Would imediate withdrawal from iraq result in a third world war?

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by WI Crippler
Drinking alot...

Drinking is good.

A word of advice:
When you go to brush something off your shoulder,
and it is the floor, it is time to stop!

 

[Billo_Really]

When does the cost become too great a price to pay?

It is like a guy who bought a lemon for a car and just keeps pouring money into the car and things keep breaking down and he just keeps spending money for the repairs and the car just keeps breaking down...

Should he give up on the car?

Should he keep trying to fix it?

After 4 years and the car is still not fixed, what should he do?

If he decides to sell the car, could he use the cost argument with his wife, in order to justify selling the car?

 

[Billo_Really]

I asked a question regarding the accuracy of my posts.

I have not received an answer!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
So, in short, your argument is that the net benefit will be higher (or the net cost will be lower) if we leave Iraq than any alternative that involves staying? Now you've summed up the costs of staying in Iraq, and you've stated that you do not believe that any measure of victory is possible in Iraq, and thus any costs incurred between now and when we leave can be added to the net costs, in that, in your opinion, there will not be any benefit to mitigate the incurred costs, is that a fair sumation of your argument up until this point?

We're getting there, we might be able to debate soon!

All you need to do is explain why you think the net costs of withdrawl will be less than the costs incurred between now and the end of the war. Without this, your argument cannot be considered logical, but with this, your argument would become valid, and thus we could begin to actually debate over the matters that are subjective in nature.

No, that's not it! My argument is we've paid too much already. This war is a loss. There is no chance of a potential benefit by staying. As in the analogy of buying the lemon a couple of posts ago, why should we keep paying for something that has produced so little in return? Why should we keep paying for something that is producing such a tremendous hardship for Americans, financially and politically?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by AcePylut:
That is the strawman argument created by Billo. [say what!]

The argument: We should leave Iraq
The strawman: We should not be in Iraq [What was the biggest reason Iraq should have left Kuwait? The fact that they WERE IN KUWAIT!]

Evidence "points" to "we should not be in Iraq". The strawman comes into making the claim that becase "we should not be in iraq", we should leave Iraq. [When making a decision that affects the lives of so many people, you do not base that decision on one or two relevant items that satisfy a classroom definition of a catagorical argument. You have to consider everything that is tied to a particular issue. That involves current conditions, cost of involvement, history of involvement, etc.]

I put quotes around those sentences because it's a paraphrase of a someone elses words. I disagree with both of them. [I think disagreement is healthy]

Now, you want to talk straw man?

galen needs to walk his talk. A few posts back, I stated this...

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
I believe the problem is much more complex than that. That there is not just one problem you can put your finger on and say, "Yeah, that's the problem." A lot has to do with their tribal history, a lot has to do with us opening a can of worms by invading, as well as a lot of things we don't even know about. I don't really care about Iraq. I just want us out of that equation of violence. I just want the world to stop hating us. Because if it keeps going on like this, we will have more enemies to be worried about. Enemies we do not want to fight.

And galen responds...

Originally Posted by galenrox:
You don't have any evidence that we have any sort of option of avoidence. Now certainly, there are certain forces we are facing who couldn't give half a **** about the US if the US weren't right in their faces all of the time, but obviously these forces do not comprise ALL of the forces,

If that was his logical conclusion, then these must be his premises that would lead to that...

Originally Posted by galenrox:
1…..”we know al Qaeda has a significant presence fighting us in Iraq,”

Opinion, perception, yes. A fact, not proven!

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
[An] "Atiyah letter," which was translated by the U.S. military's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, … stressed the vulnerability of al-Qaeda's position in Iraq.

In the letter about al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq, Atiyah told Zarqawi that "prolonging the war is in our interest." A chief reason, Atiyah explained, was that Zarqawi's brutal tactics had alienated many Iraqi Sunni insurgents and thus a continued U.S. military presence was needed to buy time for al-Qaeda to mend fences and put down roots.

The "Atiyah letter" - like a previously intercepted message attributed to al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri - indicated that a U.S. military pullout could be disastrous for al-Qaeda's terrorist bands, which are estimated at only about 5 to 10 percent of the anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq.

Without the U.S. military presence to serve as a rallying cry and a unifying force, the al-Qaeda contingent faced disintegration from desertions and attacks from Iraqi insurgents who resented the wanton bloodshed committed by Zarqawi's non-Iraqi terrorists.

The "Zawahiri letter," which was dated July 9, 2005, said a rapid American military withdrawal could have caused the foreign jihadists, who had flocked to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.

The intercepted letter indicates that al Qaeda does not have a significant presence in Iraq.

Originally Posted by galenrox:
2..."as are the Iranians",

Another assumption not proven...

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
No sooner did unnamed military officials unveil their melodramatically secretive briefing in Baghdad last Sunday than Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew the whole charade. General Pace said he didn't know about the briefing and couldn't endorse its contention that the Iranian government's highest echelons were complicit in anti-American hostilities in Iraq. Public-relations pandemonium ensued as Tony Snow, the State Department and finally the president tried to revise the story line on the fly.

Frank Rich | Oh What a Malleable War

This is great, challenge me, but take the Administration at their word! That is too funny. Okay, back to the premises...

Originally Posted by galenrox:
3..."and considering that Iran has frequently threatened us, and just so happens to be developing nuclear capabilities,"

More assumptions...

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
Washington - A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.

Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons

This last one I happen to agree with galen. However, I post the argument only to show that if were going to take this debate to the extreme, then the door must swing both ways. So in regards to his following claim, I argue that we still don't know who committed 9/11. All we know is what the government has told us from translations of statements by UBL.

Originally Posted by galenrox:
4..."and al Qaeda has already struck us",

I apologize for the length.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
Craig B. Hulet on 9/11 perputrators:

Nobody serious about what happened believes that the FBI has already caught the bad-guys. Nor that they know with any certainty who the pilots and others were by name. No reasonable thinking person believes this. No adult law enforcement personnel believe this. No one in the Intelligence community, active or retired. This is the pap the President must feed the average unthinking herd. The enemy can only be crazed fanatical Islamic Jihad types. Only religious fanatics would commit suicide for a cause. Nobody sane would want to kill Americans. And that is precisely what has not happened. Soldiers and military pilots will do precisely the same thing if ordered and they believe their nation is at risk. If some, any, terrorist group planned and executed this act of war, they would have taken full credit. It is only in taking the credit that their cause becomes understood; even if only understood to exist as their cause. That no group has claimed credit is a tell. They have not claimed it because they did not do it. Just like Oklahoma City. The government/media nexus immediately said it was Arab terrorists; I was a lone voice for three days (KABC News Radio) saying it was an act by an American. I knew this for many reasons and one of them was that nobody claimed credit, Why? because no Arab group did it. Here is the main point to this part of the analysis: Even if they were from an Arab state this does not ipso facto say they were terrorists. Military, Intelligence, covert operations simply cannot be ruled out.

Regarding the FBI’s rather bold and sudden claim that they know, absolutely know, who the 19 hijackers were, by name, with addresses, photographs (we will never know if the face on the passport or driver’s licenses match the toast in the rubble. But the White House and FBI do not care that this evidence is more wishful thinking than conclusive evidence. We must be seen by Americans to be on top of all this. We cannot even be sure the names are the names of the pilots. The media obediently repeats the names by rote, never questioning it: Satam al-Suqami (who allegedly sat in 10B) and Waleed al-Shehri and Wail al-Shrhri (who allegedly sat in 2B and 2A): while they may have set up the same Hollywood post-office box as their address, are they the persons who they said they were? If I had been one of the pilots I would have had all the same I.D.’s, mail drops and I would have left the same idiotic paper trail for the FBI to diligently “discover” but the name would have been Warren Beatty!

I am not, obviously saying that these men did not stay where the FBI says they stayed, or bought a Burger on the 10th of September and a Latte at Squirrelly Bob’s Dinner; I am saying, does anyone believe these highly skilled, trained professionals used their real names? That their own nation’s military and intelligence agencies could not have given them full credentials and identification? In other words “they were washed clean.” That they were intelligent enough the carry a Master’s Degree in civil engineering and fly the world’s most sophisticated airplanes but are so stupid as to leave their real names behind? My name would have been at the very least Elvis Presley and complained openly that my mother really liked the super star and thus gave me the name...Americans would have giggled and believed that, along with the FBI, as well. When the FBI “discovered” (here we go again) that several of the alleged suspects (dead now, so we shall never know) spoke German, witnesses confirmed they spoke German, but the FBI said they were from the Middle East,...why? Because the witness was told they were from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) by the German speaking gentlemen; and like the diligent FBI they believed this! They spoke German because maybe, just maybe, they were German!

It was conceded early on that the FBI did not know the nationalities of the 19 men that allegedly were the perpetrators. And nationalities are very important. Not because the FBI and media have assumed all were Arab state’s citizens; several spoke perfect English and others German, others did not speak at all. And this is important. English could mean South African, British, Australian, American or whatever. Nobody will dare suggest that they spoke these languages because that was their country of origin, not the Arab States; that their allegiance might be to a completely different nation-state is not even a consideration, that is just too scary. Indeed, those people that look like Arabs amounts to approximately two thirds of the world’s peoples. I have a client which closely resembles a Palestinian who is of Jewish and Nicaraguan parents: he is now a New Yorker, born in San Francisco. With an Arabic name he could easily be identified as Arab.

Now we go back to the beginning as he re-states an argument I never made and I'm now supposed to defend.

Originally Posted by galenrox:
please, explain to me how we have an option of not fighting them!

Straw man argument:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
The arguer makes up a proposition never offered by his opponent (usually weaker than the true proposition) and then attacks it as if his opponent had offered that proposition. This is most common on Internet chat sites.

I end this post with an illogical progression...

We should leave Iraq!

 

[Billo_Really]

Now here's another one...

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
This WOT is total, 100% bullshit! There is no tangible enemy and no way to predict and ending. So we have a perpetual state of war with the President claiming the powers of a monarchy. You don't preserve freedom and liberty by supressing freedom and liberty.

Originally Posted by galenrox:
I think it's funny that you assume I haven't. I have lived in 3 different cities in my life, Evanston, Chicago, and Iowa City, all three of which are notorious liberal enclaves, so chances are there's nothing you've got to say that I haven't already heard. Just because I've gone through it and seen that the argument is obviously bullshit does not mean that I have not considered it, I considered it, weighed the merits of the argument, and the obviously conclusion of such consideration is that this argument is bullshit.

You believe the WOT is a valid war?

Then who is the enemy, specifically?

When does it end, specifically?

How do we know when it is over, specifically?

If you can't answer those 3 questions, then this war is BULLSHIT!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by galenrox:
I know you care a whole lot more about seeming right to your fellow liberals than actually being right, which is why this is not the first time I've said this exact same **** to you. But don't expect for me to pretend as if your conclusions are anything short of nonsensical bullshit free of any logical justification until you stop trying to justify your conclusions with arguments that provides absolutely no logical justification for your conclusions.

Although I find this offensive, I'd like to see what you base this on. How do you "KNOW?" Just what validates THAT conclusion?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by galenrox:
As long as we are the worlds pre-eminant super power, and as long as we participate in the global market place as such, we will always be the most hated nation on Earth. Pulling out of Iraq won't make it any better, so your argument relies on nonsense. Give me reason to stop being smug, and I can assure you I will.

This is bullshit because we weren't this hated before we invaded. Some even felt sorry for us because of 9/11. But because of the invasion, we turned the entire world against us. So, if we are to reverse that trend, the first step I think we should make, is to stop thinking we walk on water! I cringe every time I hear or see someone say "were the greatest nation on earth" or "were the most powerful nation..."

Talk about narcissistic garbage! That might be true. But we don't have to rub everyone's nose in it and go around flaunting it. We were a great nation. We are not one now. We will be again, as soon as all these f.u.c.k.i.n.g people stop listening to these neocon fanatics in our government.

Leaving Iraq takes one more reason of hate off the list.

 

[VTA]

Now here's another one...

You believe the WOT is a valid war?

Then who is the enemy, specifically?

When does it end, specifically?

How do we know when it is over, specifically?

If you can't answer those 3 questions, then this war is BULLSHIT!

The enemy is radical Islam... at least that's the impetus to motivate those doing the fighting. Those doing the fighting are those against Western culture, exhorted by the likes of Mullah Omar, bin Laden, Zawahiri. Real tangible people, sending real tangible people to fight the West. The reasons we in the West affix to their reasoning varies, but the on thing that remains is that they are fighting and it's factual.

The second question is not valid. What in life has definity? Does your life? Do you know when you're going to die? When you're going to be struck with cancer? Sorry, but this line of thinking is the downfall of our Western civilization: the thinking that every conflict can be microwaved, shrunk-wrapped and sold with a born on date.

Nothing is definitive and when the end is not encapsulated in an expected package, the common thinking is to abandon it for safer ground. What's most dangerous about this is that our enemies don't function in this naive fantasy and therefore have the upper hand.

The third question falls under the same category as the second. It's not based in any kind of reality. The world outside operates on a different set of rules. The real rules of an indifferent world; a world without assurances.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
The enemy is radical Islam... at least that's the impetus to motivate those doing the fighting. Those doing the fighting are those against Western culture, exhorted by the likes of Mullah Omar, bin Laden, Zawahiri. Real tangible people, sending real tangible people to fight the West. The reasons we in the West affix to their reasoning varies, but the on thing that remains is that they are fighting and it's factual.

This is just a little too convenient of an answer. Is it that hard to look at our own mis-givings? The fact that you have to blame an entire culture for all the problems? That's not an answer. That's racism!

Originally posted by VTA:
The second question is not valid. What in life has definity? Does your life? Do you know when you're going to die? When you're going to be struck with cancer? Sorry, but this line of thinking is the downfall of our Western civilization: the thinking that every conflict can be microwaved, shrunk-wrapped and sold with a born on date.

Nothing is definitive and when the end is not encapsulated in an expected package, the common thinking is to abandon it for safer ground. What's most dangerous about this is that our enemies don't function in this naive fantasy and therefore have the upper hand.

Throughout history, wars were fought against a tangible enemy. US vs Japan, Allied vs Axis, North vs South, English vs French, etc. This is Bush vs who? Your response is not valid, it is a cop out.

Originally posted by VTA:
The third question falls under the same category as the second. It's not based in any kind of reality. The world outside operates on a different set of rules. The real rules of an indifferent world; a world without assurances.

Do you remember how Hitler consolidated power after the Reishtag burned? Much like Bush after 9/11, by keeping us in a perpetual state of war, Bush is inching us closer and closer to Martial Law. With no way to state when this war will end (when it is VE or VJ day), this war becomes bogus.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Alright, **** this, Billo, if you're not going to submit to the rules of logic, then I'm going to start playing according to your rules.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, while only three thousand Americans, so thus we're winning in Iraq. As a product of this, we should have a big party right in the middle of Bahgdad.

We have enemies in Iraq, and thus we should nuke Iraq.

Galen, you're one of the posters around here I have a lot of respect for. Just stick to your guns and speak from your heart.

All I'm trying to do is have you understand what my point is. I'm not trying to force you to agree with it. I have no problem with disagreement. Just realize that some issues can be viewed in other ways than catagorical propositions.

In reference to your points of logic, I am in complete agreement with their mechanics. But not their content.

 

[VTA]

This is just a little too convenient of an answer. Is it that hard to look at our own mis-givings? The fact that you have to blame an entire culture for all the problems? That's not an answer. That's racism!Throughout history, wars were fought against a tangible enemy. US vs Japan, Allied vs Axis, North vs South, English vs French, etc. This is Bush vs who? Your response is not valid, it is a cop out.Do you remember how Hitler consolidated power after the Reishtag burned? Much like Bush after 9/11, by keeping us in a perpetual state of war, Bush is inching us closer and closer to Martial Law. With no way to state when this war will end (when it is VE or VJ day), this war becomes bogus.

You're contradicting yourself again. In the first section, you allude to the problem being our own misgivings as the reason we're at war, yet in the second you maintain that there is no tangible enemy.

Whether or not the fault is entirely one sided or not is not the point. Both sides have complicity in it. Ours and theirs. It's far from racist (besides religion is not a race, it's a taught ideology that transcends race), to recognize the driving force of the movement. It's billed as a holy war for them, and a cry for democracy and freedom for us. Nothing to do with race. Every principle in every war has it's own motivating factor and to deny that Radical Islam is the tool of choice for their side is to ignore complete facts and history.

Struggles also transcend geographical boundaries. You seem confused because there is no solid country, waving a flag to signify who they are. It's an ideological struggle that has no bounds. It is America, it is the U.K, it is the entire Western culture against the the culture of many countries that don't have the fire power to significantly affix their names to it. Outside of Iran who shows it's disdain, but does it's fighting by proxy, with terrorism and Hezbollah.

It's a new (to our generations) kind of battle Billo and one that will probably be the norm for years to come. The countries that have ammassed military might are insurmountable and cannot be faced traditionally. So you have this. This is the entire strategy. Remain ungrounded and not easily defined and stick to the core premise: fight Western Imperialsim. It's real, it's effects are real and it has to be faced. Too many people have died to deny it's existence, and not by American bullets.

Are you implying that WWII had a predestined date? No VE day? No VJ day? These things came about after a fight. A fight that had no assurances, which gave those days their meaning. Did you expect Bush to say we'll be fighting terrorism for such and such a time and they will just simply give up? I have to think you're saying something else; this line of reasoning is insane.

No President can instill Martial Law. There aren't terms long enough for anything like that and no President has that kind of power. Next year Bush will be gone, and do you think if it's a Democrat in office something ridiculous like that would stick? Bush is fighting (however badly) a war that has been raging since long before he took office. I'll give him credit for having the sack to take on the challenge, even in the face of his poor handling of it. Maybe the next administration will realize their's a serious situation that was born before 9/11 and not think we're big enough to ignore the hits we took leading up to it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
You're contradicting yourself again. In the first section, you allude to the problem being our own misgivings as the reason we're at war, yet in the second you maintain that there is no tangible enemy.

Nice try. I'm not confused about anything and I am certainly not contradicting myself. We are at war because of this psychotic, bullshit, chicken-little foreign policy pushed through by those moron's at Project for a New American Century (PNAC). All those MF'ers are going to jail! The first batch of subpoena's have already been issued. As for my statement about our own mis-givings, it's a responsible adult who cleans his own house before cleaning someone else's. If you don't, then you're a hypocrit.

Originally posted by VTA:
Whether or not the fault is entirely one sided or not is not the point. Both sides have complicity in it. Ours and theirs. It's far from racist (besides religion is not a race, it's a taught ideology that transcends race), to recognize the driving force of the movement. It's billed as a holy war for them, and a cry for democracy and freedom for us. Nothing to do with race. Every principle in every war has it's own motivating factor and to deny that Radical Islam is the tool of choice for their side is to ignore complete facts and history.

I got news for you, there is no "us" and "them". It's just "us". We are not 100% guilty and neither is anyone else in this made up war. And stop splitting hairs! I'm not going to get into discussion of semantics. You're blaming an entire culture without blaming yourself first. That is irresponsible and reprehensible.

Originally posted by VTA:
Struggles also transcend geographical boundaries. You seem confused because there is no solid country, waving a flag to signify who they are. It's an ideological struggle that has no bounds. It is America, it is the U.K, it is the entire Western culture against the the culture of many countries that don't have the fire power to significantly affix their names to it. Outside of Iran who shows it's disdain, but does it's fighting by proxy, with terrorism and Hezbollah.

Hey, s.h.i.t-can this "I'm confused" crap! I'm not confused on this subject. This is a manufactured war by Douglas Feith and Bullshit Bush.

Originally posted by VTA:
It's a new (to our generations) kind of battle Billo and one that will probably be the norm for years to come. The countries that have ammassed military might are insurmountable and cannot be faced traditionally. So you have this. This is the entire strategy. Remain ungrounded and not easily defined and stick to the core premise: fight Western Imperialsim. It's real, it's effects are real and it has to be faced. Too many people have died to deny it's existence, and not by American bullets.

It has already begun to end. Go check out my thread "God Bless America" and see how many subpoena's have been issued. The end of the Great Neo Con is near.

Originally posted by VTA:
Are you implying that WWII had a predestined date? No VE day? No VJ day? These things came about after a fight. A fight that had no assurances, which gave those days their meaning. Did you expect Bush to say we'll be fighting terrorism for such and such a time and they will just simply give up? I have to think you're saying something else; this line of reasoning is insane.

I'm saying if you cannot specifically state who we are fighting or when do we know when it is over, this war is about as real as a South Park episode. And how are we going to fight a WOT if we are exporting our own brand of terrorism?

Originally posted by VTA:
No President can instill Martial Law. There aren't terms long enough for anything like that and no President has that kind of power. Next year Bush will be gone, and do you think if it's a Democrat in office something ridiculous like that would stick? Bush is fighting (however badly) a war that has been raging since long before he took office. I'll give him credit for having the sack to take on the challenge, even in the face of his poor handling of it. Maybe the next administration will realize their's a serious situation that was born before 9/11 and not think we're big enough to ignore the hits we took leading up to it.

Since the MCA has come into law, Bush now has the powers of a Dictator.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
This sounds too classroom to me!

Man, I understand your point, but I can't debate you if your conclusions aren't logical in the first place, all I can do is point out that they're not logical, how they're not logical, and what you need to do in order to draw a logical conclusion.

Do you have any idea how excrutiating is? It's like pulling ****ing teeth! It's not a difficult concept to understand, you KNOW your conclusions are not drawn logically, and yet for some reason you don't ****ing fix it!

I want to debate you on the merits of the pullout, it's an interesting topic of debate, but what the hell is there to debate when you don't have a logical reason to believe what you believe in the first place?

I've given you my reasons. You are just incapable of stepping out of your skin and seeing the world from a different perspective. You can't seem to put the shoe on the other foot. You cannot comprehend that you are missing something here. You think you are right and your mind is closed to anything different than your own perspectives.

I have told you, if you look at this subject using inductive reasoning you will see the logic. For some reason, you don't want to do that. I have tried giving you analogy (the guy pouring money into a lemon of a car) but you didn't seem to understand something so simple of a concept.

I'm sorry, I can't help you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
So is that what this **** is gonna come down to, bitching over semantics? Fine, I don't know, it's either you care more about seeming right to your fellow liberals than being right, or you have absolutely no understanding of the logical process, and the idea of such is so foreign to you that attempts to explain it are like explaining rocket science to a kindergartener. If you could please provide some other alternative which would explain how you've been having such difficulty crafting an argument that makes sense (thus the evidence presented backs up the claim made), then please, out with it, but otherwise, there is no other apparant explanation for why you've been failing so miserably at basic human thought.

The problem is you galen! This is only your perception. You made a statement that is totally FOS! Yet you sit there and try to put that back on me. Go down to your sporting goods store, go over to aisle 5, pick yourself up a set of balls, then comeback and own your own emotions!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Then that's a problem, what's happened in the past is in the past, and decisions for present and future actions can't take the past into account in any other way than using it as experience in order to generate about the effects of present or future policies.

Now the lemon metaphor simply does not work, because it doesn't take into account the costs of withdrawl. You give up on a lemon, the only losses you incur are the costs that you incurred up until you sell it or junk it, once it's gone, it's over. If this was the case, and there were no future costs which would be incurred as a product of our departure, the issue would be entirely different.

But back to the original point, you know that this isn't logical, so why do you keep asserting it?

So your saying there is no point in learning from ones mistakes.

This is not a lesson in logic! A half million people have died as a result of a decision we made. This goes way beyond catagorical propositions. You need to check your own humanity to see if it still exists within you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Alright, **** this, Billo, if you're not going to submit to the rules of logic, then I'm going to start playing according to your rules.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, while only three thousand Americans, so thus we're winning in Iraq. As a product of this, we should have a big party right in the middle of Bahgdad.

We have enemies in Iraq, and thus we should nuke Iraq.

You mean "your" rules of logic.

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed," but they weren't the enemy. How you say that so "as a matter of factly" is beyond me. How can you be so cavalier about human life?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Inductive reasoning without logical reason to induce is the exact same reason why people think all black people love watermelon and fried chicken and all jews love to steal! It's absolute ****, there is a very specific logical process that must be followed for inductive reasoning to be AT ALL intellectually valid, and you haven't ****ing done it!

In your opinion!

You keep wanting to break this down into absolute, irrefutable truths. This is not the kind of subject you can do that with. The closest we can get, is a pre-ponderance of the evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Does that term sound familiar? The links and the sources I have provided show beyond a reasonable doubt that we need to bring everybody home. Because those links show that there is no maxmimum alternative left in Iraq for us. They also show we have spent too much on this bullshit war. So it is only logical that we end it now.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
MY rules of logic? You mean LOGIC?

LOGIC isn't a matter of mother****ing opinion!

Yeah, but were not talking about logic in and of itself. Were talking about your perception of my facts not being logical.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
What? Where the **** did I say that? And you're really gonna deny playing a strawman with a straight face?

No, it wasn't a strawman. And I have addressed this a few posts ago.

Originally posted by galenrox:
You apply lessons you've learned LOGICALLY! You look at ****, you see what happened, you analyze what happened and you take specific lessons, you don't just follow whatever broad strokes you so please because it feels right! There are clear mistakes that led to us entering Iraq, which need to be applied through the logical process, but you miss them all if you ignore the specific solely so you can make whatever damn leap you ****ing want to!

I agree with this.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Why don't we all hold hands and worship the goddess. Meanwhile in the real world it's not a matter of "perception", it's ****ing logic, it doesn't matter what you feel, it matters what's ****ing right, and although what's right is a matter that's open to debate, if the process is not followed you're left with ****, 100% pure ****, and nothing more.

Hey, how about a group hug?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
No it's not opinion, these are absolute truths! Inductive reasoning doesn't mean **** if it's not done right, for the exact reason that leads to people seeing arab terrorists on TV and, as a product of inducive reasoning conclude that all arabs are terrorists!

Funny, I used inductive reasoning and I didn't come to that conclusion.

Originally posted by galenrox:
You observe a phenomena, and you feel it can be applied elsewhere on other things which you feel to be similar in some relevant way, that's fine, go find a reason to do that inductive reasoning through the logical process, or abandon it cause it's not ****ing logically VALID!

I found relevent items and used inductive reasoning in a logical process, yet you refuse to see that. Why?

Originally posted by galenrox:
So either you give up on logic, or you shape the **** up and become logical.

What I said was logical. You've got so much invested in being right, it's almost like death, to admit your wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
No man, if you've got any evidence that my depictions of logic have been at all inaccurate, then we've got another discussion on our hands, but you haven't, it's all "I induce as I damn well please!" and "Your rules of logic are too classroom and deprive this of its humanity!", those aren't criticisms, they're pure and simple avoidence.

What you have stated regarding logic is correct. It is how you are applying it to me and my argument is what I am taking issue with.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
And that makes inductive reasoning less prone to leading to errors how? Am I to induce that because you didn't make this particular mistake that mistakes are less frequent in the use of inductive reasoning? Are you representitive? Or is it that you aren't prone to these mistakes? So am I supposed to generalize this to everything else? What the hell is the point of this?

You better watch your mouth, sonny. You're 6'-6" and I'm still in my 40's and Randy Courtoure just beat Tim Sylvia for the UFC heavyweight title and I'm feeling a little bit frisky this evening.

In answer to your questions:
No
No
Of me, yes.
Yes
No
You tell me

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Really? In what way has its application been incorrect, specifically.

That the decision to leave should be based only on a catagorical argument.