9/11 and Iraq Connection?

[DavidJames]

You didn't claim it was an excuse. You claimed that it was a consequence. You clearly implied that if it weren't for 9/11, Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That's just basic reading comprehension.

This was complete quote.

Yes, and what we've learned from Bush is if you attack America, we'll invade some other country which had nothing to do with it and get lots of the good guys and gals killed in the process.

Please don't embarrass yourself further by claiming you know what I meant. Deal with the words on the page. If you aren't sure, ask for clarification, don't try to read my mind.

 

[Art Vandelay]

"if you attack America, we'll invade some other country"= "we'll attack some other country because you attacked America". Pretending otherwise is just being dishonest.

 

[CapelDodger]

I never said it was.

What you said was

What we learned from Bush is that if you invade a country which has attacked you and your allies, there will be no shortage of people to completely misrepresent the situation.

Afghanistan is definitely in that category, yet I see very few people misrepresenting the multi-national invasion of Afghanistan.

On what you mean by "assault".

By "assault" you seem to mean "offend", or perhaps "irritate". I note from your later posts that the targeting of US planes in the no-fly zone counts as an assault to you, but that's a drastic divergence from 9/11.

My point that saying that Iraq didn't participate in 9/11 is like saying that Germany didn't participate in Pearl Harbor.

Germany didn't patricipate in Pearl Harbour. Iraq didn't participate in 9/11. The US beefs with Iraq and with Al-Qaeda were entirely separate issues.

That's the problem: the cruise missles were purely a political act. There was no American interest that was advanced.

You (rhetorically) asked what military objective was achieved. The political objective is what matters, military objectives are subsidiary to the political. The political objective of the cruise strikes you mention ... escapes me, frankly, beyond the politician's objective of appearing to have done something, to mollify the electorate. But cases aside, it's crucial to keep in mind that military action is always a means to a political objective.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm posting this in both threads to highlight the Left's inconsistency.

You're consistent in your love of profiling, I'll give you that.

Just out of curiosity, what profile do you see me as fitting? Don't feel obliged to answer, I realise it's not the sort of question a gentleman should ask.

 

[Mephisto]

I'm posting this in both threads to highlight the Left's inconsistency.

You want to show the "left's" inconsistency, but aren't Bush and Cheney collectively the best representation of the "right?" They are interchangeable, it doesn't really matter whose hand is up whose a$$ doing the talking.

 

[Mephisto]

Just out of curiosity, what profile do you see me as fitting? Don't feel obliged to answer, I realise it's not the sort of question a gentleman should ask.

One of those pesky Europeans. That's one thing 'bout Europe, it's plum full of furrener's!

 

[Crazytree]

Everyone knows that 9/11 was caused by a Tesla Death Ray.

Duh.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Afghanistan is definitely in that category, yet I see very few people misrepresenting the multi-national invasion of Afghanistan.

They're too busy misrepresenting the Iraqi invasion. Immediately after 9/11, there were plenty of people painting the planned attack as an act of aggression.

By "assault" you seem to mean "offend", or perhaps "irritate".

I see no basis for that claim. Also, I notice that you quoted me as saying "On what you mean by 'assault' ", when what I said was "Depends on what you mean by 'assault' ". You even went so far as to somehow remove the word "depends" from my post. Quit playing with my mind!

I note from your later posts that the targeting of US planes in the no-fly zone counts as an assault to you, but that's a drastic divergence from 9/11.

I consider it an "attack". If Mark wants to play word games to avoid having to admit that there was provocation, so be it.

Germany didn't patricipate in Pearl Harbour. Iraq didn't participate in 9/11.

So you agree with me then?

The US beefs with Iraq and with Al-Qaeda were entirely separate issues.

Yes. And the fact that we had a beef with both does not mean that one was caused by the other.

You (rhetorically) asked what military objective was achieved. The political objective is what matters, military objectives are subsidiary to the political. The political objective of the cruise strikes you mention ... escapes me, frankly, beyond the politician's objective of appearing to have done something, to mollify the electorate. But cases aside, it's crucial to keep in mind that military action is always a means to a political objective.

And what I'm saying is that there the military should actually accomplish something. Yes, the ultimate mover is politics, but when that's all there is, that shouls invite criticism.

You're consistent in your love of profiling, I'll give you that.

It doesn't take a love affair with profiling to see that certain types of spin have become a mainstay of a particular political viewpoint. According the Left, Bush attacked Iraq because of 9/11, and he was planning to do so since before he was elected.

Just out of curiosity, what profile do you see me as fitting?

I haven't categorized you firmly in a particular group. Nor have I done so for hgc; my categorization applied to the his statement, not him personally. David James, on the other hand, has established himself as firmly partisan.

 

[Mephisto]

Everyone knows that 9/11 was caused by a Tesla Death Ray.

Duh.

Yeah, based in Iran!

 

[Mephisto]

I haven't categorized you firmly in a particular group. Nor have I done so for hgc; my categorization applied to the his statement, not him personally. David James, on the other hand, has established himself as firmly partisan.

If being "firmly partisan" means choosing between an ineffective bunch of airheads who can't find their a$$ with both hands, or a bunch of conservative idiots led by a warmongering moron, I guess I'm as partisan as can be.

How do you characterize me?

 

[DavidJames]

David James, on the other hand, has established himself as firmly partisan.

I am partisan, to the truth. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The 9/11 commission agrees, George Bush agrees. You, however, disagree. You come up with some wacky justification. Let's see Art, how did it go...Iraq invaded Kuwait, which resulted in U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. OBL hit the towers because of the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Therefore Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Please explain why the 9/11 commission and George Bush are wrong when they say Iraq was not involved with 9/11.

Speaking of truth, how about truth where I called you on your disingenuous mixture of percentages and decimals where you tried to equate Kerry and the Libertarian Loony both getting 0% of the votes.

Or how about the truth you claim regarding natural rights. Those things you believe in yet which you refuse to provide their origin or even discuss.

Yes Art, I am partisan to the truth, something which doesn't seem exist on your planet.

 

[Mark]

Are you seriously claiming that you are unaware that Iraq repeatedly attacked US planes?

Ah...so is that's the latest spin from the Right to try and justify this horrible debacle in Iraq? They fired at a couple of our jets?

In a way this is sort of hopeful...I mean you guys must really be getting desperate to find a reason for this war.

 

[Ziggurat]

The multi-national, UN-approved assault on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan for sheltering Al-Qaeda is not widely misrepresented.

What UN resolution marks prior approval by the UN for our Afghanistan invasion? I don't believe we had one, just as we didn't have any UN approval for our initial military assualts on the former Yugoslavia. I'm also not sure what relevance the multinational nature of our Afghanistan invasion has in comparison to Iraq, since our Iraq invasion was also multinational (IIRC, even more than Afghanistan was).

 

[Art Vandelay]

Ah...so is that's the latest spin from the Right to try and justify this horrible debacle in Iraq? They fired at a couple of our jets?

You're lying again.

I am partisan, to the truth.

No, you're a dishonest piece of ****.

Let's see Art, how did it go...Iraq invaded Kuwait, which resulted in U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. OBL hit the towers because of the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Therefore Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

That's a gross misrepresentation of my position.

Speaking of truth, how about truth where I called you on your disingenuous mixture of percentages and decimals where you tried to equate Kerry and the Libertarian Loony both getting 0% of the votes.

That's an outright lie. And I notice that even though Calus and TCS were lying through their teeth, and I was just pointing out their dishonesty, you called me "disingenuous". A perfect example of your partisanship. Side with the lying jackasses who agreeswith you over the honest guy that doesn't.

Those things you believe in yet which you refuse to provide their origin or even discuss.

Yet another lie.

 

[President Bush]

That would be spooky...

The release of Dylan's Love and Theft was scheduled September 11, 2001.

Lyric portion from Lonesome Day Blues from that CD:

Last night the wind was whispering, I was trying to make out what it was.
Last night the wind was whispering something, I was trying to make out what it was.

Yeah, I tell myself something's coming, but it never does.

I'm going to spare the defeated, I'm going to speak to the crowd,
I'm going to spare the defeated, boys, I'm going to speak to the crowd,
I'm going to teach peace to the conquered, I'm going to tame the proud.

 

[Mark]

You're lying again.

No, you're a dishonest piece of ****.

That's a gross misrepresentation of my position.

That's an outright lie. And I notice that even though Calus and TCS were lying through their teeth, and I was just pointing out their dishonesty, you called me "disingenuous". A perfect example of your partisanship. Side with the lying jackasses who agreeswith you over the honest guy that doesn't.

Yet another lie.

I know, cupcake; everyone else is a dirty liar and you are a poor picked on beacon of truth and light.

 

[Mephisto]

In NYC?

Are you seriously claiming that you are unaware that Iraq repeatedly attacked US planes?

I suppose I needn't mention that these US planes were flying over Iraq at the time? Speaking of "No-Fly Zones," those were the days when we actually controlled more of Iraq than we do now. Ah, the good old days . . . Pre-Iraq invasion, Afghanistan was full of our best troops, Bin Laden was actually on the run (instead of making tapes) and we had a definite plan. What happened?

 

[Dcdrac]

As far as i can make out it certainly looks like that the US has a golden opportunity to have Bin laden in its grasp before and in the run up to 9/11 without having to invade anyone.

And I still do not understand why a lot of US folk beleive that Iraq had a connection to AL-Qaeda, they were not exactly bossom buddies and Hussein saw them as a threat rather than allies.

 

[Mark]

As far as i can make out it certainly looks like that the US has a golden opportunity to have Bin laden in its grasp before and in the run up to 9/11 without having to invade anyone.

And I still do not understand why a lot of US folk beleive that Iraq had a connection to AL-Qaeda, they were not exactly bossom buddies and Hussein saw them as a threat rather than allies.

Because Bush said so. Bush says it and some people will just believe it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Because Bush said so. Bush says it and some people will just believe it.

Cite?

As far as i can make out it certainly looks like that the US has a golden opportunity to have Bin laden in its grasp before and in the run up to 9/11 without having to invade anyone.

How so?