I was simply repeating the exact same things the loony left said when Bush was President. But now that Obama is President, many on the left won’t apply the same standards to Obama as they did to Bush.
As for me, I don’t like war, but I know that - unfortunately - it is sometimes a necessary evil. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein. The world will be better off without Ghadaffi. Bush did the right thing getting rid of Hussein. Obama is doing the right thing in getting rid of Ghadaffi. I am simply being consistent.
No offense, but I have to call blatant intellectually dishonesty here; and, doubly so coming from someone who’s always trying to lecture everyone else about logical fallacies. In spite of your protestations to the contrary, you are being inconsistent.
You have committed the fallacy of false equivalence.
This rhetorical ploy appears motivated purely by partisan politics, and looks to be designed as a tactic to muddy the waters between Bush’s policies and Obama’s. (Is a Republican think tank paying you to disseminate your propaganda around here?)
George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq is almost the textbook example of an unjust war. The fact that no one in that administration was put on trial for war crimes (e.g. Dick Cheney for war profiteering via Halliburton) is simply evidence that the most powerful nations get legal immunity. They can’t have moral immunity though.
Then please explain to me why Bush, with Congressional approval, using force to oust Saddam from power is different from Obama using force to oust Ghadaffi from power. Please note, saying, “Bush is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat”, does not constitute a legitimate reason for opposing the former and accepting the latter —although we all know that is what is going on in the mind of many on the left!
In order to lie about WMDs, Bush would have had to known beforehand that Saddam was bluffing about them. That would require godlike omniscience. I doubt you believe in such magical thinking, rather you are probably allowing an ideology to trump rational thought. Since every intelligence agency on the planet (including most prominent elected Democrats with access to that intel) thought Saddam still had them (remember, he had already used them), it is more than disingenuous for anyone to use that tired, trite, bumper sticker platitude of “Bush lied, people died” nonsense (remember, I was being sarcastic in my above paraphrase). Being honestly mistaken about a grave matter is not a lie.
More misinformation as usual. *yawn*
First, Saddam claimed not to have WMD. Second, weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq (after failing over and over again to find any incriminating evidence). Third, and obviously, the Bush media machine constantly repeated to the public that the intelligence was “slam dunk” when it was not. (Isn’t that a lie? Don’t try to get out of this one by mentioning a few token Democrats who never had the access administration officials did.)
Then please explain to me why Bush, with Congressional approval, using force to oust Saddam from power is different from Obama using force to oust Ghadaffi from power. Please note, saying, “Bush is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat”, does not constitute a legitimate reason for opposing the former and accepting the latter —although we all know that is what is going on in the mind of many on the left!
More ad hominems. *yawn*
You seriously need me to explain the difference to you? Okay fine: humanitarian crisis in Libya now. No humanitarian crisis in Iraq then.
You seriously need me to explain the difference to you? Okay fine: humanitarian crisis in Libya now. No humanitarian crisis in Iraq then.
Yes, because Saddam Hussein was such a humanitarian. All those mass graves in Iraq? Well, forget about those! Move along, nothing to see here! People in Iraq under Saddam Hussein had it made, didn’t they?
Like I said, I knew those on the left would resort to special pleading. And you did. The cognitive dissonance that must be raging through liberals’ minds right now as they watch over 100 Obama-ordered ruise missiles reign down on Libya killing people is affecting them to the point that they can’t stand it! They will bend over backwards trying to convince themselves that somehow—ANYHOW—Saddam Hussein was somehow better than Ghadaffi. It really is sad and pitiful and shows the complete and utter lack of intellectual honesty on their part.
Congress has declared no war on Libya, nor on Iraq, how many U.S. wars have they declared?
The UN sanctioned the bombardment, to protect the people. But the people are fighting on one side or the other, they are armed Kaddafi armed some of them, the Libyan army is in the fight, how does the world protect the innocent people against all of that fighting? Obama has chosen to destroy some weapons and restrict flights, no ground troops, and it’ll end in a week or two. Wasn’t he elected to end the hostilities in Iraq?
Obama is blamed for being late, blamed for too much involvement in a civil war, blamed for doing too little, blamed for not getting Congress more involved. This is ridiculous hypocrisy, to blame him for waiting too long, but expecting him to wait longer for Congress? Hypocrisy to blame him for the level of involvement, but still expecting him to act?
Kaddafi seems enthusiastic. At least that’s one person.
All of this is bad, can any good come of it? Maybe these hostilities can balance out the power in Lybya, lengthening the fight, leaving us guessing who will win the Libyan civil war. That’s better than Kaddafi winning soon. Hey, Obama isn’t entirely on the right-wing yet, we’ll always have Iran to invade! G. W Bush, huh, he stopped at two wars, will Obama? I’m not blaming Obama, I’m just wondering, his options are all damnable ones. Two state solution for Libya? Does anyone else miss the days when Saddam Hussein was in power, just a little bit?
Yes, because Saddam Hussein was such a humanitarian. rolleyes All those mass graves in Iraq? Well, forget about those! Move along, nothing to see here! People in Iraq under Saddam Hussein had it made, didn’t they?
There was no humanitarian crisis going on at the time Bush invaded Iraq. I’m not saying Saddam was a nice guy.
Rocinante - 21 March 2011 01:45 PM
Like I said, I knew those on the left would resort to special pleading. And you did. The cognitive dissonance that must be raging through liberals’ minds right now as they watch over 100 Obama-ordered ruise missiles reign down on Libya killing people is affecting them to the point that they can’t stand it! They will bend over backwards trying to convince themselves that somehow—ANYHOW—Saddam Hussein was somehow better than Ghadaffi. It really is sad and pitiful and shows the complete and utter lack of intellectual honesty on their part.
Please educate me. How have I (not some generic caricaturization of a fictional “loony-left-liberal-mind”) resorted to special pleading?
Please educate me. How have I (not some generic caricaturization of a fictional “loony-left-liberal-mind”) resorted to special pleading?
Those who commit special pleading rarely ever see or admit to what they are doing, so you will deny it to your dying day. But…
You said, “There was no humanitarian crisis going on at the time Bush invaded Iraq.” That is special pleading. By getting to choose what is and is not a “humanitarian crisis” you get to declare Bush a war criminal while at the same time see Obama as a savior. Those who lived under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein and his secret police, rape rooms, etc. were suffering under a humanitarian crisis. And that was one of the reasons he was removed. Granted, WMD’s were another reason. The fact that they weren’t there at the time does not mean it was a lie. The definition of a lie means a person must know beforehand what they are saying is untrue. If Bush were lying, he could have planted WMDs. Bush is not a god who knows all. He was relying on intelligence sources. The constant drumbeat of “Bush lied [about WMDs]...” from the left is nothing more than an attempt to ignore the larger issue of the brutal, humanitarian-crisis-causing dictator of Saddam Hussein. They are putting their ideology before the well-being of those who suffered under Saddam Hussein. I don’t like war. But I don’t like a world where a Saddam Hussein (or Ghadaffi) is in power even less.
I’m interested in what people here think about this topic.
I suppose it would depend on one’s moral values. Assuming you meant morally just.
If, or perhaps when the people the the United States rebel against it’s government do you think it is likely the the US government will use force to deal with the rebellion?
If it does, and other countries come in an start to support the rebels against the US government. Would that be just?
I don’t know what’s going on in Libya except from media reports. Things work out in Egypt because the Egyptian Military took control. If a large scale rebellion began in the US, who do you think the military would support?
Governments used to get pretty nervous when the people of other countries started to rebel against their own government. They thought it would catch on I suppose.
Perhaps it is easy to judge the good and the bad from thousands of miles away. On the ground I think you have to determine which side will serve your interests best, hope you are correct, and further hope they win.
If the side you pick wins, then you were right, good and just. If the side you pick loses then you were bad/evil and caused needless deaths.
Please educate me. How have I (not some generic caricaturization of a fictional “loony-left-liberal-mind”) resorted to special pleading?
Those who commit special pleading rarely ever see or admit to what they are doing, so you will deny it to your dying day. But…
You said, “There was no humanitarian crisis going on at the time Bush invaded Iraq.” That is special pleading. By getting to choose what is and is not a “humanitarian crisis” you get to declare Bush a war criminal while at the same time see Obama as a savior. Those who lived under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein and his secret police, rape rooms, etc. were suffering under a humanitarian crisis. And that was one of the reasons he was removed. Granted, WMD’s were another reason. The fact that they weren’t there at the time does not mean it was a lie. The definition of a lie means a person must know beforehand what they are saying is untrue. If Bush were lying, he could have planted WMDs. Bush is not a god who knows all. He was relying on intelligence sources. The constant drumbeat of “Bush lied [about WMDs]...” from the left is nothing more than an attempt to ignore the larger issue of the brutal, humanitarian-crisis-causing dictator of Saddam Hussein. They are putting their ideology before the well-being of those who suffered under Saddam Hussein. I don’t like war. But I don’t like a world where a Saddam Hussein (or Ghadaffi) is in power even less.
There is always a humanitarian crisis somewhere in the world. Perhaps a number of them to choose from. When and why do governments of other countries decide to step in? I rhetorical question I suppose. I suspect nobody here would know the actual reasoning.
“Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it.”
&
“In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.”
The article explains why Human Rights Watch did not get involved and why it is a mistake to justify the Iraq invasion by citing humanitarian reasons.
Rocinante - 21 March 2011 03:46 PM
By getting to choose what is and is not a “humanitarian crisis” you get to declare Bush a war criminal while at the same time see Obama as a savior. Those who lived under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein and his secret police, rape rooms, etc. were suffering under a humanitarian crisis.
Projection. You are the one playing fast-and-loose with the term “humanitarian crisis.” The linked article explains precisely how.
Rocinante - 21 March 2011 03:46 PM
Those who commit special pleading rarely ever see or admit to what they are doing, so you will deny it to your dying day. But…
Gnostikosis; I agree with you that a just war is based on moral values. Moral values come from people. I would like to think that moral values are not as blatantly self serving as you make them out to be. People also decide what is a legitimate government and what is not. In the early years of the US, George Washington had to use troops to quell uprisings among the US’s own population. This was considered just because the government was considered legitimate. This issue is sounding dangerously close to an appeal to the populace fallacy, but if most of the people consider a government such as the Mubarak government in Egypt to not be legitimate then doesn’t that make the government not legitimate? If most of the people in Libya don’t consider Gaddafi to be the legitimate government and not that many people fight for Gaddafi then doesn’t that make him no longer legitimate? If lots of people fight for Gaddafi then the issue is not so clear.
—although we all know that is what is going on in the mind of many on the left!
All those mass graves in Iraq? Well, forget about those! Move along, nothing to see here! People in Iraq under Saddam Hussein had it made, didn’t they? 
