07-01-2003, 05:15 AM
Proof of a nuclear weapons program is easy to come up with. Off the top of my head, I recall Iraq was trying to purchase some precision machined aluminum tubes for use in centrifugal separators of uranium. That is proof of a program. What, you expected actual warheads? If so, you should pay closer attention to world affairs before commenting on them.
It is not an argument, just a statement along the lines of "time will tell".
Burden of proof lies upon he who asserts the positive statements. The Bush administration spokesmen have made their case. The critics of the Bush administration have nothing but wild conspiracy theories, as if they believe in some "Illuminati Conspiracy" version of the world. I have no obligation to refute any old idea you may come up with, it is up to you or your sources to provide the evidence.
An impossible burden of proof. How the heck can anyone ever prove anything with regard to ulterior motives? You are right, we can't have a coherent discussion on this. But we can never have a discussion on anything else either if we can't agree to the same set of facts. If on a sunny day Bush said "the sky is blue today", would you discount it as a lie? You may pick and choose which facts you will accept, which to ignore, and which to make up based upon your emotional prejudices but I don't know how you expect such rhetorical methods to be persuasive.
Quote:Note the underlined text. And your argument is?
It is not an argument, just a statement along the lines of "time will tell".
Quote:The longer that it takes the US to find these 'weapons', the existence of which they counted as "proven", the closer to being "proven" are the critics' claims that this was a war of regional control and profit and not one of "national defence" nor any other such contrivance. How you can call these arguments bogus on the basis of, well, ZERO material evidence boggles the mind. (Sorry, you didn't explicitly SAY bogus, it was "vacuous", my mistake, I'll save you the nit)
Burden of proof lies upon he who asserts the positive statements. The Bush administration spokesmen have made their case. The critics of the Bush administration have nothing but wild conspiracy theories, as if they believe in some "Illuminati Conspiracy" version of the world. I have no obligation to refute any old idea you may come up with, it is up to you or your sources to provide the evidence.
Quote:Whether or not these benefits to be derived from the war are legitimate or desirable as moral imperatives is certainly open to the realm of discussion and, while you may contend that the government's objectives were clear, it is certainly only on the basis of their having told you so and has nothing to do with any actual proof as to ulterior motives.
An impossible burden of proof. How the heck can anyone ever prove anything with regard to ulterior motives? You are right, we can't have a coherent discussion on this. But we can never have a discussion on anything else either if we can't agree to the same set of facts. If on a sunny day Bush said "the sky is blue today", would you discount it as a lie? You may pick and choose which facts you will accept, which to ignore, and which to make up based upon your emotional prejudices but I don't know how you expect such rhetorical methods to be persuasive.
Growler
"To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions." -- Salman Rushdie writing of September 11th
"To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions." -- Salman Rushdie writing of September 11th