Quote: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction Do you have anything to say about this yet? May be if you had some education, you wouldn't be fooled so easily.
I would agree with you, we should close universities and burn all the books. If people are educated, it will be difficult to fool them with preachers fantasies. May be you didn't look at the link that ferret provided, so I am quoting it here: "1 The British Empire and Commonwealth The greatest extent of the British Empire was achieved between 1918 and 1922. The figures exclude the eastern seaboard of the United States, which became independent long before the British colonial expansion of the 19th century. 14,157,000 sq. miles (36,666,630 sq. km.) 02 The Soviet Empire The Communist states were never entirely under a single ruler - Although Josef Stalin probably came closest 1948-53. The main division was between the Soviet Bloc, led by Russia, and the Eastern Bloc, led by China. The area given for the whole Communist world does not include later, semi-nonaligned states such as Angola, Tanzania, or Laos. The entire Communist world 13,800,000 sq. miles (35,742,000 sq. km.) The Soviet Bloc (incl. Cuba) 09,883,591 sq. miles (25,598,500 sq. km.) 03 The Mongol Empire The greatest extent of the Mongol hegemony was reached in roughly 1238-68. 12,800,000 sq. miles (33,152,000 sq. km.) 04 The Spanish Colonial Empire At its largest reach, roughly 1740-1790 Spain controlled about half of South America, more than a third of North America, and had significant holdings in the Pacific basin. 07,500,000 sq. miles (19,425,000 sq. km.) 05 The Russian Federation Russia is, of course, a subunit and the core of the Soviet Empire noted above. Even in its reduced state, it is still by far the largest single state on the planet. 06,592,000 sq. miles (17,073,280 sq. km.) 06 The Fascist Axis The Axis powers of the World War II era were never under a single ruler, they were a group of three major powers and a handful of minor ones. Some of the lesser states were, in fact, only nominally associated with the Axis, owing to the needs of defence against mutual foes (as in the case of Finland, which I do not include), or outright intimidation, as in the case of Thailand (which I do). Japanese territory and conquests 02,864,000 sq. miles (07,417,760 sq. km.) German territory and conquests 01,420,000 sq. miles (03,677,800 sq. km.) Italian territory and conquests 00840,000 sq. miles (02175600 sq. km.) Other Axis allies 00249,800 sq. miles (00646982 sq. km.) total 05,373,800 sq. miles (13,918,142 sq. km.) 07 The Caliphate The Early Caliphate was a remarkable thing - a vast stretch of territory spanning Spain, North Africa, the Middle East, Iran, and much of Central Asia: all of which absorbed by Arab conquerors in a bit less than 100 years. Too vast to be stable, it began to fragment less than 200 years after. 05,100,000 sq. miles (13,209,000 sq. km.) 08 The French Colonial Empire The French colonial experience was primarily within Africa, although there were significant territories in Asia and the Americas as well. The figures do not include Quebec or Louisiana, long lost before French colonial expansion in the 19th century. 04,863,000 sq. miles (12,595,170 sq. km.) 09 The Chinese Empire Modern China is somewhat smaller than the figures show - they indicate the approximate size of the state governed by the Qing Emperors during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which included Tibet and Mongolia as dependencies. 04,300,000 sq. miles (11,137,000 sq. km.) 10 The Portuguese Colonial Empire At it's greatest extent, c. 1815-1820, Portugal controlled major territories in South America and Africa. Like many other colonial powers, Portugal had held a previous " http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html so according to you none of these empires existed since bible has mentioned only 7 empires and 5 of those were before Jesus time. Did you find any historical proof that Jesus even existed?
Just because they haven't found any...yet? At least nobody can say that the US put them there in case they found some. When they'll be found, what are you Bush bashers going to say? And please allow me to insist that who really cares if WMD are there or not, Iraq should have been liberated after the first Gulf War, but someone was against that at the time...
No, because National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley admitted that there was no WMD. Do you know anything about NSA? Do you mean Iraq is liberated because they replaced a bad government with a puppet government? This is not the reason that USA claimed for attacking Iraq.
What I say is that it doesn't matter. They should have gone in earlier, now it's late, but it's better late than never! Ask the families of those that were tortured or raped (do you know that there were rooms for the ony purpose of raping?). I don't care what they say, I care only what they do, they did right, only, they did late. For instance, you don't agree, and I don't care, they still did it... Sorry gworld that you're so disappointed, but I still wonder if it would make you happier should they find WMD, because you know that they still could be found, we are not talking about SCUD missiles, but easy to conceal chemicals...
You mean like the sound of silence over the french riots? Or never having a bad word for a terrorist? How's Jose doing? Maybe if you had some education, you could spell collage correctly
I don't really know, Gtech mentioned it, I thought he was mentioning it as something to do with the war on terror. Some further proof of some unknown point
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/ Gtech, who do you think was right? You said we should ignore the law and keep people in prison without charges or trial because we should always trust that government is right, I said that we should respect the law and if we suspect someone is guilty of crime, charge them and let the courts decide. What has happened shows that government knew that they have no right to put themselves above the law. It is also interesting that they do not even charge him with the crime that they were holding him in prison for 3 year as enemy combatant.
I believe you got it all wrong. That's something that has it's origins in France and how immigration was handled over there. It has nothing to do with religion although by coincidence most rioters were muslims. That's because most immigrants in France are from Northern Africa, where their former colonies are. They speak French there and can prob get in France easily. What the French can do for them is another matter. Anyway, I'm sorry for who got hurt, but I couldn't be happier that it happened to the French. Actually one of the reasons why they didn't want to attack Saddam was to avoid problems with their arab/muslim community, although just one of many reasons. , serves 'em right!
That's easy. I was right. The US government (not your government, though you often try to be a part of it) has an obligation to protect it's citizens. You are for the rights of terrorists and have never had a bad word for any terrorist. I'm for getting them off the streets and protecting our citizens. Padilla was a member of al qaida, and you wanted him free. Who here is more concerned with terrorist's rights than you are? No one that I know of. No brainer
It is no surprise that you lie since this is the way that the administration you support acts also. I have quoted your posts, show me where I posted that he should be free. I always said that administration actions were illegal and according to Constitution anybody who is suspected of crime, should be charged and have a trial. Bush administration finally admitted to the same thing that I was posting all the time after 3 years because they were afraid of the case about the legality of their actions going to the court.