"Bush falls victim to a bad new argument for the Iraq war."

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth which I totally disagree with. My point should be quite obvious. I will try to express it with a question to you. Country A attempts to assassinate the leader or country B. Are you actually maintaining that country B then does NOT possess the right to respond militarily?

Wait. You say "country B HAS the right to invade country A", yet you said "alas, they (Japan) didn't have the means to fight back". Sounds like "Might Makes Right" to me.

Nevertheless, assuming you disagree with that position, your argument is that Chile totally has the right to invade the US?

Why are you afraid to answer my question? It is a yes or no question.

Because I didn't realize you had already answered my question, but again:

I you're saying that the assassination (or even attempted assassination) of one's country's leader is justification for invasion, would that apply to all countries, and if yes, would that specifically apply to the case of e.g. Chile? Or would it only theoratically justify invasion, in a Darwinist way, provided the attacked country had to means to invade the attacking country?

But to answer your question and stop you whining: Yes, I believe a response would be appropriate. A military response? Not necessarily. An invasion and occupation of the attacking country? I don't think so. By doing so, you value the the life of one person (assassinated head of state) higher than the lifes of all the innocent people that would die in the course of an invasion.

If you wish me to respond to your questions, it is only fair that you respond to mine, and to hold you to this standard does not constitute whining. In this case, we fundamentally disagree, because I believe that if country A attempts to assassinate the head of state of country B, then country B is justified in attacking country B militarily and conquering it in retaliation. It is not simply a matter of the life of the head of state as an individual. Such an attack is an attack on the whole country. And by the way, this is the only thing I am saying. All the conclusions you draw as to my intentions have no reality outside of your own mind.

old europe wrote:

Your turn, Branny. Awaiting your answers, and no sorry "you didn't answer my questions" games, if I may say so.

Once again, your idea that you may ask me anything, but I have no right to ask you to answer my questions as well is fundamentally unfair. I have said clearly and repeatedly that if country A attempts to assassinate the leader of country B, then country B is always justified in retaliating by declaring war, so asking me about specific cases is merely stupid. I have answered the question for every case already in the affirmative.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Once again, your idea that you may ask me anything, but I have no right to ask you to answer my questions as well is fundamentally unfair. I have said clearly and repeatedly that if country A attempts to assassinate the leader of country B, then country B is always justified in retaliating by declaring war, so asking me about specific cases is merely stupid. I have answered the question for every case already in the affirmative.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to be fundamentally unfair. I apologize.

Another question (as you didn't answer my questions, even though I answered yours): Do you realize that the US has, after WWII, never again declared war against another nation?

0 Replies

And exactly what should the statute of limitations be for an invasion based on an attempted assisnation of the president of any country?

Anyways, back on topic, thanks for posting this Blatham. I had a real problem with the claim that we had to continue in Iraq in order to justify the lives lost, but hadn't been able to clarify it.

0 Replies

Lol I recall pointing out the wild illogic of that one in another thread.

It is possibly the dumbest thing, logically speaking, I can recall this president utter, not counting word stumbles.

0 Replies

Indeed. And I liked joe's "dollar auction" link a lot.....

0 Replies

Me too. I'm anxious to try that one on the family to see how long it takes the teens to figure out their drop out point. Cool lesson for them in it, too.

0 Replies

Brandon obviously is in this for the long run.

If he hasn't already seen where his thinking on the issue went too far out...no 'splain' will ever do the job.

I've done this occasionally...so I really can't fault him more than I already have.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Once again, your idea that you may ask me anything, but I have no right to ask you to answer my questions as well is fundamentally unfair. I have said clearly and repeatedly that if country A attempts to assassinate the leader of country B, then country B is always justified in retaliating by declaring war, so asking me about specific cases is merely stupid. I have answered the question for every case already in the affirmative.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to be fundamentally unfair. I apologize.

Another question (as you didn't answer my questions, even though I answered yours): Do you realize that the US has, after WWII, never again declared war against another nation?

Yes, and it bears some discussion, but, ultimately it will neither make nor break anyone's case for this question. My only point was that aside from the actual reasons for the invasion of Iraq, we would have been perfectly justified to invade simply because Hussein attempted to assassinate our president. This is not why we invaded, nor is it the primary justification for the invasion.

It has nothing much to do with right or wrong, I'm only saying that everyone who is seriously attacked has the right to fight back. For that matter, a criminal who is being taken to his execution for crimes he is truly guilty of has a right to attack the guards taking him to be executed, quite apart from the justice of his execution. I was only making a rather obvious statement about the right to self-defense.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Once again, your idea that you may ask me anything, but I have no right to ask you to answer my questions as well is fundamentally unfair. I have said clearly and repeatedly that if country A attempts to assassinate the leader of country B, then country B is always justified in retaliating by declaring war, so asking me about specific cases is merely stupid. I have answered the question for every case already in the affirmative.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to be fundamentally unfair. I apologize.

Another question (as you didn't answer my questions, even though I answered yours): Do you realize that the US has, after WWII, never again declared war against another nation?

Yes, and it bears some discussion, but, ultimately it will neither make nor break anyone's case for this question. My only point was that aside from the actual reasons for the invasion of Iraq, we would have been perfectly justified to invade simply because Hussein attempted to assassinate our president. This is not why we invaded, nor is it the primary justification for the invasion.

It has nothing much to do with right or wrong, I'm only saying that everyone who is seriously attacked has the right to fight back. For that matter, a criminal who is being taken to his execution for crimes he is truly guilty of has a right to attack the guards taking him to be executed, quite apart from the justice of his execution. I was only making a rather obvious statement about the right to self-defense.

Everything else aside (and I will read your statements re "self-defense" as an invitation for several countries to invade the US) this, of course, begs for an explanation as to how Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush. Please clarify.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

...begs for an explanation as to how Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush. Please clarify.

Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate Bush senior on a trip to Kuwait in April 1993. You can find it documented on countless Web sites.

0 Replies

Hence the March 2003 invasion just days before the ten year statute of limitations ran out?

(Just messin' with ya Brandon. No need to reply.) Very Happy

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
...begs for an explanation as to how Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush. Please clarify.

Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate Bush senior on a trip to Kuwait in April 1993. You can find it documented on countless Web sites.

You've GOT to be kidding. No one could that POSSIBLY give as a reason for the 2003 invasion. Seriously.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
...begs for an explanation as to how Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush. Please clarify.

Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate Bush senior on a trip to Kuwait in April 1993. You can find it documented on countless Web sites.

You've GOT to be kidding. No one could that POSSIBLY give as a reason for the 2003 invasion. Seriously.

God, will you people pay attention? I didn't give it as a reason for the invasion, Frank did. I merely said that an attempt to assassinate the president would be sufficient reason.

0 Replies

The "sunk cost" idea is interesting. I was searching for a way to put the comments by Bush about the war into perspective and that describes it nicely. I do remember reading something about this some years ago (I think it was in a psychology class) and if my memory serves me correctly it was suggested that humans are the only animal that will do this, will in effect "throw good money after bad" (which I think has already been pointed out by bvt but I can't go back and check from this).

So there we are. We have a nice scientific theory and a pretty solid folk saying to bolster the case. But I'd just like to add a couple of my own.

To alleviate the sinking feeling (of sunk costs) that Bush must be getting over Iraq I suggest he reads Aesop's Fables, in particular the one with the fox and the sour grapes. If a scientific approach is needed then let's give post-decisional dissonance a shot. Either way Bush could pull out and ease the feeling by constantly repeating "Mission Accomplished" as a sort of protective mantra or he could tell his dad that he got the bloke that tried to top him.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
...begs for an explanation as to how Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush. Please clarify.

Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate Bush senior on a trip to Kuwait in April 1993. You can find it documented on countless Web sites.

You've GOT to be kidding. No one could that POSSIBLY give as a reason for the 2003 invasion. Seriously.

God, will you people pay attention? I didn't give it as a reason for the invasion, Frank did. I merely said that an attempt to assassinate the president would be sufficient reason.

Actually, Brandon...perhaps you ought to pay more attention also.

I did not give this as a reason for the invasion.

Go back and read my post.

And while you are at it...read the hypothetical you offered in response to it.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
...begs for an explanation as to how Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush. Please clarify.

Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate Bush senior on a trip to Kuwait in April 1993. You can find it documented on countless Web sites.

You've GOT to be kidding. No one could that POSSIBLY give as a reason for the 2003 invasion. Seriously.

God, will you people pay attention? I didn't give it as a reason for the invasion, Frank did. I merely said that an attempt to assassinate the president would be sufficient reason.

Actually, Brandon...perhaps you ought to pay more attention also.

I did not give this as a reason for the invasion.

Go back and read my post.

And while you are at it...read the hypothetical you offered in response to it.

You clearly implied that this was part of Bush's motivation:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I wonder why he has not offered the "I am a blithering idiot who wanted the war because Saddam dissed my daddy" argument....

I only said that in theory it would justify an invasion.

0 Replies

Brandon, the attempt on Bush's life was already responded to by Clinton on June 26, 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Quote:

Relations between the United States and Iraq remained tense following the Persian Gulf War. In April of 1993 the Iraqi Intelligence Service attempted to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait. However, Kuwaiti security foiled the car bomb plot. On June 26, 1993 the U.S. launched a missile attack targeting Baghdad intelligence headquarters in retaliation for the attack against President Bush[7][8].

Interesting article that started the thread. I thought the one about being full but determined to finish your plate because you already paid for it, was a good way to illustrate the lame excuse of staying the course because soldiers have already died.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
...begs for an explanation as to how Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush. Please clarify.

Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate Bush senior on a trip to Kuwait in April 1993. You can find it documented on countless Web sites.

You've GOT to be kidding. No one could that POSSIBLY give as a reason for the 2003 invasion. Seriously.

God, will you people pay attention? I didn't give it as a reason for the invasion, Frank did. I merely said that an attempt to assassinate the president would be sufficient reason.

Actually, Brandon...perhaps you ought to pay more attention also.

I did not give this as a reason for the invasion.

Go back and read my post.

And while you are at it...read the hypothetical you offered in response to it.

You clearly implied that this was part of Bush's motivation:

C'mon, Brandon. No way anyone reading my post would come to the conclusion that I am saying Bush invaded Iraq in retaliation for an assassination attempt on his father.

Fact is...my comment "dissed his father" had absolutely nothing to do with an assassination attempt...and apparently I had forgotten about the supposed assassination attempt...if there truly ever was one...and if Saddam Hussein was actually responsible.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I wonder why he has not offered the "I am a blithering idiot who wanted the war because Saddam dissed my daddy" argument....

I only said that in theory it would justify an invasion.

Actually, what you did was to take what I said...quote it...and then went on to something completely different from my comment.

Here is what I said:

Quote:

I wonder why he has not offered the "I am a blithering idiot who wanted the war because Saddam dissed my daddy" argument.

It has one thing going for it that the many others do not. It has a ring of truth.

Here is what you replied:

Quote:

It has nothing to do with Bush's reasons for invading Iraq, which he stated about a thousand times back then, but actually, attempting to assassinate the president is a valid reason for invading another country.

In any case...I will reiterate my advice to you to take your own advice to heart.

Quote:

Actually, Brandon...perhaps you ought to pay more attention also.

I did not give this as a reason for the invasion.

Go back and read my post.

0 Replies

The "sunk-cost" fallacy is ONLY fallacious logic if the costs of continuance outweigh the benefits.

The author of this article does nothing to establish that in this case. What should we call this? The "appeal to unqualified fallacy" fallacy? Laughing

Note: I will respond to refutation with the "appeal to mirth" fallacy.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The "sunk-cost" fallacy is ONLY fallacious logic if the costs of continuance outweigh the benefits.

I'm not sure I agree. Your statement sounds analogous to "The 'witchcraft can kill' fallacy is only fallacious logic if the witch doesn't also use lots of arsenic." There are other reasons aside of wichcraft that may kill people, but that doesn't change the fact that witchcraft doesn't. Likewise, there are other reasons aside of sunk costs that may justify actions, but that doesn't change the fact that sunk costs don't. You can sometimes reach correct conclusions through fallacious logic, but that does not make the logic sound.

0 Replies

"Bush falls victim to a bad new argument for the Iraq war."

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know