"War on Terror" Numbers

[JordAnime]

Well the FBI are a part of a Government branch--they wouldn't actually care about a young kid smoking pot, or doing small-time arms dealing--and of course, the police need probable cause and a warrant from a judge before invading your privacy.

Ultimately, I don't think it's our job to be the world police in any case.  We should protect our livelihood, but there was a very minimal threat from Iraq at the time.  We may as well invade any country with arms because they're just as likely to attack us.  Iraq's government hated Al Qaeda so there was no threat there. 

It was a war for oil and for Bush to complete his father's legacy, nothing more.  We killed more people than we would have helped, it's basically Vietnam all over again, only there's no "evil empire" we're sparing with, which makes it all the worse.

[KeatonKitsune]

That would imply that your brother stole it from you, or you were in there, and left it there by mistake.  So that would imply that the WMDs we left in Iraq were ours in the first place.  And if memory serves, they were not. But again, I am open to someone correcting me on that. 

No, I’m not implying that here... The point I’m trying to make is that if you feel your brother is “in possession” of something he should not be, would you be “justified” in going to see?

Walking into someone's room to look for something and invading a sovereign nation and killing many people in the process are completely alike.

In every way necessary for a good analogy. I know.

And Keaton, please, for the love of God, don't reply "That's why my analogy works!" 

Because you are better than that.  So, please, provide some proof that the WMDs were ours in the first place.  Then, maybe, I would be willing to perhaps see your analogy as somewhat plausible. 

What the hell? Really people, you need to go study what an analogy is and what its purpose is. I’m not budging on my stance.

A better analogy would be that the janitor/principle/class president suspects that some people have drugs in their lockers, therefor inspects the lockers of those who would likely have them.

That should work as well...

But even then a locker is in school property, that'd be more like if the janitor walked into your bedroom to look for your drugs. 

How about your room mate then?

No, you struck through that because it makes your argument void, because we're talking about ONE SOLITARY ACTION.

No, you just said we can not be selfless, which is incorrect.

Ultimately, I don't think it's our job to be the world police in any case.

Now this, IMO, is the only real argument we should be having here. This is the issue that should be debated, I think.

It was a war for oil and for Bush to complete his father's legacy, nothing more.

I don’t agree.

We killed more people than we would have helped

And I again do not agree. But I also want to point out that the vast majority of those we did kill were not innocent, while the ones we saved were. I believe that to be a win-win situation.

[JordAnime]

How about your room mate then?

Well if I'm Iraq and my roomate is the US and drugs are weapons.

I have a small stache of weed and the US is the premier drug lord.

.No, you just said we can not be selfless, which is incorrect.

I said our government's choice to go into Iraq was not selfless, at least that's what I meant to say, sorry if you like to dodge around arguements so much you try to not comprehend what I'm say.

I don’t agree.

Good for you.

And I again do not agree. [/quo[te

You'd be wrong.

[Adam]

What the hell? Really people, you need to go study what an analogy is and what its purpose is. I’m not budging on my stance.

You're a silly man and I'm not going to debate with you any more.

Seriously.  In this sort of analogy, you're drawing a connection between two scenarios, claiming that they are analogous and so-and-so relevant features, and therefore you can draw analogous conclusions from each of them.  That's all fine and dandy (as well as a good enough logical argument), but TW is questioning the relevant features you used to compare the scenarios.  As he's bringing into question the premises you used to draw your conclusion, your analogy is not still a solid logical argument, and now you should really be debating with the man why your set of relevant features (that in both cases, someone is in possession of something they should not be) are more important to the analogy than TW's proposed relevant features (that it is also relevant to consider who owned property initially, and how it came to be where it is).

Because if you draw the analogy your way, yes, the situations are analogous, but if you do it TW's way, than the situation is no longer analogous, and your conclusion is no longer valid.

[KeatonKitsune]

Well if I'm Iraq and my roomate is the US and drugs are weapons.

I have a small stache of weed and the US is the premier drug lord.

I think the US would be the pharmacy. Not as likely to abuse the drugs we have.

I said our government's choice to go into Iraq was not selfless, at least that's what I meant to say, sorry

Apology accepted.

You'd be wrong.

Not a fact.

You're a silly man and I'm not going to debate with you any more.

That doesn’t sound like you, Chibi... You’re usually a) much more willing to debate with me, b) much more accepting of my analogies, and c) much more courteous, even if you don’t agree.

Seriously.  In this sort of analogy, you're drawing a connection between two scenarios, claiming that they are analogous and so-and-so relevant features, and therefore you can draw analogous conclusions from each of them.  That's all fine and dandy (as well as a good enough logical argument), but TW is questioning the relevant features you used to compare the scenarios.

No, he’s not really. What they are doing here is finding other dissimilarities between the two items in my analogy, none of which were my relevant features.

The items in my analogy were both situations in which two otherwise equal entities might be fighting over whether or not party A was justified in invading party B’s territory under party A’s suspicion that party B was in possession of something party B should not .

This was, and is the basis of my analogy. And nothing they or anyone has said has contested these features.

Because if you draw the analogy your way, yes, the situations are analogous, but if you do it TW's way, than the situation is no longer analogous, and your conclusion is no longer valid.

But see that’s just it... I was the drawer of the analogy, not TW, Jordan, or anyone else. Therefore I get to set the manner in which my analogy is... um... drawn.

[Twilight Wolf]

But see that’s just it... I was the drawer of the analogy, not TW, Jordan, or anyone else. Therefore I get to set the manner in which my analogy is... um... drawn.

And we, not you decide whether or not it is valid, in which case, the overwhelming majority has decided that it does not in fact, work.  Even after your explanation, it still only works on one level.  In order for it to be a better analogy, in my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of everyone else, it has to work one more than one level. 

This is why analogies are not always the best strategy to use.  Because they can easily have holes poked in them.

A better analogy, Keaton, would be this:

The US invading Iraq is like when Sparta invaded Athens after the war with Persia.  Sparta saw a growing threat in Athens, and saw a window of opportunity shrinking day by day for which they could reasonably invade Athens and still have the upperhand.  Athens did do some naughty things to warrant this, such as hoarding money for itself.  On another level, Athens went behind the back of Sparta after Sparta asked Athens not to build a wall around its city, but did it anyway.  In both cases, a preventative war was fought.

And Keaton, I would be more than willing to further defend my analogy if you require it.  In fact, I would be more than willing to make ridiculous analogies that connect on only one level to prove to you that multiple levels of connection are required to make it a plausible analogy.

[Adam]

That doesn’t sound like you, Chibi... You’re usually a) much more willing to debate with me, b) much more accepting of my analogies, and c) much more courteous, even if you don’t agree.

That's because you probably didn't click the link there.  I'm sure that will clear things up.

No, he’s not really. What they are doing here is finding other dissimilarities between the two items in my analogy, none of which were my relevant features.

But he's saying that these other dissimilarities are also relevant to the conclusion drawn.

The items in my analogy were both situations in which two otherwise equal entities might be fighting over whether or not party A was justified in invading party B’s territory under party A’s suspicion that party B was in possession of something party B should not.

That's because the the relevant features you set out are obviously true, and no one in their right mind would contest it.  However, I'd say that you're overlooking some other important relevant features that would ruin in the integrity of your analogy as they relate to the Iraq war.  I could point out how the scenarios differ, and why I believe those differences are relevant, if you'd like.  I'd probably even create my own analogies to make my point, and that could be a pretty good time.

But see that’s just it... I was the drawer of the analogy, not TW, Jordan, or anyone else. Therefore I get to set the manner in which my analogy is... um... drawn.

And we're contesting the manner in which you drew your analogy.  So why is your analogy any more accurate than the counter-analogy proposed by TW (that the Iraq war has some relevant differences from your wallet scenario, and therefore the Iraq war is not necessarily justified as the wallet thing is)?

[KeatonKitsune]

And we, not you decide whether or not it is valid

Who says?

In order for it to be a better analogy, in my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of everyone else, it has to work one more than one level.

And that is why I said you need to go educate yourself on what an analogy is.

A better analogy, Keaton, would be this:

No, that was a comparison. Where’s the question to reason? Where do you point out that logic that worked for Sparta should also work for the US (or vice versa)? Thanks for proving my point, TW.

That's because you probably didn't click the link there.  I'm sure that will clear things up.

Oh, sorry... see I usually post in here while at work, and u-tube is blocked here...

But he's saying that these other dissimilarities are also relevant to the conclusion drawn.

Well, I don’t recall anyone saying that, but if so, then I will be willing to modify my analogy. Actually, I did modify it above, but whatever.

That's because the the relevant features you set out are obviously true, and no one in their right mind would contest it.

Which was exactly my point...

However, I'd say that you're overlooking some other important relevant features that would ruin in the integrity of your analogy as they relate to the Iraq war.  I could point out how the scenarios differ, and why I believe those differences are relevant, if you'd like.  I'd probably even create my own analogies to make my point, and that could be a pretty good time.

You’re quite welcome to do so. I expect it. If I did not, I would be rather silly in the LoT.

And we're contesting the manner in which you drew your analogy.

Eh, yes, you did. Jordan, to be specific, found some more reasonable flaws in my analogy, and I then fixed them, or I believe I did. So why don’t we just focus on the more recent adaptations?

Here, let me revise it a little more, too.

A person (person A) suspects his room mate (person B) has a gun in his room, and intrudes to find out. If person A turns out to be wrong, was he still justified in the invasion of person B’s territory?


I believe the answer should be 'yes'.

[Twilight Wolf]

   a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

Notice the pluralization of features, Keaton. In your case, you had one like feature (that the party in question was in possession of something they shouldn't be.  Mine had much more.  And by the way, I did use an analogy. 

No, that was a comparison. Where’s the question to reason? Where do you point out that logic that worked for Sparta should also work for the US (or vice versa)? Thanks for proving my point, TW.

you really are thick, aren't you?

Or perhaps I should point out that, in my opinion, neither was justified, to draw out analogy?

[JordAnime]

A person (person A) suspects his room mate (person B) has a gun in his room, and intrudes to find out. If person A turns out to be wrong, was he still justified in the invasion of person B’s territory?

You've still got a shitty analogy.  It's not illegal to own a gun and it's rude to rummage through other's stuff, and by the way, if person A is representative of the US, our room would be filled to the brim with more guns than you could count.

[Twilight Wolf]

Sorry for my hasty reply earlier.  Had to get to class.  More to the point, Keaton, let's play your analogy game.

No, the person is not justified.  If it is a college roommate, then person A should go seek out the proper authorities (the RA) and state person A's suspicions.  If it is a regular roommate (like sharing an apartment), then that person is still not justified because person B, for all we know, has a right to own a gun.  If it is a sibling, then person A should talk to the parents and or legal guardians.

And still, I say it is a shitty analogy.  Chibi stated pretty much why i feel that way.  If you'd like to debate in the terms of my analogy, then please, feel free.  I gave you the courtesy of debating in the context of yours just now.

[JordAnime]

An effective analogy might include person B not being allowed to own guns under the law and person A is worried he's going to use the gun to harm somebody, including him--oh and the "snooping around" should be replaced with person A breaking down person B's door armed to the teeth to take away his gun.  Turns out person B never had a gun, but person A having trashed his room in the process feels obligated to stay and try to clean up the mess but person B is just mad and wants him to leave.  Meanwhile, person A's enemies drop by and start trashing the room when person A isn't looking.

But you know even that isn't really true as if Person A is the US, his goal was politically motivated.  The intellegence wasn't faulty, it was Bush's AGENDA to go into Iraq since he ENTERED OFFICE.

So really person A wanted to invade person B's privacy to steal his stuff but would use the whole "he's got a gun thing" to make it seem alright for him to invade person B's privacy. 
---
Keaton, you can live in your little bubble that we have the right to invade whatever nation we want whenever we want, and the president Bush was just acting in our best intrests, but people in the CIA have come out and said that's not the case.  The evidence is overwhelming, such to the point where conservative pundits have shifted their view from "we were justified" to "well we're there now, so we gotta stick in there".  You're simply dillusional if you think that we had just cause to go in there and that Iraqis are "so much better off now" than under Saddam. 

Saddam may have killed and tortured a lot of people, but we've killed hundreds of thousands---those who have died in bombs caused by the insurgency that wouldn't have died IF WE WEREN'T THERE.  Those that died by missles, crossfire, mines.  Even the insurgents wouldn't have become tha insurgents if we hadn't invaded then disbanded their army. 

Given your aversion to reading, I suggest you watch No End In Sight, it's a very impartial documentary, perhaps you'll learn something.

[KeatonKitsune]

Notice the pluralization of features, Keaton. In your case, you had one like feature

No, I had (at least) two. One on both sides.

you really are thick, aren't you?

If thick means you know what an analogy is...

Or perhaps I should point out that, in my opinion, neither was justified, to draw out analogy?

Huh? You mean in the analogies? You mean you don’t agree with my conclusion of the analogies, that they were justified? Just making things clear...

You've still got a shitty analogy.  It's not illegal to own a gun and it's rude to rummage through other's stuff, and by the way, if person A is representative of the US, our room would be filled to the brim with more guns than you could count.

Please explain to me how any of this means I have a bad analogy?

WMDs aren’t globally illegal. And your second and third “points” are irrelevant except that they are your opinion. They do not make or break an analogy. So please, explain.

If it is a regular roommate (like sharing an apartment), then that person is still not justified because person B, for all we know, has a right to own a gun.

What if it was an assault rifle? Let’s assume for sake of comparison that it would NOT be okay for the room mate to have the gun. Let’s also assume that there is no greater authority willing to look at the issue.

And still, I say it is a shitty analogy.

Chibi has not even commented the revised analogy. It’s amazing...

An effective analogy might include person B not being allowed to own guns under the law and person A is worried he's going to use the gun to harm somebody, including him

Yep, I’m adding this in, see above.

oh and the "snooping around" should be replaced with person A breaking down person B's door armed to the teeth to take away his gun.

I’ll accept that if you add in that person B, previously being known to lie about such things, and also previously known to have guns and no account of ever having lost them, refuses person A’s request to peek in and make sure person B does not have the guns anymore. Person B also arms himself and barricades his door, not allowing person A in. Person B also is known to hang out with friends who hate person A, and who have recently shot person A in the face with a big gun.

The intellegence wasn't faulty

Wooooah.... That’s the largest amount of backpedaling I’ve seen in quite a while... All these months and years, you’ve been pushing right along the other Bush haters that oooh the intelligence was bad, and they went in too soon, etc, etc... and now... all along it was not bad... how amazing.

it was Bush's AGENDA to go into Iraq since he ENTERED OFFICE.

But see, because this is not a monarchy, and because Bush could NOT do this sort of thing all on his own, obviously there is more to this than you say here.

You're simply dillusional if you think that we had just cause to go in there and that Iraqis are "so much better off now" than under Saddam. 

Well, this depends. I completely disagree that we did not HAVE a just cause to go in; I believe that stopping Saddam is a perfectly just cause. What I do not necessarily disagree with is whether that was our reason for going in.

But to me, our reason is irrelevant if the ends are good. Oh, and I also definitely disagree that the Iraqi people are worse off now. I believe they have things MUCH much better.

we've killed hundreds of thousands---those who have died in bombs caused by the insurgency that wouldn't have died IF WE WEREN'T THERE.  Those that died by missles, crossfire, mines.  Even the insurgents wouldn't have become tha insurgents if we hadn't invaded then disbanded their army. 

Yes, we have killed many, but the difference is that the people we’ve killed, unlike Saddam’s victims, were NOT innocent, and definitely had a choice in the matter. Had they not attacked us, they would not have died. They ran to their own suicides.

[JordAnime]

Keaton, you're simply incredibly uninformed.  You suggest I backpedal when I say the intelligence isn't faulty, well it turned out the Executive Branch wasn't being fed faulty intelligence, if you read the articles I linked, you'd find that Bush had planned to invade Iraq and used "bad intelligence" as a scapegoat.  The Bush administration used the terrorist attacks as cloak to have us invade Iraq.  You clearly don't have an understanding of the power of the Executive Branch in this country if you think that just because we live in a democracy, one man or one organization can't seize control, in fact, you have a very poor understanding of social dynamics in genera if this is what you think.

If you think there isn't innocent blood on Mr. Bush's hands, you're sorely mistaken, if you think we had just cause to go into Iraq, you're sorely mistaken.

[KeatonKitsune]

You suggest I backpedal when I say the intelligence isn't faulty

Because that’s absolutely the case, regardless of the actual truth of what you now pedal. You’re only agreeing because it benefits your personal hatred of Bush.

if you read the articles I linked, you'd find that Bush had planned to invade Iraq and used "bad intelligence" as a scapegoat.

That does NOT mean there was no faulty intelligence. It means the faulty intelligence was simply used to their advantage. Not that I’m saying it’s true.

Jordan, if you believe everything you see on CBS, or ANY media source, then YOU’RE the one who’s blind, not me.

You clearly don't have an understanding of the power of the Executive Branch in this country if you think that just because we live in a democracy, one man or one organization can't seize control, in fact, you have a very poor understanding of social dynamics in genera if this is what you think.

Oh, quite the contrary, Jordan. I do find it simply hilarious that you could even suggest that one man, the president of ALL of them, actually leads this country.

Not even IN a monarchy is that true.

If you think there isn't innocent blood on Mr. Bush's hands, you're sorely mistaken, if you think we had just cause to go into Iraq, you're sorely mistaken.

I won’t say no innocent lives were lost, but I will say that MUCH much more were saved than lost.

And no, I do not believe I am “sadly mistaken” about there being just cause, but you’re free to try to dispute that.

[JordAnime]

Jordan, if you believe everything you see on CBS, or ANY media source, then YOU’RE the one who’s blind, not me.

I don't believe everything I hear, but unlike you I do listen to things I hear.

[Twilight Wolf]

Jordan, if you believe everything you see on CBS, or ANY media source, then YOU’RE the one who’s blind, not me.

Ironic, coming from someone who believes everything in the Bible.  That aside, this is not a religious debate.

What if it was an assault rifle? Let’s assume for sake of comparison that it would NOT be okay for the room mate to have the gun. Let’s also assume that there is no greater authority willing to look at the issue.

Just based on a suspicion?  On what grounds is this suspicion?  And no, I do not think that the roommate is justified, because he is still going through someone's own things.

Here's a more appropriate analogy. 

You suspect your neighbor of having an assault rifle.  Are you justified in breaking and entering into his house to look for it and find out if your suspicions are accurate?

[KeatonKitsune]

Just based on a suspicion?  On what grounds is this suspicion?

Well, to be fair, let’s say you had... information that he had the rifle, and knowing his past, really had no reason to doubt this.

You suspect your neighbor of having an assault rifle.  Are you justified in breaking and entering into his house to look for it and find out if your suspicions are accurate?

Assuming you live in a social anarchism (again, to be fair), then yes. I do.

[JordAnime]

Keaton, I have to say you're completely ignoring ANY information that's come out in the last six years. 

Well, to be fair, let’s say you had... information that he had the rifle, and knowing his past, really had no reason to doubt this.

The problem is, Keaton, that the story you're making up only bares slight surface resemblances to Iraq.  You've yet to really refute anything information I've posted, aside from saying "don't believe everything you hear", and while that's a good notion, it doesn't mean "don't believe anything at all".  When a CIA veteran of 26 years comes out and says this:

"The policy was set, the war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

I think we need to raise our eyebrows.  It's the job of the press and the people to police the government, and even if I do believe everything I hear on CNN, it's better than believing everything our government tells us.

And by the way, here's the logical failure of your entire analogy:

Assuming you live in a social anarchism (again, to be fair), then yes. I do.

Laws are different all over the world, and when two nations collide we have to look global laws.  There's a body called the United Nations which is supposed to be representative of this, that "higher power" you spoke of earlier, it does exist and if it made a mandate to invade Iraq, then I'd say sure.  Guess what though?  There wasn't.

Oh, quite the contrary, Jordan. I do find it simply hilarious that you could even suggest that one man, the president of ALL of them, actually leads this country.

Keaton, you need to stop making so many straw men, it's embarrassing.  I merely said you underestimate the power of the executive branch of this nation.

THOUGH

The President of the United States is typically considered the nation's leader and leader of the free world. 

[Adam]

Chibi has not even commented the revised analogy. It’s amazing...

Sorry, I've occasionally better things to do.

A person (person A) suspects his room mate (person B) has a gun in his room, and intrudes to find out. If person A turns out to be wrong, was he still justified in the invasion of person B’s territory?

First off, this scenario is silly because if your room mate has a gun, then you don't have to intrude to find out, because you also would be living in that room.  Because you'd be room mates.  But for the sake of ignoring trivial details, I'll assume by "room mate" you actually mean "neighbor."

Second off, your scenario and the Iraq War differ in respect to the potential consequences of your actions.  In the roomie scenario, intruding will strain relations between you, maybe even one of you will end up getting shot, but only the two people will be affected.  In the case of Iraq, invasion, whether justified or nor, will results in tens of thousands of deaths, largely from innocent civilians.  I think that's an important distinction that warrants slightly heavier consideration of one's actions.

Thirdly, I disagree that the person in your analogy is justified anyways, as breaking and entering of your own accord, even if you suspect illegal activity, is illegal.  A responsible citizen would alert the police, and defer to their authority.  I'll give some moral leeway in the case of a dire situation where immediate action is needed to prevent the dude from going on a shooting spree, but I think you'd be hard pressed to say that there was a dire and immediate need for us to invade Iraq.

Analogously, that would mean that I believe we would've been justified in invading Iraq were such action backed by the UN.  But without the higher authority on our side, we're just being the sort of socially irresponsible vigilante that would break and enter a neighbors home for suspician that they are in possession of an illegal firearm.  Or even if we there were pretty good reason to believe that they were in possession of such.

I’ll accept that if you add in that person B, previously being known to lie about such things, and also previously known to have guns and no account of ever having lost them, refuses person A’s request to peek in and make sure person B does not have the guns anymore.

Ok, I'll accept that.  That doesn't really change anything much as far as your analogy or my argument against it goes.

Person B also arms himself and barricades his door, not allowing person A in.

That's kinda silly.  The way I'm interpreting this, person B arming themselves and barricading the door would be analogous to Saddam showing off his WMDs and threatening to blow up anyone who sets foot in Iraq.  And that never happened.

Person B also is known to hang out with friends who hate person A, and who have recently shot person A in the face with a big gun.

You don't actually mean this, do you?  Please tell me you don't actually mean this one.

So sidestepping all this "Bush was planning out the invasion of Iraq since before he took office" theory stuff, I'm just trying to say the the US should've waited for UN support before charging into Iraq.