Originally posted by MalarkyAnd yes, I don't pretend to know the comings and going of every single militant that may or may not have passed through Iraq in the past 30 years, however I can reasonably claim that Iraq posed no more of a terrorist threat to America than any other country, less so in fact than most.
So, since you have no idea what had been going on in Iraq, you can tell us that they weren't more of a threat than MOST of the countries in the world?
He didn't say he had no idea. He said he didn't know the comings and goings of every militant in the past 30 years. Neither does anyone else in the world. He may have overstepped his meaning though when he said they posed less of a threat than MOST countries. Less than some, yes...not most.
Originally posted by Eddie Famous
Originally posted by MalarkyIf he's so intent on being the alpha male on the world stage (a role he obviously enjoys way too much for someone in control of the US military)he should be a real man and pick a fight with a country that could actually fight back in a meaningful way.
The United States should only take military action against countries who can kill as many or more of us than we of them. That makes a lot of sense.
He qualified his statement. I don't think he wants our prez. to be an alpha male. And I'm guessing that "a country that can fight back in a meaningful way" is another way of saying "a country that poses a greater threat to us than fucking Iraq."
Originally posted by Joseph RyderHe qualified his statement. I don't think he wants our prez. to be an alpha male. And I'm guessing that "a country that can fight back in a meaningful way" is another way of saying "a country that poses a greater threat to us than fucking Iraq."
Then he should have said it that way. What was posted by him and your definition are completely different. And, frankly, given all his other "points" I DON'T think he meant it your way.
And as far as what he knew about Iraq, my point was he couldn't "reasonably claim" ANYTHING about it.
(edited by Eddie Famous on 15.9.04 2156) "In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
I certainly think that Iraq posed less of a threat than most countries. They had no real military, no real weapons, they are very much a third-world nation. Not only did they not pose a threat to us, they didn't even pose a threat to their own neighbors. You don't roll over great military powers in three weeks. So I think malarky said what he meant, and meant what he said in that case.
The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
Originally posted by Joseph RyderHe qualified his statement. I don't think he wants our prez. to be an alpha male. And I'm guessing that "a country that can fight back in a meaningful way" is another way of saying "a country that poses a greater threat to us than fucking Iraq."
Then he should have said it that way. What was posted by him and your definition are completely different. And, frankly, given all his other "points" I DON'T think he meant it your way.
And as far as what he knew about Iraq, my point was he couldn't "reasonably claim" ANYTHING about it.
(edited by Eddie Famous on 15.9.04 2156)
You're trying too hard to make hay out of what I wrote. The part about attacking a country that can fight back is so obviously dripping with sarcasm, it's only intent was to show how cowardly a policy of pre-emptively attacking weak nations that are no threat to the US is while much more capable countries with a more overtly anti-American agenda (both countries have actually threatened to NUKE THE UNITED STATES, tell me the last time Iraq did THAT) are barreling down the road to becoming fully fledged nuclear powers. It's akin to swatting a fly while ignoring the huge vampire bat hovering over your head.
The rest of your "rebuttals" basically boil down to "shut up, you don't know as much as me", so I think this'll be it.
Originally posted by MalarkyYou're trying too hard to make hay out of what I wrote.
I guess, if in this case "hay"="sense".
Originally posted by MalarkyThe part about attacking a country that can fight back is so obviously dripping with sarcasm, it's only intent was to show how cowardly a policy of pre-emptively attacking weak nations that are no threat to the US is while much more capable countries with a more overtly anti-American agenda (both countries have actually threatened to NUKE THE UNITED STATES, tell me the last time Iraq did THAT)
Again, their nuke program was shut down early by the UN, elsewise they WOULD have threatened the US by now. Or worse.
Originally posted by MalarkyIt's akin to swatting a fly while ignoring the huge vampire bat hovering over your head.
Since bats rarely attack humans, and many biting insects carry deadly diseases, I'd say you were exactly right on that one.
I'd count all the various fallacies in your posts Eddie but I just don't have that kind of time.
Nothing ends a good debate better than someone who insists on browbeating and insulting people instead of actually taking the time to come up with a thoughtful and respectful reply. You need to learn to respect differences in opinion for what they are, instead of taking everything so personally and lashing out in a manner more befitting a spoilt 2 year old. (Yes, I know)
Originally posted by MalarkyI'd count all the various fallacies in your posts Eddie but I just don't have that kind of time.
One fallacy would be nice. And all the time I took on yours, too.
Originally posted by MalarkyNothing ends a good debate better than someone who insists on browbeating and insulting people instead of actually taking the time to come up with a thoughtful and respectful reply. You need to learn to respect differences in opinion for what they are, instead of taking everything so personally and lashing out in a manner more befitting a spoilt 2 year old.
I believe I took your "differences in opinion" at exactly face value. Your points were basically simple wrongheaded conclusions, clouded with vague contradictions.
I respect differences in opinion only when the other opinion has facts to back it up and/or makes sense.
Thread ahead: Something we didn't know: Bush and Kerry both liars Next thread: In spite of himself Previous thread: Quarter of Germans want country resplit
Had it been about DEAN~! I would have referenced the Big Show theme or Al Wilson somehow, rather than tarnishing him with the Hulkster's brush. And if DEAN~!