Mitt Romney's tortured logic

[Azure]

Maybe he's wrong, but at least he answered the question directly!

True, which makes me think, is he actually a politician?

Because politician are masters at avoiding questions.

 

[Azure]

If Romney didn't think it was wrong to invade Iraq, then he should have answered, "no, it was not a mistake."

No, if he didn't think it was 'wrong' to invade Iraq, he should have answered 'yes, I believe it was the correct thing to do.'

Now quit confusing me!

 

[Art Vandelay]

Soryy, I put in an extra slash.

In my bolded part, are you saying that because Saddam refused to step down, as demanded by Bush, to prevent the invasion, the inspectors were sent away, and thus not allowed access?

I'm saying that Saddam made it clear that sanctions and inspections was not a viable solutions, and that is what resulted in the inspectors having to leave.

 

[This Guy]

Soryy, I put in an extra slash.

I'm saying that Saddam made it clear that sanctions and inspections was not a viable solutions, and that is what resulted in the inspectors having to leave.

Thanks for the clarification!

My opinion is that Saddam was an SOB. He deserved what he got, and more. But, I also believe that having those troops massed at his door woke him up to the fact that he was about to receive pure hell, and he better do something quick. He did it. He opened the way for full and free inspections. The inspectors were doing what they went there for, and were finding nothing of a threat to us. At the time my opinion was the Bush had done a good thing. He rattled some sabers, and Saddam took the hint. Mission accomplished. Then, just as things were looking good, and I was relieved to think a second war had been avoided (I supported the invasion of Afghanistan BTW), Bush made the ultimatum, and we all know the rest. At that point, I lost all faith in, and respect for Bush.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. Thanks for sharing yours

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

True, which makes me think, is he actually a politician?

Because politician are masters at avoiding questions.

Slick Willie comes to mind.

 

[SezMe]

I'm saying that Saddam made it clear that sanctions and inspections was not a viable solutions, and that is what resulted in the inspectors having to leave.

I agree completely with This Guy. I'd like to note the passive voice you used in stating your position, namely, <something> "resulted in the inspectors having to leave". No, that's too wishy-washy. As This Guy noted, at the end, Saddam was NOT interfering with the inspectors and they were making good progress...which scared Cheney all to hell because their case for war was about to go down the toilet. So Bush told them to get out. It was an active, purposeful order by Bush, not some passive drifting out by the inspectors. Blix pled for more time, citing progress. But no, the neocons had to have their war.

 

[corplinx]

This isn't about the decision to go to war, this is about questions about the decision to go to war given to the candidates.

 

[Art Vandelay]

My opinion is that Saddam was an SOB. He deserved what he got, and more. But, I also believe that having those troops massed at his door woke him up to the fact that he was about to receive pure hell, and he better do something quick. He did it. He opened the way for full and free inspections.

And what happens when those troops leave? Or was Bush supposed to just keep those troops massed until Saddam died? This was hardly the first time this happened. Saddam screwed with the inspections, Clinton spent a few billion massing troops on the border, Saddam backed down, the troops went home, Saddam went back to screwing with the inspections, rinse, repeat. Bush decided that he wanted a permanent resolution to the situation.

I agree completely with This Guy. I'd like to note the passive voice you used in stating your position, namely, <something> "resulted in the inspectors having to leave". No, that's too wishy-washy.

I had a specific reason for doing so. As I understand it, Bush asked them to leave because he expected them to be in danger in the coming conflict. As their departure was a side effect, rather than an intentional effect, the active voice was not appropriate, as it would have implied that Bush actively got the inspectors out of Iraq, rather than engaging in a course of action that resulted in them having to leave.

As This Guy noted, at the end, Saddam was NOT interfering with the inspectors and they were making good progress...

Yeah, and Sisyphus has gotten that rock up pretty high some times. The Leftist position reminds me of Hamlet, insisting on striking Claudius only while the latter was in the very commission of sin. Is it really significant that only the imperfect, and not preterite tense, can be used to discuss his refusal to cooperate?

 

[corplinx]

This isn't about the decision to go to war, this is about questions about the decision to go to war given to the candidates. The title mentions Romney specifically but I kind of meandered into in general.

 

[SezMe]

Is it really significant that only the imperfect, and not preterite tense, can be used to discuss his refusal to cooperate?

I don't understand this sentence. My phrasing was perterite.

 

[This Guy]

And what happens when those troops leave? Or was Bush supposed to just keep those troops massed until Saddam died? This was hardly the first time this happened. Saddam screwed with the inspections, Clinton spent a few billion massing troops on the border, Saddam backed down, the troops went home, Saddam went back to screwing with the inspections, rinse, repeat. Bush decided that he wanted a permanent resolution to the situation.

I'm not sure Bush had the right, under international law, or the US constitution to remove Saddam from power. But, ignoring that, considering that the inspections were proceeding, and I THINK it's safe to assume the cost of keeping the forces on hold was far less than the cost we have had supporting the war, would it not have made sense to hold the forces until the inspectors had at least nearly completed their jobs? Then if actual treats to the US were found, go in and get them if need be (of course they were not found, and the reports from the inspectors up to the time of the invasion indicated they would not be found). But even without the benefit of hind site, it made more sense to me at the time this happened, to sit on his door, and make sure the inspections were completed. I did some quick math and the logic went like this - OK, He's screwed with us before. Options are to attack, or to wait. Waiting will cost a lot of money. Attacking will cost a lot more money and lives. The smart choice is to wait.. It appears Bush thought otherwise. I believe he was wrong.

I had a specific reason for doing so. As I understand it, Bush asked them to leave because he expected them to be in danger in the coming conflict. As their departure was a side effect, rather than an intentional effect, the active voice was not appropriate, as it would have implied that Bush actively got the inspectors out of Iraq, rather than engaging in a course of action that resulted in them having to leave.

I'm sorry. I'm a natural US citizen, born and raised here, so US English is my first (and regrettably only) language. But I don't understand this part. Sounds like a lot of words that have no real meaning. Maybe it's the Southern US English that I speak that is causing me problems.

Yeah, and Sisyphus has gotten that rock up pretty high some times. The Leftist position reminds me of Hamlet, insisting on striking Claudius only while the latter was in the very commission of sin. Is it really significant that only the imperfect, and not preterite tense, can be used to discuss his refusal to cooperate?

I get the jest of all of this except the last sentence. I don't know what preterite tense means, but it sounds obscene

It has been awhile since I've had an English class though, and I'd have to stop and think about what a pronoun or adverb are

It's funny being called a leftist. I assume that is what your saying. If you only knew how far right leaning I was before Iraq, you'd be amazed, or at least mildly amused

Anyway, if -

1) Not feeling that our nation had the moral or legal right to invade a sovereign country, and depose the ruler (and I personally don't consider the UN resolution that Bush and Blair were finally able to wrestle away, nor the Congressional approval that was given based on...not fully forth coming facts, counts. But, that's an opinion of one).

2) Hating to see our young men and women killed and maimed in an ill conceived war.

3) Hating that thousands of Iraqi's have died, and are dieing.

4) Fearing that once the dust settles in Iraq, they will have an Islamic nation that actually DOES support terrorism.

Makes me a leftist, then I guess I deserve the title.

If it's OK with you though, I'm gonna still support a strong military, lower taxes, less handouts, and less government. That OK?

 

[IXP]

Anyway, if -

1) Not feeling that our nation had the moral or legal right to invade a sovereign country, and depose the ruler (and I personally don't consider the UN resolution that Bush and Blair were finally able to wrestle away, nor the Congressional approval that was given based on...not fully forth coming facts, counts. But, that's an opinion of one).

2) Hating to see our young men and women killed and maimed in an ill conceived war.

3) Hating that thousands of Iraqi's have died, and are dieing.

4) Fearing that once the dust settles in Iraq, they will have an Islamic nation that actually DOES support terrorism.

Makes me a leftist, then I guess I deserve the title.

Welcome to the club, I'll PM you the secret handshake.

If it's OK with you though, I'm gonna still support a strong military, lower taxes, less handouts, and less government. That OK?

Whoops, you're expelled.

IXP

 

[This Guy]

Welcome to the club, I'll PM you the secret handshake.


Whoops, you're expelled.

IXP

Damn!

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think the answer to Admiral's question is that the question posed to Giuliani and Romney is ambiguous. It could mean, "Given how things turned out was it a mistake to invade Iraq" or it could mean "Was a bad decision made based only on the information available at the time of the decision to invade Iraq".

It is up to the person answering the question to eliminate any ambiguities.

He did.

Knowing everything you know now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I did some quick math and the logic went like this - OK, He's screwed with us before. Options are to attack, or to wait.

The choices weren’t attacking or waiting, but attacking or surrendering. Even if the inspectors had been allowed to finish their jobs, we would have been at exactly the same place as we were before the troop build-up. The only way to not end up where we began was to attack.

I'm sorry. I'm a natural US citizen, born and raised here, so US English is my first (and regrettably only) language. But I don't understand this part. Sounds like a lot of words that have no real meaning. Maybe it's the Southern US English that I speak that is causing me problems.

Really, what got the inspectors out of Iraq was the impending war. As far as I know, Bush doesn’t have the authority to order inspectors out of Iraq, and it was only the impending war that got them out. Since the actual subject is inanimate, the passive voice is appropriate.

I get the jest of all of this except the last sentence. I don't know what preterite tense means, but it sounds obscene

It’s a distinction that’s more sharp in Spanish. Imperfect refers to a continuous action in the past, whereas preterite refers to an action considered to have occurred at a discreet point in time at the past. So, first instance, suppose we ask of serial killer “Was he killing people when he was captured?” Unless he was captured while actually in the commission of a murder, the answer is no in the preterite sense. But if he, at the time of his capture, was in the habit of killing people, it would be quite accurate to say, in the imperfect sense, that he was killing people when he was captured. In the same sense, it would be quite accurate to say that Saddam was interfering with the inspection at the time of the invasion.

It's funny being called a leftist. I assume that is what your saying. If you only knew how far right leaning I was before Iraq, you'd be amazed, or at least mildly amused

I was just saying that one of the positions underlying your position is Leftist.

1) Not feeling that our nation had the moral or legal right to invade a sovereign country, and depose the ruler (and I personally don't consider the UN resolution that Bush and Blair were finally able to wrestle away, nor the Congressional approval that was given based on...not fully forth coming facts, counts. But, that's an opinion of one).

Certainly, phrased so generally, that is an extreme Leftist position. Taking you at your word, you don’t think that the US had the right to invade Germany and depose Hitler.

2) Hating to see our young men and women killed and maimed in an ill conceived war.

The vast majority of the casualties were sustained in the occupation, not the invasion.

3) Hating that thousands of Iraqi's have died, and are dieing.

The implications of this position certainly are Leftist. If we allow dictators to hold their own people, we will allow them to act with impunity, and encourage them to run their countries in a defective manner to ensure that their removal will result in as much suffering as possible.

I also take exception to your implied claim that those who support the war don’t care of the lives of Americans and Iraqis. In fact, many of the people opposing the war made a big deal out of the fact that no Americans were being killed by Saddam, as Iraqi lives don’t matter.

4) Fearing that once the dust settles in Iraq, they will have an Islamic nation that actually DOES support terrorism.

Doesn’t basing our foreign policy on fears of terrorism mean that terrorism is effective?

I also have a more pedantic response, that I’ve prepared for instructive purposes. I don’t mean this as a personal attack, and I’ve put it in a spoiler box so that you can ignore it if you want to.

This Guy;2672547]I'm not sure Bush had the right, under international law, or the US constitution, to remove Saddam from power. But, ignoring that, considering that the inspections were proceeding, and I THINK it's safe to assume the cost of keeping the forces on hold was far less than the cost we have had supporting the war, would it not have made sense to hold the forces until the inspectors had at least nearly completed their jobs? Then if actual threats to the US were found, go in and get them if need be (of course they were not found, and the reports from the inspectors up to the time of the invasion indicated they would not be found). But even without the benefit of hind sitehindsight, it made more sense to me at the time this happened, to sit on his door, and make sure the inspections were completed. I did some quick math and the logic went like this - OK, He's screwed with us before. Options are to attack, or to wait. Waiting will cost a lot of money. Attacking will cost a lot more money and lives. The smart choice is to wait.. It appears Bush thought otherwise. I believe he was wrong.



I'm sorry. I'm a natural US citizen, born and raised here, so US English is my first (and regrettably only) language. But I don't understand this part. Sounds like a lot of words that have no real meaning. Maybe it's the Southern US English that I speak that is causing me problems.



I get the jestgist of all of this except the last sentence. I don't know what preterite tense means, but it sounds obscene

It has been awhilea while since I've had an English class though, and I'd have to stop and think about what a pronoun or adverb are

It's funny being called a leftist. I assume that is what youryou’re saying. If you only knew how far right leaning I was before Iraq, you'd be amazed, or at least mildly amused

Anyway, if -

1) Not feeling that our nation had the moral or legal right to invade a sovereign country, and depose the ruler (and I personally don't consider the UN resolution that Bush and Blair were finally able to wrestle away, nor the Congressional approval that was given based on...not fully forth coming facts, countsto count. But, that's an opinion of one).

2) Hating to see our young men and women killed and maimed in an ill conceived war.

3) Hating that thousands of Iraqi'sIraqis have died, and are dieingdying.

4) Fearing that once the dust settles in Iraq, they will have an Islamic nation that actually DOES support terrorism.

Makes me a leftist, then I guess I deserve the title.

If it's OK with you though, I'm gonna still support a strong military, lower taxes, less handouts, and less government. That OK? [/QUOTE]

 

[This Guy]

SNIP the whole lot

First, thanks for the English lesson.

I've often told co-workers that if I could write I'd get a real job.

As for the rest, there has been one attempt to get this thread back on topic, and I think we are guilty for it going where it has gone.

I'm going to copy/paste your reply into another thread, which I'll link to from here.

If you wish to continue the discussion there, I'll be waiting

 

[steverino]

Indeed, there was a problem with debate prep. I'd also say that with or without good prep, a person who aspires to be president shouldn't be ignorant of such important details about such recent history, as in the events leading to the invasion of Iraq. Good grief.

Great post, hgc. In a crisis, a president does not always have the luxury of prep. As plastic as these debates are, I suppose if it becomes obvious that a candidate is both unprepared for a question, and cannot think on his or her feet to answer a question candidly, that person might lack the capacity to make wise decisions during a national crisis.

 

[SezMe]

The choices weren’t attacking or waiting, but attacking or surrendering.

Huh? Who would we have surrendered to?

I was just saying that one of the positions underlying your position is Leftist.

.....

This statement plus the subsequent points you make, seem to have behind them that there is something inherently wrong with a "Leftist" (whatever that really means). Let's suppose that This Guy's position has points in common with those people who might lean to the left. So what? That has nothing to do with the quality of his arguments.

Suppose I argued that your postions are Rightist and therefore are wrong. Would that make sense to you or convince you to change your mind?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I never said that the position is Leftist and therefore wrong. I brought up the label merely to establish what position I was talking about. Not to compound the impression that I apparently am giving you of ragging on Leftists, but there seems to be an attitude that labels are somhow bad, we should treat everyone as completely individuals, and we shouldn't generalize or group people or attitudes into categories based on them being similar but not identical. This position in turn seems to be correlated with traits commonly known as "Leftist". While I agree that excessive labeling can lead to problems, language ultimately consists of labels, and rejecting labels means rejecting language. I wanted to discuss an attitude, and I needed a label, and Leftist was the one I considered most appropriate.

 

[This Guy]

OK, finally got the other thread started. Took me awhile, I bought The Patriot on DVD last night, and was watching it while typing up my reply. (Honest!, I love that movie! )

It's here -

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2674628#post2674628