Can anyone really argue that statement ?
It’s really not that difficult. It’s simply that the facts on the ground are in flux and not permanent, and they do not comprise everything that comes to bear on the situation.
As I said in my large post…how do you prove how many lives will be saved because Hussein is no longer in power; how do you prove how many people would be killed if Hussein or his sons came into possession of WMD at some point in the future; how do you prove the long term effects of a democracy in the Middle East (assuming, of course, that one successfully emerges)…etc., etc., etc.
These things are not facts, and they can’t be proven as facts, but they are very definitely important considerations in assessing whether or not one is to support the war.
And is this thought a comfort to you as you look at the evidence of the slaughtered, the wounded and the tortured in Iraq??
What might have happened is merely a matter for speculation. What is happening now, however, is something that every American could take action on - if they would just stop their flag-waving and car magnet buying for long enough to look at the grim reality.
SA: *It’s simply that the facts on the ground are in flux and not permanent, and they do not comprise everything that comes to bear on the situation. […]
These things are not facts, and they can’t be proven as facts, but they are very definitely important considerations in assessing whether or not one is to support the war.*
Fair enough, but it concerns me that you seem to accord them significantly more importance than things that are facts. Such as that Hussein was not routinely murdering thousands of Iraqis per week (a number that can only be arrived at by including, e.g., all the Iraqi casualties of the Iran/Iraq war meaninglessly averaged out over Hussein’s whole rule). Such as that Hussein and his sons did not have WMD or a likely prospect of getting any. Etc., etc., etc.
Vague hypotheticals may well deserve some attention when it comes to estimating future outcomes, but I don’t think it makes sense to concentrate on them more than the actual facts.
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the facts may not support optimism, but the vague hypotheticals do, so you’re optimistic. I don’t see how you can consider that a realistic assessment.
Oh, there are plenty who would argue with it. I’ve seen it argued here that supporters of the war are bloodthirsty bigots reflexively wanting to kill “brown-skinned” people to get revenge and retribution for 9/11. That we don’t care what the rest of the world thinks, we want the U.S. to be the bully of the world and make everyone else toe the line. That we are stupid dumb-asses who don’t have any idea of the realities of the region and/or the entire world, etc., etc.
Most of the posters to this board appear to think that those of us who favor the war are mouth-breathing troglodytes barely able to think well enough to feed ourselves and procreate. I don’t recall anyone saying, “Oh, you silly warmongers, you’re just so optimistic and upbeat about this war…and you know, that’s really where you’re going wrong here.”
The USA is acting like a bully in the world’s playground. Perhaps you could show us some evidence that your quote [above] isn’t the reality?
I never said he murdered thousands of Iraqis a week. I said his policies and the corruption of his regime resulted in thousands of deaths a week in addtion to those killed by his direct order.
Sorry, but your “vague hypotheticals” are simply likely conclusions to me.
I fear we are beginning to talk in circles. As I said, I do not regard my estimation of the situation in Iraq and its eventual outcome to be made up of mere “vague hypotheticals.” Many of the things I’m pleased about are facts (fewer Iraqi deaths, both now and in the future; no doubt of no WMD; no future threat from Hussein and his sons; opportunity for self-determination and happiness for millions and millions of people who were previously oppressed; etc.), but just like you point to in my case, you and those who agree with you are essentially ignoring them and claiming they have little weight while you put your significance on daily facts and statistics that I give little weight to.
We are looking at the same situation and deciding which elements are the most consequential based on our own assessment of the situation. Your assessment is one of doom and gloom…mine is of increased safety for the U.S. and the Middle East region, and of opportunity and freedom for Iraqi citizens themselves.
Again, your side is negative; mine is positive. (See how it keeps boiling down to this?)
Okay, guys, life beckons…I’ve said all I can say, I can’t says no more.
I’m outta here.
Cheers.
Stunning. Simply stunning.
That depends on what the meaning of “fact” is. Let us enumerate briefly:
Something “in the future” does not qualify as fact. “Now” disregards the Lancet estimate, using the best available methods, that over 100,000 more Iraqis are dead because of our war (or let us call it your war, shall we?) than before.
The hell? Your “factual” position now is that we went to war to be sure there weren’t any WMD’s, not Bush’s claimed certainty that there were? We no longer doubt, that’s true - but it didn’t take a war to do that, it only took allowing the inspections to be completed. The war’s deaths and havoc and ramifications were unnecessary, and can be laid in large part at the feet of its supporters.
True enough there, but there was no present threat either. You also blithely ignore the threat from the next generation of leaders there, whoever that may eventually be. There is no factual basis, simply hope, that yet another brutal dictatorship will emerge, and no factual basis, I might add, for believing that Saddam was fundamentally different from hundreds of others.
Where?
There’s more? Out with it, lad.
It most certainly is more comforting to daydream than to learn. The “daily facts” are the facts. What you post is speculative at best and outright false at worst.
How’s the Kool-Aid taste? Your side is fantasizing irresponsibly, “ours” is called, even by yours, “the reality-based community”.
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.
luci, dammit!!! :smack: Lemme get outta here!
Ahem…so, you’re saying that because I think many fewer Iraqi citizens are being tortured and killed (and children therefore orphaned, btw) now than under Hussein – and that more and more lives will be saved in the future – that to consider this as a positive aspect in judging the war is stunning to you?
Stunning…simply stunning…but not altogether a surprise. You lefties will always ignore 50 Iraqi lives saved by us as long as you can seethe over the loss of one that you can blame on us.
Okay, that’s it, I’m gone. Let the cacophony resume…
The true optimist scoffs such limitations. He has the bold, creative imagination to see things not as they are, but as they will be when they are fucked up beyond all recognition.
Otherwise, the tactical genius of Custer would have gone begging, the Donner party would have no place in our history, and GeeDubya denied his anointed destiny as a Leader of Men. We are preserved from such woeful consequence only by the willingness of adventurous minds to speculate beyond mere facts, undeterred by mundane realities.
Thus are new trails blazed, new roads cut to destinations where no one in their right mind wants to go.
See what I mean?
To the OP: I’ve been contemplating this post or something like it since the election.
This is not our country anymore. Get used to it. We are now in the opposition. We are a minority. We are tolerated, but our voices can be ignored as long as they are not united.
Not only has the right wing in this country moved more right-wards over the past 10 or so years, but it has managed to drag the center with it. The politicization of terror based on 9/11 only sealed this. Compare the most liberal Democrats in government to the most conservative Republicans. There isn’t even a comparison in extremist viewpoints between, let’s say John Kerry (that’s what they told us in the campaign, innit?) and Jim DeMint or Tom Coburn.
If we don’t manage to do something about this rightward movement, the leftward drift of the past 100 years will start to be erased. We are going to lose the war on keeping evolution in schools. On keeping religion out of government. On keeping abortion legal. On guaranteed Social Security. On our nation as a member of an international community, committed to human rights. Get used to it. The Republicans have been organized and focused and their efforts are paying off with every election.
It seems the majority of Americans don’t care. They are unwilling or unable to detect deceit or incompetence and there is nobody out there holding the people in power responsible. The ordinary American hasn’t seen his life affected that much by Abu Ghraib or the deficit. But people will wake up. It takes a dedicated and vocal opposition to do that. Political reawakenings happen all the time; remember the Gingrich led Republicans in 1994. Too many of the left-wing leaders in this country are too willing to bend over backwards to make deals and reach out in good faith to leaders of the opposite side. This will not reverse the trend; it will lead to a continuance of a slow attrition.
We need to take short-term losses for long-term gains. We can convince most people that this country is not being run correctly. We can convince them that they are in fact seeing noticeable losses through current leadership. But this is not going to come through political moderation and bridge-building; it will come through the power of ideology. The sooner we can start to assemble and vocalize that cohesive ideology, the sooner we can turn this country around.
It don’t mean shit that you “think” so - what are the facts on the ground, the facts you dismiss, in favor of calling your own wishful thinking “facts”? Or, to coin a phrase, “Cite?”
And quite understandably.
Just what I was gonna say, Elvis. It is easy to write off thousands of deaths as a ‘positive aspect’ as long as you believe govt. propaganda … oh, and as long as your precious life isn’t among those in jeopardy. The poor Artist may be starving, [sob] but at least he’s in no danger of being shot or bombed by USA soldiers.
Well,I was composing a post on this very subject, but Elvis and Zombies beat me to it. I commend SA for finally at least laying his cards on the table, and he shouldn’t feel the need to explain himself any further, at least to me. I feel I must comment, however; more on the general mindset he describes than the poster himself.
I find it bizarre in the extreme that SA, or the people he claims to represent, seem so completely unable to put themselves in the place of an Iraqi faced with the effects of the US occupation, and why think that our wonderful intentions to provide Iraq with a democracy that they clearly couldn’t be arsed to install themselves, actually matter in the face of the more tangible actions of the US so far.
Personally, I have no trouble understanding that from many Iraqis’ viewpoints, it doesn’t matter what the ultimate intentions of the US may be; the US (and its few allies in this matter) are directly responsible for great suffering in in their country, and without any particular accountability to those who have suffered.
That this suffereing may be less than some arbitrarily defined potential that Saddam or his successors might have committed means nothing. The US, whether intentionally or not, has abused and murdered thousands of civilians, is solely responsible for these acts, and this will be resented, in Iraq and other countries, for a very long time.
Do I beleive this because I’m just a natural pessimist? I don’t think so. The US, in the late '50s, ‘helped’ installed a puppet government in Iraq’s next-door neighbor. It took couple of decades for the chickens to come home to roost, but boy, did they ever. I’m sure those responsible for that little fiasco were just as optimistic that everything would work out fine for Iran, and just, sorry to say, as deluded.
It keeps boiling down to that because it’s a good distinction meme.
That is, it has high fitness, but low truth value.
“I’d like to get a loan on my house.”
“What?”
“I said, I’d like to get a loan on my house.”
“The one up the street, that’s on fire?”
“Only part of it is on fire.”
“Oh, okay… but there’s a tornado brewing right next to your house.”
“I’m confident about that, no worries.”
“Um… okay… but, well sir, explosions keep erupting out of your house and we
don’t think it’s structurally sound anymore. In fact we’re not even sure if you own it anymore as a heavily armed group has taken up resedence and begun running gun battles with the neighbors and police.”
“What, are you a pessimist or something? My on-fire, tornado ravaged, exploding, captured-by-gunmen-house is just fine! Owning a house is a noble goal, and since it’s a noble goal, it’ll work out. The goal of having a house means I believed it could be a nice house, so, even though it’s on fire, it will be a nice house. It may even become a paradise on Earth. I have faith.”
“Well, you see sir, your, ~cough~ optimism, is certainly refreshing but…”
“So I get the loan?”
I agree with this. Both tendencies don’t exactly produce truthful perceptions, though. Your pro-war induced “optimism” should not be considered any more correct than the inherent “pessimism” of someone who is anti-war. We, being the rational creatures that we are, should recognize our biases and try to account for them when evaluating the data at hand. That’s why facts and statistics have a lot more value than opinions and speculation. If the optimist has more facts on their side, then he lends more credence to his position.