quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
TheRabbit,
Xavier's correct. Al Franken is a comedian. He was using sarcasm and irony to point out how useless Reagan's policies were despite the fact that Republicans like to laud how he single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union.
The term Rube Goldberg should have clued you in....
I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFL! And while you're at it, prove that God doesn't exist, and that santa doesn't exist, and that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Oh, and prove that the CIA didn't kill JFK, and that newfoundlogic isn't a talking bullfrog.
Sorry, NFL, but your Argumentum ad Ignoratium is an invalid argument.
See you were the one who said that the data quote, "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." I don't see how asking you to back that up is a logical falacy.
Actually, no, I wasn't the one who said that. Go back and check.
quote: Your first link has tons of flaws. For example:
quote: Not exactly true. Not exactly false, either. The Star Wars project worked on high powered lasers to shoot down missiles, when the project died, the prototype lasers fell into disuse.
Then at some point in the last few years these lasers have been brought back and are actually proving themselves excellently in shooting down missiles. Not just missiles, either. The device, called the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) has been able to shoot down artillery shells.
We gave one of these things to Israel, another we're mounting on a 747.
Thus, single-handedly kicking off the arms race into high gear once more, despite the fact that we had finally got it to ease up and we were actively working on reducing weapons. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
So, let's see, who does this help? Well, it doesn't help us, because it makes the world less safe instead of more safe.
But it does help the defense industry, of which Haliburton is a part. Oddly enough, while Bush's terrible decisions have sent the American economy into a death spiral, Cheney's beloved Haliburton has made billions.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
Um, Rabbit, I'd just like to point out that a "Rube Goldberg" *anything* doesn't exist. (It's an older metaphor, so he's dating himself) That's exactly what he was trying to say. The argument, I believe, is that the very *idea* of such a complex and expensive defense, whether it's built or not, is enough to freak out the world, to "scare" other countries into dialogue.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Interesting, Franken addresses this fallacy in his book, too. It's really a great book!
quote: The bombing campaign [in Kosovo] was extremely unpopular with certain Republicans, who had no qualms about expressing their objections while our troops were in harm's way.
"[President Clinton] said if if we did nothing, there would be an instability in the region. There would be a flood of refugees, Kosovars would die, and the credibility of NATO would be undermined. Well, Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all these problems to explode."
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay --- May 2, 1999
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
Senator Richard Lugar --- May 3, 1999
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
Senator Trent Lott --- May 4, 1999
"They haven't prepared for anything in this. And they're running out of weapons to do it. And frankly, I don't think Clinton has the moral authority or ability to fight this war correctly."
Sean Hannity --- May 10, 1999
...
The bombing campaign in Kosovo ended on June 10, 1999, with the signing of a peace accord. Milosevic was kicked out of Belgrade a few months later and sent to The Hague, where he's now on trial for crimes against humanity. (I say "guilty.") And as I pointed out in my joke to the troops, there was not one American combat casuality during the entire campaign.
Ah yes, flagrant disregard for the proper use of the military ...
posted
A Rat Named Dog (nice to see this name again!) you said. . .
quote:We didn't go to Iraq because of the sudden emergence of WMDs. We went to Iraq because September Eleventh forced us into a paradigm shift. Suddenly, an enemy half a world away was as dangerous as an enemy right on our borders.
And in the same paragraph. . .
quote: He didn't NEED weapons of mass destruction. All he NEEDED was a little creativity, and maybe a box cutter or two.
Now, to me, that implies that although Hussein didn't have WMD, he had access to enough cash to hire people to carry out terrorist attacks on his behalf.
The things I don't understand are as follows. Didn't Saddam always have that capability? Are you saying that he didn't think of it before 9/11? Is the fact that he can do it more frightening now, that before 9/11? Is this part of the paradigm shift you were talking about? That there are those out there who would like to do us harm and we need to eliminate that threat?
See, what I inferred from that paragraph was that there are crazy leaders out there who suddenly realize that they don't need WMD. They just need to hire a few zealots with box cutters. So, in an effort to defend ourselves, we've gone ahead and put the "preemptive strike" thing on the table.
I also don't see how Saddam is any more dangerous that the psychopath in North Korea. There are plenty of despots all over the world who could do the same thing.
As for the conspiracy theory nuts (like me ) I think that Bush has made it too easy for them. The fact that they had a plan, in writing, and were in the last stages of starting a war with Afghanistan certainly don't help their situation. The fact that they want the oil from the Caspian Sea and need for the pipeline to run through Afghanistan, Pakistan and end in India, where, surprise, Halliburton has a 3 billion dollar power plant idling by, is at best an eyebrow raising coincidence. (You did address this point 5, but I just thought I'd reiterate how bad it looks.)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if we went after the psychopath in North Korea you'd be pissed about that as well. Saddam was more dangerous because like Clinton himself said, he had used his weapons, while Kim Jong Il has been the biggest bluffer in history.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He used his weapons against his own people in 1986. 17 years ago. And even after that, the US continued to arm him. We actually increased aid to Iraq and encouraged them to step up their air war against Iran. So, let's not suddenly get morals on that issue, k?
Also, I don't think you know my position on Iraq, so, what you think I would, or wouldn't say about North Korea is irrelevant.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off he used them in 1988 against the Kurds and throughout the Iran-Iraq War against the Iranians. He couldn't use them in the 90's because during the first Gulf War nukes would have been used in retaliation and we established a no fly zone over Kurdish areas. As far as arming Iraq I wonder if we armed him so much then why doesn't he have any American tanks, no American planes, not even American rifles. Instead he used Soviet tanks, MiGs and Mirages, and AK-47s. We never encouraged him to use WMDs against anyone. Your statements seem to show that you were against any intervention in Iraq and that you believe Bush is doing a poor job there now. If that isn't your position then maybe you should state your real one more clearly.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As far as arming Iraq I wonder if we armed him so much then why doesn't he have any American tanks, no American planes, not even American rifles.
Dude, are you questioning whether we armed Iraq? It's a matter of public record. Let me guess: the Holocaust never happened either, did it?
posted
With what did we arm Iraq? To what extent did we arm Iraq? Don't compare me questioning the extent to which we armed Iraq to someone questioning the Holocaust. That's disgusting.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about some links that I shouldn't dismiss just from their title. The Guardian, Moore, Sunday Herald which actually quotes Scott Ritter, The Green Left . When a neutral source actually presents credible information I'll listen.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, for the love of God, SOMEBODY name a neutral source. In all the years I've ever been here I don't think I've heard of one. Can we make a list? The following sources: x, y, z are neutral. All others will be totally ignored.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ralphie is loved by everyone, ergo, Ralphie is a neutral source. From now on, Ralphie will be the only source of information allowable on this forum.
quote: How about some links that I shouldn't dismiss just from their title. The Guardian, Moore, Sunday Herald which actually quotes Scott Ritter, The Green Left . When a neutral source actually presents credible information I'll listen.
What? You expect Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reily to cite reasons why they're dead wrong?
Don't be silly. Did these people say these things they are quoted as saying or did they not? Regardless of who's doing the quoting, the quotes are either real or they aren't.
But I'm game. As the others say, whom would you consider to be a neutral source? There are plenty of other sources out there, so I'm more than happy to provide you one you'll accept, just so long as you tell me who they are and explain why they're neutral.
posted
By the way, the right honorable Bonduca has this to say:
quote: tell him that the Guardian and the NY Times are no less reputable than Fox news et al. And ultimately you could send him links all day and he could turn up his nose at them like a baby at his strained carrots.
posted
Fine, if not neutral then try to come close. How about mainstream, and just because the Guardian is used a lot on this forum does not make it mainstream. I would even accept the NY Times and Washington Post even though they are both to the left. The sources you named aren't just skewed but they outright lie consistently.
quote: What? You expect Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reily to cite reasons why they're dead wrong?
Do you except the Guardian to admit that Bush might have been justified in Iraq? Or that their claims about Bush and oil were BS? Let's say enough WMDs were found to wipe out the population of earth 5 times over. Would any of those sources have admitted Bush was right? I would be willing to bet that if Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were found together sipping tea with a map detailing how sleeper agents were going to infiltrate the US will nerve gas those sources would still say bin Laden hated Saddam so much that it isn't possible that they could be allied. So no, I doubt Rush Limbaugh would try to prove that the US is responsible the death of thousands of Kurds but I don't think that's a reason to use unreliable sources.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, let's say for the sake of argument that I was walking in the middle of a crowded city, say, New York City, and then suddenly, without warning, I randomly leap onto a wizened old nun, beat her senseless, tore off her clothing, and while exposing her stark naked to the hostile world around her, I reveal that she had a bunch of dynamite strapped to her body.
Now, I might have saved a whole bunch of people. But does the end justify the means?
So would you advocate stripping every nun who walks by on the off chance that one's a terrorist? Because there's a word for a person like me then: vigilante. (also "nutcase", but that's a different story.)
posted
nfl, you're right. It was 1988, not 1986. I don't know what my fingers where thinking. However, the Kurds were Iraqi. See, if Bush decides to gas democrats, he will still be gasing his own people. They will still be Americans.
quote:How about some links that I shouldn't dismiss just from their title
nfl Bwhahahhah!
I don't dismiss posts that perhaps I should, just from their author, though this quote makes me reconsider that policy...
Perhaps you could try taking things with a grain of salt, whatever their source. Put some thought into it. Read between the lines. Question authority. Read sources from more than one side of an idealogical divide. That's what I try to do, though I must admit, I'm often to lazy to do it properly, due to time and energy constraints.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, that still makes no sense. It was 15 years ago. Did you support military action between now and then? Every day? If not, why now? Why did the government increase it's aid to Iraq after Saddam gassed his own people? Why is the government only now realizing he might be dangerous?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, the point is that Saddam has shown a willingness to use WMDs in the past and there's no reason to believe that he would refrain from doing so in the future. The fact that he didn't use them from '88 onwards doesn't mean anything because our no-fly zones did not allow him to. On the other hand North Korea has a history of showing of its weapons while not intending to use them. Basically Iraq's weapons served a practical use while North Korea's serve as a deterent.
As far as aid is concerned I see no reason to punish a population based on its leader when the leader is a ruthless dictator.
George Bush realized in 1990 that Saddam was dangerous but was under international pressure not to remove him, obviously it was a mistake to succumb to that pressure but that's what happened. Then Clinton saw that Saddam was a threat and warned of him using WMDs in the future. That's the past three presidents, two Republicans, one Democrat, 8 years. It is a mistake to assume that the government is only now seeing the former Iraqi regime as a threat.
Despite all this my main reason for supporting this war is the human rights issue. WMDs were just a "bonus" for me. If an influx of oil saved me money I'm not complaining, but that's not why I support Bush. When administrations, Democratic or Republican, support totalitarian governments I oppose that.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You realize that you are supporting a preemptive strike, right? I can't think of a bigger threat in the world right now than the US. I certainly hope someone doesn't decided to preemptively strike us.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you thinking he's young, too, Jeffy? Stauch, intractable, intransigent conservatives usually are very young, or very old. Have you ever noticed that?
Maybe it's just me.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was Churchill who said "A man who is conservative at 20 has no heart, and one who is liberal at 40 has no brain." Something like that. Personally, I was very conservative when I was younger, but have become more liberal as I grew older. By Churchill's aphorism, this makes me heartless and brainless. I'm a Scarecrow Tinman!
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you thinking he's young, too, Jeffy? Stauch, intractable, intransigent conservatives usually are very young, or very old. Have you ever noticed that?
Maybe it's just me.
No, I agree with you. I wonder why that is, but yes, I've noticed that phenomenon too. I have some theories, but they're not very nice, so I'll just keep them to myself.
posted
Actually, neo-conservatives just like to splatter that bit of disinformation around: Churchill feelings on the matter were quite the opposite.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, I don't know how Churchill felt about it because he never told me but he did say that quote so unless he was lying... and I'm just heartless.
Kayla, we're only a threat to governments who shouldn't exist and honestly governments we are capable of deposing. To whoever this makes us threatening to I don't wish to back down.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, if NFL doesn't actually want to tell you his age, you really shouldn't press. It's no biggie.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks tom...I think though that it is in my best interests to stay out of this one from now on...even though I started it who could have predicted it would end up going all the places it has
Posts: 17 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, if the US was as cool as ancient Rome, we'd have gates of war. I wish we had gates of war.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) I think that Bush has made it too easy for them. The fact that they had a plan, in writing, and were in the last stages of starting a war with Afghanistan certainly don't help their situation. The fact that they want the oil from the Caspian Sea and need for the pipeline to run through Afghanistan, Pakistan and end in India, where, surprise, Halliburton has a 3 billion dollar power plant idling by, is at best an eyebrow raising coincidence. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
