Actually, we kind of ignored the no-fly zone in Iraq, allowing Saddam to crack down on the rebellions we encouraged.

Saddam oppressed his people just as much as Qaddafi is. The U.S. balked at introducing a similar no-fly zone after the First Gulf War, allowing him to continue to be a dictator. Yes the war was poorly carried out, but if you're going to argue that direct military involvement is necessary for internal oppression, you…

Is your point that intervention is necessary, and other countries don't appreciate it, or that intervention isn't necessary, and the other countries recognize that? Because it really doesn't seem clear. Also, whatever your point is, Godwin's Law.

They talk about how they hired an ex-CIA analyst and how it was "plausible." [agdom.wordpress.com]

But do any of them have the quality of the New York Times?

It's one thing for a fantasy game that claims to be unrealistic, or gameplay, to be unrealistic, but for the premise of a game that claims to be realistic to just be impossible is absurd.

"What Would it Be Like if North Korea Successfully Invaded the US?" "Oh no, I must have misread that." Rereads... "What Would it Be Like if NORTH KOREA Successfully Invaded the US?" North Korea? They couldn't find a more plausible enemy?

To be fair, there were at one time WMD's in Iraq, they just weren't there when we invaded.

I was countering your examples of the Abrahamic faiths, which definitely don't include Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. And no, the term 'atheist' is still not "technically correct." According to the 1974 pocket edition of Merriam-Webster, atheism is "a: a disbelief in the existence of deity," or, "b : the doctrine…

"I have faith that God does not exist" = "I assume absence". Scientists didn't assume that subatomic particles existed before they were witnessed; scientists said, "hey look at all of the cool implications that this has," and noticed that everything they predicted came true, but still made it very clear that it was no…

Agnosticism would be the form that doesn't require a leap of faith. Agnosticism says that we don't know if there is a god, so we can't conclude that there is or isn't. Atheism says that there is no god. With your example, the position requiring no leap of faith would be that we can't reach any conclusion about your…

Your second/third sentences are just incorrect. Atheism means a lack of belief in any gods, not in a certain god.

Correction, if there is a slight chance that there may have been a slight increase in cancer cases (well within normal variation between regions), "OMGNUKESPLOSIONS!"

Speaking of checking your facts, it's a lawsuit (or law suit) not a law suite.

I SEE NOTHING!

License?

Yes, scientists have been wrong. Does that mean we should ignore them? The general consensus among surgeons was that handwashing between surgeries wasn't necessary for a pretty long time, but I'm still going to believe my doctor if she tells me I have appendicitis.

First, I apologize, as I mistakenly called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Committee on Climate Change. Second, I would agree with your statement if the IPCC were the Intergovernmental Panel on Human Caused Climate Change; however the Panel was not formed to investigate whether or not…

Want to actually explain your problem with my statement?

I think you meant to say new.