Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Where it stops depends upon the country and the threat it poses. North Korea presents a special set of risks because its artillery can destroy much of Seoul and because President Carter's deal allowed them to develop nuclear weapons. The horrific nature of such a war changes the decision making process. On the other hand, the French leadership may not like us very much because we have cut off its deals to sell weapons to Saddam and its share of the oil for food profits. But, it can hardly harm us, so the risk that invading it poses to the vineyards offsets the benefits from an invasion. Iraq presented a threat, and we could do something about it.

Distinguishing among such situations is what you must do in the real world where barbarians are willing to saw off the head of Nick Berg or use airplanes as cruise missiles to kill thousands.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK, Brian, I guess you're not going to apologize for calling me a traitor. Maybe we can take that issue up at some future date.

For now, why don't you provide us with a list of all the other countries we need to invade to save American lives?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]Triguy...get used to that from Cholla...it's how he "argues."[/reply]

I know, I just replied because it was too funny to use his logical fallacies link to shoot down every argument he's made. Maybe he'll see his mistakes and actually attempt to argue an issue based on the merits?


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [TTTorso] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[/quote][/quote]
I am curious, leaving Iraq out of the discussion for a moment, what "things" have we done to make ourselves targets?

You (we) are targets regardless of Iraq. Period. We can debate the Iraq issue all day long, and frankly, it doesn't matter much anymore. What terrifies the hell out of me is that there are people who believe we do things to be targets, that the US provokes this behavior or does something to deserve their hatred. Let me make this clear for you, they hate you! They hate you, they want you dead, they want your family dead, they want this country to destroy itself, they want to destroy Israel, they want to obliterate the Jews, they want the world to be Muslim, believe as they do, and anyone who doesn't is a fair target. The will kill all who oppose them and their beliefs.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]They hate you, they want you dead, they want your family dead, they want this country to destroy itself, they want to destroy Israel, they want to obliterate the Jews, they want the world to be Muslim, believe as they do, and anyone who doesn't is a fair target. The will kill all who oppose them and their beliefs.[/reply]

Now, just so we're clear - this would be the country called Iraq that we are trying to liberate and democratise, would it? At least you're thinking about the whole issue with an open mind and not condeming a whole country with a nice big brush stroke...
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Where it stops depends upon the country and the threat it poses. OK, that much I agree with. Now, here's the important part, so pay attention: What are the criteria by which we judge how big a threat a country presents? And how much of a threat justifies war?

North Korea presents a special set of risks because its artillery can destroy much of Seoul and because President Carter's deal allowed them to develop nuclear weapons. The horrific nature of such a war changes the decision making process. On the other hand, the French leadership may not like us very much because we have cut off its deals to sell weapons to Saddam and its share of the oil for food profits. But, it can hardly harm us, so the risk that invading it poses to the vineyards offsets the benefits from an invasion. Iraq presented a threat, and we could do something about it. More precisely, France could harm us, but we don't think that they will. What threat did Iraq pose to us? The threat posed by Iraq was purely suppostional.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]Not to mention your non sequitor regarding the existence of weapons. The WMDs exist and we should have found them, but we have not yet found stockpiles, therefore they never existed. This I believe is roughly called "Denying the Antecedent."[/reply]

About the bit where you say "they exist" - seems to me that is something of an assumption rather than a proven fact. So where does that leave the rest of your thread of logic?
Quote Reply
WMDs found! [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Someone set off some mustard gas in my bathroom! Man I hope it clears up before my wife gets home.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I am curious, leaving Iraq out of the discussion for a moment, what "things" have we done to make ourselves targets?


1. Invade Iraq under false pretenses and against the UN and its Security Council. Iraq had not threatened the USA and was not linked to 9/11.

2. The USA pumps mega bucks into Israel, which in turn spends the money to buy US made military equipment. Then, Israel uses those weapons against Palestinians, who have rocks, slingshots, some small firearms and explosives used by suicide-bombers. In other words, the Arab world sees it as the US supporting a country that uses missiles, bombs and the air force to attach a contained group of citizens with no comparable defense system.

3. The USA supports the Israeli so called plan to improve relations with Palestinians, building "the wall", etc.

4. The USA is a two-sided society. First, Osama Bin Laden was the USA's best friend, thus the USA provided weapons for his cause. Now, Osama Bin Laden is no longer the friend of the USA.

5. Iraq was the USA's good friend when the war against Iran, but now it is no longer the case.

Those are a few reasons why the US is a target. I'm too young to remember any more, but those might be enough. I'm more interested in taking care of those who live within the US than rebuilding Iraq. There are plenty of problems within our borders. Rebuilding Afghanistan is a just cause but Bush is so focused on Iraq that he doesn't give a rats ass about Afghanistan.

Bush tells other countries to keep their borders closed, however the borders in the USA are the basic definition of "open borders, come in anytime you like, no passport necessary".
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
[reply]Triguy...get used to that from Cholla...it's how he "argues."[/reply]

I know, I just replied because it was too funny to use his logical fallacies link to shoot down every argument he's made. Maybe he'll see his mistakes and actually attempt to argue an issue based on the merits?


Now THIS is funny. Two myopic simpletons congratulating each other, when neither can respond to simple questions or support his points. Classic! Or, should I say, "Dittoes!!!!"

Triguy42, suffice to say, you originally asserted that "Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the full Kay report and not conclude that Iraq had a pattern of development of delivery systems and WMDs to go with them. Just because the stockpiles have not yet been found does not mean there was no active program waiting for sanctions to end/loosen." I responded that the war was about WMDs that posed a significant and immediate threat to us, not Saddam's fantasy arsenal. That you attack me, and then twist what each of has stated rather than respond to my contentions, speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.

Brian, you still respond to fairly uncontroverted facts with naked statements of your own manufacture. I post here in hopes of honest debate with people who disagree with me, but can respectfully argue and support their positions. I can't force you to support anything you say, so I won't bother with you any more.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cholla, in past debates on this very subject I have presented facts to support my view. I'm not going to go through the archives to support this claim. You for whatever reason don't want to believe what credible evidence supports. I stopped bothering with you some time ago due to the fact that you aren't able to read what is sitting in front of you.

Good Day Sir.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
this would be the country called Iraq that we are trying to liberate and democratise, would it?


No, maybe I jumped the gun a bit but I took the comment made in the earlier post about doing things to provoke the issue and my comment was not directed at Iraq or people of per se but the people who have come there (al queda and others) to fight. I was directing it at Muslim extremists and terror groups in and outside of Iraq including al queda and it's offshoots, hezbollah etc.

Sorry I didn't make it as clear as I should have.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trea·son: A betrayal of trust or confidence.

I think your comments against our current administration and war fit this definition. Therefore, an apology isn't warranted.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So now disagreeing with someone you believe is wrong is a betrayal of trust and confidence?

You might want to look a little deeper in that dictionary.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trea·son: A betrayal of trust or confidence.

I think your comments against our current administration and war fit this definition. Therefore, an apology isn't warranted.


OK, I am trying real hard to remain civil here. Please tell me whose trust or what confidence I've betrayed. Do you think I have some obligation, as an American citizen, to support whatever policies the US government adopts? You think dissent itself is treasonous? You think that if I believe we've embarked on an unjustified, unprovoked, unwise, and costly war, it's my patriotic duty to remain silent about it, and if I don't, I'm a traitor? Is that what you're saying?

If you really believe I'm a traitor, you should alert the FBI. I'm not kidding. If you don't really think I'm a traitor, I'm going to have to insist on that apology.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Fasttwitch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First I said I was leaving Iraq out of the conversation. I said that because there is no concensus about the war or it's value. Had we found the things there that were said to be there then I wouldn't really care what the Muslim world (or France, Russia Germany) thought. It would have been worth the effort, but since we already debating the Iraq dibacle I will stipulate that it has angered the Muslim world. My point is they were pissed anyway.

2. The USA pumps mega bucks into Israel, which in turn spends the money to buy US made military equipment. Then, Israel uses those weapons against Palestinians, who have rocks, slingshots, some small firearms and explosives used by suicide-bombers. In other words, the Arab world sees it as the US supporting a country that uses missiles, bombs and the air force to attach a contained group of citizens with no comparable defense system.

Israel uses those weapons the same we do, to defend and to retaliate against terrorists and an Arab population who hate them and want them dead and the state destroyed. We support Israel the same way we support other allies. We haven't done anything to Arabs or Muslims, it is just that they hate the fact we support Israel. You can't leave an allie because your enemy hates your allie and therefore you. German, France and the UK all support Israel and sell them weapons... they don't get the same level of hate.

3. The USA supports the Israeli so called plan to improve relations with Palestinians, building "the wall", etc.

The only thing the Palestinians will be happy with is if the US says "you are right, Israel should be destroyed and all the land should go to the Palestinians. Doesn't leave much to work with and puts us in a no win.

4. The USA is a two-sided society. First, Osama Bin Laden was the USA's best friend, thus the USA provided weapons for his cause. Now, Osama Bin Laden is no longer the friend of the USA.

5. Iraq was the USA's good friend when the war against Iran, but now it is no longer the case.

That is how the world works.

The reverse of that is true for Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy. OBL, SH were the enemy of an enemy and so we utilized them for that reason. Besides, I don't really think OBL has hurt feelings over this. We may have given him the running start to power but we didn't have anything to do with his belief system. As for SH, at the time it was believed that doing business with him was worth the opportunity to defeat Iran. SH did himself in with his grand plan to rule the mid east and attack Kuwait. If Germany attacked Poland again I doubt we would still be allies.

Now, eventhough I differ with you above, I agree that the border issue is a joke. If you want to talk about a "wall" I would say build one around the US and I mean a combination of a physical barrier and theoretical.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]You might want to look a little deeper in that dictionary.[/reply]

dictionary.com only gave him two definitions - he chose the second.

Pony up, Brian286. There are other words you could have chosen to use - you picked treason.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply][.reply]Not to mention your non sequitor regarding the existence of weapons. The WMDs exist and we should have found them, but we have not yet found stockpiles, therefore they never existed. This I believe is roughly called "Denying the Antecedent."[./reply]

About the bit where you say "they exist" - seems to me that is something of an assumption rather than a proven fact. So where does that leave the rest of your thread of logic?[/reply]

The format of the non sequitor does not really matter whether A or B is an assumption, in fact usually A is an assumption because it has not been proven 100% true or false. My comment, stated a slightly different way: "The WMDs exist (assumption) and we should have found them (opinion), but we have not yet found stockpiles (fact), therefore they never existed (assumption)." The fallacy of logic is concluding that they never existed based on the fact that we have not yet found them.
A good analogy might be the people who hypothesized that there was nothing smaller than an electron because we had never seen such a thing. The people who believed in subatomic particles said: "The particles exist (assumption) and we should be able to see them." The detractors said, "we have not seen them so therefore they do not exist." The detractors were of course proven wrong when the supercolliders were built.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Based on that definition, wouldn't the Bush administration be guilty of treason for betraying the trust and confidence of the American people and placing its citizens in harms way for an unwarranted, unprovoked war where the reasons were vague at best and out and out lies at worst?

If I have your attention, Brian. Please enlighten me with an answer to these questions:

Why did Iraq pose a greater threat to our national security than North Korea?

Why don't we force regime change in Saudi Arabia, arguably as brutal and repressive a regime as Hussein's?

Why exactly did we go to war in Iraq?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!
Last edited by: 3Sport: May 18, 04 13:57
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
don't worry, vitus979, you're in good company...i've twice been accused of "treason" by brian286 for opposing the war and its methods

it would be a badge of honor, if i didn't believe brian286 is probably a 12-14 year old with nothing better to do

freedom is untidy
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, I doubt that France could harm us. Its only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, has trouble crossing the Mediterranean. What an insult to such a great man.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You realize that your argument is that we went to war because we didn't have proof that WMDs didn't exist, right? Do you recognize that it's a fundamentally different argument than saying that we went to war because Iraq had WMDs?

Don't you think that there should be a pretty high burden of proof required before a nation invades another nation? Do you think we met that burden?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, I doubt that France could harm us. Its only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, has trouble crossing the Mediterranean. Yeah, compared to Iraq's mighty navy, the French are weaklings.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your ignorance in accusing about half the country of treachery helps to illustrate how well thought out your positions and arguments are.

Not that it matters in the least, but please help me, how specifically has anyone here betrayed any "trust or confidence" as relates to this war or administration?

Although I doubt that you're interested in reality, I thought I'd let you know that Constitutional treason is defined as:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]
Now THIS is funny. Two myopic simpletons congratulating each other, when neither can respond to simple questions or support his points. Classic! Or, should I say, "Dittoes!!!!"

Triguy42, suffice to say, you originally asserted that "Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the full Kay report and not conclude that Iraq had a pattern of development of delivery systems and WMDs to go with them. Just because the stockpiles have not yet been found does not mean there was no active program waiting for sanctions to end/loosen." I responded that the war was about WMDs that posed a significant and immediate threat to us, not Saddam's fantasy arsenal. That you attack me, and then twist what each of has stated rather than respond to my contentions, speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.
[/reply]

You still don't see the strawman apparently. Sorry, but I am not going to waste the time attempting yet again to explain it.

But your response is absolutely priceless. I still can't find a list on the logical fallacies page for failing to respond to any of the arguments, but I will bring to your attention the fallacy named "Attacking the Person," which you are very good at. Considering I thoroughly disproved your only actual argument (item 2), and the others were also logical fallacies, I don't see where I should have replied differently.

And then the whole Rush Limbaugh implication with "Dittoes"...hilarious ad hominem attack. And please don't make the assumption that because I know what a "DittoHead" is, that I am one...that would be called "Begging the Question."

Then you quoted an article by Kaplan (a person with a clear agenda) as proof that I was wrong. You thereby proved my original point. Your argument is therefore called an "Irrelevant Conclusion." (This is essentially your #1 and #3 combined).

Your response is very typical of someone who has no facts or actual responses to back up anything. When all facts and logic leave, resort to ad hominem and other attacks. I am very disappointed.


Mad
Quote Reply

Prev Next