It is frustrating that well-known potential allies hold the views Mr. Coleman lists. It would be helpful, nevertheless, to seek discussion with others about ideas we share with them. I reached out and informed a paleo-con about On to Restoration and VFR, and the person said he or she would check them out; this person appears to be extremely busy and therefore might never get a chance to check.

I know some paleo-cons seem to have irrational ideas about Israel and Mr. Bush’s followers. But they are certainly not Stalinists or Nazis. Even then, in a war of survival, such people might be helpful as Stalin was helpful to the Allies in WWII. Perhaps the best idea is to ignore their irrational ideas about Israel and Mr. Bush’s followers and address their rational ideas; if someone insists on a response, perhaps one could simply say, “I disagree and I won’t discuss it.”

Concerning venom toward Jewish people, I think the most effective antidote is Mr. Auster’s. Mr. Auster often points out that even assuming a Jewish person originated a bad idea, the remaining 95-99% non-Jewish people in the world are also responsible if they implement the Jewish person’s idea.

I think Mr. Murgos made this same useful suggestion recently, and I agreed with him then. But, as he can see, it’s hard to keep to it. I guess a workable approach could be, each time we see some particularly egregious piece of anti-war posturing, to say, “So and so is wrong on these points, but the important thing is, what can we do together to solve our common challenges?”

The problem, however, and it’s one we’ve pointed to repeatedly, is that the anti-war right doesn’t seem to want to address common issues in a positive or analytical way; they just want to attack the neocons, attach the neocons, attack the neocons … So what does one do with people like this? I guess, wait for the madness to pass, and when it passes maybe we will be able talk with them again.

Because Mr. Auster has far more experience at this than me, I’ll bet his best guess will turn out to be accurate.

the paleocons argued from just war principles, and have been proven out to be correct, both in that which was knowable before the war, and by the actions of the u.s. once war began.

disproving the enemy’s arguments, i.e. the advocates for war in iraq, was part of proving an argument which is based in just war doctrine but let to the prudential judgement of men. disproving the war advocates proved their failure to hold to just war doctrine as well as proved their vice against prudence.

prior to the war, not only were the principles of just war advocated by the paleocons, but all arguments for war were proven false as far as any proof either way was possible.

those points which were less knowable, and upon which the war party continued to hang their hats, have now been either proven explicitely false, or have been shown with a high degree of certitude to be false.

since the burden of proof for war rested on the war party, and since they neither proved their arguments prior to the war, and have been proven wrong after the war began, i fail to see where the paleocons could have done more.

the war party continues to make the same vacant statements against the paleocons, when the burden of proof was upon them to justify war. attacking the paleocons no more justifies the war than beheading st. john the babtist justified a sin of a different nature.

perhaps those who are still insisting on following the war party should go back and read the writtings at chronicles, future freedom foundation etc. in order to know what the paleocons actually argued.

I have read the arguments of the paleos and continue to read them all the time, so I know exactly what they say. In addition to making some good points, they make numerous ad hominem attacks that hurt their cause, which was a point I made above. Furthermore, it is not necessary, as some paleos seem to believe, to disagree with everything that is said by one’s opponent. That leads to making unnecessarily weak claims.

As far as just war theory, the biggest mistake made by President Bush was to use WMDs as the pretext for war, leading him to claim a right to pre-emptive war. There was no need for a new theory of war. This was a serious error in statesmanship and leadership, needlessly alienating many devout followers who are schooled in just war theory. Part of the 1991 cease-fire had been violated, and there was no need for any other justification (except for the political need to make it sound more urgent to the voters).

Thus, it is true that Bush did not go to war using a just-war theory as justification. However, if one can accept that the first war was a just war, then Bush is just continuing that war when the cease-fire agreement is repeatedly broken AND there is the POSSIBILITY that the reason it is being broken is to gather strength to attack innocents. I do not believe that any proper interpretation of just war theory precludes military action when a cease-fire from a previous just war is being violated by an arms buildup, but there could be disagreement on that.

One thing I am more certain of is that conservatives have a certain respect for established norms, which precludes any “conservative” from being a law unto herself when it comes to matters such as the capitalization of words. :-)

i might add, coleman, argues accidental issues, and not the principle on upon which war is justified.

accidentals may win or loose arguments with the majority of americans, but they remain just what they are, accidental.

“the paleocons argued from just war principles”

The paleocons argued partly from a very narrow interpretation of “just war” principles. But much of the rest of their aguments were little more than anti-Bush and anti-Jewish hysteria.

“and have been proven out to be correct”

They have been proven wrong. The Baathist regime was giving shelter to terrorist groups, one of which, Ansar al-Islam, was connected to Al-Qaeda. On this point alone the paleocons got it badly wrong.

“perhaps those who are still insisting on following the war party should go back and read the writtings at chronicles, future freedom foundation etc. in order to know what the paleocons actually argued.”

I have read Chronicles, the Future of Freedom and Lew Rockwell regularly. Ninety percent of their arguments add up to “war is wrong, Bush is evil, its all about Jews, Oil and a global neocon empire to further Jewish/American control”.

I have said before that what fascinates me is how closely the paleocon arguments follow the same arguments made by rabid Marxist and anti-American/anti-Israel groups like ANSWER.

To Mr. Coleman,

I’ve never quite understood the difference between justifying the war on the basis of Iraq’s violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and justifying it on the basis of Iraq’s possession of WMDs, since the ceasefire agreement obligated Iraq to reveal and destroy its WMDs.

One thing I am more certain of is that conservatives have a certain respect for established norms, which precludes any “conservative” from being a law unto herself when it comes to matters such as the capitalization of words. :-)
Posted by: Clark Coleman on September 22, 2003 05:13 PM

and your pointe is?

capitalization is a convention, just as spelling is.

and for what its worth, i’m not a conservative, or a paleocon etc., but a catholic who desires only to conform to Christ and his Church.

“if one can accept that the first war was a just war, then Bush is just continuing that war when the cease-fire agreement is repeatedly broken AND there is the POSSIBILITY that the reason it is being broken is to gather strength to attack innocents.”

there is a difference between defense and aggression. just as the sanctions were nothing short of mass murder of the innocents and not an act of defense but aggression, no matter how one might spin a justification for them.

Mr. Auster wrote:

“I’ve never quite understood the difference between justifying the war on the basis of Iraq’s violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and justifying it on the basis of Iraq’s possession of WMDs, since the ceasefire agreement obligated Iraq to reveal and destroy its WMDs.”

If Bush said, “Iraq has failed to reveal its WMDs and destroy them, thus violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Therefore, the 1991 war shall continue until Iraq complies”, then there is no theory of pre-emptive war needed. We need not find any WMDs; if Hussein destroyed them in secret, he is an idiot and that is not our fault. If he moves them out of the country on the eve of war, he still has not satisfied the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

On the other hand, if we say “Iraq has WMDs and cannot be permitted to continue to have them, as they might give them to terrorists or use them against their neighbors or us, so we are justified in waging a pre-emptive war”, then it not only initiates needless controversy over pre-emptive war versus just war, but it does make the critics of the Bush administration wonder what we were “pre-empting” when we don’t find the WMDs very quickly after the war ends, doesn’t it?

Furthermore, violation of the 1991 cease-fire is a less subjective case to argue than to argue that (1) Saddam will give his WMDs to terrorists, who will then use them against us, or (2) the weapons will “fall into the hands of terrorists” even if Saddam does not give them to terrorists, or (3) Saddam will directly use them against us, or (4) Saddam will use them against other countries in the region or his own people. All of these can be disputed, with one of the prime facts being that Saddam was much weaker and more closely watched than he ever was in the past.

The problem is, it is hard to get the public excited about a violated cease-fire agreement, especially when it has been violated for 12 years. Telling them about mushroom clouds over American cities is far more compelling.

As I stated elsewhere, we should have handled Afghanistan far more forcefully. At the same time, we should have been providing financial and communications equipment aid to dissidents in Iran (hate to say it, this idea was pushed by neocon Michael Ledeen, but he is right). Let the Iranian people do their own dirty work there with some non-military help. Iran and Afghanistan were bigger supporters of terrorism than Iraq. We still have almost no military operations on the Iran-Afghan border, which is a sieve for Baluchi terrorists to cross at will. A decisive victory in Afghanistan right up to the Iran border could have made a real impression in Teheran. And the fall of both Iran and Afghanistan could have made a real impression on Saddam, too. I think we could have contained him well at that point.

clark coleman,

btw, i do appreciate your gentile method of arguement.

also, where are there “numerous” ad hominems. i certainly haven’t seen them either on the chronicles website or in their magazine.

the paleo-libertarians over at lew rockwell enjoy bopping the war party on the head, but who can blame their pleasure? but the bopping isn’t ad hominem, because the bopping is other than their arguments against the war party.

as i wrote before, some arguments may be stronger than others, but this is accidental to whether their arguments are correct or not.

an argument by authority may be the weakest argument, but it remains an argument, and is no less true by its being an argument by authority. and if those who read it, fail in their accepting it, the fault is not with the person making the argument, but with the reader.

Good points by Mr. Coleman. In both instances, the issue is Hussein’s possession of WMDs. But in the first case, we wouldn’t have had to assert anything more about the WMDs than what was already known. The obligation is on Hussein’s side, he’s violated that obligation, so we’re going in. In the second case, we needed to make all these complicated arguments about what the WMDs might be used for.

As Mr. Coleman indicates, it would have been very difficult for Bush to make the case for war solely on the basis of the violations of an agreement that Saddam had been violating for many years. Still, the case could have been made, even after 9/11. Bush could have said: “We’ve let him get away with this for all these years; but in the new and dangerous environment in which we now find ourselves, we can no longer be so forebearing. Therefore, on the basis of my authority under the Gulf War resolution passed by Congress in January 1991, and of the cease fire agreement with Iraq later that year, I am ordering our forces to invade Iraq.”

Abby wrote:

“capitalization is a convention, just as spelling is.”

Yes. It is a convention that assists others in reading and quickly understanding what you write.

“and for what its worth, i?m not a conservative, or a paleocon etc., but a catholic who desires only to conform to Christ and his Church. “

To not care about whether or not you are making it difficult for others to read is not to conform to Christ. Nor does your Church communicate in such a manner in its writings, does it? I believe they are more concerned with their readers than you are with yours. Your practice is self-centered and lazy.

“just as the sanctions were nothing short of mass murder of the innocents and not an act of defense but aggression, no matter how one might spin a justification for them.”

Typical nonsense from the “blame America first” crowd in this kind of discussion. The oil revenues that Saddam was permitted during the embargo were more than adequate to keep his people from starving. If he chose to build new presidential palaces during this era (a confirmed fact) and rebuild military forces (another confirmed fact) with that money, rather than feed his people, then the blame rests upon him. If you cannot see something as simple as that, don’t bother posing as some expert in moral law to the rest of us.

I agree with Mr. Coleman that Abby’s refusal to use conventional capitalization is selfish, lazy, and inconsiderate of others. I’ve previously requested Abby to use normal spelling, and she refused. She’s got to decide if she’s a traditional devout Catholic as she claims, or some countercultural egotist mocking the “conventions” that make civilized human intercourse possible.

Moreover, since this is a traditionalist website, we more than others respect and value the conventions of our language as it’s been used and developed for many centuries. I would expect that anyone who wanted to post here regularly, as Abby does, would share that respect, at the very least out of normal consideration for other people, even if she doesn’t feel that respect herself.

Finally, since Abby has mentioned her children, I wonder if she’s teaching them to avoid capital letters as well.

Mr. Auster said: “I’ve never quite understood the difference between justifying the war on the basis of Iraq’s violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and justifying it on the basis of Iraq’s possession of WMDs, since the ceasefire agreement obligated Iraq to reveal and destroy its WMDs.”

Not to split hairs, but possession of WMD’s, although the central focus of the Ceasefire that was embodied in U.N. Resolution 687, was not the sole criterion. Iraq was required to provide a full, final, and complete declaration of their weapons programs, and never did. Iraq was required to submit to and cooperate in “urgent, on-site inspections.” It was enough that Saddam kicked the U.N. inspectors out in 1998. The blatantly fraudulent documents he presented last year, and the manner in which the inspections were stonewalled was only further violation — this after yet another UN resolution.

Even if Iraq really had zero WMD’s, it seems clear enough that it was in violation of the Ceasefire terms. Obviously it’s all a chip off the same stone — the most obvious reason Saddam would violate these terms is that he did have WMD’s in his possession.

But Joel, if Hussein were only violating a technical agreement and had no WMDs, who would think of waging war on him? The violations mattered only because the violations concerned WMDs. Or am I missing something here?

Well, maybe I’m splitting the hair too thin. ;-) But the burden was on Saddam to demonstrate that he was in compliance. His failure to do so put us in the position where we had to assume that his noncompliance had a more sinister basis than the silly explanations that some proffered — oh, he’s just defending his country’s sovereignty, the inspectors were spying, et.al.

If, and it’s a very big IF, it actually turns out that there were no WMD’s in Iraq, (and I wonder who REALLY believes that,) I would still maintain that our action was justified.

if caps help, I’ll use them.

“Typical nonsense from the “blame America first” crowd in this kind of discussion.
Posted by Clark Coleman on September 22, 3003 6:44 PM

Your “blame america first” comment is without merit. and is at best an ad hominem since it intends to discredit me and is not a proof by argument.

The oil revenues that Saddam was permitted during the embargo were more than adequate to keep his people from starving.
Posted by: Clark Coleman on September 22, 2003 06:44 PM

As you should know, water treatment parts were sanctioned, as were other items required to prevent death.

“If he chose to build new presidential palaces during this era (a confirmed fact) and rebuild military forces (another confirmed fact) with that money, rather than feed his people, then the blame rests upon him.
Posted by: Clark Coleman on September 22, 2003 06:44 PM

The sanctions were a positive act. Your argument has much the same validity as saying that only the lions are to blame for killing the martyrs. The lions may act with a will of their nature, but that nature is know prior to dropping the martyrs in the lion’s den.

We knew prior to the sanction what the outcome would be. And even if we had not, we certainly did soon after, but continued with the sanctions knowing full well the effect of our actions. Since those deaths would not have occurred if sanctions had not been in place, the sanction are a direct cause of those death.

In fact, what is the more direct cause? The denial of water treatment parts by the U.S. sanctions, or Saddam building palaces while he could not obtain those parts because of sanctions?

The sanctions also destroyed Iraq’s economy, which directly lead to starvation.

Coleman’s argument is somewhat socialist in thinking because he looks to the government, i.e. Saddam, to provide that which outside its competence.

adding to my last post:

Also, the principle of double effect no more applies to the Iraqi sanctions, than does the principle apply to dropping atomic bombs on cities.

The caps certainly do help. Thank you.

I oppose economic sanctions as being (1) ineffective, and (2) generally harming private citizens, while some dictator at whom the sanctions are aimed does not really care that they are harmed. That is my position even on sanctions that other conservatives tend to support, such as with Cuba, as well as with older cases in which conservatives tended to agree with me, such as the former Rhodesia and South Africa. I am happy to discuss the morality or immorality of UN sanctions against Iraq, but they were not my idea nor do I defend them in general. I just disagree with certain allegations about the effects of those sanctions.

That said, there is always significant cheating on embargoes, because there is a powerful economic incentive to do so by multiple parties. We have unconvered significant military trade between Iraq and other nations in recent years, including Russia and France. Iran is also known to have disguised Iraqi oil as Iranian oil in order to allow Iraq to go over its UN quota and obtain more foreign cash. The border with Syria has been rather porous, to say the least.

So, I am being asked to believe that Saddam could arrange all sorts of military and oil trade, but the likes of Syria, Russia, Iran, and France were scrupulously adhering to rules about metal piping for water treatment plants? And, at the same time, these countries were willing to risk having other forms of banned trade uncovered? Perhaps you should not be so quick to believe such claims.
Where do you suppose such claims originated? Is there just the tiniest possibility that the “starving children because of UN sanctions” claims originated in the Iraqi government? Do you have any idea how many times over the last century American citizens have been the dupes of enemy propaganda?

Just a quick observation:

Clark Coleman’s arguments tend towards pragmatism, in so far as he doesn’t look first to the principle of the act. So I’m not surprised that he would not be pleased with the paleos who prefer to argue first from principle.

The sanctions on Iraq were placed on it after it had waged a war of aggression against Kuwait that involved horrific acts of murder, torture and abuse of Kuwaiti people, and after it had fired Scud missiles at Israel, two facts Abby conveniently does not mention.

The sanctions were not responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people, as Clark has pointed out. Moreover, there is more than a little evidence that Saddam falsely inflated child mortality rates as part of his propaganda war to increase the number of useful idiots in the West.

But it would seem that in Abby’s world murderous fascist dictators are not responsible for how they treat their own people. Instead, America is to blame for standing up to him. Abby can spin this any way she wants, it is in fact a perfect example of the blame America first attitude.

“paleos who prefer to argue first from principle”

Saddam had children as young as two locked up in prisons, where they were tortured and raped, sometimes in front of their parents. If it had been up to the paleocons those children would still be in those prisons, instead of having been freed by American soldiers. So I wonder what vaunted paleocon “first principle” or Catholic “moral” would leave children to be tortured and raped by a socialist tyrant’s thugs?

The answer of course is none. Paleocons were not motivated by any moral principles nor by any reasonable understanding of just war ethics. They were motivated by the Marxist anti-American and anti-Israeli hatred they have adopted over the last few years, and simply tried to hide this fact by claiming moral principle where there was none.

A comprehensive statement of reasons and premises justifying the war on Saddam Hussein and Islam would be too lengthy and time consuming. So it will hopefully be helpful to provide three premises. First, Saddam Hussein and his heirs apparent enjoyed brutally torturing and murdering people for fun and did it often, if the news reports are accurate. Second, Saddam Hussein and his heirs supported Islamic terrorism. Third, Islamic terrorism has been directed at America and some of America’s allies.

I think that by now it’s an objectively established fact that the anti-war paleos—not all of them, and not in everything they say, but most of them, in most of what they say—are driven by hatred and similar emotions. This is not the first time such a thing has happened in history. Large numbers of people can come to believe passionately in things that are completely false, and to justify, in the name of that belief, every kind of lie and viciousness. The mania goes on for a while, and eventually wears itself out. There is really nothing one can do except occasionally point out the truth and wait and hope for them to recover their reason.

As an example of this kind of phenomenon, consider the Bush-haters on the Democratic left. One wonders how the anti-war paleos feel about having so much in common with leftists. But, in fact, they’re too angry to care about that.

Abby wrote:

“Clark Coleman’s arguments tend towards pragmatism, in so far as he doesn’t look first to the principle of the act. So I’m not surprised that he would not be pleased with the paleos who prefer to argue first from principle.”

Actually, my arguments tend towards logic, and I don’t suffer illogic gladly. As a result, I tend to argue against illogic even when I agree with the larger point being made. For example, I don’t think we can engage in nation building successfully in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously, and I think that Americans don’t have the attention span for that kind of thing, even if there were not other insuperable problems. As a result, I don’t like the half-hearted job we did in Afghanistan, and don’t think we did the right thing in Iraq, and don’t like our inattention to Iran. I am not much impressed with either Bush or the advice he has been getting.

Yet, when I hear a criticism of Bush that seems false, I will point it out. That is just the way I am. Others might decline to argue with someone who is “on the same side” in some sense. Not me.

What arguments have I made that were pragmatic to the point of ignoring the principles involved?

“One wonders how the anti-war paleos feel about having so much in common with leftists.”
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on September 22, 2003 10:07 PM

Sometimes I get the impression that if a leftist said the sky was blue, there would be an immediate rush of commentators on this blog to prove it green in spite of all empirical evidence to the contrary.

.

“three premises. First, Saddam Hussein and his heirs apparent enjoyed brutally torturing and murdering people for fun and did it often, if the news reports are accurate. Second, Saddam Hussein and his heirs supported Islamic terrorism. Third, Islamic terrorism has been directed at America and some of America’s allies”.
Posted by: P Murgos on September 22, 2003 10:06 PM

Of Murgos’s three, only the first has any validity for justifying war against Iraq. The other two are non sequiturs.

The first may rise to the level of defense of a State as a secondary title although it is not clear:

Whether a state may find title to interfere for punishment after the destruction of the innocent who were in no wise its own subjects, is not so clear, unless such punishment be a reasonable necessity for the future security of its own citizens and their rights. It has been argued that the extension of a state’s punitive right outside of the field of its own subjects would seem to be a necessity of natural conditions; for the right must be somewhere, if we are to have law and order on the earth, and there is no place to put it except in the hands of the state that is willing to undertake the punishment. Still, the matter is not as clear as the right to interfere in defence of the innocent.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

But even if the U.S. has just secondary title, the war must not exceed the damage done. And since Iraq will end up with another government even worse than the one removed, this requirement is not met. Saddam may have been vicious, but Shiite Islam is worse, and Iraq will go Shiite because of the U.S. invasion.

This seems to be my day for seconding Mr. Coleman. I do not like Bush, do not support him generally, but when false and vicious things are said about him, I criticize that.

“What arguments have I made that were pragmatic to the point of ignoring the principles involved?”

Posted by: Clark Coleman on September 22, 2003 11:00 PM

I wrote “tend towards pragmatism”.

for instance your argument on sanctions involved not whether cutting off water treatment parts was in principle right or wrong, but that Iraq could get the parts inspite of the sanctions.

BTW Albright didn’t deny the sanctions death count, but said it was “worth it”. And neither has any other credible source I’ve come across. I don’t consider News Max and other shills credible, nor do I consider the American Exceptionalists credible.

I think Albright’s “worth it” sums up nicely modern U.S. government policy both here and abroad.

whether homosexual marriage is immoral was not the issue, but the cost benefit made it “worth it”. and so it goes.

Abby wrote:

“for instance your argument on sanctions involved not whether cutting off water treatment parts was in principle right or wrong, but that Iraq could get the parts inspite of the sanctions.”

No, my argument was that the sanctions did not cause mass death, not that the sanctions were good. If they did cause mass death, I would oppose them even more than I already do. To support my argument that the sanctions did not cause mass death, I mentioned that water treatment parts would have been obtained at least as easily as many things that Saddam DID manage to obtain. Hence, if he did not obtain water treatment parts, it might very well have been a matter of choice on his part; perhaps even part of a propaganda campaign to dupe Westerners. That is not to say that an embargo on water treatment parts was moral or wise.

I opposed the sanctions because they were a limp-wristed half-effort to end the 1991 war. We should have imposed the destruction of WMDs at that time through direct military means, and then neither side would have endured the last 12 years. To the extent that any civilian suffering occurred because of sanctions, that is a primary reason to condemn them. But I don’t think the suffering includes mass death, although Saddam would be happy for you to believe that.

It goes without saying that Madeleine Albright was one of the most incompetent dupes ever to hold a high position, so I prefer to hear assessments from other than her.

“No, my argument was that the sanctions did not cause mass death, not that the sanctions were good. If they did cause mass death, I would oppose them even more than I already do.”
Posted by: Clark Coleman on September 22, 2003 11:53 PM

The point is, you did not argue the principle. Cutting off water treatment parts is ether justified or it is not justified. your argument didn’t concern the underlying justification. A paleo would first look at whether or not the act was justifiable.

Your opposition or favoring of sanctions is based first in the pragmatic question of whether or not sanctions work, not in whether or not they are justifiable in themselves.

If this is not how you approach the issues, I stand corrected, but it’s how you come across.

Since the UN, not the US is ( or was ?) a party to the treaty with Iraq, which makes the sanctions a creature of the UN, not the US except as member of the UN, I find the UN number of children killed credible.

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=10691

and of course my always favorite read:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kelly3.html

On the sanctions
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0305i.asp

This is a nice article on Iraq,
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0305l.asp

What the heck, just read everything of FFF, but then again, you already said you do.

BTW, sorry for sidetracking you all away from your paleo bashing, I’ll bug out and let you all have your fun.

Besides current affairs are not all that enjoyable to argue about, especially compared to Matt’s latest poser on legitimacy sitting on another thread.

Abby wrote:

“If this is not how you approach the issues, I stand corrected, but it’s how you come across.”

This seems to be a common misunderstanding in various threads here, and not just involving me. I think the problem is that people naturally divide up issues in their mind into competig sides or factions. They then try to figure out what side each poster is on and read between the lines of their postings rather than just reading what they say.

There are basically two factions re sanctions: Those who oppose them and those who support them. If someone posts an allegation about sanctions that I believe is false, and I respond, then many readers will conclude that I am in favor of the sanctions, which is incorrect.

Likewise, if someone posts an allegation about sanctions and I narrowly dispute that allegation without addressing the broader issue of the rightness of sanctions, then some readers might think I don’t care about the broader issue but only about the narrow issue. That is also incorrect.

I suggest that those who engage in public dialogue would be well served to read exactly what others write and not make too many assumptions.

Abby wrote,

“What the heck, just read everything of FFF, but then again, you already said you do.”

I just clicked on one of the links posted by Abby and had a look at their site and, uhhh, no, I don’t think I’ll be reading them — they explicitly oppose any controls on immigration, not to mention the other ways their heads are screwed on completely backwards.

Thanks for the suggestion, Abby, but … no thanks. I think I’ll pass on this one, if you don’t mind.

I don’t think I articulated my position above well. Let me try again: I believe that we had a firm legal basis to strike at Iraq, based on Saddam’s noncompliance with the ceasefire requirements. I also believe that there was sufficient concern that he possessed WMD’s, based on the evidence we had at the time.

What I disagree with is the notion that the justification for our action depended on some later ‘discovery,’ as if finding actual WMD’s would then provide retroactive justification for the course we pursued. There is every reason to suspect that Saddam had a plan in the works to hide or move his weapons. (See the link I posted above.) I don’t think that our inability to immediately locate actual WMD’s means that our action was without a legal and reasonable basis.

We are at war! How many more terrorist acts against us will it take for some folks to recognize this?

Perhaps periodically it would be helpful to have a crossexaminer or two interrogate a commentator, especially the more talented ones. The crossexaminer, not the commentator, would control the discussion perhaps with the help of an unbiased referee. In other words, no changing the subject or refusal to give legitimate evidence. I have suggested this before, and I have a good example of why it could prove helpful.

In an effort to find the basis for the opinions on the war on Islam, I proposed three premises (that is, ideas presented as facts) earlier, and a commentator simply agreed with one premise and disagreed with the other premises. This is not discussion, but appears to be refusal to discuss, which is often caused by the refusal of the commentator to admit their argument rests on an irrational premise. I was proposing fact premises, not conclustions; I did not reveal why I thought those premises could serve as the basis for certain conclusions I did not identify. Still, the two premises were simply denied. (If time had been the problem, the premises could have gone unopposed.)

The interrogation could even be a sort of pre-advertised event

What Mr. Murgos is suggesting would require a degree of organization that would be very hard to create in an Internet forum like this. It’s more like something for a formal debate setting.

I will yield to the advice of Mr. Auster because of his superior knowledge and experience. In the meantime, I will be trying to think of a more practical idea, the goals of which are: to require commentators to admit or to deny or to plead ignorance to the interrogatories; to explain esoteric references immediately or have them stricken immediately by the referee; to assert rational, plausible premises; and most importantly, to stick to the issue. There are probably other sensible goals. Some people don’t test well, so there would be no winner or loser, just a thoroughly discussed issue.

It might be an exciting Friday evening event that even friends and families of the commentators would tune into. I hope I am not pressuring anyone on this; it is just a little idea among many large ideas.

Laying the groundwork:

A comprehensive statement of reasons and premises justifying the war on Saddam Hussein and Islam would be too lengthy and time consuming. So it will hopefully be helpful to provide
three premises. First, Saddam Hussein and his heirs apparent enjoyed brutally torturing and murdering people for fun and did it often, if the news reports are accurate. Second, Saddam Hussein and his heirs supported Islamic terrorism. Third, Islamic terrorism has been directed at America and some of America’’s allies”
Posted by: P Murgos on September 22, 2003 10:06 PM

Of Murgos’’s three, only the first has any validity for justifying war against Iraq. The other two are non sequiturs.
Posted by: abby on September 22, 2003 11:02 PM

In an effort to find the basis for the opinions on the war on Islam, I proposed three premises (that is, ideas presented as facts) earlier, and a commentator simply agreed with one premise and disagreed with the other premises. This is not discussion, but appears to be refusal to discuss, which is often caused by the refusal of the commentator to admit their argument rests on an irrational premise. I was proposing fact premises, not conclustions; I did not reveal why I thought those premises could serve as the basis for certain conclusions I did not identify. Still, the two premises were simply denied. (If time had been the problem, the premises could have gone unopposed.)
Posted by: P. Murgos on September 23, 2003 10:42 PM

A non sequitur in logic is an inference which does not follow from a premise.

“Saddam Hussein and his heirs supported Islamic terrorism.” is a true statement in its self ( I did not “disagree”), but the inference is that justified the war. But since there is not a logical middle term, a valid syllogism cannot be formed. Thus it is invalid, (as I wrote) because it is a non sequitur (as I wrote).

The same can be said for your other premise.

I clearly explained why they were invalid when I said your premises were non sequiturs, given that you supplied both the first term and the conclusion, and far from arguing from an “ irrational premise” ( as you wrote), reason is exactly what I applied.

I looked at your premises and conclusion, applied just war principles to possible middle terms and came up only with invalid syllogisms.

well anyway, enough peeking over at the vfr, back to what i’m supposed to be doing.

one last comment:

I don’t think I’m anymore required to explain why all the middle terms are loosers, anymore than I would expect someone to explain why all the middle terms to “Socrates is a man” are invalid for proving “rolly pollys are cute”.

I appreciate Abby taking the time to respond and hope she will return when her duties have lessened.

My premises were intended as independent facts, non sequiturs. I avoided constructing a syllogism. I was stating premises that I rely on to support my personal and hidden (from VFR posters) syllogisms to justify the war. I was hoping to begin compiling factual premises each “side” disagreed over. It is my understanding that factual disagreements are often the reason for disagreements over conclusions.

When I wrote my criticism of Abby’s response, I had many thoughts and one of them was hope that I would not take Abby away from her regular duties she needed to attend to. (Ergo one reason I left her name out of my post.) Now I see this was not the case, so I regret the interruption. I also suspect how the interruption happened: posters can receive notice of postings (which I realized only this week).