DrewDad wrote:Brandon,
You simply repeat your argument as if that makes a whit of difference. ....
I certainly won't make a whit of difference with you. Nevertheless, it remains a good argument.
No it isn't--it's a feeble argument, predicated upon a contention that Hussein was known to have womds and womd programs, and was not cooperating with inspectors. Inspectors on site said there was no evidence of womds or womd programs, and that the Iraqis were cooperating. Subsequent to the invasion, that testimony has been borne out by the failure to find evidence of the womd and womd programs.
It's a horseshit argument.
DrewDad wrote:Brandon,
You simply repeat your argument as if that makes a whit of difference. You and Bernie are certainly on the same page.
As opposed to you, whose arguments change so much from week to week. Pardon me so much for not acceding to your superior viewpoint. Your primary method of advancing your views is still to try to impeach the poster, and give rationalizations for why you creep off in fear from arguments you cannot oppose head on.
parados wrote:...
Brandon9000 wrote:Furthermore, as technology marches on and WMD come within the reach of less sophisticated groups, this scenario will play out again and again, and some of the time, people who promise that they are not seeking WMD, will be doing so in secret, as the North Koreans did.
Hmm
Saddam promised he wouldn't. You claim he did in secret. That would mean anyone that promises not to acquire WMD can be accused of doing it in secret and the mere mention that they might be is a risk assessment. Complete BS Brandon.
I said that in the future,
some of the people who claim that they are not developing WMD will be. I certainly do not claim that the mere ability to accuse constitutes a real risk. I claim that if, based on facts, there
actually is a moderate chance that an evil dictator is developing nukes and bioweapons, and a moderate chance that he could succeed within the next few years, this constitutes an immense risk. Even a 1% chance of a major American city being obliterated is a very serious danger. You don't need to solve a differential equation to be able to say, correctly, that a situation is dangerous.
Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:Brandon,
You simply repeat your argument as if that makes a whit of difference. You and Bernie are certainly on the same page.
As opposed to you, whose arguments change so much from week to week. Pardon me so much for not acceding to your superior viewpoint. Your primary method of advancing your views is still to try to impeach the poster, and give rationalizations for why you creep off in fear from arguments you cannot oppose head on.
No, I make fun of those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
As my day-to-day work is that of implementing network security for financial institutions, and part of that is to supply risk assessments, let me assure you that your assertion here is pure horse crap.
Setanta wrote:It's a horseshit argument.
No, it's a fabulous argument.
xingu wrote:Well with that kind of logic I suppose our president could take this course of action.
Bush: Venezuela is developing a nuclear bomb.
A2K conservative drones: There's no evidence of that.
Bush: Yes there is. They're doing it in secret. We have very reliable sources that told us so. But the source is secret so I can't tell you where I got the information from.
A2K conservative drones: Oh, OK George. We believe you. You've been right about everything so far. And we know you would never lie or mislead us.
Have you forgotten that Saddam Hussein actually did have development programs for WMD? Have you forgotten perhaps that he signed a treaty promising to destroy the weapons and dismantle the programs? The only question is how recently. Your analogy sucks.
DrewDad wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:Brandon,
You simply repeat your argument as if that makes a whit of difference. You and Bernie are certainly on the same page.
As opposed to you, whose arguments change so much from week to week. Pardon me so much for not acceding to your superior viewpoint. Your primary method of advancing your views is still to try to impeach the poster, and give rationalizations for why you creep off in fear from arguments you cannot oppose head on.
No, I make fun of those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
As my day-to-day work is that of implementing network security for financial institutions, and part of that is to supply risk assessments, let me assure you that your assertion here is pure horse crap.
Arguments from authority are invalid. You're still running from a simple dignified debate on the content of the arguments.
Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:Brandon,
You simply repeat your argument as if that makes a whit of difference. You and Bernie are certainly on the same page.
As opposed to you, whose arguments change so much from week to week. Pardon me so much for not acceding to your superior viewpoint. Your primary method of advancing your views is still to try to impeach the poster, and give rationalizations for why you creep off in fear from arguments you cannot oppose head on.
No, I make fun of those who refuse to acknowledge reality.
As my day-to-day work is that of implementing network security for financial institutions, and part of that is to supply risk assessments, let me assure you that your assertion here is pure horse crap.
Arguments from authority are invalid. You're still running from a simple dignified debate on the content of the arguments.
My argument is not from authority; it is an argument from experience. Others can look to our positions and determine their relative merits for themselves.
Again: your statement that the Iraq war was justified on the basis of "a possibility" of WMD is fallacious. You fail to address the point that there were other, less expensive, measures that could be taken that would have essentially the same result. You also fail to address the actual risk involved, as you are completely unable to do so.
When you are prepared to actually discuss these items, I will be happy to continue talking over the issue with you. If you instead continue your usual tactics of "ignore and repeat previous message" then I shall continue to deride you.
P.S. Tico, I know you enjoy taunting Setanta, but you're
really on the wrong side of this one.
Brandon9000 wrote:Have you forgotten perhaps that he signed a treaty promising to destroy the weapons and dismantle the programs? The only question is how recently. Your analogy sucks.
Actually, Hussein signed no such treaty. The requirement to destroy weapons was embodied in Security Council resoutions. None of the resolutions provided for direct military action by any member of the seucurity council on an allegation of non-compliance.
You just make it up as you go along, as for example with your constant refrain that he was known to have weapons of mass destruction.
To repeat, there were inspectors in the country. Those inspectors said there was no evidence of womd, no evidence of womd programs. Those inspectors said the Iraqis were cooperating. Your hysterical doomsday scenario has not a shred of support from the facts of the situation prior to March 20, 2003. You just stick you fingers in your ears, and repeat the same old tired, horseshit and bankrupt argument, and never--repeat never--respond to the cogent criticism presented against it.
Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:It's a horseshit argument.
No, it's a fabulous argument.
Can you identify the elements that make it "fabulous?" I would not have thought that you would find polished turds esthetically pleasing.
DrewDad wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:It's a horseshit argument.
No, it's a fabulous argument.
Can you identify the elements that make it "fabulous?"
Sure ... pretty much all of this part:
Brandon9000 wrote:These are some of the facts:
1. An evil dictator, in the habit of trying to annex his neighbors, had development programs for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
2. He promised by treaty to disarm, but instead lied, blocked, and obfuscated for years.
3. Now, a dozen years down the road, he was once again claiming cooperation. He claimed to have destroyed the weapons and programs, but had no really convincing proof. One couldn't really say whether he was telling the truth or lying again.
The inevitable conclusion was that there was a non-trivial probability that he was still hiding WMD programs and still lying about it. There was also a non-trivial probability that he was now, finally, telling the truth, although oddly, he had no convincing evidence, like the remains of the destroyed weapons, film of the labs being disassembled, etc.
You say:
Quote:Saying there is "a danger" does not quantify the danger.
How much danger was there? Even a small chance of nukes and bioweapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein would be a colossal danger, and clearly there was a reasonable chance that he was continuing to hide the weapons and programs. In the real world, you can't always quantify the danger with numbers, but clearly the incredible lethality of weapons of this class create a very large danger, even based on, say, a 5% chance that he had them (I am not saying this is the number, only giving a for instance.) The idea that if someone cannot put a number to the danger, there is no danger is baloney.
You say:
Quote:You present a false dilemma. It is not simply a choice between invade or risk a nuclear bomb.
No, it's a real dilemma. There were only just so many possible solutions. We could have continued to rely on the inspections, even though a dozen years had yielded no conclusive result. However, there was a range of possible scenarios, and had Hussein been stalling for time until his development programs reached fruition, the world might have paid a terrible, terrible price.
Furthermore, as technology marches on and WMD come within the reach of less sophisticated groups, this scenario will play out again and again, and some of the time, people who promise that they are not seeking WMD, will be doing so in secret, as the North Koreans did.
DD wrote:I would not have thought that you would find polished turds esthetically pleasing.
My calling it "fabulous" is not a reflection of its aesthetics.
fabulous
adj
1: extremely pleasing; "a fabulous vacation" [syn: fab]
2: based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity; "mythical centaurs"; "the fabulous unicorn" [syn: mythic, mythical, mythologic, mythological]
3: barely credible; "the fabulous endurance of a marathon runner"
Sorry, I thought you were using the first definition, not two or three....
Mr. Ticomaya: You are right on target.
I need not remind you that there were voices in the latter part of the the 1930's who felt that Hitler was also not a threat the world peace.
The discussion about WMD's has gone around and around. The fact that the Intelligence Services of the countries of Germany, Britain and, yes, France, agreed with the estimate that Saddam had WMD's is definitive.
The guess, by Drew Dad, that there could have been other steps taken that would have been more efficient and effective against Iraq other than invasion, is a estimate which reminds me of that great statesman, Neville Chamberlain, who after wresting an "agreement" from Adolf Hitler( Camberlain actually thought that Hitler was a gentleman and would keep his promise, just as, some of the left may have thought that Saddam would keep his word) later came to regret it.
I must confess, Mr.Ticomaya, that I don't believe for one single moment, that Drew Dad is coming from what might be called a principled stance against war/ I am certain that most of the sniping is coming from the sad and clueless Democrats who lost power and will propagate any lies, even those which will hurt their own country, to regain that power.
But, Mr.Ticomaya, I must tell you that I know that we needed to invade Iraq. I know that we needed to invade Iraq and remove Saddam out of power because the most brilliant foreign policy wonk told us, the American People, in a speech he made in December 1998.
William Jefferson Clinton, surely a brilliant man and a foreign policy wonk of the first order, told us that Saddam Hussein was A DANGER TO THE PEACE OF THE WORLD AND HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!!!
Mr. Ticomaya: You are right on target.
I need not remind you that there were voices in the latter part of the the 1930's who felt that Hitler was also not a threat the world peace.
The discussion about WMD's has gone around and around. The fact that the Intelligence Services of the countries of Germany, Britain and, yes, France, agreed with the estimate that Saddam had WMD's is definitive.
The guess, by Drew Dad, that there could have been other steps taken that would have been more efficient and effective against Iraq other than invasion, is a estimate which reminds me of that great statesman, Neville Chamberlain, who after wresting an "agreement" from Adolf Hitler( Camberlain actually thought that Hitler was a gentleman and would keep his promise, just as, some of the left may have thought that Saddam would keep his word) later came to regret it.
I must confess, Mr.Ticomaya, that I don't believe for one single moment, that Drew Dad is coming from what might be called a principled stance against war/ I am certain that most of the sniping is coming from the sad and clueless Democrats who lost power and will propagate any lies, even those which will hurt their own country, to regain that power.
But, Mr.Ticomaya, I must tell you that I know that we needed to invade Iraq. I know that we needed to invade Iraq and remove Saddam out of power because the most brilliant foreign policy wonk told us, the American People, in a speech he made in December 1998.
William Jefferson Clinton, surely a brilliant man and a foreign policy wonk of the first order, told us that Saddam Hussein was A DANGER TO THE PEACE OF THE WORLD AND HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!!!
Mr. Ticomaya: You are right on target.
I need not remind you that there were voices in the latter part of the the 1930's who felt that Hitler was also not a threat the world peace.
The discussion about WMD's has gone around and around. The fact that the Intelligence Services of the countries of Germany, Britain and, yes, France, agreed with the estimate that Saddam had WMD's is definitive.
The guess, by Drew Dad, that there could have been other steps taken that would have been more efficient and effective against Iraq other than invasion, is a estimate which reminds me of that great statesman, Neville Chamberlain, who after wresting an "agreement" from Adolf Hitler( Camberlain actually thought that Hitler was a gentleman and would keep his promise, just as, some of the left may have thought that Saddam would keep his word) later came to regret it.
I must confess, Mr.Ticomaya, that I don't believe for one single moment, that Drew Dad is coming from what might be called a principled stance against war/ I am certain that most of the sniping is coming from the sad and clueless Democrats who lost power and will propagate any lies, even those which will hurt their own country, to regain that power.
But, Mr.Ticomaya, I must tell you that I know that we needed to invade Iraq. I know that we needed to invade Iraq and remove Saddam out of power because the most brilliant foreign policy wonk told us, the American People, in a speech he made in December 1998.
William Jefferson Clinton, surely a brilliant man and a foreign policy wonk of the first order, told us that Saddam Hussein was A DANGER TO THE PEACE OF THE WORLD AND HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!!!
Sorry the triple posting. However, it may be good for those who do not read well and for those with poor eyesight.
