What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?

The repeated statement that I am wrong, in denial, etc. without an argument is of no significance.

Your disagreement amounts to the argument that if Hussein had still had or been working on WMD, one would nonetheless not have been used sometime in the next few years, or that being used, it would likely not have resulted in massive casualties. Why do you think this?

Brandon9000 wrote:

The repeated statement that I am wrong, in denial, etc. without an argument is of no significance.

Sorry, but it is.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your disagreement amounts to the argument that if Hussein had still had or been working on WMD, one would nonetheless not have been used sometime in the next few years, or that being used, it would likely not have resulted in massive casualties. Why do you think this?

No, my pointing out your fallacious supposition is not a disagreement, and you cannot using any reasonable logic construct what you believe might be an "argument" you can then attribute to me in order to pose questions about.

Once more (last time):

What noble cause, as stated by GWB, did Casy Sheehan die for?

PDiddie wrote:

If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

How noble would that be, Brandon?

I assume that if you were able to counter my logic, you would have.

The problem is that you have "pointed out" my fallacious supposition without stating clearly what it is and what, exactly, is fallacious about it.

Had Hussein merely been hiding his WMD better

one could have been used in a populated area in the next few years with a resultant massive loss of life.

Insuring that this not happen is very noble.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The problem is that you have "pointed out" my fallacious supposition without stating clearly what it is and what, exactly, is fallacious about it.

Brandon, you're just pretending to be dense now.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Had Hussein merely been hiding his WMD better

What WMD? (Dense.)

Brandon9000 wrote:

one could have been used in a populated area in the next few years with a resultant massive loss of life.

Supposition based on fallacy. See how easy this is?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Insuring that this not happen is very noble.

No. It's not. Completely the opposite.

Brandon9000 wrote:

PDiddie wrote:

If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

How noble would that be, Brandon?

I assume that if you were able to counter my logic, you would have.

If we had found some, we would have.

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

PDiddie wrote:

If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

How noble would that be, Brandon?

I assume that if you were able to counter my logic, you would have.

If we had found some, we would have.

If my logic were completely wrong, still you could have summarized how. A post like this one is equivalent to saying, "I can't compete with your logic, so I'll just mock it." Someone who refuses to answer his opponent's argument, with whatever rationalization, simply loses the debate. When you have a counter-argument look me up.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

PDiddie wrote:

If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

How noble would that be, Brandon?

I assume that if you were able to counter my logic, you would have.

If we had found some, we would have.

If my logic were completely wrong, still you could have summarized how. A post like this one is equivalent to saying, "I can't compete with your logic, so I'll just mock it." Someone who refuses to answer his opponent's argument, with whatever rationalization, simply loses the debate. When you have a counter-argument look me up.

You are right, I can't compete with your logic on this. It makes no sense. You go back to WMD as if it was the reason to invade Iraq. You have said it so many times that you actually believe it. Do you really think that it is ok to invade a country based on speculation? The only thing worse than have GW as your president would be if you were in a lofty place in government instead of a lofty place in your own mind.

Do you really think that it is ok to invade a country based on speculation?

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

PDiddie wrote:

If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

How noble would that be, Brandon?

I assume that if you were able to counter my logic, you would have.

If we had found some, we would have.

If my logic were completely wrong, still you could have summarized how. A post like this one is equivalent to saying, "I can't compete with your logic, so I'll just mock it." Someone who refuses to answer his opponent's argument, with whatever rationalization, simply loses the debate. When you have a counter-argument look me up.

You are right, I can't compete with your logic on this. It makes no sense. You go back to WMD as if it was the reason to invade Iraq. You have said it so many times that you actually believe it. Do you really think that it is ok to invade a country based on speculation? The only thing worse than have GW as your president would be if you were in a lofty place in government instead of a lofty place in your own mind.

This is the only statement you've made which is significant to the topic:

Intrepid wrote:

Do you really think that it is ok to invade a country based on speculation?

Yes, it can be. If:

1. A country's dictator is an evil monster like Hussein
2. He was working on doomsday weapons so powerful that there are scenarios where one use of one kills a half a million people.
3. Now you just can't tell whether he stopped or has merely hidden them.
4. You have tried to get him to stop for years, but he is uncooperative.

invading to finally resolve it is the best thing, if you might be stopping an unimaginable doomsday tragedy a few years down the road.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

PDiddie wrote:

If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

How noble would that be, Brandon?

I assume that if you were able to counter my logic, you would have.

If we had found some, we would have.

If my logic were completely wrong, still you could have summarized how. A post like this one is equivalent to saying, "I can't compete with your logic, so I'll just mock it." Someone who refuses to answer his opponent's argument, with whatever rationalization, simply loses the debate. When you have a counter-argument look me up.

You are right, I can't compete with your logic on this. It makes no sense. You go back to WMD as if it was the reason to invade Iraq. You have said it so many times that you actually believe it. Do you really think that it is ok to invade a country based on speculation? The only thing worse than have GW as your president would be if you were in a lofty place in government instead of a lofty place in your own mind.

This is the only statement you've made which is significant to the topic:

Intrepid wrote:

Do you really think that it is ok to invade a country based on speculation?

Yes, it can be. If:

1. A country's dictator is an evil monster like Hussein
2. He was working on doomsday weapons so powerful that there are scenarios where one use of one kills a half a million people.
3. Now you just can't tell whether he stopped or has merely hidden them.
4. You have tried to get him to stop for years, but he is uncooperative.

invading to finally resolve it is the best thing, if you might be stopping an unimaginable doomsday tragedy a few years down the road.

At least 3 of the 4 apply to George Bush. Hmmmm

Oh, I forgot. I am supposed to agree with you.

Intrepid wrote:

Oh, I forgot. I am supposed to agree with you.

No, you're supposed to take what I say and specifically point out why it's wrong, or else stop pretending that you have an argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Oh, I forgot. I am supposed to agree with you.

No, you're supposed to take what I say and specifically point out why it's wrong, or else stop pretending that you have an argument.

Because you are making a supposition, just as George Bush did that there were WMD, and they were going to be used. He was proved wrong! What is noble about that?

Specious, specious, specious . . . there is nothing noble about being sacrificed for a supposition of putative future danger, espcially in light of known present danger in other nations.