Strawman it is, then.
Waaaaaaaaaah
Wow.
Having finally heard your position stated so eloquently, I can no longer deny the truth of your assertion. I yield before the intellect that can manage to type baby noises.
Your mighty “Waaaaaaaaaah” has blown my argument into quarks. With one word – nay, one syllable, one sound – you have managed to crush all my reasoning.
Even the truth itself could not defeat baby noises typed with so many a’s.
Perhaps worst of all, you didn’t even feel the need to end your mocking baby noises with an exclamation point. In fact, there was no punctuation at all. It’s as though the baby noises were delivered in a pitch-perfect deadpan. My very soul withers before such cleverness.
My humiliation is complete. There is nothing left for me to do but leave the SDMB. I will now walk into the internet desert, where I will wander forever. Like in Kung Fu, only the violence has been done on the inside. And my wounds will never heal.
“Zagadka!”
Yep, it is almost as powerful as, “straw man!”
Lets go back to this, since we got so far on the other hand.
You come into a thread about saying that the explosion today is proof of WMD production as stated by the Bush Administration, and say that bringing up those statements is a strawman and declare victory?
Seriously?
Actually, a “strawman” argument has a distinct meaning. And you’ve provided a perfect example of it.
But hey, I’m sure it was much easier for you to type in baby noises than it would have been to educate yourself.
(1) Some of us…particularly those in groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch…actually knew Saddam was a bad boy bent on evil back in the days when good ol’ Rummy was cosying up to him! It didn’t really seem to make a big impression on the neocons back then though.
(2) This war was sold to us on the premise that Saddam had sophisticated WMD programs and large stockpiles of such weapons and that these weapons posed a significant threat to the U.S. Some of us on these boards back before the war, admitting that we were just guessing, thought the truth might lie roughly halfway in between the claims of our President and the claims of a ruthless, cruel dictator…i.e., he has some WMDs but not as much as the President says and they don’t really pose a significant threat to us. Unless things change considerably, it appears that the only way in which we were incorrect was in this “roughly halfway” notion…We’d have hit much closer to the truth if we had just believed the word of the ruthless dictator over our President.
Clearly it is not harmless. (I believe a couple members of the bomb squad were injured when this one went off.)
However, as used, it had less ability to inflict harm than the standard mortar rounds that keep dropping in on people in Iraq (or used to drop in on the folks in Bosnia or Kosovo). If every artillery round is a weapon of mass destruction, then the term has lost its meaning.
President Bush warned that Hussein was going to arm himself with WoMDs and threaten the U.S. The idea that Hussein was going to load up a boat full of howitzers and rain sarin down on New York or Savannah is ludicrous. (Even Riyadh was respectably safe from this sort of weapon.)
I suppose that if we choose to claim that every chemical weapon is clearly a WoMD, then we had better start disarming all our police forces who have stockpiles of CS sitting around for riot control.
A reasonable and meaningful definition of a WoMD would be one that can harm very large numbers of people (probably with the further stipulation that it should be able to be delivered from a distance (either through long-range systems or stealth). The 155 mm rounds do not fit either category, having a limited ability to inflict casualties and requiring a close and difficult-to-hide artillery arrangement to deliver. Even used at their most effective, this sort of artillery round requires that all the targets be herded together and held in place while the weapon is used–hardly an effective weapon. (In the only serious sarin attacks in history, it was released on two occasions in the closed confines of the Matsumoto and Tokyo subway systems and was able to kill a grand total of 19 people.)
First of all, nobody said that “that the explosion today is proof of WMD production as stated by the Bush Administration.” That’s a strawman.
Second, I haven’t declared victory. I’ve just pointed out that you’re not actually responding to anyone’s arguments, other than the ones that you yourself have made up.
Third, I’ve also made a few other points, but I’m sure you can’t be bothered to actually read and respond to what I’ve posted.
We all know what a strawman is. But, usually the idea is that a “strawman” is brought up by the same person who then proceeds to demolish it. To use it as a term for what Milum brought up and we have proceeded to demolish is to misuse the term, unless you think Milum is being facetious.
Still waiting for you to reply on any issues. I mean, by all means, waylay me with your proof that this is evidence of a program of creating WMD on a large scale since the last Gulf War. I’m waiting. No, go ahead. Please, I insist. The floor is all yours. (well, actually, Millie’s, but he doesn’t seem to ever actually read anythign anyone else writes)
No, apparently Zagadka has no idea what one is. Or do you also think it’s on par with responding with baby noises?
I haven’t accused everyone of constructing strawmen. Just Zagadka. For example, this latest one:
Zagadka, if you can show me where I said anything that would lead you to the conclusion that I believe this one shell is part of “a program of creating WMD on a large scale since the last Gulf War,” then I will eat my shoe.
I do think Milum was being facetious (notice the smiley), but only a little. And I do think Milum was constructing a strawman of his/her own (as if anyone ever said that Saddam wasn’t a bad guy). But I think everyone (including Milum) knew that it wasn’t supposed to be an accurate representation of the other side’s argument, and was just put out there to get the ball rolling. He set it up so that others could respond to it.
So, in essence, I agree with you on this point. But I think if you read a few of Zagadka’s posts, you’ll see the strawmen to which I’m referring.
You know, I think there is a technical term for this, if I could just recall what it was.
Ask Milum. Maybe he knows.
“Floating the point”?
I never said you said anything about it. I said that is what this thread is about.
Since I seem to be so misinformed, mayhap you would like to clarify exactly what the point of Millie’s post was, then, if not that this is proof of Saddam’s recent production of WMD?
By the way, thanks for the clarification, tomndebb. I hadn’t thought about the way that the chemicals were delivered, and how it adversely affected their impact. Very interesting stuff.
But in all honesty, I wasn’t as reassured when I read this, from Encarta online (emphasis added):
I’d imagine that the fact that these gasses sink is one of the things that made a subway attack so effective. But if the terrorists knew what they were doing in detonating (and perhaps constructing?) a chemical weapon, then I worry that that may bode ill for our troops.
This shell actually fits in with what we’ve found so far. A few relics from the Iran-Iraq War, but nothing that suggests any recent manufacturing.
Remember, Bush sold this war on the claim that Iraq was actively producing these weapons, and had tens of thousands of tons of the stuff ready to go.
Sorry, but one rusty old shell does not constitute an arsenal. Until more of these things start turning up, I’m going to assume that some insurgent found it in his attic and donated it to the cause.
Woah.
If Saddam had ever strapped that fellah onto the front of a cruise missile he could have wiped out the whole population of Buttfuck, Idaho … if it landed on his house.
From Information Clearing House daily newsletter:
1 YEAR - 38 DAYS … AND STILL NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ.