The Hitler/Hillary article I posted was from Worldnet Daily. The only marginally sourced item in my post was the Dean as Hitler photo. Everything else came from major players in the GOP or site routinely referenced by conservatives.
For Pakistan to be persuaded to reduce its nuclear weapons capability, India would also have to join an arms reduction agreement. I doubt that India would sign an arms reduction agreement without China also participating. With China on a major drive to enhance its military capability and be the <i>force</i> on the Asian continent.........little chance of them agreeing to weapons reduction. In regards to the Pakistani proliferation issue, there is a nice article about it here: <a HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/international/04NUKE.html?ex=1073797200&en=9d5c6494f33eb429&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE"> From Rogue Nuclear Programs, Web of Trails Leads to Pakistan </a> It is much too long to post here............but worth the click to read. There have been some thoughts that the recent attempts to kill Musharraf have been a reaction by Islamic fundamentalists to the questioning of A.Q. Khan in regards to the proliferation issue. There is pride in the Islamic world that Pakistan has nuclear weapons capability & knowledge and that will be <b>extremely</b> difficult to overcome.
Thanks for the read, Mango. Hard-hitting stuff. More proof where I'm sitting that we would be better served short and long-term by giving Pakistan adequate attention.
B-L-A-S-T ! ! ! I feel awful for blasting <b>my</b> own mouthpiece. BTW, since when is okay to liken the President of the United States to a fascist dictator but wrong to liken an upstart presidential candidate to the same. Isn't that what you are doing? Which is really inappropriate?
Per andymoon's challenge and my reply, I was only referring to the Hillary/Daschle references and I only tackled the Hillary one. I don't know what else to say. You don't consider peeontherepublic.com to be marginal?
Yes. That is what I said in my last post. The only thing from pee was the Dean photo. The Hillary reference came from Worldnet.
I agree that Pakistan is an <i>issue</i>, but the U.S. has been searching for a solution for years and seems to still be searching. <hr color=red> Blastoff <i>Joined: Feb 1999</i> What brings a veteran like you to the <b>Debate & Discussion</b> (<i>Down & Dirty</i>) Forum?
Sorry, I had the sources confused in my mind. I had gone to the pee website and read some stuff about Hillary; I think that's where my confusion came from. Question: would you have a problem with the WND article if they had edited the last two words of the story: "Sieg Hillary?" Other than that it is a rather pedestrian, academic treatment of ideologies. Do you find it to be artificial or costrued?
1.First of all those that bombed the WTC the first time, were caught. They were captured and the evidence against them was presented in a civilian trial. They were all found guilty and are in prison and no longer a threat to us. If Padilla or anyone else is guilty, then let's present the evidence and see justice done. If we don't have the evidence then why are we arresting people? If we do have the evidence, then why would it be wrong to try them in a civilian court. After all the crimes committed by terrorists are against civilians. I realize that in some cases it's our military that goes to apprehend these terrorists, but there is a reason why law enforcement isn't also judge and jury. I like the principles of the American justice system. Let's try and see them carried out. 2. The ad by MoveOn.org did go too far as far as a political ad goes. That being said there are some parallels that could be made in a different medium or different way. That is not to say that Bush is bent on global domination or the extermination of any particular group of people. Just that using fear to push an agenda could be argued for both. I think that is kind of the point that the ad was making, but political ads are not the place for that kind of theory. The ads from against democratic senators and candidates go far beyond that.
Oh I'm here, mostly lurking though. I'm not as articulate as most of my friends in here, so I'll throw in a hit-and-run post occasionally. After all, I must maintain my status as undisputed ignore list champion (no offense Fatty Fat B.).
If America changes it's principles of justice then it has changed and for worse. If we stick strong to our ideals then the world has still changed but it hasn't defeated us. The changes don't mean that evidence is no longer evidence. Because there was an attack we can't allow ourselves to be ruled by fear, and allow hysteria and alarmism, to replace reason.
Think about what happened after 9/11. Credit was taken. Further threats were made. Jihad was announced. That makes for war. Principles of justice are different in war. Murder is allowed if the guy/gal is wearing the uniform of the enemy.
