Trying To Help - By Dennis Miller
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 04:07
VIEWED: 4083
PAGE 1 of 3
Found this on http://weekendpundit.blogmosis.com/lastweekend/006364.html.
Somehow I had the impression that Miller was supposed to be smart, even if he was on the "wrong" side. Guess I was wrong.
Trying To Help - By Dennis Miller
All the rhetoric whether or not we should go to war with Iraq has got my insane little brain spinning like a roulette wheel. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides but have detected a hint of confusion from some of you. As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice someone ever gave me. He told me about the KISS method (“Keep It Simple, Stupid!”). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important facts. Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:
1 - Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein....Hussein is the bad guy.
2 - If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind – They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
3 – If you use Google search and type in “French Military Victories,” your reply will be “Did you mean French Military Defeats?”
4 – If your only anti-war slogan is “NO WAR FOR OIL,” sue your school district for allowing you to slip through cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.
5 – Saddam and bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.
6 – Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the President. He only plays one on TV.
7 – Even if you are anti-war, you are still an “Infidel” and bin Laden wants you dead, too.
8 – If you believe in a “vast right-wing conspiracy” but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.
9 – We are not trying to liberate them.
10 – Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out.
****
There. I hope that straightens everything out for you.
------
1 - So they can't both be bad? I agree that Hussein was bad, but Miller seems to imply that that means Bush is good. No, it doesn't. These are the kind of absolutes people want you believe in, though, and which lead to the mess America is in now. I'd agree with the statement that Hussein is worse, even if he posed less of a threat to long-term world peace than Bush.
2 - Sort of agree, the UN does have a lot of problems, is a bit incompetent and has lost a lot of credibility over the years, but this doesn't allow the US to start wars as it pleases.
3 - Don't see the point of this.
4 - Similarly, if your pro-war slogan is one of "WAR FOR FREEDOM", "WAR FOR PEACE", "WAR FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST" or "WAR IN IRAQ = FIGHT AGAINST TERROR", sue your school district for allowing you to slip through cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.
5 – Neither will the US, it seems.
6 - No, you lie! IT'S NOT TRUE! Take it back! 
7 - So the war in Iraq is part of the strategy for finding bin Laden? Hmmm, there were a lot of reasons given for the war (you know, one after the other, once the public realised that the previous reason was BS), but I don't remember this one. Probably I've forgotten it, or maybe it's a new one.
8 – Yes, how could one underestimate the danger that Saddam posed!? Okay, he didn't have any WMDs, or any significant weapons reserves... in fact, his army was beaten in a couple of days without too much hassle... but yes, he could've single-handedly destroyed the world had the US not invaded just in time.
9 - A surprisingly candid point. Don't disagree.
10 - No, they're there because some dickhead and his administration made them go there by lying to them and everybody else. And freedom of expression in America was NEVER threatened by Hussein or even bin Laden.
So I give Miller 2 gold stars out of 10. 1 gold star for point number 9, half a g
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Screw Dennis Miller.. gimme Dennis Leary!
There's a guy who tells it like it is.
-Frem
(EDIT: Interesting note, not only did Leary assist during the 9-11 crisis by driving one of the firetrucks himself, he's also a pretty firm supporter of firemen in general.)
http://www.learyfirefighters.org/faq.html
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, Auraptor is Dennis Miller.
I suspected as much, and you never see them together do you?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Somehow I had the impression that Miller was supposed to be smart, even if he was on the "wrong" side. Guess I was wrong.
Right...because everyone who disagrees with you must be a complete moron, I forgot. Wait, what's that? That isn't at all what you meant? Then could you explain the straw man and red herring fallacies that were shot through your "response" to Miller's list?
In the second place, I was in the military, I deployed to Iraq, and I'll tell you: servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms. We obey the orders that we're given, and the president, as commander in chief, ordered us into Iraq. Now, I had deep reservations before we went in, and as it turns out, I was right: invading was a terrible idea. But I obeyed the orders that I was given because that's what I swore to do: obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me. It's right there in the oath of enlistment. And the first part of that oath is, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." As servicemembers, we are not given the luxury of which orders to obey, nor are we allowed to make our own decisions with respect to when and where we go. When you take that oath, you make a tacit commitment to trust that the people giving orders won't order you into harm's way unnecessarily. But even if that trust is violated, you're still under oath to obey.
In the third, the "Bush lied" argument is getting a little tired. I was an intelligence analyst for the Navy--that was my specialty. When we were in Kuwait just prior to the invasion, the Iraqi military launched surface-to-surface missiles at our base. I was scared out of my mind, because I was firmly convinced that there was a good chance that the nose cone of those missiles was full of some nasty chemical. Why was I afraid of that? Well, I can tell you, it wasn't because Bush said so. It was because the intelligence that I had seen, which predated Bush's taking office by 5 years, said he had the stuff. The concensus of the U.S. intelligence community was that he had WMD. How much, exactly, nobody knew. But everybody was convinced. As were others:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Select to view spoiler:
Nancy Pelosi's congressional website, 16 Dec 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
Select to view spoiler:
Bill Clinton, remarks at the Pentagon, 17 Feb 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Select to view spoiler:
Al Gore, in a speech to The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Sept. 23, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
Select to view spoiler:
John Edwards, member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, remarks on Senate floor, Oct 10, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's r
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Uhm... CAN YOU COMPREHEND WHAT YOU READ!?!?!? I said:
Originally posted by Causal:Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Somehow I had the impression that Miller was supposed to be smart, even if he was on the "wrong" side. Guess I was wrong.
Right...because everyone who disagrees with you must be a complete moron, I forgot. Wait, what's that? That isn't at all what you meant?
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Somehow I had the impression that Miller was supposed to be SMART, EVEN IF HE WAS ON THE "WRONG" SIDE. Guess I was wrong.
That means I thought he was smart, even if I disagreed with him. What changed my mind is not that I disagree with him on principle, but I think his ten points are extremely, pathetically weak and a smart person wouldn't make points and pass them off as anything other than a prank.
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Then could you explain the straw man and red herring fallacies that were shot through your "response" to Miller's list?
Show me one argument I made that's invalid.
Quote:Thanks. This board was running low on platitudes. Now explain to me how Hussein was threatening those freedoms. And then explain to me how you can't see that "preserving freedoms" is just a mantra that's drilled into you guys so that you can't see that it's all just BS and start going AWOL.
Originally posted by Causal:
servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms.
Quote:Is this supposed to be a rebuttal to anything I've said?
Originally posted by Causal:
We obey the orders that we're given, and the president, as commander in chief, ordered us into Iraq. Now, I had deep reservations before we went in, and as it turns out, I was right: invading was a terrible idea. But I obeyed the orders that I was given because that's what I swore to do: obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me. It's right there in the oath of enlistment. And the first part of that oath is, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Quote:But no less true. He lied about the reasons for war, he lied about the connection between Iraq and 911. He lied about a lot of stuff. He lied. You can point to faulty intelligence all you like, and I don't deny that there was faulty intelligence. Doesn't change the fact that he lied.
Originally posted by Causal:
In the third, the "Bush lied" argument is getting a little tired.
And the rest of your post is just giving me quotes from people who were sucked in by his lies. All that shows is that they were more gullible than most of the world outside of America was.
So how many gold stars would you give Dennis Miller's ten points?
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Show me one argument I made that's invalid.
Logically speaking (and as a philosophy major, I ought to know), there's a difference between invalidity (which has to incorrect logical procedure) and fallacy (which has to do with incorrect argumentative strategy). I never said you'd argued invalidly. I said you argued fallaciously. On #4 you committed the red herring fallacy, and on #8 you committed the straw man fallacy. I don't think it would be fruitful to explain how I came to those conclusions, because I don't think I'll get a fair hearing. But I just wanted you to know that I don't think you're being illogical per se. Everybody commits informal fallacies when they have to work quickly.
Quote:Quote:Thanks. This board was running low on platitudes.
Originally posted by Causal:
servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms.
Actually, I'm a little offended, because I felt that serving in the military for just this reason was an honorable thing, not a naive one. But regardless, the chief function of the military is to protect the country, its citizens, and its political system--and that is what I meant by the above.
Quote:
Now explain to me how Hussein was threatening those freedoms.
He wasn't. If you'd read my post more carefully, you would have seen that I think that the Iraq war was a terrible idea; we should never have invaded in the first place. I don't defend the war, because I don't think we should have ever started it in the first place. That said...
Quote:
And then explain to me how you can't see that "preserving freedoms" is just a mantra that's drilled into you guys so that you can't see that it's all just BS and start going AWOL.
Well, as noted above, the preserving-freedoms thing is one reason why countries have militaries in the first place.
The whole point of being sworn to obey the orders of the President and military officers is to prevent people from disobeying any order they like. A military just cannot function like that. The entire system would break down, and there would no longer be a military at all. I don't expect you to understand that, having never served. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. I'm just giving an account.
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
He lied about the reasons for war, he lied about the connection between Iraq and 911. He lied about a lot of stuff. He lied. You can point to faulty intelligence all you like, and I don't deny that there was faulty intelligence. Doesn't change the fact that he lied.
Yes, I suppose I should have made it clear that my remarks were restricted to the question of intelligence data. I can't comment on the other stuff, because I haven't invested the research that I feel I would need to make an informed judgment.
Quote:
And the rest of your post is just giving me quotes from people who were sucked in by his lies. All that shows is that they were more gullible than most of the world outside of America was.
I'm not sure that you read the rest of my post, because I did respond to this exact objection. At least two of the statements I gave were made in 1998, so I'd like to know how you can say that they were "sucked in" by "lies" that were still about 3 years in the future.
In the second place, that was not the rest of my post. Another thing I was wondering about was the evil genius/bumbling moron paradox, and the question of planting evidence (to which you gave no reply).
In the third, I also gave an account for my opposition to the Iraq war (which I think you missed, being that you seem to have taken me for an apologist for this abortion of a war). Just to make this perfectly clear: We should never have gone to war in Iraq. (But just for the record, I'm not going to respond to any attacks of the "then why did you go" variety.)
Quote:
So how many gold stars would you give Dennis Miller's
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In the second place, I was in the military, I deployed to Iraq, and I'll tell you: servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms. We obey the orders that we're given, and the president, as commander in chief, ordered us into Iraq. Now, I had deep reservations before we went in, and as it turns out, I was right: invading was a terrible idea. But I obeyed the orders that I was given because that's what I swore to do: obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me. It's right there in the oath of enlistment. And the first part of that oath is, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." As servicemembers, we are not given the luxury of which orders to obey, nor are we allowed to make our own decisions with respect to when and where we go. When you take that oath, you make a tacit commitment to trust that the people giving orders won't order you into harm's way unnecessarily. But even if that trust is violated, you're still under oath to obey.
Wow. Here's a hint about debating - if you're going to make a big, self-promoting statement like "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms", do not immediately follow it with a comprehensive argument that shows your career has no basis on our freedoms (you're the C-in-C's bitch) and in fact if you were ordered to end our freedoms (for example, our freedom not to have a bullet lodged in our chests), then you'd do so.
Oh, and Dennis Miller is a jackass. Dennis Leary is a thief but at least he knows good material when he steals it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Wow. Here's a hint about debating - if you're going to make a big, self-promoting statement like "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms", do not immediately follow it with a comprehensive argument that shows your career has no basis on our freedoms (you're the C-in-C's bitch) and in fact if you were ordered to end our freedoms (for example, our freedom not to have a bullet lodged in our chests), then you'd do so.
In the first place, my statement "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms" was not an attempt at self-promotion. As I explained in a previous post, I was trying to convey the idea that the purpose of having a military is to protect a country, its citizens, and its systems of government.
Obvious offensiveness aside, I'd be curious to know if you think that the servicemen who fought in the Second World War were Roosevelt's bitches (now there's an interesting turn of phrase for someone who's trying to give debating advice). I was trying to lay out the system of authority in the military: President as commander-in-chief, then the Joint Chiefs, then branch secretaries, then branch heads, and so forth down the line to the trigger-pullers and paper-filers. If the trigger-pullers and paper-filers get to choose which orders to obey and which orders not to obey, the system of military authority will immediately collapse, and the military would lose its ability to accomplish its mission (whatever that happened to be). Military members are trained to recognize the difference between lawful and unlawful orders (e.g., yes, the Marines in Haditha really did know better). The Presidents order of American troops to Iraq may have been ill-advised, precipitous, foolish, and even (on Khyron's view) predicated on falsehood. But as far as I'm aware, the order didn't break U.S. law, and given that, it constituted a lawful order. Given that, servicemembers were bound by their oaths of enlistment to set aside personal feelings and obey the order. I do not expect you to understand that system, nor agree that that's the way it should be. In fact, I'm not making any normative claims at all. I'm not trying to tell you how these things should work. I'm simply trying to explain how it does work.
Finally, I am deeply, deeply offended by the implication that military servicemembers are soulless killing machines with no regard for the citizens of their country. Many, if not most, military members believe deeply that they are protecting their countrymen. I certainly believe that that was the purpose of my service. I find it alarming that you have so little regard for the people whose vocation it is to place themselves in harm's way on your behalf. I'm aware that to someone who's never served that sounds like so much romantic drivel. But I assure you: that is how the military sees it.
Much political hay is made over the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam. There is a political side to such an analogy: a failing war exacting a polictical toll on the current administration. But there's also a social side to the analogy: the demonization of military servicemembers by those opposed to the war. It is the responsibility of the government to insure that Iraq doesn't go the way Vietnam did militarily and politically (and they sure are mucking it up). But it is the responsibility of people like yourself to insure that Iraq doesn't go the way of Vietnam when it comes to the treatment of military members. I'm alarmed to see that you are contributing to making Iraq another Vietnam by as much as accusing me of being willing to kill American citizens. Your next step is "baby killer," and then after that you can loiter around airports spitting on men in uniform. Or perhaps you can simply hate Bush for the mess he's gotten us into, but withhold your hatred from the men and women who are trying to do their duty to their country.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
We obey the orders that we're given, and the president, as commander in chief, ordered us into Iraq. Now, I had deep reservations before we went in, and as it turns out, I was right: invading was a terrible idea. But I obeyed the orders that I was given because that's what I swore to do: obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me.
Slight digression but wasnt the 'we were obeying orders' defence declared invalid during the trials that followed WW2? although i will fully admit this is a totally diffrent scale to that. what holds true for one should at least in theory hold true for all surely.
I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
Slight digression but wasnt the 'we were obeying orders' defence declared invalid during the trials that followed WW2? although i will fully admit this is a totally diffrent scale to that. what holds true for one should at least in theory hold true for all surely.
Yes, it should definitely apply across the board. Which is why that defense will fail if the Marines accused of war crimes in Haditha try to claim that they were just following orders. The "just following orders" defense originated, in the vernacular at any rate, in the war crimes trials at Nuremberg. Are you suggesting that all US servicemembers who have served in Iraq are guilty of roughly the same thing for which they have to make a defense? Applying the invalidity of the following-orders defense to the war in general is impossible. The order to invade Iraq was not unlawful (according to the military's definition) so the troops weren't wrong just for going. The president was a fool for giving the order, but let's not blame the troops for fulfilling the oaths they swore.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME