Reply #51: Read The Post Again [View All]

[ProfessorGAC]

The hyperextension of the logic leads to eradicate ALL threats pre-emptively. The logic you're using to get yourself in this ambivalence presupposes an attack, in some way, by somebody, in some indeterminate future, directed at an undefined segment of our future population. Can't you see that this is now so vague that it can be applied to any and all threats, real or imagined, long into the future?

If we take that logic to its hyperbolic end, we can only conclude that destroying everyone that might ever pose a threat sometime in the murky future, is the only solution.

When a logical position can be taken to that hyperbolic extreme, then it fails to be logical on its face. The idea that our only protection against the bad guys is to either conquer the world or take out everyone who MIGHT ever be a bad guy implodes the whole reason for staying in Iraq. We can't occupy everyone for eternity.

Your period of ambivalence appears to be clouding your reason. What i said the first time was a series of questions to provoke you into realizing what a weak argument it was that made you think that staying in Iraq for the purpose of combatting phantom enemies actually was. I hope you see better now, that the premise is grossly flawed, since it can be taken to the extreme of my example.

The Professor