Go tell that to Israel and England, who have been operating under the assumption that if they can just kill all the terrorists, everything'll be fine.
You know for a fact that their goal is to kill all terrorists or just the ones that cause them grief? You seem a little overexhuberant with your use of scale and extremes.
We can't eliminate all drunk drivers from the road, either, so I guess we should just let them have the road and look the other way? Better yet, how about make a booze for oil program? Give'em what they want, and they'll stop driving...
You know for a fact that their goal is to kill all terrorists or just the ones that cause them grief? You seem a little overexhuberant with your use of scale and extremes.
We can't eliminate all drunk drivers from the road, either, so I guess we should just let them have the road and look the other way?
Either the "War on Terror" is a war against all terrorists, all states that sponsor them, and all states that provide them safe harbor, as Bush said in his address, or it's a political ruse being used to advance a neo-conservative agenda. Take your pick.
Just for future reference, so you don't continue to use terms incorrectly, a "strawman" argument isn't an argument that you can't figure out how to get around.
By the way, here's a little quote from the current president:
Quote:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.
Yeah, let's help them out by turning them all in to martyr's.
Given the situation in the mideast a few civilians getting beheaded is not worth getting worked up over. I hate agreeing with anything the Bush administration is doing but you simply cannot react to this kind of tactict. Challenge them to do something a bit more brash than kidnapping and executing civilians. Force their hand and make them attempt something larger. Taking a base of US soldiers hostage would get peoples attention. And if they attempted something big like this then maybe you could catch the buggers. Kidnap and murder is nothing special. Anone can do it. Reacting to this is like reacting to your kid brother moving his hand on to your side of the car saying, "look! I'm on your side!"
Just for future reference, so you don't continue to use terms incorrectly, a "strawman" argument isn't an argument that you can't figure out how to get around.
By the way, here's a little quote from the current president:
Yeah, his context sure implies he is chasing after every single form of terrorism under any cause.
The rest of us figured out that he is referring to the specific one that is causing us grief right now- specifically, the ME connection. So much for your clever strawman quip. You can be sure doing the opposite does very little good, as well. That pretty much describes everything up till now.
You can post all you like. No one is ever going to buy that you can just turn your head, and the baddies will simply disappear. No one.
Yeah, his context sure implies he is chasing after every single form of terrorism under any cause.
The rest of us figured out that he is referring to the specific one that is causing us grief right now.
Really? Here's another salient bit from the historic speech where he declares war on terror:
Quote:
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
I suppose that, Cheney-like, you'll now tell me that he doesn't mean what he said? That it all depends on the meaning of "is"?
You can post all you like. No one is ever going to buy that you can just turn your head, and the baddies will simply disappear. No one.
Also: You're inventing fake arguments again. A really interesting tactic you've got there. If you can't debate the issue, make up shit that your opponent didn't say and debate that! Pretty damned clever!
So if he doesn't erradicate all terrorism in all its forms from the earth, are you going to say he lied to you? Boo-hoo!
There's a degree of practicality that is applicable here. Evidently that continues to evade you. So if you continue to cling to your definition of "we'll never eliminate all terrorism", I would suggest you are right. "All" is a rather inclusive word. It's a meaningless statement. We'll never get rid of all sickness in the world, either, but it would be stupid to not bother inventing antibiotics, serums, and medical treatments. I mean, geez! Why even bother with a statement like this other than to provoke some response of awe from us, "Ooooh, you are soooo deep, guru! We're not worthy!"
How about we just shrug our shoulders, continue to fix the physical and bureaucratic infrastructure of the country and take our lumps and licks while we give them theirs?
Also: You're inventing fake arguments again. A really interesting tactic you've got there. If you can't debate the issue, make up shit that your opponent didn't say and debate that! Pretty damned clever!
Either you agree or disagree with the statement. Right now, you aren't exactly building the "agree" case, too well.
That was a special address to a joint session of Congress which was televised around the world. Bush stuck straight to the text, which was written no doubt by the dynamic duo of Gerson and Frum. If he misspoke, it was never corrected by Ari Fleischer, nor did any reporters ask Fleischer why Bush deviated from their pre-address copy. It was there. He said it.
Quote:
So if he doesn't erradicate all terrorism in all its forms from the earth, are you going to say he lied to you? Boo-hoo!
You're inventing points again. I'm saying that this admin has declared war on a tactic, all nations that harbor its users, and all nations that fund them. Either it is a global war on terrorism or it is not, in which case we need to ask what it is and why we're doing what we're doing in the name of such a preposterous war.
Quote:
There's a degree of practicality that is applicable here.
He said it. Take it up with him, not me. I'm with you on the notion that a global war on terrorism and all states that have anything to do with it is completely wrong-headed. I'm glad to see that you're with me in your opposition to the war on terror.
Quote:
Evidently that continues to evade you.
That's what I've been arguing all along. Don't admit to the world that you have poor reading comprehension skills and then accuse me of being dense. It makes you look bad.
Quote:
So if you continue to cling to your definition of "we'll never eliminate all terrorism", I would suggest you are right.
Good. Because I am. I would also suggest that I'm not defining anything. Bush did. If you have a problem with it, as you seem to, I suggest that you take it up with him.
Quote:
"All" is a rather inclusive word.
It's not a "rather inclusive word." It is the definition of inclusive.
Quote:
It's a meaningless statement. We'll never get rid of all sickness in the world, either, but it would be stupid to not bother inventing antibiotics, serums, and medical treatments.
Now this! This is a strawman.
Quote:
I mean, geez! Why even bother with a statement like this other than to provoke some response of awe from us, "Ooooh, you are soooo deep, guru! We're not worthy!"
Hey, look. You're the one who, along with me, is arguing that Bush's "War on Terror" is preposterous. We're on the same side, according to what you've just said. Why are you still of the opinion that you're not with me in thinking that Bush's proposal was stupid and wrong-headed? You just said it was.
You're in your own little world, it seems. Everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. Yadda, yadda, yadda- whatever. Move along...
You're inventing points again. At any rate, since it seems like you're trying to retreat, I suppose I was right, earlier, when I said that Cheney-like, you'd argue that when Bush said this:
Quote:
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
and this:
Quote:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
that he didn't mean it? That he meant something else?
Yes, we get the gist of your philosphy. Nothing is worthwhile doing because you can never fully do it completely. Whatever...
The rest of us can now proceed with more productive discussions, now that we have your logic bomb out of the way. Don't bother paraphrasing my meanings. You are a lost cause- like a...brick wall, it seems. How ironic for you. We can all laugh at ya next time you accuse somebody else of being one.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
Go tell that to Israel and England, who have been operating under the assumption that if they can just kill all the terrorists, everything'll be fine.
You know for a fact that their goal is to kill all terrorists or just the ones that cause them grief? You seem a little overexhuberant with your use of scale and extremes.
We can't eliminate all drunk drivers from the road, either, so I guess we should just let them have the road and look the other way? Better yet, how about make a booze for oil program? Give'em what they want, and they'll stop driving...
Originally posted by Scott
Yea that's what they've been doing.
Wanna bet?
I realize that you'll argue with a brick wall, but you should note that a rolleyes is not a substitute for argument.
Originally posted by Randycat99
You know for a fact that their goal is to kill all terrorists or just the ones that cause them grief? You seem a little overexhuberant with your use of scale and extremes.
We can't eliminate all drunk drivers from the road, either, so I guess we should just let them have the road and look the other way?
Either the "War on Terror" is a war against all terrorists, all states that sponsor them, and all states that provide them safe harbor, as Bush said in his address, or it's a political ruse being used to advance a neo-conservative agenda. Take your pick.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Why stop there? How about "in the galaxy"?
Hey, this is your idiotic war on a tactic that you're supporting, not mine. I can't help it if even you can point out the flaws in it.
Originally posted by Randycat99
No, it's just your idiotic strawman.
Just for future reference, so you don't continue to use terms incorrectly, a "strawman" argument isn't an argument that you can't figure out how to get around.
By the way, here's a little quote from the current president:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.
Originally posted by Scott
Not if they are killed before they kidnap more.
Yeah, let's help them out by turning them all in to martyr's.
Given the situation in the mideast a few civilians getting beheaded is not worth getting worked up over. I hate agreeing with anything the Bush administration is doing but you simply cannot react to this kind of tactict. Challenge them to do something a bit more brash than kidnapping and executing civilians. Force their hand and make them attempt something larger. Taking a base of US soldiers hostage would get peoples attention. And if they attempted something big like this then maybe you could catch the buggers. Kidnap and murder is nothing special. Anone can do it. Reacting to this is like reacting to your kid brother moving his hand on to your side of the car saying, "look! I'm on your side!"
Originally posted by midwinter
Just for future reference, so you don't continue to use terms incorrectly, a "strawman" argument isn't an argument that you can't figure out how to get around.
By the way, here's a little quote from the current president:
Yeah, his context sure implies he is chasing after every single form of terrorism under any cause.
The rest of us figured out that he is referring to the specific one that is causing us grief right now- specifically, the ME connection. So much for your clever strawman quip. You can be sure doing the opposite does very little good, as well. That pretty much describes everything up till now.
You can post all you like. No one is ever going to buy that you can just turn your head, and the baddies will simply disappear. No one.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Yeah, his context sure implies he is chasing after every single form of terrorism under any cause.
The rest of us figured out that he is referring to the specific one that is causing us grief right now.
Really? Here's another salient bit from the historic speech where he declares war on terror:
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
I suppose that, Cheney-like, you'll now tell me that he doesn't mean what he said? That it all depends on the meaning of "is"?
You really ought to stop now.
Originally posted by Randycat99
You can post all you like. No one is ever going to buy that you can just turn your head, and the baddies will simply disappear. No one.
Also: You're inventing fake arguments again. A really interesting tactic you've got there. If you can't debate the issue, make up shit that your opponent didn't say and debate that! Pretty damned clever!
So if he doesn't erradicate all terrorism in all its forms from the earth, are you going to say he lied to you? Boo-hoo!
There's a degree of practicality that is applicable here. Evidently that continues to evade you. So if you continue to cling to your definition of "we'll never eliminate all terrorism", I would suggest you are right. "All" is a rather inclusive word. It's a meaningless statement. We'll never get rid of all sickness in the world, either, but it would be stupid to not bother inventing antibiotics, serums, and medical treatments. I mean, geez! Why even bother with a statement like this other than to provoke some response of awe from us, "Ooooh, you are soooo deep, guru! We're not worthy!"
Originally posted by midwinter
Also: You're inventing fake arguments again. A really interesting tactic you've got there. If you can't debate the issue, make up shit that your opponent didn't say and debate that! Pretty damned clever!
Either you agree or disagree with the statement. Right now, you aren't exactly building the "agree" case, too well.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Hey, maybe he got carried away in his words?
That was a special address to a joint session of Congress which was televised around the world. Bush stuck straight to the text, which was written no doubt by the dynamic duo of Gerson and Frum. If he misspoke, it was never corrected by Ari Fleischer, nor did any reporters ask Fleischer why Bush deviated from their pre-address copy. It was there. He said it.
So if he doesn't erradicate all terrorism in all its forms from the earth, are you going to say he lied to you? Boo-hoo!
You're inventing points again. I'm saying that this admin has declared war on a tactic, all nations that harbor its users, and all nations that fund them. Either it is a global war on terrorism or it is not, in which case we need to ask what it is and why we're doing what we're doing in the name of such a preposterous war.
There's a degree of practicality that is applicable here.
He said it. Take it up with him, not me. I'm with you on the notion that a global war on terrorism and all states that have anything to do with it is completely wrong-headed. I'm glad to see that you're with me in your opposition to the war on terror.
Evidently that continues to evade you.
That's what I've been arguing all along. Don't admit to the world that you have poor reading comprehension skills and then accuse me of being dense. It makes you look bad.
So if you continue to cling to your definition of "we'll never eliminate all terrorism", I would suggest you are right.
Good. Because I am. I would also suggest that I'm not defining anything. Bush did. If you have a problem with it, as you seem to, I suggest that you take it up with him.
"All" is a rather inclusive word.
It's not a "rather inclusive word." It is the definition of inclusive.
It's a meaningless statement. We'll never get rid of all sickness in the world, either, but it would be stupid to not bother inventing antibiotics, serums, and medical treatments.
Now this! This is a strawman.
I mean, geez! Why even bother with a statement like this other than to provoke some response of awe from us, "Ooooh, you are soooo deep, guru! We're not worthy!"
Hey, look. You're the one who, along with me, is arguing that Bush's "War on Terror" is preposterous. We're on the same side, according to what you've just said. Why are you still of the opinion that you're not with me in thinking that Bush's proposal was stupid and wrong-headed? You just said it was.
Originally posted by Randycat99
You're in your own little world, it seems. Everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. Yadda, yadda, yadda- whatever. Move along...
You're inventing points again. At any rate, since it seems like you're trying to retreat, I suppose I was right, earlier, when I said that Cheney-like, you'd argue that when Bush said this:
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
and this:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
that he didn't mean it? That he meant something else?
The rest of us can now proceed with more productive discussions, now that we have your logic bomb out of the way. Don't bother paraphrasing my meanings. You are a lost cause- like a...brick wall, it seems. How ironic for you.