A perponderance of evidence.
Ignorance is not always a choice, but it is your right.
Yep, judges can be as stupid as anyone else. Kinda like the 9th Circuit ruling the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
Or do you only believe judges when they are rabidly ruling leftie positions that you agree with?
:dubious:
naive
ignorant
non sequitur
stupid
[Moderator Hat: ON]
telesis2001 said:
While that is a stunning display of debating technique, it is also a violation of Great Debates rules. Specifically, calling somebody ignorant and stupid.
Now maybe you were trying to counter some of their claims. Maybe you didn’t mean those as direct attacks at the Daisy Cutter. But you didn’t actually put them in context so we can only go with what it looks like.
You haven’t been here very long. If you want to stick around, you’d better learn that this is not the way to debate – and fast.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Let me be blunt about my position.
I don’t care if Iraq really didn’t have any connection to 9/11, I still totally supported the invasion for two very politically incorrect but completely practical and realistic reasons.
To demonstrate to the world:
[ul][li]What the US means by a ‘global’ war on terrorism[/li][li]That the US military, w/o France, Germany, Russia or the UN, is completely & utterly invincible[/ul]Is doing such a thing rather extreme? Yes.[/li]
In light of 9/11, too extreme? Not by a long shot.
I take it that you also don’t care what a crashing bore the cliches “politically incorrect” and “politically correct” have become.
And in my totaly ignorant and uninformed opinion, the ideas you express are a big part of the reason for the fall in the US standing. But I suppose you don’t care about that either.
Is there anything you do care about other than “shoot 'em all” and knee-jerk support for the Flight Suit In Chief?
So how’s that working out for you so far, Hail?
“but completely practical and realistic reasons.”
Nonsense. It was already known that the US military was capable of winning conventinal wars easily from the experience in Gulf War 1, Kosovo and Afghanistan. If the war has shown anything it’s the weakness of the US in handling guerilla warfare and its incompetence in nation-building.
The war hasn't increased the prestige and influence of the US. Iran and North Korea are still continuing to build nuclear weapons. The Palestinian militants are still setting off bombs. Even Syria hasn't been cowed down in any appreciable manner.
And in the wider international community the US is even more isolated today than before the war and the failure to find WMD has badly damaged US credibility.
I will not retract the analysis but I will abide by the rules (if I can find them).
Question: (seriously)
If I had stated:
This statement is naive.
…
This statement is ignorant
…
This statement is non sequitur
…
This statement is stupid
…would that have fallen within the accepted rules of debate?
Great, you support invading a country which had done nothing to the USA just to show that the USA has the force to do it. Wonderful. People who think like you are the no better than the extremists on the other side who support the terrorists. Well, the terrorists killed a bunch of Americans and showed they could do it. And they are killing more in Iraq daily.
And yes, the USA invaded Iraq without much outside help but they are already begging for money and troops from other countries. As the other countries do not seem very interested in running in to help it is going to be interesting to see how things develop for the USA. The cost of maintaining the occupation is going to be pretty high and the economy has taken a hit. I doubt most Americans will vote to continue to support an arrogant display of force if it means the economy is going south.
The position of the USA is much weaker today than it was before invading Iraq. The chances that it would get any support from any country, including the UK, for any further invasions is close to zero. The chances that the Congress would support further adventures is close to zero. And militarily the USA has its hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan. The thought that it could embark on a similar invasion on its own is silly. It cannot even afford to rebuild Iraq.
Since the Bush apologists persist in sticking their heads in the sand here, can I ask one of y’all to tell me what benefits the United States has gained in waging war with Iraq?
I mean, from where I’m sitting, we’ve got most of the world pissed off at us, US troops are dying on a daily basis, American credibility is now flimsier than a balsa-wood skyscraper, the cost for this fiasco is going to be felt for decades, there’s no sign that anti-American terrorism activity is actually declining, and Osama and Saddam are out there laughing their asses off. What benefits have the US reaped, other than the (dubious) option of pumping our fists in the air and saying “Woot! We be bad!” 
Cannot answer. That was certifiably the stupidest move of all time. US credibility, on the bright side, has nowhere to go but up.
As I said, yes this is something of an extremist view.
The big difference between us and the terrorists in terms of ‘the ends justify the means’ is that for us ‘the ends’ is stopping 9/11-style terrorism. For them its creating an ‘Islamic Earth’.
Morally and ethically they are a tad bit different goals.
What did you people think that a post 9/11, global war on terrorism was going to include? Why is it such a shock to find that its going to include nothing less than creating a democratic (as well as American) presence in the heart of the arab world. And initially the only way to do this is thru military force.
After WWII we were in Japan for some 5 years. We’ve been in Iraq, what, 6 months? We’ve lost a few dozen soldiers, out of a force of +100,000. Occupying a country of some 6 million people.
Are any of you aware of the progress that’s been made in northern Iraq, i.e. pseudo-Kurdistan, since the first Gulf War? That region has had unparalleled success, economically and politically, since coming under the sphere of influence of the west. They have an elected prime minister, several political parties, a thriving & growing market economy, and relative peace.
And all without a permanent army of occupation, just from protection by the (evil, imperialist, infidel) United States.
Let me turn on the translator and lets see what he really meant to say:
"Darn why dont they beleive that Iraq planned the 9/11, the US is morally superior and can do whatever they want.
We demonstrated to the world that We are in Charge and that as Super Bully we dont need a Gang to support us.
You dont like it ? F*** you. "
- Translation Complete.
My answer is next time your boss screws you over… shut up. He has more power than you. Accept it. Next time someone rich does something illegal and gets away with it. Shut up they can afford to get away with it. Never again complain about people using money to get things their way. Ok ? Same atitude.
Super bully?! By riding the Iraqi people of a dictator worse than Hitler & Stalin and commiting billions of dollars of aid to rebuilding their country.
Yes, we are such a bully…
Haha! I think this cheese needs to mature a bit.
*Originally posted by Hail Ants *
Oh, I don’t know…how about finishing the job we started in Afghanistan? How about finishing the job of getting rid of Osama Bin-Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda?
Not a shock - there are many people who favor creating a democratic presence in the heart of the Arab world (Check out the articles by Zakaria in the link provided by Eva Luna - most people consider Zakaria to be a moderate politically). Hell, I want to see the transformation of the region into stable, proseperous, democracies.
What’s shocking to so many people is the manner in which the current US administration has gone about in attempting this scenario.
Which is one option - but ask me this, might it not have more prudent for the US administration to garner more support from the international community in going to war with Iraq? You know, to help justify this action in the broadest possible context? So that not only do we continue in our quest to fight terrorism (which we will need the support of other countries to combat), but that we can bring about the desired result of stable, democracies in the region (which would be seen as legitimate in the broadest - i.e. international - context)?
Uh - Iraq has closer to 25 million people (source: CIA World FActbook). Besides, how long do you think it will be necessary for the US to occupy Iraq? 1 year? 2 years? 3? 5? 10? And at what cost?
So, pray tell - how will this pseudo-Kurdistan be reintegrated/reconstituted into a new, democratic Iraq? How do you bring about creating the necessary institutions that will allow democracy to flourish, never mind that Iraq NEVER has had a history of democracy. Never mind that the Kurds will need to get along with the Shi’a and Sunni populations. Never mind that political allegiances are still largely family and clan based.
How do you propose you bring this about?
Hell, if you want to take an extremist position, why not go all the way: “nuke 'em all” and let God sort out the terrorists from the rest :rolleyes:
If we fail, that may eventually happen.
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what our response will be if a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our cities?
Hardly. You proclaimed reading and understanding the reasoning of others to be a waste of time. That’s willfull ignorance and I called you on it. Now you trot out a claim to have sought out information on this issue. That seems contradictory to me but fine, I will assume you are telling the truth and aren’t ignorant. I will believe that you are familiar with the arguments against your position but choose not to argue against them for some reason. I don’t see how you have anything to judge my debating skills on since you aren’t debating anything. The forum for offering your unsupported opinion is IMHO. It’s thataway —> Have fun.
Thanks for the heads up flonks but I had already read his correction and subsequently identified his gender correctly. I am not familiar with a daisy cutter. I presume that refers to that ordinance the military has quaintly named so its anagram is MOAB. Now if he had called himself “Bouncing Betty” I would have known he was talking about a weapon.
A “Daisy Cutter” is a conventional bomb equiped with an extended detonator, so it actually explodes above the ground instead of after burying itself; it doesn´t create a large crater, but puts a whole lot of shrapnel in motion wich mows down whatever happens to be around; that´s why the name.
A hijack… but in the name of fighting ignorance and all that. 