Great posts in this thread Dross! I stalk you in the political threads because you always have something intresting and intelligent to say. Don't take it so personally. I wasn't avoiding your questions, I didn't know you wanted to know so badly!
Here the are the answers you crave.
Dross I pose this question. What do you propose to do about the Hakani network?
Do you support G.W. not invading Iran? They supported and continue to support terrorist networks?
Do you support not invading Georgia, our allies, when they were attacked by Russia?
Lybia?
Arguably the southern border is the most dangerous in the country. Kidnapping is the highest there as well. Do you support the invasion of Mexico? This is the most direct threat to Americans personal well being. Furthermore, would you support it if the drug trafficing cartels were classified as "terrorists?"
Does my mapping out my support of NOT going to war with various countries show anything?
Here the are the answers you crave.No, you're still ignoring my points.
There is a technique used in argument and discussion. It involves using hypothetical situations to define people's assumptions. Often positions are so complex they must be simplified in order to get at the underlying values and assumptions and make the interaction productive.
An example:
A: I'm against world policing and unjust wars.
B: In all circumstances?
A: Yes.
B: Okay, let's say your country was attacked by a group of terrorists with no real coutry but rather a reigon. Would you go to war then?
Now we find out where the person is coming from. Some possible responses:
A: No, I still wouldn't go to war.
B: Why?
A: Because it is not a country that attacked us but rather a religion. I will never support a holy war.
You see, we've learned something. Here's an example of some non questions that are really just attempts to avoid getting to the point, or more often, to avoid the weakness of a position being revealed.
What it appears you meant when you said, "I love this game," is that you weren't going to answer any questions in a way that revealed the weaknesses of your argument.
While you played the game of hypotheticals I gave you what is really happening. We don't need hypotheticals to show that more Americans, the best of us Americans, have died fighting a country that MIGHT have been supporting terroism. Not that MIGHT have WMDs, because they didn't. They were no imminent threat to the U.S. or the world.
Here is my stance all mapped out. Thanks for asking!
But now, that's happened anyway, right here for everyone to read.
Again, there is no winning on the interent. Just talking.
Dross I pose this question. What do you propose to do about the Hakani network?
Do you support G.W. not invading Iran? They supported and continue to support terrorist networks?
Do you support not invading Georgia, our allies, when they were attacked by Russia?
Lybia?
Arguably the southern border is the most dangerous in the country. Kidnapping is the highest there as well. Do you support the invasion of Mexico? This is the most direct threat to Americans personal well being. Furthermore, would you support it if the drug trafficing cartels were classified as "terrorists?"
Does my mapping out my support of NOT going to war with various countries show anything?
just like Bush. What you propose involves them lying or you being incorrect. Although either one is just as likely, I'm gonna go with the latter for this particular case.
