Well, I agree that we want iraq to be a stable country that doesn't harbor terrorists. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is democratic. Iraq has never been a democracy and I doubt it will ever truly become one. What form of government they have does not matter. Jordan is monarchy, I think. They are stable and we get along fine. If we care about democracy for it's own sake we would urge other countries towards it besides our enemies.
yeah, well england is a monarchy too, you are missing the point. both are constitutional monarchies with free elections. nothing like iraq was. again, the danger is when corruption meets money. in the case of iraq, they dont have to be a free capitalist society to get rich like everyone else, because they have oil. so an idiot can just take the oil and be rich and ornery. this is unique and this is why we dont give a damn about sudan or burundi or whatever other poor sack of **** country is totally corrupt. because when corruption meets oil money, that is when it gets dangerous. the idea that we want to take natural resources from iraq is ludicrous. we are not sending our guys over to get killed so we can have cheap oil.
I don't think we are there for the oil, necessarily. We are there so we can have an entrenched military presence. My point is we are not there so Iraq can become a democracy.
technically they did find WMDs in Iraq after 2003. Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
From the link: If Colin Powell had presented this case to the UN as justification for the war on Iraq he would have been laughed out of the room. None of the weapons the Iraqi military possessed were a threat to US interests. It seems odd to me that it is so difficult to admit the truth here. The US used WMD's as an excuse to invade Iraq when even the UN did not sanction such action. It was pure propaganda to cover the invasion. The powers that be are doing the same thing with global warming. They are being dishonest in regard to the facts regarding the climate. -The sun is responsible for most of the changes in the earth's cimate, not mankind. -And regarding CO2, it is not a pollutant so don't worry about your carbon footprint. -The earth went through a period warmer than today before the industrial revolution. -Consensus is not evidence and there are many instances of the consensus of one generation being proved wrong. Why is it that you think the government is so infallible? It is beyond me when there are so many example of government incompetence or corruption.
Do you read this board? i doubt there is a single person that posts here that thinks the Government is infallible.
I know, you're right. That is why it seems so strange to me that there is this amount of faith in what the government says. The UN IPCC is a "governmental body" producing reports that are ideologically motivated to make the case for AWG. Period. It is not an objective body of scientists. It seems to me very similar to: 1) The Warren Commision 2) The 9/11 Report 3) The SEC Officials (in support of Alabama winning the Nat'l Champ.) All of which have obvious biases and a clear agenda. Proven by these facts: 1) Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. (It was impossible for one gunman to do that, plus all the inconsistencies after the fact.) 2) Building 7 was never mentioned in the 9/11 Report. (50 Story buildings that are NOT hit by airplanes shouldn't implode) 3) Patrick Peterson did, in fact have both feet in bounds. LSU ball, period.
Building 7 was part of the WTC complex. It was literally right next to the collapsed twin towers. Do you think it should have been unscathed? That's like saying about 2500 people who died weren't hit by planes so something is fishy there.
Originally posted by SabanFan: There is no other explanation for Bldg 7 collapsing other than the fact that there were demolition charges already in the building. No other buildings of that type have ever collapsed in the history of the world because of fires. None. The only three that have collapsed in the history of the world were the Twin Towers and Bldg 7. The Twin Towers were hit by airplanes, I will grant you that but Bldg 7 was hit by....by, uh, lets see....uh, debris....yeah, burning debris caused Bldg 7 to impode neatly in it's own litte footprint. You might try looking into that one a little bit more. There are a lot of very educated, intelligent people who have problems with the official story. It's ok, it doesn't mean you are a kook or a "whackjob". People who call you that are just trying to intimdate you. try this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
no other skyscrapers have been a part of a situation where they were left to burn unchecked for hours. you may know this , but THERE WAS A HUGE ****ING MASSACRE ACROSS THE STREET SO THE FIREFIGHTERS WERE A LITTLE DISTRACTED, so they couldnt direct their attention to the empty building that burned all day. perhaps you think they should have stopped digging people out the ground and saved the empty building? there is a thing called "fire". this thing, fire, when left alone, will cause damage to the the integrity of structures. hard to believe, i know, but true. i know it would stand to reason that everything is impervious to this thing called fire, but oddly enough, fire actually does a thing called "damage". i know that seems incredibly unlikely to you, and that it is more likely that thousands of murderers secreted deadly explosives into a working building while nobody noticed. it does mean exactly that you are a whackjob. i cant deal with with truthers, they make me sad in the same way that retards make me sad. and that is not meant as an insult, i genuinely feel bad about truthers and i am ashamed for humankind when i hear their stupid bull****. i am gonna have to go ahead and perma-ignore flabengal, thats just how it is, i cant take the stupidity, it angers and saddens me.
