StarGateWars Forums

I actually tried to avoid this topic but I just couldnt stay away America is a democracy lmao its called a Representative Democracy because Mob Rule is to much chaos to actually work unfortunately. It is still the best form that has been succesfully tried to date.


Continuity of government lmao that is a pretty well known fact the president dies the speaker of the house takes over and so on and so forth its to ensure that there is always someone to lead not a means of setting up a dictatorship.


Afghanistan didnt attack America no only the people in control of Afghanistan did which by your reasoning isnt Afghanistan apparently.........9/11 ring any bells planned and financed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Taliban being in control of Afghanistan at the time

I have already proven that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate and in accordance with UN resolutions you guys just seem to keep saying that it is illegal.......right......

wheres your evidence that afghanistan had ANYTHING to do with 9/11?

and as for continuity of govt...it came into effect on the morning of 9/11 and its STILL in effect today.

i suggest you dig deeper!

Angnoch wrote:I actually tried to avoid this topic but I just couldnt stay away America is a democracy lmao its called a Representative Democracy because Mob Rule is to much chaos to actually work unfortunately. It is still the best form that has been succesfully tried to date.


Continuity of government lmao that is a pretty well known fact the president dies the speaker of the house takes over and so on and so forth its to ensure that there is always someone to lead not a means of setting up a dictatorship.


Afghanistan didnt attack America no only the people in control of Afghanistan did which by your reasoning isnt Afghanistan apparently.........9/11 ring any bells planned and financed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Taliban being in control of Afghanistan at the time

I have already proven that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate and in accordance with UN resolutions you guys just seem to keep saying that it is illegal.......right......

Well there is a flaw (well 2 really) in the american system - too much power is given to one man (President) and its only a two party system - there is a need for a new view on the way of the future for the states

The UN did not saction the unilateral attack that the US launched on Iraq - and One man influenced that decision with the US people with scare tactics and now he is beginning to cause trouble in Europe by expanding NATO too fast - thus provoking the Russians to militerize along the western frontier and also Russians sending bombers into the western hemisphere so it looks like the american global plan is beginnin to backfire on them

First of all, the President is not all powerful. He just appears so because Congress is incompetent in the worst way. I swear, I want to slap Nancy Pelosi. Especially when she ranks her political objective of getting at Bush over the national budget (which, btw, is a constitutionally assigned duty to Congress).

As for more political parties, I'm all for it. We need to leave the winner takes all system because it keeps third parties from getting into national politics, where they can draw attention to specific issues. Some of them may be crazy, but extremes can be moderated for successful plans to move America forward.

no the UN didnt sanction the unilateral attack on Iraq which is why there is a coalition of forces there the UN did sanction it the US took the sanction to the extent necessary because it was not being enforced simply because UN resolutions are almost never more than angry letters directed to get people to walk the straight and narrow.


Wow Avenger did you even read my post? Afghanistan--Taliban--Al Qaeda........ not to abuse your notion of Afghanistan being completely innocent

Angnoch wrote:Wow Avenger did you even read my post? Afghanistan--Taliban--Al Qaeda........ not to abuse your notion of Afghanistan being completely innocent

ME...GREEK...GOD...

what does both those underlined sentences have anything to do with the price of rice?


i say again...WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

show me 1 scrap of evidence which proves way beyond all doubt that afghanistan had ANYTHING to do with 9/11!

jack, the problem is this...me claiming to be ANYBODY other than who i say i am DOES NOT threaten any country/body's sovereignty...

invading another country is a VERY serious matter and should not be belittled and if ANY nation is going to invade another nation in the 21st century i expect to see irrefutable evidence before i will sanction my govt to send young men and woman to defend me!

we dont live in a world where things like that are known for certain and are totally understood. a world where all is known is fairy land mate, not reality. sometimes things have to be done on a 'best guess' basis. not gonna bother with the 9/11 part. its clown shoes.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:irrefutable

btw what evidence would be so to you?

LiQuiD wrote:we dont live in a world where things like that are known for certain and are totally understood. a world where all is known is fairy land mate, not reality. sometimes things have to be done on a 'best guess' basis. not gonna bother with the 9/11 part. its clown shoes.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:irrefutable

btw what evidence would be so to you?

the black boxes from the planes themselves.

nothing more and nothing less should be accepted because if they cant find those or they are smashed beyond hope of recovery then pointing fingers at hijackers (which btw, 6 of the alleged hijackers are alive and well and had nothing to do it) and saying its them is pure guess work, and i will not have the deaths of soldiers and civis defending mine and everyone else's freedoms on my conscience....

besides, i have a friend who called the FBI and asked why the crimes of 9/11 was not on bin ladens FBI most wanted profile, and he was told and i quote "because we have no evidence linking bin laden to 9/11."

now, if they have no evidence linking bin laden to 9/11 and 6 of the 19 hijackers are alive and well don't you think we are being conned?

who is your FBI friend?

The CIA had know Bin Hiden was planning attacks for awhile. The hijackers are dead. But the list of 'suspects' wasn't 100% correct (due to stolen identities and faked passports).

IF their wasnt such a division between the CIA and Pentagon. maybe they could have done something sooner, but Rumsfelt dropped the ball, relied on bad intelligence and junior people at the pentagon and that's why you went into iraq and he was fired and Cheany was put on thin ice.

Rumsfelt is the real reason you went into Iraq. HE had an agenda as soon as your country went into crisis mode. Based on limited intelligence that Saddam was sponsoring Alqueda. He put his blinders on. Ignored the CIA over and over because of his ego. Basically turned out to be a awful at his job when the s**t hit the fan (not everyone can succeed under pressure).

so you know this guy or did your pal phone them just because he/she/donkey/elf could?

BI Says, “No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”, Who's responsible for the bombings

sure you didnt jus hear about it from google? like i jus found this. trying to make your points personal? oh yeh i know binladen he said us government did it all. he was playing tennis with stalin, hitler and the yellow power ranger at the time. . .
. . .couldnt have been him. didnt he admit 9/11 several times as his work. isnt there reports etc available linking him to the attacks aswel

[KMA]Avenger wrote:the black boxes from the planes themselves.

nothing more and nothing less should be accepted because if they cant find those or they are smashed beyond hope of recovery then pointing fingers at hijackers (which btw, 6 of the alleged hijackers are alive and well and had nothing to do it) and saying its them is pure guess work, and i will not have the deaths of soldiers and civis defending mine and everyone else's freedoms on my conscience..

dude the black boxes arent the only way to find out some of what occured on the flights. maybe you like to focus on something so specific like that as you can argue endlessly using the one tiny point. . .

[KMA]Avenger wrote:well don't you think we are being conned?

cant says i do mate. but you, my cadburys fruit and nut bar, are definitely being conned. conned hardcore. i bet theres some 1 legged dwarf with a monacle laughing his ass off somewhere at all the tards believing his ideas.

reason is being repeatedly stabbed in the heart by you and your conspiracy themed bothers. but it aint dead yet dude it will persist and you will fail, knowing you were wrong all along.

LiQuiD wrote:so you know this guy or did your pal phone them just because he/she/donkey/elf could?

BI Says, “No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”, Who's responsible for the bombings

sure you didnt jus hear about it from google? like i jus found this. trying to make your points personal? oh yeh i know binladen he said us government did it all. he was playing tennis with stalin, hitler and the yellow power ranger at the time. . .
. . .couldnt have been him. didnt he admit 9/11 several times as his work. isnt there reports etc available linking him to the attacks aswel

BBC reported that he denied doing the attack, he also was one of those that reported that there may be a threat incomming. If your talking about the "FBI Tape" that is fake you can clearly tell by looking at the tape itself and seeing Bin Laden wearing a wedding ring and a watch, further in the film you see the supposed Bin Laden writting with his right hand, but if you look in the FBI profile you notice he is Left handed...hmmmm

LMAO

you guys have not only been conned but you've gone back for 2nds



sigh, firstly, i never said i had an FBI friend, i said i have a friend who called the FBI and asked why the crime wasn't listed.

2ndly, ifrit is correct when says bin laden denied it, he denied it 3 times infact!!!


i keep telling you but you wont listen...stop drinking fluoridated water, its not good for your brains!!!

fyi guys, bush admitted on live tv that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

urogard wrote:fyi guys, bush admitted on live tv that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

I know that's why Rumsfeld was fired