Alternatives to US global policy (continuation of "lying idiots" thread)

[IControlThePast]

As Biden said to Europe, "Get over it..." 9/11 changed it, no longer innocent until proven guilty on the international front.

Don't make our founding fathers roll over in their graves. You can't defend yourself if you have to prove innocence. We could accuse any country of having WMDs and attack them. If we don't find any evidence they must have moved them and are still guilty. This is just a warhawk's logic that can be applied to claim justification for attacking any country they so desire. What about 9/11 would change innocent until proven guilty?

Gee , I could have sworn that the pile of camel shit known as Saddam , the same guy you want to prop up as innocent , is the same guy that agreed to a ceasefire agreement in 91 . This innocent sweetheart murdered 100s of thousands of truely innocent people and tortured(really tortured) thousands more not to mention the total destruction of the Marshlands in Southern Iraq(a huge ecological disaster for the planet but mostly for the Marsh Arabs that depended on it for centuries). Then there are the 700+ oil wells that he ordered blown up that burned and spewed oil for 9 months .
Why do you clowns ignore these facts?Why are you so quick to offer this asshole the benefit of the doubt and then turn around and shit on President Bush and his administration (a group of admiral , heavily educated and experienced people) ? You idiots have no credibility here , go to Democrits Underground you'll find more willing minds there.

The US props him up as innocent over the WMDs. This post needs another . Saddam did not kill hundred of thousands of people. He killed in the ten thousands at most. You have no source for your statistic as well. Many of his horror stories were actually hyperbolic and completely fictional accounts from the PR firm Hill & Knowlton hired by an Isreali PAC. The rest of your post is reduced to generalized ranting where you list no specific situations. I "shit" on Bush because he did not offer Saddam that doubt for WMD, that's why. Ecological disaster, he's bad. Number of people Saddam killed, he's bad. But there are much much worse atrocities have been commited out there, which our involvement with Iraq prevents us from dealing with. I know you might prefer that I leave you to have a conservative jackoff session, but I am here to learn. If you can convince me of something through debate you can bet I'll remember it. You seem to be the one having the problem here, maybe you should leave?

 

[sitarro]

Don't make our founding fathers roll over in their graves. You can't defend yourself if you have to prove innocence. We could accuse any country of having WMDs and attack them. If we don't find any evidence they must have moved them and are still guilty. This is just a warhawk's logic that can be applied to claim justification for attacking any country they so desire. What about 9/11 would change innocent until proven guilty?



The US props him up as innocent over the WMDs. This post needs another . Saddam did not kill hundred of thousands of people. He killed in the ten thousands at most. You have no source for your statistic as well. Many of his horror stories were actually hyperbolic and completely fictional accounts from the PR firm Hill & Knowlton hired by an Isreali PAC. The rest of your post is reduced to generalized ranting where you list no specific situations. I "shit" on Bush because he did not offer Saddam that doubt for WMD, that's why. Ecological disaster, he's bad. Number of people Saddam killed, he's bad. But there are much much worse atrocities have been commited out there, which our involvement with Iraq prevents us from dealing with. I know you might prefer that I leave you to have a conservative jackoff session, but I am here to learn. If you can convince me of something through debate you can bet I'll remember it. You seem to be the one having the problem here, maybe you should leave?

You are an idiot and your avatar suits you .

 

[IControlThePast]

You are an idiot and your avatar suits you .

It does quite suit me, but you'll never know enough about it to be able to realize what you've said right after calling me an idiot. Ever read Czech?

Plus I must say you have had quite a rebuttle to my argument, I can't see any way to rufute that. Typically that is what I find, people stoop to the level of whining and name calling when they are unable to answer my posts.

 

[sitarro]

It does quite suit me, but you'll never know enough about it to be able to realize what you've said right after calling me an idiot. Ever read Czech?

Why should I , I don't give a shit. I would much rather spend my time on my mountain bike , playing golf , or even driving around wasting gas than read something that you find important . I would tell you to suck dick but somehow I'm guessing your mouth is already quite full .
I don't mean anything bad by that . . . really. . . I swear . :usa:

 

[freeandfun1]

It does quite suit me, but you'll never know enough about it to be able to realize what you've said right after calling me an idiot. Ever read Czech?

Plus I must say you have had quite a rebuttle to my argument, I can't see any way to rufute that. Typically that is what I find, people stoop to the level of whining and name calling when they are unable to answer my posts.

You deny Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. I bet you also hold the position that the holocaust never occurred and that the horrors of it were just made up by those lying bastard Jews huh?

 

[IControlThePast]

Why should I , I don't give a shit. I would much rather spend my time on my mountain bike , playing golf , or even driving around wasting gas than read something that you find important . I would tell you to suck dick but somehow I'm guessing your mouth is already quite full .
I don't mean anything bad by that . . . really. . . I swear . :usa:

Exactly the type of response I expected. It's funny watching how you can't explain why you would "give a shit" to comment about something you knew nothing about. I personally just find it funny to watch how someone completely loses their cognitive ability and resort to emty emotional rhetoric. It's call reverse trolling.

I can tell your mouth isn't quite full from the whining "why should I" and quite brilliant "you're an idiot." Would this make you feel better? :baby4: :usa:

You deny Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. I bet you also hold the position that the holocaust never occurred and that the horrors of it were just made up by those lying bastard Jews huh?

Nope. The sources I have here say Saddam didn't kill 100,000. The Hill & Knowlton scandal is quite well known when one of the people they had testified about atrocities before Congress was the daughter of the ambassador of Kuwait and nowhere near anything. The holocaust killed a great many people. At least 6 million Jews and more than 10 million total casualties. That however is a well documented position. I'm suprised the best you guys can do is create an Ad Hominem attack on my character by assuming I'm anti-semitic while all you've really said is "so you believe Saddam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his own people." Give me some actual facts to work with if you want to support the statement and I will give it a listen.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

we supported dictators through the Cold War for realpolitik to try and put friendly governments everywhere even if they were dictators.

Right. And we now realize that this way of doing things doesn't work in the long run. We must liberate the societies. Free people have common interests.

I, for one, am glad that ICBMs were developed as it eliminated the benefit of fighting over these small power vacuums and now terrorism has rose from them instead.

Are you happy terrorism is rising from them? What are you glad about again?

Weapons could have been destroyed as well. It is not our job to prove there aren't weapons, you have to prove there are.

we can't prove a condition in the past. It's possible that weapons are hidden in the vast desert, or that some were succesfully moved. This will never be known conclusively.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty is a tenet of domestically administerd standard law. It's for citizens under domestic laws. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not considered a rule of thumb for conducting foreign policy with known terrorists and mureders. You're confused nearly beyond repair.

You can't say he's got the nukes and the like until you find them. Saddam may have just tried to provoke a war to create the current situation.

So our intel must be so good that we know when a dictator is merely simulating hostile intentions to provoke war? The problem is filtering the faux hostility from REAL ACTUAL THREATS. Do you think before you write things?

Even the US admits he doesn't have WMDs and don't stand behind the Nigerian story. You need more than circumstantial evidence to prove a crime. America was built upon innocent until proven guilty, so don't be un-American.

We stopped the search. That's all. That doesn't prove Saddam NEVER had them.

The brits still stand behind the nigerian uranium story. They have another source that is not dependant of the forged document.

 

[IControlThePast]

Right. And we now realize that this way of doing things doesn't work in the long run. We must liberate the societies. Free people have common interests.

Are you happy terrorism is rising from them? What are you glad about again?

we can't prove a condition in the past. It's possible that weapons are hidden in the vast desert, or that some were succesfully moved. This will never be known conclusively.

Innocent until proven guilty is a tenet of domestically administerd standard law. It's for citizens under domestic laws. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not considered a rule of thumb for conducting foreign policy with known terrorists and mureders. You're confused nearly beyond repair.

So our intel must be so good that we know when a dictator is merely simulating hostile intentions to provoke war? The problem is filtering the faux hostility from REAL ACTUAL THREATS. Do you think before you write things?


We stopped the search. That's all. That doesn't prove Saddam NEVER had them.

The brits still stand behind the nigerian uranium story. They have another source that is not dependant of the forged document.

No, I'm glad that the fighting in these little power vaccums had stopped. The mistake we made is that just because the fighting has stopped we stopped paying attention to them. That is how terrorism came about.

If we say guilty until proven innocent and raid the country and still find nothing how can someone prove their innocence if they are still considered guilty? You've said it yourself, that it can never be known conclusively, which means they can't prove themselves innocent. If he is a known murderer and terrorist, then we shouldn't need this external information to go in and should not present it, especially if there is a chance of not being able to prove it. Powell says that Saddam should be considered innocent until proven guilty even on his counts of violation of international law.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5349298/

The extent of Saddams hostile intent was not turning over the WMDs he may not have had. If he didn't have them it would be impossible to turn them over. The UN violation we called him for was not meeting us with full compliance because he didn't turn over WMDs. There are countries who obviously have WMDs like North Korea. Right now we are appeasing them, and they are a much greater threat than Iraq.

Back to innocent until proven guilty. You can possibly prove that you don't own weapons of mass destruction either.

Well the Brits haven't turned the document over to us. They can claim they have evidence of coke abuse by Bush and it still wouldn't mean anything until they show it.

Sir Evil, my name comes from an Orwell quote, and in context means using historical facts and situations to supplement arguments. In my signature I continue the quote and do acknowledge that I don't control the present now.

 

[freeandfun1]

Exactly the type of response I expected. It's funny watching how you can't explain why you would "give a shit" to comment about something you knew nothing about. I personally just find it funny to watch how someone completely loses their cognitive ability and resort to emty emotional rhetoric. It's call reverse trolling.

I can tell your mouth isn't quite full from the whining "why should I" and quite brilliant "you're an idiot." Would this make you feel better? :baby4: :usa:



Nope. The sources I have here say Saddam didn't kill 100,000. The Hill & Knowlton scandal is quite well known when one of the people they had testified about atrocities before Congress was the daughter of the ambassador of Kuwait and nowhere near anything. The holocaust killed a great many people. At least 6 million Jews and more than 10 million total casualties. That however is a well documented position. I'm suprised the best you guys can do is create an Ad Hominem attack on my character by assuming I'm anti-semitic while all you've really said is "so you believe Saddam didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his own people." Give me some actual facts to work with if you want to support the statement and I will give it a listen.

See, this reply shows your idiocy and bias. I am CLEARLY referring to the 100's of thousands of Iraqis Saddam killed, but you are saying it is not true by referencing some questionable testimony by a Kuwaiti girl that was speaking about what he supposedly did in Kuwait. There is NO correlation, yet you are trying to make one to buttress your idiotic position.

I am beginning to think you are the reincarnation of KEEB.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, I'm glad that the fighting in these little power vaccums had stopped. The mistake we made is that just because the fighting has stopped we stopped paying attention to them. That is how terrorism came about.

Right. Lesson learned: To eliminate terrorism we must eliminate the oppressive governments that foster it. Right?

If we say guilty until proven innocent and raid the country and still find nothing how can someone prove their innocence if they are still considered guilty? You've said it yourself, that it can never be known conclusively, which means they can't prove themselves innocent.

The regime itself was a wmd, in intention and ability. I think the best assumption at the time was the saddam had to be taken out. To have let his regime stand another second would have been a global act of irresponsibility of the highest order.

If he is a known murderer and terrorist, then we shouldn't need this external information to go in and should not present it, especially if there is a chance of not being able to prove it. Powell says that Saddam should be considered innocent until proven guilty even on his counts of violation of international law.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5349298/

I disgagree with powell. There's a reason he's off reservation ya know.

The extent of Saddams hostile intent was not turning over the WMDs he may not have had. If he didn't have them it would be impossible to turn them over.

He was obstructing and deceiving inspectors as well. What should we do in that case?

The UN violation we called him for was not meeting us with full compliance because he didn't turn over WMDs. There are countries who obviously have WMDs like North Korea. Right now we are appeasing them, and they are a much greater threat than Iraq.

They are a threat as well. I'm glad you agree with hostile action there, and are not some "peacenik".

Back to innocent until proven guilty. You can possibly prove that you don't own weapons of mass destruction either.

Saddams crimes against humanity are well known and documented. WHy do you love him?

Well the Brits haven't turned the document over to us. They can claim they have evidence of coke abuse by Bush and it still wouldn't mean anything until they show it.

The other source of the intel is classified. Sorry. Yes. It is convenient.

 

[freeandfun1]

No, I'm glad that the fighting in these little power vaccums had stopped. The mistake we made is that just because the fighting has stopped we stopped paying attention to them. That is how terrorism came about.

If we say guilty until proven innocent and raid the country and still find nothing how can someone prove their innocence if they are still considered guilty? You've said it yourself, that it can never be known conclusively, which means they can't prove themselves innocent. If he is a known murderer and terrorist, then we shouldn't need this external information to go in and should not present it, especially if there is a chance of not being able to prove it. Powell says that Saddam should be considered innocent until proven guilty even on his counts of violation of international law.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5349298/

The extent of Saddams hostile intent was not turning over the WMDs he may not have had. If he didn't have them it would be impossible to turn them over. The UN violation we called him for was not meeting us with full compliance because he didn't turn over WMDs. There are countries who obviously have WMDs like North Korea. Right now we are appeasing them, and they are a much greater threat than Iraq.

Back to innocent until proven guilty. You can possibly prove that you don't own weapons of mass destruction either.

Well the Brits haven't turned the document over to us. They can claim they have evidence of coke abuse by Bush and it still wouldn't mean anything until they show it.

Sir Evil, my name comes from an Orwell quote, and in context means using historical facts and situations to supplement arguments. In my signature I continue the quote and do acknowledge that I don't control the present now.

Saddam and Iraq were in violation of the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Therefore, our invasion was nothing more than a resumption of hostilities based on his non-compliance. It is as simple as that. Period.

 

[IControlThePast]

See, this reply shows your idiocy and bias. I am CLEARLY referring to the 100's of thousands of Iraqis Saddam killed, but you are saying it is not true by referencing some questionable testimony by a Kuwaiti girl that was speaking about what he supposedly did in Kuwait. There is NO correlation, yet you are trying to make one to buttress your idiotic position.

I am beginning to think you are the reincarnation of KEEB.

I am ready to believe you, but I'll say again that I need a reliable source for your statistics. I can't draw a conclusion unless I have the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. You've given me the Who and What. The correlation is that was how the scandal was exposed because the same PR firm promoted both stories after it was hired by an Isreali PAC.

Saddam and Iraq were in violation of the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Therefore, our invasion was nothing more than a resumption of hostilities based on his non-compliance. It is as simple as that. Period.

His non-compiance was based on him not turning over the WMDs. The world didn't buy it. If we wanted to attack we needed UN support and we should have convinced them with his offenses against humanity.

Right. Lesson learned: To eliminate terrorism we must eliminate the oppressive governments that foster it. Right?

Right, but there is no possible way to do that militarily on our own. We either need the UN or the cultural imperialism that suceeded so well in Bismark's time, then in Malysia and Indonesia recently. When they actually begin to have nukes it might become a different story. We must not only eliminate the governments, but keep close watch and integrate them with our economy afterwards.

The regime itself was a wmd, in intention and ability. I think the best assumption at the time was the saddam had to be taken out. To have let his regime stand another second would have been a global act of irresponsibility of the highest order.

Do you believe his regime was the worst? There are other worse ones out there that we are unable to fight because we are militarily engaged in this one. That is a global act of irresponsibility.

I disgagree with powell. There's a reason he's off reservation ya know.

Powell was one of my favorite people in the administration who showed how we must use correct interpretation of international law.

He was obstructing and deceiving inspectors as well. What should we do in that case?

The world didn't buy it. Saddam refused a weapons inspector before because he claimed he was an Isreali spy. I don't care if we had to make the head of the inspectors an Isreali spy so we could have a better excuse, like direct refusal of all inspectors, to attack.

They are a threat as well. I'm glad you agree with hostile action there, and are not some "peacenik".

There are times for it, like Afghanistan. I was suprised at all the people who went to the Moonie ceremony a while back. This is a tender situation, appeasement is somethign that has changed with the nuclear age. I don't have enough information to know what should be done there, but I do know that Japan will probably be nuked and Seol, the center of the Asian economy, will be completely destroyed by an artillery (it's pre-aimed there already) barrage. That is quite a hit because if we attacked we would destroy the world's economy, which is something our own economy might not be able to survive.

Saddams crimes against humanity are well known and documented. WHy do you love him?

Stop putting words in my mouth . If his crimes against humanity are well documented let's just leave the sketchy WMD evidence out. There are worse crimes being held unaccountable out there. We need to look at the big picture. We could be much more effective at combating terrorism if the UN was on our side and if we had deployed our forces to a better target.

The other source of the intel is classified. Sorry. Yes. It is convenient.

For now let's try and not to use classified Intel and Intel that we don't know details about its content to prove points in a debate.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Right, but there is no possible way to do that militarily on our own. We either need the UN or the cultural imperialism that suceeded so well in Bismark's time, then in Malysia and Indonesia recently. When they actually begin to have nukes it might become a different story. We must not only eliminate the governments, but keep close watch and integrate them with our economy afterwards.

It would help to have military aid from like minded freedom oriented globally responsible democracies. There are few of those at the U.N. however. Bush would like aid from others as well. I'm not sure where you really disagree with Bush's vision, you seem so reactionary and agitated.

Do you believe his regime was the worst? There are other worse ones out there that we are unable to fight because we are militarily engaged in this one.

The existence of worse regimes doesn't decrease the value of our successes in Iraq. Maybe some of our allies could help like you suggest. Where are they?

The world didn't buy it. Saddam refused a weapons inspector before because he claimed he was an Isreali spy. I don't care if we had to make the head of the inspectors an Isreali spy so we could have a better excuse, like direct refusal of all inspectors, to attack.

Half the world was being bribed.

Well that's your own stupid opinion.

There are times for it, like Afghanistan. I was suprised at all the people who went to the Moonie ceremony a while back. This is a tender situation, appeasement is somethign that has changed with the nuclear age. I don't have enough information to know what should be done there, but I do know that Japan will probably be nuked and Seol, the center of the Asian economy, will be completely destroyed by an artillery (it's pre-aimed there already) barrage. That is quite a hit because if we attacked we would destroy the world's economy, which is something our own economy might not be able to survive.

Your doom and gloom scenrios will not dissuade the oward march of freedom.

Stop putting words in my mouth . If his crimes against humanity are well documented let's just leave the sketchy WMD evidence out. There are worse crimes being held unaccountable out there. We need to look at the big picture. We could be much more effective at combating terrorism if the UN was on our side and if we had deployed our forces to a better target.

Stop loving saddam. Worse crimes don't justify lesser crimes. You sense of justice is warped. The U.N. is only on our side in your dreams, sonny-boy.

For now let's try and not to use classified Intel and Intel that we don't know details about its content to prove points in a debate.

I'm just saying the British Government still stands behind the facts of the case, but no t the forged documents. That's the fact of the matter.

 

[IControlThePast]

It would help to have military aid from like minded freedom oriented globally responsible democracies. There are few of those at the U.N. however. Bush would like aid from others as well. I'm not sure where you really disagree with Bush's vision, you seem so reactionary and agitated.

There are few of those helping us. Well of course there is our coalition, but that is nowhere near the military force that we need, while the UN is. I disagree with the military action in Iraq.

The existence of worse regimes doesn't decrease the value of our successes in Iraq. Maybe some of our allies could help like you suggest. Where are they?

It does decrease the value of our success in the world though. Again we need to look at the big picture. Some people take convincing. You can't expect everyone to back us on everything, and we needed to do a better job of convincing them or attack somewhere they agreed with. I remember them helping us in Afghanistan.

Half the world was being bribed.

We've effectively bribed everyone who would come to our coalition with economic bonuses.

Well that's your own stupid opinion.

Also the world court's one. We can't really expect to be taken seriously in matters of international law when we withdraw from it can we?

Your doom and gloom scenrios will not dissuade the oward march of freedom.

I'm not quite sure where you've extrapolating this. It is possibly a big price to pay and I said I am not informed enough on it to make a decision either way.

Stop loving saddam. Worse crimes don't justify lesser crimes. You sense of justice is warped. The U.N. is only on our side in your dreams, sonny-boy.

My sense of justice is doing the best for the world in order to rid terrorism, and if you believe that is warped and not what justice should be about I don't know what to say. :usa: This whole response is confusing, where did I try and justify crimes? If we are going after him for crimes and have unsure WMD evidence, let's leave the bad evidence out and focus on the crimes. If the WMDs aren't integral to your argument for attacking him then why do you still debate that he had them even though anybody has yet to prove so? If we want to end crimes and terrorism there are much better targets to chose from where we can fight with the UN support against multiple targets at once.

I don't dream about Afghanistan, so the UN isn't on our side in my dreams. Only in real life Afghanistan.

I'm just saying the British Government still stands behind the facts of the case, but no t the forged documents. That's the fact of the matter.

Really, I thought you said they were standing behind the forged Nigerian documents.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There are few of those helping us. Well of course there is our coalition, but that is nowhere near the military force that we need, while the UN is. I disagree with the military action in Iraq.

The U.N. is the force we need? The force we need is the force that shows up. You disagree with the military action in Iraq? Do you believe in fighting the global war on terrorism but not in invading Iraq as part of that war? Please clarify.

It does decrease the value of our success in the world though.

Nope. One less dictator is always one less dictator.

Again we need to look at the big picture. Some people take convincing. You can't expect everyone to back us on everything, and we needed to do a better job of convincing them or attack somewhere they agreed with. I remember them helping us in Afghanistan.

OK. Let's let the UN run the war on terrorism.

We've effectively bribed everyone who would come to our coalition with economic bonuses.

The leaders of the nations who backed us did so despite possible backlash at home, because it was the right thing to do for long term global safety.

Also the world court's one. We can't really expect to be taken seriously in matters of international law when we withdraw from it can we?

The world court has no jurisdiction anywhere.

My sense of justice is doing the best for the world in order to rid terrorism, and if you believe that is warped and not what justice should be about I don't know what to say.

OK. well, bush and the republicans are the ones actually treat it like a war. All you do is nit pick at history. Do you think this is helping the war on terror?

If we are going after him for crimes and have unsure WMD evidence, let's leave the bad evidence out and focus on the crimes. If the WMDs aren't integral to your argument for attacking him then why do you still debate that he had them even though anybody has yet to prove so?

You libs keep bringing up the wmd, as if it was the only reason offered. You falsely limit the discussion to this one issue. If you acknowledge there were many valid reasons for taking out saddam, all of which the administration mentioned, then we can drop the whole WMD thing.

If we want to end crimes and terrorism there are much better targets to chose from where we can fight with the UN support against multiple targets at once.

Just like the U.N. supported sanctions against saddam?

Really, I thought you said they were standing behind the forged Nigerian documents.

No. Not the document. the story. They have a chain o proof independant of the forged documents.

 

[freeandfun1]

His non-compliance was due to his not allowing inspectors to verify he had no WMDs. He shoulda let em do their work. He brought it on himself.

 

[sagegirl]

Hey y'all. I didn't want to jump in and take that thread off tangent so I've started this one to continue what me and manu were discussing last night.



There are many things the US is authorized to do that would fall under this, though. Keeping someone under water until they pass out, in other words, making them think they're dying and risking brain damage, is torture in my book. Chaining someone in the fetal position with a hood over their heads, leading to total sensory deprivation and loss of movement for upwards of 48 hours, is torture. Sensory Deprivation studies in the 50's and 60's confirmed that after less than 14 hours extreme mental disturbance and temporary insanity could occur in even less stringent conditions.



http://www.fairgofordavid.org/pubdocs/AmnestyReport19August03.pdf

While I know its hard to read such words against one's own country, the charges are valid. In the days after 9/11, hundreds of citizens and legal US residents were held without being charged or even publicly detained by our own gov. This is much like the events that occurred less than 60 years ago, after Pearl Harbor, to Japanese-American citizens in internment camps. Documents like the above by Amnesty International do show that the government officials do play the human rights card as a political tool when it is in the administration's favor, but refuse to abide by it when their interests are not being met by the rules.

This is why US soldiers cannot be charged in international courts at present, as well as why torture occurs at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Is it naive to expect us to play by the same rules we charge others with breaking?

Being idealistic is not the same thing as being naive. I think I have a fair amount of real world experience. I worked for my own car and insurance, I pay most of my tuition. I grew up in a warzone the first seven years of my life. I still remember sitting in bomb shelters while everyone looked at the ceiling and the ground shook and rumbled. I have travelled around both coasts of our country and to several other places in the world.

I am definitely not anti-American or anti-Bush. I am pro-truth though. Given repeated attempts at deception and half-truth by this administration on multiple fronts, I tend to be somewhat skeptical after a time. The boy can cry wolf only so many times.

I was so proud of my people for the generosity that governments corporations and private citizens alike showed the past few weeks after the tsunami. The President even personally wrote a check for $10,000, an admirable example by our leader. He is not an evil man, but he and his administration have a shameful record on all the important issues. I am proud to be an American, and proud to maintain the heritage of informed skepticism that is essential for a healthy democracy.

Who watches the watchmen? - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana (1863–1952), U.S. philosopher, poet “Reason in Common Sense,” ch. 12 (1905-6).

I will try to post shortly on the discussion about hypothetical changes to US foreign policy.

The issues you have mentioned are obvious human rights violations. The efforts of this administration to justify their actions by glossing this over is the hype of spin.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The issues you have mentioned are obvious human rights violations. The efforts of this administration to justify their actions by glossing this over is the hype of spin.

Or is it the spin of hype?

 

[sagegirl]

His non-compliance was due to his not allowing inspectors to verify he had no WMDs. He shoulda let em do their work. He brought it on himself.

You base this opinion on what....it is a a well known dilemma that you cannot prove a negative....the alternative is the need to prove the positive. No amount of inspections (as the inspectors were already establishing) could produce the evidence of wmd's. Base your foundations and your opinions on established facts and you will not be so likely to end up with erroneous outcomes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You base this opinion on what....it is a a well known dilemma that you cannot prove a negative....the alternative is the need to prove the positive. No amount of inspections (as the inspectors were already establishing) could produce the evidence of wmd's. Base your foundations and your opinions on established facts and you will not be so likely to end up with erroneous outcomes.

He was caught moving stuff out the back with inspectors coming in the front.