All Hank, all the time.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
yesterday's news. today's news is they're still going to try to make a case.

I don't get it. It started off sounding really awful, and not surprising that a bunch of drunk rich kids might do something like this. But then little tidbits started to leak out that made the story questionable (like the email). Now there's no DNA whatsoever? Yet there's evidence she was raped? How could the DA possible think he could put on a case against the frat boys?

I'm not saying she wasnt' raped. She may well have been. But if you have proof none of the lax guys did it, why isn't he saying where he is looking?

No clue. I also can't fathom why there is NO DNA evidence that links them. Even if they were just getting a lap dance or otherwise innocently groping you would expect something like hair fibers or skin fragments to be there. In a full fledged rape, it seems incredible.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not sure that anyone here favors international cooperation "above all else."

But it sure would be nice if some other countries were carrying the load in Iraq, so that the US might actually have a military option in Iran, beyond massive bombing.

I know, I know! Let's try to keep Iran busy with a hostile, well-armed, Islamic regime on its border! Then they'll be too tied up in local matters to cause trouble on the international stage.

Oh, wait.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not sure that anyone here favors international cooperation "above all else."

But it sure would be nice if some other countries were carrying the load in Iraq, so that the US might actually have a military option in Iran, beyond massive bombing.

Or alternatively, if they would sholder the military option in Iran . . .

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I know, I know! Let's try to keep Iran busy with a hostile, well-armed, Islamic regime on its border! Then they'll be too tied up in local matters to cause trouble on the international stage.

Oh, wait.

That's very 80s. The 21st century approach to a large impending threat to to choose another country that is potentially threatening but with no direct connection and liberate it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or alternatively, if they would sholder the military option in Iran . . .

Yeah, that'll work. We'll call it the "I'm busy. Blair, you take care of it" strategy.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yeah, that'll work. We'll call it the "I'm busy. Blair, you take care of it" strategy.

I wonder what Putin's soul is thinking about all this . . .

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
That's very 80s. The 21st century approach to a large impending threat to to choose another country that is potentially threatening but with no direct connection and liberate it.

So the invasion of North Korea is set for . . .

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No clue. I also can't fathom why there is NO DNA evidence that links them. Even if they were just getting a lap dance or otherwise innocently groping you would expect something like hair fibers or skin fragments to be there. In a full fledged rape, it seems incredible.

Do they run DNA tests on anything but semen? I guess it depends on the allegation. Here, that's all I would expect, for the reasons you identify. If the defense was "I wasn't there, never saw her, have no idea who she is" that would be different, I guess.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or alternatively, if they would sholder the military option in Iran . . .

Now you sound like someone who favors international cooperation. Which I suspect won't happen -- due in part (and I think in large part) to the US's inability to pull together a real coalition because of Bush's disastrous rejection of diplomacy and general destruction of US credibility.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do they run DNA tests on anything but semen? I guess it depends on the allegation. Here, that's all I would expect, for the reasons you identify. If the defense was "I wasn't there, never saw her, have no idea who she is" that would be different, I guess.

If I understand the reports correctly, the tests also looked for such things as skin under the fingernails and hair other than the victim's.

Of course, if they all are baby-smooth like Slave, well, who knows.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Now you sound like someone who favors international cooperation. Which I suspect won't happen -- due in part (and I think in large part) to the US's inability to pull together a real coalition because of Bush's disastrous rejection of diplomacy and general destruction of US credibility.

I'm in favor of anything that will stop Iran from getting nukes, although from a purely theoretical standpoint, I don't know why some countries are "allowed" to have them and others not. But put that aside, the real point is that, without the US, the rest of the world (other than the UK) has no stomach for military action and all this nonsense about "let the sanctions work first" or "let diplomacy work first" is really just utter bullshit.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I wonder what Putin's soul is thinking about all this . . .

Look into his eyes and get back to us.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
...the real point is that, without the US, the rest of the world (other than the UK) has no stomach for military action and all this nonsense about "let the sanctions work first" or "let diplomacy work first" is really just utter bullshit...

We should be looking away for the 3 hours it would take for Israel to take care of the problem.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm in favor of anything that will stop Iran from getting nukes, although from a purely theoretical standpoint, I don't know why some countries are "allowed" to have them and others not. But put that aside, the real point is that, without the US, the rest of the world (other than the UK) has no stomach for military action and all this nonsense about "let the sanctions work first" or "let diplomacy work first" is really just utter bullshit.

Of course, the overcommitment we have made in Iraq means that the world is now effectively without the US in policing other situations. Until we at least partially disengage, Iran knows we already have our hands full.

A sensible Middle East policy at this point means salvaging the most stability we can get in Iraq, knowing it's going to be in turmoil regardless of what we do. I'd let it split into three myself, try to keep some federal system so there's a structure whenever the three get to the point where they can work together, maintain a couple of US bases, and dramatically reduce troops. There may be a war as we do this, and our policy should be to simply keep Iran and Turkey out of that war. And to maintain some level of stability in Saudia Arabia as they transition to what will be an Islamic but hopefully democratic country without a monarcy.

But, once we do that, we'll have the throw weight to play a productive role. And I'd commit more of our troops to Afghanistan and try to do it right there.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm in favor of anything that will stop Iran from getting nukes, although from a purely theoretical standpoint, I don't know why some countries are "allowed" to have them and others not.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty is why.

Iran is a signatory, and its efforts are therefore a breach of the treaty (unlike India, Israel, and Pakistan, which are not signatories).