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.
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.
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?
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.
>> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does anyone else feel like they’re reading Hunter S. Thompson when they open one of these “Bush/WMD’s, etc.” threads?
[/aside]
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.
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.
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.
