What Will We Have Won?

Back with a response to your "Downing Street Memo" nonsense.

put up or shut up Slang
To have to endure (something unpleasant) without complaining or take the action necessary to remove the source of the unpleasantry.

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...

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....

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

There comes a time to admit that certain people are unwilling to engage in debate. These folks tend to apply different standards to their own posts than they do to others' posts. They tend to ignore inconvenient questions. They are interested in attacking other, rather than persuading. They tend to retreat into pedantry when called on their crap.

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.

Your argument here seems to be that were I rational, I would know that you were right. This is invalid debating logic.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your argument here seems to be that were I rational, I would know that you were right. This is invalid debating logic.

No, my assertion is that you do not debate; you attempt to brow-beat any opposition to your ideas.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your argument here seems to be that were I rational, I would know that you were right. This is invalid debating logic.

No, my assertion is that you do not debate; you attempt to brow-beat any opposition to your ideas.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about your assessment of my personal qualities and address the substance of my position? You won't, of course, because you can't.

Here is my position:

What will have been gained is certainty that there will not be a terrible dictator in Iraq amassing doomsday weapons and operating programs to perfect them. Before there was only guesswork.

If you're unwilling to provide support for your positions, then just stop talking. The suggestion that it is beneath you to support your ideas in a debating forum is specious.

I feel an obligation to report what seems like inappropriate language directed toward me. It's not that I have thin skin, rather, it's to help maintain some degree of interity between strangers within these fora--a cyber-locale where many people feel that it's appropriate to respond in ways that they would otherwise choose not to.
You want to define "put or shut up" and I simply ask to not be told to shut up, regardless of the means by which you intend justify it.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your argument here seems to be that were I rational, I would know that you were right. This is invalid debating logic.

No, my assertion is that you do not debate; you attempt to brow-beat any opposition to your ideas.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about your assessment of my personal qualities and address the substance of my position? You won't, of course, because you can't.

Here is my position:

What will have been gained is certainty that there will not be a terrible dictator in Iraq amassing doomsday weapons and operating programs to perfect them. Before there was only guesswork.

So, then, you believe that prior to the invasion, there was certainty that the WMD had been destroyed and the programs stopped? Either there was certainty or there was speculation.


No, Brandon, before there was not "only guesswork."

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you're unwilling to provide support for your positions, then just stop talking. The suggestion that it is beneath you to support your ideas in a debating forum is specious.

This is horsie poop because you're displaying a selective memory. All of us here have provided solid refutation for your paranoid arguments again and again. To come in here each time with the same idiotic argument, and act as if it had not been refuted and laughed to ridicule years gone by is exactly the same tactic the Creationists use when they wait a few dozen pages in a thread and introduce the same specious, invalid arguments against evolution. That is your tactic here, and it is your position which is therefore specious.

Your crapola has been shown to be crapola long ago.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your argument here seems to be that were I rational, I would know that you were right. This is invalid debating logic.

No, my assertion is that you do not debate; you attempt to brow-beat any opposition to your ideas.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about your assessment of my personal qualities and address the substance of my position? You won't, of course, because you can't.

Here is my position:

What will have been gained is certainty that there will not be a terrible dictator in Iraq amassing doomsday weapons and operating programs to perfect them. Before there was only guesswork.

No, Brandon, before there was not "only guesswork."

OMG, Since I went to bed AT 9:00 the Republicans on this site took over this thread with their drivel and personal atacks and made it a totaly useless...

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your argument here seems to be that were I rational, I would know that you were right. This is invalid debating logic.

No, my assertion is that you do not debate; you attempt to brow-beat any opposition to your ideas.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about your assessment of my personal qualities and address the substance of my position? You won't, of course, because you can't.

Here is my position:

What will have been gained is certainty that there will not be a terrible dictator in Iraq amassing doomsday weapons and operating programs to perfect them. Before there was only guesswork.

No, Brandon, before there was not "only guesswork."

So, then, you believe that prior to the invasion, there was certainty that the WMD had been destroyed and the programs stopped? Either there was certainty or there was speculation.
(Since we can no longer correct our posting errors, I am re-posting this correctly.)

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your argument here seems to be that were I rational, I would know that you were right. This is invalid debating logic.

No, my assertion is that you do not debate; you attempt to brow-beat any opposition to your ideas.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about your assessment of my personal qualities and address the substance of my position? You won't, of course, because you can't.

Here is my position:

What will have been gained is certainty that there will not be a terrible dictator in Iraq amassing doomsday weapons and operating programs to perfect them. Before there was only guesswork.

No, Brandon, before there was not "only guesswork."

So, then, you believe that prior to the invasion, there was certainty that the WMD had been destroyed and the programs stopped? Either there was certainty or there was speculation.
(Since we can no longer correct our posting errors, I am re-posting this correctly.)

It is not a binary situation where one has certainty or "only guesswork."

The weapons inspectors on the ground reported that Iraq did not have WMD ready to deploy. Saddam Hussein was allowing inspections under threat of invasion.

Do I think we needed a credible threat of invasion to make Saddam knuckle under? Yes.
I do not believe that an actual invasion was necessary to assure that he was unable to attack the US.

So there was not "only guesswork." There was solid information that Hussein did not have WMD. So I do not see that information regarding WMD is a benefit of the war.

Translation: People who don't agree with you have posted their opinions. You wish the right to post your opinions unchallenged, and when they are challenged, you whine that it's unfair. Boo hoo. What a crybaby. Is there a single liberal on the site who will simply debate on point and not spend all his time whining that his opponents must stop talking?

Your other questions certainly deserve an answer, but I simply lack the time at this moment.

On the contrary. I have defeated your arguments numerous times.