RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq

RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 10:14:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon? I dunno. Thousands of people murdered, and sending the US economy into a downturn, costing billions (trillions?) or dollars sounds like a pretty successful terrorist attack to me. Firm Actually, the economic downturn had started months before 9-11. The stock markets had already been tanking for a full 3 months.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 10:46:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon? I dunno. Thousands of people murdered, and sending the US economy into a downturn, costing billions (trillions?) or dollars sounds like a pretty successful terrorist attack to me. Actually, the economic downturn had started months before 9-11. The stock markets had already been tanking for a full 3 months. Oh, so the 9/11 attacks actually helped the economy? [8D] Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 10:48:33 AM)
No, and thats disingenous. But the economy went down right after Y2K.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 10:53:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No, and thats disingenous. But the economy went down right after Y2K. Not disingenous. Making a point. Were the 9/11 attacks: 1. "Good for" the US economy, 2. Neutral to the US economy, or 3. Bad for the US economy? Firm

Hillwilliam -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 11:02:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon? I dunno. Thousands of people murdered, and sending the US economy into a downturn, costing billions (trillions?) or dollars sounds like a pretty successful terrorist attack to me. Actually, the economic downturn had started months before 9-11. The stock markets had already been tanking for a full 3 months. Oh, so the 9/11 attacks actually helped the economy? [8D] Firm No they didnt. But, the 9-11 attacks weren't, as some folks claim who are incapable of reading a simple graph, the CAUSE of the stock market decline OR the decline in the economy unless you are willing to claim that the effect can come PRIOR to the cause. AS I said earlier, the market had been declining for months. For instance, the week of March 12-16, the market lost 821 points or 7.70% of its value. I guarantee that if a Al Gore had been inaugurated 2 months earlier instead of Dubya, you would have been blaming him. Since Bush had just been inaugurated, though, something else had to be blamed. The answer is easy. Wait a few years after 9-11, rewrite history and blame Iraq. YEAH, that'll work.

Politesub53 -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 11:26:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Lies means saying something that you know isnt true. Bush didnt, Blair didnt, both believed there were WMDs. Your use of "lies" without the slightest shred of evidence that they believed there were WMDs shows your bias quite clearly...as if we needed yet another demonstration of it. Ritter had already said there were no WMDs. Blair had been told before the invasion both that there were no WMDs, and advised by the UK security forces that the evidence was faulty. Note my link quotes the official inquiry. Anyone reading this, can see the truth for themselves. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/26/weapons-of-mass-deception-115875-21850852/

Politesub53 -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 11:42:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Use a dictionary, lies means someone not telling the truth, Bush wasnt, Blair wasnt, both knew it. Lies doesnt mean bias. actually you might want to check your dictionary, because you are wrong. Lying requires an intentional attempt to decieve. It does not simply mean telling an untruth or being wrong. Dont tell me to use a dictionary you halfwit. My statement is clear enough, Blair and Bush both knew they were using faulty intelligence and that there were no WMDS. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 1:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam No they didnt. But, the 9-11 attacks weren't, as some folks claim who are incapable of reading a simple graph, the CAUSE of the stock market decline OR the decline in the economy unless you are willing to claim that the effect can come PRIOR to the cause. AS I said earlier, the market had been declining for months. For instance, the week of March 12-16, the market lost 821 points or 7.70% of its value. I guarantee that if a Al Gore had been inaugurated 2 months earlier instead of Dubya, you would have been blaming him. Since Bush had just been inaugurated, though, something else had to be blamed. The answer is easy. Wait a few years after 9-11, rewrite history and blame Iraq. YEAH, that'll work. Were the 9/11 attacks: 1. "Good for" the US economy, 2. Neutral to the US economy, or 3. Bad for the US economy? Firm

Hillwilliam -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 1:44:11 PM)
In a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the worst, they were about a 2. The decisions made afterward and reactions by our leaders, however, were worse for the economy than the attack. Kind of like a hangnail is bad for your health. Reacting to it by amputating the finger is worse. Do you blame the hangnail for the fact you have no finger or do you blame the dumbass that made the decision to amputate?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 1:44:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Use a dictionary, lies means someone not telling the truth, Bush wasnt, Blair wasnt, both knew it. Lies doesnt mean bias. actually you might want to check your dictionary, because you are wrong. Lying requires an intentional attempt to decieve. It does not simply mean telling an untruth or being wrong. Dont tell me to use a dictionary you halfwit. My statement is clear enough, Blair and Bush both knew they were using faulty intelligence and that there were no WMDS. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody From your link: "One panel after another found that agencies were giving conflicting information to the president," Bradley remarked. Drumheller admits they were. "And that's the problem. No. There was no one voice in coming out of the intelligence community and that allowed those people to pick and choose those bits of information that fit what they wanted to know." So, you cherry pick a case that supports your point of view, without considering alternative points of view, because ... ? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 1:47:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam In a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the worst, they were about a 2. The decisions made afterward and reactions by our leaders, however, were worse for the economy than the attack. Kind of like a hangnail is bad for your health. Reacting to it by amputating the finger is worse. Do you blame the hangnail for the fact you have no finger or do you blame the dumbass that made the decision to amputate? A couple of follow up questions then ... 1. How much did this "2" cost the US economy, and 2. The "decisions made afterward and reactions by our leaders", which were "worse for the economy", then: cost how much? Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 1:50:52 PM)
http://costofwar.com/ plus a whole lot more maybe around 12 times that? dunno, hard to define all the costs.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 1:58:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling It was easy enough to do. Just repeat the phrases "Saddam Hussein" and "9/11" together every night for two years, You must have been hallucinating. Never happened.

pogo4pres -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 2:03:31 PM)
FR I still marvel that people are still this stupid, Cheney knew the shit he was feeding the macaque was a lie, and so did Rumsfeld. That the macaque was stupid enough not to question these lies, is disingenuous at the very least, and possibly an outright war crime. That people in this nation still believe the lie is indicative of rampant stupidity (ie willful ignorance) in this nation. Truthfully, Some Knucklehead in NJ

Hillwilliam -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 2:06:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam In a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the worst, they were about a 2. The decisions made afterward and reactions by our leaders, however, were worse for the economy than the attack. Kind of like a hangnail is bad for your health. Reacting to it by amputating the finger is worse. Do you blame the hangnail for the fact you have no finger or do you blame the dumbass that made the decision to amputate? A couple of follow up questions then ... 1. How much did this "2" cost the US economy, and 2. The "decisions made afterward and reactions by our leaders", which were "worse for the economy", then: cost how much? Firm You want a number in dollars or in national pride? Just look up the cost of the Iraq War if you want a partial dollar amount. 9-11 could have been used to build this country into something greater. It took a HUGE amount of effort from Washington to fuck that up but they managed somehow. After 9-11, this country pulled together as it hadn't since Pearl Harbor. Had we properly identified the perps, Afghanistan would have been taken care of by now. Instead, Dubya took it as an opportunity to go after the dude that thumbed his nose at "Daddy". This fighting of a 2 front war was a detriment to the country both financially and as a matter of prestige. The American public, once they realized they had been had, turned to the blame game. CNN, Fox, Various pundits and megacorps saw an opportunity to forward their personal agendas. Ineffective leadership in the White House allowed this to happen. Frankly, I think Dubya did more to harm the country after 9-11 than any arab. It was an awesome opportunity and he blew it. Bottom line. Bin Ladin damaged the American economy on about a 2 on a scale of 1-10 and Dubya was good for a 6. Note, I'm not saying that Gore wouldn't have done even worse.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 2:08:59 PM)
Firm. since you are so good at repeating questions, allow Me If you have a hangnail and some idiot decides to amputate the finger instead of putting on a bit of neosporin, do you blame the hangnail for the fact you have no finger or the dumbass that decided to amputate?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 2:23:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon? I dunno. Thousands of people murdered, and sending the US economy into a downturn, costing billions (trillions?) or dollars sounds like a pretty successful terrorist attack to me. Firm Actually, the economic downturn had started months before 9-11. The stock markets had already been tanking for a full 3 months. They were down but not "tanking". There was a 7.13% drop when the markets reopened after 9/11 which is in the top 10 or so single day drops. A week later it was -14%, which if I recall correctly was exceed only by Black Thursday which had a 22% drop in one day, and one or two days at the start of the depression.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 2:53:47 PM)
I call dropping consistently for 6 or more months including 7+% in ONE week tanking.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 3:30:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Firm. since you are so good at repeating questions, allow Me If you have a hangnail and some idiot decides to amputate the finger instead of putting on a bit of neosporin, do you blame the hangnail for the fact you have no finger or the dumbass that decided to amputate? Hypothetical analogy, in which your assumptions are built in. I'm not particular interested in conceding to all of your points before the argument even begins. Try being a little more honest and straight forward with me, and you'll likely get a better response. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 3:32:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail http://costofwar.com/ plus a whole lot more maybe around 12 times that? dunno, hard to define all the costs. Thanks Ron. An honest answer. Firm

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875