Nope, just you But you aren't an American, just an American basher, so it doesn't really matter! Say "hi" to Jose for me?
Wow talk about trying to take statements out of context or trying to twist them when you know what was implied from them from previous posts. Such as Aluminum tubes, it was not the aluminum tubes themselves but the case made out of them Hence I state aluminum tubes for short. I'll be glad to reply in full tomorrow though.
Gtech It is time for you to change your opinion since the government is changing their stand. Administration adamant On Sunday, Hadley acknowledged "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but he insisted in a CNN interview that the president did not manipulate intelligence or mislead the American people. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley Gtech, Do you think Bush is wuss and pro terrorist since he said in his speech: "Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Bush said. Bush fires parting shot at Iraq critics
Yep "government". Bi-partisian government. Not Bush. Two houses of congress, democrats and Republicans, and the previous administration.
Will, I am a bit torn on the issue. On the one hand I can see where McCain is coming with and can completely understand why he would be against torture, however I 1) question his motives, and 2) wonder if we should really have congress re-writting the military handbook. McCain as we all know will introduce any piece of legislation he thinks will be popular with the press regardless of its merrit. The trouble with letting the Congress create a federal law limiting the military's ability to conduct intelligence at a time of war no less, is very disturbing. BTW, what are we going to define torture as? Peeling finger nails? Electrocuting people, breaking bones? This is certainly what the enemy does. But what about playing loud music for extended periods of time? Being forced to look at pictures of Rosie O'Donnel? Bright lights? What exactly? I can see several instances where a terrorist is subjected to eating pork only to find that this falls under torture. Imagine the US bringing itself up on charges for not catering to the cultural dietary needs of a suicide bomber? Give me a break. No, I think there is no need for a federal law on this one. After all, we are not torturing anyone. I still get a kick out of that Abu Grarab crap. Wrong? yes, Torture? No. Sick? yes, inhumane? No. Let's let the Military actually fight a war for once without congress limiting their ability to do so. You know McCain would introduce legislation to make the Tootsie Roll our national dish at Thanksgiving if he thought it would be a plus for his White House bid. Yes, he is a loon
It is not the congress that is re-writting the military handbook, it is the government that tries to get around every law in both civilian and military law in order to be able to torture people. Here is the criminal code: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340 § 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) “torture†means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering†means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (3) “United States†includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501 (2) of title 49. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A § 2340A. Torture (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. Criminal Code Here is the military: G. Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions: violations of the law of war involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Conventions: willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments; willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; compelling a POW or protected civilian to serve in the armed force of a hostile power; depriving a POW or protected civilian of the rights of fair or regular trial as prescribed in the Conventions; unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected civilian; taking hostages. INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SCHOOL, U.S. ARMY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA You can also refer to Articles in Geneva Convention that USA has signed. Real soldiers don't go around torturing people, it is corrupt politicians who have no morals and people who are disgrace to uniform that support or commit such actions. Let' see what military thinks of such actions desired by this administration: "The documents include one written by the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law. General Rives added that many other countries were likely to disagree with the reasoning used by Justice Department lawyers about immunity from prosecution. Instead, he said, the use of many of the interrogation techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad." Rear Adm. Michael F. Lohr, the Navy's chief lawyer, wrote on Feb. 6, 2003, that while detainees at Guantánamo Bay might not qualify for international protections, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?" Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, said in a Feb. 27, 2003, memorandum that all the military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation regime could have adverse consequences for American service members. General Sandkuhler said that the Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus, understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion." Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top-ranking uniformed lawyer, said in a March 3, 2003, memorandum that the approach recommended by the Justice Department "will open us up to criticism that the U.S. is a law unto itself."
Now I'm one sided, next it'll be I have it both ways, which one is it? Not realy WMD is one thing, the case used by the president is a totally different story. He used 9/11 and terror there is no getting by that one. He also in my eyes as well as many others embelished or cherry picked the facts. I'm not backing up Clinton so your argument trully has no bearing in this argument at all. Ahh yes I admitted I did not specifically state Al Queda, however I would think in our war on terror, the ones who actually struck us would obviously be whom I was talking about would it not? Those connections you speak of as well, not very strong are they? Nowhere near the real war on terror. This is totally false. The purpose behind the yellow cake that the admin brought up was so Saddam could use yellow cake without disturbing the yellow cake that was already known about. How can you possibly try to argue well he had X, we said he was trying to get more X. Of course he had what the UN knew he had, that does not make GWB right or your accusation that it's correct. Do you not get the difference between the UN knowing he had something of which is found and the admin claiming he was seaking more of it that the UN would not have known about? They are totally different. Sigh, if anyone would have bothered to watch the news they would know this is a fact. How can you even try to argue on either side without knowing these common facts from the lead up to the war. If I can find more of this dinosaur comments I'll be glad to post them, I honestly can't believe any sane person would dispute this if they had watched the news at all. http://thinkprogress.org/cincinnati-bungles/ Cherry picked, distorted the facts, however you wish to call it. Reread the speaches Bush made, even without the term imminent threat being used he damn near gave the country a heart attack by using fear and terror over and over. Yes he did embelish, cherry pick, however you want to call it. There trully is no debating that on certain parts of the prewar case, I however know you'll try. As long as one expert on your side agreed with Bush even though 99% of the other experts were screaming at the top of their lungs he was wrong in your mind that is not cherry picking or embelishing, that's your right. I however see it as many do as clear and simple cherry picking, embelishing of the current facts, distoring them, however you want to call it. Not in the least, I'm basing what I know from what I watched and read BEFORE THE WAR not the other way around. Is it just me or does Gtech sound like a broken record on the Republican talking points? I've been doing nothing but presenting them, you however even when proven wrong appear not to beable to see it. So still not one single mistake at all, not one single embelishment, all went perfectly as planned, and you are 100% satisfied with everything. Nope a simple test or even our government stating it is, not 'one' so called expert with absolutely no first hand experience guessing it's VX. That is not proof that is pure speculation. Not at all he used only intelligence that backed his case, he used items that were widely unproven and disputed by the majority that it was incorrect as the truth of which is now biting him and his administration in the ass hardcore. Embellish is not to flat out lie, I suggest you look at the definition: By emphasising unproven and widely disputed intel as the overall truth on our intel that is by the very definition of the word an embellishment.
Man I really really tried to read every post. I just got frustrated with the constant straying from topic to topic. So Here's my turn Anywho, question: When are we going to attack North Korea and Iran for having WMDs. War is fun! (unless you get killed, paralyzed, or mamed. Then it's a bummer)
Quote: Gtech Quote: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction I wonder who has more information, National Security Adviser or Gtech?
I understand English is a second language for you. Re-read my post. I think you are a bit lost and off base...
Don't make one line statements that only shows your ignorance about the subject. what is in my posting that you disagree?
You misconstrued my statement to mean something entirely different. Something I said that you misunderstood unleashed you clipboard and the copy/paste gods as usual. In perfect order you result to the only thing you can when your temper gets the best of you... You start name calling again. How old are you again?
Neither of us are "pretending" anything. You know as well as I do that in 1998 the previous administration said there were WMD's, so too did the UN, Ted Kennedy, Jim Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the leftist naysayer crowd. I said, and I quote "WHO CARES?" I don't care. Can you get that through your thick skull? I supported the War On Terror because I think terrorists are bad. I could give a crap about WMD's, or any of the catch all soliloquies of the day. The point is, I have no regrets about our going to war. I am not second guessing the war and the commanders in charge of it. I am not for limiting the ability of my leaders and men and women in the military from doing their jobs. I felt a great deal of fear on 9/11 and in the days that followed, but since that time I have never felt more safe and secure in the US and abroad in my travels. Most of all I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND REWRITE HISTORY. So again, as to WMD's who cares? It's like constantly going "nah, nah, nahnana...." I do not care. It's a moot point. It means nothing.
Napalm and WP are not considered chemical weapons. Yes, they are made of chemicals -- but so is black powder -- and everything else in the Universe. Chemical weapons fall into four categories: Source: Chemical Warfare