LOL Godwin's Law... Good one.
However, I'll pick apart other fallacies in his argument.
1. Culturally, the Islamic world only respects force (including the use of). That includes violence.
2. I doubt you actually know what the Iraqi people think. Everyone is glad we're there except for the people who used to be in the ruling party.
4. The UN authorized force against Iraq.
5. Hitler wrote mein kampf before he was elected. I wonder what it contained...? Germany LOST its democratic system of government before we helped them restore it. And consider the difference between East and West Germany- which actually was a democratic form of government, and which was prosperous?
6. I doubt there are many conversions to Christianity in Iraq and Afghanistan. LOL I can't believe you buy that BS.
7. I'm glad you live in Canada too.

Do we not refer to the U.S. as a "Country", which is another word for a Region, which is also what Africa is, correct? County, that was a typo.

The UN is composed of members from all participating Countries, although the U.S. is a large player and powerholder within the UN! As well you do realize that Kofi Annan, during his younger years spent a great deal of his time within the U.S. studying, right?

What benifit was the oil for food program, other then to the governments and dictators? Because it sure does not seem to be helping the average citizen in either Country.

Now, we are over their for what threat to the U.S.? Terrorists or Al Qaeda, assuming that is the threat you are referring to, but it has been stated long before the war actually started that there are no terrorists affiliated with Iraq. As well Mr. Bushy has openly stated more then once that he does not care about terrorists and is unconcerned about them. So why are we there? We call this the war on terror, yet our President is unconcerned about terrorists. We call this a war to find WMD's yet it is a well known fact all they are equipped with is outdated weapons that we gave to them in the first place. Come on wake-up man, we already knew what they had, it used to belong to the U.S.! The only reason we are the is to make another Hybrid U.S. for our government to control, what better reason to expand our currently dwindling military forces.

And... "Godwin's law", are we resorting to stupid made-up internet definitions now to prove our point for us? Man, I can't believe that there is actually an entire library based on this crap!

A Country is not a Region. North America is a Region. Country denotes political and orginazional boundaries. Region denotes geographical boundaries. Just because someone spends time in a country in their youth does not mean that they are "mind controlled" by said country. That is utter silliness. The people who benefited from the Oil for Food program were corrupt officials in Iraq and the UN. I agree with you 100% that the Oil for Food Program did not benefit the citizenry of Iraq. It was a failure as policy. As for terrorism. Iraq had plenty of ties to terrorists. They were hiding the man behind the hijacking of the Achille Lauro (spelling?) and Saddam was paying the families of palestinian suicide bombers. So why are we there? To fight terrorists there rather than here. To help develop democracy in the middle east. Should it succeed in Iraq, imagine what effect it will have on other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. I'm really glad you can read Bush's mind to know what really concerns him. Perhaps you should become a talking head on one of the big 3 networks. As for Godwin's Law, I assume you haven't realized that all learning and principles have entered existence because of observation. Godwin's Law is such an observation. Perhaps you'd call the Law of Gravity a stupid made-up definition because Newton was trying to prove a point...?
You obviously are unaware of what the wikipedia is, or you wouldn't have made such comments. Salvanos de la ignorancia!

A virtual law about the introduction of Hilter into a discussion threat, oh yea, that is a real good one jagoff! I would hardly consider that a relative law that holds any form of importance or basis for discussion and surely I would never dare compare it to the works amazing of Newton. Although I honestly must admit that I have never heard of it before until now, no suprise at to why that was. I am aware of what Wikipedia is and think it is pretty cool. I am just saying that wasting time making up bogus trash such as those definitions is completely heinous and bears no redeemable value or merit.

What?? Saddam adamantly denies having afilliations with Al Quida, we have no actual proof stating otherwise. Why you think most other Counties do not want anything to do with this war? Because it is being held under false pretences and fictional misguidance.

Ok, you come to America land of the great as a young and impressionable man, get to goto Universities to study and learn after growning up in a desolate little Country. Then move on to become The Secretary-General of the UN. Then gets involved in international scandels after making a good name for himself. Now setting aside how he was able to afford to do that all of this in the first place, figure out the likely cause, effect, and result on your own.

We are not helping them to be democratic we are forcing them to be, there is a difference. Don't forget that there are people being placed in leadship positions that were apart of Saddam's regime, so what is up with that?

Reading Bush's mind, althought that would be nice trick, though I must admit that would probably be scary; how knows what goes on in that mans head, probably a 24-a-day Three Stooges festival! LOL. Hey though, I nor does anybody else need to read his mind when he himself goes to the media and makes his usual superhero claims. BushyBoy himself actually stated that he is not concerned terrorists and is not looking for them, so as you can deduct on your own (or should be able to) that was not from my mind reading as you so eloquently put it.

When speaking of any Continent (in general) it can be referred to as a Region or Country, stating otherwise you are only mincing words.

Not a relative law. It happens in every discussion. As the length of a thread increases, the probability of a Nazi comparison approaches 1. It happens in ever single internet thread. Anything being compared to Nazi Germany, short of genocide itself, is a rhetorical over-reach. Godwins law has been around for a long time. Failing to acknowledge it only announces a lack of knowledge re the internet.

Saddam doesn't need ties to Al Qaeda, he has funded Muslim extremists for years. Prior to our involvement in 1980, Saddam was suspected of being a member of Abu Nidal (evicting them trying to win our support). Infact many in the Baath party are still suspected of continuing insurgent funding today. If you expand said support from Saddam himself to the entire Baath party, suddenly the ties become extremely clear. If you believe that Saddam is telling the truth on this... what else can I say? It's hard to argue with irrational people.

Of course we are FORCING them to be democratic. Forcing someone to make up their own mind, make their OWN decisions, is a morally JUST thing to do. We SHOULD force them to be accountable. Iran is undertaking the same thing today, and with the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad there is a strong uprising of populism from within. One that is being allowed to develop BECAUSE of our actions in Iraq today.

But that is not the reason why we would invade Iraq. We did it because it was weak and we needed to stablize the region. Moralist answers will not help you figure this out. We didn't do it for any noble reason, altho it was sold as such. Look beyond the surface.

As for Bush's mind. Who knows. I'm not a big fan of the man nor the president

Kofi Annan does not enjoy wide-spread support by the US. He was elected as the result of a veto of Boutros Boutros-Ghali. He was originally expected to be a puppet for the US, it did not happen that way. After the oil for food scandel came out, many senators called for his resignation. A large number from the republican party. The white house sends a number of mixed signals about him, showing confidence one day and disapproval the next.

If you want more details on him, I suggest you take a look at the issues facing the UN right now. Most are not moralist in nature, most are merely rules of order and bylaws. But you can see a large amount of independance by the way they are drafted. I suggest you look deeper than the surface. But be careful, don't confuse idle speculation with deep thought.

The difference between a region and a continent and a country... is a huge one. A country implies nationalism. Implies a sense of order, a government and rules that bind it. A region is just a geography. A continent is specific geographical term, of which only 7 exist. Where should I send a copy of webster's dictionary?

Well how about each of us just declare our own law, that logic can be conformed for use on any topic. If we all talk about bees long enough we will start moving from that top to a discussion on uses for honey, to bee stings, to allergies, to the effects of insect migration, to Pangaea, to death related to bees, to cancer from eating to much honey, to diabetes from eating to much sugar, to loss of family members do to suicide from depression from loosing a loved one that died from a bee sting, to job loss to do the migration of the bees from one Country to another, to how families have lost relative do to war over honey, to the effects of honey on Wallsteet, to how families had to relocate to different states do to the lost of their jobs, to the use of honey in day spa's, to etc., etc., etc. Ok, I just declaired a new internet law, shall we call it: "The Law of Rounds"; Stating that: If you talk about a given topic for a long enough duration eventually the discussion will move to cover every related topic and the said topic will end once the conversion has cycled back to the orignal topic.

We started a war under false pretences with a distant Nation because it was weak in-order to force them into a Democracy because this is the right thing for a people that want nothing to do with Western influences. You do realize how absurdly lame that sounds, right? This war is about two things, and two things only, it is about making good relations with the Countries surrounding Iraq to make the Bush empire just that much stronger and to clear the good Texan Bush name for all of the future generations. Other then that I say again, what about ratifing Countries such as: Mexico, Cuba, Africa, Columbia, just for starters.

The Republicans are just using him as the fall guy, what else are they gonna do? They got busted, that is the oldest scam used by government officials. Those cheap tricks might have worked back in them good ol' boy days, but now people are starting to catch on to this diversional fancy-pants scams and they are demanding legitimate answers to the problems these officials themselves create, i.e. check out what is currently going inside of FEMA. One person is does not hold the power to control outside entities, it takes more then one person to operate an agreement that affects many others. Therefore you can quite safelty deduct that the U.S. is surely involved in the scam just as deeply as Kofi. Thus, now you start the movement towards a conspiracy against justice.

I say again, you are only mincing words, i.e. just about every word takes on a different meaning depending on how you use it and how say it. But if you still insist go ahead and send me a copy of that definition you found to: COUNTRYOFAFRICA@HOTMALE.COM

A law that has been been and used for several years, reliably, with strong observational backing... is not the same as a just pulling something from thin air. If you can come up with an observational law that actually fits something, by all means...

Your "deducations" are ironically devoid of facts.

We didn't start a war on false pretenses. As a matter of law, we had a peace declared on certain terms that Saddam would comply with. He failed to comply with them, years later, we went back to war with him. Why we didn't eliminate Saddam the first time around was merely a matter of politics, and Clinton didn't have the support to pull it off. From there, anything else is merely an excuse. They continued to support insurgent operations, commit horrible crimes and destablize an already unstable region. Now they are out of power and the area will be free to make it's own decisions (provided we don't pull out for political reasons, which would be a horrible mistake).

And you can troll about the definition of country all you want. Language is used to share meaning. Using the wrong words only further obsfuscates this mess of rhetoric. Africa is no more of a nation than North America is a nation, or Asia is a nation. If you said Asia was a nation, how would I know if you meant China, Japan, Singapore, Korea, etc? If you said Europe was a nation, you referring to which country exactly? Africa has many different countries, nations, within it. Each containing different cultures and attitudes. I suggest you get used to them, too, because in the next 20 to 30 years we'll be sending troops there to do what we're doing now in the middle east.

And Kofi Annan has no relation to FEMA. What a wild tangent. There's more to the UN than Oil for Food. Sensationalist examples do not clarify the matter, they only provide a spoiled, rich, bored public yet another to reason to complain.

Hey now, don't put down The Law of Rounds, that is going to be the next big "virtual law! LAFF!! I love that the internet is coming up with it's own answers to explain this vast virtual world and objects contained within and around it. hehee, we still don't have the real world figured out, yet! Just like we are so intentive in exploring space, yet we have yet to explore our own oceans at home!

I never metioned Kafi was related to FEMA. The UN is a shameful scam they self-impose rules, they passe, they embargo, and control private corporations so as to dump coin in their own Countries pockets as well as their own personal bank accounts.

As far as knowning which is which you would know because it would be clarified to you within the context of the sentence, hence the word "Africa". I was not concerned about identifing a specific City within that Country, because they are all in shambles, any City go ahead and take your pick. Now you want to bring Asia which is much to diverse and spread out to be comparied to any other Country for the purpose of offering any form of a reasonable comparison.

We have been watchdogging Iraq 24/7 for decades, what did they magically produce WMD's on their own? Oh, I know they special ordered them from WMD Incorporated and then had them FedEx'ed over (Note to self: How did they make it through customs?), that must have been what it was. This war was started by false alligations in effort to gain congressional support for future budget expenses and military recruitment.

The tinfoil hats make a second appearance.
There was more than one reason given for war with Iraq, though any one of them was more than sufficient.
Saddam was not in compliance with the cease fire agreement, and more than a number of UN resolutions.
Iraq's nuclear reactor was from France, so it was probably DHL and not FedEx. Though the finishing touches were delivered by the IAF. As for your continuing quibbling with Africa, South Africa is a lot better off than most of its neighbors, I believe. Mugabe has ruined his country, thanks to his socialist agenda. But that is neither here nor there. As for the internet, it is just a catalog of human nature, multiplied to the Nth degree. Take any conversation on any subject. There will always be a lively debate, filled with hyperbole, sarcasm, and sometimes, wit. It is human nature. The only difference is that we get to debate on our own time, and there are fewer repercussions following asinine comments.

Godwins law ? wtf? forcing someone to be free?Some how this does not compute , and Bush's main reasson for attaching Iraq was these "weapons of mass destruction".Now from what i heard is all they found was ground to air missiles and a few tanks.No nukes or biological agents ,they found the poor bastard in a hole in the middle of nowhere.But this whole dang thing is really funny , either way me and Rexx will be seen as wear ing tin hats.In my other post i was making a piont , I could force someone to convert to my faith and world view...but that would be wrong.Then how is going to a soveriegn country and forcing them to be democratic and "free" the right thing to do.It's plain ignorant , and not to mention crazy , heck lets attack North Korea they have WMD , o wait the signed a treaty not to make 'em anymore.....perhaps the U.K........

Well, Exile, you'd complain if we forced them to have a dictator as well. So we are allowing them to choose their own form of government. That's more than most people get to do, right? We are forcing them to make a decision. The decision is to go to the polls and vote, or stay home. Amazing turnout they had... The notion that we round up people and take them at gunpoint to a polling place borders on ludicrous. As for North Korea not having any WMDs just because they signed a treaty, that gave me quite a chuckle. Most treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on. Countries abide by them until they are a hinderance, and then they break them. It's human nature. Just like it is human nature to want to be free to make our own decisions, not have them forced upon us as under dictatorships. Freedom is a basic desire of the human heart. We have been blessed with a great amount of freedom, and we rightly complain when someone tries to take away some of our freedoms and civil liberties (Patriot Act anyone?). We have the opportunity and luxury of making our own decisions. Shouldn't anyone else have that right? Or perhaps they are not as deserving as ourselves...?

"The notion that we round up people and take them at gunpoint to a polling place borders on ludicrous." Well, surely you are right about that. Although the funny thing is that the only one making that notion is, well... you. As for the voting, umm... who do you think it was that picked the candidates for their citizens to vote on, I believe that was our government. All the U.S. is to majority of them is just another form of a dictatorship, we just change the words to make everything sound all nice and fancy. You oh, need irrefutable proof sure thing, just check out the Patriot Act; that should sum it up for ya' in a nutshell. I bet, a many man in congress, are proud of that little baby of theirs! As for your "chuckles", I am glad you are so pervy on human nature.


As Rexx,proudly adjusts his finely crafted tinfoil hat, he compliments Oso on his superbly choiced analogy.

Just came across by the accident, no matter what you are views are... you have to admit this is pretty darn funny!!

[url="http://rovianconspiracy.blogspot.com/2005/09/too-good-not-to-pass-along.html"]Please Click Me If You Like To LAFF![/url]

"Most treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on. Countries abide by them until they are a hinderance, and then they break them. It's human nature. Just like it is human nature to want to be free to make our own decisions, not have them forced upon us as under dictatorships. Freedom is a basic desire of the human heart. We have been blessed with a great amount of freedom, and we rightly complain when someone tries to take away some of our freedoms and civil liberties."

That is a true statement I clipped from an earlier message...for those who do not believe it then try finding a copy of a book titled 'Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee' and explore that concept from the viewpoint of the descendants of the various nations that inhabited North America before the arrival of the European colonists who forever changed the continent and the environment. Every treaty made between the people who lived here first and those who arrived later has been broken except the one made by the Red Lake Nation of the Ojibiwe and perhaps the one made with the Navajo Nation. Then remember that the form of government chosen by THESE United States was based on the system the Iroquoi Nations had at that time. It included 1 of the tribes who held the judicial vote when others argued and could not agree.