SALON:STRAW MEN OF IRAQ: Ten Pro-War Fallacies

[kpete]

Some snippets from Salon Article's:Ten Pro-War Fallacies

by Peter Daou
NEW THE STRAW MEN OF IRAQ: Ten Pro-War Fallacies
Here, in my view, are ten of the leading pro-war fallacies...

2. AFTER 9/11, WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE THREAT TO MATERIALIZE BEFORE TAKING ACTION
This is often used as a counterpoint to the notion that Bush overhyped the rationale for war. It's a vacuous argument whose logic implies we should invade a half-dozen African countries as well as North Korea, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Every day that goes by that Bush allows these threats to "materialize," he is failing in his duties to protect the American public and should be impeached. And if the pushback is that North Korea and others are being dealt with diplomatically, isn't that exactly the approach this argument purports to refute?

4. TALK OF WITHDRAWAL "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE" AND "EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY"
To borrow Samuel Johnson's immortal words, this argument, like (false) patriotism, is the "last refuge of scoundrels." Implying that opposing views are treasonous is the surest way to stifle dissent.

5. A WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ WOULD HAVE CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES
For those who counter with the Pottery Barn rule (we broke it we should fix it), the question is: What's the statute of limitations on that rule? What if we can't fix what's broken in Iraq? Is there a point at which we acknowledge we can't fix it and stop trying? Is our attempt to 'fix' Iraq breaking it even further? Also, are there other things we've broken that we're obliged to fix before we try to fix Iraq? Is there a reason our limited resources should go to fixing Iraq and not saving poor, sick, and hungry children in America?

7. WE'RE FIGHTING THEM 'THERE' SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE
A corollary to this argument is that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" and we can't defeat the terrorists if we don't fight them there. That's like walking into someone's house, breaking an expensive vase, and claiming you have to move in because your job is to clean up broken vases and as long as vases are being broken, you have to be there to clean up the mess. Arguments don't get more circular than this...

10. ISN'T IT A GOOD THING THAT SADDAM IS GONE?
Isn't it terrible that we've done nothing to stop the slaughter in Darfur?
Isn't it terrible that Iraq is still a killing field and now a terrorist breeding ground?
Isn't it terrible that a nuclear armed Kim Jong Il is still in power?
Isn't it terrible that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have saved millions of starving children instead of killing tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis?

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=5a38ddbe-5581-43bb-bbde-cb2111fa048b

[bigscott]

1. you mean

there is oil in Darfur????:grr:

[Presstitutes]

2. Good one

.

[Viking12]

3. Thanks for posting. Very nice rebuttal to the RW Wurlitzer. n/t

[Roland99]

4. Kick

[Ioo]

5. A Must Read!

[CBHagman]

6. Deadly illusions.

One of the worst is the claim that "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" -- as though there were a finite number of would-be attackers, as though what is going on in Iraq weren't inflaming people even more, as though 9/11 had a damned thing to do with Iraq, etc.

No elected leader -- or, for that matter, anyone -- can afford to think that a war overseas automatically guarantees there will be no terrorist attacks in one's homeland. Just ask the people of Bali, Madrid, and London.