Mark Hickey <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
>
[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<
[email protected]>...
> >>
[email protected] (Tom Paterson) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The linkage was made, over and over again. Terrorists-
> >> >9/11. "We're fighting terrorism in Iraq".
> >>
> >> Terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Iraq
> >> did sponsor terrorism.
> >
> >More propaganda, and more semantics and word-play. When
> >you need to be pedantic to make your point, your point is
> >perilously weak.
>
> Do you actually READ the news?
Obviously. Otherwise you could just dimiss my arguments. But
since you go to the trouble of attempting refutation, you
can just drop that line of "reasoning"...
> You really don't know about Iraq's direct and open support
> of terrorists?
Which anti-U.S. terrorists would those be? Hezbollah? Al
Qaeda? No? Here's a little something to think about -
wouldn't the most prudent course of action be to go after
the anti-U.S. terorists FIRST, then clean up the rest of
them later? This is the semantics game that really kills
your argument. "He supported terorists." Yeah, and so do a
lot of other countries, in greater amounts, and even in
greater amounts than Iraq ever did with anti-Israel
terrorists.
> Who would even try to deny it?
Nobody - that's why the argument is so completely moronic.
And yet you go back to it again and again, like it actually
means something...
> >Iraq did not have anything to do with the 9/11
> >terrorists. They are two separate issues. Hey, I bet
> >you wear red on occasion. I guess that means you are a
> >communist, right? That is EXACTLY the tortured
> >reasoning used.
>
> "Reasoning" isn't the word I'd use for your comparison.
When cornered, change the subject.
I'm illustrating a "connect the dots" sort of logical
fallacy that conservatives lean on so heavily to bolster
their shaky arguments. A sort of reasoning, that if a
liberal used it, the conservatives would be hopping up and
down, howling about the illogic of it all.
> >On a list of supporters of anti-U.S. terrorists, our
> >erstwhile "friend" Pakistan is higher on the list than
> >Iraq ever was.
>
> They're also snapping to nicely right now (hopefully
> they'll come back from the Afghanistan border with UBL's
> head on a stake).
They are a coup away from a Fundementalist Biggest Stick. If
that doesn't worry you, then you have your rectocranial
insertion at full extention. The population does not support
Musharref - if you actually read the news, you'd know this.
They think OBL is a hero, fergawdsake!
> >> Maybe... partisan politics should have no part in these
> >> issues (either way).
> >
> >LOL. Partisan politics that distracted Clinton from the
> >real threat, while the GOP wanted to kick him out for a
> >little bit of intern ****-smoking? Get real.
>
> Clinton approached the terrorist threat as a law
> enforcement issue.
When cornered, change the subject.
I didn't notice the GOP jumping up and down declaring war -
they DID have that power, ya know. It just so happens that I
agree that Clinton missed the boat there. As did Shrub for
his first eight months. As did Bush I before Clinton. As did
Reagan. Beriut '83 was the opening shot in the war, folks.
> Bush sees it as a full-on war. I agree with the latter,
> personally.
I'm sure you would have ****** your pants in apoplexy if
Clinton would have done anything more than launch missles.
After all, he only did that to distract from Monica, right?
Ooops, as it turns out, he seems to have destroyed the last
of Saddam's weapons-building capacity in the WMD realm. For
proof of this, see the GOP's criticism of the Balkans
adventure.
Does Clinton get credit for that, or was that also
Reagan's doing?
> >> You're not gonna make me go through all that again,
> >> are you?
> >
> >Repetition does not make it any more compelling, despite
> >what the GOP-apologist playbook says.
>
> Hey now, if that's in the playbook, it's one we stole from
> the Dems.
The connect-the-dots reasoning is not valid, no matter
who is doing
it. If it's wrong for them, it's wrong for you, too.
> >> Known stockpiles of WMD, believed to be in existence by
> >> everyone who mattered (including the UN and previous
> >> administration).
> >
> >Since the previous administration and the UN were
> >irrelevant on every other issue, their opinions on the
> >subject are moot. Oh, wait - they are "right" when they
> >agree with us, and irrelevant when they don't, correct?
>
> The point being that you are trying to rewrite history so
> you can say GWB "lied" about WMD
Except I haven't said anything of the kind. Shrub used any
excuse he could find to invade Iraq. As it turns out, he was
wrong about the WMD. Now, that's not such a big deal -
intelligence can be poor, and that falls upon Dems and GOP
equally. The problem lies when you start changing national
policy - policy that's been in place for over two hundred
years. It's not enough to *think* you're right. You actually
have to *be* right. Otherwise, you're no different than any
other invader who has ever invaded on any sort of pretext. I
realize that this is a very complex objection, and won't
appeal to the "black and white, dumb it down for me" crowd.
Morals actually mean something to some of us, and the lack
of morality from this so-called religious president is
appalling.
> Except that by that logic, everyone else (including the
> Clinton administration and the UN weapons inspectors) also
> "lied" just as much... but you don't seem to recall that
> "little detail". Heh.
This is the logical fallacy called a "strawman."
I hope you have something better to bring to the table in
your next reply.
> >The UN report from Blix was certainly not as absolute
> >as "known." So, I guess two can play at semantics
> >games, hmmm?
>
> The report is quite clear.
There are equivocations from start to finish. Which puts the
absolutes of "knowns" away. There turns out to be nothing
"known" about anything.
> It doesn't identify particular stockpiles (since if they
> knew about them, they'd be destroyed), so you're using a
> beautiful piece of circular logic.
Even the places and things defined as "likely" turned out to
be nothing but hot air and sand.
> Their conclusion was that Iraq almost certainly had large
> stocks of WMD, and certainly possessed the ability to
> create more on short notice.
Except they were wrong, too. Maybe, just maybe, if Shrub
had actually been thinking about diplomacy, rather than
swinging his big **** around, the facts would have come
out. He lied about the decision to go to war not being
made, and he lied about "diplomacy first." That's plenty
enough real lies for me.
But Shrub is notoriously impatient. Sorry to all you
military boys who paid the price, but I got an appointment
to keep...
> >> Known support of terrorist groups.
> >
> >This is what's known as a "red herring." They were down
> >on the list of folks, and below our "friends" Saudi
> >Arabia and Pakistan. In any case, they did not support
> >anti-U.S. groups like Hezbollah (Syria) and al Qaeda
> >(Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).
>
> OK, Saddam isn't the only bad guy in the region - but he
> was the one with the history and the weapons that made him
> the biggest perceived danger
You don't go and reverse 200 years of foreign policy on a
perception. You don't alienate much of the rest of the
planet on perception. How badly do you think our
credibility around the globe has been hurt? Do you think
we're not gonna need these folks at some point in the
future? We have neither the men nor treasure to do it all
by ourselves, forever.
He went and attacked a two-bit, toothless tiger and then
went about trying to justify it. And now it seem like those
folks who were going to press flowers and kisses into the
hands of their liberators are instead sending them steel and
high explosive. Just like was predicted before the war, by
that ultra-liberal (LOL) Thomas Friedmann.
> (a sentiment shared by the Clinton administration, BTW).
Who cares what Clinton thought? The GOP using Clinton or the
UN as any sort of support is laughable. Unless, of course,
they were actually RIGHT on something - then that opens the
door for them to be right about other things as well...
Sort of like having the UN on board to give this invasion
some legitimacy. Better late than never, right? As the Bush
Boys go hat-in-hand to beg the UN to help them out of the
pickle they find themselves in...
> Are you saying we should go after the House of Saud and
> Pakistan next? Won't Syria feel left out? ;-)
When cornered, change the subject...
Those folks were and are bigger supporters of anti-U.S.
terrorism. And yet we go after the weak sister. How odd, the
priorities...
> >> Refusal to disarm per cease-fire agreement in '91.
> >
> >Seems as though they really did. The Shrub just didn't
> >believe it.
>
> Neither did anyone else (read the report).
Reading comprehension problems? The report is wrong in
places as well
- it seems that the report is also overly cautious in it's
assessment. It looks really bad when Saddam appears to be
telling the truth, and Shrub appears to be lying. For all
Americans.
> >> Genocidal behavior and a destabilizing force in the
> >> (crucial) region.
> >
> >Shouldn't matter, since The Shrub commented previously on
> >not being the world's policeman. When Shrub goes into a
> >place for purely humanitarian reasons, get back to me on
> >this (non-)point.
>
> Compare the US history of humanitarian intervention with
> that of the UN.
When cornered, change the subject...
We're talking about what Shrub said, and then what he said
later. Him criticizing Kerry for taking opposite positions
on things sure is ironic...
> Hey, Iraq is a strategic country that's crucial to US
> interests... no doubt. But it was still the right thing to
> do to take Saddam out, interests or no.
Except that if it was sold that way to the U.S. public and
to the COngress, they'd have not gone for it. So, you say
"War on Terror" and "Iraq" right next to one another for a
year. You accuse Saddam of having tons and tons of weapons
that just plain don't exist, then you drag out UN
resolutions that were passed years ago, while ignoring the
current UN ideas. Scare the public with talk of "mushroom
clouds" (You must have been talking about aerial fungus,
because Saddam was no closer to nukes than Mexico.) You play
up false stories of weapons-grade uranium from Africa.
If someone from the Democratic party did that, you GOPers
would be howling with outrage.
If it was the right thing to do, people wouldn't disagree on
it. Maybe it's more complex than "Saddam is a bad man." The
world's full of them, Mark - and I'm sorry to say, some are
in our own government.
> >> Iraq was only one of the states openly sponsoring
> >> terrorism, but one with the greatest ability to harm us
> >> directly.
> >
> >Propaganda. As it turns out, Pakistan and it's nucular
> >scientist has turned out to be a greater threat. Wow,
> >talk about embarassing!
>
> I doubt that ends up being a "greater threat".
Yeah, a nucular scientist selling plans to Islamists. No
threat there, no sirree...
And Pakistan ALREADY HAS nukes. Proven. One fundementalist
revolution away from having the Islamic bomb. Considering
the population is none to fond of the General's cozy U.S.
relationship, that's actually possible. AND they were ardent
supporters of the Taliban. Wow. Yeah, no threat there.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along..."
"Ignore the man behind the curtain..."
> >> I believe taking him out was the right thing to do on
> >> that count alone, never mind the horrors he committed
> >> among his own people (and those of Iran and Kuwait).
> >
> >Sure you do. Imagine the cognitive dissonance of
> >actually admitting that "your guy" was actually an idiot
> >and a criminal? Yeah, no self-interest going on there at
> >all. LOL.
>
> Hmmm, did I miss something here?
Yes. I was talking about the Shrub.
> >Again, it turns out we've made friends with the wrong
> >folks, and attacked the wrong folks. When will we learn?
>
> Who would those "right folks" be? Iran in the 80's??? Heh.
When cornered, change the subject...
Maybe we should make pact after pact after pact with the
Devil in order to satisfy short-term goals? How about some
long-range or even *gasp* MORAL thinking?
> >> The other really great thing about it is that the rules
> >> have now changed - states aren't so willing to sponsor
> >> and support terrorist organizations any more (heck,
> >> even the Saudis are cracking down hard enough to cause
> >> themselves to be targeted by the terrorists).
> >
> >Politically, they can't do nothing. We both know it. But
> >they leave the Wahhabists to teach anti-U.S. hate in
> >their schools, the very same schools that indoctrinated
> >those 9/11 flyboys, right?
>
> That's gotta stop (don't tell me we actually agree on
> something).
I'm actually guessing that we agree on many things. But the
decision to attack Iraq is one that we do not agree upon. It
won't stop, and now the Wahhabists have all the more reason
to crank up the hate machine. And we have created yet
another haven for terrorists.
> But just because you can find other criminals doesn't mean
> you don't lock up the ones you are able to catch.
That's absolutely right. And you don't go after speeders
when there's a rapist on the loose. After all, you have only
so many policemen, and only so many resources.
Nothing that you or Shrub or any other conservative has led
me to believe that this invasion was nothing more than
purely by choice. And now that we are up to our asses in
****, we had better start shovelling, or life is going to be
WORSE, rather than better, for those poor folks who have
known nothing but oppression and poverty.
> >> Khadafi is giving it up, Iran too.
> >> >Iran? What news have you been watching?
>
> Did you miss them agreeing to dismantling their nuclear
> program, and agreeing to inspections to make sure it
> happens?
And then they rescinded permission. And that doesn't
even begin to
Korea. Nice move, there.
> >Libya has been trying to normalize relations for years.
> >That's why they paid reparations for the Lockerbie thing,
> >why they gave up the folks who committed that act, and
> >why they have been schmoozing the U.S. and Britain for
> >the last 4-5 years. Or have you not been paying
> >attention? To pretend that Iraq had much of anything to
> >do with that is clever GOP spin, but nothing more than
> >that. Makes sense that *you'd* fall for it.
>
> It's a lot easier to believe that Iraq did have something
> to do with the timing than to believe it didn't, IMHO.
More wishful thinking. Go study some of the timeline of
these acts. You'll see that much of the attempts at
normalization came BEFORE Shrub came into office. You look
like an apologist fool when you deny reality.
The only thing that came AFTER the war was Libya giving up a
non-existant weapons program. Wow, huge concession.
> >> Or we could have waited and hoped for the best. Call me
> >> overly cautious, but I don't think that would have been
> >> a particularly good idea.
> >
> >Not overly cautious, just brainwashed. You have no
> >concept of how assinine your arguments sound, nor how
> >your imitation of a nodding dittohead makes you look like
> >a fool.
>
> You're right, I don't.
Here's how to start - turn it around such that the scenarios
switch the political party actors.
> >You see what you want to see, or what Karl Rove wants you
> >to see, and ignore the rest, just like a good little
> >patsy. It's OK, because when the pendulum swings (and it
> >will, if history is our guide) then your beloved GOP will
> >howl with outrage as payback hits. Wisdom and moderation
> >comes hard to this current crop of administration fools,
> >but you'll wish with all your heart that they had shown
> >some when they had the chance. The sad thing about that
> >is that EVERYBODY gets hurt when you engage in those
> >games. Just look at the situation in Iraq for proof-of-
> >concept.
>
> You think I'm brainwashed because I dig into the issues
> and actually come up with facts
"Facts" like the Libya normalization timeline? "Facts" like
Pakistan being higher on the list of terrorist supporting
states than Iraq?
Yeah, you pulled your facts from somewhere, all right.
> that are in direct contradiction to the mainstream media
> "filter" you apparently get your news from.
LOL. When in doubt, go to the "blame the liberal media"
ploy. The logical fallacy of the ad hominem comment. Next?
> You've shown time and time again that you buy into that in
> a way that would make any dittohead look like a real
> critical thinker.
Except that if you read the Register, or New Republic, or
the WSJ, then your news might be more balanced, yes?
Wanna guess what news I read, Mark?
Sorry, but when those sources and the "liberal media" report
the exact same story in exactly the same way, I'll take it
as pretty much a fact.
> I know that any media source that would dare present facts
> not present in Dan Rather's view of an issue is an
> anathema to any true liberal
You don't actually "know" anything that Karl Rove's minions
don't approve of. That's why you try to discredit the
message by attacking the person.
> but you should try getting both sides of the story
> some time.
See above for a clue.
> It only hurts for a while until the cognitive dissonance
> dissipates, then you can actually make up your mind on
> the issues instead of having your opinion packaged and
> delivered with the 11 o'clock news.
Watching TV news cuts into my bike maintenance time. I
like to get my news in written form, not the sound-bite
form you decry.
Got any more strawmen or red herrings? You can start with
the critical thinking any time, you know.
Start here: Name 3 mistakes the Bush Administration has
made. Along with that, name 3 things the Clinton
administration was right about (contrary to claims of the
GOP).
Good luck - I hope your (ditto)head doesn't explode.
--
Jonesy
