Er...psycho, cause he raised his voice? Militant cause...er...what, exactly? Vengeful cause he wants wrongs righted? I don't want Bush to die in a natural disaster like yourself, just lose the election.
So by your logic, if the UN had been in place, the 13 Colonies would have been unjustified in starting the Revolutionary War? I'll deal with the rest of your errors when I get back from lunch.
At the same time, you could probably site all the officials and CIA agents who felt the intell was sound.
You really don't know what you're talking about. The 13 colonies were not a sovereign nation, and the matter would have been covered under another issue; internal revolt. Ok, get back to me with the rest of my 'errors'.... BTW, what Jesus thread?
As General Zinni said, the policy of containment was working brilliantly in keeping Saddam from making weapons and threatening his neighbors. His military was so weak that we overran them in just 19 days. This was not an action that needed to be taken at that time. This could have waited until after we finished in Afghanistan, got intelligence that wasn't tainted, and gotten the UN and the rest of the world on our side.
Not to interrupt random arguments here, but i just watched the whole thing. Sounded pretty right on to me. Are there truly still Americans left who believe the last 3+ years have been handled well - in regards to anything?
Except in extreme cases (Iraq didn't qualify), yes. I would say the combination of the two is the worst thing that can happen. We started a preemptive war based on faulty "intelligence" that it turns out may have been fed to us by Iran. This is why we needed ironclad intelligence vetted by more than just the "boutique intelligence service" (quote from Zinni) created by the administration to rubber stamp Chalabi's claims. No, but putting 2000 FBI and CIA agents in Iraq as we were invited to would have given us all the information we would have needed. In this case, it was. It kinda looks like it is time for you to come up with some more.
Dude, you need to look at your fact-checking apparatus again. SADDAM HAD NO LINK TO AL-QAEDA. THE PRESIDENT AND DEFENSE SECERETARY ADMITTED AS MUCH.
Well, I guess that is my impression of conservatives everywhere not just here. I don't really have a problem with conservatives but I have yet to see anyone refute anything Gore has said. The only thing I ever see from the conservatives here is the smearing of anyone who speaks out against the current administration. Shouldn't we as Americans question our leadership when it needs to be questioned? Or are we all sheep?
The CIA came out long before all of this and said that they could not vet the "intelligence" the administration was getting. This is why the DOD set up their own intelligence service specifically to sign off on the questionable intel that it turns out MAY HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED BY A HOSTILE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANIPULATING US INTO INVADING!!! IOW, nobody felt the intel was sound except the administration.
What you have written is a bunch of superficial toss. MENSA indeed. Others have easily and soundly beaten you about the head wrt what you thought important enough to write here.
I refute that Bush is responsible for the prison incidents. There. I said it. Gore is a bitter man. He wakes up every morning next to Tipper and wonders what it would have been like.
Exactly. Thank God he didn't win the election. The thing that amazed me that godawful, charisma-challenged, lying, just-right-of-Marx b*stard got as many votes as he did. Guess the corrupt Democratic vote-procurement machine wasn't as strong as I've thought.
Why would you state an article like that as a proof? That's just as opionated as any thing a posdter on here would say. I mean, arguments like that can be distorted to fit any situation. What if China decides to attack Taiwan by saying that Taiwan poses a singular threat to stable and orderly society in China and Southeast Asia and then released something like this: The U.N. charter itself recognizes a right to national self-defense, which implies that defense against aggression does not require authorization by the Security Council; it is an inalienable right of nations. If the use of military force can help advance the cause of world order, it certainly helps at the prudential political level if the use of force is approved by the Security Council. But a correct reading of the just-war tradition does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that prior Security Council approval is morally imperative. Some responsible analysts have raised questions of precedent here, too: would a failure to obtain prior Security Council approval for a Chinese assault to to lower Taiwan's threat to a stable China and South East Asia be offending international law? I don't think so. It would mean that the China, having made clear that they intend their action to advance the cause of world order to which the U.N. is dedicated, have decided that they have a moral obligation to take measures that the U.N., as presently configured, finds it impossible to take ?even though those measures arguably advance the Charter's goals. See what I mean, it's not stating precendence or facts but making arguments, which can be easily used to justify and other action a country would take. That's why people felt that U.S. action have severly weaken the purpose of the U.N.
