02-23-2003, 06:28 AM
Here, just for you Quark.
Mis-representation of argument, straw man, whatever. Military governship of Iraq is already in the plans, it's supposed to last one to two years. The opposition has to be American sponsored to gain power.
1) Never said America was evil. Feel free to quote where I did. I'm not sure what 'liberating' means in your head, heh.
2) My predictions are that American oil companies will be given a better chance of dealing for Iraqi oil than otherwise.
3) I can give lots of arguments why American is 'evil'. Main one would be, it's human nature to do both good and bad things. This has nothing to do with the thread at hand.
Misunderstanding of intent. Essentially here you assume I am addressing him based on lack of evidence rather than the core argument that undisclosed information should be addressed as a credible argument.
Strawman, strawman, misunderstanding. Essentially because I sound a little like a peacenik, I'm being addressed as though my entire argument is that of a peacenik, even if I'm pro-war and pro-american. Good way to win arguments, Pete, go after the people on your side.
Quote:Because the Americans have taken over so many countries.
Mis-representation of argument, straw man, whatever. Military governship of Iraq is already in the plans, it's supposed to last one to two years. The opposition has to be American sponsored to gain power.
Quote:And when your predictions don't come true. I'm sure you'll have equally puerile arguments why we're so evil.
1) Never said America was evil. Feel free to quote where I did. I'm not sure what 'liberating' means in your head, heh.
2) My predictions are that American oil companies will be given a better chance of dealing for Iraqi oil than otherwise.
3) I can give lots of arguments why American is 'evil'. Main one would be, it's human nature to do both good and bad things. This has nothing to do with the thread at hand.
Quote:Nothing. It has everything to do with your reply to him
Misunderstanding of intent. Essentially here you assume I am addressing him based on lack of evidence rather than the core argument that undisclosed information should be addressed as a credible argument.
Strawman, strawman, misunderstanding. Essentially because I sound a little like a peacenik, I'm being addressed as though my entire argument is that of a peacenik, even if I'm pro-war and pro-american. Good way to win arguments, Pete, go after the people on your side.