Many people including Bush are under a lot of fire because of the lack of the WMD, why am I now just hearing about this?
You would think, some sort of excuse like that, that would at least half way cover their butts, would have been released as soon as possible.
I don't believe it. I wish Bush had choked on that cracker.
They caught Saddam?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?!!? =O
| |
Jp wrote:
Yes, actually. We have several good news services. SBS is alright, ABC is decent, but Seven, Nine and Ten are pure garbage (although they've got pretty good sports coverage). | |
Sadam has been caught for awhile now. Hes going to court right now, which I don't understand why...
If hes such a bad villian as everyone makes him out to be, take a gun and blow his brains out. Thats how you get things done. Id also show it on live TV to score some points with the people. | |
DarkView wrote:
SBS is alright, ABC is decent, but Seven, Nine and Ten are pure garbage Agreed. Commercial channels suck. (although they've got pretty good sports coverage). I'm so gonna get flamed for this, but sports coverage sucks. =P I honestly couldn't care less about who won the football, or how much Australia thrashed India in the cricket this time. Sport is just the modern day equivalent of Roman circuses (as in "bread and circuses") - keep the population fed and entertained, and they'll shut up. | |
Shades wrote:
Many people including Bush are under a lot of fire because of the lack of the WMD, why am I now just hearing about this? I'm not convinced it's true, but you've got to remember that the media have been the ones firing on him. They're just as unlikily to turn around and report that they were wrong. I'm sure it would get coverage, but it'd probably get played down a bit. | |
Shades wrote:
Many people including Bush are under a lot of fire because of the lack of the WMD, why am I now just hearing about this? Because you hadn't paid attention to alternative media sources that were basically saying this scenario was likely even before the war. You would think, some sort of excuse like that, that would at least half way cover their butts, would have been released as soon as possible. Not necessarily. Remember this would spark a new political firebomb: Well why didn't you go on to invade Syria? Or, you're just tossing accusations around to avoid blame! Or, then we should get some inspectors into Syria! In a likely scenario, the diplomatic wrangling over this would only drastically complicate the already sticky diplomatic situation surrounding Iraq. At present releasing this information does no good. I don't believe it. I wish Bush had choked on that cracker. Pretzel. Lummox JR | |
Shades wrote:
Sadam has been caught for awhile now. Hes going to court right now, which I don't understand why... Actually the current way is probably better for the likes of him. The world is further exposed to the depth of his villainy, and the Iraqis themselves get to give him justice. Lummox JR | |
DarkCampainger wrote:
As the commander in chief, the president can send in troops and not tell anyone for 48 hours, after that he needs congress' approval. Two weeks, two days, two something. :-P | |
DarkCampainger wrote:
As the commander in chief, the president can send in troops and not tell anyone for 48 hours, after that he needs congress' approval. I don't get it. Isn't that just like giving GMs an "edit pl" verb, or "talk as someone else" verb? What possible reason would a president have to move troops around without telling anyone, without it being illegal/dodgy/a bad idea? It's just asking for abuse. Bad moderation! | |
Shades, I think that's what we call 'sinking to their level'. Somehow, I'm hoping the democracy America wants in Iraq will have the right to a fair trial. Having that right means that even Saddam gets it. That's the point of universal human rights - they're universal.
| |
Jp wrote:
That's the point of universal human rights - they're universal. Except for all the innocent people gunned down on the battlefield (which right now is often their own homes). | |
Elation wrote:
Except for all the innocent people gunned down on the battlefield (which right now is often their own homes). Which is considered -inhuman- | |
Why is it that we can kill all of his guards and army, without a bead of sweat(Ok, maybe a little sweat), but we must capture the man who did it and treat him like we would someone who killed just one man? He is responsible for the death of a very large number of innocent people who followed his rule. This is murder. If I went out and killed 100,000 people, something tells me I would not have the benefit of a trial. I think he should have been shot on site, perhaps that is the logic talking though.
This is just like the old cartoons and shows where batman would go and knock out Joker's men, pushing them into a river/lake, knowing they would drown, then trying to "Apprehend" Joker. Just shoot him and end his reign of terror. | |
Crispy wrote:
I'm so gonna get flamed for this, but sports coverage sucks. =P I honestly couldn't care less about who won the... I don't like sports much either, but the coverage itself is good. | |
Scoobert wrote:
Why is it that we can kill all of his guards and army, without a bead of sweat(Ok, maybe a little sweat), but we must capture the man who did it and treat him like we would someone who killed just one man? He is responsible for the death of a very large number of innocent people who followed his rule. This is murder. He's not being treated as if he killed just one man. Just because a crime is especially heinous doesn't mean you shouldn't face trial for it. Saddam needs to have a public example made out of him - something that just bypassing the trial and shooting him won't do. If I went out and killed 100,000 people, something tells me I would not have the benefit of a trial. Yes you would. It wouldn't be much of a trial, but you'd have one. Otherwise it would be illegal to execute or imprison you. | |
So, show me the pictures. If they were as common as has been claimed, there should be plenty on the internet.
Note that a picture of a truck and then a picture of an empty truck is hardly indicative of smuggling.