Trying To Help - By Dennis Miller by Khyron

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Trying To Help - By Dennis Miller

POSTED BY: KHYRON
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 18:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2950
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 4, 2007 5:20 AM

Found this on http://weekendpundit.blogmosis.com/lastweekend/006364.html.

Somehow I had the impression that Miller was supposed to be smart, even if he was on the "wrong" side. Guess I was wrong.

Trying To Help - By Dennis Miller

All the rhetoric whether or not we should go to war with Iraq has got my insane little brain spinning like a roulette wheel. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides but have detected a hint of confusion from some of you. As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice someone ever gave me. He told me about the KISS method (“Keep It Simple, Stupid!”). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important facts. Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:

1 - Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein....Hussein is the bad guy.

2 - If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind – They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

3 – If you use Google search and type in “French Military Victories,” your reply will be “Did you mean French Military Defeats?”

4 – If your only anti-war slogan is “NO WAR FOR OIL,” sue your school district for allowing you to slip through cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

5 – Saddam and bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

6 – Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the President. He only plays one on TV.

7 – Even if you are anti-war, you are still an “Infidel” and bin Laden wants you dead, too.

8 – If you believe in a “vast right-wing conspiracy” but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

9 – We are not trying to liberate them.

10 – Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out.

****

There. I hope that straightens everything out for you.

------

1 - So they can't both be bad? I agree that Hussein was bad, but Miller seems to imply that that means Bush is good. No, it doesn't. These are the kind of absolutes people want you believe in, though, and which lead to the mess America is in now. I'd agree with the statement that Hussein is worse, even if he posed less of a threat to long-term world peace than Bush.

2 - Sort of agree, the UN does have a lot of problems, is a bit incompetent and has lost a lot of credibility over the years, but this doesn't allow the US to start wars as it pleases.

3 - Don't see the point of this.

4 - Similarly, if your pro-war slogan is one of "WAR FOR FREEDOM", "WAR FOR PEACE", "WAR FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST" or "WAR IN IRAQ = FIGHT AGAINST TERROR", sue your school district for allowing you to slip through cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

5 – Neither will the US, it seems.

6 - No, you lie! IT'S NOT TRUE! Take it back!

7 - So the war in Iraq is part of the strategy for finding bin Laden? Hmmm, there were a lot of reasons given for the war (you know, one after the other, once the public realised that the previous reason was BS), but I don't remember this one. Probably I've forgotten it, or maybe it's a new one.

8 – Yes, how could one underestimate the danger that Saddam posed!? Okay, he didn't have any WMDs, or any significant weapons reserves... in fact, his army was beaten in a couple of days without too much hassle... but yes, he could've single-handedly destroyed the world had the US not invaded just in time.

9 - A surprisingly candid point. Don't disagree.

10 - No, they're there because some dickhead and his administration made them go there by lying to them and everybody else. And freedom of expression in America was NEVER threatened by Hussein or even bin Laden.

So I give Miller 2 gold stars out of 10. 1 gold star for point number 9, half a gold star for point number 2 and another half gold star for point number 4. And for some reason I feel I'm still being generous.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 4, 2007 6:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Screw Dennis Miller.. gimme Dennis Leary!

There's a guy who tells it like it is.

-Frem
(EDIT: Interesting note, not only did Leary assist during the 9-11 crisis by driving one of the firetrucks himself, he's also a pretty firm supporter of firemen in general.)

http://www.learyfirefighters.org/faq.html

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 4, 2007 7:46 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

So, Auraptor is Dennis Miller.
I suspected as much, and you never see them together do you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:14 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Somehow I had the impression that Miller was supposed to be smart, even if he was on the "wrong" side. Guess I was wrong.

Right...because everyone who disagrees with you must be a complete moron, I forgot. Wait, what's that? That isn't at all what you meant? Then could you explain the straw man and red herring fallacies that were shot through your "response" to Miller's list?

In the second place, I was in the military, I deployed to Iraq, and I'll tell you: servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms. We obey the orders that we're given, and the president, as commander in chief, ordered us into Iraq. Now, I had deep reservations before we went in, and as it turns out, I was right: invading was a terrible idea. But I obeyed the orders that I was given because that's what I swore to do: obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me. It's right there in the oath of enlistment. And the first part of that oath is, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." As servicemembers, we are not given the luxury of which orders to obey, nor are we allowed to make our own decisions with respect to when and where we go. When you take that oath, you make a tacit commitment to trust that the people giving orders won't order you into harm's way unnecessarily. But even if that trust is violated, you're still under oath to obey.

In the third, the "Bush lied" argument is getting a little tired. I was an intelligence analyst for the Navy--that was my specialty. When we were in Kuwait just prior to the invasion, the Iraqi military launched surface-to-surface missiles at our base. I was scared out of my mind, because I was firmly convinced that there was a good chance that the nose cone of those missiles was full of some nasty chemical. Why was I afraid of that? Well, I can tell you, it wasn't because Bush said so. It was because the intelligence that I had seen, which predated Bush's taking office by 5 years, said he had the stuff. The concensus of the U.S. intelligence community was that he had WMD. How much, exactly, nobody knew. But everybody was convinced. As were others:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Select to view spoiler:

Nancy Pelosi's congressional website, 16 Dec 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Select to view spoiler:

Bill Clinton, remarks at the Pentagon, 17 Feb 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Select to view spoiler:

Al Gore, in a speech to The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Sept. 23, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

Select to view spoiler:

John Edwards, member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, remarks on Senate floor, Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Select to view spoiler:

John Kerry, speech at Georgetown University, 23 Jan 2003

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Select to view spoiler:

Hillary Clinton, remarks on the Senate floor, 10 Oct, 2002

I major objection to the preceding is that many of these came from late 2002 and early 2003, a time when these policy makers may have been "under Bush's influence." But even if that's the case, note that John Edwards was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. If there were manipulation of intelligence data, he would almost certainly have known about it, given the extremely high level of access that he had. In addition, the statements by Pelosi and Bill Clinton were made in 1998 (the Desert Fox era, if any of you remember the bombing campaign that Clinton directed against Iraq for its refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors). Surely these two statements were made on the basis of knowledge these two folks had--they couldn't have been influenced by Bush's Iraq war campaign, because it was still four years in the future!

Finally, I want every single person on this board to know: I think the Iraq war was a terrible idea. Why would we preemptively invade a country? That's just a recipe for disaster. And guess what? That's what we got. We should never have gone there in the first place. Imagine how much more effort and money we could be providing to the stabilization of Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Ladin if we hadn't engaged in military adventurism. Bush made a terrible decision in trying to expand his war on terror (so-called) to Iraq. And we are most definitely paying for it. But it insults my intelligence to reduce it to the overly simplistic "Bush lied." Sure, this fits nicely with the "Bush is the devil" worldview. But I myself saw multiple intelligence reports both raw and finished, both before and during Bush's tenure that convinced me utterly that Hussein was armed with chemical and biological weapons. And it wasn't because "Bush lied"--it was because the data that I saw convinced me. And I was absolutely stunned that all we found were some leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war. Shocked. Again, not because Bush said we'd find them, but because the intel that I saw led me to the conclusion that they were there. And the real kicker to this whole thing is this: Bush can't be both an evil genius and a bumbling idiot. You can't have it both ways. If he's an evil genius who managed to fool everybody (Senate Intelligence Committee, US intelligence community, senators, congressmen, former presidents, and so forth), why did he not at least try to plant the evidence? If he's smart enough to fool everybody, and if he knew that there was nothing there, why didn't he use truck some warheads over there the night before the invasion, in nice convenient places, right where they'd be discovered. And if he's the bumbling moron he's sometimes made out to be, how did he manage to fool everybody? And don't just say, "Cheney," because then we have to go back to the planting of evidence.

I guess the point of this rant is to say that while I think that Bush made a horrendously bad decision based on his own personal reading of the facts, "Bush lied" is just not an coherent thesis. I think he was as surprised as everyone else when we tossed the country and found nothing.

That said, we should never have been there in the first place; kicking off aggressive wars is not a business the US should be in.

Let the crucifixion begin.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:37 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Somehow I had the impression that Miller was supposed to be smart, even if he was on the "wrong" side. Guess I was wrong.

Right...because everyone who disagrees with you must be a complete moron, I forgot. Wait, what's that? That isn't at all what you meant?

Uhm... CAN YOU COMPREHEND WHAT YOU READ!?!?!? I said:

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Somehow I had the impression that Miller was supposed to be SMART, EVEN IF HE WAS ON THE "WRONG" SIDE. Guess I was wrong.

That means I thought he was smart, even if I disagreed with him. What changed my mind is not that I disagree with him on principle, but I think his ten points are extremely, pathetically weak and a smart person wouldn't make points and pass them off as anything other than a prank.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Then could you explain the straw man and red herring fallacies that were shot through your "response" to Miller's list?

Show me one argument I made that's invalid.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms.

Thanks. This board was running low on platitudes. Now explain to me how Hussein was threatening those freedoms. And then explain to me how you can't see that "preserving freedoms" is just a mantra that's drilled into you guys so that you can't see that it's all just BS and start going AWOL.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
We obey the orders that we're given, and the president, as commander in chief, ordered us into Iraq. Now, I had deep reservations before we went in, and as it turns out, I was right: invading was a terrible idea. But I obeyed the orders that I was given because that's what I swore to do: obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me. It's right there in the oath of enlistment. And the first part of that oath is, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal to anything I've said?

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In the third, the "Bush lied" argument is getting a little tired.

But no less true. He lied about the reasons for war, he lied about the connection between Iraq and 911. He lied about a lot of stuff. He lied. You can point to faulty intelligence all you like, and I don't deny that there was faulty intelligence. Doesn't change the fact that he lied.

And the rest of your post is just giving me quotes from people who were sucked in by his lies. All that shows is that they were more gullible than most of the world outside of America was.

So how many gold stars would you give Dennis Miller's ten points?

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:49 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Show me one argument I made that's invalid.

Logically speaking (and as a philosophy major, I ought to know), there's a difference between invalidity (which has to incorrect logical procedure) and fallacy (which has to do with incorrect argumentative strategy). I never said you'd argued invalidly. I said you argued fallaciously. On #4 you committed the red herring fallacy, and on #8 you committed the straw man fallacy. I don't think it would be fruitful to explain how I came to those conclusions, because I don't think I'll get a fair hearing. But I just wanted you to know that I don't think you're being illogical per se. Everybody commits informal fallacies when they have to work quickly.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms.
Thanks. This board was running low on platitudes.

Actually, I'm a little offended, because I felt that serving in the military for just this reason was an honorable thing, not a naive one. But regardless, the chief function of the military is to protect the country, its citizens, and its political system--and that is what I meant by the above.

Quote:
Now explain to me how Hussein was threatening those freedoms.

He wasn't. If you'd read my post more carefully, you would have seen that I think that the Iraq war was a terrible idea; we should never have invaded in the first place. I don't defend the war, because I don't think we should have ever started it in the first place. That said...

Quote:
And then explain to me how you can't see that "preserving freedoms" is just a mantra that's drilled into you guys so that you can't see that it's all just BS and start going AWOL.

Well, as noted above, the preserving-freedoms thing is one reason why countries have militaries in the first place.

The whole point of being sworn to obey the orders of the President and military officers is to prevent people from disobeying any order they like. A military just cannot function like that. The entire system would break down, and there would no longer be a military at all. I don't expect you to understand that, having never served. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. I'm just giving an account.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
He lied about the reasons for war, he lied about the connection between Iraq and 911. He lied about a lot of stuff. He lied. You can point to faulty intelligence all you like, and I don't deny that there was faulty intelligence. Doesn't change the fact that he lied.

Yes, I suppose I should have made it clear that my remarks were restricted to the question of intelligence data. I can't comment on the other stuff, because I haven't invested the research that I feel I would need to make an informed judgment.

Quote:
And the rest of your post is just giving me quotes from people who were sucked in by his lies. All that shows is that they were more gullible than most of the world outside of America was.

I'm not sure that you read the rest of my post, because I did respond to this exact objection. At least two of the statements I gave were made in 1998, so I'd like to know how you can say that they were "sucked in" by "lies" that were still about 3 years in the future.

In the second place, that was not the rest of my post. Another thing I was wondering about was the evil genius/bumbling moron paradox, and the question of planting evidence (to which you gave no reply).

In the third, I also gave an account for my opposition to the Iraq war (which I think you missed, being that you seem to have taken me for an apologist for this abortion of a war). Just to make this perfectly clear: We should never have gone to war in Iraq. (But just for the record, I'm not going to respond to any attacks of the "then why did you go" variety.)

Quote:
So how many gold stars would you give Dennis Miller's ten points?

If I read him correctly, he's trying to provide clarity to the 2002-2003 era Iraq war debate. With that in mind, the 10 points:

1. Irrelevant to the discussion. Mere "bad guy" status is not a sufficient condition for war-making.

2. I agree with your half-star, but not for the same reasons. I think the UN is a worthless organization, but for better or worse, it's what we're stuck with.

3. I took him to mean that the French aren't reliable military advisors. Still, that's irrelevant; France doesn't hold a Senate or House seat, so their opinion is beside the point.

4. Full star. "No war for oil" is pretty terrible, as anti-war arguments go (and again, it would be fruitless to discuss why I think that is, because it seems pretty clear that we won't agree).

5. Irrelevant. This commits the two-wrongs fallacy. Someone else's misbehavior is not an excuse for one's own misbehavior. (That said, I'm pretty sure we have a difference of opinion on the question of getting UN approval.)

6. Half-star. This goes to the question of whose opinion should carry how much weight in this sort of discussion. Actors and musicians are entitled to their opinions, but not entitled to the seriousness with which some people take those opinions.

7. I agree that his statement is true. But there was never any link conclusively drawn between Hussein and bin Ladin. There do seem to have been links between lower level Al Qaida operatives and representatives of the Iraqi government, but nothing of the sort to justify link Bin Ladin to Hussein, as he seems to be doing here. So no stars here.

8. Half-star. Miller, like everyone else, believed the conventional wisdom (that predated Bush) that Iraq was armed with CBW agents. Given that, the half-star. But one-half off, because it turned out not to be the case.

9. Full-star. Bush's attempt to cast this in the same light as the liberation of France from the Nazi's was just pathetic. We were there to get rid of Hussein, and I suspect that had more to do with Bush not liking him than it did with WMD. That was just a convenient excuse.

10. Half-star. While I am convinced that the war in Iraq is accomplishing nothing with respect to preserving American freedoms (since Iraq didn't pose a real threat to them in the first place), he's right in the sense that if those rights were truly threatened, the military would be the people defending them. I would argue that those in Afghanistan are fighting to preserve American freedoms (but that's another topic entirely).

So I guess that's a total of 4.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:08 PM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In the second place, I was in the military, I deployed to Iraq, and I'll tell you: servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms. We obey the orders that we're given, and the president, as commander in chief, ordered us into Iraq. Now, I had deep reservations before we went in, and as it turns out, I was right: invading was a terrible idea. But I obeyed the orders that I was given because that's what I swore to do: obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me. It's right there in the oath of enlistment. And the first part of that oath is, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." As servicemembers, we are not given the luxury of which orders to obey, nor are we allowed to make our own decisions with respect to when and where we go. When you take that oath, you make a tacit commitment to trust that the people giving orders won't order you into harm's way unnecessarily. But even if that trust is violated, you're still under oath to obey.

Wow. Here's a hint about debating - if you're going to make a big, self-promoting statement like "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms", do not immediately follow it with a comprehensive argument that shows your career has no basis on our freedoms (you're the C-in-C's bitch) and in fact if you were ordered to end our freedoms (for example, our freedom not to have a bullet lodged in our chests), then you'd do so.

Oh, and Dennis Miller is a jackass. Dennis Leary is a thief but at least he knows good material when he steals it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:28 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Wow. Here's a hint about debating - if you're going to make a big, self-promoting statement like "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms", do not immediately follow it with a comprehensive argument that shows your career has no basis on our freedoms (you're the C-in-C's bitch) and in fact if you were ordered to end our freedoms (for example, our freedom not to have a bullet lodged in our chests), then you'd do so.

In the first place, my statement "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms" was not an attempt at self-promotion. As I explained in a previous post, I was trying to convey the idea that the purpose of having a military is to protect a country, its citizens, and its systems of government.

Obvious offensiveness aside, I'd be curious to know if you think that the servicemen who fought in the Second World War were Roosevelt's bitches (now there's an interesting turn of phrase for someone who's trying to give debating advice). I was trying to lay out the system of authority in the military: President as commander-in-chief, then the Joint Chiefs, then branch secretaries, then branch heads, and so forth down the line to the trigger-pullers and paper-filers. If the trigger-pullers and paper-filers get to choose which orders to obey and which orders not to obey, the system of military authority will immediately collapse, and the military would lose its ability to accomplish its mission (whatever that happened to be). Military members are trained to recognize the difference between lawful and unlawful orders (e.g., yes, the Marines in Haditha really did know better). The Presidents order of American troops to Iraq may have been ill-advised, precipitous, foolish, and even (on Khyron's view) predicated on falsehood. But as far as I'm aware, the order didn't break U.S. law, and given that, it constituted a lawful order. Given that, servicemembers were bound by their oaths of enlistment to set aside personal feelings and obey the order. I do not expect you to understand that system, nor agree that that's the way it should be. In fact, I'm not making any normative claims at all. I'm not trying to tell you how these things should work. I'm simply trying to explain how it does work.

Finally, I am deeply, deeply offended by the implication that military servicemembers are soulless killing machines with no regard for the citizens of their country. Many, if not most, military members believe deeply that they are protecting their countrymen. I certainly believe that that was the purpose of my service. I find it alarming that you have so little regard for the people whose vocation it is to place themselves in harm's way on your behalf. I'm aware that to someone who's never served that sounds like so much romantic drivel. But I assure you: that is how the military sees it.

Much political hay is made over the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam. There is a political side to such an analogy: a failing war exacting a polictical toll on the current administration. But there's also a social side to the analogy: the demonization of military servicemembers by those opposed to the war. It is the responsibility of the government to insure that Iraq doesn't go the way Vietnam did militarily and politically (and they sure are mucking it up). But it is the responsibility of people like yourself to insure that Iraq doesn't go the way of Vietnam when it comes to the treatment of military members. I'm alarmed to see that you are contributing to making Iraq another Vietnam by as much as accusing me of being willing to kill American citizens. Your next step is "baby killer," and then after that you can loiter around airports spitting on men in uniform. Or perhaps you can simply hate Bush for the mess he's gotten us into, but withhold your hatred from the men and women who are trying to do their duty to their country.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:45 PM

TRENCHMONKEY

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
We obey the orders that we're given, and the president, as commander in chief, ordered us into Iraq. Now, I had deep reservations before we went in, and as it turns out, I was right: invading was a terrible idea. But I obeyed the orders that I was given because that's what I swore to do: obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me.

Slight digression but wasnt the 'we were obeying orders' defence declared invalid during the trials that followed WW2? although i will fully admit this is a totally diffrent scale to that. what holds true for one should at least in theory hold true for all surely.

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:52 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
Slight digression but wasnt the 'we were obeying orders' defence declared invalid during the trials that followed WW2? although i will fully admit this is a totally diffrent scale to that. what holds true for one should at least in theory hold true for all surely.

Yes, it should definitely apply across the board. Which is why that defense will fail if the Marines accused of war crimes in Haditha try to claim that they were just following orders. The "just following orders" defense originated, in the vernacular at any rate, in the war crimes trials at Nuremberg. Are you suggesting that all US servicemembers who have served in Iraq are guilty of roughly the same thing for which they have to make a defense? Applying the invalidity of the following-orders defense to the war in general is impossible. The order to invade Iraq was not unlawful (according to the military's definition) so the troops weren't wrong just for going. The president was a fool for giving the order, but let's not blame the troops for fulfilling the oaths they swore.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 1:44 PM

KHYRON

Regarding the logical fallacies:
If one has made a fallacy then that renders one's argument that one made in that context as invalid, no? So by saying that I made a fallacy it implicitly means that my argument as an argument against the original argument was invalid. But that's just splitting hairs. To the points:

4 isn't a red herring, since I wasn't refuting his point. I agree with Miller that saying the war is just about oil is stupid. Hence I gave him 1 star. But from this I subtracted half a star because he tried to at the same time take a swipe at the proponents of this idea, which I thought was a weak attempt on his part and could be twisted around to take aim at the other side as easily, as, well, as I did. People who present arguments that backfire so easily don't deserve a full star. Had he just said "The war isn't just about oil", he would have gotten a full star, but trying to be a smartass cost him.

8 I don't think was a straw man. He very strongly hinted that Hussein was a threat, didn't he? I just responded with sarcasm to deconstruct that argument.

Regarding your position on the war:
I saw that you wrote you were against the war and I already knew that from before. Even people who agree on some things (the war is a mistake) can disagree on some details (the stuff we're arguing about). Don't worry, didn't have you pegged as somebody you're not.

Regarding the quotes you gave:
Yes, you got me. I didn't bother reading through most of them because I made the (faulty) assumption that they were from the time just before the war started, nor did I really care about what they said (this is also why I missed the evil genius/bumbling moron paradox, I'll respond to that in a moment). So not all of them were "sucked in" by Bush, fine. But, to be absolutely honest, I don't care what those people thought back then. Maybe they were just misinformed. Maybe they were lying. Maybe there really is a grand conspiracy and Gore would've also invaded Iraq because it was a cross-party agenda (I seriously doubt that, though). In any event, it's this administration's deception and misrepresentation of facts and blatant lying and, after the war started, ineptitude that got America into this mess and that cost the lives of more than 3000 of your colleagues.

EDIT: Actually, I think you changed your original post after I already clicked on the reply button. When I responded there was a long quote in spoilers by Hillary Clinton, if I remember correctly. When I responded, as I recall, the rest of your post really was just quotes. I'll read the rest of your original post now and then give my reply.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 2:02 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Surely these two statements were made on the basis of knowledge these two folks had--they couldn't have been influenced by Bush's Iraq war campaign, because it was still four years in the future!

Agreed.

Quote:
Bush can't be both an evil genius and a bumbling idiot.

No he can't, and I classify him as neither. I certainly think he's more intelligent than most people think, but at the same time I agree with most people that he isn't running the show.

Quote:
...why didn't he use truck some warheads over there the night before the invasion, in nice convenient places, right where they'd be discovered.

Whether he knew there weren't any or he didn't know, this still surprises me. I was convinced that they'd plant evidence. Maybe they just felt they didn't need to, since it was too late for anybody to do something about the war.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:22 AM

TRENCHMONKEY

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Are you suggesting that all US servicemembers who have served in Iraq are guilty of roughly the same thing for which they have to make a defense? Applying the invalidity of the following-orders defense to the war in general is impossible. The order to invade Iraq was not unlawful (according to the military's definition) so the troops weren't wrong just for going. The president was a fool for giving the order, but let's not blame the troops for fulfilling the oaths they swore.

Fair point although as i understand it the war was illegal according to the UN, either way it would be an intresting test case if it ever came up.

i would also like to take this chance to say that one of my personal objection to the war was the philosophical one that i found the arguments about introducing democracy to the middle east generally highly reminiscent of british imperialism introducing civilisation to the rest of the world, we westerners may beleive our 'Democracy' is the best form of government but then so did we british in India.

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:36 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
i would also like to take this chance to say that one of my personal objection to the war was the philosophical one that i found the arguments about introducing democracy to the middle east generally highly reminiscent of british imperialism introducing civilisation to the rest of the world, we westerners may beleive our 'Democracy' is the best form of government but then so did we british in India.

Ever read "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling? I believe it was about the English colonial occupation of India and is supposed to show the arrogance inherent to empire. Yep: that's us.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:56 AM

TRENCHMONKEY

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
]

Ever read "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling? I believe it was about the English colonial occupation of India and is supposed to show the arrogance inherent to empire. Yep: that's us.

Not yet, currently working through Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T E Laurence, might look it up though

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:52 AM

CAUSAL

Do, definitely; it's just a poem, and it's spot on--prescient, almost.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:55 PM

SIMONWHO

You talk about Haditha as though it was one isolated incident, blackening the name of the troops. Do you know how big an impact that story had on the news in Iraq? Do you know how big an impact the "torture prison" scandal had?

As a journalist friend of mine has been following this precise matter, I can tell you - none at all. Barely registered with the Iraqi press/tv news. Let me underline that - a case where American troops raped and killed a family wasn't seen as being particularly newsworthy.

I was dumbfounded when she told me that but she pointed out "What's the death of one family when so many tens of thousands have died already at American hands?"

Today's newspapers in the UK are all about a US bomber pilot who attacked a UK convoy because he (and his assistant) couldn't be bothered to follow basic protocols. This is not the day for you to tell me how great a job US troops are doing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:37 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Simonwho,

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last comment. Are you suggesting, alternatively, that the US troops are mostly incompetants, killers, and crooks? Are you suggesting that rape and torture are sop for the US presence, and that the 'honest hardworking soldier' is the rare exception to the rule?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:57 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Oh, Simonwho, a follow-up...

Are you suggesting these things about all soldiers, or just U.S. soldiers?

Just want to get a clear picture of what you're saying.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:10 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Causal,

I think US troops are caught in the same no-win situation as Vietnam, except they have more deployments. Then you have actions like Fallujah - all females and only males under 16 and over 60 were 'allowed' to leave Fallujah. Then the city was surrounded, bombarded and stormed. Orders were given that ALL males between 16 and 60 were considered to be insurgents - ie all the ones trapped there by US orders - whether they were fighting, or armed, or not. That does blur the line between civilian and other. But Fallujah wasn't an isolated incident. AFAIK the same rules of engagement were used elsewhere. And, as in the Vietnam 'body counts', there is pressure to show progress by claiming insurgents have been killed. I think it could turn many areas of Iraq into, essentially, a free-fire zone.

And then there's the casualties. I think in the US because there are 'only' 3,100+ fatalities, people think it's an easy war. But, to continue the Vietnam comparison, in that war there were 211,575 total casualties, roughly 28% were fatalities. In Iraq there are, so far, 26,189 total casualties. If the same ratio were to hold, there would be 7206 fatalities. It's a far bloodier, more violent war than most people in the US realize (thanks in large part to Dick 'Shooter' Cheney and Bush cheerleading, along with a lax US media). But the soldiers live it and it takes a toll.

I think some US troops have done horrific things. Whether it's due to the rules of engagement, the stress of too many deployments in a chaotic and bloody war, or whatever the cause. But I lay that at Bush's feet.

-------------------------

As I recall, Bush only let two members of the Senate ... Intel in on the real deal (neither of them democrats for some strange reason

). The rest were fed the same go-se as the rest of Congress. If it was an ad and Bush was a business, he'd be sued for false advertising.

There was enough contrary evidence to call into question the strength of Bush's confidence - that the aluminum tubes could never be used in centrifuges, that the 'Niger' document was a known forgery, that there was no connection between Hussein and al Qaida, and so on. The State Department disagreed with the threat assessment.

Remove the parts known to be untrue and Hussein posed no direct threat to the US.

But what removed all doubt was that Bush sent in US troops. If Hussein had had all that capability most US troops would have been toast, or some equally gruesome biological product.

So there was no doubt in MY mind that the whole WMD 'thing' was fabricated and that BUSH knew it all along.

What I think is that he went in to Iraq thinking he'd find just enough to - after the fact - justify the invasion. He was pretty sure the cupboard was lacking, I don't think he realized just how bare it was.

As to all the folk caught up in the shifting goals - stockpiles, programs, intentions, Hussein, freedom, elections, bait - they are massively short-sighted.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:16 PM

CAUSAL

I have to confess, Simon, my initial reaction to your post was, well, pretty negative. I served in Iraq honorably, I committed no atrocity, and I know of no one who did. Your post seemed to imply that there are war crimes being perpetrated by US forces on a scale much, much larger than the isolated incidents that we have been seeing. And that infuriates me, because if that's the case, you're impugning the honor of the men who are stuck fighting this god-awful war.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
You talk about Haditha as though it was one isolated incident... Do you know how big an impact that story had on the news in Iraq? ... As a journalist friend of mine has been following this precise matter, I can tell you - none at all. ...she pointed out "What's the death of one family when so many tens of thousands have died already at American hands?"

OK, what exactly are we talking about here? Are we talking died-at-the-hands-of-war-crimes-committing-troops? Are we talking killed-when-a-neighboring-building was bombed? Are we talking died-since-the-war-started-and-being-blamed-on-Americans? Did she mean died-as-a-result-of-subsequent-Iraqi-civil-war? If American forces have killed "tens of thousands" of non-combatants illegally, why isn't that the lead story on every newspaper in the country? Because they haven't. Have tens of thousands died? Yep. That's a terrible, terrible thing. But that does not mean they were slaughtered at the hands of marauding American forces. If anything, Haditha and Abu Ghraib shows just how seriously those sorts of things are taken by the folks back here in the US. And the fact that they didn't get as much attention in Iraq is not evidence of a greater number of atrocities (and I'm talking out-and-out war crimes) that were committed on a larger scale. You've seen how easily those bastards in Abu Ghraib were caught. You really think we could cover up war crimes on a massive scale? Give me a break. Oh, but right, your reporter friend. First hand evidence and all that. Well, I was there, too, and a number of other people I know. And I can tell you: neither I nor any of my acquaintances witnessed or committed war crimes. You haven't been there, so you don't know first hand. All we're left with is her word against ours. And if you'll pardon me, I think ours is the more plausible explanation for the lack of ruckus over war crimes.

Quote:
Today's newspapers in the UK are all about a US bomber pilot who attacked a UK convoy because he (and his assistant) couldn't be bothered to follow basic protocols. This is not the day for you to tell me how great a job US troops are doing.

I'm curious which "basic protocols" were violated exactly? Give me reference to specific ROE or combat procedural manuals or some such, not just "They must have, otherwise they'd never have opened fire!" I've read the transcript of the engagement ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/06/video.transcript/index.html). Before the pilots opened fire, they contacted ground control (GC) and inquired as to whether there were friendlies in the area. GC said no (1337.21). Before they opened fire they made a tentatve ID on the targets (misidentifying them as ZIL-157s) and GC confirmed that there were, indeed, such vehicles believed to be in the area (1337.36). When other aircraft said they thought they saw orange panels (which is what coalition used to prevent such incidents), the pilot reiterated that GC had confirmed no friendlies in the area. The other aircraft repeated his observation of orange on the trucks. The pilot reports that the orange spot on the roof of the vehicle appeared to be rocket launchers. His wingman concurs with his identification (1341.41). So the pilot has conflicting data. On the one hand he's got GC telling him there are no friendlies in the area, on the other, another set of eyeballs reporting that he's seeing orange. The pilot thinks they look like hostiles, and thinks that the orange spots are rocket launchers, and his wingman has concurred. So he makes the call, and rolls in and attacks, noting that the vehicles don't look like friendlies (that is, the vehicles don't appear to be friendly forces). After the strike, the pilot and his wingman again discuss the question of whether or not the vehicles were hostiles with rockets (1342.30 and 1342.39). At this point a Marine air controller radios the pilot and informs him that there are friendlies in the area (the vehicles were, in fact, British tanks). The real difficulty is this: GC (which is GOD as far as combat pilots are concerned) says no friendlies. The pilot IDs them as hostiles. Another aircraft reports something orange. The pilot looks again: thinks they're rockets on the roof, and his wingman concurs. Rolls in, strikes a British tank, kills a man. Did they violate protocol? Not as far as I can see: GC says no friendlies, and when another aircraft reports orange, he misidentifies the orange thing as rockets (1341.55 and 1351.33) and his wingman concurs with him (1341.41). And when discussing a possible second strike, his wingman again IDs the vehicles as hostiles (1343.35). But then the word comes that GC was mistaken: they were friendlies. And get this: the wingman asks for the status of the friendlies they inadvertently attacked (1344.39) He's hoping no one got hurt as a result of their mistake. But someone was: killed as a matter of fact. The wingman doesn't like this: when he hears that someone was killed as a result of their mistake, his reaction is "I'm gonna be sick" (1347.18). At one point the transcript reports the pilot as "weeping" (1351.17). At the very least, we can say that this is not the reaction of a couple of "cowboys" who just wanted to blow shit up. This is the reaction of men who realize that they have just made the biggest mistake that they will ever make--and it has cost someone their life. This is remorse.

Now where, exactly, is the violation of protocol? These two guys repeatedly discuss the question of whether or not the vehicles are friendly or hostile. They practice due diligence--they check and recheck with each other regarding their ID of the vehicles. Now, that doesn't change the fact that they were wrong and it cost a man his life. But it was a mistake. Simon, I know you don't want to hear this, but this is true, regardless: in war, in combat, mistakes happen. They are tragic, and if they are the result of negligence, they should be punished. But that will not change the fact that they will happen.

When it comes right down to it, the basic problem I have with the tone of your post is that you are extending responsibility for certain particular actions (however numerous they might be) from those that took the actions to everyone who is fighting the war. And that is something that I cannot abide. The vast, vast majority of people serving in Iraq do so honorably and justly, and they ought not be lumped into the category of brigand and murderer simply because you dislike the way this war is going.

Now, why did the pilot attack without going in for a closer look? Maybe they'd encountered some surface-to-air missile fire earlier in the sortie and didn't want to risk it. Maybe he thought the GC knew better than the other aircraft (the GC was attached to a British unit, and should have had a better handle on the positions of his units). I don't know why. But I do know that when bullets start to fly, these sorts of things always happen. That's not an excuse: if these men are found (by a military investigation, not by public opinion) to have been negligent, then I hope that they are punished to the fullest extent possible. But you cannot seriously be expecting perfection.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:26 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Casual,

I think Simonwho is venting his anger at the US over a friendly fire incident where US forces killed some British forces. I think he is allowing his anger over this incident to bring him to make unreasoning statements against all US military forces.

He may forget that Friendly fire knows no nationality.

British Friendly Fire Incidents
---------------------------------

A quick search pulled up this evidence that British soldiers are equally capable of succumbing to the Fog of War.

Friendly fire isn't a possibility in war. It's a certainty.

It's a tragic certainty. Individual incidents are certainly avoidable, and are usually due to confusion and carelessness.

But confusion and carelessness are human inevitabilities.

I could understand greater ire if the friendly fire was an intentional and deliberate attempt to murder friendly units, but it isn't. No one is ever glad to have committed an act of friendly fire. No one finds out they killed friendlies and then goes out to the pub for some beers to celebrate. More likely they are drinking harder stuff and are wishing like hell that they could turn back the clock.

--Anthony

*******************************************
*******************************************

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2950285.stm

Also brought back to British soil were the bodies of Corporal Stephen Allbutt, 35, and Trooper David Clarke, 19.

The two soldiers from the Queen's Royal Lancers were killed in a 'friendly fire' incident on 25 March near Basra, when another British tank mistakenly fired on their Challenger 2.

****************************************
****************************************

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/6165590.stm

'Friendly fire' troops were tired

Marine Maddison was on river patrol on the Al Faw peninsular
Soldiers were "tired and tense" while operating in an area of Iraq where a Plymouth-based Royal Marine was killed by "friendly fire", an inquest heard.
Christopher Maddison, originally from Scarborough, died in a river patrol boat on the Al Faw peninsula in 2003.

Lt Col Anthony, the commanding officer of Marine Maddison's 539 Assault Squadron, told Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner Andrew Walker that the landing craft had been hit by a Milan missile fired by British forces.

Marine Maddison died of shrapnel wounds.

Lt Col Anthony said a "communications breakdown" led to soldiers operating the Milan attack missile being told that two enemy vessels were speeding towards them on the Khawr Az Zubayr river in March 2003, when they were in fact British Royal Marines.

Failing communications

He said: "We had been working eight to 10 days, all on fighting operations. We were tired and we were tense, there's no doubt about that.

********************************************************
********************************************************

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/6172887.stm

Last Updated: Wednesday, 13 December 2006, 16:44 GMT

Soldier gave fatal shooting order

Sgt Roberts was the first British soldier killed in action in Iraq
A soldier who gave the order to fire shots which killed a fellow tank leader in Iraq broke down at an inquest as he told of trying to protect his friend.
Tank commander Sgt Scott Manley said he had been trying to stop a rock-wielding Iraqi from attacking Sgt Steven Roberts but his actions tragically backfired.

Sgt Roberts, 33, of Shipley, West Yorkshire, and originally of Cornwall, died from "friendly fire" in 2003.

He had been ordered to give up his body armour earlier due to shortages.

Sgt Manley said he initially gave the order to fire on the Iraqi with a lighter weapon, but this jammed.

He said he did not know the machine gun he then switched to was known to be inaccurate at short range - Sgt Roberts was around 15 metres from his tank when it opened fire.

The inquest in Oxford had heard earlier from Trooper Gary Thornton, who also broke down as he spoke of the moment he accidentally gunned down Sgt Roberts.

Angry exchanges

Trooper Thornton said he aimed the machine gun in his tank at an Iraqi man throwing rocks at Sgt Roberts, who was on the ground at a vehicle check point.

He fired two bursts on the orders of his tank colleague Sgt Manley and saw the Iraqi drop down, he said.

Trooper Thornton said: "The Iraqi got back up and I saw his arm, roughly at the elbow joint, hanging off.

"That's when I heard over the intercom that Sgt Roberts was on the floor."

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Friendly fire... ain't.

This kinda thing happens in a warzone, ain't no preventin it - only way to have it not happen is to not have a warzone, which is something I can live with, how bout you ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:07 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Causal,

That was one of the best criticisms of anti-war arguments I'd heard in a long, long time.

I am, unwaveringly, against the war in Iraq. But I am, unwaveringly, supportive of the military. I used to work extensively with Vietnam vets, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who risk their lives, and the happiness of their families, to protect the Constitution. It is not the fault of the soldiers that they sometimes get sent to the wrong wars, for the wrong reasons.

I believe the best way we can support our troops is to stop risking their lives for premature judgments, political power games, corruption, and vendettas. Risk their lives only when we really need to, as a last resort, to defend the lives of their families and countrymen. Bring them home when we realize we've made a mistake. Most situations do not require a military solution. When we resort to military force willy nilly, we are taking the lives of our soldiers for granted.

BTW, thank you for serving.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE