http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html

Adding this sentence so it wont be just a link [img]tongue.gif[/img]

IR, assuming this story is written by a for-real source and not just some polemico pretender - and I think it is for-real, given that the CSM didn't report the name for good reason - then you have changed me from:

Somewhat in support of action in Iraq, but skeptical as to proof,

to

Very in support of action in Iraq, because while country's should be allowed self-determination such abuse of its citizens is against every human rights convention ever imagined.

But, this has nothing to do with whether or not we've found WoMD's. It's a separate and distinct reason to make war. If only the administration didn't pretend there was a narrow reason.

<font color='white'> Of course it has nothing to do with his WoMD, I never said it did. The artical its self is pure speculation, it says, what if the protest changed the minds of the Bush adminatration, witch they wont anyway. I am not saying this artical is proof we should go to war. I said exacley what I thought, it was interesting. It the artical pro-war rhetoric? Yeah? Whats your point? </font>

[ 02-27-2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

IR, you misunderstand me. I said the article would change MY mind from (a) to (b). It would change me from (a) skeptical to (b) sincere supporter of action in Iraq. And, the reason for the change would be based on human rights rather than WoMD's.

Sorry to be unclear. :(

IR, Timber was referring to a change in his opinion if the article could be believed(he thought it could).

I don't think he was saying anything about your views, he was talking about his views. ;)

EDIT - TL beat me to it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-27-2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Ohh, sorry bout that Timber! Its blantly clear, I dont know how I misinterpeted that, my fault. Sorry. :(

I seem to be misreading things alot latley.