Hi CobaltBlue; The problem with your logic is that you are using the actions of the West to prove that the trash talking of Iraq isn't just trash talk.
I suppose that if your client's lover decides to buy himself a bullet proof vest, that proves to you that your client did in fact own a gun and was planning on using it? LOL!!!
If you want to show that your logic is valid you will have to subject yourself to the same intense tests that I am subjected to. That is, you will have to make predictions. In this, I have been extraordinarily prescient, you have not.
A few months ago I told you that a deal was set up with Saddam and that he would cooperate with inspections. You said that he wouldn't let inspectors into his palaces. Today it's clear that you were wrong and that I was right. Now why should I bother to critique your current logic when your previous logic has been shown to result in incorrect predictions? At least give us the satisfaction of explaining how you came to be wrong, wrong, wrong on the issue of the inspection of Saddam's palaces.
As far as why your logic on Smallpox is incorrect, it amounts to this: You implicitly assume that the purchase of vaccines indicates a viable threat. The truth is that the US (and all those other nations you named) is a democracy, and the elected politicians do stuff for political reasons. It is good politics to make a big deal out of a threat, and then make positive actions to comfort the public. The whole smallpox threat was a mountain made out of a molehill. If the politicians failed to prepare for the "threat" their political opponents would make mincemeat out of them. You might as well have argued that since the US government pulled apples out of the lunches of school children, it must therefore follow that apples are poisonous. (See:
fplc.edu
The implicit assumption in your logic is that government is always right when it makes actions that are supposedly going to protect the people, LOL. No, the actions that government makes are actions that protect the politicians from removal from office.
And your whole line of argument is circular in a very familiar pattern, in that what you are doing is making use of the conventional wisdom (i.e. Iraq has WMDs and is a threat to the US) in proving that the conventional wisdom is correct (therefore Iraq has WMDs and is a threat to the US). If this form of argument made sense, then the conventional wisdom would always be correct, LOL. Try again.
-- Carl |
