10 Pro-War Fallacies Debunked

[argexpat]

After 9/11, considering the lack of urgency that the US and International community placed on Islamic extremism, was it not reasonable to assess Sadaam as an immediate threat?

But that's not the question. Precisely because of the "lack of urgency...placed on Islamic extremism," the question should have been, is Saddam actually an immediate threat, since 9/11 proved that Al Qaeda was the immediate threat, and attacking Saddam, who had no ties to Al Qaeda or 9/11 and was completely contained, would be a distraction. Again, the issue is one of proportionality: did whatever threat Saddam pose warrant a full-scale pre-emptive military solution that would mire us in an untenable war, violate international law, fray our relations with our allies, stretch our military to the breaking point, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis all for some dubious, highly uncertain "victory," while real threats to our security (violent Islamic extremism, North Korea, Hurricane Katrina) continue unabated? The answer is no.

Had we not been ignoring and underestimating the international terrorism problem for decades such that Sadaam's capacity to aquire and disseminate WMD should indeed be addressed immediately?

It was addressed, back in 1991, when we disarmed and caged Saddam, which is exactly where he was when Bush suddenly decided to exploit 9/11, exaggerate and “disassemble” the threat in order to carry out the utopian fantasies of his neo-con puppet masters and numb his gnawing Oedipal dysfunction.

And, the administration did express its intention to act unilaterally and pre-emptively before getting congressional approval to go to Iraq. The Proportionality is relative to "your" perception of Iraq's threat under the circumstances. My personal opinion (agree or not) was and still is that military action against Iraq was long overdue (even before Bush made the case)

If we’re talking personal “perceptions,” then it’s also the “perception” a majority of Americans, who increasingly tell pollsters the war was a mistake. You don’t kill a fly with a shotgun.

Your argument is nonsense here in that no one in government or otherwise would reasonable expected our government (including congress and the administration) to declare war on every nation that you mention here. As you state the war's opponents never claimed they'd prefer to "wait" for threats to materialize, but, previous administrations and countries let the threat materialize in all of the countries you mentioned without acting against those countries.

And yet Iraq, disarmed and contained, was the least of those threats. The proof is that violent extremism has continued unabated. Overthrowing Saddam has not made us one iota safer.

This was a proclamation that the United states is adopting a pre-emptive, uni-lateral policy towards countries that fall into this category.

And the Iraq war has proven the utter stupidity of this policy.

No, we're not going to allow international politics and an attack on our nation to occur to justify our actions anymore is the message.

Yeah, we know what the message is: We do what we want, and if you don’t like it you can go ***** yourself. That’s a terrific policy…of you’re Tony Soprano. But not so good when you claim to be the beacon of democracy and the rule of law.

3. DEMOCRATS "VOTED FOR" AND THUS "SUPPORTED" THE WAR
The democrats "did" vote to authorize the use of force.

You’re parroting a Republican fallacy here. Some[/] Democrats voted for the resolution, and some didn’t. And those who did, certainly would not have voted for it had they known the truth about the threat posed by Saddam. Ditto for the American public.

All of the US congress especially the Vietnam veterans know that authorizing the use of force can and will probably lead to war. Authorizing LBJ to put ground forces in Vietnam led to the escalation of the Vietnam conflict into the Vietnam war. If any congressman had reservations, especially Vietnam Vets, they should not have voted in favor of the US of military force lest you assume that our congress is naive enough to assume granting military authority isn't going to lead to the use of that authority especially in light of the case being made at the time. This was indeed a vote for war.

The resolution called for the authorization to use force if necessary. As we know now, it was not necessary. We both know the resolution itself was purposely designed to be a political trap for Democrats. No one voted to give Bush the authority to thoroughly bungle the war. It’s like a doctor who botches an operation claiming the patient gave him the authority to commit malpractice when he agreed to the surgery.

4. TALK OF WITHDRAWAL "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE" AND "EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY"
This was a key part of North Vietnam's strategy to defeat the US and it was a strategy that despite the US military victories in vietnam, did embolden the NVA and the Vietcong and weakened the US's position in the conflict. This is not a ploy, this is a fact not only evident in Vietnam but acknowleged by Terrorist organizations themselves today. Trying to Spin this any other way is completely ignoring our enemy's strength, exposing our weaknesses and jeapordizing our service men and women.

We were in Vietnam for over a decade, long enough to suffer 50,000 casualties and kill hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, but it was our talk of withdrawal that emboldened them? That’s absurd. What emboldened them was our very presence in Vietnam, because they saw it as a war of liberation against another in a long, sad history of foreign occupation. And it was when we realized that in order to “win” we would have to kill every last North Vietnamese that we were forced to withdraw.

What emboldens the insurgents in Iraq is that the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military is an incompetent jackass.

 

[argexpat]

5. A WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ WOULD HAVE CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES
Leaving Vietnam when we did had "catastrophic" consequences in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and destabilized the region going onto to this day and it doesn't take a forieng policy expert to demonstrate this.

The catastrophy in Vietnam would have happened anyway. Our involvement just made it worse. But this Vietnam analogy is bogus. Vietnam was in the throes of a civil war. Iraq just happened to have a guy we didn’t like in charge.

I'll grant you there's no sound predictive capabilities to estimate what a withdrawal will lead to now or later in Iraq but there is no justification for leaving until basic stabilizing milestones are met which have been enumerated over and over again, independent Iraq security, stable coherent goverment and stable infrastructure that can sustain the countries social and economic growth.

And despite the blood and treasure we’ve wasted there, we’ve made no progress on any of these fronts. Iraq today is less secure, instable, incoherent and its infrastructure is in shambles, conditions that did not exist before the war.

The truth is that the U.S. will withdraw within the next two years regardless of the conditions, because the military simply will not be able to sustain the effort, period. So the question isn’t should we withdraw, the question is how[/] do we withdraw. And the Democrats to their credit are the only ones who are acknowledging this reality.

6. WITHDRAWING FROM IRAQ IS TANTAMOUNT TO "CUTTING & RUNNING"
In light of "why" we would be withdrawing now, yes, it would be "cutting and running." Leaving Iraq because popular support dwindled and because politics in the US is playing a more important role than the actual objectives is Tantamount to "Cutting and Running." Withdrawning because the job is done and we honored our committment to help the country is not cutting and running.

This is a classic straw man argument. Again, the realities of military logistics dictate that we will have to pull out within the next two years. We’re going to “cut and run” whether we want to or not. So let’s be grown up and face that reality and quit smearing those who want to address that reality with what is essentially a sophomoric charge of cowardice.

7. WE'RE FIGHTING THEM 'THERE' SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE
a) Iraq wasn't "there" until AFTER the invasion. (In spite of the mental contortions of Bush apologists who insist there was a substantive Saddam-Qaeda connection.)


b) Our policy in Iraq is creating more of "them."

c) "There" is where "them" (Bin Laden and his cohorts) are. And it ain't Iraq.

A corollary to this argument is that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" and we can't defeat the terrorists if we don't fight them there. That's like walking into someone's house, breaking an expensive vase, and claiming you have to move in because your job is to clean up broken vases and as long as vases are being broken, you have to be there to clean up the mess. Arguments don't get more circular than this...

I think this argument expresses a fundamental lack of understanding the majority of our country has about Islamic Extremism. Do you believe that the Muslim population of Iraq was immune to Islamic Extremist ideology? Was Sadaam not funding Palestinian Martyrs and propagating the advantage of adopting such tactics? Is not the majority Shiite population kin to Iran's majority muslim population? Do you think Islamic Extremism acknowleges soveriegn borders of any Nation? Its the conditions in any given nation that lend to the propagation of Islamic Extremism and its a fact that democracy creates the conditions under which such extremist views tend not to flourish.

Another straw man. Never mind that we didn’t attack the countries that actually were producing and funding terrorists, like Saudi Arabia. The logical extrapolation of this argument is that every Arab or Muslim nation is a potential breeding ground for Islamic extremism, which would then trigger the disastrous pre-emptive, unilateral policy you advocate.

No one is arguing that democracy in the Middle East is a worthy goal. The question is what’s the best way to achieve it. You seem to think it can be done at the point of an American gun? I guess we’re going to find out.

As such, the goal of bringing democracy to countries in the middle east in order to create such conditions (be it by the forceful removal of a repressive regime or other means) is in fact fighting them where they're coming from instead of fighting them here. It is not here where they're ideology flourishes.

The beef of nearly every terrorist organization, from Al Qaeda to the PLO to the IRA, is the expulsion of foreign occupation. Bin Laden’s beef with the U.S. and his own Saudi Arabian regime was the stationing of U.S. troops in the Arabian peninsula. This would have pissed him off whether Saudi Arabia were a democracy or not. But your dubious contention that bringing democracy to the Middle East will mitigate Islamic extremism can be rebutted with one word: Israel, the forceful establishment of which created Islamic terrorism in the region, not diminished it.

Our policy in Iraq is attracting them there and when democracy is established in Iraq it will be one less Despotic regime under which such idealogies are likely to flourish. The idea isn't to kill them all there but to remove the conditions in which the ideology is likely spread.

This is an amazingly contradictory statement and belies the idiocy of the Iraq war. So we’re going to establish a democracy in Iraq by attracting terrorists to it? Iraq was not a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism before the war. On the contrary, it was one of the more secular Arab countries, with a relatively progressive, educated middle class. It just happened to have Saddam as it’s leader. Thanks to us, Iraq is now the West Point of terrorist training. We’ve made Iraq into the very thing we were purporting to be fighting. Congrats America!

8. DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR IRAQ, THEY'RE JUST ATTACKING BUSH TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS
Demanding a time table when the administration and the Military in Iraq disagree and won't provide such a timetable is a political maneuver and not a plan. If certain democrats acknowlege that a timetable has thusfar not been practical and pushed for strategic objective decisions instead, perhaps they wouldn't be so accused.

Again, a timetable has already been established, by the exigensies of the military conflict itself. There are democrats who have put forth a plan to deal with this inevitability, which Rep. Murtha outlined, and which the Republicans have mischaracterized as “cutting and running,” namely the “redeployment,” not withdrawal, of U.S. troops to Kuwait and Afghanistan (who could use them), thus removing the casus belli of the insurgency. That’s a plan. And what’s Bush’s plan? “Stay the course.” That’s not a plan, that’s a talking point. The truth is its Bush that doesn’t and never had a plan. Despite the vote in Congress, he’s the one who got us into this mess, and it’s valid, not to mention critically important, to ask how he plans on getting us out.

I'd like to hit ya on the last two ones but i'm just too tired.

I can’t wait!

 

[argexpat]

Yes, I do. I guess you missed it. Tell us what you know about Salon?

What does this have to do with the arguments at hand? I ask you yet again: Do you or do you not have an argument to make?

 

[argexpat]

You made a personal attack with regard to my "thinking." I'm just asking for some clarity. Can you explain what you meant and why you choose to debate in this manner?

You decided to let me know that you hadn't read my post, but you were going to tear it apart. I'm still waiting. Instead you keep posting these inane non-sequiturs. Meanwhile, others who did read it have posted some excellent rebuttals. And you expect me to take you seriously? Please.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Excerpted from Salon.com:

1. VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WHO SAW THE INTELLIGENCE BELIEVED SADDAM HAD WMD, THEREFORE BUSH IS BEING UNFAIRLY SINGLED OUT FOR CRITICISM

There is a false assumption underlying this argument, namely that Dems received the same intel as Bush (they didn't), but setting that aside, here are two reasons why this is a straw man:

The issue is not whether people believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or whether there was any evidence that he had WMD (there was), it's the fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence at hand, brooking no dissent and dismissing doubters inside and outside the government as cowardly or treasonous. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" refers to, the knowing exaggeration of the case for war (whether by cherry-picking intel or using defunct intel or by speaking about ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes).

The issue is proportionality. Whether or not Bill Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam was a threat, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic actions (preemptively invading a sovereign nation) were decidedly out of proportion to the level and immediacy of the threat. THAT is the issue.

2. AFTER 9/11, WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE THREAT TO MATERIALIZE BEFORE TAKING ACTION

This is…a vacuous argument whose logic implies we should invade a half-dozen African countries as well as North Korea, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Every day that goes by that Bush allows these threats to "materialize," he is failing in his duties to protect the American public…. And if the pushback is that North Korea and others are being dealt with diplomatically, isn't that exactly the approach this argument purports to refute?

Furthermore, the war's opponents never claimed they'd prefer to "wait" for threats to materialize. This is another straw man. Nobody wants to wait for threats to materialize; they just want to deal with them differently.

3. DEMOCRATS "VOTED FOR" AND THUS "SUPPORTED" THE WAR

Many elected Democrats did NOT vote in favor of the resolution. Not to mention the millions of rank and filers who marched down the streets of our cities and were largely ignored by the press and brushed off by Bush. So to say, generically, that Democrats "supported the war" or to imply that there was tepid resistance to it, is false.

b) No matter how many people contest this point, a vote to give Bush authority WAS NOT a vote "for war." Bush also had the authority NOT to invade.

4. TALK OF WITHDRAWAL "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE" AND "EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY"

Implying that opposing views are treasonous is the surest way to stifle dissent. And it's a cheap way to avoid confronting hard questions. Such as: Does anyone seriously believe that Bush's course of action in Iraq has intimidated or deterred the enemy? Doesn't the fact that the insurgency is as strong as ever "embolden" the enemy? The sobering truth is that there are dozens of recent events and actions that 'embolden the enemy' far more than advocating a disciplined, phased redeployment. Torture of detainees, the use of white phosphorus as an offensive weapon, the curtailing of civil liberties at home, the shameful abandonment of American citizens in the aftermath of Katrina, the cynical outing of CIA agents, the smearing of war critics as traitors, these are far more encouraging to America's enemies.

5. A WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ WOULD HAVE CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES

Predicting the outcome of sectarian divisions in the Middle East is a fool's game. The shifting alliances, the internal pressures, the regional influences, make it next to impossible to say whether or not the removal of American forces would further destabilize Iraq. It's also grimly amusing that we're expected to believe the prognostications of the very people who told us we'd be greeted as liberators.

For every foreign policy expert who says that Iraq will be worse off without U.S. troops, there's another who will tell you the exact opposite is true. In the absence of any sound predictive capabilities, the endgame should be based on the opening: i.e. the sooner you end something that started out wrong and has had terrible consequences, the better.

6. WITHDRAWING FROM IRAQ IS TANTAMOUNT TO "CUTTING & RUNNING"

Any talk of withdrawal, redeployment or a change in course is characterized as "cutting and running." The best response to the notion that a war hero like John Kerry or John Murtha wants to "cut and run" is Murtha's response to Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

A phased withdrawal is just that, a phased withdrawal. And a timetable is just that, a timetable. Using politically-charged buzzwords won't change the fact that the present course of action is untenable. For those who think continuing with the current policy in Iraq is a mark of courage and changing direction the mark of cowardice, they should bear in mind that courage tempered by wisdom is noble, courage in defiance of wisdom is foolhardy.

7. WE'RE FIGHTING THEM 'THERE' SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE

This is yet another straw man: we all agree that it's better to fight our enemies somewhere other than on the streets of America. The problem with the "fight them there" approach is that:

a) Iraq wasn't "there" until AFTER the invasion. (In spite of the mental contortions of Bush apologists who insist there was a substantive Saddam-Qaeda connection.)

b) Our policy in Iraq is creating more of "them."

c) "There" is where "them" (Bin Laden and his cohorts) are. And it ain't Iraq.

A corollary to this argument is that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" and we can't defeat the terrorists if we don't fight them there. That's like walking into someone's house, breaking an expensive vase, and claiming you have to move in because your job is to clean up broken vases and as long as vases are being broken, you have to be there to clean up the mess. Arguments don't get more circular than this...

8. DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR IRAQ, THEY'RE JUST ATTACKING BUSH TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS

Democrats deserve legitimate criticism for their approach to Iraq, but when the Republican Party controls all branches of government, attacking Dems for conflicting positions and a confused message shouldn't be a catch-all excuse for Republican mistakes and lies.

Saying Democrats are muddled on Iraq is a favorite media distraction. But the response is simple: if Bush's policy is to "stay the course," the Democratic policy - whether we accept Murtha's approach or Feingold's or Kerry's - is to "change the course." Simple enough. Changing positions in light of new evidence and new circumstances is the sign of a mature and rational mind. Stubbornly clinging to a failed course of action is not.

9. HISTORY WILL VINDICATE BUSH

The infinite time horizon is an easy cop out for supporters of the Iraq war. The problem with the Bush apologists' reasoning is that using an infinite time horizon virtually any action, no matter how egregious, can be shown to lead to some positive results. Asserting a causal relationship between a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation and all future good developments in Iraq and the Middle East is a dubious and dangerous way to conduct foreign policy. Which is precisely why we need to adhere so strictly to the rule of law, to basic moral precepts, and to established principles of international relations, something that this administration has failed to do, and that the administration's supporters can dance around but can't justify.

10. ISN'T IT A GOOD THING THAT SADDAM IS GONE?

This is the ultimate fall-back for supporters of this disastrous war. Considering the unremitting suffering and killing and violence and abuse of innocents that takes place on this planet, it is intellectually dishonest to resort to a retroactive humanitarian rationalization for a war that was ostensibly defensive in nature. Especially when we callously ignore the plight of so many others who suffer in silence.

If the trump card question is "don’t you think it's good that Saddam is gone?" then one rhetorical question can be met with another:
Isn't it terrible that we've done nothing to stop the slaughter in Darfur?
Isn't it terrible that Iraq is still a killing field and now a terrorist breeding ground?
Isn't it terrible that a nuclear armed Kim Jong Il is still in power?
Isn't it terrible that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have saved millions of starving children instead of killing tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis?

And so on...

Great post my friend. :applaud I can't even begin to tell you how many of my friends that follow politics feel the same way.

Of course, there is an alternative reality out there that sees things differently. So be it. Americans will continue to die and the 101st fighting keyboardists will rage on....

 

[aps]

You made a personal attack with regard to my "thinking." I'm just asking for some clarity. Can you explain what you meant and why you choose to debate in this manner?

KC, shall I remind you of the condescension you showed me when I asked you for clarity on what you meant? So practice what you preach.

 

[aps]

10 Nauseatingly Lame Anti-War Distortions ACTUALLY Debunked

"1) There is a false assumption underlying this argument, namely that Dems received the same intel as Bush (they didn't), but setting that aside, here are two reasons why this is a straw man...

Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence at hand, brooking no dissent and dismissing doubters inside and outside the government as cowardly or treasonous. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" refers to." -argexpat


-It is not an assumption. It has been proved now that there was no "significant difference between the intelligence shared with members of Congress and the administration."

-When people denied the obvious about Saddam leading up to the war, they were advocating returning to the same spineless liberal approach (Clinton's 8 years of no response to Al Queda attacks, appeasing North Korea, etc.) that made 9/11 possible. Insinuating that they were visionless cowards was not manipulating the evidence-that doesn't even make sense. Calling them visionless cowards was just simply speaking the truth.

-The invasion of Iraq was NOT disproportionate to the urgency of the threat. Saddam had been sponsoring suicide bombers for years, openly. He was also starting wars with our allies and hurling scuds at a nuclear power-Israel whenever he felt like it. This is not rocket science, he was clearly an eminent threat.

Do you have some sort of evidence to substantiate that advocating the same approach as Clinton is what allowed September 11th? That is such an irresponsible statement, and you know what? It became obvious that your post was going to be full of hate towards anyone who does not support Bush. LOL

"2. AFTER 9/11, WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE THREAT TO MATERIALIZE BEFORE TAKING ACTION

This is…a vacuous argument whose logic implies we should invade a half-dozen African countries as well as North Korea, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Every day that goes by that Bush allows these threats to "materialize," he is failing in his duties to protect the American public…. And if the pushback is that North Korea and others are being dealt with diplomatically, isn't that exactly the approach this argument purports to refute?"-argexpat


-No, it is an argument that we should invade governments with whom we have tried EVERY OTHER CONCEIVABLE COURSE OF ACTION with, and who poses a threat to our national security (like Iraq, and NOT LIKE Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). The basis for this war is legitimate, whether liberals can grasp it or not.

-Dealing with North Korea isn't confessing that diplomacy is better. It is claiming that diplomacy is better with NUCLEAR POWERS. Again, duh! :roll:

So aquapub, can you provide me evidence that Saddam Hussein had threatened us and was an imminent threat to us? Because that's what Bush said. What did Saddam do or say that made us think he was planning to attack us?

"3. DEMOCRATS "VOTED FOR" AND THUS "SUPPORTED" THE WAR

Many elected Democrats did NOT vote in favor of the resolution. Not to mention the millions of rank and filers who marched down the streets of our cities and were largely ignored by the press and brushed off by Bush. So to say, generically, that Democrats "supported the war" or to imply that there was tepid resistance to it, is false.

b) No matter how many people contest this point, a vote to give Bush authority WAS NOT a vote "for war." Bush also had the authority NOT to invade. " -argexpat


-This steaming load might sell if the same Democrats who voted for the war hadn't accompanied their votes with scathing speeches against Saddam. They cannot escape their own words. Clearly, they DID support the war-until it became remotely difficult. This is one of the core problems with Democrats. They stand for nothing but what is easy.

They supported the war until evidence started to come out that the intelligence provided to them by the Commander in Chief was possibly exaggerated. And that proof has just continued to come out.

They stand for nothing but what is easy. LOL That's actually hilarious!

"4. TALK OF WITHDRAWAL "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE" AND "EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY" -argexpat

-When NOT covert CIA agents lie about the president, he needs to be able to reveal how dishonest their "evidence" is. One cannot do that without discussing how this NOT covert agent abused her power as an agent.

-Pick up a history book sometime. From Vietnam to the crusades, to Bin Laden in Somalia, it is one of the most common realities in warfare: when you begin to see division in your enemy's ranks, you stay the course because it indicates that they are about to give up. If there remains ANY doubt about this truth, watch the Bin Laden interviews where he talks about what an eye-opener it was when Democrats started putting pressure on Clinton to retreat from Al Queda in Somalia....It DOES make a difference....A HUGE ONE! The fact that Democrats don't get that demonstrates why they shouldn't be in office.

OMG, are you for real? When did Valerie Plame lie about the president?

Democrats shouldn't be in office? It's people like you who have no earthly idea who should never be in office.

I don't feel like the rest of this garbage even needs discussing. The initial points here are so ridiculous and irrational that I think even most Democrats could see through this big pile of poo.

Well, I am a democrat and I don't see through this alleged pile of poo. I'm glad you seem to think you have debunked some of the points made in the initial post, but I have some news for you--you have not remotely debunked them. :2funny:

 

[oldreliable67]

expat,

Interesting how cultural changes on my post, morphed into 'certain changes' in your post. Please do not incorrectly quote me.

You should read a little more carefully, when I wrote 'certain changes' I was definitely referring to the changes that you specified, i.e., 'cultural changes'. It was not a quote; it was a reference to the changes that you specified.

Your arguments have been generally well-written and reasoned. But this point, to me, anyway, is contradictory, hence the request for an elaboration.

 

[KCConservative]

KC, shall I remind you of the condescension you showed me when I asked you for clarity on what you meant? So practice what you preach.

Was it in the form of a personal attack, aps? Nope. Do you need clarity on this point as well?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

expat,



You should read a little more carefully, when I wrote 'certain changes' I was definitely referring to the changes that you specified, i.e., 'cultural changes'. It was not a quote; it was a reference to the changes that you specified.

Your arguments have been generally well-written and reasoned. But this point, to me, anyway, is contradictory, hence the request for an elaboration.

I should elloborated myself. The specific changes, are cultural ones. These changes in society cannot be brought about by the barrel of a gun, or by U.S intervention into Arab nations.

These changes must come from the people themselves. This is why nation building doesn't work, because the people in Iraq have not had the cultural changes that will allow a secular democracy to develop.

Nothing contradictory in that. Because my statment is conditional, it is not the complete opposit of what I have said.

 

[aps]

Was it in the form of a personal attack, aps? Nope. Do you need clarity on this point as well?

OMG, you think that there is a difference between asking for clarity regarding a personal attack on you versus someone asking you for clarity about something you posted? If you can provide me with a valid answer to that question, I will applaud you.

 

[Crispy]

The catastrophy in Vietnam would have happened anyway. Our involvement just made it worse. But this Vietnam analogy is bogus. Vietnam was in the throes of a civil war. Iraq just happened to have a guy we didn’t like in charge.

How do you figure vietnam "would've happened anyway'? How is this analogy bogus? Explain. We left South Vietnam in political, social and economic turmoil and didn't look back! You think leaving Iraq with its Insurgency, instability and violence is any different. Enlighten me!

And despite the blood and treasure we’ve wasted there, we’ve made no progress on any of these fronts. Iraq today is less secure, instable, incoherent and its infrastructure is in shambles, conditions that did not exist before the war.

The truth is that the U.S. will withdraw within the next two years regardless of the conditions, because the military simply will not be able to sustain the effort, period. So the question isn’t should we withdraw, the question is how[/] do we withdraw. And the Democrats to their credit are the only ones who are acknowledging this reality.

treasure? what treasure are you talking about!? No Progress?! How dare you spit in the face of our military and say we've made no progress. What do you call disposing of a brutal dictator?! what do you call establishing the first free public elections in 3 decades?! What do you call building Iraq's military? what do you call building Iraq's civil and social institutions?! How dare you dis-respect the men and women of the military who see and make progress daily!

Who are you to say the "military won't sustain the effort." Condisering that our military leaders on the ground are saying that leaving now is crazy and they should finish the mission, i'll take their opinion before you're un-educated, un-informed opinion. It was listening to opinions like yours that lead us to Vietnam in the first place. Opinions with no basis.

This is a classic straw man argument. Again, the realities of military logistics dictate that we will have to pull out within the next two years. We’re going to “cut and run” whether we want to or not. So let’s be grown up and face that reality and quit smearing those who want to address that reality with what is essentially a sophomoric charge of cowardice.

And what is your argument? You haven't provided one argument to demonstrate your opinion is right. I take it you're a logistics expert and can assess what our military and civilian capabilities are on the ground in Iraq despite the Generals who disagree with you on the ground there right? How do you figure we're gonna "cut and run?" The problem with your argument is you still have no basis to support your "opinion." My "opinion" is at least grounded in historical evidence of what failures we've made in the past to justify doing it right here. You haven't provided one solid argument for you "assumptions" and "opinions". Explian to me the "reality" you're talking about.

Another straw man. Never mind that we didn’t attack the countries that actually were producing and funding terrorists, like Saudi Arabia. The logical extrapolation of this argument is that every Arab or Muslim nation is a potential breeding ground for Islamic extremism, which would then trigger the disastrous pre-emptive, unilateral policy you advocate.

No one is arguing that democracy in the Middle East is a worthy goal. The question is what’s the best way to achieve it. You seem to think it can be done at the point of an American gun? I guess we’re going to find out.

So You're argument is that Islamic Extremism is contained within soveriegn borders? that Muslims in Iraq won't and don't fall to Extremist ideology when they're within Iraq's borders? Is that your assertion?! and that the Extremist who enters Iraq's borders drops his Extremism upon entering its borders? I suppose you live in the world where Iran's Islamic extremism has now impact on Iraq's Shi'ite Population too right? That Iranian Extremism is separate from Iraq extremism yes? Yea I propose dealing forcefully, be it diplomatically, militarily, economically or otherwise with regimes that are blatently saying to the world "Screw You" and taking advantage of our willingness to let it go.

The beef of nearly every terrorist organization, from Al Qaeda to the PLO to the IRA, is the expulsion of foreign occupation. Bin Laden’s beef with the U.S. and his own Saudi Arabian regime was the stationing of U.S. troops in the Arabian peninsula. This would have pissed him off whether Saudi Arabia were a democracy or not. But your dubious contention that bringing democracy to the Middle East will mitigate Islamic extremism can be rebutted with one word: Israel, the forceful establishment of which created Islamic terrorism in the region, not diminished it.

You still assert ideas grounded in nothing more than un-supported opinion. Cite some ideas or evidence. Don't just regurgitate what you've heard and what others have brainwashed you to believe. Are you saying if we leave Saudi Arabia the Bin Ladens will stop coming after us? If we give up our economic interests in the ME they'll say "cool, now we're good." Is that what you're saying? Do you realize that the only thing that will satisfy Extremists is the complete and un-compromised submission of "everything" that we have? Economic, Religious, Social, Military? Everything. Do you think Islamic extremists will compromise one of these elements of our society? Diminshing extremist ideology requires that we remove the conditions under which it flourishes and as most scholars contend, democracy is the system under which such extreme fundamentalism does not thrive.

 

[Crispy]

The catastrophy in Vietnam would have happened anyway. Our involvement just made it worse. But this Vietnam analogy is bogus. Vietnam was in the throes of a civil war. Iraq just happened to have a guy we didn’t like in charge.



And despite the blood and treasure we’ve wasted there, we’ve made no progress on any of these fronts. Iraq today is less secure, instable, incoherent and its infrastructure is in shambles, conditions that did not exist before the war.

The truth is that the U.S. will withdraw within the next two years regardless of the conditions, because the military simply will not be able to sustain the effort, period. So the question isn’t should we withdraw, the question is how[/] do we withdraw. And the Democrats to their credit are the only ones who are acknowledging this reality.



This is a classic straw man argument. Again, the realities of military logistics dictate that we will have to pull out within the next two years. We’re going to “cut and run” whether we want to or not. So let’s be grown up and face that reality and quit smearing those who want to address that reality with what is essentially a sophomoric charge of cowardice.





Another straw man. Never mind that we didn’t attack the countries that actually were producing and funding terrorists, like Saudi Arabia. The logical extrapolation of this argument is that every Arab or Muslim nation is a potential breeding ground for Islamic extremism, which would then trigger the disastrous pre-emptive, unilateral policy you advocate.

No one is arguing that democracy in the Middle East is a worthy goal. The question is what’s the best way to achieve it. You seem to think it can be done at the point of an American gun? I guess we’re going to find out.



The beef of nearly every terrorist organization, from Al Qaeda to the PLO to the IRA, is the expulsion of foreign occupation. Bin Laden’s beef with the U.S. and his own Saudi Arabian regime was the stationing of U.S. troops in the Arabian peninsula. This would have pissed him off whether Saudi Arabia were a democracy or not. But your dubious contention that bringing democracy to the Middle East will mitigate Islamic extremism can be rebutted with one word: Israel, the forceful establishment of which created Islamic terrorism in the region, not diminished it.





This is an amazingly contradictory statement and belies the idiocy of the Iraq war. So we’re going to establish a democracy in Iraq by attracting terrorists to it? Iraq was not a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism before the war. On the contrary, it was one of the more secular Arab countries, with a relatively progressive, educated middle class. It just happened to have Saddam as it’s leader. Thanks to us, Iraq is now the West Point of terrorist training. We’ve made Iraq into the very thing we were purporting to be fighting. Congrats America!



Again, a timetable has already been established, by the exigensies of the military conflict itself. There are democrats who have put forth a plan to deal with this inevitability, which Rep. Murtha outlined, and which the Republicans have mischaracterized as “cutting and running,” namely the “redeployment,” not withdrawal, of U.S. troops to Kuwait and Afghanistan (who could use them), thus removing the casus belli of the insurgency. That’s a plan. And what’s Bush’s plan? “Stay the course.” That’s not a plan, that’s a talking point. The truth is its Bush that doesn’t and never had a plan. Despite the vote in Congress, he’s the one who got us into this mess, and it’s valid, not to mention critically important, to ask how he plans on getting us out.



I can’t wait!

Woooah, I apologize for not responding to alot of your response. I actually missed that it was 2 posts. I'll hit ya up on all talking points if you want

 

[KCConservative]

OMG, you think that there is a difference between asking for clarity regarding a personal attack on you versus someone asking you for clarity about something you posted? If you can provide me with a valid answer to that question, I will applaud you.

It appears you missed the answer in my last post. One was asking for clarity. One was asking for clarity in the form of a personal attack.

 

[oldreliable67]

This is why nation building doesn't work, because the people in Iraq have not had the cultural changes that will allow a secular democracy to develop.

If South Korea and Japan can do it, surely Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries can do it. The cultural changes that you refer to may well be happening right now, simultaneous with the promise of representative gov't.

 

[aps]

It appears you missed the answer in my last post. One was asking for clarity. One was asking for clarity in the form of a personal attack.

I didn't miss your answer. I honestly don't see how there is a difference. Seeking clarity is seeking clarity. Or is it that you can't admit that you can't practice what you preach. No big deal--we're all human.

 

[KCConservative]

I didn't miss your answer. I honestly don't see how there is a difference. Seeking clarity is seeking clarity.

Then you need to spend some time on the forum rules page. I'm guessing, if you tried real hard, you could find a way to clarify without resorting to personal attacks.

 

[argexpat]

Then you need to spend some time on the forum rules page. I'm guessing, if you tried real hard, you could find a way to clarify without resorting to personal attacks.

KCConservative, you need to spend some time actually making arguments, and less time whining about personal attacks.

 

[The Real McCoy]

:duel t ..

 

[KCConservative]

KCConservative, you need to spend some time actually making arguments, and less time whining about personal attacks.

If you were the subject of his attacks as often as I am, you might understand. I'd recommend you read the rules on personal attacks, as well.

 

[argexpat]

If you were the subject of his attacks as often as I am, you might understand. I'd recommend you read the rules on personal attacks, as well.

Since you're obviously more interested in defending your fragile honor than actually debating, I suggest you send them an e-mail and quit wasting space on this post.

 

[KCConservative]

Since you're obviously more interested in defending your fragile honor than actually debating, I suggest you send them an e-mail and quit wasting space on this post.

Interesting. Doesn't your complaint of me waste the same amount of space?

 

[argexpat]

10 Nauseatingly Lame Anti-War Distortions ACTUALLY Debunked

"1) There is a false assumption underlying this argument, namely that Dems received the same intel as Bush (they didn't), but setting that aside, here are two reasons why this is a straw man...

Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence at hand, brooking no dissent and dismissing doubters inside and outside the government as cowardly or treasonous. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" refers to."


-It is not an assumption. It has been proved now that there was no "significant difference between the intelligence shared with members of Congress and the administration."

If the proof you’re talking about is the report from the commission investigating the intel fiasco, here it is. Please point me to where it says Congress saw the same intel as the president.

Democrats did not have "access to the same intelligence." The White House did send Congress a classified National Intelligence Estimate, as well as a much shorter executive summary. The executive summary painted the findings in overly stark terms. And even the NIE did not cite the many dissenting views within the intelligence community. Congress was not aware until much later of the Energy Department's doubts that Iraq's aluminum tubes were designed for atomic centrifuges—or of the dissent about "mobile biological weapons labs" from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Congress saw the intelligence Bush wanted them to see, which was cherry picked and exaggerated Saddam’s actual threat. The proof is that not a single pre-war claim about Iraq has turned out to be true.

-When people denied the obvious about Saddam leading up to the war, they were advocating returning to the same spineless liberal approach (Clinton's 8 years of no response to Al Queda attacks, appeasing North Korea, etc.) that made 9/11 possible.

This is an inanely facile over-simplification and a classic strawman. Who exactly “denied the obvious”? If you’ve got a specific quote from someone, then present it. And make sure it’s from someone in a position of authority and power, i.e. a member of Congress or a government official, and not from Michael Moore or Moveon.org.

-The invasion of Iraq was NOT disproportionate to the urgency of the threat. Saddam had been sponsoring suicide bombers for years, openly. He was also starting wars with our allies and hurling scuds at a nuclear power-Israel whenever he felt like it. This is not rocket science, he was clearly an eminent threat.

Saudi Arabia produced Bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 highjackers. It was well documented that Saudi Arabian money had been funding terrorists organizations, including Al Qaeda, for years. Iraq, on the other hand, was not an imminent threat. Imminent means “about to occur.” Saddam wasn’t about to do anything. Why? Because back in 1991, when he actually was a threat, we neutralized him. We bombed his ass back to Bhagdad and stripped him of any capacity to seriously threaten anyone. He couldn’t sneeze without us bombing his ass again (which Clinton did all throughout the 90s).

"2. AFTER 9/11, WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE THREAT TO MATERIALIZE BEFORE TAKING ACTION

This is…a vacuous argument whose logic implies we should invade a half-dozen African countries as well as North Korea, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Every day that goes by that Bush allows these threats to "materialize," he is failing in his duties to protect the American public…. And if the pushback is that North Korea and others are being dealt with diplomatically, isn't that exactly the approach this argument purports to refute?"


-No, it is an argument that we should invade governments with whom we have tried EVERY OTHER CONCEIVABLE COURSE OF ACTION with, and who poses a threat to our national security (like Iraq, and NOT LIKE Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). The basis for this war is legitimate, whether liberals can grasp it or not.

The fact that Iraq turned out not only not to have any WMD, but didn’t even have the capability of producing them at the start of the war, just proves that our containment policy was working. We didn’t need to go to war, Bush chose to go to war. And he chose to do it in the stupidest way possible, thus scuttling any chance this knumb-skull idea had of success in the first place.

"3. DEMOCRATS "VOTED FOR" AND THUS "SUPPORTED" THE WAR

Many elected Democrats did NOT vote in favor of the resolution. Not to mention the millions of rank and filers who marched down the streets of our cities and were largely ignored by the press and brushed off by Bush. So to say, generically, that Democrats "supported the war" or to imply that there was tepid resistance to it, is false.

b) No matter how many people contest this point, a vote to give Bush authority WAS NOT a vote "for war." Bush also had the authority NOT to invade. "


This steaming load might sell if the same Democrats who voted for the war hadn't accompanied their votes with scathing speeches against Saddam. They cannot escape their own words. Clearly, they DID support the war-until it became remotely difficult. This is one of the core problems with Democrats. They stand for nothing but what is easy.

What about the Democrats that didn’t “vote for the war”? Again, this is another straw man. It wasn’t the Democrats who took us to war, it was the Bush administration, so the burden to get it right was, and is, on their shoulders. It was the Bush administration that exaggerated the case for war, that bullied, quashed and smeared any dissenters, and that ultimately bungled the prosecution of the war.

"4. TALK OF WITHDRAWAL "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE" AND "EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY"

-When NOT covert CIA agents lie about the president, he needs to be able to reveal how dishonest their "evidence" is. One cannot do that without discussing how this NOT covert agent abused her power as an agent.

You’re obviously confusing Valerie Plame, who was a covert CIA agent, and her husband Joe Wilson, who was the emissary who debunked Bush’s claim that Iraq sought yellow cake from Niger. If not, then I have no idea what you’re talking about (and apparently neither do you).

-Pick up a history book sometime. From Vietnam to the crusades, to Bin Laden in Somalia, it is one of the most common realities in warfare: when you begin to see division in your enemy's ranks, you stay the course because it indicates that they are about to give up.

Thanks for the tortured history lesson. We’re going to “give up” in Iraq within two years whether you or anyone else wants us to or not, because the military cannot sustain the current effort beyond that. We simply cannot “stay the course.” We WILL pull out regardless of the condition Iraq is in. Democrats like Murtha are facing that reality and planning for it, suggesting we redeploy our troops to neighboring countries and thus taking the wind out of the insurgency, which, according to our own generals, is 90% homegrown. But Republicans like you insist on painting this sensible, realistic plan as some kind of cowardly “cutting and running.” It’s a red herring meant to distract us from the fact that it is Bush who doesn’t and never had a plan.

If there remains ANY doubt about this truth, watch the Bin Laden interviews where he talks about what an eye-opener it was when Democrats started putting pressure on Clinton to retreat from Al Queda in Somalia....It DOES make a difference....A HUGE ONE! The fact that Democrats don't get that demonstrates why they shouldn't be in office.

And what were Republicans doing through all this? Impeaching Clinton for getting a blow job. Brilliant!

I don't feel like the rest of this garbage even needs discussing. The initial points here are so ridiculous and irrational that I think even most Democrats could see through this big pile of poo.

Resorting to scatological dismissals merely belies your lack of good arguments and rhetorical skills.

 

[Gibberish]

Interesting. Doesn't your complaint of me waste the same amount of space?

:spin:

Stop with the circles both of you, I'm getting dizzy.

Get back on topic people.

Good post but like most reports it is opinion to one side and based on some unproven theories. Unproven merely because the author lacks the security clearance to prove the claims.

 

[argexpat]

How do you figure vietnam "would've happened anyway'? How is this analogy bogus? Explain. We left South Vietnam in political, social and economic turmoil and didn't look back! You think leaving Iraq with its Insurgency, instability and violence is any different. Enlighten me!

You're the one who made the Vietnam analogy. I don't think it applies. But Vietnam was in "political, social and economic turmoil" before we jumped in. And we didn't "cut and run" in Vietnam. We were there for more than a decade, and poured 500,000 troops and dropped more bombs than ALL the bombs dropped in WWII, and the North Vietnamese just kept on coming. We pulled out not because we lost our will, or because the pinko hippies demontrated and hurt moral...we left becuase we realized the only way we were going to "win" was to literally blow North Vietnam off the face of the planet, which, thankfully, we were not prepared to do. But don't take my word for it, that's the assessment of the architect of the war, Robert McNamara.

Here's the reality of the situation in Iraq: (1) We will be withdrawing troops within the next two years whether we want to or not, because the army simply can't sustain the effort beyond that point. So what every you want to call it, "cutting and running" or whatever, we're going to HAVE to leave whether we want to or not. (2) Democrats like Murtha are ackowledging this reality and are proposing a plan...that's right, a plan...to meet this reality, namely, the "redeployment" (FYI Murtha never used the word "withdrawal") of troops to neighboring countries like Afghanistan and Kuwait. This will allow us to draw down the troops which are stretched to capacity, it gets them out of Iraq, which even the Iraqis say is fueling the insurgency, and puts them in the periphery where they can respond if needed.

This is a reasonable, workable plan, that will save whatever chance of success we still have in Iraq. And Republicans, including you later in your post, instead of debating this plan on its merits, resort to smearing those who propose it as somehow being unpatriotic and "spitting" on the honor of our brave fighting men and women. This is not only a classic straw man argument, but it's the last refuge of one who bereft of any good arguments, not to mention integrity.

treasure? what treasure are you talking about!?

I'd call the $200 billion and counting we've sunk into the Iraq quaqmire a substantial chunk of change, wouldn't you? And this from a supposedly "conservative" Republican president.

No Progress?! How dare you spit in the face of our military and say we've made no progress. What do you call disposing of a brutal dictator?! what do you call establishing the first free public elections in 3 decades?! What do you call building Iraq's military? what do you call building Iraq's civil and social institutions?! How dare you dis-respect the men and women of the military who see and make progress daily!

See, this is what I'm talking about. This kind of ridiculous wrap-yourself-in-the-flag ranting that spews out of you Republicans whenever someone rightly calls you on your BS. And it's always from people who've never served in the military. Interesting.

Who are you to say the "military won't sustain the effort." Condisering that our military leaders on the ground are saying that leaving now is crazy and they should finish the mission, i'll take their opinion before you're un-educated, un-informed opinion. It was listening to opinions like yours that lead us to Vietnam in the first place. Opinions with no basis.

Huh? What our "military leaders on the ground" are saying is that they need more troops, because we sent in just enough troops to fail, and we're not going to send more troops, so the only option is to "redeploy" as I've explained above. I don't really care what you think of my opinion.

You haven't provided one solid argument for you "assumptions" and "opinions". Explian to me the "reality" you're talking about.

Read this.

So You're argument is that Islamic Extremism is contained within soveriegn borders?

No, my argument is this:

That the U.S. military presence in Iraq is inflaming the insurgency, uniting nationalists with Islamo-fundamentalists, and bolstering America's terrorist enemies worldwide; that the Iraqi government is using U.S. troops as a crutch; that maintaining 140,000 troops for another year will destroy the U.S. Army; and that, therefore, on several grounds, it is best for all that we get out.

The plan put forth in the report above calls for a phased, two-year plan, drawing the troops down to 80,000 by the end of next year and dispensing with most of the rest by the end of 2007. It doesn't call for a total withdrawal. All 46,000 members of the Guard and Reserve will go home next year, but most of the active-duty soldiers and Marines will be "redeployed" to Kuwait or Afghanistan. Even after that, many American troops will remain to train, advise, help secure the borders, and provide logistical and air support to the Iraqi regime.

This is a plan. "Stay the course" and vituperative rants about disrespecting our troops is not just stupid, but dangerous.

You still assert ideas grounded in nothing more than un-supported opinion. Cite some ideas or evidence. Don't just regurgitate what you've heard and what others have brainwashed you to believe.

Again, more inane name calling. Why don't you just come out and call me stupid and save me from having to read this sophomoric blather.

Are you saying if we leave Saudi Arabia the Bin Ladens will stop coming after us? If we give up our economic interests in the ME they'll say "cool, now we're good." Is that what you're saying? Do you realize that the only thing that will satisfy Extremists is the complete and un-compromised submission of "everything" that we have? Economic, Religious, Social, Military? Everything. Do you think Islamic extremists will compromise one of these elements of our society? Diminshing extremist ideology requires that we remove the conditions under which it flourishes and as most scholars contend, democracy is the system under which such extreme fundamentalism does not thrive.

OK, so what are you advocating then? That we spread democracy in the Middle East by overthrowing all the hostile regimes? Give me your plan for who we do this. No one disputes that the flowering of democracy anywhere isn't a good thing. What's your plan for acheiving it? You're supposedly of student of history. Iraq used to be a democracy back when it won its independence from the British. It had elections. But that didn't prevent the rise of Saddam. So what's to prevent the same thing happening again? That's just it, not you nor Bush nor anybody can predict what will be the final outcome in Iraq. Democracy may flower, or it may not. It could be that since Iraq is essentially a cobbled together construct of British imperialism, it can only be held together by a dictatorship, like Yugoslavia. It's this mindless certainty about some utopian neo-con dream you and other Republicans display that will be our ultimate downfall in Iraq.