Re: What has America lost?

"Don Swayser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

> In a false dichotomy (also called a false dilemma, either or, black or
> white, the missing middle) you are presented with two choices, when in
> fact there are more than two choices.  If one choice is discredited,
> then the reader is forced to accept the other choice.  But this is not
> an adequate argument, the choice favored must be supported by evidence.

Good so far.

> Now, I've looked at the situation in Iraq. What was the middle of the
> road solution.

Well, seeing as the American people were sold
this war on the basis of "we cannot wait for the
smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom
cloud" (and yes, I have to type that instead of
"imminent threat" so the idiots will keep closed the
pieholes proclaiming that one does not mean the
other), and THAT threat certainly did not exist in
March, 2003, the solution was to continue with
the sanctions, U.N. inspections and enforcing the
no-fly zones. Now YOU might say that supports
Saddam; I say it provides the checks and balances
to preserve regional stability.

I'm glad to see Saddam gone, but he now needs
to be killed or captured. Iraqis aren't going to feel
100% secure in the "new Iraq" as long as he
remains at large.

> Iraq is a sovereign nation, and Hussein was in control of
> that state. He had ignored the damage that the embargo was causing his
> people for a decade. He did not suffer, he got richer. He ignored pleas
> to moderate his bestial treatment of his own people made by
> international organizations presumably. He invaded his neighbors, always
> seeking their oil production facilities. He was planning on building
> offensive ballistic missiles.

The point remains, Bush didn't use ANY of the
reasons you give to explain to the American people
why we were going to war with Iraq (which was a
war we could undertake "at a time of our choosing,"
Mr. Bush said). Why?  Because the American people
wouldn't have supported *him* if those were his
reasons. On the other hand, by manufacturing this
WMD and al Qaeda threat, he got support at home -- 
and got shoved away from the table by the rest of
the world, as everyone else knew it was a fabrication.
Prior to March, 2003, there weren't any Iraqis waiting
for an opportunity to sneak into the U.S. to lay
mushroom clouds; now, during the occupation, I'm
not so sure.

> Now, explain to me how that is a false
> dichotomy to present it as an either or situation. He either remained in
> power or he had to be removed by force. That means someone who opposed
> his removal was in favor of some other course of action, or was in favor
> of maintaining the status quo.. Tell us what course which wasn't tried
> would have been a success.

The sanctions were doing the best job possible.
Add to that weapons inspections, et al, and there
you have it. Nothing new about that, yet those
were the things containing Saddam's threat to
ever-shrinking radii.

-- 
Toucan
Be heard. Spread the word.
http://www.YouSaidit.org
An experiment in hypermedia Democracy