Politics - 11 September 2006

2006-09-11 19:42:56 · 13 answers · asked by pan h 1

How many, through all of our insults about political preference and siding with our politcal parties. Did anyone stop to remember how things like that didn't really matter that much 5 years ago today? Republicans and democrats alike, how many took the time to remember?

2006-09-11 19:38:59 · 10 answers · asked by madroofer36 2

there are only six official language in the UN system. only two of these six are working: English and French.

2006-09-11 19:27:15 · 1 answers · asked by elsherifmahmoud 1

2006-09-11 19:16:30 · 12 answers · asked by miss.frosty 1

2006-09-11 18:56:20 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

Seems that on Yahoo answers, people are most vocal about discussing religion or politics. Which do you think is worse for starting verbal battles?

Could this question explode by discussing both?

2006-09-11 18:54:03 · 27 answers · asked by Absinthy 3

Please don't just answer by saying their is a secretarian war because Sunnis ans Shiites have always been aat peace in Iraq, there has to be another reason. If you have a legitimate one, please share it...

2006-09-11 18:50:53 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

your lawn isn't green enough, its bush's fault. I screwed off in school and now I can only pump gas, ahh its bush's fault. clinton lied about having sex with monica, ohh thats bush's fault too. you people make me laugh you really do. but you have the right to be stupid, and boy do you exercise that right.

2006-09-11 18:44:11 · 5 answers · asked by Work In Progress 3

She is a democratic congresswoman from California.

Just watched her in an interview on PBS's Tavis Smiley. I've seen her before on other shows like Meet the Press, etc.. Everytime I listen to her speak, she really knows her stuff. (she is on the intelligence committee btw)

Republicans I know you won't like her so go ahead and just get your 2 pts. LOL

2006-09-11 18:28:46 · 4 answers · asked by BeachBum 7

Please see "foofoo's" question about this topic. This is a rebuttal.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060911221047AAeFigt&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMhDxVU8EnWLELB3WO4yUaCJ4cdEntuTnXMEibVKYd60IgDERViddyphQ_kjJ3zfmsZA--#EZInWTPvAmHPiWs52oCuarJTRuj0sMhm4DbaOFIlzvDEj9_ci8mr

I would like to hear any comments, positive or negative.

2006-09-11 18:24:01 · 11 answers · asked by askthepizzaguy 4

After reviewing much of the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the official version on the events of 9/11 is diluted. It looks like there is more that we are not being told. As to how much culpability the US government has in the events of 9/11 is open to speculation. The Christian Zionist Religious Right want’s to wage full scale war with Islam; this is known. Baring a global war of the level of WW II, and based on the animosity seen here, I can safely say that we will be at war with ourselves by 2013.

2006-09-11 18:21:04 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

1. Jews illegaly entered Palestine, an independent country claiming it as their own, would you allow that to happen to your country?
2. Israel has 10, 000 Arab prisoners in their jails
3. Because of Jewish occupation on Arab lands, the Middle East is suffering economically from being wrapped up in wars (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine)
4. 60 years 60 not 6, 60 years Israel has been bombarding Palestine and when will they stop never not as long as everyone thinks they are right...

2006-09-11 18:10:47 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

"But the war is not over and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious," he said.

Mr Bush warned that failing to face the enemy now would create a new threat in the future.

"We will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons," he said.

2006-09-11 18:07:26 · 13 answers · asked by freetinka 1

2006-09-11 17:51:51 · 17 answers · asked by WENDY D 2

a quote from president George Bush
"As for Iraq, he said Saddam's regime, while lacking weapons of mass destruction, was a threat that posed "a risk the world could not afford to take.""

Please show me some evidence that this man was ever a threat to the world!

2006-09-11 17:51:14 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous

I could spend this entire page explaining the history of other reasons they have to hate us but I am going to keep this simple.

Even if you are pro-Bush, pro-war and don't like democrats, still... do you believe this?... could someone explain to me why they believe this?

Everytime I hear that statement, it just baffles me... seeming utterly ridiculous.

Is it just a propaganda statement?

Is it just a soundbite?

Is it lack of a better reason?

I mean seriously... were the terrorists sitting around one day saying, "... I hate those FREE ppl... let's go kill them because they are FREE...' ?

When you think about it, the terrorists are free in a sense that they don't answer to anyone. They live hidden lives I guess but overall they don't pay taxes, etc...

Just thinking...




Best answer will be given to any person explaining the rationale even if I don't agree and no matter what your politics are.

2006-09-11 17:50:06 · 32 answers · asked by BeachBum 7

Well, it probably wouldn't be any different than with an ape as prez and a man hunting gorilla as vice.

2006-09-11 17:44:47 · 17 answers · asked by Webz by Design 2

2006-09-11 17:36:55 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-09-11 17:35:03 · 26 answers · asked by randy j 1

Maybe he doesn't know it?

But truth is a comprehensive term that in all of its nuances implies accuracy and honesty. However, Bush's word is meer bible talk! It never seems to stick, put keeps changing.

2006-09-11 17:33:18 · 8 answers · asked by freetinka 1

http://capitalism.org/tour/preamble1.htm

2006-09-11 17:28:26 · 8 answers · asked by slyry75 3

I dont mean Head hair or Body hair

2006-09-11 17:21:47 · 9 answers · asked by Mongo 1

...?

2006-09-11 17:15:09 · 13 answers · asked by freetinka 1

America ..what?

2006-09-11 17:14:55 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

I always have to educate liberals about the truth that after 9/11 President Bush said: If you harbor a terrorist, sponsor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. Everyone applauded that statement. Saddam is a terrorist because he paid them to go into Israel to kill civilians. This is a fact. Saddam also had wmd's (look it up), used wmd's, violated the u.n. resolutions, was shooting at our planes, was not "contained" like liberals think, had bought the u.n. officials, France, Russia, Germany, and China to rearm while they looked the other way. This is known as the Food for Oil Scandal. So, going into iraq was needed. Saddam also terrorized his neighbors (Kuwait, Iran, and Israel). Saddam terrorized the Kurds by gasing them. Saddam is just as bad as Milosovich and the libs were behind Clinton all the way. Saddam is as bad as Hitler who he admired. To compare Saddam to other leaders won't do because Saddam IS THE ONLY leader to use wmd's. But libs want to pacify him.

2006-09-11 17:06:33 · 27 answers · asked by Search4truth 4

In Islam: Killing an innocent person is like committing a crime against the whole of humanity.

Stop making up words and distorting a somebody else's religion.

2006-09-11 17:04:08 · 17 answers · asked by freetinka 1

2006-09-11 16:54:34 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Ever since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam was shooting at US planes patrolling the "no-fly" zones in Iraq.

Saddam ignored and violated 16 UN resolutions for over a decade.

Chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.

Saddam refused to allow WMD scientists to meet with UN weapons inspectors in Cyprus, and refused to allow suprise inspections.

There are satellite images of trucks loading up material and leaving inspection sites minutes before inspectors arrived. There are satellite images of convoys leaving Iraq into Syria, and a former Iraqi general has said the WMDs were sent to Syria.

Iraq is the size of California and mostly sand. We have found entire airfields buried in the sand, why not WMDs?

Iraq did not have 9/11 connections. Does that mean we can't invade. Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, Saddam would knew, and did nothing. Maybe no direct link, but still harboring terrorists. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Why shouldn't we have invaded?

2006-09-11 16:48:45 · 13 answers · asked by royalrunner400 3

If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

Since the WTC tower’s design engineer, John Skilling, said that he took airliner crashes and jet fuel fires in to account and then stated clearly that “the building structure would still be there”, why was NIST so sure from the start that fires brought down the buildings? Then, when NIST started to use Mr. Skilling’s words in their later presentations, why did they suggest this was only an anonymous view? Finally, in what places did NIST look for Skilling’s aircraft impact analysis?

Fires simply do not cause steel-frame buildings to collapse. That's one of the reasons why so many fire-fighters were killed in the twin towers on 9/11. No one had any reason to fear a total collapse.

Please respond back with scientific findings or other proofs as to why those towers collapsed in the manner that they did.

2006-09-11 16:39:21 · 22 answers · asked by freetinka 1

2006-09-11 16:34:37 · 17 answers · asked by tarun sexy dude 1