The title is in response to your previous post's title. As long as we are talking about fallacies. It is also a fallacy called "error of fact", since I am out of school and have been for years.
You are trying to say that because he didn't want to destroy some missiles that only go a few Kilometers over the maximum range that he has WMD's? That's like saying someone is a criminal because they jaywalked. Technically correct, but absurd once you put it in the right context.
No one likes to be made a strawman out of.
The purpose of the analogy was to point out that the missiles were only in the slightest breach of the agreement, they were merely a few Kilometers over and there was no real reason to destroy these missiles. I assumed that you were pointing out the fact that Saddam stalled and even, gasp, lied about his intentions to destroy the missiles by the deadline was an excuse to attack. We gave him a deadline, and he abided by it. You can try to use it as a pretext for war, but it's fairly flimsy.
You might then say that it's not just the fact that he is lying, but the fact that he is also in defiance of the UN resolution. Ok, that arguement has some substance, however, it's just hard to justify bombing and killing 1,000's of Iraqi civilians over a few Kilometers of range. Can you explain what difference those few Kilometers would make?
Again, sorry to use any "bad" analogies, but I think that your judgement of Hussein for not wanting to destroy his missiles, which he might need in the next few months, is somewhat ignoring the spirit of the resolutions in favor of the letter.
I also think that your reference to 1998 is again deliberately misleading. Hussein did not throw out the weapons inspectors. They were ordered to leave by the US/UN before the US bombed Iraq. This is the second time that you have deliberately lied.
If you want to ignore his status as a UN criminal who has brought on himself military action and sanctions that is your choice. But don't pretend that others, including myself will turn a blind eye to UN resolution after resolution to the contrary.
This fallacy is called "straw man". You may have heard of it.
I suggest that you take these absolutist high ideals then, and do some research. Criminals looking for parole, and others found guilty of crimes, must prove their reform or wilingness to reform in order to stave off the worst in the sentance mandated by the judge.
Quite frankly, I would be happy if you merely were able to keep from lying a third time. As far as high ideals goes, you are leaving out part of this analogy. If the judge were an unrepentant criminal, would you feel that he had any right to impose violence on others? I am merely saying that we need to stop being hypocrites and reenforcing the violence before we have a right to judge.
You can quote simplistic absolutes all day long. You are certainly invited to do so. But if you want to be shown as reasonable, you perchance should show more ahem reason.
This is elementary morality. If we cannot live up to this, then we have no right to talk about the crimes of others. I'm not saying that we need to be perfect, but we need to at least attempt to live up to the standards that we hold other countries accountable for.
The means do not justify the ends. The last country we invaded is Afghanistan. Perhaps we should try to install a democracy there first.
South Africa, for one, voluntarily decided for disarmament at some pressure from the UN. They invited inspectors as verification of their claims. Saddam has shown quite the opposite of these tacts. Seven years after inspectors were showing his non-compliance, Saddam kicked them out. He only agreed at gun-point (note that sanctions did nothing) to disarm and allow in inspectors.
Yes, and our government supported the South African government to the very end. Do you trust our government to do the right thing in Iraq?
You again said that Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors. He did not, and this is a deliberate lie. The inspectors were removed before the bombing by the US, which happened without any UN sanctions.
I suppose that is why it worked for other countries. They were showing more cooperation under much less pressure. Its called being pro-active to establish trust, by asking for verification from a third party. Saddam's rhetoric even up to this past week has been the need to "keep his dignity" by defying the wishes of the inspectors and the world community.
What do you expect? We are threatening to attack no matter what. And then when he cooperates, we are saying that he is not cooperating enough. The reports by Hans Blix have been very positive, especially after Friday.
North Korea, for one, thinks we are. There is no evidence that its been ruled out. Iraq is simularly on the stage of national politics and negotiations. However, Iraq has shown numerous violations of proper national conduct in trying to take over neighboring nations. Their strict punishments for that, and defiance of resolutions since then have happened over a period of over a decade so they are most definately in the more advanced stages.
So, the fact that "Iraq has shown numerous violations of proper national conduct" has put them further along the path to war with the US than North Korea, who has threatened to use these weapons against the US? You actually are more concerned with "proper national conduct" than a country which has threatened to use their nuclear arsenal against us? Again, that last statement was an assumption, however, I can only make that assumption given your lack of proper outrage that we are not also attacking North Korea.
NK just recently decided to defy its treaties and UN pressure. Its beginning on that same dance, and it will probably take years before we see how it works out. But the pressure is on, and the threat of war is looming there too. But they seem more like they are goading on the US then anything else. Forestalling war to those asking for it is usually a good thing.
I disagree, I would say that actually creating weapons and threatening to use them is a bigger act of defiance than "violations of proper national conduct. This is the fourth lie you have told, since, in effect, North Korea has been in defiance of international treaties for the period of time that is has been manufacturing their nuclear weapons. This period started in 1985, when the CIA first caught wind that North Korea had a secret nuclear reactor. In July 1991, NK signed a non-proliferation treaty. Therefore North Korea has been violating their treaties for roughly the same amount of time as Iraq. Furthermore, we have proof that they are in egregious violation of these treaties.
Thats a rather different statement then, "Never the less it pulls plenty fodder for wolves ready to put on the sheeps clothing of anti-war to use for their `enlightened' purposes." Perhaps your strong tendancies towards absolutes and extremes has colored your judgement from seeing much else.
Then what was the purpose of your statement? I assume that you were trying to imply that this what I was doing. Otherwise, why would you say it? What does it have to do with the current discussion?
Statements that compare Iraq to NK, as if we should fight NK, tend to make me wonder about how genuine some one is in their anti-war position. People, even nations (ahem what is going on in the Ivory Coast, Mr Chirac?) are suspect in their values when they hold such duplicity of intention.
I am very genuine. I think the hypocrisy of our government is blinding. It needs to be pointed out at every opportunity. The reason I am pointing out NK is to show the hypocrisy of our government, not to promote war. I am merely showing the logical extension of their reasoning for attacking Iraq. They say they are after countries with WMD's, well North Korea is a known violator, thus showing a discrpancy.
Indeed, stuffing your ears and shouting louder is always a useful tact. But it does not go far towards persuation. I hope you are interested in persuation rather then simply trying to dominate, intimidate, goad and loath. I'd be much more interested in hearing more persuasive arguements from you.
Again, this statement is another fallacy. It's called an ad hominem attack, where you attack the person rather their arguement. You are also combining it with a fair amount of selective reading, where you are throwing out my better arguements and only paying attention to those that you can make look bad. This is similar to a straw man, which you have also used, along with quite a bit of outright deception. Can you explain why the arguements are not persausive?
[ Parent ]