jross

I find it amuzing that people are concerned over Iraq potentially selling WMDs to Al-Queda down the road, and have overlooked things like Russia's missing suitcase nukes, which "disappeared" in shady circumstances during the break-up of the USSR. Besides, what makes you think Saddam still had the Sarin that he bought? Last time I checked, his gassing of the Kurds was not a small undertaking. (On that note, why the hell didn't we do anything then? If we're so up in arms over how people are treated over there, why did we just let him do it? Sure, we set up a "no-fly" zone, but it's not like that wasn't violated a dozen times over)

You show me something where they have found ANY SINGLE DEVICE that counts as a WMD.

We're talking about information available to the public, and what was in the public domain. Things requiring use of clearances are out of the scope of the discussion. (And to answer your question: high enough to work for the DoS abroad)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/ Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.

Wow, you're further out there than the liberals you're deriding. Go check your facts, son, and then post back. I doubt Iraq would have sold their WMDs to Al-Queda, and the fact that Al-Queda still hasn't been eradicated should tell you something.

Heh.. 3 replies inbound. This should be fun. Mini-rant: I'm sick of everyone assuming that since I'm anti-Bush, I'm pro-Kerry. I'm anti-Idiot, and both candidates can suck my big fat pasty cock. I'm almost fed up enough to vote for that crackpot Nader, but I'm afraid of what he'd try and do in the White House. Why the hell can't we have decent canidates? I mean, is that too much to ask? Just one canidate that I don't have the irrepressible urge to beat senseless with a rubber truncheon?

There were a number of reports and documents that were in the public domain and in active discussion when the decision to invade Iraq was made which cast doubt upon the intelligence US and Britain were basing their decisions on. Go look through backissues of any major publication, and you'll see references. Maybe later, when I'm bored, I'll do it and post the articles for those of you too lazy to do your own research.

1) I hate Kerry almost as much as Bush, and I'm not a democrat 2) Show me one verified instance where we have found a WMD 3) Bush did lie. He lied when he claimed Iraq had WMDs (found one yet? Nope), he lied when he claimed Saddam had Al-Queda links, he's lied throughout the process.

1) I doubt it, evidence shows otherwise 2) That's true, but we've firmly established the American people are I mean, look, they're polarized over Bush vs. Kerry... 3) That's fine, and I'm all for that. If they had said that was why, I'd be behind them. They didn't, though.

I think the big problem most of us who are anti-Iraq war are having is that Shrub blatantly lied to the American public about why we were going to war, and our soldiers are dying as a result. I realize that military service isn't about drinking beer and chasing skirt, and playing with assault weapons, but I think it's stupid to waste the lives of the men and women in arms. Yes, I'm sure some of the ones run over would have met their demise over here, and surprisingly, I actually do support our troops over there (well, if sending care packages to family counts.. but we send enough that they share), but that doesn't mean I like the dishonesty behind the war. If they had been honest about their motives, fine... now they just made us look like an jerk in the international arena, and squandered the goodwill of the rest of the world. Great going.

My comment was aimed at "Because that makes sense!".. "We can't have that, can we?". It wasn't touching on the stem cell bit, but the fact that this country feels like it's running in circles sometimes. Or maybe ovals. Definitely something closed-loop.

Not in this country, apparently.

Because that makes sense

Such an informative response. :P

I'm beginning to remember why I hate trying to explain things to pro-lifers, and the like. Matt, myself and others have all explained our positions quite fully, but you seem to just skip over it, pick something you don't like, and attack us on it. If you're not man enough to be able to see other people's views on things, that's fine -- but frankly, this is no longer a debate. It's just you guys embarrasing yourself by your behavior. Since I guess I'm nebulously responsible for this thread, I'd like to see if locked now.

The Bushes and the Regans may have been in the same party, but they didn't get along. Did you not see Regan's son's speech after his death? Also, to everyone that's bitching about Kerry's mention of stem cell research in regards to Mr. Reeve, you're all aware the he (Reeve) was a big proponent of stem cell research -- just like Regan? Kerry was trying to honor that. Do your research, people. Honestly.

You know the news story I'm really disgusted hasn't caught on more? Fox News apologises for Kerry fabrication Given the fuss stirred up over CBS's use of questionable documents, I'm really disappointed noone has made a stink over Fox admitting to an outright lie. The media machine in this country is seriously out of line.

For once, I'm having to agree with Matt.

Technically, yes, you're right, they are still in "testing". However, they have done some test shots as I recall, and I suspect that N. Korea would not (given their secretive nature) have tested them publically without having a reserve force already ready.

1) wrong forum 2) Bush did this too. With Regan. Quit yer bitchin.

Actually, they can hit the West Coast. Just a thought. Also, there is no verification yet that N. Korea, did, in fact, detonate a nuclear device (that I have seen). We're actually working on verifying that in the lab, though (don't ask, but we can tell these things.. it takes time).

Well put Sorry, I'm too grumpy today to look at this stuff in the proper light. Figures Doug would show me up :rolleyes:

You know, it's funny -- you're assuming alot about me from what I'm writing. Granted, you don't have anything else to judge me by, but you're still leaping to conclusions alot. I'm not saying "oh, kill the premies" or, "kill the fetuses" or anything like that. By the time you're in the final trimester, in my book, you're human, or close enough it's unfair not to give you a shot at becoming one. If you think that from a discussion of a child born more than 4 months premature, you can extrapolate that I would have argued they should have let you die when you were 6 weeks premature, I think you're full of stuff. I've tried to make clear, and have explicitly stated repeatedly, that in the final trimester, the rules are different. Honestly, I can say that if I had a child 4 months premature, I probably would not try and have them artificially keep it alive -- at that point, it would seem to me that it would not be likely to have much of a life, if it survived (which would be highly unlikely). At 6 weeks? I'd have to be an nice guy to give up hope. I understand the stance that life is sacred, which seems to be most people's hinge point, but I guess my background forces me to look at the quality of the life they're given. I speak as someone who was microseconds away from living the rest of their life -- if they survived -- missing an arm and a leg, and having a face so disfigured that it would be unrecognizable as human. Instead, I broke most of the bones in my body, and it's taken them over a decade of reconstructive surgery to give me a face. I've seen enough that I can't help but take the quality of the prospective life into account. There are times to fight the odds, and times that you have to realize that the "best" answers are the hardest. Sometimes, death is the "best" answer.

Just my $.02, as someone working in the nuclear power industry: It's not really a huge problem, and we've got bigger things to worry about.

You didn't. I was using it as an example. We live in a society with government sactioned murder in the forms of warfare and capital punishment. Saving an unwanted life the pain and suffering attendant on it's entry to this world seems justification enough. Besides, the only thing standing between becoming human (from that stage) and just another animal are a series of biochemical processes, not all of which would succeed anyways. But then, you have your way of looking at it, I have mine. I think that had the parents felt it was better to put down the child at that point, they would have been within their rights. They gambled that the baby would survive, and they were right -- but imagine all the pain and suffering inflicted upon the baby in the meantime. Sometimes, the greatest mercy is a painless death.