Corbett said
YEAH! Then we can worry about them plotting to kill us here in America instead!
Assuming the [neocon/Bush] plan is to launch a preemptive, hegemonic war against Iran.
And the Democrats don't have a plan.
Therefore, their plan of conquest is validated.
The term "non sequitur" was invented to describe this kind of "reasoning."
How does one debate an argument on the "merits" when the argument is complete lunacy?
Or is this more Faux News false equivalency? "Some say the Holocaust happened, some say it didn't, lets discuss this dispute on the "merits".
Attacking Iran is insane. I can explain the idiocy of the attack-Iran argument with one word: Iraq.
We are becomeing irrelevent in Iraq and that was 1/10th as hard as Iran.
Not to mention we've completely depleted our military in Iraq and gotten 3,000 kids killed as a result of that folly.
Debating attacking Iran on the "merits" is, by definition, an impossibility.
Therefore, you can rightly asks the next question: How do we marginalize the total and complete nutcases that continue to be given a mainstream voice in our media?
I would suggest that we not only ignore people like this , but we begin to refuse to accept the terms of debate that they set out for us. Rest assured that by simply pointing out the facts, people will accuse you of being Ahmadinejad?s puppy and whatever else. The same dynamic happened to anyone who was against the Iraq war...
You could say that these pundits need to be engaged so that they may be brought to some common agreement. If we go along with the rational thinker, how could any such resolution occur? Well, it could not.
There has been the suggestion that people like this or even the President, are hopeless and should be ignored so that our limited energies can be directed to those not already committed to their dead end proposals.
This assumes that the rational thinker is going to be able to persuade those sitting on the fence whereas instapundits and those like him cannot. We should not be so blind. Just because the rational thinker believes that his opposition is insane or unreasonable will not prevent them from using the arguments and evidence at their disposal to solidify converts to their side.
The fact is these neo con pundits came to their positions by arguments. They did not just develop some kind of organic imbalances that could be treated pharmaceutically.
I repeat this quote:
"Rest assured that by simply pointing out the facts, people will accuse you of being Ahmadinejad?s puppy and whatever else. The same dynamic happened to anyone who was against the Iraq war."
You would think this quote means some opposition to the invasion of Iraq, and so one should expect the same tactic for Iran,and could not overcome the argument that, "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists." I was not surprised that pointing out facts could not overcome the arguments that the President put forward. The mere presentation of facts, mumbled quietly, is not the presentation of an argument. No one really understood what position the facts were supposed to support. Was the idea that an attack on Iraq would be wrong because they did not then present any real threat to anyone? Then you might have shown the relevance of facts.
It will be wrong to attack Iran and pointing this out is not speaking on behalf of the President of Iran. Pointing out that we should do the right thing is not a biased prejudice.
Facebook
Twitter