Dragonlich

True. It is utterly pointless. That's exactly why I left that *other* thread... it's not that I could not come up with a proper response, it's just that the whole discussion was going nowhere. Everyone was convinced that they are right, and some even seemed to be convinced their opponent is stupid/uneducated...

On the other hand, if some anti-war people already *know* that the war was bad, that Bush is evil, that it was all about oil, and that everything their "conservative" opponents throw at them is wrong... why do *they* keep debating? Nothing short of "yes, you're right" will satisfy them, apparently...

In fact, given that we'll all die anyway, we might as well spend our time on useful things instead of pointless debates. Which leads to the obvious question: what are *you* still doing here?

Let's just say that I (and many others here) get drawn to debate like a moth to a flame. I (and they) want to show other people the "truth" as they see it, and hope they'll eventually agree. Isn't that what debate is all about?

ctembreull

It was a legitimate question. Is formal logic something that Dutch students are taught? If you absolutely must have a reason for the inquiry, it is that I am genuinely curious. Logic and its application was a significant part of my own education, and I'm trying to establish common ground. I have nothing against the Netherlands, though. In any case, you've misunderstood the thrust of my question. I trust that I have resolved that misconception.

Your getting "fed up" is something I cannot help, nor is it anything I have any inclination to care about one way or the other. Frankly and without malice, it's not my problem. I am arguing my position, the same as you, and that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I'm perfectly willing to keep the debate going as long as it remains interesting. At the risk of sounding snarky, however (and I assure you, it is not intended as such), I have noted no willingness to concede points on your part either. Far from bothering me, it's something I've come to expect in debate. That said, however, I don't see how either of us should be expected to concede things - that's sort of the point of debate. You say your piece, I say mine, we go back and forth, and the listener or reader decides who he or she believes is correct. I'm sorry if it offends, but it is not in my nature to concede, give up, or yield ground in a debate.

My argument is, and has been throughout this thread, that we did not know with any certainty what Saddam Hussein had, what he did not have, how much of it he may or may not have had, and when he went from having it to not having it. This particular thread deals with the recently-revealed errors and distortions in the intelligence which formed the very basis for the United States case against Iraq, on the supposed merits of which we went to war. The evidence presented in the thread kickoff was that we did not know what we claimed to know. Given that the United Nations used our claims as a basis for its own investigations, and given that our claims were the foundation for the ultimatums delivered upon Saddam Hussein, the now-revealed lack of actual knowledge leads me to conclude that the entire run-up to war was, in fact, a logical fallacy technically known as an "appeal to ignorance," and colloquially referred to as "proving a negative."

It is for this very reason that the court systems used throughout the free world do not act upon supposition of guilt; they require a burden of proof of such a nature that it overcomes reasonable doubt. I think you'll find that according to a non-trivial number of United Nations signatories, the case built by the United States did not overcome reasonable doubt. This is not to say that Saddam Hussein did not and never did have weapons of mass destruction, it is to say that our case was not a sufficient justification for war.

Yes, Iraq had to comply with the law. This point is not in contention. It should be noted, though, that the rest of the world, the United States included must also comply with the law. We have established a forum in the form of the United Nations to deal with international debates. We did not build a case sufficient to convince the United Nations, nor did we act in good faith in the construction of that case or in the attempts to verify it. It is for this reason that I state that the war in Iraq was illegitimate and in violation of international law.

(edited to revise and extend position on concession within the debate format)

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

BigGov

Do we ever really know anything?

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

ctembreull

jimmy4:

That question belongs in Tilted Philosophy, not Tilted Politics.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!