|
|
|
|
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 9:21:33 AM | I thought I was irrelavant to you. LOL
Well if people like you were stupid enough to make the inference that is not my problem. Many many many folks did not infer that or swallow the lieberal spin on it.
Not to mention I don't understand how you can claim it was infered when the pres said in black and white THERE WAS NO CONNECTION
Amazing. SO if there is no TRUTH then it was WRONG. A wrong inference as it was NEVER SAID....in fact, just the opposite was said!
DUH? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 10:11:22 AM | Well .... if YOU infered a connection between iraq and 9/11 I am sorry
Don't be an idiot, I didn't say that, I didn't 'infer' that, the Bush Administration did.
Repeatedly. Delberately. With Malice Aforethought.
I am quite careful about language, in all regards, and I deduced quite quickly the ruse in Administration tactics, just as I see the ruse in yours.
The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Funny of you to 'say' this ..... because I never did. I stipulated the opposite.
Many people may believe this was the case because in "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore truncated a comment by Condi Rice in order to deliberately give viewers of his movie that false impression.
OK.... let me get this straight.
It is your contention that, (the reason) certain folks might believe there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and the terror attacks on 9-11, is because of a false impression given in a Michael Moore movie?
Do you really expect anyone to take that seriously?
I suppose this one goes alongside the 'Timothy Mc Veigh Colluded with Millitant Islamists Theory'.
Have you checked with Agent Muldaur on that one, btw?
You really are drinking way too much of the koolaide, you might wanna regulate that intake, friend.
In your defense you do say this:
It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.
That is the most sensible thing you say .... and in that regard we are in complete agreement.
However to justify the invasion of Iraq on those grounds, would (in my opinion) involve some pretty mercenary and venal reasoning.
Furthermore if it is 'the rise of ideologies of hatred' that ultimately causes terrorism, I would say that the Iraq War has only fanned the flames. Sadly, in my mind, I begin to believe that fanning those flames is the real purpose, the mission, and the strategic objective.
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 11:26:40 AM | Well here is the kicker.
President Bush HIMSELF said there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 so to make the claim that either he or his administration IMPLIED anything else is futile and IGNORANT.
Infer is what one does when they are told/read something
Imply is what the person telling/writing is doing.
So if anything was INFERED, you INFERED it.
Lets start there. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 1:00:19 PM | Either you are really this dense or you must sincerely believe that others are.
I don't believe it is the former but the latter case, which in its arrogance, is just basically insulting.
President Bush HIMSELF said there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 so to make the claim that either he or his administration IMPLIED anything else is futile and IGNORANT.
First off, I published Bush's definitive statement, to the direct question, in my first post, if you had troubled yourself to actually read it.
Second, it certainly was not futile to make the 'implied connection', administration officials did so constantly and delberately for many, many months in order to propagandize this connection, with the obvious purpose of planting the seed for such a belief, and to garner support for the war.
Beyond that, I guess that what you say above might be true of those who deliberately skirt the truth and reveal their arrogance and belief that others are merely too stupid to see what is truly before them.
To make the claim that Bush and other administration officials didn't deliberately 'imply' a Saddam / 9-11 connection is what is truly ignorant, and to make such a claim, simply flies in the face of all reality and reason.
This connection is not one fostered by the left, but a favorite argument adopted by the Right, as any perusal of the Forums should make plain, with the continuous chidings from the Right that those who don't agree with them about Iraq have forgotten 9-11.
Which only goes to prove the efficacy of the Administration's prevarications.
BTW 'infer' is a transitive verb whereas one of its uses:
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·ferred; in·fer·ring
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French inferer, from Latin inferre, literally, to carry or bring into, from in- + ferre to carry -- more at BEAR
transitive senses.
In this case, I see it in this active sense: As Bush Administration officials were the ones who: brought forth and carried disparate facts to bear, THEY made the inference, others simply bought into such implied logic more thouroughly than the case could directly be made, that was of course, the whole purpose and intention of skirting the question directly, but aproaching it obliquely and inferring a Saddam / 9-11 connection continually.
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 1:09:26 PM | Ok Look
I read your initial post, and reread it to make sure I did not miss anything.
Saddam publically came out and commended the 911 attacks.
Bush said they learned Saddam taught al quaida members how to make bombs and such.
Well since NO BOMBS were used on 9/11
AND the administration ONCE MORE AND AGAIN specifically said that there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11 to make the IGNORANT claim that they implied such a thing is just plain futile.
Once more and again, if YOU felt llike the administration or the president was making such a connection, you are just plain wrong. If anyone else felt that connection was being made, they are just plain wrong.
The administration would have IMPLIED, you would have INFERED. It is that simple.
You can play semantic games all you like. No semantics, no spin will change the FACT that the administration never linked the two and it is simple minded folks who because Bush may have said Iraq and 911 in the same speech/brief infered that the administration was making the link. It just wasn't so!
Here is an idea, why don't you read the resolution authorizing military force in iraq! How much you want to bet that A) you will find the REASONS we invaded in that document, and B) It will NOT say saddam had anything to do with 9/11 | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 1:32:31 PM | "Here is an idea, why don't you read the resolution authorizing military force in iraq! How much you want to bet that A) you will find the REASONS we invaded in that document, and B) It will NOT say saddam had anything to do with 9/11"
You STILL refuse to see that the main point in all this is that there was the subtle IMPLICATION that Saddam was involved; it was NEVER actually stated in black and white. All the rest of the arguments about how "Bush never said that" etc. are immaterial. The implication is the point: Enough people believed the IMPLICATION that Saddam was involved to make it seem like "fact" to those who couldn't be bothered to look deeper. So please, no more banging on about how Bush never said Saddam was involved. It's a red herring. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 1:43:22 PM | There was no subtle implication CONSIDERING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE PRESIDENT SAID THERE WAS NO CONNECTION.
IT WAS NEVER IMPLIED. NO NONE NEVER
SAYING IRAQ AND 911 IN THE SAME SPEECH/BRIEF DOES NOT LINK THE TWO
AND QUIT FRANKLY ONLY F*CKTARDS DREW THAT CONCLUSION!
 | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 1:53:38 PM | Are you nuts. The war is a total disaster. It is the Vietnam of our generation, with no resolution in site. A complete and utter balls up.
I think that America should stop seeing itself as the police force of the world when they are less than holy themselves.
I am sure there is some line about casting the first stone in an old book somewhere. You would have thought that BUsh may have read it, but maybe his illiteracy got in the way | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:05:15 PM | " There was no subtle implication CONSIDERING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE PRESIDENT SAID THERE WAS NO CONNECTION.
IT WAS NEVER IMPLIED. NO NONE NEVER
SAYING IRAQ AND 911 IN THE SAME SPEECH/BRIEF DOES NOT LINK THE TWO
AND QUIT FRANKLY ONLY F*CKTARDS DREW THAT CONCLUSION!"
Thank you for your obviously well-thought-out contribution.
(Oh yes; for clarification, could you please define what a "F*CKTARDS" is? It's always helpful when one can define one's parameters.) | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:06:19 PM |
You can play semantic games all you like. No semantics, no spin will change the FACT that the administration never linked the two
Bullsh!t.
It is YOU who are playing semantic games, Bush and those around him ratcheting up the rhetoric for the war continaully made exactly that IMPLIED connection and you know it. That they did so in language cleverly crafted and codified by lawyers doesn't change their intent.
The administration would have IMPLIED, you would have INFERED. It is that simple.
No, sir, I resisted nearly all of their contentions whether they were implied or direct.
So again, I didn't infer anything, but conceeding your usage of the term, there were however plenty of other citizens who did.
it is simple minded folks who because Bush may have said Iraq and 911 in the same speech/brief infered that the administration was making the link
70% of Americans citizens believed the Saddam 9-11 connection in September of 2003 ..... I however was not one of them.
Which just goes to show how thouroughly the initial propaganda campaign on the American people suceeded and worked to create that false impression.
To deny that reality is merely YOUR SPIN on it sir.
A) you will find the REASONS we invaded in that document, and B) It will NOT say saddam had anything to do with 9/11
Again not directly. But in Bush's letter to congress @ the onset of unleashing lethal military force on Iraq, he justifies the unfolding hostilities on the grounds of the 9-11 terror attack.
The following is the text of the letter from President Bush to the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate. It was sent Wednesday. 19 March 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(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.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
At this point, I feel like my point has been made.
You can skirt the truth of the situation as much as you care to, but it is merely playing a legal and semantic game. Unless you have anything substantive to add on this subject, I think we will just have to accept the fact that we disagree.
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:09:52 PM | nice for someone to point out that Canada is still fighting in Afganistan, and that the war isn't over, far from it. We are embedded in this vietnam style war that will only divide the world and our own countries.
The real question isn't is the war right or wrong, or what the cost should be rather the real question is WHEN (not if) the draft gets put in place. Both Canadian and Amercian (as well as the British) are understaffed and unable to maintain longer war.
The real problem we are seeing with the high cost of the war is the neglect and dir-regard for our armed forces for more then 20 years that has left them to the degraded pathetic state they are now in (moreso for Canada) every year first thing to get cuts is the army , and the second is the airforce.
I hope this teaches us a lesson, weak armies cost us more in the end. More lives will be lost, more money spend, and the reality is that we can't fight this war fast because we don't have a trained army large enough to do so.
The Russians went into Afganistan the strongest country in the world (I feel they won the cold war to that point) and with just over 1 mill dead they withdrew after 10 years, and a matter of a few more years latter the USSR was in ruin following the extream cost of their occupation.
We won't do that, nope, instead we'll occupy it, make alot of good and when we are near our goals we will run because finally we've hit the "X" number of casualties the public will stand and our boys will return home forgotten, unrespected, and more will lie dead overseas or here at home.
TO be read on rememberance day by a handful of vets or cadets. Most of which are themselves forgotten and underfunded. Every year for Rememberance day there are less and less turning out to the services and it saddens me to think that this is how our new war vets will be treated | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:17:07 PM | you posted...
>>
Obviously this was not true and they were overestimated. We did in 30 days what the russians could not do in 10 years | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:24:23 PM | sorta
The amercians went in and beat the Taliban sure, but now the Canadians are in there fighting and maintaining the peace, so techincally the war isn't over.
Wars now aren't like days of old where it was easy to determine a war over when their armies were defeated, now wars are grullia and dirty with long drug out endings.
I don't consider the war in afganistan over as I am Canadian and many of my friends are in units that are highly expected to be sent overseas soon. They have already been on alert for some months and with the very small size of Canadian forces it won't be long before their straw is drawn | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:38:00 PM | | I never said it was over. I am active duty military and served there in 01. It is far from over. But the war on terror has become a necessary evil. | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:42:09 PM | Grog
do me a favor
go piss up someone elses leg and tell em it is raining OK?
I am not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change mine.
You want to continue to believe Bush implied that Iraq had something to do with 911 despite the fact that he SAID the opposite.
Carry on with your bad self.
And a F*cktard is, for starters, someone who thinks Bush or this administration claimed or implied Iraq had something to do with 9/11 despite the FACT Bush said specifically they did not!
A F*cktard believes that the president LIED about WMD
A F*cktard believes that WMD was the only reason we invaded iraq (despite the fact that they think Bush tried to link iraq to 9/11)
That should spell it out.
 | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 3:19:50 PM | Well, thank you, spacebluesonoma, for that thoughtful analysis and the accompanying pleasantries.
Sorry to hear about the head injury. Hope you get better soon.
Have a nice day. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 3:25:27 PM |
"Or perhaps YOU could do some, that way you would be able to contribute rather than just sniping."
Can't come up with a good argument, eh? Scroll up; Seems to me that I HAVE come up with a contribution, which you've been trying, unsuccessfully, to rebut. So now you're reduced to insults. Very good. Have a nice day.
haha, come on now Grog.... what happened to the "reduced to insults" note.....down boy...down! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 3:57:00 PM | Grog
you asked and I answered. You don't like my answer? Sorry! And no it is not a head injury, I am currently recovering from BACK surgery.
It still baffles me how someone can claim that the President implied a connection between Iraq and 9/11 when the man outright said NO CONNECTION in black and white??
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE if you are NOT a F*cktard? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 6:29:01 PM | "It still baffles me how someone can claim that the President implied a connection between Iraq and 9/11 when the man outright said NO CONNECTION in black and white??
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE if you are NOT a F*cktard?"
How is it possible? Oh, how about with an analysis of the FACTS.
The real question is; how can you NOT see what was implied regarding the Iraq connection to the Trade Center attacks?
This seems to be a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees; or rather, in this case, a branch of a tree. You seem to be too wrapped up in minutae that you fail to see the overall picture. When you step back and look at the statements that came out of the White House prior to the Iraq invasion, you can see that the cumulative effect is one of implying a connection between Saddam and the attacks. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 6:33:29 PM | | Who cares about the connections. I'm glad someone took that mad man out of power. I've first hand seen the handy work of Mr Sodam insane. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 54
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
