Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner553 · 03-15-2003, 08:53 AM

I don�t get it: Why do you simplistically assume the lines are drawn between the religious and NON-religious????

It is true, a large number of Americans are backing Bush because they believe if he is a true Christian he cannot be lying to them, must be leading them on policies God wants, etc, etc.

BUT THIS IGNORES:

A large number of religious leaders � including the Pope and most Protestants (ok-- with the exception of Baptists/ Evangelicals) do NOT support Bush with a unilateral war by the US in Iraq:

Jimmy Carter �a very sincere religious man whom I greatly admire � has come out against the war (breaking a tradition of silence by former Presidents on current policy to do so.) Jimmy Carter has also been on record stating he disagrees with just about every policy Bush has made!!. Does this make Jimmy Carter anti-religious in your book � or just not a fundamentalist???

Here is an article, quoting Carter saying: "As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html

Back to your theory that only religious people support Bush�s policies. There are atheists who are for a war in Iraq. Christopher Hitchens is one example. He thinks a war will somehow liberate the Iraqis. He is of course concerned with Bush�s reputation for promising everything up front � delivering nothing after he doesn�t need them anymore.
For example: Last, I heard there is $0 in this year�s US budget for Afghanistan aid (excluding military). Still he thinks it is worth the risk.

I suspect your source is Fox news or the like. Let me help you out:

A few themes:

(1) Indeed, Bush/Cheney and friends do plan on making big profits off the war:

Quote:

this is from Arianne Huffington, once a conservative..

In the years prior to being Vice President of the US] "Cheney's company chose to do business with Saddam after the rape of Kuwait�And in 2000, just months before pocketing his $34 million Halliburton retirement package and joining the GOP ticket, Cheney was lobbying for an end to U.N. sanctions against Saddam.

When, during the 2000 campaign, Cheney was asked about his company's Iraqi escapades, he flat out denied them. [ie lied] But the truth remains: When it came to making a buck, Cheney apparently had no qualms about doing business with [Sadam, or] "Hitler revisited."

�. Of course, American businessmen are nothing if not flexible. So his former cronies at Halliburton are now at the head of the line of companies expected to reap the estimated $2 billion it will take to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure following Saddam's ouster.

..
In the meantime, Halliburton, among many other Pentagon contracts, has a lucrative 10-year deal to provide food services to the Army that comes with no lid on potential costs. Lenin once scoffed that "a capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman."
'''

Clearly, our national interest runs a distant second when pitted against the rapacious desires of special interests and the politicians they buy with massive campaign contributions. Oil and gas companies donated $26.7 million to Bush and his fellow Republicans during the 2000 election and another $18 million in 2002.

So does it really come as any surprise that Cheney's staff held secret meetings in October with executives from Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips -- and, yes, Halliburton -- to discuss who would get what in a post-Saddam Iraq?

As they say, to the victors -- and the big buck donors -- go the sp-oil-s.
Here's my bottom line: at a time of war, at what point does subverting our national security in the name of profitability turn from ugly business into high treason?

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/021903.html

Quote:

RUMSFELD'S PENTAGON LOOKING AT CHENEY'S HALLIBURTON FOR POST-WAR IRAQ CLEANUP. (IT ALREADY HAS GVT. OIL CONTRACT FOR IRAQ) "The American government is on the verge of awarding construction contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild Iraq once Saddam Hussein is deposed. Halliburton, one of the companies in the running for the deals, was headed by the US vice-president Dick Cheney between 1995 and 2000. Halliburton has already been awarded a lucrative contract, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to resurrect the Iraqi oilfields if there is a war

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...911943,00.html

Quote:

U.S., BRIT OIL COMPANIES WOULD WIN BIG TIME AFTER IRAQ WAR "American and British oil companies would be long-term beneficiaries of a successful military offensive ... Industry officials say Hussein's ouster would help level the playing field for U.S. and British firms that have been shut out of Iraq as Baghdad has negotiated with rivals from other countries -- notably France, Russia and China, three leading opponents of war.

A post-Hussein Iraq also would be a bonanza for the U.S.-dominated oil-services industry, which is in the business of rehabilitating damaged infrastructure, reversing declining output from aging fields and providing essential support work to drillers and explorers. A leader in that industry is Halliburton Co., where Dick Cheney was chief executive before becoming vice president. ... Experts say it would make sense for U.S. and British firms to get a significant share of any repair and development jobs in Iraq, because they are such major players in the global industry with arguably the best technology and professional expertise. ... And with the door open to companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group of London, the losers could be the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies that have either signed contracts or negotiated preliminary agreements to drill in Iraq. ...

The company with perhaps the most at stake is Paris-based TotalFinaElf ... Presuming a U.S.-led military victory, industry officials and experts expect the postwar work to proceed in two phases. ... For the first year or two, companies that provide repair, rehabilitation, engineering and construction services -- including Halliburton, Schlumberger Ltd., Baker Hughes Inc. and BJ Services Co. -- would receive an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion in contracts from an interim government. ... "We know where the best reserves are in the world. We covet the opportunity to go get those someday," said Archie Dunham, chairman of ConocoPhillips in Houston. ... "In the last three or four years, most of the world's oil companies have either visited Iraq or opened offices or had representatives there," he said. 'They have no choice. It's the world's cheapest oil. They have to be there. 3/12/03

http://www.latimes.com

================================================== =================

II. Then there are the repeated lies and deception.

Quote:

U.N. NUKE INSPECTOR SAYS U.S. USED FORGED DOCUMENTS TO MAKE CASE AGAINST IRAQ "A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions. Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council. ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar7.html

Quote:

VISIT TO IRAQI DRONE FACTORY PROVIDES FARCE, NOT FEAR "To hear senior Bush administration officials tell it, Iraq's latest pilotless drone has the potential to be one of Saddam Hussein's deadliest weapons, able to deliver terrifying payloads of chemical and biological warfare agents across Iraq's borders to Israel or other neighboring states. It could even, they say, be broken down and smuggled into the United States for use in terrorist attacks. But viewed up close today by reporters hastened by Iraqi officials to the Ibn Firnas weapons plant outside Baghdad, the vehicle the Iraqis have code-named RPV-30A, for remotely piloted vehicle, looked more like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of aeronautical design than anything that could threaten Iraq's foes. To the layman's eye, the public unveiling of the Iraqi prototype seemed to lend the crisis over Iraq's weapons an aura less of deadly threat than of farce.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/in...st/13DRON.html

Quote:

42% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE SADDAM ATTACKED US ON 9/11, AND BUSH WORKED HARD IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE TO STRESS THAT FALSE CONNECTION " It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria)...But citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot.

By stressing that totem, Mr. Bush tried to alchemize American anger at Al Qaeda into support for smashing Saddam� in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda..

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09DOWD.html

Quote:

"WE HAVE NOT SEEN SUCH SYSTEMATIC DISTORION OF INTELLIGENCE...SINCE THE WAR IN VIETNAM " "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam," wrote John Brady Kiesling, a twenty-year veteran of the US Foreign Service in his letter of resignation last week to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Kiesling, who was political counselor in US embassies throughout the Mideast, added that "until this Administration, it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my President, I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...scheer20030304

Quote:

U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS DON'T AGREE WITH POWELL, AND NEITHER DOES BLIX "Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation wasn't likely to win over anyone not already on his side. He ignored the crucial fact that in the last several days (in Sunday's New York Times and yesterday's briefing of UN journalists) Hans Blix has denied key components of Powell's claims. Blix said UNMOVIC has seen "no evidence" of mobile biological weapons labs, has "no persuasive indications" of Iraq-Al Qaeda links, no evidence of Iraq hiding and moving WMD material either outside or inside Iraq, none of Iraq sending scientists out of the country, none on Iraqi intelligence agents posing as scientists, none on UNMOVIC conversations being monitored and none on UNMOVIC being penetrated. Furthemorer, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush Administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with Al Qaeda, US intelligence officials told the New York Times, "We just don't think it's there." http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...217&s=p_bennis

III. The arrogance of Bush in destroying the UN to get what he wants, regardless of the consequences

Quote:

BUSH RUNS ROUGHSHOD OVER U.N., AND OTHER COUNTRIES WILL REMEMBER "Questions about sincerity and motives apply in spades to Mr Bush and his advisers, in whom Mr Blair invests far too much trust. The US president's arrogant claim to need nobody's permission to attack Iraq (or anybody else) is deeply damaging to the system of collective UN security. So, too, is US undermining of the inspectors. Most objectionable, perhaps, is the cynical manner in which the US is trying to buy UN votes from poorer, weaker countries. This discredits and besmirches that same UN process that Mr Blair is trying, through persuasion not purse strings, to turn his way. " 3.12.03
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/st...912340,00.html

Quote:

DEMS ON BOTH SIDES OF WAR ISSUE CHARGE BUSH HAS LEFT U.S. MORE VULNERABLE TO TERRORISM DUE TO MISGUIDED FOREIGN POLICY "Leading Democrats remain at odds over whether the United States should go to war against Iraq without the United Nations' approval. But Democrats on both sides of that divide have found consensus by arguing in increasingly vigorous terms that Bush's approach to foreign policy has damaged U.S. prestige in the world and alienated other countries in a way that could leave the United States more vulnerable in the war against terrorism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar7.html

Quote:

FBI WARNS OF POSSIBLE HATE CRIMES BY U.S. POPULATION IF WAR BEGINS "A war with Iraq or a terrorist attack against American interests could prompt a wave of hate crimes against Arab-Americans, Muslims and other minorities in the United States, the F.B.I. said today. The F.B.I. said the September 2001 hijackings led to a "spike" in attacks against Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans and members of Indian, Sikh and other minorities. " 3.13.03 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/national/13ATTA.html

Quote:

WITH THE BUSH DEFICIT, SECURITY IS A MYTH, BUT SHOULD IT BE EVEN IF WE HAD THE CASH ? "Last week the mayors were in town. From Connecticut and Minnesota and Massachusetts they came, prepared to lobby Congress and the White House and the press about their concern, in this age of bone-scraping budget cuts, for their cities. They wanted to talk about the poor. They wanted to talk about schools. Most of all, on the eve of war, they wanted to talk about money for homeland security, which they aren't getting. One of them -- the mayor of Minnetonka, Minn. -- said she's been asked whether the new money that Congress recently promised for firefighters, police officers and other "first responders" was "enough." Her reply was acidic: 'We received zero last year, so more of zero is still zero, right

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar11.html

Quote:

TERRORIST STRIKES AGAINST U.S. "CERTAINLY WILL OCCUR" IN TIME OF WAR " A war with Iraq now will be vastly different from the one 12 years ago. So, too, is the likelihood of retaliatory strikes. ... To prepare for the threat, the US is moving swiftly to take precautions at home and abroad ... "[Retaliatory strikes] certainly will occur, ... What we can expect to see are more medium- and small-scale attacks." ... The threats come from many directions. Terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, may try to take advantage of whatever lapses might occur while the US is engaged in a full-scale war - both abroad and at home. And there is an abundance of sympathy worldwide for what many Arabs and Muslims believe is an attack on Islam. ... And even though intelligence officials and terror experts don't think Osama bin Laden has aligned himself with Mr. Hussein, he has long trumpeted the plight of Iraqi children and women, suffering from US-led sanctions. ... A war with Iraq, experts say, provides fertile ground for the rejuvenation of Al Qaeda's network ... "For [bin Laden] to have any relevance, he must demonstrate the veracity of his claims," says Bruce Hoffman, an expert on terror at the Rand Corp. 'Here is an ideal opportunity for him to make good.' " 3.13.03

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/in...st/13DRON.html

IV. We are not going to be helping the Iraqis. We are likely to plunge them into civil war: People have talked frankly to Kurds. Why do you assume this is impossible? There are Kurds living in the US� I had some ex-neighbors who were Kurds. They despised Bush Jr. and Sr.

Quote:

KURDS IN IRAQ GET READY FOR WAR WITH U.S. BACKED TURKEY "For the first time since the modernization program began in 1997, the pesh merga are being deployed to defend against an invasion of their territory, a U.S.-protected haven in the northern stretches of Iraq where the Kurds have enjoyed self-rule since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But the pesh merga are not deploying against the forces of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to the south. Rather, units are taking up posts in towns and villages along the border with Turkey, preparing to repel Turkish troops if they try to occupy the Kurdish zone during the expected U.S.-led war against Iraq.The Turks are their historic enemies, having repressed Kurdish nationalism inside Turkey. The Kurds believe Turkey is now poised to do the same inside Iraq. The Bush administration appears to be a partner in the Turkish plan. " 3.07.03 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html

Quote:

The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again. The U.S. was so desperate to bribe Turkey into our coalition that it was willing to allow tens of thousands of Turkish troops into Iraq's Kurdish areas. And we still seem ready to acquiesce in this. The Turks, having broken the back of Kurdish resistance within their borders, plan to expand their efforts and "disarm" Iraq's Kurds to block their control of oil fields.
How can we allow this? Aside from the sheer immorality of presiding over what is in effect a Turkish invasion of peaceful Iraqi Kurdistan, such an incursion risks warfare between Kurds and Turks that could spill into Turkey as well.
"The Turkish government has been far worse to the Kurds than Saddam has," one well-educated Kurd said bitterly. His comment stunned me, for Turkey never used poison gas or conducted mass executions as Saddam did, but one Kurd after another said the same thing. They described past Turkish military techniques like raping wives in front of husbands, or assembling villagers to watch men being tied and dragged to their death behind tanks, and they noted that Turkey had been less tolerant of Kurdish language and culture than Saddam.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14KRIS.html03
[/quote

Quote:

BUSH USES KURDS TO PROMOTE WAR BUT PLANS TO BETRAY THEM LIKE HIS FATHER DID --ZAHEDI "History is about to record another Kurdish disaster," wrote Bakhtiar Zahedi, a member of Jalal Talabani's Kurdish faction, one of the two major factions that control northern Iraq. "The new plan is intended to betray the Kurds yet again," Zahedi continued. "The Kissinger school - of fraud and deception - is alive and well. President George Bush is invoking the victims of Halabja [referring to a chemical weapons attack on the village of Halabja, in northern Iraq, in 1988] in order to win the support of public opinion. But he is not committing himself to protect the citizens of Kurdistan - as though the Kurdish people and Iraqi people did not suffer enough in the episode of the first George Bush."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...&itemNo=267734

================================================== =======================

This really is the tip of the iceberg.
A good source to read political news summaries from newspapers all over the world is Bushwatch.com

Whatever your OLD news sources -- I'd recommend you toss them out for some decent ones.

Sojourner

Happy Wonderer · 03-15-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ProNihil

One thing I have noticed is that it is popular nowadays to say that the Iraqui people have no vested interest in the war against the worldview and indeed the world-philosophy of the so-called infidels, i.e. those who do not subscribe to the tenants of Islam.

It makes me sick to my stomach when I think about innocent civilians being slaughtered by American bombs, but it also makes me sick when I think about what freedoms and such a pro-islamic state would suppress were it to rule the currently democratic country of the Uninted States of America.

Some of you infidels out there have a seething hatred of Christianity, but I'm wondering where the seething hatred of Islam is?

Just a few notes, a lot of people have made good points. Here are a few things that I think need to be emphasized:

Iraq is not an Islamic country. No matter what you think of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq is nothing like it. Until the gulf war it was considered to be the most secular country in the region, which made the war against it fairly ironic. Post war, Saddam made efforts to appear somewhat Islamic (the Koran written in his blood, supposedly and junk like that) but he is actually the leader of a secular political group: the
Baath party . Most of the people who have tried to make Iraq an Islamic republic are -- not to put too fine of a point on it -- dead.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We don't even have forged evidence that there was an involvement. I think we have gotten a bit silly about this, what WMDs did Iraq supply to the terrorists? Box cutters?

Islam is a complex religion. I read a news wire report a few days ago that GWB was surprised that there were two sects in Islam (actually there are many more) and that the Sunnis and Sufis didn't like each other very much. With this level of understanding it is no surprise that we make stupid decisions.

It is a dangerous fantasy to think that we can force the middle east to become a western-supporting democracy. Although there are no opinion polls (for obvious reasons), it is likely that a majority of people in repressive middle east countries such as Saudi Arabia would like to overthrow their leaders -- and replace their government with an Islamic Republic. I really wonder what we expect of the population at large -- after throwing over their US-supported repressive regime they will look to the US as a model of democracy? Are they suddenly going to realize that Israel is God's annointed country and that it is a good thing for them to be crushing Palestanians under their tanks? That the oil under their lands exists to benefit the West?

History is against us in the region. I'm getting too prolix, but we (as the west, especially Britain and the US) have a very poor record as far as supporting human rights in the Middle East.

HW

ProNihil · 03-15-2003, 11:18 AM

As I will be very busy for the next few days, I don't think I will have time to reply point by point to alot of the above posts. However, I would like to clarify that when I was talking about the use of reason and logic, I was attempting to say that it would be neat for someone like me, who is just begenning to learn critical thinking, to see an actual breakdown (like some of you did above) of either my argument or a breakdown of Dubya's speeches.

I guess I'm kind of thinking along the lines of:

G.W. - "blah blah blah blah"

Infidel - "blah blah blah blah is a logical fallacy that should not be taken seriously as an argument because it is an 'affirmation of the consequent' and provides only 'anecdotal evidence.'"

G.W. - "duh duh duh duh"

Infidel - "duh duh duh duh is an Ad hoc explanation for these reasons..."

I should probably also take the time to apologise for not constructing a worthwhile thread starter. I am not typically that incoherent in my thought process, but due to the fact that this morning I counted 10 empty ice beer cans and know I had aprox. four rum and cokes before that, (yea, i'm feeling like a champ today

) it was the best I could do given my inebriated circumstances.

Anyway, thanks for the good posts, and I am taking my time to work through them. Check back soon.

Loren Pechtel · 03-15-2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by ProNihil
I have read so many anti-war threads on these forums that I am begenning to think that all people of atheist proclivities think that G. Dubya is evil.

However, I have not seen a post which relies on reason and logic to dispute his claims that war is the best choice.

Note that these are two separate issues.

I think Bush is misguided at best, more likely evil. However, I support the war. It has nothing to do with Bush, I felt we should have gone back years ago when it became apparent that Saddam wasn't about to comply with the terms of the settlement of Desert Storm.

Monkeybot · 03-15-2003, 11:51 AM

Nicely said, Happy Wonderer.

I cannot in good conscience support Bush's war on Iraq for a few reasons, and I'll try to briefly outline why.

I am still skeptical of Bush's apparent claim that Hussein and al-Qaeda are related. al-Qaeda is opposed to all secular leaders, including those in the Middle East. Guess what Hussein is? A largely secular leader. Now, I obviously don't know for certain that Hussein and al-Qaeda aren't connected. However, given their historical animosity, I don't think my skepticism is wholly unjustified. If Bush wants to convince me that al-Qaeda and Hussein are in bed together, he's going to need to present a lot more than the scanty evidence we've been offered so far.

Why am I such a hardliner for this evidence? Because the decision to kill innocent civilians should not be made lightly. I know that many people will argue that we'll deliberately minimize civilian causalties. We have specially targeted bombs. We'll be as careful as possible. And that may well be true. But the fact remains that some innocents are going to die. And if I as an American citizen am going to be asked to support those killings, I need a DAMN good reason to do so.

Moreover, I have a REALLY hard time swallowing the "Americans-as-liberators-of-the-poor-Iraqi-people" line, considering we are in bed with the repressive, incompetent, and fundamentalist regime in Saudi Arabia. Hey, speaking of which, didn't quite of the few of the 9/11 hijackers come from Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we going after this regime first? Or North Korea, which has had military skirmishes with two of our closest allies in East Asia, South Korea and Japan?

I went to see a lecture by Thomas Friedman a few weeks ago, and he made a very good point. He essentially said that going into Iraq is like being handed a mystery envelope. Inside that envelope is one of two possibilities:

1.) Jackpot. You've hit, as he put it, the Middle Eastern equivalent of post-WWII Germany. Just remove the dictator and presto, you've got a hardworking, cohesive populace. Pump in some money and a little support and you've got an ally and a rising player in the world economy. In other words, in this scenario, Iraq is the way it is because Saddam is the way he is. Remove Saddam and you change the country.

2.) Not-so-jackpot. You've hit the Middle Eastern Yugoslavia. (Again, his analogy). Numerous ethnic and tribal factions squabbling for control, civil wars and uprisings threatening to rend the country apart, requiring an iron fist -- a Tito, if you will -- to hold them all together. In this scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is the way it is. Remove Saddam, and you become him.

Friedman is not wholly anti-war himself, but he expressed grave doubts about the Bush administration's ability to handle the situation.

Personally, I think the Bush team can aptly be termed evil, or at the very least, morally lacking, because he appears not to consider these things very deeply. They bungle and botch our relations with our closest allies, bullying and bribing them into submission, saying they will simply ignore them at will. (I was particularly disgusted with the "Old Europe" jibe from Rummy.) They rehash the same tired old non-evidence, repeat the same tired old line about Iraq being connectd to 9/11, but say nothing of the very real costs and consequences of the war. They claim Iraq is a serious threat, but dismiss North Korea as a "regional" problem. (Although given Bush's limited diplomatic talents, I'm almost glad they're not getting too hands-on with NK.

)

There may possibly be a good argument for war with Iraq. But it is certainly not coming from the Bush team.

Viti · 03-15-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

BTW- The people of Iraq do not have a chance to voice their opinions of an open forum such as this one. Their views are suppressed. I urge you infidels out there to really think about this. If they express the desire to change the current establishment, they are in danger of torture and death. Don't take your freedoms lightly!!! They are a hairs-bredth away from being lawfully taken from you due to popular vote. That vote I might add, will be based on the views of people who have been coddled and tricked into believing something false because they lacked critical thinking ability as well as the freedom of speech that we take for granted. I myself would be in violation of law, if I was an Iraqui citizen writing this right now. I would be in serious danger of torture and death, as well as the members of my family.

I cannot come up with any logical line of thought that demonstrates blowing up a people and their homeland is a good way to free them from opression

Sojourner553 · 03-15-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea
I cannot come up with any logical line of thought that demonstrates blowing up a people and their homeland is a good way to free them from opression

CNN talked to a person who spent several months talking to Iraqis both in Iraq and abroad.

Many (although not all) stated they would be happy to see Saddam go. But they feared far more if he would be replaced with someone worse, or whether their country would be bombed, their friends and families killed, their economy devasted from the war or future wars (with tribal infighting, etc)

Turn the argument around to a US citizen.

Askhim/her if a villain--say a Timothy McVeigh were hiding in HIS/HER state how many of them would agree to have their state destroyed (with questionable reparations) plus risk the lives of themselves and their families/friends?

Sojourner

Happy Wonderer · 03-15-2003, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ProNihil
As I will be very busy for the next few days, I don't think I will have time to reply point by point to alot of the above posts. However, I would like to clarify that when I was talking about the use of reason and logic, I was attempting to say that it would be neat for someone like me, who is just begenning to learn critical thinking, to see an actual breakdown (like some of you did above) of either my argument or a breakdown of Dubya's speeches.

First I want to say that this was a fine topic starter!

I think that you may be looking for too much from logic. The following two statements are both logically correct but incompatible:

Quote:

Our goal is to preserve American lives. Saddam Hussein's terrorist capabilities are a threat to American lives, therefore in order to save American lives we should attack and eliminate him.

Quote:

Our goal is to preserve American lives. Saddam Hussein is not a threat to American safety, therefore we should not risk American lives in order to attack and eliminate him.

There is nothing logically wrong with either of them. The statements can be evaluated in terms of facts, morality, international law, etc, but as far as logic is concerned both are equally true.

HW

Sojourner553 · 03-15-2003, 01:56 PM

Quote:

per pronihil:

G.W. - "blah blah blah blah"

Infidel - "blah blah blah blah is a logical fallacy that should not be taken seriously as an argument because it is an 'affirmation of the consequent' and provides only 'anecdotal evidence.'"

I think your entire construct is illogical: for it presumes that only infidels are against GW.

Following this logic, is then Jimmy Carter an infidel???

Perhaps it would help if you also defined your terms.

(Not to mention, narrow your scope to discuss either the war, Bush's slaughter of the economy, environment, citizen rights, or the like)

Sojourner

Vorkosigan · 03-15-2003, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Previous post:

Uh, that's exactly what the US did in WWII to Japan and Germany. In Japan MacArthur was military governor for about 5 years. In Germany, due to multiple occupation zones it was a tad more complicated, but military DICTATORSHIP was the immediate result of Allied victory; the Bundesrepublic came a bit later. In BOTH countries 'democracy' was forced upon the the locals after things stabilized under a military occupation.

Cheers!

Germany and Japan both attacked us. Iraq has done nothing to us, and is not a major threat to anyone at the moment. This isn't WWII, and Hussein is a garden-variety dictator, not bent on ruling large swathes of the earth.

Vorkosigan

03-15-2003, 11:44 AM	#14
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Re: How do we "know" that G.W. Bush is a bad man??? Originally posted by ProNihil I have read so many anti-war threads on these forums that I am begenning to think that all people of atheist proclivities think that G. Dubya is evil. However, I have not seen a post which relies on reason and logic to dispute his claims that war is the best choice. Note that these are two separate issues. I think Bush is misguided at best, more likely evil. However, I support the war. It has nothing to do with Bush, I felt we should have gone back years ago when it became apparent that Saddam wasn't about to comply with the terms of the settlement of Desert Storm.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2003, 11:18 AM	#13
ProNihil Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 228	As I will be very busy for the next few days, I don't think I will have time to reply point by point to alot of the above posts. However, I would like to clarify that when I was talking about the use of reason and logic, I was attempting to say that it would be neat for someone like me, who is just begenning to learn critical thinking, to see an actual breakdown (like some of you did above) of either my argument or a breakdown of Dubya's speeches. I guess I'm kind of thinking along the lines of: G.W. - "blah blah blah blah" Infidel - "blah blah blah blah is a logical fallacy that should not be taken seriously as an argument because it is an 'affirmation of the consequent' and provides only 'anecdotal evidence.'" G.W. - "duh duh duh duh" Infidel - "duh duh duh duh is an Ad hoc explanation for these reasons..." I should probably also take the time to apologise for not constructing a worthwhile thread starter. I am not typically that incoherent in my thought process, but due to the fact that this morning I counted 10 empty ice beer cans and know I had aprox. four rum and cokes before that, (yea, i'm feeling like a champ today ) it was the best I could do given my inebriated circumstances. Anyway, thanks for the good posts, and I am taking my time to work through them. Check back soon.

03-15-2003, 11:51 AM	#15
Monkeybot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: North Carolina Posts: 8,102	Nicely said, Happy Wonderer. I cannot in good conscience support Bush's war on Iraq for a few reasons, and I'll try to briefly outline why. I am still skeptical of Bush's apparent claim that Hussein and al-Qaeda are related. al-Qaeda is opposed to all secular leaders, including those in the Middle East. Guess what Hussein is? A largely secular leader. Now, I obviously don't know for certain that Hussein and al-Qaeda aren't connected. However, given their historical animosity, I don't think my skepticism is wholly unjustified. If Bush wants to convince me that al-Qaeda and Hussein are in bed together, he's going to need to present a lot more than the scanty evidence we've been offered so far. Why am I such a hardliner for this evidence? Because the decision to kill innocent civilians should not be made lightly. I know that many people will argue that we'll deliberately minimize civilian causalties. We have specially targeted bombs. We'll be as careful as possible. And that may well be true. But the fact remains that some innocents are going to die. And if I as an American citizen am going to be asked to support those killings, I need a DAMN good reason to do so. Moreover, I have a REALLY hard time swallowing the "Americans-as-liberators-of-the-poor-Iraqi-people" line, considering we are in bed with the repressive, incompetent, and fundamentalist regime in Saudi Arabia. Hey, speaking of which, didn't quite of the few of the 9/11 hijackers come from Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we going after this regime first? Or North Korea, which has had military skirmishes with two of our closest allies in East Asia, South Korea and Japan? I went to see a lecture by Thomas Friedman a few weeks ago, and he made a very good point. He essentially said that going into Iraq is like being handed a mystery envelope. Inside that envelope is one of two possibilities: 1.) Jackpot. You've hit, as he put it, the Middle Eastern equivalent of post-WWII Germany. Just remove the dictator and presto, you've got a hardworking, cohesive populace. Pump in some money and a little support and you've got an ally and a rising player in the world economy. In other words, in this scenario, Iraq is the way it is because Saddam is the way he is. Remove Saddam and you change the country. 2.) Not-so-jackpot. You've hit the Middle Eastern Yugoslavia. (Again, his analogy). Numerous ethnic and tribal factions squabbling for control, civil wars and uprisings threatening to rend the country apart, requiring an iron fist -- a Tito, if you will -- to hold them all together. In this scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is the way it is. Remove Saddam, and you become him. Friedman is not wholly anti-war himself, but he expressed grave doubts about the Bush administration's ability to handle the situation. Personally, I think the Bush team can aptly be termed evil, or at the very least, morally lacking, because he appears not to consider these things very deeply. They bungle and botch our relations with our closest allies, bullying and bribing them into submission, saying they will simply ignore them at will. (I was particularly disgusted with the "Old Europe" jibe from Rummy.) They rehash the same tired old non-evidence, repeat the same tired old line about Iraq being connectd to 9/11, but say nothing of the very real costs and consequences of the war. They claim Iraq is a serious threat, but dismiss North Korea as a "regional" problem. (Although given Bush's limited diplomatic talents, I'm almost glad they're not getting too hands-on with NK. ) There may possibly be a good argument for war with Iraq. But it is certainly not coming from the Bush team.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.