0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:26 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You can put as many smilies into your posts as you want, Ican, but it doesn't change the fact that noone believes what you write anymore.
...

Cycloptichorn


For you to write that, Cyclops, certainly affects your credibility.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:27 pm
I have at least some credibility then? heh

Amazing hearing that from you...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:29 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have at least some credibility then? heh
....

Cycloptichorn


<crickets>
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:36 pm
"The Iraqi war caused the presumed euro-dollar conflicts

Wait a minute! How about: the continuing Afghanistan war caused the Iraq war.

our invasion of Iraq was caused by the UN Oil-for-Food scam;

the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere caused the US to invade Iraq"

I've got another silly proposition for you. "Because the house fell down it caused an earthquake thus proving the existence of God".

You can come up with as many silly propsals as you wish Ican, it does not support or refute the serious proposition that the US has an interest in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:38 pm
I re-checked the topic of this thread. It's not me or anyone else participating in this forum.

Which of the numbered statements in the following quote do you agree with and why, and which ones do you disagree with and why?

Quote:
1. The justification for our invasion of Iraq is derived from the proposition, facts and logic that follow.

2. Proposition: Our government cannot secure our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness by attempting to exterminate al Qaeda terrorists without removing those governments that knowingly provide sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases.

I assume Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism.

3. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq.

Sources: 9/11 Commission Report; Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to UN 2/5/2003.

7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistanis own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraqis own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:43 pm
Not enough colours to make a pretty scroll.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:48 pm
Lol so true.

What happened the the nice red white and blue Ican posts that would make a waving flag when I scrolled past them?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:48 pm
"I re-checked the topic of this thread. It's not me or anyone else participating in this forum. "

?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:49 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
You can come up with as many silly propsals as you wish Ican, it does not support or refute the serious proposition that the US has an interest in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Nothing so far presented here supports the proposition that euro-dollar conflicts caused the Bush administration to decide to invade Iraq. That proposition is no less silly than the proposition that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere caused the US to invade Iraq.

Yes, of course, "the US has an interest in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency." The Iraq invasion has not, is not, and will not serve that interest. Some might claim that Bush&Co are so incompetent as to nevertheless believe that the Iraq invasion does serve that interest. While I think Bush&Co have too often blundered, I cannot believe them capable of a blunder of that magnitude.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:53 pm
Icann, obviously your list misses the Liberal bullet points that the war was for oil, the war was a fascist takeover of a peace-loving benevolent country that never did anyone harm, that the war was nothing more than an ego boost for the mad-fascist-dictator named George Bush.

Unless you use their points, your posts will be ignored, or worse, scrolled past.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:55 pm
ican wrote

Quote:
Yes, of course, "the US has an interest in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency." The Iraq invasion has not, is not, and will not serve that interest.


But I thought you said you had read the article.

http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:55 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"I re-checked the topic of this thread. It's not me or anyone else participating in this forum. "?


If I am not the topic of this thread, then why discuss me instead of what I post?

If you are not the topic of this thread, then why discuss you instead of what you post?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:05 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
ican wrote

Quote:
Yes, of course, "the US has an interest in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency." The Iraq invasion has not, is not, and will not serve that interest.


But I thought you said you had read the article.
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm


If the article was written by an infallible writer, I failed to notice. Until and unless someone can prove the writer is infallible, I shall continue to rely on my own logical analysis of what was written. The article's conclusions don't follow from the facts presented.

I infer that you think otherwise. Perhaps you can explain the connection between the facts and the conclusions better than the writer. If so, please give it a try.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:13 pm
We are discussing Iraq, not you or me. But what you or I say about Iraq cannot be entirely divorced from you or me.

Inventing half a dozen proposals before breakfast is not evidence in itself supporting or refuting any other proposition.

My propostion is simple enough viz:

One of the factors which influenced the United States to invade and take control over Iraq was its desire to protect the dollar as the world's reserve currency, which is challenged by the euro.

The fact that you proposed (although I dont think you were serious) that

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere caused the invasion....

can be argued for or against, but it has no bearing on my proposition.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:23 pm
"Until and unless someone can prove the writer is infallible, I shall continue to rely on my own logical analysis of what was written."

We are all fallible Ican, even your logic. Perfect understanding is not for man but resides alone in Him who made man. And his name is Cóilín Nunan.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:53 pm
Annen taking the heat from Volcker report...

Annen criticized by Volcker commission...

Annen knew and did nothing about it...

Fox News
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:56 pm
Perhaps you mean Annan?

Get it right if yer gonna smear the guy, lol

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:56 pm
Did you mean Kofi Annan?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 02:02 pm
Attaboy steve

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 02:03 pm
From the Wesleyan Argus:-

"Bush thinks he's doing the right thing in Iraq," Hersh said. "He's completely committed whether it's finishing his father's work, for divine reasons, or manifest destiny. Over 1,500 body bags have come back and another 1,000 or 2,000 body bags wouldn't stop him."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 07:25:50