I spy with my little eye….
Something that is yellow.
Cake.
In.
Niger.
8 Replies to “I Spy”
Oh my goodness, how to explain to the moonbats that Yes there where links between al-qaeda and Saddam, Yes the yellow cake was for sale, Yes there where WMD development programs, ect ect.
There was this drug dealer living in my neighbourhood not too long ago. Everyone knew he sold coke and one day the cops busted in his door–with a warrent, of course. But all they found was some traces of powder on a mirror. The drug dealer was found guilty and sentenced to hang. Do you think that was fair?
Where do you live, Robert?
Robert,
You were parading a similarly half-baked analogy over at Let it Bleed a few weeks ago. At that time, you argued that the allied invasion of Iraq was: …like saying a convicted criminal is guilty of violating his probation and therefore he should been given the death penalty for it.
I answered it thus: Bill has been convicted of running a crystal meth lab. One of the conditions he agrees to at his parole hearings is that he must allow the authorities to enter his properties at the times of their choosing to verify that his operations have ceased and that his previous equipment has been destroyed. If he fails to abide by these conditions, he goes back to jail. Note: The police are under no obligation whatsoever to prove that Bill has resumed his old activities, or that he has begun new ones. The only question of any importance is this: Is Bill abiding by the terms he agreed to? If the answer is no, back to jail he goes.
As so often happens, you disappeared rather than attempt to refute my point. Your slightly modified analogy is even less apt than the previous one.
mgl-Your analogy is flawed because Bill wasn’t just being sent back to jail, he was being executed. War is analogous to a capital sentence. Therefore, the justification for it must be air tight. The crap being peddled by the right in regards to the WMDs and AQ/Saddam ties is flimsy and amounts to nothing more than powder residue on the mirror as per my analogy.
“War is analogous to a capital sentence.”
Nonsense. Robert, think through these silly analogies, or stop wasting time here.
You evade my main point rather artlessly, Robert. The issue was not whether Bill had powder residue on his mirror; it was whether he was complying with the conditions that he himself had agreed to.
Saddam signed a ceasefire under which he was obligated to open his facilities to UN inspectors, disclose all his proscribed weapons programs, and allow the monitored destruction of all such programs. If he violated the terms of the contract, the cease-fire would be lifted. Several Chapter 7 resolutions over the years reiterated the UNSC’s determination that Saddam would comply with those terms. Saddam unambiguously knew that he could avoid a resumption of hostilities by complying with the agreement that he signed. He chose to do otherwise.
But to answer your criticism, I’ll modify my analogy as follows: Bill has been convicted of running a crystal meth lab. One of the conditions he agrees to at his parole hearings is that he must allow the authorities to enter his properties at the times of their choosing to verify that his operations have ceased and that his previous equipment has been destroyed. If he fails to abide by these conditions, he agrees to accept the consequences stipulated in the agreement he signs. Note: The police are under no obligation whatsoever to prove that Bill has resumed his old activities, or that he has begun new ones. The only question of any importance is this: Is Bill abiding by the terms he agreed to? If the answer is no, he must accept the consequences previously laid out for such a failure.
You still don’t get it, mgl. Not complying 100% with the UN resolutions was still not justification for invading the country. Furthermore, when the pressure was put on Saddam, he complied with every single UN request. Yet that still wasn’t good enough for the US which leads every intelligent person on the planet to realize the UN resolutions were nothing more than a smokescreen excuse for Bush.
The case for war was pathetic and my analogy stands; a capital sentence was handed down on Iraq for relatively minor offences.
Oh my goodness, how to explain to the moonbats that Yes there where links between al-qaeda and Saddam, Yes the yellow cake was for sale, Yes there where WMD development programs, ect ect.
There was this drug dealer living in my neighbourhood not too long ago. Everyone knew he sold coke and one day the cops busted in his door–with a warrent, of course. But all they found was some traces of powder on a mirror. The drug dealer was found guilty and sentenced to hang. Do you think that was fair?
Where do you live, Robert?
Robert,
You were parading a similarly half-baked analogy over at Let it Bleed a few weeks ago. At that time, you argued that the allied invasion of Iraq was:
…like saying a convicted criminal is guilty of violating his probation and therefore he should been given the death penalty for it.
I answered it thus:
Bill has been convicted of running a crystal meth lab. One of the conditions he agrees to at his parole hearings is that he must allow the authorities to enter his properties at the times of their choosing to verify that his operations have ceased and that his previous equipment has been destroyed. If he fails to abide by these conditions, he goes back to jail.
Note: The police are under no obligation whatsoever to prove that Bill has resumed his old activities, or that he has begun new ones. The only question of any importance is this: Is Bill abiding by the terms he agreed to? If the answer is no, back to jail he goes.
As so often happens, you disappeared rather than attempt to refute my point. Your slightly modified analogy is even less apt than the previous one.
mgl-Your analogy is flawed because Bill wasn’t just being sent back to jail, he was being executed. War is analogous to a capital sentence. Therefore, the justification for it must be air tight. The crap being peddled by the right in regards to the WMDs and AQ/Saddam ties is flimsy and amounts to nothing more than powder residue on the mirror as per my analogy.
“War is analogous to a capital sentence.”
Nonsense. Robert, think through these silly analogies, or stop wasting time here.
You evade my main point rather artlessly, Robert. The issue was not whether Bill had powder residue on his mirror; it was whether he was complying with the conditions that he himself had agreed to.
Saddam signed a ceasefire under which he was obligated to open his facilities to UN inspectors, disclose all his proscribed weapons programs, and allow the monitored destruction of all such programs. If he violated the terms of the contract, the cease-fire would be lifted. Several Chapter 7 resolutions over the years reiterated the UNSC’s determination that Saddam would comply with those terms. Saddam unambiguously knew that he could avoid a resumption of hostilities by complying with the agreement that he signed. He chose to do otherwise.
But to answer your criticism, I’ll modify my analogy as follows:
Bill has been convicted of running a crystal meth lab. One of the conditions he agrees to at his parole hearings is that he must allow the authorities to enter his properties at the times of their choosing to verify that his operations have ceased and that his previous equipment has been destroyed. If he fails to abide by these conditions, he agrees to accept the consequences stipulated in the agreement he signs.
Note: The police are under no obligation whatsoever to prove that Bill has resumed his old activities, or that he has begun new ones. The only question of any importance is this: Is Bill abiding by the terms he agreed to? If the answer is no, he must accept the consequences previously laid out for such a failure.
You still don’t get it, mgl. Not complying 100% with the UN resolutions was still not justification for invading the country. Furthermore, when the pressure was put on Saddam, he complied with every single UN request. Yet that still wasn’t good enough for the US which leads every intelligent person on the planet to realize the UN resolutions were nothing more than a smokescreen excuse for Bush.
The case for war was pathetic and my analogy stands; a capital sentence was handed down on Iraq for relatively minor offences.