Kerry Or Bush??

BigGun wrote: But they love to bash people who have morals and religious convictions, as if the things we do because of our faith just really pisses them off. Of course the things they do because of their lack of faith and religious convictions, are the things that make us question them. They hate that. They do'nt want to have to answer to anyone for what and who they are. Example: These kinds of people are the ones who support things like evolution even when it's been shown to be extremely faulty, and none of them can agree on it. Go figure.....perhaps they did come from apes.

The tiered ignorance in this post is so staggering that even I am at a loss of how to best approach it.

Congratulations.

AdmiralSenn is right, the religious bashing is getting annoying.

But they love to bash people who have morals and religious convictions, as if the things we do because of our faith just really pisses them off. Of course the things they do because of their lack of faith and religious convictions, are the things that make us question them. They hate that. They do'nt want to have to answer to anyone for what and who they are. Example: These kinds of people are the ones who support things like evolution even when it's been shown to be extremely faulty, and none of them can agree on it.

Go figure.....perhaps they did come from apes.

Yes, you are right, all things can be boiled down to "attack" or "not attack". That is correct, but also completely irrelevant, which is my point, because failing to address those nuances completely destroys your causality.

Allow me to try another approach:

You state that if we don't attack, and Saddam does have WMD's, then general badness happens.   That is not necessarily true. Maybe we don't attack, Saddam does have WMD's but we were able to assassinate Saddam and his family, or we were able to enlist the aid of Al-Jazeera to persuade the Iraqi public to overthrow Saddam, or we changed our Israel policy and Saddam loves us, or one of a ZILLION other things happens to change your linear causality.

It isn't the breakdown that is the problem - it is your simplistic causal link.

We could also break the options down into "going to the bathroom" or "not going to the bathroom", and that would be just as helpful and accurate (which is to say, NOT), but also just as "true".

That is my point. I am not attempting to disagree for the hell of it - I am disagreeing because your structure is wrong.