What Will We Have Won?

Brandon, you can pout all you want--i did not call you any names, i described the position you have articulated, ad nauseum, for years as simple-minded. I frankly don't care if you like. Tico and McG and you can get on your high horses all you like--those of us who don't buy your causus belli nonsense are tired of the same faded, shop-worn and bankrupt arguments--so we call them silly, which they are, and don't bother to hash them out with you for the umpteenth time, because it obviously doesn't sink in. Get over it.

candidone1 wrote:

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.

You must not have read my post .... HERE.

Tico, if you believe the car salesman but the car ends up being a lemon, do you simply shrug and say, "well, I made a deal" or do you think the car salesman shouldn't have lied?

Ticomaya wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

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.

You must not have read my post .... HERE.

No need to double post Tico. I saw it.
The fact remains that the document you have here cited twice is illegitimate as it hinges much of its advice on faulty intel.
We are here talking about the fact that old evidence has become invalid, and therefore, rendering them a flase belief, based on facts that have been released by the same administration who released the ones you have just cited.
If Bush peddled himself as a heterosexual male during his presidential campaign but later weds Joaquim Phoenix, he is no longer a heterosexual male regardless of what you believed prior to the tying of the knot.
You can't see what you're not willing to see, and no mountain of facts seems to be able to convince you, Brandon or McG.

I understand that you initially believed the intel and you are not being condemned for that. It just defies common sense to not take advantage of hindsight and say that your previous beliefs were false, and are therefore false from that time in history to this point in time and onward.

DrewDad wrote:

Tico, if you believe the car salesman but the car ends up being a lemon, do you simply shrug and say, "well, I made a deal" or do you think the car salesman shouldn't have lied?

When you have your own mechanic check out the car before you bought it, and it turns out to be a lemon, why do you refuse to acknowledge that your mechanic was wrong too?

But you are not willing to just claim the intel was faulty, you claim it was manipulated, or worse that Bush lied. Prove it. Right now. Put up or shut up.

candidone1 wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

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.

You must not have read my post .... HERE.

No need to double post Tico. I saw it.
The fact remains that the document you have here cited twice is illegitimate as it hinges much of its advice on faulty intel.
We are here talking about the fact that old evidence has become invalid, and therefore, rendering them a flase belief, based on facts that have been released by the same administration who released the ones you have just cited.
If Bush peddled himself as a heterosexual male during his presidential campaign but later weds Joaquim Phoenix, he is no longer a heterosexual male regardless of what you believed prior to the tying of the knot.
You can't see what you're not willing to see, and no mountain of facts seems to be able to convince you, Brandon or McG.

I understand that you initially believed the intel and you are not being condemned for that. It just defies common sense to not take advantage of hindsight and say that your previous beliefs were false, and are therefore false from that time in history to this point in time and onward.

But you are not willing to just claim the intel was faulty, you claim it was manipulated, or worse that Bush lied. Prove it. Right now. Put up or shut up.

Ticomaya wrote:

But you are not willing to just claim the intel was faulty, you claim it was manipulated, or worse that Bush lied. Prove it. Right now. Put up or shut up.

You're being dodgy my friend.
Direct me to the portion of my contribution where I have said this and I will defend the statement.
Otherwise, telling me to shut up is a violation of the TOS, and you know better.

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Tico, if you believe the car salesman but the car ends up being a lemon, do you simply shrug and say, "well, I made a deal" or do you think the car salesman shouldn't have lied?

When you have your own mechanic check out the car before you bought it, and it turns out to be a lemon, why do you refuse to acknowledge that your mechanic was wrong too?

That would make more sense if one's mechanic really got to look at the car.

Ticomaya wrote:

But you are not willing to just claim the intel was faulty, you claim it was manipulated, or worse that Bush lied. Prove it. Right now. Put up or shut up.

You're being dodgy my friend.
Direct me to the portion of my contribution where I have said this and I will defend the statement.

But you're asking us to heed evidence that was created and propagandized by this administration.

Otherwise, telling me to shut up is a violation of the TOS, and you know better.

So, the "mechanic" is the Bush administration? and "I" am the American citizen?
If I have this analogy right, then Tico is claiming that the "Mechanic" has taken a look at the car right? ...and what did he find?

If the "Mechanic" is the Bush administration, then why is there a difference in what they claimed upon the first inspection, and what we are now knowing about the car after having put it in our garage?

It's a lemon, and the whole block now smells it's rank odor and hears it's squealing brakes. I would be going after the salesman and the mechanic with tooth and nail for thier deception, or professional ignorance.
I mean, there were telltale signs that this auto could have been a lemon, but I had professionals to aid me in my decision making, and they failed me. Now I'm out a few hundred billion dollars.

candidone1 wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

But you are not willing to just claim the intel was faulty, you claim it was manipulated, or worse that Bush lied. Prove it. Right now. Put up or shut up.

You're being dodgy my friend.
Direct me to the portion of my contribution where I have said this and I will defend the statement.

Okay:

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1716323#1716323]Earlier, CanadaDry[/url] wrote:

But you're asking us to heed evidence that was created and propagandized by this administration.

As I said: "Put up or shut up."

Otherwise, telling me to shut up is a violation of the TOS, and you know better.

Prove it.

Check out the downing street memo.
If you want to invetigate the possibility that the intel was fixed:
Downing Street Momo @ Wiki