Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik

[Lazy Agnostic]

WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A
PEACENIK
By Bill Davidson

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of
Security
Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate
Security
Council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in
violation
of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that
Iraq could
have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking
gun
could well be a mushroom cloud over New York.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said
Iraq had no
nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for
attacking
us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather
terrorist
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or
biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves,
didn't
we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man
that has
an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the
early
Eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry
lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry
lunatic
murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He
is the
one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our
ambassador
to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion
of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq
could sell
its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden
himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us,
proving a
partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to
kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin
Laden on
the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could
easily be
a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels
Saddam a
secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison
factory in
Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part
of Iraq
controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date
graduate student
paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from
inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons
inspector, Hans
Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot
be
revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because
Resolution 1441
threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security
Council
will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security
Council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to
invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens
of
billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against
war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses
its will
by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that
is
important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by
the U.S.
Supreme C...

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however
they
were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This
is about
being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we
are not
patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons
of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such
weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they
are still
unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would
degrade to
an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons
exist, we
must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable
chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can
reach
the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors,
AND
threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot
allow the
inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying,
deceiving,
and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of
millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical
Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the
way we
live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland
Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these
change the way
we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has
called
on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must
now face
the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such
as find
a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the
Security
Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support
us at
all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe
France, with
all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to
boycott their
wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.

Edit: This was emailed to me but I have since found it on several GOOGLE sites. Here is the most readable:http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=jwz&itemid=176218

[Captain Ochre]

Wow, a straw man with more heads than one of those legendary hydras that grows two heads when one's been lopped off, after the thing has been through quite a battle.
:smile:
Thanks for sharing. Would you care to join one of the threads where those who think that the war is just present their own arguments?

[Ryokan]

Straw Man of DOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Run away run away!

Just because one person who supports the war is an idiot, hypocrite, or both, (and believe me, I can think of many such people just of the top of my head), is meaningless as to whether or not it is a good idea. And most who support the war think the UN is full of BS, so why do they care about 1441. That just the admin. engaging in the political function of covering its butt, a proud democratic tradition, not an issue. So from your first statement onward, we are dealing with strawmen.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 02:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Captain Ochre:

Thanks for sharing. Would you care to join one of the threads where those who think that the war is just present their own arguments?
I'm not qualified; I doubt I could hold my own.

Here's the resignation letter of a career US Middle East diplomat:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-13.htm

Here's a piece about how Mr Rumsfeld handles things:

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1

Personally though, any president who is twisted enough to allow a Tongue Speaker in his Cabinet (Inquisitor-General Ashcroft) just can't be trusted for a moment. Bye-bye Bill of Rights.

[Mr Stick71]

Bye-bye Bill of Rights?? Had you said something like that in Iraq against Saddam, you'd probably watch a few close female relatives of yours be raped and executed before they hung you in public. I would LOVE to see you provide such an example with Ashcroft.

[Alden]

[i]Today @ 12:08 PM
Personally though, any president who is twisted enough to allow a Tongue Speaker in his Cabinet (Inquisitor-General Ashcroft) just can't be trusted for a moment. Bye-bye Bill of Rights.

I don't like ashcroft, but this is offensive, not to mention extremely idiotic.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

LA,

Love that post! I think you hit the pro-war nail right on the head! That's about the sort of convoluted tail-chasing logic I've seen them present in most of their arguments around here! I'm going to have to copy that, if you don't mind, and share it with some friends.

But be warned: challenging them to actually back up their unfounded assertions and having an opinion of your own will get you labeled a "spin-master" with a quickness around here!

[$cirisme]

Love that post!

Why should I not be surprised?

You are the god of straw men.

:ahem:

[$cirisme]

By the way, LA, do you have a link to a source for that?

We kinda need one to avoid copyright lawsuits. :brow:

Thanks! :thumb:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
cirisme:

Why should I not be surprised?

You are the god of straw men.

:ahem:
Well, your response certainly doesn't surprise me. You war supporters really hate having your convolutions shown in one package, don't you?

[$cirisme]

Get it straight, I do not support the war because of the UN or because of any chemical weapons that may be there. :ahem: (although, some may)

Repeat after me: "Eireann will not make straw men anymore." :ahem:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
cirisme:

Get it straight, I do not support the war because of the UN or because of any chemical weapons that may be there. :ahem: (although, some may)

Repeat after me: "Eireann will not make straw men anymore." :ahem:
Show me my strawman. The post LA made indicates exactly the convoluted argumentation that I've seen repeated ad nauseum. No straw man there, unless by straw man you mean, "Darn, they've caught us dead to rights!"

[$cirisme]

No straw man there, unless by straw man you mean, "Darn, they've caught us dead to rights!"


Get it straight, I do not support the war because of the UN or because of any chemical weapons that may be there.

:ahem:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

That post wasn't intended to illustrate that everyone who is for the war is for it because of the UN or possible chemical weapons. It was intended to illustrate that the pro-war side has about a gazillion completely bogus justifications for the war that they circulate between, going from one to the next as soon as each one is challenge.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Eireann:

That post wasn't intended to illustrate that everyone who is for the war is for it because of the UN or possible chemical weapons. It was intended to illustrate that the pro-war side has about a gazillion completely bogus justifications for the war that they circulate between, going from one to the next as soon as each one is challenge.

I can think of no "pro-war" example from this group. Could you provide us with a specific example?

OTOH, Kiwimac raises antiwar points, then as soon as they are challenged, he runs away (though he continues guerilla warfare with one-liners and irrelevant links). Would you like an example?
:smile:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 12:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Eireann:

Show me my strawman. The post LA made indicates exactly the convoluted argumentation that I've seen repeated ad nauseum.


Wowie, here's another great opportunity for Eireann to back up one of his claims.
How about an example of a TWeb peacenik-basher who followed the wishy-washy pattern of the thread-starting post in any regard? One example. Anybody who supports the military action against Iraq. Please include a quotation(s) manifesting the alleged similarity.



No straw man there, unless by straw man you mean, "Darn, they've caught us dead to rights!"

If you can back up your claim just once, I'll show three straw men from the initial post, with respect to my position on the war.
You're allowed more, of course, but I figure that the only way to get you to respond to the challenge may be to set your burden of proof embarrassingly low.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Yesterday @ 07:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
cirisme:

By the way, LA, do you have a link to a source for that?

We kinda need one to avoid copyright lawsuits. :brow:

Thanks! :thumb: It was emailed to me or I would have. I found it at several GOOGLE sites. This was the most readable:

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=jwz&itemid=176218

[Ryokan]

You'd think that, since we have alot of reasons for invading, rather than just one, it would strengthen our arguement. I guess they don't think they are credible. But even then, the flow of thought, the rebuttals to the arguements, etc. weren't intelligent and realistic, or funny. Tom Tommorrow did a much better thing like this in his comic strip.

[$cirisme]

Today @ 03:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Lazy Agnostic:

It was emailed to me or I would have. I found it at several GOOGLE sites. This was the most readable:

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=jwz&itemid=176218

Thanks! I thought you found this on a website and copied it, which is why I asked. If you post something you found in your email, saying so should suffice. :thumb:

[Ryokan]

See, they included the tom tommorrow comic! I like the little clip art guy.

[Epoetker]

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

Offhand comment: Somebody had to be first.

Serious comment: Israel's and others's violated resolutions are censures and suggestions, not specific postwar UN-mandated threats to take an action or risk "serious consequences."


PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

Offhand: You don't need nukes to make a mushroom cloud-MOAB, baby!

Seriously: We have continually found plans hidden in Iraqi scientists's homes regarding the construction of nuclear weapons, and one of those who escaped the Osirak attack told of a bunch of nuclear material that missed the fire of Israeli jets.


PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

Already shown to be false, therefore pretty irrelevant.


But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or
biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves, didn't we?

Sure, but the anthrax we sold them then was transmitted via one of those university exchange programs (bless the fools, they thought that the Iraqi university was going to use it to do some, like, actual non-military research.) And even the most starry-eyed bio uni director is unlikely to sell stuff to stateless Al Qaeda reps. Do they HAVE reps?


We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

He had not completely revealed his true form then.


A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our
ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

Offhand: He probably should have told President GHW Bush.

Seriously: Standard stability-hungry diplomats lack opinions and are quite happy to publicize their lack of them. Saddam's heard this sort of thing before and not acted on it with anything resembling this much verve.


Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

No, since his organization can function fairly well without him, though it would be dealt a giant psychological blow.


Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

So what? He's obviously interested in supporting this particular infidel against his primary enemy. Enemy of my enemy is friend and all that.


But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part
of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

Not as of recently.


Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date
graduate student paper?

The parts of it pertaining to past actions, yes.


Weren't those just artistic renderings?

Links, please. I truly don't believe this one, and the discovery of numerous tunnels under places like Baghdad Interational Airport
make this thesis more credible.


Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons
inspector, Hans Blix?

Specifics, please. Blix is too chatty to give sensitive intel reports to.


So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Plenty. It just requires somebody with a reasonable definition of "evidence."


So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security
Council?

Nah, it's ensuring the security of the US and it's allies.


I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

Nah, it was French and Islamist political pressure what did that.


I thought public opinion in all those countries was against
war.

Public opinion in Europe is nearly always against wars right up to the point until they're won.


But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...

Sure he was. He was elected by the electoral voters.


But the inspectors have not been able to find any such
weapons.

Inspectors have been really badly unequipped and their minders uncooperative.


The weapons we sold them, you mean?

No, the weapons they made themselves, including aflatoxin, which does nothing well but give children liver cancer.




Not if you use well-known methods to ensure the longevity of your supply. And make or buy more during the periods when inspectors weren't in the country(last four years.)

[QUOTE]But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable
chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

I expect you peaceniks will be the first to complain when we nuke or MOAB all of their dug-in positions and underground nuclear facilities.


So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

Diplomacy doesn't work; Iraq is an easier target.


But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

And give us temporary control over hundreds of billions in oil to pay for it.


But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical
Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

It ain't preemptive, and it ain't likely.


So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland
Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

Not all that much, actually. Even so, would you want THEM to go on indefinitely?


So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

We did. Didn't find one. War is the best and most effective long-term solution.

[Valmoon]

Cirisme who cares why you personally support the war. I sure don't. But what I do care about is credibility of our country when future situations need addressed.

This administration said they are going into Iraq due to Iraq's not following a UN resolution and possessing weapons of mass destruction.

After destroying many of their cities and killing (I'm sure we will get exact numbers soon) many of their citizens I hope we can produce evidence of the WMD that the administration says they have. Remember many people who opposed the war said they were not convinced by the "evidence" the administration produced. Hopefully they will be wrong and the administration proved right. I'm waiting to see.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

“But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical
Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?”

It ain't preemptive, and it ain't likely.
Excusez-moi? He didn't attack anyone and he didn't threaten to attack anyone. How exactly do you figure it isn't preemptive? And as for igniting radical Muslim sentiments against us, it's already happening. Just watch the news! Massive rallies storming the gates of US embassies in several Arab states? Not very likely? It's already happening!

[$cirisme]

Cirisme who cares why you personally support the war.

I do. :idea:

And apparently Eireann does to with gianty strawman. :ahem:



I sure don't.

You break my heart.

.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.


Not! :ahem:

[Epoetker]

He didn't attack anyone and he didn't threaten to attack anyone. How exactly do you figure it isn't preemptive?

Because the 1st Gulf War, master of "legality" arguments, never "legally" ended.


And as for igniting radical Muslim sentiments against us, it's already happening. Just watch the news! Massive rallies storming the gates of US embassies in several Arab states? Not very likely? It's already happening!

Offhand: I prefer playing video games over watching the news, actually. And according to Command and Conquer: Generals, the GLA Angry Mob, though good for damaging structures, can easily be taken down with small-arms fire. The authority of Westwood seems pretty good at this point.

Seriously: Please. I don't believe we've actually lost a single embassy. These war protests would be absolutely inevitable whenever an "infidel" attacks a Muslim nation. Thousands protest on the much-ballyhooed "Arab street," hundreds of thousands protest in the coalition countries.

[Valmoon]

:thumb:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Epoetker:

Because the 1st Gulf War, master of "legality" arguments, never "legally" ended.
It never "legally" began. There was no Declaration of War in the first Gulf War. See here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/13/politics/main540591.shtml).

"Congress has not formally declared a war since World War II. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 in response to the war in Vietnam and the actions of President Richard Nixon, requires the president to seek congressional approval before or shortly after ordering military action abroad. It also requires the president to report to Congress."


Offhand: I prefer playing video games over watching the news, actually. And according to Command and Conquer: Generals, the GLA Angry Mob, though good for damaging structures, can easily be taken down with small-arms fire. The authority of Westwood seems pretty good at this point.

Seriously: Please. I don't believe we've actually lost a single embassy. These war protests would be absolutely inevitable whenever an "infidel" attacks a Muslim nation. Thousands protest on the much-ballyhooed "Arab street," hundreds of thousands protest in the coalition countries.
Uh, that doesn't help your argument any. Your comment was that this war was not likely to increase anti-American sentiments from Muslim radicals. Your comment was not about how effective their methods might be.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 09:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
cirisme:

I do. :idea:

And apparently Eireann does to with gianty strawman. :ahem:
I see you still haven't met my challenge to show the strawman. I asked you to do so. You still have failed to meet that challenge. Do you care to address that challenge, or do you prefer to keep with the ad hominem?

[$cirisme]

I've already shown you your straw man, you have refused to acknowledge it. And before you give me the nonsense of "Well, I didn't see it :dufus:" it's page 1, #13.

Your claims are as unjustified and wrong, as I would be if I said you were anti-American by not supporting this effort.

Grow up.

[Mr Stick71]

"It never "legally" began."

Actually, yes, it did. The U.N. passed a resolution allowing the use of force against Iraq.

I believe Epoetker's point is that we didn't finish the job when we should have by removing that brutal regime when we had the chance. Unfortunately, the U.N. and the Western media wouldn't have it after the Highway of Death incident. So yes, it did legally begin, and no, in practice the war has not ended.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

No, Cir, that would be a strawman if, and only if, I was referring to you alone. "You" and "us" are general terms, referring to the pro-war movement in general. General terms generally recognize that there are exceptions to the rule. Furthermore, considering the topic, whether or not you support the war because of the UN resolutions has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. The point was that you all have about a gazillion different justifications for your little war (most of which are bogus), and the UN resolutions is but one of many of those reasons. Simply saying that the argument in the post doesn't apply to you personally is not the same as showing a strawman. When you challenged my post, you did it in such a way as if you were acting as a spokesman for the pro-war movement. As such, you invite upon yourself the characteristics of that movement for so long as you choose to be its spokesperson. And if you don't want the characteristics applied to you, then you need to back off and quit acting as if you do speak for them. So, no, you still haven't demonstrated a straw man. Keep trying, though.

[kiwimac]

I don't think they're listening!

As for you CO, I do not run away, I post as I pick and choose. Really sorry if you don't like that:ahem:

Kiwimac

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
kiwimac:

I don't think they're listening!


What should we be listening to, iyo? Eireann is now popping off that the initial post isn't a strawman if it applies to the "pro-war" types "generally" (he means as a generalization, since generally means that it is true across the board).
If the arguments don't apply to those who are posting here, though (as many of us have affirmed), the what is the point of posting it? What use is it for me to generalize that peacenik types utilize the fallacies of appeal to emotion, appeal to the people, argumentum ad hominem, and a host of others if Eireann himself isn't employing those same fallacies? None, afaics--it would just be a big fat red herring, and (we hope!) a straw man with respect to Eireann's views.



As for you CO, I do not run away, I post as I pick and choose. Really sorry if you don't like that:ahem:


I don't like or dislike it. You post, get refuted, and then you abandon the thread. You don't want to call that running away, that's your business.
I'm just calling it like I see it. You need some examples?

[wienerdog]

After destroying many of their cities and killing (I'm sure we will get exact numbers soon) many of their citizens...

The highest estimates are about 1000 civilian casualties, but these estimates are according to Iraq and the BBC, so it's probably inflated.

[$cirisme]

When you challenged my post, you did it in such a way as if you were acting as a spokesman for the pro-war movement.

Where is this organization, and how did I become their spokesman?

:huh:

You are anti-american.

(of course I don't really mean you, I mean the people you are speaking for :ahem:)

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58254#post58254)
cirisme:

Where is this organization, and how did I become their spokesman?
By calling the original post a straw man, you took it upon yourself to declare that such circular argumentation is not employed on the pro-war side of things. You made yourself the spokesman.

Bear in mind there is a big difference between a "straw man" and "exceptions to the argument." It is very difficult to make a straw man out of a position held to by many, especially when it is quite clear that a good number of those people are fairly represented by the argument. The fact that there are some who are not does not make it a strawman, it simply makes those people exceptions to the argument.

The post in question presented a tongue-in-cheek conversation that represented a tactic that is very definitely employed by quite a few war supporters. Therefore, it is entirely improper to call the generalized post a "straw man," unless it made the representation that all war supporters employ said tactic. It did not make any such representation. If you inferred that from the post, the fault is yours, not the author's.

Captain Ochre and Ryokan immediately jumped in and inaccurately called the argument a straw man. When I said I agreed with the post, you also jumped on the "straw man" wagon. In all three cases, it was because you don't believe that you personally have engaged in such tactics. However, since the post was not directly personally or individually at any of you, it can only be concluded that you all three chose instead to speak for the pro-war side in general, thus making yourselves spokespeople for the pro-war side.


You are anti-american.

(of course I don't really mean you, I mean the people you are speaking for :ahem:)
That's a bad case of turnabout. The initial post can't be called a straw man because it so clearly does apply to many people, whether it applies to you personally or not. Your attempt at turnabout, however, can be called a straw man unless you can show that any of the anti-war people are anti-American based on the fact that they are anti-war, unless of course you weren't intending to suggest that it is their anti-war stance that makes them anti-American. Of course, would anyone actually believe that's not what you intended? Doubtful.

[$cirisme]

However, since the post was not directly personally or individually at any of you

Being the most outspoken pro-war people here, it might as well have been.


unless of course you weren't intending to suggest that it is their anti-war stance that makes them anti-American.

I don't believe bein atni-war makes you anti-American, but I do believe that many who are anti-war are anti-American.

Just because a large segment of people who agree with you(or me) may do things or think things that aren't honest does not invalidate your(or my) arguments. :no:

[Mr Stick71]

I have a question for the anti-war people.

How would you peacefully stop things like this:

"Human rights groups estimate that at least 290,000 Iraqis have disappeared since Saddam took power 34 years ago."

"She recalls riding on a school bus at age 13 and seeing a crowd gathered in the center of the capital, around bodies of men hanging from poles. "I remember the blue faces, the long necks," she said."

"Al-Suwaij says she had a 16-year-old cousin who was beaten and tortured with electrical shocks for having written something against the government in her school notebook."

"And if a man is a dissident or if a man writes a letter or makes a joke about Saddam, these women said, authorities would rape his wife or female relatives in front of him."

The rest you can read yourself at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/iraq030321_women.html

I demand a peaceful solution to this. If you peaceniks can't provide one, I'm going to have to assume war was the only way to prevent such things from happening. And before you do, note that number: 290,000 people missing. The numbers of civilian deaths in this war don't even come close to that, and most of the civilian deaths in this war were caused by the Iraqi's placing them in harms way.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/iraq-030406-centcom11-mil-eq-shield-civilian-blds.jpg

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 05:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58299#post58299)
cirisme:

Being the most outspoken pro-war people here, it might as well have been.
I rather doubt that it was, since the poster didn't author the thing himself but received it via email.


I don't believe bein atni-war makes you anti-American, but I do believe that many who are anti-war are anti-American.
Not saying whether you're right or wrong, but why do you believe that?


Just because a large segment of people who agree with you(or me) may do things or think things that aren't honest does not invalidate your(or my) arguments. :no:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I wasn't making any judgements about the validity of anyone's arguments. I was making judgements about the ability of people to support their arguments. As the post truly pointed out, there are quite a few in support of the war who have no real support for their arguments. They levy out one justification, then move on to another when they can't support the first. Then they move on to another when they can't support the second, and it becomes a cycle. Of course, there is some of the same on the anti-war side, too, but not as much, I'd wager. Generally, it seems that the worst case you can make against the anti-war side is that they don't necessarily know what a better alternative would be. So sue them for not being trained military or diplomatic strategists. And when they say, "Prove that Iraq has WMDs," the pro-war side often responds with, "Prove they don't." Unfortunately for the pro-war side, that's an empty rebuttal, because that's not how "burden of proof" works.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 05:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58302#post58302)
Mr Stick71:

I have a question for the anti-war people.

How would you peacefully stop things like this:

"Human rights groups estimate that at least 290,000 Iraqis have disappeared since Saddam took power 34 years ago."
Well, first to answer your question, I don't know. I'm not a trained diplomat or a military strategist. Does that make my opinion any less valid on the matter? No. For that matter, are you a trained diplomat or military strategist qualified in any way to say that there isn't a solution that could have avoided full-scale war?

Now a question for you about propaganda, regarding this: "Human rights groups estimate that at least 290,000 Iraqis have disappeared since Saddam took power 34 years ago."

Specifically which human rights groups? From where do they get their figures. And why is there such discrepancy between one human rights group's estimations and another's? I've seen projected figures from various "human rights groups" that claim knowledge of anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 to a few million. And in not one single case have any of them provided any reliable source documentation for those figures. I can only conclude that they're making a "stab in the dark."

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government, especially knowing the propensity of our government for manufacturing exactly those kinds of things (recall the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in the first Gulf War).

[Epoetker]

Uh, that doesn't help your argument any. Your comment was that this war was not likely to increase anti-American sentiments from Muslim radicals. Your comment was not about how effective their methods might be.

By now opinions in the Arab world have pretty much hardened. Either you're informed and de-propagandized, and thus like or are indifferent to America, or you swallow the daily bull poured out by your state-run Jew-hating newspaper and Jew-hating wider culture, and have a hatred for America that ranges from cold to simmering. But we've already had a bunch of anti-American protests. None of them were of any significant danger. Your mental picture of a growly tide of swarthy people overrunning the embassies and killing all inside Just Does Not Exist. Really, after seeing what well-coordinated terrorists attacks look like in Generals, I'm kinda ashamed of their lack of initiative.:wink:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 05:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58336#post58336)
Epoetker:

By now opinions in the Arab world have pretty much hardened. Either you're informed and de-propagandized, and thus like or are indifferent to America, or you swallow the daily bull poured out by your state-run Jew-hating newspaper and Jew-hating wider culture, and have a hatred for America that ranges from cold to simmering.
That's a pretty bold assumption. You believe this ... why?


Your mental picture of a growly tide of swarthy people overrunning the embassies and killing all inside Just Does Not Exist.
Refresh my memory ... when did I say this?

[Epoetker]

That's a pretty bold assumption. You believe this ... why?

www.memri.org



Refresh my memory ... when did I say this?

"Just watch the news! Massive rallies storming the gates of US embassies in several Arab states? Not very likely? It's already happening!"

:zzz: to your alarmism.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58482#post58482)
Epoetker:

www.memri.org
Try again. That shows nothing that suggests that Arabs who had previously reserved judgement or had ambivalent feelings about the US will not be affected by our action in Iraq.


"Just watch the news! Massive rallies storming the gates of US embassies in several Arab states? Not very likely? It's already happening!"
Keep trying, lad. Do you see something in that post that says anything remotely suggestive of killing everyone in the place?

*listens closely ... yes, yes ... I think I do hear the words "straw man"*

Furthermore, video footage of these rallies was shown all over the news. Rallies where huge crowds of Arabs, crowds sometimes in the thousands were literally surging against the gates and walls of the US embassies. My comment was in no way an exxageration.

[Epoetker]

Blargh to your semantical games in lieu of anything to offer in the way of debating the merits of the war itself.

"Storming" generally means to overrun. None of or embassies were overran. The protestors know too much about the accuracy of US bullets.

As far as worrying about Arab opinion, I offer you this missive from NR's resident Jew:


Are the Arabs really this stupid?

As politically incorrect as this may sound, that's more or less what I keep thinking when I read about the Arab world's response to the war in Iraq. Oh, I don't mean their opposition to the war. While I think it's the wrong position to take, it's hardly fair to say it is an inherently unintelligent point of view. Reasonable and unreasonable people alike may differ on this. Jacques Chirac isn't stupid ¡ª nor, for that matter, is his old friend Saddam Hussein.

No, what I'm referring to is the widespread outrage from across the region denouncing two alleged ¡ª alleged ¡ª accidental misfires of U.S. weapons which Saddam's regime says hit Iraqis. After 58 Iraqi civilians died in a second such incident, newspapers across the Arab world went into overdrive. "Monstrous martyrdom in Baghdad," blared a huge headline in al-Dustur, a Jordanian newspaper. "Dreadful massacre in Baghdad," Egypt's huge Akhbar al-Yawm newspaper declared, featuring pictures of two young victims of the explosion covering half the front page. "Yet another massacre by the coalition of invaders," was the main headline in our ally Saudi Arabia's popular al-Riyadh daily (Note: The first "massacre" claimed 15 lives).

Between these newspapers and the broadcasts of the al-Jazeera television network and numerous similar Arab TV stations, the region is being fed a steady stream of body parts, wailing children, and grieving women.

In response to these images and the corresponding commentary about them, numerous intelligent, successful, Arab civilians from across the Middle East believe that America is willfully murdering Arab civilians in huge numbers. "Those pictures have showed that America's war is not only against the Iraqi regime and the Iraqi army, but also against the Iraqi children and elderly. How can we trust them now?," 19-year-old Mahmoud Sahiouny, a Syrian computer-science student who lives in Beirut asked the Washington Post.

"It is as if you are watching a horror movie," said Summer Said, a journalist for the Cairo Times, an English-language newsmagazine. "I thought, at first, okay, maybe it isn't a war for oil. Maybe America does want to help. Now, it's genocide to me. Is the American government trying to exterminate Arabs?"

And it is precisely this point which makes me ask, Are the Arabs stupid?

For you see, if the goal were to massacre Arabs ¡ª never mind commit genocide ¡ª we would not bomb merely two obscure markets. If our goal was to "exterminate Arabs" our precision-guided bombs might land more precisely ¡ª and more often ¡ª on Arabs in, say, Basra or Baghdad or Cairo, or wherever else we might find Arabs in large numbers. Instead, the criticism from even the Iraqi military is that we are blowing up empty buildings. Indeed, as of this writing, we've launched more than 17,000 sorties over Iraq in about 12 days. For some perspective, the Dresden firebombing took place over a period of about 18 hours and involved about 2,000 bomber sorties. It killed about 135,000 people. We've launched 8 1/2 times that number of sorties and generated less than 1 percent of the casualties. I'm no bean counter, but if our intent is to "massacre" Arabs, our tax dollars are being woefully misspent.

If the Arabs are anything like the credulous ninnies shown here(assuming that these interviews weren't all trumped up) then there is good reason to sit idly on your rocking chair staring lazily at the mob while oiling your shotgun. Their media is BAD, EVIL, BIASED. Their access to alternative information is HIGHLY LIMITED. Their religion is ALL TOO SUPPORTIVE of outsider-hatred. Their military effectiveness is PATHETIC. The only reason we bother with them is because enough of them are KOOKY enough to blow themselves up for Ibn al' Wahhab's version of Allah.

[Mr Stick71]

"You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government, especially knowing the propensity of our government for manufacturing exactly those kinds of things"

Hence, why the left doesn't get it. People are suffering and dying, and the first thing you come up with is conspiracy theory? That's pathetic. Personally, I hope that should you ever go to court, you are not allowed to speak because of what your testimony says. Here's another thing: I quoted a neutral media site, NOT the government.

This is why you don't get it. You hear these people's words, and you throw them out without a second thought because they don't conform with your opinion.

Hmm, no peaceful solution. I wonder why it is that you can't give me a peaceful solution because you are not a professional diplomat, yet you can criticize Bush for not exhausting every peaceable solution.

I'm sorry, I can't deal with such racist statements as believing Iraqis can't tell the truth because their testimony is given as good reason to wipe out the Baathist regime.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58612#post58612)
Mr Stick71:

Hence, why the left doesn't get it. People are suffering and dying, and the first thing you come up with is conspiracy theory? That's pathetic.
No, what is pathetic is that you use the distress in other lands to fuel your black-and-white worldview that says either "War now! Turn their country into a parking lot!" or nothing. You can't see any in-between. That is what is sad and pathetic. By the way, if you want to tout condemnations of the left, take them to the left, don't bring them to me. I'm not the left, nor am I part of it.


Personally, I hope that should you ever go to court, you are not allowed to speak because of what your testimony says.
How utterly typical of the right. "If you don't agree with me, you shouldn't be allowed to speak."


Here's another thing: I quoted a neutral media site, NOT the government.
Those same women were sponsored by the government in a national televised speech in front of the White House. I recognized a couple of them. Your site may not be a government site, but the women it quotes have definite government sponsorship, hence my unwillingness to take everything they say at face value in light of two things:

1) Iraqis that I know personally (there is a rather large Middle Eastern community at my university) whose stories are quite different than what those women tell. Iraqis, I might add, who despise Saddam Hussein but also hate the propaganda they are seeing on our media about their country and people.

2) The fiasco with the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter during the first Gulf War when Bush Sr. tried to manufacture a similar propaganda feed and got caught in the act.


This is why you don't get it. You hear these people's words, and you throw them out without a second thought because they don't conform with your opinion.
No, but I do seriously question them when they don't conform to stories I've heard from people who are actually from Iraq (some of those women who were interviewed haven't lived in Iraq for many, many years. Instead, they have lived in the US with their families since before the first Gulf War and really have no greater knowledge of current conditions in Iraq than the typical American).


Hmm, no peaceful solution. I wonder why it is that you can't give me a peaceful solution because you are not a professional diplomat, yet you can criticize Bush for not exhausting every peaceable solution.
I criticize Bush for taking a black-and-white view -- war or nothing.


I'm sorry, I can't deal with such racist statements as believing Iraqis can't tell the truth because their testimony is given as good reason to wipe out the Baathist regime.
Then don't. Fortunately, you received no such statements from me. I question the testimony of Iraqis who are sponsored by our government, Iraqis who have lived here since before the first Gulf War, whose stories coincide with the propaganda spin our government is trying to employ but disagree with those of Iraqis I know personally who have no ties to our government, no love of Saddam Hussein, and have lived in Iraq all their lives, only having moved to the US within the last year or two. Forgive me if I choose to believe the words of Iraqis who are only recently removed from Iraq over the words of Iraqis who haven't been near Iraq in more than a decade.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 09:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58525#post58525)
Epoetker:

Blargh to your semantical games in lieu of anything to offer in the way of debating the merits of the war itself.
Nice try to divert from your own failure to support your point. In fact, with the missive you provided, you actually disproved your own point, all the while attempting to create a terribly misshapen straw man. Last I checked, the point you raised (when you said the war isn't likely to increase anti-American sentiment in the Arab world) had nothing to do with the merits of war. If you want to debate the merits of war, I suggest you start another thread, but please don't go tossing that in simply to cloud this debate.


"Storming" generally means to overrun. None of or embassies were overran. The protestors know too much about the accuracy of US bullets.
That is not necessarily the only meaning of "storming." I use "storming" as a synonym for "rushing," as in a large mass of people attacking in a somewhat chaotic wave without a great deal of order or strategy. In fact, looking up the verb form of "storm" in Webster's, I actually found that definition offered before your definition (meaning that your definition of storm is of less common usage than my definition).

Now, on to your little missive:

I appreciate the anti-Arabic rant. It was amusing. Nevertheless, it did nothing at all for your argument, unless you changed your argument somewhere midstream without telling us. Let me remind --

The point you raised: This action in Iraq is not likely to increase anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.. Perhaps you would care to show how your little missive supports that argument? Or are you, as I suspect, building a straw man but neglected to tell us just what argument your straw man is trying to represent?

[Mr Stick71]

"War now! Turn their country into a parking lot!"

Excuse me?? I demand that you show when I have said such a thing (or anything even close to that), otherwise you are guilty of a straw man. I saw your claim, and I quoted it. It had nothing to do with "black or white" viewpoints, only you not taking certain people's words because they happen to agree with the position of the government.

"If you don't agree with me, you shouldn't be allowed to speak."

"You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government"

Can we say hypocrite?

"Iraqis that I know personally (there is a rather large Middle Eastern community at my university) whose stories are quite different than what those women tell."

Then let them come forward and tell their stories. I'm certainly not going to let you represent them for the same reason you wouldn't let people speak for themselves if they had contact with the government.

How about you try reading some of these:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0331hmnrightsrpt.htm.

And here's another site for you:

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Are they guilty of colaboration with the U.S. government? Do you believe their stories?

"You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government"

Sick.

"I criticize Bush for taking a black-and-white view -- war or nothing."

I asked you to show me another answer, and you didn't. Bush had to do something, and I don't believe sitting by and letting that kind of brutality continue was a moral option. If you (or anyone else) can come up with a peaceful way of bringing a just government to Iraq, feel free to show me. Until then, it is either the U.S. liberating Iraq through military force against the oppressing powers or let the oppressing powers continue to kill innocent Iraqis. I would love to see the middle ground or shades of gray, but somehow I don't think you are going to show us any.

"I question the testimony of Iraqis who are sponsored by our government"

Conspiracy theory

"Iraqis who have lived here since before the first Gulf War"

Generalization of all Iraqi's outside of Iraq

"whose stories coincide with the propaganda spin our government"

Now, wait a second. You don't believe the people because they support the government, but you don't support the government because no "credible" people tell of attrocities in Iraq. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

"Forgive me if I choose to believe the words of Iraqis who are only recently removed from Iraq over the words of Iraqis who haven't been near Iraq in more than a decade."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.iraq.torture/index.html

That man lives in Iraq CURRENTLY, unlike your friends. Please explain to me the torture chamber, especially if such things don't exist in Iraq according to your friends. You could also explain the woman who was hung by the forces of Iraq for waving at coalition troops (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/29/bush.radio/index.html).

[Epoetker]

Time to end this tirade charade, though it has been quite fun:

“But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical
Muslim sentiments against us, decrease our security?”

I said: "It ain't likely." It had much more meaning for the end of the quote than the beginning, which was why I was offering numerous reasons why we should not fear, i.e, be insecure, about any Arab ululating in the streets. You read far too much into it and attempted to push it off as a grand refutation of one of the twenty other unassailable points in my reply, like you usually do. As you can probably tell by now, I don't care how many Arabs we make angry by doing the right thing.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59263#post59263)
Mr Stick71:

"War now! Turn their country into a parking lot!"

Excuse me?? I demand that you show when I have said such a thing (or anything even close to that), otherwise you are guilty of a straw man. I saw your claim, and I quoted it. It had nothing to do with "black or white" viewpoints, only you not taking certain people's words because they happen to agree with the position of the government.
The comment was admittedly a deliberate exaggeration that is meant to underscore the fact that you appear to see no in-between option between total war and complete inaction.


"If you don't agree with me, you shouldn't be allowed to speak"

"You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government"

Can we say hypocrite?
Sure, you can say it. It won't mean anything, though. The first comment was an illustration of how many on the political right seek to impose a hush on people who speak in dissent of the administration. You'll be hard-pressed to find anything in that second statement that suggests they shouldn't be allowed to speak. The second statement simply suggests my right not to believe them.


Iraqis that I know personally (there is a rather large Middle Eastern community at my university) whose stories are quite different than what those women tell."

Then let them come forward and tell their stories.
I'll take your comment to them. If they choose to come forward, that's up to them.


I'm certainly not going to let you represent them for the same reason you wouldn't let people speak for themselves if they had contact with the government.
Either demonstrate where I said they shouldn't speak ... or retract.


You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government;

Sick.
Had you not presented it out of context, I might have agreed.


Bush had to do something, and I don't believe sitting by and letting that kind of brutality continue was a moral option.
I agree, something did need to be done. What neither you nor any other warmonger has managed to convince me of is that all-out full-scale multi-billion-dollar war is the only "something" that could have been done.


I would love to see the middle ground or shades of gray, but somehow I don't think you are going to show us any.
If you can't see a middle ground, that's your problem.


I question the testimony of Iraqis who are sponsored by our government

Conspiracy theory
Not an unreasonable one considering our government's history for fabricating such testimony.


Iraqis who have lived here since before the first Gulf War

Generalization of all Iraqi's outside of Iraq
No, just generalization to the specific women who you relied upon for your argument. Had it been a generalization to all Iraqis outside Iraq then my assertion that some Iraqis in America have contradictory stories to those would have been an invalid claim.


"whose stories coincide with the propaganda spin our government"

Now, wait a second. You don't believe the people because they support the government, but you don't support the government because no "credible" people tell of attrocities in Iraq. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
A) it's not circular reasoning, and B) it is a strawman. Why? Because I never said or implied this: "[I] don't believe the people because they support the government." That was your own little addendum, and that makes your comment a straw man.
You could also explain the woman who was hung by the forces of Iraq for waving at coalition troops
That's not terribly surprising, considering it would be looked at by Iraqi soldiers as a gesture of support for the enemy, which in most countries is considered treason. During Vietnam, we used Sarin gas on Americans who defected, not a terribly dissimilar incident, except in the severity of the punishment.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 07:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59635#post59635)
Epoetker:

Time to end this tirade charade, though it has been quite fun:

“But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical
Muslim sentiments against us, decrease our security?”

I said: "It ain't likely." It had much more meaning for the end of the quote than the beginning, which was why I was offering numerous reasons why we should not fear, i.e, be insecure, about any Arab ululating in the streets. You read far too much into it and attempted to push it off as a grand refutation of one of the twenty other unassailable points in my reply, like you usually do. As you can probably tell by now, I don't care how many Arabs we make angry by doing the right thing.
Well, I'll admit that I didn't realize that was what you were disclaiming, so my apologies. Nevertheless, you are right. An increase in anti-American sentiments among Arab states and relatively futile attacks on our foreign embassies do not in and of themselves constitute a threat to our security. What is a greater threat to our security is the possibility that attitudes like yours (attitudes that say "we don't need to worry about them") might pervade. THAT would truly constitute a threat to our security.

[Epoetker]

What is a greater threat to our security is the possibility that attitudes like yours (attitudes that say "we don't need to worry about them") might pervade. THAT would truly constitute a threat to our security.

Oh, I was never against taking steps to prevent the rent-a-mob yahoos from trampling the flowers in the embassy garden(note the oiled shotgun metaphor) I'm just arguing for a sense of proportion. "Radical Muslim sentiments ignited" ranks far, FAR down on the list of "possible threats generated by this war." In fact, it's igniting many of them to go out and do what we've wanted them to do-fight the US Army, rather than its civilians! Kill a thousand bin Laden-wannabes before they ever get within three feet of a 727 cockpit-now THERE'S a side benefit I can REALLY live with.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59723#post59723)
Epoetker:



Oh, I was never against taking steps to prevent the rent-a-mob yahoos from trampling the flowers in the embassy garden(note the oiled shotgun metaphor) I'm just arguing for a sense of proportion. "Radical Muslim sentiments ignited" ranks far, FAR down on the list of "possible threats generated by this war." In fact, it's igniting many of them to go out and do what we've wanted them to do-fight the US Army, rather than its civilians! Kill a thousand bin Laden-wannabes before they ever get within three feet of a 727 cockpit-now THERE'S a side benefit I can REALLY live with.
Sure, they're mostly impotent now, fighting against troops that are engaged in war. But what about when the war is over? What about when all these people who hadn't been emboldened to set their sights on US soil or interests are now suddenly emboldened by our action to do so? Be careful there, Goliath. I hear that David might be hanging around here somewhere.

[Epoetker]

David had the Jehovah on his side. Are you saying that either Saddam or another Arab despot has yet earned enough credit with the Lord to cause all of our troops to die in a gigantic earthquake or meteor shower before they go take on, say, Syria?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59888#post59888)
Epoetker:

David had the Jehovah on his side.
David's victory over Goliath had nothing at all to do with Jehova or any sort of divine intervention. It had everything to do with Goliath being overconfident and underestimating "the little guy." He discounted David as a little gnat, let down his defenses and let the little gnat bite him to death.

[Mr Stick71]

"deliberate exaggeration that is meant to underscore the fact that you appear to see no in-between option between total war and complete inaction. "

I have an idea for you. Attack my position, not what you want my position to be. People might take you seriously then.

"The first comment was an illustration of how many on the political right seek to impose a hush on people who speak in dissent of the administration"

The ol' "their stealing my civil liberties" kick again? We don't want a "hush"; we want support for our troops who so bravely put their lives on the line for the freedom of the Iraqi people, and I believe they deserve as much. But you can't show me an intance in which somebody is trying to "hush" you up (unless you are considering this debate as an example, in which case I will say the same about the left).

"Either demonstrate where I said they shouldn't speak ... or retract."
"You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government"

"Had you not presented it out of context, I might have agreed."

Either demonstrate that I took it out of context...or retract.

"What neither you nor any other warmonger has managed to convince me of is that all-out full-scale multi-billion-dollar war is the only "something" that could have been done."

And YOU never even proposed a peaceful solution. So our options were, in effect, war or sit on our hands.

"If you can't see a middle ground, that's your problem"

Somehow I didn't expect you to actually prove there was such a position or possibility in this debate.

"Not an unreasonable one considering our government's history for fabricating such testimony."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.secret.jail.ap/index.html
Do you think the guy with the mangled ear is in on this conspiracy?

"Because I never said or implied this: "[I] don't believe the people because they support the government"

Then what was your words? They had contact with the government (allegedly; you haven't actually brought proof of that forward yet), and you dismissed their testimony because of that. And then when the government says there are such tortures being commited in Iraq, you say there are no credible witnesses.

As for us using Sarin gas, I hope this wasn't the incident you spoke of: http://skyraider.org/skyassn/cnn/nweek150698.htm.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60436#post60436)
Mr Stick71:

"deliberate exaggeration that is meant to underscore the fact that you appear to see no in-between option between total war and complete inaction. "

I have an idea for you. Attack my position, not what you want my position to be. People might take you seriously then.
I have an idea for you: read my post. I said you "appear" to see no in-between. It was you who personally said that you can't see a middle ground and that you didn't expect me to prove that such a middle ground exists. By saying such things, you pretty much labeled your own position black-and-white.


Either demonstrate where I said they shouldn't speak ... or retract."
"You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government"
I didn't ask you to show me where I said I don't believe them. I asked you to show me where I said they shouldn't be allowed to speak. Do you not realize there is a difference? Do you honestly believe that "I don't believe them" and "they shouldn't be allowed to speak" are equal statements?


Had you not presented it out of context, I might have agreed."

Either demonstrate that I took it out of context...or retract.
I'd be happy to. Here is the entire paragraph that you are referring to. Please note that I have not only included but boldfaced the portion of the paragraph that you so conveniently left out, a portion that is vital to understanding the comment in context:


You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government, especially knowing the propensity of our government for manufacturing exactly those kinds of things (recall the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in the first Gulf War).


What neither you nor any other warmonger has managed to convince me of is that all-out full-scale multi-billion-dollar war is the only "something" that could have been done.

And YOU never even proposed a peaceful solution. So our options were, in effect, war or sit on our hands.
If you do your homework you'll see that not only I but others as well have proposed possible and plausible alternatives to full-scale war. Your side has, in each instance, either ignored them entirely or flat out said, "It wouldn't work," despite the fact that none of you are actually qualified to say whether or not it would work, unless some of you actually are trained military strategists.


Somehow I didn't expect you to actually prove there was such a position or possibility in this debate.
See my response immediately above. A middle ground has been shown numerous times by myself and others. You choose not to see it. It is still your problem.


Not an unreasonable one considering our government's history for fabricating such testimony."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.secret.jail.ap/index.html
Do you think the guy with the mangled ear is in on this conspiracy?
Whether he is or isn't, that doesn't qualify as a rebuttal.


Because I never said or implied this: "[I] don't believe the people because they support the government"

Then what was your words?
Again --

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take every imported foreigner at face value when they suddenly come forward to make huge claims that conveniently mirror the claims of our government, especially knowing the propensity of our government for manufacturing exactly those kinds of things (recall the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in the first Gulf War).
You do have a real problem with context, don't you?


They had contact with the government (allegedly; you haven't actually brought proof of that forward yet)
I would say that the fact that their lead speaker at the televised conference publically thanked the government for personally inviting them to Washington to tell their stories on national television is a pretty strong suggestion of governmental contact, wouldn't you?


and you dismissed their testimony because of that.
I didn't dismiss anything. There is a difference between "rejecting" (dismissing) a testimony and simply "not accepting" it. The former implies that a clear judgment has been made as to the veracity of the claim. The latter implies that I would prefer to hold out for something more reliable than a public testimony that is publically sponsored by a government that is already known to fabricate such testimony.


And then when the government says there are such tortures being commited in Iraq, you say there are no credible witnesses.
Considering the fiasco with the Kuwaiti amabassador's daughter in the first Gulf War, you'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit jaded about government-sponsored witnesses. Are you actually aware of that incident?


As for us using Sarin gas, I hope this wasn't the incident you spoke of: http://skyraider.org/skyassn/cnn/nweek150698.htm.
Well, I don't know what incident you're speaking of because that link won't open in any of my browsers (aol, netscape or explorer). I am speaking of sarin gas being used against a Vietnamese village in 1970 that was suspected of harboring American defectors. This incident was attested to in deposition by Moorer and others involved. And, no, my source was not CNN. CNN first broke the story, true, but there are numerous sources that speak of the incident, some of which actually provide the source deposition. I point to one particularly damning piece of evidence from the deposition:


1 Admiral, all of those statements by
2 Ms. Oliver were made to you before she asked you
3 the next question that I want to inquire about
4 now, on beta 16, on page 4.
5 A Yes.
6 Q And I believe I have that on the video.
7 (Whereupon, a videotape was shown.)
8 BY MR. BERMAN:
9 Q Now, Admiral Moorer, you just heard
10 yourself, when she asked you, "Isn't it fair to
11 say in light of all this, everything we've talked
12 about, that Tailwind proved that CBU 15 GB is an
13 effective weapon," and you answered "Yes, I
14 think -- but that was already known, otherwise it
15 never would have been manufactured."
Later, Admiral Moorer attempted to sidestep the question by suggesting that he wasn't actually answering the entire question but was only answering a selective portion of the question. Of course, that doesn't really wash, because if he had been answering only a specific part of the question, he very likely would have clarified that from the outset. You can read the entire deposition (in all of Admiral Moorer's stumbling glory) here (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/MOORER.TXT). An overview can be found here (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/sarin_gas_confirmed.html). Also, you might find this site (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/biowpns.htm) an interesting read (it's format is less professional, but it does give a neat and concise timeline in world history for the usage of biological and chemical weapons by numerous parties.

[Ryokan]

A point, Eireann. Your side is no more qualified than ours to say that your ideas, like embargo, or assasination, would work. Since none of us are ( or are yet) proffesionals we can only go on our own knowledge. And judging from my knowledge of history, military science, and common sense, none of your ideas had any chance of working with out unified and credible support for military action, something the UN would never have given.

[Mr Stick71]

"By saying such things, you pretty much labeled your own position black-and-white."

Huh? I believe we were talking about your accusing me of wanting to turn Iraq into a parking lot via bombs, which I never said or insinuated.

"especially knowing the propensity of our government for manufacturing exactly those kinds of things (recall the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in the first Gulf War)."

I don't recall using the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter's testimony as evidence, so why are you bringing her up? I didn't use her testimony, nor would I, so I don't have to defend her position. What you did is known as a red herring. If you would like to disprove the words of the 4 victims I did quote, feel free. Again, you are generalizing that all people who's testimony gives support to the government is somehow corrupted by the government.

"See my response immediately above. A middle ground has been shown numerous times by myself and others. You choose not to see it. It is still your problem."

Where?

"Considering the fiasco with the Kuwaiti amabassador's daughter in the first Gulf War"

Again, what's with the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter? I'm not using her testimony, nor would I. It's a red herring. I've already given you links to testimonies from people inside of Iraq who are not "government sponsored" who are glad that the people of Iraq are being liberated.

These people don't seem too upset about our "war of aggression" http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/index.html.

Sorry that my first link didn't work. Maybe this one will: http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS6-98HL/6-19-1998.6.html

(I think it was a stroke of luck, as this second link is by a guy who actually witnessed what happened.)

Now, I need to see a peaceful solution to the murderous regime in Iraq. I also, now, need to see a reason why war was not an acceptable answer. The predictions of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and thousands of dead Americans didn't pan out, and it's more than clear that the people of Iraq, even in Baghdad, support our action.

[Mr Stick71]

"I would say that the fact that their lead speaker at the televised conference publically thanked the government for personally inviting them to Washington to tell their stories on national television is a pretty strong suggestion of governmental contact, wouldn't you?"

And these people?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/04/09/sprj.irq.dearborn.rally/index.html

We know where those Iraqi-Americans stand on the issue now.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 03:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60548#post60548)
Mr Stick71:

"By saying such things, you pretty much labeled your own position black-and-white."

Huh? I believe we were talking about your accusing me of wanting to turn Iraq into a parking lot via bombs, which I never said or insinuated.
Did you miss the part where I said that was just a deliberate exaggeration to underscore your black-and-white no-middle-ground view? It wouldn't surprise that you missed that part, as badly as you've been missing so far.


especially knowing the propensity of our government for manufacturing exactly those kinds of things (recall the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in the first Gulf War)."

I don't recall using the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter's testimony as evidence, so why are you bringing her up? I didn't use her testimony, nor would I, so I don't have to defend her position. What you did is known as a red herring.
No, what I did is known as giving an example of precisely how the government has manufactured fake testimony in the very recent past to support its grounds for war. During the first Gulf War, the government put forth an "eyewitness" to terrible human rights atrocities in an Iraqi hospital -- a poor, unfortunate little girl who bore personal witness at the invitation of our government to personally witnessing Iraqi soldiers taking infants and throwing them out of windows, which was just one of the egregious claims. It later turned out that this witness was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and that she had never been in the hospital in question and never witnessed any of the events described in her coached testimony. It demonstrates quite clearly just how our government has been known to operate with regard to the spread of propaganda, and raises some serious questions about the reliability of other "eyewitnesses" put forth by the government.


If you would like to disprove the words of the 4 victims I did quote, feel free.
I don't need to. I made no judgment as to whether or not they are lying or telling the truth, nor will you be able to turn up on single comment from me that made any such judgement. If you find something you believe made such judgement, then you are simply mistaken. What I did say was that the testimonies of people who publically admitted to being in Washington and telling their stories at the express invitation of our government and who have admitted to having lived here in the US for the past several years (if they have been living here in exile with their families for the past several years, then how exactly have they been over there to be the eyewitnesses they claim to be?) are somewhat more suspect than testimonies given by people who have no demonstrable connection with the government. I also said that I personally know some Iraqi students who have stories that are contradictory to those that have been publically spread, and given the choice I would prefer to take the word of someone who is conveying the information from first-hand knowledge in casual conversation over the word of someone who is publically crying from the mountaintop to get their face on television.


Again, you are generalizing that all people who's testimony gives support to the government is somehow corrupted by the government.
You really like that particular strawman, don't you? It doesn't matter how many times I point out that I never said any such thing, does it? You're sticking to it, because you really like that particular strawman!


"See my response immediately above. A middle ground has been shown numerous times by myself and others. You choose not to see it. It is still your problem"

Where?
Do your own homework. For that matter, read Ryokan's response above. Clearly, he is well aware that we have made a number of suggestions. Others are aware, as well. If you're not, that's your problem, but I'm not going to go out of my way to do your homework for you.


Again, what's with the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter?
See above.


I've already given you links to testimonies from people inside of Iraq who are not "government sponsored" who are glad that the people of Iraq are being liberated.
I'm not interested in their testimony. It isn't their testimony that I challenged. I never said Saddam wasn't a bad guy, and I never said that he hasn't committed some real atrocities. I said that some of the stories being spread (not all of them) stand in contrast with what I've been told by people who have personal experience. Specifically, the suggestion that "everyone who speaks against Saddam Hussein" gets tortured, killed, or worse. One of the students is a transfer Med student from Baghdad University. He wrote for a student paper on that campus, and more than once wrote criticisms of Saddam Hussein. At worst, he was cautioned not to make accusations he could not support. He certainly was never attacked or tortured, nor were any of his family, for speaking out against Saddam Hussein in a public manner. Some stories about Saddam I'm sure are true, but some, as I've just illustrated are either untrue or are exaggerated beyond the truth.


The predictions of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and thousands of dead Americans didn't pan out, and it's more than clear that the people of Iraq, even in Baghdad, support our action.
The predictions of civilian casualties may not have played out as alarmingly as some predicted, but this war isn't over yet, either. The alarmists may have overestimated civilian casualties, but thus far the military and its supporters have underestimated the same. And they still have a number of cities yet to capture. They said tonight that the capture of Baghdad does not herald the end of the war. Rumsfeld said it could still drag on for some time to come. There is still heavy fighting going on in some areas, and they expect some very stiff resistence in Tikrit. Don't go counting your chickens before they hatch.

[Mr Stick71]

"Did you miss the part where I said that was just a deliberate exaggeration to underscore your black-and-white no-middle-ground view?"

Did you miss the point that those witnesses have no contact whatsoever with the ambassador's daughter? These people lived in daily fear, and you have not shown otherwise, nor have you made it justifiable, nor have you provided a solution.

About the ambassador's daughter, you are making one critical mistake: the government of KUWAIT in exile created that story, NOT the U.S. government. Either you were misinformed or you were lying; either way, stop saying it was our government who fabricated it, because it wasn't. Now, give me good reason not to trust the testimony of witnesses I brought forward.
(http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/hearing/hearing_s04.htm)

I believe Ryokan's point was that you, nor any against this war, have NOT provided a workable plan.

"And judging from my knowledge of history, military science, and common sense, NONE OF YOUR IDEAS HAD ANY CHANCE OF WORKING with out unified and credible support for military action, something the UN would never have given."

Indeed, there is still fighting going on in Iraq, and the war is not yet over. However, it is won.

Just out of curiosity, why are groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R., Not In Our Name, antiwar.com, and others not even mentioning the celebrations in Baghdad yesterday? They are eerily silent about it....