Saddam Hussein Saw al-Qaida As Threat

[Lyion]

1. Clinton NEVER in his entire presidency made any decisions so bad that thousands of lives were lost.

Oh how thick the veil is...

We're having a discussion, Fin. Feel free to enter it when ever you have a chance to sack up.

Follow Zan's shining example. Make wild exaggerations with nothing to do with the thread, and then do .sig attacks, but subsequently pretend to be serious after being a jerk.

[Zanchief]

Sore loser...

[Narrock]

If you don't want to be made to look the fool, you should probably stop backing inbred morons that couldn't string to words together if he didn't have a team of people working for him.

I guess if he's got an (R) next to his name, it's all you really need to know about him. God bless that American objectivity you keep going on about.

Canadian grammar skills...

[Narrock]

The Dems need more Zel Millers in their party.

[Arlos]

Zel Miller is a raving psycho almost, but not quite, on par with Lyndon LaRouche.

As for Bush being one of the "worst presidents ever".... I am not sure, even as much as I hate the man, that I'd go that far. Hoover, who presided over the Great Depression has to be up there. Buchanan, who watched half the country secede in 1860 and did nothing is another one. I'd even put Nixon on that list, despite the good things he DID do, for his role in irrevocably breaking the previous bond of trust (albeit frequently tenuous) between the populace and its leader, by his actions.

Bush, however, is making a real effort to reach those lows. His blatant disregard for the Constitution certainly implicates him in that regard. From his abuse and mis-use of "signing statements", to the un-Constitutional warrantless wiretapping, to pre-determining on a course of war with Iraq and then lying to the nation as to the justifications for said offensive... Not to mention hsi substitution for religious doctrine over science, his blatant disregard for the separation of Church & State, and the fact that he has single-handedly run up the largest defecit in the history of the country, after being handed a strong economy that was actually running at a surplus....

Honestly, the man's personal convictions mean zero to me. I don't care if he means well, is convinced of the rightness of his actions, has good intentions, etc. Some of the most heinous acts in history were committed in the name of "best intentions". I also consider his unwavering convictions against him. In the role of President, decisisons need to be made based on best information and carefully weighed against a number of variables. Bush ignores that and makes his decisions based on his gut and his convictions, and quite frequently decisions arrived at by such a process are just plain awful, where someone used to compromise and that is willing to look at all sides of an issue before making their decision would have had MUCH better results.

As for Clinton, no, I don't think he is in any sort of "best ever" discussion. I agree he lied about getting a blow job, but then again, I think 99% of guys who were fooling around on their wife would lie about it if caught, so I don't exactly hold it against him. Likewise, I consider the Impeachment proceedings to have been pure partisan politics, and had he been a Republican and done the same thing, it never would have happened. While I do believe Bush's actions are, in at least a few cases, Impeachable, the only president in my lifetime that I have no doubts or qualms about Impeachment was Nixon, had he not resigned.

Still, as for Clinton, he did do quite a bit of good during his tenure. Look at the state of the federal deficit during his tenure. Look at crime figures and how they dropped. Look at what the economy did on his watch. Compare how many US civilians and servicemen died during his administration to Bush's. I certainly don't agree with everything he did, and I can understand why conservatives would dislike his personal beliefs in some cases, but I don't think there's any question that he was a better and more effective president than Bush, especially considering the fact that he got done all he DID get done with the disadvantage of dealing with the opposition partyh being in power in Congress. Bush has had a completely tame and lapdog Congress that for the most part says "HOW HIGH, SIR!" any time he says "Jump!"

-Arlos

[Harrison]

1. Clinton NEVER in his entire presidency made any decisions so bad that thousands of lives were lost.

Going around citing sources and quoting them is quite tedious and shouldn't be necessary since you stupid fucks also have access to the same information I do.

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Ever heard of this nifty little thing approved by the Clinton Administration?

Let's not get into innocence here. Secret CIA torture prisons?! Clinton would never approve of such a thing, certainly it must have been the devil! (Bush)

Second:

After attempting a peace settlement, Clinton, who strongly supported the Albanians, threatened the Serbs with possible military strikes. In March, military forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), headed by the United States, began launching missiles and bombs on military installations in Kosovo and Serbia. This action was not approved by the U.N. Security Council, and strongly opposed by Russia and China. NATO air strikes devastated Serbia, and many key targets were destroyed beyond repair. It was the first time in NATO’s history that its forces had attacked a European country, and the first time in which air power alone won a battle. In June 1999 NATO and FRY military leaders approved an international peace plan for Kosovo, and the attacks were suspended after a Serb surrender.

You know of the Balkans and his focus there, I hope. Those air strikes alone killed countless. Failed diplomacy "forced" by his efforts alone I would dare say resulted in the deaths of thousands that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.

That's not even including indirect results he likely didn't foresee in other countries where his focus was aimed.

Now none of this is to say I disliked Clinton as a president because I hold no such feelings.

I don't however, hold him in some Godly light as you sheep raise him on a pedestal above your selected demon of choice. I see things for what they are and call them such. Can you say the same?

[Zanchief]

1. Clinton NEVER in his entire presidency made any decisions so bad that thousands of lives were lost.

Going around citing sources and quoting them is quite tedious and shouldn't be necessary since you stupid fucks also have access to the same information I do.

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Ever heard of this nifty little thing approved by the Clinton Administration?

Let's not get into innocence here. Secret CIA torture prisons?! Clinton would never approve of such a thing, certainly it must have been the devil! (Bush)

Second:

After attempting a peace settlement, Clinton, who strongly supported the Albanians, threatened the Serbs with possible military strikes. In March, military forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), headed by the United States, began launching missiles and bombs on military installations in Kosovo and Serbia. This action was not approved by the U.N. Security Council, and strongly opposed by Russia and China. NATO air strikes devastated Serbia, and many key targets were destroyed beyond repair. It was the first time in NATO’s history that its forces had attacked a European country, and the first time in which air power alone won a battle. In June 1999 NATO and FRY military leaders approved an international peace plan for Kosovo, and the attacks were suspended after a Serb surrender.

You know of the Balkans and his focus there, I hope. Those air strikes alone killed countless. Failed diplomacy "forced" by his efforts alone I would dare say resulted in the deaths of thousands that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.

That's not even including indirect results he likely didn't foresee in other countries where his focus was aimed.

Now none of this is to say I disliked Clinton as a president because I hold no such feelings.

I don't however, hold him in some Godly light as you sheep raise him on a pedestal above your selected demon of choice. I see things for what they are and call them such. Can you say the same?

No one here is defending Clinton, not that he has anything to do with this thread, but you still haven't cited sources were Clinton LIED and THOUSANDS of people died.

[Narrock]

1. Clinton NEVER in his entire presidency made any decisions so bad that thousands of lives were lost.

Going around citing sources and quoting them is quite tedious and shouldn't be necessary since you stupid fucks also have access to the same information I do.

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Ever heard of this nifty little thing approved by the Clinton Administration?

Let's not get into innocence here. Secret CIA torture prisons?! Clinton would never approve of such a thing, certainly it must have been the devil! (Bush)

Second:

After attempting a peace settlement, Clinton, who strongly supported the Albanians, threatened the Serbs with possible military strikes. In March, military forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), headed by the United States, began launching missiles and bombs on military installations in Kosovo and Serbia. This action was not approved by the U.N. Security Council, and strongly opposed by Russia and China. NATO air strikes devastated Serbia, and many key targets were destroyed beyond repair. It was the first time in NATO’s history that its forces had attacked a European country, and the first time in which air power alone won a battle. In June 1999 NATO and FRY military leaders approved an international peace plan for Kosovo, and the attacks were suspended after a Serb surrender.

You know of the Balkans and his focus there, I hope. Those air strikes alone killed countless. Failed diplomacy "forced" by his efforts alone I would dare say resulted in the deaths of thousands that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.

That's not even including indirect results he likely didn't foresee in other countries where his focus was aimed.

Now none of this is to say I disliked Clinton as a president because I hold no such feelings.

I don't however, hold him in some Godly light as you sheep raise him on a pedestal above your selected demon of choice. I see things for what they are and call them such. Can you say the same?

No one here is defending Clinton, not that he has anything to do with this thread, but you still haven't cited sources were Clinton LIED and THOUSANDS of people died.

You just don't fucking get it. Bush acted on intel provided to him by the CIA. How the FUCK is that lying, you ignorant asswart?

[Narrock]

5 Surgeons.



> >Five surgeons are discussing the types of people they like to

>operate on.

> >

> >*The first surgeon says:*

> >"I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you

>open

> >them up, everything inside is numbered."

> >

> >*The second responds: *

> >"Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is

>color

> >coded."

> >

> >*The third surgeon says:*

> >"No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them

>is in

> >alphabetical order."

> >

> >*The fourth surgeon chimes in:*

> >"You know, I like construction workers...those guys always

>understand when

> >you have a few parts left over."

> >

> >*But the fifth surgeon sh ut them all up when he observed:*

> >"You're all wrong. Liberals are the easiest to operate on.

>There's no

> >guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine. Plus the head and

>the

> >ass are interchangeable



Ok, so I took out "politicians" and replaced it with "liberals." Made more sense this way.

[Gidan]

hmm, actually I think poloticians fits that ferfectly (liberal, conservative, and other)

[Arlos]

You just don't fucking get it. Bush acted on intel provided to him by the CIA. How the FUCK is that lying, you ignorant asswart?

The thing is, Mindia, more and more we're hearing that The CIA *KNEW* things were untrue prior to the war that the administration were claiming as fact at the time. Look at the recent revelation this very thread is about, where Saddam had NO connection to Al-Qaida, and indeed viewed them as a threat. The CIA knew this before we went to war there. So why were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al. going around at the time claiming that Saddam and Osama were in bed together, and even went so far as to imply Saddam was at least partially behind 9/11? Before you claim I'm inventing that, I assure you I am not. I could find any number of articles dating back to that period backing this assertion, believe me.

So, here we have a VERY clear-cut case where the CIA knew one thing before the war, yet Bush & Co. were claiming the opposite in public statements. There is mounting evidence as well that the CIA knew full well that there were no WMDs in Iraq before we even went. The "niger yellowcake" incident is just one glaring one, where the CIA knew it was forged, yet Bush used it in the very State of the Union address.

Now, I will admit to the possibility that part of the CIA knew the truth, but cynically provided the President only the information he wanted to hear. That would not be unprecidented, the same thing happened with LBJ as well. ANy time they would give him facts he didn't like, he'd blow up at them, so they only gave him the news that fit his world view. Would not surprise me in the least if Bush would blow up if given intel that contradicted his position, so the CIA stopped providing it. The problem is, the upshot of that tendency is to give the President (doesn't matter which one) a highly spurious and misleading view of the actual situation, leading to poor decision making.

However, if the CIA was guilty of hiding information from the president, and thus misled his decision making process, WHY HAVE NO ONE INVOLVED BEEN CANNED? That would be a case of criminal negligence and malfeasance of the highest order, so why has no one been prosecuted? Indeed, Bush himself awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation's highest civilian honor, to the man who was head of the CIA at that time, and thus would have had to have been the head facilitator. That simply does not add up.

There is other various evidence out there that lends support to the position that Bush, or at least members of his inner circle, were dead-set on invading Iraq to begin with, that they were looking for an excuse to justify an already-made decision, not using new intel and mounting evidence to decide something. (see: PNAC's mission statement and major signatories)

Therefore, while some of the evidence is circumstantial that Bush lied (CIA WMD information, etc), some evidence is black and white (Saddam & ties to Al Qaida). Since we KNOW he mislead people with regards to one area, and have further evidence to indicate he did so in other areas, it is not at all a stretch to reach a state beyond reasonable doubt that he lied through his teeth over the entire affair. I for one am firmly within this camp.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

You aren't stating facts, Arlos, just speculation.

Show me any official document on how the CIA knew Iraq did not have WMDs. No Opeds, no newspapers, just official releases regarding what the CIA or Mossad or any intel officially thought about WMDs in Iraq.

The bottom line: The CIA and every major Intel department in every first world party believed Saddam had the capabilities. That's a fact, and has been well sourced.

Also, Tenet was ousted. The head of the CIA. Others should be fired, but nepotism and backdoor agreements are rampant in politics, and policitians survive like rats.

[Arlos]

The problem with "official releases" is that they have no guarantee of being even remotely factual, at least not for another 15-20 years, when people can go back and demand archived documents via the Freedom of Information act.

The information that the CIA KNEW Saddam had less than no relationship with Al Qaida *IS* a fact. They knew it, and they knew it BEFORE the war. Even if I were to stand just on that piece of data alone, that knowledge combined with the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of that jolly crew were telling anyone who'd listen that there WAS deep, close ties, and even implied that Saddam was at least partially behind 9/11... Well, this alone would be proof that Bush, or his closest acolytes in any case, knowingly lied and misled the public. To prove lying, the WMD information is irrelevant.

As for Tenet, if he was ousted for being a fuckup, why was he given the Medal of Freedom? At best, he should have been drummed out in official disgrace, at worst, he should be in prison for the rest of his natural life. Somehow, that does not jibe with being awarded this nation's highest civilian honor....

Of course, Bush is not exactly known for being able to tell when people are and are not complete fuckups. "Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job" springs to mind...

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Yes, those 'facts' things do get in the way of a good argument, don't they?

Bitching about a politician spinning is like bitching about an NBA player not speaking proper English.

[Arlos]

*shrug* I have seen enough evidence to support my belief that he knowingly lied about the WMDs. Do I have a signed confession "proving" it? No, but to my mind, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for Saddam + Al Qaida, claiming there's a direct link between them, using it as a justification for war, and trying to claim he was involved in 9/11 is *FAR FAR FAR* beyond "spin". It's outright falshood and lying.

-Arlos

[Diekan]

For God's sake, how can some of you still not get it?

Bush had every intention on going into Iraq from the start of his administration, period. He needed an excuse and an excuse is exactly what he got from 9/11.

How many "reasons" for going into Iraq have we heard over the past 5 years? WMD's, liberating Iraq, fighting terrorism, protecting ourselves. It's all been a pack of lies, one after another.

We're now finding out that not only did Saddam have no ties to Al Qeada, but actually opposed them. Yet, this war in Iraq is supposed to help us? These people [fanatical muslims] are more affraid of someone like Saddam than they are us. Why? Because he's not afraid to gas them if need be. I'm not saying that we should have restored his power, he was after all a terrible dictator. But, who are we to decide that the Iraq people should be free? Last I checked it wasn't the job of the United State to play world liberator. In fact, I do believe that our Constitution forbids the act of invasion, does it not?

I'm tired of hearing about "bad intel," "it's not Bush's fault, he was only going by the intel at hand." That might work for those key figures in office of lesser power and position, but for the leader of the free world? It's a weak and tired bullshit excuse.

I'm not opposed to killing terrorist. I'm not the least bit opposed to bombing the piss out of them and asking questions later. But, enough is enough already. Stop pretending that Bush's hands are clean in this mess. Stop pretending he didn't come right and lie to the American people to launch an agenda he had all along.

Are we any "safer" today than we were five years ago? Fuck no we're not. Our borders are so leaky they could be used to strain spaghetti, our air transit is so fucked up that despite the onslaught of banned item after item, shit is STILL getting by security, we have no idea where bin Laden is (remember him - yeah the REAL enemy we were supposed to capture), our ports are no more "protected" now than they were five years ago. Give it a fucking break already. The only thing this administration has done successful is to turn civil rights and personal privacy into a fucking doormat.

Ever single entity of our government FAILED during the 9/11 attacks, do you REALLY think they are better now than they were 5 years ago? Do you REALLY think they're the least bit more competent now? Are you really THAT fucking blind?

What if we hadn't gone into Iraq? What if, instead, we focused our attention on actually finding the mother fucker that attacked us? "But, but the Iraq people wouldn't free, you cold hearted son of a bitch?!?!?" Hey - got news for ya... It's NOT MY PROBLEM. These people have lived under a government ruled by their religion for a THOUSAND fucking years. Do you really think they're suddendly going to reach out and grasp "freedom" with open arms and suddenly become a fully functional, American friendly democracy over night? How many thousands of lives would have been spared? How much more successful would we have been using those troops and the BILLIONS of dollars spent in Iraq in destroying Al Qeada and finding bin Laden?

And, sadly the blind like the Mindias will continue to vote people like this back in office... why? Because of their claim to be champions of Christianity - never mind the out right hypocrisy that's evident with every breath they take. They love Jesus and they're going to put a stop to fags getting married and that is ALL these people care about.

[Lyion]

*shrug* I have seen enough evidence to support my belief that he knowingly lied about the WMDs. Do I have a signed confession "proving" it? No, but to my mind, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for Saddam + Al Qaida, claiming there's a direct link between them, using it as a justification for war, and trying to claim he was involved in 9/11 is *FAR FAR FAR* beyond "spin". It's outright falshood and lying.

The justification for the war was WMDs. Some think there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Some don't. Saddam certainly supported suicide bombers in Palestine and other terrorist groups, so its not unfeasible. I think the truth is somehwere in the middle.

Unlike Diekan, I don't trust Saddam or his cronies words as gospel, as he does. I will trust the actual documents which have been factually presented, which show a lot of contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda. As with most men of power, I think the two were attempting to use each other.

Anyways, that's all in the past, and I try to look at the facts, and not the Rove spin, or spin from those with Bush Derangement Syndrome, which seems to be rampant. We need to win in Iraq. We need to win in Afghanistan.

[Diekan]

When did I say I "trusted" Saddam? Stop twist my words. I never said he was to be "trusted." But, we sure as hell had no business going in there in the first place.

[Lueyen]

1. Clinton NEVER in his entire presidency made any decisions so bad that thousands of lives were lost.

No one here is defending Clinton, not that he has anything to do with this thread, but you still haven't cited sources were Clinton LIED and THOUSANDS of people died.

He was never responding to the question you asked, but the previous one. I cited one situation, Harrison cited another. Your response was to modify the question? You also assert that Clinton has nothing to do with this thread.. yet he was at one time President and if the statement is made concerning the worst presidents in history why would Clinton be exempt when discussing a comparison? No in fact due to Clinton being the nearest presidency time factor wise making a comparison between his and the Bush presidency makes all that much more sense.

The facts of the matter are that Bush gave evidence to support his stated belief that Iraq was developing WMDs. A lot of people have made speculations and drawn conclusions of what they believe with the evidence at hand that Bush lied, however there is no factual evidence, nothing concrete to back that up, only speculation and conclusion based in partial evidence. No, at best you can point to proof that Bush was indeed making a case for war (which if he believed Iraq had or was developing WMDs would be included in that case), and you continually ignore the other reasons. No one has given conclusive proof that he lied, frankly if they had it it would have been acted on and Bush would have been brought up on charges.

The reasons for war in Iraq are pretty clearly stated here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

WMDs although an important reason were not the only reasons, and based on the other reasons Bush has stated he would have pursued military action even without belief of WMDs, that the other reasons alone would warrant it.

In the above resolution Al Qaeda is mentioned exactly one time, and only that known members of Al Qaeda who were involved in 9/11 were known to be in Iraq. Likely Sadam was not supporting them, but still had failed to catch them. Maybe Sadam couldn't for whatever reason, however it's not like he was going to work with the US to capture them.. military action in Iraq would have been the only realistic action in capturing these men.

Al Qaeda is mentioned once but terrorists and terrorists organizations were mentioned many times... you see the president, and congress make no distinction between one terrorist group or another, the war on terror is not to only neutralize Al Qaeda but to neutralize ALL terrorist organizations. Iraq's involvement or lack there of with Al Qaeda alone is irrelevant, Iraq's involvement with any and all terrorist organizations is paramount.

Of course maybe we should define what a terrorist or terrorist organization is, perhaps we could look to the vaunted UN, whose permission some of you think we required before taking action... yet this organization refuses to even define what a terrorist or terrorist organization is. Would you consider an organization or person who attempted to assassinate American citizens a terrorist? Because that’s exactly what Sadam did, he attempted to have an American citizen assassinated.

What it all really comes down to is that given the plethora of reasons for military action in Iraq, there is only one that fit the bill for the left to support, and that was one that presented and impending eminent threat to themselves here at home. Apparently the majority of the left doesn't feel that firing on our troops after a cease fire or an attempted assassination of an ex-president were grounds for military action. They don't seem to place weight on having concerns and wanting to protect people anywhere from a tyrannical dictator who tortured and murdered his people. I say this because the resounding broken record revolves around 1 issue, and we never hear anything concerning the other reasons for our involvement in Iraq. "But we can use sanctions!!".. Do you really think for a second that Sadam or any of his regime went without anything of importance due to sanctions? No Sanctions would cause the Iraqi people to suffer, not the leadership.. oh wait I forgot the left didn't care about them.

Sadam after the cease fire repeatedly broke conditions of it, he proved time and time again that he was not to be trusted and in his actions proved to be a brutal dangerous dictator not only to the US but to his own people. Frankly if I were to place blame for the current situation some where I'd start looking at Bush Sr. for not going the distance and removing Sadam from power in the first Gulf War, of course he came close to paying for that mistake with his life.

[Harrison]

Sanctions sure did stop the Oil for Food program to be exploited didn't it?

Man I fucking hate the French.

[Harrison]

No one here is defending Clinton, not that he has anything to do with this thread, but you still haven't cited sources were Clinton LIED and THOUSANDS of people died.

I don't know why I am responding to someone who is twisting the words of a question he didn't even initially ask, but here goes...

Someone asked to point to where a DECISION made by Clinton has cost the lives of thousands.

There was no stipulation of "lying" or any such nonsense to the question. You wanted to add that after the fact in an effort to invalidate my statements.

I didn't even see the need to bring in Clinton at all personally, but since he was, here we are.

I really haven't ever noticed a post by you that had any factual basis in this forum, ever. It is always the same old Diekan "Bush is a monkey" rhetoric ad nauseum. So as to why I am defending my stance to you is probably the result of it being almost 6am and bored.

I mean if you want to keep saying this tired old shit over and over in an effort to demonize him and hope it somehow validates your opinions... please continue.

However, don't think you have any solid ground to stand on with such a vacuous cavity of conjecture beneath your feet.

We're having a discussion, Zan. Feel free to enter it when ever you have a chance to sack up.

[Lyion]

When did I say I "trusted" Saddam? Stop twist my words. I never said he was to be "trusted." But, we sure as hell had no business going in there in the first place.

Read the topic of this thread and your many posts. It's pretty clear you seem to put stock in what he's saying, based on those. No twisting needed, sir. Those are your words, unless some liberal hippy chick you met on myspace snuck in and ninja edited your posts to make you seem more unhinged.

[Zanchief]

Man I fucking hate the French.

I'm not French. Way to get your facts straight.

[Zanchief]

Show me any official document on how the CIA knew Iraq did not have WMDs. No Opeds, no newspapers, just official releases regarding what the CIA or Mossad or any intel officially thought about WMDs in Iraq.

This is where you got it all wrong Lyion. Show me sources where the government had PROOF that Iraq had WMD. I'm pretty sure that the burden of proof is on them if they want to invade another country and kill thousands of their civilians.

[Zanchief]

No one here is defending Clinton, not that he has anything to do with this thread, but you still haven't cited sources were Clinton LIED and THOUSANDS of people died.

I don't know why I am responding to someone who is twisting the words of a question he didn't even initially ask, but here goes...

Someone asked to point to where a DECISION made by Clinton has cost the lives of thousands.

There was no stipulation of "lying" or any such nonsense to the question. You wanted to add that after the fact in an effort to invalidate my statements.

I didn't even see the need to bring in Clinton at all personally, but since he was, here we are.

I really haven't ever noticed a post by you that had any factual basis in this forum, ever. It is always the same old Diekan "Bush is a monkey" rhetoric ad nauseum. So as to why I am defending my stance to you is probably the result of it being almost 6am and bored.

I mean if you want to keep saying this tired old shit over and over in an effort to demonize him and hope it somehow validates your opinions... please continue.

However, don't think you have any solid ground to stand on with such a vacuous cavity of conjecture beneath your feet.

We're having a discussion, Zan. Feel free to enter it when ever you have a chance to sack up.

Oh boy, isn't internet such serious business. Thanks for getting all red in face retarded on my account, but I'm gonna tip you have to a little secret. It's all conjecture. I would hope we all have more to do with our lives then research our "NT essays" and find quotes and sources for all our claims. It's all opinion, only some of us have one, and some of us are gutless morons.