Iraq Unravelling...Again

[Aceflyer]

Ace, the problem with that quote is that the US has historically faked diplomatic attempts before doing whatever it was planning to do anyway.

 

Proof that Sadr wouldn't also be making underhanded maneuvers? Underhanded maneuvers are a fact of life; they have always happened and always will happen while official diplomacy and negotiations go on.

 

The point is you asked me to provide proof of the US' willingness to negotiate with Sadr, and I provided this proof. Accept it and move on.

 

Besides, Petraeus, contrary to what the heel-licking candidates would have you believe, isn't exactly Mr. Perfect - if I had to make any statement on that, I'd say that he's just been someone they could stick in there to help hold it together and make the war more popular until the elections are over.

 

Claims about Petraeus' character are irrelevant. He is the commanding general in Iraq, and he was briefing Congress when he made his remarks. We have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

For all the talk about how the armed groups "threaten the stability and freedom of the Iraqis", perhaps we should remember that the #1 killer of civilians has been the US armed forces, not the people who (true or not) claim to represent those people.

 

Provide proof. You won't be able to provide it, for the simple reason that Iraq isn't stable enough for accurate stats to exist about who is killing the most civilians.

[FMBI]

Ace, the problem with that quote is that the US has historically faked diplomatic attempts before doing whatever it was planning to do anyway.

 

Proof that Sadr wouldn't also be making underhanded maneuvers? Underhanded maneuvers are a fact of life; they have always happened and always will happen while official diplomacy and negotiations go on.

 

The point is you asked me to provide proof of the US' willingness to negotiate with Sadr, and I provided this proof. Accept it and move on.

 

Ok, so you admit that the quote is either a lie or misleading and yet you're saying it proves your statement? Yeah.. Uh-huh..

 

Besides, Petraeus, contrary to what the heel-licking candidates would have you believe, isn't exactly Mr. Perfect - if I had to make any statement on that, I'd say that he's just been someone they could stick in there to help hold it together and make the war more popular until the elections are over.

 

Claims about Petraeus' character are irrelevant. He is the commanding general in Iraq, and he was briefing Congress when he made his remarks. We have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

I'm not attacking his "character," per se, I'm simply saying that he's basically a figurehead Bush could stick in there to !@#$%^&*ure people that we'd turned a corner, all the while continuing the pointless, self-contradictory, policies of his predecessors. And as far as !@#$%^&*uming his remarks are accurate, if I may provide you with an extreme case, remember that Hitler's generals were insisting up to the occupation of Berlin that the war was going wonderfully. Obviously this isn't quite that drastic, but the continued claims of success are almost unbelievably ridiculous.

 

For all the talk about how the armed groups "threaten the stability and freedom of the Iraqis", perhaps we should remember that the #1 killer of civilians has been the US armed forces, not the people who (true or not) claim to represent those people.

 

Provide proof. You won't be able to provide it, for the simple reason that Iraq isn't stable enough for accurate stats to exist about who is killing the most civilians.

 

I can't provide "proof" that one million Iraqis have died, either, but that doesn't mean the "54,000" figure provided by Fox news last year was correct. In that case, you look at accounts from the ground, and you study the overall picture. When you consider that the US is regularly carrying out air strikes, has undoubtedly carried out far more massacres than have been reported (I feel sorry for the scapegoats, personally), has had little regard for "collateral damage," and has dramatically lowered the quality of health of a vast number of Iraqis, I see no way that the insurgents could possibly have come near to the number of deaths we've caused. They have car bombs (yippee, 100 people killed and publicity for a week) and occasional purges, but it's actually counter productive for them to kill civilians because they want popular support. The US, on the other hand, wants to "cow the populace into submission," so it is reasonable (in a perverted way) that it would cause high levels of civilian casualties.

[Aceflyer]

Ok, so you admit that the quote is either a lie or misleading and yet you're saying it proves your statement? Yeah.. Uh-huh..

 

I never said the quote was a lie or was misleading. In fact (see below), I explicitly stated that "we have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary."

 

[Petraeus] is the commanding general in Iraq, and he was briefing Congress when he made his remarks. We have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

I was simply adding that the (unknown) presence or absence of underhanded actions has always been part of diplomacy, and does not necessarily reflect on the negotiating parties' sincerity toward said negotiations.

 

I'm not attacking his "character," per se, I'm simply saying that he's basically a figurehead Bush could stick in there to !@#$%^&*ure people that we'd turned a corner, all the while continuing the pointless, self-contradictory, policies of his predecessors. And as far as !@#$%^&*uming his remarks are accurate, if I may provide you with an extreme case, remember that Hitler's generals were insisting up to the occupation of Berlin that the war was going wonderfully. Obviously this isn't quite that drastic, but the continued claims of success are almost unbelievably ridiculous.

 

I actually agree with the view that Petraeus is basically Bush's figurehead. Still, comparing him to Hitler's generals is unwarranted. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we still have to assume his remarks are accurate.

 

I can't provide "proof" that one million Iraqis have died, either, but that doesn't mean the "54,000" figure provided by Fox news last year was correct. In that case, you look at accounts from the ground, and you study the overall picture. When you consider that the US is regularly carrying out air strikes, has undoubtedly carried out far more massacres than have been reported (I feel sorry for the scapegoats, personally), has had little regard for "collateral damage," and has dramatically lowered the quality of health of a vast number of Iraqis, I see no way that the insurgents could possibly have come near to the number of deaths we've caused. They have car bombs (yippee, 100 people killed and publicity for a week) and occasional purges, but it's actually counter productive for them to kill civilians because they want popular support. The US, on the other hand, wants to "cow the populace into submission," so it is reasonable (in a perverted way) that it would cause high levels of civilian casualties.

 

So basically you don't have proof to back up your previous claim. The above is ungrounded speculation at best. Concession accepted.

[AstroProdigy]

Ace, the problem with that quote is that the US has historically faked diplomatic attempts before doing whatever it was planning to do anyway.

 

Proof that Sadr wouldn't also be making underhanded maneuvers? Underhanded maneuvers are a fact of life; they have always happened and always will happen while official diplomacy and negotiations go on.

 

The point is you asked me to provide proof of the US' willingness to negotiate with Sadr, and I provided this proof. Accept it and move on.

 

Besides, Petraeus, contrary to what the heel-licking candidates would have you believe, isn't exactly Mr. Perfect - if I had to make any statement on that, I'd say that he's just been someone they could stick in there to help hold it together and make the war more popular until the elections are over.

 

Claims about Petraeus' character are irrelevant. He is the commanding general in Iraq, and he was briefing Congress when he made his remarks. We have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

For all the talk about how the armed groups "threaten the stability and freedom of the Iraqis", perhaps we should remember that the #1 killer of civilians has been the US armed forces, not the people who (true or not) claim to represent those people.

 

Provide proof. You won't be able to provide it, for the simple reason that Iraq isn't stable enough for accurate stats to exist about who is killing the most civilians.

 

Actually you only provided proof of Petraeus and Hammond are willing to negotiate with Sadr. Petraeus actually caught the neo con war hawks like Lieberman off guard on the matter. Petraeus seems to be one of the few people in the administration actually trying to win in Iraq and though i disagree with his strategy at least he's not promoting violence because it mobilizes the expensive American war machine for longer. Too bad with Bush as commander in chief even Petraeus' flawed strategy doesn't really have a chance. Considering Bush praised the attacks on Sadr's militia in Basra I doubt he wants the same goal as Petraeus.

 

Also, the #1 killer of civilians hasn't been the US armed forces. It's the Shiite militias that we've enabled and helped arm (Mahdi Army not included since we don't fund it to my knowledge).

 

They have car bombs (yippee' date=' 100 people killed and publicity for a week) and occasional purges, but it's actually counter productive for them to kill civilians because they want popular support.[/quote']

That's why sectarian killings are what's causing most of the death tolls. You don't need the support of Sunnis if you're a Shiite militia leader so it's actually counterproductive not to kill them since that makes room for your supporters. Sadr does try to go beyond that, though, and thanks to the time we gave him to purge most of the extreme elements from his militia so that we could claim a troop surge is working he can now start saying hes beyond sectarianism and be even more popular. I do agree that US soldiers kill a lot more civilians than the government admits, but it still doesn't make up for the 1 million or more figure of those killed.

Edited May 9, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aceflyer]

Actually you only provided proof of Petraeus and Hammond are willing to negotiate with Sadr.

 

Since Petraeus is the US' commanding general in Iraq, we have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary. This is not some random Army lieutenant we're talking about here, after all.

 

It's like, say, Rudy making some remarks about Trench Wars policies regarding players. We have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary (e.g. a TW Sysop statement to the contrary). You wouldn't say "oh, that's just what Rudy says... doesn't really mean much since he's 'just' the SMod in charge of enforcing TW policies regarding players..."

 

Petraeus actually caught the neo con war hawks like Lieberman off guard on the matter. Petraeus seems to be one of the few people in the administration actually trying to win in Iraq and though i disagree with his strategy at least he's not promoting violence because it mobilizes the expensive American war machine for longer. Too bad with Bush as commander in chief even Petraeus' flawed strategy doesn't really have a chance. Considering Bush praised the attacks on Sadr's militia in Basra I doubt he wants the same goal as Petraeus.

 

> Lieberman doesn't direct US policy.

> The rest is just unsupported speculation based on your personal analysis.

[AstroProdigy]

Since Petraeus is the US' commanding general in Iraq' date=' we have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary. This is not some random Army lieutenant we're talking about here, after all.[/quote']

Okay first of all just because someone has a position authority doesn't mean their statements are accurate. Also, you seem to have missed my point entirely. Just because Petraeus thinks one way doesn't mean Bush, the commander in chief does also.

 

Trench Wars sucks I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

 

Lieberman is a much better indicator of neo con at!@#$%^&*udes as a neo con himself than Petraeus is. Also, there's only 2 possibilities to the way the Bush administration runs the war in Iraq. Either it's a matter of complete and utter incompetence or keeping the war going is beneficial to them. ReASSS don't get elected to the white house twice so I have to assume there are certain interests that are served by perpetual conflict. For one the military industrial complex is reaping massive profits as are the oil companies with all the "uncertainty" in the market caused by the war as well as the devaluing dollar caused by all that debt in part caused by the very same wars. Keeping a conflict in Iraq has been great for distracting the public from the myriad of internal problems caused by bad policies. It also provides us with an excuse for a future strike against Iran and/or Syria for "supporting extremists" in Iraq. Don't forget if Iraq's occupation was run competently we wouldn't have to be there for the next 100 years and thus extending our influence into the Middle East indefinitely. See bumbling a war has lots of benefits!

[Aceflyer]

Okay first of all just because someone has a position authority doesn't mean their statements are accurate. Also, you seem to have missed my point entirely. Just because Petraeus thinks one way doesn't mean Bush, the commander in chief does also.

 

When Petraeus is the US commanding general in Iraq, I'm going to assume his statements regarding US policy are accurate unless I'm presented with convincing evidence to the contrary. You haven't presented any evidence that President Bush has overruled Petraeus on this matter, hence, we have to assume General Petraeus' statements are accurate.

 

Trench Wars sucks I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

 

I was merely attempting to draw an analogy with Continuum in hopes of better illustrating my point.

 

Lieberman is a much better indicator of neo con at!@#$%^&*udes as a neo con himself than Petraeus is. Also, there's only 2 possibilities to the way the Bush administration runs the war in Iraq. Either it's a matter of complete and utter incompetence or keeping the war going is beneficial to them. ReASSS don't get elected to the white house twice so I have to assume there are certain interests that are served by perpetual conflict. For one the military industrial complex is reaping massive profits as are the oil companies with all the "uncertainty" in the market caused by the war as well as the devaluing dollar caused by all that debt in part caused by the very same wars. Keeping a conflict in Iraq has been great for distracting the public from the myriad of internal problems caused by bad policies. It also provides us with an excuse for a future strike against Iran and/or Syria for "supporting extremists" in Iraq. Don't forget if Iraq's occupation was run competently we wouldn't have to be there for the next 100 years and thus extending our influence into the Middle East indefinitely. See bumbling a war has lots of benefits!

 

> Lieberman still doesn't direct US policy, hence Petraeus' statements trump Lieberman's at!@#$%^&*udes in case of differences between them.

> The rest is still just unsupported speculation based on your personal opinions.

[AstroProdigy]

Congrats on being repe!@#$%^&*ive.

[Aceflyer]

Not being repe!@#$%^&*ive, just being accurate and trying to restate key points.

[AstroProdigy]

Considering Petraeus actually DOES NOT ultimately decide foreign policy since that's the commander in chief Dubya's job I think you fail to see the point.

 

Also, Lieberman's opinions on foreign policy are closer to the Bush administration's which is ultimately the decision maker on Iraq.

 

You provide me with an alternative explanation to the way Iraq is run. I bet you'll just say it was a bumbled war caused by incompetence. Funny how an administration who could turn the public and even get reelected so easily because of brilliant handling is suddenly incompetent when there's a failure.

Edited May 10, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aceflyer]

Considering Petraeus actually DOES NOT ultimately decide foreign policy since that's the commander in chief Dubya's job I think you fail to see the point.

 

But has President Bush ever overruled Petraeus' statements (that we know of)? If not, we have to assume Petraeus' statements are accurate.

 

To draw an analogy with a generic Continuum zone: the zone owner(s) ultimately decide(s) zone policy, but we generally assume statements made by the system operator(s) of that zone concerning zone policy are accurate unless overruled by the zone owner(s).

 

Also, Lieberman's opinions on foreign policy are closer to the Bush administration's which is ultimately the decision maker on Iraq.

 

Just because Lieberman's opinions are often closer to the Administration's than Petraeus' are does not mean anything. We still have to assume Petraeus' statements are accurate unless we have convincing evidence to the contrary. You still haven't presented this evidence, by the way.

 

You provide me with an alternative explanation to the way Iraq is run. I bet you'll just say it was a bumbled war caused by incompetence. Funny how an administration who could turn the public and even get reelected so easily because of brilliant handling is suddenly incompetent when there's a failure.

 

On the contrary, I do not need to provide you with any alternative explanation. You were the one who is claiming that Petraeus' statements were false; you need to provide proof for your claims - note, solid proof, not speculation or reasoning.

 

As far as the way Iraq was fought: yes, there was incompetence. Just because President Bush was able to get reelected handily doesn't necessarily mean he knows how to best handle something like the war in Iraq. His reelection had more to do with Karl Rove's strategic genius, conservative voters who were chiefly concerned about domestic conservative issues (such as abortion and the other old hat stuff), and John Kerry's strategic incompetence than anything. In any case, this is irrelevant.

[AstroProdigy]

Considering Petraeus actually DOES NOT ultimately decide foreign policy since that's the commander in chief Dubya's job I think you fail to see the point.

 

But has President Bush ever overruled Petraeus' statements (that we know of)? If not, we have to assume Petraeus' statements are accurate.

 

To draw an analogy with a generic Continuum zone: the zone owner(s) ultimately decide(s) zone policy, but we generally assume statements made by the system operator(s) of that zone concerning zone policy are accurate unless overruled by the zone owner(s).

 

Also, Lieberman's opinions on foreign policy are closer to the Bush administration's which is ultimately the decision maker on Iraq.

 

Just because Lieberman's opinions are often closer to the Administration's than Petraeus' are does not mean anything. We still have to assume Petraeus' statements are accurate unless we have convincing evidence to the contrary. You still haven't presented this evidence, by the way.

 

You provide me with an alternative explanation to the way Iraq is run. I bet you'll just say it was a bumbled war caused by incompetence. Funny how an administration who could turn the public and even get reelected so easily because of brilliant handling is suddenly incompetent when there's a failure.

 

On the contrary, I do not need to provide you with any alternative explanation. You were the one who is claiming that Petraeus' statements were false; you need to provide proof for your claims - note, solid proof, not speculation or reasoning.

 

As far as the way Iraq was fought: yes, there was incompetence. Just because President Bush was able to get reelected handily doesn't necessarily mean he knows how to best handle something like the war in Iraq. His reelection had more to do with Karl Rove's strategic genius, conservative voters who were chiefly concerned about domestic conservative issues (such as abortion and the other old hat stuff), and John Kerry's strategic incompetence than anything. In any case, this is irrelevant.

 

You assume that when they disagree people find out about it. Petraeus is a military man when he's told to do something by the commander in chief he tends to do it and not make a scene about it. Bush doesn't have to disagree with this statement in his words because that would make him look like he's ignoring the man he's had glorified. Instead he can just ignore his words by making him act towards Sadr in a way that make negotiation impossible. Americans can then never figure it out because the vast majority of them don't think past the front page news.

 

A zone on the other hand is filled with attention ASSS who make a fuss over nothing. Sorry, but that was a failed analogy unless zone staff are trained like the military.

 

Convincing evidence to the contrary is simply the way we supported Maliki's unprovoked attack on Sadr's forces in Basra and then our battering and walling off of Sadr city.

 

I made claims that Petraeus' claims can easily be overruled by Bush and that Petraeus does not make the policy. You asked me to prove it based on pure speculation that Petraeus and Bush have the same opinion about Sadr or that if Petraeus has an opinion that it therefore must be US policy. Your speculation is just as much speculation as mine is.

 

Bush has brilliant people working for him. Bush won for more than just abortion and gay marriage. His administration even neutralized Kerry's war record and turned it into a negative while keeping Bush from being blamed for doing so. That takes pure genius. The only thing that really marked a turning point in his administration after reelection was Katrina and that was something they couldn't really plan for.

[Aceflyer]

You assume that when they disagree people find out about it. Petraeus is a military man when he's told to do something by the commander in chief he tends to do it and not make a scene about it. Bush doesn't have to disagree with this statement in his words because that would make him look like he's ignoring the man he's had glorified. Instead he can just ignore his words by making him act towards Sadr in a way that make negotiation impossible. Americans can then never figure it out because the vast majority of them don't think past the front page news.

 

All of the above = unsupported speculation.

 

A zone on the other hand is filled with attention ASSS who make a fuss over nothing. Sorry, but that was a failed analogy unless zone staff are trained like the military.

 

Your at!@#$%^&*ude toward zone staff aside, you apparently completely missed the point of my analogy. Oh well, just disregard the analogy then.

 

Convincing evidence to the contrary is simply the way we supported Maliki's unprovoked attack on Sadr's forces in Basra and then our battering and walling off of Sadr city.

 

That isn't supporting evidence unless you provide evidence that the US told Maliki to do what he did. Currently all the evidence shows is Maliki rushed off and tried something and failed, and the US ended up having to back him up out of necessity (it was either that or allow Maliki's government to destabilize).

 

I made claims that Petraeus' claims can easily be overruled by Bush and that Petraeus does not make the policy. You asked me to prove it based on pure speculation that Petraeus and Bush have the same opinion about Sadr or that if Petraeus has an opinion that it therefore must be US policy. Your speculation is just as much speculation as mine is.

 

On the contrary, I didn't speculate anything. I first claimed the US was willing to negotiate with al-Sadr. You disagreed and asked for proof. I then provided quotes from Petraeus that showed that the US was, in fact, willing to negotiate with al-Sadr (overtures that were rebuffed by al-Sadr). You then stated that Petraeus' statements were inaccurate. I then asked for proof from you to back your claim up. You then gave me no facts, but did give me a bunch of speculation/reasoning based on your interpretation of US neocon at!@#$%^&*udes and your interpretation of the US administration's thought processes and motives.

 

What I have been saying all along is that we have to accept Petraeus' statements to the US Congress as factual unless we are presented with statements from the administration to the contrary. I have never claimed that Petraeus can't be overruled by President Bush; rather, I have said that there is no proof that President Bush has overruled Petraeus (and in the absence of such proof, we have to accept Petraeus' statements to the US Congress as fact).

 

Bush has brilliant people working for him. Bush won for more than just abortion and gay marriage. His administration even neutralized Kerry's war record and turned it into a negative while keeping Bush from being blamed for doing so. That takes pure genius. The only thing that really marked a turning point in his administration after reelection was Katrina and that was something they couldn't really plan for.

 

When have I ever said anything to the contrary? In my last post, for example, I specifically made reference to Karl Rove's strategic genius. President Bush obviously had brilliant people working for him. Having brilliant people work for him does not guarantee competence in an untraditional conflict like the current Iraq situation.

[AstroProdigy]

What I have been saying is a lack of other sources in no way proves the one source you have. Please take a logic class so you can bring some to the discussion. That !@#$%^&*umes that Petraeus is the only source as well. You want statements from the administration before you can believe anything? Do you have a mind of your own? An absence of proof is not a proof of absence! Come on this is a standard logical fallacy. I'm sure you've heard of it somewhere. Having strategic genius in one area makes it highly doubtful that in another you'll have utter incompetence. It's naive to assume there's utter incompetence there just because that's what you are told.

 

That isn't supporting evidence unless you provide evidence that the US told Maliki to do what he did. Currently all the evidence shows is Maliki rushed off and tried something and failed' date=' and the US ended up having to back him up out of necessity (it was either that or allow Maliki's government to destabilize).[/quote']

That's the only statement you made in your entire post that isn't a logical fallacy. It's true that Maliki rushed off with little notice to the US (only 48 hours I believe), but the US also tried to play up the move until it was clear Maliki's endeavor was a failure. He even called the militias in Basra criminals! On top of that the response to the failure of the offensive was to pound Sadr city mercilessly and try to wall off a chunk of it to be "cleansed" by US air strikes. Also, if you want a statement by Bush before you can believe the US is doing something in Iraq then good luck with the fantasy you call reality. By your logic if Bush refused to admit there was a war going on in Iraq you'd believe him because a statement wasn't made to the contrary.

[NBVegita]

What I have been saying is a lack of other sources in no way proves the one source you have

 

Actually it does. If you have no way to prove him false and he has evidence, no matter the scale, showing he is correct, then he is correct.

 

From the little I've read your argument has no logic.

 

Ace is basing his statement from the only statements made by the concerning bodies. You on the otherhand are doing what you've tried to do to me in many posts and take speculative ideas and p!@#$%^&* them off as solid arguments.

 

And I do agree with Ace, being Petraeus is the leader of our armies in Iraq and is also en!@#$%^&*led to privileged information, that he can speak as to the United States intentions in Iraq. !@#$%^&* he is the man coordinating the US intentions in Iraq.

 

Ace has a sound argument.

 

You might need some lessons in logic as every argument based on something that cannot have a guaranteed outcome, is officially a logical fallacy. He does on the other hand have a very strong inductive argument, where as you have no inductive argument.

 

Ace:

Pet says U.S. willing to negotiate. (founded premise)

U.S. has not contradicted Pet to date (publically) (founded premise)

ther: U.S. is willing to negotiate.

 

You:

Pet says U.S. willing to negotiate (founded premise)

U.S. has not contradicted Pet to date (publically) (founded premise)

The U.S. actually contradicts Pet even though this has not been done before. (secretly and not to our knowledge) (unfounded premise)

ther: U.S. is not willing to negotiate.

 

It doesn't take a philosophy professor to see the error in your logic.

[Bak]

I say there's a Lepercon in my yard.

You have no proof there isn't.

ther: there's a lepercon in my yard.

[AstroProdigy]

Leave it to NBVegita to be wrong, completely and utterly wrong, and yet still come here just to contradict me. Logic doesn't mean following what just seems to make sense and putting words in my mouth by oversimplifying my argument in a way that suits you to the point of utterly lying about it.

 

You will never get Bush publicly saying Petraeus was wrong in his statement because that would be a media nightmare. The man who built up Petraeus as the commander in Iraq who must not be questioned because we have to support our troops is also the man who will not publicly question him. The real proof is in the actions Bush directs after the statement. Again, just because Petraeus is the commander in Iraq doesn't mean his policies are US policy.

 

Bush has replaced plenty of generals who disagreed with him and what you seem to fail to be able to get your mind around is that a general and a president can disagree and do disagree many times. Petraeus saying something about Sadr that Bush disagrees which could easily be Petraeus subtly trying to put his own opinion out there because he can't change the actual policy in Iraq without Bush's permission or could just be a slip from Petraeus that he thought wouldn't have been such a big deal.

 

The point is you have no proof of the actual commander in chief wanting to cooperate with Sadr so you need to put forth words that people around him have said as evidence. This is clearly the sign of a weak argument since the evidence coming from the actual commander in chief is that of trying to reduce Sadr's role in the public eye to that of a criminal thug.

 

NBVegita, I know your favorite thing to do on this forum is to contradict me, but if you don't want to come here with real arguments then you're just wasting my time. Sure if YOU decide what my argument is based on what you decide would be the weakest argument then you can convince yourself that I'm wrong, but please try to open your mind up a little.

Edited May 14, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

Show me where I am wrong.

 

Also where are you doing anything besides specculating? If you give me proof that the Administration has contradicted one of the generals statements, while agreeing to it publically then i will add a little more validity to your argument.

 

Until then, you have no argument.

 

The point is you have no proof of the actual commander in chief wanting to cooperate with Sadr so you need to put forth words that people around him have said as evidence. This is clearly the sign of a weak argument since the evidence coming from the actual commander in chief is that of trying to reduce Sadr's role in the public eye to that of a criminal thug.

 

Cite that please.

 

oh and

 

oversimplifying my argument in a way that suits you to the point of utterly lying about it.

 

Please state your argument, in a logic format with conclusion, using as many premises as you would like.

 

I will ask that you do cite your premise sources too.

 

You want a chance to defend your argument using logic, go right ahead.

[NBVegita]

I say there's a Lepercon in my yard.

You have no proof there isn't.

ther: there's a lepercon in my yard.

 

As with your lep, all one would have to do is merely walk into your yard to prove your statement true or false.

 

Also you would need to add:

 

If I say there is a lepercon in my yard, there is a lepercon in my yard.

 

And could take out:

 

You have no proof there isn't.

 

With pet, you can't use deductive logic because there is no way to discern a definate conclusion until the event actually happens. Until you can discern a definate conclusion, you will always have a logical fallacy. In order for something to be logically true, it must be impossible to have all premises to be true with a false conclusion. Being we have no way to know the conclusion we cannot use deductive logic. So you must use inductive logic, for which Ace has a much better argument than Astro.

[AstroProdigy]

NBVegita: Please go have a discussion with a professor of logical and critical reasoning before you post again, because until then you're wasting my time. Aceflyer is the one making the claim that Bush is willing to negotiate with Sadr, therefore, he needs to prove it without a doubt and not me. I don't need to prove Bush isn't willing to negotiate with Sadr, simply that the claim that he is willing to negotiate with Sadr is false.

 

Cite that please.

Here you go. Bush refers to Sadr's forces as criminals 3 times when asked about Maliki's assault on Basra.

 

Listen NBVegita I'm not going to repeat my argument just because you're too lazy to read through the thread. If you want to debate on the thread then take the time to read what's been said on it.

Edited May 14, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

he needs to prove it without a doubt

 

False. How many times do I have to post this: Without a finite conclusion, neither of you can prove an argument without a doubt. Plain and simple.

 

His inductive argument proves his statement very soundly. That is all Ace needs. If you are going to contradict his statement, you need to prove his statement false, as he's already proven his statement(s). Which you most certainly have not done.

 

When I was in grad school was the teacher for 2 recitation blocks for 2 semesters in logic, it was the only way I could afford grad school. I still have many friends in the philosphy department at Syracuse University. If it would make you feel better I could have one of them notarize a statement, on school letterhead, I will upload it in PDF form, analyzing this argument. Also if you would like to direct me to some way I can contact whomever you have learned this logic from, be it a teacher, professor, or other, I will gladly have this debate with them.

 

Ace has made his argument, which you have no evidence to contradict. As usual in an argument you try to advert the attention from you having to make a concise argument in or to invalidate your opponents. I have read the entire topic from start to finish and no where do you post a consise argument. Whenever you start to make an argument you bury it in a revolving paragraph that directs you away from the argument. Very similar to what Clinton does when she gets a question she doesn't want to answer.

 

By saying that Iraq should take force against criminal elements or those acting outside the law (in this case insinuating Sadr) does not mean he isn't willing to negotiate with them. Until you have a statement from him saying he will not negotiate, or can outline a course of events showing that they have implicitly avoided negotiations, you are just specculating.

 

And how come if I'm so terribly wrong, when I ask you to tell me why, you beat around the bush (no pun intended).

 

Your inability to pose a concise argument and to show any fault in my statements just shows the lack of factual knowledge you have in the subject.

[Bak]

If it would make you feel better I could have one of them notarize a statement, on school letterhead, I will upload it in PDF form, analyzing this argument.

do it liar

[NBVegita]

I will send a letter today.

[ThunderJam]

This is gonna come out sounding liek total flame, but so be it :/

 

Astro you come across as being the most abnoxious and immature person here. It's one think to argue, but you accuse ppl of the same crap you pull all the time (putting words in mouths). In addition, maybe try to be a bit more respectful? I can't help but notice every post of yours ive read in this topic sounds like a 14 year old boy trying to pick a fight...

[Aceflyer]

First - a bit off topic, but thanks NBVegita for your logical and well thought-out posts; I for one appreciate them.

 

Now, to address the 'lepercon' argument...

 

I say there's a Lepercon in my yard.

You have no proof there isn't.

ther: there's a lepercon in my yard.

 

An important factor here is that your statement that there's a lepercon in your yard doesn't cons!@#$%^&*ute reasonable proof. You are basically some dude we only know over the Internet, and your statement was made in a post on SSForum.net.

 

On the other hand, with the statement I was using to support my argument in this thread, Petraeus is a US General and in fact is the US' commanding general in Iraq. Furthermore, his statement was made to the US Congress, and is on the record. All of these facts lend Petraeus' statement credence.

 

Also note that I made a claim and backed it up with a reputable statement from someone else. In your example, you made a claim and attempted to back yourself up; there's a world of difference there also.