The new Primary Thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Contradicting what?

That every state should allocate its electors proportionally.

Rather, the EC should just be abolished.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
It should have been obvious to most people that not only was there no extant connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but that such a connection would have been outrageously ridiculous given the animosity between Saddam and fundies like bin Laden.

It should also be obvious that America had not been attacked by Iraq, nor threatened, nor was there any indication that we would be attacked or threatened, nor was there any logical reason for Iraq to attack or threaten us, nor did the capability exist for them to attack us.

What about that is false?

Okay, let's analyse the original post:

As I said, the intelligence shouldn't even have been necessary.

Obviously false. The relevant intelligence should play a part in the decision.

Whether Iraq possessed WMDs or not was immaterial

Obvioiusly false; Iraq getting nukes or an effective biological weapon would have had an enormous influence on the region and, by extension, the RoW. Therefore it's not "immaterial".

they had never attacked us before.

True enough, though arguably false.

Any supposed link with Al Qaeda could have been disproved by mere common sense.

Obviously false; if it were true, far fewer people would have believed in the link. It's not "common sense" if it's not "common".

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The fiscal conservative in you should be rioting against Bush's $3 trillion budget just a few years after he broke the $2 trillion mark for the first time in history. The he's decided to screw children and the elderly so he can give massive new no bid military contracts only makes it worse.

What part of "hates them all" didn't you get?



-Arrian

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Obvioiusly false; Iraq getting nukes or an effective biological weapon would have had an enormous influence on the region and, by extension, the RoW. Therefore it's not "immaterial".

Of course it is. North Korea getting nukes was a far more realistic possibility, but an invasion was never considered. Iraq getting biological weapons would not have made any change in the region because many people already thought they possessed them. It is the very definition of immaterial.

True enough, though arguably false.

Only if you're dense. Fighting against coalition forces in the First Gulf War doesn't count, as it was we who attacked them. Note that I am not justifying the invasion of Kuwait, but we were the ones who precipitated violence between them and us.

Obviously false; if it were true, far fewer people would have believed in the link. It's not "common sense" if it's not "common".

Common sense is different from common knowledge. It is common sense that two enemies with a mutual hatred, opposed to each other at the primal ideological level, whose existence threatens the existence of the other, will not help each other. The fact that people decided to base their support on the "common knowledge" and propaganda spread by the administration about theoretical links with Al Qaeda doesn't mean an anti-war stance wasn't common sense.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

This is obviously false.

Kuci is brain damaged.

[Dinner]

BTW the proportional system is more likely to get states attention. If one party is likely to win a state no matter what then the other party just ignores it an spends its resources else where. Where as if a portion of those Electoral Votes can be poached they will actually spend time in the state in order to win those votes. The people actually end up with more face time with the candidates and are better informed because of it.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Of course it is. North Korea getting nukes was a far more realistic possibility, but an invasion was never considered. Iraq getting biological weapons would not have made any change in the region because many people already thought they possessed them. It is the very definition of immaterial.

An invasion of NK isn't seriously considered mostly b/c of the havoc it would likely wreak on SK, and because of China. If NK was viewed as toothless and didn't have a 800-lb gorilla of a protector, people would be advocating knocking off Kimmy via the Marines.

Bio weapons, questionable. Chem, no change as everyone thought they had 'em - they'd used them in the past. Nukes, however, are another matter (this is one of the reasons that lumping the three into "WMDs" is silly). That really would've shifted the regional BoP.

Only if you're dense. Fighting against coalition forces in the First Gulf War doesn't count, as it was we who attacked them. Note that I am not justifying the invasion of Kuwait, but we were the ones who precipitated violence between them and us.

I suspect he means attacks on our aircraft in "no fly" zones. Which is a crappy argument, but different than the one you guessed at.

Common sense is different from common knowledge. It is common sense that two enemies with a mutual hatred, opposed to each other at the primal ideological level, whose existence threatens the existence of the other, will not help each other. The fact that people decided to base their support on the "common knowledge" and propaganda spread by the administration about theoretical links with Al Qaeda doesn't mean an anti-war stance wasn't common sense.

Large numbers of people STILL believe that bull****.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
You say this as if it were an insult or something.

Her blantant falsehood showed me she is lacking in intergrity. - Posted by someone who happens to not be me or a D/L of mine.

Then there's the way Oerdin talks about Hillary loosing to McCain.

I also never said anything about either one not supporting Hillary in the General Election, just that they'd be holding their nose.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Arrian
An invasion of NK isn't seriously considered mostly b/c of the havoc it would likely wreak on SK, and because of China. If NK was viewed as toothless and didn't have a 800-lb gorilla of a protector, people would be advocating knocking off Kimmy via the Marines.

Undoubtedly.

Bio weapons, questionable. Chem, no change as everyone thought they had 'em - they'd used them in the past. Nukes, however, are another matter (this is one of the reasons that lumping the three into "WMDs" is silly). That really would've shifted the regional BoP.-Arrian

You're right, of course. I still don't see any reason to think that the power balance would have changed significantly. They were already assumed to have WMDs, and I remember may people saying at the time that they had biological ones as well. As for nukes, see above; if nukes were a reason for invasion we had much better targets than Iraq.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Her blantant falsehood showed me she is lacking in intergrity. - Posted by someone who happens to not be me or a D/L of mine.

Touche. However, "lacking in integrity" is a fairly common theme among politicians of all stripes, and while I would not be excited enough about a Hillary run to volunteer a whole lot I wouldn't say I was "holding my nose" either. I prefer her to a lot of previous options - Kerry, for instance.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cyclotron
Of course it is. North Korea getting nukes was a far more realistic possibility, but an invasion was never considered.[/q]

So, your logic is:
North Korea was at least as likely as Iraq to get nukes.
We never considered invasion as a way to prevent North Korea from getting nukes.
Therefore, whether Iraq was likely to get nukes was immaterial to the decision to invade Iraq.

Anyone else see the non sequitur here?

Only if you're dense. Fighting against coalition forces in the First Gulf War doesn't count, as it was we who attacked them. Note that I am not justifying the invasion of Kuwait, but we were the ones who precipitated violence between them and us.

That's why I said it was true and only arguably false (i.e. someone could argue that it was false without completely making **** up). btw, Arrian's interpretation was right. (And I agree that it's a crappy argument.)

Common sense is different from common knowledge.

I mentioned common knowledge where...?

It is common sense that two enemies with a mutual hatred, opposed to each other at the primal ideological level, whose existence threatens the existence of the other, will not help each other.

No, it's not common sense, because not only is that false (WW2; QED) but the negation (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is commonly accepted reasoning.

And I noticed you skipped something

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So, your logic is:
North Korea was at least as likely as Iraq to get nukes.
We never considered invasion as a way to prevent North Korea from getting nukes.
Therefore, whether Iraq was likely to get nukes was immaterial to the decision to invade Iraq.

Anyone else see the non sequitur here?

I'm merely pointing out that the case of North Korea means that having nukes, or potentially having the will or means to acquire them, is not itself a motivation for an attack.

I mentioned common knowledge where...?

You were describing common knowledge, not common sense. Common sense is good judgment without recourse to specialized knowledge. Common knowledge represents facts that "everyone" thinks to be true, usually in contravention to fact.

No, it's not common sense, because not only is that false (WW2; QED) but the negation (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is commonly accepted reasoning.

Common sense isn't always right, it's just what is generally reasonable. In the case of Stalin and Hitler, I think their eventual partnership was rather unexpected, and indeed proved to be short-lived.

But I see your point, and I concede that intelligence should have been the determining factor in establishing a relationship between bin Laden and Saddam, though I maintain that common sense should have made it apparent that such an alliance was extremely unlikely. Overwhelming evidence was required; none was provided.

And I noticed you skipped something

Because I agree. The relevant intelligence should play a part in the decision. I was arguing that, regardless of the intelligence, the patent silliness of the case for war should have been recognized with common sense. Of course as long as intelligence exists it should be considered; nobody should refuse to read the intelligence just because they disagree with the action on a common sense basis.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm merely pointing out that the case of North Korea means that having nukes, or potentially having the will or means to acquire them, is not itself a motivation for an attack.

No, you said it was immaterial. A much stronger claim, and one that is, yes, false.

[Kuciwalker]

You were describing common knowledge, not common sense.

No. You're reading my argument incorrectly.

People were told that there was a link between Iraq and AQ.
People were also told (by a different group of people) that Iraq and AQ hate each other because of the religious differences. I remember because I hadn't even heard of AQ before 9/11 (I was 12).
If it's "common sense" that those two facts were contradictory, a lot of people would have reached that conclusion. They didn't, so it's not.

[Kuciwalker]

Common sense isn't always right, it's just what is generally reasonable. In the case of Stalin and Hitler, I think their eventual partnership was rather unexpected, and indeed proved to be short-lived.

Actually I was talking about the Allies and the USSR. You have a poor track record interpreting my posts...

But I see your point, and I concede that intelligence should have been the determining factor in establishing a relationship between bin Laden and Saddam, though I maintain that common sense should have made it apparent that such an alliance was extremely unlikely. Overwhelming evidence was required; none was provided.

Why overwhelming? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is both common knowledge and common sense. AQ is our enemy, Iraq was our enemy (we'd been bombing them for years...), so AQ and Iraq could plausibly be friends, according to common sense.