OCCOM BILL wrote:
Your argument, which appears to be what O'Bill was advancing and which seems to be what McG is advancing, is that having effected "regime change" in Iraq, there will never, ever be any reason in the future to fear that anyone in Iraq will develop womd, world without end amen.
Pure fantasy from the mind of Setanta. Go on ignoring the fact that no one said never, and that this was already pointed out to you. Go on accusing others of specious logic while transforming their arguments into weaker, indefensible positions and then grandstanding about how much smarter you are. This is textbook Strawman building, and since you love accusing others of building them so much; perhaps it's time you learn the definition.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. (URL removed as needless to the refutation)
I know and have long known the meaning of a strawman. That you choose to misapply the term here does not sustain your accusation. My point throughout this thread, and which i was making when i addressed someone else
, was that the invasion of Iraq, and any invasion and occupation of Iran which might be attempted, cannot guarantee that either of those nations will never develop and deploy womd. I'm not constructing a strawman, because i have not asserted that you claim the simple invasion of Iraq and the establishment of a putatively democratic government will assure us of eternal freedom from such a threat--i used the verb "to seem," as in "seems to be" and "to appear" as in "appears to be" precisely because i was not stating for a fact that that is what you contend. The rest of your response is simply snide vitriol, complete with derogatory characterizations of the style of my presentation, and suggestions that you are better informed about logical fallacies than am i.
My argument has been and remains that military action cannot provide anything other than a temporary assurance that no womd will be developed or deployed, unless provision is made for permanently, militarily occupying the target nations. Failing that, the use of military means such as was done in Iraq is only a temporary palliative, which provides no longer term solution to the problem of an alleged threat to our nation (no proof has ever been forthcoming that Iraq possessed womd, nor that Iraq intended to target the United States; no proof is presently forthcoming that Iran intends to target the United States with womd). Basically, here, you have indulged in the sort of sneering personal attack of which you are so fond of accusing me.
There is not only no reason to believe that, but your example of the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1978 gives good reason to believe that the thesis is fatally flawed.
Only if one indulges in Setanta's fantasy that opponent's words should be promoted to absurd extremes. Otherwise; a rational person could conclude that the nukes Saddam nearly created prior to the first Gulf War may well have been completed and used prior to that action, had his ambitions not been thwarted. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)
You are by inference suggesting that i am not a rational person, part and parcel of your decision to indulge in the sort of invidious characterization of one's interlocutor of which you are fond of accusing me. My point was that the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1978 failed to end the program to produce womd by the Ba'athists in Iraq, and therefore not only does not prove that military action is effective, but can be inferred to demonstrate that such military actions are ultimately ineffective, precisely because they cannot permanently guarantee an end to attempts to develop and deploy womd.
A stirling example of the pot and kettle conundrum, however.