Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Iraq:"It can be saved and won", Can You Be Reliably Informed Yet Have That Opinion?

Charlatan · 11-21-2007, 04:42 PM

Host, it is clear to you, "that US leaders ordered and wage illegal, aggressive war against Iraq." This is your opinion based on the reading you have done.

The thing is, there are many opinions about why and what should have been done about Iraq. They are just that, opinions. You have the support of Benjamin B. Ferencz, who comes with a pretty convincing argument that supports your opinion. However, another person can read Mr. Ferencz's take on things and dismiss it. Mr. Ferencz is offering an opinion, a weighty opinion to be sure, but just an opinion.

I look at the mess that is Iraq. I look back and think, there are many positives to having Saddam out of power. I think there are very few who would argue that he was a force for "good" in the world. I look back and think, what would be the best reason for going into Iraq (regardless of all the wrong reasons)? I conclude that in the best case scenario, Saddam is removed from power, a new democracy rises and serves as a beacon of hope and stability in a part of the world largely ruled by despotic regimes. This is but one opinion among many for why an invasion might have been a good thing (others, just as valid as opinions include: revenge, seize the oil, clean up the mess the US made in giving support to a despotic Saddam, etc.).

Anyone looking at what has happened since the actual invasion occurred can see that, regardless of the reasons for the original action, it has been mismanaged, has resulted in needless loss of life, brought about sectarian division and violence, etc. I believe the term cluster fuck was used above and I tend to agree.

I don't believe there was a solid plan beyond, "let's take out Saddam". They managed to do that in weeks.

The point I am trying to make is that there are many opinions. Some come with heaps of research and some just come from person feelings. I don't feel that any one opinion is less valid (regardless of my own opinion in the matter).

What you offer here is not a discussion. What you offer is a speech. You do not wish to change other's opinions, rather you wish to justify your own.

EDIT:
I ask you, are you interested in changing people's minds... changing their opinions? If the answer is yes, you are failing to communicate and are suffering from the same lack of diplomacy that plagued Bush and his team leading up to the invasion.

I sense and see your frustration with many on this board. If you don't feel that people are hearing you, the answer isn't to shout louder. Perhaps you should try a different approach.

11-21-2007, 04:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Host, it is clear to you, "that US leaders ordered and wage illegal, aggressive war against Iraq." This is your opinion based on the reading you have done. The thing is, there are many opinions about why and what should have been done about Iraq. They are just that, opinions. You have the support of Benjamin B. Ferencz, who comes with a pretty convincing argument that supports your opinion. However, another person can read Mr. Ferencz's take on things and dismiss it. Mr. Ferencz is offering an opinion, a weighty opinion to be sure, but just an opinion. I look at the mess that is Iraq. I look back and think, there are many positives to having Saddam out of power. I think there are very few who would argue that he was a force for "good" in the world. I look back and think, what would be the best reason for going into Iraq (regardless of all the wrong reasons)? I conclude that in the best case scenario, Saddam is removed from power, a new democracy rises and serves as a beacon of hope and stability in a part of the world largely ruled by despotic regimes. This is but one opinion among many for why an invasion might have been a good thing (others, just as valid as opinions include: revenge, seize the oil, clean up the mess the US made in giving support to a despotic Saddam, etc.). Anyone looking at what has happened since the actual invasion occurred can see that, regardless of the reasons for the original action, it has been mismanaged, has resulted in needless loss of life, brought about sectarian division and violence, etc. I believe the term cluster fuck was used above and I tend to agree. I don't believe there was a solid plan beyond, "let's take out Saddam". They managed to do that in weeks. The point I am trying to make is that there are many opinions. Some come with heaps of research and some just come from person feelings. I don't feel that any one opinion is less valid (regardless of my own opinion in the matter). What you offer here is not a discussion. What you offer is a speech. You do not wish to change other's opinions, rather you wish to justify your own. EDIT: I ask you, are you interested in changing people's minds... changing their opinions? If the answer is yes, you are failing to communicate and are suffering from the same lack of diplomacy that plagued Bush and his team leading up to the invasion. I sense and see your frustration with many on this board. If you don't feel that people are hearing you, the answer isn't to shout louder. Perhaps you should try a different approach. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 11-21-2007 at 09:44 PM..