LearJett+

Regime change and Iraq's violations of UN resolutions were just as great of a reason.

Whatever floats your boat.

You're wrong. They stopped recognizing them within two weeks of 9/11, actually. Here They did not directly fund terrorists. They gave money to Afghanistan, which countries do very often to eachother, and statistics are skewed to say that the money was for 'terrorists'. If you are referring to the fact that it was because money was transferred through the UAE banking system, Here, this does not implicate their government either. It is no different from a Swiss bank account or any other neutral country's banking system. It's not rare to find a country in the Middle East that doesn't recognize Israel... The UAE government did no such thing. They were a "key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components". This does not implement their government in any way at all, it could have been a different group. Here What about destabilization of the region? What about toppling a tyrant? What about ties to terrorist organizations? What about the other reasons that the Bush administration and other gave for going to war? People get hung up on the fact that there were no WMDs when the main reason was because Iraq was a threat to its neighboring countries, destabilizing the region. Research, get past the "i hate bush" sources, and look at all of the given reasons. Next time use a source or two please.

You can't just speculate. There have been no statistics based on Bush's drug lust whatsoever. I believe that Saddam Hussein was the anti-Christ and Bush knew this. Therefore, he invaded Iraq, which is really inhabited by aliens, to stop him before The Rapture. You don't know it yet, but Bush saved the world. Just wait until the facts come out.

If we invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE we would further alienate ourselves and have no allies in the Middle East with the exception of Israel. Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE have all participated in anti-terrorism campaigns, including freezing accounts, arresting terrorists, etc. It erks me when liberals justify NOT going into Iraq because we're NOT invading Iran, North Korea, etc. Just imagine the field day liberals would have if we did invade those countries.

Yes, I'm all for 'thinking outside the box' (no matter how cliche it is). But if after you question and research it, see that the widely accepted answer is indeed correct, and then still not believe in what the government says, you merely create a whole new box that you're thinking in. You read it again. None of your sources say that 2006 looks to break any record. It went up just after the US invaded because it had larger things to worry about (aka terrorists, insurgents). Then, after relative order was established, production decreased by 30% in the year 2005. Again, none of your sources say that 2006 looks to be a big year for opium cultivation. You read some article that opium production has gone up and automatically think that Bush invaded so that he could become the largest drug dealer in the world. This is awfully hypocritical given his hard-line position on drugs. None of your sources even suggest that he is going into the drug trade -- some crackpot (pun intended) came up with your idea about Bush's drug lust. There is no proof that the US is !@#$%^&*ociated with the selling of the drugs or anything of the sort. No - it comes down to the fact that the US had bigger problems at the time, and now are beginning to address this problem. Even if money was the motive, as you so believe, the money from the opium trade would be nothing to the US government. The hundreds of millions (at best) that the US's "share" of the opium cash wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to what the US makes in tax revenues or even spends in expenditures. Cultivating opium wouldn't be worth the risk of the public finding out.

The do!@#$%^&*entary does not account for the super-heat from the ignited plane fuel.

Nowhere does it say that it is higher than ever. What makes you think the prediction was wrong? Then the production went down. Thus meaning that the US invasion began containing the opium trade. You make it out to be that the US is condoning or somehow welcoming the opium trade there. None of your articles give that impression. If the US set the punishment for cultivating poppy seeds death, people would be in an uproar. It all comes down to the fact that the US doesn't have the resources or responsibility to stamp out the opium trade in Afghanistan. It's not purposeful in any manner.

I think he's a fact-twister that uses exploitation to make money. Even the liberals I know don't like him. He is a hypocrite, too. Did you know that he owns stock in Halliburton, and films movies in Canada as to avoid union charges? And he's a fatty.

You ignore the fact that it said opium production was down 30%. Where do you get that from?

Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks. He was a member of Al-Quaeda who is !@#$%^&*ociated with the Taliban -- thus, the Taliban was a threat. Your opium source (which was written in 2005) said that the opium production would decrease by 30% compared to the previous year. It says nothing about 2006. It also mentions that Afghan warlords who are US allies make money from the Opium trade, but it never says anywhere that the US profits from it.

What does everyone think about Michael Moore?

One man could not have been responsible for the entirety of 9/11. There was a higher number of companies who donated to the Bush campaign that lost from the terrorist attacks than those that gained.

So you think that getting opium was more important to the government than getting rid of the Taliban? Why wouldn't the government attack something else? Something that wouldn't paralyze our economy (we all know that conservatives love the economy). If you actually stood back and looked at the situation common sensically and rationally, you would feel differently. The only reason why you wouldn't be surprised if it was true is that you look for anything that makes Republicans look bad.

People put too much emphasis on oil in politics. Canada gives us six times as much oil as Iraq. If we cared that much about oil, why wouldn't we improve relations with Venezuela or try to end their oil strikes? After all, they give us more than four times as much oil as Iraq.

(without watching the do!@#$%^&*entary) What good could possibly come out of the US blowing up its own towers?

Muslims took such offence to the cartoon because the prophet Muhammed is not supposed to be pictured or depicted in any way. Giving him a bomb in his hand only defamated something that was religiously forbidden to begin with.

Just because America outlaws guns doesn't mean the international price of guns would go up. People would buy them from other countries...

Yea, they'll just sell the guns to thugs and make millions. They would just become the bootleggers of gun prohibition.

Not afraid you'll steal it. Just lazy and I know it won't help. Here it is anyway though. Thanks.swamp.lvz

I don't see how attaching the .lvz file is going to help anything. I've already said that it's working in other parts of the map, just not the part I want to now. Maybe I'm just lazy

Oh yea, forgot to mention one thing. The .lvz works fine in the map, just not in the part I want it to. It's used in other places around the map, but for some reason it just won't show up here.

Okay, I made a change on my map by adding some .lvz and it didn't show it. The layer is correct, the placement is correct, the map is correct, the server.cfg is correct, optional gfx are on, etc, etc, etc. I even *getfiled the map from the server, looked at it in !@#$%^&*, and it was fine. For some reason, it's just not showing up in the zone. Thanks for your help LearJett+

!@#$%^&*ed Left-Coast

Hmmm... very philosophical.