Daily Kos

View Story | 53 comments

  •  You said that you thought (none / 0)

    the argument was wrong - granted.

    But you also said that the argument was coherent - or at least that there was a coherent version of it.

    I dispute that.

    I do not think that there exists one single coherent argument, wrong or right, that could in any way present a logical or reasonable way to link the Struggle Against Terrorism with the Invasion of Iraq.

    Not one.

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:49:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  a logical challenge (none / 0)

      well, I think this is wronger than either of you but I can make logical arguments that'll melt ice in alaska (it involves a space heater), so:

      The argument that could be made for the Iraq War is based on it's geographic locate central to the middle east, the home of the strongest anti-american terrorists.  It's a geographical argument.  

      strong infrastructure and fair play

      by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 02:11:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But, see, even that's lame (4.00 / 2)

        Not all the bad guys are in the Middle East. They're in Madrid, they're in Lisbon, and New York, London, Paris, Munich...and a swingles apartment complex in San Diego.

        Can we bomb those places? Hell, no.

        Even bombing Baghdad didn't do much. We killed a lot of innocent people and probably zero terrorists.

        We don't need Patton for this; we need Elliot Ness.

        by hamletta on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:09:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  of course (none / 0)

          the challange was to make an argument, even if it was wrong headed.

          strong infrastructure and fair play

          by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 11:58:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The challenge was to make (none / 0)

            a coherent argument.

            THere simply is none.

            The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

            by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 03:31:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that was coherent (none / 0)

              you don't understand geography?  It's wrong because it's far from the best plan, it's far from efficient, and it's far from achieving the goal.

              But it IS coherent, because it makes sense in terms of coherence... it does not contradict itself.  It's an old military principle of putting your bases close to the source of the action.  

              Plus controlling their oil is a strategic issue, also a coherent reason.  

              If not, define coherence.

              strong infrastructure and fair play

              by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 03:35:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Geography (none / 0)

                has very little to do with terrorist activities.

                Kashmir, Chechnya, Indonesia, Thai, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia...and many other regions have very important, significant ties to and supporters of and participants in terrorist activities, planning, and funding.

                The reason your argument is not coherent is because the action - invading Iraq - has little or no logical connection to the supposed target of that action - terrorists and terrorism.

                Oil is a different matter, but I fail to see the coherence of an argument for stabilizing and/or gaining strategic control over oil supplies that involves having a war on top of them.

                The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:04:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  intellectual excerise (none / 0)

                  disclaimer: as I said to start, I feel it's a stupid strategy in that it wouldn't work... going into Iraq is exactly the wrong way to go, it's a waste of resource in terms of reducing terrorism.

                  So it's sort of a word game or intellectual game I'm playing, I took that as a challenge.  

                  A coherent argument is one that is not self-contradictory, to put it as simple as possible.

                  That is, an argument which is not wrong because of evidence or miscalculation.  For example, the idea that supporting the troops means supporting the war... that's incoherent... you can't support troops by sending them to a war that is a bad idea.  To support the troops you have to judge the value of the war.  The geographic argument is antiquated... you make a good point against it but to my way of seeing it you didn't not show it was incoherent, just ill advised, because you have pointed to other geographic hot spots in addition to this one.

                  Just to be clear, I still stand by my idea of what coherence means... but I also think that invading Iraq is the worst thing we could have done in the "war on terror" for several reasons.

                  strong infrastructure and fair play

                  by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:30:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

View Story | 53 comments