|
|
|
1 Reviews
-
-
 RayRay25 rated 6 days ago- The essential fallacy of this article is that the facts underlying the war changed, and therefore those of us against the war should have changed. That is untrue. The war in Iraq was based upon lies, obfuscations and prevarications, and this remains unchanged. Iraq never had WMD, nor had it "reconstitutued its nuclear weapons program." this remains unchanged. Iraq never had ties to Al Qaeda, nor did it render any support to our enemies. This remains unchanged. Iraq is not, nor has it ever been, the "Central Front in the War on Terror." Therefore, it is unchanged that the USA had no legitimate casus belli to invade a sovereign nation. It is unchanged that this is an immoral and illegal war.
Therefore, to assert, as does this article, that opinions regarding the war must change because "the surge worked" is an example of the informal fallacy of "missing the point." The point, which has never changed, is that we should never had invaded, and our troops should not be there.
Finally, the other, concurrent fallacy, is that there is "victory" right around the corner [as in 'Obama is against victory!']. This is a straw man, inasmuch as the definition of victory remains unknown and elusive. Therefore, that our troops, brave as they are, continue to be in harms way without a defined mission. Hmmm......sounds alot like Vietnam. So I guess there are other things which remain unchanged.
|
