You seem to have no capacity to defend your viewpoint. The thread opening post asserted:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:...The Iraq war is now about a bunch of guys with their dicks up. They're all so busy holding on to them to keep them hard that no one will quit...
I disagreed, stating a rival theory for the motivation behind the invasion of Iraq:
Brandon9000 wrote:It's about the fear of horrible, deadly weapons in the wrongest hands possible.
You then, responded to my post, but simply announced your conclusion without stating any of the steps of reasoning leading to it:
candidone1 wrote:In his typical Brandonian illogic, he reiterates the script.
You have not attempted to say what is wrong with my logic, find any specific defect in it, state how you arrive at the conclusion that my statement is illogical, etc. Anyone may assert anything, but you have simply stated an unsupported conclusion. I then countered with an attempt to demonstrate the truth of my stateement:
Brandon9000 wrote:Nothing you have said in any way disproves what I have said, or even detracts from its credibility. You have, in fact, not addressed what I said, probably because you can't. I had written:
Brandon9000 wrote:It's about the fear of horrible, deadly weapons...
Prior to the invasion, the president said any number of times that the issue was fear of WMD. This is also why most of the conservatives I have spoken to favored invasion. The status of Iraq's former weapons and weapons development programs was not known prior to invasion, and weapons in this category are indeed "horrible" and "deadly," possessing the capacity to obliterate whole populations in one single blow .
Brandon9000 wrote:...in the wrongest hands possible.
Indeed, Saddam Hussein would be just about the wrongest hands possible for WMD.
Therefore, my statement was correct and accurate. If you at some point care to actually try to find a flaw in my reasoning and not just utter slogans, get back to me....
Once again, fleeing the actual argument, you employ mostly distractions, e.g. stating that you are obviously correct, various conclusions about me, etc., but still do nothing to demonstrate that my post was illogical:
candidone1 wrote:You have once again misinterpreted the intent behind my post and once again made a feeble attempt at declaring a Brandonian voctory. I was not trying to "disprove" what you have said because every one of your statements about Saddam, Iraq and WMD have been disproven ad nauseum throughout these fora and in nearly every medium avalible.
Instead of addressing my assertion regarding the motivation for the invasion, you claim that you need not show that it's wrong, because it's already been disproven. I deny that. If the disproof is so obvious, take 60 seconds and summarize it.
candidone1 wrote:I am not going to continue this game with you because you have become the equivalent of a holocaust deniar.
Speculating about my flaws is a mere distration which doesn't provide any evidence that my statement is false.
candidone1 wrote:Continuing this banter with you is less enjoyable than smashing my forehead with a mallet.
Irrelevant. Once again, you demonstrate that you will do anything but simply provide an argument that I'm incorrect.
candidone1 wrote:That you simply repeat what has now become a right wing cliche does not entail there is an ounce of validity in it.
Nor does it show that my statement isn't valid.
candidone1 wrote:The premise "Saddam had WMD" is false, therefore any conclucions drawn from that premise are also false.
On topic, finally, but wrong. I stated only that the invasion was motivated by the fear of Iraqi WMD, as opposed to the reasons described in the thread opening post. Certainly, the state of Iraq's weapons and weapons development programs was not well understood at the time of the invasion, and many people were very worried about what might happen. I merely reiterated the reason for invasion given numerous times by the president. I continue to assert that the stated reason for the invasion is the actual reason. I defy anyone to provide evidence for the rival theory put forth in the thread opening post.
candidone1 wrote:Merely stating "if Saddam had WMD, it would be a bad thing" is not the kind of thing worth the billions being spent, the thousands of lives lost...
I wasn't speaking about whether it was worth it. My statement pertained only to the motivation for the invasion.
candidone1 wrote:...especially since there has been verification that every premise for going to war has been examined and declared either false or manipulated by the administration.
I believe this is a false statement and I challenge you to provide any kind of proof that the administration did not invade because of a perceived threat of Iraqi WMD or attempts to develop WMD.
candidone1 wrote:But go ahead Brandon, take it. Take this subjective win.
You "win" the argument because you have a head like stone and refuse to take an analytical look at the actual facts.
I think you win some cheese.
It's childish to respond to a clearly stated rival opinion with an ad hominem about the poster. You state that my opinion has already been shown to be false, that I have this flaw or that flaw, but, in fact, do not, and presumably cannot simply demonstrate any flaws in my assertion. Were you correct in your view on this subject, then you would at least include some support for your statements among the irrelevancies.
If, on the other hand, you want to talk about why the Iraq war continues, as opposed to why it was initiated, I assert that the administration doesn't want to abandon a fragile democracy to barbarians.
neccessary cause for going to war in Iraq, sorry. It isn't our fault you are a coward who lives in fear of death from an unknown source. I can only assume that this is the true 'you,' because you go on constantly about what danger you are/were in because of WMD which, btw, didn't exist.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace