Iran's threat. Iraq's threat. The same old BS or not?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You're probably right Setanta. Cops should probably stop arresting burglars because they can't catch them all. Witless? Brainless? Better descriptions for that blathering if you ask me.

That was not the point, of course, and you know it. The ponit is that catching a single burglar does not end burglary. Catching Hussein has not removed the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction int he middle east.

Your local cop catches the burglar. But he can't prevent buglars from ever breaking into your house again unless he camps out there, 24/7. Which is the only way this idiotic military adventure can assure that no one in Iraq will ever again produce a weapon of mass destruction.

Which is the point, and you knew it. Yes, your thesis is idiotic. Too bad for you if you can't see it.

0 Replies

And Tico has the gall to tell me I'm the one that doesn't understand his views! LOL

0 Replies

Quote:

The cynical explanation for the Bush Administration's threats against Iran is that, like the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, the real objective is "regime change", which has been re-enforced by the slump in President Bush's approval rating to 34 per cent.

The only thing on the political horizon that might restore Republican fortunes is a new and credible national security threat in order to keep control of Congress in the November elections.

If the Republicans lost control of Congress, the way becomes open for hearings into the constitutionality of the Bush Administration's use of wiretaps on Americans without warrants as required by legislation.

The Republican majority in both the Senate and the Reps has blocked examination of the legality of this and other actions by the Bush Administration.

How far the Bush Administration is prepared to go in Iran in order to avoid losing control of Congress to a hostile Democrat majority, which might opt for impeachment, will have fundamental consequences for the global economy in 2006.

url

This could be a logical explanation why Bush Administration's 2002 national security strategy was updated.

0 Replies

I've read an article recently that spoke to the same issue, but went further and stated that the only way Bush to reclaim his presidency was to start a war with Iraq. That's the only way he can regain the support of congress and the country.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Youre " bending the facts" quite a bit.

If I am; I assure you it is not intentional and I most certainly didn't get any pseudo-facts from Rush Limbaugh. I haven't heard him, even accidentally, in over a decade. I'm on your side as far as the natives; maybe even beyond it. When I read that the United States has yet to make good on their court ordered reparations, it turned my stomach. IMO, the surviving islanders who were displaced should be granted citizenship and inexhaustible credit lines to do pretty much whatever they please.

I definitely recall hearing or reading somewhat recently that divers come from around the world to dive around Bikini Atol. I neither heard that from Rush or anyone like him nor did I make it up.

I also recall reading that children were literally playing in the Nuclear dust from an H-Bomb, on the neighboring island where we moved these people (and damn near starved them to death). Many of whom are still alive today... and I believe this substantiates my claim that outside of ground zero; Nukes are not as dangerous as many believe. Does any of this strike you as false?

Setanta wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're probably right Setanta. Cops should probably stop arresting burglars because they can't catch them all. Witless? Brainless? Better descriptions for that blathering if you ask me.

That was not the point, of course, and you know it. The ponit is that catching a single burglar does not end burglary. Catching Hussein has not removed the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction int he middle east.

Your local cop catches the burglar. But he can't prevent buglars from ever breaking into your house again unless he camps out there, 24/7. Which is the only way this idiotic military adventure can assure that no one in Iraq will ever again produce a weapon of mass destruction.

Which is the point, and you knew it. Yes, your thesis is idiotic. Too bad for you if you can't see it.

Were that representative of my thesis, you'd have a point... instead of the obvious Strawman you constructed to base your hyperbole and insults from. I never claimed removing Saddam would keep us safe from Iraq forever. I clearly stated that our action removed the threat of Saddam and whatever WMD aspirations he may have had forever. This remains a simple fact of the matter, not idiocy like your Strawman suggests.

I haven't and wouldn't suggest that any action, against any enemy, would keep us safe from their country of origin forever. I agree completely that that's idiotic, but that came from your imagination, not mine.

0 Replies

No strawman at all, i pointed out already that Hussein was not the source of the threat, but that the Ba'aht Arab Socialist Party was the threat, and that the threat remained whether or not Hussein were in custody, unless we were to maintain an indifinite military presence. It was then that i advanced the analogy about the policeman and the burglar, which you attempted to construe into a strawman.

There are no insults in my post. To call what you write idiotic is not to call you an idiot. For as unpleasant as it may be to you to have it pointed out that you are advancing idiotic notions, it does not constitute insult, at a venue in which people debate such matters. Not only is there no guarantee that you won't be contradicted here, it's a safe bet that it will always happen as a matter of course.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I also recall reading that children were literally playing in the Nuclear dust from an H-Bomb, on the neighboring island where we moved these people (and damn near starved them to death). Many of whom are still alive today... and I believe this substantiates my claim that outside of ground zero; Nukes are not as dangerous as many believe.

This is an argument along the lines of, "well my grandpa smoked all his life and he lived till he was 90 years old, so smoking cant be dangerous like they say it is at all!"

0 Replies

Witless, brainless and idiotic are all rather insulting and inciting by design. None of that hyperbole was necessary, nor used by anyone on this thread prior to your arrival. No worries. I'm well aware of the TOS and will not lose my composure in the face of childish baiting. Your obvious Strawman addressed no point by anyone, and while very defensible, it is a matter of shadow-boxing at best. I realize you like my argument no better, but that doesn't excuse your deliberate misinterpretation of it. I'll be busy working on my new place today; but will happily address any actual points when time allows. Party on.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're probably right Setanta. Cops should probably stop arresting burglars because they can't catch them all. Witless? Brainless? Better descriptions for that blathering if you ask me.

That was not the point, of course, and you know it. The ponit is that catching a single burglar does not end burglary. Catching Hussein has not removed the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction int he middle east.

Your local cop catches the burglar. But he can't prevent buglars from ever breaking into your house again unless he camps out there, 24/7. Which is the only way this idiotic military adventure can assure that no one in Iraq will ever again produce a weapon of mass destruction.

Which is the point, and you knew it. Yes, your thesis is idiotic. Too bad for you if you can't see it.

But if the burglars were to think there are no cops on duty, the number of burglaries would increase.

0 Replies

If burglars were to see the cops tackling only the feeble-minded and inept burglars (Iraq) and going out of their way to avoid the successful and competent burglars (Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel, and any other members of the irresponsible nuclear club whom i might have left out), burglaries would also increase.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

If burglars were to see the cops tackling only the feeble-minded and inept burglars (Iraq) and going out of their way to avoid the successful and competent burglars (Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel, and any other members of the irresponsible nuclear club whom i might have left out), burglaries would also increase.

"irresponsible nuclear club"? What are the qualifications for membership?

Without agreeing with your characterization, you know as well as I that if the cops are seen as never arresting anybody, that would be a far greater incentive for burglaries than if the cops are seen as only arresting the "inept."

0 Replies

No, i know nothing of the sort. At all events, in this case, a better analogy would be to vigilantes who go after someone on the basis of unproven accusation . . . no one elected the United States to the position of world police, and the Shrub offered no proven evidence, just accusations which have since been shown to have been groundless . . .

0 Replies

Cops can't arrest anybody for talking about committing a crime except in special cases. In most cases, some form of evidence is required that a crime is going to take place.

Who's going to judge which persons are going to be arrested for crimes yet not committed? You?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Without agreeing with your characterization, you know as well as I that if the cops are seen as never arresting anybody, that would be a far greater incentive for burglaries than if the cops are seen as only arresting the "inept."

But then, if the cops were only ever seen arresting the inept, that would be a nice incentive for every burglar to become an "untouchable" masterburglar as soon as possible....

0 Replies

whos gets to decide if the cops are corrupt or not ?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, i know nothing of the sort.

Then you appear to be a member of the "Nya-nya-nya-nya, i've got my fingers in my ears, i can't hear you" camp. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Tico, ofcoarse!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cops can't arrest anybody for talking about committing a crime except in special cases. In most cases, some form of evidence is required that a crime is going to take place.

Who's going to judge which persons are going to be arrested for crimes yet not committed? You?

Usually they can be arrested for taking an overt act in furtherance of their crime.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Without agreeing with your characterization, you know as well as I that if the cops are seen as never arresting anybody, that would be a far greater incentive for burglaries than if the cops are seen as only arresting the "inept."

But then, if the cops were only ever seen arresting the inept, that would be a nice incentive for every burglar to become an "untouchable" masterburglar as soon as possible....

True, but there's always the chance the cops will arrest a burglar who is not "inept." Conversely, if the cops never arrest any burglars, the incentive/temptation to burgle multiplies exponentially.

Iran's threat. Iraq's threat. The same old BS or not?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know