Bush's Empty threats

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.

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.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

You didn't post in agreement, or in disagreement, with the opening thesis at all. You posted an argument that was not related to the opening thesis, and one that you are much happier arguing about, namely, justification for the war in Iraq.

Even if other people display the behaviors you cite - and they often do - when you go around doing the same thing, you look like a complete ass, because you constantly chide others for doing something you regularly do yourself.

And now here we are, having yet another meta-conversation about the conversation, and you are the root cause. This is like the fiftieth time this has happened. Which is, of course, exactly the point.

Why don't we just drop this right now and get back on topic: do you think the threats we are making today are, in fact, empty, as AU suggested?

Cycloptichorn

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.

'Sorry for nuke test'

N. Korea tells Chinese pol: report

NEWS WIRE SERVICES

BEIJING - North Korea showed signs yesterday it could be backing away from its nuclear showdown with the world, even as tens of thousands of demonstrators rallied in Pyongyang to hail the country's first atomic test.
Coming under united international pressure, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il told a Chinese envoy he was sorry for the Oct. 9 nuclear detonation and said he wouldn't test any more bombs, South Korean and Japanese media reported yesterday.

Kim's apparent change of heart raised hopes that China might be able to draw its unpredictable neighbor back to the talks.

On a visit to Beijing, Secretary of State Rice praised China's diplomatic efforts, saying it had sent "a strong message" to North Korea about its nuclear weapons test.

I don't believe a word of it. Something fishy going on.

Quote:

'Sorry for nuke test'

N. Korea tells Chinese pol: report

NEWS WIRE SERVICES

BEIJING - North Korea showed signs yesterday it could be backing away from its nuclear showdown with the world, even as tens of thousands of demonstrators rallied in Pyongyang to hail the country's first atomic test.
Coming under united international pressure, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il told a Chinese envoy he was sorry for the Oct. 9 nuclear detonation and said he wouldn't test any more bombs, South Korean and Japanese media reported yesterday.

Kim's apparent change of heart raised hopes that China might be able to draw its unpredictable neighbor back to the talks.

On a visit to Beijing, Secretary of State Rice praised China's diplomatic efforts, saying it had sent "a strong message" to North Korea about its nuclear weapons test.

That is what happens when you speak softly and carry a big stick. As opposed to empty threats.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

I'll submit that you have no means of determining whether or not the UN's threats were empty threats, because you don't know how the UN would have reacted in case the UN inspectors had found any evidence for the existence of WMD or even an ongoing WMD program.

Quite to the contrary, from the fact that - from all we know - neither WMD nor a WMD program existed, it could be argued that the UN sanctions and threats were quite successful.

Lies, lies and more lies.

Quote: