gene90 writes:
Let's use some critical thinking...
Because the consequence of no war = more Saddam:
Anti-War = Pro-Saddam
The very act of protesting the war is endorsing the regime of Saddam Hussein and prolonging the torture of the Iraqi people.
Do you challenge that view?
I challenge that view. Let's start by reviewing that "critical thinking" of yours.
First of all, there was crashfrog's head on rebuttal...
crashfrog writes:
I'll challenge that view, because it's not wholly correct (fallacy of false alternatives). The very act of protesting the war, without providing a viable alternative to lower Saddam's threat level, is endorsing the regime of Saddam.
You have essentially committed the "stock dilemma" fallacy, a form of the fallacy of false alternatives. You must support war, or you must support Saddam. Wrong. There are alternatives short of going to war, which still allow one to be against Saddam.
But I think a more interesting rebuttal would be the reductio ad absurdum.
If you truly hold the logic you stated then you and Bush are two of the biggest pro-terrorists around.
First of all I was against Saddam (for his removal) as well as the Taliban and Al-Queda, according to your own statements, well before you or Bush. While I wanted something to be done about them, Bush let everything slide, not even exerting diplomatic pressure,until 9-11. (note: Bush was wholly against "nation building" until 9-11).
In fact, according to your own admission, Bush would likely not have removed the Taliban if they had turned over BinLaden. And according to Bush's own proclamations, if Saddam had handed over WMDs... ONLY LATER adding "or leave power"... Bush would have let Saddam walk away free as a bird. No retribution, no justice. Saddam may have even stayed in power to continue torturing people if he just got rid of those WMDs.
So that means Bush was "pro-Saddam" right up until Saddam refused to let go of the WMDs. Bush was certainly "pro-Taliban", and up until 9-11 he was even "pro-Al-Queda."
Remember this is your logic, not wanting war right now, so leaving someone or something in power, is tantamount to full support.
This also means you are calling Bush "pro-Jung il" as well. After all Bush has explained that diplomatic solutions can be had there, instead of military ones, which is EXACTLY what the anti-war movement was saying about Saddam. To you that means he is a traitorous dog looking to support that murderous and much more dangerous (than Iraq)regime.
He's also "pro-IRA terrorists". Not to mention "pro-anonymous African warlord".
Yes there is no backing out of that backwards logic of yours.
The reality is Reagan and Rumsfeld and even Bush Sr, actively armed Saddam. THEY supported him, and continued to do so right up until he invaded Kuwait. This was done against the will of many of those same anti-war people you are railing against now. Never forget that. If they had not empowered him in the first place, we would not be having to disempower him now.
Once in power, the question of how to deal with Saddam became a tough issue. I agree we had an opening with the first gulf war. Bush Sr did not take it out of a respect for world opinion and international law... making him "pro-Saddam"?
Since that window closed, almost all intelligence analysts from around the world were against a fullscale invasion. They were pro-Saddam? Bush Sr derided Jr for abandoning world support to attack Iraq... proving once more his pro-Saddam credentials?
And exactly what did you do during this entire time to oust Saddam? Or any other dictator or terrorist group? Sit in your chair and wave a flag? I guess that would make you a couch potato supporter of Saddam and Co. You certainly didn't help the cause.
One must destroy, or one supports.
Or there is an alternative point of view.
I stayed solidly opposed to Saddam as well as all of the others from well before Bush Jr entered office. However I do support the rule of international law. That was the tricky thing for me. Now that they had been empowered, how to remove or disempower these governments or organizations within the boundaries of international law?
You see, according to my logic, if you are willing to break international laws, and humanitarian conduct then you become just like those governments and organizations you are seeking to destroy.
This is where crashfrog made a mistake as well.
crashfrog writes:
Well, if Saddam IS taking human life, and one has the power to do something about it and doesn't, isn't that contradictory to a moral stance against taking human life?
Both of you have forgotten that the world is simply not this simple. There are competing issues which set precedents and moral boundaries. Without them, Saddam's actions were as justified as our own.
For example all of those people he killed were trying to invade, or create a civil war, or in some way harm Iraq (to Saddam's mind). He was of the mind that not to kill means to support. See the logical conclusion of this philosophy?
One would think on a site heavily dominated by Xtian theology people would understand that it is NOT contradictory to not kill in order to to stop someone else from killing. Hasn't anyone heard of the Amish? How about Christ? Are you people really saying these people would have been pro-Saddam for not wanting to kill many innocent people, just to get Saddam?
For the Amish, or their teacher Christ, or for secular types like me, there is an understanding that the ends do not justify the means, and allowing someone else to do something (whether through lack of power or moral boundaries) is not tantamount to doing it yourself. Especially if you support the disempowerment of that person within the moral boundaries that distinguishes you from them.
crashfrog writes:
If not war, what was your solution? Just letting it happen? That doesn't seem like a moral alternative.
Just letting what happen? Where did the sudden urgency come from to wipe out Saddam? Oh yes, those WMDs. This is another problem in all of this denunciation of anti-war protesters.
Bush's argument for war was not simply the ousting of Saddam Hussein. It was about WMDs and support for terrorist groups. The idea that it was about ousting Hussein to "free the people" only came later. Many anti-war people, like me, were against Bush's original arguments because war obviously would not solve the WMD or terrorist problem.
Intensive inspections were the best method to do this. Almost all intelligence analysts around the world agreed with this assessment. The results of the war appear to be bearing this out.
Which means Bush and people like gene90 have started shifting the argument to the existence of Saddam himself. And its so catchy people lose sight of the ONLY justification given AT THE TIME OF THE PROTESTS.
Okay, so let's say this war was always about defeating Saddam himself. That puts me back in the pickle I was mentioning earlier. With the US having supported him into power, against my wishes, and having missed the opportunity to remove him through a legitimate war (in the first gulf war), how can the world remove him without breaking vital rules of international law?
Unfortunately, containment and disempowerment may have been our only tools until he showed himself to be a greater threat. Contained so he could not spread his regime, and disempowerment (through carrots and sticks) to remove his will to inflict harm on his citizens, as well as decreasing his means to do so. Does that mean he would have continued hurting innocents? Yes. Does that mean we are guilty of allowing it to happen? No.
We would be doing the best we could within the legal and moral framework which separates lawful nations from rogue nations.
If you have a problem with that you can also think of the ridiculous liberal attacks against war. It is easy enough to point out that in any war one will always kill innocents. That is a simple fact of war. Thus some say to be for any war is to be for the killing of innocents, so pro-war always means pro-murder. This is equally fallacious as no war, means pro enemy.
As it is, we never finished our "good war" to beat Al-Queda and catch BinLaden. Bush undermined this wholly justified effort to wage a war against a man, contained and disempowered. He did this while other dictators are flourishing, using the same horrible methods of Saddam, and posing a much greater threat to the US than Iraq. He did this when we would have greater justification in facing those other countries.
Why, according to your own logic, was it necessary to go after Iraq, and in doing so support these other regimes? Most importantly the very organizations which planned 9-11?
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2
