Tarantulas wrote:
Well I only said it "could be."
The implication is clear. It would be like saying:
"Person A 'could be' an idiot, a child molester or a lover of camels."
You took the implication once removed from a direct charge but that all your "could be"s were regatives was indicative of the manner of characterization you prefer.
Quote:Perhaps the person challenging the Australian leader is thinking "Shhhh...everyone be really quiet and the terrorists won't know we're here.
Yes, "perhaps" "the person challenging the Australian leader" is Elmer Fudd.
You do, of course, realize that they have already been attacked and that many do not share your opinion that invading Iraq is a valid extention of the war on terror?
All of your "could be"s assume both that your position is correct and that Iraq is a valid part of the "war on terror" and also assume that those who disagree are naive cowards.
As you can probably tell I think you are making a cartoonish characterization of those who feel differently about the merit of this war and I think it unfair to assume that your position is valid in arguments about said position if the very validity of said position is being disputed.
Quote:Craven de Kere wrote:Quote:" Or it could be a leap onto the "we hate the US" bandwagon.
Tarantulas, one does not need to hate the US to neglect to support our war in Iraq.
Maybe not, but it certainly seems to be fashionable these days, doesn't it? If you're not carrying a sign with a picture of George Bush portrayed as Satan, you're out of style. At least that's what the well-dressed weekend demonstrator carries in the US.
It seems just as fashionable to try to write off dissenting opinions as being a manifestation of the most extreme cartoonish infdividuals, it's the most common manifestation of straw men.
Craven de Kere wrote:Quote:I believe the courage of the Operation Iraqi Freedom troops is being properly applied.
I can respect that, but others don't agree with you. And they are not necessarily cowards because of this.
Not necessarily cowards, no. Perhaps greedy for votes or ignorant or deluded or peer pressured or many other possibilities.[/quote]
Many other <negative> possiblilities?
Quote:In the end, it doesn't matter much, does it?
To me, the level at which we discuss things and the standards we accept for arguments do, in fact, matter.
Quote:Didn't the Aussies lose a bunch of tourists in the bombing at Bali? Shouldn't they be outraged and shouting for their military to go fight against terrorism?
Again there's that assumption that invading Iraq was a legitimate extension on the war against Al Quaeda.
Quote:Craven de Kere wrote:Quote:Pulling a "Spain" doesn't help anyone and actually hurts the fight against terrorism.
I don't think withdrawing troops will help, but I think the characterizations you offer in regard to the motivations for doing so are not reasonable.
In the end it boils down to running away from a dangerous duty that needs to be performed.
Again the assumption that your position is not only correct, but now necessary.
This level of discussion only works when others accept your assumption that your position is correct because all your arguments already assume it instead of making the case for it.
Quote:And when the Spanish troops get into their personnel carriers and drive away into the sunset....
Well Tarantulas, I'll have to cut this short, I had no intention to just set the stage for more cartoons.