27
   

Throwing Shoes at President Bush

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:00 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Iraq was never a threat to the US, Brandon. At no point did they possess the capacity to attack us with any level of strength.

He was not a fascist bent on taking over the middle east, even if he had WMD. See, it's just that you, and others like you, are using him as an excuse, a moral shield, to cover your errors in judgment.

I believe it would be too damaging for you, after all those years of arguing one way, to admit that you're wrong. Even though in your heart you know you are. So you twist yourself in these knots of fantasy, protecting your psyche.

Cycloptichorn

He could have smuggled the components of the nuke into the target country and detonated it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would have been even easier. Surely you're not arguing that one single nuke or plague in a populated area wouldn't be serious.

Furthermore, even if he only had the weapons and didn't use them, he could have used the mere knowledge of their existence to force his neighbors to give ground to his will repeatedly. This is all incredibly obvious stuff.


The things you describe are not reasons to attack another country.

The capability to harm us is not justification for aggression towards another country.

It isn't against any moral or legal code for another country to have weapons that could be used against us.

Your justifications fail, because the things you describe do not represent any threat to the US that we do not face from every country with such capabilities; and what more, we have all those capabilities ourselves and use the threat of force to keep other countries in line all the time. Don't you understand the inherent hypocrisy of your argument?

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:07 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
He could have smuggled the components of the nuke into the target country and detonated it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would have been even easier. Surely you're not arguing that one single nuke or plague in a populated area wouldn't be serious.

Furthermore, even if he only had the weapons and didn't use them, he could have used the mere knowledge of their existence to force his neighbors to give ground to his will repeatedly. This is all incredibly obvious stuff.


Brandon, you're either dumber than a sack of hoe handles or an incredible liar, not to mention a despicable "human being". Why would you defend the needless slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents all for a pack of lies.

The actual question was whether Iraq posed a threat at the moment of invasion. It did based on what was known at the time, because many people believed that rather than destroying his WMD development programs, he had simply taken them further underground. Had that been true, the situation would have been potentially catastrophic.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
Cyclo just did; "we" and many other countries have all the capabilities and more with WMD's, so what's your point?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, You have a one track mind; we are the aggressors against Iraq; we preemptively attacked a sovereign nation, and ended up killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqis.

You head is screwed onto your arse, and you really need to correct that!

Do you remember Cheney saying "they're going to welcome us as liberators?"

Instead, it turned out to be a six year nightmare that's still on-going.

Irrelevancies. The question was whether Iraq was a danger based on what was known at the moment of the invasion. Because it was widely believed that Saddam Hussein had merely taken his former development programs underground, and because years of trying to confirm the dismantling of these programs had failed, and because of the lethality of the weapons involved, there was certainly a significant danger.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:10 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo, You miss the most important issue when you name Carter and Clinton; Saddam didn't have any WMDs or any ability to deliver his "dreamed up" WMDs when Bush preemptively attacked in 2003 based on lies and innuendos.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:12 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

]First of all, I never said anything about invasion.

Sure you did.

Brandon9000 previously wrote:
The idea that Iraq was no threat to us on the eve of invasion, based on what was known at the time is ludicrous.

I mean, we're talking about the Bush administration's rationale for invading, right? This isn't just academic exercise in debating whether Iraq actually had WMDs or not, is it? Because we already know the answer to that question.

Brandon9000 wrote:
I described smuggling a weapon into a country and setting it off from within, mosty likely anonymously. What would have made the nukes dangerous in Saddam Hussein's hands was his bad character and apparent amorality. The idea, obviously, is that nuclear weapons are more dangerous than usual in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein, than in the hands of most nations. If we were talking about Canada or something, the problem wouldn't exist.

And Kim Jong-Il is less amoral and dangerous than Saddam Hussein?

Whether we ought to invade some other country has no bearing on whether a reasonable person would have concluded that Iraq posed a danger at the moment of the invasion of Iraq. Based on our inability to determine whether Iraq had dismantled its WMD programs or simply hidden them better than previously, and based on the stupendous lethality of the weapons involved, there was a danger. This is the only point I'm making and the only one I'll argue about.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon wrote:
Quote:
Irrelevancies. The question was whether Iraq was a danger based on what was known at the moment of the invasion. Because it was widely believed that Saddam Hussein had merely taken his former development programs underground, and because years of trying to confirm the dismantling of these programs had failed, and because of the lethality of the weapons involved, there was certainly a significant danger.


Iraq was not a danger; we had UN Weapon Inspectors looking for his weapon's program, and they found none until Bush chased them out to start his war. It is you who lacks any attention span.

If Saddam had taken his weapons program "underground," why didn't we find any after Bush started his war?

Quote:
"...lethality of the weapons involved..."?


If there are no weapons, how can they be lethal? Have you lost all sense of logic? The only "lethal" here is your imagination!
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Iraq was never a threat to the US, Brandon. At no point did they possess the capacity to attack us with any level of strength.

He was not a fascist bent on taking over the middle east, even if he had WMD. See, it's just that you, and others like you, are using him as an excuse, a moral shield, to cover your errors in judgment.

I believe it would be too damaging for you, after all those years of arguing one way, to admit that you're wrong. Even though in your heart you know you are. So you twist yourself in these knots of fantasy, protecting your psyche.

Cycloptichorn

He could have smuggled the components of the nuke into the target country and detonated it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would have been even easier. Surely you're not arguing that one single nuke or plague in a populated area wouldn't be serious.

Furthermore, even if he only had the weapons and didn't use them, he could have used the mere knowledge of their existence to force his neighbors to give ground to his will repeatedly. This is all incredibly obvious stuff.


The things you describe are not reasons to attack another country.

The capability to harm us is not justification for aggression towards another country.

It isn't against any moral or legal code for another country to have weapons that could be used against us.

Your justifications fail, because the things you describe do not represent any threat to the US that we do not face from every country with such capabilities; and what more, we have all those capabilities ourselves and use the threat of force to keep other countries in line all the time. Don't you understand the inherent hypocrisy of your argument?

Cycloptichorn

Preventing nuclear weapons and biological weapons from falling into the hands of an evil madman is certainly a reason to invade another country. It's perfectly rational to go to war to counter a significant danger. If we let them fall into his hands, then we have to also let them fall into the hands of the next evil madman, and the next, and the next.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


Your justifications fail, because the things you describe do not represent any threat to the US that we do not face from every country with such capabilities; and what more, we have all those capabilities ourselves and use the threat of force to keep other countries in line all the time. Don't you understand the inherent hypocrisy of your argument?

Cycloptichorn

The argument only applies to WMD in the hands of a few extreme cases like Saddam Hussein. In those cases, when peaceful attempts have failed, use of the military is justified.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:18 pm
@Brandon9000,
You don't go and destroy a country on the basis of imagined WMDs. There is never a justification, morally or legally.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo just did; "we" and many other countries have all the capabilities and more with WMD's, so what's your point?

I'm only talking about WMD in the hands of a few extreme cases of evil, aggressive monsters like Saddam Hussein. Superweapons are more dangerous in their hands. It's along the lines of preventing felons from having guns but letting normal people have them.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon wrote:
Quote:
Irrelevancies. The question was whether Iraq was a danger based on what was known at the moment of the invasion. Because it was widely believed that Saddam Hussein had merely taken his former development programs underground, and because years of trying to confirm the dismantling of these programs had failed, and because of the lethality of the weapons involved, there was certainly a significant danger.


Iraq was not a danger; we had UN Weapon Inspectors looking for his weapon's program, and they found none until Bush chased them out to start his war. It is you who lacks any attention span.

If Saddam had taken his weapons program "underground," why didn't we find any after Bush started his war?

Quote:
"...lethality of the weapons involved..."?


If there are no weapons, how can they be lethal? Have you lost all sense of logic? The only "lethal" here is your imagination!

God, what a dummy. We only know that he didn't have any because we invaded.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:23 pm
@Brandon9000,
Thanks for the best laugh of the day.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Thanks for the best laugh of the day.

Not an argument (which is no surprise).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:24 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:


Your justifications fail, because the things you describe do not represent any threat to the US that we do not face from every country with such capabilities; and what more, we have all those capabilities ourselves and use the threat of force to keep other countries in line all the time. Don't you understand the inherent hypocrisy of your argument?

Cycloptichorn

The argument only applies to WMD in the hands of a few extreme cases like Saddam Hussein. In those cases, when peaceful attempts have failed, use of the military is justified.


Sorry Brandon, but Saddam Hussein was not an 'extreme case.' You seem to forget that we supplied and armed him as our ally in the 1980s and only turned away from them when they threatened our oil in Kuwait.

If Hussein had not attacked Kuwait, they would STILL be our allies in the region. For you to portray Hussein as some sort of death-to-America fanatic is ridiculous historical revisionism and unsupportable.

Face it; your fear mongering was unjustified and our invasion was a mistake. We did not have the moral justification for this and our suspicions were not born out by the facts.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:25 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Based on our inability to determine [...] there was a danger.


So effectively, you're saying that Iraq was attacked, invaded and occupied due to the incompetence of the United States.

Sounds like a very bad reason.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:25 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Iraq was never a threat to the US, Brandon. At no point did they possess the capacity to attack us with any level of strength.

He was not a fascist bent on taking over the middle east, even if he had WMD. See, it's just that you, and others like you, are using him as an excuse, a moral shield, to cover your errors in judgment.

I believe it would be too damaging for you, after all those years of arguing one way, to admit that you're wrong. Even though in your heart you know you are. So you twist yourself in these knots of fantasy, protecting your psyche.

Cycloptichorn

He could have smuggled the components of the nuke into the target country and detonated it from within. Smuggling in bioweapons would have been even easier. Surely you're not arguing that one single nuke or plague in a populated area wouldn't be serious.

Furthermore, even if he only had the weapons and didn't use them, he could have used the mere knowledge of their existence to force his neighbors to give ground to his will repeatedly. This is all incredibly obvious stuff.


The things you describe are not reasons to attack another country.

The capability to harm us is not justification for aggression towards another country.

It isn't against any moral or legal code for another country to have weapons that could be used against us.

Your justifications fail, because the things you describe do not represent any threat to the US that we do not face from every country with such capabilities; and what more, we have all those capabilities ourselves and use the threat of force to keep other countries in line all the time. Don't you understand the inherent hypocrisy of your argument?

Cycloptichorn

Preventing nuclear weapons and biological weapons from falling into the hands of an evil madman is certainly a reason to invade another country.


No, it is not.

Quote:

It's perfectly rational to go to war to counter a significant danger.


There was no significant danger, just imagined danger by pussies like yourself.

Quote:
If we let them fall into his hands, then we have to also let them fall into the hands of the next evil madman, and the next, and the next.


Slippery Slope arguments are Logical Fallacies, Brandon.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I see. He only had WMD's when GHWB and GWB were in office. Laughing
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:43 pm
@Woiyo9,
Wrong! Only when senior Bush and Clinton were in office. Saddam's weapons programs were destroyed before junior Bush took over in the white house.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 03:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So why did you not tell anyone?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 12:49:32