Bush's Empty threats

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

An evil madman, fond of annexing neighbors, with an arsenal of weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people would indeed represent a danger.

It's foolish to let a muderer have a submachine gun, and take action only after he's killed more people with it.

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

Brandon, when exactly has the UN threatened Iraq with military action and not acted upon the threat?

Please provide a link.

Never. They make vague empty threats of serious consequences. For instance, in 1993:

Quote:

The council declared that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. on the weapons issues "constitutes a material and unacceptable breach" of the gulf war cease-fire terms and it warned of "serious consequences" if Baghdad does not comply.

No, it's an addition to the constant stream of misreprentations

Source

Good. So for twelve years the UN has never threatened Iraq with military action, and that's why Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003. Is that a correct representation of your point of view?

No, it's another in a steady stream of misrepresentations of my point of view by liberals. As I have made abundantly clear in this thread, my view is that it is ironic to criticize the president for making empty threats against would be nuclear powers when the thing he has been most often criticized for duing the past few years is making good on such threats in a similar situation, while those around him seemed content to make only empty threats.

tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

when exactly has the UN threatened Iraq with military action

Never.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

An evil madman, fond of annexing neighbors, with an arsenal of weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people would indeed represent a danger. It's foolish to let a muderer have a submachine gun, and take action only after he's killed more people with it.

So why not kill ALL the evil madmen, then, in CASE they MIGHT attack someone? When would you stop the killing? Where would you draw the line? Yours is a nonsensical position.

Brandon, where's your evidence that the UN threatened Iraq "for years and years?" You haven't provided that evidence.

As for going off topic, for derailing the thread, Au didn't refer to "several" countries with womd programs, he referred to two. Alleging that ". . . since Bush's critics have blamed him for finally tiring of the UN's empty threats and acting."--is a strawman, because you haven't demonstrated that anyone here has done that. Even if Au or i have criticized the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad for their ham-handed and unjustified invasion of Iraq, you have no basis to allege that either of us has ever agreed that the Shrub did so because he finally tired of the U.N.'s "empty threats." That's the pony you're attempting to ride, you can't hang that one on Au or on me.

You alleged that the Shrub acted after years and years of empty threats from the UN. You have failed to substantiate your allegation.

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

Setanta wrote:

Brandon, where's your evidence that the UN threatened Iraq "for years and years?" You haven't provided that evidence.

As for going off topic, for derailing the thread, Au didn't refer to "several" countries with womd programs, he referred to two. Alleging that ". . . since Bush's critics have blamed him for finally tiring of the UN's empty threats and acting."--is a strawman, because you haven't demonstrated that anyone here has done that. Even if Au or i have criticized the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad for their ham-handed and unjustified invasion of Iraq, you have no basis to allege that either of us has ever agreed that the Shrub did so because he finally tired of the U.N.'s "empty threats." That's the pony you're attempting to ride, you can't hang that one on Au or on me.

You alleged that the Shrub acted after years and years of empty threats from the UN. You have failed to substantiate your allegation.

I agree with you Setana.

Brandon has failed to substantiate his allegation. Regardless, his allegation is without merit or relevance. N. Korea and Iran are laughing at Bush because he's a fool. He has proven impotent in his war effort.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

An evil madman, fond of annexing neighbors, with an arsenal of weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people would indeed represent a danger. It's foolish to let a muderer have a submachine gun, and take action only after he's killed more people with it.

So now we have the right to attack another country in order to defend ourselves against the possibility of a threat?

Debra Law wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Brandon, where's your evidence that the UN threatened Iraq "for years and years?" You haven't provided that evidence.

As for going off topic, for derailing the thread, Au didn't refer to "several" countries with womd programs, he referred to two. Alleging that ". . . since Bush's critics have blamed him for finally tiring of the UN's empty threats and acting."--is a strawman, because you haven't demonstrated that anyone here has done that. Even if Au or i have criticized the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad for their ham-handed and unjustified invasion of Iraq, you have no basis to allege that either of us has ever agreed that the Shrub did so because he finally tired of the U.N.'s "empty threats." That's the pony you're attempting to ride, you can't hang that one on Au or on me.

You alleged that the Shrub acted after years and years of empty threats from the UN. You have failed to substantiate your allegation.

I agree with you Setana.

Shocking. In any case, now you can count yourself just as wrong as he was. Congrats.

Quote:

Brandon has failed to substantiate his allegation. Regardless, his allegation is without merit or relevance. N. Korea and Iran are laughing at Bush because he's a fool. He has proven impotent in his war effort.

Hardly. The war was a success. You must mean he has proven impotent in his peace effort.

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

An evil madman, fond of annexing neighbors, with an arsenal of weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people would indeed represent a danger. It's foolish to let a muderer have a submachine gun, and take action only after he's killed more people with it.

So now we have the right to attack another country in order to defend ourselves against the possibility of a threat?

Yes. We have the right to stop extremely dangerous people from acquiring doomsday weapons.

I'm a little nutty and I'm on my way to the gun shop. Shoot me now!

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

Brandon, when exactly has the UN threatened Iraq with military action and not acted upon the threat?

Please provide a link.

Never. They make vague empty threats of serious consequences. For instance, in 1993:

Quote:

The council declared that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. on the weapons issues "constitutes a material and unacceptable breach" of the gulf war cease-fire terms and it warned of "serious consequences" if Baghdad does not comply.

No, it's an addition to the constant stream of misreprentations

Source

Good. So for twelve years the UN has never threatened Iraq with military action, and that's why Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003. Is that a correct representation of your point of view?

No, it's another in a steady stream of misrepresentations of my point of view by liberals. As I have made abundantly clear in this thread, my view is that it is ironic to criticize the president for making empty threats against would be nuclear powers when the thing he has been most often criticized for duing the past few years is making good on such threats in a similar situation, while those around him seemed content to make only empty threats.

Oh, sorry. I don't want to misrepresent your point of view, merely understand it. I'll try again. I commented on this statement of yours that Bush was

Brandon9000 wrote:

tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

Regarding the UN's threats, my question was

old europe wrote:

when exactly has the UN threatened Iraq with military action

Your answer was

Brandon9000 wrote:

Never.

So, regarding your original statement I was commenting on and following our conversation, I'll try again to paraphrase what you said:

For twelve years the UN has never threatened Iraq with military action. Bush grew tired of that and invaded Iraq.

Better?

You interpreted my remarks as a characterisation of your argument. That is hilarious.

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

An evil madman, fond of annexing neighbors, with an arsenal of weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people would indeed represent a danger. It's foolish to let a muderer have a submachine gun, and take action only after he's killed more people with it.

So now we have the right to attack another country in order to defend ourselves against the possibility of a threat?

Yes. We have the right to stop extremely dangerous people from acquiring doomsday weapons.

I don't think that qualifies as self-defense, nevermind the fact that "dangerous" is a a tad ambiguous. Dangerous to who? Dangerous how?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

Well said, Cycloptichorn.

Forfeiting? Is this a contest?

You deliberately chose a lighthearted joking post to respond to and ignored serious posts. I assume that's because you can't respond to the serious arguments?