[Necrodancer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

I guess so.
Oh but we comply with all the UN resolutions. *more sarcasm* Besides it seems that they did get rid of their stockpiles.

Which resolutions don't we comply with? And even if we didn't comply that doesn't mean Saddam gets a free pass. And the issue was he needed to get rid of them in compliance with UN resolutions, which means the destruction had to be documented, something Blix found they didn't do. Shipping them off to Syria or burying them in the desert is not getting rid of them correctly.

I hadn't heard of that. Maybe you could give me a source on that.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...chapter2-b.htm
"that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that (Niger Prime Minister) Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

Or they could be considered patriots who are voicing their opposition to unjust laws.

So they're full of shit yet that's cool with you because they're courageous dissenters? got it.

I would hardly consider Veterans for Peace to be a "crazy radical" group.

Timothy McVeigh was a vet. John Kerry's former group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, actually discussed assassinating a Senator.

No I haven't found the papers yet, but I have put in a few queries. And this has been reported by many news outlets, not just the "biased" sources.

Do these "many news outlets" also describe the origin of these supposed reports as the utterly credible "e-mails and sources"...Wooo Eeee, with ironclad sources such as that I'm sold!

Yes we are better, but we are also regressing in our policy about torture. No chopping someones head off is not the same as dogs or slaps or waterboards. I don't think they were trying to gather intel by chopping heads off, though.

You say regressing, I say evolving. It's not 1945 anymore.

So you are seriously telling me that you excuse for the immunity clause is..."Because foreign nations (read: EUROPE) are pussified appeasement specialists and deem harsh words yelled at a detainee to be cruel and unusual torture." That's pretty weak reasoning.

As I told you before, sissified Europeons are eager as fuck to get their hands on anyone that has anything to do with the war and or detainees. Look how their frothing at the mouth over the CIA black sites hubbub.