How's this for different morals?

[elliott20]

oh okay. well played then.

[Blond Adult Girl]

1. It was not necessary to invade Iraq to stop him acquiring wmd - that was the phoney pretext=no, it wasn't a phony pretext!!
2. it was known to be a phony pretext=no, it wasn't! Thats why Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and everybody in Washington claimed that he had WMD's!
3. Anyone with minimal intelligence would be aware the evidence was faulty=anybody with minimal intelligance would believe that the evidence was faulty!
4. the comparison with hitler doesn't stand up anywhere except in the wonderful world of BAG. Saddam was not trying to invade anywhere. It wouldn't have mattered whether we asked him to remove his wmd or not as he didn't have any in the first place. You can't have the same situation with different variables. It's a contradiction in terms. So scale, lack of threat to american national survival in the case of saddam separate the two situations fundamentally=it stands up, you just don't want it to stand up because your more worried about burning conservatives then you are helping the United States!

[elliott20]

1. It was not necessary to invade Iraq to stop him acquiring wmd - that was the phoney pretext=no, it wasn't a phony pretext!!
2. it was known to be a phony pretext=no, it wasn't! Thats why Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and everybody in Washington claimed that he had WMD's!
3. Anyone with minimal intelligence would be aware the evidence was faulty=anybody with minimal intelligance would believe that the evidence was faulty!
4. the comparison with hitler doesn't stand up anywhere except in the wonderful world of BAG. Saddam was not trying to invade anywhere. It wouldn't have mattered whether we asked him to remove his wmd or not as he didn't have any in the first place. You can't have the same situation with different variables. It's a contradiction in terms. So scale, lack of threat to american national survival in the case of saddam separate the two situations fundamentally=it stands up, you just don't want it to stand up because your more worried about burning conservatives then you are helping the United States!

Blonde, you need to do better than that.

point 1 is basically you saying "no it's not" and that's it. THat's not a rebuttal. There is a valid argument here if you can pull up the right premises.

point 2: did kerry and clinton actually corroborated the claim?

point 3: I don't know, from the way the investigation went, there were some very dubious claims being made here. I had a hard time believing it.

point 4:
This is a bit trickier but I think Mogadishu's points stand here. the comparison to hitler, a would be world conquering despot, as opposed to Saddam, a warlord whose quite content to sit in one place and oppress his own people, is not a very good one. The two men operate under rather different circumstances, with the only common ground they have being that they're totalitarian despots and they're against the US. This is not a characteristic that is exclusive to them. Which begs the question, what makes Saddam so much of a threat?

If we trace back to your oil argument, it still doesn't quite work. Economic progression is not the same national survival.


trying to dismiss her argument (yes it's a her) by questioning the intention of the argument is ALSO a fallacy, btw.

[Blond Adult Girl]

point 1 is basically you saying "no it's not" and that's it. THat's not a rebuttal. There is a valid argument here if you can pull up the right premises=I'll provide sources if i have to, but right now, I don't feel like . the web for edu and .org sites.

point 2: did kerry and clinton actually corroborated the claim?=Clinton said in 98 that saddam was a threat, and kerry concured, as did harry reid, Hillary Clinton, and many other democrats.

point 3: I don't know, from the way the investigation went, there were some very dubious claims being made here. I had a hard time believing it.=if they were "dubious," why wasn't anybody except frickin Maureen Dowd challenging them? And don't even give me Joe Wilson.


This is a bit trickier but I think Mogadishu's points stand here. the comparison to hitler, a would be world conquering despot, as opposed to Saddam, a warlord whose quite content to sit in one place and oppress his own people, is not a very good one. The two men operate under rather different circumstances, with the only common ground they have being that they're totalitarian despots and they're against the US. This is not a characteristic that is exclusive to them. Which begs the question, what makes Saddam so much of a threat?=so we should have negotiated with saddam then? is that what you're saying? Both Hitler and Saddam were maniacle demons. Both stopped for nobody. Both killed in masses. You are backpeddling if you thought that saddam didn't have WMD's. ALMOST EVERYONE thought that Saddam had WMD's. WE WERE ALL WRONG!!!

If we trace back to your oil argument, it still doesn't quite work. Economic progression is not the same national survival.=not sure what your trying to say here.

[elliott20]

woah woah woah, Blonde, don't go about and setting up a straw-man for me already. I never said we should negotiate and settle with Saddam, I'm merely challenging the notion that Saddam = Hitler. There's a huge difference.

But then again, Castro oppresses his own people too, so does Kim Jong Il, as does many other dictators. Why Saddam? The entire moral reason is just convenient, if you ask me.

[Blond Adult Girl]

woah woah woah, Blonde, don't go about and setting up a straw-man for me already. I never said we should negotiate and settle with Saddam, I'm merely challenging the notion that Saddam = Hitler. There's a huge difference.

But then again, Castro oppresses his own people too, so does Kim Jong Il, as does many other dictators. Why Saddam? The entire moral reason is just convenient, if you ask me.

If by "moral reason" you mean Saddams crimes gainst humanity, then yeah, it is convenient. But when it comes to actually dealing with him? How did negotiations with Kim Jong IL work? Did we settle the cuban missle crisis by "negotiating" with Castro and the Soviet Union? NO!

As for the Saddam-Hitler comparison, although hilter was more dangerous, that doesn't mean Saddam wasn't dangerous at all. Saddam was dangerous, and we were in the right to use force on him.

[elliott20]

woah woah woah, Blonde, don't go about and setting up a straw-man for me already. I never said we should negotiate and settle with Saddam, I'm merely challenging the notion that Saddam = Hitler. There's a huge difference.

But then again, Castro oppresses his own people too, so does Kim Jong Il, as does many other dictators. Why Saddam? The entire moral reason is just convenient, if you ask me.

If by "moral reason" you mean Saddams crimes gainst humanity, then yeah, it is convenient. But when it comes to actually dealing with him? How did negotiations with Kim Jong IL work? Did we settle the cuban missle crisis by "negotiating" with Castro and the Soviet Union? NO!

As for the Saddam-Hitler comparison, although hilter was more dangerous, that doesn't mean Saddam wasn't dangerous at all. Saddam was dangerous, and we were in the right to use force on him.

again, strawman argument. I didn't say negotiation was the course of action to take. I just agree with Mogadishu, the comparison to Hitler is a very poor one.

Hell, I can agree with taking him down. But I can also agree with taking down most totalitarian regimes.

the point I'm making here is that in order for a premise to support an argument leading to a sound conclusion, it must follow. I can agree with going to war with saddam, but I would have used a different justification.

[Blond Adult Girl]

again, strawman argument. I didn't say negotiation was the course of action to take. I just agree with Mogadishu, the comparison to Hitler is a very poor one.

Hell, I can agree with taking him down. But I can also agree with taking down most totalitarian regimes.

the point I'm making here is that in order for a premise to support an argument leading to a sound conclusion, it must follow. I can agree with going to war with saddam, but I would have used a different justification.

What is your justification?

[elliott20]

as a totalitarian regime, he brings instability to a region that holds a very important resource to the world. He also happens to sit upon a population that is strongly fundamentalist with dogma that unlike other religions, does not necessarily shirk away from mutual destruction. While moderate muslims will have better sense than that, moderate muslims are a rare commodity in those regions of the world precisely because of the religious climate. Instability in that region of the world, with that kind of populace, combined with the fundamentalist ideology, is a VERY dangerous thing to the world at large.

To put it in the way Sam Harris has, the religious climate in that region is akin to what christianity was during the inquisition.

For this reason, I think taking Saddam is justified. But at the same time, the same rhetoric can be used for a LOT of the nations in the world.

However, I do disagree with the approach that we've taken. But more on that later as I'm still trying to cement the concepts I have on that.

[Blond Adult Girl]

as a totalitarian regime, he brings instability to a region that holds a very important resource to the world. He also happens to sit upon a population that is strongly fundamentalist with dogma that unlike other religions, does not necessarily shirk away from mutual destruction. While moderate muslims will have better sense than that, moderate muslims are a rare commodity in those regions of the world precisely because of the religious climate. Instability in that region of the world, with that kind of populace, combined with the fundamentalist ideology, is a VERY dangerous thing to the world at large.

To put it in the way Sam Harris has, the religious climate in that region is akin to what christianity was during the inquisition.

For this reason, I think taking Saddam is justified. But at the same time, the same rhetoric can be used for a LOT of the nations in the world.

However, I do disagree with the approach that we've taken. But more on that later as I'm still trying to cement the concepts I have on that.

So basically, you liken the climate that Saddam was in to the climate Europe was in during the 1600's and late 1500's, when religious tensions were at an all time high?

[elliott20]

as a totalitarian regime, he brings instability to a region that holds a very important resource to the world. He also happens to sit upon a population that is strongly fundamentalist with dogma that unlike other religions, does not necessarily shirk away from mutual destruction. While moderate muslims will have better sense than that, moderate muslims are a rare commodity in those regions of the world precisely because of the religious climate. Instability in that region of the world, with that kind of populace, combined with the fundamentalist ideology, is a VERY dangerous thing to the world at large.

To put it in the way Sam Harris has, the religious climate in that region is akin to what christianity was during the inquisition.

For this reason, I think taking Saddam is justified. But at the same time, the same rhetoric can be used for a LOT of the nations in the world.

However, I do disagree with the approach that we've taken. But more on that later as I'm still trying to cement the concepts I have on that.

So basically, you liken the climate that Saddam was in to the climate Europe was in during the 1600's and late 1500's, when religious tensions were at an all time high?

in a religious context yes. Though I can say if religious tensions were higher then or now.

[Blond Adult Girl]

as a totalitarian regime, he brings instability to a region that holds a very important resource to the world. He also happens to sit upon a population that is strongly fundamentalist with dogma that unlike other religions, does not necessarily shirk away from mutual destruction. While moderate muslims will have better sense than that, moderate muslims are a rare commodity in those regions of the world precisely because of the religious climate. Instability in that region of the world, with that kind of populace, combined with the fundamentalist ideology, is a VERY dangerous thing to the world at large.

To put it in the way Sam Harris has, the religious climate in that region is akin to what christianity was during the inquisition.

For this reason, I think taking Saddam is justified. But at the same time, the same rhetoric can be used for a LOT of the nations in the world.

However, I do disagree with the approach that we've taken. But more on that later as I'm still trying to cement the concepts I have on that.

So basically, you liken the climate that Saddam was in to the climate Europe was in during the 1600's and late 1500's, when religious tensions were at an all time high?

in a religious context yes. Though I can say if religious tensions were higher then or now.

Thats a good justification, in my opinion.

[elliott20]

It does work.

What we probably will differ on is how we go about doing it.

There is an excellent book that I'm reading right now which talks about the success of spreading democracy over the world which analyzes the very context in which a totalitarian regime can be disarmed and assimilated into the world community.

[Blond Adult Girl]

It does work.

What we probably will differ on is how we go about doing it.

There is an excellent book that I'm reading right now which talks about the success of spreading democracy over the world which analyzes the very context in which a totalitarian regime can be disarmed and assimilated into the world community.

See, I don't think we can force democracy on people. i mean, look how thats worked out in Iraq.

[elliott20]

well, Iraq is lauded as the textbook example of how NOT to go about things.

We blasted them to kingdom come, and obliterated the existing regime with flying success. But we also failed to account for what needed to happen afterwards to set up a proper stable governing body. And in many ways, that's actually even worse then saddam. At least before they know who to look to or be watchful of. Now there is less and less guarantee as to who to look to for stability and leadership and even less guarantee as who will be their subjugators.