0
   

What bothers me about the Dems right now....

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 08:54 am
FreeDuck wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
All of you that are saying that there were no WMD in Iraq,let me ask something.

We know now that there were no WMD,but given Saddam's history of using WMD in the past,and given his defiance of 14 previous resolutions,what would have happened had you been wrong?

Did you really want to take that chance?


Twenty years ago, a man who lives across town killed his wife. Now he's out of prison. Shouldn't you just kill him now? I mean, do you really want to take the chance that he won't kill yours? What if you're wrong?


Your right,he shouldnt be out of prison.
He should have been executed for murder.
If a person murders once,there is a possibility he will do it again.

Now,why are none of you realizing that under the terms of the cease fire after the gulf war,Saddam was REQUIRED to account for ALL of his wmd,ALL of his weapons programs,and ALL of his long range missiles.

Now,according to 1441,he didnt do that and even the Security Council admitted that.
So,by refusing to abide by the agreement signed to end the gulf war,he put himself in the position that he found himself in.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 08:54 am
parados wrote:
Brandon,
I see you just repackaged your arguments and moved them around.
I responded to each of your points and you just moved your points to a different place in the discussion. You used the "evil dictator that was annexing neighbors" argument at least twice instead of answering my points. I have already pointed out that argument has no basis. It is nothing but a scare tactic that does not lead to a necessary invasion as you claimed.

I really liked this little contradiction in your argument....
Brandon9000 wrote:
parados wrote:
A necessity that didn't require an invasion as evidenced by the present negotiation with North Korea.
Yes, North Korea is a representative test case. Just because we may, perhaps, finally have succeeded in buying them off in this particular case, doesn't mean that allowing awful dictators to have doomsday weapons couldn't realistically result in terrible, lethal consequences.
Followed by this...
Quote:
I don't mean to be mean, but this question reveals your lack of comprehension of the issue. Once North Korea announced actual possession of nukes, we had no further option to invade. Should we invade a nuclear power, they have the option of using the weapons. It was precisely to prevent Saddam Hussein from achieving this near invulnerability that we invaded Iraq.


I don't mean to be mean Brandon, but aren't you directly contradicting your own argument here. First you say we had to invade Iraq because it is necessary that we not allow evil dictators to have WMD. Then you say North Korea is a test case about negotiating instead of invading which directly contradicts your claim that invasion was the ONLY option. Negotiation means there were other options. Then you say we can't invade North Korea because an evil dictator does have WMD which directly contradicts your argument that we can't allow an evil dictator to have WMD.

Not only is your argument not valid based on your own statements contradicting it. It isn't even coherent.

Now this is something I really want to discuss. I fail to see the tiniest contradiction. We cannot allow evil, hostile dictators like Saddam Hussein or Kom Jong-Il to possess weapons of this lethality if we have any choice, yet once they possess them, we cannot invade either, because they would have the option of killing hundreds of thousands or even more people the moment we invade. In that case, we have no other option than to plead, cajole, and attempt to bribe. It's like saying that certain people should not be allowed to own guns, but if one of them comes up to me with a gun and points it at me, I don't realistically possess the option of grabbing it from his hands. I want you to tell me the contradiction.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 09:08 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Yes. Everyone should definitely read that link that Foxfyre just posted.

Quote:
several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."


And the portion you highlighted is pertinent in your mind because........?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 09:22 am
Foxfyre wrote:

And the portion you highlighted is pertinent in your mind because........?


1) It shows that the comments were mostly not made during the run up to the war, as you asserted.

2) It (and more below) shows how deceptive the little mass emailing of out of context quotations really is.

Tell me, what was your purpose in posting that?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 09:25 am
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
All of you that are saying that there were no WMD in Iraq,let me ask something.

We know now that there were no WMD,but given Saddam's history of using WMD in the past,and given his defiance of 14 previous resolutions,what would have happened had you been wrong?

Did you really want to take that chance?


Twenty years ago, a man who lives across town killed his wife. Now he's out of prison. Shouldn't you just kill him now? I mean, do you really want to take the chance that he won't kill yours? What if you're wrong?


Your right,he shouldnt be out of prison.
He should have been executed for murder.
If a person murders once,there is a possibility he will do it again.


So we'll be seeing you out on the vigilante missions, then?

Quote:
Now,why are none of you realizing that under the terms of the cease fire after the gulf war,Saddam was REQUIRED to account for ALL of his wmd,ALL of his weapons programs,and ALL of his long range missiles.

Now,according to 1441,he didnt do that and even the Security Council admitted that.
So,by refusing to abide by the agreement signed to end the gulf war,he put himself in the position that he found himself in.


Everyone understands that. Everyone also understands that a failure to account for the destruction of the WMDs is not reason enough to destroy a country and countless American soldiers' lives. Failure to account does not equal imminent threat.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 09:41 am
So, if an evil dictator is trying to get WMD that makes him a clear and present danger and our only choice is to invade.
But if an evil dictator HAS WMD then he is no longer a clear and present danger and we can negotiate? Or wait... .he IS a clear and present danger so we have to negotiate.

Your argument makes no sense Brandon. Do we negotiate when there is a clear and present danger or do we invade when there is a clear and present danger?

Which is more dangerous? Someone that has WMD or someone that is trying to get them?
Do we invade for clear and present dangers or do we negotiate for them?

Sorry Brandon, your argument leads any thinking person to the conclusion that you CAN negotiate with someone that does not yet have WMD. Invasion is NOT your only choice.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 10:19 am
parados wrote:
So, if an evil dictator is trying to get WMD that makes him a clear and present danger and our only choice is to invade.
But if an evil dictator HAS WMD then he is no longer a clear and present danger and we can negotiate? Or wait... .he IS a clear and present danger so we have to negotiate.

Your argument makes no sense Brandon. Do we negotiate when there is a clear and present danger or do we invade when there is a clear and present danger?

Which is more dangerous? Someone that has WMD or someone that is trying to get them?
Do we invade for clear and present dangers or do we negotiate for them?

Sorry Brandon, your argument leads any thinking person to the conclusion that you CAN negotiate with someone that does not yet have WMD. Invasion is NOT your only choice.

You're incorrect. This is simple, and true, and there is not the slightest contradiction. We are able to either negotiate with or invade countries that are actively seeking WMD. We are not able to invade countries that actually have WMD, but may only negotiate with them, because should we try to invade they could kill a staggering number of people, even though they are even more of a danger than before they obtained the weapons. What's the contradiction?

In theory, one can always negotiate, but it's not always a safe choice. However, I am more interested in your claim that I am contradicting myself.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 10:23 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
parados wrote:
So, if an evil dictator is trying to get WMD that makes him a clear and present danger and our only choice is to invade.
But if an evil dictator HAS WMD then he is no longer a clear and present danger and we can negotiate? Or wait... .he IS a clear and present danger so we have to negotiate.

Your argument makes no sense Brandon. Do we negotiate when there is a clear and present danger or do we invade when there is a clear and present danger?

Which is more dangerous? Someone that has WMD or someone that is trying to get them?
Do we invade for clear and present dangers or do we negotiate for them?

Sorry Brandon, your argument leads any thinking person to the conclusion that you CAN negotiate with someone that does not yet have WMD. Invasion is NOT your only choice.

You're incorrect. This is simple, and true, and there is not the slightest contradiction. We are able to either negotiate with or invade countries that are actively seeking WMD. We are not able to invade countries that have WMD, but may only negotiate with them, because should we try to invade they could kill a staggering number of people. What's the contradiction?

In theory, one can always negotiate, but it's not always a safe choice. However, I am more interested in your claim that I am contradicting myself.


We can still invade even if they had WMD. In fact, it was claimed by the vast majority of war supporters that Saddam did in fact have WMD and was prepared to use them; didn't stop us from invading, did it?

You present a false dichotomy; the US being held hostage militarily because the other country has WMD. No such dilemma exists. If we decided to invade North Korea, and they drop a nuke, then we finish our invasion an deal with the consequences.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 11:11 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're incorrect. This is simple, and true, and there is not the slightest contradiction. We are able to either negotiate with or invade countries that are actively seeking WMD. We are not able to invade countries that actually have WMD, but may only negotiate with them, because should we try to invade they could kill a staggering number of people, even though they are even more of a danger than before they obtained the weapons. What's the contradiction?

In theory, one can always negotiate, but it's not always a safe choice. However, I am more interested in your claim that I am contradicting myself.


Brandon, you just made the case for every country that somehow feels threatened by the United States to try and achieve nuclear capability as soon as possible - preferably in a clandestine way - as a safeguard against invasion by the US.

I assume that what you just outlined will be exactly the consequence of the Bush administration policy.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:07 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon, you just made the case for every country that somehow feels threatened by the United States to try and achieve nuclear capability as soon as possible - preferably in a clandestine way - as a safeguard against invasion by the US.

I assume that what you just outlined will be exactly the consequence of the Bush administration policy.

Not only will it be the consequence of the Bush administration policy, but it already is the consequence of that policy. Is there any doubt that Iran began pursuing its nuclear weapon development in earnest as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Bush's designation of Iran as a member of the "axis of evil?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:10 pm
Let's also look at North Korea. Bush can't.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:12 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Now,according to 1441,he didnt do that and even the Security Council admitted that.
So,by refusing to abide by the agreement signed to end the gulf war,he put himself in the position that he found himself in.

UNSC resolution 1441 did not authorize the US to invade Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:15 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
parados wrote:
So, if an evil dictator is trying to get WMD that makes him a clear and present danger and our only choice is to invade.
But if an evil dictator HAS WMD then he is no longer a clear and present danger and we can negotiate? Or wait... .he IS a clear and present danger so we have to negotiate.

Your argument makes no sense Brandon. Do we negotiate when there is a clear and present danger or do we invade when there is a clear and present danger?

Which is more dangerous? Someone that has WMD or someone that is trying to get them?
Do we invade for clear and present dangers or do we negotiate for them?

Sorry Brandon, your argument leads any thinking person to the conclusion that you CAN negotiate with someone that does not yet have WMD. Invasion is NOT your only choice.

You're incorrect. This is simple, and true, and there is not the slightest contradiction. We are able to either negotiate with or invade countries that are actively seeking WMD. We are not able to invade countries that have WMD, but may only negotiate with them, because should we try to invade they could kill a staggering number of people. What's the contradiction?

In theory, one can always negotiate, but it's not always a safe choice. However, I am more interested in your claim that I am contradicting myself.


We can still invade even if they had WMD. In fact, it was claimed by the vast majority of war supporters that Saddam did in fact have WMD and was prepared to use them; didn't stop us from invading, did it?

Yes, I certainly misspoke. I meant that we are not able to invade countries which have nukes. I didn't intend the statement to refer to chemical weapons, which are not as lethal. Although some bioweapons could have the same killing capacity as nukes, I doubt that any country would dare to use one that close to their home base. Consider my statement to refer only to nuclear weapons.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You present a false dichotomy; the US being held hostage militarily because the other country has WMD. No such dilemma exists. If we decided to invade North Korea, and they drop a nuke, then we finish our invasion an deal with the consequences.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, but my point is that we wouldn't wish to invade if the consequences were that entire cities might be vaporized, or that a substantial part of our army might be easily obliterated. Also, bear in mind that the invaded country might even use more than one nuke.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:19 pm
In their own country in order to kill some of our army?


That would be stupid.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:20 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're incorrect. This is simple, and true, and there is not the slightest contradiction. We are able to either negotiate with or invade countries that are actively seeking WMD. We are not able to invade countries that actually have WMD, but may only negotiate with them, because should we try to invade they could kill a staggering number of people, even though they are even more of a danger than before they obtained the weapons. What's the contradiction?

In theory, one can always negotiate, but it's not always a safe choice. However, I am more interested in your claim that I am contradicting myself.


Brandon, you just made the case for every country that somehow feels threatened by the United States to try and achieve nuclear capability as soon as possible - preferably in a clandestine way - as a safeguard against invasion by the US.

I assume that what you just outlined will be exactly the consequence of the Bush administration policy.

True, but my logic regarding countries that can be invaded and countries that we dare not invade is nonetheless true, not as a consequence of anything President Bush did, but just by the inherent logic of the situation.

We might dare to inavade countries without nuclear weapons, but would certainly not dare to invade countries that possess them except under the absolute direst circumstances conceivable. It's not my fault or the president's, it's just logic.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:24 pm
squinney wrote:
In their own country in order to kill some of our army?


That would be stupid.

I didn't say that. First of all, North Korea might threaten to obliterate South Korea if we invaded, and having made that threat, if we invaded anyway, might follow through on it. Secondly, an invading army is usually not totally deployed within the country it invades. If, during our invasion, a substantial fraction of our army or navy were nearby, but outside their country, they could then obliterate our people without obliterating themselves. You will never make a good argument that it is relatively safe to invade a nuclear power - it isn't.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:29 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
parados wrote:
So, if an evil dictator is trying to get WMD that makes him a clear and present danger and our only choice is to invade.
But if an evil dictator HAS WMD then he is no longer a clear and present danger and we can negotiate? Or wait... .he IS a clear and present danger so we have to negotiate.

Your argument makes no sense Brandon. Do we negotiate when there is a clear and present danger or do we invade when there is a clear and present danger?

Which is more dangerous? Someone that has WMD or someone that is trying to get them?
Do we invade for clear and present dangers or do we negotiate for them?

Sorry Brandon, your argument leads any thinking person to the conclusion that you CAN negotiate with someone that does not yet have WMD. Invasion is NOT your only choice.

You're incorrect. This is simple, and true, and there is not the slightest contradiction. We are able to either negotiate with or invade countries that are actively seeking WMD. We are not able to invade countries that have WMD, but may only negotiate with them, because should we try to invade they could kill a staggering number of people. What's the contradiction?

In theory, one can always negotiate, but it's not always a safe choice. However, I am more interested in your claim that I am contradicting myself.


We can still invade even if they had WMD. In fact, it was claimed by the vast majority of war supporters that Saddam did in fact have WMD and was prepared to use them; didn't stop us from invading, did it?

Yes, I certainly misspoke. I meant that we are not able to invade countries which have nukes. I didn't intend the statement to refer to chemical weapons, which are not as lethal. Although some bioweapons could have the same killing capacity as nukes, I doubt that any country would dare to use one that close to their home base. Consider my statement to refer only to nuclear weapons.


Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You present a false dichotomy; the US being held hostage militarily because the other country has WMD. No such dilemma exists. If we decided to invade North Korea, and they drop a nuke, then we finish our invasion an deal with the consequences.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, but my point is that we wouldn't wish to invade if the consequences were that entire cities might be vaporized, or that a substantial part of our army might be easily obliterated. Also, bear in mind that the invaded country might even use more than one nuke.


So what? You say this later in the thread -

Quote:
You will never make a good argument that it is relatively safe to invade a nuclear power - it isn't.


WHo said that war was 'safe?' It wasn't safe to invade at D-Day and large parts of WW2 in the pacific were decidedly unsafe for our troops.

When attacking a nuclear power - with overwhelming force - you inevitably force them to decide whether or not to pop a nuke over their own territory. I have a hard time believing that you would think someone wouldn't release a bioweapon in their own territory, but they would release a nuke there.

As an aside, if we had spent the money we've spent in Iraq on space research and exploration/military exploitation, we wouldn't have a problem with any country going nuke, because nukes would be childs play compared to the power we would hold with space superiority. We could annihilate an entire country, with zero nuclear fallout and zero troops on the ground. If we truly want to defend against rogue countries, we're doing it in the most ass-backwards fashion possible.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:33 pm
Quote:
As an aside, if we had spent the money we've spent in Iraq on space research and exploration/military exploitation, we wouldn't have a problem with any country going nuke, because nukes would be childs play compared to the power we would hold with space superiority. We could annihilate an entire country, with zero nuclear fallout and zero troops on the ground. If we truly want to defend against rogue countries, we're doing it in the most ass-backwards fashion possible.

Cycloptichorn


So you propose militarizing space?
You propose we put offensive weapons in space?

Thats pretty militaristic of you,and I find your position surprising,concerning your past views about the military and its use.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:36 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
As an aside, if we had spent the money we've spent in Iraq on space research and exploration/military exploitation, we wouldn't have a problem with any country going nuke, because nukes would be childs play compared to the power we would hold with space superiority. We could annihilate an entire country, with zero nuclear fallout and zero troops on the ground. If we truly want to defend against rogue countries, we're doing it in the most ass-backwards fashion possible.

Cycloptichorn


So you propose militarizing space?
You propose we put offensive weapons in space?

Thats pretty militaristic of you,and I find your position surprising,concerning your past views about the military and its use.


It is the only logical way to look at the situation.

Nothing we do on the surface of the planet at the moment matters one bit. All that matters from a species point of view is diversification into space as quickly as possible.

This will inevitably bring about the same sort of conflicts and tribulations over resources as we have experienced since time immemorial; we can either be ready for this as a nation, or not. As an added bonus, the research and technology neccessary to produce this sort of space superiority has literally countless civilian applications.

I hate to see us wasting our time with something as meaningless as Iraq, when we could be focusing on what truly is a new frontier, a gigantic business opportunity, the solution to our overcrowding and global warming problems, and the future of our species. It's like seeing people spending all their time arguing over whose turn it is to do the dishes or something and never once thinking about improving their lives.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
As an aside, if we had spent the money we've spent in Iraq on space research and exploration/military exploitation, we wouldn't have a problem with any country going nuke, because nukes would be childs play compared to the power we would hold with space superiority. We could annihilate an entire country, with zero nuclear fallout and zero troops on the ground. If we truly want to defend against rogue countries, we're doing it in the most ass-backwards fashion possible.

Cycloptichorn


So you propose militarizing space?
You propose we put offensive weapons in space?

Thats pretty militaristic of you,and I find your position surprising,concerning your past views about the military and its use.


It is the only logical way to look at the situation.

Nothing we do on the surface of the planet at the moment matters one bit. All that matters from a species point of view is diversification into space as quickly as possible.

I believe that the Outer Space Treaty of 1958 prohibits this.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This will inevitably bring about the same sort of conflicts and tribulations over resources as we have experienced since time immemorial; we can either be ready for this as a nation, or not. As an added bonus, the research and technology neccessary to produce this sort of space superiority has literally countless civilian applications.

I hate to see us wasting our time with something as meaningless as Iraq, when we could be focusing on what truly is a new frontier, a gigantic business opportunity, the solution to our overcrowding and global warming problems, and the future of our species. It's like seeing people spending all their time arguing over whose turn it is to do the dishes or something and never once thinking about improving their lives.

Cycloptichorn

I couldn't agree with you more except about one point, space travel isn't a solution to overcrowding, because I don't think we can build the ships as rapidly as the population is expanding. Otherwise I agree. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, one of the fathers of space flight said, "The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."
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 05/20/2022 at 01:28:35