Bricker: Got A Second?

The BBQ Pit
301

Scylla:

:slight_smile:

You know, I have to tell ya, its kind of a sad story. Bizzaro Svin was quite popular in high school, football star, that sort of thing – but that’s about as far as he ever got.

He’s working a minimum wage job at the local gas station now, and spends his free time in front of the TV, scratching his belly, drinking beer, and throwing pretzels at Dan Rather.

Svin, on the other hand – admittedly a nerd in high school – actually managed to work his way through college, get out and travel the world, finally settling down abroad to make something of his life.

Funny how things work out, ain’t it?
Shodan:

You don’t?

:dubious:

Well, please allow me to refresh your memory:

….crickets chirping……

No attempt intended. I just wondered if you were aware of it.

Perversely, I’d also like to take out some time and comment on your answers to True/False quiz, posted above:

When George Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” he was referring to the possession and concealment of a single canister of Sarin nerve gas.

Shodan’s answer: False. He was probably referring to the consensus in the intelligence community that Iraq retained significant stockpiles of WMD, and programs to acquire more.

When it is pointed out to Shodan that the US failed to discover any ”WMDs” in Iraq, Shodan goes frothingly bat-shit insane and insists that we did too find ”WMDs” there. I’ve always assumed that this was one of Shodan’s arguments for continuing to support the invasion. Here, Shodan clearly indicates that his line of reasoning is really nothing more than a red herring: he admits that even if we were to classify this single canister of gas as a WMD, it doesn’t in any sense justify the Bush administration’s pre-war claims.

Shodan obviously felt uncomfortable admitting this so flatly and openly. He therefore added an extra sentence to compensate for it. But as usual, this argument also falls flat on its face, because it relies on a massive rhetorical oversimplification: in this case, the existence of an ”intelligence community consensus.” Did such a consensus really exist?

Well, if we wish to see things as they really are, rather than oversimplify them, the answer is kind of yes and no – but mostly no. There were those in the intelligence community who dissented even from those claims that the Bush administration, and the war supporters, insisted were water-tight. As Tenet noted in his public assessment of the CIA’s pre-war intelligence judgements:

Now, let us turn to the infamous NIE of October 2002, and look at that section of the key judgements that was probably the least controversial – the section on Iraq’s chemical weapon’s capacity:

Was this the CIA’s consensus judgement? Well, I guess that depends on what one means with the word ”consensus.” In Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong, former intelligence analyst Kenneth Pollack (a long time hawk, and hardly a weak-kneed lefty) notes:

(The passage is taken from the linked article, but it requires a subscription to access it). The intelligence community was, in reality, split over the question of Iraq’s ”WMDs.” The Bush administration simply chose to listen to those analysts who supported their pro-war agenda, and represent them as if they were the whole of that community. So – when Shodan relies on the so-called ”consensus” of intelligence experts, he’s really just making it up as he goes along.
The recovery of a single canister of Sarin nerve gas from the Hussein regime is worth the lives of over 1000 US servicemen and women, and the expenditure of billions of dollars of US capital.

Shodan’s answer: False.

Again, this is little more than a bald admission from Shodan that all of his hand-wringing about the Sarin gas canister really isn’t relevant.
When George Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” he knew that, in the words of Paul Wolfowitz, “The nature of terrorism is that intelligence about terrorism is murky.” He knew, as George Tenet stressed in his assessment of CIA intelligence on Iraq, that, ”Did these strands of information weave into a perfect picture? Could they answer every question? No, far from it…. It is important to underline the word ’estimate,’ because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof.”

Shodan’s answer: True.

An admission here, by Shodan, that Bush lied in his public assertion of absolute certainty. About time, I say.
George Bush and his speechwriters were personally informed by CIA chief George Tenet, at least three weeks prior to the 2003 State of the Union address, that the CIA possessed no evidence whatsoever of an Iraqi attempt to purchase uranium yellowcake, and that British intelligence regarding such a purchase was unsubstantiated.

Shodan’s answer: True. Another admission of lying.
When Condoleeza Rice stated that the aluminum tubes were “really only suitable for use as uranium centrifuges,” she was aware that the not one single expert in the DoE believed this to be the case.

Shodan’s answer: Don’t know.

Correct answer: True.
In the six months prior to the war, Saddam Hussein “bent over backwards” to accommodate the inspections process, and met every single demand placed upon him by the US and the UN.

Shodan’s answer: False. He did not turn over the nuclear centrifuge parts and plans at least.

Actually, the answer to the above is true. In fact, Blix complained about getting almost too much compliance from the Iraqis. In the end Hussein allowed scientists to be interviewed in private, out of country; he allowed inspections of every weapons dump; he allowed inspections of his palaces; he began immediately disassembling his al-Samoud missiles, when they were found to be in breach of the cease-fire agreement, despite the American troops massing on Iraq’s border; and so on. Despite the above, Shodan would have the reader believe that Saddam still defied UN inspectors by hanging on to the parts of a single centrifuge (probably forgotten), and that this act of defiance somehow justifies the invasion.
Saddam Hussein was never found to be in ”material breach” of UNSC resolution 1441.

Shodan’s answer: By the Security Council? True.

But somehow, at the same time, it is claimed that the material breach of 1441, specifically, serves as the legal pretext for the war. Sorry, Shodan: does not compute.
There are numerous historical examples of rogue/failed states providing “WMDs” to unaffiliated terrorist organizations, even organizations with profoundly different goals and ideologies. (If true, please give at least three examples.)

Shodan’s answer: *Does Taliban support of al-Queda count? Or weapons transfers by the North Koreans? Or French violations of the sanctions against Iraq?

Are you alleging that this kind of support is impossible?

Anyway, I can’t come up with three specific examples off the top of my head, so I have to say False.*

His answer is correct. None of examples count, of course, because none of them involve states giving ”WMDs” or ”WMD technologies” to terrorist organizations.

Naturally, I’m not alleging that this kind of support is ”impossible;” just that its very, very unlikely. The fear that Saddam was poised to give ”WMDs” to terrorist organizations was a lynchpin in the arguments for an invasion – yet not a single supporter of the war can provide a shred of evidence that Saddam planned to do so, or even point to a single historical example of such a transfer.
Libya, North Korea, Georgia and Uzbekistan all could begin the production of nerve gas within a few months.

Shodan’s answer: True.

Which makes the conclusions of the Duelfer report pretty irrelevant with regard to a casus belli, don’t you think?
Prior to the withdrawal of UN personnel in anticipation of Operation Desert Fox, UN inspectors routinely broke inspection protocol by photographing sensitive Iraqi documents and visiting their embassies after working hours.

Shodan’s answer: If this isn’t true, it should be.

It’s true, but you’re wrong, as usual. The espionage gave Saddam an excuse to stop cooperating with UNSCOM. Had the inspectors not been involved in it, Saddam would not have had any legitimate reason for blocking the inspections at all.
Iraq and al-Qaeda had extensive operational contacts and cooperated in the planning and execution of numerous terrorists acts throughout the 1990s. (If true, please give at least three examples.)

Shodan’s answer: Iraq was not involved in planning 9/11, if that is what you are trying for.

True or false only, please. And it was not at all what I was after.

The Bush administration has insisted on the existence of ”ties” between al-Qaeda and Hussein’s regime. This assertion served to justify the invasion as a part of TWAT. I would like to see the evidence that assertion is actually true.

302

Back to this, are we? I thought you realized that the statement ‘the US failed to discover any “WMDs” in Iraq’ is false.

Oh well. I said originally that cites and evidence don’t seem to change anything.

Nope, this is a misinterpretation both of my position and the Bush administration.

Whoops! Also a misrepresentation. The consensus existed in 1998 and previously, and was re-affirmed by George Tenet before the invasion.

No, also false. I notice you left out the part of my answer that would show this to be other than a “bald admission” of anything.

Really? I wasn’t aware that Libya or North Korea had ever invaded Kuwait. And could you provide a cite for the seventeen UN resolutions directing Georgia and Uzbekistan to prove that they had divested themselves of chemical weapons?

Actually, you don’t need to bother.

Regards,
Shodan

303

Oh look, it’s Super Scylla, internet tough-guy extraordinaire and legend in his own mind!

Listen up, Freeperboy, I gave the Whack-a-Boaters about as much time as they deserved – two, three hours, tops. Just because you and Sam like to wallow in excrement, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to subscribe to your filthy fetish. But hey! If it turns you two fucktards on…

:::shrug:::;

Meantime, I stand by what I said: there’s not a single pro-war argument that I have not only considered, but destroyed to bits.

Right. Now that we’ve got that outta the way, feel free to go back to doing what you do best. Molding turds to fit your agenda.

304

Comparatively speaking, yes. A am like unto the tiger to your amoeba.

So, you read the book, right?

That’s quite an extraordinary claim. If you “stand by” it, than that means you must be willing to prove it. Let’s see your proof.

305

And modest, too!

(Pity he’s not bright enough to catch simple typos, like using an “A” instead of “I”… :smiley: )

306

I think you read that wrong - “Ah am like…”

307

TMI, dude. I’m really not interested in your fetishes. What with your tiger is your business, but leave my goddamn amoeba out of your perversions!

Sorta. I wiped my ass w/it.

No problem. Got anything we haven’t heard of before? Or will we be rehashing Bushit? No matter. Bring it on!

Fair warning though: my Halloween flightsuit’s freshly pressed and you’re in for a world of pain.

308

TMI, dude. I’m really not interested in your fetishes. What you do with your tiger is your business, but leave my goddamn amoeba out of your perversions!

Sorta. I wiped my ass w/it.

No problem. Got anything we haven’t heard of before? Or will we be rehashing Bushit? No matter. Bring it on!

Fair warning though: my Halloween flightsuit’s freshly pressed and you’re in for a world of pain.

309

But it WAS called for, Scylla. The Pubbies have repeatedly tried to cloak the blowjob impeachment in an aura of respectability by asserting that it was about perjury. They wish to bamboozle people into thinking that it was a calm and rational thing, to deny all the sexual hysteria they tried to whip up to fuel it. Whenever a Pubbie tries that tack, I feel COMPLETELY justified in rubbing their fucking nose in it. The general distaste that the whole affair created in the American public wasn’t just because of Bill Clinton did – a lot of it, I daresay MOST of it was because of the Pubbies, completely abandoning their usual public disdain about things sexual, went into a slavering orgy of drooling and jabbering publicly over the Clinton blowjob.

I am not about to let any mealy-mouthed Pubbie apologist frame the debate in terms of “perjury” and such. That’s just bullshit. If I allow them to get away with that in the name of “civility” or whatever the current rhetorical device is, I’m failing to hold them to account for the disgusting display they put on during the blowjob impeachment. Ain’t gonna happen, Scylla, and it’s COMPLETELY FAIR and REASONABLE that it ain’t gonna happen. The Pubbies staged the blowjob impeachment, and it’s fair to call them on it.

310

I believe you’re wrong about both the rationale for the impeachment and your attack on Hamlet.

Unlike you, I am capable of framing my disagreement without resorting to insults. My argument is strong enough that it does not need to be propped up by rhetorical misdirection.

You can disagree with Hamlet without calling him names, a liar, or generally insulting him. You’re argument would be stronger if you did. Or, it would be if you actually had an argument. In fact, you do not. You simply have an assertion that you repeat.

Let us deconstruct the original post I refer to, and I will show you.:

Let’s take away the insults and accusations and see what we have left

That’s it. You repeat the same assertion you made previously, and you do so three times. You have made no new contribution to the thread. You have made no new argument. Instead of addressing Hamlet’s argument you have instead simply repeated yourself and insulted him personally.

I don’t know whether this is justified or not. I’m not interested in whether or not you are correct in your assertion. I do know however, that this tact you have chosen which is to ignore the substance of the rebuttal, repeat your simple assertion, and insult the rebuttee is neither intelligent nor reasonable. It is a show of bad faith.

I beleive it is conclusive proof of both cowardice and stupidity. It is cowardly because you are casting insults where you cannot back them up or face their consequences. It is cowardly because it demonstrates an unwillingness to actually face the substance of the rebuttal. It is stupid because it is irrational, as it does not address or overcome the rebuttal. You have chosen to present insults instead of an argument. On a message board, that’s just plain stupid.

If you don’t have an argument, why are you posting? If you can’t back up your insults to Hamlet, why do you make them? Do you really think you are going to convince him, or anybody else simply by insulting him and repeating yourself? Truly, do you really think that?

Now please understand that I’m not saying you are a stupid person or a cowardly one. I am saying that you are displaying stupidity and cowardice by doing what you are doing.

Further, I beleive that you automatically refute yourself and prove yourself wrong by doing what you have done.

If you could have easily and logically refuted Hamlet, why did you choose to simply repeat assertions and insult him instead?

Proving him false logically is the better solution. If you are intelligent and rationale, you will do so at those times when it is an option. You will clear his misconception, and the truth of your words will be plain and irrefutable. He will be unable to refute them and he will have two choices. Either he can concede your logic or he can choose the cowardly and stupid path of simply insulting you and repeating his earlier assertions.

Since you are the one who has repeated himself and chosen the insults this demonstrates pretty clear that you are the loser of the exchange. Your logic has failed and you have abandoned it for repetition and insults.

So, you lost.

311

Scylla:

And he will almost invariably follow the latter path. Yet there is a limit to the amount of repetition and insulting even the most level-headed poster can bear. And one comes to a point where one realizes that logic and evidence are utterly futile. This is my dilemma: some people will simply not be convinced, no matter what.

The Clinton impeachment/blowjob controversy is really not a very good example of the problem, since I doubt one can prove, by logic, that either of the two interpretations is superior to the other. To me, the real issue is quite obvious: Clinton’s political enemies would stop at virtually nothing to destroy him. Since they couldn’t beat him in the sphere of public politics, they chose to attack him personally. In other words, the Republicans did to Clinton precisely what you accuse Evil Captor of doing to Hamlet. But I can no more prove this assertion by logic than I can prove with logic that the color ”green” is actually green. For that reason I try to stay away from those sorts of discussions, and approach them with extreme caution.

Anyway, I’ve tried using logic and evidence. In my experience it seldom, maybe never, works. The most lucid, logical, evidence-based arguments imaginable never convinced Bush supporters, prior to the war, that their alleged evidence of ”WMDs” was just so much hot air. It took months, in the face of the most incontrovertible evidence imaginable, before the faithful began to waver. And still, the idea that Bush lied to them – plain as the nose on my face, I tell you – oh no, he would never lie. Only America-hating commie leftists would make that claim.

I’ve won perhaps a grudging respect from people who don’t share my views, but I’ll be damned if I’ve seen a single person change their mind after reading my arguments. I certainly have never seen anyone on the right concede that ”the truth of Mr. Svinlesha’s words are plain and irrefutable.” In fact, most of them think I’m full of shit. And we have no system of adjudication here, just the cacophony of thousands of individual opinions.

Every single argument promoted by Shodan prior to this invasion has proven false. He still believes ”getting rid of Saddam” was a ”good thing” – as if that, alone, is sufficient justification for an invasion – and continues his blind quacking.

No – in these discussions, logic is clearly an exercise in futility.

312

You’re wrong, Big Svin. Just because no one tells you you’re having an effect, doesn’t mean you aren’t having one. Look at the numbers of people who read a thread as compared to those who participate. Many observers find thier views better expressed by others, and leave it at that. Many others enter a thread to hear and compare, to listen and decide. On any number of occassions, I’ve assembled a blistering retort to nonsense, and while absorbed in the process of refinement, return to find you’ve already said it, and better. So I shrug and forget it, its been done. I don’t even resent it. Very much. Hardly at all, really.

You change minds. It is a worthy endeavor. You can’t win them all, and that’s as it should be, there is no opinion so absurd that somebody won’t defend it to his last breath. Don’t worry about it.

And keep in mind what Gandhi said, to paraphrase: it may very well be that your efforts are entirely futile. That has no bearing on your reponsibility to expend those efforts.

Besides, if we weren’t winning, they wouldn’t be so pissed off. The Dakota (Sioux) have a saying: if you throw a rock at a pack of dogs in the dark, only the one that is hit barks.

313

I agree with this.

However, it proves the point that the impeachment was NOT “about the blowjob.” If the investigation that Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky had snuck off together to violate federal laws concerning taxation of 501©(7) organizations, then they would have proceeded against him on that basis with all the fervor they could muster.

Mr. Clinton handed his enemies rope when he chose to lie under oath – that gave them a target they could use. But they didn’t impeach him for the blowjob - they impeached him forlying under oath. If they could have attacked him with something else, they would have. It wasn’t “about the blowjob.” it was about “get Clinton.”

314

Like our friend, Evil Captor. Rather than put up a convincing argument, hell, any argument, he resorted to calling me a lying Republican slimeball. I had argued with him over this issue three years ago, and I had forgotten that it does no good to try and make a point with him, he is simply incapable of rationale debate on that issue. Even after I had enough and left that thread, he still has the audicity to come into this thread and, once again rather than making a point, spewing more crap about how I’m a Pubbie apologist. There’s not much you can do with that except ignore it.

Sure it is. It is factually incorrect that the impeachment was about the blowjob. Republicans, as twisted as they are, are not so horribly offended by the act of oral sex, that they use that one act to try and bring down a president. They impeached him because they hated him and because he lied under oath.

When you, Bricker, and I can all agree on a point, I think it’s a safe bet that that point is accurate. As I said in the thread, the Republicans were gunning for Clinton, but he gave them the ammo. The impeachment was certainly politically motivated, of that I think we can all agree.

But you are ignoring the vast majority of the people involved in the thread… the readers. A majority of the time, with the likes of Aldebaran, Razorsharp, and, now Evil Captor, it is indeed fruitless to debate with them. It is a exercise in futility to try and change their mind. But there are many more people reading the thread, who may be more openminded and logical, who may actually critically think about what you say. For example, long before I ever conversed with you, I had read some things you wrote in a different thread, in which you were beating your head against the wall with someone. Even though you did not convince that person, you did make logical, cohesive arguments that gave me a ton of information that I had not possessed before reading the thread. Just remember that there are more people reading, more lurkers, who may need enlightenment. Those unspoken readers are much more important than the idiot you’re wasting your time with in the thread.

315

Has anyone ever answered any of the three questions?

  1. Why did we send warlords and their largely Al Qaeda friendly men to get Bin Laden, letting him simply walk to safety? Why was it considered more important to rush into Iraq than to get Bin Laden?

  2. Why did Bush support, trust, and lavishly finance Chalabi to be the next leader of Iraq, allow Chalabi to steal classified information for Iran, and accept Chalabi’s own blatantly disinformation about WMD? (Actually this one I know: Chalabi told Bush what he wanted to hear, so all the bad things about Chalabi, of which the CIA knew plenty, were ignored). I would laugh about Bush later saying “Chalabi who?” (you know, the Chalabi who weeks ago you bragged about speaking with about the future of Iraq), if it wasn’t so terrible. Maybe the real question is why the public never really heard about all this?

  3. Forget the question of whether Iraq had WMD. My question is: if we thought they had WMD, then why wasn’t it an enormous catastrophe when we allowed the suspected WMD sites to be looted before we even got to them?
    I was asking these questions before the election, and I am still asking them now. Either I’ve missed the answers, or something worse is going on and Bush supporters have no credible argument that they are being misunderstood. You can’t be misunderstood when you refuse to even take a position or reveal your reasons.

Say what you will about democrats, and there are many things I disagree with them on, but I don’t think there are issues that they just absolutely refuse to discuss because they know they are wrong.

316

I simply need to get in here to say that the word is rational, not rationale.
That is all. Carry on.

317

This doesn’t accurately characterise the situation. As Bricker would have it Clinton freely and of his own volition elected to lie under oath, thereby arming his opponents. That is not so.

Bricker is right insofar as “it was about get Clinton.” However, persecution was underway when the testimony occurred. The events between Clinton and Lewinsky were and indeed are, of no legitimate public interest. Instead the investigation of those events was for the sole purpose of embarrassing the President and provoking him into a statement lacking absolute candour. Prejudicial, not probative, or as an earlier post has termed it, the “perjury trap.”

In brief. the mission was to cause the President to lie about the blowjob.

There were no grounds for impeachment, until the decision to impeach occurred. The blowjob was the means of manufacturing those grounds.

318

I’m sure somebody has. You ask more than three. I’ll answer as best I can.

I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to, and in order to answer precisely, I need to know precisely.

I don’t know that it was. This is one of those “when did you stop beating your wife?” type questions. The premise that founds it is shaky. Is it more important? According to who? Why is it a one or the other choice? Your premise will have to be established before the question can be answered. You may wish to rephrase.

Ummmm. ok. Chalabi has been in the news. The public has been hearing about this, so I guess the premise here is also flawed.

Hmmmmmm. This is a good question, though poorly phrased. First off is the the fact that the looting of any sites that did not contain WMD is of no concern as far as WMDs are concerned. By definition. In other words, the looting of sites that did not contain WMDs is obviously not a catastrophe.

The real question is “How could we allow sites to be looted before they knew whether or not they contained WMDs? Isn’t that iresponsible, contradictory to the entire point of the exercise and potentially catastrophic?”

Again, their is a premise here that must be accepted in order for the question to be answered. That premise is whether sites were looted before being inspected and whether catastrophe was irresponsibly risked. That’s a pretty big given.

So, it occurs to me that you are not so much asking questions as making arguments and trying to get an opponent to accept them because they are phrased in the form of premises to questions.

Before you can ask an intelligent question, your premises need to be as simple as possible, the question needs to be as clear as possible, and the premises need to be be demonstrable. You have not phrased your questions in this fashion, so it’s difficult to give you a good answer.

Ok. I think you need to back up a step, and be sure of the premises of your questions, and possibly restate them. There’s a GIGO thing working with these questions of yours, and they need to be tightened up and specified before they can be addressed.

319

I have given this problem considerable thought, as it is a common one. I have felt the same way. Though we are often on opposite sides, it is nice to see we have this common reasonable ground.

There are a couple of possibilities here. Let me start with an unpleasant one:

  1. There is the possibility here that you are wrong in whatever assertion you are making that you feel so confident about. There is the possibility that it is both obvious and demonstrable to the person that you are arguing with that this is the case. What you feel is obstinance and unreasonableness and unwillingness to accept impartial truth in your opponent… may in fact be your mistake. You may be completely wrong and your opponent may be right. He may be able to prove it. He may be unwilling to change because he can prove it. In your frustration you may not be extending him the courtesy of the opportunity to do so.

I would submit to you that if you do not at least consider this to be a possibility, no matter how remote it may be, than you have failed your own test of reasonableness. You are faulting another’s unwillingness to change but are not open to change yourself.

By simply characterizing the other party as both wrong and inflexible you risk being both those things yourself. You need to always have it as a niggling thought in the back of your mind that you might be wrong, and you have to examine the other person’s statements in the context of that possibility otherwise you have become exactly what you are complaining about.

  1. You are right, but what is obvious to you is not obvious to somebody else. You are not explaining youself as well as your arguments need to be explained.

  2. The other person is intractable and impervious to reason.
    I suggest to you that with all these possibilities you owe it to yourself, your arguments, your readers and your opponents to be more reasonable, open and courteous than the opponent you are facing.

As long as you are these things, you are holding the high ground. If it turns out that you are wrong, it is easy for you to concede graciously from the high ground. You have, after all, been reasonable and gracious and open. Who could hold this against you.

If it turns out that you are right, than your arguments do not benefit from slander, rhetoric or insults. There is no rational reason to do it.

Some rational insults may in fact be insulting. I have put forth the proposition that Evil Captor’s arguments are both stupid and cowardly. I have however backed it up rationally and unsensationally. My reasoning is available for commentary and refutation. There are no naked assertions.

I would disagree. I think there is a rational and demonstrable best interpretation. I am not against blowjobs. Most people are not against blowjobs. The argument that the Republicans are out to get Clinton because of the blowjob has has the necessity of the underlying premise that Republicans are against blowjobs.

That premise is necessary to the argument as stated. I suggest to you that this is a premise that is dismissable because no argument, or rationale has been presented to support it. It is not demonstrable, proven, or even generally accepted. Therefore an argument founded on this premise, as Evil Captor’s is, is a bad one.

Here’s a tough one for you, Svin. Is it possible that you might have been wrong? Did you know what you argued for a fact? Were you sure and could you prove that Iraq did not have WMD and that a proposal to the contrary was fallacious?

If I saw that argument before the war demonstrated in such a fashion, it slipped by me. I missed it.

Nonsense. We have both given ground and redefined our stances in our debates against each other. Many times, but not always, we hit a point where we both become inflexible. You’ll recall our “area of the Mekong River” discussion. There was much retrenching of positions and give and take there. What boiled down to an impasse there was the vagueness of the statement the “area of the Mekong River.” We agreed on all the specifics of who was where when, you’ll recall. The problem was that the premise we were debating was not as finely tuned and precise as our arguments. I think that’s a winning situation when something is debated beyond the scope of it’s original premise.

That is a large and bold statement. Every single one of his arguments was “proven” wrong? Are you sure of this? Do you wish to stand behind this?
I will bet you a case of beer that I can find one argument that wasn’t proven false.
I will suggest to you that if you beleive you’ve proven everthing he said false, that it is you who are being unreasonable, not Shodan.

I believe getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. I believe the invasion was justified. I don’t think that those who disagree with me are blind.

Sometimes.

Xenophon tries to tell me that Sherman did not practice total war, and conceded nothing when I cited how he coined the phrase and referred to it by name as a tactic he employed.

Minty Green thinks George Soros isn’t a Democrat.
Welcome to the internet.

320

Sooth’d with the sound, the king grew vain; Fought all his battles o’er again;
And thrice he routed all his foes; and thrice he slew the slain.

  • Dryden