Cheesy wrote: awmalzo wrote: Cheesy wrote: Manganator wrote:
on what? Bush declared war on terrorism
and freed a dictatorship,
and dont give me anything about weapons of mass destruction because there was evidence.
but global warming is a joke, but its not entirely mankinds fault, its called glaciation.
Holy mother of God
what? the fact that i hit on 4 topics that democrats like to attack/attack with, and no one has actually denied what i have said?
1)bush declared war on terrorism. If bush and america was nicer to the arabic states in the past then I doubt anything would have happened.and even if bush delcared war on terrorism, the way he did it surely isn't the best way of how to do it.
like osama is a terrorist for americans, similar bush is a terrorist to most arabs countries. [ well eastern countries/muslims]
4) it is a joke? don't think so. hey don't forget the amount of forests peple are killing, the amount of pollution we do and the world population always increasing.also don't forget that more powerful rain = more soil finishes in the sea.
3) lol we don't need evidence we need proof. you can be a 10 year old child from this evidence but i can't proof it. That doesn;t mean your a 10 year old child.
and the funny thing is, they invaded and woot found nothing. nice evidence you had lmao.
2) lol I bet bush would have changed the 8 year maximum term for presidentship if he could
first off, you counting is hugged up, 1 4 3 2? lmao
1) perspective is perspective, fact is different. we didnt take down the two tallest buildings in the world filled with civilians by ramming commercial airline jets into them, we didnt even terrorize. we dont torture our own citizens for speaking against the government. by their perspective they've grown up learning propaganda against the US. you can talk about perspective all you want, but its just a twisted up mangled form of reality, and usually quite different.
4) (lol going in your strange order) larger ocean surface area? more carbon dioxide being pulled in, larger population? more farmers, forests being destroyed? every tree destroyed gets replaced by a sapling, which more CO2 will aid in it growing faster and larger. pollution is going down any way, if its not going to be complaints, the creation of global warming worked pretty well at lowering it. now companies have to "go green" if they want customers approval. theres nothing wrong with going green, it has plenty of benefits that are worth it besides CO2 reduction.
3) ok for one what evidence would make you think i am 10? your responses arent quite as well thought out as they could have been you know. and evidence is evidence. its all there was, and lets put it this way for you:
You are the leader of the country with the strongest military in the world. a dictatorship in the middle east, with a leader who aids terrorists, such as those who attacked the two largest buildings in the world in your country, has evidence of weapons of mass destruction being built there, here are your options:
a) blow it off and risk them blowing their neighbors to kingdom come
b)invade and never giving them the chance to wipe a nation off the map, as well as liberating the citizens from an oppressive rule
2) well, probably and i would hope he could have if obama screws stuff up in iraq
1) The US didn't take down those two buildings (WHICH WERE NOT THE TWO TALLEST IN THE WORLD, fcol).
The US has developed a very effective tactic called "Shock and Awe" and it's the military equivalent of terrorism. Frankly I don't think the US is to blame as terrorism is just awesome (for some stuff, not for being a constructive and worthy human being).
Also, the US is one of the most propaganda effective nations I've ever heard of. North-Korea is a baby compared to the US. Besides, who needs propaganda when people will just DO whatever you tell them?
4) Don't know where to begin. Read up on it. "It" being... err... everything.
2) Saddam Hussein never, ever aided Al-Qaeda (in fact they rather disliked each other). He didn't have any reason to. In a true democracy (you know, those fictious ones where people are innocent until proven otherwise) one would need a "motive" (*whole class: "MOTIVE"*) to sentence someone to death. Saddam nor his regime had any reason to support terrorists.
Here's some conclusions of reputable organisations/commissions/people disproving the notion that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had an operational relationship:
After the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, there were several investigations of possible collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists who attacked the building. Neil Herman, who headed the FBI investigation into the attack, noted that despite Yasin's presence in Baghdad, there was no evidence of Iraqi support for the attack.
In 1998, Daniel Benjamin, who headed the National Security Council's counterterrorism division, led an exercise aimed at a critical analysis of the CIA's contention that Iraq and al Qaeda would not team up. "This was a red-team effort," he said. "We looked at this as an opportunity to disprove the conventional wisdom, and basically we came to the conclusion that the CIA had this one right." Benjamin later told Boston Globe reporters, "No one disputes that there have been contacts over the years. In that part of the America-hating universe, contacts happen. But that's still a long way from suggesting that they were really working together."
Ten days after the September 11 attacks, President Bush receives a classified President's Daily Brief (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." The PDB writes off the few contacts that existed between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda as attempts to monitor the group rather than attempts to work with them. According to the National Journal, "Much of the contents of the PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism." This PDB was one of the documents the Bush Administration refused to turn over to the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, even on a classified basis, and refuses to discuss other than to acknowledge its existence.
In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been conclusively established between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to the AP story, "Boaz Ganor, an Israeli counter-terrorism expert, told the AP he knows of no Iraqi ties to terror groups, beyond Baghdad's relationship with Palestinian militias and possibly Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.... A senior Israeli security source told the AP that Israel has not yet found evidence of an Iraqi-Palestinian-Al Qaeda triangle, and that several investigations into possible Al Qaeda ties to Palestinian militias have so far not yielded substantial results. Ganor said Al Qaeda has put out feelers to Palestinian groups, but ties are at a very preliminary stage."
In March 2008, a Pentagon-sponsored study was released, entitled Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, based on the review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2003 US invasion. The study "found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."
And WHAT evidence?