...since most of the terrorists from the 9/11 attacks spent a lot of time in Germany, I say that Germany should be next.

It amazes me how easily some people can get offended. I hate political threads.

I'm not offended. I think you should just be quiet.

No problem.

They had free education without your help.

No they didn't. Hell, weren't women legally unable to obtain an education?

I'm not one to defend the War on Terror, but there are some good things it brought about.

DJ Yoshi sure seems to have toned down abit. I'm not trying to be condesending to you but is there a reason you seem abit more "level headed" now than in the past?



Certainly not the thug dictators running those countries.



Juvenile. What has GW plunderred? We kill terrorist not try them. And how are we going to find terrorist leaders unless we invade the hostile nations that harbor them?



Where to start with this nonsensical post? First, I don't think it fair to say we hated Iraq. We hate evil people but that certainly doesn't describe your average Iraqi. Middle Easteners can't seem to go five years without having a crazed dictator rule them? Guess Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait (to name a few off the top of my head) don't count. And somehow we'll be able to tell how this all went at the end of the Bush administration? What?

No. From here. Isn't that weird? Why do you think you were so off? I mean, I didn't even know until I looked it up just now.

Hey Wookie. Do you still believe that Iraq had WMDs within, say, the last decade?

They did find Sarin gas right? That stuff is pretty dang nasty and they were loading it into bombs, bleh here.

That was a small thing. They were expecting to find stockpiles of the stuff, which never happened.

Stockpiles can easily be shipped to Syria and maybe even with the help of rogue russians according to this.

Yes, it's a possibility, but that doesn''t change the fact that the US has not found stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq since the war started.

Assuming that this was a potential response to my response to above, I'll quote it.



First, your quoting wikipedia as a source of fact? Might as well have used the Daily Show.

I don't know whether Saddam had any WMDs within the last decade. It's a fact that he had them at one time. It's reasonably probable he had plans to develop or procure them. But it looks doubtful that he was in possession of them when we invaded. Makes me wonder if he wishes he'd cooperated with inspectors.

And it doesn't surprise me that Bush would back off from WMD but, the editorializing nature of the article you cited notwithstanding, it wouldn't seem shocking for the administration to emphasize some of the other rational they gave for the invasion.

I wouldn't say SanDiego would be a great source either and its so easy to slander anything on Wikepedia.

tinny, Wookie: The article is from the Associated Press, not the San Diego Union Tribune. Wikipedia is the new paradigm, and provides probably the most balanced information on the Washington Times you'll find on the internet. You can find plenty of straight up detractors not constrained by NPOV if you want more info.

Wookie: Cool. I was just curious.

There's another question I have for Bush supporters in general: Do you think the terror war is over, or needs further pursuit? Specifically, what do you think this administration should do from here, if not nothing? I ask because it seems that domestic issues (Schiavo, gay marriage, Social Security, DeLay's ethics violations, rules changes in the House and Senate, controversial judicial nominees), have entirely eclipsed our national security concerns. Since al Qaeda didn't actually have any significant connections to Hussein or the Ba'athist government, it seems unlikely that our invasion struck a killing blow. Considering that our President vowed not to yield, rest, or relent in pursuing terrorists and democracy, what do you think the decision to call it quits after Iraq?

I should also note that this question is evil.

The "war on terror" is something that's not going to end. To be successful, Intelligence agencies are going to to have find as much as they can about groups before they take action then work from there.

96.6 million dollars missing

9 billion dollars missing

1 trillion dollars (!!!) missing

On the subject of 'there are real world reasons for invading Iraq' versus 'we want to spread democracy' - important for guys here in the UK about to vote.

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

From http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634702

The memo

If you're gonna reply : by all means, I could be wrong. Have the decency at least to give a REAL answer this time.

And for the love of god, don't ever call me 'sport' again, 'kiddo'.

The memo is important

..a bump.. in the road..

Subtle, eh?

Have you even been to America Tenshu? You can come up with all the conspiracy crap you want, but our economy is not, and has not been in shambles. In fact, we're doing allot better than Europe right now.

From the economist for 2004

COUNTRY .... GDP (year) GDP (quarter) Economist Forecast (2004) Economist Forecast (2005) Unemployment Unemployment (year ago)
USA +4.8 +3.0 (Q2) +4.5 +3.5 5.5 6.2
EU +1.3 +2.3 (Q1) +1.3 +2.0 9.0 8.9
Japan +5.6 +6.1 (Q1) +4.5 +2.3 4.6 5.3

Mmm you still failed there.

There's tons of unaccountable $$$ in the Department of Education. Bill O'Reilly made this known to all. Just because the government is irresponsible for the revenues does NOT mean that the economy is in shambles. You're trying to make it seem like we're in a Great Depression. We're not. The latest number I saw was the the GDP grew 3.1% Lower that expected but still growing. The main retarding factor is that gas prices are hovering $2.30 nationwide. When gas is expensive, no one wants to travel thus no consumers and we get slower growth.

I don't like the government losing track of such LARGE quantities of MY money. Its ridiculous. But even then, it's not ruining our economy.

Missing money != bad economy. Besides, it's government money. It's not like they don't already make it up or borrow it anyways. (note, this is not an actual argument)

Granted, it's not GOOD for our economy, but a trillion dollars? Have you SEEN our deficit as of late? A trillion...dust under the rug.

If we can loose that much money and see no change in our every day lives, that would then imply that we have a very very very good economy.

That's actually a *really* good point.

Just because you're not suffering doesn't mean other people aren't. It's always going to affect those at the bottom first.

Fortunately, because of our economy, we have very few people at the bottom. Their standard of living hasn't really changed over the past few years. The poor families all have plenty to eat and TV's. (The TV's, ironiclly, are sometimes one of the reasons that they're still poor. :P) It's not really changed at all.

Dude, you were just on a roll, but that is extremely naive.

I'm not sure where that trillion dollars has to come from now. They cut back on stemcell and fundamental physics research, but that was even before then. It's definitely not gonna come from defense. Education maybe? The South seems like it could care less about education. Taxes? I dunno.

One thing's for sure: If I had that kind of money I'd buy myself a nice new pontiac. And a continent. ANY continent.

Wow, it's nice to get a reminder how little people actually knew about Iraq. Thanks Yoshi!

Also: Camels are not their main form of transport, and they do indeed speak a language, not random jibberish. Am I missing any bases here? Because I just know (and indeed, Yoshi among others proved) that many of you are running around with these "ideas" in your heads. No basis to them at all, but hot damn if anyone will tell you otherwise. At least ol' DJ could be served easily, the rest of the crap floating around is like trying to disprove god.

I hate these threads for a reason: God himself could come down and say something was right or wrong, and you would still have people clinging to their beleif. So belive on, war-for-oil and war-to-free-iraqi people, not like anything is going to stop your ignorance anyway.



Addendum: Obi_Kwiet's point about us not noticing. It's like global warming. Have you felt warmer? Are there huge floods yet? In other words, by the time you notice it is too late. Ah, maybe I'll use cancer as an example as well. Or maybe the takeover of the government by a totalitarian who wishes to kill all your people (in refrence to Hitler). Just because you don't notice something doesn't make not exist. That's a very faulty line of logic.

What would it take you to notice Obi? Your family having to move because they couldn't pay their loan/rent? Fire from the sky? Think about it, by the time you notice signs, things are not just 'bad' anymore.

Oh yeah, not saying the economy is bad (I really hate anything money related unless I'm getting cash free), but hot damn the inflation where I live is pretty bad. ALL the freaking prices are inching up slowly but surely. And I'm not talking about gas. But yeah, I think it was said the economy was in a rebound period. Still, an incorrect statement is always nice to point out.

Actually global warming is false. The world has actually COOLED an average of 1 degree over the past 10 years. (Or maybe it was 93-03 or something, doesn't matter.)

Are you sure you still want to compare it to global warming?

Yeah, might as well. The basic point is that if something was happening, we wouldn't notice. Case in point: no one notices it got colder :p

Man, your title fits you really well, come to think of it, j/k

Oh yeah, happen to have some backup for that; not disputing it, but I'm intrested to read about it.

Yes there is dude. Evidence, facts, arguments, reason, logic.

You are for which, war for oil or war to free Iraqis?

To the ZZter: As for global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Is this null?

War primarily for oil, third page, the relatively big posts by me.

And off-topic: I really don't think global warming is 'false'. The mechanisms and human part are unclear, but it's pretty clear that something like global warming does exist.

Well slap me on the *** and call me susan, I'll have myself a look.

Ok, here is the summary of your post:



I agree with this; this is a war over infulence to an extent. What I meant about "war for oil" was that this war was solely based on getting us oil (i.e. what I italisized in the quote). Something deeper is at work (such as that in bold), and while it may or may not be that, it is something along those lines. So we are in agreement; the war isn't concerned 100% with our consumption or posession of oil, but instead may be focusing on hegemony.

I don't agree with the whole Isreal thing though; Saddam was in control of a secular state, which was less of a threat than all the other islamic ones; i.e. Isreal has bigger fish to fry. Not to say he was't a threat, but why would he be Isreal's primary target?

Addendum: Holy crap, Obi's vocabulary and typing are improving! Stop the presses, this is big!

Uh, global warming is occuring, there isn't any doubt about that. The issue is how much is contributed by human civilisation.

Regardless of whether it is relatively significant now, we are constantly consuming more fossil fuels and releasing more carbon dioxide, and if this growth continues the significance will keep increasing until it is significant. And, like blokey above said, by then it's too late.