Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The President's Speech on Iraq (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The President's Speech on Iraq
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's what *I* was questioning, Pete. [Wink]

Before peace with Israel, he was already top of their hit list. Now, peace with Israel was one of their gripes, but since the intent to kill him already existed and attempts to do so had already been made, it's pretty hard to say it was the reason they did it.

Redskull-

If they do have a nuclear weapon or two at this point, and we make a serious strike, we pretty much gaurantee they will launch, don't we?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse, I don't want to glass their country because I think the majority of Iranians are not dangerous to us. However, we cannot, and the Israelis damn sure cannot allow them to build up a nuclear arsenal.

Bomb, bomb, bomb
bomb, bomb, Iran!

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thing is, KE, it doesn't end with a few bombs on their nuclear sites.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse

I dont see the USA or even a UN authorized strike against Iran. I think Iran gets the bomb, and puts them on ICBM's.

We don't get a chance to act before they do, or want to. I figure we will learn of Iran's nuclear ambitions when they test a bomb publicly, possibly point a nuclear trigger at Israel, and park a few ICBM nukes in Venezuela and tell the USA that any effort to defend Israel, will result in parts of the Southern USA disappearing in a mushroom cloud.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok.

So, we've got a Venezuelian missle crisis (maybe) and couple of ICBMs pointed at the Green Zone and Tel Aviv maybe...twelve months from now.

Then what?

Redskull....I often disagree with you but your speculations tend be well founded and grounded in objective reality. I'm very interested to hear how you think this plays out.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redirected from this thread since it is the continuation of an old argument:

@DaveS:
quote:
Ed, your first post asked:
quote:
Pull out a metaphor OR prove that things are going badly, specifically.


No, Dave, my first post DECLARED. There was no question there, merely the statement that you couldn't create a metaphor to illustrate that Iraq was a failure or that things were going so badly we should quit. And I'm still waiting. So far, most of your metaphors have been personal attacks against me. Very bad aim...

quote:
I just did that, so now your position is, well Fly already said my facts don't matter, and that I should apply a standard as you did in another thread. Except that the standard you used there is completely irrelevant to the problem in Iraq.
Then back that position up and SHOW ME why a cost of war (the death of soldiers) is irrelevant, especially if it can be used to prevent a larger war with larger costs. It's things like this that I'm lambasting you for and I'm STILL waiting. Instead, you keep insisting that this isn't relevant.

quote:
By your logic, if 5000 US servicemen or women die each month between now and the end of the year, it would still be a better situation than in any of those other wars. If ten times that many died each month for the next 8 months, it would still be a better situation than WWII.
No, only by the twisting of my argument, such as claiming that a cost of war is irrelevant, exaggerating my numbers and ignoring the possibility of a greater cost, can you arrive at such a conclusion. The first time I posed this point to you it was in the context of cost: how many people are you willing to let die in the context of the potential loss of tens of millions should our struggle with the Middle East escalate to a world wide war?

By my logic, the death of 2 soldiers per day (terrible) is worth it if it can prevent the death of 300 soldiers per day (very terrible). It's a very simple cost equation.

But you keep ignoring the whole "pay now or pay later" argument by claiming the cost is irrelevant and failing to prove why it is.

quote:
Blatting statistics (at least some of which you didn't bother to fact check and were erroneous) is not the same as applying a standard.
And this is pure, unadulterated, crap! How many times must I repeat that my facts were verifiable? Or that I accounted for the inaccuracies? Repeating myself one more time.

And your response? You change the subject.

The fact that some statistics were "incorrect" -- death statistics from wars vary from source to source -- does not render my argument invalid. Regardless of the source, the cost of other wars are still, _at least,_ ten times the current conflict. You are supporting a compositional fallacy by arguing "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch." And it's even questionable that it is a "bad apple" since estimates tend to vary.

quote:
You also repeatedly lambast me for not applying a standard of my own and not backing up my arguments with real data.
That's because you don't. If I raise a point to you, such as the costs of war, and your only response is to declare "the point is irrelevant" without explaining WHY the point is irrelevant then you are clearly NOT backing up your arguments with anything, not even data.

I acknowledged that you supplied measurements (data). I am, however, waiting for you to provide some kind of standard that convinces me that we are losing this "war." And still I wait...

quote:
Since you refer to that other thread, reread this post of mine from over there. I researched my positions carefully throughout that thread (and this one), and I even researched yours over there.
More baloney. With that answer, you attempted to entangle me in that whole "region" equivocation of Jesse's, since he was using it in a context that I was not. Then, as now, you are merely attempting to distract from the real issue. Forgive me if I don't chase any herrings here, red or otherwise.

quote:
What became obvious there and you have yet to disprove here is that you have a far lower standard for objective evidence to back up anything you say and, perversely, a far higher confidence in your opinions.
And, yet, I'm not the one misconstruing the argument, chasing red herrings, or even, suppressing the correlative:

quote:
Do between 100K and 600K Iraqi civilian deaths factor into your thinking? How about 2M - 3M civilian injuries or displacements? How about the fastest increase in infant and child mortality in the world?
And here's another question posed that you failed to answer: "What do you think those numbers will be if we pull out? Care to guess? Given how the Shia and the Sunni want to kill each other, do you think it will still be less than 100 per day?"

And your response? You evaded the question by suppress the correlative as I've already pointed out.

And my position? The same as it's always been, that the cost of 2 soldiers per day is worth keeping Iraqi death tolls from spiraling even higher than they are today which you promptly ignored it.

Did you really think I was comparing those costs only in American lives, when I have said, repeatedly, that I feel that we are on the verge of a war that could cost tens of millions of lives, just as with WWII? Why would I exclude the Iraqis in this equation?

quote:
If there were 0 US deaths, the trends of increasing violence, deterioration of infrastructure, disintegration of parliament, the worsening humanitarian crisis all show that forward progress isn't happening, and that things are getting worse in virtually every way they can be measured. My very reasonable standard is that things have gone badly and are getting worse for the people of Iraq, and the recent increase in US deaths is just one additional data point to consider. Care to rebut my facts with references that show I'm wrong? Care to explain with references how things are in a stalemate? Care to provide any links or references at all to back up your position?
Is it reasonable to suppress the correlative? If I ask "how many lives will be lost if we abandon the Iraqis and you respond without acknowledging that things will get worse if we leave, then that is exactly what you are doing and it is FAR from reasonable. It is, by definition, unreasoning. Dare I say "hard and impenetrable?"

quote:
This is a discussion group, not a bulletin board. Try harder.
Then more discussion and less suppression of the correlative, please?

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I leave you alone, please leave me out of your drama.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, I cannot provide either any standard or adequate evidence that will disprove your position. I stipulate that I have been unwilling to argue in the same fair manner as you, causing me to be evasive and non-responsive to your consistent points. Given these concessions, I further stipulate that you are correct in all of your points and conclusions, and I withdraw from the argument.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are images from "A Fish Called Wanda" popping into my head?

"Don't call me 'stupid!'"

And, no, I've never read Nietzsche... [Wink]

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1