While We Wait: Part 5

[alex994]

I guess he's talking about how the terrorists would throw themselves at the Americans in Iraq as opposed to the Americans in the United States?

Strange, because it seems that Afghanistan seems to be the target and staging ground for stuff like that. Not Iraq

 

[Neverwonagame3]

What kind of argument is, "the war in Iraq is a diversion...?" If it only takes isolated cells of a few dozen people to commit atrocities such as 9/11, do you really think a war can tie up every possible terrorist in combat?

If it ties up some, then that serves as a diversion. Now I think about it, you have a point though. (The matter is an empirical one of how many terrorist attacks happen)

EDIT: Anyway, while going into Iraq was based on false premises (I think Bush was either self-deluded or sucessfully fooled), there is a case that leaving would make the situation worse.

 

[Luckymoose]

What kind of argument is, "the war in Iraq is a diversion...?" If it only takes isolated cells of a few dozen people to commit atrocities such as 9/11, do you really think a war can tie up every possible terrorist in combat?

Clearly all terrorists are based in the Middle East.

 

[Kentharu]

In lucky's defense, I also don't know what all that latin talk means, other than one or two, which I can't even spell. Why? Cause i never learnt it, because it never came up. I don't, however, think its elitism. If you feel like using that language then so be it, however your point could easily be made without it so I would ask you to do so for those who are not enlightened as to the wonders of latin.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

I don't actually know Latin- I was using commonly used philosophical terms. A logician, or a philosopher of logic, would understand me.

 

[a_propagandist]

Clearly all terrorists are based in the Middle East.

Doesn't that reinforce my point that we don't need a massive army to defend against terrorism?

 

[Symphony D.]

No, it's a different thing.

You just said it was how the world works. Which is it? It's bad for your local leaders to kill your buddies to get into office, but it's OK for your national leaders to potentially do so? I'm so confused!

there is a case that leaving would make the situation worse.

Unless they want you to leave, and you need a Status of Forces Agreement to stay, which if they genuinely want you to leave (and they do) they will never sign, thus making it illegal for you to remain.

If the time-table goes forward then John McCain is basically left as the only person of note on the planet who wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years. Somehow. Illegally. I don't know, following Luckymoose's logic-train, Al Maliki will probably somehow die if McCain assumes office. <snip>

 

[Kentharu]

Well exactly NWG3 I have not taken classes that have taught me said Latin terms and obviously until i do i will fail to understand those statements. All i ask is that, for the benifit of those who do not know those terms, use simple english. It seems clear that many do not know said terms and i think your points would be better understood if you indeed did use simple english.

 

[Symphony D.]

Simple English or simple English?

 

[flyingchicken]

I'd vote for Simple English, but that would ****** learning.

 

[alex994]

What's the problem... if you don't know it, just go look it up.

 

[Symphony D.]

Also, while I'm still here: All You Ever Wanted to Know About Comrade-Chairman Palin's Croneyism And Leadership Skills But Were Too Afraid to Ask.

 

[Kentharu]

Its not that big a deal, like alex said, if its a problem I'll just look it up.

 

[Luckymoose]

You just said it was how the world works. Which is it? It's bad for your local leaders to kill your buddies to get into office, but it's OK for your national leaders to potentially do so? I'm so confused!

Local levels have little importance to world affairs. If it is the safety of potentially millions or billions of people, a few can be sacrificed for the rest. If we pick select groups for the sacrifice, we kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Symphony D.]

If we pick select groups for the sacrifice, we kill two birds with one stone.

I'm all for this. I nominate every group you can be included in to go first.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Unless they want you to leave, and you need a Status of Forces Agreement to stay, which if they genuinely want you to leave (and they do) they will never sign, thus making it illegal for you to remain.

If the time-table goes forward then John McCain is basically left as the only person of note on the planet who wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years. Somehow. Illegally. I don't know, following Luckymoose's logic-train, Al Maliki will probably somehow die if McCain assumes office.

That's an ad homenem argument- just because the Iraqi government says something is the best course of action doesn't mean it's true (although it increases the probability).

 

[Symphony D.]

That's an ad homenem argument- just because the Iraqi government says something is the best course of action doesn't mean it's true (although it increases the probability).

Ad hominem is attacking a speaker. It's actually an appeal to authority (ipse dixit), if it is any logical fallacy at all, which it is not, because it's a fact that Iraq doesn't want us there, and Iraq does have the final say on the matter, unless we choose to "regime change" the very government we installed. There is no "it might be better if we stay" argument to be made if we can't stay, is there?

You fail on both the count of knowing the fallacy in question, and in causality. Thank you. Goodbye.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Ad hominem is attacking a speaker. It's actually an appeal to authority (ipse dixit), if it is any logical fallacy at all, which it is not, because it's a fact that Iraq doesn't want us there, and Iraq does have the final say on the matter, unless we choose to "regime change" the very government we installed. There is no "it might be better if we stay" argument to be made if we can't stay, is there?

You fail on both the count of knowing the fallacy in question, and in causality. Thank you. Goodbye.

It is a plausible proposition that we have no right to stay because Iraq doesn't want us there. But if so, it could be argued that that is the only reason to leave.

 

[Symphony D.]

It is a plausible proposition that we have no right to stay because Iraq doesn't want us there.

Plausible, he says. Yes, I suppose we've pissed all over international law and opinion often enough that doing it again wouldn't hurt anything...

But if so, it could be argued that that is the only reason to leave.

Yeah, the $600 Billion we've spent in the 5.5 years that could've been spent on infrastructure--transitory and energy--or homeland security, or education, or any number of things? The $12 Billion per month and $100,000 per minute it costs us? Not at all a reason to leave. We're not bleeding out money that could be spent here. Not burning out our equipment and burning out our soldiers while our infrastructure rots and our national security staggers along. $1.7 to $2.7 Trillion by 2017 combined with Afghanistan. No. Definitely not a reason to leave.

I like the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone. But Iraq is an ulcer. It's not the USA in Vietnam, or the USSR in Afghanistan, not in bodies, no. But in cash? It's starting to feel cold...

We had an obligation to the Iraqis to help them after having blown up half their country. When they say "You're done," that obligation ends. It is ending. It is therefore time for us to stop spending cash and blood when the sacrifice is no longer appreciated or necessary and use it on something deserving.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Plausible, he says. Yes, I suppose we've pissed all over international law and opinion often enough that doing it again wouldn't hurt anything...


Yeah, the $600 Billion we've spent in the 5.5 years that could've been spent on infrastructure--transitory and energy--or homeland security, or education, or any number of things? The $12 Billion per month and $100,000 per minute it costs us? Not at all a reason to leave. We're not bleeding out money that could be spent here. Not burning out our equipment and burning out our soldiers while our infrastructure rots and our national security staggers along. $1.7 to $2.7 Trillion by 2017 combined with Afghanistan. No. Definitely not a reason to leave.

I like the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone. But Iraq is an ulcer. It's not the USA in Vietnam, or the USSR in Afghanistan, not in bodies, no. But in cash? It's starting to feel cold...

What about the good of the Iraqis themselves? There is the risk of an Iran-based Muslim state (in their sphere of influence) if the Americans withdraw, as well as increased terrorist morale.