Saddam funded suicide bombers families which only supports the "cause" of killing innocent civilians drinking coffee at a coffee house, riding a bus, going to university, or dancing in a nightclub.
I am sorry but that is enough for me to go to war in Iraq. Was Bush good at building a case the world would get behind? I think he could have done a hell of a lot better. Is the world better off now that Saddam is out of power? I would argue yes.
Fellowship
These are great reasons Fellowship.
The problem here is that some on the left---possibly Giant is the worst offender here---are deluded in the belief that the adminsitration somehow OWES the general population the unaltered truth.
You don't owe your enemies the truth. This simply isn't how countries project power effectively. If there are terrorist who are intent on using whatever weapons they can get their hands on agianst us---then I doubt it really follows that the administration is concerned in the least in "telling the truth" (which would actually be really, really STUPID.) They are concerned in defeating an enemy, not appeasing the fairly odd concerns of someone like Giant.
(but then sammi jo, et al. probably believe that the U.S. used globalhawk technology on the twin towers.)
I'm sorry Fellowship, but this is a really childish and simple-minded way of viewing the situation. You can't legitimately equate these dollars for funding terrorism. Dollars to a terrorist prior to an attack would be funding terrorism. This type of money is funding the family after their 'bread winner' has died.
It's money that goes to all sorts of people though. Families of the suicide bombers, but also families of the people who have been murdered by Israelis. If you equate this with terrorism you're wrong to do so.
The problem here is that some on the left---possibly Giant is the worst offender here---are deluded in the belief that the adminsitration somehow OWES the general population the unaltered truth.
The government does owe us the truth, that's for sure. Government as in the government of the United States of America, and us as in U.S. Citizens.
Hey when saddam was threated he flew his only jets to a neighbor which was his enemey--the enemey of my enemy is MY FRIEND, they all want to destroy the US, so what makes you think he didn't send all his WMD to a neighbor and buried it and pay them rent. Gee i'm going to put them where you can find them haha ha ha, naive americans. THey are there may not be in iraq. now that saddam is out, voices will be heard, wait
The government does owe us the truth, that's for sure. Government as in the government of the United States of America, and us as in U.S. Citizens.
I disagree bunge, it's never really been that way---the Civil War and WWII are EXTREME cases---there was outright manipulation of the people and suspension of habeas corpus in one case. They can't be forthright about what they are up to. Like watching your friend play poker and insist he tell you (out loud) what his motives are.
In all reality the administration should incredibly deceptive right now. If they had to lie to get the elephant out of the room in the mid-east (or whatever they were doing) then you can bet your sweet ass they did it.
I disagree bunge, it's never really been that way---the Civil War and WWII are EXTREME cases---there was outright manipulation of the people and suspension of habeas corpus in one case. They can't be forthright about what they are up to. Like watching your friend play poker and insist he tell you (out loud) what his motives are.
Poor analogy. It's more like watching an employee and forcing them to tell you what hand they're holding.
But, I understand that before going on an attack the military shouldn't tell us what they're going to do. It's the government that has to tell us everything. Every document they write and file away somewhere you own. It's yours. Imagine a bank taking your savings and not letting you get at it. That's an even better analogy.
Poor analogy. It's more like watching an employee and forcing them to tell you what hand they're holding.
But, I understand that before going on an attack the military shouldn't tell us what they're going to do. It's the government that has to tell us everything. Every document they write and file away somewhere you own. It's yours. Imagine a bank taking your savings and not letting you get at it. That's an even better analogy.
So are roads signs. Maybe you should take some home.
Someone wake me when Sammi Jo cites a reliable source of information.
Moogs....Please make my life a little easier and give me a list of what you consider "reliable sources" I could quote from. I am not a clairvoyant, or a remote viewer. (yet)
Why not ask the CIA or the FBI to make you privi to their information as well? After all, by your argument, you are their employer. That is, if you pay taxes. LOL
You do realize that when you take something even as trivial as a dental X-ray, that X-ray does not belong to you, even though you payed for it. It belongs to the dentist, and he can release it to you if he wishes, or NOT.
So are roads signs. Maybe you should take some home.
taking road signs home is a crime, even if you collect those "don't park your gondols here" signs from venice as your souvenirs (or no parking signs from paris, or whichever). how many road signs did you brign as souvenirs from paris, punk?
Why not ask the CIA or the FBI to make you privi to their information as well? After all, by your argument, you are their employer. That is, if you pay taxes. LOL
You do realize that when you take something even as trivial as a dental X-ray, that X-ray does not belong to you, even though you payed for it. It belongs to the dentist, and he can release it to you if he wishes, or NOT.
read what's on the contract.
if there is no agreement on your dentists and your contract, write it there.
You do realize that when you take something even as trivial as a dental X-ray, that X-ray does not belong to you, even though you payed for it. It belongs to the dentist, and he can release it to you if he wishes, or NOT.
Comments
Originally posted by The General
actually fellowship, he wasnt disagreeing with you(or you with him) he was stating as you said, lay it out better.. thats all.
Indeed. I was agreeing with him.
LOL
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
SDW I think the case for removing saddam is simple. Saddam funded terrorists to the tune of around 35 million.
Link
Saddam funded suicide bombers families which only supports the "cause" of killing innocent civilians drinking coffee at a coffee house, riding a bus, going to university, or dancing in a nightclub.
I am sorry but that is enough for me to go to war in Iraq. Was Bush good at building a case the world would get behind? I think he could have done a hell of a lot better. Is the world better off now that Saddam is out of power? I would argue yes.
Fellowship
These are great reasons Fellowship.
The problem here is that some on the left---possibly Giant is the worst offender here---are deluded in the belief that the adminsitration somehow OWES the general population the unaltered truth.
You don't owe your enemies the truth. This simply isn't how countries project power effectively. If there are terrorist who are intent on using whatever weapons they can get their hands on agianst us---then I doubt it really follows that the administration is concerned in the least in "telling the truth" (which would actually be really, really STUPID.) They are concerned in defeating an enemy, not appeasing the fairly odd concerns of someone like Giant.
(but then sammi jo, et al. probably believe that the U.S. used globalhawk technology on the twin towers.)
Oh well.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
SDW I think the case for removing saddam is simple. Saddam funded terrorists to the tune of around 35 million.
Link
I'm sorry Fellowship, but this is a really childish and simple-minded way of viewing the situation. You can't legitimately equate these dollars for funding terrorism. Dollars to a terrorist prior to an attack would be funding terrorism. This type of money is funding the family after their 'bread winner' has died.
It's money that goes to all sorts of people though. Families of the suicide bombers, but also families of the people who have been murdered by Israelis. If you equate this with terrorism you're wrong to do so.
Originally posted by dmz
The problem here is that some on the left---possibly Giant is the worst offender here---are deluded in the belief that the adminsitration somehow OWES the general population the unaltered truth.
The government does owe us the truth, that's for sure. Government as in the government of the United States of America, and us as in U.S. Citizens.
Originally posted by bunge
The government does owe us the truth, that's for sure. Government as in the government of the United States of America, and us as in U.S. Citizens.
I disagree bunge, it's never really been that way---the Civil War and WWII are EXTREME cases---there was outright manipulation of the people and suspension of habeas corpus in one case. They can't be forthright about what they are up to. Like watching your friend play poker and insist he tell you (out loud) what his motives are.
In all reality the administration should incredibly deceptive right now. If they had to lie to get the elephant out of the room in the mid-east (or whatever they were doing) then you can bet your sweet ass they did it.
Originally posted by dmz
I disagree bunge, it's never really been that way---the Civil War and WWII are EXTREME cases---there was outright manipulation of the people and suspension of habeas corpus in one case. They can't be forthright about what they are up to. Like watching your friend play poker and insist he tell you (out loud) what his motives are.
Poor analogy. It's more like watching an employee and forcing them to tell you what hand they're holding.
But, I understand that before going on an attack the military shouldn't tell us what they're going to do. It's the government that has to tell us everything. Every document they write and file away somewhere you own. It's yours. Imagine a bank taking your savings and not letting you get at it. That's an even better analogy.
Originally posted by bunge
Poor analogy. It's more like watching an employee and forcing them to tell you what hand they're holding.
But, I understand that before going on an attack the military shouldn't tell us what they're going to do. It's the government that has to tell us everything. Every document they write and file away somewhere you own. It's yours. Imagine a bank taking your savings and not letting you get at it. That's an even better analogy.
So are roads signs. Maybe you should take some home.
Originally posted by bunge
Poor analogy.
.
.
It's yours. Imagine a bank taking your savings and not letting you get at it. That's an even better analogy.
You obviously don't have a bank account..
Originally posted by Moogs
Someone wake me when Sammi Jo cites a reliable source of information.
Moogs....Please make my life a little easier and give me a list of what you consider "reliable sources" I could quote from. I am not a clairvoyant, or a remote viewer. (yet)
Originally posted by majorspunk
So are roads signs. Maybe you should take some home.
I wish I could help you.
Originally posted by bunge
I wish I could help you.
I don't think I'm the one who needs help.
Why not ask the CIA or the FBI to make you privi to their information as well? After all, by your argument, you are their employer. That is, if you pay taxes. LOL
Originally posted by majorspunk
You obviously don't have a bank account..
I'm pretty sure he does, scott. err ... punk.
Originally posted by majorspunk
So are roads signs. Maybe you should take some home.
taking road signs home is a crime, even if you collect those "don't park your gondols here" signs from venice as your souvenirs (or no parking signs from paris, or whichever). how many road signs did you brign as souvenirs from paris, punk?
Originally posted by majorspunk
I don't think I'm the one who needs help.
Why not ask the CIA or the FBI to make you privi to their information as well? After all, by your argument, you are their employer. That is, if you pay taxes. LOL
You really don't understand. Wow.
Originally posted by majorspunk
You do realize that when you take something even as trivial as a dental X-ray, that X-ray does not belong to you, even though you payed for it. It belongs to the dentist, and he can release it to you if he wishes, or NOT.
read what's on the contract.
if there is no agreement on your dentists and your contract, write it there.
or change the dentist.
Originally posted by majorspunk
You do realize that when you take something even as trivial as a dental X-ray, that X-ray does not belong to you, even though you payed for it. It belongs to the dentist, and he can release it to you if he wishes, or NOT.
About time to find another dentist?