9 of 10
9
Why we invaded Iraq
Posted: 09 July 2013 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 121 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 09 July 2013 01:00 PM
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 12:53 PM

Here’s a small sampling of Bryan’s statements: Which support my argument:

That’s the beauty of unfalsifiable claims:  Nothing can fail to support the argument.

Have you completely stopped debating the issue now?  I hope so.
I told you, feel free to falsify my claims yourself. Have fun.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 122 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 01:05 PM
Bryan - 09 July 2013 01:00 PM
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 12:53 PM

Here’s a small sampling of Bryan’s statements: Which support my argument:

That’s the beauty of unfalsifiable claims:  Nothing can fail to support the argument.

Have you completely stopped debating the issue now?  I hope so.

I’ve written enough for a reasonable person to conclude that the Iraq War invasion was undertaken primarily because of security concerns associated with WMD technologies.

You’ve written enough for the reasonable person to see that your argument is ambiguous, equivocal and effectively meaningless (the latter based on the degree of ambiguity you embrace).

I told you, feel free to falsify my claims yourself. Have fun.

Your claim that the Iraq invasion was for oil is supported by some American oil companies seeking contracts in Iraq after the war.  That’s an embarrassment to you, because it helps illustrate the lack of utility for your idea that wars are always about resources.  It means nothing or next to nothing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 01:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 123 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-I’ve written enough for a reasonable person to conclude that the Iraq War invasion was undertaken primarily because of security concerns associated with WMD technologies.

No you haven’t written enough. Most of what you have written is trying to point out argumentation tools and how you interpret them.
That’s mostly what you have written.  And lot’s of conjecture, you’ve written lot’s of conjecture, like: “Saddam, mysteriously got rid of his WMDs but wanted Iran to think he still had them, while simultaneously wanting the UN to think he didn’t have them.”

Bryan-Your claim that the Iraq invasion was for oil is supported by some American oil companies seeking contracts in Iraq after the war.

That’s partly it. 
It’s also based on the Oil for Food program. It’s also based on Wolfowitz discussing how Iraq is going to use it’s oil resources after the war.
It’s based on the larger strategic oil interests we have in that region and how other interests are moving into the picture(China and Russia).
I can simply rest on the oil for food program alone to support my claim.
The oil for food program was a military blockade of Iraq that cut-off food supplies to people and offered food in ransom in exchange for oil. This happened while we were engaged in a war with Iraq. There! I’m done right there.  Just that alone effectively shows that it was a war about oil.
But there’s more to it than that.
Once we physically invaded Iraq with boots on the ground in Iraq’s sovereign territory, Paul Wolfowitz explained how Iraq’s oil was going to be used.
The question is what administrative/governing body was charged with administering Iraq’s oil after we occupied? I won’t go into that because I have never really researched it. It’s not my area of interest.  But from my areas of historical interest, I can assume that the administrative body of The New Iraqi Gov’t and it’s oil department, as it were, was at least amicable to the US and it’s oil interests and allies.  At least amicable.
I don’t have to falsify any of this….....because that’s the way it all happened. That’s all historical record.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 124 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Bryan’s strategy:

Chubacca Logic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 125 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Scott Mayers - 09 July 2013 01:40 PM

Bryan’s strategy:

Chubacca Logic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14

Scott Mayers’ strategy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 126 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 01:38 PM

And lot’s of conjecture, you’ve written lot’s of conjecture, like: “Saddam, mysteriously got rid of his WMDs but wanted Iran to think he still had them, while simultaneously wanting the UN to think he didn’t have them.”

That’s not conjecture.  It’s the report of the intelligence operatives who debriefed Saddam Hussein while he was imprisoned awaiting trial, as well as based on Iraqi officials and documents.  As the Duelfer Report indicates, however, the Iraqi government culture departs from what we tend to expect in the West.  They often didn’t bother with documentation.  You only get the information through interviews with the people involved.

It’s cute that you conjecture that the information I provide is merely conjecture.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 01:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 127 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 09 July 2013 05:13 PM
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 01:38 PM

And lot’s of conjecture, you’ve written lot’s of conjecture, like: “Saddam, mysteriously got rid of his WMDs but wanted Iran to think he still had them, while simultaneously wanting the UN to think he didn’t have them.”

That’s not conjecture.  It’s the report of the intelligence operatives who debriefed Saddam Hussein while he was imprisoned awaiting trial, as well as based on Iraqi officials and documents.  As the Duelfer Report indicates, however, the Iraqi government culture departs from what we tend to expect in the West.  They often didn’t bother with documentation.  You only get the information through interviews with the people involved.

It’s cute that you conjecture that the information I provide is merely conjecture.

I don’t know how much faith I would put in heavily sanitized intel reports released to the internet regarding the interviews of a man
who you described as “crazy” and probably had nothing to lose at that point. I’m sure he realized he had at best a 50/50 chance of execution.
So we have this “information” that explains why Saddam wanted people to think he had WMDs, while simultaneously being coy about their location
to UN inspectors. Yeah that’s a cornerstone of solid evidence.
The question is, evidence of what? 
I know I know, you want to convince us that we genuinely believed he had WMD.
The point you still have to grasp is that even if he did have WMD and we knew he had them, the primary reason we went
was to stabilize an oil rich area. The WMD thing is a great bonus to sell to Congress and the UN. 
Really the oil thing is probably better to sell.  It is better to sell to Congress and The UN.
That’s something everyone can really get behind. 
I don’t know if you could sell it to the American people and other Allied Nations who had to send their sons and daughters over there though.
Although I had a buddy who was over there. This is purely anecdotal, but he told me that he wished they would have just said it was about oil in the first place.
He and his crew spent alot of his time risking their hides guarding oil infrastructure. That’s what he told me. Oil convoys, oil wells, oil equipment etc etc.
I suppose they didn’t want a repeat of the Kuwait/Iraq fiasco when the Iraqi army burned up half the desert destroying oil wells.
Remember that?  Boy they burned down some oil wells in their retreat.  Just like the Russians and The Germans did when they were fleeing one another.

[ Edited: 10 July 2013 01:15 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 128 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 10 July 2013 01:11 AM
Bryan - 09 July 2013 05:13 PM
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 01:38 PM

And lot’s of conjecture, you’ve written lot’s of conjecture, like: “Saddam, mysteriously got rid of his WMDs but wanted Iran to think he still had them, while simultaneously wanting the UN to think he didn’t have them.”

That’s not conjecture.  It’s the report of the intelligence operatives who debriefed Saddam Hussein while he was imprisoned awaiting trial, as well as based on Iraqi officials and documents.  As the Duelfer Report indicates, however, the Iraqi government culture departs from what we tend to expect in the West.  They often didn’t bother with documentation.  You only get the information through interviews with the people involved.

It’s cute that you conjecture that the information I provide is merely conjecture.

I don’t know how much faith I would put in heavily sanitized intel reports released to the internet regarding the interviews of a man
who you described as “crazy” and probably had nothing to lose at that point. I’m sure he realized he had at best a 50/50 chance of execution.

Indeed.  And how could his captors know that as well?  Might as well dismiss the information they collected as mere conjecture.

So we have this “information” that explains why Saddam wanted people to think he had WMDs, while simultaneously being coy about their location
to UN inspectors. Yeah that’s a cornerstone of solid evidence.

Yeah!  Conjecture!  That’s the ticket!  Let’s forget about the fact that they interviewed tons of people and were able to correlate the consistency of the answers they received.  We can assume that U.S. intelligence officers don’t know what they’re doing, basically.

The question is, evidence of what?

Isn’t it obvious?  It’s evidence of conjecture.  wink

I know I know, you want to convince us that we genuinely believed he had WMD.
The point you still have to grasp is that even if he did have WMD and we knew he had them, the primary reason we went
was to stabilize an oil rich area. The WMD thing is a great bonus to sell to Congress and the UN.

LMAO—and another falsification criterion (predictably) bites the dust!  Why didn’t we go into Nigeria to stabilize that oil-rich area, again?  Have no fear—VYAZMA will be able to provide some reason why all of the evidence—no matter what it is—supports his claim.

That’s suspiciously close to the way the promoters of conspiracy theories work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 129 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26

Wow.  People still argue over this.  I’d have thought it was sort of moot by now.  Shows what I know.  Well, carry on then.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 130 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-That’s suspiciously close to the way the promoters of conspiracy theories work.

What’s suspiciously close to the way conspiracy theories work?
What part of my argument is like a conspiracy theory?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 131 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-Indeed.  And how could his captors know that as well?  Might as well dismiss the information they collected as mere conjecture.

What did his captors know? C’mon…please answer this.
So what else did they find in the interrogation?
What kinds and amounts of WMD did he have?
How and where did he get rid of them?
Certainly you have these reports right? At least bits?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 132 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 10 July 2013 12:24 PM

Bryan-That’s suspiciously close to the way the promoters of conspiracy theories work.

What’s suspiciously close to the way conspiracy theories work?
What part of my argument is like a conspiracy theory?

Lack of falsifiability.  All evidence is made to support the claim.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 01:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 133 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 10 July 2013 12:57 PM

Bryan-Indeed.  And how could his captors know that as well?  Might as well dismiss the information they collected as mere conjecture.

What did his captors know? C’mon…please answer this.

I provided a link to the Duelfer report, IIRC.  Regardless of whether I provided a link to it, it is easily found on the Interwebs.

So what else did they find in the interrogation?
What kinds and amounts of WMD did he have?
How and where did he get rid of them?
Certainly you have these reports right? At least bits?

It’s a flippin’ gargantuan report that took a long time to piece together.  It would have been easier for the Bush administration, frankly, to falsify evidence of WMD than to put out this report.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 134 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

That’s great. So what does the report prove? 
Nothing in that report has anything in it which shows the Iraq war wasn’t about oil.
I need you to come up with evidence that refutes that the oil for food program wasn’t about oil.
Or evidence that American Strategists didn’t have a plan on how to administer the oil after we physically invaded Iraq.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 10:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 135 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 10 July 2013 01:30 PM

That’s great. So what does the report prove?


It proves the silliness of your assertion that my statements were conjecture, and it raises more questions about your approach to argumentation that you ask me to find information for you in searchable public documents. 

Nothing in that report has anything in it which shows the Iraq war wasn’t about oil.

Obviously.  I knew that as soon as you affirmed that President Bush eating oil and vinegar salad dressing while planning the Iraq War would help establish a link between the invasion and oil.  And it was doubly obvious when you said you couldn’t figure out anything that would falsify your claim.  Apparently you don’t understand the state of your argument.

I need you to come up with evidence that refutes that the oil for food program wasn’t about oil.

I don’t try to offer falsifying evidence to people who deny the existence of falsifying evidence in advance of the counterargument.  It indicates the type of thinking that will resist obvious evidences like the ones I’ve already given.

Or evidence that American Strategists didn’t have a plan on how to administer the oil after we physically invaded Iraq.

Does that mean you’re contradicting your earlier statement by discovering you can think of a falsification criterion after all?  I’ll bet if you think about it for a short time you can figure out how that evidence wouldn’t do anything to shake your beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 10
9