Originally Published at Don Emmerich’s Blog.
Ruining our economy wasn’t enough. Nor was waging an immoral, unnecessary war. No, it seems that the Bush Administration might have one final goodie for the American people. Yes, that’s right, a war with Iran.
Not only does the administration continue saber rattling over Iran, but it’s now known that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action.”
The stated reasons for this potential attack are that (1) Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and (2) Iran has for some time been waging a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq.
So these are the charges. Of course, charges are not always factual, and we should keep a few things in mind.
First, according to the U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran terminated its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Now, of course, Dick Cheney claims that he knows better, that he knows what Iran is really up to with its uranium enrichment program. But this guy doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to making predictions; moreover, I think it’s safe to say that the 16 U.S. spy agencies know more about the inner workings of Tehran than our Rambo-wannabe vice president.
But why then, some have asked, does Iran insist on enriching uranium? Surely, they must be lying when they say they have peaceful intentions; surely they must want to blow up the world. But that doesn’t at all follow. Just three short decades ago, Henry Kissinger claimed that Iran needed nuclear energy because its economy demanded that it save its oil for other purposes. (We should also keep in mind that, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.)
Let’s move on to the second charge, which is that the Iranian government is arming many of the Iraqi insurgents. Now, for obvious reasons, even if it could be shown that the insurgents have arms that were made in Iran, it wouldn’t follow that the Iranian government was responsible for the attacks. Among others, this point has been made by Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In February 2007 when the Bush gang began claiming that the Quds Force was sending explosives to Iraqi insurgents, Pace told the Voice of America,
It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.
This should all sound very familiar. The same people who lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and al Qaeda ties (and in case you didn’t hear, there were no WMDS and no al Qaeda ties)—these same people are now trying to hoodwink the country into another war.
I’m certainly not defending Tehran, which is repressive and undemocratic. I personally think the Iranian people were much better off under Mohammad Mossadegh, who was a peace-loving and democratically-elected prime minister in the 1950s, a man who—oh by the way—was driven from power by the CIA and replaced by a brutal monarch. (And what, you’re asking, did Mossadegh do to deserve such treatment? The answer is that he thought Iran’s oil reserves should be owned by Iran, not the British government. A very heretical belief in Western minds.)
Now it’s certainly possible that, despite its claims, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And I certainly don’t think the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran. But it’s simply absurd to believe that, if Iran got nukes, it would use them against the U.S. and/or Israel. If nothing else, the Iranian government is rational. And therefore it realizes that using nuclear weapons against nations with superior military forces and enormous nuclear stockpiles would result in its own annihilation. So if Iran is seeking nukes—and again, our intelligence agencies tell us that such is not the case—but if it is, then it would only want them as a deterrent.
Now is not the time for another war. Now is the time to talk, something the Iranians have been trying to do for several years. In May 2003, for instance, Iran’s leaders sent a negotiating package to the U.S. through a Swiss diplomat. There wasn’t anything Tehran wasn’t willing to discuss: “everything was on the table—Iran’s nuclear program, policy toward Israel, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and control over al-Qaeda operatives captured since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan.” Yet the Bush administration not only refused to talk to the Iranians but even reprimanded the Swiss diplomat for conveying the message.
It seems that all we can do at this point is pray.
I agree with you about the war and the warmongering. I can’t bring myself to agree with your offhand remark about the economy, though. (”Ruining our economy wasn’t enough.”) I look around and I don’t see evidence of a nation in economic ruin. We’re doing fine. Gas prices are rising, but gas is still affordable. The housing market isn’t great, but it’s not in ruins. The unemployment rate is still in line with recent history–the numbers aren’t ballooning out to 10% or 20% or anything. The economy may have slowed down, but it’s far from ruined.
“Yet the Bush administration not only refused to talk to the Iranians but even reprimanded the Swiss diplomat for conveying the message.”
You’ve mentioned one of the most damning things about the Bush administration’s foreign policy. The administration refuses to even talk with Iran. It’s evident that they aren’t pursuing a diplomatic solution.
I doubt Bush could manage to start another war, though. Congress wouldn’t stand for it.
“I doubt Bush could manage to start another war, though. Congress wouldn’t stand for it.”
I hope you’re right. But if you have heard the rhetoric coming from the three major presidential candidates, they have all entertained an Iranian strike as a possibility in the future. If they are on board with it, it may be better politically for them if Bush initiates it rather than them.
Good point. Let me amend my statement to say: “I doubt Bush could manage to start another ground war, though.” Air strikes are another story.
I agree. I think a ground war is completely out of the question. Air strikes are much more likely.
Some have argued that Bush might try to get around congressional approval by arguing that (a) Congress already authorized the war in Iraq, (b) Iran is aiding the insurgency, and therefore (c) Congress has implicitly authorized an attack on Iran.
Nine more months, only nine more months…
And then we’ll have a whole new corrupt administration to worry about.
Yeah, I don’t have much hope for any of the three major candidates. Looks like I’ll vote Libertarian this November. I hope the Libertarians don’t nominate a nutcase again.
If they bomb Irans nuclear reactor which contains 83 tons of uranium fuel the nuclear fallout will kill hundreds of thousands if not millions, including US service personnell in the region. Given the Bush administrations total disregard for human life, I guess this won’t stop them though.
“total disregard”
Well, aren’t we hyperbolic today? Some of you are truly insane, and I mean that in a nice way.
The entire international intelligence community believed Saddam had WMDs, as did Bill Clinton in 1998 and again in 2003. This was not a case of intentional deception, but of poor international intelligence regarding Saddam’s capabilities. Since all that would have been required to prevent the war would have been for Sadaam to allow inspections, it it plausible that Saddam might have thought he had WMDs. Hyperbole of this level costs you a lot of credibility in your other claims.
We have been getting highly contradictory reports from the NIE the last few years, and the handling of this one definitely suggests political gamesmanship. It was an NIE in 2002 that concluded that Iraq had WMDs. I think we have plenty of reason to suspect the validity of intelligence estimates from that part of the world right now. That said, poor intelligence definitely isn’t reason to jump into another war.
So your best refutation is that we aren’t sure the government is involved? Obviously we shouldn’t declare war on a government based solely on acts of its citizens, but if the government is unwilling to stop such actions or allow us to do so, what choice to we have? In Afghanistan, it was not the Taliban that attacked us. We asked them to either capture Osama and his supporters or allow us to come in and do so. Only when they refused were we forced to engage in military action against them. In this case, if the government is NOT behind the clear support by Iranians for militant action in Iraq, they need to either address this problem or allow us to assist then in addressing it. For us to simply ignore ongoing attacks against us and support for our enemies just isn’t going to work.
isn’t this a bit contradictory. with respect to iraq you say the intelligence on wmd was solid but later turned out to be poor, so we should have gone to war. yet with respect to iran you say the intelligence is poor but may later turn out to be solid. But regardless, the government of Iran either is behind the attacks or should know who is and do something about it, so we should go to war. Huh?
to rehash old ground, the “entire intelligence community” was far from believing wmd. there were a signifigent number of people and/or governments that disagreed and/or pointed out many faults in the intelligence. rumsfeld stated that “we know iraq has wmd and we know where they are”. why didn’t we pass this intelligence onto the un inspection teams that were actually in iraq at the time? because it didn’t exist, plain and simple.
What Atanamis and bob said… I didn’t really bother to read this article closely, as it is prima facie flawed and intellectually dishonest.
“The entire international intelligence community believed Saddam had WMDs…Hyperbole of this level costs you a lot of credibility in your other claims.”
I didn’t use hyperbole here. The Bush administration lied to the American people about Saddam’s WMD program. Now, yes, I agree that they probably believed Saddam really did have WMDs. No argument there. But nonetheless, they knowingly distorted the evidence they had at the time. Consider two claims made by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
CLAIM #1: “Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam Hussein] has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” This claim, in which Bush seems to be referencing an October 2002 CIA report, is troubling for two reasons. First, to say “our intelligence sources” tell us X seems to imply that ALL our intelligence sources tell us X. But in the case at hand, not all intelligence sources were in agreement. As the 2002 CIA report noted, some intelligence specialists believed Iraq intended to use the tubes for conventional weapons programs. The second point to be made is that Bush’s claim was repudiated by the International Atomic Energy Agency just a day before Bush’s speech. Appearing before the UN Security Council, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, stated, “From our analysis to date it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq [that they were part of a conventional rocket program] and, unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.”
CLAIM #2: “The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.” While this claim is undoubtedly true, Bush fails to note that the IAEA had since changed its opinion. In his report to the Security Council the day before, Mohamed ElBaradei reported, “[W]e have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s.”
“So your best refutation is that we aren’t sure the government is involved?”
Maybe the Iranian government is involved, maybe they’re not. But we have no grounds for believing they’re involved until we have some kind of EVIDENCE! And right now, as far as I know, we don’t!
“Obviously we shouldn’t declare war on a government based solely on acts of its citizens, but if the government is unwilling to stop such actions or allow us to do so, what choice to we have?”
What choice do we have? I think we should heed the will of the Iraqi people and go home. As poll after poll reveals, the Iraqi people want us to leave, and, as a May 2007 vote in the Iraqi parliament revealed, a majority of Iraqi lawmakers want us to go home. If we really believe in democracy, we need to honor the will of the Iraqi people.
Even if the Iranian government is helping the insurgents, I don’t think we should attack Iran. Again, we need to get our troops out of Iraq. If the Iranians attack us on our own soil, then we should respond. Otherwise, we need to leave them alone.
Besides, we’ve done enough damage to the Iranian people. In the 1950s, we overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister and installed the shah in his place, a ruthless man who murdered thousands of his own people. In the 1980s, after Saddam Hussein started the Iran-Iraq War, we suddenly became friends with Saddam and gave him aid and intelligence that helped his army murder more Iranians.
So, yeah, I think we’ve murdered enough innocent Iranians over the years. Another war–in other words, more murder–isn’t the answer.
“I didn’t really bother to read this article closely, as it is prima facie flawed and intellectually dishonest.”
Thank you for that well-reasoned argument.
Well, Atanamis did a solid job of explaining how flawed your article was. You lose all credibility when you spout “Bush lied, people died” rhetoric. It’s pathetic and blatantly false. If anyone lied, it is you. Again, shall I define “lie” so that everyone (or at least you) understands the word? To lie is to INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY say something false. To UNINTENTIONALLY and UNKNOWINGLY say something false is NOT lying, it is called being mistaken or erring. GET IT RIGHT!!!
“Surely, they must be lying when they say they have peaceful intentions; surely they must want to blow up the world.
…
But it’s simply absurd to believe that, if Iran got nukes, it would use them against the U.S. and/or Israel.”
Actually, Iran has stated that their goal is to blow Israel off the map. So the question is do you believe them or do you pretend they didn’t say that? It appears you prefer the latter. And you claim that Iran is rational… where do you get that idea? Has much of what Iran’s president has said made any sense to a RATIONAL person? For every rational thing he says, he makes three irrational, hate-filled statements. You feel comfortable ignoring his irrationality? Excuse me if I’m not convinced. For a more informed and better reasoned piece on Iran, here is Melanie Phillips’ article from last week: http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=580
I believe the Bush administration really did believe there was a “moral” case (re: WMD’s) for invading Iraq. However, they didn’t have the evidence, just a lot of circumstantial guesses. They deliberately inflated those guesses (”lied”) believing that all would be well when they turned out right anyway. Well they were wrong and a lot of people are dead because of it.
Bush lied, people died. That is what happened.
Actually, they had evidence. Unfortunately for them, the evidence turned out to be old (though I still think that Saddam was hiding some WMD’s and was able to get them out of the country before the war, since he was so unwilling to work with the inspectors).
However, this ignores that fact that WMDs was only ONE of MANY reasons that Bush gave for invading Iraq. Most of the other reasons have been proven legitimate.
I hate going over this same old debate again and again, since the “Bush lied, people died” argument has been utterly demolished years ago.
They did not have “evidence” that was even reasonably strong - it was so weak, it wouldn’t even be admissible as evidence in court. It was circumstances, some old data, and it was strung together with guesses. In any normal climate it would have been laughed at. But we were both scared out of our minds and bloodthirsty after 9/11.
Your paragraph admits this, you just won’t put it together as “lies”. You have the correct information right in front of you to draw a factual conclusion, but you simply will not. In fact, you support your statement with the same kind of guesses-as-fact analysis.
Darius T wrote: However, this ignores that fact that WMDs was only ONE of MANY reasons that Bush gave for invading Iraq.
Bush mentioned other reasons, but he chose to make WMDs the primary issue. Bush used WMDs to sell the war to the American public. I happen to believe the war was justifiable on many grounds. (Justifiable, but not necessarily wise.) But since Bush chose to focus on WMDs, I held him accountable in the only way I could: I didn’t vote for his re-election. If they’d found WMDs in Iraq, I would have voted for Bush in 2004.
I don’t believe that Bush lied. The interpretation of the intelligence was wrong. But that doesn’t mean I’m just going to let it go. It’s the President’s job to make sure these things don’t happen.
“To lie is to INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY say something false”.
To lay aside the idea of lying about wmd let’s discuss the idea of iraq being involved in 9/11. Bush was told unequivocally by several of the intelligence agencies that iraq had no involvement in 9/11 of any kind within a month of 9/11 happening. I know the flat earthers will dispute this, but bush himself has finally admitted it in a press conference not that long ago. Anyway bush, darth cheney, and anyone expecting to have ongoing employment in the executive branch continued to make this connection at every possible opportunity until at least 2006. There was actually a memo distributed in the executive branch shortly after 9/11 directing that any discussion of the possible iraq war was to include references to 9/11. There was also a press office set up in the administrative branch whose only function was to sell the iraq war. hmmm.
So perhaps technically bush didn’t lie about this to get us into the iraq war since the 9/11 connection wasn’t one of the stated reasons for entering the war. However, by the invasion of iraq the idea was so well sold that something like 89% of the american public believed iraq was behind 9/11. Coincidence, I think not. Is it lying or is it memorex? I can’t believe I was sucked into voting for this schmuck once upon a time.
The interpretation of the intelligence was wrong??? Maybe we should have looked more closely at some of the sources of our intelligence. What exactly did we expect someone like chalabi, for example, to tell us. He’s an expat expelled by sadam who hasn’t been in iraq for 20 years. He’s on the cia payroll for exorbitant sums of money. He stands a good chance of taking over the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world if america invades. Duh, maybe these are some reasons for chalabi to be less than totally honest! Yea right. I believe chalabi would have told the cia the moon was made of green cheese if that’s what they asked.
Bob, you should get your facts straight. Bush never claimed that Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. He did say (which you seem unable to grasp) that Saddam was directly connected to terror organizations (which was true, he financed terrorism all over the place, and was himself a terrorist of sorts). Don’t confuse the two. This is a lie that the left tries to keep throwing against the wall until some of it sticks. It appears that some of that crap has stuck to you.
Jew, they did find WMDs in Iraq. Just not nearly as many as they expected. But I still am not convinced that they didn’t get smuggled into Syria. After all, if he had nothing to hide, then why did Saddam keep playing a shell game with the inspectors? Acting like he was guilty sure was foolish if he didn’t have anything to hide. Furthermore, as the reports have shown, he was within a couple years of having WMD capabilities again even if he didn’t have any at the time of the invasion.
i do have my facts straight, reread my comment. I never said said anyone in the administration DIRECTLY claimed saddam was behind 9/11. That was the beauty of it. Just keep putting the words 9/11 and iraq in the same sentence time and time again. It was not accidental and it is still going on today.
Saddam had ties to terrorists, so what. Virtually everyone has ties to terrorists. America has ties to terrorists. One persons terrorist is another persons valiant freedom fighter. We of course need to defend ourselves from the ones that believe attacking america is their raison de etre. But we have never shied away from helping “freedom fighters” on our side of the ideological divide either. The two biggest sponsers of terrorism for the last 20 years are pakistan and saudi arabia. Last time I checked they were allies. Why would the most secular shiite leader in the muslim world be tied to the most fundamentalist sunni group in the muslim world. Doesn’t make any sense. Al qaeda in iraq would have been a true threat to saddam.
It is simply beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or had meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006, note that this was a republican Senate), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
Darius:
“To lie is to INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY say something false.”
Yes, agreed. And in my first response to Atanamis, I gave two examples from the 2003 State of the Union address in which Bush made claims that he KNEW TO BE FALSE. Other examples can be given–the most famous one being Bush’s statement in the 2003 State of the Union Address that “[t]he British government has learned Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” To say that the British government LEARNED that Saddam sought uranium from Africa is to say that such is in fact the case; you can’t LEARN something that’s not true. The problem is that the CIA did not agree with the Brits. According to then CIA Director George Tenet, “[W]e viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive.” In October 2002, the CIA notified certain top officials in the Bush administration to tell them this. Tenet personally called Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security adviser, in early October and told him to remove the Africa allegation from Bush’s October 7 speech. In January 2003, the CIA was given portions of the State of the Union address to review. And yet the Africa allegation remained intact.
So I’ve now given you three examples in which the Bush administration KNEW THE FACTS (about Saddam’s attempt to purchase aluminum tubes, about Saddam’s nuclear weapons program, and about Saddam’s supposed attempt to purchase uranium from Africa), and yet they made false assertions to the American people.
Darius T said: “Jew, they did find WMDs in Iraq”
If they did, I must have missed that report. The last I heard, they’d found no nuclear weapons, no chemical weapons (despite some initial reports) and no biological weapons. No radiological weapons even. This isn’t the sort of news I would miss. If they’d found a usable weapon capable of inflicting mass casualties, the Bush administration would be trumpeting it from here to kingdom come.
Saddam Hussein probably claimed to have weapons because it was the only way he could defend himself against his neighbors. With an aged, ineffective conventional military, his only trump card was a WMD that didn’t exist. That threat helped to deter enemies, and probably gave him some political clout in the region. He counted on the US being unwilling to actually launch a ground war.
“Actually, Iran has stated that their goal is to blow Israel off the map.”
No, they haven’t. In fact, Iran officially supports a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.
That’s not to defend Ahmadinejad’s October 2005 comments. But if you actually read Ahmadinejad’s entire speech (which I’ve done), a few things become clear. First, Ahmadinejad is not a very nice person. (No new revelation there.) But second, when he uttered those famous words—”the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time”–he was actually quoting a speech by Ayatollah Khomeini made in the 1980s. And Khomeini, let’s remember, also made it known that Iran would be going against Islam if they merely possessed nuclear weapons.
Now I’m not justifying Ahmadinejad’s remark. I’m just pointing out that one cannot conclude from that remark that “Iran has stated that their goal is to blow Israel off the map.” One can desire to achieve X without making a goal of X. For example, I can desire to win “American Idol” without ever making even the slightest effort, without even entering the competition. So, yes, Ahmadinejad desires for there to be regime change in Jerusalem (just as both Jerusalem and Washington desire for there to be regime change in Tehran), but, as far as I know, he’s never threatened to bring this about. I myself want there to be regime change in Washington, but this doesn’t make me a likely assassin.
“And you claim that Iran is rational… where do you get that idea? Has much of what Iran’s president has said made any sense to a RATIONAL person? For every rational thing he says, he makes three irrational, hate-filled statements.”
I’m defining rational in the sense that social scientists use the term. So by calling Iran’s leaders rational, I simply mean that they always strive to maximize their own good. One can be both evil and rational, which is how I would characterize many world leaders, both here and abroad. And if Iran is rational, then it follows that it therefore realizes that using nuclear weapons against nations with superior military forces and enormous nuclear stockpiles would result in its own annihilation.
“Jew, they did find WMDs in Iraq”
Even President Bush admitted that we didn’t find WMDs in Iraq. Go back and read the transcript of his February 8, 2004 interview with Tim Russert.
They found a few old WMDs. Just a few.
This is circular reasoning. Saddam must have been guilty because he wouldn’t submit to his country’s sovereignty being violated by the UN, which presumes he’s guilty until he submits to a search.
Why is it so hard for people to admit that the Iraq war wasn’t and isn’t worth it? I’ll tell you why. They have been making the argument so long that it would hurt their pride to admit the truth. Ron Paul was right. “Staying the course” is all about saving face. How many times has the reason for war shifted to accommodate the politics? The bottom line is this: Iraq was not a serious threat to U.S. national security. So whether Bush & Co. lied or were just grossly negligent, what difference does it make? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and thousands of Americans. Not to mention the fact that there is no end in sight, and it is costing us dearly. Honestly, how long can the U.S. afford to wage this war?
Chris, as long as it takes for us to get over the idea that we would rather be dead than wrong.
“They found a few old WMDs. Just a few.”
I still haven’t found even one report of a WMD in Iraq (during or after the 2003 invasion) that didn’t later turn out to be a false alarm. There were a lot of news reports of chemical weapons, but they were based on preliminary reports; all were later determined to not be WMDs.
Jew said
I fully agree. Bush is responsible for having presented faulty intelligence and for not ensuring sufficient veracity of that intelligence.
Chris A said
I think it is a legitimate position to believe the Iraq war wasn’t worth it. I think it is an illegitimate position to say we should abandon the mess as it and leave it open for future chaos. Our national interests require a stable government in Iraq. Personally, I’ve been in favor of the forcible removal of Sadaam since 1998, regardless of the presence of WMDs. While I agree Bush primarily relied on WMDs to justify the attack to the public, there were plenty of other valid justifications both moral and in the national interest.
“I think it is an illegitimate position to say we should abandon the mess as it and leave it open for future chaos. Our national interests require a stable government in Iraq.”
So what would constitute a stable Iraq? What would that look like? Has Iraq ever been more stable than it was under Saddam Hussein? I think if we are being honest, we know Iraq will never be stable enough for the U.S. to leave, and therefore we’re talking about indefinite occupation.
How do you know that Chris? I don’t think it is beyond reasonable to believe that sometime in the relatively near future (15 years or less), Iraq will be “stable.” Yet that doesn’t mean we leave as soon as stability has been obtained. We’re still in South Korea, and it’s been quite stable for nearly 50 years. It shows an amazing lack of foresight to abandon Iraq now or any other time. We abandoned Vietnam, and we have been paying for it since. The Iraq and Afghan wars would be significantly easier had we not so quickly left Vietnam to genocidal destruction.
Furthermore, abandoning Iraq would utterly dishonor those who gave their lives defending Iraq (and America) from those who would suppress freedom and liberty.
I don’t know how many parallels we can draw between South Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. In South Korea we didn’t topple the existing government. South Korea also doesn’t have the religious and ethnic divisions that are tearing Iraq apart. South Korea has a large, active Christian church (like, 30% of the population) which I happen to think has something to do with the successes of that nation. Most Iraqis are Muslims, which means the country has a completely different worldview than South Korea.
That doesn’t mean Iraq can’t and won’t have a stable, democratic, and good government. I think the Iraqis are perfectly capable of governing themselves well. But it’s not inevitable. Good governments don’t just happen. The people have to demand it, and they must be willing, able, and capable of making it a reality. It would be nice for the US to stay and help that happen, but I’m not sure we’re doing much good. We really can’t do anything about the religious and ethnic barriers to democracy. That’s something Iraq has to work out for itself.
“How do you know that Chris? I don’t think it is beyond reasonable to believe that sometime in the relatively near future (15 years or less), Iraq will be “stable.” Yet that doesn’t mean we leave as soon as stability has been obtained. We’re still in South Korea, and it’s been quite stable for nearly 50 years.”
I could be wrong. We are talking about the future after all. But the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I really don’t see things trending in that direction, and in matters of seemingly endless military occupation I reserve the right to be a pessimist. The Korean example proves my point. We are still there, and we have been building permanent bases in Iraq. If you think that the U.S. plans on staying even past stability (if that ever occurs), at least you and I agree on that.
I do think that the U.S. will stay past stability. However, our military will exist there in much lower numbers and in a much different capacity that it is operating now. (just like South Korea). I don’t mind having bases and troops in Iraq for the next 100 years, as long as most of those years the troops aren’t there in a combat mode.
It would be very irresponsible to leave so early in the rebuilding process. The good we’re doing right now (keeping relative peace, opening schools and hospitals, etc.) cannot currently be done by Iraqi forces. We’re drawing down forces slowly, but at a responsible rate.
Darius, this is a pitiable statement - and it makes me genuinely sad that people think this way. We might have a lot less people dead, if we could see the silliness in this kind of unreasonable thinking: we must continue to send people over to die because others have already died. It proves my statement that we would rather be dead than wrong.
It is the height of arrogance and pride - it is worse than that, criminal, that those who spout these statements are not the ones doing the sacrificing.
The honorable thing, the most supportive thing of those who died and those who will die is to not put them in that position. Make wars voluntary, make funding them voluntary, make fighting them voluntary. I know of no soldier that wants their legacy to be more dead soldiers in the future. Soldiers fight for peace, not for perpetual war.
You present your case as a false dichotomy, Colin. No matter how much you want it to be the case, our soldiers are NOT fighting a perpetual war. We have lost a historically low amount of men in the Iraq war, and sticking it through to the end will likely cost a few more hundred lives. Those are precious lives, but consider the alternative. You may be fine with retreating and, in effect, spitting on the graves of men who fought and died over there, but I am not. If you really care about what soldiers want, read their blogs. http://www.blackfive.net/
“It would be very irresponsible to leave so early in the rebuilding process. The good we’re doing right now (keeping relative peace, opening schools and hospitals, etc.) cannot currently be done by Iraqi forces. We’re drawing down forces slowly, but at a responsible rate.”
What’s funny to me is one of the main reasons I preferred Bush over Gore in 2000 had to do with Bush’s criticism of how Clinton handled the military. Bush said the Clinton administration was responsible for cutting military funding which led to the overall poor morale of the troops. Bush emphasized that the military was not be used for humanitarian missions and nation-building, something else he accused Clinton of doing. My how things have changed. But I should have known since “9/11 changed everything”.
“You may be fine with retreating and, in effect, spitting on the graves of men who fought and died over there, but I am not.”
Whoah! You went too far, dude.
Darius, the US has been engaged in perpetual war and that is not merely qualified by loss of life.
You claim that 100 lives are “precious” but are willing to send them to slaughter for your freedom and those you care about - in essence: your will. I refuse to sacrifice others for my own ends, even for my freedom or my life - not even one. If I could save myself, or even the whole world by sending a man to his death, I would not.
You are the one doing the “spitting” by insisting the the only worthy legacy of dead soldiers (who are dead people) is more dead people.
Um, I know this isn’t news to you: our army is made up of VOLUNTEERS. What that means is that our soldiers CHOOSE to join the military. Yes, they did not all join with the plan to fight in Iraq (though many did). But when you sign up for the military, you’re kinda supposed to assume that you just might get sent to a war before your service is done.
But this is all academic… why don’t you review some polls of military personnel? Oh wait, cause that would really make your position look silly. After all, most current soldiers want us to STAY in Iraq until the job is finished. So you’re saying that a majority of the enlisted men are spitting on their dead comrades?
Darius, come on. You get a handful of veterans and you’re going to have varied opinions on the matter. I think its more dishonorable to ask people to die when the war they are in is based on faulty intelligence. It’s like, “Yeah, too bad you guys had to die. It was the CIA’s fault. But keep fighting anyway because we’re making progress.”
Plus you have to ask yourself this: If most military people want to “stay the course”, why did Ron Paul receive more donations from them than did any other presidential candidate? He was one of the staunchest anti-war candidates. Surely you aren’t going to call these guys traitors or cowards. And what would Bush and Cheney know about war and honor? These guys used their connections to get deferments and found ways to keep from going to war. And Bush was allegedly AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard for a year while he was in rehab.
Red herring. I agree that if someone signs a contract, they must fulfill that contract. The exception, of course, is for fraud. But I am addressing your argument that “abandoning Iraq would utterly dishonor those who gave their lives defending Iraq” not whether we have an all-volunteer army or not.
Ad populum. Polls are not relevant. Do I have to tell mother’s jump off a cliff story?
Appeal to emotion.
Seriously?? You guys need to study some statistics.
I’m not talking about a “handful” of soldiers. Come on, be intellectually honest. You love polls when they support your positions, but completely ignore them when they don’t. A poll is NOT a dozen random people giving their opinions, as that would be statistically insignificant. A poll is conducted on a statistically SIGNIFICANT number, such as 1,000 (depends on a few factors). All polls have shown that soldiers are historically 80% Republican. Even recent polls still show a very strong support for Bush and the Iraq War.
Now, as for the rest of your comment, Chris. Again, this gets into statistics and math, but I think it’s pretty basic. Let’s say you have one million soldiers who donated money to the Republican campaigns (for the sake of the argument, let’s limit it to McCain and Ron Paul). Now let’s say that 5-10% support RP and the other 90% are for McCain. However, as was the case among the general populace, RP supporters are much more passionate for their candidate than any other supporters, thus making their numbers seem much greater than they actully are (Ron Paul’s great fundraising but pathetic primary results show this to be the case). So we have 100,000 soldiers who each donate $500 to RP, while 900,000 soldiers average $50 a piece for McCain. Guess what you get… 50 million dollars for Ron Paul and 45 million for McCain. Do you see how using the whole military fundraising logic breaks down pretty quickly?
Ah, yes, the old chickenhawk argument. You know, that logical fallacy has been thoroughly ripped apart. I refer you to this page (scroll down to the “Chickenhawk” section): http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000136.html
Colin, I knew you would come back with exactly what you said. You started the ad populum argument, I merely finished it.
“I know of no soldier that wants their legacy to be more dead soldiers in the future. Soldiers fight for peace, not for perpetual war.”
Thus, you imply that all soldiers (alive and dead) would agree with you that finishing a war is not worth any casualties.
Ooooh, I forgot you also said this: “It is the height of arrogance and pride - it is worse than that, criminal, that those who spout these statements are not the ones doing the sacrificing.”
You make baseless claims like the ones above, expect to get shot down with polls and real evidence.
Polls don’t determine whether it is right, wrong, wise, or unwise to continue to keep American troops in Iraq.
You’re missing the point, Jew. Colin was making the case that his is a position that real soldiers would all support. I am using the polls to show him that he is extremely wrong.
America doesn’t make foreign policy decisions based on what a majority of veterans and soldiers feel would be most honoring to their dead comrades. We can learn something from Vietnam by not blaming the soldiers for the decisions made by the President and the generals, but we also mustn’t venerate the soldiers and form national policy around their desires. We should keep them in mind when judging the cost of war, but America doesn’t exist to serve the soldiers; the soldiers serve America.
I agree completely. It is Colin and Chris who are espousing a less civilian-run government, not I. I was just pointing out that ironically, this would be to the detriment of their libertarian belifs.
Before Chris or Colin come back with “No we weren’t,” let me give one quote of Chris’:
And what would Bush and Cheney know about war and honor? These guys used their connections to get deferments and found ways to keep from going to war. And Bush was allegedly AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard for a year while he was in rehab.
In other words, because Bush and Cheney didn’t serve in a war, or even the military (and Chris refers us to the bogus National Guard memo as “proof”), their policies on war and views of honor are worthless. Do I really have to expound on how stupid that argument is? The link I provided above does so quite adequately, I believe.
What is truly ironic (and hypocritical) is that on one hand, Chris believes that the draft is immoral. Yet on the other hand, he believes it was immoral and wrong for Cheney and Bush to avoid said draft. So which is it, Chris?
Maybe he’s just pointing out that it is hypocritical for them to avoid the draft and then turn around and use the military in this fashion. I don’t agree with that, of course. I see no problems with avoiding military service. Some people can use their skills better elsewhere. Kudos to those who do choose military service, but we shouldn’t think that other professions are less noble.
This is still a red herring - we’re talking about whether or not your claim that honoring soldiers by sending more soldiers is legitimate.
Now you have also engaged a Tu Quoque fallacy. You claim you can bring an ad populum argument because (according to you) I first brought one up. Regardless of whether I did or not does not legitimize your ad populum.
It is hardly “baseless” that it is arrogant, perhaps criminal, to send troops to fight a war that one’s self would not fight. That’s not a matter of “polls” “shooting it down” (as if polls were “real evidence”).
Strawman. My position, despite the numerous red herrings and fallacies you have brought up, is that it is fallacious to say that it “dishonors” soldiers to not continue the war. You have yet to address this.
For the freakin’ last time, I was not using an ad populum argument. YOU DID THIS. I merely said that even if we ignored the ad populum side of your argument, it would still backfire since the military does NOT by and large support your views on the Iraq war or war in general…
Nevermind, you just don’t get it. It’s pointless to debate you, since you don’t understand (and misrepresent) what I am saying (even when I spell it out) and rarely stand by what you say. I can’t debate a moving target.
Oh for crying out loud. The next time somebody mentions a logical fallacy by name I’m going to break a puppy’s neck.
argumentum ad baculinum
Jew, you beat me to it. I am really tired of the non-stop logical fallacy lists, like it is some badge of honor to anyone who can name the most logical fallacies. Some seem to like using them even when they don’t apply.
Darius, it seems as though you cannot type five sentences without using a logical fallacy. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, then actually use meaningful points. Don’t divert with red herrings, build straw men, attack with ad hominems or appeal to authority, popularity or some other irrelevant fallacious argument.
You (others, and hopefully myself) should be called on every logical fallacy. Not as a “badge of honor”, but because I believe it well help with rigour and discipline. This in turn will make our site more welcoming to people would rather not engage in the kind of tactics you have pathologically employed.
Fine, keep projecting. I’m done with this thread.
Thank you, Colin. That needed to be said. Disagreements are fine; in fact, they make life interesting. But there is absolutely no point in arguing with someone who insists on committing one logical fallacy after another.
Some days I can’t bear to even look at the responses to posts on this site. Not because I disagree with what people are saying, but because people–okay, one person–refuses to argue in an honest and logical manner.
I say this with complete seriousness, but I credit internet debates for making me a more logical, considerate, well-rounded and knowledgeable person. I did not and still do not like debating Atanamis, for example, (then because he was very tough, and revealed faults in my arguments, now because he’ still tough and thorough) but it teaches me (more than I ever learned in school) to be constantly challenged. I crave the long-term rewards a lot more than the short-term loss of an argument (well, in hindsight I do).
I like all kinds of people coming to the site, but the kind of people I personally crave are people who are going to challenge me. Darius, in his own way, has challenged me to learn formal logic so I can save time. I benefit - he gets to benefit as well. So does the site, hopefully.
My favorite is argumentum ad misericordiam because we know there is no place for feelings in an argument.
Disclaimer: No pets were killed in the writing of this post.
“In other words, because Bush and Cheney didn’t serve in a war, or even the military (and Chris refers us to the bogus National Guard memo as “proof”), their policies on war and views of honor are worthless. Do I really have to expound on how stupid that argument is? The link I provided above does so quite adequately, I believe.”
I personally don’t think this is stupid at all. And I didn’t bring up the bogus National Guard memo. You did, apparently to set up a straw man. There is much more evidence than that, like the testimony of his commanding officer’s secretary, for instance. But it wouldn’t matter to you either way.
I think it is both dishonorable and hypocritical to avoid military service while assuming the responsibility to send others to war. I think most veterans would agree with me on that, if we are sticking with the ap populum theme. They certainly gave Clinton a hard enough time for it. But that was a different time. “9/11 changed everything.”
“What is truly ironic (and hypocritical) is that on one hand, Chris believes that the draft is immoral. Yet on the other hand, he believes it was immoral and wrong for Cheney and Bush to avoid said draft. So which is it, Chris?”
I don’t recall ever saying that the draft is immoral. In theory it is not. However, it would be immoral in effect because of the kinds of wars of choice America is involved in. But with respect to Vietnam, I do think it was immoral because the war was not necessary. Only when there is an actual threat to national security would a draft be justifiable. And just so you know ahead of time, I’m not going to debate you about Vietnam.
It’s perfectly fine to have feelings in an argument. But presuming that one’s suffering is a cause for “being right” is fallacious - that is all that fallacy is defining.
My real point is that often in internet (and personal, too) arguments, feelings are “illogical” and therefore entirely discounted. In other words, for many, being “right” and winning an argument is way more important than not hurting a person’s feelings. Some people need to win at any cost. (I admit to being guilty of this at times.)
(I’m making no particular reference to you, Colin, nor to any part of this particular thread, I’m just making a generalization about life on the internet, as well as real life. As others have said in the past, a person won’t last long on internet forums if they have a thin skin.)
Thank you for your mention. I would have to agree that while I still disagree with you a great deal, your positions are at least far more internally consistent than in the past. Of course, they also tend to rely on laboratory conditions unlikely to be reproduced in the real world. This is a problem with many theoretical economics and government scenarios. People often refuse to fit into nice simple thought models.
“People often refuse to fit into nice simple thought models.”
When that happens, I say kill ‘em.
Atanamis, “laboratory conditions” are required to establish theories. We cannot construct models from inductive evidence - it is impossible. In order to drawn meaningful models from evidence, we must attempt to use logic and theory to fill in the blanks. Being a person of faith, I presume you understand this implicitly.
Your characterization is also a bit belittling. Austrian economics, for example, is not a “nice simple thought model” it has been worked out and tested (where applicable) over more than a century.
My characterization was actually MASSIVELY belittling, suggesting that while your ideas are now internally consistent they are not as consistent with reality. It was actually said somewhat tongue in cheek though, since as you indicated it isn’t possible to form models inductively. My main disagreements are with the more anarchist sides of your worldview, since I still think there is a place for the majority to mandate innate rights like life, liberty, and property (including honesty in advertising and contracts) in the form of government!
Now who is not being consistent? “Mandating” things that are “innate” sounds to me like making laws that 2 plus 2 must equal 4.