|
Albeit long, this was an interesting read and it immediately reminded me of the work of a political science major having been given the assignment of writing a thesis, pro or con, based on a coin flip. In this case the contributors appear to use a variety of "swaying tactics". One that stands out is the use of "could" or "might" statements when supporting evidence of their stance is questionable or unclear. I was almost impressed how the authors tried to garner support for their argument by saying the potential costs were unclear but it would be considerably more than the last Gulf War. SO WHAT? That's like comparing comparing apples and oranges. That's almost like saying I should be pissed because the Ford F150 I bought last year cost more than the 10 year old Ford Ranger I traded in. I noticed also that some of the moral and humane issues which have surfaced previously and more recently, went completely without being addressed. Why? Well, of course, no matter how you try to argue the case, certain things are just wrong; The treatment of women, children, and now prisoners in Iraq key among them. I can't say I sleep more comfortably after watching CNN before bed at night, but I do sleep comfortably with my own simple rationale for supporting war- - -after looking at the big picture, the people of Iraq will be better off, the people in surrounding countries who lived under the threat of WMD's in the hands of a lunatic will be better off, and hopefully, after Operation Iraqi Freedom is deemed a success, we'll address North Korea and Pakistan and anyone else out there breaking the rules. (However, after all this writing, I wonder if FCALive will find a way to pick it apart? I guess I'll post it anyway, and find out.)
|
Threaded Mode