I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Revel, dear, I must be really, really lousy at tone. It seems I offend someone with my every post anymore. Listen: I'm trying hard not to insult you and actually sought to shield you from further insult. Honestly. If you don't know who those people are, it is preposterous to judge them. That they are signatories on a letter found on the PNAC, Al Jazeera, or Moveon.org websites tells you nothing about them... unless there is no corroborating source available. That's not the case here. If the PNAC put a copy of the Declaration of Independence on their website, you wouldn't judge the value or the signatories of that document any differently, would you? This is no different.

I respect your independence and desire to view popularity as an inconsequential secondary consideration. Those are good traits in my book and I wasn't suggesting you abandon them. I was suggesting that when there is total agreement between Walter, Nimh, Dlowan and ehBeth that the document is not demonstrative of partisan BS, you should consider it because these folks are all very knowledgeable about the world's most influential people and generally share your political views. Don't take their word for anything; necessarily, but at least take it as a cue that you should withhold judgment until you learn what you're talking about. I meant what I said before: "Research the people who you mistakenly misjudged and you will want to change your point of view. I promise." That was an honest prediction, not a snotty remark.

That being said, I apologize for any offense you have taken to my last couple of posts (and this one if applicable Shocked

) Believe it or not, this has been an honest attempt at my good deed for the day. I must need more practice. Laughing

0 Replies

ok, bill, now i feel completely stupid. don't worry it is not your fault but entirely my own fault. I understand what you are saying and what the others have been saying now.

I was guilty of judging something just because it was on a website from a group that i mistrust. I should have slowed down and thought about what you all were saying before getting my back up. Automatically I did just dismiss the letter as a little letter because it came from that website.

I still don't back down on what I was saying that if in fact it turns out that the people that signed that letter do belong to the "project for the new american century" group it does add another element to the letter to take into consideration. (used that line before, but I don't know how else to word what I mean)

But since writing all that last night and this morning, found a couple of other places where the letter can be found. So maybe the PNAC did just hijack their letter for whatever reason.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/pdf_docs/russiastatement.pdf

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/09/30/018.html

http://eng.kavkaz.memo.ru/print/enganalytics/id/711401.html

http://fpc.org.uk/articles/293

http://www.aspenberlin.org/interesting_articles.php?iGedminId=70

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

...
Also, you and the others here might want to answer the initial question that I posed: "Can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic?"

I've answered this question already, Joe.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Address any portion of my argument and I'll be happy to explain it. I will not stand by while you assign additional meanings to my words anymore than you would.

I think we have enough on our hands dealing with one meaning of your words.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I've heard many A2Kers use words to the effect that the war was illegal because Iraq didn't attack us and was therefore unprovoked.

Provocation and justification are two entirely different things. I may be annoyed to the point that I am provoked into assaulting you, but that doesn't mean that I am justified in doing so. Iraq most certainly violated the no-fly zone restrictions in any number of ways -- that doesn't mean that those violations amounted to a legal justification for an invasion. Furthermore, given that no one in the administration ever mentioned the violations as a justification for the invasion, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Some of those people have participated in this thread. My only point in my post was to take that off the table. If you disagree it should be off the table, please point out the error in my conclusion without inventing additional meanings that I clearly never intended. Or don't.

See above. In a discussion regarding justification, a statement about provocation is a non sequitur.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

But do me a favor and don't insinuate I'm guilty of bobbing and weaving or any other wrongdoing simply because I pointed out the mistake in your logic when you assumed meanings that weren't there. There's no cause for that.

You call my argument "sloppy," yet when I suggest that you have been "bobbing and weaving" that crosses the line? Sorry, O'BILL, that dog won't hunt.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Joe, would you still want the U.S. to lose in Iraq if it had had the full sanction (in your eyes) of the United Nations?

If the US had received the full sanction of the UN, then it would have been an entirely different war. I don't have any idea what that war would have been like, although I am inclined to believe that it would have been a more justifiable war, and thus a war that I would have been able to support. Without sufficient details, however, I cannot say with any certainty that I would have either supported or opposed the war had the US received the UN's support.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
...
Also, you and the others here might want to answer the initial question that I posed: "Can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic?"

I've answered this question already, Joe.

Quite right, Tico. Most everyone else, however, has taken a pass on the question up to this point. I encourage those bystanders to take this opportunity to address this question directly.

0 Replies

Let me see if I have this straight...

The cease-fire resolutions between the UN and Iraq had many stipulations in them. I am too tired to look them up verbatim, but we are familiar with them, yes?

If those stipulations were not met, it would be assumed that hostilities could then rise again.

Saddam repeatedly failed to meet his obligations outlined in those resolutions. So much so, new resolutions had to be adopted to back up the ones that Saddam had already failed to live up to.

Those failures are what led the US to invade Iraq. Saddam failed to let the UN inspectors fully administer their duties thus Saddam was in breach of the cease-fire agreements. This war, legally, can be traced back to the initial gulf war. Saddams lack of cooperation in ridding Iraq of WMD's and his public support of terrorism created a risk to the US that was unacceptable. The UN failed to see that, so the US used a backdoor in the resolutions already provided to justify the invasion.

I mean no slight to anyone here, but the US Government has far better lawyers and resources to prove this than anyone here. Were it not legal under US law, it would not have happened.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Let me see if I have this straight...

The cease-fire resolutions between the UN and Iraq had many stipulations in them. I am too tired to look them up verbatim, but we are familiar with them, yes?

If by "we" you mean "you and other people," then the answer quite clearly is "no."

McGentrix wrote:

If those stipulations were not met, it would be assumed that hostilities could then rise again.

Only with the UN Security Council's approval.

McGentrix wrote:

Saddam repeatedly failed to meet his obligations outlined in those resolutions. So much so, new resolutions had to be adopted to back up the ones that Saddam had already failed to live up to.

True.

McGentrix wrote:

Those failures are what led the US to invade Iraq.

False.

McGentrix wrote:

Saddam failed to let the UN inspectors fully administer their duties thus Saddam was in breach of the cease-fire agreements. This war, legally, can be traced back to the initial gulf war. Saddams lack of cooperation in ridding Iraq of WMD's and his public support of terrorism created a risk to the US that was unacceptable. The UN failed to see that, so the US used a backdoor in the resolutions already provided to justify the invasion.

Once you summon the energy, I encourage you to read the resolutions yourself. You can find them all here.

McGentrix wrote:

I mean no slight to anyone here, but the US Government has far better lawyers and resources to prove this than anyone here. Were it not legal under US law, it would not have happened.

(emphasis added)

I weep for my country that it has citizens who can believe such things.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
...
Also, you and the others here might want to answer the initial question that I posed: "Can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic?"

I've answered this question already, Joe.

Quite right, Tico. Most everyone else, however, has taken a pass on the question up to this point. I encourage those bystanders to take this opportunity to address this question directly.

Perhaps they think the question has been answered correctly, and see no need to add to what has already been said. Just a thought.

0 Replies

For some reason this wouldnt post last night ...

revel wrote:

I am not judging people I don't know from Adam. What I am judging is where the letter was found which was at the PNAC website. I disagree with their beliefs and if the people that sent the letter are part of that organization in any way, then regardless of the content of the letter to the Putin, I have to assume that they sanction the rest of the beliefs from the PNAC group.

That did seem to be the underlying premise of your initial post, and it is there that the foolishness starts.

I am a member of the Dutch "Green Left". Does that mean I sanction all beliefs of the Green Left? No, of course not. But we're not even talking about anything as straightforward as membership here. Your (mistaken) assumption was that, for the cause of this letter, those many signatories had chosen to accept the umbrella of a PNAC action. The assumption was apparently mistaken, but say it had been true. If I sign a letter against the torture of dissidents by a Latin-American fascist dictatorship, and the letter was published by the communist party there, does that make me a communist? Does it mean you'd "have to assume" I subscribe to "the rest of the beliefs" of the communist party of that country too? Wouldn't that be a little bit - illogical?

And that's even without considering the cross-border aspect of this. The real-life analogy would be that there is a letter against the torture of dissidents by that Latin-American dictatorship, it's signed by a bunch of Chilean, Argentinian, Brazilian writers, politicians, etc - and it also appears on the website of the Communist Party of the USA. Because, say, they also signed it. Now say, you dislike the CPUSA as much as the PNAC (if not, imagine it for a sec), would you then "have" to go, oh then I dont even wanna know who all those Chilean and Brazilian writers and activists are, because "that to me says it all about their credibilty, regardless of who they are or where they are from"?

Two things here that I find stunning.

First, the sheer tribality of it. I know the PNAC is your enemy when it comes to your domestic political struggles. But is it really impossible to imagine agreeing with your political opponent in American politics about anything whatsoever, in whichever part of the world? To imagine that, say, when it comes to some dictatorship in Africa, most Americans might actually probably agree with each other, regardless the Republican/Democrat stuff? What if there's a letter against the mass murder in Darfur, Sudan, and its supported by the PNAC as well - would you have to reject that too?

I mean, thats the mind state I find it impossible to wrap my mind around. It does seems typical American somehow. Perhaps because over here, its not all that unusual to, you know - fight your conservative or christian-democratic opponents all you can when it comes to privatisation or health care - but then agree with 'em on, say, the war in Yugoslavia. But then that's perhaps also because we're slightly more used to every once in a while look beyond the parameters of our own national politics only.

Thats the other reason I was stunned. The total lack of interest in who these people were or why they chose to sign it - if they joined your opponent in US politics, "that says it all about their credibilty". As if your internal political enmities are all that could possibly matter! I was seriously outraged, not just flippantly insulting, when I muttered about how "all you give a whit about is how they fit into the petty black-and-white schemes of your domestic politics, as if nothing in the world beyond that matters". To return to that analogy of the Latin-American writers and politicians agitating against that fascist state. To say, oh I dont care who they are or what they're on about, if the letter is on the CPUSA website that says all I need to know, is not just short-sighted. It is also respectless - respectless to people whose struggle you apparently dont care about if they dont happen to line up correctly with your domestic political division in goodies and baddies.

I'm not even sure whether I'm getting this point across, at all. You probably think I'm just ranting here. I had the same experience last month when I saw people on the Freerepublic discuss the Ukrainian uprising then, the massive street protests for fair elections. More than a couple of posters there actually said - well, I heard they're supported by Soros - and, well, thats all I need to know. If Soros is for them, they cant be any good. Can you see how their reaction was an exact mirror to yours just now? And I went, the nerve! They didnt even care about anything those Ukrainians might be on about - all they knew was that Soros had supported Kerry and MoveOn, so if Soros was for those Ukrainians too, then they must be no good. Thats not just illogical, it is also respectless - as if American domestic alignments are the only possible measuring stick to determine someone's worth by! Purely parochial. To find such nonsense among the raving rightwingers of the Free Republic, OK, you expect it - but from a progressive, a liberal? Aren't those supposed to look further?

It all goes back to this inane logic that's usually the reserve of the (American?) Right - this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff. It's so short-sighted, and it causes so much harm. American conservatives lent Saddam millions of dollars when he had just gassed a few dozen thousand Kurds - because he was Iran's enemy, and thus our ally. American conservatives armed the Afghan Mujahedeen, with the money going on to Osama - because he was fighting the Soviets, so thus our ally. When Chilean socialist Allende built a grand democratic coalition that also included communists, American conservatives thought - "the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - so they aided and abetted the coup against him by Pinochet, who was to torture and murder thousands. It's stupid logic no matter who uses it. Just because Ukrainian democrats are also friends with Soros, doesn't mean a conservative can't still agree with them, in the context of Ukrainian politics. And even if a range of European intellectuals had accepted the support of the PNAC, it wouldnt necessarily mean you might not still be able to agree with 'em.

Look, imagine a world - just, say, imagine not being American. Say, you're Romanian. Whether Bush or Gore is elected, is of some importance. But Russia is muchos closer. What happens there is a little bit more important to your safety and well-being. You are alarmed by what happens there. There is an action against it, by many people in many countries. Lets stick to the initial assumption that the PNAC was involved as well. And? Does that really say anything about that Romanian guy, if he decides to sign it? He's just alarmed about whats going on next door in Russia, and if there's an action against it in which dozens of respected peers from around Europe take part, why would it matter a whit to him if some American conservative action group did as well? And what should it really say to you about him?

And note - compared to the quite prominent names from around Europe on that letter, the PNAC guys might not actually loom all that large. They might actually just be another few names. The world is bigger than America, is my point I guess. And thus, however hard to believe perhaps, the tainted hand of the PNAC might seem very relative, seen from another corner of the world. Or if you'd choose to consider the alignment of things in another corner of the world.

Quote:

So maybe the PNAC did just hijack their letter for whatever reason.

Why "hijack"? Perhaps they simply agreed with it? And? That would be good, right, if they agree with something that's good? Or is their evil power such that them just agreeing with a cause will automatically corrupt it and make it something bad?

Again, I'm having a flash-back. To when Gunga called out, here: the Communist Party has endorsed John Kerry! See, Kerry is a communist, he's bad! Nonsequitur. The Communist Party did not hijack Kerry's campaign by endorsing him, it merely subscribed to it. Well, good for them. Same logic applies here.

Quote:

I don't know about anyone else, but everything I ever say on the internet message boards is based on ideas and beliefs that I honestly have and not something that i just put out there in a misguided attempt to win friends or impress people with my knowledge. So I am not going to change my beliefs just because others think it is wrong or whatever.

Hey, standing by your beliefs is fine. And who cares a f*ck about popularity on a board. I sure don't, if I did I wouldn't be arguing so fiercely with someone 'on my side'.

But what was that conviction you were so passionately defending here, exactly? As far as I could decipher it, it seemed to come down to: well, my deeply-held belief is that, if its got a logo or a header on it of the group that in American politics is my opponent, then I dont even want to know who those people are, what they stand for or what they are trying to say with their letter. You can try to pass that off as a matter of deep principle, but all I see is a choice for ignorance, on the basis of football-game logic - their side, our side, that's as far as the universe goes. Thats what stunned me, this whole, "oh I dont give a toss about what any of those Europeans have to say - if they ally with my opponent, thats it, I dont care what they're on about."

Forgive me my frustration - you've probably already guessed that this goes a little bit beyond just your post - I guess I am just so utterly done with US politics and its short-sighted, parochial tribalisms.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

For some reason this wouldnt post last night ...

revel wrote:
I am not judging people I don't know from Adam. What I am judging is where the letter was found which was at the PNAC website. I disagree with their beliefs and if the people that sent the letter are part of that organization in any way, then regardless of the content of the letter to the Putin, I have to assume that they sanction the rest of the beliefs from the PNAC group.

That did seem to be the underlying premise of your initial post, and it is there that the foolishness starts.

I am a member of the Dutch "Green Left". Does that mean I sanction all beliefs of the Green Left? No, of course not. But we're not even talking about anything as straightforward as membership here. Your (mistaken) assumption was that, for the cause of this letter, those many signatories had chosen to accept the umbrella of a PNAC action. The assumption was apparently mistaken, but say it had been true. If I sign a letter against the torture of dissidents by a Latin-American fascist dictatorship, and the letter was published by the communist party there, does that make me a communist? Does it mean you'd "have to assume" I subscribe to "the rest of the beliefs" of the communist party of that country too? Wouldn't that be a little bit - illogical?

And that's even without considering the cross-border aspect of this. The real-life analogy would be that there is a letter against the torture of dissidents by that Latin-American dictatorship, it's signed by a bunch of Chilean, Argentinian, Brazilian writers, politicians, etc - and it also appears on the website of the Communist Party of the USA. Because, say, they also signed it. Now say, you dislike the CPUSA as much as the PNAC (if not, imagine it for a sec), would you then "have" to go, oh then I dont even wanna know who all those Chilean and Brazilian writers and activists are, because "that to me says it all about their credibilty, regardless of who they are or where they are from"?

Two things here that I find stunning.

First, the sheer tribality of it. I know the PNAC is your enemy when it comes to your domestic political struggles. But is it really impossible to imagine agreeing with your political opponent in American politics about anything whatsoever, in whichever part of the world? To imagine that, say, when it comes to some dictatorship in Africa, most Americans might actually probably agree with each other, regardless the Republican/Democrat stuff? What if there's a letter against the mass murder in Darfur, Sudan, and its supported by the PNAC as well - would you have to reject that too?

I mean, thats the mind state I find it impossible to wrap my mind around. It does seems typical American somehow. Perhaps because over here, its not all that unusual to, you know - fight your conservative or christian-democratic opponents all you can when it comes to privatisation or health care - but then agree with 'em on, say, the war in Yugoslavia. But then that's perhaps also because we're slightly more used to every once in a while look beyond the parameters of our own national politics only.

Thats the other reason I was stunned. The total lack of interest in who these people were or why they chose to sign it - if they joined your opponent in US politics, "that says it all about their credibilty". As if your internal political enmities are all that could possibly matter! I was seriously outraged, not just flippantly insulting, when I muttered about how "all you give a whit about is how they fit into the petty black-and-white schemes of your domestic politics, as if nothing in the world beyond that matters". To return to that analogy of the Latin-American writers and politicians agitating against that fascist state. To say, oh I dont care who they are or what they're on about, if the letter is on the CPUSA website that says all I need to know, is not just short-sighted. It is also respectless - respectless to people whose struggle you apparently dont care about if they dont happen to line up correctly with your domestic political division in goodies and baddies.

I'm not even sure whether I'm getting this point across, at all. You probably think I'm just ranting here. I had the same experience last month when I saw people on the Freerepublic discuss the Ukrainian uprising then, the massive street protests for fair elections. More than a couple of posters there actually said - well, I heard they're supported by Soros - and, well, thats all I need to know. If Soros is for them, they cant be any good. Can you see how their reaction was an exact mirror to yours just now? And I went, the nerve! They didnt even care about anything those Ukrainians might be on about - all they knew was that Soros had supported Kerry and MoveOn, so if Soros was for those Ukrainians too, then they must be no good. Thats not just illogical, it is also respectless - as if American domestic alignments are the only possible measuring stick to determine someone's worth by! Purely parochial. To find such nonsense among the raving rightwingers of the Free Republic, OK, you expect it - but from a progressive, a liberal? Aren't those supposed to look further?

It all goes back to this inane logic that's usually the reserve of the (American?) Right - this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff. It's so short-sighted, and it causes so much harm. American conservatives lent Saddam millions of dollars when he had just gassed a few dozen thousand Kurds - because he was Iran's enemy, and thus our ally. American conservatives armed the Afghan Mujahedeen, with the money going on to Osama - because he was fighting the Soviets, so thus our ally. When Chilean socialist Allende built a grand democratic coalition that also included communists, American conservatives thought - "the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - so they aided and abetted the coup against him by Pinochet, who was to torture and murder thousands. It's stupid logic no matter who uses it. Just because Ukrainian democrats are also friends with Soros, doesn't mean a conservative can't still agree with them, in the context of Ukrainian politics. And even if a range of European intellectuals had accepted the support of the PNAC, it wouldnt necessarily mean you might not still be able to agree with 'em.

Look, imagine a world - just, say, imagine not being American. Say, you're Romanian. Whether Bush or Gore is elected, is of some importance. But Russia is muchos closer. What happens there is a little bit more important to your safety and well-being. You are alarmed by what happens there. There is an action against it, by many people in many countries. Lets stick to the initial assumption that the PNAC was involved as well. And? Does that really say anything about that Romanian guy, if he decides to sign it? He's just alarmed about whats going on next door in Russia, and if there's an action against it in which dozens of respected peers from around Europe take part, why would it matter a whit to him if some American conservative action group did as well? And what should it really say to you about him?

And note - compared to the quite prominent names from around Europe on that letter, the PNAC guys might not actually loom all that large. They might actually just be another few names. The world is bigger than America, is my point I guess. And thus, however hard to believe perhaps, the tainted hand of the PNAC might seem very relative, seen from another corner of the world. Or if you'd choose to consider the alignment of things in another corner of the world.

Quote:
So maybe the PNAC did just hijack their letter for whatever reason.

Why "hijack"? Perhaps they simply agreed with it? And? That would be good, right, if they agree with something that's good? Or is their evil power such that them just agreeing with a cause will automatically corrupt it and make it something bad?

Again, I'm having a flash-back. To when Gunga called out, here: the Communist Party has endorsed John Kerry! See, Kerry is a communist, he's bad! Nonsequitur. The Communist Party did not hijack Kerry's campaign by endorsing him, it merely subscribed to it. Well, good for them. Same logic applies here.

Quote:
I don't know about anyone else, but everything I ever say on the internet message boards is based on ideas and beliefs that I honestly have and not something that i just put out there in a misguided attempt to win friends or impress people with my knowledge. So I am not going to change my beliefs just because others think it is wrong or whatever.

Hey, standing by your beliefs is fine. And who cares a f*ck about popularity on a board. I sure don't, if I did I wouldn't be arguing so fiercely with someone 'on my side'.

But what was that conviction you were so passionately defending here, exactly? As far as I could decipher it, it seemed to come down to: well, my deeply-held belief is that, if its got a logo or a header on it of the group that in American politics is my opponent, then I dont even want to know who those people are, what they stand for or what they are trying to say with their letter. You can try to pass that off as a matter of deep principle, but all I see is a choice for ignorance, on the basis of football-game logic - their side, our side, that's as far as the universe goes. Thats what stunned me, this whole, "oh I dont give a toss about what any of those Europeans have to say - if they ally with my opponent, thats it, I dont care what they're on about."

Forgive me my frustration - you've probably already guessed that this goes a little bit beyond just your post - I guess I am just so utterly done with US politics and its short-sighted, parochial tribalisms.

I think that you assign tribalism to things that really don't fall under that definition.

The PNAC people believe that in order to have world peace we have to rearrange the world into a westernize democracy, basically. I disagree with that kind of thinking.

If the peole who signed that letter in fact belong to the PNAC and accept that basic underlining position, then for that reason alone I would be leary about furthering their basic cause of forcing democracy in the whole world in sanctioning anything from them.

For instance lets say that there is a letter signed by various people around the world that said they disagreed with Israel's incursions into Gaza that destroys people's home and hope of livelihood. People can agree or disagree with that letter on it's own merits. But lets say that the people who wrote that letter belong to a terrorist organization who believe in promoting their poltical objectives by terrorizing innocent civillians. Would it be tribal to say because that group belongs to a terrorist group we shouldn't sanction their letter?

However it would not be the same if the terrorist organization just saw that letter somewhere and agreed with it and decided to put that letter on their website.

Which might very well be the case with the letter we are talking about and if so it is different.

The reason I called it hijacking is because I find it misleading the way the PNAC website has the letter mixed in with their statements of beliefs that is on their website if the letter is not part of something of their making so to speak.

It is like say a church has a website and on its website it has all kind of statements and doctrines and a list of various activities and causes that they were a part of or were the authors of. But somewhere in the middle of the church creeds there is a separate letter from people who are not part of that church posted on the website giving the impression it is part of their creeds and particular church activities when in fact those people have nothing to do with the church whatsoever. In fact the authors of the letter could very well find it offensive to be aligned with that particular church as it goes aganist what they believe.

But I do admit that i was wrong in dismissing the letter before finding out if the authors of the letter belong to the PNAC group. We still don't know, but since we don't know, it would be wrong of me to assume that they are.

You may think it is tribalism, but I just think that if I belong to a certain group then I believe in what they are doing, if I didn't believe in that group beliefs I would find another that I do believe in or form a new one entirely. Why belong to a group if you don't believe in what they stand for?

0 Replies

Only one flaw Nimh:

nimh wrote:

To find such nonsense among the raving rightwingers of the Free Republic, OK, you expect it - but from a progressive, a liberal? Aren't those supposed to look further?

Hyper-partisan idiocy knows no such political boundaries. (NOT directed at anyone in particular)

Oh, and I think American Football might be more complicated than you think. :wink:

Revel, dear, may I suggest you re-read Nimh's eloquent explanation over and over until you understand the contents. Nothing in your response indicates you do..

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Address any portion of my argument and I'll be happy to explain it. I will not stand by while you assign additional meanings to my words anymore than you would.

I think we have enough on our hands dealing with one meaning of your words.

Very clever Joe.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've heard many A2Kers use words to the effect that the war was illegal because Iraq didn't attack us and was therefore unprovoked.

Provocation and justification are two entirely different things. I may be annoyed to the point that I am provoked into assaulting you, but that doesn't mean that I am justified in doing so. Iraq most certainly violated the no-fly zone restrictions in any number of ways -- that doesn't mean that those violations amounted to a legal justification for an invasion. Furthermore, given that no one in the administration ever mentioned the violations as a justification for the invasion, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Stay with me here Joe. I didn't say the attacks on our planes were the justification for the invasion. I only said they were proof of provocation, there by neutralizing any argument that our response was unprovoked.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Some of those people have participated in this thread. My only point in my post was to take that off the table. If you disagree it should be off the table, please point out the error in my conclusion without inventing additional meanings that I clearly never intended. Or don't.

See above. In a discussion regarding justification, a statement about provocation is a non sequitur .

See above. The non sequitur is yours, not mine.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
But do me a favor and don't insinuate I'm guilty of bobbing and weaving or any other wrongdoing simply because I pointed out the mistake in your logic when you assumed meanings that weren't there. There's no cause for that.

You call my argument "sloppy," yet when I suggest that you have been "bobbing and weaving" that crosses the line? Sorry, O'BILL, that dog won't hunt.

I apologize if my Sloppy Joe pun offended you. It was an attempt at humor. However, your logic was uncharacteristically sloppy and I have yet to bob or weave, though I do reserve the right to do so in the future. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Stay with me here Joe. I didn't say the attacks on our planes were the justification for the invasion. I only said they were proof of provocation, there by neutralizing any argument that our response was unprovoked.

Then you were responding to an argument that wasn't made by inserting a point that wasn't relevant.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Stay with me here Joe. I didn't say the attacks on our planes were the justification for the invasion. I only said they were proof of provocation, there by neutralizing any argument that our response was unprovoked.

Then you were responding to an argument that wasn't made by inserting a point that wasn't relevant.

That's a reasonable opinion, Joe. Mine is that it pre-empted the argument before it was presented... and a cursory glance at other threads today should tell you my opinion is reasonable too.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That's a reasonable opinion, Joe. Mine is that it pre-empted the argument before it was presented... and a cursory glance at other threads today should tell you my opinion is reasonable too.

It's not enough that we have to deal with Bush's preemptive strikes?

0 Replies

No. :wink:

0 Replies

More on this subject from Bill O'Reilly

Dissent or Disloyalty?

0 Replies

Bill I understood; I just simply disagreed. I guess I am not good at explaining what I mean but I am no mood to through the whole thing again, so again I will drop it and move on.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Oh, and I think American Football might be more complicated than you think. :wink:

Yeah I was going to put "soccer-game logic", but then I thought that probly wouldnt translate too well either ... cause over there, I gather, thats not a tribal rah-rah-rah, our camp, their camp, whoever crosses over just once is to be hung and quartered like a treacherous dog thing, but more ... something fun for the girls. ;-)

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know