The War on Terror

[Squall7]

Oh, ok. Don't give me that. You post a close-minded book that obviously is completely against this war with a completely bias opinion.

A close minded book? So should every book on the war be riddled with philosophical questions and dubious "ohhh's and ahhh's"? What you're complaining about is that the book is on a definitive standpoint. Do you grasp the concept of planning in a book? The book shouldn't go from "I don't know" to "This is the answer". He did his research, and this is what he found, the book is structured so that it's based on the research, and therefore informed on what happened, rather than telling the story of "I did this, and found this and I was horrified".

And by getting your facts straight about global warming, well if you knew anything about it, you'd know it's hardly preventable so let's not try and take shots at me without completely knowing what it is your saying.

I think it's you that doesn't know what I'm saying. You have avoided the question entirely, and continued on your hostility regardless. "If I knew anything about it?" Get you head out your ass please, I think you're misreading my posts. Here's my point again:

That Global Warming thing was just an example of how Bush can be idiotic.

Go get some more books and stay away from an author that's putting his own agenda on people.

Yeah, cos nobody else is doing that are they? /sarcasm. And what "agenda" has he? Is he an al Qaeda terrorist cell, writing lies about the west to make them rebel against their leaders? No.

So what you're basicaly saying is "go get some books on why the west is justified in going into Iraq". How about you stop treating everyone else like they know less than yourself, and stop being a pretentious idiot.

Do people just forget the fact that we went to war because of 9/11 in afghanistan - a war that was justified because that was where al qaeda was (you know them, the people who were responsible for the attack on the WTC).

By that logic, we should have invaded northern Ireland when the IRA terrorist bombings were happening...

The rest sounds logical.

 

[Mingus]

Alright, there's gotta be a bit more to a debate than tearing down my arguement and throwing big words at me. I can tell your totally into your liberal view points. You want a reason to hate the republicans.

That Global Warming thing was just an example of how Bush can be idiotic.

You must be skipping the important parts of my debate on Global Warming. And you continue to make foolish comments. My entire point was not to debate global warming but to say that is not a reasonable or logical arguement because trying to prevent global warming would be a shitty way for a president to spend America's money, so therefore, that can not be used against him. I took plenty of World Geography classes in college with a professor shoving **** up my ass about the problem with global warming. I did a full report about how Humans are not causing global warming and I got an A. So i know a little about the subject. I have to thank God though for not giving me a close-minded professor though because that whole paper could have bombed.

 

[Squall7]

Warning: This post contains large amounts of sarcasm. Anyone quoting from me should bare this in mind, on penalty of looking "foolish"

Alright, there's gotta be a bit more to a debate than tearing down my arguement and throwing big words at me.

..."big words"?...

I can tell your totally into your liberal view points. You want a reason to hate the republicans.

"liberal viewpoints"? Personally, I prefer not to be defined by an Americanised version of politics. If anything, I'd be more socialist. Oh, and I don't really hate Republicans. I don't really like democrats either. I prefer to stay away from those labels, especially as I'm not American...

You must be skipping the important parts of my debate on Global Warming.

Your debate? Who are you debating with?

And you continue to make foolish comments.

Is that foolish as in "You are foolish to reject the dark side, Luke Skywalker" or foolish as in "Mwahahaha. You think you can defeat me?"

My entire point was not to debate global warming but to say that is not a reasonable or logical arguement because trying to prevent global warming would be a shitty way for a president to spend America's money, so therefore, that can not be used against him.

Yeah, they should be spending more money on nuclear weapons and defenses...

Regardless, that was your point to something I wasn't even saying or denying. Go you!

I took plenty of World Geography classes in college with a professor shoving **** up my ass about the problem with global warming.

Wow. Ok, just tell everyone exactly where he touched you...

This has nothing to do with Global Warming except explaining your immobile stance of "why should we care".

I did a full report about how Humans are not causing global warming and I got an A.

Thus proves that Global Warming isn't an issue...:wtf:
Alternatively, proves that Global Warming is in dispute.

So i know a little about the subject.

Oh, golly. Perhaps I shouldn't have bought the subject up. It seems that your rambling is making everyone fall asleep.

I have to thank God though for not giving me a close-minded professor though because that whole paper could have bombed.

And I think, my mum for bringing me up, and my fans for supporting me through such a terrible time...

If your idea of "non-close-minded" is to agree with you whatever you say, then your definition is out of date.

After that personal story, I think I'll give you a B+. Could have been better without the assumptions that you are right because you got an A in college. Also could have been better if it was relevant. Better than a B for blantantly giving us the reason why you're so set in your ways, even if the methodology was dodgy.

 

[Brawny]

Ah....it feels weird to get back into the debating mode on wiichat of all places. haha

I think we need to define "liberal" and "conservative", as they mean different things to the US and UK.

Second, Global Warming is real, and we suck at bettering it. Haven't you heard Al Gore? LOL

So the gov't effed up.... I'm not condemning them 100%...but why debate the past? Doesn't anyone have any suggestions on how to fix what we got ourselves into?

I can't stand all the ignorant Bush bashing (in general, not necessarily this thread) and everything.....

I'll look for that book.....but the title sounds a little...propaganda-ish.

 

[BrandonMcAuslan]

I can help define the difference between our political parties for UK people.

The Democrats are pretty much to the right of centre (by UK standards) they are similar to our Tory Party - The Conservative Party.

The Repubicans are pretty much the the right of Ghengis Khan - a thirteenth century mongol warlord.

meh *shrugs*

Good to have meaningful debate back on Wiichat!

Is Micheal Moore's new documentary out yet? Sicko? - I met him once - and by met him I mean got him to sign a book and shake my hand.
My pal had a book called "Shite's Miscellany" (A parody of Shotts Miscellany) *spelling?* - and under the section "Stupid American Presidents" it had one entry - George Bush. My pal got Micheal Moore to sign that page and the big man was laughing his ass of and said "What? There's only one?".

Can't wait for Arnie to be president.

I'd love to stay and talk about all this more - but I'm hopping a plane to San Francisco tomorrow so I'll catch up with everyone in 12 days or so.

 

[Squall7]

I can help define the difference between our political parties for UK people.

The Democrats are pretty much to the right of centre (by UK standards) they are similar to our Tory Party - The Conservative Party.

The Repubicans are pretty much the the right of Ghengis Khan - a thirteenth century mongol warlord.

meh *shrugs*

Good to have meaningful debate back on Wiichat!

Is Micheal Moore's new documentary out yet? Sicko? - I met him once - and by met him I mean got him to sign a book and shake my hand.
My pal had a book called "Shite's Miscellany" (A parody of Shotts Miscellany) *spelling?* - and under the section "Stupid American Presidents" it had one entry - George Bush. My pal got Micheal Moore to sign that page and the big man was laughing his ass of and said "What? There's only one?".

Can't wait for Arnie to be president.

I'd love to stay and talk about all this more - but I'm hopping a plane to San Francisco tomorrow so I'll catch up with everyone in 12 days or so.

While I agree with your general stance, there's 2 notes that I would like to say.

1. It won't do you any favours with arguing on the internet with Americans that their politics are on the whole, right wing and to the extent of Ghengis Khan (or any nazi-like figure, whether it true or not is irrelevant at this point).
2. Mentioning Micheal Moore's name is almost a ticket to ignoresville or ridicule city by the right wing.

It seems those two rules are almost sacred.

 

[Barnzy02]

By that logic, we should have invaded northern Ireland when the IRA terrorist bombings were happening...

The rest sounds logical.

I raise the point of fighting al qaeda in Afghanistan, as it should have been our main and only focus. The administration came out saying Bin Laden was responsible, but behind closed doors were still trying to find a way to pin it to Saddam. I think its peculiar that, we were attacked on 9/11 by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Yet 6 Years later we are occupying Iraq, Saddam is dead, and Bin Laden is still making anniversary videos of when he killed 3000 Americans. The people around Bush (i.e. Rumsfeld, Cheyney, Wolfowitz, and Libby - the whole neocon group) had been ready and waiting for a 2nd oppurtunity in Iraq.

I still don't understand why the American people and the Congress haven't done more/aren't as pissed off about all of this. The "democracy" here is an awful system that deflates any person's willingness or desire to get involved. People are either too pessimistic to feel that anything will ever change, or are so blinded by nationalism and pride that they are too stupid to realize they are being lied to and have been lied to on a regular basis for the majority of this president's term.

 

[Squall7]

I raise the point of fighting al qaeda in Afghanistan, as it should have been our main and only focus.

Ok. It's just that it sounded more like you were saying that the US should have gone to war with Afghanistan because of al Qaeda hiding out there.

Do people just forget the fact that we went to war because of 9/11 in afghanistan - a war that was justified because that was where al qaeda was (you know them, the people who were responsible for the attack on the WTC).

The administration came out saying Bin Laden was responsible, but behind closed doors were still trying to find a way to pin it to Saddam. I think its peculiar that, we were attacked on 9/11 by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Yet 6 Years later we are occupying Iraq, Saddam is dead, and Bin Laden is still making anniversary videos of when he killed 3000 Americans. The people around Bush (i.e. Rumsfeld, Cheyney, Wolfowitz, and Libby - the whole neocon group) had been ready and waiting for a 2nd oppurtunity in Iraq.

I still don't understand why the American people and the Congress haven't done more/aren't as pissed off about all of this. The "democracy" here is an awful system that deflates any person's willingness or desire to get involved. People are either too pessimistic to feel that anything will ever change, or are so blinded by nationalism and pride that they are too stupid to realize they are being lied to and have been lied to on a regular basis for the majority of this president's term.

I basically agree.

Although, I'm okay believing that it was orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden, I wouldn't be all that surprised if the person on the tapes wasn't Osama (think about how many Saddam dopplegangers there were).

Unfortunately, I think it's more of the fact that we seem to have a lack of objectivity in the media nowadays, that makes me think such cynical things...