> Apparently the whole boring history of UN Security Council actions against Iraq, the sorry saga of the weapons inspectors, the Oil for Food scandal, and the regular firing on US planes by Iraq (AKA "Act of War") is apparently still unknown by you. Minus 10-12 years of history and collective action by the UN against Iraq
What part of that rant is supposed to actually justify an invasion of a country and forcible change of their government? The only thing that even superficially looks relevant is the anti-aircraft missiles, but you can hardly blame someone for firing AA against someone who is habitually invading their air space. (Well, you can blame them for stupidity, but not for illegality.)
And before you invoke UN resolutions, please look up that clause of international law that gives the UN or anyone else the authority to violate a state's airspace.
> Of couse, if it lets you slam the US or Bush, well... facts be damned!!
Bush and the US government deserve a slamming over this, and the facts support the slamming.
> You should also be able to get away with your lies if you speak them to foreign governments or the United Nations. Or to the military. Or to the news media (or at least those members of the news media who aren't already on your payroll). Or to congressional investigators, the 911 commission, or other such agencies. There may be some others I left out, but the point is that that by no means should one ever get away with lying under oath.
So, by your lights it's ok to tell lies to start a war that get ~20,000 people killed, but not ok to lie about a blowjob, simply because one was under oath and the other wasn't?
(And BTW, isn't testimony to Congress and congressional commissions done under oath?)
> Sad thing is, as much as the Republican PR machine would like you to to believe otherwise
At least the past year's news is starting to break down the longstanding myth that Democratic politicians are sleazeballs and crooks while Republican politicians are upright characters.
> Saddam is on trial for torturing and killing people, maybe one day Bush too will be ontrial for torture and murder.
It doesn't seem to be commonly known, but starting gratuitous wars accounted for two of the four charges against a number of German politicians, generals, and industrialists at the Nuremburg war trials. Charges #1 and #2 were -
participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace
The Wikipedia article has a table listing who was found guilty of which charges; those found guilty of one or both of these two charges included Göring and Hess, as well as lesser-known individuals such as the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Economics, the head of their equivalent of the Pentagon, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Notice that you could easily put names on the holders of some of those same positions in the USA in 2003. It's small wonder that the Bush administration has been so adamantly against the creation of the World Court.
Another branch of neocons (the "religion is the opiate of the masses and we're going to exploit it to the hilt" crowd) is also sweating the court ruling on ID in the Dover, Pa. case, which may come out next week.
I liked it better before you snipped the context and three-quarters of the sentence itself.
The quoted part is trivially true, as would be the same claim about some on the left, some in the center, and some that don't care about politics at all.
> > Forget "intentions", his consequences wouldn't have been so bad.
> Some on the right would argue that his consequences would be thousands of civilians still being targeted for toture by Saddam.
Some on the right are fuktards that think everything's fine now that we and a semi-friendly Iraqi government are now doing most the killing and torturing.
> I imagine Kerry would have been rather sheep like in the manner of Jimmy Carter. But I doubt his intentions would have been as reprehensible as either Bush.
Forget "intentions", his consequences wouldn't have been so bad.
> Even if he's indicted, tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to a PMTA prison, his alleged services to the current administration would probably buy him a "Get out of Jail Free" card in the form of a presidental pardon for all crimes.
Bush doesn't seem the type to expend his scarce political capital on someone who can't help him anymore.
Hell, he has to be reminded when it's time to throw the religious right a bone.
Slashdot Mirror
> Buy this book with Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler today!
I hope they ship the pair with a lead plate between them, because they explode if they come into contact.
> Karma Sutra won't improve your sexual creativity.
Of course not: there's nothing creative about following an instruction book.
Creativity would be figuring all that stuff out without seeing the book.
> Apparently the whole boring history of UN Security Council actions against Iraq, the sorry saga of the weapons inspectors, the Oil for Food scandal, and the regular firing on US planes by Iraq (AKA "Act of War") is apparently still unknown by you. Minus 10-12 years of history and collective action by the UN against Iraq
What part of that rant is supposed to actually justify an invasion of a country and forcible change of their government? The only thing that even superficially looks relevant is the anti-aircraft missiles, but you can hardly blame someone for firing AA against someone who is habitually invading their air space. (Well, you can blame them for stupidity, but not for illegality.)
And before you invoke UN resolutions, please look up that clause of international law that gives the UN or anyone else the authority to violate a state's airspace.
> Of couse, if it lets you slam the US or Bush, well... facts be damned!!
Bush and the US government deserve a slamming over this, and the facts support the slamming.
> Frugality: The biggest, most expensive new social program in decades (the Medicare prescription drug plan) not to mention massive budget deficits.
Ah, yes. The "tax-and-spend" Democrat has been replaced with the "cut-taxes-and-spend-anyway" Republican.
But it certainly plays well with the crowd that gets the biggest tax cuts.
> do you really think if the Iraqis voted tomorrow for the US to leave that we would?
FWIW, a poll in Iraq this week revealed that 81% want the US to leave.
> You should also be able to get away with your lies if you speak them to foreign governments or the United Nations. Or to the military. Or to the news media (or at least those members of the news media who aren't already on your payroll). Or to congressional investigators, the 911 commission, or other such agencies. There may be some others I left out, but the point is that that by no means should one ever get away with lying under oath.
So, by your lights it's ok to tell lies to start a war that get ~20,000 people killed, but not ok to lie about a blowjob, simply because one was under oath and the other wasn't?
(And BTW, isn't testimony to Congress and congressional commissions done under oath?)
> perhaps not as freightening as this
Also, one of the major networks (CBS, IIRC) is still sitting on a story about Bush that their management quashed just before the 2004 election.
> Sad thing is, as much as the Republican PR machine would like you to to believe otherwise
At least the past year's news is starting to break down the longstanding myth that Democratic politicians are sleazeballs and crooks while Republican politicians are upright characters.
> What the fuck is wrong with this country?
I'm shocked that we're even discussing the legitimacy of torture.
It doesn't seem to be commonly known, but starting gratuitous wars accounted for two of the four charges against a number of German politicians, generals, and industrialists at the Nuremburg war trials. Charges #1 and #2 were -
The Wikipedia article has a table listing who was found guilty of which charges; those found guilty of one or both of these two charges included Göring and Hess, as well as lesser-known individuals such as the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Economics, the head of their equivalent of the Pentagon, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Notice that you could easily put names on the holders of some of those same positions in the USA in 2003. It's small wonder that the Bush administration has been so adamantly against the creation of the World Court.
> I think he could quite convincingly plead diminished mental capacity as a defence.
Funny aside, he didn't have any qualms about executing the mentally retarded when he was governer of Texas.
> That aside: Bad week for the Neocons.
Another branch of neocons (the "religion is the opiate of the masses and we're going to exploit it to the hilt" crowd) is also sweating the court ruling on ID in the Dover, Pa. case, which may come out next week.
> Time to update the Wikipedia entry?
You could have done it for about the same amount of effort it took you to post the question.
> > Some on the right are fuktards that...
> Your statement speaks for itself.
I liked it better before you snipped the context and three-quarters of the sentence itself.
The quoted part is trivially true, as would be the same claim about some on the left, some in the center, and some that don't care about politics at all.
> > Forget "intentions", his consequences wouldn't have been so bad.
> Some on the right would argue that his consequences would be thousands of civilians still being targeted for toture by Saddam.
Some on the right are fuktards that think everything's fine now that we and a semi-friendly Iraqi government are now doing most the killing and torturing.
> But I'm curious - can you tell me why you hate Kerry so much?
I don't hate him, but I think he was spineless in a situation that history will record as one of our nations major crises.
> I imagine Kerry would have been rather sheep like in the manner of Jimmy Carter. But I doubt his intentions would have been as reprehensible as either Bush.
Forget "intentions", his consequences wouldn't have been so bad.
> Ah jeez. Listen people, God doesn't play politics. Frankly, He's got better things to do.
Well, He shouldn't have better things to do. Look at the consequences of not intervening in the 2000 elections.
> Didn't someone once say something like, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"?
Yeah, and that's why Diebold is so keen on giving votes to Republicans.
> at the end of the day this is about a company that, at the very least, was thoroughly negligent
I'd hardly classify it as 'negligent' when you deliberately try to sell a defective product.
> ..or does someone not like Diebold?
How 'bout a poll?
> Somehow I don't think he was VOTED out of his office.
If you get voted out of a Diebold position, that's de facto evidence that you weren't producing a good product.
> another contract for Haliburton to take over.
It's a wonder that they're not running Club Fed.
Though after 2008 they may be running it from the inside...
> It's not the stapler joke or a couple of lines that make the movie great. Office Space is a satire about the typical corporate work environment.
Kind of like Dilbert, except funny.
> If you think Office Space is primarily a Romance, then you missed about 80% of the plot.
Probably worse, if the "pound-me" joke makes you think of romance.
> Even if he's indicted, tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to a PMTA prison, his alleged services to the current administration would probably buy him a "Get out of Jail Free" card in the form of a presidental pardon for all crimes.
Bush doesn't seem the type to expend his scarce political capital on someone who can't help him anymore.
Hell, he has to be reminded when it's time to throw the religious right a bone.