[SkyPilot]

I guess if you can't argue with what I said, you'll just make something up. I said we'll "take it over",

Look, please don't argue semantics with me if your words are on the same page.

I guess if you can't argue with what I said, you'll just make something up.

I don't do that here--so please don't accuse me of it if it is not true.

Post # 40--We will take over if al-Qaeda takes over.

Also, your response regarding the Shaw is hard to follow. We are not at war with Saudi Arabia either. The "war" is on terror--and Saudi is still considered an ally.

[elfman2]

No disrespect intended, but your statement here implies that to take over a state we must make it #51 of ours. That's not just a semantic difference, it needed correcting.

You compared an al-Queda takeover of SA to the Shaw's takeover so I pointed out that it was different because we are already at war with al-Queda. (I didn't say we were at war with SA.) Please don't tell me that after al-Queda has declared war on us, bombed us and Congress empowered Bush to use whatever means to defeat the perpetrators that we're not at war with al-Queda, just "terror". That would be a semantic difference.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

That's the Shah of Iran, not the "Shaw".