Fighting terrorism by rethinking our national policies

DrewDad wrote:

Still waiting for Brandon to either support his accusation or retract it.

I've long since proven my case, and what you suggest above is something I would only do for someone I believed was an honest debater, which I most certainly do not believe about you. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have long ago looked at my post and realized that I meant it literally. You probably did too, but prefer to harass ideas you can never defeat with reason.

This demonstrates clearly the difference between your crowd (many of the board liberals) and mine (many of the board conservatives). By choosing to debate dishonestly, you demonstrate that even you know that your ideas can never stand up to mine in fair, objective debate.

0 Replies

LOL!

You've proven far more about yourself than you have about me.

You've accused me of being dishonest, and failed to provide support for it.

When challenged, you retreat under the sorry excuse that you don't believe me to be an honest debater, rather than retracting the statement as you've so often insisted of others.

Your hypocrisy is showing for all the world to see.

On another note, you seem to feel that opposing your viewpoint is what makes one a "liberal." Yet I fail to notice any strong "conservative" support for your argument. One might consider, then, that you have an "individual" viewpoint, rather than an ideological one.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's #2. I am suggesting that his/her international policy is a continuation of a flawed personal policy.

Then it was an ad hominem argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You cannot defeat my ideas by asking a flurry of intentionally stupid questions, and you can't defeat my ideas by belittling me personally.

That's a rather surprising statement, considering that you just admitted that your response to free4free was an attempt to belittle him/her. It appears you think you can belittle others, but others are not allowed a chance to reply in kind. That certainly makes your claims for wanting an honest debate ring rather hollow.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It's #2. I am suggesting that his/her international policy is a continuation of a flawed personal policy.

Then it was an ad hominem argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:
You cannot defeat my ideas by asking a flurry of intentionally stupid questions, and you can't defeat my ideas by belittling me personally.

That's a rather surprising statement, considering that you just admitted that your response to free4free was an attempt to belittle him/her. It appears you think you can belittle others, but others are not allowed a chance to reply in kind. That certainly makes your claims for wanting an honest debate ring rather hollow.

It certainly contained ad hominem elements, but I have never had much objection to an ad hominem if it is accompanied by an actual, on topic argument, which this was. My point was that his international perspective is comparable to a personal behavior which almost anyone would grant is cowardly.

I await your deliberately obtuse or wrong interpretation of what I just said.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It certainly contained ad hominem elements, but I have never had much objection to an ad hominem if it is accompanied by an actual, on topic argument, which this was. My point was that his international perspective is comparable to a personal behavior which almost anyone would grant is cowardly.

I await your deliberately obtuse or wrong interpretation of what I just said.

Well, I don't know why you'd expect me to give an obtuse or wrong interpretation of what you just said. After all, you just admitted that I was right in identifying your response to free4free as an ad hominem argument. Furthermore, your admission that you were comparing f4f's perspective on international terrorism with his/her personal behavior means that you were, at the very least, attempting to create an analogy, if not a metaphor.

0 Replies

7 pages and only afew posts regarding the actual topic, thats crazy.

anyway Brandon9000 please take a look at this.

WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz

Quote:

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"
Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.

there goes your WMD theory.

0 Replies

freedom4free wrote:

7 pages and only afew posts regarding the actual topic, thats crazy...

Blame your friends, who think that asking a flurry of stupid questions about a relatively straightforward post is a valid debate technique.

freedom4free wrote:

...anyway Brandon9000 please take a look at this.

WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz

Quote:

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"
Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.

there goes your WMD theory.

Not at all, since my theory is not dependant on what the Bush administration said. Iraq had had the weapons, and programs to perfect them, and had hidden them and lied about them for years. Now Hussein was saying that the WMD were all gone, but that somehow he had no physical evidence of it. Even that alone created a reasonable chance that he was continuing to hide them. A reasonable chance of WMD being amassed by an evil madman is a very grave danger.

You liberals don't seem to realize that this wasn't an isolated incident peculiar to Bush, but just the leading edge of an iceberg. As the technological ante for creating these superweapons decreases with world technological progress, more and less sophisticated entities will attempt to create WMD. Situations similar to the Iraq one will occur again, and invasions will be necessary.

0 Replies

So... I'm hearing a desire to implement an international police state in an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

So... I'm hearing a desire to implement an international police state in an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.

A demand that a very small number of particulalry odious dictatorships not stockpile WMD is a reasonable precaution against period obliterations of world cities. If you're upset about the deaths in Iraq, then one would think you'd also be concerned about a series of new Hiroshimas (either nuke or bio). WMD technology absolutely has the potential to get out of control.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

As the technological ante for creating these superweapons decreases with world technological progress, more and less sophisticated entities will attempt to create WMD.

If we follow this logic, don't we find that WMD will eventually be obtainable by very small groups? It doesn't require a dictator then. According to you, invasion is the preferred method of containing WMD, so we'll need to invade a whole lot of places.

Let's save time and declare the United States of America and Annexed Provinces.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
As the technological ante for creating these superweapons decreases with world technological progress, more and less sophisticated entities will attempt to create WMD.

If we follow this logic, don't we find that WMD will eventually be obtainable by very small groups? It doesn't require a dictator then. According to you, invasion is the preferred method of containing WMD, so we'll need to invade a whole lot of places.

Let's save time and declare the United States of America and Annexed Provinces.

Yes, WMD will eventually be obtainable by very small groups. Invasion is by no means the preferred method. Negotiation and treaty are. But invasion is an acceptable method at some point, considering the potential consequences of a nuclear, or biological, or even chemical 9/11.

0 Replies

Fighting terrorism by rethinking our national policies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know