Those bombing were the most horrid events in modern history without a doubt. However, if were a Chinese person in China during WWII, I might have a different take. The war was not going to stop by itself. Many people had to die to stop it. Sick, but true. Is a military leader to chooses the lives of his own men a "hawk". I don't think so.
By Hawk I meant military leader, but it's perhaps a wrong synonym.
Those bombing were the most horrid events in modern history without a doubt. However, if were a Chinese person in China during WWII, I might have a different take. The war was not going to stop by itself. Many people had to die to stop it. Sick, but true. Is a military leader to chooses the lives of his own men a "hawk". I don't think so.
I never want to see such a weapon used again and to hear "George the Liberator" propose new additions to the nuclear arsenal is unsettling at best. However, WWII was a very different time and we are best to learn from that decison without being critical of those who made it.
We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to discourage the Russians, not because it would have saved lives by preventing the need for an invasion. The Japanese were going to surrender soon anyway. In my opinion, that truly makes it one of the most terrible human tragedies of all time.
As I said new lows. You guys find profound means of avoiding what has been posted. The guy is a Republican and kept silent with information that could have stopped the war or at a minimum call the motives regarding the war into question and for you it is business as usual. Amazing. Do that stupid dance for me.
How could Paul have forced our country to avoid the war?
well we don't know that he didn't try, at least while he was in the administration. maybe when i read the book we'll see why we're doing the stupid dance. whatever that means.
do think that was trumptman's way of calling us stupid in a cruelly cryptic way? he's so freaking clever with his grasp on things that i'm not sure.
How could Paul have forced our country to avoid the war?
Well I believe that if a senior official of the Bush administration quit or even stayed in his post, but held a news conference declaring that he had seen the intelligence on the war, and that it was a lie. Also in addition to declaring that, he had memos and meeting notes from the very beginning of the administration showing that this war was not about a terrorist connection, but about oil, I think it would fundimentally alter the type of discussion before the war and support for the war.
Do you think we would be debating whether Dean was against the war, and Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were "for" the war if a senior adminstration official had said something like that? They claim they already had reservations about the measures. That could have been enough to tip the votes away from support. It would have ripped the debate wide open. I'm not trying to declare that he would press a button and make it go away. But the media pressure to plus Democrats being able to take a stand, plus Bush being undermined from within could have changed the course.
Again that doesn't mean Bush wouldn't have still pressured Iraq or anything else like that. But perhaps Bush would have waited for yet another U.N. vote. Perhaps he would have given those sanctions and the inspectors suddenly being allowed in with aircraft carriers off the coast some time to do more inspections, etc.
But we won't know since it appears to me to be one of two things. Either he is making this stuff up to sell books, or he sat silently on information that would have saved lives.
I don't think anything I said here is impossible to imagine, or even hard to see happening if he had said it before hand. Heck look at how the semen stained dress suddenly shifted the Clinton/Lewinski deal. It was no longer subjective sides. There was one item that made it clear to everyone that the two had been together. Paul coming forward would have fundimentally changed the nature of the questioning toward Bush by the media. It might have given the Democrats some back bone with regard to votes. It might have just made the whole process go slower.
well we don't know that he didn't try, at least while he was in the administration. maybe when i read the book we'll see why we're doing the stupid dance. whatever that means.
do think that was trumptman's way of calling us stupid in a cruelly cryptic way? he's so freaking clever with his grasp on things that i'm not sure.
Listen to some Everclear. There's nothing about cryptic about it. The phrase fit my mood.
But we won't know since it appears to me to be one of two things. Either he is making this stuff up to sell books, or he sat silently on information that would have saved lives.
for the last time he's not selling books, he has NO FINANCIAL STAKE!
and why are those the only two reasons he could be speaking out. and why won't you wait until the whole story is out to make up your mind.
Well I believe that if a senior official of the Bush administration quit or even stayed in his post, but held a news conference declaring that he had seen the intelligence on the war, and that it was a lie. Also in addition to declaring that, he had memos and meeting notes from the very beginning of the administration showing that this war was not about a terrorist connection, but about oil, I think it would fundimentally alter the type of discussion before the war and support for the war.
But we won't know since it appears to me to be one of two things. Either he is making this stuff up to sell books, or he sat silently on information that would have saved lives.
Nick,
These attempts at misdirection stretch logical reason. Blaming the messenger is only the latest distortion in the fantasy world you seem to construct, desperate to avoid seeing Emperor Bush has no clothes.
Whistle blowing the secret intelligence info under Ashcroftian "Justice" sounds like a recipe for indefinite detention without charge in Gitmo, rather than the traditional 30 years in Leavenworth on Treason charges.
It is possible that once O'Neill was no longer a Cabinet Officer, the Secrecy provisions may have changed as to when he can release this info.
Suggesting that unless he threw himself onto the sword earlier his truth is invalid is absurd.
Maybe Paul is afraid Mrs. O'Neill will suddenly be Outed as a CIA Operative by "senior White House staff".
How's that *ahem* ruthless investigation to uncover the leak *cough* coming?
Oh wait... neocons are still in denial about that one too, aren't they.
The cumulative picture of the GWB admin as closed-minded seems consistent with this new evidence,
but I'll wait to watch tonight and read the details before judging.
I watched the 60 Minutes report a few minutes ago and it was unbelievable. Bush making an invasion of Iraq a huge priority in the first 10 days of his Presidency is very telling, especially after running a campaign against overextending our troops.
Then you have O'Neil saying he would be surprised if the administration might be angry with him for 'telling the truth'. The report reiterated that O'Neil was getting no money for coming forward.
These attempts at misdirection stretch logical reason. Blaming the messenger is only the latest distortion in the fantasy world you seem to construct, desperate to avoid seeing Emperor Bush has no clothes.
Whistle blowing the secret intelligence info under Ashcroftian "Justice" sounds like a recipe for indefinite detention without charge in Gitmo, rather than the traditional 30 years in Leavenworth on Treason charges.
It is possible that once O'Neill was no longer a Cabinet Officer, the Secrecy provisions may have changed as to when he can release this info.
Suggesting that unless he threw himself onto the sword earlier his truth is invalid is absurd.
Maybe Paul is afraid Mrs. O'Neill will suddenly be Outed as a CIA Operative by "senior White House staff".
How's that *ahem* ruthless investigation to uncover the leak *cough* coming?
Oh wait... neocons are still in denial about that one too, aren't they.
The cumulative picture of the GWB admin as closed-minded seems consistent with this new evidence,
but I'll wait to watch tonight and read the details before judging.
You are so funny. You claim I am speaking about fantasy world where O'neill would have been tossed away as a prisoner of war, detained without charges at Gitmo.
Why wouldn't this be possible now that he is a private citizen than when he was a cabinet official?!?
As for that ruthless investigation to uncover the leak. By the way folks like you went on, I figured the whole administration would be in prison already.
As for waiting to judge... you just spent several paragraphs making your judgements and their motivations well known.
As for that ruthless investigation to uncover the leak. By the way folks like you went on, I figured the whole administration would be in prison already.
As for waiting to judge... you just spent several paragraphs making your judgements and their motivations well known.
Nick
it took a couple of years to get all the nixon administration folk in jail.
i'm still waiting to judge, i was just refuting your inane posts.
i frankly wish leslie stahl would have asked the question "why didn't you speak out at the first NSC meeting."
the made note of his objections on economic things, but nothing on iraq.
plus i don't believe what president bush asked at the first meeting was inappropriate. "saddam's a bad man how do we get rid of him?" invasion is never brought up. it was parsed "how do we change the regime in iraq?"
which again i don't feel is inappropriate. over obsessive maybe, but not incriminating alone.
it's the way they went about it and used 9/11 that irks me.
so o'neill hasn't written a book and isn't making money from this...he was merely interviewed...
and yet we have nick throwing out the company line...and he is in good company...it seems bush has asked dole to start the "mis-information" campaign...
quote:"I mean, there's always somebody in somebody's administration who jumps out early, sells a book, and goes after the guy who hired him," Dole told CNN. "I don't know if that's good. It may be good business; it's not good politics."
lets seem how many times we see in the next few days someone mention that o'neill has written a book....
for the record: in the book, "The Price of Loyalty," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, scheduled for publication Tuesday, O'Neill says administration officials discussed plans to go to war with Iraq as early as their first weeks in office.
and this: Suskind said he interviewed hundreds of people for the book, including several Cabinet members who gave him their accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents.
But the main source of the book was O'Neill, who said he was going public because he felt the administration "has been too secretive about how decisions have been made," CBS said.
The network added that O'Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents and took no money for his role in the book.
O'Neill, the former CEO of aluminum giant Alcoa, was fired in December 2002 over differences with the administration's tax cuts.
Suskind writes that O'Neill warned Vice President Dick Cheney of the consequences of a growing budget deficit, only to be told that Ronald Reagan's two-term presidency showed "deficits don't matter."
US was not fighting for his life during the end of WW2. But according to the hawks of the US army of the time, the invasion of Japan will cost many many lifes. Both from the US and the japanese camp.
The question is , if they have bombed an another target and made less dead, perhaps it would have work the same (a demo if you want).
We will never knows. But perhaps these horrible deaths have shown to the face of earth how terrible where nuclear weapons. We can imagine that without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an another nuclear war happened later.
We canno't remake history, we will never know;
Yes we chased them island hopping back to their homeland. But I really think that it may have saved lives that way instead of invading. The Japanese would have dug in and fought fiercely. I agree that we could have chosen a better target but it was a race for time I think. If I remember, the japanese had some decently fierce fighter planes in production that I think could have done some damage. I know they were running low on supplies toward the end of the war, and I wonder if we could have just contained them if we could have starved them out. I believe they were getting desperate for oil and had suicide missions with planes flying them oil.
Side question to anyone who would know...
Plutonium and Uranium based bombs give of a lot of radiation, and I know hydrogen bombs have some of that in them so how much radiation do they give off? Also neutron bombs, anyone have a link as to how they would work, because I only have a rough idea of what they do and believe they don't give off too much radiation.
Yes we chased them island hopping back to their homeland. But I really think that it may have saved lives that way instead of invading. The Japanese would have dug in and fought fiercely. I agree that we could have chosen a better target but it was a race for time I think. If I remember, the japanese had some decently fierce fighter planes in production that I think could have done some damage. I know they were running low on supplies toward the end of the war, and I wonder if we could have just contained them if we could have starved them out. I believe they were getting desperate for oil and had suicide missions with planes flying them oil.
Side question to anyone who would know...
Plutonium and Uranium based bombs give of a lot of radiation, and I know hydrogen bombs have some of that in them so how much radiation do they give off? Also neutron bombs, anyone have a link as to how they would work, because I only have a rough idea of what they do and believe they don't give off too much radiation.
Side question to an already off-topic reply? Start a thread!
"what was hiroshima and nagasaki? why did we bomb cities instead of military locations...because we wanted to scare the japanese into quitting the war..."
This is a tuff one for me. I don't know if it is possible to fairly judge this one if you were not alive at the time and I suspect none of us were. I think that WWII was the last time that the US was truely "scarred" that it might loose in a big way . (the feeling after 911 could have been nowhere near that during WWII) Perhaps the US was truely fighting for its life near the end of WWII?
i can't argue too much with this (i'm only 42)...my grandfather fought in the south pacific in WWII and thought the bombing was probably an ok thing...
the "fighting for its life near the end of WWII" is a scary comment though...not to throw flames about, but by that logic it would be ok for anyone with nuc's to use them as a last resort....a scary thought, especially if we really thought sadam had them...
i would love to see no nuc's....and especially no new ones made...
i actually think that this country is a "fair and just country", like the president says, but to use that line to say we should have nuc's and nobody else should is "strange" to me...especially knowing that of all the countries that have nuc's (7 to 10), we are the only one that has used them against another countries citizens...
again, it might have been the best decision, but still it is slightly unsettling to see use attacking for fear that another country may have nuc's...i would feel better if japan said nobody should have them...they have the largest history of the use of nuc's against a country...
so what does he do? he works with a pulitzer prize author to get his views out in a timely and cogent manner.
Trumpt's got a point on this one. a "timely" manner would have been before the invasion. Accusations of "sour grapes" didn't stop members of Tony Blair's government from resigning and speaking out against the war.
Trumpt's got a point on this one. a "timely" manner would have been before the invasion. Accusations of "sour grapes" didn't stop members of Tony Blair's government from resigning and speaking out against the war.
Good point, though I will admit so far I was totally wrong on the compensation point. Although there are round about ways of getting around that.
Comments
Originally posted by Beige_G3
Those bombing were the most horrid events in modern history without a doubt. However, if were a Chinese person in China during WWII, I might have a different take. The war was not going to stop by itself. Many people had to die to stop it. Sick, but true. Is a military leader to chooses the lives of his own men a "hawk". I don't think so.
By Hawk I meant military leader, but it's perhaps a wrong synonym.
Originally posted by Beige_G3
Those bombing were the most horrid events in modern history without a doubt. However, if were a Chinese person in China during WWII, I might have a different take. The war was not going to stop by itself. Many people had to die to stop it. Sick, but true. Is a military leader to chooses the lives of his own men a "hawk". I don't think so.
I never want to see such a weapon used again and to hear "George the Liberator" propose new additions to the nuclear arsenal is unsettling at best. However, WWII was a very different time and we are best to learn from that decison without being critical of those who made it.
We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to discourage the Russians, not because it would have saved lives by preventing the need for an invasion. The Japanese were going to surrender soon anyway. In my opinion, that truly makes it one of the most terrible human tragedies of all time.
Anyway, this is off-topic.
Originally posted by trumptman
As I said new lows. You guys find profound means of avoiding what has been posted. The guy is a Republican and kept silent with information that could have stopped the war or at a minimum call the motives regarding the war into question and for you it is business as usual. Amazing. Do that stupid dance for me.
How could Paul have forced our country to avoid the war?
do think that was trumptman's way of calling us stupid in a cruelly cryptic way? he's so freaking clever with his grasp on things that i'm not sure.
Originally posted by bunge
How could Paul have forced our country to avoid the war?
Well I believe that if a senior official of the Bush administration quit or even stayed in his post, but held a news conference declaring that he had seen the intelligence on the war, and that it was a lie. Also in addition to declaring that, he had memos and meeting notes from the very beginning of the administration showing that this war was not about a terrorist connection, but about oil, I think it would fundimentally alter the type of discussion before the war and support for the war.
Do you think we would be debating whether Dean was against the war, and Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were "for" the war if a senior adminstration official had said something like that? They claim they already had reservations about the measures. That could have been enough to tip the votes away from support. It would have ripped the debate wide open. I'm not trying to declare that he would press a button and make it go away. But the media pressure to plus Democrats being able to take a stand, plus Bush being undermined from within could have changed the course.
Again that doesn't mean Bush wouldn't have still pressured Iraq or anything else like that. But perhaps Bush would have waited for yet another U.N. vote. Perhaps he would have given those sanctions and the inspectors suddenly being allowed in with aircraft carriers off the coast some time to do more inspections, etc.
But we won't know since it appears to me to be one of two things. Either he is making this stuff up to sell books, or he sat silently on information that would have saved lives.
I don't think anything I said here is impossible to imagine, or even hard to see happening if he had said it before hand. Heck look at how the semen stained dress suddenly shifted the Clinton/Lewinski deal. It was no longer subjective sides. There was one item that made it clear to everyone that the two had been together. Paul coming forward would have fundimentally changed the nature of the questioning toward Bush by the media. It might have given the Democrats some back bone with regard to votes. It might have just made the whole process go slower.
Nick
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
well we don't know that he didn't try, at least while he was in the administration. maybe when i read the book we'll see why we're doing the stupid dance. whatever that means.
do think that was trumptman's way of calling us stupid in a cruelly cryptic way? he's so freaking clever with his grasp on things that i'm not sure.
Listen to some Everclear. There's nothing about cryptic about it. The phrase fit my mood.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
But we won't know since it appears to me to be one of two things. Either he is making this stuff up to sell books, or he sat silently on information that would have saved lives.
for the last time he's not selling books, he has NO FINANCIAL STAKE!
and why are those the only two reasons he could be speaking out. and why won't you wait until the whole story is out to make up your mind.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
for the last time he's not selling books, he has NO FINANCIAL STAKE!
and why are those the only two reasons he could be speaking out. and why won't you wait until the whole story is out to make up your mind.
why wait when rush can tell you what to think....ditto!!
g
Originally posted by thegelding
why wait when rush can tell you what to think....ditto!!
g
he hasn't been indicted yet?
Originally posted by trumptman
Well I believe that if a senior official of the Bush administration quit or even stayed in his post, but held a news conference declaring that he had seen the intelligence on the war, and that it was a lie. Also in addition to declaring that, he had memos and meeting notes from the very beginning of the administration showing that this war was not about a terrorist connection, but about oil, I think it would fundimentally alter the type of discussion before the war and support for the war.
But we won't know since it appears to me to be one of two things. Either he is making this stuff up to sell books, or he sat silently on information that would have saved lives.
Nick,
These attempts at misdirection stretch logical reason. Blaming the messenger is only the latest distortion in the fantasy world you seem to construct, desperate to avoid seeing Emperor Bush has no clothes.
Whistle blowing the secret intelligence info under Ashcroftian "Justice" sounds like a recipe for indefinite detention without charge in Gitmo, rather than the traditional 30 years in Leavenworth on Treason charges.
It is possible that once O'Neill was no longer a Cabinet Officer, the Secrecy provisions may have changed as to when he can release this info.
Suggesting that unless he threw himself onto the sword earlier his truth is invalid is absurd.
Maybe Paul is afraid Mrs. O'Neill will suddenly be Outed as a CIA Operative by "senior White House staff".
How's that *ahem* ruthless investigation to uncover the leak *cough* coming?
Oh wait... neocons are still in denial about that one too, aren't they.
The cumulative picture of the GWB admin as closed-minded seems consistent with this new evidence,
but I'll wait to watch tonight and read the details before judging.
Then you have O'Neil saying he would be surprised if the administration might be angry with him for 'telling the truth'. The report reiterated that O'Neil was getting no money for coming forward.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Nick,
These attempts at misdirection stretch logical reason. Blaming the messenger is only the latest distortion in the fantasy world you seem to construct, desperate to avoid seeing Emperor Bush has no clothes.
Whistle blowing the secret intelligence info under Ashcroftian "Justice" sounds like a recipe for indefinite detention without charge in Gitmo, rather than the traditional 30 years in Leavenworth on Treason charges.
It is possible that once O'Neill was no longer a Cabinet Officer, the Secrecy provisions may have changed as to when he can release this info.
Suggesting that unless he threw himself onto the sword earlier his truth is invalid is absurd.
Maybe Paul is afraid Mrs. O'Neill will suddenly be Outed as a CIA Operative by "senior White House staff".
How's that *ahem* ruthless investigation to uncover the leak *cough* coming?
Oh wait... neocons are still in denial about that one too, aren't they.
The cumulative picture of the GWB admin as closed-minded seems consistent with this new evidence,
but I'll wait to watch tonight and read the details before judging.
You are so funny. You claim I am speaking about fantasy world where O'neill would have been tossed away as a prisoner of war, detained without charges at Gitmo.
Why wouldn't this be possible now that he is a private citizen than when he was a cabinet official?!?
As for that ruthless investigation to uncover the leak. By the way folks like you went on, I figured the whole administration would be in prison already.
As for waiting to judge... you just spent several paragraphs making your judgements and their motivations well known.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
As for that ruthless investigation to uncover the leak. By the way folks like you went on, I figured the whole administration would be in prison already.
As for waiting to judge... you just spent several paragraphs making your judgements and their motivations well known.
Nick
it took a couple of years to get all the nixon administration folk in jail.
i'm still waiting to judge, i was just refuting your inane posts.
i frankly wish leslie stahl would have asked the question "why didn't you speak out at the first NSC meeting."
the made note of his objections on economic things, but nothing on iraq.
plus i don't believe what president bush asked at the first meeting was inappropriate. "saddam's a bad man how do we get rid of him?" invasion is never brought up. it was parsed "how do we change the regime in iraq?"
which again i don't feel is inappropriate. over obsessive maybe, but not incriminating alone.
it's the way they went about it and used 9/11 that irks me.
and yet we have nick throwing out the company line...and he is in good company...it seems bush has asked dole to start the "mis-information" campaign...
quote:"I mean, there's always somebody in somebody's administration who jumps out early, sells a book, and goes after the guy who hired him," Dole told CNN. "I don't know if that's good. It may be good business; it's not good politics."
lets seem how many times we see in the next few days someone mention that o'neill has written a book....
for the record: in the book, "The Price of Loyalty," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, scheduled for publication Tuesday, O'Neill says administration officials discussed plans to go to war with Iraq as early as their first weeks in office.
and this: Suskind said he interviewed hundreds of people for the book, including several Cabinet members who gave him their accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents.
But the main source of the book was O'Neill, who said he was going public because he felt the administration "has been too secretive about how decisions have been made," CBS said.
The network added that O'Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents and took no money for his role in the book.
O'Neill, the former CEO of aluminum giant Alcoa, was fired in December 2002 over differences with the administration's tax cuts.
Suskind writes that O'Neill warned Vice President Dick Cheney of the consequences of a growing budget deficit, only to be told that Ronald Reagan's two-term presidency showed "deficits don't matter."
g
Originally posted by Powerdoc
US was not fighting for his life during the end of WW2. But according to the hawks of the US army of the time, the invasion of Japan will cost many many lifes. Both from the US and the japanese camp.
The question is , if they have bombed an another target and made less dead, perhaps it would have work the same (a demo if you want).
We will never knows. But perhaps these horrible deaths have shown to the face of earth how terrible where nuclear weapons. We can imagine that without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an another nuclear war happened later.
We canno't remake history, we will never know;
Yes we chased them island hopping back to their homeland. But I really think that it may have saved lives that way instead of invading. The Japanese would have dug in and fought fiercely. I agree that we could have chosen a better target but it was a race for time I think. If I remember, the japanese had some decently fierce fighter planes in production that I think could have done some damage. I know they were running low on supplies toward the end of the war, and I wonder if we could have just contained them if we could have starved them out. I believe they were getting desperate for oil and had suicide missions with planes flying them oil.
Side question to anyone who would know...
Plutonium and Uranium based bombs give of a lot of radiation, and I know hydrogen bombs have some of that in them so how much radiation do they give off? Also neutron bombs, anyone have a link as to how they would work, because I only have a rough idea of what they do and believe they don't give off too much radiation.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
Yes we chased them island hopping back to their homeland. But I really think that it may have saved lives that way instead of invading. The Japanese would have dug in and fought fiercely. I agree that we could have chosen a better target but it was a race for time I think. If I remember, the japanese had some decently fierce fighter planes in production that I think could have done some damage. I know they were running low on supplies toward the end of the war, and I wonder if we could have just contained them if we could have starved them out. I believe they were getting desperate for oil and had suicide missions with planes flying them oil.
Side question to anyone who would know...
Plutonium and Uranium based bombs give of a lot of radiation, and I know hydrogen bombs have some of that in them so how much radiation do they give off? Also neutron bombs, anyone have a link as to how they would work, because I only have a rough idea of what they do and believe they don't give off too much radiation.
Side question to an already off-topic reply? Start a thread!
Originally posted by Beige_G3
"what was hiroshima and nagasaki? why did we bomb cities instead of military locations...because we wanted to scare the japanese into quitting the war..."
This is a tuff one for me. I don't know if it is possible to fairly judge this one if you were not alive at the time and I suspect none of us were. I think that WWII was the last time that the US was truely "scarred" that it might loose in a big way . (the feeling after 911 could have been nowhere near that during WWII) Perhaps the US was truely fighting for its life near the end of WWII?
i can't argue too much with this (i'm only 42)...my grandfather fought in the south pacific in WWII and thought the bombing was probably an ok thing...
the "fighting for its life near the end of WWII" is a scary comment though...not to throw flames about, but by that logic it would be ok for anyone with nuc's to use them as a last resort....a scary thought, especially if we really thought sadam had them...
i would love to see no nuc's....and especially no new ones made...
i actually think that this country is a "fair and just country", like the president says, but to use that line to say we should have nuc's and nobody else should is "strange" to me...especially knowing that of all the countries that have nuc's (7 to 10), we are the only one that has used them against another countries citizens...
again, it might have been the best decision, but still it is slightly unsettling to see use attacking for fear that another country may have nuc's...i would feel better if japan said nobody should have them...they have the largest history of the use of nuc's against a country...
g
now back to the topic at hand....
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Side question to an already off-topic reply? Start a thread!
Good Point...and done.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
so what does he do? he works with a pulitzer prize author to get his views out in a timely and cogent manner.
Trumpt's got a point on this one. a "timely" manner would have been before the invasion. Accusations of "sour grapes" didn't stop members of Tony Blair's government from resigning and speaking out against the war.
Originally posted by Frank777
Trumpt's got a point on this one. a "timely" manner would have been before the invasion. Accusations of "sour grapes" didn't stop members of Tony Blair's government from resigning and speaking out against the war.
Good point, though I will admit so far I was totally wrong on the compensation point. Although there are round about ways of getting around that.
Nick