V For Victory

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

V For Victory

For those of you who expressed, at times vehement objections, to what had been construed as "American Imperialism", I would like to ask just what do you make of the images of Iraqis swarming the streets with cheers, destroying images of Saddam, and hailing Anglo-American forces as liberators? How do you reconcile these images with the assertion that this was an immoral war waged against the Iraqi people.
If coalition forces do uncover evidence of the production of weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, and the systematic opression of a people for nearly forty years, wouldn't that contradict all of the fiercely presented denouncements made by anti-war demonstrators all over the world.
In this I am curious; when the world began to see the jubilation the majority of Iraqis demonstrated once they were assured that the regime had indeed fallen, the almost daily protests, sit-ins, and movements ceased. The anti-war camp has seemed to have uttered a collective "opps", and now offers a few quiet suggestions of reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Where are the "baby-killer" cries, and the Bush-Blair bashing so popular not two weeks ago? Where are the claims that the battleground strategy was deeply flawed and that the war-fighters were badly wrong in so many assumptions? Where are the protesters claiming to be supporting the Iraqi people, when every indication proves that the greatest solidarity to the coalition forces is coming from those being "conquered" themselves. Isn't it awfully quiet in front of the U.N. Building and American embassies around the world.
I believe that we, the free and civilized world, can all hold up the V for
Victory. Some merely because such scenes of intense liberation have not been seen since WWII, and others because we've been finally vindicated in a cause that, (although unpopular), has proven to be a moral victory and a sound military triumph that will be evident for years to come.
I hope you can celebrate with me the low-casulty rate suffered by our forces, the happiness evident in the eyes of Shittes and Sunnis alike, and the silent honor those that did perish offered all in the name of a cause. It is for me the ultimate V for Victory.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,656 • Replies: 31

No top replies

Lusatian,

This is going to be particularly easy to rebut. I'll be back during my luch break.

0 Replies

Like any event, one can look at it from numerous perspectives.

One point of view might hold that these highly visible rioters are NOT the majority, but a highly visible minority that is jumping on the excuse to loot, pillage and run amok.
Remember, for all the oil money that poured into Iraqi coffers, there are still a LOT of "have-nots".
Not to mention more than a few enterprising entrepreneurs who heard opportunity knocking... and yanked that door wide open.

No police, no government, no retribution... no accountability.
And no Order, just chaos and anarchy.

0 Replies

So far I can't see more than 200 of them at most who are celebrating. Far from the majority. The media is only showing us what the US government wants us to see. I've seen many sites on line so far along with non US media sources who are showing just the opposite.

0 Replies

Re: V For Victory

Lusatian wrote:

V For Victory

For those of you who expressed, at times vehement objections, to what had been construed as "American Imperialism", I would like to ask just what do you make of the images of Iraqis swarming the streets with cheers, destroying images of Saddam, and hailing Anglo-American forces as liberators? How do you reconcile these images with the assertion that this was an immoral war waged against the Iraqi people.

Lusatian - I will not try to answer your post with any generalities about those who oppose the war, despite yours - which are, I believe, as I and others have argued before, frequently inaccurate. I shall confine my response to my reasons for opposition and those of the anti-war people I know - some of whom are the organisers of the actions over here.

I have never labelled it "an immoral war waged against the Iraqi people".

I have labelled it as an immoral war because of the effectively unilateral (ok, Britain and Oz were there - let's be generous and call it Anglo-American power) use of American power in a situation where the stated reasons - fear of Iraqi use of WMD and Iraqi support of terrorism - were very shaky indeed - (the "freeing of the Iraqi people from the terrible dictator" reason appeared very late in the day, when the world naughtily, in the American government's eyes, refused to be convinced of the necessity of war for the first two reasons.)

I have argued elsewhere the logical fallacies of America using this as a reason for war - perhaps you might care to read those reasons in your other thread? I hesitate to bore people with them yet again.

Do I have to say yet again the stuff about the concerns raised by the USA deciding to start wars in the face of such clear world opposition? I know you are American, and it is very hard to believe that one's own country can start doing bad things - but when giants start to act with lessened restraint, history suggests that little people become very wary indeed.

Lusatian wrote:

If coalition forces do uncover evidence of the production of weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, and the systematic opression of a people for nearly forty years, wouldn't that contradict all of the fiercely presented denouncements made by anti-war demonstrators all over the world..

Hmmm - well, the evidence on the WMD's is still missing - which is becoming a little weird, no? But the jury is, of course, still out. Nonetheless, MY argument was not about whether or not the things were being produced, but about how much of a danger they presented to other peoples. The things had been contained for twelve years! Yes, it was a pain in the bum keeping an eye on them, but do you deny it was successful, no matter how wearying?

The human rights violations? Does anybody deny them? You do seem to revel in the manufacture of straw people!

Lusatian wrote:

In this I am curious; when the world began to see the jubilation the majority of Iraqis demonstrated once they were assured that the regime had indeed fallen, the almost daily protests, sit-ins, and movements ceased. The anti-war camp has seemed to have uttered a collective "opps", and now offers a few quiet suggestions of reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Where are the "baby-killer" cries, and the Bush-Blair bashing so popular not two weeks ago? Where are the claims that the battleground strategy was deeply flawed and that the war-fighters were badly wrong in so many assumptions? Where are the protesters claiming to be supporting the Iraqi people, when every indication proves that the greatest solidarity to the coalition forces is coming from those being "conquered" themselves. Isn't it awfully quiet in front of the U.N. Building and American embassies around the world..

Well, it ain't especially quiet here - there is another rally on Sunday - but let it pass.

As for the jubilation - I am very happy if the Iraqi people are jubilant - though I think these things may be a little more complex than they appear - I never particularly thought they would not be, nor denied the horrors of the Hussein regime - my criticism of the war was based on other factors - and I consider the liberation of the Iraqi people a happy piece of collateral good fortune in a war based on other factors entirely. Do you seriously think America went to war to liberate the Iraqi people? DO you? If you do, then why is the US not planning wars of liberation all over the globe?

If I were a praying person, I would be praying that the peace can be managed as well as the war was. I think it will be a very difficult job to manage to get a workable administration going over there.

Which leads to your comments about criticisms of the battle plan etc. Again, while I accept your assertion that there WAS such criticism, I can only speak for my little sphere, where it was never doubted that the thing would be won - nor did or do I think that the military would do anything but avoid as many civilian casualties as it could.

This baby-killer thing clearly troubles you greatly. I am sure that numbers of Iraqi babies died in this thing. This is war and part of what you accept will happen when you have wars. Do you deny this?.

Lusatian wrote:

I believe that we, the free and civilized world, can all hold up the V for
Victory. Some merely because such scenes of intense liberation have not been seen since WWII, and others because we've been finally vindicated in a cause that, (although unpopular), has proven to be a moral victory and a sound military triumph that will be evident for years to come..

Lusatian - as I have said I hope fervently that this works out brilliantly for the Iraqis. For civilization? Hmm - my concern is that - as I have said ad neauseum before - that civilization, in the form of international law, custom and practice, and that most imperfect yet only game in town creature, the UN, has suffered severely by the actions of the USA and Britain (and my own country.)

Lusatian wrote:

I hope you can celebrate with me the low-casulty rate suffered by our forces, the happiness evident in the eyes of Shittes and Sunnis alike, and the silent honor those that did perish offered all in the name of a cause. It is for me the ultimate V for Victory.

Of COURSE I am glad the casualty rates were low for the military and relatively low, it seems, for civilians! I hope the Shiites and Sunnis (and the Kurds) remain very happy. Good luck to 'em. Why would you think anything else?

The victory has neither surprised, confounded nor silenced me, though.

As a matter of interest, what will you think about the war if there turn out to be no significant WMDs?

I am aware that the issue about whether or not people should be marching into other people's countries to liberate them is one I have left untouched, arguing only that is NOT the reason for this war.

I wonder if this question deserves another thread of its own?

Thing is, it won't be happening any time soon, will it? A lot of the countries which we view as oppressive are also quite big and feisty.

0 Replies

Also, Lusatian, what will your view if the USA SHOULD now decide to attack Syria and Iran?

0 Replies

Bravo dlowan!!! Very well said!!!

0 Replies

we shall see....

0 Replies

Yes, we shall...

0 Replies

Re: V For Victory
First of all I should say why I suggested that the carping of the knave would be of particular ease. It is because your post commits a series of logical fallacies.

Fallacious rhetoric might convince your average audience but if you want your arguments to carry weight you should avoid obvious logical error. I do not mean to post that logic is the be all end all, there are subjective factors in the realm of logic as well. Your arguments, I really do not like to demean the term "argument" but for the sake of a functional discussion let's use it, do not slip a few fallacies in but rather embrace them and the points made in your above post are, for the most part, inextricable from the fallacious mechanisms you employed.

As I said in our phone conversation, the predominant fallacy in your post is the straw man. You start by saying "For those of you who expressed, at times vehement objections, to what had been construed as 'American Imperialism'..." and subsequently create a straw man from this position. Your straw man is a logical fallacy, it makes no attempt whatsoever to disguise itself.

A well constructed straw man argument has it's place in debate but an obvious one just opens your rear. Since you rely heavily on Audiatur et altera pars and other really pathetic logical brainfarts this is by far the most poorly constructed argument I've seen from you.

<btw, I told you this would be ugly and would have preffered to tell you this on the phone but I didn't get your call>

Lusatian wrote:

V For Victory

For those of you who expressed, at times vehement objections, to what had been construed as "American Imperialism", I would like to ask just what do you make of the images of Iraqis swarming the streets with cheers, destroying images of Saddam, and hailing Anglo-American forces as liberators?

1) Straw man
2) Fallacy of interrogation (also called a loaded or complex question)
3) Anecdotal evidence
4) Argumentum ad numerum
5) Argumentum ad populum
6) Argumentum ad misericordiam
7) Argumentum ad novitatem

Lusatian wrote:

How do you reconcile these images with the assertion that this was an immoral war waged against the Iraqi people.

1) Straw man
2) Fallacy of interrogation
3) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Lusatian wrote:

If coalition forces do uncover evidence of the production of weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, and the systematic opression of a people for nearly forty years, wouldn't that contradict all of the fiercely presented denouncements made by anti-war demonstrators all over the world.

I will answer this rhetorically:

No, and frankly your argument makes not a mite of sense. I do not know anyone who argued the points you conveniently select as your opposing viewpoint. Furthermore finding WMDs does nothing retroactively. It's anecdotal evidence that would be hailed as vindication while creating anotehr straw man.

At the point when this war was initiated this evidence did not exist (yes, dd not exist, I did not say that it was not divulged). Many consider waging a war and trying to find the evidence to support your motives after teh fact to be dastardly. "This may be the first war that will be over before the reason is found".

Back to logic:

1) Straw man
2) Fallacy of interrogation
3) Shifting the burden of proof

Lusatian wrote:

In this I am curious; when the world began to see the jubilation the majority of Iraqis demonstrated once they were assured that the regime had indeed fallen, the almost daily protests, sit-ins, and movements ceased.

Rhetorical:

No you are not curious, you are ill informed. But let's just assume your assertion (cessation) is factual because it's actually easier jsut to assume that and carp your argument based on its fallacies.

1) Non Causa Pro Causa
2) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
3) Anecdotal evidence
4) Ignoratio elenchi

Lusatian wrote:

The anti-war camp has seemed to have uttered a collective "opps", and now offers a few quiet suggestions of reconstruction and rehabilitation.

Rhetorical: No they didn't you just claimed they uttered an oops for your own flawed argument.

Logic:

1) Non sequitur
2) Patent falsity
3) Audiatur et altera pars
4) Anecdotal evidence

Lusatian wrote:

Where are the "baby-killer" cries, and the Bush-Blair bashing so popular not two weeks ago?

Rhetorical: in your imagination, where they ahve always been.

Logic:

STRAW MAN. Creating a caricature of your opposition once again and then feeling good about how easy it is to ridicule them.

Lusatian wrote:

Where are the claims that the battleground strategy was deeply flawed and that the war-fighters were badly wrong in so many assumptions?

Rhetorical: in the dumpster where they belong. But this is still a fallacy of interrogatuon.

Lusatian wrote:

Where are the protesters claiming to be supporting the Iraqi people, when every indication proves that the greatest solidarity to the coalition forces is coming from those being "conquered" themselves.

1) Fallacy of interrogation
2) Argumentum ad populum

Lusatian wrote:

Isn't it awfully quiet in front of the U.N. Building and American embassies around the world.

1) Falsity
2) Non sequitur
3) Fallacy of interrogation
4) Red herring

Lusatian wrote:

I believe that we, the free and civilized world, can all hold up the V for
Victory. Some merely because such scenes of intense liberation have not been seen since WWII,

1) Anecdotal evidence

Lusatian wrote:

..and others because we've been finally vindicated in a cause that, (although unpopular), has proven to be a moral victory

This is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard.

"I am right, I have proven myself to be right. So what do you have to say?"

1) Dicto simpliciter
2) Argumentum ad baculum
Many many other fallacies. This one can ahve just about every logical fallacy in debate applied to it.

Lusatian wrote:

..and a sound military triumph that will be evident for years to come.
I hope you can celebrate with me the low-casulty rate suffered by our forces, the happiness evident in the eyes of Shittes and Sunnis alike, and the silent honor those that did perish offered all in the name of a cause. It is for me the ultimate V for Victory.

The end is simple gloating. Even the White House declared itself a gloat free zone but you can't help yourself.

Now you have all the right in the world to gloat (even if you had nothing to do with the victory you are trumpeting) but hubris does not make one right.

Here's an argumentum ad hominem ( but relevant):

I've known you your whole life. You used to call morals irrelevant and impediments to your goals. You also blindly adore anyone who is number 1. ANYONE. You do this because you like to be on the winning side, so as to enjoy the gloating. Even uf the victory has nothing to do with you. You like victory through association. Vicarious sucess.

BTW, I have employed as few logical fallacies here, I have also decided to simply list yours instead of explaining them and supporting them. If you wish I will do so but it will be even uglier for your argument then.

0 Replies

At last there is joy on the streets of Baghdad and, although it is impossible to know what proportion of the Iraqi population unreservedly welcome the invaders, nobody should for a moment regret the demise of Saddam Hussein. But nor should we forget the enormity of what has happened: an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign foreign country, in which thousands of its inhabitants died.

Understandably, many are overjoyed to see the back of Saddam; whether the celebrations will survive prolonged anarchy or US tanks careering around the country remains to be seen. We are left with a few speculations about what Saddam might have done with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons if he had ever acquired them; and with hypothetical estimates of numbers who would have died if he had remained in power against numbers killed in the war - this calculation being complicated because much of the "peace" death toll would have been the result of continuing sanctions.

Perhaps the Iraqi people will now go on to a peaceful, prosperous, independent and democratic future, to be admired throughout the Arab world; perhaps, far from creating more Bin Ladens, the outcome will convince Arab youth that western capitalism really does offer salvation. And Donald Rumsfeld may follow Mother Teresa and devote the rest of his life to the poor of Calcutta. In the meantime, Britain and America are guilty, in the eyes of almost the entire world, of brutal aggression - in Spain, where the government was one of the firmest supporters of invasion, an astonishing 92 per cent still opposed the war in a poll a few days ago. My view is that those responsible should be treated as war criminals. And President Bush and Tony Blair should understand that I speak for much of the world; outside Britain and the US, the majority public reaction is one of shock and horror. If the instigators of invasion dare to celebrate their "victory", they should do so with the greatest humility and restraint.

0 Replies

I had typed a well-worded reply to the responses by all of you, but the site dumped it and I lost the text. Not caring to attempt to retype the entire monolog I will post an extremely abbreviated version.

Dlowan - Well-presented points, though I think that we both have such different views that I feel that you will always condemn what you feel is "unilateral" and "shakily-based" military action. I on the other hand feel that history judges by military success and the shying away from decisive action is impractical and ultimately detrimental to the nation or people practicing the timidity.

Craven - Lengthy assault on my debating inadequacies. For the record I apologize to all for my lack of official credentials in debate. However, approximately 4/5 of your post is attacks on my style of presenting my opinions and very little facts follow to rebutt my positions.

Quote:

Craven wrote: the points made in your above post are, for the most part, inextricable from the fallacious mechanisms you employed.
Since you rely heavily on Audiatur et altera pars and other really pathetic logical brainfarts this is by far the most poorly constructed argument I've seen from you.

Quote:
Also Craven: 1) Straw man
2) Fallacy of interrogation (also called a loaded or complex question)
3) Anecdotal evidence
4) Argumentum ad numerum
5) Argumentum ad populum
6) Argumentum ad misericordiam
7) Argumentum ad novitatem

I believe, (and this is my illogical, patently fallacious, Ignoratio elenchi, opinion I admit), that since neither of us are the ultimate authority on the respective subjects, then how can anyone say with any sort of basis that I have absolutely no logic?
Of course I could just resort to yelling at you all and saying:
ARGUMENTUM IMBECILIS! BURRICUS STUPERE! FILI DE CANIS! Etc.

0 Replies

"ARGUMENTUM IMBECILIS! BURRICUS STUPERE! FILI DE CANIS! Etc". heehee - you have a certain sympathy from me there!

0 Replies

However, re this:
I on the other hand feel that history judges by military success and the shying away from decisive action is impractical and ultimately detrimental to the nation or people practicing the timidity."

Of COURSE history judges on military success, to the extent that history is written by the victors! Sheeeeesh!

You were, as far as I was able to gauge an argument from your rather purple prose, arguing that the USA was RIGHT - not whether it was STRONG!

Are you actually saying that whoever wins is always morally right?

Does this mean that Nazi Germany - the actions of which seem to meet your criteria for lack of hesitation and timidity - was "right" until Stalingrad?

0 Replies

dlowan you are the numero uno poster on this site I see. Obviously a handy contact - hello!

0 Replies

Hi, Macro - sadly only cos I run a lot of playful threads to the posters upon which I respond frequently.

I am but the site fool.

0 Replies

Also, Lusatian, I wish you would respond re my question about Syria and Iran? And - since much of your post was about how wrong the peace people were because of the apparent response of the Iraqi people to the success of the invasion, I would be interested to hear your response as to whether the motive of theinvasion was to liberate the Iraqi people?

0 Replies

Lusatian,

I warned you both on this forum and on the phone that I'd simply listed your logical fallacies so as to avoid having to spell them out for you. I was not using Latin for its well known effect on fools but for brevity.

I will therefore, at a later date, rebut your initial post rhetorically then logically and then proceed to provide citations and supporting evidence. It will be exhaustive and you will have only more fallacious rhetoric to use as wiggle room. Yes you could simply yell back, but my point is that your arguments have exacly that as value, hot air. Repeating them would just add argumentum ad nauseum to your long list of fallacious arguments.

One must not be a logician to employ logic. I will once again explain your logical fallacies and spell it out for you. And as I said, it will be more ugly that way. I didn't want to do this, and that's why I spelled out the reasoning behind calling your post a straw man on the phone tonight, and the reasoning behind calling this kind of straw man fallacious.

I'd hoped you'd reacess your arguments and resubmit them using a logical foundation but hey, if you like having logical fallacies called out I'm not gonna disappoint you.

You ask "how can anyone say with any sort of basis that I have absolutely no logic?".

I will answer this in my future rebuttal. The short answer is that logic is not very subjective (the application of it is) and the flaws in logic are quite obvious to most. I will illustrate this in detail.

0 Replies

Hmmmm - I wonder what is Latin's well-known effect on fools? Since I do not speak it, it just makes me grumpy - I DO hope this is not the "well-known effect."

0 Replies

First I'm sorry Dlowan that I didn't answer your questions last night. I had a date that stretched far past the eleventh hour and after the computer threw away my original, rather lengthly dissertation, I just didn't have the motivation to recreate the thoughts which had been lost.
I will try to respond to your points in sequence beginning with:
[/QUOTE]Dlowan wrote: You were, as far as I was able to gauge an argument from your rather purple prose, arguing that the USA was RIGHT - not whether it was STRONG!
My opening thread wasn't as in depth as it should have been due to time considerations, but my position was reasonably alluded to by your own words. The fact is that in essence might does make right, especially if wielded with a keen eye on its legacy. The victor not only writes the history books, but if the victor reigned responsibly, even if horrific measures were used to come to power, history and the rest of the world commend him and remember only the battlefield success and not the methods employed.
e.g. 1. The Pax Romana, a term given to the centuries of peace that reigned under the Roman aegis, was merely a status quo where no one of any consequence had the power to present opposition to Roman will, and henceforth it is considered one of the high points, (in terms of scientific discovery, social development, etc), of ancient civilization.
2. Carolus Magnus erraticated a mighty civilization in the Avars to a scattered smattering of wanderers in a genocidal campaign that was waged to eliminate the barbaric vestiges of post Roman europe. Does anyone condemn the Franks for their slaughter of an entire people? No, the Franks established much of what is now the present order in Europe.
3. The Pax Britannica, an era when imperial Britain maintained a planet not up till then known for order, that also sheparded the Industrial Revolution into its modern stage, was possible by force of arms and definitely not by morally correct diplomacy. (Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchner successfully surpressed the guerrilla and terrorist tactics that followed the Boer War by destroying property and livelihood of the sympathetic population at large, and herding women and children into concentration camps.) History judges by success and not by political correctness.

Quote:

Dlowan wrote: Does this mean that Nazi Germany - the actions of which seem to meet your criteria for lack of hesitation and timidity - was "right" until Stalingrad?
No, but not for any love lost for the Nazis. It does not due to the Nazi lack of hegemony in the military or political world, and the Nazi blatant disregard for any code of conduct and common values. Had the Nazis unilaterally defeated all the major military powers, namely the Allies, and dominated their cultures, the concept of their actions would be profoundly different now than it is.
The United States is a responsible behemoth, as far as it can be. In fact, that is one of my main complaints with our system. We always attempt to avoid civilian casualties, resolve the most extreme situations through diplomacy (Serbian genocide, etc), almost in what seems to be denial of our own power.

Dlowan wrote: Also, Lusatian, I wish you would respond re my question about Syria and Iran? And - since much of your post was about how wrong the peace people were because of the apparent response of the Iraqi people to the success of the invasion, I would be interested to hear your response as to whether the motive of theinvasion was to liberate the Iraqi people?
My reply to this is simple. Should we fight wars of liberation in Syria and Iran? Not unless this proves to be in our interests enough to justify the political and monetary capital required for a war. Do I think liberation was the primordial objective of the war, hell no! Our motives were selfish as they always are and should be, but the fact that the Iraqi people embraced our arrival should be cause for the question: For who are you mourning?
You probably are not mourning Saddam, the same for the regime, could it be that you regret the loss of face for the U.N.? The United Nations is an exercise in what Aristotle called "mob rule", mob rule has never worked throughout history, (look at the League of Corinth, they debated and argued while Alexander of Macedon simply swept through their entire world).
Another example of the pitiful failures of "politically correct" diplomacy. The U.N.'s predecessor, the League of Nations, was one of the causes of World War II as the powers of the time, Great Britain, France, etc, chose to try to "contain" Hitler, then pacify him, and did not go to war when they may have easily destroyed him, but rather allowed him to occupy Austria and Czechoslovakia without barely a hiccup.
History has judged the governments of Britain and France at the time to have been ineffectual, feeble, useless and irrelavent. They hoped that condemnation in the League of Nations would deter the Nazis. Milions of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, and others died in what essentially became the outcome of an exercise in diplomacy.

0 Replies

V For Victory

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know