We were talking about grandmothers NaplesX. Gee what does that have to do with anything either. Bottom line: why the hell would an intelligent person vote for Bush if we get attacked again? He's had 4 years to improve intelligence and has done the opposite. Pretty tough decision. NaplesX can you back up the assertion that invading Iraq has made America safer?
Iraq was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME.
There are many positive side effects of invading Iraq, the least of which is not getting rid of a extremely corrupt and evil government. Let me list them for you (at least the ones that my puny mind can come up with), shall we:
1. One less state sponsor of terrorism.
2. One less rogue government to possibly pass on WMD or knowledge of WMD.
3. One less destabilizing force in the region.
4. Like it r not having an large US military presence in the ME forces ME leaders to consider their options before embarking on nefarious ventures.
5. A quelling effect on both syria and Iran among others.
6. Like it or not, the military presence in Iraq draws terrorists to win a one way trip to heaven, courtesy of the US Military. Those soldiers provide a much more accessible target then the US mainland. They also stand a better chance than my grandma going shopping or sightseeing. The soldiers are helping them with their religious obligations, sending them to their awaiting 70 virgins. Why would you want to deny them that?
7. The west is introducing democracy and freedom of religion and prosperity and hope and stuff like that. Those things that many of us take for granted here. Why would anyone oppose the spreading of these things.
8. Hey, it gives news services and talking heads and loonies stuff to complain about. Isn't this like the new baseball these days?
I think I could come up with more but that might distract from the overall bush bash that is this thread. I don't want to derail the negative train.
Iraq was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME.
There are many positive side effects of invading Iraq, the least of which is not getting rid of a extremely corrupt and evil government. Let me list them for you (at least the ones that my puny mind can come up with), shall we:
1. One less state sponsor of terrorism.
2. One less rogue government to possibly pass on WMD or knowledge of WMD.
3. One less destabilizing force in the region.
4. Like it r not having an large US military presence in the ME forces ME leaders to consider their options before embarking on nefarious ventures.
5. A quelling effect on both syria and Iran among others.
6. Like it or not, the military presence in Iraq draws terrorists to win a one way trip to heaven, courtesy of the US Military. Those soldiers provide a much more accessible target then the US mainland. They also stand a better chance than my grandma going shopping or sightseeing. The soldiers are helping them with their religious obligations, sending them to their awaiting 70 virgins. Why would you want to deny them that?
7. The west is introducing democracy and freedom of religion and prosperity and hope and stuff like that. Those things that many of us take for granted here. Why would anyone oppose the spreading of these things.
8. Hey, it gives news services and talking heads and loonies stuff to complain about. Isn't this like the new baseball these days?
I think I could come up with more but that might distract from the overall bush bash that is this thread. I don't want to derail the negative train.
Go on, continue.
Except that it asppears to be a failure.
They hate us there that's clear. It's also angered most of the ME that we invaded and are occupying the country. I think it's just given them more reason to attack us.
Besides I really want a president who lies to us about why we are going to war.
They hate us there that's clear. It's also angered most of the ME that we invaded and are occupying the country. I think it's just given them more reason to attack us,
Well like I said before, I think you would do well to let the mission mature before coming to any conclusions.
Ignoring that, what do you suggest?
Should we pull out?
The repercussions of that are not even close to acceptable. The only real option is to follow it through.
Of course you could join a message board and complain and point fingers, it might help.
Well like I said before, I think you would do well to let the mission mature before coming to any conclusions.
Ignoring that, what do you suggest?
Should we pull out?
The repercussions of that are not even close to acceptable. The only real option is to follow it through.
Of course you could join a message board and complain and point fingers, it might help.
How mature would you suggest? 10 or 20 years?
As for pulling out we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
As far as helping the only thing I can do is not vote for a president that at his best show incredibly bad judgement and at his worst show no moral fiber ( lying ) towards his own people.
Giving money to the families of suicide bombers. That like saying I am sponsoring the Iraq war if I give money to a family of a KIA US soldier, but OK.
Quote:
2. One less rogue government to possibly pass on WMD or knowledge of WMD.
Well, we know Iraq was the least of our concerns there.
Quote:
3. One less destabilizing force in the region.
It's clear in the extreme that going into Iraq was far more 'destabilizing' than Saddam. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misspoke.
Quote:
4. Like it r not having an large US military presence in the ME forces ME leaders to consider their options before embarking on nefarious ventures.
Such as?
Quote:
5. A quelling effect on both syria and Iran among others.
Remains to be seen, but it's pretty clear that Iran has now stepped up its nuclear program as a result.
Quote:
6. Like it or not, the military presence in Iraq draws terrorists to win a one way trip to heaven, courtesy of the US Military. Those soldiers provide a much more accessible target then the US mainland. They also stand a better chance than my grandma going shopping or sightseeing. The soldiers are helping them with their religious obligations, sending them to their awaiting 70 virgins. Why would you want to deny them that?
That was an face-saving position that emerged soon after it became clear there were no WMDs.
The fact is that almost all fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, and the military says as much. Al-Qaeda has already conducted a major attack on spain and for the most part is clearly not involved in Iraq.
This theory plays into the false impression that Al-Qaeda and its offshoots are less sophisticated than they are.
Quote:
7. The west is introducing democracy and freedom of religion and prosperity and hope and stuff like that. Those things that many of us take for granted here. Why would anyone oppose the spreading of these things.
There is no evidence that that has happened or will happen. Sure, the US would like that to happen, but as we all know power in Iraq is still up for grabs.
Note, too, that the same thing was said about afghanistan and the exact opposite has happened and is continuing to happen.
Quote:
I think you would do well to let the mission mature before coming to any conclusions.
What, did you just learn the word 'mature?' News flash: it already has not turned out as the Bush admin expected:
I would suggest more than a couple of years. 10 might not be a bad point to reflect. But I would guess that 5 years would give a better picture of success or lack thereof. There are a lot of objectives and a ton of things to establish and rebuild.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
As for pulling out we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but many differ from your opinion. It is way too late for that kind of "crying over spilled milk." Buck up.
Listen SH can still be installed a leader again when Kerry or Clinton get's into office, right?
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
As far as helping the only thing I can do is not vote for a president that at his best show incredibly bad judgement and at his worst show no moral fiber ( lying ) towards his own people.
Noone said you had to vote for Kerry, so don't. That is your personal choice. A freedom we enjoy here in America.
Iraq was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME.
You see nothing wrong with this premis?!?!
Don't you realize that with this statement, if it were true, you would be justifying the fact that Bush and Co lied about the reasons for the Iraq invasion: that they were acually fulfilling a long held ideological "Vision" and plan . . . .
You see nothing wrong with that?
If it is true, not only should everyone responsible be Impeached, they should be jailed for High Treason and possibly crimes against humanity . . . .
Motivations of such a Utopian bent are responsible for every genocide that has happened in teh last 100 years: we have a system of checks and balances where 'truthfull' reasons are supposed to be laid out on the table and then discussed and voted on for the express purpose of NOT allowing someone's VISION to run rampant
Visions are not matched to reality . . . and you can tell that Bush has never checked his vision against the reality of the situation, he is not even interested in trying, and that is what O'Niell said about his interest in reality . . . nonexistent.
Real people do not conform to 'Visions' that is why we have a difficult to put up with process of discourse and debate . . . and that is why the "ineffectual UN" is better than someone's "decisive and committed Vision"
I would expect someone with pretensions to Conservative ideas to inherently understand what that means: it is the reason why Communism is inherently Totalitarian, why the use of the terms "social Engineering" has a negative conotation, and, the reason why real Conservatives should want nothing to do with Bush . . . . but you are merely a partisan without any (I'll let you imagine the rant that follows) .
BTW, I find something a bit distastefull in this speculating about a terrorist strike and possible consequences . . . let's just hope that it never happens again.
Don't you realize that with this statement, if it were true, you would be justifying the fact that Bush and Co lied about the reasons for the Iraq invasion: that they were acually fulfilling a long held ideological "Vision" and plan . . . .
You see nothing wrong with that?
If it is true, not only should everyone responsible be Impeached, they should be jailed for High Treason and possibly crimes against humanity . . . .
Motivations of such a Utopian bent are responsible for every genocide that has happened in teh last 100 years: we have a system of checks and balances where 'truthfull' reasons are supposed to be laid out on the table and then discussed and voted on for the express purpose of NOT allowing someone's VISION to run rampant
Visions are not matched to reality . . . and you can tell that Bush has never checked his vision against the reality of the situation, he is not even interested in trying, and that is what O'Niell said about his interest in reality . . . nonexistent.
Real people do not conform to 'Visions' that is why we have a difficult to put up with process of discourse and debate . . . and that is why the "ineffectual UN" is better than someone's "decisive and committed Vision"
I would expect someone with pretensions to Conservative ideas to inherently understand what that means: it is the reason why Communism is inherently Totalitarian, why the use of the terms "social Engineering" has a negative conotation, and, the reason why real Conservatives should want nothing to do with Bush . . . . but you are merely a partisan without any (I'll let you imagine the rant that follows) .
BTW, I find something a bit distastefull in this speculating about a terrorist strike and possible consequences . . . let's just hope that it never happens again.
Like I said before, you and many here promote circular arguments, or possibly described as an infinite loop, which could be apropos in AI but much like a dog chasing it's tail.
I refuse to get caught up in that. I have learned my lesson with your type. Regardless of the subject as it relates to politics, world affairs, or domestic issues, every possible negative is attributed to GWB either directly or indirectly. So no matter what is said, it will point to some failure on his part.
I think that we all know how you and others feel about any issue regarding GWB, so why bather?
Like I said before, you and many here promote circular arguments, or possibly described as an infinite loop, which could be apropos in AI but much like a dog chasing it's tail.
I refuse to get caught up in that. I have learned my lesson with your type. Regardless of the subject as it relates to politics, world affairs, or domestic issues, every possible negative is attributed to GWB either directly or indirectly. So no matter what is said, it will point to some failure on his part.
I think that we all know how you and others feel about any issue regarding GWB, so why bather?
Remember the "Sit-N-Spin"?
Do me a favor and show me that my argument is "circular". Take my discussion phrase by phrase and elaborate. Point out where it is 'circuar'.
Someone who uses the name of a rhetorical fallacy should be able to follow through as if they understood what they were saying.
If you do not analyse my argument point by point, then I will assume that you have no idea what you are talking about, no idea what a real 'circular argument' looks like, and/or simply did not even read my post all the way through.
But will any of us ask the implicit but out-of-bounds Sammi-jo-ish question: since Bush has shown that he is so willing to let lives go for his "[i}VISION[/I]" was he willing to allow 3,000 civilian lives be lost in order to come across a good excuse for a). An oportunity to put into play 'The Plan': setting the Democracy Dominoes off in the Middle-East? b). a good strong Civil Defence strengthening bill with sweeping control and servaillance powers?
Just a question . . . would anybody try it on for size and see if it is at all coherent? . . . not saying that I would think such thoughts of course . . .
The history of the Bush admin. implies exactly that. The 3000 deaths on that day are collateral damage to 'justify' the greater plan, which would have have been wholly unacceptable to the huge majority of Americans without the aid of 9-11, part of the plan being:
* The transformation of America into a global imperial presence through (global) military might and presence, most especially in the Middle East.
* The subjugation by force of Arab/Muslim nations, especially any nations seen as a threat to Israel (Lebikow, April 2004), or those which support terrorists, or have engaged in terrorism.
* The securing of the energy resources of middle easterm nations in order that US demand is met for the next decade or two.
* To achieve the goal of an unassailable political position by popular marginalization all dissenting opinion (as unpatriotic), with the aid of an all-powerful, consolidated, uncontested media network.
* To enact a series of draconian laws (Patriot Acts 1 and 2), Homeland Security Act etc. which can (and most probably will) be used to stomp political opposition or even deport citizens.
There are just too many extraordinary anomalies regarding the events of 9-11, and how that day panned out, to solely put the blame on "Islamic fundamentalists who hate America's freedoms", organized by a psychotic holed up in a cave somewhere on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It would be "nice and convenient" if we could, but facts get in the way, facts that the national media refuse to touch with the proverbial bargepole. Four simultaneous hijackings, out of two different airports, with the simultaneous complete and total failures of so many different national and local security systems, make the whole official version look beyond absurd, if you actually examine the detailed timeline of the day. And...not a single solitary person has been fired, 2 and half years after the greatest security failure in American history.
Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the most likely, and certain (nameless) members of this administration knew in advance exactly what was to be going down that day. At the very least.
Call me a conspiracy theorist....but by 2010, at a guess, we will have some startling revelations about what really happened that horrible day.
Do me a favor and show me that my argument is "circular". Take my discussion phrase by phrase and elaborate. Point out where it is 'circuar'.
Someone who uses the name of a rhetorical fallacy should be able to follow through as if they understood what they were saying.
If you do not analyse my argument point by point, then I will assume that you have no idea what you are talking about, no idea what a real 'circular argument' looks like, and/or simply did not even read my post all the way through.
Come on big boy, 'bring it on'.
Let me save you some electrons.
I already stated why your argument style is circular.
Regardless of the subject as it relates to politics, world affairs, or domestic issues, every possible negative is attributed to GWB either directly or indirectly. So no matter what is said, it will point to some failure on his part.
If that's true, it's because he ****ed up. Big time.
Comments
Originally posted by Aquatic
We were talking about grandmothers NaplesX. Gee what does that have to do with anything either. Bottom line: why the hell would an intelligent person vote for Bush if we get attacked again? He's had 4 years to improve intelligence and has done the opposite. Pretty tough decision. NaplesX can you back up the assertion that invading Iraq has made America safer?
Iraq was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME.
There are many positive side effects of invading Iraq, the least of which is not getting rid of a extremely corrupt and evil government. Let me list them for you (at least the ones that my puny mind can come up with), shall we:
1. One less state sponsor of terrorism.
2. One less rogue government to possibly pass on WMD or knowledge of WMD.
3. One less destabilizing force in the region.
4. Like it r not having an large US military presence in the ME forces ME leaders to consider their options before embarking on nefarious ventures.
5. A quelling effect on both syria and Iran among others.
6. Like it or not, the military presence in Iraq draws terrorists to win a one way trip to heaven, courtesy of the US Military. Those soldiers provide a much more accessible target then the US mainland. They also stand a better chance than my grandma going shopping or sightseeing. The soldiers are helping them with their religious obligations, sending them to their awaiting 70 virgins. Why would you want to deny them that?
7. The west is introducing democracy and freedom of religion and prosperity and hope and stuff like that. Those things that many of us take for granted here. Why would anyone oppose the spreading of these things.
8. Hey, it gives news services and talking heads and loonies stuff to complain about. Isn't this like the new baseball these days?
I think I could come up with more but that might distract from the overall bush bash that is this thread. I don't want to derail the negative train.
Go on, continue.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Iraq was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME.
There are many positive side effects of invading Iraq, the least of which is not getting rid of a extremely corrupt and evil government. Let me list them for you (at least the ones that my puny mind can come up with), shall we:
1. One less state sponsor of terrorism.
2. One less rogue government to possibly pass on WMD or knowledge of WMD.
3. One less destabilizing force in the region.
4. Like it r not having an large US military presence in the ME forces ME leaders to consider their options before embarking on nefarious ventures.
5. A quelling effect on both syria and Iran among others.
6. Like it or not, the military presence in Iraq draws terrorists to win a one way trip to heaven, courtesy of the US Military. Those soldiers provide a much more accessible target then the US mainland. They also stand a better chance than my grandma going shopping or sightseeing. The soldiers are helping them with their religious obligations, sending them to their awaiting 70 virgins. Why would you want to deny them that?
7. The west is introducing democracy and freedom of religion and prosperity and hope and stuff like that. Those things that many of us take for granted here. Why would anyone oppose the spreading of these things.
8. Hey, it gives news services and talking heads and loonies stuff to complain about. Isn't this like the new baseball these days?
I think I could come up with more but that might distract from the overall bush bash that is this thread. I don't want to derail the negative train.
Go on, continue.
Except that it asppears to be a failure.
They hate us there that's clear. It's also angered most of the ME that we invaded and are occupying the country. I think it's just given them more reason to attack us.
Besides I really want a president who lies to us about why we are going to war.
Originally posted by jimmac
Except that it asppears to be a failure.
They hate us there that's clear. It's also angered most of the ME that we invaded and are occupying the country. I think it's just given them more reason to attack us,
Well like I said before, I think you would do well to let the mission mature before coming to any conclusions.
Ignoring that, what do you suggest?
Should we pull out?
The repercussions of that are not even close to acceptable. The only real option is to follow it through.
Of course you could join a message board and complain and point fingers, it might help.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well like I said before, I think you would do well to let the mission mature before coming to any conclusions.
Ignoring that, what do you suggest?
Should we pull out?
The repercussions of that are not even close to acceptable. The only real option is to follow it through.
Of course you could join a message board and complain and point fingers, it might help.
How mature would you suggest? 10 or 20 years?
As for pulling out we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
As far as helping the only thing I can do is not vote for a president that at his best show incredibly bad judgement and at his worst show no moral fiber ( lying ) towards his own people.
Originally posted by NaplesX
1. One less state sponsor of terrorism.
Giving money to the families of suicide bombers. That like saying I am sponsoring the Iraq war if I give money to a family of a KIA US soldier, but OK.
2. One less rogue government to possibly pass on WMD or knowledge of WMD.
Well, we know Iraq was the least of our concerns there.
3. One less destabilizing force in the region.
It's clear in the extreme that going into Iraq was far more 'destabilizing' than Saddam. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misspoke.
4. Like it r not having an large US military presence in the ME forces ME leaders to consider their options before embarking on nefarious ventures.
Such as?
5. A quelling effect on both syria and Iran among others.
Remains to be seen, but it's pretty clear that Iran has now stepped up its nuclear program as a result.
6. Like it or not, the military presence in Iraq draws terrorists to win a one way trip to heaven, courtesy of the US Military. Those soldiers provide a much more accessible target then the US mainland. They also stand a better chance than my grandma going shopping or sightseeing. The soldiers are helping them with their religious obligations, sending them to their awaiting 70 virgins. Why would you want to deny them that?
That was an face-saving position that emerged soon after it became clear there were no WMDs.
The fact is that almost all fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, and the military says as much. Al-Qaeda has already conducted a major attack on spain and for the most part is clearly not involved in Iraq.
This theory plays into the false impression that Al-Qaeda and its offshoots are less sophisticated than they are.
7. The west is introducing democracy and freedom of religion and prosperity and hope and stuff like that. Those things that many of us take for granted here. Why would anyone oppose the spreading of these things.
There is no evidence that that has happened or will happen. Sure, the US would like that to happen, but as we all know power in Iraq is still up for grabs.
Note, too, that the same thing was said about afghanistan and the exact opposite has happened and is continuing to happen.
I think you would do well to let the mission mature before coming to any conclusions.
What, did you just learn the word 'mature?' News flash: it already has not turned out as the Bush admin expected:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm
Originally posted by jimmac
How mature would you suggest? 10 or 20 years?
I would suggest more than a couple of years. 10 might not be a bad point to reflect. But I would guess that 5 years would give a better picture of success or lack thereof. There are a lot of objectives and a ton of things to establish and rebuild.
Originally posted by jimmac
As for pulling out we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but many differ from your opinion. It is way too late for that kind of "crying over spilled milk." Buck up.
Listen SH can still be installed a leader again when Kerry or Clinton get's into office, right?
Originally posted by jimmac
As far as helping the only thing I can do is not vote for a president that at his best show incredibly bad judgement and at his worst show no moral fiber ( lying ) towards his own people.
Noone said you had to vote for Kerry, so don't. That is your personal choice. A freedom we enjoy here in America.
Let's look at Kuwait.
- Evil Saddam Hussein removed from control over country. - Check
- Unsubstantiated rumours spread as propaganda intel (WMD, incubators)? - Check
- US troops obliterate Iraqi army as a coherent military force. - Check
- Prez Bush talks a lot about "spreading democracy and freedom" as a US promise. - Check
- Massive reconstruction contracts primarily awarded to US firms, incl KBR, Halliburton. - Check
- Looting by Iraqis, which the US was accused of not preventing. - Check
- Regional military presence fuels radicals (like OBL) who call for jihad against US. - Check
Almost 13 years after the '91 Gulf War and its promises of "Democracy over Tyranny"How's that promised free Kuwaiti democracy going?
- Emir/Royal family replaced as hereditary (in this case US installed) rulers by democratically elected leaders?
- Women finally seen as legal equal to men, given the right to vote, run for office, etc?
- Free elections (can run any party, anti-monarchist, anti-US, religious)?
- Free Press (can openly criticize the ruling family, US, religious views)?
hmmm...- Bzzzt. Sorry. No
- Bzzzt. Sorry. No
- Bzzzt. Sorry. No
- Bzzzt. Sorry. No
I may be in error that Women can finally hold certain civic/medical positions, but it's not the rosy future Bush I claimed.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Iraq was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME.
You see nothing wrong with this premis?!?!
Don't you realize that with this statement, if it were true, you would be justifying the fact that Bush and Co lied about the reasons for the Iraq invasion: that they were acually fulfilling a long held ideological "Vision" and plan . . . .
You see nothing wrong with that?
If it is true, not only should everyone responsible be Impeached, they should be jailed for High Treason and possibly crimes against humanity . . . .
Motivations of such a Utopian bent are responsible for every genocide that has happened in teh last 100 years: we have a system of checks and balances where 'truthfull' reasons are supposed to be laid out on the table and then discussed and voted on for the express purpose of NOT allowing someone's VISION to run rampant
Visions are not matched to reality . . . and you can tell that Bush has never checked his vision against the reality of the situation, he is not even interested in trying, and that is what O'Niell said about his interest in reality . . . nonexistent.
Real people do not conform to 'Visions' that is why we have a difficult to put up with process of discourse and debate . . . and that is why the "ineffectual UN" is better than someone's "decisive and committed Vision"
I would expect someone with pretensions to Conservative ideas to inherently understand what that means: it is the reason why Communism is inherently Totalitarian, why the use of the terms "social Engineering" has a negative conotation, and, the reason why real Conservatives should want nothing to do with Bush . . . . but you are merely a partisan without any (I'll let you imagine the rant that follows) .
BTW, I find something a bit distastefull in this speculating about a terrorist strike and possible consequences . . . let's just hope that it never happens again.
Wait...watch...
Originally posted by pfflam
You see nothing wrong with this premis?!?!
Don't you realize that with this statement, if it were true, you would be justifying the fact that Bush and Co lied about the reasons for the Iraq invasion: that they were acually fulfilling a long held ideological "Vision" and plan . . . .
You see nothing wrong with that?
If it is true, not only should everyone responsible be Impeached, they should be jailed for High Treason and possibly crimes against humanity . . . .
Motivations of such a Utopian bent are responsible for every genocide that has happened in teh last 100 years: we have a system of checks and balances where 'truthfull' reasons are supposed to be laid out on the table and then discussed and voted on for the express purpose of NOT allowing someone's VISION to run rampant
Visions are not matched to reality . . . and you can tell that Bush has never checked his vision against the reality of the situation, he is not even interested in trying, and that is what O'Niell said about his interest in reality . . . nonexistent.
Real people do not conform to 'Visions' that is why we have a difficult to put up with process of discourse and debate . . . and that is why the "ineffectual UN" is better than someone's "decisive and committed Vision"
I would expect someone with pretensions to Conservative ideas to inherently understand what that means: it is the reason why Communism is inherently Totalitarian, why the use of the terms "social Engineering" has a negative conotation, and, the reason why real Conservatives should want nothing to do with Bush . . . . but you are merely a partisan without any (I'll let you imagine the rant that follows) .
BTW, I find something a bit distastefull in this speculating about a terrorist strike and possible consequences . . . let's just hope that it never happens again.
Like I said before, you and many here promote circular arguments, or possibly described as an infinite loop, which could be apropos in AI but much like a dog chasing it's tail.
I refuse to get caught up in that. I have learned my lesson with your type. Regardless of the subject as it relates to politics, world affairs, or domestic issues, every possible negative is attributed to GWB either directly or indirectly. So no matter what is said, it will point to some failure on his part.
I think that we all know how you and others feel about any issue regarding GWB, so why bather?
Remember the "Sit-N-Spin"?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Like I said before, you and many here promote circular arguments, or possibly described as an infinite loop, which could be apropos in AI but much like a dog chasing it's tail.
I refuse to get caught up in that. I have learned my lesson with your type. Regardless of the subject as it relates to politics, world affairs, or domestic issues, every possible negative is attributed to GWB either directly or indirectly. So no matter what is said, it will point to some failure on his part.
I think that we all know how you and others feel about any issue regarding GWB, so why bather?
Remember the "Sit-N-Spin"?
Do me a favor and show me that my argument is "circular". Take my discussion phrase by phrase and elaborate. Point out where it is 'circuar'.
Someone who uses the name of a rhetorical fallacy should be able to follow through as if they understood what they were saying.
If you do not analyse my argument point by point, then I will assume that you have no idea what you are talking about, no idea what a real 'circular argument' looks like, and/or simply did not even read my post all the way through.
Come on big boy, 'bring it on'.
Topic: If terrorist strike this september...
GW has persuaded me with his insight and I discover I certainly ain't with ya so I guess I'll bake a cake and get some flags...
Originally posted by pfflam
But will any of us ask the implicit but out-of-bounds Sammi-jo-ish question: since Bush has shown that he is so willing to let lives go for his "[i}VISION[/I]" was he willing to allow 3,000 civilian lives be lost in order to come across a good excuse for a). An oportunity to put into play 'The Plan': setting the Democracy Dominoes off in the Middle-East? b). a good strong Civil Defence strengthening bill with sweeping control and servaillance powers?
Just a question . . . would anybody try it on for size and see if it is at all coherent? . . . not saying that I would think such thoughts of course . . .
The history of the Bush admin. implies exactly that. The 3000 deaths on that day are collateral damage to 'justify' the greater plan, which would have have been wholly unacceptable to the huge majority of Americans without the aid of 9-11, part of the plan being:
* The transformation of America into a global imperial presence through (global) military might and presence, most especially in the Middle East.
* The subjugation by force of Arab/Muslim nations, especially any nations seen as a threat to Israel (Lebikow, April 2004), or those which support terrorists, or have engaged in terrorism.
* The securing of the energy resources of middle easterm nations in order that US demand is met for the next decade or two.
* To achieve the goal of an unassailable political position by popular marginalization all dissenting opinion (as unpatriotic), with the aid of an all-powerful, consolidated, uncontested media network.
* To enact a series of draconian laws (Patriot Acts 1 and 2), Homeland Security Act etc. which can (and most probably will) be used to stomp political opposition or even deport citizens.
There are just too many extraordinary anomalies regarding the events of 9-11, and how that day panned out, to solely put the blame on "Islamic fundamentalists who hate America's freedoms", organized by a psychotic holed up in a cave somewhere on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It would be "nice and convenient" if we could, but facts get in the way, facts that the national media refuse to touch with the proverbial bargepole. Four simultaneous hijackings, out of two different airports, with the simultaneous complete and total failures of so many different national and local security systems, make the whole official version look beyond absurd, if you actually examine the detailed timeline of the day. And...not a single solitary person has been fired, 2 and half years after the greatest security failure in American history.
Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the most likely, and certain (nameless) members of this administration knew in advance exactly what was to be going down that day. At the very least.
Call me a conspiracy theorist....but by 2010, at a guess, we will have some startling revelations about what really happened that horrible day.
Originally posted by pfflam
Do me a favor and show me that my argument is "circular". Take my discussion phrase by phrase and elaborate. Point out where it is 'circuar'.
Someone who uses the name of a rhetorical fallacy should be able to follow through as if they understood what they were saying.
If you do not analyse my argument point by point, then I will assume that you have no idea what you are talking about, no idea what a real 'circular argument' looks like, and/or simply did not even read my post all the way through.
Come on big boy, 'bring it on'.
Let me save you some electrons.
I already stated why your argument style is circular.
Let me illustrate what I mean: (work with me)
Question: Did GWB do enough to stop 9/11?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Regardless of the subject as it relates to politics, world affairs, or domestic issues, every possible negative is attributed to GWB either directly or indirectly. So no matter what is said, it will point to some failure on his part.
If that's true, it's because he ****ed up. Big time.
Originally posted by bunge
If that's true, it's because he ****ed up. Big time.
It is true and that is not the reason, and you and many others here know it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Question: Did GWB do enough to stop 9/11?
If you want to start a dialectical argumentative tour-de-force you should start with a question that is not idiotic:
Clearly, if Bush had done enough to stop 911, then it would not have happened.
Since it happened Bush. did not do enough to stop it.
umm . . . .
next brilliant question please?
BTW . . . the onus is on you to reveal my said 'circularuty' of arguement and to try and remove the foot stuck in your mouth . .
Originally posted by pfflam
If you want to start a dialectical argumentative tour-de-force you should start with a question that is not idiotic:
Clearly, if Bush had done enough to stop 911, then it would not have happened.
Since it happened Bush. did not do enough to stop it.
umm . . . .
next brilliant question please?
BTW . . . the onus is on you to reveal my said 'circularuty' of arguement and to try and remove the foot stuck in your mouth . .
Ok. How much responsibility falls at his feet and why?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok. How much responsibility falls at his feet and why?
Could you be a little clearer as to what you are asking here?
what sort of scale should be used in calculating this sort of thing?
Originally posted by pfflam
Could you be a little clearer as to what you are asking here?
what sort of scale should be used in calculating this sort of thing?
Let's say percentages. That is easy. Right?
Take a stab at it.