Really? Well surprisingly for me then, that helps my argument. And yes, you're correct, I haven't haven't taken a good look at the oil situation in reference to the implecations of the invasion for awhile which is unfortunate.haha umm dont u lot watch the news..weve just been told taht fuel and oil will regularily cost above teh dollar..so meh we got wroughted..proberbly due to the fact its gonna cost as collin said a pretty penny from teh some what economically unstable (thus kinda poor at teh moment) american government..and i seriously doubt george bush is gonna be dippin into his own pocket to meet expenses!
Of course I like playing with words, it's elementary within a analytical context.You like playing with words, huh?
Lets forget bin Ladin's denial. Well assume he didnt deny it. That doesnt change my point. We also now that he hasnt come out direclty and accepted responsibility as in "I did it" or "We, Al-Qaeda, did it". My original question, which you still havent answered, was," Why would he go out of his way to leave evidence of his doing the attacks near the scene? You said that he wanted everyone to know that Al-Qeada in fact did it. Though it makes muhc more sense to any sane mind that if you wanted everyone to know you did it, coming out and accepting responsibility is a much more appropriate way.
Why do we need to assume that he didn't deny it? I don't ever believed that it was concretely proven that he denied it in the first place, and my whole emphasis within the whole range of posts of this subject related to his specific direct or/and indirect acceptance of the allegations.
Your question? I've answered it in plenty of forms, do you not read my posts?
"Cant they just leave a paper saying "We, Al-Qaeda, are responsible"..?? And if they want to make it obvious that it was them, we did Bin Laden deny involvment??"
- "I've already justified that bin Laden did not in general deny involvement, you seemed to have just ignored my point."
"My question is: why go to such trouble when you can come out as simply say 'We did it"."
- "Implecatively, and in general, they are the same for most situations because for the circumstances of that subset, not denying the subject will have a negative affect on their credibility. If it was not bin Laden and he didn't wan't to be known as the culprit, he would of denied it. But he didn't deny it, and according to you, he didn't accept responsibility. But then, why would he not just deny it in a resolutive eloquent way? It seems obvious that he wan't it known in some expressive magnitude, that he was affliated with the planning in some critical fashion.
But this is effectively irrelevant, as my quote was referring to your overlooking of the fact that I had already argued on that bin Laden had effectively implied he was directly involved, since you were quoted as saying that he did deny involvement, after my quote on his non-denials.
So why did they go to all the trouble? I have no idea. But it's fact that they have directly stated that many post 911 attacks on US interests and their subsequent relations were of their planning, and have never afterwards denied their involvement with the 911 attacks. Their ill-priority on denying the involvements with the attacks is the primary point. If they didn't do it, they would fight it out with passion to make it known to the world that they didn't do it. But they seem to just cruise along, with minimal effort in this department."
Please, for the mother of God repeat yourself again with "My original question, for which you HAVEN'T answered yet.."
Coming out and accepting responsibility is a more reasonable way? How can you generalize that for all circumstances? Depending on their intentions, leaving hints may be more appropriate for them. Don't generalize conclusions for the methods of others.
What is wrong with the usage of 'ifs'? Implied dilemmas are a common occurrence in arguments, and is effective in context. You were just talking about 'lets assume this' a few quotes back. That in essence represents an 'if'. I don't see how condoning your own actions will aid your argument.Were not going to get anywhere with if's. Its nice for arguing for the sake of argument but itd be more appropriate if you actually took a stand. I mean if you cant make up your mind even as to what the motif of the perpretrators was, how do you point the finger at Bin Laden (or for that matter anyone) and how do you deny any form of internal collusion on the part of the US admin?
How does being indecisive about the perpetraitors' motifs disqualify the designation of their identity? This logic is invalid, and the two separate elements implecations are independent.
My point was straight-to-the-point, and in response to your post. Hence if I was not to the point, your precursor posts were also irrelevant. And if my comprehension was incorrect, then you should reclarify your posts with better grammar, spelling and make it more eloquent.Another if? Get to the point? Justify the invasion in light of international law.
"More to the point, I said that there was no reason in int law coz in fact there isnt. If there is, plz show me."
Justify it in reference to international law? It was illegal, of course.
Now justify for me, the legality of Iraq's invasion of Iran, before you proclaim the US as the nastiest ultimate wrong-doer, or something perhaps.
.. and?And you think the two are equal? The law isnt supposed to expect independent external factors to impose penalites for its breach.
My bad.Please show me what and where i said anything other then 'Is not what Israel does in Palestine terrorism?' BEFORE you labelled me an 'Israel Hater'.
If bin Laden did that, without the bombing, then that would not be terrorism. And I don't create my own definition of terrorism, unlike yourself, the standard definition defines my usages. Not the inverse.Riggghttt...So if Bin Laden under the command of Mullah Omar (as head of state of Afghanistan) went to the US under the pretext of 'invasion' to spread 'reasonable' (according to them) ideologies and as part of this bombed the WTC, then that wouldnt be terrorism??? And since when did your definiton of terrorism become the standard?
Why not 20 years later? Iraq invaded Iran, and then Kuwait in 90. Bush Sr. was actually very close to the full invasion of Iraq, however he stopped just at the point of halting the incursion, because he very well knew the risks of the post war implecations. Bush Jr, obviously took that risk.That was 20 yrs ago (with, wat you seem to be ingoring, US/British support). If the US was fair dinkum, and they was the threat of Iraq to neighbouring countries they were worried about, they should have invaded then and some time thereafter. Not 20 yrs later.
How does my bias become evident, when I've clearly expressed elements of anti-Bush facts? I dismissed your 'personal gains' argument, with an argument of my own. That does not justify bias. If I just said, 'No, that cannot be true, Bush wouldn't do that.. (pause)' and then support it with ragtag irrelevant 'evidence', then you would be fair to conclude a bias. Use bias designation in context, thanks.Is this the same Bush that lied about the WMD? What makes his claims so beliveable all of a sudden. I think the bias on your part is evident, even after that this guy can lie with impunity, you put forth his claims as if he's never lied in his life.
So you dont think the US is in Iraq for personal benefit. How about having a puppet regime instead of a hostile tyrant? HOw about the reserves of oil (which theyve now started securing (for the Iraqi ppl of course)). Their extremely valueable with the volatile regime in Saudi Arabia. (Though with their new oil-pipline in Afghanistan they should be doing alright, of course you probably reckon they had no personal benefit of invading afghanistan either). How about neutralisng the threat Israel faced from Saddam?
And if you want to talk economics, war isnt all economically bleak. It brings with it employment, use of resources, production, it can go good for the economy as well (read '1984' and ull know). Then what about the lucrative contracts going to US oil companies. I suppose that helps Iraq, and the US doesnt beneift at all? All the profit will go back home. Then their's the reconstrucution. Who do think's gonna od that. Yea the Iraq ppl will be invovled bit the US compais will oversee most it. Again economicall beneficial.
So dont try and put forht any notion of the US having more harm then benefit form invading Iraq. Its quite simply no part of Capitalist ideology to do things in which the benefits outwiegh the costs. Its all based on personal gain.
Puppet regime? How is that a personal gain for Bush? It would be a strategic element for Western nations/alliances such as Britain, Australia, US etc. Bush doesn't personally gain from this. Maybe he might get a real estate discount for a holiday house in Iraq now or something.. WOW such personal gain.
Bush obviously is aware of the anti-US sentiment within Arab countries, such as Pakistan and Iraq and as such, he should most probably never be able to exercise effective exploitations of his 'puppet regimes' because they are infact, not so puppetish because of these reasons.
Oil, I've already argued upon. Also shelley pointed out that the cost implecations of post-war should actually disadvantage such. Now as an UNbiased person, I won't be assuming this, just because it helps my argument, but I will be looking into it.
Israel faced minimal threats from Saddam, and Bush realized this obviously since he managed to lie to the world about the WMD right?
Of course the US will profit from reconstruction contracts. Contrast that with the eventual net cost of the war though.
Overall, Bush would have to be a complete idiot to invade Iraq just for some gains for the nation.
He used up huge financial, military and bureaucratic resources for the war. Financially, I haven't checked the cost of the war for awhile, so it would be unreasonable for me to pin up the cost. Militarily, thanks to Iraq, the US had to recently engage it's biggest global shift of forces for many decades. Again, this is a tire on the military, on bureaucratic resources and on the coffers.
He risks the election fate, and the election fates of his alliance counterparts.
He risks the increase of anti-US feeling around the world, which is obviously true now. Many, if not most of the population of even alliance nations are anti-war, anti-Bush.
And so on..
Now that was sufficient justification in my subjective opinion, and I can't see how you could conclude me as biased in that respect. I think perhaps you are trigger happy with the bias word.
It's part of most ideologies to in general perform activities for benefit. However there is a difference when you note whether or not it was for 'personal gain'. 'Personal gain' can encompass many aspects. Assuming Bush invaded Iraq solely for the purpose of taking out the regime, and spreading democracy in the region, in which it directly doesn't benefit economically, that could still be subjectively interpreted as personal gain. You've got to be careful when you use the phrase, because fundamentally the subset 'personal gain' of 'benefit' can be subjectively manipulated so that they are equal, and then you'll have trouble.So dont try and put forht any notion of the US having more harm then benefit form invading Iraq. Its quite simply no part of Capitalist ideology to do things in which the benefits outwiegh the costs. Its all based on personal gain.