Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 08:22 am
woiyo wrote:
Apparently, people in the media and you read and hear, but do not comprehend. Just because he says the date 8 times, does NOT mean there is a direct relationship. The article even SAYS GW did not blame 9-11 of Saddam. So the article post poll results from who knows where showing that 55% DO NOT think Saddam was involved. Which means to me the 45% who DO are ignorant.

Which line are you in?


I've thaught, I didn't comprehend?

(The article is - as said - from 2003, btw. The poll was done in in the United States you know of what.)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 08:37 am
woiyo wrote:
2. Iraq has NEVER been about 9-11. Iraq ia a war of enforcement and as a RESULT of 9-11, pre-emptive military action was taken to enforce UN Resolutions broken over the past 10 years.

How could the invasion be characterized as enforcing UN resolutions when it was done without UN authorization?
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 06:18 am
Woiyo:

When the last speech addressing the War in Iraq had 6 references to 9/11 and 26 references to terrorism in a 30 minute speech. I certainly think sombody wants us to think it is.

TTF
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 06:25 am
thethinkfactory wrote:
Woiyo:

When the last speech addressing the War in Iraq had 6 references to 9/11 and 26 references to terrorism in a 30 minute speech. I certainly think sombody wants us to think it is.

TTF


Who wants us to think what???

That the Iraq invasion was a direct result of Iraq's participation in 9-11, when every thinking person knows for a fact that there was no direct relationship???

It is known that the invasaion was a pre-emptive attack as a RESULT of 9-11. Given the information we had at that time and based upon the 10 years of non-compliance with the terms of surrender and UN Resolutions, this Govt felt that a clear and present danger existed and eliminated the threat.

The media is twisting the facts.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:04 am
Terms of surrender? When did that war between what nations start?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:09 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Terms of surrender? When did that war between what nations start?


Are you on heavy medication today Walt?

Think about it for a second... Woiyo is discussing the war between the coalition and Iraq... what previous engagement was there in that particular region that might have resulted in one countries surrender?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:16 am
McGentrix wrote:


Are you on heavy medication today Walt?



You could have pointed to my mistake more kindly. But no < sniff, sniff > you even add insult to injury and call me 'Walt'. (treble < sniff, sniff >)

:wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:38 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:


Are you on heavy medication today Walt?



You could have pointed to my mistake more kindly. But no < sniff, sniff > you even add insult to injury and call me 'Walt'. (treble < sniff, sniff >)

:wink:


Wasn't meant as an insult. You are usually very insightful and keen in these fora. You seemed a bit off is all... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:49 am
I know (that it wasn't thought as an insult, I mean.) :wink:

[A bit off? Have YOU ever tried to install six speakers of a home cinema system, a video recorder/player, a dvd player, a dvd recorder, a cd player, a receiver, an amplifier and a tv (four different brands) .... and get all working ... at once?]
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:50 am
<still waiting patiently for Woiyo to answer my question>
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:59 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I know (that it wasn't thought as an insult, I mean.) :wink:

[A bit off? Have YOU ever tried to install six speakers of a home cinema system, a video recorder/player, a dvd player, a dvd recorder, a cd player, a receiver, an amplifier and a tv (four different brands) .... and get all working ... at once?]


You need one of these and a geek to help you.

http://www.remotecentral.com/sony/rmav2000.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 09:04 am
Thanks, but I'm sooooo used to seven remote controls (besides: that wasn't the problem - I had to cable them, since we got the room renovated (and the cables are now below the parquet ]).

- Sorry for the off-topic -
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 08:06 am
<bump>

(I want to give woiyo one more chance to answer my question before this thread falls off the front page)
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 08:47 am
joefromchicago wrote:
<bump>

(I want to give woiyo one more chance to answer my question before this thread falls off the front page)


Oh..Lookie here!

Well sorry joe, but A2K is NOT my life.

You question is idiotic as the UN does NOT dictate National Security for the US. When a President feels there is a clear and present danger to the National Security due to the failure of a State to adhear to terms of surrender and UN Resolutions, the President is obligated to react.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 09:01 pm
woiyo wrote:
Oh..Lookie here!

Well sorry joe, but A2K is NOT my life.

No doubt, but I was feeling rather spurned when you responded to others but not to me. It was almost as if you were avoiding answering my question.

woiyo wrote:
You question is idiotic as the UN does NOT dictate National Security for the US.

That wasn't my question.

woiyo wrote:
When a President feels there is a clear and present danger to the National Security due to the failure of a State to adhear to terms of surrender and UN Resolutions, the President is obligated to react.

But how can he be carrying out the UN resolution when the UN never authorized the invasion?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 09:21 am
Joe, I believe woiyo is speaking of past resolutions. 1440 and the 600's pertaining to the cease fire in 91. These have given the US administration the legal footing they need to support the war.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 10:28 am
McGentrix wrote:
Joe, I believe woiyo is speaking of past resolutions. 1440 and the 600's pertaining to the cease fire in 91. These have given the US administration the legal footing they need to support the war.

Not even the administration believes that those resolutions gave it the authority to invade Iraq. Why do you?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 10:30 am
Are you sure about that?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 10:44 am
McGentrix wrote:
Are you sure about that?

Show me where the administration has said that it was authorized by the UN to invade Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 11:21 am
McGentrix wrote:
Are you sure about that?


You aren't? (And of course it will be very interesting to read your answer on Joe's question.)
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
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
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
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Terrorism and Blood Feuds
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.33 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 09:02:02
▲ ▼