T0N!C

actually, triple monitors works more intuitively

ah and that's where the thin line between urging and forcing comes into play. There are many ways in wich women can be forced to cover their hair without acually ever commanding them to do so. You should think along the lines of social status. (Or "social check" as we call it in the Netherlands). And what I also find interesting, as I have absolutely no knowledge of the Qur'an, is why would it be considered better for women to cover their hair in the first place? If it is because not doing so is a way of dressing 'slutty' than in a way, they are forced to cover their hair.

Besides that nuke, what other reasons does the US have to invade iran? If it is the harboring of terrorists, I don't believe it to be justified to invade a country on those grounds (simply weighing the effect on its inhabitants to the possible effect on US civialians). Instead you should put that money into gaurding your own borders. If Iran is prepping a nuke because they feel threatened and then gets invaded for having a nuke that sounds like a clever game of the US.

Now there's a thought... Christianity apparently didn't even need offending passages to start forcing the belief onto people. Which makes it even more agressive at the time than the Islam is right now! The Islam faith is roughly 600years younger than Christianity, that would put it at the age Christianity had in the crusades. mmmkay

Try some research on tactics... or better yet just play a game or two of C&C and you'll find the power of defense. Edit: Oh I see, staying on the defensive. Ok so how about the cold war? This reminds me of D&D where you earn points for passing an encounter wether you killed the opponents or wether you talked your way out of a fight. Bottom line: a fight not faught can still amount to a winning situation. Interesting, I suppose that can be compared to the Iraq matter. Striking Germany at some point close before he started his invasions would have been justified on account of all the treaties he trampled. In hindsight. If someone points a gun at you with clear intent to kill you are (or should be) right to act to prevent this. (That doesn't have to mean that you have to kill this person.) The vital element here is the assessment of the threat. The problem with bigger matters is that the assessment of the threat is subject to the public's perception. Which is easily distorted by media. So it is now crystal clear that it would have been right to assess Hitler as a threat that should be taken out to prevent a bigger escalation. But it is very well possible that people at the time didn't feel the threat. Conversely it seems now (to me at least) that the descision to overthrow Iraqs regime, although good in many ways, was based on too little threat. At the time however public opinion was molded such that it seemed valid. Are you talking to me? I never said that. (But to answer you question I believe Iraq wan't a threat big enough to justify an invasion.)

How are you going to win this war? You don't win it by overthrowing a regime, and plastering it with democracy. Because you'll end up fixing new cracks in the plaster til the end of days. Of course you neither win it by standing idly by as one after the other terrorist attack strikes. Because you're continuing your way of life and so continue to taunt these terrorists (be it unknowingly). BUT not attacking feeds the terrorists less agression and gives you time to cross the cultural barrier to regimes harbouring these people so that you might ultimately cooperate in exterminating these terrorist extremists. And the USA with its abundant connections to the arabic world would have been the ideal mediator to do this. It does indeed seem fitting that you have Adolfs quote in your sig when you clearly are for attacking countries to prevent them from attacking you. But I can't make any sense out of that. I'll close up with this funny quote by The Freewayblogger that I found: "Ignoring the UN to bomb Iraq for Ignoring the UN. Pathetic." PS: Just a general piece of advice for you overheated posters in this thread, try to refrain from patronizing and plain insults and you'll see you get a whole lot further at understanding and battling eachothers point of view.

yea happens, especially on sidewalks

ghehe would be an interesting parallel with Elvis ^_^

hehe that's a fun thought, to think that we might be tracked. :)

You're a strange fella, one moment you concur that there shouldn't be topics about these elections anymore, the next moment you're leading the thread right into that very subject. If you had just gone with it, then by now we could have been discussing how to better shield balloons from attacks with knives in the future. Joking helps to put things into perspective. It's the same low-level-joking we've had here for as long as I can remember.

ah I was expecting that, but you see it's not about the way it treats the code. Firefox is very strict about correct code, so if the code were right Firefox wouldn't foul-up.

hmmm it fucks-up the tables in Firefox when you do that! is this a known IPB bug? edit: it doesn't show in the quote, look for the original to see what I mean

I really do believe Intel produces better quality BUT AMD provides more bang for the buck and so gets my vote.

"fuck the fucking fuckers" is my all time favourite in that genre.

that didn't answer my question