quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Eesh. Where to begin? 1.) On public record, Saddam was ADAMANT that he did NOT have WMD's. But his intentional secretive behavior with the Inspectors said otherwise (as was his intention, so it appears now). 2.) "Horrible" basis? Well, I've always said and felt that the whole WMD thing was just an excuse to oust him from power. But that being said, the REAL reasons for needing him out were still considerable. They are just reasons that most people don't want to face, and our terrorist enemies can never hear our government admit to. 3.) The old "We gave Saddam his weapons!" argument When he was fighting our enemy, we gave him weapons, sure. But he stopped being one of our allies and became our enemy...so what does having given him weapons have to do with ANYTHING!? He turned on his western allies. That makes US guilty of what exactly?

1. Excuse me, let's revise the fallacy...

We can't find WMDs, but because the Iraqi's seem to be secretive, they must have WMDs.

2. Yes horrible basis. Going to war on untrue accusations is a horrible reason. If hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's is your idea of democracy, I'de have to say take it somewhere else!

3. Oh, so we're not responsible for Saddam's use of WMDs the west gave him because he turned on the west? What does it make us guilty of? Hypocrisy. We invade Iraq on the untrue premise of an imminent threat of a WMD attack (with allusions to 911 which Iraq has nothing to do with), and we're the ones who gave him the WMDs to begin with!



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patriotism isn't defending the government; it's questioning it...ESPECIALLY when irrefutable evidence suggests incompetence in leadership...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 3. Oh, so we're not responsible for Saddam's use of WMDs the west gave him because he turned on the west? What does it make us guilty of? Hypocrisy. We invade Iraq on the untrue premise of an imminent threat of a WMD attack (with allusions to 911 which Iraq has nothing to do with), and we're the ones who gave him the WMDs to begin with!

So you're mad that we weren't able to see that one day, Saddam was going to turn on us?

So now our government is supposed to be able to look in to the future and decide who should get military support and who should not, based on what they SHOULD know about the future?

Allies change all the time throughout history. Iraq served it's purpose as far as we were concerned when it was at war with Iran. So it can certainly be argued that at the time, he was a friend that we wanted and our support of him militarily was justifiable.

Then his ambitions changed. So what? We didn't know that was going to happen.

The "we gave him the weapons" argument is a pointless one.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So you're mad that we weren't able to see that one day, Saddam was going to turn on us?

No...For a nation that claims to be the leader of freedom, proliferating WMDs to socialist dictators hardly seems like something excusable. For some reason, you find it excusable...

quote:

So now our government is supposed to be able to look in to the future and decide who should get military support and who should not, based on what they SHOULD know about the future?

Uhh, YEA... It's called "critical thinking". It's not rocket science... It's as simple as asking, "What are the consequences of supplying chemical/biological precursors to a socialist dictator?" It's not like nobody knew Saddam was a tyrant!!

quote:

Allies change all the time throughout history. Iraq served it's purpose as far as we were concerned when it was at war with Iran. So it can certainly be argued that at the time, he was a friend that we wanted and our support of him militarily was justifiable.

Wow, such hypocrisy... The Soviet Union is the so-called "evil empire", but Saddam Hussein is our friend? You actually support these kinds of policies? Wow....

quote:

The "we gave him the weapons" argument is a pointless one.

It's pointless only to you because it puts the blame of Saddam having the capability of WMDs on the suppliers of those WMDs. k?

Are we still on this subject, bush will be gone soon and we will have a dumber president to ruin our country. I'm not saying forget the past but we need to pay attention to the future, and the idiot candidates on both sides.

___________________
http://www.myspace.com/topix101

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No...For a nation that claims to be the leader of freedom, proliferating WMDs to socialist dictators hardly seems like something excusable. For some reason, you find it excusable... Uhh, YEA... It's called "critical thinking". It's not rocket science... It's as simple as asking, "What are the consequences of supplying chemical/biological precursors to a socialist dictator?" It's not like nobody knew Saddam was a tyrant!! Wow, such hypocrisy... The Soviet Union is the so-called "evil empire", but Saddam Hussein is our friend? You actually support these kinds of policies? Wow.... It's pointless only to you because it puts the blame of Saddam having the capability of WMDs on the suppliers of those WMDs. k?

You hate the Republicans at all costs. Got it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Are we still on this subject, bush will be gone soon and we will have a dumber president to ruin our country. I'm not saying forget the past but we need to pay attention to the future, and the idiot candidates on both sides.

This is a new piece of news, no? It's worthy of debate, no?

There's an old adage in message boarding; If you don't like the thread, don't read it.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco This is a new piece of news, no? It's worthy of debate, no? There's an old adage in message boarding; If you don't like the thread, don't read it.

I suppose so...

___________________
http://www.myspace.com/topix101

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You hate the Republicans at all costs. Got it.

You just can't help yourself to fallacies can you?

Instead of playing with labels, address my arguments. The debate would be much more productive...

quote:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: 1. Person A makes claim X. 2. Person B makes an attack on person A. 3. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Now if we can get back to the argument. You still not have provided a valid rebuttal for why Saddam is responsible for Bush's "Appeal to Ignorance" logical fallacy...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton ...You still not have provided a valid rebuttal for why Saddam is responsible for Bush's "Appeal to Ignorance" logical fallacy...

I have to my satisfaction, thanks.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I have to my satisfaction, thanks.

LOL, it's ok if you can't...

I suggest you study up on "argumentatin theory" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory, so we might have a more productive debate... You'll thank me when nobody can beat you at a debate..

Why can't we just accept that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is probably the worst foreign policy we could have ever adopted?

quote:

Originally posted by LuvTiesto Why can't we just accept that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is probably the worst foreign policy we could have ever adopted?

Tell that to DonnyFrasco, and he'll say, "But but, we didn't know he would turn against us!! OH NO!!!..."