THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Well, you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war, so I really could care less what your opinion of those who choose options you don't like is. As far as I am concerned, when you are against an option, it's like an endorsement of it, b/c you are frequently wrong.

I choose option A, though I disagree it means we lost the war.

Cycloptichorn

US military has a lose-lose dilemma in Iraq

These changes should have been observable as early as July. By then, as a "senior American military officer" told the New York Times, it would already be time to refocus attention on "restoring services and rebuilding the neighborhoods".

...

In the end, though, perhaps the best indicator is the surging strength of the primary target of the "surge" in Shi'ite areas. Since the "surge" plan was officially launched in mid-February, according to the Times' Rubin, the Mahdi Army "has effectively taken over vast swaths of the capital".

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war, so I really could care less what your opinion of those who choose options you don't like is. As far as I am concerned, when you are against an option, it's like an endorsement of it, b/c you are frequently wrong.

I choose option A, though I disagree it means we lost the war.

Cycloptichorn

This statement of yours about me is fraudulent: "you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war." Actually Cyclo, you are the one who has been consistently and continually incorrect with your every repetition of that statement.

I made exactly two predictions that subsequently proved false:
(1) In the 2006 election Republicans will win one seat or more in each house.
(2) The Bush administration will adopt in Iraq the same strategy that Reagan adopted in qwelling Central American terrorism.

None of my predictions about the consequences of leaving Iraq before success is achieved have been proven false.

Cycloptichorn, you have made numerous false statements in this forum, some of which you later corrected. Here are paraphrases of a few:
> one cannot prove a negative
> al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the American invasion of Iraq
> the American invasion of Iraq caused al-Qaeda to be in Iraq
> the Bush administration caused the mass murders of civilians in Iraq
> al-Qaeda in 2006-07 murdered few of the murdered civilians in Iraq
> the US invasion of Iraq was illegal
> the Iraqi people do not want democracy
> there is no such thing as a defensive offense
> the police can adequately control terrorism
> paraphrases of statements are not evidence of statements made

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war, so I really could care less what your opinion of those who choose options you don't like is. As far as I am concerned, when you are against an option, it's like an endorsement of it, b/c you are frequently wrong.

I choose option A, though I disagree it means we lost the war.

Cycloptichorn

This statement of yours about me is fraudulent: "you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war." Actually Cyclo, you are the one who has been consistently and continually incorrect with your every repetition of that statement.

I made exactly two predictions that subsequently proved false:
(1) In the 2006 election Republicans will win one seat or more in each house.
(2) The Bush administration will adopt in Iraq the same strategy that Reagan adopted in qwelling Central American terrorism.

None of my predictions about the consequences of leaving Iraq before success is achieved have been proven false.

Cycloptichorn, you have made numerous false statements in this forum, some of which you later corrected. Here are paraphrases of a few:
> one cannot prove a negative
> al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the American invasion of Iraq
> the American invasion of Iraq caused al-Qaeda to be in Iraq
> the Bush administration caused the mass murders of civilians in Iraq
> al-Qaeda in 2006-07 murdered few of the murdered civilians in Iraq
> the US invasion of Iraq was illegal
> the Iraqi people do not want democracy
> there is no such thing as a defensive offense
> the police can adequately control terrorism
> paraphrases of statements are not evidence of statements made

What an unbelievable pile of bullsh*t. Your paraphrasing of my statements bear little to no resemblance to the actual statements themselves. This is intellecutally dishonest in the extreme.

...
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war, so I really could care less what your opinion of those who choose options you don't like is. As far as I am concerned, when you are against an option, it's like an endorsement of it, b/c you are frequently wrong.

I choose option A, though I disagree it means we lost the war.

Cycloptichorn

This statement of yours about me is fraudulent: "you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war." Actually Cyclo, you are the one who has been consistently and continually incorrect with your every repetition of that statement.

I made exactly two predictions that subsequently proved false:
(1) In the 2006 election Republicans will win one seat or more in each house.
(2) The Bush administration will adopt in Iraq the same strategy that Reagan adopted in qwelling Central American terrorism.

None of my predictions about the consequences of leaving Iraq before success is achieved have been proven false.

Cycloptichorn, you have made numerous false statements in this forum, some of which you later corrected. Here are paraphrases of a few:
> one cannot prove a negative
> al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the American invasion of Iraq
> the American invasion of Iraq caused al-Qaeda to be in Iraq
> the Bush administration caused the mass murders of civilians in Iraq
> al-Qaeda in 2006-07 murdered few of the murdered civilians in Iraq
> the US invasion of Iraq was illegal
> the Iraqi people do not want democracy
> there is no such thing as a defensive offense
> the police can adequately control terrorism
> paraphrases of statements are not evidence of statements made

What an unbelievable pile of bullsh*t. Your paraphrasing of my statements bear little to no resemblance to the actual statements themselves. This is intellecutally dishonest in the extreme.

...
Cycloptichorn

Stop the malarkey now! Cuss all you want. Slander me all you want. But if you think my paraphrases of your statements inaccurate or wrong, say what you think your actual statements were. Failure to do so is implicit admission that my paraphrases correctly convey the actual meaning of your statements.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war, so I really could care less what your opinion of those who choose options you don't like is. As far as I am concerned, when you are against an option, it's like an endorsement of it, b/c you are frequently wrong.

I choose option A, though I disagree it means we lost the war.

Cycloptichorn

This statement of yours about me is fraudulent: "you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war." Actually Cyclo, you are the one who has been consistently and continually incorrect with your every repetition of that statement.

I made exactly two predictions that subsequently proved false:
(1) In the 2006 election Republicans will win one seat or more in each house.
(2) The Bush administration will adopt in Iraq the same strategy that Reagan adopted in qwelling Central American terrorism.

None of my predictions about the consequences of leaving Iraq before success is achieved have been proven false.

Cycloptichorn, you have made numerous false statements in this forum, some of which you later corrected. Here are paraphrases of a few:
> one cannot prove a negative
> al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the American invasion of Iraq
> the American invasion of Iraq caused al-Qaeda to be in Iraq
> the Bush administration caused the mass murders of civilians in Iraq
> al-Qaeda in 2006-07 murdered few of the murdered civilians in Iraq
> the US invasion of Iraq was illegal
> the Iraqi people do not want democracy
> there is no such thing as a defensive offense
> the police can adequately control terrorism
> paraphrases of statements are not evidence of statements made

What an unbelievable pile of bullsh*t. Your paraphrasing of my statements bear little to no resemblance to the actual statements themselves. This is intellecutally dishonest in the extreme.

...
Cycloptichorn

Stop the malarkey now! Cuss all you want. Slander me all you want. But if you think my paraphrases of your statements inaccurate or wrong, say what you think your actual statements were. Failure to do so is implicit admission that my paraphrases correctly convey the actual meaning of your statements.

Sorry, but as the taker of the affirmative position, the burden of evidence lies upon you. I categorically deny that anything you have presented is an accurate quote of my arguments. Until you can provide evidence that this is so - that you have accurately quoted me, and not just made up whatever the hell you want - then there's no reason to continue the discussion, as you are not upholding your end. It isn't my job to find your evidence for you, and if you don't wish to present it, it doesn't bother me; your arguments are without merit in the absence of evidence, as you well know.

...

Cycloptichorn

Again, if you think my paraphrases of your statements inaccurate or wrong, say what you think your actual statements were. Failure to do so is implicit admission that my paraphrases correctly convey the actual meaning of your statements.

In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

> the burden of proof always belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement

...
I specifically challenge you, sir, to make a series of predictions for the next 6 months and the next year. I will respond with my own predictions, and later on, there won't be any question about who was right and who was wrong. You continually deny your cheerleading for this war, and pretend that you have been nothing but sensible this whole time. We can clear that up right now, with respect to future denials on your part.

Cycloptichorn

...

Quote:

> the burden of proof always belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement

I never made this statement. You injected the word 'always' into one of my statements. Why must you resort to paraphrasing, Ican? Why can't you address people's actual arguments?
...
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

Quote:

> the burden of proof always belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement

I never made this statement. You injected the word 'always' into one of my statements. Why must you resort to paraphrasing, Ican? Why can't you address people's actual arguments?
...
Cycloptichorn

There is no difference in the meaning of these statements:

the burden of proof belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement.

the burden of proof always belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement;

You did not qualify the word belongs with the word frequently or one of its equivalents, so I logically inferred that you believed your statement to be unqualified. In my paraphrase, I merely made that explicit by adding the word always.

And, you are correct that in the instance you have written, both statements are affirmative statements and both require evidence if requested.

You are incorrect in your belief that this is the situation in which you and I find ourself. This is the situation:

Ican: Gore is a fool.

Cyclo: what evidence do you have which leads you to believe this?

Ican: I have no evidence other then my own statements.
...
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And, you are correct that in the instance you have written, both statements are affirmative statements and both require evidence if requested.

You are incorrect in your belief that this is the situation in which you and I find ourself. This is the situation:

Ican: Gore is a fool.

Cyclo: what evidence do you have which leads you to believe this?

Ican: I have no evidence other then my own statements.
...
Cycloptichorn

No! This was not the situation. The situation was:

Ican: Gore is a fool.

Cyclo: what evidence do you have which leads you to believe this?

Ican: I have the evidence in Gore's books. Read them. I do not want to transcribe them.

Cyclo: You don't have to transcribe them. The internet ... Get what you need off the internet.

Ican: Gore's books are not on the internet.

Ican: Here's a paraphrase of what's in Gore's Books.

Cyclo: Ican, your paraphrase is ... a straw man.

Ican (I now add): What evidence do you have that my paraphrase of Gore's statements is a straw man?

Note, your "straw man" statement is an affirmative statement. According to you, I am justified in requesting your evidence that my paraphrase of Gore's statement is a "straw man."

More "progress" in Iraq.


Water taps run dry in Baghdad


By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
Thu Aug 2, 2:19 PM ET



BAGHDAD - Much of the Iraqi capital was without running water Thursday and had been for at least 24 hours, compounding the urban misery in a war zone and the blistering heat at the height of the Baghdad summer.

Residents and city officials said large sections in the west of the capital had been virtually dry for six days because the already strained electricity grid cannot provide sufficient power to run water purification and pumping stations.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

Quote:

> the burden of proof always belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement

I never made this statement. You injected the word 'always' into one of my statements. Why must you resort to paraphrasing, Ican? Why can't you address people's actual arguments?
...
Cycloptichorn

There is no difference in the meaning of these statements:

the burden of proof belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement.

the burden of proof always belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement;

You did not qualify the word belongs with the word frequently or one of its equivalents, so I logically inferred that you believed your statement to be unqualified. In my paraphrase, I merely made that explicit by adding the word always.

This is a great example of how you get in to trouble by paraphrasing, ICan.

I'd like you to quote my original post where I stated - without any other qualifiers - that 'the burden of proof belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement.'

Though, now that I think about it - can you posit an instance in which someone makes an affirmative statement of fact, and the burden of disproving this falls upon someone else - and not the person making the statement and providing no evidence for it?

Cycloptichorn

...

This is why I try to avoid paraphrasing in the first place - as evidence of anything - it leads to situations which are unverifiable and basically come down to opinion. I don't desire this, and I don't see why you do either; I can't just look at your description of what Gore said and conclude that he's illogical, it just isn't good enough evidence.

On the whole I am entirely against the prospect of paraphrasing someone's words, and using that paraphrase to prove that they are somehow incorrect. I could say to someone else, "why, I can prove that Ican is a moron. Just the other day, he said - and I paraphrase - 'Those who do not believe that we should go around killing women and children in Iraq with death squads are idiots whose minds are controlled by Soros.'"

Surely you wouldn't want this sort of thing done to yourself - you would prefer to have your actual argumentation presented. It's the intellectually honest thing to do.

Cycloptichorn

Iraq faces alarming humanitarian crisis
By David Loyn
BBC developing world correspondent


Iraq's people were poor and lacked most of the normal signs of development, even before the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Then it was possible to blame the problems of dictatorship and international sanctions, but since the US-led invasion continuing poverty in this oil-rich state has had other causes.

A new report by Oxfam says that the continuing failure to provide even the most basic services to many Iraqis will not only cause continuing suffering, but "serve to further destabilise the country".

Oxfam are unable to work on the ground in Iraq in the way that they would elsewhere, but working with the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI), their new survey finds "eight million people in need of emergency aid".


The survey recognises that armed violence is the greatest threat facing Iraqis, but finds a population "increasingly threatened by disease and malnutrition".

Savage divisions

Clear statistical analysis is difficult, but the Oxfam/NCCI report believes that more than two million people are now internally displaced within Iraq, as savage new lines are drawn between communities who were not at war before.

Delivering aid to them provides new challenges to a system that is coping even less well than it did in the year after the war.

Of the four million Iraqis who are registered to receive food assistance, 60% receive it. That is down from 96% in the year after the war.

Fewer people have access to clean water than did under Saddam Hussein, and 80% have no access to effective sanitation, a figure comparable to sub-Saharan Africa.


Most UN agencies have found it difficult to operate in Iraq since the devastating bomb that killed their special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and many of his staff only six months after the invasion.

The invasion itself was not mandated by the UN, but the reconstruction effort has since won more international support and its backing.

Humanitarian needs neglected

The Oxfam/NCCI report finds that the immediate needs of Iraqis are being neglected by international funding, which is targeted at longer term development goals.

These goals will be hard to achieve given the major security challenges.


The report finds that funding for these longer-term projects went up by almost 1000% in the first two years after the invasion, but, despite the need, immediate humanitarian aid fell by about a half.

The report says that the right of the people of Iraq to humanitarian support "is being neglected".
But, while reminding the international community and the UN of their moral responsibility, it recommends a number of basic steps that the government in Baghdad could take to improve the plight of the people.

Most urgently, the report demands that government assistance should be devolved to local control.
(HEAR ! HEAR ! hbg)

That way, locally accountable bodies could inspect the warehouses and delivery systems for aid.

This report must represent a major challenge both to the international authorities and the Iraqi government, who are both found to be failing their people.



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6921623.stm

Published: 2007/07/29 23:50:09 GMT