If by "prove their case" you mean prove the case for war, then your statement is incorrect. I am not presenting that choice, but rather, you have assumed that in your own fevered imagination.
From Ignorance: We haven't found "enough", therefore, "enough" does not exist.
Lack of proof is not proof, but lack of proof is lack of proof. What I have alleged is lack of proof. Anything further is an assumption which exists nowhere aside from your own fevered imagination.
Straw Man: You've changed the entire terms of the debate. Now it is no longer enough that there be evidence of WMDs, but that there be enough sufficient to your standars [sic].
That is false. I have never claimed that - in order to justify war - there need be sufficient evidence of WMDs to establish that the prewar WMD thesis be correct. I have simply stated that the prewar WMD thesis is strictly defunct and that this raises substantive questions regarding U.S. intelligence. Any further inference of how much I consider "enough" resides purely in your fevered imagination.
You are taking it so seriously! Of course it was a false analogy, you . . . .
Thank you for the concession.
You review them. And quote them. You can link the Encyclopaedia Brittanica if you want, I ain't clickin'. I'm not going to do your work for you.
I have refuted the charge of Untestability which was the only requirement in this debate. Whether you see fit to actually carry through and test the statements is entirely your concern.
Oh, and if they said Iraq has x and we find x/10, that doesn't mean the other 9x/10 does not exist.
Of course not. That would be an Argument From Ignorance. What it does mean as that we haven't proven the other 9x/10 exists, which is what I've stated. If you choose to believe that the other 9x/10 exists despite the fact that it has not been proven to exist, then your faith is none of my concern.
Just remember that the US military found banned (not-necessarily-WMD) weapons that Blix was unable to find in over a year of resumed inspections.
I never argued to the contrary, nor was my original intent to suggest otherwise. If you drew that assumption, well you know the only place it exists..
How arrogant. "Well, those of us right-thinking people know, and if you don't agree you're just not willing to admit what's there. Wink, wink."
Deal with it. You have resorted to juvenile insults several times thus far. I have chosen to leave my arguments to stand on their own merits. If you did not desire a hostile debate then you should not have invited one..
Then what are you complaining about? Saddam had a year to hide and destroy anything. You can't possibly expect to find all that Saddam is suspected of having.
I have not complained, though others certainly have on the same basis as that which I've stated. I have described circumstances as they appear - whatever further implications you've inferred exist only in your.. well, you know..
Well, hold the phone right there, QED and all that.
If you had read the original exchange (I did explicitly state that this was from a tangential thread) then you would know that the question to which I replied was an explicit request for my personal assessment. But, of course, you did not read that thread but rather seized on whatever you perceived as an opening for another of your snide, infantile jabs..
They were illegal in 1991. What were they using them for in 12 years? Bookmobiles?
Of course they were. Again, the comment here was only meant to express my view of what they signify. The phrasing was appropriate in its original context. But, then, you don't wish to debate on substance.. Do you?
It is extraordinary to me the cynicism with which you approach the US administration and yet you fail to apply it to the former Baathists.
I approach all governments with cynicism as one might deduce from my screenname. The one however, does not cancel out the other. As you should know by now, this statement is a False Dilemma.... ;)
Get a new adjective, huh?
I wanted to conclude our exchange at post #81 - you insisted on continuing our discussion. Unfortunately, you will therefore simply have to tolerate my rhetorical style until you've decided that our conversation has reached an impasse (as I already concluded at post #81).
Oh, never mind then. What was I thinking?
I don't know, but I did notify you of my indifference to that in post #85.
I mean we all know there were no military objectives. Just PR considerations.
Another False Dilemma..
And, hey, who cares if Syria has WMDs? Right? Right?
Yet another False Dilemma..
aside from your own fevered imagination.
No kidding. You used this vapid phrase two distinct times. It's not even clever the first time.
That is false. I have never claimed that - in order to justify war - there need be sufficient evidence of WMDs to establish that the prewar WMD thesis be correct. I have simply stated that the prewar WMD thesis is strictly defunct and that this raises substantive questions regarding U.S. intelligence.
Say what you want, but concern with the skill with which the intelligence community conducts itself hardly justifies such a level of intractibility and humorlessness.
Thank you for the concession.
But the point of it being a false analogy was to show how false . . .
Never mind. Just never mind.
I have refuted the charge of Untestability
Only in your own pyretic phantasm. You just posted links which I declined to click. Refutation requires effort on your part.
If you choose to believe that the other 9x/10 exists despite the fact that it has not been proven to exist, then your faith is none of my concern.
What is your opinion on the flatness of the earth?
Better yet, if a tree is found to be on the floor of the forest, did it actually fall?
Deal with it.
Well, that's persuasive.
You have resorted to juvenile insults
Oh, give me a little more credit than that. While I admit I am not arguing with the style of those who were improperly potty trained, I enjoy the barbs -- whether you catch them or not.
I have chosen to leave my arguments to stand on their own merits.
Interesting choice of phrase. Have you neglected to do laundry lately?
If you had read the original exchange
One more time: I am not going to spend my day doing your work for you.
another of your snide, infantile jabs..
They were illegal in 1991. What were they using them for in 12 years? Bookmobiles?
Of course they were.
I assume you refer to the first sentence with your response.
But, then, you don't wish to debate on substance.. Do you?
It is impossible to debate on that which does not exist.
I approach all governments with cynicism as one might deduce from my screenname.
Have you ever heard of the FR screenname rule? Just curious.
I wanted to conclude our exchange at post #81
Bzzt! You wanted to get in the last word. You can conclude the exchange any time you want.
I mean we all know there were no military objectives. Just PR considerations.
Another False Dilemma..[sic]
One you've created. Recall that concern that the WMDs moved across the Syrian border was "BS".