The begining of the New World Order or a Police State?(long read)

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Mj is young and seems to have his head screwed on right.  You are a Dem ROL - it explains your hostility and opposition to Bush.  You have not provided one piece of evidence suggesting Bush has always wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.

1. You\'re damn right I have hostility towards Bush. As do a lot of people...you wonder why he didn\'t win the popular vote in 2000, don\'t you?

2. No piece of evidence? HE CREATED A NEW CABINET POSITION SIMPLY BECAUSE OF 9/11! IT\'S IN THE NEWSPAPERS! IS THAT NOT A SOURCE?!

Sorry for the Caps, but you have a real hard time comprehending what is and what isn\'t said. Just get it through your head. If 9/11 does in fact not happen, that Cabinet position is never considered, or created. If it was being considered, why? I honestly have no clue as to why it would be created even if 9/11 didn\'t happen.

See Yuz.

1. Bush made national news for bombing Iraq before 9/11, with the excuse that they had set up radar stations that ould cover the no fly zone.  So yes, we bombed Iraq unnecessarily under Bush before 9/11.

2. I said both sides of the arguement.  There are multiple people who share my view on you and your arguing methods.  In fact, everyone I\'ve talked to about it shares them.  I won\'t post who these multiple individuals are though, because they told me so in private conversations, and I don\'t want to violate their privacy (once again, a concept you clearly don\'t understand).  If they want to post, they can.

Hey I think Shocks views are right in some manner and he isn\'t being ignorant or naive when he posts, these are his views, thats how it is, he believes this then his opinion counts, cuz he votes, what is it to say one mans belief is better then the others??? When you do this you have just basically pointed out to everyone that see\'s this that you yourself are ignorant!!!

Originally posted by shockwaves
1. Bush made national news for bombing Iraq before 9/11, with the excuse that they had set up radar stations that ould cover the no fly zone.  So yes, we bombed Iraq unnecessarily under Bush before 9/11.

hell we (US & UK) have been doingthat ever since his daddy (Bush) was in power

even under
Clinton/ Major
          &
Clinton/ Blair

Indeed, we have.  However, it usually didn\'t make national news.  This did, because it was a more large scale bombing (and yes, civilians were killed in it).

[Titan]

Originally posted by EmperorRob
The only reason they want to make a new legal system is b/c the one we have is broken.  It\'s hard enough to put murderers and rapists and pedophiles in jail and once they get there people like Bill Clinton pardon them and put them in government positions.

I don\'t agree with the pardon system. The people screwed themselves, they should pay.

I bet some of you guys, deep down inside, thinks GWB had the planes flown into the towers.

Ace

Not me you have to be really really fanatical to think that, shit

I was about to say the same thing Ace.  On another note  I am still trying to understand shockwaves assertion that Iraq should have nuclear weapons... *shakes head*

Well not nuclear weapons, but in all reality if you are a Sovereign State as they are, they do have the right to defend themselves, we can\'t totally disarm them,  that would like be putting a football player in there without pads or helmet, wait that sounds alot like a sport called Rugby, hmmmm

[Titan]

Originally posted by Ace
I bet some of you guys, deep down inside, thinks GWB had the planes flown into the towers.

Ace

With all the secret things going on in our government, I wouldn\'t be suprised. But Bin Laden admitted that he did this. You really don\'t have evidence.

I have a deal for all you Iraqi sympathizers.

When the US uses biological weapons on, lets say, Iowa, then I will agree that Iraq should have nukes.

Ace

Someone please queue the X Files theme.

Ace

Originally posted by shockwaves
1. Bush made national news for bombing Iraq before 9/11, with the excuse that they had set up radar stations that ould cover the no fly zone.  So yes, we bombed Iraq unnecessarily under Bush before 9/11.

2. I said both sides of the arguement.  There are multiple people who share my view on you and your arguing methods.  In fact, everyone I\'ve talked to about it shares them.  I won\'t post who these multiple individuals are though, because they told me so in private conversations, and I don\'t want to violate their privacy (once again, a concept you clearly don\'t understand).  If they want to post, they can.

Shockwaves - you have yet to put forth one LOGICAL argument favoring why Iraq should have nuclear weapons.  You have disregarded everything he has done in the past that I have brought up.  It figures the rest of your teen club would not agree with me as they come from the same mindset as you.  You don\'t know half of what you think you do.  Its not your fault - its your age.  Let me clue you in on something... when I was your age I thought I knew everything - then I realized I how much I didn\'t.  I too didn\'t particularly like Reagan at the time, but in hindsight I see that I was wrong with about 90 percent of what I thought about him.  The fact that you have bring up people who won\'t even post their opinion in this thread  really shows you have no backbone to your arguments.  If they agree with you so much let them speak for themselves.

Bombing radar/missle sites in the no fly zone unnecessary???  They were violating a UN resolution not to mention firing at US and British planes.    

I am done debating you on this - if you can call what you are doing debating.  Your debate style is reminiscent of an 8 year old asking the question "why" to everything.  Actually, I have noticed that style in quite a few members of this forum who all seem to fall around your age group.  An example of this would be you asking me what would I do if I was in Saddams shoes... What kind of idiotic question is that?  Its the only type of argument you seem to be able to create.

Originally posted by mjps21983
Well not nuclear weapons, but in all reality if you are a Sovereign State as they are, they do have the right to defend themselves, we can\'t totally disarm them,  that would like be putting a football player in there without pads or helmet, wait that sounds alot like a sport called Rugby, hmmmm

Nuclear weapons are a deterent in most cases (Islamic countries don\'t apply), but you can\'t classify them as a "defensive weapon".  :rolleyes: