If Barack doesnt win the Democratic nomination, I will vote for Paul. I dont like Pauls stance on Religion though.

fkusumot said: N-Syte said: But that is what intelligence gathering is. Sifting through data, some of which might conflict, to try to paint an overall picture. The fact that the British, French and Russians were in independent agreement with the administration in their assessment is telling. But feel free to discount it. I suppose you have professional knowledge of the intelligence gathering process? What you described is not the intelligence gathering process, it is two steps out four steps that you seem to have confabulated.

The very same people were getting bellicose toward Iran before we learned last week that its nuclear program was dismantled in 2003 and Ahmenijad is just another loud-mouth idiot like Kim Jong Il. Bush and the republicans wanted to go to war again based on faulty intelligence. I'd like to see them all go to trial in The Hague.

(by the way, because I know one of the rightwingers on this site will point it out -- I am aware of Hillary Clinton's vote on the Iran resolution and I'm not a supporter of hers.. and Joe Lieberman is NOT a Democrat.)

Hooray! fkusumot is going to educate us on the official intelligence gathering process! This is surely needed as I failed to accurately break down the particulars of the topic in my throw away four-sentence comment. I assure you that I am personally embarassed by the oversight.

Now really, the fact that my words were not intended to describe such a process is really irrelevant. Indeed, my main point was to suggest that the process is an inherently imperfect one. But why sweat the small stuff, eh?

I yeild the floor and look forward to seeing how your contribution improves upon my message. I'm sure it will be very insightful and clear up any confabulation.

I'm sure that the administration's policies had nothing to do with Iran or North Korea's decision to give up on their military ambitions (I will assume both are true, as you have already - it came from an intelligence agency, right?) Sure Lybia folded due to the US's strong posture, but why would other countries be similarly motivated?

Although, it does seem like diplomacy works a bit better when there is a real threat of force behind it.

I know this was already covered. However, I feel it is important enough to repeat. cdude1034 Someone of DIGG said that Ron Paul wants to ban abortion. That is not true. Also of note, the President doesn't even have the power to ban abortion. Anyway, of all the lies, that is the one that stood out the most.

Thanks.

 

Edit- replaced cdude1034 with someone from DIGG 

N-Syte said: I'm sure that the administration's policies had nothing to do with Iran or North Korea's decision to give up on their military ambitions (I will assume both are true, as you have already - it came from an intelligence agency, right?) Sure Lybia folded due to the US's strong posture, but why would other countries be similarly motivated? Although, it does seem like diplomacy works a bit better when there is a real threat of force behind it.

Iran and North Korea don't have the resources to produce long-ranging nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US, you didn't answer my post and your point is tangential.

Up until a week ago, Bush and a lot of the republicans (and some unscrupulous democrats) were talking about military action toward Iran. Surely, you follow current events and know Bush announced Iran's nuclear program was dismantled in 2003, after the bellicose rhetoric, I would think that would prove embarrassing to the administration (as well as the entire neo-conservative movement) -- particularly after we have already caused a war costing the lives of hundreds of thousands and hundreds of billions of dollars -- based partially upon faulty intelligence.

While Iran and North Korea do not have nuclear capability, Pakistan does. You might have noticed that our dictator - Pervez Musharraf - does not enjoy widespread support and the country risks being overrun by Islamic extremists. Surely, those of us who have worried about Hussein and Ahmenijad would be concerned about this situation, particularly since this country is the current residence of bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri. No, I'm not suggesting war is the answer here, either -- but it is always ironic that nobody mentions Pakistan as a threat.

FreeTalkLive rocks! said: I know this was already covered. However, I feel it is important enough to repeat. cdude1034 said that Ron Paul wants to ban abortion. That is not true. Also of note, the President doesn't even have the power to ban abortion. Anyway, of all the lies, that is the one that stood out the most. Thanks.

 For the love of god, no I did not. Read my post again please.

N-Syte said: N-Syte said: But that is what intelligence gathering is. Sifting through data, some of which might conflict, to try to paint an overall picture. Now really, the fact that my words were not intended to describe such a process is really irrelevant. Indeed, my main point was to suggest that the process is an inherently imperfect one. But why sweat the small stuff, eh?

So what were your words intending to describe or convey? Just meaningless nonsense?

I feel too far removed to get into this conversation again, but I would like to respond to accusations that Clinton should have gotten bin Laden.

Yes, he should have. But if we are going to talk "what if"s, it needs to said that we armed and supported Osama bin Laden in Soviet-Afghan War. There is alot Clinton should have done, though he didn't realize what a threat he could be, but if we're gonna go there Reagen and Bush Sr. are even more guilty, for supplying the man with arms and resources. Ironic really, since it was also Reagen and Bush Sr. that supported Saddam Hussein.

Erik Aston said: Final Fan Churches eclipsing the state does not mean they get to dictate their will to the people. Teaching morality and civility does not mean enforcing them like laws, like a state might. And the power should be derived from free-will offerings, not taxes, meaning it is really the people's power. What ever happened to "God, Family and Country"? That was supposed to be the order of importance, AFAIC. History does show us that Socialism and Atheism many times go hand-in-hand. And I do see a movement to make religion private, instead of simply personal, which even the far left evangelicals like Jim Wallis talk about. There's nothing wrong with religion being public. I'll find some more context for the (interesting) Paul and Jefferson quotes you contrasted there. I've really enjoyed this conversation, but I think it's time to call it quits. I can only do so much of this at a time, and it's getting late.

1. Organizations with power will exercize that power. See Middle Ages. 2. "Socialism and Atheism go hand in hand"? What does this have to do with the discussion of separation of church and state and Ron Paul's disputed dedication to that part of the Constitution? 3. I quoted two huge paragraphs unedited. What more context is necessary? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html I certainly hope you concede that separation of church and state was indeed intended by the Founding Fathers, it was one of the most important things they did. Ron Paul is dead wrong there, but 4. I'm going to work now and I have to work 12 hours straight with no real time to be on any computer. So don't expect a response to your response soon. Look up the Federalist Papers in the meantime.