Remind Me Again... We're Staying In Iraq Why?

Until it is proven they have been destroyed, or degraded, or sent to Syria or abducted by aliens, we must continue to be mindful that they exist and they are a threat.

McGentrix wrote:

Until it is proven they have been destroyed, or degraded, or sent to Syria or abducted by aliens, we must continue to be mindful that they exist and they are a threat.

And until it is proven that the underpants gnomes do not exist, we must continue to be mindful of the threat they pose to the security of our underwear.

What exists? Give us a list.

Difference is that underpants gnomes do not exist and have never existed unlike WMD's in Iraq. It's a cute analogy, but beyond being cute adds nothing to the discussion.

Dang it Joe, now I'm going to be nervous everytime I reach into the dresser for my boxer briefs.

McGentrix wrote:

Difference is that underpants gnomes do not exist and have never existed unlike WMD's in Iraq. It's a cute analogy, but beyond being cute adds nothing to the discussion.

Well, if by "WMDs in Iraq" you mean the old chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq War, then everybody knew those existed. But then no one was particularly concerned about them, because any of them that were left over from that conflict were largely useless by the time the US invaded. So those couldn't have been the WMDs that the Bush administration was looking for when it decided that it had to invade Iraq. Mentioning them in a thread about the reasons for being in Iraq, then, adds nothing to the discussion, and suffers from the further disadvantage of not being cute at all.

Brandon, how would Sadaam show verifiably that something did not exist - to your satisfaction?

McGentrix wrote:

Until it is proven they have been destroyed, or degraded, or sent to Syria or abducted by aliens, we must continue to be mindful that they exist and they are a threat.

And until it is proven that the underpants gnomes do not exist, we must continue to be mindful of the threat they pose to the security of our underwear.

Interestingly enough, we weren't too concerned about the impact of the WMD that we gave Saddam back in the 80's....

WMD are really no deadlier than conventional weaponry; they are merely more compact and do the job more efficiently. If they really do represent the grave dangers that Brandon says they do, why haven't we done a damn thing to defend against them here in the US?

War Hawks are, at heart, unserious about the nature of the threat that we face. I say this because you never see them screaming about increasing our defenses here at home the same way that they scream for killing people abroad.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Interestingly enough, we weren't too concerned about the impact of the WMD that we gave Saddam back in the 80's....

WMD are really no deadlier than conventional weaponry; they are merely more compact and do the job more efficiently. If they really do represent the grave dangers that Brandon says they do, why haven't we done a damn thing to defend against them here in the US?

War Hawks are, at heart, unserious about the nature of the threat that we face. I say this because you never see them screaming about increasing our defenses here at home the same way that they scream for killing people abroad.

Cycloptichorn

Bull. Most, if not all, your so called War Hawks have been screeming about re-inforcing our boarders and eliminating illegal entry. Well, everyone except GW I suppose.

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Until it is proven they have been destroyed, or degraded, or sent to Syria or abducted by aliens, we must continue to be mindful that they exist and they are a threat.

And until it is proven that the underpants gnomes do not exist, we must continue to be mindful of the threat they pose to the security of our underwear.

The logical flaw in your argument is that "underpants gnomes," if such existed, would probably not pose a threat of the same magnitude of nuclear, biological, or even chemical weapons if they existed in Iraq. If you ignored a possible danger from "underpants gnomes" and they turned out to actually exist, whole cities wouldn't cease to exist in one blow, as they well might if you ignored a reasonable likelihood of nuclear weapon development programs, which could then be continued until they reached fruition. The essence of your logical error here is that you are comparing something (albeit fictitious) that poses a relatively low threat with something which, if extant, would pose an immense risk.

I mentioned them to explain a point cycloptichorn made, nothing more. I am sure that if you read through the thread and followed the conversation you would notice that.

McGentrix wrote:

I mentioned them to explain a point cycloptichorn made, nothing more. I am sure that if you read through the thread and followed the conversation you would notice that.

And I replied in order to point out a logical flaw in your argument, nothing more.

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Difference is that underpants gnomes do not exist and have never existed unlike WMD's in Iraq. It's a cute analogy, but beyond being cute adds nothing to the discussion.

Well, if by "WMDs in Iraq" you mean the old chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq War, then everybody knew those existed. But then no one was particularly concerned about them, because any of them that were left over from that conflict were largely useless by the time the US invaded. So those couldn't have been the WMDs that the Bush administration was looking for when it decided that it had to invade Iraq. Mentioning them in a thread about the reasons for being in Iraq, then, adds nothing to the discussion, and suffers from the further disadvantage of not being cute at all.

I mentioned them to explain a point cycloptichorn made, nothing more. I am sure that if you read through the thread and followed the conversation you would notice that.

The logical flaw in your argument is that "underpants gnomes," if such existed, would probably not pose a threat of the same magnitude of nuclear, biological, or even chemical weapons if they existed in Iraq.

If you ignored a possible danger from "underpants gnomes" and they turned out to actually exist, whole cities wouldn't cease to exist in one blow...

...as they well might if you ignored a reasonable likelihood of nuclear weapon development programs, which could then be continued until they reached fruition. The essence of your logical error here is that you are comparing something (albeit fictitious) that poses a relatively low threat with something which, if extant, would pose an immense risk.

Oh. And here I thought you merely replied to be cute before your audience.

Knowing that, I would say you failed in pointing anything out.

Problem is Joe, and it's a problem shared with you by Cycloptichorn apparently, is that WMD's did exist and evidence of their destruction has not been made. Until such time as that evidence is provided, it should be assumed that they still exist in some form.