OMG!!! Kerry's people are getting desperate!

[Sgt_Shellback]

You dodged my question again! Plus I thought the cheesy emoticon would signal my joking manner in posting that. Sorry you missed it, here it is again :E

When you go and ask Zell Miller the same question I'll click your link...

 

[Korgoth]

I woudln't ask zell miller anything, he'd duel me to the death lol

(he is teh scary, scary angry man)

 

[killahsin-[CE]]

I will answer your question. Yes they are objective. Any party member who isn't voting for his own candidate is objective. And if you listen to the reasons why the people in particular are not voting for bush you may get some insight. Alot of republicans believe bush is to liberal(lol). Yes I am not kidding.

We are currently at a phase where the politics of the 2 parties seem to have switched. As for Zell Miller he has some valid reasons to be very angry. Our party has moved from the new age democrat philosophy to a very angry win at all costs forget about the issues party. In such a rush we elected the wrong candidate to represent our party. Simply put. Many democrats may dissagree with me, for their ownr easons. But I've lived under kerry alot longer than most of them. Of course alot of the eutopia far left democrats from boston love kerry.

 

[Rico]

If Iraq hadn't been invaded, there would have been no terrorism in the country. That's fact.

ANd all this time Mechagodzilla had a time machine... Damn you, I need it for a physics project a few months ago you fool, where were you then?!!

My point is nobody can tell you if Iraq was changed for the worse terrorism-wise other than it's people. When I meet an immigrant from Iraq who's not some fanatic ranting about how they hate superpowers and present me with a logical description of what's going on and if things have improved, THEN I will choose a side.

As it stands right now you can't say Bush "caused" the terror attacks in Iraq... Did you forget about Saddam having people who defied him killed on a daily basis? I'd call that terror, along with other incidents the international or US media didn't seem to deem "important" (you know, like, stuff that doesn't affect the US at all apparently has no merit).

It's a fact that you people are not very well informed by the media... local media will always provide you with the best info but sadly almost nobody checks up on world conflicts in depth, instead, they take what they are fed by their national media as the absolute truth and go about their lives believing nothing else is going on in the world.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

ANd all this time Mechagodzilla had a time machine... Damn you, I need it for a physics project a few months ago you fool, where were you then?!!

Right...

My point is nobody can tell you if Iraq was changed for the worse terrorism-wise other than it's people. When I meet an immigrant from Iraq who's not some fanatic ranting about how they hate superpowers and present me with a logical description of what's going on and if things have improved, THEN I will choose a side.

Sheesh, I object to how the war in Iraq has aided terrorism, and people start calling me a terrorist sympathiser and an illogical raving fanatic.

I don't want terrorists getting stronger! That's the point!

Is it so illogical to assume that something does not exist when no-one, not even the United States government, can prove that it does?

You can't just assume a place is full of terrorists just because it's in the mid-east. Iraq had no ties to Al-Queda and, as far as I know, has never experienced a terrorist attack in the time between 9/11 and the start of the war.

Please provide any evidence that says I'm wrong. Then call me a fanatic.

If anything, I'm being too rational about the whole affair. Maybe I should care less about Iraqis? Maybe I should just assume Saddam had all the at unproven stuff just because Bush "though so."

As it stands right now you can't say Bush "caused" the terror attacks in Iraq... Did you forget about Saddam having people who defied him killed on a daily basis? I'd call that terror, along with other incidents the international or US media didn't seem to deem "important" (you know, like, stuff that doesn't affect the US at all apparently has no merit).

I know very much about Saddam's evil and, as I've said before, his removal from power is the only good thing to come from the war.

He was a horrible person, but he was not a terrorist.

I've made it clear that I'm talking about Al-Queda here. And there was no Al-Queda in Iraq, and certainly no Al-Queda attacking americans in Iraq, before the war.

If the US had gone to war with one motive - overthrowing Saddam to stop his dictatorship - and gathered conclusive evidence of opression and brutality, they might have been met with less anger and suspicion than when they stormed in to eliminate WMDs that weren't there.

When the civilians started to be killed, from an attack by the US that was unjust, that's when Al-Queda managed to take hold.

It's a fact that you people are not very well informed by the media... local media will always provide you with the best info but sadly almost nobody checks up on world conflicts in depth, instead, they take what they are fed by their national media as the absolute truth and go about their lives believing nothing else is going on in the world.

Okay, instead of just complaining about how I know less than you, how's about you actually show me how much more you know?

That might make me pay more attention to your insulting opinion of me.

 

[killahsin-[CE]]

mechagodzilla, there is no Al-Qaeda anywhere except afghanistan its a pile of rubble right now, People need to understand that AL-Qaeda is just a term to define a place, people have used it to define an organization wrongly I have posted before stating the name of the organization. Do your own research before using generalized terms to describe an organizationt hat has over 50 sub organizations in it. If people would do their own research they would fine out that most of the links and or the reason people defy them as links all has to do with the political use of the term 'al-qaeda' an entirely thing. So legally they can say Saddam has no links to al-qaeda. Yet he did have plenty of ties to Ansar al-Islam which is a sub affiliate under the umbrella of the organization i posted earlier. So no you can't say saddam was conencted with al-qaeda, but you can say they were connected to ansar-al-Islam, at the same time ansar is tied to bin ladens organization from trianing IN Al-Qaeda. That is the proper use of the term.

When people talk about direct links to al-qaeda they are just politicising the real issue. The onmly direct links to 'al-qaeda' are those whom trained in 'the base' or got direct orders from those in 'the base'. The issue is the trainign they receive is that they can commit the acts themselves without direct orders or funding from people in 'the base'. This is why I stress for people to read up ont hings themselves. You have the power of the internet at your hands, every perspective and side of a story can be read. You can sift through all the details and facts and find out for yourself.

Why do some in the administration say he had weapons still? Because saddams own generals suggest that they were under the impression that he did. People speculate whether they are in the baka valley buried right now. Or if in fact saddam used this to maintain control over hsi commanders, with them worrying he still had these things at his disposal. Read this decide for yourself. It isn't a right wing media firm


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/alqaeda_iraq020927.html

 

[DizzyOne]

ok ill keep it short

the intelligence for the coming attack was widespread
the intelligence was not bunk, but either it
-never reached the necessary authorities
-was not taken seriously enough
-has been ignored to make way for current policies, whoa did i just really say that??

because, evidence proves 9/11 could have easily been prevented
the only thing ill mention here is this:
-there is a LAW which orders for interception by fighters, of any aircraft straying more then 12 miles from the designated flightpath.
after some simple math follows that normally the first plane would have fallen under this law within at least 45 minutes before impact
-the chief of NORAD was informed only 45 minutes after the LAST plane struck..
the rest i leave to this site, which is no radical left nonsense but a site dedicated to serious research by people of all kinds


www.cooperativeresearch.org

p.s for who has gotten interested, i suggest looking for an analysis of the highly odd, controlled-demolition-like collapse of the towers
the architects comment in the late 70's was they would have to be able to withstand an impact of a large commercial plane.. yes he really said that

 

[DizzyOne]

furthermore, i wont take anyone serious quoting CNN, ABC, CBS and especially FOX, as objective sources
and dont give me that crap about credibility they can survive just about anything..
i dont have time to make a comprehensive list of their political directions, affiliations with government, biased reporting in general, or selective interviewing, but it could be done trust me, or not
ill just say this, if you dont know what lexis-nexis is your not informed enough to really discuss media..
no disrespect to anyone btw

 

[DizzyOne]

ok that site should have been .com instead of .org
dumbass me

 

[Rupertvdb]

No, it shold have been .org.

P.S.

p.s for who has gotten interested, i suggest looking for an analysis of the highly odd, controlled-demolition-like collapse of the towers
the architects comment in the late 70's was they would have to be able to withstand an impact of a large commercial plane.. yes he really said that

The buildings were the tallest on the New York skyline, I think the reason he said this was the fact such massive objects could feasibly be knocked in to, as opposed to any foresight on his part. On top of that the fact he was wrong shouldn't come as such a shock, they did withstand the blow from the planes if i recall correctly, they didn't withstand gallons of burning fuel destroying the foundational supports and compromising the stability of the two buildings.

 

[Rupertvdb]

I will answer your question. Yes they are objective. Any party member who isn't voting for his own candidate is objective.

I didn't read the rest of your post cos i have to go somewhere but this part of it is well and truly wrong. Part of American politics involves the Primaries, the candidates for the primaries are required to get votes from Caucus', if they get enough they can be a candidate, any Caucus can vote once, occasionally you will find a republican voting for a weak democrat or vica versa so that they will compete and possibly screw the chances of the other party up.

Plus this statement is fundamentally flawed as he is making a subjective decision, he is not being objective he is simply not voting with his affiliates, there can be any number of reasons, not simply that he is ignoring his personal beliefs for the greater good.