On 5/15/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I said never it "got worse" - I said that most terrorist attacks in America
> throughout history were perpetrated by Americans. That's it.
You didn't actually say that.
You said: "I'm saying what I've been saying: that the war Iraq has
left us l
Sorry but terrorism is here to stay. Home grown or imported. It's
here. You cannot stop terrorism. If they want to blow something up
they will. If they want to kill innocent people they will.
There are far too many ways to reek havoc and far too many targets to
protect. We are no safer
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:27 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> On 5/15/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The list was only
why, whatever do you mean ;)
On 5/15/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't be that simple, it's got to be a joke.
>
>
> On 5/15/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ah -- that's why you once gave me the link to the entire 9/11 Report.
> > It all become much clearer now.
> >
> > On 5/15
On 5/15/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The list was only a sampling to show that there have been remarkably few
> foreign terrorist attacks in America.
I thought you sent me fishing, I didn't realize you were serious.
Going back through that list up until 9/11 I came up with this:
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:57 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> The list makes no points either way.
Feel free to provide a better one.
The list was only a sampli
You can't be that simple, it's got to be a joke.
On 5/15/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ah -- that's why you once gave me the link to the entire 9/11 Report.
> It all become much clearer now.
>
> On 5/15/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, that's it
> >
~~
ah -- that's why you once gave me the link to the entire 9/11 Report.
It all become much clearer now.
On 5/15/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, that's it
>
>
> On 5/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sam wrote:
> > > Maybe if I added numbers to each point you would underst
> Sam wrote:
> Yeah, that's it
>
Lost me again.
~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP
Archive:
http://www.houseoffu
Yeah, that's it
On 5/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Maybe if I added numbers to each point you would understand what it says?
> >
>
> It would suffice if you simply and succinctly made your point. Feel
> free to footnote if you like, but don't point me to links b
> Sam wrote:
> Maybe if I added numbers to each point you would understand what it says?
>
It would suffice if you simply and succinctly made your point. Feel
free to footnote if you like, but don't point me to links because I
won't read them. If you can't summarize it, then you probably don't
u
You're being annoying again.
Maybe if I added numbers to each point you would understand what it says?
:)
On 5/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > That's what I don't get. How can somebody that has no idea about a
> > discussion he's in continue to make points?
> >
>
> Sam wrote:
> That's what I don't get. How can somebody that has no idea about a
> discussion he's in continue to make points?
>
It says that the President has auth to go to war. Exactly what I
said. What's your point?
~|
Upgr
That's what I don't get. How can somebody that has no idea about a
discussion he's in continue to make points?
Follow the LINK and READ the
"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq"
THAT you just referred to.
Better?
On 5/15/07, Gruss Got
> Sam wrote:
> Maybe you should actually read it rather then relying on the TMP numbered
> items
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
>
As usual, no idea what you're talking about.
~|
ColdFusion MX
Maybe you should actually read it rather then relying on the TMP numbered items
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
On 5/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The approval for the Iraq war (and it was only to give the President
> the power to go to war, not
> Sam wrote:
> Actually it wasn't the objective. The approval for war was to free
> Kuwait, once that goal was achieved we had no choice but to stop.
>
The approval for the Iraq war (and it was only to give the President
the power to go to war, not a vote for war) was to get the WMD. Since
there
The list makes no points either way.
I thought this thread was put down.
On 5/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A fact to note about the wikipedia list is what it does not include.
> For instance the SLA was a terrorist organization in the 70's (kidnapped
> Patty Hearst, assas
On 5/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > gMoney wrote:
> > I for one agree with him.
> >
>
> Kinda hard not too, being that's exactly what happened, not to mention
> that we abandoned many of the Iraqis we told to rise up.
Actually it wasn't the objective. The approval for war was to
up on the list of terrorist activities.
Jim Davis wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:02 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>>
>>
>>>>
Please enlighten me to the philosophical aspects of the Fibonacci Sequence.
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> JimmyD wrote:
>> So we invaded to stop a madman from getting wealthy?
>>
>>
>
> We've already determined that asking what the foreign is, is a
> conversation killer. It's like asking Homer to ta
> gMoney wrote:
> I for one agree with him.
>
Kinda hard not too, being that's exactly what happened, not to mention
that we abandoned many of the Iraqis we told to rise up.
The fact is, the US doesn't have the military capacity to fight a war
of occupation or the state capacity to nation build.
It was Bush Sr's opinion that it would have ended like the situation we have
now. He was convinced that the alliance he had built would not support an
invasion of Baghdad. It would have fallen apart, leaving the US on it's
own...just like today.
I for one agree with him.
On 5/15/07, [EMAIL PROTEC
ced, get yourself in
> debt, bankruptcy.
>
> We've turned into weak irresponsible ninnies.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:31 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
>
&
this thread has gone on too long. I'm starting a new one.
--
---
Robert Munn
www.funkymojo.com
~|
ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe®
Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7.
Free Trial. http
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:02 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> > > I don't see many American terrorists. Are you talking about the
> school
> &g
> Sam wrote:
> Ok Homie I give, what's the foreign?
>
oops - "foreign policy"
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
The most significant release in over 10 years. Upgrade & see new features.
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?
Ok Homie I give, what's the foreign?
On 5/14/07, Gruss Gott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > JimmyD wrote:
> > So we invaded to stop a madman from getting wealthy?
> >
>
> We've already determined that asking what the foreign is, is a
> conversation killer. It's like asking Homer to talk philosoph
On 5/14/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Check Syria?
>
> Okay.
>
>
>
> Done. Hate the food, no good TV and no WMDs.
You're good. Quick too.
> So we invaded to stop a madman from getting wealthy?
>
> Which argument are we on? Defense, humanitarian or social change?
Cute, but y
> JimmyD wrote:
> So we invaded to stop a madman from getting wealthy?
>
We've already determined that asking what the foreign is, is a
conversation killer. It's like asking Homer to talk philosophically
about the Fibonacci Sequence.
~~
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:34 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> On 5/14/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A threat to our allies perhaps
> RoMunn wrote:
> As I have said all along, we invaded for several reasons
But you also have to look at the reasons NOT to do something and weigh
that against the benefits. CLEARLY, this administration didn't do
that.
The fact is that, no matter what the reasoning, it was appallingly
flawed. No
Bill Richardson looks like a genius? I don't know, what?
>And I'm not only talking about prices, I'm talking about the overall
>supply. What happens if the US if we can't even buy enough Oil
>regardless of the price?
~|
Create We
> > From: Robert M
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:59 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
> >
> > You are taking an optimistic view of things, when you have no reason in
> > fact
> > to be optimistic. He had no love for I
It usually happens when an alcoholic hits bottom.
That might be were Iraq is now with al Qaeda being the booze.
On 5/14/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Think of an alcoholic: You can give them money, support, love,
> security, shelter, et al - and all of that won't do a thing until t
On 5/14/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A threat to our allies perhaps, I'll grant you that. Not to us.
President Clinton explains Iraq strike:
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United
States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East
and arou
> tBone wrote:
> I think we owe where we are today to the post 50's history we have of never
> finishing any conflict we take part in.
Where we disagree is that, for Iraq, you think we can "win" or
"finish" as if there's some discrete objective that's preventing
victory and we just need to kill it
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 6:52 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> so we invavded over oil prices after all? I am having a Dr. Phil
> moment here. Now, how's that wor
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> On 5/12/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The sad facts are that a) Iraq
so we invavded over oil prices after all? I am having a Dr. Phil
moment here. Now, how's that working out for us?
On 5/14/07, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Money, or Oil, or whatever you want to call it.
>
> Iraq had Oil and could have provided real money and funding. If they
> were ab
Money, or Oil, or whatever you want to call it.
Iraq had Oil and could have provided real money and funding. If they
were able to get off of UN Sanctions think of the possibilities. If they
were able to develop real WMD and provide them to people that did not
like us, then think of what kind of po
well, because he was secular and they are fundamentalists. An
pro-choice lesbian who bikes to work to save the planet and spends her
summers working for Greenpeace *might* sign up for a project of Ralph
Reed's, but I personally consider that rather unlikely.
Dana
On 5/14/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL P
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:59 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> You are taking an optimistic view of things, when you have no reason in
> fact
> to be opt
I don't like your tone. This thread is done
;)
> -Original Message-
> From: Loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> We've turned into weak irresponsible ninnies.
>
~|
ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe®
Dyncamically transform webc
uptcy.
We've turned into weak irresponsible ninnies.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:31 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
> Sam wrote:
> The Clinton admin constantly claimed they were a threat and even
So their meetings could have been a way for Saddam to see how much of
a threat they were to him or for him to focus their condemnation on
common enemies like the US and its allies.
On 5/14/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because of his statements on the topic and Al Qaeda's statements
> Sam wrote:
> http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html
>
http://www.zombo.com
~|
Macromedia ColdFusion MX7
Upgrade to MX7 & experience time-saving features, more productivity.
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusi
>You are taking an optimistic view of things, when you have no reason in fact
>to be optimistic. He had no love for Iran, but how can you believe that he
>would not have aligned himself with Al Qaeda?
>
>On 5/14/07, Dana wrote:
>
>--
>---
>Robert Munn
>www.funkymojo.com
Because of his
http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html
On 5/14/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's tangential to the main point, but I don't agree. The
> inspectors asked for 9 more months, and Bush implied that they were
> idiots: He claimed that the Iraqis were moving the WMD so
14, 2007 2:56 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> > Nick wrote:
> > If Clinton had pressed Iraq to provide documentation and pressed Iraq
> to
> > allow the inspectors in Bush wouldn't have had any excuse to invade.
> >
>
> Nick wrote:
> If Clinton had pressed Iraq to provide documentation and pressed Iraq to
> allow the inspectors in Bush wouldn't have had any excuse to invade.
>
That's tangential to the main point, but I don't agree. The
inspectors asked for 9 more months, and Bush implied that they were
idiots:
If Clinton had pressed Iraq to provide documentation and pressed Iraq to
allow the inspectors in Bush wouldn't have had any excuse to invade.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It's the level of threat; they didn't justify invasion and occupation.
> We
> Sam wrote:
> The Clinton admin constantly claimed they were a threat and even bombed them.
>
It's the level of threat; they didn't justify invasion and occupation.
We know Clinton agreed with this because he didn't invade Iraq. We
know Bush did invade Iraq (we'll never know why), and we know t
On 5/12/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The sad facts are that a) Iraq posed no actual threat to us,
The Clinton admin constantly claimed they were a threat and even bombed them.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272613219.shtml
As Tenet told me over the phone Mond
You are taking an optimistic view of things, when you have no reason in fact
to be optimistic. He had no love for Iran, but how can you believe that he
would not have aligned himself with Al Qaeda?
On 5/14/07, Dana wrote:
>
> Yes, and we have Bush to thank for this. You've heard the definition
> o
Yes, and we have Bush to thank for this. You've heard the definition
of insanity right? Doing the same thing and expecting different
results?
> you are sorely mistaken. The Baathists are no longer even the big worry in
> Iraq. Al Qaeda and Iran are the main players now
--
And no one knows the wh
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:33 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> Jim Davis wrote:
>
> Dude put the crack pipe down.
Boy I LOVE arguin
On 5/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In the 1990's the USA out spent the next 10 countries combined in
> military spending. Let me break that down for you. We spent more than
> China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Italy, South
> Korea and Saudi Arabia com
Jim Davis wrote:
Dude put the crack pipe down.
>> Spending on Iraq would still have occurred (nothing like this scale
of course) but at this point (assuming our original invasion never
occurred) it's very likely that we'd be militarily involved with Iraq on
some level(very possibly with man
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 12:08 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> On 5/12/07, Jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bringing up these attacks only ser
On 5/12/07, Jim wrote:
>
>
> Bringing up these attacks only serves to remind us that we've failed to
> destroy an enemy (al-Qaeda) that has attacked us (as you note, multiple
> times)
Personally I don't think we're going to destroy Al Qaeda anytime soon.
Contain them, yes, but destory them? It's
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:36 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> Oh really? I was under the impression there had already been two major
> terrorist attack
Oh really? I was under the impression there had already been two major
terrorist attacks in Manhattan- 1993 and 2001. I must be mistaken.
On 5/12/07, Vivec wrote:
>
> The chances of that happening actually increased with the war in Iraq.
> So you spent 456 billion making that scenario that much m
Even before of 9/11 - the odds of an attack on NYC were 100% - since
it had already happened once before. I guess now they are 100
percent-ier?
-Cameron
On 5/12/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The chances of that happening actually increased with the war in Iraq.
> So you spent 456 billio
I was using the math from Office Space, if the dude can do two chicks
at one time with a million, he should be able to do 912,000 with 456 B
On 5/12/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Greg wrote:
> > What could 456,000,000,000 buy?
> > 912,000 chicks at the same time.
> >
>
> Hef has 45
> Greg wrote:
> What could 456,000,000,000 buy?
> 912,000 chicks at the same time.
>
Hef has 456B?
~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusi
What could 456,000,000,000 buy?
912,000 chicks at the same time.
On 5/12/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > Happy to oblige. $450 billion could probably buy you an evacuation of
> > Manhattan if even a small nuclear device were detonated on the island.
> >
>
> Or bette
> RoMunn wrote:
> Happy to oblige. $450 billion could probably buy you an evacuation of
> Manhattan if even a small nuclear device were detonated on the island.
>
Or better, the men and intelligence needed to snap up all of the
enriched uranium on the market, the scientists to create the weapons
a
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 8:32 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> How does one quantify that?
I don't think we're able to quantify either position:
But how much of this money still went back into the US Economy in some
way.
And how much of that money wasn't even used in the war and included pork
barrel spending.
I mean look at the last Iraq funding bill. It included a minimum wage
hike and a couple other things.
> -Original Message-
How does one quantify that?
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:07 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> The chances of that happening actually increased with the war in Ira
The chances of that happening actually increased with the war in Iraq.
So you spent 456 billion making that scenario that much more possible.
brilliant.
Fact is the world was safer with Saddam contained in Iraq.
On 5/11/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Happy to oblige. $450 billion cou
imho there was a good deal of arrogance and ignorance involved in even
attempting it. It is useful however to remember that this is in many ways a
zero sum game. Didn't they cut financial aid for students last year? Just for
example.
Great answer though.
>Hell, if we can't even bury a road
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:37 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy.
>
> I'd really like to see Sam or Robert answer this.
>
> >http://www.boston.com/news
Happy to oblige. $450 billion could probably buy you an evacuation of
Manhattan if even a small nuclear device were detonated on the island.
On 5/11/07, Dana wrote:
>
> I'd really like to see Sam or Robert answer this.
>
> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/050207_TheCostofWar/
>
>
--
--
I'd really like to see Sam or Robert answer this.
>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/050207_TheCostofWar/
~|
ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2
Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now
http://www.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/050207_TheCostofWar/
~|
ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe®
Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7.
Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJV
77 matches
Mail list logo
