Aileron

Two reasons why the US shouldn't hand Iraq over to the UN: 1) Iraq views the UN as a US pawn, and will likely protest just as much. 2) It will take longer, because two transfers of power will take longer than one. Seriously, the most efficient outcome will be to leave Iraq by the June 30 deadline. Giving power to the UN may be more politically nice, but only lengthens the process. The US has one of the best historical records of making friends out of enemies, so don't think we can't do this. Monte, it wasn't the best case scenario. The best case scenario would have been to remove Hussein in 1992. Not much we can do about that now. You guys seem to have no comprehesion of the positive outcome of this War. If proper actions are done in the next 30 or so years, this conflict could very well end up saving the lives of millions, possibly billions, not from removing Hussein, (although that mul!@#$%^&*ude alone would be enough) but from the resulting stabilization of the Middle East. The three stars on the current Iraq flag represented a union between Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. These three countries extend great political, social, and economic influence on the whole Middle East, much like the way the US affects North America. If we change the output of these countries, we could really change the whole Middle Eastern political, social, and economic structure. My only dissagreement with the US policy is that we should have chosen Saudi Arabia. So, a comparison between this war and WWII isn't valid, but between Vietnam is? The following are differences between Iraq and Vietnam: Iraq is not currently supported by a foreign military; North Vietnam had Soviet support. In Iraq, we have taken control of the entire country; In Vietnam we had half. Iraq was an offensive war; Vietnam was defensive. Iraq has revolutionary forces; Vietnam had none. We have been occupying Iraq for months; Vietnam took years. Iraq was done with a volunteer army; Vietnam required a draft. There are better examples of comparisons - namely Bosnia and Kosovo.

I say that if you CAN'T look at those pictures with a straight face, you need a reality check. People get injured, maimed, and killed all the time. It is at least unavoidable and at most essential part of life. I've seen plenty open wounds in real life - photographs of bandaged wounds will not shock me. Last Sunday I saw a guy with a huge gash on the back of his head, and by the way he was acting he suffered brain damage. I never claimed tha Fallujah event to be barbarous. It is very very stupid - rioting and making us stay longer in order to get us to leave. However, if I were in the position of the rioters, I don't know if I wouldn't do the same thing. As for your sig - you don't understand my position, do you? You think I looked at the benefits with no understanding of the costs. I infact, know very well the suffering caused by this war. I also know the benefits - this is one small step in stabilising the whole Middle Eastern region of the world. Whether my opinion is right or not, it is not going to be rebuffed by the suffering already taken into consideration.

[sarcasm]OMG, I didn't think people actually got hurt in war! I supported going into Iraq, but now...[/sarcasm] Seriously, I know the reasons why we went in, and I know that they justify the suffering. We went in knowing we were going to see these kind of pictures, so give it up. Those pictures are jokes - I've seen worse working in a back-country hospital without a trauma unit. If I didn't know where they were from, I'd say they were in a car accident. My advice - please don't shock people with pictures, they do not change the moral and logical situation, and if you absolutely have to use such pictures, find some that are actually shocking.

Me folks.

Can I have a bacon and cheese omlett please?

I have some ideas, but... nah.

heat seekers wouldn't be that cool in my opinion. Here's a few of my ideas. Engine-Shutdown bombs (one shot use, like thors) Energy Swapping bullet (one shot use, switches victim's and attacker's nrg level) Reverse Damage bombs (INCREASES victim's nrg level, for use on teammates) Vulchmeat device (gives everyone around them engine shutdown, but reduces user' nrg to zero.) N00b burst (spreads non-bouncy bullets in all directions)

Okay, now I've seen it... what has changed?

I, unlike you, am not bigotted enough to judge women by their continent of birth. I judge by religion. I like catholic girls.

There should be a zone somewhere where half of the ships can be upgraded by greens, and the other half not upgradable at some average stats.

*reports stolen money to police* *Steals Naed's sportscar* *takes it to chop shop* *sells parts to get money back*

Dante's Inferno has CIRCLES of -*BAD WORD*-, not seperate -*BAD WORD*-s. Besides, the book has hardly made enough impact to affect everyday speech. The common acronym used in online conversation is "WTH", not "WT9H". I'll pick on whoever I want in AD&D. All my (NWN Nights characters) stats are around 30, and my character is immune to pretty much everything, due to a custom module I made for myself. I'll get back to the subject. This debate is not whether marriage is used to judge other ways of life. It is about other ways of life being used to judge marriage. The current defignition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The debate is whether to change the defignition. Thus, the traditional view of marriage is on defense, which means that it is not on offense. If it is no on offense, then it is not attacking other lifestyles. This debate is about gay people forcing their lifestyle upon the traditional defignition of marriage.

I dunno, this is usually done with bursts today. Having a suicide option may be a good idea. In zones where suicide bursting is prevelant, "l33t" players build their recs by killing the suiciders.

Well, one positive... I haven't tried it, but if I don't like it, you guys will finally be rid of me.

*gets pecked by Myst pheonix* OUCH! *grabs pheonix* *shoves pheonix in freezer* *waits until pheonix is frozen solid* *shoves a bunch of sticks in the frozen pheonix* *breaks frozen pheonix into cubes* *sets up stand* *sells pheonix popsicles for 50 cents a piece*

um....you play D&D too much Marriage, when done properly, is a more stable environment. Its just that nowadays its not done properly. Even dolphins and chimps have social structures, and dogs would most likely have them if they weren't domesticated (because wolves have social structures). Marriage has been around long enough that we can conclude that it is most likely the most stable human social structure.

Are specials going to be implimented in CNL? If so, are you going to add some new ones?

Well, that does point out a relevent tactical inequity between gay marriage and hetero marriage. Whether or not we NEED those extra people or how much reproduction is affected by marriage is a matter of debate. BTW, while Chimps, Dolphins, and Dogs are having children without marriage, it is unlikely that human children can be raised in an equally stable environment without it, relative to the nuclear family with 2.5 children, a dog, and a white picket fence around their yard.

That definition of marriage doesn't work. Sometimes people marry for money and political reasons.

Hey, don't change the Weasel. Its a good ship thats fairly easy to kill if you can properly use your X.

OMG, I'm agreeing with Bacchus before Dav. WTH is going on? He is correct, and that is the precise reason why this issue is still up in the air. If we had an incontrovertable reason for marriage, this issue would be easy to decide.

Levis too fast already? I for one have no problem staying behind them. Using a nearby wall and bouncing off of it helps with that.

Even after those things have been attained, equality and fairness will not exist. People are dealt relevent qualities such as intelligence by the same means as they are dealt irrelevent qualities such as race. A man who got his job because he was smart did not deserve his position any more than a man who got his job by being white. Both qualities are a result of luck. The question for this issue. Is being gay a relevant compromise to the idea of marriage? To do so requires an in depth analysis of the reasons why society created marriage in the first place, as well as the purpose it serves.

hmmmm..... What they have in MG is the Shark set up so that it can't move and can't be repped, and its given a turrent like appearence. All you can do to move it is attach to another ship. You could either stay attached to that ship for offense, or dettach to defend a position. In 17th, one really doesn't need the bot. All people would have to do is attach to another player. This requires a player to move around the defending base to set turrets, but if yor freq does not have any players in a certain base, its your own fault that the nme gets an EZ goal. The easiest way to do this in 17th would be to increase the levi's rotation and remove its capacity to move. This won't change the game much, because the Levi is used as little more than a stationary turret anyway.

Well, I personally would be against gay marriage, but the best arguement I've seen favors it. Thus, I'm effectively pro-gay marriage until I see an arguement that beats the it. The problem with equality and freedom from predudice is that life is not and never will be fair. Positions of honor and power will always be dealt out by fate, not by the merits of the reciever. When we removed the segregation of jobs with respect to race, (lets assume for the sake of arguement that we have atleast made progress.) we did not make things fair. Instead of segregating out those who were born of a certain race, we now segregate out those of lesser intelligence. There are many benefits to society with the latter type of descrimination, but the recipient of the postion as well as those denied deserve their status no more or less than if the position had been decided by race. Thus, I don't think it wise to seek equality for its own sake. All we should do is change our discrimination so that it follows functional variables.