72% of US troops want war to end in 2006

[Tetrahedrite]

You just can't call a potential error in fact a logical fallacy. It's just not...right or something like that.

You said "the uniformed serviceman has clearly made a judgement, based on some evidence, regarding the likelihood that a Middle Eastern dictator hostile to the west would have collaborated with al Qaeda.I don't know about you, but the judgement is prudent in my mind."

 

To me it looks like you are asserting that because Sadddam was a dictator hostile to the west, and because al Qaeda is hostile to the west, that the two must have collaborated. This seems like a clear case of a logical fallacy, in the absence of any evidence what so ever to the contrary.

 

 

 

Yeah, and Jay-Z and Nas went at it in 2002. Now they're cutting an album together. Point?

You know very well what the point was. I was illustrating that because al Qaeda was hostile towards Saddam's regime, and it is therefore not prudent to assume that they collaborated.

 

 

 

Probably not, seeing as I've been indoctrinated apparantly.

I will assume that this is the case, if you can produce some evidence to the contrary then I'm willing to change my mind.

 

The moral of the story is this, if you think that the vast majority of uniformed servicemen are wrong on a point of fact, argue the point of fact. If you're not prepared to do so, then just say "well, I guess we agree to disagree."

I do believe that the vast majority of servicemen are wrong in linking Iraq with the 11/9 attacks (exclusively). I do not think it is because they are unintelligent, I believe it is because they have been misled by the administration that sent them to war.

[padren]

A few notes on the saddam/9-11 connection:

 

Taken from an article in Esquire covering Dick Cheney: here

(originally ran across it in this guy's blog, for completeness sake)

 

The interesting part of the article refers to "a senior administration official" quoted as stating:

As it was, the administration took what looked like the path of least

resistance in making its public case for the war: WMD and intelligence

links with Al Qaeda. If the public read too much into those links and

thought Saddam had a hand in September 11, so much the better.

 

Bush himself has rejected the 9-11/saddam link more than once:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

 

Despite the fact that he referenced 9-11 here:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

 

acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

 

If someone wants to argue I'm just splitting hairs, thats fine. I am not on some impeachment crusade, I just think these are relevant enough to cite when it comes to people's misguided belief that there was a 9-11/Saddam connection.

 

 

 

Well, I'll admit Zogby has a rather spotty past in terms of his previous pollings, especially when he called the presidential race for Kerry from his exit polls...

 

Yeah, he didn't even try to account for the presence of diebold's machines. (that is just a joke of course)

[pcs]

Bush himself has rejected the 9-11/saddam link more than once:

 

President Bush has stated, in agreement with the publically available judgements of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that there is no evidence of Hussein's cooperation in 2001 al Qaeda attacks. The President did not say that he was ruling out a judgement that Iraq had some hand to play in the operation.

[pcs]

To me it looks like you are asserting that because Sadddam was a dictator hostile to the west, and because al Qaeda is hostile to the west, that the two must[/i'] have collaborated.

 

Which is why you shouldn't read more into someone's remarks than is necessary to make sense of them. I said that serving men and women have arrived at a judgement, based on some evidence, that the Hussein regime collaborated with al Qaeda--specifically in the 9/11 attacks. It is a prudent judgement in my mind.

 

This seems like a clear case of a logical fallacy...

 

Even if I had said that, the argument remains at least internally consistent (iif not very explicit). You'd want to try and show us where the argument breaks down, not simply point out that you do not have confidence in the evidence informing the judgement.

 

...in the absence of any evidence what so ever to the contrary.

 

I disagree. I would argue there's more than sufficient evidence to arrive at a similar perspective in today's threat environment. And once again, you confuse a dispute over the facts with fallacious reasoning

 

You know very well what the point was.

 

You need to stop assuming so much.

 

I was illustrating that because al Qaeda was hostile towards Saddam's regime, and it is therefore not prudent to assume that they collaborated.

 

Now that's an explicitly fallacious argument, specifically the improper disjunctive. You'll need another term to ensure that prudence fails on the basis of al Qaeda's decade old statement of hostility for Hussein's regime.

 

I will assume that this is the case, if you can produce some evidence to the contrary then I'm willing to change my mind.

 

But I'm not interested in changing your mind. I'm interested in your characterization of an internally consistent point of view as fallacious and your remarks regarding the indoctrination of the American warfighter.

 

I do believe that the vast majority of servicemen are wrong in linking Iraq with the 11/9 attacks (exclusively). I do not think it is because they are unintelligent, I believe it is because they have been misled by the administration that sent them to war.

 

Good for you.

 

I'm still wondering why I should give your point of view greater weight than that of the troops.

[aguy2]

I said that serving men and women have arrived at a judgement' date=' based on some evidence, that the Hussein regime collaborated with al Qaeda--specifically in the 9/11 attacks. It is a prudent judgement in my mind.

[/quote']

 

Whether the 'spokesgoon' of the Baathist dictatorship and al Qaeda were in bed together is one thing, and that indisputable fact that they sure as hell are now, is another. The fact that they are closely allied now is probably effecting the troops opinion of the nature of their pre 9/11 relationship. But this is a tangent.

 

The point being: If the troops are sick and tried of being semi-mobile, semi-armored targets, and they don't think the mission is doable, what should we being doing about it?

 

Should we get out and leave the Sunni/iraqi and Shiite/iraqi to duke it out, knowing full well that the conflict will spread to their Syrian and Persian allies?

aguy2