|
I doubt you will get too much intelligent discussion, either.
You already have a prime example in ustwo's post of the tendency to distill information rather than engage with its intricacies.
Two blatant examples are:
1. Distilling the supporters' reasons into the most expedient/acceptable one.
There were a myriad of reasons given for the Iraqi endeavor, not a single one. This allows anyone supporting the endeavor to point to an equally defensible reason when a questioner digs into the rationale for any one particular reason.
2. Distilling the oppositions' arguments into the least expedient/acceptable one
This is usually followed be explaining away all criticism as one composite, self-contradicting position. In fact, the "left" movement is comprised of numerous groups of people--each with their own identities, ideas, and issues of concern. One person from the "left" can think Bush is an idiot while another thinks he is the most manipulative and calculating leader around--without contradicting the "movement"
Of course, the entire post was preceeded by a nice long ad hominem against you, with a few red herrings tossed in for good measure.
The most blatant example of that I will point out is the notion that we were upholding sanctions and the will of the UN/inspectors.
1. The inspectors claim they had the most compliance they had ever had a week before the war. Their own statements are that it was the US intelligence that was leading them on wild goose chases through the nation--not Saddam's reluctance to open any doors. That's their own statements--and they contradict the statements of our government.
The UN inspectors were also blindsided by our president's bumping up of the timeline and altering demands (first open the doors to inspection, then they became leave the country or else, then it was tomorrow morning we bomb the shit out of you; we called it decapitating the head, in case anyone doesn't remember, and our entire nation watched it on live television--so boo to the other thread arguing about the barbarism of decapitation in wartime and it only applying to evil, barbaric muslims)
2. The UN inspectors asked for more time.
3. The UN itself didn't authorize what occurred.
Now, we can dispute whether we should abide by the UN for our domestic safety (in fact, that's where the public discouse eventually had to go in order to reconcile the apparent logical contradiction of our defense of the UN's demands against the composite will of the UN).
See when that logical contradiction is pointed out, the response will be that the UN was weak, is guided/controlled by nations opposed to our interestests, and etc. Anything in the hopes that you will forget we are really talking about whether the US was actually acting in the will of the UN. It obviously wasn't--it was acting in its own interests, but for some reason people don't like to put it so plainly because that imparts some blame for what happened.
If we can appeal to a higher power (as in the UN or a deity), that somehow lets this nation off the hook for what it culturally claims to be against our values--not to go to war unless we absolutely have to. This isn't the case historically, but it is embedded in our cultural value system--hence the need to shape shift the debate whenever it's most expedient.
The reasons are ideological, not factual, hence my conclusion that you won't get very meaningful explanations.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|