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

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?

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.

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........?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

In their own country in order to kill some of our army?


That would be stupid.

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.

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

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

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.

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