In which Diogenes the Cynic defies all logic (and bears shit in woods, pope Catholic)

[The Ryan]

In the North Korea thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=190231&perpage=50&pagenumber=1), Diogenes the Cynic said
We were right about Iraq, though weren't we? Bush was lying, just like we said he was. Innocent people died for nothing just like we said they would.
When Sam Stone pointed out that there have been humanitarian benefits to the invasion of Iraq, DtC switches to the mantra of "that's not the reason that was given for it".

Let's go over this again:
DtC claims that innocent people died for nothing.
Sam Stone claims that it was not for nothing.
DtC says it's irrelevant because that's not the reason given.

:confused:

What does the issue of whether humanitarian benefits justify the war have to do with whether those benefits exist?

After a futile attempt within the thread to get through DtC's thick skull that (surprise, surprise) he wasn't making any sense, RTFirefly asked that I take it to another thread. So in today's entry for the Lost Cause Award, I'll see if I can get DtC cynic to admit he was wrong.

[elucidator]

Wrong about what? Both Sam and Dio slipped off the track a bit. Sam seems to regard the Iraq fiasco as an honorable endeavor, hence his eagerness to find "humanitarian benefit". Dio, being blessed with the good sense that God gave a goose, sees it as an adventure in realpolitik, a cynical excercise more worthy of a cabal of jackals than a great nation.

In the most nitpicky sense, niether is, in fact, "wrong". Friend Dio merely suspects that Sam is trying to dress up this craven and ignoble international mugging in Grandmas housedress. Ah, but what big eyes has Mr. Wolfowitz, no?

[Ben Hicks]

I find it difficult to understand how we can say with absolute certainty that there have been true humanitarian advances in Iraq when we don't know whether or not the next Government will be any more humane.

[samclem]

luce.

You offer a Perle of wisdom again.

Bless you, my son.

[sailor]

>> What does the issue of whether humanitarian benefits justify the war have to do with whether those benefits exist?

Because you cannot separate both things as they are linked. If a man rapes a girl and then gives her $100 as compensation, should we discuss how good he is for giving her $100 and not mention he is a rapist and giving $100 does not make him any better?

[iampunha]

Truthfully, I am more interested in the future of the people of Iraq than someone on this MB disagreeing with someone else on this MB on if we were justified going (and FTR, my position is "not with the mantra we were force fed"). And right now that future does not look all too much rosier for the efforts of the coalition, unless istara, Collounsbury et al. are being grossly deceived.

[Spoodle]

Hi I am new

I have read all the NK thread.

I have to say I agree with most of what Diogenes the Cynic said in that thread. In my opinion he hasn't been illogical or contradictory at any point.

Bush might not have lied about WMD, maybe he was misled.

The reason for war was WMD. We were told to accept it on faith alone. Faith is belief without evidence. I didn't like this. I couldn't agree to a war when I just had to "hope" it was legitimate. Also I couldn't understand how so many people could could be so pro-war on faith alone.

The government claimed it had evidence of Saddams WMD. We were told we couldn't see this evidence because it might threaten the lives of intelligence operatives.
Now that the war is over can we see the evidence? Apparently not. It has disapeared.

Can anyone give a good reason as to why releasing the evidence would be anything but beneficial to the US government?

Can we assume the government wants to act in its interest and that not doing so in this case proves that it has no evidence?

Liberating the Iraqi people was not the reason for the war. Diogenes the Cynic summed it up well when he said that if it had been given as the reason, Bush would never have got backing...ie that isn't a good enough reason to start a war.

The reason is that there are other countries with worse human rights abuses than Iraq. So the question would have been asked "why choose Iraq?".

So does that fact that the Iraqi people are liberated justify the war? no.

It is the reason which needs justifying NOT the effect. Otherwise Bush might as well announce he is going to nuke Russia and we can base our opinions on this afterwards by seeing what effect it will have.

All the folks who were telling us to "support troops and ask questions later" are now not playing ball.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Welcome, Spoodle! :)

What a great first post! ;)

[elucidator]

Good beat. Easy to dance to. 85.

[SPOOFE]

The reason for war was WMD.
And such a simple-minded viewpoint of a complicated issue is precisely what is wrong with the country. There was no one reason for going to war. WMD's just happened to be the most prominent one, primarily to take advantage of the recent anthrax scares following 9/11.

To say, however, that there was only one reason to go to war is a dishonesty of the same level as that claimed of the reports that said Iraq had WMD.

As for DtC... he seems to see the world like a pool table, in that "good" can only come about if it's announced beforehand. "Liberation in the corner pocket." Again, it's a simple-minded viewpoint, from whom I believe to be a simple-minded person. To say that Iraq under Saddam was not a danger indicates irrationality. To say that there was no good reason for going to war indicates delusions. I fail to see DtC as anything other than a Squeaky Wheel that Gets The Grease.

[imthjckaz]

Well, the Minnesota votes are in, spoodle leads in the great first post category.

[elucidator]

Jesus, SPOOFE, you think there's an Oscar for "fullofshit"?

The threat of WMD's isn't simply the most "prominent" reason, it was the whole damn ball game! The Bushistas pounded on that drum every chance they got, and you damn well know it!

Go ahead! Tell me you really believe that if Fearless Misleader had gone for a war resolution based on a rescue mission he would have had a snowballs chance in Hell. If you are honest to God dumb enough to believe that you can't be trusted to make your own oatmeal.

[samclem]

SPOOFE said To say, however, that there was only one reason to go to war is a dishonesty of the same level as that claimed of the reports that said Iraq had WMD.
luce You lay off SPOOFE, now. He finally admitted that Bush and the Administration LIED about the reason to invade another country.

Good for you, SPOOFE.

[elucidator]

I am abashed. Brother Sam rebukes me, and I accept with humility. Clearly, Brother SPOOFE has seen the light. (Damn! That must have hurt!)

I go now to the river, to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a Chorus of Bitter Virgins, intoning dirges of Woe and Humiliation.

[Denis]

Does anyone else feel like they're reading Hunter S. Thompson when they open one of these "Bush/WMD's, etc." threads?



For the record, list me as one who initially supported the war, found out, and am continuing to find out, that the Bushistas are even worse than the reasons I chose not to vote for them.

I really shouldn't be surprised. I tend to automatically put all politicians on "probation" unless and until they demonstrate to my satisfaction that they aren't lying sacks of shit.

I swear, everytime I trust one of these parasites, er people, I feel like Charlie Brown with the football once the dust has settled.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by elucidator
I go now to the river, to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a Chorus of Bitter Virgins, intoning dirges of Woe and Humiliation. I'm a transplanted Australian, and i should inform you that, if this is to be a true Tasmanian ritual, the aforementioned Bitter Virgins will also need to be close relatives, preferably you sisters.

[elucidator]

My sisters. Mmmmmmm. That could present certain.....problems.

[presidebt]

Originally posted by sailor
Because you cannot separate both things as they are linked. If a man rapes a girl and then gives her $100 as compensation, should we discuss how good he is for giving her $100 and not mention he is a rapist and giving $100 does not make him any better?

Good analogy sailor. I hadn't thought about it quite like that before, but it makes sense to me.

[Weirddave]

Originally posted by Ben Hicks
I find it difficult to understand how we can say with absolute certainty that there have been true humanitarian advances in Iraq when we don't know whether or not the next Government will be any more humane.

True, so naturally we should immediately assume that there aren't/won't be any either. A ten foot :rolleyes: wouldn't be big enough right here.

[AZCowboy]

I've been away from the board awhile (my new job is sucking up all the spare cycles I had plenty of only a month ago). Funny I should happen upon this thread.

Let's see, The Ryan, the epitome of logical discourse (you know, our local absolute moralist now suggesting that the end justifies the means), pitting DtC for debating Sam Stone in a GD thread.

Hmmm. I see I haven't missed much.

Besides the now accepted axiom by the hawks that the threat of SH was "exaggerated". Well, progress comes in small steps.

As for the Lost Cause award, it will be quite awhile before december will give up the title, as his post in the referenced thread attests.

[The Great Unwashed]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
To say, however, that there was only one reason to go to war (i.e. WMDs : TGU) is a dishonesty

It'd be the only one that made the war legal, wouldn't it?

[PatriotX]

The imminent threat to the USA from Iraq's CBW's was what sold the idea to the American public. We had to attack Iraq to prevent a repeat of 9-11.

[Ben Hicks]

True, so naturally we should immediately assume that there aren't/won't be any either. A ten foot :rolleyes: wouldn't be big enough right here.


Weirddave, Weirddave, Weirddave...you've really got to stop following me from thread to thread with your affectionate little driveby's. People will say we're in love.

And that'd annoy me 'cos I think you're a fucking idiot.

I said that it was rash to assume now that we've actually saved the lives of all those little brown people we never cared about until FOX news reminded us they exist until the dust settles and we know the new regime isn't as bad. You, seemingly immersed in your quest to find out whether or not a potato battery will suffice in lieu of a brain when conducting discourse with a rational human being, interpreted my statement to mean that we should assume that there will never be a better government.

I said: "That it was rash to assume at this point in time that there have truly been humanitarian benefits. It really is too soon to tell.

You heard "We should assume that there will never be a humane government in Iraq"

Goddammit man, I've eaten things that are smarter than you. Every time I read one of your posts I picture a old dying hamster, the methusaleh of the rodent world, s-l-o-w-l-y- puttering round on a wheel desperately trying to keep going on its own ever decreasing momentum.

By the way, the last time you drove by purely to insult me I asked you this question


Just out of curiosity, do you have your submit button somehow rigged directly to your prostate? Or is the thrill you get from repeatedly padding your gargantuan post count with shit purely psychological?


Don't bother answering it. Your last post forced my question deep into the realms of the rhetorical.

[Weirddave]

Benny, you really should look into hiring some comedy writers, you might be able to post some insults that are within spitting distance of clever, as it is they're just sad. As it is, you simply waffle on your previous statement: "I said there may not be humane benefits in the future, it's too early to tell". You are quite correct in this assertation, it's one I've been making for quite some time, maybe your nascent brain is starting to function with something aproaching human normality. That dosen't change the fact that the current discussion was about the Iraqi people being better off now, at this particular moment, then they were under SH. Feel free to argue that they were not, but don't change the subject as you tried to do here.

[Weirddave]

origionally posted by me

Feel free to argue that they ARE not. :smack: Sorry, typo.

[The Great Unwashed]

Originally posted by Weirddave
That dosen't change the fact that the current discussion was about the Iraqi people being better off now

Weirddave, I'm not trying to be snipey, but is this true? That the Iraqis are better off now?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I thought the current discussion was whether the war was fought for nothing or for something, or, more precisely, whether Americans were sent to die for nothing. They certainly weren;'t sent to die for the reasons that they were told.

There is no such word as "assertation," btw.

[Weirddave]

"assertion"

;) Spelling nazi! :p :p

[sailor]

Originally posted by Weirddave
That dosen't change the fact that the current discussion was about the Iraqi people being better off now, at this particular moment, then they were under SH. Feel free to argue that they were not, but don't change the subject as you tried to do here. Except that one cannot argue the point out of context. If someone started a thread arguing Africans were better off under colonial rule it would be proper to post saying they lacked the freedom to decide their own destiny. If someone started a thread saying some blacks were better off as slaves than later as free people, while it may be strictly true, some context might be in order.

Given the evidence I have seen I do not think Iraqis are better off but that is not even a major point. whether they are or not, in fact, better off, does not detract from the fact that they have been invaded and occupied. Do you think Americans would consent to be invaded and occupied if they were guaranteed, say, a 10% increase in their incomes? I don't think so. Likewise I think the Iraqis would much prefer the Americans to go away. So, the fact that they may be better off from your point of view does not mean they feel better off. They are making it abundantly clear that they want the Americans out and discussing whether they are better off outside of any context is just an effort to disguise and justify the larger picture.

[Weirddave]

Which is all well and good except it ignores the fact that the last item on he American adjenda is "leave Iraq(hopefully with a stable, peaceful government in place when we do)". If the Shrub thinks he can just occupy Iraq indefinitely, he is badly mistaken and it'll cost him a second term. I am just waiting to see if he can pull off the part in parentases. If the 'pubbies got a half a brain and put the guy who's in charge in Karbala ( Marine Lt. Col. Michael Belcher )in charge of all of Iraq instead of political cronies, it might just get done. I hold little hope for that, however.

Interesting article about Karbala where many people don't want us to leave yet. (http://www.charleston.net/stories/061303/ter_13karbala.shtml)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Of course "stable, peaceful government" means "American puppet government."

What if the Iraqis don't want a democracy? What if the want a monarchy? Is that going to be ok with the US? Why should they even have any say in it?

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by elucidator
In the most nitpicky sense, niether is, in fact, "wrong".
DtC claimed that it was nothing, which it wasn't. Therefore he's wrong.

Ben Hicks
I find it difficult to understand how we can say with absolute certainty that there have been true humanitarian advances in Iraq when we don't know whether or not the next Government will be any more humane.
It would be difficult for it to not be, but even if it isn't, there already have been benefits. But at least you're actually addressing the issue, unlike DtC who simply changed the subject.

sailor
Because you cannot separate both things as they are linked.
The fact that they are linked does not mean that we cannot separate them. There have been benefits, and those benefits exist independently of whether the war was justified.

If a man rapes a girl and then gives her $100 as compensation, should we discuss how good he is for giving her $100 and not mention he is a rapist and giving $100 does not make him any better?
But it was DtC that beought up the issue. It's rather dishonest to claim that there are no benefits, and then when someone points out that there are, to say that whether there are any benfits is irrevelant and we really should be discussing whether it was justified. In your analogy, I wouldn't bring up the $100, but if someone else claimed that he didn't give her any money, I would challenge that, and I would consider the response of "hey, it's not important whether he gave her any money, let's discuss the rape" to be an attempt to weasel out of admitting error.

AZCowboy
Let's see, The Ryan, the epitome of logical discourse
And to see AZCowboy's credentials in judging logical discourse, check out this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179832&perpage=50&pagenumber=1), in which he claims to have refuted three of my points despite not refuting any of them. Not only does he not know how to win an argument in the first place, he can't even tell when he's lost.

(you know, our local absolute moralist now suggesting that the end justifies the means), pitting DtC for debating Sam Stone in a GD thread.
I don't believe that I made any suggestion in that thread that the end justifies the means, and I'm not pitting DtC for debating Sam, I'm pitting him for not debating him, but simply changing the subject instead.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't accept that any of the hypothetical "benefits" you perceive as arising from the attack on Iraq are good enough reasons to kill people or to send US/UK troops to be killed.

Bush killed people for nothing.

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Not a motherfucking thing.


Let me define "nothing." Nothing means "No legitimate reason."

Getting rid of Hussein was, guess what, NOT A LEGITIMATE REASON TO KILL PEOPLE!

It wasn't even a legal fucking reason.

It sure as hell wasn't the reason that he stated before the invasion. We expended tremendous resources and wasted human lives on both sides over a false alarm. If despotism was a good enough reason to invade other countries, presidents wouldn't have to lie about WMDs.

It's irrelevant to me that Hussein was a despot. The world is full of despots. It's not a legitimate reason for a war. Trying to justify the invasion now as being warranted simply for regime change is nothing but back-pedalling, apologist spin, and I'm not having it. You say it's something, I say it's nothing.

[Nomadic_One]

wow im the 4th person from minnesota in this thread.

/me feels special.

.....man i need to get away form IRC a little bit....

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

D the C--

I don't think you should define "nothing" as "No legitimate reason" and I'm not playing semantics here.

I believe that Bush killed people for a REASON-- but just not a legitimate (or publically announced) reason.

I couldn't tell you what his reasons were, but I suspect it had something to do with eliminating a nuisance and arranging the middle-east checkers a little more to the USA's liking.

In the long run, the war may end up helping the USA's interests as well as possibly bettering the lot of some Iraqis.

Of course, these are absolutely NOT legitimate or legal or moral reasons for going to war. So the whole thing still stinks... let's just hope the chucklehead voters can catch a whiff of that evil odor by November of 2004.

[mhendo]

Originally posted by Weirddave
If the Shrub thinks he can just occupy Iraq indefinitely, he is badly mistaken and it'll cost him a second term. Unfortunately, i'm not sure this is true. I really don't think that many Americans care enough about foreign policy (at least when it seems to be "working' for America) to make it the key issue in an election.

I think a far bigger danger to Bush's re-election chances is the tanking economy.

[Weirddave]

mhendo,

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case, if we're still occupying Iraq with no timetable and/or plan for leaving in place and accepted by the Iraqis, I would expect the death toll among our occupying troops to start to climb quickly due to attacks by Iraqi freedom fighters. THAT is the type of thing that will get the attention of the American people.

Hopefully we'll get out of Iraq in a fairly expedient manner AND the economy will torpedo Shrub's second term. I pray to God something does.

[Weirddave]

I meant to say "if we're still occupying Iraq with no timetable and/or plan for leaving in place and accepted by the Iraqis a year from now," Sorry.