1
   

Bush's Empty threats

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 03:29 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law 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


Well said, Cycloptichorn.


"Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down." - Cycloptichorn

So, if they smuggled a nuke into New York City in pieces, then reassembled and detonated it, that wouldn't be the kind of thing we should seek to prevent?

I disagree with your assertion that nothing justifies the use of force until one is attacked, and that no growing danger may be responded to with force.


Jesus, you're dense.

If we decide to attack someone pre-emptively, it isn't defense, it is offense. EVERY attack by one nation on another, when not first attacked, is an offensive attack. There is no such thing as pre-emptive defense. I never said that we couldn't use force, just that it isn't defense when we do so.

And I don't buy your 'nuke New York' scare scenario. It's bullsh*t. Saddam never had a nuke, wasn't close to getting one, and certainly wasn't close to getting one to New York. Your continual reliance on the worst of scare scenarios in order to hold up your position really should point out just how hollow your argument is; I can think of many other scare scenarios which are worse than the ones you envision, does that mean we should attack immediately?

I mean, where is your call for attacking Pakistan? We know for a Goddamned fact that they are in bed with Al Qaeda to a certain extent, and we know they have nukes. They represent a far greater danger to the US than Iraq ever did. Same goes for Russia. Same for China.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 03:31 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats. He invaded because he believed that Iraq might pose a grave danger to the US and the world.


That's hilarious. So now you are saying that "the UN's empty threats" were not a cause for the US invasion of Iraq. However, you put both statements in one sentence.

Okay.

So if I'm saying that "in 1941, the United States were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor and subsequently declared war on Japan", that would be the same to you as if I was saying "in 1941, the United States established the fourth Thursday in November as Thanksgiving Day and subsequently declared war on Japan". Nobody would assume that I had any intention of linking both statements.

Right. So why do you even mention those "empty threats" if there's no connection between them and the invasion of Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 04:07 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats.


ROFL

Oh ye, thy young bumbling apprentice of doublespeak, what was your friggen point by saying something you didn't say?
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 08:41 pm
Wonder how Brandon got his Masters? Must have cheated like he is doing now with false statements.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 06:56 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

When an evil madman is seeking doomsday weapons, it's a danger. If you can't figure out how that would be dangerous, I won't waste my time explaining the obvious.


And who decides who is "evil" and a "madman"?

We don't have a right to a world without danger, and attacking a country because we think it might one day present a danger is not a good precedent to set (especially when our intelligence is lacking) and most certainly not self-defense.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 06:59 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

When an evil madman is seeking doomsday weapons, it's a danger. If you can't figure out how that would be dangerous, I won't waste my time explaining the obvious.


And who decides who is "evil" and a "madman"?

We don't have a right to a world without danger, and attacking a country because we think it might one day present a danger is not a good precedent to set (especially when our intelligence is lacking) and most certainly not self-defense.

We have Grenada to live up to.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 08:24 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law 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


Well said, Cycloptichorn.


"Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down." - Cycloptichorn

So, if they smuggled a nuke into New York City in pieces, then reassembled and detonated it, that wouldn't be the kind of thing we should seek to prevent?

I disagree with your assertion that nothing justifies the use of force until one is attacked, and that no growing danger may be responded to with force.


Jesus, you're dense.

If we decide to attack someone pre-emptively, it isn't defense, it is offense. EVERY attack by one nation on another, when not first attacked, is an offensive attack. There is no such thing as pre-emptive defense. I never said that we couldn't use force, just that it isn't defense when we do so.

You're mistaken. According to you, the blockade of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis wasn't a defensive action, despite the fact that in a few days, Cuba would have nuclear missiles trained on the US, capable of reaching us far too quickly for us to respond. I believe that any action seeking to protect oneself against a danger is defense.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
And I don't buy your 'nuke New York' scare scenario. It's bullsh*t. Saddam never had a nuke, wasn't close to getting one, and certainly wasn't close to getting one to New York. Your continual reliance on the worst of scare scenarios in order to hold up your position really should point out just how hollow your argument is;


I was responding specifically to one statement of yours. You said:

"Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down."

I pointed out that this is not a valid objection to my argument, because there were things Saddam Hussein could have done with a nuke that would justify the greatest concern on our part.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I can think of many other scare scenarios which are worse than the ones you envision, does that mean we should attack immediately?

I mean, where is your call for attacking Pakistan? We know for a Goddamned fact that they are in bed with Al Qaeda to a certain extent, and we know they have nukes. They represent a far greater danger to the US than Iraq ever did. Same goes for Russia. Same for China.

Cycloptichorn

I'd like to draw the fact to your attention that once a country goes nuclear, invading them becomes virtually undoable. As for Russia and China, only a madman would suggest invading them. Iraq, however, which had clearly not completed its nuke program, was quite a different matter.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 08:30 am
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats. He invaded because he believed that Iraq might pose a grave danger to the US and the world.


That's hilarious. So now you are saying that "the UN's empty threats" were not a cause for the US invasion of Iraq. However, you put both statements in one sentence.

Okay.

So if I'm saying that "in 1941, the United States were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor and subsequently declared war on Japan", that would be the same to you as if I was saying "in 1941, the United States established the fourth Thursday in November as Thanksgiving Day and subsequently declared war on Japan". Nobody would assume that I had any intention of linking both statements.

Right. So why do you even mention those "empty threats" if there's no connection between them and the invasion of Iraq?

Duh, because it's the topic of the thread. I said that it's ironic that the poster is critcizing Bush for making empty threats to countries developing nukes, since he is most often criticized by liberals for acting decisively in the same situation, while the UN continued to make only empty threats.

I am not surprised that your efforts are directed solely towards the form of my presentation, since you are clearly unable to argue the actual topic.

I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats to Iraq and decided to take action. This certainly doesn't imply that he invaded Iraq because he was tired of the UN's empty threats. He invaded because he felt Iraq was a grave potential danger and that the UN was unlikely to act decisively in time.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 08:36 am
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats.


ROFL

Oh ye, thy young bumbling apprentice of doublespeak, what was your friggen point by saying something you didn't say?

It would be crystal clear to someone of normal intelligence. The President felt that Iraq posed a potentially grave danger and that action needed to be taken. Since it was looking more and more as though the UN would never do anything more than make empty threats, he decided it was time to act.

Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post. Criticizing the clarity of the opposing poster's presentation, is one of their frequent escape routes. It's a dishonorable way to argue, which is why it's just what I'd expect of you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 09:12 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law 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


Well said, Cycloptichorn.


"Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down." - Cycloptichorn

So, if they smuggled a nuke into New York City in pieces, then reassembled and detonated it, that wouldn't be the kind of thing we should seek to prevent?

I disagree with your assertion that nothing justifies the use of force until one is attacked, and that no growing danger may be responded to with force.


Jesus, you're dense.

If we decide to attack someone pre-emptively, it isn't defense, it is offense. EVERY attack by one nation on another, when not first attacked, is an offensive attack. There is no such thing as pre-emptive defense. I never said that we couldn't use force, just that it isn't defense when we do so.

You're mistaken. According to you, the blockade of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis wasn't a defensive action, despite the fact that in a few days, Cuba would have nuclear missiles trained on the US, capable of reaching us far too quickly for us to respond. I believe that any action seeking to protect oneself against a danger is defense.

You are changing the meaning of words in order to suit your argument. This is as good as admitting that your argument is false. Why don't you just admit that you believe the US has to go on offensive from time to time? There is no such thing as a 'defensive attack' upon another country. None. It is merely a semantics game you are playing.

A naval blockade isn't the same thing as an 'attack.' We didn't shoot up or invade Cuba. Your analogy fails.


Cycloptichorn wrote:
And I don't buy your 'nuke New York' scare scenario. It's bullsh*t. Saddam never had a nuke, wasn't close to getting one, and certainly wasn't close to getting one to New York. Your continual reliance on the worst of scare scenarios in order to hold up your position really should point out just how hollow your argument is;


I was responding specifically to one statement of yours. You said:

"Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down."

I pointed out that this is not a valid objection to my argument, because there were things Saddam Hussein could have done with a nuke that would justify the greatest concern on our part.

Sure, there are things that anyone can do with nukes that make them scary. But Saddam didn't have any nukes, and we knew he didn't have any nukes. So this is another false point.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I can think of many other scare scenarios which are worse than the ones you envision, does that mean we should attack immediately?

I mean, where is your call for attacking Pakistan? We know for a Goddamned fact that they are in bed with Al Qaeda to a certain extent, and we know they have nukes. They represent a far greater danger to the US than Iraq ever did. Same goes for Russia. Same for China.

Cycloptichorn

I'd like to draw the fact to your attention that once a country goes nuclear, invading them becomes virtually undoable. As for Russia and China, only a madman would suggest invading them. Iraq, however, which had clearly not completed its nuke program, was quite a different matter.

'Virtually undoable.' Why? You seem to think the US is only good for picking on small fry. Like some sort of bully. We aren't willing to fight someone more on our level, even if they do present a huge danger?

Representative of your mentality, perhaps




Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 09:14 am
How, then, Brandon, did the Bush administration ascertain that the Hussein regime was "a potentially grave danger" to the US.

By all estimates, the intelligence was flawed, and was manipulated to fit policies and decisions already in place by the administration.
Why is it that you can't even see in hindsight that your position vis a vis Iraq and the Bush administration too has been proven a pantent falshood.
Saddam was not a potentially grave danger to the US, yet, still today, you maintain that he was.

Quote:
The Former CIA officialwho coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 01:46 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats.


ROFL

Oh ye, thy young bumbling apprentice of doublespeak, what was your friggen point by saying something you didn't say?

It would be crystal clear to someone of normal intelligence. The President felt that Iraq posed a potentially grave danger and that action needed to be taken. Since it was looking more and more as though the UN would never do anything more than make empty threats, he decided it was time to act.

Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post. Criticizing the clarity of the opposing poster's presentation, is one of their frequent escape routes. It's a dishonorable way to argue, which is why it's just what I'd expect of you.


The truth, however, is that you were unable to debate the issue presented about Bush's empty threats and instead resorted to a distraction. Here's what you wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:


au1929 wrote:
Every day it would seem our "beloved " president and Condi Rice issue warnings to No. Korea and Iran regarding their nuclear programs. Warnings or rhetoric that no one listens to, are promptly ignored and further we are in no position to back up. It would seem that being born with that golden spoon in his mouth Bush never heard or has he had to put up or shut up. Is it not passed time for Bush to stop issuing empty threats?

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it


After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein, telling him that his actions would result in serious consequences, with the UN showing no sign of backing up the threats with anything other than more empty threats, president Bush finally acted, incurring the wrath of fools like you.


You did not respond to Au's statement that Bush was issuing empty threats because Bush is not in a position to back up his threats. Instead of addressing Au's point, you resorted to distraction. It was an inept attempt at distraction even at that because Bush did not incur the wrath of the American people because Bush "finally acted," as you allege, "after years and years of empty threats by the UN." You know as well as the rest of us that Bush incurred the wrath of the American people because Bush cherry-picked faulty intelligence to justify his predetermined agenda to invade Iraq. (If you want to debate why Bush incurred the wrath of the American people, revisit one of the many Bush LIED and people DIED threads.)

Again, in hypocritical manner, you accuse, "Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post." However, your own postings prove that you're the one who has demonstrated the inability to debate the actual argument and who characteristically finds some distraction to post.

Why don't you try addressing the merits of the post that originated this thread? Is Bush in a position to back up the threats he is making against N. Korea and Iran? Don't you agree that his threats are empty threats?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 02:38 pm
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats.


ROFL

Oh ye, thy young bumbling apprentice of doublespeak, what was your friggen point by saying something you didn't say?

It would be crystal clear to someone of normal intelligence. The President felt that Iraq posed a potentially grave danger and that action needed to be taken. Since it was looking more and more as though the UN would never do anything more than make empty threats, he decided it was time to act.

Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post. Criticizing the clarity of the opposing poster's presentation, is one of their frequent escape routes. It's a dishonorable way to argue, which is why it's just what I'd expect of you.


The truth, however, is that you were unable to debate the issue presented about Bush's empty threats and instead resorted to a distraction. Here's what you wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:


au1929 wrote:
Every day it would seem our "beloved " president and Condi Rice issue warnings to No. Korea and Iran regarding their nuclear programs. Warnings or rhetoric that no one listens to, are promptly ignored and further we are in no position to back up. It would seem that being born with that golden spoon in his mouth Bush never heard or has he had to put up or shut up. Is it not passed time for Bush to stop issuing empty threats?

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it


After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein, telling him that his actions would result in serious consequences, with the UN showing no sign of backing up the threats with anything other than more empty threats, president Bush finally acted, incurring the wrath of fools like you.


You did not respond to Au's statement that Bush was issuing empty threats because Bush is not in a position to back up his threats. Instead of addressing Au's point, you resorted to distraction. It was an inept attempt at distraction even at that because Bush did not incur the wrath of the American people because Bush "finally acted," as you allege, "after years and years of empty threats by the UN." You know as well as the rest of us that Bush incurred the wrath of the American people because Bush cherry-picked faulty intelligence to justify his predetermined agenda to invade Iraq. (If you want to debate why Bush incurred the wrath of the American people, revisit one of the many Bush LIED and people DIED threads.)

Again, in hypocritical manner, you accuse, "Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post." However, your own postings prove that you're the one who has demonstrated the inability to debate the actual argument and who characteristically finds some distraction to post.

Why don't you try addressing the merits of the post that originated this thread? Is Bush in a position to back up the threats he is making against N. Korea and Iran? Don't you agree that his threats are empty threats?

Criticizing the clarity of an opponent's post, and not addressing the content at all, as you did, when you know exactly what he meant, is absolutely a distraction.

On the other hand, my first post in this thread, which you have called a distraction, certainly was not. The opening post stated that in situation X, Bush is making empty threats. I responded that that is an ironic position to take, since the single greatest criticism Bush receives is for taking action in situation X. Thus, my post is directly on topic. Criticizing a poster's position does not constitute a distraction.

You may post over and over again that black is white, but it isn't. Your post, referring only to the clarity of my sentence was an attempt to avoid the actual subject. My post was directly on topic.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 02:50 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats.


ROFL

Oh ye, thy young bumbling apprentice of doublespeak, what was your friggen point by saying something you didn't say?

It would be crystal clear to someone of normal intelligence. The President felt that Iraq posed a potentially grave danger and that action needed to be taken. Since it was looking more and more as though the UN would never do anything more than make empty threats, he decided it was time to act.

Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post. Criticizing the clarity of the opposing poster's presentation, is one of their frequent escape routes. It's a dishonorable way to argue, which is why it's just what I'd expect of you.


The truth, however, is that you were unable to debate the issue presented about Bush's empty threats and instead resorted to a distraction. Here's what you wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:


au1929 wrote:
Every day it would seem our "beloved " president and Condi Rice issue warnings to No. Korea and Iran regarding their nuclear programs. Warnings or rhetoric that no one listens to, are promptly ignored and further we are in no position to back up. It would seem that being born with that golden spoon in his mouth Bush never heard or has he had to put up or shut up. Is it not passed time for Bush to stop issuing empty threats?

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it


After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein, telling him that his actions would result in serious consequences, with the UN showing no sign of backing up the threats with anything other than more empty threats, president Bush finally acted, incurring the wrath of fools like you.


You did not respond to Au's statement that Bush was issuing empty threats because Bush is not in a position to back up his threats. Instead of addressing Au's point, you resorted to distraction. It was an inept attempt at distraction even at that because Bush did not incur the wrath of the American people because Bush "finally acted," as you allege, "after years and years of empty threats by the UN." You know as well as the rest of us that Bush incurred the wrath of the American people because Bush cherry-picked faulty intelligence to justify his predetermined agenda to invade Iraq. (If you want to debate why Bush incurred the wrath of the American people, revisit one of the many Bush LIED and people DIED threads.)

Again, in hypocritical manner, you accuse, "Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post." However, your own postings prove that you're the one who has demonstrated the inability to debate the actual argument and who characteristically finds some distraction to post.

Why don't you try addressing the merits of the post that originated this thread? Is Bush in a position to back up the threats he is making against N. Korea and Iran? Don't you agree that his threats are empty threats?


Criticizing the clarity of an opponent's post, and not addressing the content at all, as you did, when you know exactly what he meant, is absolutely a distraction.

On the other hand, my first post in this thread, which you have called a distraction, certainly was not. The opening post stated that in situation X, Bush is making empty threats. I responded that that is an ironic position to take, since the single greatest criticism Bush receives is for taking action in situation X. Thus, my post is directly on topic. Criticizing a poster's position does not constitute a distraction.

You may post over and over again that black is white, but it isn't. Your post, referring only to the clarity of my sentence was an attempt to avoid the actual subject. My post was directly on topic.


No, Brandon. You refuted your alleged position by later claiming you didn't say what you said. And, again, you're engaging in distraction.

Please go to the original post and address the issue of Bush's empty threats. Is Bush in a position to back up the threats he is making against North Korea and Iran? If you are unable to debate the actual argument in question, just say so. Either debate what Au actually said or admit that you're a hypocrit when you make the accusation, "Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 02:55 pm
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats.


ROFL

Oh ye, thy young bumbling apprentice of doublespeak, what was your friggen point by saying something you didn't say?

It would be crystal clear to someone of normal intelligence. The President felt that Iraq posed a potentially grave danger and that action needed to be taken. Since it was looking more and more as though the UN would never do anything more than make empty threats, he decided it was time to act.

Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post. Criticizing the clarity of the opposing poster's presentation, is one of their frequent escape routes. It's a dishonorable way to argue, which is why it's just what I'd expect of you.


The truth, however, is that you were unable to debate the issue presented about Bush's empty threats and instead resorted to a distraction. Here's what you wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:


au1929 wrote:
Every day it would seem our "beloved " president and Condi Rice issue warnings to No. Korea and Iran regarding their nuclear programs. Warnings or rhetoric that no one listens to, are promptly ignored and further we are in no position to back up. It would seem that being born with that golden spoon in his mouth Bush never heard or has he had to put up or shut up. Is it not passed time for Bush to stop issuing empty threats?

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it


After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein, telling him that his actions would result in serious consequences, with the UN showing no sign of backing up the threats with anything other than more empty threats, president Bush finally acted, incurring the wrath of fools like you.


You did not respond to Au's statement that Bush was issuing empty threats because Bush is not in a position to back up his threats. Instead of addressing Au's point, you resorted to distraction. It was an inept attempt at distraction even at that because Bush did not incur the wrath of the American people because Bush "finally acted," as you allege, "after years and years of empty threats by the UN." You know as well as the rest of us that Bush incurred the wrath of the American people because Bush cherry-picked faulty intelligence to justify his predetermined agenda to invade Iraq. (If you want to debate why Bush incurred the wrath of the American people, revisit one of the many Bush LIED and people DIED threads.)

Again, in hypocritical manner, you accuse, "Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post." However, your own postings prove that you're the one who has demonstrated the inability to debate the actual argument and who characteristically finds some distraction to post.

Why don't you try addressing the merits of the post that originated this thread? Is Bush in a position to back up the threats he is making against N. Korea and Iran? Don't you agree that his threats are empty threats?


Criticizing the clarity of an opponent's post, and not addressing the content at all, as you did, when you know exactly what he meant, is absolutely a distraction.

On the other hand, my first post in this thread, which you have called a distraction, certainly was not. The opening post stated that in situation X, Bush is making empty threats. I responded that that is an ironic position to take, since the single greatest criticism Bush receives is for taking action in situation X. Thus, my post is directly on topic. Criticizing a poster's position does not constitute a distraction.

You may post over and over again that black is white, but it isn't. Your post, referring only to the clarity of my sentence was an attempt to avoid the actual subject. My post was directly on topic.


No, Brandon. You refuted your alleged position by later claiming you didn't say what you said. And, again, you're engaging in distraction.

Please go to the original post and address the issue of Bush's empty threats. Is Bush in a position to back up the threats he is making against North Korea and Iran? If you are unable to debate the actual argument in question, just say so. Either debate what Au actually said or admit that you're a hypocrit when you make the accusation, "Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post."

Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it so. Nor am I obligated to comply with any of your requests or orders. In fact, the central theme of these threads of yours is false and you cannot support it, as I will now demonstrate.

As stated, the opening post of this thread stated that in situation X, Bush has been making empty threats. I replied that that was an ironic position for the poster to take, since one of the things Bush is often criticized for is taking action in situation X. Please tell me in what way that is a distraction, as opposed to disagreement.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 02:59 pm
It's a distraction, because the point isn't that Bush shouldn't be making the threats or that the Iraq war came after threats or any of that. The point - which you missed completely - is that we don't have the capability to back up our current threats. Which makes them empty, which means that Bush shouldn't be saying them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 03:14 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's a distraction, because the point isn't that Bush shouldn't be making the threats or that the Iraq war came after threats or any of that. The point - which you missed completely - is that we don't have the capability to back up our current threats. Which makes them empty, which means that Bush shouldn't be saying them.

Cycloptichorn


What are our "current threats," btw?

-----

News today that Bush warned of "grave consequences" to NK if they tried to sell nuclear arms. Now, if we are to apply Setanta's theory to this analysis -- enunciated in his debate with Brandon earlier in this thread regarding the UN's history of making "empty threats" -- it's clear that isn't a threat at all. After all, "when the nature of the grave consequences isn't specified, it hardly constitutes a threat."

Right, Set?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 03:38 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that Bush grew tired of the UN's empty threats against Iraq and invaded. I did not say that he invaded because he was tired of the UN's empty threats.


ROFL

Oh ye, thy young bumbling apprentice of doublespeak, what was your friggen point by saying something you didn't say?

It would be crystal clear to someone of normal intelligence. The President felt that Iraq posed a potentially grave danger and that action needed to be taken. Since it was looking more and more as though the UN would never do anything more than make empty threats, he decided it was time to act.

Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post. Criticizing the clarity of the opposing poster's presentation, is one of their frequent escape routes. It's a dishonorable way to argue, which is why it's just what I'd expect of you.


The truth, however, is that you were unable to debate the issue presented about Bush's empty threats and instead resorted to a distraction. Here's what you wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:


au1929 wrote:
Every day it would seem our "beloved " president and Condi Rice issue warnings to No. Korea and Iran regarding their nuclear programs. Warnings or rhetoric that no one listens to, are promptly ignored and further we are in no position to back up. It would seem that being born with that golden spoon in his mouth Bush never heard or has he had to put up or shut up. Is it not passed time for Bush to stop issuing empty threats?

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it


After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein, telling him that his actions would result in serious consequences, with the UN showing no sign of backing up the threats with anything other than more empty threats, president Bush finally acted, incurring the wrath of fools like you.


You did not respond to Au's statement that Bush was issuing empty threats because Bush is not in a position to back up his threats. Instead of addressing Au's point, you resorted to distraction. It was an inept attempt at distraction even at that because Bush did not incur the wrath of the American people because Bush "finally acted," as you allege, "after years and years of empty threats by the UN." You know as well as the rest of us that Bush incurred the wrath of the American people because Bush cherry-picked faulty intelligence to justify his predetermined agenda to invade Iraq. (If you want to debate why Bush incurred the wrath of the American people, revisit one of the many Bush LIED and people DIED threads.)

Again, in hypocritical manner, you accuse, "Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post." However, your own postings prove that you're the one who has demonstrated the inability to debate the actual argument and who characteristically finds some distraction to post.

Why don't you try addressing the merits of the post that originated this thread? Is Bush in a position to back up the threats he is making against N. Korea and Iran? Don't you agree that his threats are empty threats?


Criticizing the clarity of an opponent's post, and not addressing the content at all, as you did, when you know exactly what he meant, is absolutely a distraction.

On the other hand, my first post in this thread, which you have called a distraction, certainly was not. The opening post stated that in situation X, Bush is making empty threats. I responded that that is an ironic position to take, since the single greatest criticism Bush receives is for taking action in situation X. Thus, my post is directly on topic. Criticizing a poster's position does not constitute a distraction.

You may post over and over again that black is white, but it isn't. Your post, referring only to the clarity of my sentence was an attempt to avoid the actual subject. My post was directly on topic.


No, Brandon. You refuted your alleged position by later claiming you didn't say what you said. And, again, you're engaging in distraction.

Please go to the original post and address the issue of Bush's empty threats. Is Bush in a position to back up the threats he is making against North Korea and Iran? If you are unable to debate the actual argument in question, just say so. Either debate what Au actually said or admit that you're a hypocrit when you make the accusation, "Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post."


Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it so. Nor am I obligated to comply with any of your requests or orders. In fact, the central theme of these threads of yours is false and you cannot support it, as I will now demonstrate.

As stated, the opening post of this thread stated that in situation X, Bush has been making empty threats. I replied that that was an ironic position for the poster to take, since one of the things Bush is often criticized for is taking action in situation X. Please tell me in what way that is a distraction, as opposed to disagreement.


Au's position is that Bush is making empty threats because he doesn't have the means to back up those threats. Rather than debate what Au actually said, you constructed a false analogy as a means of distraction. Accordingly, you are a hypocrit when you make the accusation, ""Most of the liberals on A2K, unable to debate the actual argument in question, characteristically find some distraction to post." Either address the actual argument or admit that you hypocritically constructed a false analogy as a means of distraction.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 08:21 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's a distraction, because the point isn't that Bush shouldn't be making the threats or that the Iraq war came after threats or any of that. The point - which you missed completely - is that we don't have the capability to back up our current threats. Which makes them empty, which means that Bush shouldn't be saying them.

Cycloptichorn

First of all, people frequently jump into threads I start with wisecracks designed to do nothing but harass, without even a pretense of being on topic, so by that standard I may do anything I wish in someone else's thread.

However, in fact, you are wrong in this case. If a poster asserts something in a thread opening post, it is not off topic to challenge the position he is annunciating. I am not constrained to post only agreement with his opening thesis. To say that I am is silly, and a standard practice of A2K liberals to harass conservative posters with distractions unrelated to their theses. When Debra Law subsequently criticizes the clarity of my sentence structure, that is not only off topic, but actually a distraction designed to be argumentative while avoiding arguing anything of substance.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 08:50 am
Brandon, remember the liberal golden rule; "Do as we say, not as we do."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/30/2025 at 08:17:14