Trying To Help - By Dennis Miller

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 04:07
VIEWED: 4083
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

KHYRON

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:44 PM

Regarding the logical fallacies:
If one has made a fallacy then that renders one's argument that one made in that context as invalid, no? So by saying that I made a fallacy it implicitly means that my argument as an argument against the original argument was invalid. But that's just splitting hairs. To the points:

4 isn't a red herring, since I wasn't refuting his point. I agree with Miller that saying the war is just about oil is stupid. Hence I gave him 1 star. But from this I subtracted half a star because he tried to at the same time take a swipe at the proponents of this idea, which I thought was a weak attempt on his part and could be twisted around to take aim at the other side as easily, as, well, as I did. People who present arguments that backfire so easily don't deserve a full star. Had he just said "The war isn't just about oil", he would have gotten a full star, but trying to be a smartass cost him.

8 I don't think was a straw man. He very strongly hinted that Hussein was a threat, didn't he? I just responded with sarcasm to deconstruct that argument.

Regarding your position on the war:
I saw that you wrote you were against the war and I already knew that from before. Even people who agree on some things (the war is a mistake) can disagree on some details (the stuff we're arguing about). Don't worry, didn't have you pegged as somebody you're not.

Regarding the quotes you gave:
Yes, you got me. I didn't bother reading through most of them because I made the (faulty) assumption that they were from the time just before the war started, nor did I really care about what they said (this is also why I missed the evil genius/bumbling moron paradox, I'll respond to that in a moment). So not all of them were "sucked in" by Bush, fine. But, to be absolutely honest, I don't care what those people thought back then. Maybe they were just misinformed. Maybe they were lying. Maybe there really is a grand conspiracy and Gore would've also invaded Iraq because it was a cross-party agenda (I seriously doubt that, though). In any event, it's this administration's deception and misrepresentation of facts and blatant lying and, after the war started, ineptitude that got America into this mess and that cost the lives of more than 3000 of your colleagues.

EDIT: Actually, I think you changed your original post after I already clicked on the reply button. When I responded there was a long quote in spoilers by Hillary Clinton, if I remember correctly. When I responded, as I recall, the rest of your post really was just quotes. I'll read the rest of your original post now and then give my reply.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

KHYRON

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Surely these two statements were made on the basis of knowledge these two folks had--they couldn't have been influenced by Bush's Iraq war campaign, because it was still four years in the future!

Agreed.

Quote:
Bush can't be both an evil genius and a bumbling idiot.

No he can't, and I classify him as neither. I certainly think he's more intelligent than most people think, but at the same time I agree with most people that he isn't running the show.

Quote:
...why didn't he use truck some warheads over there the night before the invasion, in nice convenient places, right where they'd be discovered.

Whether he knew there weren't any or he didn't know, this still surprises me. I was convinced that they'd plant evidence. Maybe they just felt they didn't need to, since it was too late for anybody to do something about the war.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

TRENCHMONKEY

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
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.

Fair point although as i understand it the war was illegal according to the UN, either way it would be an intresting test case if it ever came up.

i would also like to take this chance to say that one of my personal objection to the war was the philosophical one that i found the arguments about introducing democracy to the middle east generally highly reminiscent of british imperialism introducing civilisation to the rest of the world, we westerners may beleive our 'Democracy' is the best form of government but then so did we british in India.

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
i would also like to take this chance to say that one of my personal objection to the war was the philosophical one that i found the arguments about introducing democracy to the middle east generally highly reminiscent of british imperialism introducing civilisation to the rest of the world, we westerners may beleive our 'Democracy' is the best form of government but then so did we british in India.

Ever read "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling? I believe it was about the English colonial occupation of India and is supposed to show the arrogance inherent to empire. Yep: that's us.

________________________________________________________________________
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

TRENCHMONKEY

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
]

Ever read "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling? I believe it was about the English colonial occupation of India and is supposed to show the arrogance inherent to empire. Yep: that's us.

Not yet, currently working through Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T E Laurence, might look it up though

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:52 PM

Do, definitely; it's just a poem, and it's spot on--prescient, almost.

________________________________________________________________________
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

SIMONWHO

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:55 AM

You talk about Haditha as though it was one isolated incident, blackening the name of the troops. Do you know how big an impact that story had on the news in Iraq? Do you know how big an impact the "torture prison" scandal had?

As a journalist friend of mine has been following this precise matter, I can tell you - none at all. Barely registered with the Iraqi press/tv news. Let me underline that - a case where American troops raped and killed a family wasn't seen as being particularly newsworthy.

I was dumbfounded when she told me that but she pointed out "What's the death of one family when so many tens of thousands have died already at American hands?"

Today's newspapers in the UK are all about a US bomber pilot who attacked a UK convoy because he (and his assistant) couldn't be bothered to follow basic protocols. This is not the day for you to tell me how great a job US troops are doing.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 1:37 AM

Simonwho,

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last comment. Are you suggesting, alternatively, that the US troops are mostly incompetants, killers, and crooks? Are you suggesting that rape and torture are sop for the US presence, and that the 'honest hardworking soldier' is the rare exception to the rule?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 1:57 AM

Oh, Simonwho, a follow-up...

Are you suggesting these things about all soldiers, or just U.S. soldiers?

Just want to get a clear picture of what you're saying.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:10 AM

Causal,

I think US troops are caught in the same no-win situation as Vietnam, except they have more deployments. Then you have actions like Fallujah - all females and only males under 16 and over 60 were 'allowed' to leave Fallujah. Then the city was surrounded, bombarded and stormed. Orders were given that ALL males between 16 and 60 were considered to be insurgents - ie all the ones trapped there by US orders - whether they were fighting, or armed, or not. That does blur the line between civilian and other. But Fallujah wasn't an isolated incident. AFAIK the same rules of engagement were used elsewhere. And, as in the Vietnam 'body counts', there is pressure to show progress by claiming insurgents have been killed. I think it could turn many areas of Iraq into, essentially, a free-fire zone.

And then there's the casualties. I think in the US because there are 'only' 3,100+ fatalities, people think it's an easy war. But, to continue the Vietnam comparison, in that war there were 211,575 total casualties, roughly 28% were fatalities. In Iraq there are, so far, 26,189 total casualties. If the same ratio were to hold, there would be 7206 fatalities. It's a far bloodier, more violent war than most people in the US realize (thanks in large part to Dick 'Shooter' Cheney and Bush cheerleading, along with a lax US media). But the soldiers live it and it takes a toll.

I think some US troops have done horrific things. Whether it's due to the rules of engagement, the stress of too many deployments in a chaotic and bloody war, or whatever the cause. But I lay that at Bush's feet.

-------------------------

As I recall, Bush only let two members of the Senate ... Intel in on the real deal (neither of them democrats for some strange reason ). The rest were fed the same go-se as the rest of Congress. If it was an ad and Bush was a business, he'd be sued for false advertising.

There was enough contrary evidence to call into question the strength of Bush's confidence - that the aluminum tubes could never be used in centrifuges, that the 'Niger' document was a known forgery, that there was no connection between Hussein and al Qaida, and so on. The State Department disagreed with the threat assessment.

Remove the parts known to be untrue and Hussein posed no direct threat to the US.

But what removed all doubt was that Bush sent in US troops. If Hussein had had all that capability most US troops would have been toast, or some equally gruesome biological product.

So there was no doubt in MY mind that the whole WMD 'thing' was fabricated and that BUSH knew it all along.

What I think is that he went in to Iraq thinking he'd find just enough to - after the fact - justify the invasion. He was pretty sure the cupboard was lacking, I don't think he realized just how bare it was.

As to all the folk caught up in the shifting goals - stockpiles, programs, intentions, Hussein, freedom, elections, bait - they are massively short-sighted.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE