North Korea says Unicorns Exist (and they have proof)

We will not send in our Guys into a conflict, wich asian guys better solve them selfs…

…ah what was his name again?!?.. 8-)

I claim your mom.  She’s into that sort of thing.  8-)

I’m all for buying up land in Alaska, then pumping Greenhouse Gases like crazy to turn it into a tropical paradise!

@BigBlocky:

I’m a great fan of the UN but…… It has lately been a disaster… Germany in my opinion has taken herself entirely out of the equation, it is her choice. …Anybody who says “No matter what happens, I won’t do a thing” loses their right to consultation.

True, i am not happy with that too firm position as well. But to be honest: In my memory the US started similar in the opposite position, not really accepting any “evidence” against their point.

If the UN is hell bent on being useless as it was in Bosnia at Srebrencia … useless as it was in Rwanda …

The UN is not the world government. It can only be as strong as it members want it to be, especially as the strongest member wants it to be.
It’s not the worlds policeman, and it doesn’t have an own army to command. You can say it is weak, and i wouldn’t object. But: do you want it stronger or shattered?

No, I’m sorry. The US has shown enough evidence. Even if there were no weapons of mass destruction there is no argument that I have heard that convinces me it’s better to let this mass murderer stay in control and hold hostage a country of 22 million.

You are right in the second part of that caption, but i would not say at all that the US has shown enough evidence. It is more that the US defies what ever Hans Blix is saying: For the US, the Iraq is in a lose-lose situation. Whatever he does, the US won’t be satisfied and claim it’s further proof.

If you don’t want to left a finger to help these people then fine. But get the hell out of my way because I am coming through……

If your government had argued like that in the start, the situation would be totally different. To change the position now would lokk extremely silly and would hint that there is some hidden interest by the US that they don’t want to say alound.
For you coming through and me getting out of your way: If you always prefer action without thinking, then it might be better for you if i trip you while you pass me. Then we can sit together and make up a strategy that has more chances of success.
Assume you are right, and Saddam has WMD. Hoe many of his people do you think will survive being freed?

We feed Iraqis, We feed N. Koreans, we have a history of giving food to our enemies (like the Taliban)

This sounds to me like a pretty weak attempt to keep the “war record” clean of losses.

Nah, 1812 more or less ended in a draw, and I wouldn’t call Vietnam a total loss.

@cystic:

i wish i could pull the names of the Roman historians who did mention Jesus out - i believe that there were 2 of them that were brought up in a different thread.
Also Luke and Mark were not writing to be popular historians, but rather reciting things that they had heard and seen in letters to people.
As far as Jesus having an important ministry, do you consider that Roman historians would consider a guy who was executed in Israel one day after preaching about stuff to be a historically significant occassion? Would a 1890’s Britain historian include a refernce to a regional news story in Manitoba about a religious figure? I’m curious if a British historian would even have mentioned Louis Riel, nevermind someone of a different faith than everyone else.

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? They clearly mention a form of Christianity in their days, over 100 years before Jesus. How do you explain that? And how do you explain the fact that in the dead sea scrolls it says a “young gilr” and not a “virgin” in the Isaiah quotes relied on by the church to claim that Mary was a virgin?