Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<What's so unique about a country that didn't have WMD's and couldn't threaten the US homeland?>> <You know, I really think you're smart enough to know the answer to that question, but I'll answer anyway. To start, we didn't know they didn't have WMD's. Unlike many countries, Iraq had possessed them, and used them, both on neighboring countries and its own people. We believed, incorrectly, that they had them and believed, correctly, that they were attempting to get more.> All of which is irrelevant to what we were talking about, which is that most people NOW disagree that Iraq was any sort of unique threat. In 2003, sure, a majority probably agreed with you. In fact, the polls showed they did, and it's no surprise they did. They had been told constantly that this was so, and told that Iraq had WMD. But we were talking about what a majority of Americans believe today - and now, knowing Iraq didn't have WMD, they (quite correctly) see that Iraq did not pose any sort of unique threat. You're still saying they did, but most Americans would disagree with that. <<But besides the WMD's, there is Iraq's geography. Lying as it does between Iran and Syria, if made prosperous and free, it could be an agent of change for good in the region. However, its proximity to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, means it would be a potential danger to those nations if it remained a hostile nation.> We can do that with any number of nations. Syria borders our ally Israel and Iraq. Iran borders Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan borders Afghanistan and nuclear-armed India. All were exporters of terrorism, and all "in the middle" of things. Once again, Iraq was not unique. <Finally, there is its oil to consider. If Iraq had been able to bluff and scheme its way out of the sanctions and military containment imposed on it, then Saddam would have been free to use Iraq's oil revenues to rebuild his armies and WMD arsenals, and expand his support of terrorism. Iraq's oil fields meant we could not contain it the way we could Cuba or North Korea.> Setting aside for the moment all those "ifs," Iran also has oil.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <All of which is irrelevant to what we were talking about, which is that most people NOW disagree that Iraq was any sort of unique threat.> That's not what we were talking about, but if it were, then my statement still applies. Iraq is now a unique threat, and a unique opportunity, although for different reasons than it was before we liberated it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<All of which is irrelevant to what we were talking about, which is that most people NOW disagree that Iraq was any sort of unique threat.>> <That's not what we were talking about, > Yes we were. You said "Iraq presented a unique threat," and I said that most Americans disagreed with that. At the time they didn't, but now they do. <but if it were, then my statement still applies. Iraq is now a unique threat, and a unique opportunity, although for different reasons than it was before we liberated it.> Well, it's uniquely our screw-up if it doesn't go well, I'll give you that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You said "Iraq presented a unique threat," and I said that most Americans disagreed with that. At the time they didn't, but now they do.> In other words, you moved the goalposts.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj We're so far from the endzone in conquering this Iraq mess that you shouldn't even be thinking about kicking a field goal at this point.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You said "Iraq presented a unique threat," and I said that most Americans disagreed with that. At the time they didn't, but now they do.>> <In other words, you moved the goalposts.> No, not at all. Let's go to the videotape. I got into this on post #68, which said "A solid majority of Americans say that invading Iraq was a mistake, which obviously disagrees with you (in more ways than one)." So I was obviously talking about current American sentiment, since previously the polls had been different. You then said that you didn't think most Americans would disagree with your statment that included "Iraq posed a unique threat." I said I think they would now. They now know it didn't have WMD, and so they wouldn't think it was unique. I was consistent in what I was saying. It was you who tried to move the goalposts by saying we didn't know at the time Iraq didn't have WMD. That's irrelevant to the point I was making.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So I was obviously talking about current American sentiment, since previously the polls had been different.> And I wasn't. You disagreed with something I didn't say. In other words, you moved the goalposts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<So I was obviously talking about current American sentiment, since previously the polls had been different.>> <And I wasn't. You disagreed with something I didn't say. In other words, you moved the goalposts.> Nope. You keep trying to wear me down, but I just won't let you get away with misstatements like that. You said you didn't think the majority of Americans disagree (present tense) with you. (End of post 67). I followed that immediately with "A solid majority of Americans say that invading Iraq was a mistake, which obviously disagrees with you (in more ways than one)." Since that majority is fairly recent, I was obviously talking about current American sentiment. Again, present tense. You were using present tense about whether Americans disagree with you or not, and I kept it present tense. If you want to insist you were talking about past sentiment, then it's you who's moving the goalposts, bucko. Anyone can look at the posts in the mid 60's and see this is so.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since that majority is fairly recent, I was obviously talking about current American sentiment.> And I was not. Hence you moved the goalposts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Since that majority is fairly recent, I was obviously talking about current American sentiment.>> <And I was not. Hence you moved the goalposts.> Nope. You were talking to ecdc in the present tense, about whether a majority of Americans agree or disagree (present tense) with you. That's how you phrased it. If you were "not talking" about the present, you shouldn't have phrased it that way. I read your remarks in the present tense, because that's how you phrased them. Hence, you moved the goalposts on yourself.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Regardless of where the goalposts are, I sense that Douglas is so far into his own endzone that we're going get a safety called here before too long!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You were talking to ecdc in the present tense, about whether a majority of Americans agree or disagree (present tense) with you.> I was always talking past tense - the threat we believed Iraq posed. I'm sorry if ecdc's question confused you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Regardless of where the goalposts are, I sense that Douglas is so far into his own endzone that we're going get a safety called here before too long!> You're senses betray you. Dabob is quibbling about semantics because it's obvious I'm right about everything else.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I was always talking past tense - the threat we believed Iraq posed. I'm sorry if ecdc's question confused you.> You responded to it in present tense also. That's your screw up, and not my fault that when you answer in present tense I read it as... present tense. I'm sure you knew what you meant, but you didn't phrase it correctly, and that's no one's fault but your own. <You're senses betray you. Dabob is quibbling about semantics because it's obvious I'm right about everything else.> You're cute when you're projecting, too.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You responded to it in present tense also.> Because I still believe that, and I elaborated about what I meant in post 72.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 So which is it? First you say "I was always talking past tense." (Note the word "always.") Now when I point out you were responding in the present you say "Because I still believe that." Twisting ever tighter rather than simply saying something like "I was actually talking past tense at that point, but I can understand why one would read it as present tense." Would something like that kill ya'?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh How about, "I was talking in present tense about what I believe happened in the past, but I can understand why one would read it all as present tense."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Wait. That's not quite right. Make it: "I was talking in present tense about what I believe happened in the past, but I can understand why one could read it all as present tense."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Why do all of these WE threads seem to devolve into discussions about semantics?
