For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

[Nightwish]

You REALLY need to get over yourself. That you are unwilling to accept my opinions supported by the facts just proves you to be incapable of accepting the truth and/or any idea contrary to the one you hold.

I have no problem with opinions supported by facts. But for the most part, that wasn't your tack. You offered opinions and alleged they were facts. There's a difference. That's called hand-waving. Assassination wouldn't have worked because his son would have just stepped into his place -- that's not a fact, that's a conjecture, because it presupposes that (A) we would have allowed that to happen, and (B) the Ba'athists would have allowed that to happen, and (C) that the Iraqi army would have allowed that to happen. The fact of the matter is, you don't know beyond a doubt that A,B and C above would have definitely been the outcome. You guessed that it would, and you may well have been right, but it was nevertheless conjecture, and that is not the same as fact. That's what you're not understanding. And that's only one example, you did that several times.

You jumped in over your head, substantiated your lack of education in the area of strategy and tactics by your posts,

I only offered suggestions and contemplations. I didn't state catagorically that one thing would have worked or not. As for education in the area of strategy and tactics, I admitted that I had none, despite my military experience. My cousin also has none, and he's had a 24-year career. You've not yet convinced me that you have any.

resorted to insults

Only with Hobbit, and only because I had perceived his first post as having the tone of an insult to anybody who didn't agree with his (and your) position. And if you read this thread through from the first post to this one, count the number of insults from me vs. the number of insults from you, I think you'll have the much higher number. Do you doubt that?

and questioning the credibility of anyone who opposed you

I never questioned anyone's credibility, at least not in this thread. I questioned your ability to speak with authority on the matter. That is a much different thing. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Are you just one of those thin-skinned types who perceives any contrary opinion as a personal insult?

instead of presenting a legitimate counter-argument,

In fact, I presented a number of counter-arguments. I can only assume that by "legitimate," you must mean "one that convinced you." Sorry, mate, but that's not what it means.

and you pretty-much got your ass handed to you.

So far, only one well-reasoned counter-argument to any of my points has been raised, and that was by Hobbit. I conceded that point to him. The last counter-argument that I offered you -- that the conditions in 2003 were much different than in 2001, and that an encouraged uprising that was armed, supplied and supported by the US might have been successful -- has so far gone unanswered by you. Do you have no counterpoint to that?

I'm done here. Far from upset, I am just quite bored with your jr high school strategy and dishonest debate tactics.

So can I assume then that, as I suspect, you don't have a counterpoint to that suggestion?

 

[Nightwish]

if the US is not a christian nation....then what is it?

A nation founded on religious principles embraced by founders who were largely Deist, arising from a generally Deist interpretation of the Bible, but explicitly stated as not to be construed as a Christian nation (in other words, allowing that the religious principles on which it was founded are common to Christianity, but do not all originate from Christianity, and are not exclusive to it, as well as allowing that principles that might be brought in from other faith systems might have equal footing).

further, if it is in fact not a christian nation why is everyone so freaked out that it is a christian nation....yall ain't making any sense

Who is freaking out that it is a Christian nation? The secularists are bothered that certain segments of society are trying to rewrite history and intrude specifically doctrinal and dogmatic Christianity into some public arenas, but that's about all the "freaking out" I'm aware of from the secular side.

and how did being fro the removal of sadam but against doing it with war turn into an attack on christianity....

I'm not sure what you mean. When and where did an attack on Christianity occur in this thread, or in the other thread in which the question of being for the removal of Saddam but against the war was first raised?

 

[Nightwish]

Saddam had kicked out the inspectors.

Just a small point that probably doesn't make any difference to the point you were making, but in fact, Saddam did not kick out the inspectors, at least not that I'm aware of. That allegation is usually used in reference to the 1998 departure of the inspectors from Iraq, but Saddam didn't kick them out. Clinton was told that Saddam wasn't complying with resolutions quickly enough, so he ordered a bombing campaign against strategic sites in Iraq. On the eve of that bombing campaign, the UN ordered the inspectors out for their own protection.

Here is an interesting site comparing and contrasting the way the withdrawal was reported the day after it happened, and the way it was reported four years later.

 

[manu1959]

Just a small point that probably doesn't make any difference to the point you were making, but in fact, Saddam did not kick out the inspectors, at least not that I'm aware of. That allegation is usually used in reference to the 1998 departure of the inspectors from Iraq, but Saddam didn't kick them out. Clinton was told that Saddam wasn't complying with resolutions quickly enough, so he ordered a bombing campaign against strategic sites in Iraq. On the eve of that bombing campaign, the UN ordered the inspectors out for their own protection.

Here is an interesting site comparing and contrasting the way the withdrawal was reported the day after it happened, and the way it was reported four years later.

clinton bombed iraq? have i been in a coma?

 

[Nightwish]

clinton bombed iraq? have i been in a coma?

Yes, a few times (the bombing, I mean, not the coma).

 

[Annie]

Just a small point that probably doesn't make any difference to the point you were making, but in fact, Saddam did not kick out the inspectors, at least not that I'm aware of. That allegation is usually used in reference to the 1998 departure of the inspectors from Iraq, but Saddam didn't kick them out. Clinton was told that Saddam wasn't complying with resolutions quickly enough, so he ordered a bombing campaign against strategic sites in Iraq. On the eve of that bombing campaign, the UN ordered the inspectors out for their own protection.

Here is an interesting site comparing and contrasting the way the withdrawal was reported the day after it happened, and the way it was reported four years later.

LOL, I just spent 15 minutes going through the archives of FAIR. Not one story that wasn't about either GOP faults, or complaints about media being biased for GOP, even CBS! Give us a break. YOU have the gall to claim National Review biased?

 

[Nightwish]

LOL, I just spent 15 minutes going through the archives of FAIR. Not one story that wasn't about either GOP faults, or complaints about media being biased for GOP, even CBS! Give us a break. YOU have the gall to claim National Review biased?

First of all, I've not said one word about National Review. Second of all, I have no problem with biased right-wing news journals like National Review and Drudge Report, I just have a problem with lying news journals like Newsmax. Lastly, whatever bias Fair may have is irrelevant. The particular article I linked to is nothing but a collection of the actual print headlines and quotes from various media outlets, most of them left-leaning. What's your problem? Is it simply that you've a newcomer who not only isn't afraid to voice an opinion that differs from the right, but has the gall to dare to not be cowed by the bluster of the right? I know that tends to piss you people off, so is that what's going on here?

 

[Annie]

First of all, I've not said one word about National Review. Second of all, I have no problem with biased right-wing news journals like National Review and Drudge Report, I just have a problem with lying news journals like Newsmax. Lastly, whatever bias Fair may have is irrelevant. The particular article I linked to is nothing but a collection of the actual print headlines and quotes from various media outlets, most of them left-leaning. What's your problem?

Yes you did. And you also said, Drudge was ok, from what you'd seen. Now your sources 'biases' are 'irrelevant' after trashing others. Hypocrit.

 

[Nightwish]

Yes you did.

Yes, you're right, I did. Here is what I said about National Review. I said that Newsmax, Weekly Standard and World Net Daily are among the most disreputable of all the right-wing news journals. I said that there are plenty of decent right-wing journals, that Drudge Report is one of them that is okay, and that I've not paid much attention to National Review, but that I'd never heard anything bad about it. Honestly, you need to get over yourself.

Now your sources 'biases' are 'irrelevant' after trashing others. Hypocrit.

They are irrelevant in that particular article, because that article isn't trying to spin anything. It's nothing but a collection of headlines, comparing how the same sources (most of them left-leaning, in case you missed it) reported the same incident in 1998 and in 2002.

 

[Nightwish]

By the way, Kathianne, all bluster aside, Happy Birthday.

 

[Nightwish]

Yes you did. And you also said, Drudge was ok, from what you'd seen. Now your sources 'biases' are 'irrelevant' after trashing others. Hypocrit.

By the way, I've not once trashed a source because it was biased. I've trashed sources that have demonstrated a propensity for lying, not merely for spinning.

 

[Annie]

By the way, Kathianne, all bluster aside, Happy Birthday.

Thank you for the birthday wish! BTW, I don't have 'to get over myself' as I'm not that 'sold on myself' or even my take on things. Not like some who will remain nameless.

Seriously nighty, look at the article, not the publication...

 

[Mariner]

difference between getting a warrant, even 72 hours after the fact, and getting no warrant at all. In the first case you leave a paper trail, so later investigators can double check that your warrants were justified. I think I read there were 1400 approved warrants last year. Only a handful of requests have ever been turned down. In the second case, you can tap anyone you want. That is Big Brother at work, and I wouldn't trust it for a second, no matter which party were in power. I am stunned that so many Republicans have rolled over dead on this issue. I thought Republicans were the party of personal freedom?

Anyway, thank you for admitting that the President does have to obey the law, though he has every right to make his own arguments about how to interpret the law. In this case, I think he's going to lose. Too many people get the heebie-jeebies when you start talking about unsupervised wiretapping.

Mariner.

 

[Nightwish]

Thank you for the birthday wish!

You're quite welcome!

BTW, I don't have 'to get over myself' as I'm not that 'sold on myself' or even my take on things. Not like some who will remain nameless.

I'm totally sold on my position on everything. I'm pretty sold on my position that the US was not to be construed as a Christian nation, simply because the FF's explicitly said so. And I'm pretty sold on the idea that the war in Iraq was rash, hasty and generally not the best option that was available, but I'm not completely sold on the idea that any other specific option would have worked or been less costly. I probably just appear that way because those who've debated me so far haven't been very convincing in arguing the contrary position. Believe me, the number of issues on which I don't take a stubborn position far outweighs the number on which I do.

Seriously nighty, look at the article, not the publication...

In most cases, I have no problem doing that. The only publications that I almost absolutely will not give a shred of credibility to are Newsmax and World Net Daily, simply because I've personally caught them too many times fabricating completely false stories. To be fair, I've only caught Weekly Standard in one fabrication, and I can't absolutely say that it wasn't merely an error. My biggest problem with Weekly Standard is that it is a mouthpiece for the PNAC (indeed, most of its editorial staff are signed members of PNAC, which is an organization bent on basically creating the New World Order). Any other right-wing publication, though, I'll evaluate on an article-by-article basis. Same with left-wing publications, though I've read and followed far fewer of those. I'm more equitable to left and right-leaning mainstream media, however. Fox and CBS are incredibly biased, in opposite directions, but I generally don't have a problem with their truthfulness, since their particular events of premature reporting have not really represented a trend for either one. Same with the New York Times. One bad author doesn't indicate a trend in bad reporting. The reason I have such a problem with Newsmax and WND is because it has been more than one incident, and more than one author, and they make no attempt to punish those authors, whereas the New York Times fired theirs immediately, and Dan Rather had the good grace to resign.

 

[Nightwish]

I thought Republicans were the party of personal freedom?

Actually, neither party owns that moniker. Or both parties do, however you want to look at it. They both stand for personal freedoms, and they both stand for curbing personal freedoms. The only difference is which personal freedoms they are for and against.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Hey CLUE: Go look up the word POMPOUS.

I gather that you don't understand fallacies. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, which is why it is known under the fancy Latin name. It is a fallacy in every instance. There is no instance in which ad hominem (meaning attacking the person instead of the argument) is not a fallacy. And it is widely accepted that the fallacy of ad hominem is the favored fall-back when a person ceases to have an argument against their opponent.


Please cut and paste a single lie that you believe I've told. At any rate, whether I am a liar or not, you are a graceless loser. Rather than conceding that your point is not as well-supported as mine was, you instead resorted to the graceless tactic of name-calling, ranting and ad hominem insults.


If their intention is actually to debate, then they almost always do. That makes it apparent that debate is not your intent, but flaming apparently is.


Do you care that much about rep points? Do you feel an overriding need to be propped up by the congratulations of others?


What question did you ask that I didn't answer? You tried to divert from my points by saying the thread was about VALUES, not about whether the US was a Christian or Secular nation (an odd tactic, since a few breaths later you again asserted that it is unequivocally a Christian nation). Unfortunately, your distinction was rather pointless, because the conversation had already branched off into the subtopic of secularism vs. Christian foundations, and at that point anybody is well within their rights to join the conversation under that subtopic. You apparently feel as if I didn't have that right (probably because you weren't able to provide resources to match the ones I provided). In that case, you would be wrong.


I can only assume that you've had no debate training or experience, and thus lack a basic understanding of the philosophy of debate. Would that be correct? Let me educate you, if one party in a debate makes an assertion, but at no point in the debate is able to provide support for that assertion, then that party is considered, by any definition of debate, to have lost. In case you're not following, that would you who made the assertion for which you've never been able to provide support. Therefore, you lost the debate, unless you plan at some reasonable future time to actually provide the support you claim to have. But all the crybaby excuses in the world won't forgive the need to provide them if you wish for anybody (other than the choir) to concede your point. That's just common sense.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't understand why you guys are being so hard on Nightwish.

Pretend that you agree with his positions. Then you'll see him as a fairly level-headed, obviously intelligent person, who aviods ad hominem attacks, is careful about details, takes the time to read posts carefully, and writes very well.

Is this some kind of hazing?

Mariner.

Im sorry, but I see him as pompous, condecending, wants to lecture everyone on the rules of debate and why he knows what a "fact" is when we all seem to think our opinions are, mistakenly. Not to mention that he cant stay on topic he goes ON AND ON AND ON AND ON soooo much, I think he really enjoys listening to himself type.

Im quite bored with his stuff, I cant get through it anymore without falling asleep.

and as for his description of ad hominem attacks, he is simply wrong. IT isnt ALWAYS a fallacy. Yea, yea, I know, now he will grace us with his ten page rebutal and explain to us all how he knows latin, and yada yada yada.

 

[Nightwish]

Hey CLUE: Go look up the word POMPOUS.

Go look up the word FLAMER. Folks, the REAL reason Luvergirl despises me so much is because I called her out on a thread in the Religion forum, and she couldn't produce, and she knows it.

 

[Nightwish]

and as for his description of ad hominem attacks, he is simply wrong. IT isnt ALWAYS a fallacy.

Yes, it is. An ad hominem is the practice of attacking the person instead of the argument. That is always a fallacy. There is never an instance where that is not a fallacy. Never. Live with it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Go look up the word FLAMER.

and proud of it!!


Ya wanna know whats really funny? I mentioned in the other thread how you drag the debates into mindless details and take them off topic, and now, this thread title is "For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war "

and this is how you have wondered off topic with Kathiane:

"First of all, I've not said one word about National Review. Second of all, I have no problem with biased right-wing news journals like National Review and Drudge Report, I just have a problem with lying news journals like Newsmax. Lastly, whatever bias Fair may have is irrelevant. The particular article I linked to is nothing but a collection of the actual print headlines and quotes from various media outlets, most of them left-leaning. What's your problem? Is it simply that you've a newcomer who not only isn't afraid to voice an opinion that differs from the right, but has the gall to dare to not be cowed by the bluster of the right? I know that tends to piss you people off, so is that what's going on here?"

NOT ONE WORD ABUOT THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. NOT ONE. ONE, NOT ONE. GOT IT????

IN FACT, your last NINE posts havent mentioned the topic ONCE, NOT ONCE.

By the way, for an ad hominum to be a fallacy, it has to include the CONCLUSION, that therefore, since person X, committed act Y, their statement about issue W (which would be completely irrelevant to whatever the person was personally attacked about) is wrong.

A simple attack with no conclusions drawn from the negative opinion does NOT constitute a fallacy.