What Will We Have Won?

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.

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...

Brandon9000 wrote:

It is invalid and, frankly, odd to try to counter someone's argument by suggesting that they shouldn't have made it in the first place, rather than by referring to the substance of it.

NO, you should reexamine your position rather than maintain that invalid past beliefs should still be relevent to discussion.
If I claim "that A" and A turns out to be false, there is little requisite need to continue defending position A.
When the substance of your argument (re: pre-war WMD intel) has no merit, and has been discussed, as Set mentioned, ad nauseum within these fora, then I fail to see the need to continue in this useless banter.
I still recal your initial statement:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you believe that this is false, then please give a reason, or, indeed, no matter what rationalization you use, you will have lost the argument

Explicitly stating in advance that "no mater what the rationalization, you will have lost the argument" succintly defines your lack of flexibility and your commitment to denying anything put forth without qualification.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You refer to a mountain of logic and evidence supporting your position, yet you never actually mention any of these arguments, but merely suggest that they are well known - once again an invalid argument.

I needn't bring up the discussions or links from threads or conversations that I know you personally participated in. Like I said earlier, you can't see what you're not willing to see.

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

...and not continually appeal to ex post facto justifications for their current, and inherently flawed, position of the war.

On the contrary, it is you who appeal to ex post facto justifications, since you assert that we need not have invaded, since after invading it became known that there were no WMD.

No, ex post facto means "after the fact". I had a belief prior to the invasion and that belief is as valid now as it was then. There were other means of determining whether or not Saddam had a flourishing WMD program, but this was not explored, nor does it seem like it was a veritable option.

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

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...

You merely state that it is generally known that it has been proven false, but never reiterate any of this alleged proof. This is not acceptable debating logic.

We are not here "debating logic", we are debating your illogical and continued support for an invalid premise for war.

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

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....

My God, aren't you ashamed to put forth a defense of your position that if I use Google, I will eventually see that you were right? You are supposed to justify your position, not tell me that Google exists.

Not in the least. You often tacitly claim debate and intellectual superiority over others and I have faith in your intellectual capacities to find that which you have seen in the recent past as arguments supporting my thesis, to the detriment of your own.

I believe they reported they could not find any WMD's, not that he had none. Imagine, Saddam Hussein being devious... what were the odds?

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.

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.

let's just fsay for the sake of argument say that Brandon is right in his assumptions. Balance that against the loss of lives, loss of respect in the world, stretched thin military, bitterly divided citizenry and a due bill that will burden our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Again I ask, what have we won?

candidone1 wrote:

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.

Then "put up."

How 'bout, "Put your money where your mouth is." You like that better?

Tico is making sense now.
Care to elaborate on that question?

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

let's just fsay for the sake of argument say that Brandon is right in his assumptions. Balance that against the loss of lives, loss of respect in the world, stretched thin military, bitterly divided citizenry and a due bill that will burden our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Again I ask, what have we won?

You have won the same thing. The question you may want to ask is "has the price been too high?"

Ticomaya wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

let's just fsay for the sake of argument say that Brandon is right in his assumptions. Balance that against the loss of lives, loss of respect in the world, stretched thin military, bitterly divided citizenry and a due bill that will burden our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Again I ask, what have we won?

You have won the same thing. The question you may want to ask is "has the price been too high?"

if the price is higher than the gain then we have a net loss. couldn't be simpler.

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.

That in itself is of immeasurable value.

A nuke suitcase in Manhattan, because of liberal politics, would be horseshit.