Actually "pwn" is internet lingo meaning "to beat someone".
Actually "pwn" is internet
gaming lingo meaning "to beat someone." It's it's more in the realm of 15-year-old gamers than people on a serious physics discussion forum.
So you actually have less money now that before the war in Iraq that you do now becuase of the war in Iraq? No you don't. That my friend is a strawman argument (and a false one i might add). Stop saying "we" becuase there is no "we".
Is that a serious question? The government's debt is the people's debt. The $1200 or so that has been spent per person on this war has to come from somewhere, and even though it's not coming directly from our pockets into the war coffers, it'll have to come indirectly from taxes. Also note that I said "in more ways than one." This includes the human cost of the war (our friends and family members who have died and/or been permanently injured) as well as the credibility cost abroad.
And why do you think he got sanctioned? Was it because he is a non-terrorist? No.
In the loosest sense of the definition of terrorist (i.e., one who uses terror as a means to obtain an objective), yes, Saddam was a terrorist. In the stricter sense of the definition (one without power who uses terror to gain it), he was not one. The problem with calling him a terrorist in the former definition is that it evokes memories of 9/11 and al-Qaeda, which he had nothing to do with. The word "dictator" is much more appropriate here. Anyway, no, he wasn't sanctioned because he was a "terrorist" or a dictator. I don't know if you've noticed, but there are many dictators across the world, many of whom don't have sanctions against them. He was sanctioned because of his country's invasion of Kuwait.
There is no way of knowing that.
Other than Hans Blix and his team of WMD experts saying so?
Yes of course he has and that is what i have been saying. But there are forces in the U.S. politics that can tilt the actions in some angle from time to time.
The Bush administration was unequivocally the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. He was not tilted: he was the tilter.
That is correct, but they do more than sitting around, waiting to be blamed for something.
I am not blaming every politician's staff, I'm referring to the U.S. politics as one machinery.
You said, "Everything that is done in the White House is made by other people. The President only approves/denies the ideas or is involved in ma[j]or things." This suggests that you believe that his accountability is diminished by the fact that he has a staff.
The one performing the killing is guilty. The one ordering is not, because people can say no. Then if I ordered someone to do something that would make another someone to do something that would make a third someone kill someone etc. You could expand it forever.
Ordering a hit on someone is considered to be first degree murder in the U.S. (and in most other countries). You can get the death penalty for it. And yes, if a chain of command is followed wherein there are multiple levels of ordering, the counts of murder can go right on up the chain, as it should. (In fact, in the military, often
only the person who first ordered the hit could be charged, because the rest were following orders.)
Clinton's autobiography/memoairs
common sense. It requires that amount of time to run a country
Bush isn't Clinton. Why do you think they have the same hours? You're also not qualified to guess how much time he spends.
The world is a lot more compicated now than when regan ruled. There are more things to do. Can't you see that?
Really? There were more dictatorships in 1985 than there are now, and Reagan had that pesky little nuclear superpower known as the Soviet Union breathing down his neck. Bush has fewer dictatorships and some suicidal guys in a cave. Furthermore, even if the world was "more complicated," wouldn't that require less vacation time?
There is again, no way of telling that.
Two words: Hans Blix.
You are here by effectivly telling us that the Bush administration, the UN and a whole lot more people are idiots.
For one thing, I said "believes," referring to the present. No one currently claims that he had WMDs, not even the Bush administration. Even in 2003, your statement is false. The UN
didn't vote to go to war, so they're out. "A whole lot of people" refers to the people that were assured by the Bush administration that there were WMDs, so they don't count. (A subset of that group are the senators who had the "same intelligence" that Bush did, which is false statement. They in fact did not have the same intelligence, only the intelligence which supported the case for war.) As for the Bush administration, I'll leave it to you to decide whether they're idiots or not.
By the way, if the whole WMD thing was an intelligence snafu, why did George Tenet get the Medal of Freedom?