NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[scaeagles]

I'm trying to stop, but she just makes me keep doing it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'm trying to stop, but she just makes me keep doing it.

You joke, but your equation is a loaded question. It presupposes wrong doing while failing to establish it. It was worded purposefully such that the only direct responses were "Yes, come and dismantle the weapons we've been making" or "No, I won't let you see the weapons we've been making." The third option of "I never started beating my wife" was eliminated.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

You joke, but your equation is a loaded question. It presupposes wrong doing while failing to establish it.

No need to due to the conditions of the cease fire. Proof was the responsibiliy of Saddam, no one else.

[scaeagles]

Except the conditions of his probation include submitting to searches. I didn't say they shot him, only that they broke down the door. OK - I'll add that he went and hid in a closet.

[Alex]

If they didn't shoot him, then the analogy isn't quite apt. Also, yours was an expansion on mine in which he was shot.

But it really doesn't matter. You've switched from arguing justification to arguing responsibility. They aren't necessarily the same thing. However, since the justification Bush gave for the war turned out to be wrong I would argue that he has none. And while you may not be responsible for the results of a justified act, I would say you generally are responsible for the results of an unjustified one.

Again, he could have put himself on solid, in my opinion, grounds for pressing the war but chose not to because they didn't think they could sell it successfully. Instead they overreached and presented a version of events that I honestly believe they believed to be true because they knew it would sell better. But in doing so they put themselves onto more tenuous ground and just end up looking silly flailing about for any handhold when that ground gave way under them.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

If they didn't shoot him, then the analogy isn't quite apt.

How is it not suitable?

"I've committed a violent crime. A home invasion robbery."
Saddam invaded Kuwait.

"The police extracted me and slapped my hand and put me on probation."
Coalition forces kicked him and sent him back to Iraq with sanctions and a cease fire agreement.

"I repeatedly violate my probation."
How many times did Saddam violate conditions of the cease fire?

"A tipster tells them I have a bomb and hostages in my house."
How many intelligence services were telling us he had WMD?

"I won't let them in to check it out so they break down the door."
He is supposed to let us in, no questions asked, as a condition for the cease fire. He doesn't, so we invade.

He didn't die, so not being shot actually makes it a better analogy.

[Alex]

If you don't see why it isn't apt I don't think I can explain it to you so that you'll accept it.

We may not have shot Saddam Hussein but we shot an awful lot of people. So, if you insist on your analogy it would be like the police knocked down the door arrested the criminal and shot his friends who just happened to be there.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

We may not have shot Saddam Hussein but we shot an awful lot of people. So, if you insist on your analogy it would be like the police knocked down the door arrested the criminal and shot his friends who just happened to be there.

OK - he had a bunch of friends in his house with him who shot at the police after they broke in the door. They were killed.

Not that it matters, I suppose. It's an analogy.

[scaeagles]

Was that the point? I don't seem to recall that. At least it wasn't my point. Oh, well.

So much for another LoT beat-your-head-against-the-wall thread.

[Alex]

No, it was my point.