Let me get this straight.

 

You are attempting to place the burden of proof on H, to provide evidence (that cannot possibly exist) that a hypothetical crime never took place because a terrorist is no longer alive.

 

Now THAT my friend, is magic!

 

 

Frances

 

And H is putting the burden of proof, in your words, "to provide evidence (that cannot possibly exist) that a hypthetical crime never took place..." on anyone who supports the war in Iraq. We are debating something that cannot be proven either way, it is a ridiculous argument.

 

First of all, we made al-Zarqawi by giving him a cause (the invasion and occupation of Iraq) and a very visible stage on which to gain 'notoriety'.

 

al-Qaida, and al-Zarqawi by his association with them, gained all they can handle of that when the flew planes into the World Trade Center.

 

Secondly, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, where's the proof that this hitherto nobody would have had the wherewithal or support to do one bit of harm to the U.S.?

 

Where is the support to the contrary? It cannot possibly be proven one way or another.

 

Remember, Afghanistan's fingerprints were all over 9/11 and al Qaida's prior activities. Pre-war Iraq has never been shown to have had much, if any, meaningful involvement in sponsorship of terrorism against the U.S.

 

I agree.

Habib,

 

If we agree that pre-war Iraq never had any meaningful involvement in the sponsorship of terrorism against the U.S., how can you say that the invasion has helped prevent terrorism against the U.S.? We haven't been attacked since 9/11, true, but then again we never were attacked by Iraq. Ever.

 

If anything, our invasion may be emboldening those who would attack us from countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan because they know our military is stretched to its limits.

And H is putting the burden of proof, in your words, "to provide evidence (that cannot possibly exist) that a hypthetical crime never took place..." on anyone who supports the war in Iraq....

Uh, no.

 

The quote from H says:

Show me a connection between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the prevention of any terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

H is asking you to provide evidence that an attack that was planned was, in fact prevented by virtue of the US invasion of Iraq. If such an attack was planned and prevented, there would be evidence of those occurrences (i.e. intelligence reports, arrests, prisoners, bodies, intercepted messages, plans for the attack, etc.).

 

H is challenging you to provide evidence that an attack was prevented (which is possible, if such an attack was prevented).

 

You are challenging H to provide evidence of an occurrence that DIDN'T happen, thereby asking him to prove a universal negative - something that is logically impossible.

 

 

Frances

Habib,

 

If we agree that pre-war Iraq never had any meaningful involvement in the sponsorship of terrorism against the U.S., how can you say that the invasion has helped prevent terrorism against the U.S.? We haven't been attacked since 9/11, true, but then again we never were attacked by Iraq. Ever.

 

If anything, our invasion may be emboldening those who would attack us from countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan because they know our military is stretched to its limits.

 

I can't say the invasion has prevented terrorism. But, I can't definitively say that it hasn't either. Without omniscient powers or very, very heavy CIA clearances, at least. The invasion may very well be emboldening our enemies to fight us, but by the same logic, it could just as easily be distracting them from attacking us in our homeland. I don't know and I don't think there is anyway to prove it either way. However, I think we can agree on this, justifying the war or criticizing the war based on terrorism is weak, at best.

H is asking you to provide evidence that an attack that was planned was, in fact prevented by virtue of the US invasion of Iraq. If such an attack was planned and prevented, there would be evidence of those occurrences (i.e. intelligence reports, arrests, prisoners, bodies, intercepted messages, plans for the attack, etc.).

 

There could very well have been an attack planned and, as a result of fighting in Iraq, the plan destroyed. Arrests and evidence would make that a fact. It is just as possible for it to have never been discovered.

 

H is challenging you to provide evidence that an attack was prevented (which is possible, if such an attack was prevented).

 

You are challenging H to provide evidence of an occurrence that DIDN'T happen, thereby asking him to prove a universal negative - something that is logically impossible.

 

 

Frances

 

H is asking me to provide evidence, that could potentially be provided. That in no way disproves the possibility that there could have been an attack planned, and destroyed, that we are unaware of.

 

I challenged H to do nothing. I simply made a point about al-Zarqawi being killed in Iraq.

Will there be any political fallout to the Dems or any of the Dems presidential hopefuls who vote to give him the money? They got power in Congress running on the anti-war approach. Now they are going to vote yes for more money for the war.

 

The Republicans have tried to use the strategy of speaking against the war is speaking against the troops. And have seemed to fail with that logic.

 

Now it seems that the Dems are going to have to choose to pick up on their vote was in support of the troops and not the war, the same thing they have slammed the Reps for, or their vote is seen as support of the war.

 

PLUS, those Dem Presidential hopefuls that are NOT members of Congress might pick up some ammo against the Dem Presidential hopefuls that ARE members of Congress and are going to have to cast a vote.

...I challenged H to do nothing. I simply made a point about al-Zarqawi being killed in Iraq.

You told H:

... you'll have to square with that if you are going to say that no terrorist attacks have been prevented.[/Quote]

 

Which is it? Are you telling him he "has to square it" (to substantiate his claim), or not?

 

 

Frances

Will there be any political fallout to the Dems or any of the Dems presidential hopefuls who vote to give him the money? They got power in Congress running on the anti-war approach. Now they are going to vote yes for more money for the war.

 

The Republicans have tried to use the strategy of speaking against the war is speaking against the troops. And have seemed to fail with that logic.

 

Now it seems that the Dems are going to have to choose to pick up on their vote was in support of the troops and not the war, the same thing they have slammed the Reps for, or their vote is seen as support of the war.

 

PLUS, those Dem Presidential hopefuls that are NOT members of Congress might pick up some ammo against the Dem Presidential hopefuls that ARE members of Congress and are going to have to cast a vote.

Of course there will be political fallout - there ALWAYS is. That is what the "game" has been reduced to - putting your opponent in a position that whatever move he makes, you will hold it against him.

 

The Democrats will (ultimately) have to "put up or shut up" with regards to funding this war, or showing that they don't have the backbone to do what they were sent to Washington to do - reign Bush in before he goes much further down this path.

 

Without a doubt, there will be repercussions, whatever move they make. The Republicans will feel those repercussions as well. The voting public sent them a message in November - and if they didn't open their mail, they will get a "Second Notice" in November 2008.

 

 

Frances

I think the Dems have to be very careful in their dealings on Iraq. I think the Iraq conflict will conclude in the next 12-18 months. How it concludes will be a perceived direct reflection of Democrat legislation on Iraq. If it ends badly, so could the Democrat's hold on Congress.

HHSDad -

 

I agree with your assessment. In all honesty, the best thing that could have happened to the Democratic party would to have barely missed taking the majority in both houses of Congress.

 

The situation in Iraq is not going to end well - regardless of which party is in control of Congress.

 

We will now watch a classic case of finger pointing unfold, as the situation worsens, and the election nears.

 

Sadly, the real loser in this won't be either political party - it will be the men and women that are in harm's way, and the civilians of Iraq.

 

 

Frances

You told H:

 

Which is it? Are you telling him he "has to square it" (to substantiate his claim), or not?

 

 

Frances

 

No. I said he would have to make an argument against al-Zarqawi, which he did, not provide evidence to support his original claim, which, as you pointed out, is impossible.

Bush made the comment right after 911, that any nation or country that harbors terrorists would be targeted by the U.S. So who's next. Every country has some type of extermists or terrorists lurking.

Show me a connection between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the prevention of any terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

 

Show me there isn't. Obviously, neither one can be proven, at least with what information is available to the public at this time. The fact remains that we are into our 6th year without another attack here. That is not a coincidence.

Let me get this straight.

 

You are attempting to place the burden of proof on H, to provide evidence (that cannot possibly exist) that a hypothetical crime never took place because a terrorist is no longer alive.

 

Now THAT my friend, is magic!

 

 

Frances

 

No more than H asked of me, or did you miss that? If we're bottling them up and killing them before an attack can take place there obviously is no evidence; at least not that would be released to the public at this time.

No more than H asked of me, or did you miss that? If we're bottling them up and killing them before an attack can take place there obviously is no evidence; at least not that would be released to the public at this time.

 

Well - that post was written as a response to a post by Habib, and we just spent the last 20 posts or so going over it, so I'll leave it at what has already been posted.

 

 

Frances