Search results for query: *

Heh..if Bush is a moron for his statement ..then what does your statement about turkey being an arab country make you? Bush seems to have the capability of surrounding himself with intelligent and capable people. Even if you don't agree with their policies, anyone who's ever had to manage a...

A little info on how the Branded and un-Branded stations work: http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/12/9810345os.htm

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2005/11/22.html#a2595" [Broken]

Lol, and I thought this option was used exclusively in parenting. Honestly, it sounds about as American as you can get. Perhaps you've not known any young or poor people involved with the legal system?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T251592.htm" Polly, many of us do remember the results of cutting and running in vietnam...over 300,000 south vietnamese slaughtered after we abandoned them.

"declined to attend" is what it states. The article clearly outlines the decline to attend and the walkout.. as two separate events.

heh..after ten years of military occupation and still..you think there are no problems? Wanna talk about "quagmires", now there was one for you.

skyhunter, one appears to say that the leaders of the kurd and shiite communities were present and the other that they refused to attend. Who were the shiite and kurdish delegates, and who did they really represent if the community leaders refused to attend?

um...there was a ten year old suicide bomber in iraq...but I'm trying to find where I mentioned an age... Not sure how that happened...:redface:

I Guess I Always Thought That One Thing That Defined The Difference Is That In Dealing With The "good Guys" The "bad Guys"..never Had To Worry That Their Children Were Going To Be Used To Attack Them Or Were Going To Be Used As Human Bombs.

I find it very telling that you would compare U.S. forces in Iraq to the japanese/Chinese conflict... Anywhooo, I'm going to make a li'l prediction that after the election in December there will be calls by iraqi elected officials that the U.S. military remain for several more years.

There appears to be a little bit of disagreement between the link that skyhunter posted: and this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-19-arab-league-chief_x.htm

The C.N. Brown corp in Maine actually ran out of Gasoline the first night that gas increased so rapidly. Mainly because they gambled and took a chance that it would be more profitable keeping their gas relatively low, expecting others to at least remain competitive. Unfortunate for them..they...

hmmm... If so...who will take his place.

Actions speak louder then words..perhaps instead of listening to soldiers you should check out what the majority of them are doing...it appears that what they are doing..is overwhelmingly re-upping for service instead of leaving when they have the opportunity.

Just...Wow.

403 noes 3 ayes on the resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

I don't know why the "right wingers" keep coming back to anything...I do know that my question on what "law" made it "outlawed" is what came to this discussion. So, perhap.."right wingers" keep coming back to the fact it is legal is because the "left wingers" keep charging that it is illegal...

Hello...maybe you should follow the thread..his rant was that it was unlawful..."outlawed". It is only prohibited by a treaty..which if not ratified does not prohibit the use of. The U.S. did not ratify the protocal. It is not illegal. Again, as I stated above, if he wants to argue on a moral...

It's only prohibited if you've ratified it. The united States has not signed it. If you want to argue using lies and rhetoric you should not be surprised when someone challenges you to support your statements. If you want to argue on a purely moral ground then don't make hyperbolic statements...

Mercator...makes a a statement regarding the legality of the United states using WP. I ask him to clarify which U.N. law it is that makes it unlawful.. Then Skyhunter..you reply: Skyhunter, evidently you're selectively reading because you appear to have missed Mercators statement regarding...

No..your statement was factually incorrect. from the often used source Wikipedia...I quote: On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been "stored improperly", and thus the gas was...

Even funnier is that obfuscation is not clarification but better defined as avoidance.

Yes, yes..I think this is probably the key to the whole subject. Please...quote the applicable U.N. "law" in regards to WP. Oh, and while you're at it..maybe you should also find a good definition of what a U.N. Protocal is and how and to whom it applies.

All but one republican senator supported..and over half of the Dems.

ignoring that your statement would be impossible for you to prove and is factually incorrect...let's just question who's disinformation propaganda it was during the two terms prior to Bush's when the Dem's under the Clinton Admin were making similar declarations.

107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 October 10, 2002 JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations...

It seems to me that if there was an issue with "hacking" into electronic voting systems then the counties using punch card systems would show a trend that follows polls. They don't appear to do that... in fact even in counties such as athens where it is predominately democrat (were these not...

AND?! It's irrelevant to my origional statement! And you also had pardongate...chinagate...oh my lord...travelgate..and oh my goodness... way to many gates to remember... how much of it stuck and how much was a waste of our money and time? and how much of this is the same...IN THE END?! And...

No, you're toying with words. It was not a "mere" threat. It was a definitive threat and very imminent. Clinton was impeached based on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Lol...anyone who is ignorant enough to think that the parties..then resemble the parties today..well..whatever. By todays standards they were all conservatives.

An outright lie or you're seriously misinformed.

Edward, it appears to me that in one instance we are speaking of new humvees and then in your last quote we are talking of new upgrades to old humvees.

my apologies..I meant to type johnson... Johnson was http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html" [Broken]

and now...it sounds to me like a civilian trying to second guess on the ground commanders. :wink:

Gokul..although I think you're minimizing the Clinton issues, it's not relevant to my point. If in the end..there is not evidence to support the charges the the origional investigations were based on.. and they are in the end only charged with perjury and obstruction of justice... then, quite...

lol, then I'm at a loss as to why you bothered with the long response to my comment. The charges brought against Clinton were perjury and obstruction of justice. I'm leaning hard towards putting my money on any charges being brought against libby, rove...delay et al. to be the same. Which in...

I'm having a hard time cutting through the propaganda...Skyhunter..please do me a small favor and quote the exact charges brought against him... and save the rhetoric.

you mean like this portion: Another case of politicians second guessing commanders on the ground?

It wasn't a mere threat of impeachment it was the imminent impeachment that caused Nixon to attempt to save some bit of dignity and resign. Clintons impeachment was based on the same charge that helped send Martha Steward to prison.

I don't think you can impeach on hearsay(downing memos)..and impeaching the pres based on WMD claims would put all of the senators who also put forth the WMD claims at risk. Not to mention the 9-11, kaye and Duelfer reports would alone cast enough doubt on their case to allow the charge to be...

Andrew Jackson and Clinton...but niether were convicted. Clinton as you know was a Democrat as was Andrew.

What happens today..if turned around by the time the 2008 election year comes, will have little effect on the elections. Americans have somewhat short term memories and will vote according to how they feel at the time not how they felt a year earlier. Other then that, mentioning Condi was a bit...

What...does whitewater...or anything during the clinton admin have to do with my question? Do you always create commentary to non-existent comments?...hello...?:yuck:

because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*

oops, you're right!..I guess I shouldn't be reading news sites and posting at the same time..:redface:

I have no clue why you're directing this drivel towards me in regards to my comment. I'm curious as to where this hearing is heading and how the law is being applied. Are we looking at something in the nature of espionage? strictly perjury? Is the law really applicable as it has been portrayed...

where did I say that? I'd be less inclined to say that they are better at representing then I would to say they are not as skilled at exploiting. presenting something she should have said and presenting something as what she said are two very different things. I did not misquote anyone. Oh..I...

aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?

curious where you got this from, I had read that he was offered a misdimeanor charge as a plea bargain and that he refused it...