THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican, it's just a viscious rumor. Bushie dont panic. Bushie dont need them dirty rat Republican Senators who are jumping ship. Bushie dont need nobody.

U.S. lawmakers prevented from leaving Green Zone.

A six-member congressional delegation recently returned from a seven-day trip that included stops in Ireland, Germany, Pakistan, Kuwait and Iraq. While in Iraq, security conditions prevented them "from meeting any Iraqis, leaving the Green Zone or staying in Iraq overnight." Additionally, the "congressional members were required to wear full body armor, including Kevlar helmets, during the entire trip."

ican, fearmongering is for Bushies. It dont work much anymore.

...
If they are going to attack us, then staying in Iraq doesn't slow them down one Iota. Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided any evidence that it has done so.
...
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
If they are going to attack us, then staying in Iraq doesn't slow them down one Iota. Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided any evidence that it has done so.
...
Cycloptichorn

Face Reality! We have not been attacked by al-Qaeda since we have been in Iraq. The British and Spaniards et cetera have been attacked since we have been in Iraq.

Say after me: [size=26]FACE REALITY![/size]

Maybe it will help you face reality.

You are making a logical fallacy of your own Cyc.

Not wanting terrorism at home is not fearing terrorism. Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic and not wanting illegal immigrants does not make one racist.

It's a common tactic used by people like you to attempt to smear those with a different opinion. Don't like illegal immigration? You must be a racist! Don't want terrorism? You must be afraid of them!

Our not being attacked again is more likely a result of our increased monitoring of suspected terrorists using programs like the Terrorist Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act and other things you liberals decry as invasions to your privacy.

Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic

McGentrix wrote:

You are making a logical fallacy of your own Cyc.

Not wanting terrorism at home is not fearing terrorism. Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic and not wanting illegal immigrants does not make one racist.

It's a common tactic used by people like you to attempt to smear those with a different opinion. Don't like illegal immigration? You must be a racist! Don't want terrorism? You must be afraid of them!

Our not being attacked again is more likely a result of our increased monitoring of suspected terrorists using programs like the Terrorist Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act and other things you liberals decry as invasions to your privacy.

In fact, you have no evidence that it is 'more likely' because of such things. The terrorist plots broken up here in America have largely been done so due to tips that have been phoned in.

That's not the major point though; the point is that it certainly isn't the War in Iraq which is keeping them from coming here, as Ican alleges.

Quote:

Just as not wanting marriage between homosexuals does not make one homophobic

There is no other cogent reason to not want marriage between homosexuals, and you are lying to yourself if you claim any differently. We had a huge thread put forth and none of the reasons offered held up to any logical examination whatsoever. Latent and pervasive Homophobia is the driving force behind denying marriage to gays, the same way as pervasive fearmongering about terrorism is a sign of an internalized fear of said terrorism.

I never, ever see either of you advocating for emergency and drastic measures increasing security here at home. Ever. If you really were as concerned about terrorism - but not afraid of it - you would be advocating it. I consider your arguments on this issue to be worse then hollow.

Cycloptichorn

I never, ever see you advocating for not eating babies. Ever. If you were really concerned about not eating babies - but not worried about it - you would be advocating it.

I continue to not care about what you think about my arguments, baby eater.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
If they are going to attack us, then staying in Iraq doesn't slow them down one Iota. Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided any evidence that it has done so.
...
Cycloptichorn

Face Reality! We have not been attacked by al-Qaeda since we have been in Iraq. The British and Spaniards et cetera have been attacked since we have been in Iraq.

Say after me: [size=26]FACE REALITY![/size]

Maybe it will help you face reality.

You are committing a logical fallacy: You are attempting to use non-corollary statistics to prove something that doesn't follow from the statistics themselves.

Our not being attacked since we went to Iraq is not evidence that the war in Iraq is keeping us from being attacked.

This is quite simple logic, Ican, and the sad part is that you do understand it deep down, I know it - yet you make the case anyways, b/c the fear you feel is stronger then your logic box.

I am not afraid of terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

I never, ever see you advocating for not eating babies. Ever. If you were really concerned about not eating babies - but not worried about it - you would be advocating it.

I continue to not care about what you think about my arguments, baby eater.

Yes you do, or you wouldn't respond. That's why we love ya so much, McG!

Your comparing Fearmongering and Homophobia to 'eating babies' is an example of Appealing to Extremes, as well as being a poor rejoinder.

I assure you that if there was an actual and real problem with eating babies, you would hear me commenting on the drastic and immediate steps which need to be taken to stop the problem. However, as there does not seem to be any evidence that there is a problem with this, I am silent on the subject.

You and Ican, on the other hand, allege there is a actual and real problem that we face from domestic terrorism; yet you do not advocate taking the drastic and immediate steps to protect us. This makes your arguments hollow, as you never actually advocate doing the things which need to be done to stop it; merely spread fear about the problem. It's a real indicator that the argument is, as I said, worse then hollow.

I must admit that this is better then your usual trolling. I'm glad to see you've decided to step your game up.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I never, ever see you advocating for not eating babies. Ever. If you were really concerned about not eating babies - but not worried about it - you would be advocating it.

I continue to not care about what you think about my arguments, baby eater.

Yes you do, or you wouldn't respond. That's why we love ya so much, McG!

Your comparing Fearmongering and Homophobia to 'eating babies' is an example of Appealing to Extremes, as well as being a poor rejoinder.

I assure you that if there was an actual and real problem with eating babies, you would hear me commenting on the drastic and immediate steps which need to be taken to stop the problem. However, as there does not seem to be any evidence that there is a problem with this, I am silent on the subject.

You and Ican, on the other hand, allege there is a actual and real problem that we face from domestic terrorism; yet you do not advocate taking the drastic and immediate steps to protect us. This makes your arguments hollow, as you never actually advocate doing the things which need to be done to stop it; merely spread fear about the problem. It's a real indicator that the argument is, as I said, worse then hollow.

I must admit that this is better then your usual trolling. I'm glad to see you've decided to step your game up.

Cycloptichorn

I have repeatedly said we need to enforce our countries boundaries. I have repeatedly stated that we need to control the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders. I have repeatedly defended the Patriot act and the Terrorist Surveillance Act, I have repeatedly backed up the administrations efforts in taking the war on terror to our enemies instead of waiting for them to come to us.

For you to suggest I have not advocated for the defense of this country tells me one of two things:

A. You don't actually read any of my posts, but continuously comment on them, telling me you are nothing but a knee-jerk liberal with no reading comprehension skills.
or
B. You've spouted off here, again, before actually knowing what you are saying telling me you are a knee-jerk liberal that can't stomach someone having a different opinion than them.

So, which is it? No reading comprehension skills or can't stomach a different opinion?

3 Killed in Attack on Green Zone

CNN--update: AP-- is reporting that Baghdad's Green Zone was hit by as many as 35 rockets this evening--3 dead, 18 wounded. And while the Green Zone is mortared most nights, this seems an escalation by insurgents who, in this case, are NOT Al Qaeda, but most likely members of Muqtada Sadr's Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) or, even more likely, members of the Iranian supported JAM Special Groups, who may operate outside Sadr's control.

US military intel sources in Baghdad told me a few weeks ago that these mortar attacks are often in response to specific events--like raids on JAM cells or members--but I wonder, in this case, if the attacks have anything to do with the growing split between Sadr and Prime Minister Maliki?