|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted November 20, 2008 04:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The flimsy case for war.
There was many reasons to remove Saddam.
Quote:
The use of Ahmed Chalabi, a known influence panderer as your prime source of information on yellow cake uranium.
Yellow cake uranium was found in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Quote:
The outing of Valery Plame.
Bush did not out her.
Quote:
The suspension of Habeas Corpus for terror suspects.
Habeas Corpus has not ever applied to prision of war.
Quote:
The use of extra-ordinary rendition.
When has prisoner transfer been crime?
Quote:
The alteration of the FISA act to allow for domestic spying.
Congress ammended the FISA act, not Bush.
Quote:
The torture of prisoners with 'extreme interrogation tactics'.
Yes, they admit to torture of 3 or 4 high ranking terrorists. So? It saved innocent lives. I cry not for terrorist.
Quote:
The establishment of Gitmo and the holding of prisoners without speedy due process.
You confuse terrorist with criminal again. No country ever give prisoner of war speedy trisl in midst of war.
Quote:
The information gathering methods on American citizens without need for warrents (as in the Patriot Act).
Congress made and passed Patriot Act, not Bush. President is unable to write bills.
Quote:
I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting, however it's possible none of these was actually a prosecutable offense under American law.
You are right. Thhose not illegal and many done by Congress to protect Us citizens. There could be many charges against Clinton but you wold not hear them and I don't feel like research for nothing so why bother?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 07:19 AM |
|
|
I'm still missing an answer on the reason to ask Clinton about Lewinsky in the first place. So where is the foundation for that? Why ask him at all? He's the president for God's sake, he's not the Highpriest of the no-sex congregation.
Secondly, "Saddam deserves it" is NOTHING. No prove, no reason for anything, not even an excuse. It's advocating lawlessness as well. Would you like the police being able to arrest and execute without having any solid evidence? It's moreover disregarding everyone dying for it so far - meaningless one might add. Or does anybody feel eliminating Saddam has made things so much better in Iraq?
Thirdly, the US didn't act on UN agreement - in fact the UN did NOT agree. Which means that every reason conjured on international right is non-existant and so on is non-existant. The US acted without the agreement of most of the other states.
Fourth: I'm still waiting for prove. There is none. Evidence was faked and not existant. Question: Why would INTELLIGENCE fake evidence? Because someone high up in the intelligence decided that faking evidence might be fun?
If that's the way it goes the spiral of violence will never end
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 07:23 AM |
|
|
Simple. New technology made it easier for the media to keep tabs on the affairs of the President. Someone talked about a blue dress and once the media got a hold of it, it snowballed from there.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 08:21 AM |
|
|
You mean the media FORCED the president to make a VOLUNTARY statement UNDER OATH?
Why don't they force a statement under oath from Bush, Powell, Cheyney and Rice about the "evidence" they produced? About Guantanamo and the violations of Geneva Conventions and so on?
I mean, don't you find it strange that if something goes wrong responsibility always seems to diffund somewhere down the faceless ranks where orders are misinterpreted, things get lost, reports disappear and so on.
AREN'T THE HIGHER-UPS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISTAKES THEIR UNDERLINGS MAKE? It's their job to make sure they hire the right people to do their work.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 08:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You mean the media FORCED the president to make a VOLUNTARY statement UNDER OATH?
Did I say that? No. Congress wanted an investigation and they got it.
Quote:
Why don't they force a statement under oath from Bush, Powell, Cheyney and Rice about the "evidence" they produced? About Guantanamo and the violations of Geneva Conventions and so on?
Good question. If the evidence is so overwhelming, as you claim, why doesn't Congress round everyone up for questions? Why hasn't anything been done? Simple. None of it was illegal. Just like President Clinton's actions were not illegal until he lied about it at a Congressional hearing.
Quote:
I mean, don't you find it strange that if something goes wrong responsibility always seems to diffund somewhere down the faceless ranks where orders are misinterpreted, things get lost, reports disappear and so on.
AREN'T THE HIGHER-UPS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISTAKES THEIR UNDERLINGS MAKE? It's their job to make sure they hire the right people to do their work.
Welcome to the world of politics.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 09:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You mean the media FORCED the president to make a VOLUNTARY statement UNDER OATH?
Did I say that? No. Congress wanted an investigation and they got it.
Now wait a second. On what grounds did they want an investigation? I mean, what was it supposed to disclose for what consequences? Or, to phrase it differently, what fact exactly made the case worth wasting time and the money of the taxpayer?
Quote:
Why don't they force a statement under oath from Bush, Powell, Cheyney and Rice about the "evidence" they produced? About Guantanamo and the violations of Geneva Conventions and so on?
Good question. If the evidence is so overwhelming, as you claim, why doesn't Congress round everyone up for questions? Why hasn't anything been done? Simple. None of it was illegal. Just like President Clinton's actions were not illegal until he lied about it at a Congressional hearing.
Well, you see, that's EXACTLY the point. Why was Clinton's actions in connection with Lewinsky - while not considered illegal - important enough to warrant an congressional investigation, while Bush's actions involving the presentation of at least doubtful evidence IN ORDER to bring the Congress to acting in a certain way with more than doubtful consequences for the US (and the world, but that's not important in that context) - while maybe not considered illegal either - does NOT seem to be considered important enough?
I mean, strictly spoken:
Isn't it the task of the leader of a nation like the US to do everything possible to keep his country OUT OF any wars and to support every action to PREVENT new wars and END old ones instead of doing everything to get his country INTO a war that is only thinly veiled sold as a caimpaign of REVENGE?
Is it really the task of the leader of the most powerful nation of the world to set an example that teaches everyone to storm into your neighbor's house, if you feel mistreated and the courts and the cops won't do anything to nail the case down and act on doubtful evidence, and shoot the bastard?
Quote:
I mean, don't you find it strange that if something goes wrong responsibility always seems to diffund somewhere down the faceless ranks where orders are misinterpreted, things get lost, reports disappear and so on.
AREN'T THE HIGHER-UPS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISTAKES THEIR UNDERLINGS MAKE? It's their job to make sure they hire the right people to do their work.
Quote:
Welcome to the world of politics.
Then why do you DEFEND that world? Everyone defending THAT world of politics is supporting it.
|
|
mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 09:27 AM |
|
Edited by mitzah at 09:28, 20 Nov 2008.
|
I don't know why you guys even THINK about defending Bush.. I mean, wtf..he demolished the World Trade Center as a pretext for invading Iraq. This tactic always worked when the US (well, not the entire country, but the people who had certain interests) wanted to declare war on other countries : The people don't want war; Stage an enemy attack or provoke an attack; Everybody volunteers after that;
See WW I, WW II, Vietnam, First Golf War..
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 10:06 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:10, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
I'm still missing an answer on the reason to ask Clinton about Lewinsky in the first place. So where is the foundation for that? Why ask him at all? He's the president for God's sake, he's not the Highpriest of the no-sex congregation.
1) It is considered unethical for President to have relationship with intern.
2) Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harrasment. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to testify for Jones.
3) Clinton urged Lewinsky to "be evasive" in answers in trial.
4) Lewinsky filed affidavit saying never had relationship with president.
5) Tape evidence presented that she had relationship and is lying in trial.
6) Clinton had to then give deposition and he lied on tape under oath about relationship.
He is president, not above law. He should have gone to prison like normal US citizen.
Quote:
Secondly, "Saddam deserves it" is NOTHING. No prove, no reason for anything, not even an excuse. It's advocating lawlessness as well. Would you like the police being able to arrest and execute without having any solid evidence? It's moreover disregarding everyone dying for it so far - meaningless one might add.
1) I already presented link showing Saddam claimed to still have WMDs. US believed him. It would be nice if world was perfect and intelligence information was absolutely perfect in every situation but we live in real world, not dream world.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
2) Saddam refused to comply with treaty he surrendered under in previous war.
3) Saddam refused allow inspectors to go where needed.
4) Saddam supported terrorists and terrorist training camps.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Quote:
THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
5) Saddam was mass murderer.
6) Saddam had yellow cake uranium.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Quote:
Or does anybody feel eliminating Saddam has made things so much better in Iraq?
Yes, very much so. Iraq now have chance for democracy. Over 2/3 of all Iraqi provinces are not controlled totally by Iraqi government forces. Another moderate Arab nation will be very good for Middle East. It would be foolish to think world would be better off with Saddam in power.
Quote:
Thirdly, the US didn't act on UN agreement - in fact the UN did NOT agree. Which means that every reason conjured on international right is non-existant and so on is non-existant. The US acted without the agreement of most of the other states.
US is independent sovereign nation who acted to defend itself. US does not need UN appoval to act in such manner. UN is not ruler of world. It would be very arrogant to think US must bow it knee to UN.
Quote:
Fourth: I'm still waiting for prove. There is none. Evidence was faked and not existant. Question: Why would INTELLIGENCE fake evidence? Because someone high up in the intelligence decided that faking evidence might be fun?
You continually ignore proof that has been presented and just say everything is all lies and faked by evil US who was on "witchhunt."
Quote:
I don't know why you guys even THINK about defending Bush.. I mean, wtf..he demolished the World Trade Center as a pretext for invading Iraq. This tactic always worked when the US (well, not the entire country, but the people who had certain interests) wanted to declare war on other countries : The people don't want war; Stage an enemy attack or provoke an attack; Everybody volunteers after that;
See WW I, WW II, Vietnam, First Golf War..
That is so silly. So US blew up World Trade Center, faked bombing of Pearl Harbor, ect? Fooishness beyond words. US haters really make up anything at all to condemn America.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 10:52 AM |
|
|
@Elodin
Thank for this interesting link - I can only urge everyone to read it because it's quite enlightening:
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
I'm going to quote from it:
Quote:
That invasion (1st gulf war) was in 1990. Back then, Saddam accused Kuwait of wrecking Iraq’s economy by stealing oil and demanding repayment of loans. But Piro learned, for the first time, that the brutal invasion was triggered by personal insult.
"What really triggered it for him, according to Saddam, was he had sent his foreign minister to Kuwait to meet with the Emir Al Sabah, the former leader of Kuwait, to try to resolve some of these issues. And the Emir told the foreign minister of Iraq that he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait. He wanted to punish, he told me, Emir Al Sabah, for saying that," Piro explains.
So let's see what that means. It means that Saddam accused Kuwait to do certain - quite disputable - things, and when he sent his foreign minister to Kuwait, the answer was, they would do those things until...
Now, you MIGHT say, that when Kuwait was attacked they got what they deserved. However, what you might say instead was the following: Why DID Kuwait act the way they did, provoking Iraq so massively? Wouldn't you have to be extremely sure to get away unpunished for it to do that? So what did Kuwait know at that point?
Quote:
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
So let's see here. After that Kuwait desaster all WMDs had been destroyed, but Saddam wanted to keep IRAN at bay faking still having some - the same Iran, by the way, that was felt to be next on the list of states to invade by US troops after Iraq.
{quote]What was Saddam's opinion of Osama Bin Laden?
"He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, 'You can't really trust fanatics,'" Piro says.
"Didn't think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?" Pelley asks.
"No. No. He didn't wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn't want to associate with Bin Laden," Piro explains.
Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime.
Piro says Saddam's story was verified in interrogations with other former high-ranking members of his government[/qoute]
And there we have it: NO contact with 9/11 whatsoever, on the contrary.
This clearly proves a lot, but not what you claim, elodin.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The flimsy case for war.
There was many reasons to remove Saddam.
Conider the videos of people tearing down the statues aftewards, i do indeed agree.
However the way the war wa handled afterwards is a extreme mess. Solider not attempting to keep order and encourages the local population to terror actions as only solution.
Quote:
The torture of prisoners with 'extreme interrogation tactics'.
Yes, they admit to torture of 3 or 4 high ranking terrorists. So? It saved innocent lives. I cry not for terrorist.
Terrorit a in fake big plan to scare the population to sheeps allowing a army assault on full scale?
Sorry but several politicans in the white house should have been beheaded already for their actions and orders.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Elodin
This clearly proves a lot, but not what you claim, elodin.
No, jj you forgot link to proof that he had terrorists training in Iraq. He migh not have liked one particlar terrorist but he supported terrorists.
And it proove that US had reason to think Saddam still had WMDs so it dispute your false claim that Bush just made up bunch of lies.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Quote:
THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 12:00 PM |
|
|
That's an extremely ambiguous link that proves nothing - it's from 2006, and since it hasn't been followed up with more material, you can safely say that it couldn't prove what it was supposed to prove, except what was known anyway: everyone knows that suicide bombings are used in the near East and that they come from somewhere, and not only from Iraq. Lybia was under suspicion, Iran, the Sudan, Jordan, Pakistan, you name it.
It has to do with Israel and the conflict around it.
If that was a reason you had to invade the whole area.
For the rest, you claim the US BELIEVED Saddam that he had WMDs. That's strange. Why would they BELIEVE him just because he said something? They didn't do it before and afterwards, but in that point they believed him?
That sounds ridiculous.
|
|
mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 01:10 PM |
|
Edited by mitzah at 13:14, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
That is so silly. So US blew up World Trade Center, faked bombing of Pearl Harbor, ect? Fooishness beyond words. US haters really make up anything at all to condemn America.
Umm...yes..where've you been?  There are several interesting documentaries on the WTC attack. I said "provoked" and so they did. They provoked Japan and they broke war agreements and international treaties.They actually allowed Japan to attack Pearl Harbour. And yes they were warned by many countries but no action was taken. Just get EndGame, Zeitgeist 1 and 2 and search for other similar documentaries. They'll open your eyes.
By the way..I bet you didn't know that the US Airforce was training for the EXACT WTC scenarios back in the 1970s and 1980s. There's a pile of evidence..and if you don't want to see that for yourself and just believe that everything is OK, then that means that you are ignorant. How the hell can you believe that two planes DESTROYED the WTC ? Engineers which actually designed some blueprints for the WTC and who were around when it was built state that the two towers could withstand multiple hits. How do you think the WTC building number 7 collapsed ? Bet you didn't know about that one.
I am not a hater..I do not hate the americans..I just hate the men behind the curtain.. It's not like only the foreigners say that it was an inside job.
BONUS:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=87fyJ-3o2ws
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:16, 20 Nov 2008.
|
@Elodin: 9/11 Coinsidence Theory (also see the last page  )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That is so silly. faked bombing of Pearl Harbor
No, they gave out a giantic bait that was of a size that was seen before.
Besides, Pearl Harbor was also bombed on Christmas. Why Christmas? You just gotta love that fake movie.
They knew they was going to be bombed, and it also hit the biggest part of the British fleet if i recall correctly. Aka it was not to much US navy boats and planes to be waisted away.
But that was 2. world war, compared to what happens later i guess you could pass it away. But they KNEW the japanes was going to bomb, and that was it.
____________
|
|
mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 02:34 PM |
|
|
And let's not forget how the USA got into the first WW..yep..they sent a ship into german-controlled waters.
Wanna know about Vietnam ?
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
|
nocaplato
Adventuring Hero
Lover of Ancient Philosophy
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 04:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flimsy case for war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was many reasons to remove Saddam.
None of them good enough to start a war expending American lives or money.
Quote:
Yellow cake uranium was found in Iraq.
Yes, but it was the assertion that they were trying to get more from Nigeria that was presented as evidence to the U.N. That information came from Ahmed Chalabi, which was my original point. And from the same article:
Quote:
And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.
Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.
Quote:
The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.
A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.
A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Agreed that Bush didn't out her. Neither did Cheney, directly. Instead Cheney had his top aides do it. So, he did nothing wrong right? As I recall, Bush also claimed that if he found out who was responsible there would be investigations and those guilty of crimes would be prosecuted... oh, unless it's 'Scooter' cause he's got a cute nick-name Bush calls him. And it wasn't the administration that uncovered those links, it was external and prompted by the liberal MSM that did it.
About prison transfers, no, transferring is not a crime, but that's an oversimplification of rendition. The American policy of rendition was to take a prisoner and move him/her to a country where torture was an easier prospect, with fewer messy entanglements on the legal system to allow problems like due process or the humane treatement of prisoners get in the way.
Quote:
Yes, they admit to torture of 3 or 4 high ranking terrorists. So? It saved innocent lives. I cry not for terrorist.
There are so many things wrong with this attitude I can't even begin to understand it. For one, this is a war crime. Doesn't matter who is being tortured, it's a war crime.
For another, it's America, a country governed by liberal laws and institutions, not a despotic monarchy who can do away with the rules whenever it wants to (at least not in the public eye or so poorly that the media can persue the issue on a public stage... I mean, if we're gonna torture, it should be done cool and quite like in a back room with like one witness so no one finds out about it). America should be one of the standard bearers of democracy and liberalism, rather than a good bad example of what can be done even under democratic rule of law. There are processes even for criminals, even for enemies, even for terroritsts.
For a third, torture doesn't reveal good information. The tactic of waterboarding is one used originally by Communist China in order to extract confessions from its captured enemies... confessions like "America is wrong and China is great". In other words, its a tactic used to make people lie, to make people tell you what you want to hear. It's an effective propoganda technique, not a good means of gathering intelligence. The good thing about torture is that you get answers from people. The bad thing is that the answers are whatever the victim thinks you want to hear. They confirm the torturers false impressions and misunderstandings, they don't give good information.
Finally, I don't care who it is, the very sight of these activities should inspire at least a cringe of sympathy. Terrorist or not these people are human beings. To exult in their torture just denies your own basic humanity. You become as evil as the terrorists themselves, and in the end justify the negative opinions they have. Worse is that it justifies the attitudes of their allies not in our custody, causing more terror and negative attitudes than less...
I don't have time to go on further, but there's tons here worth comment.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 04:16 PM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 04:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Finally, I don't care who it is, the very sight of these activities should inspire at least a cringe of sympathy. Terrorist or not these people are human beings. To exult in their torture just denies your own basic humanity. You become as evil as the terrorists themselves, and in the end justify the negative opinions they have. Worse is that it justifies the attitudes of their allies not in our custody, causing more terror and negative attitudes than less...
That is extremely well put 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 05:38 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:42, 20 Nov 2008.
|
America bashers out in force today I see with their silly accusations. Claiming America is cause of all evil in world. America provoked Pearl Harbor by lure Japan to bomb Pear Harbor. Saddam was victim of evil US conducting witchhunt. US blow up World Trande Center. Again ludicrous.
Quite ludicrous. Liberal America haters deny all facts and continual makes false allegations and will only accept "America sucks" statements.
In perfect world there would be no torture. But I would rather tortue than have terrorist blow up millions and millions of people. America should be glad that Bush protected America and was not weak. But if you would rather have many innocent dead American citizens on America streets than torture of a few terrorist that is your opinion. Perhaps you think it preferable to have simultaneous bombs set off in 3 biggest US cities than have a few terrorist tortured. Such view is quite idealistic but is ignorant of real world that have real consequences.
Quote:
None of them good enough to start a war expending American lives or money.
Yes, nothing is worth violence I guess. Let person break in house and rape wife in front of you. Not worth it to confront violence with violence. If you say "Please stop" enough times manybe he stop and leave house.
Quote:
Yes, but it was the assertion that they were trying to get more from Nigeria that was presented as evidence to the U.N. That information came from Ahmed Chalabi, which was my original point. And from the same article:
The fact is he already had yellow cake uranium. Do you think he would not want more whether from Nigeria or elsewhere?
Quote:
Finally, I don't care who it is, the very sight of these activities should inspire at least a cringe of sympathy
You have your sympathies for mistreated terrorists and I'll have mine for innocent victims and future victims of terrorism. Having few tortured terrorists is better than having millions of dead innocents.
Quote:
To exult in their torture....
I did not "exult" in torture of terrorist but neither will I express sympathy for them.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
