What does protesting a proposed a war on a country which has not threatened the US have to do with WTC? (Despite over a years work, the CIA keeps saying there is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with WTC.)

This is even after the break-in of the Iraqi Embassy in Germany, at least so far. (I suspect the touted Blair press conference will showcase "items" from the break-in that Bush doesn't want to seem to close to.)

Are you saying that in international relations might makes right, period, and there are no other moral considerations? That "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" which has been the previous justification for war no longer requires that first "eye"?

And now, since the Iraqi Embassy break-in any "evidence" would have to be strongly suspect. They could have "found" (forged) anything they wanted from that Embassy. They could claim to have found the keys to codes, and now been able to read incriminating messages, or whatever. It will all be nonsense.

And "evil". You're using the word again. A while back when I asked you to define it, you quoted Ayn Rand. When I tried to understand the definition and asked about an example, you said that defining the term was semantic nonsense. (Another person said that he couldn't define it, but knew it when he saw it! No kidding!!)

I was most especially interested in a definition which would exclude all actions of the US. I'm not saying one doesn't exist, I just don't know what it is. But any accurate definition would do.

And, you said that's word games, useless. Help me understand how it's semantic nonsense to agree upon the meaning of the words we use?

Thanks for whatever attention you care to give this.

Arf (and especial thanks to the contributors of "that's dumb" and "get real")