Saddam's WMD Have Been Found

I take it that wry humor slips right past you, Boss . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I take it that wry humor slips right past you, Boss . . .

Oh, I get it, but I maintain that the reason you answered with humor is that you couldn't fight the logic of my post on a serious level.

0 Replies

I bow low, salaaming repeatedly before the blinding majesty of your logical supremacy . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I bow low, salaaming repeatedly before the blinding majesty of your logical supremacy . . .

Once again, your post style indicates that you feel unable to contest my logic seriously.

0 Replies

<putting hip boots on>

It's getting deep in here...

0 Replies

0 Replies

"Having said that, ABC news produced a VIDEO TAPE of John Kerry flat out saying that he threw away his war medals. And we have recent VIDEO of John Kerry giving at least 3 different other versions of what happened that day. Yet many members here on A2K refuse to believe that he misrepresented (lied about) it."

I've seen ALL the coverage, and I see no lie, only an attempt by the media to make something out of nothing. medals, ribbons, whatever. I truly don't think this is an issue, nor do I care. This is not a "lie" that will cost our country anything, will not make us less safe, will not give us a HUGE deficit.
Just another pathetic GOP smear tactic. Whether he lied or didn't, about medals and ribbons, it is still an attack on a decorated veteran by a bunch of chickenhawks, is it not? Who cares? This is about as serious as presidential infidelity on his ability to run the nation!

As for WOMD, yeah, we all knew Saddam was a bad guy. Fact is, the dire warnings were rather highly embellished, and there doesn't appear to have been any immediate danger. If Iraq had the capability to attack us as Bush said, they surely would have done so during the lead-up to the war.

0 Replies

I can't say for sure as I have no way of knowing, but I suspect more and more that many really, really hope we DON'T find any WMD.

0 Replies

Here, i'll go slowly for you . . .

Joe's original post was sarcastic humor directed at McG's post. You, in your apparently pedestrian inability to sense the wry wit therein, respond with "logic." I respond to your logic with more wry humor.

You provide irrefutable proof that you still don't get it. Joe certainly was serious in a contention that the likelihood of finding WoMD is very slim--he used wry humor, sarcasm, to make his point. You respond with a serious comparison of the likelihood of finding sasquatch (none in my never humble opinion) and finding WoMD (slim to none, IMNHO).

So my response basically laughs at you because you seem unable to appreciate that a serious comparison of the likelihood of finding sasquatch as opposed to finding WoMD was never a part of what Joe wrote, apart from contributing to the sarcasm.

And you continue to provide good entertainment, for which i thank you sincerely, Boss.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I can't say for sure as I have no way of knowing, but I suspect more and more that many really, really hope we DON'T find any WMD.

Seems to be of the same logic than my constant hope of winning millions of $$ in the lottery.

I don't buy lottery tickets.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Here, i'll go slowly for you . . .

Joe's original post was sarcastic humor directed at McG's post. You, in your apparently pedestrian inability to sense the wry wit therein, respond with "logic." I respond to your logic with more wry humor.

You provide irrefutable proof that you still don't get it. Joe certainly was serious in a contention that the likelihood of finding WoMD is very slim--he used wry humor, sarcasm, to make his point. You respond with a serious comparison of the likelihood of finding sasquatch (none in my never humble opinion) and finding WoMD (slim to none, IMNHO).

So my response basically laughs at you because you seem unable to appreciate that a serious comparison of the likelihood of finding sasquatch as opposed to finding WoMD was never a part of what Joe wrote, apart from contributing to the sarcasm.

And you continue to provide good entertainment, for which i thank you sincerely, Boss.

You are mistaken. It was obvious that Joe was making a joke and that you were also. However, although intended as a joke, Joe's post unfairly created the suggestion that the likelihood of finding WMD from Iraq was absurdly low, and that false suggestion deserved to be clearly answered. Although WMD from Iraq may never be found, it is simply not true that the idea is absurd, and it shouldn't be represented as such.

0 Replies

Statistically speaking, you have the same chance of winning the lottery by not buying a ticket as you do if you do.

Ponder that... :wink:

0 Replies

" can't say for sure as I have no way of knowing, but I suspect more and more that many really, really hope we DON'T find any WMD."

So? Who cares either way? it's a bit late now... Do you have a stake in it or something? Did you make a bet? Or are you just hoping that bush won't come out of this an acknowledged, proven, full-fledged liar?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I can't say for sure as I have no way of knowing, but I suspect more and more that many really, really hope we DON'T find any WMD.

Since you said 'many', your assumption can retain a few drops of condensation.

I for one would have much rather we found WMD, as that flimsy fifth justification for this invasion would have provided some small consolation for the thousands of lives lost and damaged, as well as spared our country the global ignominy of looking like arrogant foolish bullies.

Be clear about this: IT DOES NOT MATTER whether we find anything or not, now, because it would have been impossible to be so successfully concealed and used against us when invading (or otherwise).

My own answer is that the biological agents over the years degraded to the point of being useless, and were destroyed just as the Iraqis claimed.

For some time they subsisted on the threat of being able to use a weapon they did not have, which was a fool's game in the wake of 9/11.

0 Replies

Nope, not a good comparison Walter. I don't know anybody who has bought a lottery ticket in hopes they won't win to prove their theory that nobody wins lotteries.

Somebody else, however, might hope the other person doesn't win to prove his theory that gambling is never profitable.

0 Replies

Quote:

Survey results released this month from the latest national Harris Poll raise this question: Is the press doing something wrong or is the public turned off to facts that do not fit their view of current events?

The poll found that a 51% to 38% majority of the respondents continues to believe that "Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction when the war began," almost unchanged since the last poll in February.

A 49% to 36% plurality continues to believe that "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found"-- numbers that have changed little since June 2003, despite the lack of a compelling link uncovered.

[!]According to the polling company, "The remarkable stability of these numbers suggest that people have made up their minds on many of the key issues relating to weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda, and that it would take something very big to change them. It seems that people believe media reports which fit with their opinions and reject those which do not."[!]

Source:Editor&Publisher

0 Replies

Setanta: More amusing still is the fact that, from a list that included "finding evidence of compassionate conservatism" and "finding the money to pay for Bush's tax cuts," Brandon chose "finding Sasquatch" as more unlikely than "finding WMDs."

OK, Brandon, I'll grant the following: likelihood of finding WMDs > likelihood of finding Sasquatch > likelihood of finding the money to pay for Bush's tax cuts > likelihood of finding evidence of compassionate conservatism.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And, Joe, what about the "anthrax murderer"?

That was a reverse vampire.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Setanta: More amusing still is the fact that, from a list that included "finding evidence of compassionate conservatism" and "finding the money to pay for Bush's tax cuts," Brandon chose "finding Sasquatch" as more unlikely than "finding WMDs."

OK, Brandon, I'll grant the following: likelihood of finding WMDs > likelihood of finding Sasquatch > likelihood of finding the money to pay for Bush's tax cuts > likelihood of finding evidence of compassionate conservatism.

But this is mere sophistry. You used a joke to plant an innacurate idea. I called you on it. In fact, WMD are not very funny, and someday when one goes off in a populated area, not many people will be laughing.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It was obvious that Joe was making a joke and that you were also. However, although intended as a joke, Joe's post unfairly created the suggestion that the likelihood of finding WMD from Iraq was absurdly low, and that false suggestion deserved to be clearly answered. Although WMD from Iraq may never be found, it is simply not true that the idea is absurd, and it shouldn't be represented as such.

Brandon,

I think that if there is logical inference to draw from Joe's joke it is that any currently non-existent discovery can have "yet" appended to it.

The "yet" infers a possibility or even likelihood of discovery without actually making the case for said likelihood.

Sure, some of Joe's examples are not on the same level of propability as WMDs but in illustrating the nature of the use of "yet" it can be useful to illustrate the more absurd examples with which it can be used to illustrate its value as a rehetorical modifier.

0 Replies

Saddam's WMD Have Been Found

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know