OK Time to Clean up this Mess

Drooper said:
I am suprised nobody has yet grasped the central point of my ironic post.

Should not those people who claim that the invasion and ousting of Saddam was such a travesty be campaigning for a return of Saddam.

After all, the were no WMDs right? So the war was not justified, right?
Click to expand...

"Nobody grasped?!?!"

Did you really think that nobody grasped that?

I grasped it all right. Grasped it, found it beneath contempt, and flung it away. I would think many others did the same.
 
Tricky said:

I'm not sure if you were in the boards a year ago when the war started or if you simply forgot, but I don't think a single person here thought that getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea. Many, like myself, thought this was a bad way to do it, leading to the loss of many innocent lives and the damaging of our (the US's) interests worldwide, for example, the alienation of our allies.

Like others here, I want Iraq to become a stable, democratic government, but I cannot see that the invasion will accomplish this. I predict that as soon as US troops leave, the coalition government will dissolve into partisan squabbling until another warlord gets enough power to become a dictator. I also predict that the form of government will quickly become an Islamic theocracy, much like in Iran. I hope I'm wrong.

So you can see, your little strawman of what anti-war people should want is very poorly stuffed.
Click to expand...


This is far from being a straw man. In fact this is my thread, I framed the point of debate and the point is: is there some inconsistency in the position of the more vociferous anti-war campaigners. So how can this be a Straw Man, unless you are saying I didn't want to debate the thing I implied I wanted to debate?


Anyway, the point stands. This may not cover everyone's point of view, but there is a significant swell of opinion that believes that the war was "wrong" in absolute terms. That it should never have happened; that if we could go back in time we should have let the situation with and in Iraq trundle on.

Well, what has changed? It may not be practical to try and put things bacl together, but that is an argument that needs to be made in defence of such an anti-war position.

Nobody has even tried to do that yet.


And yes, I was around :rolleyes: before, during and after the war. No charge for the condescension I presume? If this doesn't cover your position, then you don't need to debate the point (or even try to construct a Straw Man in order to make a different anti-war point ;) ).
 
Drooper said:
Anyway, the point stands. This may not cover everyone's point of view, but there is a significant swell of opinion that believes that the war was "wrong" in absolute terms. That it should never have happened; that if we could go back in time we should have let the situation with and in Iraq trundle on.
Click to expand...

I agree with your observation. I wasn't on this board back then, but I was on plenty of others, and I heard quite a lot that seemed to me inconsistent.

Actually, though, it's a little bit more complex than you mentioned: it's a 3-way contradiction, not a 2-way contradiction. A big chunk of the people who were strongly against the war held three notions:

A) War is bad.
B) Saddam is a murderous dictator, hence bad.
C) Sanctions killed 5000 Iraqi babies a month, hence bad.

Once you add C, it's more obvious that it was a lose-lose-lose set of beliefs. However, it's easier to avoid seeing a contradiction in a position about it and easier to debate that there is no contradiction, simply because there are three elements, and it's so easy to stage a debate as if there were only two. You can keep shifting the one you omit, and it will confuse most people.
 
VicDaring said:


"Nobody grasped?!?!"

Did you really think that nobody grasped that?

I grasped it all right. Grasped it, found it beneath contempt, and flung it away. I would think many others did the same.
Click to expand...

Tosser.

Methinks that you need to either:

a) start you own thread, rather than hijack this one if it offends you somehow.

or

b) address the question, even if it does cause you discomfort at having to confront your own hyprocracy.
 
Drooper said:
Alright, so the War in Iraq was "illegal" as I have heard it said lately. That it never should have happened.


OK. So if that is the case what she we do now. Well we must reinstate Saddam and help him to put back in place his system of ..err.... government and security and then leave as quickly as possible. Surely that is the best way to right this wrong, is it not?
Click to expand...

Two wrongs, not one right!
Three wrongs do not make right, too.
Saddamn won't go back.

Saddamn won't go back.
Why? He'd be afraid to go.
His fear, justified.
 
Drooper said:


Tosser.

Methinks that you need to either:

a) start you own thread, rather than hijack this one if it offends you somehow.

or

b) address the question, even if it does cause you discomfort at having to confront your own hyprocracy.
Click to expand...

a) Start my own thread? About what? "Droopers ridiculous, pointless assertion?" Also, answering your question = hijacking this thread? I don't get that either.

b) You have ascribed a set of positions to me that I don't hold. I will, again, assume this is true of many (most...all?) who were opposed to this ghastly debacle of a military exercise. Why would I, or anyone else, take that seriously?
 
Alright, so Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall was "bad" as I have heard it said lately. That it never should have happened.

(Hmm, something is wrong with that paragraph. Oh well).

OK. So if that is the case what should we do now. Well we must send all the King's Horses and all the King's Men to put him back together again. Surely that is the best way to right this wrong, is it not?

Anyone who thinks it was a bad thing that Humpty fell off the wall must, logically, think that this is the only way forward. Thus they are all idiots, and it's a good thing that Humpty fell off the wall.

QED.







_
 
Drooper said:
Alright, so the War in Iraq was "illegal" as I have heard it said lately. That it never should have happened.

OK. So if that is the case what she we do now. Well we must reinstate Saddam and help him to put back in place his system of ..err.... government and security and then leave as quickly as possible. Surely that is the best way to right this wrong, is it not?
Click to expand...

Let's say that one day you tell me you're going to take up smoking. I say, "No! Don't do that! You'll have all sorts of health problems such as lung cancer!" You don't believe me and start smoking.

Several times over the course of the coming years, I reiterate my warning about smoking and its adverse health effects. You continue to ignore me.

Then, one day, you come to me and say, "Well, my doctor says that I've got lung cancer now, and I'm going to be dead within two years. Okay, Mr. Smart Guy, what should I do now?"

Beats me. My solution was not to start smoking in the first place.

How can people really answer this question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom