4
   

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

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:57 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:03 pm
Dang it Joe, now I'm going to be nervous everytime I reach into the dresser for my boxer briefs.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:08 pm
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.


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.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:16 pm
parados wrote:
What exists? Give us a list.


Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Read at your leisure.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:18 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:19 pm
snood wrote:
Dang it Joe, now I'm going to be nervous everytime I reach into the dresser for my boxer briefs.

Be afraid. Be very afraid!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:21 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:24 pm
snood wrote:
Brandon, how would Sadaam show verifiably that something did not exist - to your satisfaction?

Let inspectors watch weapons and development facilities being destroyed, or at least films of such, and let them see remnants of the destroyed objects. In contrast, Iraq had a history of forcibly preventing inspectors from entering certain places until they could be sanitized, and claiming things didn't exist which were later discovered. Certainly programs to develop nuclear and biological weapons had once existed. For a liar to merely say, "No, I'm clean," isn't sufficient for something of this gravity.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:31 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:37 pm
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
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:40 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:43 pm
woiyo wrote:
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.


Interestingly enough, you don't see any of the War Hawks here arguing that. In fact, I've been chided for even suggesting that we play defense by several of the most forceful members of that group.

What's even more so, is that even with complete control of the Congress and the Executive branch, zero action has been taken to do so. And these guys are the biggest War Hawks of all.

I'd love to see links to prominent Hawks here who have been continually complaining about our lack of defense here in the US. I doubt you will be able to find them. In fact, if you searched, you would probably find that there are few other than myself who have continually brought this point up.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:44 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


You seem to be saying that Joe, had he used the planet-eating Golgafrinchan Mutant Star Goat as an example instead of underpants gnomes, he would have had a point.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:49 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:54 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
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.


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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:54 pm
McGentrix wrote:
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.


Unfortuanately, your links included many things which didn't ever exist, such as mobile biological labs, and British intelligence reports which were actually based off of graduate research papers. So your response is somewhat inadequate.

In addition, as you were responding to Parados, it wasn't entirely clear who or what you were addressing; so your condescension towards Joe is rather out of place. Not that he or anyone else gave a damn, of course.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:56 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

No, that's not a logical flaw. McGentrix argued that, until something was proven not to exist, we must take precautions against it. My argument was exactly parallel to that argument, so any consideration of the enormity of the threat posed by either undiscovered WMDs or undetected underpants gnomes is, at best, an empirical objection, not a logical one, and, at worst, is completely irrelevant.

Brandon9000 wrote:
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...

That's what they want you to believe.

Brandon9000 wrote:
...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.

No, I'm comparing two arguments that both suffer from the same logical flaw. The magnitude of the consequences for ignoring those two equally flawed arguments is irrelevant to the point that I was making.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:57 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Oh. And here I thought you merely replied to be cute before your audience.

I am cute even without an audience.

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

Knowing you, I should have known.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 02:04 pm
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. As long as they do, they represent a grave threat due to the unknown location and ownership.

There are far to many doubts as to there whereabouts to ignore the fact that they may be in the hands of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

That is why your "underwear gnome" analogy fails.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 02:10 pm
McGentrix wrote:
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.


Of course, the same argument can be made about dinosaurs...
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 07:03:42