|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2004 : 20:36:39
|
Alright, so I just had about 15-20 relatives come over, and towards the end of the night I sat down and start talking to my uncle about college, and of course he somehow manages to bring up the war in Iraq (just to note, he is a Bush fanatic). I really tried to get out of such a converstation, but he wouldn't give it up, so I gave in and became more of a silent observer. What I was mostly listening for was his fallicies:
3 Straw Men
5 Appeals to Ignorance
1 Slippery Slope (I think..)
More than 10 Appeals to Authority
Unfortunately, I had a hard enough time keeping track of which ones he commited, I can't remember his exact arguments in which he committed these. Anyways, here were his major claims:
1.) The report released by the U.S. commision said that there was an Iraqi-Alcada connection, but everyone is just misquoting it.
2.) Iraq had the ability to make nukes, but weren't using it
3.) Weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq post war (the example he said was that there were shell casings that would mix two chemicals together that would make a chemical weapon when fired).
4.) Russians, French, and one other country were trying to stop the U.S. from invading Iraq because they had contracts for building defenses for Iraq (I think he specifically said tunnels)
5.) Bush did not go against the U.N. because he was following an agreement (1415 I think? or maybe 1514? or 1145? haha, don't remember) from the Gulf War (a note here, specifically saying that he did not go against the U.N., not whether he was justified or not)
Anyways, those are the ones I remember. I have not looked into too many articles on the wars, mostly what I get is from the news and that is what I consider hearsay, so I did not try to debunk any of his claims. So I was forced to play the silent observer. However, if I ever get into such a converstation again, I would like to be armed. I was wondering if anyone had any information on these claims?
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 04:53:24 [Permalink]
|
The only matter important here is that George Bush and those who follow his orders have violated international law. It makes no difference what alliances that Saddam Hussein had, nor what 'weapons programs' he had.
The United States is a signatory to the United Nations. Article 6 Clause 2 of the Constitution makes treaties the law of the land.
The only type of attack that the UN Charter allows is an attack to prevent an imminent threat. Then the matter is to be turned over to the Security Council. There is no attacking without an imminent threat and removing the government and installing a puppet regime.
As far as resolutions, Resolution 678 ended with the end of the war, and Resolution 1441 put the matter in the hands of the Security Council.
http://www.cesr.org/iraq/docs/tearinguptherules.pdf
http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles.html
What they said about WMD:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 07:38:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Alright, so I just had about 15-20 relatives come over, and towards the end of the night I sat down and start talking to my uncle about college, and of course he somehow manages to bring up the war in Iraq (just to note, he is a Bush fanatic). I really tried to get out of such a converstation, but he wouldn't give it up, so I gave in and became more of a silent observer. What I was mostly listening for was his fallicies:
3 Straw Men
5 Appeals to Ignorance
1 Slippery Slope (I think..)
More than 10 Appeals to Authority
Unfortunately, I had a hard enough time keeping track of which ones he commited, I can't remember his exact arguments in which he committed these. Anyways, here were his major claims:
1.) The report released by the U.S. commision said that there was an Iraqi-Alcada connection, but everyone is just misquoting it.
2.) Iraq had the ability to make nukes, but weren't using it
3.) Weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq post war (the example he said was that there were shell casings that would mix two chemicals together that would make a chemical weapon when fired).
4.) Russians, French, and one other country were trying to stop the U.S. from invading Iraq because they had contracts for building defenses for Iraq (I think he specifically said tunnels)
5.) Bush did not go against the U.N. because he was following an agreement (1415 I think? or maybe 1514? or 1145? haha, don't remember) from the Gulf War (a note here, specifically saying that he did not go against the U.N., not whether he was justified or not)
Lemme respond.
1) The report that the US commission released said that Hussein sent an envoy in the early 1990's to hear what message Osama Bin Laden was putting out. Given that OBL and Al-Queda tried assassinating Hussein on multiple occasions, the claims by Cheney insisting a link is not only premature, but likely to be false.
2) Iraq pre-1991 war was working on developing a nuclear program. They had suspended all of their efforts and dismantled their program. They lacked fissile material. The document which the administration relyed on to say Hussein was seeking yellowcake from Nigeria was shown to be a forgery. The only centrifuge they had for the program was dug up post-invasion right where the scientist buried it in 1991. This was not an active program per UNSCOM.
3) Only one of these were recovered 13 months after the invasion. The military is investigating it's origin. That one was detonated impropery. It contained a two stage warhead to produce sarin gas in flight. Many other shells claimed to contain chemical weapons were shown to be false positives. The field test kits are too sensitive and are known to produce many false positives.
4) The Russians, French, Germans, and other nations objected to the US invading due to Husseins new complaince to 1441 and other resolutions. UNSCOM was saying that they had unprecedented access to suspected weapons sites. They mentioned in their report (pre-invasion) that they did not believe Iraq had active WMD programs and that bookkeeping errors likely accounted for unaccounted for stocks.
5) Bush claimed he would try to get an authorization to go to war under 1441. He dropped this after it was clear he wouldn't get it. He claimed justification under UN rules whereby a nation could strike another when under imminent threat. No such threat existed even per this administration's own admission.
Some other claims your Uncle might bring up.
"Iraq was an invasion to remove a violent dictator" -- remind him of the "If he will not disarm, we will disarm him" mantra the Bush administration was repeating pre-invasion.
"The Iraqis are better off now" -- True, but the ends never justify the means. He has seriously damaged foreign relations by acting like a bully.
"He had WMD's" -- UNSCOM disagrees with him.
"Hussein was a murdering bastard" -- No question about it, but does that give the US the right to invade a sovreign nation in violation of international law when there are so many other murdering bastards in charge of other countries? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 07:59:47 [Permalink]
|
| This ain't over, and there is no reason to think that Iraqis are any better off now. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 08:39:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[quote]
"Iraq was an invasion to remove a violent dictator" -- remind him of the "If he will not disarm, we will disarm him" mantra the Bush administration was repeating pre-invasion.
"The Iraqis are better off now" -- True, but the ends never justify the means. He has seriously damaged foreign relations by acting like a bully.
"He had WMD's" -- UNSCOM disagrees with him.
"Hussein was a murdering bastard" -- No question about it, but does that give the US the right to invade a sovreign nation in violation of international law when there are so many other murdering bastards in charge of other countries?
These arguments-- about how horrible Hussein was-- frequently turn up now. In fact, one could be very cynical and argue that it was all part of a 'bait-and-switch' pulled off by the administration. Am I the only one to think that the administration's rhetoric shifted right as the war began from "Find WMD's" to "Liberate Iraq"?
In any case, the arguments ring hollow. After all, if just being a brutal dictator is enough to justify an invasion, shouldn't we go into much of Africa, the Middle East and perhaps Central/South America where conditions are often pretty rotten? And isn't this sort of intervention very much foreign to tranditional "Conservative" philosophy? Didn't Clinton get lots of flack from the Right for trying to rid various Eastern European states of horrible dictators? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:28:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Given that OBL and Al-Queda tried assassinating Hussein on multiple occasions,
We have any reliable evidence on that? I'd love to use that particular line on some die-hard Bush-ies I'm arguing with, but I'd like it to be atleast minimally evidenced... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 07:44:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Given that OBL and Al-Queda tried assassinating Hussein on multiple occasions,
We have any reliable evidence on that? I'd love to use that particular line on some die-hard Bush-ies I'm arguing with, but I'd like it to be atleast minimally evidenced...
"bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in 1994 or 1995, at the encouragement of Hassan Turabi, then a radical Islamic party leader in Sudan; Turabi was arrested and accused of plotting a coup in 2001."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7336-2004Jul22?language=printer
The CIA had intelligence which indicated that Hussein and Al Qaeda hated one another. OBL felt Hussein was a corrupt Arab leader that needed to be toppled. (Page 21-25 with source cites)
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
