Iraq

[McBell]

Hi Mestemia
do you infer the whole invasion was illegal or are you referring to certain incidents? I understand the Illegal war argument( but don't want to get into all that again) but i don't think anyone can really justify illegal acts on the ground can they?.

The reasons for illegally invading Iraq have all turned out to be at best manufactured and at worst flat out lies.
STM that Bush was hell bent on invading Iraq.
STM that the actual reasons for invading Iraq have yet to be officially declared/released.

Many people have attempted to use the fact that the Iraq Invasion is immoral/unethical/illegal to justify the illegalities/immoral/unethical actions of troops. (I am meaning troops as in all of them, but as in specific individuals who have done wrong)

Note:
STM = Seems To Me

the following is not directed at you personally but i have a query.

I find it interesting that people can and do say they think the war was illegal but still support the troops, would they say they support the police if they thought they were doing something illegal?

If the police are doing something illegal as a whole, then I would not be for them.
BUt we seldom (if ever) see that.
It is one or two bad cops who give them all a bad name.

As for the war in Iraq, the troops (group) there are merely a tool for the government which contains troops (individuals) who do things they shouldn't.

It is most definately a gray area topic and STM it should be handled on a case by case basis.

or yes i think the CIA does a great job even though they may be acting illegally? I wonder how that works really?

Plausible Deniability?

would i be out of order if i thought some people only say that because they feel they should? or that they would face criticism to say i don't support the troops because i believe they are acting illegally. would it feel unpatriotic?

For some people, I do not doubt that you have hit the nail on the head.
For others, you are way off the mark.

would it not be a brave man or woman to stand up and say NO i dont support one iota of the whole thing because i sincerely believe its all ilegal?

Yes it would be a brave man to so.
But then said brave man could very well turn into a coward/criminal based upon how he deals with said belief.

 

[jacobweymouth]

do actions that help create more terrorists and help spread their operations further abroad honestly help combat terrorism?

Yes, but let's talk about you.

So you're suggesting that we not fight them? What then? Diplomacy? Their goals have already been stated, how can we compromise?

Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quieda until after we've invaded.

By going into Iraq, which was a state sponsor of terrorism and we are fighting a war on terrorism after all, we overthew that sponsor, and provided a battlefield to fight Al Quieda. It had nothing to do with it until afterwards, but Al Quieda is not the only terrorist organization in the world.

 

[Storm]

Yes,

How?!

So you're suggesting that we not fight them? What then? Diplomacy? Their goals have already been stated, how can we compromise?

I don't know about Bill, but I'm demanding we fight them intelligently. At a minimum, that means actually fighting them, as opposed to random bystanders like Saddam.

By going into Iraq, which was a state sponsor of terrorism and we are fighting a war on terrorism after all, we overthew that sponsor, and provided a battlefield to fight Al Quieda. It had nothing to do with it until afterwards, but Al Quieda is not the only terrorist organization in the world.

That would be good point, except for the fact that Iraq wasn't a state sponsor of terrorism. Saddam was an evil, sadistic b*****d, but he didn't support terrorists.

ETA: How was church?

 

[jacobweymouth]

How?!

We haven't had any attacks on Home soil in 7 years.

Those in London and Madrid were aimed at those nations that were considered weaker links -it worked in Spain, failed in Britain.

I don't know about Bill, but I'm demanding we fight them intelligently. At a minimum, that means actually fighting them, as opposed to random bystanders like Saddam.

That would be good point, except for the fact that Iraq wasn't a state sponsor of terrorism. Saddam was an evil, sadistic b*****d, but he didn't support terrorists.

Ah, but he did:

Terrorism Havens: Iraq - Council on Foreign Relations

ETA: How was church?

The man who preached today should keep his day job. The pastor's good, but he was out today.

 

[Storm]

We haven't had any attacks on Home soil in 7 years.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.
source: Wiki

​

EDIT: As I recall, we hadn't had a a foreign attack on US soil for 7 years, either. It means nothing.

Ah, but he did:

Terrorism Havens: Iraq - Council on Foreign Relations

That was hardly convincing. Certainly less so than Richard Clarke.

The man who preached today should keep his day job. The pastor's good, but he was out today.

That sucks. We had a lovely sermon, but the music was atrocious.

 

[pray4me]

Hi Mestemia
do you infer the whole invasion was illegal or are you referring to certain incidents? I understand the Illegal war argument( but don't want to get into all that again) but i don't think anyone can really justify illegal acts on the ground can they?.

the following is not directed at you personally but i have a query.

I find it interesting that people can and do say they think the war was illegal but still support the troops, would they say they support the police if they thought they were doing something illegal? or yes i think the CIA does a great job even though they may be acting illegally? I wonder how that works really?


would i be out of order if i thought some people only say that because they feel they should? or that they would face criticism to say i don't support the troops because i believe they are acting illegally. would it feel unpatriotic?

would it not be a brave man or woman to stand up and say NO i dont support one iota of the whole thing because i sincerely beleive its all ilegal?

This may have already been answered but I'm going to answer it anyway.
The reason to support the troops even if they aren't fighting a legitimate war is because it is not the troops who decide who to fight. It is not the troops who decide the manuvers. It is the head of the military, the president who decides these things and those below him, the generals and those below them. The troops are fighting for their country. If they did not obey orders then they would not be in the military. It is the leaders who are at fault not the troops.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.
source: Wiki

​

EDIT: As I recall, we hadn't had a a foreign attack on US soil for 7 years, either. It means nothing.

No, the question itself was a fallacy.

It assumed that it was our fault terrorists are the way they are.

I was saying that our response has been effective.

That was hardly convincing. Certainly less so than Richard Clarke.

You see, you have the advantage of having made up your mind that Iraq wasn't a state sponsor of terrorism. The Council on Foreign Reliations is certainly not an uncredible source. There is evidence that Saddam Hussein was providing funds to Palastinian suicide bombers.

That sucks. We had a lovely sermon, but the music was atrocious.

What kind of music do you have? We have traditional hymns, and they're beautiful -mostly.

 

[Storm]

No, the question itself was a fallacy.

I asked you to explain your position. That's not a fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.

It assumed that it was our fault terrorists are the way they are.

No, it didn't.

I was saying that our response has been effective.

Now, there I disagree.

You see, you have the advantage of having made up your mind that Iraq wasn't a state sponsor of terrorism.

You are quite wrong. I'm the first to admit my lack of expertise on the matter of Middle Eastern politics, which is why I defer to credible experts.

The Council on Foreign Reliations is certainly not an uncredible source.

I've never heard of a private organiation by that name, and it wasn't a government website. I have no idea who those people are. I did poke around the website, but I didn't find any statement of credentials. I'm not saying they're bogus, but they could be anyone. Fair enough?

There is evidence that Saddam Hussein was providing funds to Palastinian suicide bombers.

I had heard that, but as far as I'm aware we're not really sure.

What kind of music do you have? We have traditional hymns, and they're beautiful -mostly.

We have a lot. Each service has three instrumental pieces, usually classical on the piano or organ, two choir numbers that could be anything, and three hymns with the congregation. One of today's hymns was really good, but the rest was terrible. I was severely disappointed.

 

[jacobweymouth]

I asked you to explain your position. That's not a fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.

No, it didn't.

I was referring to Father Heathen's question on terrorism.

Now, there I disagree.

How has it failed?

You are quite wrong. I'm the first to admit my lack of expertise on the matter of Middle Eastern politics, which is why I defer to credible experts.

I've never heard of a private organiation by that name, and it wasn't a government website. I have no idea who those people are. I did poke around the website, but I didn't find any statement of credentials. I'm not saying they're bogus, but they could be anyone. Fair enough?

Fair enough. Here's their about page, for what it's worth.

Think Tank - Council on Foreign Relations

I had heard that, but as far as I'm aware we're not really sure.

Here are some news stories

Palestinians Get Saddam Charity Checks, Family Of Suicide Bomber Among Those Given $10,000 By His Charity - CBS News

FOXNews.com - Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers - Opinion

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Palestinians get Saddam funds

Saddam funds fail to buy Gaza hearts | World news | The Guardian

We have a lot. Each service has three instrumental pieces, usually classical on the piano or organ, two choir numbers that could be anything, and three hymns with the congregation. One of today's hymns was really good, but the rest was terrible. I was severely disappointed.

I like our musical services, except that the song leader insists on pronouncing "hymnal" "him-in-al" -every time. As if it's still funny after doezens of times. He's a good guy, but...

 

[Storm]

I was referring to Father Heathen's question on terrorism.

Well, that makes a little more sense. It's definitely a loaded question, but I don't see a fallacy. Which one do you think it is?

How has it failed?

We hit the wrong target. The fact that we hit A target doesn't mean it was a success.

Fair enough. Here's their about page, for what it's worth.

Think Tank - Council on Foreign Relations

Eh, thanks for trying, but it doesn't contain much real information.

Here are some news stories

I haven't read them yet, but I will.

I like our musical services, except that the song leader insists on pronouncing "hymnal" "him-in-al" -every time. As if it's still funny after doezens of times. He's a good guy, but...

Yeah, that would get annoying.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Well, that makes a little more sense. It's definitely a loaded question, but I don't see a fallacy.

It's a fallacy because it assumes that we are the cause of terrorism in the world -that we exacerbated it.

Which one do you think it is?

I don't quite understand.

We hit the wrong target. The fact that we hit A target doesn't mean it was a success.

But that's just it -I'm saying we didn't hit the wrong target.

Eh, thanks for trying, but it doesn't contain much real information.

Watching the news I've seen them cited. I think they're fairly well-known.

 

[Storm]

It's a fallacy because it assumes that we are the cause of terrorism in the world -that we exacerbated it.

I don't quite understand.

OK. That's arguably fallacious, meaning false or incorrect, but it's not a formal fallacy, like ad hom or post hoc.

Also, I think you're misinterpreting FH's question. I don't see that assumption at all. It does imply that our strategy has been counterproductive (with which you will also probably disagree), but it doesn't blame us for terrorism.

But that's just it -I'm saying we didn't hit the wrong target.

I don't see either of us budging on this issue.

Watching the news I've seen them cited. I think they're fairly well-known.

I've heard the phrase, but always assumed they were referring a government body.

 

[jacobweymouth]

OK. That's arguably fallacious, meaning false or incorrect, but it's not a formal fallacy, like ad hom or post hoc.

Yes, but a fallacy nonetheless.

Also, I think you're misinterpreting FH's question. I don't see that assumption at all. It does imply that our strategy has been counterproductive (with which you will also probably disagree), but it doesn't blame us for terrorism.

It accuses us of exacerbating it.

I don't see either of us budging on this issue.

nope.

 

[McBell]

It assumed that it was our fault terrorists are the way they are.

Before I get into this one I want to ask what question this statement applies to.

 

[Storm]

Before I get into this one I want to ask what question this statement applies to.

do actions that help create more terrorists and help spread their operations further abroad honestly help combat terrorism?

Yes,

How?!

We haven't had any attacks on Home soil in 7 years.

Those in London and Madrid were aimed at those nations that were considered weaker links -it worked in Spain, failed in Britain.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.
source: Wiki

​

EDIT: As I recall, we hadn't had a a foreign attack on US soil for 7 years, either. It means nothing.

Have at it.

 

[McBell]

do actions that help create more terrorists and help spread their operations further abroad honestly help combat terrorism?

yes,

how?!

we haven't had any attacks on home soil in 7 years.

Those in london and madrid were aimed at those nations that were considered weaker links -it worked in spain, failed in britain.

So you are saying that as long as terrorism is kept from US soil it matters not how many innocent bystanders we drag into the war?

 

[McBell]

Have at it.

I have to agree with you.
At best it is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Though I was thinking it to be more like a diversion strawman.

 

[kai]

The reasons for illegally invading Iraq have all turned out to be at best manufactured and at worst flat out lies.
STM that Bush was hell bent on invading Iraq.
STM that the actual reasons for invading Iraq have yet to be officially declared/released.

Many people have attempted to use the fact that the Iraq Invasion is immoral/unethical/illegal to justify the illegalities/immoral/unethical actions of troops. (I am meaning troops as in all of them, but as in specific individuals who have done wrong)

Note:
STM = Seems To Me


If the police are doing something illegal as a whole, then I would not be for them.
BUt we seldom (if ever) see that.
It is one or two bad cops who give them all a bad name.

As for the war in Iraq, the troops (group) there are merely a tool for the government which contains troops (individuals) who do things they shouldn't.

It is most definately a gray area topic and STM it should be handled on a case by case basis.


Plausible Deniability?


For some people, I do not doubt that you have hit the nail on the head.
For others, you are way off the mark.


Yes it would be a brave man to so.
But then said brave man could very well turn into a coward/criminal based upon how he deals with said belief.

thanks

 

[kai]

This may have already been answered but I'm going to answer it anyway.
The reason to support the troops even if they aren't fighting a legitimate war is because it is not the troops who decide who to fight. It is not the troops who decide the manuvers. It is the head of the military, the president who decides these things and those below him, the generals and those below them. The troops are fighting for their country. If they did not obey orders then they would not be in the military. It is the leaders who are at fault not the troops.

Hi pray4me

ok just let me throw in a couple of points

todays soldiers are not automatons they do know the arguments, my opinion is roughly that overall if the government says its legal and 6 years later there still telling me its legal then its legal. i view it in similar to the campaign in Kossovo.


i dont want to get into a protracted argument but until someone in authority ( not sure who)makes a decision to declare it ilegal, it is legal

 

[kai]

So you are saying that as long as terrorism is kept from US soil it matters not how many innocent bystanders we drag into the war?

innocent bystanders always matter but unless we are talking about cerrtain events then it all depends who dragged them into it. If we are talking about Alqaeda then they are mostly non Iraqis who traveled there just to kill western troops, i think the responsibility of thier actions lies with them.

In fact when talking of Alqaeda i think you have to remember their aims and policies.and the fact that their operations in Iraq were/are relatively small but given large coverage.


I would say the role of Alqaeda in Iraq though particularly brutal was over stated in order to somehow fulfil the need to justify the war