A) The former is PB's speculation...with much merit...to explain other facts. The latter is factual so far as there were those within who advocated invasion pre-war. Others will have to show you the quotes, but they have been posted in here many times. If I'm not mistaken, one of them ( Wolfowitz, I think(has admitted as much. B) There are a great many other facts which can't be accounted for without acknowldging at least as much as PB has here. C) I am glad that you, at least, are asking questions, to an extent. There are already examples of the reverse in here, and I'd think that even someone with our view of things must be a little puzzled by the fact that others don't even blink.
A) Believe without proof? A ) Assumption of lack of proof, but B) I actually thought he had them Where we differ, T_J, is that I think that war as a last resort sort of puts the onus of proof on us in terms of him breaking the treaty, not the reverse. If you are saying that the onus is on those to find a reason why we shouldn;t go to war, there we part ways. B) LOL! Transparent. Let's just put it this way: To break a treaty to uphold that same treaty makes no sense. What you want is for everyone else to have to abide by their agreements with us, but for us to have the right to sidestep our agreements in our interests. Convenient. C) Idiotic rhetoric which fools few, T_J.
MacBeth, you don't think Saddam owed anyone any proof after God-knows-how-many UN resolutions demanding that he come clean? WOW
T_J...again...war wasn't the necessary response. Not to mention the legal one. Him owing proof, him being capable of providing proof which would have forestalled the war, are not excluded by saying war wasn't the answer. In this thread you yourself have said that we should sidestep agreements which we no longer think are in our interests. If that is your position, how do you hold others so responsible for their agreements that war is justified if they donlt cross all the t's and dot all the i's? And again, again...you are avoiding the point of this thread.
MacBeth: I think you underestimate people by judging them based only on the transactions of this board. Any intelligent person will have considered these matters to some degree. Those who are so-inclined jump in after little consideration because it agrees with their inclination. Others wait for more solid evidence. Still others may never move. I, for one, am not likely to besmirch the Administration during a war based on some theories about what might have happened. I think more unity is called for. Even as I can acknowledge what may have been mishaps, I can likewise agree with much of T_J's point of view. It's one thing to break treaties capriciously as Saddam did; it's another to break them in the name of national security as we did. Saddam broke them relentlessly over a decade. He stood up to the Law of the World (The UN-- excuse the chuckle) for that same decade. Then a mighty force long overdue came down upon him. He is gone and the rabble of goons and terrorists is attempting to co-opt Iraq for their own purposes. Did you hear or read the stories last week about how difficult it was for Al-Qaeda to recruit in Iraq? Just who are these "Iraquis" (I use the term loosely) who are not so welcoming. Yes, the sub-populations who are vying for dominance speak ill of us to pressure us to leave sooner rather than later. They are serving their own interests. I honestly think the US is the best choice to serve the interests of the Silent Majority if Iraqis.
I hope you're right, but it would be a matter of faith. Ok. Why? How will an unust war ever be arrested if everyone has that opinion?
Why a matter of faith? This place is virtual. This place is but a slice of life. This place has no accountability (except to the Mods and to Clutch especially). How can any war which aims to liberate a people from a murdering tyrant by an unjust war? Please don't give me some 400 YO standard... or even a 12 YO standard. The world changes. The weapons are different. The enemy is different. This is the very same reason so many mock the resistance to gun control. If we were only talking about muskets, the anti-gun argument might be moot. As I said, I think AQ has less support in Iraq than they expected. That's because those are people who want a chance at a decent life and apparently they don't see AQ as being the fountainhead of such a life. Terrorism is probably more intense now in Iraq. Why don't you flash back all the way to Korea: North vs. South? Where would you want to live? It cracks me up the way you dismiss it as "convenient!" Maybe it's just true.... More people want to come to American than to Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea. Maybe we do have something to offer the world.
Congrats for turning this into another strawman contest. My sympathies to MacBeth for actually trying to argue a straight line here on a ever turning road that is the "logic" of T_J and giddy. For those of you new to this game... "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched. The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position--the "straw man"--not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context. Subfallacy: As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness. A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for exceptions, or counter-examples.
Of course, the US has a lot to offer the world. This country is an example to the world of the benefits of an open, diverse societ, (relatively) democratic political system, and regulated market economy. Of course, more people want to come here to take advantage of these conditions. Problems arise when we do not live up to our democratic principles in the conduct of our foreign policy. It is simply not disputable that the US has supported dictators around the world, and worked to undermine popularly elected governments, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. A partial list of countries that have seen this side of the US includes- Vietnam, Indonesia, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. People in the rest of the world are able to admire the US for it's domestic freedom and prosperity, while at the same time condemn the hypocrisy of our foriegn policy. Its people in this country that have a hard time coming to grips with this reality.
So why did we oust Saddam? Couldn't we have continued to befriend him and acquired a Middle East friend that way? Why do you assume that the US must be certain to repeat the mistakes of the past? Isn't that a possibility?
T_J...I avoided the kind of proclamations you usually resort to out of, well, pity. But simply put, you've argued against yourself in this thread. If this is an example of your argueing prowess, I understand why you usually resort to the kind of rhetoric without substance usual for you. For example, you have said: 1) War was logical, as Saddam broke treaty. Hence breaking treaty is so wrong it justifies war. 2) When it is pointed out that we broke the same treaty, you respond by saying that of course we did, treaties are made to be broken when we don't like them any more...and BTW the UN sucks. Now it is quite possible that in your mind there is no contradiction here, or that you will apply the inevitbel qualifiers hypocrites always to do show why there is a deifference between the geese and the ganders...but this argument, after your appeal for logic, says all that needs to be said. I am only going this way, ie EXPOSING you, out of frustration at your attempts to ruin yet another debate on substance by your silly little psych warfare techniques and empty arguments.
Definition: _ [adj] _represented accurately or precisely [v] _describe in vivid detail I think the strawman describes TJ perfectly and you seem to be following that same path, so I believe I have delineated (described in vivid detail) your and TJ's overall style, and delineated (represented accurately or precisely) your arguements in this thread specifically enough for everyone to get it.
You never do. That's what makes you special. MacBeth: great thread and you were doing great, but then Jorge posted that flag picture and kicked your ass. That darn flag always wins! Where can I get one of those?
My best guess is that at some point Saddam (much like Noriega in Panama) was not sufficiently compliant. I've never assumed this. My first post to this thread expressed my guarded hope that US foriegn policy might indeed change in a positive way because information about past mistakes is more widely known at this time. However, the continued defense of obvious debacles like the invasion of Iraq makes it more likely that we will repeat the mistakes of the past.
