Reply
Wed 3 Dec, 2003 03:04 pm
I have a few questions to the people that oppose the war in Iraq.
I would appreciate some serious answers.
1. Is the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone a good thing?
2.Was it a good thing that we did it,or a bad thing?
I ask these because so many people have opposed the war,and I wonder exactly what it is they oppose. It seems to me that if they are truly opposed to the war,then they should be upset that Saddam is gone.Now,if that is true,then the people opposed to the war must want a regime that tortures its citizens,uses chemical and biological weapons on its neighbors,and is just plain evil.
But,if you say you are opposed to the war because we did it,then who would you rather have done it? Would it have been better if the UN did it?
Name one single UN military operation that worked,that didnt include the US.
Should the EU have done it? The EU still looks to NATO for protection,and NATO means the US.
So,please think about this and then answer me.I am not being facetious,nor am I trying to start a fight.I just want to understand what about the war you oppose,and why.
So,I ask again,is it good that Saddam is gone or not?
And,is it good or bad that we did it?
And if it is bad that we did it,who would you rather have seen do it?
and have you quit beating your wife?
Any particular reason you assume we DON'T Think, MM?
As Dys said...
To feed a child I decide to kill 4000 people and use their money.
Is it good to feed a child?
Isolating something from the bigger picture is absurd.
Was it good to kill thousands of Iraqis? << example of one such isolation.
Craven de Kere wrote:To feed a child I decide to kill 4000 people and use their money.
Is it good to feed a child?
Isolating something from the bigger picture is absurd.
Was it good to kill thousands of Iraqis? << example of one such isolation.
There's been over 4000 Iraqis killed by US soilders??
LOGIC, n. :
The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion -- thus:
Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds; therefore --
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.
husker wrote:
There's been over 4000 Iraqis killed by US soilders??
It was meant to be an example of poor logic but yes, the US war killed more than double that many people.
My qualm is that MM is exhibiting a huge disconnect. His loaded question is as fair as asking:
"Is it good for America to kill children?"
You must consider the bigger picture.
How is my question wrong?
I did not say that those opposed to the war wanted Hussein in power. I was asking if that is the case.
Also,I wanted to know if you opposed us (the US) doing it,or if you were opposed to the fact it was done at all.If you are opposed to us doing it,then who should have done it?
There is nothing wrong with the questions at all.I phrased them exactly the way I meant to.
Quote:There is nothing wrong with the questions at all.I phrased them exactly the way I meant to.
that being the case one can only assume you did not expect a reasoned answer.
mysteryman wrote:How is my question wrong?
It assumes that removing Saddam is the only factor.
It neglects to differentiate between removing Saddam and removing him in any way and at all cost.
It neglects to note the associated downside.
It's a loaded question based on those assumptions.
mysteryman wrote:How is my question wrong?
I did not say that those opposed to the war wanted Hussein in power.
Actually, what you said was:
Quote:It seems to me that if they are truly opposed to the war,then they should be upset that Saddam is gone.
Which of course, is silly and should never have been said. And, arguably, it does infer that those who opposed the war wanted Hussein in power.
Quote: Also,I wanted to know if you opposed us (the US) doing it,or if you were opposed to the fact it was done at all.
Well, it is possible to be opposed to the WAY it was done.
I would have preferred to have the Security Council give the go-ahead -- rather than us going at it in the manner in which it was done.
Quote:There is nothing wrong with the questions at all.I phrased them exactly the way I meant to.
I'm sure in your own mind there was nothing wrong with the questions. But that does not mean there was nothing wrong with them -- just that you see nothing wrong with them.
That is the problem people often run into when they are trying to make an argument, but pretending to ask questions instead.
dyslexia wrote:Quote:There is nothing wrong with the questions at all.I phrased them exactly the way I meant to.
that being the case one can only assume you did not expect a reasoned answer.
I did expect a reasoned answer. I am curious,if it was wrong for US to overthrow Hussein,or was it wrong for it to be done at all? If it was wrong for US to do it,then who should have? If it was wrong to do it at all,then do you favor a regime that tortures people,uses WMD,and is plain evil.Those are legitimate questions,properly phrased.
Are you afraid to answer them,or are you just avoiding answering them?
We don't attack N Korea. Does this mean we like their leaders?
Security Council??? Thats meant as a joke,right?
Name one single mission the UN has undertaken that was successful AND did not include the US?
Even the UN has said that they need US for dupport and to appear legitimate and strong.
Besides,there were several UNSC resolutions already on the books.
it is also a legitimate question to ask you if you have stopped beating your wife....the absurdity is within the framing of the question.
Quote:Are you afraid to answer them,or are you just avoiding answering them?
They have been answered. And they have been properly identified as brainfarts.
Now answer this one (with a yes or a no):
"Is it right for the US to murder children?"
Bad-good simplification is generally bad, but:
Saddam -- bad
war -- generally bad
Removing saddam -- maybe good, maybe bad depending on outcome
US removing saddam -- not good so far based on outlook
US Government lying to its people about why war was neccessary-- very bad
US Government propping up saddam for the previous 3 decades -- also bad
Post rationalizing an unnecessary war with "saddam removal" justification -- pretty bad
The logic of "if saddam bad then US removing saddam good (by ill-conceived, unilateral, unnecessary war)" -- Bad since omitted parenthesis contents affect the antecedent.
The logic of "if US removing saddam bad then who?" -- Bad since the "bad" can be modifying "removing" not "US".
The Wicked Witch of the West knew, when trying to remove the ruby slippers from dorothy, that: "These things must be done carefully" . George Bush apparently did not learn that lesson. Thus though his goal, removal of Hussain, may be considered "good". The outcome, by virtue of his method, was "bad". It was a good thing done very badly which in this case was worse than doing nothing at all.
What we think don't matter a whole lot - and unfortunately you can't ask the thousands of dead Iraqis wether they would rather be alive or not. And their widows and children probably aren't having the greatest of times either.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace