A Lob to the Left

[thanuk]

After following the developing Iraqi situation, and arguing about it on this bbs, i have come to two conclusions.

1. I have *ENTIRELY* too much free time.

2. The argument against the war has not even touched on its most valid point.

I am a 22 year old American from New York, and full of piss, vinegar and patriotism(or whatever such terms you might use to describe youthful exuberance), I am an avid supporter of war in Iraq. I have considered often the fears of the people who oppose the war, and their idealogical reasoning behind it, as well as numerous conspiracy theories and other paranoid ramblings of people mistrustful of the American government. Those are all fine and to be expected, but they don't really address the realism behind the reasons for going to war; national security, safety, the spread of liberty...and all the propaganda of positive results that are disguised as real reasons behind the war, which are, in truth, merely side effects, and have minimal influence on our decision to go to war. To oversimplify this greatly, we are going to war for unilateral reasons, but our success would have a positive multilateral effect on the world as a whole. Their are negative side effects as well, and you will find the strongest opposition to the war in the countries that would suffer from those negative side effects (France, Russia). Based on this, the people who endorse the war have made a strong case for the action.

The opposition to war has been unorganized, ideological, and has become poisoned with political maneuvers from people who would use the war as an excuse to harm American political standing, as well as the political standing of George W. Bush. Basically, I have bought into all the pro-America hype, and got caught up in arguments of ideology concerning a situation that called for staunch realism, along with the rest of the world. But I finally heard a serious, legitimate argument against war, suprisingly enough from a man who fully supports intervention in Iraq.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_arti ... m=20030217

I still fully support the war. But I find it hard to believe that such a glaring concept, that completely appeals to the American way of life, could go overlooked by the proponents against a war in Iraq. You will never convince the American government or population that the ideology behind the war is unjust; everything about what we are doing plays into American culture, and actually fits in quite logically with our identity as a nation. What you need to combat a wholly American reason to go to war, is a wholly American reason not to go to war, and it has been staring you all in the face the whole time. If you are serious about opposing the war, it is time you get off the multilateralism horse(this will never play in America), and move your argument to an area that every American can understand and identify it.

Yes, Saddam Hussein is a bad person, who does bad things, and he does most definately represent a serious threat to America. Rather than argue these points into futility, serious opposition to war needs to accept all these facts, and instead focus on a very realistic, very American point that has yet to be explored in depth:

Can we afford to pay for this war, and the occupation of Iraq after it?

I really don't know the answer, but the legitimacy of this question scares me more than a little.

[Salen]

Puppet Governments > j00

The US should

1. Kick upon Iraq greatly
2. Insert our own puppet gov't to insure oil
3. Tell France,Germany, Russia they can't have any
4. Laugh at Continental Europe
5. Watch McDonald's WalMart and Gateway flood into Iraq
6. Watch all the other Arab countries whine about how nice Iraq is
7. See a ton of manufacturing jobs get shipped to the Middle East
8. Complain about damn foreigners stealing American jobs
9. Retire to beaches in Canada


Ok So #9 is a little far fetched

[Corth]

Sullivan makes a good point. Bush has shown no inclination to control domestic spending. Couple that with the expense of fighting a global war and your definately going to be seeing some substantial budget deficits.

[thanuk]

No sooner do i pose the question then i find the answer!

http://maddox.xmission.com/penny_drop.html

But if anyone has any serious thoughts on this, id love to hear them:)

[belleshel]

Is the war and reconstruction going to cost a lot? You bet. I've seen estimates run from 30-120 billion for the war. Is this a lot for the US government? Not really. It would certainly be nicer not to have to spend this money, but if you look at our defense spending over the last 50 years this war is just a blip. Currently our defense spending is about 4% of our GDP (~400 B). In WWII it was an understandable 40%, and most of us were alive for the last few years of the cold war, where it was over 6%. I'm certainly concerned about it, but the amount of special intrest money in Bush's current budget easily surpasses the cost of any war/reconstruction. I'd rather see the money spent on getting the US off its oil dependancy, which would transform the Middle East for the better, but that's not realistic under the current administration.
Belle

Remember 9/11 cost us financially somewhere around 95+ Billion, the war doesn't seem so expensive when a few terrorists without the benefit of WMD can do that kind of damage.

[moritheil]

You have too much time ;)

[Sarvis]

What no haiku now?
unlike every other thread
Mori is slipping

[Mplor]

I expect us to balk at the cost and rebuild Iraq the same way we "rebuilt" Afghanistan: by leaving some troops to prop up our un-democratically installed government and then looking for the next bogeyman to make us forget about slippery Osama. At least we can count on no more wars until the (re-)election is firmly in hand.

I'm not surprised that the cheap jingoists who nourish the pro-war world-view haven't been all over this in their "blogs". Are fiscal conservatism and political conservatism no longer bedfellows?

Wtf is a "blog" anyway?

Reaching white summer,
Sunshine on bleached rocks blinds me.
Step in a blog. Ew.

Mp

[Daz]

i wish all the americans who opposed the war would be shipped to canada and given a lifetime supply of tear jerkers.

[Xisiqomelir]

Wtf is a "blog" anyway?

Mplor, I believe it is short for "weblog". It is a very ugly-sounding word though :)

And I also agree that war on Iraq should not be an excuse for the failure to apprehend Osama bin Laden. What's going on with that story?

[Daz]

xisi, i am gonna go out on a limb here and GUESS what a possible answer to your question might be. if we take saddam out of power, then we have crippled one of the gatekeepers of terrorism in the middle east. he may not be strictly a terrorist himself, but his rule and actions and allies DO play a major role in supporting terroristic actions, and he has a very powerful thumb under which most of the middle east can be found.

osama is in hiding, there is no doubt - and he is protected because there are those who fear retribution from saddam, or through some fanatic belief in his causes, irregardless, when saddam is no longer in power, it will be much easier to weasel out terrorists who lack funding, financing, and a 'home base' from which to operate.

i once posted a comment that i could care less about these nations, and that i felt the death of their society would be beneficial to the world, as they are a negative influence on the rest of the world. however, corth posted a link about one man's story of success in a post-taliban afghanistan. this man took initiative, personal finance, work, and motivation - and has built himself an economic shelter. his success will trickle down on the rest of his economic neighbors - business will be built, spending will increase - and with these things will come the trappings of modern civilization. women who can teach without fear of being stoned to death, children not afraid to play or be killed after school, and a society of free-thinking people who can innovate and pay for their own social growth. i believe that this, more than any other reason, should be justification for ousting saddam from power. his leadership does not allow free-thinking or economic growth, and without things like that - their society will never change.

in a society where people CAN live for their dreams, and the dreams of their offspring, they will not be forced to cling to fanaticism as a substitute for hope. in such a place, osama could not long hide, because he would have nothing to offer his followers. "your lives are hopeless, you can change nothing, you have no rights, so give me your deaths." people rush to this battle cry under the current situation in the middle east. their lives mean nothing, so they sell their death to the highest bidder in the name of their god.

give their lives meaning, or let them find meaning for it themselves, and they won't be so anxious to give their death away so cheaply.



i no longer feel that the middle east is a region full of lives with no value, but i think there is at least one man who steals that value from everyone there, and the united states, as a leader among nations, is obligated to step forward and to liberate these people.

yes, i am rambling, but that is how i feel. thanks.

[Zagaz]

I am glad to so you have changed your view on that part of the world Daz, there are opportunites for eeveryone anywhere, and I hope we can bring western ideals to that part of the globe to encourage them to develop better lives for themselves.

On a related note, I was reading the latest macleans after a hiatus because of a stupid unpaid bill, and there was an article about russia's arsenal of WMD. The article points out that one of the largest storage facilities, which also houses weapons grade plutonium is undermanned with underpaid disgruntled men, and points out that there are fears that groups like the Chechnyans(sp?) or the North Koreans may have some of this arsenal, or that during the reform years many of these weapons may have been unaccounted for. There is still hope however, as the Putin government has been doing a decent job at economic reforms which could go a long way to stabilizing that country as well.

I am rambling due to lack of sleep and too much black and white...

As for the economics of rebuilding Iraq after the ousting of the current regime, I can;t really say. Would there be corporate interest? Plus, with many of the economic sanctions lifted, trade would be easier. Also, what about NGO's, they are always in countries like this, heloing with education and health, so working with them would be a good idea. Maybe the UN could foot some of the bill, depends on if they are still even relavent after this. Plus, with Britain on your side, they could assist, and I am sure the canadian government would send some assistance as well, we are usually quick to lend a couple million dollars to foreign aid.

[thanuk]

I expect us to balk at the cost and rebuild Iraq the same way we "rebuilt" Afghanistan: by leaving some troops to prop up our un-democratically installed government and then looking for the next bogeyman to make us forget about slippery Osama. At least we can count on no more wars until the (re-)election is firmly in hand.

I seriously doubt this will ever happen, for the very reason you against war like to imply the reason for war is; the oil is there. We aren't gonna just let it SIT there, all by itself, in the hands of some new idiotic dictator are we? Of course not!

I'm not surprised that the cheap jingoists who nourish the pro-war world-view haven't been all over this in their "blogs". Are fiscal conservatism and political conservatism no longer bedfellows?

Wtf is a "blog" anyway?

Actually i found this article through one of those blogs, i was wondering why the mainstream media hadn't picked up on this fact. Oh right, because dan rather is too busy helping saddam ascend to martyrdom for ratings to actually discuss something that might have anything to do with the events of the world. Are the liberal media and logical reasoning no longer bedfollows? Oh, thats right, they never were.


What shall we tell them?
Fact no longer a concern
Bias inherant

[thanuk]

And I also agree that war on Iraq should not be an excuse for
the failure to apprehend Osama bin Laden. What's going on with that story?

We cant find him because he is half way across the world in a cave somewhere. Nobody is denying or trying to avoid the fact that we cant catch him, but the fact that he knows we are looking for him keeps him from sticking his head out of his little hole in the side of a mountain somewhere. Maybe he should have given some tips to this guy.

[Mplor]

Are the liberal media and logical reasoning no longer bedfollows? Oh, thats right, they never were.

Wow, nice red herring.

[Xisiqomelir]

Are the liberal media and logical reasoning no longer bedfollows? Oh, thats right, they never were.

Wow, nice red herring.

That is not in fact a red herring, it is the fallacy known as "ad hominem abusive" :D

[Mplor]

Actually, I think it's a red herring. My comment was:

Are fiscal conservatism and political conservatism no longer bedfellows?

His response to my question was:

Are the liberal media and logical reasoning no longer bedfollows? Oh, thats right, they never were.

Instead of addressing the implications of my question, he responded with a question of his own, dodging mine by posing an unrelated question and answering it himself in a way that attempts to make his point without even touching the original issue.

In fairness, my question was as rhetorical as his. His response was as tangential to the war dialogue as mine, so I can't really claim any sort of high ground.

Mp :)

[Corth]

"Ad hominem" is a Latin phrase meaning 'at the man'. By definition, it is a fallacious attack on a person rather than his reasoning. The 'liberal media' can hardly be considered a person. Assuming it exists then its an institution. Thus, saying that the liberal media does not use reasoning is not an attack on a person and cannot be an ad hominem. And I don't believe from the context that Thanuk was claiming Mplor was a member of the 'liberal media', which could be considered an ad hominem attack.

[Xisiqomelir]

If your going to give the 'liberal media' a personality, you are assuming it exists, which means that Thanuk has already proven his point.

How does the existence of the 'liberal media' as a recognizable discrete entity, separate from media under the control of other ideological persuasions (the "anarchist press", the "conservative propaganda machine") prove that it is a stranger to logical reasoning?

[Corth]

Speaking of fallacies, heres one that the anti-war people should ponder. The 'Appeal to Popularity':

Description: The argument supports a position by appealing to the shared opinion of a large group of people - the majority, the general public, etc. The presumed authority comes solely from the size, not the credentials, of the group cited.

Many of the arguments that I have heard against war use this type of fallacious reasoning:

A) Unilateral foreign policy is bad: This argument assumes that the only correct course of action in foreign policy is one that has the approval of multiple governments.

B) Foreign policy without UN approval is bad: A stronger form of the first argument. Assuming you can get multiple governments to approve your position (as the US has), it is no longer sufficient. Now you need to get approval from a clear majority of the governments rotating through the UN Security Counsel. Countries such as Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea must be wined and dined (bribed) for the US to have permission to do anything. If such permission is not obtained, then the US shouldn't goto war.

C) Millions of people protesting against an Iraq war means that the war is bad: Because when a million smelly hippies and commies get together, they have to be right.

Corth

[Xisiqomelir]

As Corth craftily edits his post out from under me :D

(The above was meant in jest, in case you were unable to recognize it as such.)

"Ad hominem" is a Latin phrase meaning 'at the man'. By definition, it is a fallacious attack on a person rather than his reasoning. The 'liberal media' can hardly be considered a person. Assuming it exists then its an institution. Thus, saying that the liberal media does not use reasoning is not an attack on a person and cannot be an ad hominem.

To satisfy Corth's sense of Classical propriety, I now recant my previous position and reclassify this statement:

Are the liberal media and logical reasoning no longer bedfollows? Oh, thats right, they never were.

as argument ad medium abusive. And we have just discovered a new logical fallacy! Oh the thrill. :twisted:

[thanuk]

Actually, you are both wrong. My question is neither an attack on Mplor, nor is it in any way unrelated to the subject at hand. Although i can't claim it isn't both a loaded and unfair question, i have to say that it is indeed relevant.

I'm not surprised that the cheap jingoists who nourish the pro-war world-view haven't been all over this in their "blogs". Are fiscal conservatism and political conservatism no longer bedfellows?

As we can see here, the question is posed in order to associate "cheap jingoists" who have blogs into one large group, and to imply that the group has a tendency toward both fiscal conservatism and political conservatism. Basically he is calling them conservatives without using the word conservative as a noun, so that when i later refer to a group as liberals instead of fiscal liberalists or political liberalists, he can refute my choice of words, when in fact they really carry the same meaning. This, of course, is all in the context that they represent a form of media, albeit a private one with no claims of non-partisan activity.
In response to this i said:

Actually i found this article through one of those blogs, i was wondering why the mainstream media hadn't picked up on this fact. Oh right, because dan rather is too busy helping saddam ascend to martyrdom for ratings to actually discuss something that might have anything to do with the events of the world. Are the liberal media and logical reasoning no longer bedfollows? Oh, thats right, they never were.

Although my argument is clearly less subtle than his, it makes the same point. I have instead chosen to link the formal media into one group who i will refer to as "the liberal media", which is just as unfair, yet not as insulting as "cheap jingoists", but a term of equal merit none the less. After a nice cheap shot at danny boy(hi5 self), i pose an equally unfair question who's purpose is to associate all the standard offices of mainstream media(cnn, ABCnews etc) into one group, the "liberal media", and then imply the group has no tendency toward reason or logical reasoning, and then pose pseudo-evidence in the form of history to support my claim. Due to the obvious relation to the discussion at hand, this can be considered neither a red herring, not an abusive ad hominem. Although i would personally describe this as a clever juxtapositioning, the truth lies somewhere near the phrase "turning the tables". Im sure there is a fancy latin based word for copying someone's rhetorical argument, changing a few words, and spitting it back at them just as unfairly as they presented it to you, the word escapes me now and i will leave it to Xisiqolimer to find out exactly what word that is, as he is very good at finding such terms.

[Xisiqomelir]

Im sure there is a fancy latin based word for copying someone's rhetorical argument, changing a few words, and spitting it back at them just as unfairly as they presented it to you

It's an English word and that word is strawman.

However, I still think that *I* am right (bahahahaha), because ad hominem abusive is an attempted refutation of a position via insults rather than evidence.

e.g.

Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that.

Corth, however, that manic grammarian, objects because ad hominem in his opinion is solum hominem (only about humans). So now we have argumentum ad medium sinister abusive, which describes refutation of the leftist media via insults, invented by me to bring balance to the Force and restore the universe to order :D

[thanuk]

I have to disagree. You see Mplor's message served as a discredit to a source of information, in this case, webloggers, by implying they hold a bias toward conservative views. I, in turn, made a similar discredit toward another source of information, the popular media, by implying they hold a bias toward liberal views.

Neither of us has created a strawman, because we can both pose valid arguments that webloggers tend toward conservative views and that the popular media tends toward liberal views. The evidence is found in their words, and is obvious to anyone who cares to look. If i was trying to do anything, it was to create a moral high ground for the web loggers, as they in no way contend to be a non-partisan voice, whereas the popular media is based on its ability to report news without bias, to give the truth without being influenced by the opinions of those reporting it, which they obviously do not do. Their reporting can be shown to reflect a certain viewpoint, rather than an unimpeded view from a non-partisan observer.

You are also classifying my remarks without accepting that they are a reflection of earlier comments meant to defame another avenue of information, the "cheap jingoists", if you will. So keep looking, there is a word for what i did to Mplor's argument, and i used to know it but i have forgotten for lack of practice.

[Corth]

All that really matters here is that bloggers > liberal media.

[Corth]

As Corth craftily edits his post out from under me :D

Laugh Xis..

This is the second time you have jumped all over one of my posts before I have had the opportunity to look at it and fix things. Really, in the future you need to stop trolling the boards and wait more than 3 minutes before replying to me :)

Corth

[Mplor]

The pro-war lobby will eat itself. This thread is proof!

[Xisiqomelir]

The pro-war lobby will eat itself. This thread is proof!

Disputes over Latin grammar, thrilling though they are, have little to no bearing on the validity of war. :wink: