Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5580362 - 05/02/06 04:41 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

1) Did Bush claim this or not?




Bush stated in his notification -- using Congress's own wording -- that he had determined the same thing Congress had determined when they drafted and passed by overwhelming vote Public Law 107-243. In that sense, Bush stated the same thing Congress had previously stated.

However, as I pointed out in my post #5566258 and Redstorm pointed out in his post #5567115, even Congress's phrasing (which Bush parroted in his notifications) cannot be read as a claim that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. At least, they cannot be read as such by anyone for whom English is their mother tongue.

Quote:

2) If he did then please explain how an attack on Iraq can be consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.




I don't know how to point out your errors in reading comprehension more plainly has been done already in post #5566258 and post #5567115. I suggest you read those posts over again as many times as is necessary to grasp them.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5580375 - 05/02/06 04:54 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Invading Iraq would have been easier in 1991 than after 12 years of crippling sanctions? Don't be silly.




Someone is indeed being silly here, but it's not the one whose screen name starts with the last letter of the alphabet.

Clearly invading Iraq would have been easier in 1991 than in 2003. The Iraqi army and Republican Guard had just been pasted ( http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ ) and were in total disarray before the coalition forces even reached the border. They were fleeing at top speed, and surrendering to anyone and everyone.

There were also far more troops in the field in 1991: over 660,000, about four times the number as in 2003. It would have been a cakewalk. The post-invasion phase would have been easier as well, with more troops available than in 2003 and twelve years less of Islamic terrorist group development having taken place by 1991 than by 2003.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5580405 - 05/02/06 05:23 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Bush stated in his notification

Your position appears to be that:

1) You admit Bush claimed the invasion of Iraq was consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.

2) You admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Go figure.

Bush stated the same thing Congress had previously stated.


And who do you think provided Congress with the information that Iraq was a threat in the first place? Are you unable to see the circularity of your argument?

I suggest you read those posts over again as many times as is necessary to grasp them.


All you have to do is explain how the attack on Iraq was consistent with attacking the perpetrators of 9/11. Can you do so?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5580411 - 05/02/06 05:27 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Someone is indeed being silly here

Yes you are.

The Iraqi army and Republican Guard had just been pasted

The Iraqi army was many times stronger in 1991 than 2003. In 2003 they didn't even bother fighting.

It would have been a cakewalk

:rolleyes:

twelve years less of Islamic terrorist group development having taken place by 1991 than by 2003.


Come again? Why do you think "Islamic terrorist group development" would not take place if Iraq had been occupied for 12 years? Are you unable to see what effect occupying Iraq for a mere 3 years has had on "islamic terrorist group development"?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5580466 - 05/02/06 06:05 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Your position appears to be that:

1) You admit Bush claimed the invasion of Iraq was consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11.




Still demonstrating your reading comprehension problem for all to see. What I admit is that Bush notified Congress he had determined their requirements for using US military force against Iraq had been met. We can argue all day about whether Congress had set the proper requirements, or whether Congress's phrasing should have been different, but that is a different argument. I asked the readers to submit a statement from a member of the Bush administration claiming Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. No reader has done so.

Quote:

2) You admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.




In light of the translations of the captured Iraqi documents being released right about now, it would be a foolish man indeed who claimed Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. It may turn out there was some kind of involvement. Although I personally don't believe Al Qaeda's planners would have any need to involve Iraq in their planning, it wouldn't astonish me to find out they had .

What I am "admitting" is that no member of the Bush administration has claimed Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.


Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5580477 - 05/02/06 06:18 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

The Iraqi army was many times stronger in 1991 than 2003.




Iraq's military may have been stronger on January 1 of 1991 than on March 19, 2003. But they sure as hell weren't stronger by the time the conditional ceasefire agreement was signed in March of 1991.

As is always the case when you are shown to be in error, your "rebuttal" is to simply refuse to click on the links I provide. I understand you prefer to seek comfort by indulging your ignorance on the state of the Iraqi military back then, but you must be aware that other readers of the thread will check the information I link to. I'm quite content to let them compare your statements with historical reality then draw their own conclusions about your lack of military judgment.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5581789 - 05/02/06 03:19 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Why don't you two get married and get it over with?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5581812 - 05/02/06 03:26 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Then we couldn't watch Phred club the baby seal, which would be a shame.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5584386 - 05/03/06 02:21 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I asked the readers to submit a statement from a member of the Bush administration claiming Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks

Are you denying Bush claimed an attack on Iraq was consistent with action taken against the perpetrators of 9/11? Go back and read the statement again. Carefully.

In light of the translations of the captured Iraqi documents being released right about now, it would be a foolish man indeed

As foolish as believing the "documents" that claimed Iraq was seeking yellowcake? Try and learn from your mistakes.

Iraq's military may have been stronger on January 1 of 1991 than on March 19, 2003. But they sure as hell weren't stronger by the time the conditional ceasefire agreement was signed in March of 1991.


But they were sure as hell a lot stronger than they were in 2003. And easily strong enough to put down the 1991 insurgency which was larger in scale than the one the americans are struggling with. Only a fool would deny this.

You will also need to give evidence supporting your claim that having 600,000 troops would make any difference to the current guerilla resistance. The american army already massively outnumbers the fighting insurgents. Why do you believe outnumbering them by 20 to 1 instead of 10 to 1 would make any difference? It would simply give the insurgents more targets for roadside bombs. Your ignorance is astounding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoker
Stranger
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5584563 - 05/03/06 05:47 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Where's the wedding?

Seriously though, giving Bush credit for saying or thinking anything is a bit rich. Anyone with half a brain knows the retard can hardly walk and talk at the same time, much less come up with his own ideas. Bush is a puppet, much in the same vain as Kim Jong (I'm so wonry) ill. this debate should be more about who's pulling the strings, rather than who's repeating the words in his earpiece?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
    #5584572 - 05/03/06 05:59 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Iraq's military may have been stronger on January 1 of 1991 than on March 19, 2003. But they sure as hell weren't stronger by the time the conditional ceasefire agreement was signed in March of 1991.




The big difference is the existence of WMDs, which Iraq had in 1991 but did not have in 2003. If the US had decided to push on Baghdad in 1991, and had Saddam decided to "salt the earth"... speculation, but it could have gotten pretty nasty, even against a defeated opponent.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
    #5584589 - 05/03/06 06:21 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Once again, here is Congress's wording from SEC 3. of Public Law 107-243.

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Why did they choose this particular phrasing? Because it had been explained more fully in main body of Public Law 107-243, specifically --

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"


When it came to specifying in SEC 3 what was required of Bush in his notification, they naturally used the same wording they had used in the main body of the text, but for some reason, the writers left out the final phrase I have emphasized in bold. Did Congress do this on purpose or through sloppiness? I don't know. Neither do you.

Clearly if they had included that phrase in their requirement as outlined in SEC 3, Bush would also have included it in his notification, since all he (or more likely, White House legal counsel) did was cut and paste their words. Since they didn't include the phrase, Bush didn't either. To repeat: if you have a problem with the statement as it stands your beef is with Congress, not with Bush.

All this quibbling and nitpicking and laying of red herrings is your standard tactic of ignoring your being shown in error by trying to throw up a smoke screen of minutiae, and off-topic minutiae at that. You had presented Congress's words as support for the claim that Bush had said Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. First of all, we're not even talking about an independent statement by Bush, but about Bush's pro forma legalistic rote fulfilment of requirements laid out in Public Law 107-243. Secondly, reading Congress's statement shows that even Congress didn't claim Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

This whole little side trip begain with me challenging someone to provide a statement from any Bush official claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Clearly Congress's words do not claim this, nor does Bush's parroting of Congress's words. You are however welcome to keep searching for such a statement.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRogues_Pierre
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Roker]
    #5585183 - 05/03/06 10:39 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Roker said:
Where's the wedding?

Seriously though, giving Bush credit for saying or thinking anything is a bit rich. Anyone with half a brain knows the retard can hardly walk and talk at the same time, much less come up with his own ideas. Bush is a puppet, much in the same vain as Kim Jong (I'm so wonry) ill. this debate should be more about who's pulling the strings, rather than who's repeating the words in his earpiece?





What's the muslim population in New Zealand now? I see a lot of America haters from New Zealand on the internet. Why would the opinion of someone from New Zealand matter to anyone anyway?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehuntershiz
Shithead
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/30/06
Posts: 25
Loc: Georgia on my mind
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
    #5588716 - 05/04/06 12:59 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Watch "loose change second edition", it tell all about the cell phone calls,it gives the odds, that the calls could of actually been made from the plane, and the film also explains how the voices could of been manufactured to sound like the people they wanted them to sound like. Scary Shit


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoker
Stranger
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Rogues_Pierre]
    #5589108 - 05/04/06 05:18 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Rogues_Pierre said:

What's the muslim population in New Zealand now? I see a lot of America haters from New Zealand on the internet. Why would the opinion of someone from New Zealand matter to anyone anyway?




The New Zealand population of muslims – a few thousand, some from afghanistan, many from pakistan and india, some from the middle east - pretty much from anywhere and everywhere. But what that has to do with anything?

And as to why the opinion of someone from New Zealand would matter? My opinion has no more nor less value than anyone elses. Don't confuse Bush hating with American hating. I have family in north america and have met some americans that I like very much. The world doesn't hate americans, we hate the way america's government rampages around the planet as if they have some god given right to do as they please, killing men, women and children indiscriminatly, while the american media feed out endless crap about tom and katy's new baby or michael jackson diddling some kids. There are real lives being lost every day as a direct result of American foriegn policy. Yes America has lost over two thousand young lives in Iraq, do you know how many Iraqi lives have been lost?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineleery11
I Tell You What!

Registered: 06/24/05
Posts: 5,998
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Roker]
    #5589617 - 05/04/06 11:10 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

illegal spying, constant secrecy and censure of facts relationg to 9/11, inability to handle a natural disaster that they saw coming, inability to prevent 9/11 with all the warnings they were given, flagrant abuse of 9/11 to wage wars based upon lies and half truths and false intelligence, massive propogandic fear mongering.....

i find it odd that people find this government more trustworthy than a "conspiracy theorist" who is attempting to PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER.....

you trust people that are manipulating you, breaking laws, completely incompetent.... you trust them with your lives and refuse to listen to the other side?

Why all the secrecy, the censorship, the erosion of freedom, the lies, the padding of pockets, the wars........ if there is nothing to hide about that day?

I think that alone gives ANY conspiracy theory more credit than the official story, myself.

Look into Operation Northwoods, the US government has plotted in the past to deliberately murder it's own people and blame it on TERRORISTS so that they can go to WAR.... and now now that this has happened we have a ridiculous notion of "pre-emptive war" going on so we can invade anyone and everyone, and because of how propogandic the media has become we cannot trust that any story we are being fed as a reason to justify war can EVER be true...

but a huge portion goes on waving their little flags. Idolitry!

I'd trust the government if they would stop lying and start disclosing some simple truths, and then I might be willing to believe that 9/11 truely was a terrorist attack..... maybe the government is just incompetent and incapable of defending itself? I'd rather know that than for them to cover everything up, which makes the worst case scenario seem the most likely.

Sad times we live in.

When a rogue video catering to "conspiracy" has more credibility than entire month of watching Fox News.

Loose change is thought provoking stuff even if only a small portion of what they are hinting at is true.


--------------------
I am the MacDaddy of Heimlich County, I play it Straight Up Yo!

....I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human......
Om Namah Shivaya, I tell you What!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Iraq war keeps oil from terrorists, Bush says Vvellum 1,799 11 09/01/05 11:18 AM
by lonestar2004
* More 'Terrorists' created in Pakistan
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 6,272 56 01/23/06 05:04 PM
by zappaisgod
* U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan asd11 324 0 04/06/06 03:24 PM
by asd11
* Religion of Peace (TM) on a roll in Russia
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,501 25 09/05/04 03:43 AM
by Xlea321
* Even more questions regarding 9/11 and scrambling jets. RonoS 525 5 06/01/03 12:42 AM
by cortex
* What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
1stimer 9,428 80 07/01/05 01:22 PM
by Ancalagon
* Fox News: Half of the Terrorists in Fallujah are Iraqis
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,913 26 11/09/04 06:35 AM
by 1stimer
* IRA Terrorists
( 1 2 all )
ElPrimo 2,759 23 12/08/01 01:11 AM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,834 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.