NationStates Jolt Archive


More proof the Bush White House isn't trying any more

Teh_pantless_hero
22-11-2005, 14:27
Really. First, there is the bullshit I outlined in my last thread about this, and now this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_36;_ylt=Aim7Lf9xvhUaXLp0M78737pX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Select excerpt:
Cheney also denounced proposals for a quick U.S. withdrawal from
Iraq as "a dangerous illusion" and shrugged off the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. "We never had the burden of proof," he said, adding that it had been up to Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein to prove to the world that he didn't have such weapons.

Cheney obviously has no idea how burden of proof works. With that reasoning, we can invade Mexico if they can't prove they don't have cows in Mexico City.

Hey, we don't have to prove they have cows in Mexico City; they have to prove they don't. And if they don't prove it, we are going to bomb them.

I suppose if your weapons are illogic and fallacy, you can do whatever you want and defend it.
Lazy Otakus
22-11-2005, 14:32
I'm speechless.
Letila
22-11-2005, 16:05
Damn, I knew they were bad, but this is truly appalling. They really aren't trying at all.
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:07
Well, your logic (and the logic of the Democratic Party) is that when faced with any difficulty, we should always cut and run.

Never try, never fail - that's the official motto of the Democratic Party.
UpwardThrust
22-11-2005, 16:07
Just goes to show again how stupid they truly are ... or un-caring whichever
UpwardThrust
22-11-2005, 16:08
Well, your logic (and the logic of the Democratic Party) is that when faced with any difficulty, we should always cut and run.

Never try, never fail - that's the official motto of the Democratic Party.
ok?

Edit: why does this sound like "oh yeah well your a ...... "
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:10
ok?

Edit: why does this sound like "oh yeah well your a ...... "

I don't hear any bright ideas coming from the Democrats, so until they have one (such as how to eliminate the insurgency and bring stability to Iraq so we can leave) that they can assert will have 100 percent success in a known and finite amount of time, they should shut up.
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:12
this little dude seems to think we're awesome.. This is in a town you couldn't even drive through two months ago, taken last week.

Gotta love it.http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b224/travquin/f096a3c5.jpg
UpwardThrust
22-11-2005, 16:13
I don't hear any bright ideas coming from the Democrats, so until they have one (such as how to eliminate the insurgency and bring stability to Iraq so we can leave) that they can assert will have 100 percent success in a known and finite amount of time, they should shut up.
Um thats not what we really are arguing here ... yeah its the first line but the highlighted part was more what we were talking about

The burden of proof part

So far none of us here were arguing that there was a quick withdrawl solution
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:15
Um thats not what we really are arguing here ... yeah its the first line but the highlighted part was more what we were talking about

The burden of proof part

So far none of us here were arguing that there was a quick withdrawl solution

It's kind of late to argue about why we went to war. We've been there a while now.

You could spend your time thinking of an effective strategy to succeed here, or you could waste your time revising history and second-guessing everything like an armchair general.

Of course, if you want this to end in failure, and blame it on the Republicans, and use it as a campaign issue, by all means, continue with the second-guessing, blaming, and revisionism. By all means. You don't care how many US soldiers will continue to die - and since you want it to fail, they will die for nothing. Cheers for you!
Gauthier
22-11-2005, 16:17
this little dude seems to think we're awesome.. This is in a town you couldn't even drive through two months ago, taken last week.

Gotta love it.http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b224/travquin/f096a3c5.jpg

I'm sure that family in the minivan thinks we're awesome too... well the family members who are alive and conscious. But don't worry Sierra, soon enough they'll be retroactively labeled Enemy Combatants and you can sleep soundly once more.

:rolleyes:
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:19
I'm sure that family in the minivan thinks we're awesome too... well the family members who are alive and conscious. But don't worry Sierra, soon enough they'll be retroactively labeled Enemy Combatants and you can sleep soundly once more.

:rolleyes:

It's cynics like you that allow the bad things to happen in this world - you have no hope for young children to grow up and make a better world, so you would rather that we all sit around and say, "well, better to do nothing - better to just sit on our hands and wait for the world to end - and we can hate everyone who goes out and tries to do more than talk - we'll hate anyone who tries to make a difference".
UpwardThrust
22-11-2005, 16:19
It's kind of late to argue about why we went to war. We've been there a while now.

You could spend your time thinking of an effective strategy to succeed here, or you could waste your time revising history and second-guessing everything like an armchair general.

Of course, if you want this to end in failure, and blame it on the Republicans, and use it as a campaign issue, by all means, continue with the second-guessing, blaming, and revisionism. By all means. You don't care how many US soldiers will continue to die - and since you want it to fail, they will die for nothing. Cheers for you!
Thats not what I was doing either

Why the hell do you seem so intent on projecting intent on me?

He made a stupid statement that claimed that the burden of proof was on them to show they did not have WMD

Thats what the arguement thus far is about ... that claiming it was their burden of proof was stupid.

Its like aresting you today for a murder and it being your burden of proof to prove you did not murder ... thats not how it works.

I dont know what sort of baggage you are carrying around but please settle it and argue with the here and now not whatever you are trying to accuse me of
Layarteb
22-11-2005, 16:20
Really. First, there is the bullshit I outlined in my last thread about this, and now this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_36;_ylt=Aim7Lf9xvhUaXLp0M78737pX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Select excerpt:


Cheney obviously has no idea how burden of proof works. With that reasoning, we can invade Mexico if they can't prove they don't have cows in Mexico City.

Hey, we don't have to prove they have cows in Mexico City; they have to prove they don't. And if they don't prove it, we are going to bomb them.

I suppose if your weapons are illogic and fallacy, you can do whatever you want and defend it.

Actually, and as much as I don't like the guy, he does know how burden of proof works.

America made the claim that Iraq had the WMD. That means the burden of proof falls on the Iraqi President, as he says. That's how burden of proof works man. Now that things have reversed and we haven't found the WMD, the burden of proof is slowly shifting to us but it's an entirely new situation. Cheney was wrong when he said America never had the burden of proof, in context. He should have said, "America has not had the burden of proof until now." But what politican would say that and commit political suicide.
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:21
Thats not what I was doing either

Why the hell do you seem so intent on projecting intent on me?

He made a stupid statement that claimed that the burden of proof was on them to show they did not have WMD

Thats what the arguement thus far is about ... that claiming it was their burden of proof was stupid.

Its like aresting you today for a murder and it being your burden of proof to prove you did not murder ... thats not how it works.

I dont know what sort of baggage you are carrying around but please settle it and argue with the here and now not whatever you are trying to accuse me of


I'm saying that discussing the burden of proof is a moot point at this time, and not only moot, but a complete waste of time.
UpwardThrust
22-11-2005, 16:23
Actually, and as much as I don't like the guy, he does know how burden of proof works.

America made the claim that Iraq had the WMD. That means the burden of proof falls on the Iraqi President, as he says. That's how burden of proof works man. Now that things have reversed and we haven't found the WMD, the burden of proof is slowly shifting to us but it's an entirely new situation. Cheney was wrong when he said America never had the burden of proof, in context. He should have said, "America has not had the burden of proof until now." But what politican would say that and commit political suicide.
No the burden of proof should always be on the acusers , or legal system got it right in that way.

Its like them accusing you and locking you away in prison untill you can prove you arnt guilty

We dont except that sort of treatment for our own people why should anyone else be different?
UpwardThrust
22-11-2005, 16:24
I'm saying that discussing the burden of proof is a moot point at this time, and not only moot, but a complete waste of time.
What do you think debates are?

What less waste of time would it be for us to debate something else?
Ilura
22-11-2005, 16:24
It's kind of late to argue about why we went to war. We've been there a while now.

You could spend your time thinking of an effective strategy to succeed here, or you could waste your time revising history and second-guessing everything like an armchair general.
This is not about the Iraq War!

This is about White House officials apparently view international politics.

To put it very, very simply, it seems that the US pointed at Iraq and said "you have WMDs". To which Iraq responded with "what? No we don't." To which the US said "Prove it".

You could compare this to a police officer coming up to you and saying "You murdered so-and-so." And if you say that you didn't do it, they then go on to say "well, we don't have to prove you did it, you have to prove you didn't. So show us the evidence or you're going to jail."

Guilty until proven innocent.

And this is a very scary way of thinking. And the fact that the world's most powerful leaders think in this way is even scarier indeed.
Lazy Otakus
22-11-2005, 16:25
I'm saying that discussing the burden of proof is a moot point at this time, and not only moot, but a complete waste of time.

It is not. If a politician like Cheney can make such a highly illogical statement, then it casts doubt on his qualifications for his job.
Free Soviets
22-11-2005, 16:26
I don't hear any bright ideas coming from the Democrats

that's because democrats are the stupid party instead of the evil stupid party.
Nadkor
22-11-2005, 16:26
Well, your logic (and the logic of the Democratic Party) is that when faced with any difficulty, we should always cut and run.

Never try, never fail - that's the official motto of the Democratic Party.

And precisely what does this have to do with the Bush administrations apparent massive misunderstanding of the legal system?

Seriously, the only thing more childish and idiotic you could have said was "Your mum has no idea how burden of proof works".
Luna Amore
22-11-2005, 16:26
It's kind of late to argue about why we went to war. We've been there a while now.

You could spend your time thinking of an effective strategy to succeed here, or you could waste your time revising history and second-guessing everything like an armchair general.

Of course, if you want this to end in failure, and blame it on the Republicans, and use it as a campaign issue, by all means, continue with the second-guessing, blaming, and revisionism. By all means. You don't care how many US soldiers will continue to die - and since you want it to fail, they will die for nothing. Cheers for you!Don't care? Did you read the quote? If we don't put pressure on the current politicians to justify why they went then what's to stop them from doing it again. I fail to see how it's anyone but the administrations fault for why we don't have an exit strategy. And you pointing the finger at the democrats isn't helping by your own admission, General.
Free Soviets
22-11-2005, 16:27
Its like them accusing you and locking you away in prison untill you can prove you arnt guilty

We dont except that sort of treatment for our own people why should anyone else be different?

well, to be fair, we've come to the point where they do do that to our own people. at least on a limited scale.
Non-violent Adults
22-11-2005, 16:29
Saddam Hussein gave up the proof. He sent the x thousand page report to DC, where it was called BS before anyone could read the whole thing. And he permitted weapons inspectors back in. What more could he have done to prove that he didn't have something?
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:31
No the burden of proof should always be on the acusers , or legal system got it right in that way.

Its like them accusing you and locking you away in prison untill you can prove you arnt guilty

We dont except that sort of treatment for our own people why should anyone else be different?

Many people make the mistake of assuming that international politics is merely an exercise in law enforcement, and that all the typical law enforcement rules apply, as you stated.

Not only do many people think this should have been the case in Iraq, but they believe that we are not at war with terrorists or insurgents - and that we should constrain our activities to police techniques and traditional law enforcement.

Such statements are made from a position of profound ignorance.

As an example, I could use your arguments to defer action in Darfur indefinitely. I could force you to wait until every last person was massacred there before you could prove that a genocide had taken place.

And by the time we sent troops there to do anything about it, it would already be over.
Non-violent Adults
22-11-2005, 16:32
I don't hear any bright ideas coming from the Democrats, so until they have one (such as how to eliminate the insurgency and bring stability to Iraq so we can leave) that they can assert will have 100 percent success in a known and finite amount of time, they should shut up.
Shut up about Democrats and concentrate on who your opponent actually is - those who oppose the Iraq War.
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:32
Don't care? Did you read the quote? If we don't put pressure on the current politicians to justify why they went then what's to stop them from doing it again. I fail to see how it's anyone but the administrations fault for why we don't have an exit strategy. And you pointing the finger at the democrats isn't helping by your own admission, General.

I can point at anyone who isn't offering any solution other than "run away".

The administration seems to have a plan. Not perfect, not to your liking, but they have one.

All the Democrats have is emotional tail-wagging.
Luna Amore
22-11-2005, 16:32
Actually, and as much as I don't like the guy, he does know how burden of proof works.

America made the claim that Iraq had the WMD. That means the burden of proof falls on the Iraqi President, as he says. That's how burden of proof works man. Now that things have reversed and we haven't found the WMD, the burden of proof is slowly shifting to us but it's an entirely new situation. Cheney was wrong when he said America never had the burden of proof, in context. He should have said, "America has not had the burden of proof until now." But what politican would say that and commit political suicide.If burden of proof ever actually works that way, we are screwed.
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:33
Shut up about Democrats and concentrate on who your opponent actually is - those who oppose the Iraq War.
So where's your bright idea about how to resolve the Iraq situation?

And I want hard, solid proof that your plan will have a 100 percent chance of success, and I want an unmovable exit date.

Prove it.
Teh_pantless_hero
22-11-2005, 16:35
Well, your logic (and the logic of the Democratic Party) is that when faced with any difficulty, we should always cut and run.

Never try, never fail - that's the official motto of the Democratic Party.
Thanks for contributing nothing to the topic in addition to trolling and flame baiting.

And burden of proof only works on a positive assertion, like "Iraq has WMDs." You can't prove a negative.
Gauthier
22-11-2005, 16:35
It's cynics like you that allow the bad things to happen in this world - you have no hope for young children to grow up and make a better world, so you would rather that we all sit around and say, "well, better to do nothing - better to just sit on our hands and wait for the world to end - and we can hate everyone who goes out and tries to do more than talk - we'll hate anyone who tries to make a difference".

Doing nothing is a preferrable alternative to the assjob that Bush is presiding over in Iraq. From doing little to instill confidence in the natives that we'll leave the country back to them in the near future or that they can drive down a street without being picked off by one or both sides, and then coming up with apologies and excuses for every political and strategic blunder made, doing nothing is a lot better than doing something outright full-assed.

When you do nothing, you use that time to think things out and then do it right. Bush had plenty of vacation time in office and he hasn't used any of that Nothing Time to do much right.

By sticking around in Iraq, we're giving the Jihadists a real and present scapegoat that they can use for recruitment and training. Hell, the only reason support dropped at all was Al Zarqawi targeting the Jordanians and we're hearing how Bin Ladin might have considered him a maverick who was overextending himself. If he did get killed, wouldn't be surprised because of this.

But back to the point of the post. Cheney saying the burden of proof on Iraq when it came to WMDs is the Shit Sundae of disingenuous copout. It's that whole Guilty Until Proven Innocent thinking which annoys me. You bring a charge, you prove it. Not the other way around unless Comrade Cheney forgot this was the United States and not the Soviet Union.

Then again considering America has special summer camps across the globe where fundamental human rights, much less American rights are optional I'm not surprised much. Or surprised by your Bushevik anthem-singing.
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:37
Doing nothing is a preferrable alternative to the assjob that Bush is presiding over in Iraq.

Never try, never fail - that's your motto.
Luna Amore
22-11-2005, 16:37
I can point at anyone who isn't offering any solution other than "run away".

The administration seems to have a plan. Not perfect, not to your liking, but they have one.

All the Democrats have is emotional tail-wagging.Is it working? They should have had a workable plan before they went in.

And I wouldn't be one to talk about emotional tail-wagging:


Of course, if you want this to end in failure, and blame it on the Republicans, and use it as a campaign issue, by all means, continue with the second-guessing, blaming, and revisionism. By all means. You don't care how many US soldiers will continue to die - and since you want it to fail, they will die for nothing. Cheers for you!
Alfred Glenstein
22-11-2005, 16:38
What do you think debates are?

What less waste of time would it be for us to debate something else?
I think this is a relevant quesiton
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:38
Is it working? They should have had a workable plan before they went in.

And I wouldn't be one to talk about emotional tail-wagging:

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]
Of course, if you want this to end in failure, and blame it on the Republicans, and use it as a campaign issue, by all means, continue with the second-guessing, blaming, and revisionism. By all means. You don't care how many US soldiers will continue to die - and since you want it to fail, they will die for nothing. Cheers for you![/QUOTE}

It's one thing to refer to emotion while a plan is being used.

It's another to refer to emotion and have no plan at all.
Lazy Otakus
22-11-2005, 16:40
Many people make the mistake of assuming that international politics is merely an exercise in law enforcement, and that all the typical law enforcement rules apply, as you stated.

Not only do many people think this should have been the case in Iraq, but they believe that we are not at war with terrorists or insurgents - and that we should constrain our activities to police techniques and traditional law enforcement.

Such statements are made from a position of profound ignorance.

As an example, I could use your arguments to defer action in Darfur indefinitely. I could force you to wait until every last person was massacred there before you could prove that a genocide had taken place.

And by the time we sent troops there to do anything about it, it would already be over.

There's quite a difference between a genocide that is happening and a genocide that has happened. If there is proof, that a genocide is happening, then an intervention might be a good idea.

I still don't understand how this has anything to do with the "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy.
Gauthier
22-11-2005, 16:42
Never try, never fail - that's your motto.

Is that your Bushevik Excuse for the day Sierra? "The Democrats don't have anything so it's okay that we're stepping on shit in Iran"?

It's a work of fiction, but I think this quote is perfect for the situation.

Do, or Not Do. There is no Try.

Cry all you want about Democrats not trying, but at least they're not the ones stepping on the Iraqis and making an international farce out of American foreign politics.
Luna Amore
22-11-2005, 16:46
It's one thing to refer to emotion while a plan is being used.

It's another to refer to emotion and have no plan at all.No, it is still emotional tail-wagging. You don't have a workable plan so when I point out the problems with it you knee jerk back about how I don't care how many people die, etc etc.
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 16:47
Is that your Bushevik Excuse for the day Sierra? "The Democrats don't have anything so it's okay that we're stepping on shit in Iran"?

Cry all you want about Democrats not trying, but at least they're not the ones stepping on the Iraqis and making an international farce out of American foreign politics.

Is there some reason you keep using the word "Bushevik"?

As I recall, the Democrats voted to go to war. And now, they're not offering anything except "run away".

And you're offering a little extra - "we should never try".

If we're stepping on shit in Iraq (not Iran, as you seem misinformed about the location of the war), then offer some constructive criticism, instead of some knee-jerk hatred.
Gift-of-god
22-11-2005, 16:50
Never try, never fail - that's your motto.

Better than: Never question, never think.:p
Non-violent Adults
22-11-2005, 16:52
Is there some reason you keep using the word "Bushevik"?

As I recall, the Democrats voted to go to war. And now, they're not offering anything except "run away".

And you're offering a little extra - "we should never try".

If we're stepping on shit in Iraq (not Iran, as you seem misinformed about the location of the war), then offer some constructive criticism, instead of some knee-jerk hatred.
Constructive criticism? The men running the federal government are guilty of serious crimes and you think they deserve constructive criticism? Why do war-opponents not deserve the same thing? Instead of addressing the point of this thread you change the subject to "the Democrats". The Democrats suck. So fucking what??? Does that change the fact that Dick Cheney is an evil piece of shit who deserves a life in prison?
New North Solidan
22-11-2005, 16:52
As an example, I could use your arguments to defer action in Darfur indefinitely. I could force you to wait until every last person was massacred there before you could prove that a genocide had taken place.

Dude, Darfur is a completely diffirent situation.

In the case of the yankee invasion of Iraq the burden of proof worked that America demanded them to prove themselves innocent of a crime for which America had no proof of, Iraq took this in stride knowing that the Americans are damned fools and did everything anyone could possibly do to re-affirm their innocence on the matter, and the Americans opted despite having no proof, and even a remote counter arguement from Iraq, to invade anyway.

In Darfur we have proof and it's an example of burden of proof working in a proper and standard context, we can see thousands of dead and refuge camps overfull, and we can draw a very direct link between these things and the Sudanese government. In the case of Darfur they've been all but proven guilty, we have evidence for which we can charge them for genocide.

The funny thing is that you would even bring Darfur up when your government leaps all over Iraq on mere suspicions, but when they have a clear cut genocide (Bush has even refered to it as such) they stand to do nothing.
Teh_pantless_hero
22-11-2005, 16:57
I'm having this bullshit closed ASAP. Deep Kimichi ruined this thread with his partisan flaming, thanks.
Silliopolous
22-11-2005, 16:59
I'm having this bullshit closed ASAP. Deep Kimichi ruined this thread with his partisan flaming, thanks.


He goes with what he knows....
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 17:01
I'm having this bullshit closed ASAP. Deep Kimichi ruined this thread with his partisan flaming, thanks.
How is it partisan flaming?

I see you call anything that disagrees with your world view to be flaming.
Gauthier
22-11-2005, 17:01
Is there some reason you keep using the word "Bushevik"?

Because your dogmatic apology for the Bush Administration's missteps combined with that L. Ron Hubbard-esque obcession to demonize and marginalize dissenting voices is Bushevik. You know what a Bolshevik is, now take that same fanatical thuggery and put it in a Bush lover. That is a Bushevik.

As I recall, the Democrats voted to go to war. And now, they're not offering anything except "run away".

And you're offering a little extra - "we should never try".

And the original topic is about Cheney trying to excuse America from Burden of Proof, the same way he wants to excuse the CIA from human rights standards. Your cry of "The Democrats don't even want to try" is wagging the dog here Sierra.

If we're stepping on shit in Iraq (not Iran, as you seem misinformed about the location of the war), then offer some constructive criticism, instead of some knee-jerk hatred.

Your argument is weaker than you believe if you have to resort to nitpicking small technicalities like misspelled words. I don't need to offer constructive criticism when the ideas are out all ready. Set a timetable for troop withdrawal for one, and then trying to defuse insurgent grievances so they lose more legitimacy in the eyes of the populace.

But wait, Dear Leader said "We Must Stay The Course" and build a dozen or so permanent bases in Iraq.
Deep Kimchi
22-11-2005, 17:03
I don't need to offer constructive criticism when the ideas are out all ready. Set a timetable for troop withdrawal for one, and then trying to defuse insurgent grievances so they lose more legitimacy in the eyes of the populace.

Well, if we're going to adopt your plan, you have to prove that it's 100 percent effective, and give us a 100 percent guarantee of success on a fixed date.

I'm waiting for your plan.
Gauthier
22-11-2005, 17:10
Well, if we're going to adopt your plan, you have to prove that it's 100 percent effective, and give us a 100 percent guarantee of success on a fixed date.

I'm waiting for your plan.

:rolleyes:

Wow. A Burden of Proof fallacy. Wow, did you work on this for the thread, or did it just pop into your head Sierra?
TJHairball
22-11-2005, 17:10
Thread is locked by author request.

In the future, good manners - and a lack of coining words to insult people with (Bushevik? That sounds new), and a lack of unreasonable demands (a 100% plan?) - should prevent threads from spoiling to the point where the original author wants them locked.