi-million casualty war the only real objective of which was to spread genocide. Goering INVENTED the idea of using airplanes to intentionally bomb civilian cities (if I'm wrong here, then Goering was one of the first major implimentors.) At very least he was a man who put his career ahead of people's lives, and at very most he was a genocidal maniac just like Hitler. He cerainly isn't wise enough to give sage advice, or righteous enough to be trustworthy. His thinking wasn't sound. Goering didn't know the difference between right and wrong and wisdom and folly, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten the "nazi" !@#$%^&*le in the first place. The only possibility of him giving correct advice is if he chanced upon it by accident, much like a monkey typing Shakespear on a typewriter. We certainly cannot assume this statement is one of the accidents. You would have to prove independantly that this statement is true, because the word of the guy who said it is worth dildo. And "It fits what's happening now with Iraq" is a logical folly of ridiculous proportions. First and foremost, you are using the statement in its own proof, because you set Goering's quote and "the War in Iraq is wrong" to prove each other. Secondly, you are !@#$%^&*uming that the War in Iraq has no natural political support, a statement that is clearly false given how there were several conflicts (or one continuous conflict) before Bush ever took office. Third of all, you are !@#$%^&*uming that there is no difference between nazism and democracy, and it may seem to you that the perceived difference is nothing but propaganda, but there is infact a VERY good reason for the perceived difference, because they ARE different...the proof of which I can supply on request, I'm not going to make this post longer than it has to be. You find that this quote aggrees with your political objectives, so you ignore the character of the man who said it and you also ignore it's mul!@#$%^&*ude of logical flaws.

No, I'm argueing because I'm getting sick of the pattern. Its the pattern of not trusting democratically elected officials, religious leaders, certain professionals and generally anyone contributing to society, and giving the benefit of the doubt to Nazis, criminals, murders, and the like - then wondering why the world seems upside down! Its not that this guy is a nazi - its that this guy was a nazi, the last guy was a communist, and the guy before him was a serial killer! This guy has zero credibility. He was an evil !@#$%^&*, and incompetant as well. You say this doesn't mean anything, but it does. ANYBODY can place pretty words together. Its easy. What counts are actions. The difference between words and actions is the difference between one of those preachers who annoy everyone in front of a building and a bona fide saint. The difference between words and actions is the difference between that noob who is using a kill macro and the veteran holding a 1000:100 win/loss ratio. And its not like there's a shortage of quotes in the world...there are MANY sources to quote, made by individuals who did good things...how the !@#$%^&* did this !@#$%^&*hole make it to the top of the list?

*gets out receipt* *takes death ray back to store, and returns it* *receives money back* *runs out of store seconds before the death ray blows up in catastrophic explosion* *uses money to build a mecha* *gets in mecha and start piloting it* *steps on Paine* *hoses off mecha's foot*

I hate to use the "he's a _____, ignore him" arguement, if abused it can lead to very stupid conclusions. But, in this case I'd say it might be the only sound one. Suppose you were walking down the street, and somebody jumps out of the corner with a stick and starts beating you on the head with it. While he is doing this, he starts giving a speech on pacifism. Would you listen to the speech? Actions speak louder than words. The only sane conclusion in this case is to assume this guy violent and to ignore whatever he says on pacifism. He would not even be a hyppocrite, for a hyppocrite atleast pretends to act in a righteous fashion. Odds are, this man only speaks peace to get fools to stand and listen to him so that he can smack him on the head again. Goering wasn't the worst Nazi there. His job was primarily the military campaign. Still, he wasn't exactly the most competant general the world has ever seen, so you know Hitler kept him around because of loyalty to his cause, which was genocide.(Goering was a brown-nosing "yes-man" really) The key here was the end of the European campaign. When the Nazi's goose was cooked and they knew their goose was cooked, instead of surrendering they decided to fight for every inch and do as much damage to the Allies and Germany as possible. Similarly at the trial, Goering knew his goose was cooked. The entire population of London wanted a piece of him and had a pretty !@#$%^&* good reason to. So, Goering most likely attempted to do as much damage possible on the way down, just like he did at the end of the military campaign. Odds are everything he said had the sole purpose of confusing fools and weakening allied leadership. I mean, there are so many people in the world to quote, and a lot of them have done positive things that greatly benefitted mankind. I mean, you could quote some religious text, some prophet, Nobel prize winners, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, some anchient Greek philosopher, or whoever...I'd reather listen to those people, who I know absolutely speak the truth, rather than some nazi who may or may not be lying through his teeth.

Actually, it doesn't work like that with religion. Religions don't really operate like that. If they encounter another culture, it is their goal to convert that culture. If part of their population is off to the side culturally, they try to bring them into the center. That is why state leaders have to try to put some influence on this stuff...church and state function entirely differently and have to follow entirely different rules. They cannot honestly trust each other under such cir!@#$%^&*stances.

I didn't say it looked good. She was indeed approaching the point of no return, and maybe she did p!@#$%^&* it like you say. However, this case came to the courts because the hospital personelle didn't recommend removing the tube, and since they knew the most about her situation, I stick to their advice. I'd just rather have a doctor, who have first hand knowledge of the situation, make that decision than a judge, or you or I for that matter. I will admit it, its a debatable case. Those who are sure about their verdict are the only ones that are really wrong.

I know that this a predictable arguement, but this guy was a huge Nazi. I mean, I hate using the "I don't like you so I'll dismiss your arguement" tactic, but you people keep citing Nazis, Communists, criminals, and Baathists. These people are evil, and ofcourse in their opinion there is no difference between good and evil - its the only way their psychology can survive self scrutiny!! So, they will always try to make the universal claim. I mean, you could have quoted John Paul II, and that would have been a lot more tricky for me. I however agree that most leadership decisions are done in a top down fashion, because its simply impossible for them to occur in a bottom up fashion. That doesn't make it wrong. You would have to prove the War in Iraq was wrong in the first place before this quote means anything.

I do wonder if anyone will EVER make a mecha for practical military reasons. It comes down to whether walking is more efficient than wheels or treds. On one hand, biological creatures use walking. On the other, treds seem to be working just fine. I'm positive there will never be a FLYING mecha though, meaning one equiped with devices to send it skyward. Helicopters and jets are WAY more efficient than a 50 ton miscellaneously shaped lump of metal with rocket attached. The 'Transformers' model of a mecha that transforms into a jet, or atleast has jet like parts, MIGHT work, but then that requires another whole set of engine, transmission, and hydrolic devices to do the transforming, and it does absolute murder on the structural integrity of the machine. Speaking of conspiracies...this forum was moved below less active forums on the list!!!