Replies

While I think we should finish the job in Iraq, I also realize how the rest of the world sees it. They do not see PROOF or even EVIDENCE that Iraq has actually attacked the US in such a way as to warrant punishment from US military forces. If we have such proof of Iraqi participation in any attack on the US, we must present it directly so we do not look like an aggressor nation.

screw the rest of the world, we dont owe anybody a damned thing after all of this. there is evidence linking iraq to the wtc bombing in 1993, and every attack on us since then. clinton just set the tone for passivity, and the world has been spoiled by it. its time to fight, and fight like hell, with EVERYTHING weve got. bin laden wants WWIII, and he sure as smokin has more support than just his little boy al qaedas. he's just an arm and a distraction, helped by and working for iraq, syria, lebanon, the plo, pakistan, and the rest of the haters of the west. he isnt some bored jerk just hanging out in caves deciding on his own he's going to sail a couple jumbo birds into a couple buildings. he and those who support and harbor him are the scum of the earth. wouldnt surprise me if he was in iraq, iran, or pakistan. anyone who questions our actions is, by default, siding with osama, the anti christ himself.

Don't confuse "proof" with "resolve." As an example:


RELIGION AND RADICAL EMPIRICISM
Nancy Frankenberry


"Frankenberry offers for the first time a tough, sophisticated, and comprehensive discussion of the relation of radical empiricism to the history of philosophy." 
-- William Dean

Rarely in modern times has religion been associated with empiricism except to its own peril. This book represents a comprehensive and systematic effort to retrieve and develop the tradition of American religious empiricism for religious inquiry.

Religion and Radical Empiricism offers a challenging account of how and why reflection on religious truth-claims must seek justification of those claims finally in terms of empirical criteria. Ranging through many of the major questions in philosophy of religion, the author weaves together a study of the varieties of empiricism in all its historical forms from Hume to Quine. She finds in James and Dewey; in Wieman, Meland, and Loomer of the Chicago School; in Whitehead; and in Abhidharma Buddhism constructive elements of a radically empirical approach to the controversial topic of religious experience. This work provides a strong counter-argument to critics of "revisionary theism," to caricatures of philosophy as "conversation," and to any collapse of the category of experience into its linguistic forms.

We are a very litigacious society, with instant replay, due process, and a secular view of reason. Andy Rooney (who usually irritates me did a segment on this concept. 12-17-01.

http://www.radicalacademy.com/phildavidhume1.htm

http://www.drury.edu/ess/History/Modern/hume1.html

Essentially you believe on faith alone, and politically unles you are a slave to polls, act on resolve and conviction. (You don't need no stinkin proof.)

As the two above links show, it is Machiavellian to expect a concensus on "proof" which in our western society with its emphasis on attorneys a substitute for other parts of the worlds religion.

As far as "proof" and "religion" go... (You don't need no stinkin proof.)

If we have such proof of Iraqi participation

Wouldn't that be the first thing to start with? Have you ever heard Joe Lieberman or Kristol mention any proof? You don't find it peculiar that a gang of neokommies are the ones calling for war on Iraq?