Arguments for and against the war--straw men gone crazy

[albionmoonlight]

As I said in an earlier thread, all of the "nuke Mecca," "black glass the civilians of countries that support terrorism," "get those towel heads back for 9/11," "exile those who speak against the war or the president" comments make me afraid to support the war.

As the Million Mogadishus thread points out, some of those who are against the war say things just as asshatty and make me afraid to be against the war.


I have two points

1.) It is very easy to "other" the side to which you are opposed. The reason pro-war people say that "75% of anti-war activists want a million Mogadishus" and that anti-war people say that "90% of the war hawks are xenophobic racists" is because it makes it much easier to feel comfortable being on your side of the fence and not their side of the fence.

I think a lot of us are falling for this variation of the straw-man argument. We are pulling crazy quotes from the other side, posting them on this board, and saying--see, this is why my side is right--because this is what the other side thinks.

We should all acknowledge the valid points of the other side and stop picking fights with easy targets.

2.) Even if you have well thought out positions supporting your views in this matter, you should realize that there are a lot of people who share your views--but get there for the wrong reasons. If you are against the war, you have to come to terms with the fact that some of the people sharing your views do so because they Hate America. If you are for the war, you have to come to terms with the fact that some of the people sharing your views do so because they Hate Arabs.


This war, to me, presents many complex issues. Right now, I am for the war (for humanitarian reasons, that regime had to go ASAP), but against the way we went about doing it ("Operation Piss off the World" according to the Onion). My opinion has changed, and it will continue to evolve as I learn new facts and new ways of viewing the situation.

I think that one of the reasons a lot of people are "straw-manning" here is because we are not used to battles when the other side has valid points. We are used to posting that Braggg is wrong for posting a Nazi symbol on the board. That's an easy one. This is a lot more subtle and complicated, so we pretend that the other side is something monstrous because that is the arena in which we are accustomed to operating.

[CamEdwards]

I wasn't trying to pick a fight by posting the story about the Columbia professor. I would venture a guess that most people who are wishing the war would end would find this fella offensive. That's why I didn't comment until later... I just posted his email and phone number.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
We should all acknowledge the valid points of the other side

But that's one of the reasons much of my critique is so adamant; I'm having a hell of a time finding much from the other side that is valid.

Not really trying to argue with you albion, nor is this a rip on you for the various opinions in your post. I just believe that you've highlighted a point that is being overlooked in some of the "why can't we just agree on some common ground" conversations I've seen in the past couple of weeks -- I just don't believe that, when you really get to the bottom lines, there's very much common ground left for the two sides to share.

Just offering another element to the conversation,
Jon

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tangent -- among all the various national polls about the conflict in Iraq, has anybody seen one or more that break out the primary reason for supporting/opposing the use of military force? Something among the lines of "The primary reason I support/oppose the war is ..."

I'd be interested in the results if anybody has seen something like this.

[Radii]

I <3 Albionmoonlight.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by ctmason
My opinion is that war, as are most things, rarely a black/white issue.

I find the issue to be too complex to simply say, "I support the war/I don't support the war." Support the young men and women fighting? You betcha. Support the innocent Iraqi people? You betcha, again. Understand why so many are angry at the U.S.? Yep.

And there's the kicker. I find the protesters of the war, for the most part, to be completely out of their league, intellectually. The majority of protesters are motivated by their hatred of George W. Bush....not by some greater moral purpose. Note that protest were not nearly as high during Clinton's use of military force in Yugoslavia, another operation were we had shaky evidence and lack of unilateral support among our allies and the UN.

In that sense, they are being intellectually dishonest. Again, I don't agree with a lot of what Bush has done, I didn't vote for the guy, didn't vote for Gore either....but I suppose I'm level-headed enough to understand the complexity of the situation.

The squeaky wheels, on both sides of the issue, are not. It's a shame they both get the most press.

In a very well thought out thread started by Albionmoonlight arguing that strawmen are dominating the debate over the war and not reflecting the nuance involved, this is the first reply?!?! Dismissing protestors as anti-Bush, calling them "intellectually dishonest, and intellectually inferior is just plain ridiculous. That is the very epitomy of using strawmen to justify your argument. A lot of anti-war (if not the vast majority) are very smart, very honest people driven by forces other than disliking Bush.

[NoMyths]

Nicely pointed out, John.