Iraq Unravelling...Again

[AstroProdigy]

When did I say insurgents are black and white? I've been trying to show you the whole time that insurgents like Sadr aren't evil the way you think they are and that all the players in Iraq are just glorified militia leaders. Sadr, Maliki, Barzani, Talabani, Hakim, all the Awakening Council leaders, and every other leader in Iraq are all just tribal and militia leaders. W

 

hat makes Maliki the legitimate prime minister while Sadr is the all encomp!@#$%^&*ing evil of Iraq in the western media? We picked Maliki because he was willing to serve our interests while Sadr was more of a nationalist.

 

Why can't we negotiate with Sadr? Because we don't want to. He has gained his support as a nationalist fighting against the raping of his country and the rapist is going to have a lot of trouble negotiating with him without giving some serious concessions. He also has his influence without US help and wouldn't immediately lose all his power without the US propping him up the way we prop up Maliki (although Iran is also props him so maybe he'd survive politically) and that gives him a stronger hand.

 

Why are people in his militia angry at us? Well we've been attacking them and funding those attacking them for years consistently and our corporate media have been painting him the same way for so long (he's been referred to as RADICAL clerical Muqtadar al-Sadr every time his name is first mentioned in just about every New York Times article among other things) it doesn't take a genius to figure out we're only convincing the US population to oppose ever negotiating with him and recognizing he's just as legitimate as any of the other militia leaders.

 

The Mahdi Army is anti OCCUPATION, but how is that not a legitimate viewpoint? They're supported by most Shiites and if we really allowed democracy to take hold they'd at the very least take over several provinces including Basra with its oil and then resist the formerly unrestricted raping of their country by the US. We don't want real democracy there. We want democracy within the confines of supporters of the US. Remember what happened when democracy was allowed to happen in the West Bank and Gaza? The west immediately invalidated it and the western media followed lock step.

 

Let's not kid ourselves at what the occupation actually is because it has nothing to do with helping Iraqis or bringing them freedom or any of that bull!@#$%^&* and I can't understand how anyone can honestly believe that without seriously deluding themselves. The people are worse off than even under Saddam after the sanctions with already more being killed after Saddam's reign than during, women's rights and religious freedom are worse than they were under Saddam in any part of his reign, and the only "democratic" choice you have is whoever will serve US interests and most of the time whoever is already in charge in your area.

[NBVegita]

that insurgents like Sadr aren't evil the way you think they are

 

When have I ever even made a vague inference to that?

 

For my inference about black and white:

 

If we wanted to destroy the Mahdi Army, we'd have to destroy a large part of the population that supports them. That would only create for more recruitment to the Mahdi Army. Now do you see how insurgencies work?

 

You made it appear, in my opinion, that insurgencies are simple things to figure out. Thus I used black and white as a metaphor.

 

Again, as this began you have nothing more than speculation to say that we don't want to negotiate. Yet Sadr has publicly stated that they are not willing to negotiate.

 

with already more being killed after Saddam's reign than during

 

You are seriously joking right?

 

And this is what the 3rd time now that I've stated I'm not attempting to arguing the politics of right and wrong in Iraq.

 

As of now, we are helping the Iraqi military because they are our allies. I'm not debating why they're our allies, just the fact that they are indeed our allies.

[AstroProdigy]

Well there's another way to stop an insurgency or at least slowly whittle it down which is to improve the situation of the people economically so they'll have something to lose in aiding insurgents; that's clearly not happening.

 

Sadr has publicly stated he is not willing to negotiate? Proof?

 

I've provided PROOF that all we've been doing with regard to Sadr is try to chip away at his influence. All you've provided is playing constant devil's advocate and affirming a statement that was NOT made by the person in charge of policy in Iraq. Petraeus also said that Iran has a positive role that it could play in Iraq do you think that means Bush wants to negotiate with Iran? Oh wait I'm sure you'll take that as proof we are too.

 

Why are the Badr Organization and the Dawa Party that form the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police our allies? BECAUSE WE CHOOSE THEM TO BE OUR ALLIES! There's no special legitimacy that they hold they're just on our good side! I've been trying to help you understand this point over and over yet you still ignore it and act like we're helping the Iraqi military because they're our allies when in reality they're only our allies because we choose them to be so and the reason we help them is because we've decided we want them to be in charge.

[NBVegita]

"I'm not debating why they're our allies"

 

What don't you get about that.

 

I've provided PROOF

 

You've provided nothing, thats the problem. You've provided speculation. Speculation != proof.

 

As for not willing to negotiate http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33679

 

He is even trying to stop negotiations for continued U.S. support in Iraq, yet he is willing to negotiate with us on other fronts?

 

Of course the only sources I can find saying he is willing to negotiate(recently) are from his top aides. Which I would accept, but according to you is propaganda and means nothing unless the president/supreme leader personally makes the statement.

[AstroProdigy]

You keep saying we only support Maliki and the Badr Organization because they're our allies, but you've consistently failed to even let the issue of the US supports them be discussed. As long as you go back to the "we support them because they're our allies only" argument then "why are they are allies?" is going to always be a legitimate question to that argument.

 

He's protesting the country that's constantly attacking him and his militia. That means he doesn't want to negotiate? That proves absolutely nothing.

 

The fact is you haven't provided any proof for any of your arguments so all you've tried to do the whole time is try to make the debate hazy.

 

If someone who's in line with Bush's own opinions on Iraq like Cheney, Lieberman, or McCain, but as long as all you've got is someone who clearly is not in line with Bush on this issue then you have nothing more than a distraction.

[NBVegita]

all you've got is someone who clearly is not in line with Bush on this issue

 

Just speculation. In fact unfounded speculation as the Bush administration has yet to contradict Pet in any way.

 

The fact is you haven't provided any proof for any of your arguments

 

Actually the only proof provided on either side has been the public statements made by the head of the U.S. military in Iraq, also a high ranking Bush official, as introduced by Ace and the fact that the Bush administration is yet to contradict the man. Everything else is simply speculation.

 

"we support them because they're our allies only" argument then "why are they are allies?" is going to always be a legitimate question to that argument.

 

What you don't seem to realize is that in the capacity of which I am arguing, why they are our allies is completely inconsequential. Regardless of how or why we chose them to be are our allies means nothing when arguing that we helped them for being our allies. Nor am I trying to say that we would not ally ourselves with a different group if people if it would better suit our cause in Iraq. Simply put, in a warzone where we have great military influence, if an ally is going to plan an offensive we will offer them intelligence and support. In this case we didn't offer much support, mostly intelligence. Why said ally is an ally MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

 

He's protesting the country that's constantly attacking him and his militia. That means he doesn't want to negotiate?

 

Yet it appears when a top, not only U.S. but also Bush administration official, publically makes multiple claims that we're willing to negotiate, that means we are not willing to negotiate?

 

The problem with trying to argue this with you is that if we withdrew all troops for Sadr tomorrow and Bush came on a national news conference stating that we are planning to start negotiations with Sadr you would claim it to all be propaganda with a sinister ulterior motive.

 

It's hard to argue logically when it is countered illogically.

[AstroProdigy]

That is such utter bullcrap. The actions of the Bush administration have only made negotiation harder with Sadr. You're the one who is making the claim that Bush and Petraeus are in agreement that they should negotiate with Sadr because that is the only way the argument that "Petraeus is willing to negotiate and therefore the US is willing to negotiate" will work. Otherwise you have absolutely nothing because your entire argument is based on that statement.

 

The problem with trying to argue this with you is that if we withdrew all troops for Sadr tomorrow and Bush came on a national news conference stating that we are planning to start negotiations with Sadr you would claim it to all be propaganda with a sinister ulterior motive.

Of course the only sources I can find saying he is willing to negotiate(recently) are from his top aides. Which I would accept' date=' but according to you is propaganda and means nothing unless the president/supreme leader personally makes the statement.[/quote']

Wow you are entirely trying to distract from the argument here. Did you really teach a logic class or are you just bull!@#$%^&*ting to look like you know what you're talking about or are you purposely using logical fallacies just for laughs?

Edited June 7, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

I dare you, as I have multiple times to logically argue any of my (more so ace's) statements. If you try to prove something false, please present a logical derivative, using the proper rules (contraposition, ect.) showing such. For someone who claims to be able to find logical fallacies of statements it should be quite easy for you to produce logical functions from the statements aforementioned and derive fallacies. It is the basic thing you learn to do in a logic course.

 

You're the one who is making the claim that Bush and Petraeus are in agreement that they should negotiate with Sadr because that is the only way the argument that "Petraeus is willing to negotiate and therefore the US is willing to negotiate" will work.

 

Where have I ever stated that the U.S. should negotiate? I have simply stated that based on the evidence presented by Ace, his argument is a strong inductive argument. Attempting to twist what I've implicitly stated will not help you.

 

Neither of the two statements you posted (of mine), where to distract from the argument, they are simply to show the hypocritical nature of your arguments. It appears you take a point of view to be sound unless it does not benefit you then it magically becomes a logical fallacy.

 

Do you even know what the definition of a logical fallacy is? Without googling wikipedia?

[AstroProdigy]

I dare you' date=' as I have multiple times to logically argue any of my (more so ace's) statements. If you try to prove something false, please present a logical derivative, using the proper rules (contraposition, ect.) showing such. For someone who claims to be able to find logical fallacies of statements it should be quite easy for you to produce logical functions from the statements aforementioned and derive fallacies. It is the basic thing you learn to do in a logic course.[/quote']

It's called an appeal to ignorance. Ace said that because Petraeus said we should negotiate with Sadr we have to assume the US wants to negotiate with Sadr to which you have argued that Bush agrees because he has not disagreed. You want me to disprove your premise when you have never proved it. The burden of proof is on you.

Edited June 7, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

Astro, nice of you to cop out of things yet again.

 

The following statements are listed as fact:

 

Pet says we're willing to negotiate

Pet is a high ranking member of the Bush administration. (supports his authority to make such a statement)

Pet is the highest ranking military member in Iraq. (supports his authority to make such a statement)

The Bush administration has never contradicted Pet. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

The Bush administration is not now contradicting Pet. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

As a high ranking military and Administration official, Pet has a high level of access and insight as to the U.S. plans in Iraq. (Supports his authority to make such a statement)

Foreign policy does not need to be publicly announced by President Bush for it to be a policy. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

Foreign policy does not need to be publicly accepted/confirmed/insert adjective here by President Bush for it to be a policy. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

 

Based on the above premises, the conclusion that the U.S. is willing to negotiate with Sadr is a strong inductive argument.

 

As stated multiple times in multiple posts, with a conclusion that has not yet occurred it is impossible for either side to have a deductive logically truthful argument. So you must work with inductive arguments. All of the above premises are listed as FACT.

 

Now please try to explain what your definition of a logical fallacy is, as by the textbook, you are both deductively logically false.

[AstroProdigy]

Bush supports Petraeus' !@#$%^&*ertion that we should negotiate with Sadr. (unproven)

 

Prove it.

[NBVegita]

Pet says we're willing to negotiate

Pet is a high ranking member of the Bush administration. (supports his authority to make such a statement)

Pet is the highest ranking military member in Iraq. (supports his authority to make such a statement)

The Bush administration has never contradicted Pet. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

The Bush administration is not now contradicting Pet. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

As a high ranking military and Administration official, Pet has a high level of access and insight as to the U.S. plans in Iraq. (Supports his authority to make such a statement)

Foreign policy does not need to be publicly announced by President Bush for it to be a policy. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

Foreign policy does not need to be publicly accepted/confirmed/insert adjective here by President Bush for it to be a policy. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

 

Therefore it is a solid logical inference that Bush supports Petraeus' !@#$%^&*ertion that we are willing to negotiate with Sadr.

 

For the 23rd time in this topic, it is impossible to have a deductive logical truth when you have no set conclusion.

 

You can only delay for so long.

 

*Note I adjusted the conclusion from "Should" to "are willing" as Ace has never attempted to say that we "Should" negotiate with Sadr, simply that the United States is "willing" to negotiate with Sadr.

[AstroProdigy]

You are again using an appeal to ignorance. You're saying that because there isn't proof of Bush contradicting Petraeus therefore he must agree.

 

In fact one of your premises;

Foreign policy does not need to be publicly announced by President Bush for it to be a policy. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

proves that just because Bush never publicly announced that he is unwilling to negotiate with Sadr doesn't mean that isn't the policy.

 

Again I ask you:

Bush supports Petraeus' !@#$%^&*ertion that we are willing to negotiate with Sadr. (unproven)

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

You are again using an appeal to ignorance. You're saying that because there isn't proof of Bush contradicting Petraeus therefore he must agree.

 

In fact one of your premises

Foreign policy does not need to be publicly announced by President Bush for it to be a policy. (supports the accuracy of his statement)

proves that just because Bush never publicly announced that he is unwilling to negotiate with Sadr doesn't mean that isn't the policy.

 

Again I ask you:

Bush supports Petraeus' !@#$%^&*ertion that we are willing to negotiate with Sadr. (unproven)

 

Prove it.

[NBVegita]

Astro how many times do I have to say this before it gets through to you, you cannot prove a deductive logical truth (which you are asking for) without a set conclusion. You can't even evaluate a deductive argument with no set conclusion. I have given you a solid inductive argument how many times now?

 

What the !@#$%^&* else are you looking for?

 

This is from my first post in this topic:

 

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

 

So again being it is impossible to deductively prove it a logical truth and noting the fact I've never tried to prove it a logical truth, what the !@#$%^&* else are you looking for?

 

Also what the !@#$%^&* are you getting on about with this whole appeal to ignorance? Ignorance applies an unwilling lack of knowledge on the subject. There is no such thing. You have a full opportunity to show flaws in Ace's inductive argument, yet all you do is rant about him not being able to prove his conclusion deductively. The few times you do try to show flaws you do it with speculation.

[AstroProdigy]

Astro how many times do I have to say this before it gets through to you, you cannot prove a deductive logical truth (which you are asking for) without a set conclusion. You can't even evaluate a deductive argument with no set conclusion. I have given you a solid inductive argument how many times now?

 

What the !@#$%^&* else are you looking for?

 

This is from my first post in this topic:

 

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

 

So again being it is impossible to deductively prove it a logical truth and noting the fact I've never tried to prove it a logical truth, what the !@#$%^&* else are you looking for?

 

Also what the !@#$%^&* are you getting on about with this whole appeal to ignorance? Ignorance applies an unwilling lack of knowledge on the subject. There is no such thing. You have a full opportunity to show flaws in Ace's inductive argument, yet all you do is rant about him not being able to prove his conclusion deductively. The few times you do try to show flaws you do it with speculation.

When you leave a giant, gaping unproven hole in it your argument means nothing.

[NBVegita]

Well being Ace's argument is solid enough that you can't even show reasonable doubt that it's not a fair !@#$%^&*umption, I wouldn't quite call that a giant, gaping hole.

 

Look at this as a debate vs a formal deductive logical argument (which for the 28th time is impossible).

 

Ace is providing strong evidence to support his claim.

 

You have little to no evidence to support your claim.

 

Who wins that debate?

 

*awaits Ace to ignore everything in this post*

[AstroProdigy]

Ace stopped posting when I made him look like an idiot after he started arguing with me that the West didn't create the borders of Africa and I proved he was just arguing for the sake of arguing with no knowledge of Africa by feeding him an old map with different colonial borders that had been changed later on before colonialism ended and letting him use it as proof that the borders weren't shaped by Europe. It was a pre WWI map actually. Anyway reasonable doubt is that the actions of the US military have run counter intuitive to negotiation with Sadr especially in that they've been essentially to attack the Mahdi Army. The US may have been supporting Maliki in his attack on Sadr City, but the bombardment and walling off of pieces of Sadr City was all us.

[NBVegita]

The US may have been supporting Maliki in his attack on Sadr City, but the bombardment and walling off of pieces of Sadr City was all us.

 

Cite that please.

[AstroProdigy]

link

[FMBI]

Wasn't that link already posted like 3 times? Or was that my imagination? Anyway, Astro, from now on, don't bother giving links or proof, Veg never does.

 

Once again, rereading the article, I'm surprised at how it manages to mention, but gloss over, the most critical point. But, oh well.

[NBVegita]

When don't I cite, when asked?

 

As for that post I think I was more refering to us acting without any Iraqi influence, but I honestly don't remember.