A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

funny things to do on a bike



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #511  
Old June 10th 04, 03:50 AM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

Jim West wrote:

In article , Mark Hickey wrote:

And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.


Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm

Any comments?


"Consistent with". Nuff said, IMHO.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Ads
  #512  
Old June 10th 04, 05:58 AM
G.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

Mark Hickey wrote:

Jim West wrote:


In article , Mark Hickey wrote:

And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.


Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm

Any comments?



"Consistent with". Nuff said, IMHO.


You're scaring me. Really scaring me.

Greg
--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll
  #513  
Old June 10th 04, 06:08 AM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)




On 6/9/04 7:28 PM, in article [email protected], "Jim West"
wrote:

In article , Mark Hickey wrote:

And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.


Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm

Any comments?


Yea..............
What part, and I am sure this is the part you are referring to, is not
correct??

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary
actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001.

  #514  
Old June 10th 04, 03:32 PM
Hunrobe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

"G.T."

wrote:

You're scaring me. Really scaring me.

Greg


You scare easily.
  #515  
Old June 10th 04, 04:08 PM
Hunrobe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

Jim West

wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.


Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm

Any comments?



Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information
available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:


(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful
means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary
actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Damn, my high school English teachers would have fits over your implication and
they were *Democrats*! g
The form and structure is quite clear and allows for only one correct
interpretation. Read it again and you'll notice two things.
First, the semicolon followed by the word "and" where (1) is separated from (2)
makes it clear that (1) does not rely on (2). All by itself (1) is sufficient
reason for the actions taken as is (2).
Second, (2) describes two separate categories of legitimate targets-
international terrorists and terrorist organizations and entities that aided
the 9/11 attacks in some fashion. Entities in the latter group are, by
definition, members of the former but the reverse is neither implied nor
stated.

People may not agree that US actions in Iraq are justified by any of the above
and that's their right. It is *not* their right though to take one statement
("... persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.") completely out of context,
ignore the basic rules of English grammar, twist it into something other than
it is, and claim it is somehow proof of bad faith. Those that would do that
remind me of the most famous quote of a politician-
"That depends on what "is" is." g

Regards,
Bob Hunt

  #516  
Old June 10th 04, 07:53 PM
michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/spr....09/index.html

--
michael
"Steve" wrote in message
...



On 6/9/04 7:28 PM, in article [email protected], "Jim West"
wrote:

In article , Mark Hickey

wrote:

And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.


Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm

Any comments?


Yea..............
What part, and I am sure this is the part you are referring to, is not
correct??

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is

consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the

necessary
actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned,

authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001.



  #517  
Old June 10th 04, 08:51 PM
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

Steve writes:

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to
take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Acting in self defense is fine. Pre-emptively acting in self-defense
(e.g., killing someone before they can commit a crime) requires
accurate, even unimpeachable, evidence. Engaging in terrorism to
prevent terrorism is just plain nuts. Breaking the law to enforce the
law is always tempting, but ultimately self-defeating. The Bush
Administration, having no rational moral compass and relying instead
on half-understood populist appeals justified by delusions and
paranois, is caught in the quagmire of its errors.
  #518  
Old June 10th 04, 10:11 PM
Jim West
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

In article , Mark Hickey wrote:
Jim West wrote:

In article , Mark Hickey wrote:

And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.


Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm

Any comments?


"Consistent with". Nuff said, IMHO.


I thought it would be. The rest of us might wonder why he felt compelled
to mention 9/11 at all if it was not being used as an excuse for war.

In fact, one might wonder why he needed to write a letter to Congress
at all at that time. A cynical person might speculate that maybe certain
members of Congress were begining to realize that the evidence that
Iraq was an immediate threat to the US was extremely weak, and they
needed a reminder that the conventional wisdom at that time was that
failing to support an invasion would be political suicide since the
majority of US citizens still thought that Iraq was directly involved
in 9/11. I'm sure glad I'm not cyncial enough for that to have occurred
to me, though.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
buying my first road bike Tanya Quinn General 28 June 17th 10 10:42 AM
True Cost of a Supermarket Bike Elisa Francesca Roselli General 41 January 25th 04 04:18 AM
Secure Bike Parking.? M. Barbee General 14 January 6th 04 02:00 AM
my new bike Marian Rosenberg General 5 October 19th 03 03:00 PM
Best Way to Travel with a Bike on an Airplane F1 General 5 August 14th 03 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.