TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- study confirms what we already knew: Bush lied, people died
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Because: 1) It was something they were willing to go to war over. 2) They had the best-funded intelligence agency in the world at their disposal. 3) They had several braches of the UN specialising in the proliferation of WMDs (IAEA, UNMOVIC etc.) at their disposal. 4) They had been closely monitoring activity in Iraq (economically, via satellite etc.) for 12 at least years prior to the war. 5) It was something they were willing to go to fucking war over. War should always - always - be a final resort: one forced by an intractably desperate situation. The Bush administration, in this case, used war capriciously as a means of realising a greater geo-political policy initiative. When you make a decision that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and costs tax-payers hundreds of billions of dollars, the excuse "well, with the benefit of hindsight, I guess we weren't that sure" just really doesn't fucking cut it.

Sure, war should be the last resort. And yes, they definitely got it wrong. But tell me something; Do you ALWAYS know everything? Are you ALWAYS 100% right in YOUR job? Are you some sort of amazing perfectionist or something?

Holding our Representatives to a higher standard is one thing...expecting perfection from human beings is another.

And as has been stated in other threads (the F.B.I. Investigator who interviewed Saddam after he was captured), Saddam was purposely engaging in tactics that would perpetuate the belief that he had WMD's.

You just WANT to hate Bush so much, that you can't cut the guy any slack, can you?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I was saying exactly the same things in 2003 that I am saying now (by all means, check the old Iraq threads in this forum). Was I prescient? Was I somehow channelling the spirit of Nostradamus? Was I just lucky? Or did I just see what three-quarters of the people on this planet happened to see - that the Bush administration never really had a palpable case for this war at all?

Cool. Tell me the winning numbers to this weeks mega-lotto then.

You weren't the only one who DOUBTED the case, but please don't act like you knew something the rest of the world didn't, FOR SURE. That's ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade No they didn't. They believed the intelligence that supported their case for war and dismissed the intelligence that didn't. Much of the evidence channelled by the US administration about Iraqi WMD programs was specious at best (much of the UNMOVIC and IAEA evidence actually contradicted the claims of the administration) and none of it - at any stage - could ever be described as sufficient to launch a war over.

Well, they certainly believed that once they got in there, they'd find the WMD's that they believed were there, but weren't showing up on their proverbial radar. Not going to cover it again with you, it's boring already...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade An argument that would serve them well in a court of law, I'm sure.

It would have been VERY interesting to see how that would have played out. It is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, for example, because it's mis-leading information than can cause people to panic and hurt themselves in a stampede to safety. Saddam was secretly helping further the belief that he had WMD's. Kind of the same thing, I'd say.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade My point is that ignorance can be deliberate and self-serving. You can't drive home with your eyes closed and then claim that you aren't responsible for all the people you run over along the way...

HARDLY the same thing as what happened with the belief that he had WMD's.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Now you're starting to get it.

Thank you, all-seeing purveyor of the truth............please.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade As I have already said, "the Bush administration is entirely culpable - not in spite of, but because of its ignorance - for the debacle that has been made in Iraq". That is all I'm asking you to acknowledge.

Bush is in charge, so even when things go bad on his watch, he has to take responsibility...just like anyone else at their job. But to say he fucked up WILLINGLY just is not true. That's what you believe, and I believe that you're wrong, for reasons already stated.

Again, DonnyFrasco...

Your argument supporting the Bush Administration's "Appeal to Ignorance" Logical Fallacy really is amusing...

quote:

Description of Burden of Proof Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: 1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. 2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

The Bush Administration's logical fallacy is as follows...

"Saddam would not prove he did not have WMDs, therefore, he had WMDs."



You keep trying to assert Saddam was responsible for the Bush admin's logical fallacies, but clearly, he isn't! If you want to argue on points, we certainly can. But using, "you're just a Bush-hater" as an argument clearly is an "argumentum ad hominem", and lends absolutely no credence to your positions. It's ok...I know conservatives find it irresistible to use terms such as "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to somehow advance their viewpoints...

^^^My god, how many times do we have to go over it?

He thought the weapons were there, beyond a reasonable doubt. So did some of our allies (not all, but certainly some). Just who is he supposed to "prove" it to anyway? The U.N.? Funny how some people support the U.N. when it's on their side, then suddenly call it a dis-reputable organization when it doesn't reflect their position on another issue.

Bottom line is; As far as the Bush Administration was concerned, they felt the weapons were there, and that they'd gathered all of the evidence that they needed to feel comfortable enough to make that claim. And I'll say it again; Why would they make such a claim if they didn't believe that the proof would bear them out in the end? You can see the logical train of thought that anyone engaged in such thoughts must follow, no? Put aside the issue and who it's about and just look at the logic. Who would willingly make a claim about any issue, knowing that they'd eventually be proven wrong? WHY would you do that? YOU WOULDN'T! You make claims when you are sure that you're RIGHT, and that comes from your understanding and interpretation of the evidence in front of you. Get it?

Hell, we still put people in jail now and again who turn out to have been totally innocent! How did they get there then? They got there based on the evidence at hand and reasonable doubt. See, nothing is perfect. Even the courts of law. You can still be wrong, even when you follow the law, protocol, and "reasonable doubt".

You guys need to get over this "He should have known!" and "He should be prefect and all-knowing and all-seeing!" It's a silly, childish argument, when you really think about the reality of ANYONE being so omnipotent.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^My god, how many times do we have to go over it? You guys need to get over this "He should have known!" and "He should be prefect and all-knowing and all-seeing!" It's a silly, childish argument, when you really think about the reality of ANYONE being so omnipotent.

We'll go over it as many times as it takes...

Is it really so childish when over 100,000 people die and millions are displaced? HELL FUCKING YEA he should have known. You don't go to war over that crap! You go to war because your sovereignty is threatened! Have fun giving a blank check to your leaders, that'll really improve the country...

If the president can't think logically, how the fuck are we supposed to just go along with his policies? I'm just going to repeat it again and again every time you cite the article about Saddam playing the political system. It does not matter. It is irrevalent. It is NO excuse for the March 2003 blunder.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton We'll go over it as many times as it takes... Is it really so childish when over 100,000 people die and millions are displaced? HELL FUCKING YEA he should have known. You don't go to war over that crap! You go to war because your sovereignty is threatened! Have fun giving a blank check to your leaders, that'll really improve the country... If the president can't think logically, how the fuck are we supposed to just go along with his policies? I'm just going to repeat it again and again every time you cite the article about Saddam playing the political system. It does not matter. It is irrevalent. It is NO excuse for the March 2003 blunder.

Yes, he's certainly the FIRST President and World Leader in the history of mankind to go to war over false intel, isn't he? No World Leader has EVER made that mistake, right? Not ever.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Yes, he's certainly the FIRST President and World Leader in the history of mankind to go to war over false intel, isn't he? No World Leader has EVER made that mistake, right? Not ever.

Oh, so let's give them a blank check right?

Others did it! We can do it too!!...

^^^Missing the point still.

And that fact that you'd even go to the trouble to dig out and post such a picture only speaks to how pointless arguing with you about this has been. You expect perfection from the Leaders you don't like. But I'd be willing to bet you cut Clinton lots of slack when he was in office?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^Missing the point still. And that fact that you'd even go to the trouble to dig out and post such a picture only speaks to how pointless arguing with you about this has been. You expect perfection from the Leaders you don't like. But I'd be willing to bet you cut Clinton lots of slack when he was in office?

I don't expect leaders to be perfect. But when it's war, they should be perfect!! Your point is to give our leaders a blank check AND the benefit of the doubt. I'm telling you it's complete HOGWASH, and based my assertion on a simple to understand logical fallacy, which you have yet to address except to comment on your perception of my personality...

The last year of Clinton's presidency, 2000, I was 13 in the 8th grade. Now that I have studied up on a few things, I can certainly hold the leaders of this country to account in both legal AND philosophical contexts. I don't give blank checks to abuse of power and I don't care what party the president belongs to. I really don't think you know I'm a registered Republican do you? So no, it's not hate, it's not partisanship, it's I'm fucking pissed off because the president isn't doing his job!

Oh, and the poster, basically says what your saying. "It's ok to launch trillion dollar wars if we believe (whether or not its justified) in it."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton ...Your point is to give our leaders a blank check AND the benefit of the doubt...

Am I really saying that? lol. Go back and read the thread. I've never said that.

I'm done debating you about it until you can at LEAST do me the courtesy of reading my posts.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Am I really saying that? lol. Go back and read the thread. I've never said that. I'm done debating you about it until you can at LEAST do me the courtesy of reading my posts.

Of course you didn't explicitly say that, but that your implied point.

"""Saddam acted as if he had WMDs, therefore Bush is not responsible for thinking Saddam has WMDs."""

Are you backing off this statement? Is that why your abandoning the debate? Can you specifically answer to my point where I say the logical fallacy of the Bush admin is the sole responsibility of the Bush admin, and NOT Saddam. I've repeated this in both threads we're having this fun little debate in, and you've yet to address it...

^^^You have VERY selective absorption of what you read in my posts.

Simply stated; You want to hold Bush to the flame, no matter what.

Have fun hating the Republican party and thinking that your party is so much better. I'm happy for you.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^You have VERY selective absorption of what you read in my posts. Simply stated; You want to hold Bush to the flame, no matter what. Have fun hating the Republican party and thinking that your party is so much better. I'm happy for you.

LOL, again, you address me as a person, instead of my arguments. Another ad hominem fallacy. These little shots at my personality really does not good for your side of the argument.

Secondly, I fully understood what you said, and even restated your claim so it could understood in logical terms...And when we examine your claim in logical terms, it results in an "ad ignorantium" APPEAL TO IGNORANCE, which is a logical fallacy...

"""If you can't prove that something is false then it must be true."""

"""Saddam acted as if he had WMDs, therefore Bush is not responsible for thinking Saddam has WMDs."""

How many times do I have to cite logic theory before you back off your logical fallacy?



Also, your comment of, "Have fun hating the Republican party and thinking that your party is so much better. I'm happy for you."

I'de highly suggest backing off the personal attacks which lend no credence to your position, especially against a logical argument. I am a registered Republican, and will be voting in the Republican primary. Again, you don't know me... Address my arguments, not me.

We can play this game all day, I'll just repeat the argument until you address it, then I'll give you a rebuttal, but until you address my arguments specifically, I'll keep calling you out on your logical fallacies...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.