I assume this was a joke, any enemy of the USA is hoping to get Obama for a president. I'll bet alot of cash on this one. There is a big difference between a Court Room and a Battlefield. One takes a combination of lies and trickery, one takes courage and might.

Ah ...  Rose ... You're a slippery one.  lol...  I too have represented companies, just not as a lawyer or legal counsel ...

Rose .. As I read about the case, Obama  played a small part in the Citibank case. 

What about Obama makes you expect Iran to run & hide if Obama were to be President?  (On the contrary, Iraq is an ally of the USA at the moment.   We have no desire for them to run or hide)

Edited for syntax

Originally written by FrancaV on 2008-10-05 10:45 PM

Yes, we will not agree on this distinction.  Don't be like a lot of the generals in the early years of this war.  Fighting the last war.  It is not the same. There is no war between countries as you said. 

But let's test some ideas.  Without a safe base of some kind to train, recruit, finance, plan, etc.  The people that attacked on us 9/11 would be just a bunch of nuts yelling words of hate.  Without resources, their words have no meaning.   So, any country that uses or allows their sovereignty to protect attackers are subject to attack.  This is a basic principle of war, deny your enemy sources of supply & support. 

As criminals... The 19(?) perpetrators of the attack were killed in the attack.  Who should be prosecuted??  Their families?  Their mother?

You spoke of "This network of "fringe fanatics ... unfound and unpunished"  They didn't do anything criminal in the United States.  They are outside the USA border.  Our laws do not apply.  Especially ... if they are in a country that doesn't "Like" our life style or "whatever"   How should America find and punish them?  Secret hit squads? (I'm kidding)

On this we agree.  President BUSH has done a piss poor job of labeling cause and educating people in the war.

As for the bombing, our military has done their very best to keep from killing non-combatants.  That's the purpose of the Geneva conventions.  Clearly identify the combatants to prevent collateral killing.  Atomic, gas, bio, warfare is clearly not able to selectively fight.   Any hostile force not clearly identified is subject to summery execution.  That we have Gitmo is a Testament to our intent.  According to the Geneva Conventions most of the inmates could have been executed with their weapon in hand.

As for the connection, the blindest are those that don't wish to see.

Our biggest problem is the thing our forefathers feared and that was a large oppressing government. That is what they fought so hard to separate from in the revolution. We need political reform, where the people actually have a say in government. Not you elected me, so what I say is what you want. We need to get rid of ridiculously high pensions for people that serve a term or two in any office. If they expect me to work until I'm at least 62 and they would prefer that to be 72 before I retire, guess what buddy I expect the same of you. If social security and medicaid is good enough for me, it should be good enough for them.

Common, they (and I mean all of them) deregulate that which should be regulated then strive to regulate that which doesn't need to be.

BTW the riders on the bail out piss me off too. Something that important should not have any riders attached to it. From what I've been able to fathom BOTH sides are guilty of that. Adding, not that I think it's going to make one iota of difference in the long run.

If they really want to stabilize the economy they need to stabilize fuel and energy costs. People are not going to spend when they don't know how much they are going to need to keep warm, cool, get to work and eat. Threats of $10 a gallon fuel, does not make one want to go out and buy a new car or especially truck, does it? Especially when people are losing jobs at an alarming rate.

Edited by Yvette 2008-10-05 9:50 PM

Yes... I've expressed my thanks to the site for allowing an off-topic discussion.  Those that don't wish to participate may ...

To say Iraq under SH had nothing to do with 9/11 is false if you can allow a single point.  Aiding and abetting a criminal involves a person in a crime.  So, aiding and abetting any of the conspirators to 9/11 involved Iraq in 9/11.  I can say there is ample proof AQ people were in Iraq in the period leading to 9/11.  Google it.

Mc Cain wasn't my first choice either.  Voting this November is like leadership.  You have to make a clear choice...  "Present" isn't one of them.

Basically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L00TQ-DhlI

Well I am never one shy about voicing my opinion even if I get berated.

All I have to say is that anyone who is working and paying taxes better think twice about voting for Obama and his "Economic Justice".   On the other hand, if you don't want to work and have the government pay for everything - welfare, food stamps, and free health insurance then by all means vote for Obama.

The words for this thread are civil discussion.  There will be some back and forth exchanges, but I hope, no berating

The markets are taking another plunge today.  Everybody with a 401K and such is wondering why their retirement pool looks like a toilet.   This is just another way the sub-prime mess is robbing the prudent savers.

I read this on another site. ..."Middle America was mugged by irresponsible loan practices sanctioned by the federal government before the bailout legislation was passed. They are being robbed again. With the passage of the bailout legislation, the potential for the middle class to be robbed again is very real."... 

If this war with Iraq had been based on truth instead of lies I would wholeheartedly support it.  It was not based on truth, and as a result we took our eyes off the real threat, which was Afganistan.  Now the Taliban and Alqeida are making a comeback in Afganistan, leading to more US casualties.  Alqeida was never in Iraq before America destroyed the country and left a vacuum for the terrorists to fill.  Not that Saddam and his sons didn't need killing, they did.

Marla

Marla .. In the same tack as I quoted before, Iraq was in contact with AQ prior to 9/11.   This person has signed her name to a story.  There is some credibility to signed pieces, in my mind.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133186/posts

What can you point to that says Iraq was not in contact(aiding and abetting) with AQ prior to 9/11.   ( I realize the issue of proving a negative, consider it a push-back for WMD)

A phrase comes to mind for your hossies plowing as a team... "Unequally yoked".

My family and I went to northern Ohio on vacation last year to Amish country. These people are not dumb, I look around at all the people in my area, and I think back to when I was a child. There are a few major differences. When I was a child, every back yard had a clothesline, and a garden. Every tobacco patch was being worked by young Americans. People also kept a car/truck about 10 years. The bottom line is we are spoiled, we want what we want, and we want it now. When I was a child we would go to the house for lunch and my mother would have a sit down lunch prepared, now we have french fries under the seat in our cars/trucks. We will have to change our ways in the future, pay down our debts and live within our means. I think better times are ahead.

Rose, I would consider an in-line harness setup for your hossies.

There's a news column that printed The following more or less quote: In a study they found that 47% of Americans believe Iraq was involved in the nine eleven attack. Now we know how many people aren't paying attention.

Yvette ... Why do you say that "Iraq neither aided nor abetted the conspirators of 9-11."  What published information says so.  Can you give an example?   (Other than "it's a Bush lie")