I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.
They aren't poison... but if you are a tanker and under our sights... adios!
FAILED
Random, PERVERTED, expolitation of children photo.
Last edited by a moderator:
What's your opinion on United States Of America?
- Thread starter sombraa110
- Start date
I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.
They aren't poison... but if you are a tanker and under our sights... adios!
FAILED
Random, PERVERTED, expolitation of children photo.
I'll ask one more time, do you have any solid scientific proof of what you claim?
There is nothing 100% on this hole planet Eagle.
Thats what the scientific model is based on.
You can't say that what your seeing that looks like a duck is always a duck.
theres always 1% chance its the exception, to the rule.
I think there is enough evidence to say something the military
is doing is causing most of the birth defects. Thats my opinion.
If you want to ignore that something very wrong is happening
then thats your choice. Thats what I think. I'm not going to waste
my time debating if this could be the 1% exception.
Last edited:
Perhaps someone should ask an Iraqi or Afghan doctor who has to treat these kids and cancer patients. I hear a lot of Bosnian doctors are familiar with DU caused deaths, defects and cancers. You sure as hell won't get a straight answer from those who are dumping this crap in foreign countries.
Dear sir,
What I believe to be one of the best features of this forum is that insults of this nature aren't permitted. Channel your anger into your argument by backing it up with reasons and please refrain from personal attacks. Help us make this forum an enjoyable experience!
Thank you for your understanding.
Easy for you to say, you running dog, gun toting, war mongering hillbilly!Dear sir,
What I believe to be one of the best features of this forum is that insults of this nature aren't permitted. Channel your anger into your argument by backing it up with reasons and please refrain from personal attacks. Help us make this forum an enjoyable experience!
Thank you for your understanding.
Even then that would only be one study.
Mass media could do a ton of spin offs why its not credible etc... If the owners did not like the outcome of the results of the study.
For something to be 100% for sure or close to it, thousands of study need to be made. And all of them have to Pointe in the same direction.
What really strikes me in all of this, is, lets say you control mass media, you can create a illusion where a large percentage of the population can be lead to believe, some kind of global warming (or anything for that matter) is not really happening for sure. Its not proven so we should not act.
But our ice poles are melting at insane rates...... So the mass media says
that could be anything! theres no real proof.
99% chances is, we are having a effect on this planets climate in some shape or form. Study to prove it 100% would take 100 years and billions of dollars to do.
How is it the USA can manipulate so many humans to think that 1% chance is enough to decide to not take any actions or in other situation take action, Like the twin towers. They had a 1% chance of falling over like that. Yes I know , it could happen.
The USA is the greatness mass population thought manipulation leaders on the planet.
They could almost lead us to walk off a bridge cause theres 1% chance you wont kill yourself landing.
Well.... there not that good at it yet. but there working on it.
Still its 99% apparent that such power is real and could be used to sway mass opinion in favor or in rejection of almost anything happening in our world. Especially as things get more and more complicated.
Last edited:
Sheeple are easy to lead around by the nose. Religious and political leaders have been doing it for thousands of years. Sheeple don't want to know the truth. They can't handle it. They just want someone to tell them how to think and do so they can get through their lives without having to stress about stuff they can't or don't want to control..
Easy for you to say, you running dog, gun toting, war mongering hillbilly!
:lol::lol:
Go stick a feather in your hair you pagan-loving, junkie condoning, forest hermit!
Then again perhaps it's also wise for Iraq and Afghan leaders not to court war in their lands when they can't back it up. A much better use for the people and money spent on military grist would be securing borders and bringing lawless areas under control.
Or why don't we go to the World Health Organization and the IAEA?
Sorry Cliff...there is no proof. Facts are facts.
How profound.
It's only thought-manipulation if you don't believe in the same "facts" as me.
Kind of a fun little catch-22, ain't it?
Kind of a fun little catch-22, ain't it?
I obviously missed all the articles where the leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan wrote letters to the US saying please come over and have a war with us. Can you post a link??
On December 22, Iraq announced that it would never give up Kuwait. On December 30, Iraq's information minister said that Bush "must have been drunk" when he suggested Iraq might withdraw from Kuwait, and added: "We will show the world America is a paper tiger." And the next day Iraq began drafting 17-year-olds.
Saddam Refuses to Withdraw from Kuwait: August 1990 to January 1991
Taliban fighters are reported to be mobilizing along the border with Pakistan. Their enemy, if they refuse to hand over bin Laden, won't be another guerrilla force, but the most sophisticated army in the world.
Analyst Ahmed Rasheed says the Taliban is willing to fight because bin Laden is one of their own. "Bin Laden is very much part of the Taliban. He acknowledges Mullah Omar as the leader of the whole Islamic world. He funds Mullah Omar, he provides two to three thousand Arab fighters who are part of the Taliban army. He's in all sorts of business deals, trading and smuggling, so he's very much part of the economic, financial, political, decision-making process of the Taliban."
Tension mounts in Afghanistan as Taliban prepares for war - World - CBC News
Saddam Refuses to Withdraw from Kuwait: August 1990 to January 1991
Taliban fighters are reported to be mobilizing along the border with Pakistan. Their enemy, if they refuse to hand over bin Laden, won't be another guerrilla force, but the most sophisticated army in the world.
Analyst Ahmed Rasheed says the Taliban is willing to fight because bin Laden is one of their own. "Bin Laden is very much part of the Taliban. He acknowledges Mullah Omar as the leader of the whole Islamic world. He funds Mullah Omar, he provides two to three thousand Arab fighters who are part of the Taliban army. He's in all sorts of business deals, trading and smuggling, so he's very much part of the economic, financial, political, decision-making process of the Taliban."
Tension mounts in Afghanistan as Taliban prepares for war - World - CBC News
Something from 1991 to justify a second war 10 years later???
Now I would ask you remember that while the US was backing Iraq in a war against Iran in the late 80's Saddam openly told them he had designs on Kuwait and was not told at the time they would oppose this.
The Taliban did not refuse to hand over OBL, they demanded proof before they did.
I will admit the statement from Saddam was pretty much an invitation to the first gulf war but not the second 10 years later.
WOW - Lets see what this person said.
"15 answers and not one is correct (A few touch on being correct but fail in the end)
The liberals are out in force on this question
After the first gulf war (Desert Storm 1991) there were UN resolutions put in place to make sure Iraq disarmed it's WMD programs. Saddam did have WMD's (Bio and Chemical) He was trying to get Nuclear.
It is a lie to say Saddam did NOT have them. He did.
UN Inspectors were to oversee the distruction of his inventory and the dismantlement of his factories. They were denied time and time again by Saddam
The UN was a toothless tiger, they had no will to inforce their own resolutions. Those resolutions said Saddam MUST comply or else.
After more than a Decade of Saddams stalling tactics The USA said "ENOUGH" and went with the "Or else" option.
Everything else you hear about why we went over there falls onder one of several categories.
1. outright lies
2. misleading facts
3. were secondary reasons
4. not reasons but incentives or potential benefits
An Outright lie is something like "Bush started
it because people with money told bushco to do it"
MIsleading facts are like "WE found no WMD's"
You are right... we didnt. but that does not change the fact that he DID have them. what became of them we dont know still. If Saddam got rid of them as he was supposed to, then why not let the UN inspectors verify it as he was supposed to?
A secondary reason is the terrorist connections. We knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He was known to harbor terrorists and this IS A FACT. Yes it is true he did not get along with or have dealings with Osama and the Al Qaida network, but he did have connections with terrists. That alone would not have got us to invade (Hence its not the real reason we went there) but while we are going, this becomes another goal (Hence it's status as a secondary reason)
An incentive or potential benefit was never a reason for invasion. but once the invasion was underway, came about as a CONSEQUENCE of the invasion
We did not invade so that Haliburton could gain contracts. thats plain stupid. but once the invasion happened, someone had to help rebuild their oil infrastructure. Haliburton happens to be one of the biggest names in that business. Cheney as a major stockholder just happens to be convenience.
Just because political opponents sieze on that and twist it against him does not make their claims, fact.
Another benefit is getting rid of Saddam.
Bush Jr. did not do this to get back at Saddam for trying to carbomb his Dad. or to "Finish what Dad Started". His reason was the UN resolutions. Getting rid of Saddam was just "Icing on the cake" so to speak.
Another benefit (But not a reson) was oil. We did not go there for Oil. but in giving the Iraqi's a free country from Saddam and for helping rebuild their country after, it was no great leap of intuition that we would likely get consessions on oil trade.
Liberals keep looking at the effect (Oil, Saddam gone, Contracts) and try to twist them into reasons.
The CAUSE was Saddam and his refusal to allow UN inspectors to monitor his destruction of the WMD's he did have at one time.
UPDATE:
Thank you GCBtrading.
I didn't know that about Cheney getting rid of his stock in Haliburton. But that just takes all the wind out of the liberals sails when they try and use that as some proof of the "Evildoings" of the Bush/Cheney team.
Just more proof that liberals are idiots."
Source(s):
USN Vet
Desert Storm/Southern Watch
AAhhhaaaahhhaaahhhaaa!!!! You are too f*cking funny. I guess if you lie to yourself enough you actually believe it. He had them, but we didn't find any, but he had them, it doesn't matter we didn't find them, he had them..... WHAT A JOKE!!!!!
You go ahead and believe every lie in your post if you want it just makes you look like an idiot. You should have put this in the fun & jokes section because thats where it belongs.
Can you say GULLIBLE!!!
WHAT A MARROON!!! as Bugs Bunny used to say.
:lol::roll::lol::roll::lol::roll: