nemafakei Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Well, have you heard of the September dossier on iraq?They said maybe, and almost everything they sent to the PM was maybe (which we didn't see at the time: the PM constantly told the public there was definite evidence), except for the dossier which was edited partly by No. 10, and the presentation decided by the Joint Intelligence Committe (Some Westminsterfolk and the heads of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ). The MI6 experts were in the end ordered to stop complaining about the strong terms. The final dossier included the 45 mins claim (a last minute addition from scraping the bottom of the barrel), which the PM trumpeted as definite proof in his foreword to the dossier, and which Bush quoted.So basically, the intelligence analysts for MI6 said there was no credible evidence at all, and this got turned into a 45 minute threat to the UK by people wanting to please a PM wanting to please a president.Not that I'm bitter about the top end of british intelligence being corrupted by politicians or anything.
Dunenewt Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 My best friend lives next door to the GCHQ......anyway. It's a shame what has happened as our intelligence services used to be considered one of the best in the world.
nemafakei Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Well, the quality is still there, it's just that the information is being abused at the moment.
Dunenewt Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Did you read the Daily Telegraph today? About 3,000 staff for the MoD were bought chairs costing
DukeLeto Posted July 13, 2004 Author Posted July 13, 2004 Whooo, got another good Bush quote:"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."-Speaking at an $800-a-plate fundaiser dinner.
Wolf Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 I think he's joking about that. Considering who the crowd is...So, why is that a good quote? I would like to know the exact reasons.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 hehe i think the joke went over duke leto's head hehe.
danielsh Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 Did MI6 say anything about whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?Check out The Guardian's article, "Spy chief 'withdrew' Saddam arms claim." So Britain no longer believes in WMD, and support is fading in mainstream America... I'm sure we'll be attacked soon enough and everyone will get religion on the issue."Look into Saddam, Iraq."
DukeLeto Posted July 13, 2004 Author Posted July 13, 2004 hehe i think the joke went over duke leto's head hehe.No, more acurately, the irony goes right over yours.He might have meant it as a joke, but it's exactly what he thinks, as evidenced by the elimination of the "death tax", the tax cuts for big companies, the new Medicare plans, etc...And you what another interesting trhing is? Two of the biggest contributers to the Bush campain: Enron and Halliburton.The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Wolf Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 Don't forget to add WalMart; while not directly related with government corruption, they have more than their share of problems...
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 Don't forget to add WalMart; while not directly related with government corruption, they have more than their share of problems...we all have problems....
TMA_1 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 is it just me? or does thsi kind of ranting get on peoples nerves? Its amazing how politics can overshadow everything else because people love to voice their opinion. It is just starting to bother me how everybody attacks bush, yet they never say a word about kerry. I mean is kerry some sort of saint? what has he done? found the cure for aids and cancer? lol
HasimirFenring Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 is it just me? or does thsi kind of ranting get on peoples nerves? Its amazing how politics can overshadow everything else because people love to voice their opinion. It is just starting to bother me how everybody attacks bush, yet they never say a word about kerry. I mean is kerry some sort of saint? what has he done? found the cure for aids and cancer? lol Then you have those that hate kerry just use crushing words against him and bill clinton. I mean sheesh the world is full of sychophants! argh.lol I am just getting tired of these gang ups and snooty attitudes towards one another. Especially those who are liberal because it is trendy and ultra idealistic. beh driving me nuts! are there any others who feel the same way? please tell me there are sheesh.lolMichael Moore explained why many people do treat Kerry like a saint: many voters (Moore included, this year) feel that getting bush out of office is SO important, and that bush is SO terrible, Kerry looks like a saint and a godsend by comparison. Moore fears that 4 more years of bush will lead to a police state (eventually). People who think that way won't criticize Kerry for fear of helping bush.
TMA_1 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 in a way, I kinda agree, but the pragmatism isnt to me too good of a moral belief to hold to.
ordos45 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 Bash Kerry? Okay. 8)I don't like the fact he voted against the Lacy Peterson Bill to protect pregnant women against violence. I don't like the fact that he's going to raise taxes if elected. I don't like the fact that he looks like a walking corpse. I don't like the fact that he owns so many homes. I don't like the fact he's always late to things.There ya go. All someone has to do is ask, and I can bash the Dems too. ;D
TMA_1 Posted July 13, 2004 Posted July 13, 2004 lol no, now it sounds like i like bush or something hehe.
DukeLeto Posted July 13, 2004 Author Posted July 13, 2004 I don't like the fact he voted against the Lacy Peterson Bill to protect pregnant women against violence.Whoa, whoa, whoa.
ordos45 Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 Yet despite the fetus being a separate crime now, killing a fetus can possibly also kill a pregnant woman. Especially if she's at risk for complications.
DukeLeto Posted July 14, 2004 Author Posted July 14, 2004 Assaulting the woman was a crime in the first place. And if killing the fetus kills her, it's murder anyways. What's the point of adding another crime if the guy's already got life?It's nothing more than a starting point to ban abortion, just like the (thankfully failed) attempt to ban third-trimester abortions for ANY reason. (Including health concerns for the mother!)
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 Assaulting the woman was a crime in the first place.
Wolf Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 Wait, so, its okay to kill fetii? It shouldn't be considered a crime?
Wolf Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 Why?I ask that question in reference to why the destruction of a fetal human should be anything different than the destruction of a full-grown human. Is it incompleteness? Surely not, human beings without arms are still humans. Is it a lack of development? Surely not, teenagers are still human. Is it a lack of indepedent survivability? Surely not, those on life support or dialysis are stull human. Is it a lack of consciousness? Surely not, those in comas are still human.I am afraid I do not understand what you mean.Further, I do see how politicians could use it as a stepping stone to abortion. However, implications should be considered second when judging a law. The law itself must be judged first.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 Why?I ask that question in reference to why the destruction of a fetal human should be anything different than the destruction of a full-grown human. Is it incompleteness? Surely not, human beings without arms are still humans. Is it a lack of development? Surely not, teenagers are still human. Is it a lack of indepedent survivability? Surely not, those on life support or dialysis are stull human. Is it a lack of consciousness? Surely not, those in comas are still human.I am afraid I do not understand what you mean.Further, I do see how politicians could use it as a stepping stone to abortion. However, implications should be considered second when judging a law. The law itself must be judged first.Also i think you would have a hard time convincing a mother that her "fetus" wasnt "alive" or isnt "human".Should a man go to jail for life because he hit a pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat and killed her baby?
HasimirFenring Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 But anyways your main point i guess is that the "stepping stone" is what you are worried about.Well laws are pretty specific in what they address.
Recommended Posts