Toldjaso! - WMDs in Iraq

[Hermit]

But it was damn sure a pisspoor reason to spend $5Trillion of my tax dollars doing it.

I agree. We should have leveled Baghdad with cruise missiles, JDAMs, Arclight strikes and other stand-off munitions the first time, and then destroyed the entire technological infrastructure of Iraq, from dams to sewage plants to dog food factories and kept blowing them up until the Iraqis handed over Saddam and his henchmen to us themselves. Not a single American boot should have touched Iraqi soil. Ever.

We should do that to everybody who drags us into war by being uncivilized and belligerent.

What you've just suggested is uncivilised and belligerent.

Well, he said as much, didn't he?

[Seth]

You said we should have "levelled Bagdad".

Yes, I did. I didn't say anything about killing everyone in Baghdad however.

False dilemma fallacy. I never said you advocated killing everyone in Baghdad. Levelling Baghdad will, however, result in mass civilian casualties. This is simple logical reasoning. Surely you can manage this level of logic?

Not if they evacuate Baghdad first. If they don't, then it's their problem.

If that's what I meant, I would have said "We should have used biological and chemical weapons to kill every last living grasshopper-eating, camel-fucking raghead motherfucker in Iraq/Iran/Syria/Egypt etc.". Oh wait, that's what Saddam tried to do to the Kurds...

Irrelevant to whether you are an uncivilised thug.

It's also irrlevant to whether you are an ass-hat.

But I didn't. It's hardly my fault, or my concern, that you insist on misinterpreting what I actually write to suit your own need for ad hom argumentation.

There's no misrepresentation. Levelling Baghdad will result in mass civilian casualties. This is simple logical reasoning. Surely you can manage this level of logic?

Not if they evacuate.

And you've argued for bombing civilian populations regularly in the past.

I've argued a good many things, regularly and irregularly, none of which may be thought to be an accurate or actual representation of my personal beliefs, as you well know.

What I know is that you believe almost everything you spew out.

And you know that how, exactly?

That much is obvious from interacting with you for years.

What's obvious is that you're an excellent example of the value of a shiny lure.

And regardless of what you may or may not actually believe, we only have your words here to go by

And I yours.

And your words, while criticising others for being uncivilised and barbaric, are the very epitome of lacking in civilisation.

Depends on what you mean by "civilisation" (sic). Civilization is not a suicide pact that requires tolerance of any and all behavior by the uncivilized. Even the UN, for all it's politically motivated uselessness, acknowledges that, which is why it has armed troops at its beck and call, for what they are worth, which isn't much.

For you to complain about uncivilized and belligerent people is irony of the most spectacular order.

I'm not the one chopping off hands, sawing off heads and stoning women to death, nor am I the one flying airliners into buildings...or mountains.

False dilemma fallacy.

Not really. Lie down with pigs and you get dirty.

You are THE most uncivilised poster ever seen on rd.net/ratskep/rationalia.

Why thank you. Fine compliment indeed coming from you. This shows that I'm doing my job just exactly as I intended to.

So you agree that you are a giant irony fail? Good, glad we are on the same page.[/quote]

No, it means that you've risen to the bait, again.

[Seth]

But it was damn sure a pisspoor reason to spend $5Trillion of my tax dollars doing it.

I agree. We should have leveled Baghdad with cruise missiles, JDAMs, Arclight strikes and other stand-off munitions the first time, and then destroyed the entire technological infrastructure of Iraq, from dams to sewage plants to dog food factories and kept blowing them up until the Iraqis handed over Saddam and his henchmen to us themselves. Not a single American boot should have touched Iraqi soil. Ever.

We should do that to everybody who drags us into war by being uncivilized and belligerent.

What you've just suggested is uncivilised and belligerent.

Your opinion is noted. We'll remember that the next time you come begging us to pull your fat out of the fire when some uncivilized belligerents attack you. It would be uncivilized of us to interfere, according to your metric.

[pErvinalia]

You said we should have "levelled Bagdad".

Yes, I did. I didn't say anything about killing everyone in Baghdad however.

False dilemma fallacy. I never said you advocated killing everyone in Baghdad. Levelling Baghdad will, however, result in mass civilian casualties. This is simple logical reasoning. Surely you can manage this level of logic?

Not if they evacuate Baghdad first. If they don't, then it's their problem.

As I said, you'll bomb civilians. As I said, you are uncivilised (<- that's how most of the English speaking world spell it).

If that's what I meant, I would have said "We should have used biological and chemical weapons to kill every last living grasshopper-eating, camel-fucking raghead motherfucker in Iraq/Iran/Syria/Egypt etc.". Oh wait, that's what Saddam tried to do to the Kurds...

Irrelevant to whether you are an uncivilised thug.

It's also irrlevant to whether you are an ass-hat.

I'm not the one who calls for the mass murder of civilians. That would be an ass-hat'ish thing to do.

But I didn't. It's hardly my fault, or my concern, that you insist on misinterpreting what I actually write to suit your own need for ad hom argumentation.

There's no misrepresentation. Levelling Baghdad will result in mass civilian casualties. This is simple logical reasoning. Surely you can manage this level of logic?

Not if they evacuate.

Why should they evacuate because some juice up redneck in Merka wants to get a hardon blowing shit up?

And you've argued for bombing civilian populations regularly in the past.

I've argued a good many things, regularly and irregularly, none of which may be thought to be an accurate or actual representation of my personal beliefs, as you well know.

What I know is that you believe almost everything you spew out.

And you know that how, exactly?

That much is obvious from interacting with you for years.

What's obvious is that you're an excellent example of the value of a shiny lure.

Bullshit. You are easier to read than a book. We've all had you worked out for years. You're a simple redneck with very little understanding of the world or civiliSation outside of Merka.

And regardless of what you may or may not actually believe, we only have your words here to go by

And I yours.

Great comeback, Professor. So, once again by agreeing, you make yourself look stupid. Do you realise that trolling yourself isn't that smart an idea??

And your words, while criticising others for being uncivilised and barbaric, are the very epitome of lacking in civilisation.

Depends on what you mean by "civilisation" (sic). Civilization is not a suicide pact that requires tolerance of any and all behavior by the uncivilized. Even the UN, for all it's politically motivated uselessness, acknowledges that, which is why it has armed troops at its beck and call, for what they are worth, which isn't much.

Even a halfwit like you should be able to realise that mass murder isn't civilised.

For you to complain about uncivilized and belligerent people is irony of the most spectacular order.

I'm not the one chopping off hands, sawing off heads and stoning women to death, nor am I the one flying airliners into buildings...or mountains.

False dilemma fallacy.

Not really.

Yes really. For someone who's addicted to accusing others of making fallacies (even to the point that you make up bullshit fallacies), you'd think you'd understand what a clear fallacy is.

You are THE most uncivilised poster ever seen on rd.net/ratskep/rationalia.

Why thank you. Fine compliment indeed coming from you. This shows that I'm doing my job just exactly as I intended to.

So you agree that you are a giant irony fail? Good, glad we are on the same page.

No, it means that you've risen to the bait, again.

If "rising to the bait" means making you look stupid, then I'm happy to keep doing it. You don't seem to realise that you troll yourself more than you troll others.