Its just as you suspect, we are reeling in disarray at the brilliant probity of your pungent analysis
Well, if you don’t think its very significant, why are you dwelling on it? Time and again, we come in and explain the distinction to you. And you roll blithely along, as though we had never spoke. The lies about WMD were not, in and of themselves, the be-all and end-all. And the lie was this: that he claimed a certainty that he did not have, indeed, could not have. This, in itself, would have been enough to wish to see him run out of town. But it is not the most, or least, grevious crime in this whole debacle. Its just one of many. Very many.
And has been pointed out at laborious length, it makes not the slightest difference what all these people believed. It only matters what the man making the decision believes, and how he communicates that belief. There was enough evidence for concern, enough evidence to bring the matter before the UN, enough evidence to pressure Iraq for compliance…but there was not, repeat and emphaticly not enough evidence to justify an invasion.
Colin Powells dog-and-pony show at the UN is a stain on our national reputation…not one, not so much as one of the accusations he laid out has proven true. They were right, we were wrong and we wouldn’t listen. Hubris, chutzpah, and sheer bloody-mindedness. In a political debate, this might be forgiveable. When lives are squandered, it most certainly is not.
(I’ll pass over the subsequent adventure in phenomenology and the nature of knowledge. I’m but a country boy, and that is too many for me…)
So you insist. But without, so far, giving us a rationale as for why Saddam would hand over weapons to third parties he could not control. Why? Why would he do such a thing? In hopes that the third party would attack the US? Why wouldn’t he do it himself, if he were so eager and so reckless? Here, you are entirely in Maybe, building scenarios of possibility on foundations of conjecture without so much as a shred of evidence.
Indeed, Big Svin rocks, as amply demonstrated by his point by point take down of your case. Or did you even notice that you got clobbered?
Emergency! Starv, Gabon and Upper Volta have signed a suicide pact to destroy America! They have purchased enough Strontium 90 to destroy us! We must attack at once, there is no time to wait for evidence…
(Gotta take 5. Starv seems determined to win his point by sheer weight of verbiage, and I need a break…)
Why are people bothering? Let’s face facts and admit there are some people who won’t believe Bush was lying unless Bush himself went on the air and confessed. Call it the conservative paradox - any source which tells you something you don’t want to believe is liberal and can therefore be ignored regardless of how well they substantiate their statements.
It’s surprising that someone who would speak of “brilliant probity” would follow with something like “we had never spoke.”
Boy, you try a answer a few questions or suppositions – questions and suppositions that were aimed at you, no less – and you get accused of verbiage. On the other hand, fail to speak to every little inanity, ala Zagadka, and you get accused of cherry picking your responses. :rolleyes:
Weapons that don’t exist and didn’t exist and weapons which are possessed by other countries who are perfectly capable of giving them to “terrorists.” We have not chosen to invade those other countries. A scare story about Iraq selling imaginary weapons to imaginary terrorists would still not be a legal justication for a preemptive invasion anyway unless it could be disposively proven (not guessed at or hoped for or hypothesized) to the satisfaction of the the controlling international authority of the UN. Without UN approval, you have yourself an illegal act of aggression. That’s the bottom line.
No one has backed off of anything, smug one. Go back and read any of the dozens of threads about this issue from before the invasion was begun. You will see that the exact same arguments against a causus belli were presented as nauseum then as they are now- to wit, that the chimp had not proven that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. The failure to find a “gathering threat” in Iraq subsequent to the invasion is merely confirmation of the stupidity of aggression without proof. The absence of Shrubya’s WMDs is not and never has been the per se reason that we opposed the invasion. Go back and read the old threads.
No credible source informed Bush that Iraq was definitely a threat to the US or that it possessed WMDs. What he was informed about was various and heavily caveated possibilities which he chose to interpret in the most implausibly alarmist way he possibly could. This included specifically falsified evidence (i.e. “yellowcake”) which he declined to exclude from his case before the public. He spun possibility as certainty and knowingly presented falsified allegations as truth. This is also known as lying.
The fatal flaw in your analogy is that the Empire State building actually exists and Saddam’s weapons programs did not. They weren’t moved or hidden or dismantled. They were fictions.
Well not from Hussin because he didn’t possess them, but there are other possible suppliers who we have declined to invade.
Except not.
Yopu need to familarize yourself with the meaning of the word “imminent” as it pertains to national security threats significant enough to justify a preemptive invasion. Hypothetical future threats are no “imminent.” One might even say they are imaginary.
An utterly ridiculous, legally indefensible amd amoral position which could apply equally well too any country in the world.
Too bad for you people. The president is still not allowed to pander to the irrational bloodlust of the ignorant rabble. He is still bound by treaties, by the Constution and by common sense.
Not so. Our position is that Bush lied about WMDs and the war is bogus. The bogosity of the war is not coningent on a deliberate lie (although the president certainly did deliberately lie) but sufficiently on Bush’s defiance of the UN Charter and the international community. Ther is no hypocrisy. You are inferring what we have not implied. Go back and read the old threads then come back and apologize for your unwarranted accusations of hypocrisy.
Go back and read the old threads. We all said before the invasion that a preemptive war was unjustified regardless of whether we ever found any WMDs. In fact, most of us expected that we would.
No one has argued that the failure to find WMDs, in itself, invalidated the legitimacy of the war. There may be a stray exception who I’ve forgotten about but pretty much all of us sane people who opposed the war already thought it was already and irrevocably illegitimate before it ever started. The failure to find WMDs was just an aggravating factor, not a decisive one.
It’s not a question of agreement. Not one piece of evidence that Colin Powell presented to the UN has panned out. If you really take issue with that statement then by all means, show us what did pan out.
He didn’t possess any fucking WMDs.
Bush’s bungling of the execution of the war is not really germane to the fact that it was unjustified in the first place. Your personal fantasies of what another country may conceivably do in some mythical, hypotheitcal future do not amount to a causus belli.
We don’t have to speculate. We know for a fact that he did it. Deal with it.
I just want to add that S.A.'s complimentary asessment of Mr. Svin is about the only thing he’s said in this thread that I agree with. I also concur with 'lucy that Svin’s evisceration of the OP was masterful.
This isn’t that hard to understand. The reason this no-WMDs point gets talked about so much is that while people can disagree about whether or not the existence of some chemical or biological weapons in Iraq constitutes an imminent threat to the U.S., it is very hard for anyone to argue that non-existent chemical and biological weapons constitute a threat.
It is like arguments over the death penalty. Some folks might believe as a matter of general principle that the death penalty is morally wrong and should never be used. However, this shouldn’t prevent them from pointing out the horror that occurs if someone who is innocent gets put to death since I think nearly everyone agree that this is not a good thing. By your logic, the fact that they were harping on the fact that we just killed an innocent man would be some great paradox since they didn’t support the death penalty anyway. The rest of us wouldn’t see this as a paradox at all.
No, he knew it because he selectively cherry-picked the evidence and refused to listen to evidence on the other side. While some of these other people may have thought Saddam had WMD, their minds were at least open enough to entertain new evidence. A case in point, as I noted, is Hans Blix who thought Saddam probably did have WMD (although this belief sounds like it was based largely on the certainty of the Bush Administration’s statements and a certain naivety on the part of Blix to actually believe the Bush Administration, which had by that time shown themselves to be pathological liars and distorters on a variety of unrelated policy issues). However, when Hans Blix went to where the WMD were said to be and found nothing, he began to question if the Administration really knew what they claimed to know. The Administration, of course, did not alter their assessment…probably because they simply did not care to. [And, we now know that the reason why the Bush Administration was so sure was largely because they chose to believe hook, line, and sinker the words of people who had a strong motive for feeding us lies…And, were in fact quite possibly doing this in cahoots with the Iranian intelligence service.]
It is the willful disregard of evidence that contradicts their ideology that has marked this Administration, whether the issue is Iraq, the economy, or scientific issues regarding public health, the environment, etc. Whether this constitutes lying or just being an unwillingness to look at all objectively at the evidence is largely irrelevant to me as regards judging their fitness to govern.
Well, the problem with this sort of “who knows” logic is that it is a recipe for international chaos. India doesn’t know that Pakistan won’t attack it with nuclear weapons…After all, they have fought several wars. And, other countries of the world don’t know whether the U.S. will attack them with nuclear weapons since we are the only ones who have actually ever done this. Clearly, if we are going to base going to war on the idea that we might prevent a hypothetical bad thing from happening (and I say “might” since it is fairly clear that if Saddam had had WMDs, we might have only increased the chances of them getting to terrorists by our invasion), then countries can use this to justify all sorts of wars.
So, either you must propose that this is the way the world should work or you are making the claim that the U.S. has the right to behave in a different way from everyone else.
Your analysis of the likelihood that Saddam would give weapons to terrorists flies in the face of the analyses by people who are actually paid to understand these things. The point, by the way, is not necessarily that the WMDs might be used against him (although Osama does have a grand record of turning viciously against former allies) but that by giving them the weapons, he is tying his fate to theirs. I.e., the decision is now in their hands as to whether to use these weapons to attack the U.S. and yet the consequences of such an attack (i.e., the U.S. response) will likely be borne by him! Just the sort of powerlessness that a ruthless dictator used to absolute control will revel in! :rolleyes:
Out of curiosity, how do the death numbers for US military and Iraqi noncombatants compare to a similar point in our “liberation” of Viet Nam? Say what you will about Bush, he’s just upholding our country’s long-term commitment to attacking other countries in the name of helping the citizens therein…sticking the US’s collective nose in other people’s business is a bipartisan trait to be proud of. :rolleyes: ftr, conservative or not, I don’t think there’s been a “good” reason to go to war within my life time, and probably not too many before it, either.
On a personal note, my own opinion before the war was that, given that neither Saddam nor Bush had a shred of credibility based on past records of honesty, I did not know who to believe and thus we must go on the hard evidence.
My own wild guess was that the truth might lie roughly halfway in-between what we being told by a barbaric murderous dictator and by our President (i.e., Saddam had WMDs but that the stockpiles probably were not as extensive and the threat most certainly not nearly as dire as claimed). You might note that the notion that the truth might lie halfway in between already shows you that my view of this Administration was pretty damn low.
However, the fact that I now know, at least barring any dramatic discoveries, that I would have been closer to the truth if I had simply believed the word of the barbaric murderous dictator over that of our President is not a feeling that fills me with a great amount of warmth and good feeling toward the current Administration. Actually, I think it is fucking pathetic!
For those who don’t like tracking down links themselves, here is the Fresh Air site from which you can type in “Blix” in the “Guests” box to find the interview. The part in question starts just before the 7 minute mark.
It seems like so long ago, like three or four wars ago, not current.
I remember a thread we had going, and someone mentioned just this, about how the UN inspectors had told the US “Well, if you’ve got something, tell us so we can go look”. And how the inspectors followed every lead provided by the US and found d-for-diddly squat. My favorite desperate defense was to the effect that the US didn’t give the UN inspectors the real intelligence stuff 'cause they’d blow it to the 'Rakies. The shit was there, and we knew where, but darned if we were going to tell Blix.
And of course, we owe Scott Ritter a three year long vacation in Bermuda. Though I kinda get the feeling he’d rather do Marine basic training over again. Just for shits and giggles. Hey, some people are like that, and I avoid them too. But he sure did his damndest, and for his country, and he sure got nothing but shit on for it.
Well, of course it is. And as long as that’s the case I can rest comfortably, secure in the knowledge that I couldn’t possibly be wrong…after all, **Diogenes **disagrees with me.
Funny…your “evisceration” is to me simply a reasonable and rational attempt to dispute my point of view. A “discussion,” as it were. Congratulate yourself if you like on what you perceive as Mr. Svinlesha’s sure, swift and slicing refutation of my stance, but it exists only in your apparently overtaxed mind.
Yes he is bound by treaties, but Bush is not necessarily bound by common sense.
And sadly, there is no law against “pander(ing) to the irrational bloodlust of the ignorant rabble.” It is because of that “ignorant rabble” that Bush was almost elected and may well be re-selected.
It is because of that ignorant rabble that we are mired in an immoral war in Iraq.
Og knows there is enough ignorant rabble on the Democratic side of the electorate; what’s shocking is the number of willfully ignorant rabblers that gravitate so proudly and predictably to the Right side of the spectrum.
It is hard to argue reasonably with ignorant rabble. We see this time and time again here on this very Message Board.
I’m a bit constrained for time at the moment, as I am posting from work during my break. I hope to come back with a more complete response later on the evening. In the meantime, regarding the acronym “WMD”:
Indeed. And what purpose is that? one might well wonder.
I’ll tell you what I think. I think the decision to lump all of Iraq’s various weapons programs and systems under the single rubric of “WMD” is one of the Bush administration’s most important propaganda victories. “WMD” is a perfect example of a rhetorical device known as the emotionally potent simplification.
It is a simplification because it gathers a number of different, complex weapons systems, all of which involve different levels of threat, under one roof. To paraphrase the Carnagie Report, it combines chemical weapons systems, which are a very low-level threat, with nuclear weapons, which are a very high level threat. By tying these complex systems all into one symbol it allows proponents of the war to treat these very different sorts of threats as if they were one and the same, when in fact they are not.
It is emotionally potent because the phrase “mass destruction” brings to mind an image of thousands of deaths, nuclear holocaust, massive infrastructural damage, and so forth.
This is an excellent example of my point. While you are correct to note that all of these weapons systems have “the potential to cause tremendous death and suffering,” the fact remains that they also have significantly different potentials to cause significantly different amounts of death and suffering. After all, the possession of a few shells of mustard gas, or sarin, does not have the same destructive potential as a Trident missile. They are such different kinds of threats, in fact, that it seems bizarre to lump them together under the rubric “WMD,” even though, technically, they are both examples of that acronym.
?
I’m not backing off from this aspect of my criticism. I’m trying to explain that you were mistaken to assume that this was an aspect of my criticism from the beginning.
However, I think this observation of yours can be turned around, and that in doing so we might better understand your confusion. Because it seems to me that really, the opposite is closer to the truth – that is to say, many who supported the war believed it would be justified if a stockpile of “WMD” had been found somewhere in Iraq. Had such a cache of weapons been found, I’m sure it would have been employed relentlessly by war-supporters as evidence that their arguments were correct, and that Saddam did indeed constitute a threat, regardless of intent or capability. Recall, for example, all of the pre-invasion (and even post-invasion) threads launched by war-supporters over having at last found the “smoking gun,” only to discover that it was a tire factory, or helium balloon factory, or whatever.
In other words, those who supported the invasion seemed to believe that it would necessarily have been justified had “WMDs” been found. And had such weapons been found, I suspect they would have dismissed further arguments – like, for example, the lack of evidence that Iraq was planning to give those weapons to al-Qaida – as so much limp-wristed mamby-pampy left wing hand-wringing.
And the real question is why, now that none of these weapons have turned up, do many of these people still continue to support the war?
This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned other countries that better fulfilled the criteria given for selecting Iraq to come down on.
Pakistan’s ties to aQ and the Taliban are myriad and well documented. There’re many sympathies in both the Pakistani intelligence services and the Pakistani military for both aQ and the Taliban. Pakistani General Hamid Gul warned UbL that Clinton had sent missiles after him. IIRC, Khalid sheik Mohamed was arrested inside the Pakistani version of a gated community that’s home to many of Pakistan’s top brass. Combine these sympathies in crucial places with the dictatorial government, frequent assassination attempts on government officials, and the Father of the Islamic Bomb and the world’s greatest illicit nuclear technology proliferator, Abdul Qadir Khan and the threat from Pakistan looms mightily over the one that was emanating from Iraq.
Quotes coming out of the Admin were along the lines of ‘without a doubt’.
Here’s a rub. Actually, rather than being ‘too great a risk’ the likelihood that Hussein would do such a thing was low. The US’s NIE on Iraq, the amalgam of the US’s best intelligence estimates on Iraq said that Hussein was “drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States”, and that for the ‘foreseeable future’ it was a very low probability that Hussein would “initiate” an attack on the US using a weapon of mass destruction.
The NIE specifically used the phrase “the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists” while discussing Hussein and such an attack. link
This is just another example of how the actual threat from whatever WMDs Hussein may’ve had was fundamentally ‘enhanced’ by the WH et al. Without the ‘urgent’ threat from Iraq, the entire calculus of this foreign policy military venture is fundamentally changed, yes?
I agree that the preventive measures should be proportionate to the level of risk addressed. Rather than addressing a hypothetical scenario with another or a series of hypothetical scenarios, (which can go on all day), I’d like to instead discuss this issue from this perspective.
The chance of generating the “tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands” of deaths mentioned more than once by members of the Admin and yourself here in this thread is very small with something other than a nuclear device. No one, not even the GWB Admin has suggested said that Iraq had nukes to give away. This conflation of nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons and their effects through the use of the broad term WMD is an example of a de facto, (even if unintentional), strategy on the part of the Admin to ‘enhance’ the perceptions of the threat from Iraq to the US.
So, in addition to it being unlikely that Iraq would attack the US, (directly or by proxy), using WMD of any sort, it’s also very improbable that if such an unlikely attack were to occur that it would generate the “tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands” of deaths.
Since this event is so unlikely, it doesn’t really have much force as an argument in favor of taking some of the most dire, grave and drastic actions possible to prevent it. The preventive measures should be proportionate to the risks.
Ironically, poor planning and poor decision making on the part of the WH and the Pentagon made it even more likely that whatever WMDs or WMD components Hussein may’ve had will fall into the hands of terrorists. (See the comments of Army Col. Richard McPhee of the 75th Exploitation Task Force in the WaPo 2003-05-11 for example:
“What we found," he said, was that “as the maneuver units hit a target they had to move on, even 24 hours was too slow. By the time we got there, a lot of things were gone.”
"You’ve got two corps commanders being told, ‘Get to Baghdad,’ and, oh, by the way, ‘When you run across sensitive sites, you have to secure them,’ " he said. “Do you secure all those sites, or do you get to Baghdad? You’ve got limited force structure and you’ve got 20 missions.”
In addition to this, you may also look at the recent World Tribunereport, ( and the actual UNMOVIC report it’s describing ), that has photos of how entire sites ‘disappeared’ all the way down to their concrete foundations after the US took control of Iraq.
If suspected sites were removed down to the foundation, it’s safe, (if somewhat insufficient), to say that the site security was inadequate, yes?
Why was there inadequate site security?
The Pentagon decided to go against the advice of military professionals like the Army’s Chief of Staff, and they set aside the expertise of the State Department’s Future of Iraq Project, (against the wishes of Jay Garner).
There was plenty of pre-war planning for the post-war period in Iraq. It just wasn’t done by the Pentagon, the people in charge of this particular foreign policy venture. Just as the WH unreasonably used the top end of the worst case scenario estimates to sell the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon used the top end of the best case scenarios top plan for the invasion of Iraq. Sadly the flowers, hugs and candies scenario turned out to be a bit of ‘salesmanship’ by the infamous Ahmad Chalabi. We were not able to reduce our troop levels to 30,00 to 40,00 by the fall of 2003.
Whatever WMDs and WMD ‘components’ Hussein may’ve had are now more readily available to terrorists than before. Looted items have already been spread around the globe.
If we were ‘defending ourselves’ we’d’ve been acting under Article 51 of the UN Charter. There’d’ve been no need for any sort of an UNSC resolution.
In order to’ve been defending ourselves against Iraq without Iraq having attacked the US, there would’ve had to’ve been an imminent threat. The WH has become clear of late that they never said there was an ‘imminent’ threat from Iraq to the US. And, as noted above, the US’s NIE clearly said that there was not an imminent threat to the US from Iraq.
So, the invasion of Iraq was not a case of the US defending itself.
It was a preventive war rather than a pre-emptive war. If it had been a case of self defense, it would’ve been a pre-emptive war rather than the preventive war it was. For discussion of the differences between the two see the Strategic Insight authored by analysts with the Center for Contemporary Conflict which is the research arm of the National Security Affairs Department at the Naval Postgraduate School, titled **Nuclear Weapons, War with Iraq, and U.S. Security Strategy in the Middle East**:
**Preventive War vs. Preemption **
“Although the terms often are used interchangeably, “preventive war” and “preemption” are different strategic concepts. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war. Preventive war thinking seems to dominate U.S. planning about Iraq: it is better to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime now then to deal later with a regime armed with nuclear weapons. Preventive war thinking, however, can turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (treating war as inevitable helps make it inevitable). It also can lead to unnecessary conflict because few things are inevitable: Saddam could die of natural causes next week, producing a significant opportunity for the United States and its allies to shape Iraqi politics and policies.
Preemption is nothing more than a quick draw. Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike. Preemption or launch-under-attack are strategies that can be adopted by states that fear preventive war.”
If one is “legitimate, sane and rational,” then one is obviously a conservative.
More pertinently, it has been more generally alleged that the danger from Husseins banned weapons was that they would be delivered into the hands of aQ or aQ like groups. Most often, as noted in the excerpt of the NIE I provided above, the attack from Hussein against the US is conceived of in terms of “clandestine attacks,” ie ones that weren’t officially from Iraq.
When an attack from Hussein against the US is discussed, the expected route for an attack was via a third party as you describe here. Most of the statements about Iraq attacking the US are related to this ‘clandestine attack’ concept.
Except that a sizable portion of what the WH et al said they knew without a doubt was not supported by the NIE. The NIE included a number of caveats and qualifiers that keep this analogy from being accurate.
This is another example of the existence of a risk being highlighted without an accompanying examination of the likelihood of the risk.
Yes, it was a ‘real risk’ that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. And, yes, any terrorist group on the globe ‘could conceivably have obtained WMD from Hussein’. What’s missing is an analysis of the probability of such a thing happening.
You or I could be hit with a meteorite. It’s a ‘real risk’ that ‘conceivably could’ happen.
An accurate assessment of the relative risk is all important to determining the appropriate level of action to take as a result of our concerns.
In Gulf War I Hussein has also shown a propensity to be deterred from the use of NCB by the threat of ‘national obliteration’.
This lack of a need for evidence is another example of how the invasion of Iraq is not an example of self defense. It’s just not self defense when there’s no evidence that you are in danger.
Well, it depends on what the suggested course of action is.
Since it is impossible to defend against every conceivable threat and still have a life that’s worth living, one has to prioritize the allotment of one’s time and resources. This need for careful allotment means that there must be a threshold for action. Because it’s neither reasonable nor possible to be “better safe than sorry” regarding every threat, a certain quality of threat must be established as the criteria for a threshold for action. Therefore, it’s not enough to say that there’s a threat, we must react. It must be a threat equal to the proposed response.
This is yet again where the realistic assessment of the threat comes in.
While this is a neat saying, in this case, as a rationale or an argument, it’s woefully inadequate. It provides a rationale for the collaboration of the US and Iraq against al Qaeda, or the collaboration of US and al Qaeda against Iraq. More must be brought to bear on the analysis of potential alliances than merely noting common enemies.
While it has its uses in the realm of speculation and theory it’s an insufficient grounds for asserting that cooperation between two specific and particular parties in the real world is likely.
While these are generally valid truisms, what happened in this case is that relevant, realistic expert advice was pointedly ignored in favor of more pleasing analyses.
This is more or less the gist of it. We went in as a gamble that some felt wasn’t worth taking. So now that we crapped out, of course there’re recriminations. Against our better judgment and despite our good advice the WH bet our milk money and lost it. Now that it’s time for cereal, some folks’re a little testy about the whole affair saying, “I told you so that it wasn’t worth our humongous troubles.”
I’m glad you found time to do so. I know you won’t take this as a compliment, but aside from Milum I can think of no other poster I’d be more pleased to hear from.
Yes, you are right on both counts, at least in my opinion.
Because, like I’ve said before, to me and to those who feel as I do, the potential synergistic relationship between al-Qaeda and Hussein was simply too much of a risk to gamble on. Whether evidence of collusion was discovered or not, and whether WMD existed or not, Hussein was too adept at playing games and hiding what he was up to, and the threat of al-Qaeda obtaining these weapons at some point in the future if not sometime soon, was just too potentially damaging to leave to chance and hope for the best. The only way we could guarantee this would not happen was to remove Hussein.
SimonX, my apologies. Your post must have come in while I composing my posting to Mr. Svinlesha, and I found it just now. (I should have also added your name to his as someone who it’s good to hear from.)
You raise many valid points that unfortunately I don’t have time to address right now. I’ll try to come back on this evening to acknowledge them and to explain my rationale in the areas where we disagree.
However, you obviously spent quite a bit of time and thought composing your post and I didn’t want the day to go by without the effort you put into it being acknowledged.
At last, safe harbor for the storm tossed argument! Where nothing has to be proved, and any conjecture floats as securely as any fact. Having beat a hasty retreat from any attempt to prove an extant threat, you are reduced to suggesting a potential threat. Being utterly unable to prove an immediate threat, you offer us the fog of the future - why, anything could happen. might happen, can’t prove it couldn’t happen.
And, best of all, since none of this is dependent on facts, it cannot be refuted by facts!
If this was going to be where you ended up, tossing about conjectures as though the bore the weight of realities, offering dreadful speculations as actual peril…why did you even bother pretending to have facts? Why waste the time and energy only to have Big Svin bat aside your flimsy insinuations like so many attack trained hummingbirds?
Hasty retreat? *Pretending *to have the facts? Unable to prove an extant threat?
Wow! A whole string of false premises strung together like so much Christmas popcorn and used in a flimsy attempt to choke me into silence and claim victory and peace at last.
Nice try.
Pray tell, when did I attempt to prove an extant threat? When exactly did I beat a hasty retreat other than to explain to Mr. Svinlesha didn’t have the time right now to answer his lengthy but excellent post? When exactly was it that I *pretended *to have facts…and just what were these facts I pretended to have?
And are you attempting to gloat in what you perceive as “Bis Svin’s” victory over me, as though unable to accomplish it yourself you take vicarious delight in your erroneous opinion that he has vanquished me?
You poor, deluded soul. But like I said, nice try.
