Sometimes I think it would be nice to believe in the afterlife and in God, but I just can't seem to get past the idea that it's just another mythology. We've had mythologies since humankind had recorded (including oral) history, but we look back at the past and laugh about the stuff in which people used to believe. Someday in the future, people will look back and laugh and think how quaint it was that people in this era believed in this mythology. That is, provided, of course, that there is a future to look back from.

>We differ in that regard then. I believe in karma completely. Good and bad. Sometimes it is immedidate, somtimes next year, sometimes in the next lifetime. I agree with '..for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.'
>
>>Whether or not such a scenario is true (and really, who knows) I believe he and his pals have a lot to answer for regardless. I am not of the opinion that they will have to pay in an afterlife. Unfortunately, if they get away with it here, then they've gotten away with it period.
>>
>>>If any of that is even remotely true, then for such a religious man, he will have a lot to answer to his God for.
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, actually it makes perfect sense in a sort of Machiavellian way. The first priority was to remove Sadam (with a line on the oil). So, use fake WMD's to convince the American people to get behind the strike. Then pretend to search for WMD's (in fact, have the soldiers search regardless of your knowing they won't find anything) so people will believe that you believed they were there. Then, tell everybody that you really thought there were WMD's - I mean why would you search for them if you knew they weren't there, and finally say the war was really about bringing democracy to Iraq anyway, so what difference does it make whether there were WMD's or not.
>>>>
>>>>Now, I'm not saying that this is really what happened, but I can see that the scenario could certainly happen.
>>>>
>>>>>I have been out about 2 weeks and just got back to read the 20 or so replies to these threads. Some quite humorous. Anyway, I know your point was regarding Kevin's point, but I will reply to you as a general overall response.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's just say GWB did deliberately lie about the intelligence information on Iraq to get us into the Iraqi war. Now answer this question --
>>>>>
>>>>>Why in the hell would GWB then send in however many troops, overthrow SH, have the military search for WMDs, etc., (based on the lie) knowing none would be found, which would essentially prove he deliberately lied? No one, not even GWB, is that stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe this illustrates the argument is purely political, or at the very least, not logically thought out, not to mention revisionist.
>>>>>
>>>>>>The main point i get from Kevin's posts is that GWB lied to get us into the iraqi war. And recent polls show that 57% of those polled "believe he deliberately misled people to make the case for war". Not so sure thats an extreme position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kevin and those with his POV are off on their extreme tangents while I am illustrating the absurdity of the opposite extreme.