smoking gun
so now all of a sudden we don't need the smoking gun that Bush has said that he knows about . .
Why would that be?
Is he still worried about sensative secrets?
What happened to it?
and,
wouldn't it seems strange if someone went to court and was found guilty of possesion of drugs BECAUSE they could not produce evidence that they in fact did not have the drugs? except by not producing the drugs
or conversely,
because they could not produce the drugs accused of they therefor must possess the drugs they are accused of possessing . . . even though the police can't find them . .
is there something strange to this logic?
how will it be looked at by history?
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Why would that be?
Is he still worried about sensative secrets?
What happened to it?
and,
wouldn't it seems strange if someone went to court and was found guilty of possesion of drugs BECAUSE they could not produce evidence that they in fact did not have the drugs? except by not producing the drugs
or conversely,
because they could not produce the drugs accused of they therefor must possess the drugs they are accused of possessing . . . even though the police can't find them . .
is there something strange to this logic?
how will it be looked at by history?
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Comments
<strong>so now all of a sudden we don't need the smoking gun that Bush has said that he knows about . .
Why would that be?
Is he still worried about sensative secrets?
What happened to it?
and,
wouldn't it seems strange if someone went to court and was found guilty of possesion of drugs BECAUSE they could not produce evidence that they in fact did not have the drugs? except by not producing the drugs
or conversely,
because they could not produce the drugs accused of they therefor must possess the drugs they are accused of possessing . . . even though the police can't find them . .
is there something strange to this logic?
how will it be looked at by history?
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
We know North Korea has a nuclear program. They kicked out the UN and stated that they are restarting their nuclear weapons programs. Let's deal with them diplomatically. Of course, Saddam has gotta go.
And you know I have zero respect for a man that doesn't stand behind what he says.
Um... big assumption. Post WW3 there will be no history.
"I don't know what kind of weapons will be used in the third world war, assuming there will be a third world war. But I can tell you what the fourth world war will be fought with -- stone clubs."
-Albert Einstein (1875-1955)
<strong>This is WW4 for those counting at home. Cold war was WW3. We won.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? China isn't a threat anymore?
<strong>This is WW4 for those counting at home. Cold war was WW3. We won.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The parties that you are refering to toppled because of their own mismanagement.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html"; target="_blank">Al quesa may have been in Iraq</a>
An Anerican spokesman on why Iraqis "must have known he was in Iraq:
[quote] "Palestinians, other Arabs, even Iraqis go through a very tight screen when they come into that country. Documents are looked at. You just can't do it [sneak in]. It is a police state."
Coalition intelligence sources say Zarqawi also traveled to Syria and Lebanon, <hr></blockquote>
so, this means that they knew he was a person that was in Iraq . . . (anybdy know about stopover flights?) because they "looked at documents" . . . in other words they checked his ticket?
and, oh yeah, he also went to Lebanon and Syria . . ."ok, their next!!!"
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>That's OK. The world is grossly overpopulated anyway. A little world wide war that blossomed into a nuclear holocaust would help greatly in that regard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure. Why not eliminate North America & Europe. That will help a bit with population control. We can all watch our families and friends die in the dust. Ever witnessed the effects of nuclear fallout on human skin?
While the economy fails worldwide, the rest of human civilization can struggle to survive. Of course a great many people already live without the luxuries we possess. I'm sure they will last a few decades longer even though by that time the biosphere will have collapsed and the sun's radiation will kill the remainder of life on the planet.
Good Call.
<strong>
We know North Korea has a nuclear program. They kicked out the UN and stated that they are restarting their nuclear weapons programs. Let's deal with them diplomatically. Of course, Saddam has gotta go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is why we are pussy-footing our way around the North Koreans. We attack North Korea, they lob missiles at Seoul.
<strong>
Really? China isn't a threat anymore?</strong><hr></blockquote>
China doesn't stand to gain anything by making enemies out of their biggest trade partners.
<strong>
This is why we are pussy-footing our way around the North Koreans. We attack North Korea, they lob missiles at Seoul.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course. We are going for the easiest target. What happens when we attack Iraq? They lob missiles at Israel...which gives us even more reason to continue attacking. However, given the reasons that Bush mentions, North Korea is the more immediate threat. It's not my fault his reasons suck ass.
<strong>
China doesn't stand to gain anything by making enemies out of their biggest trade partners.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But they're communists. Look at their flag for god's sake.
<strong>
But they're communists. Look at their flag for god's sake.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know you're being sarcastic but Eugene has a point. I think China values its largest trade parter, far more than any sovereign attack on their North Korean Ally. Half the things I own are "Made in China". Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they diffused the tensions, China-style, before they (NK) do something stupid. Call it Covert-diplomacy.
<strong>
I know you're being sarcastic but Eugene has a point. I think China values its largest trade parter, far more than any sovereign attack on their North Korean Ally. Half the things I own are "Made in China". Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they diffused the tensions, China-style, before they (NK) do something stupid. Call it Covert-diplomacy.
I think if you look into it China is far more likely to use any American aggression as an opportunity to reclaim Taiwan a.k.a the Republic of China.
<a href="http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2003/01/23/1043283693.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2003/01/23/1043283693.htm</a>;
Acting unilaterally and ignoring the international community sets such a bad precedent.
It also seems likely that you have more things made in Taiwan (Republic of China) than in China (People's Republic of China).
*goes and buys a cheeseburger*
<strong>
is there something strange to this logic?
how will it be looked at by history?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
the reaction of the Germans and the French will be viewed by history the same way that history views Neville Chamberlain's success in Munich.