Saturday, December 31, 2005
Resolved: Starting a war with Syria is was a smart idea
ON NOW: PUBLIC DEBATE
Now in its seventy third exciting day!
Resolved: Starting a war with Syria is was in America's best interests
Taking the affirmative: Cowardly Anonymous Right-Whinger
Taking the negative: Charles Utwater II
Rules: (1) Each side will make an opening statement not to exceed 200 words. Subsequent statements may not exceed 500 words unless in direct response to specific questions.
(2) Any statement must be documented if requested.
(3) Any question formally posed (as indicated by a question mark) must be answered.
(4) Any post containing profanity, language abusive of any ethnic group or nationality, commercial spam, potentially illegal speech such as advocacy of assassination, or any post not in conformity with the Terms of Service of Blogger will be deleted and a suitably edited version substituted. Posts will otherwise be allowed to stand as is.
Bring it on!
[Note to readers: Since we can't find anyone willing to actually defend the idea of invading series, I will soldier on carrying both sides of the argument. These last three weeks have been busy, though, and time has not permitted.
I think it's very interesting I can't get anyone to take ownership of the debating points I offered up in the last post, representing the pro-invasion side. Could it be that 'wingers know I have the sources to prove that they're all bogus?]
Update, 11/29: The US has already begun to wage a second illegal war before losing the first
AMY GOODMAN: Last question, and that has to do with your last section of your piece on this composite American Special Forces team, known as the S.M.U., special mission unit, in Syria.
SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, there's more than one. There's many of them. You know, there's more than a handful of these units. Some are in Syria, some are other places. ...I can tell you right now, inside the American intelligence community, and I’m talking about high up in the community, there's a great deal of concern about these kind of operations...they don't clear it with either the State Department or the ambassador in the country or the C.I.A. chief of station. It's a formula for chaos.
Update, 12/15: I really am working on it. You know how the holidays are.
Comments:
<< Home
Um.
Mr. Whinger?
You were talking so big about how smart and patriotic you were that I felt sure you wanted to lead off.... show us benighted heathens what a Real American looks like and all.
You should probably say something before readers start to think that you're a cowardly little weasel who can't defend the trash that pours out of his bing mouth.
Not that they'd be wrong.
Mr. Whinger?
You were talking so big about how smart and patriotic you were that I felt sure you wanted to lead off.... show us benighted heathens what a Real American looks like and all.
You should probably say something before readers start to think that you're a cowardly little weasel who can't defend the trash that pours out of his bing mouth.
Not that they'd be wrong.
Since Mr. Whinger is evidently ....otherwise occupied... the proponent of the negative shall proceed with Opening Statement:
The War Party would have us believe that the measure of patriotism is the willingness to make war on those nations that Bush Administration designates as villains. They demand that we remedy one mistake (the illegal invasion of a nation) with another. They are wrong in general, and wrong about warring on Syria.
They should concede the obvious: there are more tyrannies than we have military might to conquer. We must pick our battles carefully. The question is not whether Syria is deserving of military attack, but what benefits and risks the United States would incur by doing so.
One argument in favor of invading Syria, which my esteemed colleague Mr. Whinger is too frightened to make himself, is that attacking Syria would help us put down the so-called insurgency in Iraq. This was the same argument made for attacking Cambodia in the Vietnam War. The strategy failed then and would fail now. Another argument is that because Syria has—according to Mr. Whinger— provided support to terrorists, attacking Syria would weaken terrorism.
Both arguments are false. First, Syria has collaborated with the US against al Qaida. Second, as we learned in Cambodia, destabilizing governments increases the power of terrorists.
Your turn, Mr. Whinger.
The War Party would have us believe that the measure of patriotism is the willingness to make war on those nations that Bush Administration designates as villains. They demand that we remedy one mistake (the illegal invasion of a nation) with another. They are wrong in general, and wrong about warring on Syria.
They should concede the obvious: there are more tyrannies than we have military might to conquer. We must pick our battles carefully. The question is not whether Syria is deserving of military attack, but what benefits and risks the United States would incur by doing so.
One argument in favor of invading Syria, which my esteemed colleague Mr. Whinger is too frightened to make himself, is that attacking Syria would help us put down the so-called insurgency in Iraq. This was the same argument made for attacking Cambodia in the Vietnam War. The strategy failed then and would fail now. Another argument is that because Syria has—according to Mr. Whinger— provided support to terrorists, attacking Syria would weaken terrorism.
Both arguments are false. First, Syria has collaborated with the US against al Qaida. Second, as we learned in Cambodia, destabilizing governments increases the power of terrorists.
Your turn, Mr. Whinger.
Since our friend Mr. Whinger has failed to appear, I suppose I will have to carry on for him until he arrives. This is the opening statement that Mr. Whinger would make if he were present, sincere, and sober (no catcalls from the audience, please):
The United States is engaged in a global war on terror. As a war, it is a conflict in which national survival is potentially at stake. Suspensions of civil liberties and denial of due process is normal. It is a global, so battles rage over national borders, wherever the enemy is. And since the opponents are terrorists, there is often confusion about the precise location of the battlefield.
We engaged and defeated Al Qaida in Afghanistan, bringing peace and prosperity to that nation. However, one member of Al Qaida, Abu al-Zarqawi, was in Iraq, plotting with Saddam Hussein. Because we knew that Saddam Hussein was therefore involved in the attacks of 9/11, and because we had reason to believe that he was about to use nuclear weapons against the United States, we had to strike Iraq preventively. Our forces are winning that front in the war. Yet al Qaida is a devious enemy, now in control of the Syrian and Iranian governments, who are arming, training, and giving sanctuary to terrorists.
Therefore, striking Syria will bring the global war against terror nearer to a successful conclusion. Anyone who doesn't agree and wholeheartedly support this strategy is a traitor.
Next: Guess the number of fallacies in the jar!
The United States is engaged in a global war on terror. As a war, it is a conflict in which national survival is potentially at stake. Suspensions of civil liberties and denial of due process is normal. It is a global, so battles rage over national borders, wherever the enemy is. And since the opponents are terrorists, there is often confusion about the precise location of the battlefield.
We engaged and defeated Al Qaida in Afghanistan, bringing peace and prosperity to that nation. However, one member of Al Qaida, Abu al-Zarqawi, was in Iraq, plotting with Saddam Hussein. Because we knew that Saddam Hussein was therefore involved in the attacks of 9/11, and because we had reason to believe that he was about to use nuclear weapons against the United States, we had to strike Iraq preventively. Our forces are winning that front in the war. Yet al Qaida is a devious enemy, now in control of the Syrian and Iranian governments, who are arming, training, and giving sanctuary to terrorists.
Therefore, striking Syria will bring the global war against terror nearer to a successful conclusion. Anyone who doesn't agree and wholeheartedly support this strategy is a traitor.
Next: Guess the number of fallacies in the jar!
Charles, no fair! You stated his tissue of lies more coherently than he could have done, poor thing.
Wow, I've seen a ton of straw man arguments on this blog, but nothing like this.
Now you are pretending to argue both sides of a case that doesn't exist.
Seeya, won't be back
Brian
Now you are pretending to argue both sides of a case that doesn't exist.
Seeya, won't be back
Brian
# posted by 
: 10/22/2005 01:13:00 PM
: 10/22/2005 01:13:00 PM
Not coming back is called cowardice, Brian.
You claim that "a case doesn't exist."
In fact, some cowardly little dweeb posted insults against the patriotism of members of Mercury Rising on this issue. You can read his post at the URL linked in the main article.
But, like you, he's hit and run. Just yammer an insult and scamper off like a monkey.
If you want to make the case that invading Syria is in the national interest of the United States, make it.
You know you would get your a-- metaphorically kicked from here to Damascus.
And that's why you "won't be back."
You claim that "a case doesn't exist."
In fact, some cowardly little dweeb posted insults against the patriotism of members of Mercury Rising on this issue. You can read his post at the URL linked in the main article.
But, like you, he's hit and run. Just yammer an insult and scamper off like a monkey.
If you want to make the case that invading Syria is in the national interest of the United States, make it.
You know you would get your a-- metaphorically kicked from here to Damascus.
And that's why you "won't be back."
Wow, "Brian" sure sounds a lot like the Original Anonymous Coward, eh?
So, Brian -- or whatever name you choose this week -- want to tell us why starting a war with Syria is a smart idea?
So, Brian -- or whatever name you choose this week -- want to tell us why starting a war with Syria is a smart idea?
By the way: Alice over at GOTV links to a Toronto Globe and Mail piece on how Seymour Hersh is eviscerating the "evidence" in the Mehlis report.
Post a Comment
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
