Originally posted by joshpoints Savant your false logic is faulty. First off, 3k suits is a lot.
First, my logic isn't false.. and my point about people using 'false logic' isn't faulty either. The biggest problem is people don't fully understand what logic is, or what 'causal' means.. There is a difference between something being correlated (go the same or opposite ways) and being causal.. A perfect analogy is, "ice cream sales go up. the rate of violence goes up. Does that mean the increase in ice cream sales causes more violence, or if people are being more violent that they buy more ice cream? no.. the 'cause' of both of these is 'increase in temperature'.. increase in ice cream sales and increase in violence are directly correlated (move the same direction) but one is not causal to the other.. " Does that make sense? The 'false logic' would be saying that since they both go up together, one must cause the other.. which is not the case..In that context, just because there are 3k suits does NOT 'mean' he has and plans on using chem weapons.. is it an 'indicator' that he might? sure.. but isn't causal or proof.. See what I was getting at?
My point with the liberals that are against the war, seem to fail to realize that Sadam uses civilians as shields, maybe if they were the shields they'd wake up and realize he's killing innocent people.
Here is an example of false logic.. Yes, he uses civilians as shields.. but, if we weren't at war, he would not NEED shields.. that has nothing to do with the war being 'justified', it has to do with what kind of a person Saddam is.. and I'm pretty posative that NO ONE in this country thinks he's neat-o or nifty or a cool guy, see what I mean? If we were not at war, his killing POWs would not be an issue, using surrender flags as traps would not be an issue, etc etc.. these are things that happen AFTER the war stated, and therefore can NOT be used to 'justify' it.. I hope that makes sense..
And don't try and say that he wouldn't be using them as shields if we weren't there. He was killing his people before we even arrived this time.
but he was NOT using them as 'shields'.. he was being a nasty evil vile creature.. WE ALL AGREE TO THAT.. it's been stated SOOOOOOO many times.. I really am getting tired of saying that.. WE ALL HATE HIM, that's not the issue..
And saying that it's Bush's fault that troops were attacked from the rear is a faulty statement.
Actually, you are correct.. it's Rumsfeld's fault. He wouldn't aurthorize the troops the BATTLE FIELD GENERALS REQUESTED.. It has nothing to do with training, it has to do with being prepared and knowing how things might go. We went into this way too arrogant, that's part of my problem with all this..
Sometimes having less soldiers to snoop around can be better, you're harder to spot.
Not in this case, we are trying to take over a country, not sneak in on some special ops mission.. we need as many troops as possible there to 'secure' things as we go..
I also find the tactics strange. It's like we have set ourselves up for an ambush, but I can't imagine our military strategists not knowing what they are doing.
Several 'experts' have now stated that it's obvious given the problems we are seeing that the planning phase of this war was botched. I tend to agree.. And the media is trying to spin it so it doesn't seem so bad, but we are putting ourselves in a position that if we aren't careful we could get spanked hard..
Also we don't have to find any chemical weapons technically. He already fired missles that he wasn't supposed to have
So what? 2 SCUDs missles (the Al Samoud missles can't be counted since he stopped destroying them AFTER Bush said he was invading no matter what).. Are 2 missles worth the hundreds of lives lost already?
The BIG 'premise' for Bush going in (other than the bullshit about liberating the people) is the 'proof' we say we have about Chem/Bio weapons and WOMD.. if NONE are found, his intelligence was faulty (which many of us susspect) or he flat out lied and was playing a hunch, again, not worth killing American troops over if you ask me.. there were other ways to check that 'hunch'.. We'll see though.. maybe he has some in Baghdad.. maybe that's whay we are making such a strong push..
and he has broken the UN agreement with the miss treatment of his people.
To be honest, I don't know that the UN cares about mistreating people.. nor does the 'world community'.. sure, it's horrific when it happens, but the undertone of international policy is to let sovereign leaders do what they want, the people put them in/keep them in.. not 'our' problem (until the populous asks for help.. )
No this statement is not a hypocracy, because I hear it everywhere I go.
No, it's hypocracy when 'you' say you hate liberals and the crap they do, then say only liberals hate based on political affiliation.. does that make sense? I agree that 'dems' blame 'reps' and 'reps' blame 'dems', but that's not the point.. the point is if you say one thing and do another, that's "hypocritical".. that's all..
Example I feel that homosexuality is immoral, this does not mean that it has to be illegal it means that I don't accept it as being normal.
But, the problem is, laws are based on the 'popular' moral stance.. if enough people in power decide 'being gay' is 'immoral', they will pass a law saying it's illegal.. In general, conservative means 'laws by what I feel is moral', and liberal means 'laws to protect but otherwise its to each their own'.. both have their flaws though..
THe liberals say it's alright and that I'm a hateful horrible person. I should be more open minded, but shouldn't they be more open minded to accept my opinion?
That's 1/2 the point.. 'liberals' won't make a law saying you 'cant hate homosexuals', just laws to make sure you dont hurt them (hate crimes, etc.. like racism). Open minded doesn't mean you have to 'like' or 'accept' something, it means being tolerant of something.. If you don't think homosexuality is 'normal', then dont do it... but dont do things that diminish a homosexual's rights as human beings.. does that make sense?
Homosexuals can be homosexuals that fine with me, but why do I have to accept it as being normal. Closed minded is relative.
And, again.. no one is saying you have to accept it as normal.. you don't even have to like it.. but in being openminded they mean (or should if you ask me) is that even though you don't like it and think it's abnormal, you understand and accept that others don't feel the same way and give them room to be who they are.. I'm not sure if that makes sense..
And your statement about the U.S. being so evil and corrupt and illegal. You're naive. Take any third world country and their govt. is more corrupt than us.
I'm not being naive, I'm being honest.. Are we as messed up as '3rd world govs'? not even close.. but that doesn't mean our gov doesn't partake in illegal and amoral activities all the time.. I'm not saying we have one of the worst govs in the world, on the contrary.. it's perhaps the best, but even our gov has dirty hands.. because it's run by people who are hungry for power, and power corrupts.. absolute power corrupts absolutely..
WE try to take out evil leaders.
Only when they disrupt our money flow or destabilize our control someplace.. there have been a LOT of 'evil' leaders around the world that we do nothing about.. why? it doesn't serve our needs.. *shrug*
So if you are trully non-biased to party affiliation and are a true liberal you either thought that Clinton was not liberal enough, or you should admit that what he did with women in the white house was wrong, and that the illegal campaign contributions were bad.
Yes, I thought he was horrid for cheating on his wife.. I am TOTALLY opposed to that kind of amoral activity from ANYONE.. I also don't like Hillary for sticking by him, that is such a shitty message to women.. stick with a man that does you wrong if it suits you.. Personally, I have NO tollerance for cheating, it's the most hanous thing you can do to someone on a personal level, betray their trust like that.. However, I also thought it totally pathetic that the right made such a big deal about it to try and get him ousted.. But, there is the whole thing with what's her face and the supposed harrasment thing too (and all the payoffs and jobs, etc...).. it was a mess.. I've not heard much about the contrabutions.. Though, one of Bush/Rumsfeld's advisors just had to step down so he could get a deal with China for a tel-com deal.. Again, politics is based on deceipt.. if you ask me..
