Davin wrote:
The pro-bush pro-WMD 'movement' is entirely religious in nature, is becoming a more irrational and indefensible position by the day, and is akin to anomalist thinking.

To which Dan responded:
How is knowledge from pre-Iraq battle indefensible? ...Or are you going by just what is known today? Hindsight is 20/20 (you probably hear that a lot), but what was needed at the time of the attack was decisive action, not half-steppin' half-moves. The decision was made, and made with the blessing of the US populace. WMD was a very real threat from a nation that refused to discloose facts.

To which Davin replies:
Dan: The indefensibility in question- and this comes fromn pulling the post away from its thread, so my fault- is that
1) the positions that Bush was entirely right in the build up to GWII
2) and that WMD DO exist, and that we just have to wait for them to show up

Dan wrote:
Can't really help the idiocy of Iraqy leadership of the time.

Is your argument we are entitled and justified to go to full scale war against anyone who has stupid leadership? The non-stupid peasants being oppressed will probably object to this arrogation, and I doubt you can find a single ethicist (left or right of Ghengis Khan) that will agree with that statement.

Dan wrote:
And, yes, I do stillo see Iraq/al-Qai'da ties. You do not, and that's fine (Bowserworld revisited).

Okay, since you bring up Bowser, Dan- Please notice (and this is a public challenge) REFUTE MY SOURCES OR PRESENT CONVINCING EVIDENCE YOU ARE CORRECT. You know the posts I am talking about- the ones where I debunk the AAI, MKO, Salman Pax and kurdish claims. Last time I issued this challenge you did nothing, and you will STILL do nothing because you HAVE nothing... Nothing but faith and the as-yet unsubnstantiated set of claims made prior to the Gulf War.

Davin wrote:
We can already tell that the claims of certain knowledge of WMD and their location (ala Rumsfeld, for example) were wrong. Entirely and categorically... Pure and simple: WRONG.

To which dan replied:
And just how does the (aleged) knowledge of today make the strike on Iraq wrong? Work it from then, not now. Of course you were likely guessing the same then as you are now, buit that still don't change the envisioned threat.

To which davin responds:
The strike, or rather the drive to strike was wrong because, Dan:
1) We claimed absolute surity when it is entirely obvious that we had none
2) The administration, possessed of the putative greatest intelligence gathering organs on earth, allowed itself to say things (Salman Pax, AAI-Saddam connection etc) that were patently and blatantly false- so false in fact that they had to be entirely incompetent or dishonest to claim it as fact (which they did), especially in the face of the resources available (NSA, NRO, CIA NSA etc). As stated, many claims (AAI anbd MKO for example) were falsifiable by anyone with a working knowledge of the area, its ethnic groups and a search engine.

My response to the second part of your paragraph:
dan wrote:
"Of course you were likely guessing the same then as you are now, buit that still don't change the envisioned threat"

First off, and this is absurd, is that you seem to claim that we have a right, and the moral permission, to strike-first against threats that are entirely fantasy. I say we have the MORAL OBLIGATION to perform due dilligence and NOT go to war without sure, total and convincing evidence.

But lets leave this aside as its the sort of argument that gets thrown out diring the first semester of a doomed law school career...

Davin wrote:
we knew not only THAT they existed, but WHERE they were, why can't we exhibit any proof?

Dan replied:
because they were moved. Pure logic. They were there -- now they are not. Deal with it.

Davin responds:
Okay- same logic: because the yeti drank them. Pure logic. They were there -- now they are not. Deal with it.

Dan, if you don't see the fundamental likeness of the two arguments, then you are an anomalist. If you do, then you are just being stubborn and don't want to grant the point.

But even if you dont, lets play kick the baby: Where is your proof, supporting evidence, deductive inference? Anything? At all? Thats what I thought. Many of these arguments with you end up right *here*.

Lets go take the UFO for a spin.

Davin wrote:
Ultimately, faith has to give way to reason. Ultimately, if any of us here wish to claim to be rational and thinking men who evaluate their politics like they evaluate any other idea, then we MUST acknowledge that in the least this administration was incorrect in its claims concerning WMD and terrorists.

to which dan replied:
Possible. [1]Still no proof the material did not exist prior to the attack. Still no proof Iraq/al-Qai'da ties did not exist.

[2]We call that up in the air. I like to think the Middle East is wracked with villains (been there, saw them), and that it is not outside the ability of the previous Iraqi government to hide their crimes.


Davins reply to [1]: Funny how that works Dan- it is impossible, really and truely impossible, to prove the non existence of anything. Check in any textbook on reasoning with logic or science and you will find this.

Let me say this: prove the Yeti didn't Eat all the terrorists and drink the WMD! You CAN'T can you! HA! Then the WMD existed and the Yeti drank them!

Davins reply to [2]: No, we call that anomalist thinking by definition- the failure to prove a negative indicates proof fopr the negation of the negative (or rather, the positive case).

Dan wrote:
reed, but then waiting for the facts is really difficult for some folks here. Right?"

Just a thought Dan. If even you admit we are 'waiting for the facts' AFTER WE WAGED A DAMN WAR ON THE BASIS OF THESE ISSUES, then wht do you have to say to the 3,500 dead Iraqi Civilians, the 5-10,000 dead Irtaqi troops, the 200+ dead americans, their families, their friends.

Are you even capable of groking this very profoundly important point? At all?

Davin wrote:
The credibility of our government in the moral theatre

Dan replied

Yeah. Terrorists and the nations that support them really hate us.


Davin responds:

This all you got, Dan? Sophomoric quips and school-yard comebacks? Thats what I thought. You know what I mean Dan, and its more than what you replied to. Do you have anything? Anything at all?

Davin Wrote:
The fact that, before the conflict, many claims made about Iraq by the bush administration were patently false and disprovable to any interested party with a search engine. Including, but not limited to:

dan replied:
I see you’re still operating under the assumption that all military intel is released via the net to the general public.

Davin responds:
I see, the absence of proof for proposition X, in the face of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that proposition X is FALSE, SIMPLY MEANS that there is secret evidence for proposition X being kept hush-hush by some evil or good conspiracy.

Where did I hear this last? The X files? Walking With Yetis again Dan?

At this point, what is the point? I am sure you will have some marvelously snappy comebacks, and the more I write and debunk the more I will be gifted with them. But really- whats the point?

Davin