Mike111

11500 is the highest ive bin in a PA32 Cherokee.

and what's your response?

Hey, Welcome

So produce the war crimes. You can believe that the President's engagement in Iraq was misguided, foolish, provacative, hostile to peace, immoral, whatever....but those aren't 'crimes.' Quote I agree. GWB hasn't committedd any mass exceution or geneicide against the iraq. people, Saddam did that. Nor has he ordered the mass exceceution of Irawi prisoners - many were returned back into society. But comparing bush to people like Saddam, Milosevic and Hitler who all have donw war crimes are absurd. After all, the American public did elect this "War criminal". so if he was a monster. Im sure he wouldn;t be in power.

LOl least its not the Iraqi information minister!!! "Comical Ali"!

16

Hey, Glad youre OK and not hurt to bad.

What Mugabe's doing is immoral and heartless. Allowing people and forcing them to suffer and evict them is terrible when he has all that wealth, and would still be terrible even if he was poor. there must be some reason why he is left in power and no action is taken against him. It could be the lack of forces to do the job, a political reason, or self interest that would be damaged if anything was done against him, or a restriction imposed on a country like the UK of USA or any other country which prevents them from taking action. What ever the reason, i have no clue, but there must be some reason, as he does noone any favours or any good by remaining in power. I hope Mugabe's Health detiorates much quicker than it is at the moment.

ohh... .... too late!!!!!

i still got your bucket!

I wasn;t reacting in that respect, i only put forward suggesions to see what others thought. I never made a judgement. But yes, agreed, as i mentioned above that i posted it a bit to early.

Should Franklin Roosevelt have resigned because of Pearl Harbor? Should police chiefs resign every time one of their cops is involved in a bad shooting? Should NASA disband every time something goes wrong with a rocket launch? Quote Well that would depend on the circumstances. If it was his fault and he was responsible for it (im not referring to those examples) then yes, again depending on te scenario. But , IMHO, it does depend on how you view the role of the leader - some view it as a downside of the job that they should know what is going on all the time, and so should resign if necessary. others take the opposite, and as others stated above, it seems that blaming leaders as a trend has died off. But it does depend on circumstance though IMHO. (However, i certainly won't be disappointed if Blair does go because he is a pen pusher .)

But isn't there a fundamental downside with that? One could argue that , media groups in favour of BUSH allowed him to gain power, which then allowed him to start the Iraq war. If other candidates got the media bias, they might have won and not have gone to war in Iraq? Sounds very far fetched , but could be possible? Im not sure, what do you think? Also, the bias can also then spill out into other bad areas where you do not want it adn then cause more problems - e.g. This is made up and a very bad example but, An Islamist newspaper that was biased in favour if Al Qaeda could rally up support for them and could cause problems and unrest. I could be wrong on that though.

Ahhh right. Thanks

Uk soldiers have been charged with murder, some unjustly but some fairly. I would find it hard to believe that there weren't a few cases involving US soldiers. There are bad eggs in every basket.

They might have more impact agreed, but how you can say we brought democracy was a load of crap i can;t quite see - Under SH, there was NO democracy, now he is gone there is a better form of it, but not perfect by all means. Saying we should leave them and let them decide, well they had no choice under saddam and still wouldn;t. If we didn't intervene. saddam would still be there. So what would you propose - let them decide> Ok fair Enough, But you would have to remove Saddaem first for that. THEN let them decide. Otherwise he would be there still and there would never get a chance.

I agree. Although i think i should have posted this after a decision was made, i did it a bit to early.

Even if it is true, it is the work of a few individuals , not the whole American army. Most American soldiers wouldn;t do a thing like that, because they are professional and decent people. But you get bad eggs in every basket. And you said "And you wonder why they resist" - That sounds like your blaming the whole American army, but thats unfair as relatively few individuals are doing this in comparsin with the size of the forces there. Also, do you really believe most American soldeirs didn;t go there to bring democracy - even if they didnt want to go, don't you think that that is what they would have wanted to give the Iraqi people? Also, terrorist propaganda is probably one of the biggest resistance reasons aswell, not just this,

If he had done something terribly wrong, then maybe he should. Although getting the president to resign is helluva lot harder than to get the commissioner of the met to resign cos the President is at the top of power.

but as Blair is leader, shouldn;t he take the rap? Isn;t that the responsibility of a leader?

Following all the "coverup" of the shooting of John Charles De Menezez, Sir Ian Blair has denied these claims that itr was a coverup as false, and his force are now under intense investigation However, they made a mistake in the shooting, although and understandable one given the circumstances, But if someone has to take the blame, who should it be? The officer who fired those fatal shots, the commander of the operation Kratos Or Blair since he is in charge of the whole thing?? Or was the policy makers at fault? Was there a coverup? Or is it to early to tell?

Yes - if it pays for skydiving then yes!!

lololol. 10/10. But the husband reply?

How does the theory of everything pose a much greater threa? sorry i don;t understand what you mean? Do you mean events or anything that could happen could immediately pose a threat and change our destiny and thus poses more of a threat to freewill and our choice to decide our destiny than religion and god does? - they are more likely to happen and so pose a great risk?

What i'm wondering is, does some higher power (God, a god, fate, magic pixie dust) decide at some point either before, during or after the birth of that child, that something they absolutely cannot avoid happening to them will do (e.g. meeting their soulmate, dieing an unnatural death, finding a suitcase of money one day, etc etc) Quote IMHO, we control our fate. good fortune can determine which type of destiny we have - if we had rich parents then we could have a different destiny say to that of someone whose parents were not so rich. But There is no God in my view, and im glad i believe that because some people use God as an excuse for their fate - they are not in control of their lives and so can';t determine what happens. Some things we aren;t in control of - storms , crashes etc etc, but "God" i don;t think comes into the equation. We decide what and how we deal with our life, and how we want to lead it. just my 0.02, for there are also many people who do believe in God and would oppose and disagree with this post.