With Saddam arrested, who needs WMD?

Yes - take your arm. Ignore the fact that you have no insurance and will be paying the expense out of pocket. Ignore the fact that other options (such as chemotherapy, exploratory surgery, asian remedies, etc.) could have been exhausted first, but weren't. Ignore the fact that nearly every one of the doctors colleagues thought his evidence was shotty at best and wanted more compelling evidence to be presented for a proper diagnosis. Ignore the fact that the doctor's ethics will forever be in question from here on out.

But by all means - hack away. Arms are overrated.

 

@Death Rabbit - *cough* straw man *cough*

 

Perhaps you're forgetting the cancer was dealt with back in 93, and there is no compelling proof the cancer ever came back. In fact, the doctor admitted there is no proof, despite his previous claims your arm was chock full of cancer.

Perhaps I feel it's wrong to call only 3 doctors "plenty."

Perhaps I'm wrong because I don't think our leaders should be given a blank check for the integrity of our nation's word. Perhaps it's wrong to request honesty from the government who is supposed to represent you.


Or, we can call people names like "straw man." Wny not throw in "traitor" and "Saddam-lover" in while your at it? It seems to be the "right" thing to do these days. Rock on, fellas.

 

Fine, we can agree to disagree and believe what we want. We both will anyway. Thanks for playing.

And I know what he meant, thanks. Insulting my point of view is the same as insulting me. But I'll try not to cry about it.

 

Did you know that cancerous cells replenish the telomere ends of DNA molecules that are normally reduced each and every time a cell undergoes mitosis?

Work THAT into your analogy...

 

Working with the cancer analogy- you think you may have had cancer at one point, but it went away, and now you're not sure, but you don't care if you have cancer; because you want to hack off that arm anyway and replace it with one from robo-cop, so you can rule with an iron fist, (I can't believe how well this analogy worked) while pretending that you aren't doing the same old things with the new arm that the old arm did.

All other means were far from exhausted, the only things they really tried were resolutions and sanctions, that is two other things, and handled badly anyway. I think right now that the US Admin is more of a threat to the neighbouring countries of Iraq than Iraq ever was.

 

That's an editorial. ie. Somebody's opinion. That's no more valid than any of the arguments presented here.

The US never tested Biological and Chemical weapons on the Iraqis. The US never committed greivous harm to the Iraqi economy simply because we were having a bout of insanity. If anything, we're trying to rebuild Iraq. Oh, and if you call the nation-building skills of the US into doubt, look at Japan and Germany.

That's the point, the cancer never truly went away. It was merely in remission.

 

I agree. However (and this is the last point I'll make on this before I cancer myself silly) what I have a problem with is that it appears our doctor knew damn well the cancer was in remission, but instead insisted the arm was crawling with tumors. Surgery has to happen now, and no it can't wait. But what do we find when we look? - No cancer. I'm simply asking, "So, where are all the damn tumors you promised?" And the Doctor is simply saying "Cancer, no cancer - what's the difference?" Sorry, but that bothers me.

We can let the cancer analogy die now I think.

 

We are back to arguing the same things again. That Saddam used chemical weapons was fine with the US while he was fighting Iran. In fact we sold him some of the chemical WMD that he used in the Iraq/Iran war. Also, let's not forget that while we were asking our allies not to sell weapons to the Iranians, guess who was? I can still remember Ronald Reagan, another prez who had no regard for the truth saying, "I don't seem to recall that."

So the US sold weapons to both sides, not really caring who received them or who was using them on whom. Now, there's all this crying over the Kurdish population that their old buddy Saddam used them on. But that's a good plan - sell weapons to a "friend," then attack him for using them. Makes sense to me!

[ December 20, 2003, 07:22: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Just to be clear to everyone (BTA already pointed this out, but...) my use of the term "straw man" was not name calling directed at Death Rabbit, but a reference to the straw man fallacy that I felt DR was guilty of commiting.

DR, you can complain that "Insulting my point of view is the same as insulting me", but that is nonsense. I called you on a logical fallacy.

Is that against the rules?

Now, back to our regularly scheduled debate...