Dr.Worthless

HuH? You lost me.. In the literal sense no, they weren't in Iraq. I'm trying to point out that Saddam would have no reason to NOT support them if they are attacking his enemies.. If you were confused by my prior point sorry, I didn't do a good job explaining myself. In the literal sense that chart is correct, Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq, but the real question is was Saddam working/affiliated/in contact/supporting/whatever with them. Of course!!! So, us removing Saddam did not CREATE any terrorism, the terrorists were ALREADY THERE. Where as I do see this reasoning, if you use this reasoning (Which most of the world did for the last decade) you're detaching yourself from the reprocussions this decision has on the general populus of Iraq. Now that Hussein is gone, the world community in general NOW gives a -*BAD WORD*- about the general Iraqi, some even claiming their lives are WORSE now than before with Saddam in power.. Why is this? Absolutly, I never claimed otherwise, it only makes sense. One of the most powerful tyrants in the middle east gone, of course various factions are going to try and sieze power, it only makes sense.

Yep, everyone knows that the US are just -*BAD WORD*-s that dont contribute to the world community at all.. us -*BAD WORD*-s. Its not like from 45-86 the US has given out 257 BILLION dollars in aid to the world or anything.. Source Seriously, do you guys just speak from your -*BAD WORD*- or what?

I'm glad you linked this vile, i've seen a huge influx of liberals using this as "proof" that al-qaeda wasn't in iraq. I find it horridly amusing that there generally isn't any arguements that terrorists operated in virtually every nation surrounding Iraq, but magically the terrorists stayed out of Iraq. Generally the arguement I hear is that "Saddam had such a stranglehold on iraq that he kept them out, with an Iron Fist!!" To which my reply is, Saddam openly supported terrorists, he offered payments to the family's of suicide bombers. He openly opposed terrorists movements against israel, he even had confirmed talks with Bin-Laden (yes, he declined bin-laden asking if he could setup training camps in Iraq, but there was still communication, and if bin-laden felt that he didn't atleast have *some* chance of saddam saying yes, he wouldn't have asked..) Finally, Al-Qaeda does not == terrorism. There ARE other terrorist networks out there that ARE plotting attacks. Granted, Hussein probably did deter some terrorism in his country with his Imprison/kill first, ask questions later policy. (Why is it the world community didn't act to stop this guy sooner? I'm forgetting. And why is Iraq of such an interest now when it wasn't for the last decade.. ?) To say America caused terrorism in Iraq is nieve. Worthless

hhmm, I'm sure the citizens of Ireland would have alittle something to say about this if asked.. Ah, another america hater, welcome to the forums. Please follow the path to the left and join the other 99% of folks that talk on here.

Mr. Trudeau sounds like my kinda man. Why cant canada re-elect someone cut from his mold.

Well, I can make a scientific arguement also. Firstly consider that self preservation is the strongest instinct in most every animal. Closely tied to self preservation is survival of the race, IE -*BAD WORD*- everything like mad so you have the most chances of passing on your genes. If this is Genetically inside of us, to procreate so we can insure the survival of our genes, why would it be natural for a creature to be attracted (sexually) to something it cannot procreate with? I wouldn't consider myself a bigot, I have no problem with homosexuality. It does bother me when homosexuals feel it necessary to flaunt their sexuality, and it would certainly bother me if I was hit on sexually by a homosexual, but as people I don't view homosexuals any differently than myself. They just "like to get a long smooth shaft up the arse" rofl. Well, not necessarily Vile. Your arguement is that since it feels good, God must have wanted it to happen. Not Exactly... True, While it may (or may not) feel good to have a penis up your butt, that doesn't mean its necessarily "good" or "evil". The "good" there would be a "pleasure of the flesh", which is wrong. So is excessive eating, drinking (alcohol), sex, etc. It ties into the whole "freedom of choice" idealism behind christianity.

I'm not aware that this is the case. If it is I agree that no child should be required to say "under god" if they choose not to. Though I do believe children should be required to pledge allegance to the United States.

Well sure they can. If the person believes in the bible that is their choice. If they choose to let the bibles teaching influence their opinions, that is their choice also. I personally am torn between my moral ideals (which are influenced by the bible) and my social ideals (no reason for them to be treated different than everyone else.) While the arguement that destroying the un-written rule of marriage between a man and a woman opens up marriage to any sexual orientation is kinda ludicrous, in the laws eyes it would be correct. And while I don't have any trouble with two men or two women marrying, I do have a problem with someone marrying a shirt, or a dog, etc. Simply writing legislation having marriage as 2 human beings would solve the above.

Sorry, Not in Ducky's america! Remember, the one he hates?

So in other words, Ducky's opinion is better than everyone elses. If you don't agree with him, you're obviously either stupid or a Bigot. Go Go Gadget -*BAD WORD*-!!

Not techincally. It happens that the prostate is most-easily stimulated through the anus, thats where it is closest to. When engaging in anal-sex or anal stimulation, thats what is being stimulated. *disclamer* I have this knowledge through other means than personal experience.

Heh wow, the founding fathers lived for 200 years.. man I want whatever they are smoking. Real "Freedom" is the ability to CHOOSE what you want to do. You have the CHOICE to SAY or NOT TO SAY "UNDER GOD" in the pledge. If you think the ideals of this country are so terrible, ducky, get the -*BAD WORD*- OUT, there's nothing restricting you from leaving. "Sorry, I don't know what the term capital means, or what 2+2 is, but i'll be your friend!!!" Yeah, I do, because people like yourself don't want to take responsibilty. It isn't the schools place to teach anything about racism, sexuality, or anything else social related, its the PARENTS job to. When the PARENTS raise -*BAD WORD*-ed up kids, the correct thing to do would be to take blame, instead they dump it off on someone else. Its not the schools fault that the kids are -*BAD WORD*-ed up, its the PARENTS fault.

Wow, Recombo 1 Ducky 0

LoL, probably the most true thing ive heard you say recombo

Actually they have. I wasn't alive during the time however (I think). I think they had a bout of bombings in the 70's (???) Monte chime in, im sure you know the dates.

AndurilFlameoftheWest Wowza, its been a long long time since ive read a fine piece of liberal political propaganda such as that, congratulations. Some of your points were valid, but they were stiffled by the bashing and unsubstancialized claims that plague the left this election.

LoL, Dealing with your latest posts Vile I actually forgot that you were an extreme liberal, thx for reminding me.

Multiple responses 1.) In todays global market, having "life skills" isnt going to cut it. You have to be solid in math and science to be able to compete in a global scale. 2.) So you blame schools for teaching these boys "beat the muslim"? I would blame parents/media.. 3.) So we go from blaming school to blaming religion in schools? Heh..

It really is a catch 22 though, how else would you go about getting needed information? Not that I condone that, its horrid, but if you were faced with the dilema "Get info out of this dude that could potentially save 1000's, how do i do it.." What would you do? Its a tough question. The point trying to be made here is perhaps Canada could beef up its border security.

Friends of mine that live in Canada say that their immigration laws are fairly linient. They also say that the border crossing from Canada to the US is like traveling through fort gates. Another friend of mine living in Michigan says its nothing to go into canada, but a pain in the -*BAD WORD*- to get back through to america. I have no personal experience with this, can only go by second hand information from people I trust and have met personally, folks that are my friends.

Oh, so now opinions make you ignorant?

Well, I'm well aware many people think that the US went into Iraq for oil, and while I'd be niave to think that isn't part of the cause, you'd be equally as niave to believe thats the sole reason. The US economy has enough potential on its own to recover than to spark a war for oil to kick-start it.

First off, dont be an -*BAD WORD*-. Secondly, I believe reasonable effort would be to tighten down immigrant laws, increase border security, basically more measure to decrease the chances of a terrorist gaining access to Canada and getting into the US from their borders. Since you can't answer the question, I can only assume the answer would be "canada is doing nothing". Which honestly is what I expected, It wouldn't suprise me if the more liberal half of Canada wouldn't mind see'ing America going away all together.

It was in reference to "terrorists attack the US because its citizens are ignorant" As if the rest of the worlds citizens aren't equally as ignorant?

Yeah.. because being in the "non US citizen" club automatically makes you not ignorant..