What Will We Have Won?

It certainly cannot be denied that Brandon has a simple argument . . . simple, almost simple-minded . . .

What's left? I've stated that I find your positions baffling. When more evidence appears that the intelligence was manipulated and ya'll keep saying "at the time... at the time...."

Brandon, I find your continuous "probability/possibility" argument to be fataly flawed. We've debated the point in the past, yet you keep brining it up despite the fact that you're the only one that thinks it has any relevance. You're conducting a Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, but the whole point of Schrodinger's Cat is that the cat always dies in the real world. In Brandon's WMD experiment, Iraq never has WMD. And the other fatal flaw to your argument is that there were options other than invading. For God's sake, drop it.

Setanta wrote:

It certainly cannot be denied that Brandon has a simple argument . . . simple, almost simple-minded . . .

Simple name calling, not accompanied by an actual argument of any sort. If you're going to call your opponent names, at least make a rational argument too. Even an argument that is simple or simple minded, as you assert mine is, can be correct, and your insult does nothing whatever to challenge the truth of my position. I can only conclude that your position is so indefensible that you must avoid actual on point argument and evidence.

I answered the question posed in this thread by asserting that one thing accomplished by the War is to resolve the possibility that a dangerous dictator still maintained doomsday weapons. Which part of that do you disagree with? If you decline to argue rationally, then the only sensible conclusion is that you lose the debate.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

It certainly cannot be denied that Brandon has a simple argument . . . simple, almost simple-minded . . .

Simple name calling, not accompanied by an actual argument of any sort. If you're going to call your opponent names, at least make a rational argument too. Even an argument that is simple or simple minded, as you assert mine is, can be correct, and your insult does nothing whatever to challenge the truth of my position. I can only conclude that your position is so indefensible that you must avoid actual on point argument and evidence.

I answered the question posed in this thread by asserting that one thing accomplished by the War is to resolve the possibility that a dangerous dictator still maintained doomsday weapons. Which part of that do you disagree with? If you decline to argue rationally, then the only sensible conclusion is that you lose the debate.

DrewDad wrote:

What's left? I've stated that I find your positions baffling. When more evidence appears that the intelligence was manipulated and ya'll keep saying "at the time... at the time...."

Brandon, I find your continuous "probability/possibility" argument to be fataly flawed. We've debated the point in the past, yet you keep brining it up despite the fact that you're the only one that thinks it has any relevance. You're conducting a Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, but the whole point of Schrodinger's Cat is that the cat always dies in the real world. In Brandon's WMD experiment, Iraq never has WMD. And the other fatal flaw to your argument is that there were options other than invading. For God's sake, drop it.

We know that Iraq no longer has WMD precisely because we invaded. Had we not invaded, that would still be only speculation. In view of the extreme danger of these weapons, that is a large gain. The thread asks what we have gained by invading.

McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I know. Then when you don't agree, he just claims one either doesn't understand or, alternately, is incapable of understanding.

You mean... like you do?

Not like I do. I do it supremely well, mocking ridiculous stances and statements. Brandon is just tedious.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

What's left? I've stated that I find your positions baffling. When more evidence appears that the intelligence was manipulated and ya'll keep saying "at the time... at the time...."

Brandon, I find your continuous "probability/possibility" argument to be fataly flawed. We've debated the point in the past, yet you keep brining it up despite the fact that you're the only one that thinks it has any relevance. You're conducting a Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, but the whole point of Schrodinger's Cat is that the cat always dies in the real world. In Brandon's WMD experiment, Iraq never has WMD. And the other fatal flaw to your argument is that there were options other than invading. For God's sake, drop it.

We know that Iraq no longer has WMD precisely because we invaded. Had we not invaded, that would still be only speculation. In view of the extreme danger of these weapons, that is a large gain. The thread asks what we have gained by invading.

I differ in the assessment that WMD posed an "extreme danger." Therefore, no large gain.

But this is an old argument. Let's not rehash it. Again.

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I know. Then when you don't agree, he just claims one either doesn't understand or, alternately, is incapable of understanding.

You mean... like you do?

Not like I do. I do it supremely well, mocking ridiculous stances and statements. Brandon is just tedious.

Yes, I agree that most of your posts are ridiculous stances and statements.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

It certainly cannot be denied that Brandon has a simple argument . . . simple, almost simple-minded . . .

Simple name calling, not accompanied by an actual argument of any sort. If you're going to call your opponent names, at least make a rational argument too. Even an argument that is simple or simple minded, as you assert mine is, can be correct, and your insult does nothing whatever to challenge the truth of my position. I can only conclude that your position is so indefensible that you must avoid actual on point argument and evidence.

I answered the question posed in this thread by asserting that one thing accomplished by the War is to resolve the possibility that a dangerous dictator still maintained doomsday weapons. Which part of that do you disagree with? If you decline to argue rationally, then the only sensible conclusion is that you lose the debate.

That is not a rational argument. Do you understand the concept of debate?

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I know. Then when you don't agree, he just claims one either doesn't understand or, alternately, is incapable of understanding.

You mean... like you do?

Not like I do. I do it supremely well, mocking ridiculous stances and statements. Brandon is just tedious.

Most of your energy is spent explaining why you don't wish to support your position. That is not a characteristic of people who are correct.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

It certainly cannot be denied that Brandon has a simple argument . . . simple, almost simple-minded . . .

Simple name calling, not accompanied by an actual argument of any sort. If you're going to call your opponent names, at least make a rational argument too. Even an argument that is simple or simple minded, as you assert mine is, can be correct, and your insult does nothing whatever to challenge the truth of my position. I can only conclude that your position is so indefensible that you must avoid actual on point argument and evidence.

I answered the question posed in this thread by asserting that one thing accomplished by the War is to resolve the possibility that a dangerous dictator still maintained doomsday weapons. Which part of that do you disagree with? If you decline to argue rationally, then the only sensible conclusion is that you lose the debate.

That is not a rational argument. Do you understand the concept of debate?

Better than you, I suspect.

That is not a rational argument. Do you understand the concept of debate?

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

It certainly cannot be denied that Brandon has a simple argument . . . simple, almost simple-minded . . .

Simple name calling, not accompanied by an actual argument of any sort. If you're going to call your opponent names, at least make a rational argument too. Even an argument that is simple or simple minded, as you assert mine is, can be correct, and your insult does nothing whatever to challenge the truth of my position. I can only conclude that your position is so indefensible that you must avoid actual on point argument and evidence.

I answered the question posed in this thread by asserting that one thing accomplished by the War is to resolve the possibility that a dangerous dictator still maintained doomsday weapons. Which part of that do you disagree with? If you decline to argue rationally, then the only sensible conclusion is that you lose the debate.

That is not a rational argument. Do you understand the concept of debate?

Better than you, I suspect.

Were that true, you would spend most of your energy defending your ideas, rather than insulting or evading.

Witty? Is that what you are calling the drivel you post?

Obviouolsy you have discovered another word that you don't know the definition of.

Brandon9000 wrote:

That is not a rational argument. Do you understand the concept of debate?

...and that is the point we are here making Brandon. Your appeal to rational debate is but an empty call, another expectation that you hold others to but are unwilling to adhere to yourself.
A rational debater would, in the face of evidence and facts released by the administration in question, concede defeat and not continually appeal to ex post facto justifications for their current, and inherently flawed, position of the war.
The concept of debate if to provide pillars in support of your main thesis. You have so far illuminated one, and that pillar has in fact, by all standards and by others of your ilk, been proven false.
That I, and millions of other individuals and dozens of nations, knew in advance what it took hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives for you to realize is only strengthens the anti-war analysis of the conflict.
But, again, you can repeat that I just don't get it, or that I haven't provided any fact on the matter....but you can google "pre-war intelligence", or "iraq intel flawed" and find out that your initial suspicions were invalid from their inception....and until the neo-cons can provide us with something tangible, other than conjecture, with respect to the transfer of a massive and elaborate WMD program, then you hold nothing more than a belief or suspicion without a factual basis erecting it.