Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by news.Yahoo.com
    Report: Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command

    By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 5 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - The Russian government had sources inside the American military command as it planned and executed the invasion of
    Iraq in 2003, according to Iraqi documents released as part of a
    Pentagon report.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    The Russians passed information to
    Saddam Hussein on U.S. troop movements and plans during the opening days of the war, according to the report Friday.

    The unclassified report does not assess the value of the information or provide details beyond citing two captured Iraqi documents that say the Russians collected information from sources "inside the American Central Command" and that battlefield intelligence was provided to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.

    A classified version of the Pentagon report, titled "Iraqi Perspectives Project," is not being made public.

    In Moscow, a duty officer with Russia's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the report late Friday evening. No one answered the phones at the Defense Ministry.
    The Russians gave our troop movement information and plans to Saddam Hussein. What will our government do about this? What should it do about it? I think we should act fast, and start frank negotiations with Putin about what we expect from him as an ally. If he thinks this is acceptable behavior for a modern and democratizing Russia, he's very wrong. What say you?

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    At first glance, the story looks incriminating - but the information that was passed may have been passed deliberately. This may have been done for a number of reasons including:

    Minimizing civilian casualties

    Forcing a hasty retreat in the wrong direction, exposing their forces

    Satellite surveillance would have captured the movement of any WMD

    These are just possibilities, but I wouldn't discount them based on this news story.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    The Russians gave our troop movement information and plans to Saddam Hussein. What will our government do about this? What should it do about it? I think we should act fast, and start frank negotiations with Putin about what we expect from him as an ally. If he thinks this is acceptable behavior for a modern and democratizing Russia, he's very wrong. What say you?
    Knee-jerk mutch?

    We don't know what was said to Saddam or even if the documents are legitimate. All we found is some Iraqi saying "The Russians helped us against the Americans." You want to have a sit down chat with Putin. To do what? Insult him?

    "Hey Putin! Some iraqi made an accusation about you so let me take that as gospel and tell you how it is!"

    Please.

    What's needed here is more information, not conservative reactionism.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    We don't know what was said to Saddam or even if the documents are legitimate. All we found is some Iraqi saying "The Russians helped us against the Americans." You want to have a sit down chat with Putin. To do what? Insult him?
    You and I don't know with 100% certainty because we didn't observe it. I see Yahoo News as a reliable source, so I believe this story is true. I don't want our government to have a social chat with Putin. I want them to seriously discuss with him the ramifications of this type of betrayal and what's expected of him if he wants to continue to be an ally.

    What's needed here is more information, not conservative reactionism.
    I'm not sure how conservatism is relevant to concern over an allied government turning over military secrets to our enemy during a war. It doesn't seem that you understand the extent to which Putin has turned from democratizing in the past few years. When he first took office, he seemed like a politician who shared basic American values of freedom, but as time has passed he become increasingly oppressive and uncommunicative. I would hope that liberal Americans would share my concern when our former main enemy, a heavily nuclear-armed nation, is once again beginning to take offensive actions against us by aiding our enemies.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    We don't know what was said to Saddam or even if the documents are legitimate.
    You do agree, however, that the documents merit close inspection and investigation? That is, you haven't dismissed absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    The Russians gave our troop movement information and plans to Saddam Hussein.
    You'll believe anything a "secret Iraq document" released by the Pentagon says without even seeing the evidence.

    Sheeple behavior.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    You do agree, however, that the documents merit close inspection and investigation? That is, you haven't dismissed absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
    Sure, post the documents on the Pentagon's website. Get independent translations. In other words, do exactly what the Pentagon has refused to do in the runup to this disastrous war.

    Sunshine is always good.

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    You'll believe anything a "secret Iraq document" released by the Pentagon says without even seeing the evidence.

    Sheeple behavior.
    I don't see the reasoning of saying I should disbelieve it simply because I have not yet seen the source document, if there even is one extant. I trust the Associated Press as a generally reliable news source. It seems many liberals are content to accept reports of any new misdeed of Bush as soon as they are first reported, with little corroboration. It seems odd that so far every liberal to respond has been so quick to deny even the need for quick and serious negotiations and communication with Russia. It seems many are quicker to give the benefit of the doubt to our nation's former greatest foe and still a very volatile region, than to their own country.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    It doesn't seem that you understand the extent to which Putin has turned from democratizing in the past few years. When he first took office, he seemed like a politician who shared basic American values of freedom, but as time has passed he become increasingly oppressive and uncommunicative. I would hope that liberal Americans would share my concern when our former main enemy, a heavily nuclear-armed nation, is once again beginning to take offensive actions against us by aiding our enemies.
    But how can this be, Kevin? Bush himself met Putin and said, ""I was able to get a sense of his soul." Are you saying our president erred? Bush knows Putin's soul and that soul loves freedom. Our president is an excellent judge of character, as we all know.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...sia.dougherty/

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    Sure, post the documents on the Pentagon's website. Get independent translations. In other words, do exactly what the Pentagon has refused to do in the runup to this disastrous war.
    Yes, post it up on the website. So that our enemies know exactly which documents we found and how much we have learned.

    Some secrecy is required in times of war, believe it or not.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    I don't see the reasoning of saying I should disbelieve it simply because I have not yet seen the source document, if there even is one extant. I trust the Associated Press as a generally reliable news source. It seems many liberals are content to accept reports of any new misdeed of Bush as soon as they are first reported, with little corroboration. It seems odd that so far every liberal to respond has been so quick to deny even the need for quick and serious negotiations and communication with Russia. It seems many are quicker to give the benefit of the doubt to our nation's former greatest foe and still a very volatile region, than to their own country.
    AP IS NOT THE SOURCE! The Pentagon wrote the report and AP got a copy. But we do know that the Pentagon has made claims about this war that were, shall we say, in error. Even you must give that source more than a pinch of salt.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    Yes, post it up on the website. So that our enemies know exactly which documents we found and how much we have learned.

    Some secrecy is required in times of war, believe it or not.
    That's the problem when Neo Con boys cry wolf. Secrecy is no longer enough. "Just trust me" doesn't cut it anymore. They only have themselves to blame.

    The Pentagon report merits little attention without corroborating evidence. As Reagan told Gorbachev, "trust but verify."

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    That's the problem when Neo Con boys cry wolf. Secrecy is no longer enough. "Just trust me" doesn't cut it anymore. They only have themselves to blame.
    ...for what?

    We have ourselves to blame for the Pentagon not posting up recovered enemy intelligence documents on the internet? Oh noes!

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    The Pentagon report merits little attention without corroborating evidence. As Reagan told Gorbachev, "trust but verify."
    Which is precisely why I said that the documents merit further investigation. I find it odd that I don't see Liberals excited about the recovery of these documents; they spend most of their time, like you, trying to shoot the documents down and downplay them in general. Not that caution isn't merited, but when your first reaction is to blame the Pentagon for not broadcasting its new intel to the world, you might want to rethink your approach.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    Which is precisely why I said that the documents merit further investigation. I find it odd that I don't see Liberals excited about the recovery of these documents; they spend most of their time, like you, trying to shoot the documents down and downplay them in general. Not that caution isn't merited, but when your first reaction is to blame the Pentagon for not broadcasting its new intel to the world, you might want to rethink your approach.
    OK, maybe it isn't wise to post documents on the website, but Congressmen have every right to see and judge for themselves. Hold hearings if necessary. Call administration witnesses. "Close inspection" means just that. Perhaps if Congress had shown more interest in questioning the obvious forgeries and misrepresented intelligence, we might not be in the current quagmire. The Pentagon has a credibility problem; that doesn't merit "excitement" over new "intelligence."

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    OK, maybe it isn't wise to post documents on the website, but Congressmen have every right to see and judge for themselves. Hold hearings if necessary. Call administration witnesses. "Close inspection" means just that. Perhaps if Congress had shown more interest in questioning the obvious forgeries and misrepresented intelligence, we might not be in the current quagmire. The Pentagon has a credibility problem; that doesn't merit "excitement" over new "intelligence."
    The Pentagon has a credibility problem? Really? Says who, you? Why should I take your word? They're the experts in analysis.

    I'm paralyzed with lack of surprise that you aren't thrilled about new information emerging regarding Hussein's ties to international terror.

    Why should they trust Congress with this information? Congress is a LEGISLATIVE body, not a military intelligence unit. Congress is not the Commander-In-Chief during war. Also, Congress has a rather nasty tendency to leak information to the press--and the press has a nasty tendency to print it, even when it's classified (like, say, the nature of the technology used to spy on terrorists).
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    The Russians may have helped us whether they wanted to or not:

    In the end, one piece of Russian intelligence actually contributed to an important U.S. military deception effort. By telling Saddam that the main attack on Baghdad would not begin until the Army's 4th Infantry Division arrived around April 15, the Russians reinforced an impression that U.S. commanders were trying to catch the Iraqis by surprise.

    The attack on Baghdad began well before the 4th Infantry arrived, and the government collapsed quickly.

    The Pentagon report, designed to help U.S. officials understand in hindsight how Saddam and his military commanders prepared for and fought the war, paints a picture of an Iraqi government blind to the threat it faced, hampered by Saddam's inept military leadership and deceived by its own propaganda.
    "The largest contributing factor to the complete defeat of Iraq's military forces was the continued interference by Saddam," the report said.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/3746581.html
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop
    The Russians may have helped us whether they wanted to or not:

    In the end, one piece of Russian intelligence actually contributed to an important U.S. military deception effort. By telling Saddam that the main attack on Baghdad would not begin until the Army's 4th Infantry Division arrived around April 15, the Russians reinforced an impression that U.S. commanders were trying to catch the Iraqis by surprise.

    The attack on Baghdad began well before the 4th Infantry arrived, and the government collapsed quickly.

    The Pentagon report, designed to help U.S. officials understand in hindsight how Saddam and his military commanders prepared for and fought the war, paints a picture of an Iraqi government blind to the threat it faced, hampered by Saddam's inept military leadership and deceived by its own propaganda.
    "The largest contributing factor to the complete defeat of Iraq's military forces was the continued interference by Saddam," the report said.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/3746581.html
    That in itself MAY have actually been the secret information about troop movement. "They are going to attack Baghdad, but not until the 4th division gets there."
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    The Pentagon has a credibility problem? Really? Says who, you? Why should I take your word? They're the experts in analysis.
    Uh huh. They analyzed the current war with pinpoint precision. Yep, the Pentagon's credibility in the area of intelligence is rock solid.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    I'm paralyzed with lack of surprise that you aren't thrilled about new information emerging regarding Hussein's ties to international terror.
    Did this report link Saddam to 911? If supporting Palestinians were such a crime we'd have alot more invading to do in the ME. We could start with Saudi Arabia, historically one of the top bankers for the intifada.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    [b]Why should they trust Congress with this information? Congress is a LEGISLATIVE body, not a military intelligence unit.
    No kidding? Congressmen are also not experts on rocket science, but if they want information about rockets from NASA they'll get it or issue supoenas until the do.

    The president is Commander-in-Chief, but Congress pays the bills. They hold the purse strings. Congress has the power of OVERSIGHT in our government. The embarrassment in the White House forgets that little detail. Ironically, it's his own party reminding King George that Congress is not a rubber stamp. Neo-cons would love to change that. Wouldn't you.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    Also, Congress has a rather nasty tendency to leak information to the press--and the press has a nasty tendency to print it, even when it's classified (like, say, the nature of the technology used to spy on terrorists).
    Oh yes, the Oliver North defense. Neo-Cons can go pound sand if they don't like or trust Congress. Totally irrelevant. The president is duty bound to keep Congress informed about this war economically, politically, and militarilly. They write the checks. (ie they spend the American peoples' money). That's why Georgie must return to Congress periodically for those multi-billion dollar supplementals to keep the war going. Congress is under no obligation to fund the war. You know that, right? Bush got a reminder of that fact when his own party screamed bloody murder at the death sentence imposed on the Christian in Afghanistan. The money for Afghanistan comes up for a vote soon.

    The trouble is that up till now the sheeple Congress has chosen not to fully exercise its constitutional powers of oversight, backed up by threats to cut funding. We'll try to correct that problem come November.

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    There as just been a programme on Brit TV that shows Russia in a kind of socio-political meltdown situation, made all the more dangerous because it has a stockpile of nukes. Mainly from the old 'Soviet' era, some are still completely viable, others have delivery systems that are beginning to show signs of lack of servicing and upgrade and if fired could go off in 'other' directions, with yet others staying put in their silos and maybe cooking off in situ.

    Under Yelsin there were some attempts to bring Russia from out of the cold, but he had too much old Party baggage in the political system to contend with. Putin, an old KGB colonel who has never really managed to fully change his old political spots awaited his moment and slipped into power on a kind of three-way ticket. He got votes from people, particularly the old and vulnerable who felt that the old 'securities' of the Communist system (albeit at a very basic level) were slipping away and leaving them without any support. He also got votes from his old Party comrades who felt they would get some of their old power back AND also have more freedom to act as 'free enterprise' robber barons, fleecing their own countrymen and engaging in activities such as IT fraud, identity cloning, counterfeiting and drug running (activities troublesome to the wider world) from behind the security of their own private armies (trained up in the old Soviet/KGB manner).

    What we have in Russia today is increasing chaos and Putin trying to now put some sort of lid on things, but lacking a full will to change his old ways. (Russia and many of it's old satellite countries start out with a legacy of political disadvantage in as far as they have never experienced democracy properly at work in their domestic settings.) Putin wants Russia to still be seen as a major player on the world stage, but all Russia has to offer now is a legacy of nukes that are in less secure situations than before and inefficient industries suffering still further from the short term agendas of their greedy controllers (often old Party officials who got them cheap in the great grab at the time of the dismantling of the USSR). He feels that if the Kremlin moves in the direction of full democracy, western style capitalism, the EU and NATO, then Russia will lose what 'status' it has left - that Germany, the UK and France would dominate the European scene, and that the US would be able to feed off Russia's 'weaknesses'. His suspicions of US motives and actions are deep seated and stem from past encounters. The following BBC article gives a bit of a flavour of the way he still sees things:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2065020.stm

    To 'counter' this 'problem', as he sees it, he is now courting Russia's old adversary in the East - China. Putin hopes that he can use some of the emerging economic strength of China to bolster up and support Russia's very creaky economy. China is seizing the opportunity to expand it's influence and ultimately dominate any 'axis' that develops. {They are slowling achieving this by oily means. They praise Putin's 'achievements' and totally 'ignore' the reality of Russia's slide into decline and anarchy. The following Chinese news article highlights this tactic:
    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_4329452.htm

    I think that pushed and pulled by the West and China, and also suffering an internal meltdown, that Russia, if anything, is becoming ever more dangerous. As it loses what internal structure that it did have, it becomes vulnerable to it's own poverty, greed and corruption. Terrorist groups could well find themselves able (with the backing of oil dollars and gold) to purchase some of the WMD stocks. It is probably only a matter of time.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Russia hasn't changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    Uh huh. They analyzed the current war with pinpoint precision. Yep, the Pentagon's credibility in the area of intelligence is rock solid.
    Uh, it wasn't the Pentagon that issued faulty information. It was the CIA.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    Did this report link Saddam to 911? If supporting Palestinians were such a crime we'd have alot more invading to do in the ME. We could start with Saudi Arabia, historically one of the top bankers for the intifada.
    What is it with you guys and making this mistake?

    Hussein didn't have to be in on 9/11 to be supporting terrorism and al-Qaeda in particular!

    The issue isn't "supporting Palestinians". It's supporting TERRORISM.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    No kidding? Congressmen are also not experts on rocket science, but if they want information about rockets from NASA they'll get it or issue supoenas until the do.
    Yeah, but leaking NASA information doesn't get our troops killed.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    The president is Commander-in-Chief, but Congress pays the bills. They hold the purse strings. Congress has the power of OVERSIGHT in our government. The embarrassment in the White House forgets that little detail. Ironically, it's his own party reminding King George that Congress is not a rubber stamp. Neo-cons would love to change that. Wouldn't you.
    Congress IS the government, manise. It serves very specific functions within our checks and balances system. One that it does NOT serve is "Overseer of Military Strategy and Tactics"; another is "Provider of Analysis of Military Intelligence".

    Don't bring this discussion to that level, manise. I like the checks and balances system; I don't like monarchy. I prefer limited government--which includes the fellows in Congress--to expansive government. Congress is NOT a rubber-stamp, thankfully, but it is also not a perfectly intelligent omniscient omnibenevolent body that can make anything better. It is not meant to nor is it capable of analyzing these kinds of intelligence developments. Declaring war? Yeah, that's gonna take some kind of analysis of a military situation. But that doesn't entitle Congress to becoming essentially the head of military defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    Oh yes, the Oliver North defense. Neo-Cons can go pound sand if they don't like or trust Congress. Totally irrelevant. The president is duty bound to keep Congress informed about this war economically, politically, and militarilly. They write the checks. (ie they spend the American peoples' money). That's why Georgie must return to Congress periodically for those multi-billion dollar supplementals to keep the war going. Congress is under no obligation to fund the war. You know that, right? Bush got a reminder of that fact when his own party screamed bloody murder at the death sentence imposed on the Christian in Afghanistan. The money for Afghanistan comes up for a vote soon.
    Oh, I don't mind the President disclosing how much this war costs. He needs the money, and I'm glad that there's a mechanism that prevents Presidents from spending tax money indiscriminately--although Congress doesn't always fulfill this purpose.

    Congress has placed itself under an obligation to fund the war because of the Iraq 2002 Authorization of the use of Force.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise
    The trouble is that up till now the sheeple Congress has chosen not to fully exercise its constitutional powers of oversight, backed up by threats to cut funding. We'll try to correct that problem come November.
    What Constitution did you read? I don't see any clause that states that all military decisions must have Congressional approval, or that all military information must be submitted to Congress for review. Some? Of course. They have to enough to make the decision about allocating funds. But what makes you think that Congress needs to analyze this information? Does Congress need to analyze NASA's information before you consider the info valid, scientifically? No. Let the professionals handle the analysis; let Congress handle the allocation of funds.

    Congress is like a sieve, manise. Do you really think that the info wouldn't get leaked, or that the media wouldn't report it?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Atheism: What is it good for?
    By nanderson in forum General Debate
    Replies: 406
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2008, 06:31 AM
  2. Batlle for the North Pole
    By Snoop in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: July 31st, 2007, 10:29 AM
  3. Men's rights
    By Meng Bomin in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 219
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 08:49 AM
  4. Bush "lied"? SUPPORT IT.
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: April 6th, 2005, 05:53 AM
  5. Has this forum changed your mind?
    By sjjs in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: July 25th, 2004, 02:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •