Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
This is called a straw man argument.
In otherwords, do not address the issue at hand, but bring up other issues and say, "Well, what about those???"
|
It's called a
red herring
A straw man is when one builds a weak caricature of the opponents argument and argues against that instead of the stronger point the opponent actually made.
Anyway, I doubt the "anti-war crowd" is excusing political bribery, even if the motivation fits in with their bias against invasion. It appears they are using similar arguments conservatives have been leveling at their position throughout the duration of this fiasco.
Interestingly, most anti-war folks I know were against all interested parties--not just the US. Of course they are going to align themselves with an entity with enough clout to actually stand up against the US and UK, I don't see what is distressing you about that so much.
Aligning oneself with a group with enough power to support one's cause doesn't imply agreement with all acts of the entity, right? After all, that has been the rationale from the conservative side for some time.