Logical Errors(?) in President Bush's August 22 News Conference
After boiling down Mr. Sir President Bush's words during his press conference of August 21, 2006, what you end up with is roughly as follows (paraphrased):
We must fight the Islamofascists by promoting freedom in the mideast. We must not withdraw from Iraq before the mission is complete. We must help reformers fight the Islamofascists. Premature withdrawal from Iraq will embolden the Islamofascists and send the message that we are apathetic about combatting terror through freedom and discourage reformers. Premature withdrawal from Iraq will harm USA security, result in Islamofascist terrorism in the USA, and create a more dangerous world. The world would be worse off with Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. Al Qaeda which was responsible for 911 is trying to get us out of Iraq by promoting civil strife.
An Islamofascist Iraq will be a safe haven for terrorists. Resentment and lack of hope caused by lack of freedom give rise to suicide bombers who attack us. We must believe we can beat the Islamofascists. We must shed our dependence on foreign oil. Chaos in Iraq will unsettle the mideast. Premature withdrawal tells troops their efforts were not worth it. We need the Patriot Act and spying to defend ourselves against the Islamofascists. The Islamofascists will have oil revenues to use against us if we lose Iraq.
This all has to do with the idea that if some action improves the security situation vis a vis Islamofascists, then we should go ahead with the action.
The logical error in this kind of thinking, which we have seen in the speeches made by the rude and angry Farah at WND and others, and which we have seen in the editorial pages of major newspapers with regard to important issues aside from the "Islamofascist threat", is this: the mere fact that some action improves the situation does not mean that this action is a wise choice.
The question is, is the given action the wisest use of limited available resources? Action A and Action B could both result in an improvement in terms of the security situation for the USA and in terms of the welfare of the world, yet at the same time, Action B could be a superior alternative because the benefit-cost ratio is superior to the benefit-cost ratio of Action A. Therefore the mere fact that some action improves the situation, does not indicate that said action should be carried out.
Mr. Sir President Dubya Bush himself talked of the need for quality intelligence information, and the importance of weaning of the USA off its dependence for foreign oil because such strengthens the USA economically (this in contradiction to Nixon's strange idea that we should get the USA hooked on foreign oil so that the USA does not become apathetic about the mideast), and the advantage of depriving "Islamofascist terrorists" of oil revenues through the establishment of democracy in Iraq.
Therefore the obvious alternative to the use of resources in military crusades designed to establish democracy in the mideast, is to use such resources to improve intelligence capabilities and to strengthen the USA economy and deprive "Islamofascist terrorists" of funds, through the development of energy conservation initiatives and alternative domestic energy sources.
Mr. Sir Prez Dubya however failed to establish, how the use of limited national resources in military crusades to spread democracy, is superior to the use of such limited national resources in crusades to improve intelligence capabilities and shift the nation from dependence on foreign oil to the use of energy-conservation technologies and alternative domestic energy resources.
Mr. Sir Prez Dubya produced a list of the advantages of "staying the course" in Iraq. This resembled the laundry lists produced by major newspapers, listing the advantages of entering into free trade treaties which have in the end turned the USA into an economic mirage based on money borrowed from foreigners. A list of the advantages of given actions, is not an adequate defense of such actions. What is required is a list of both the advantages and disadvantages of various policy options, together with an analysis showing which actions produce the better advantage/disadvantage ratio.
Mr. Sir Prez Dubya's emphasis in his news conference was on spreading democracy by force of arms as a way of combatting "Islamofascism". Yet the fact remains, that the USA has been involved in aggression against mideast nations that have been holding elections that some would say, are cleaner and more democratic than the elections we hold here in the USA; and at the same time the USA has allied itself with "Islamofascist" mideast nations.
How can it be left unexplained, why the arguments that justify such alliances with "Islamofascist" regimes, and against "democratic" regimes, do not refute the arguments in favor of a military crusade to spread democracy in the mideast?
The military efforts in Iraq, which have employed a new generation of weaponry, have coincided with dramatic increases in the incidence of serious diseases in the theaters of conflict and amongst USA troops involved in these conflicts. These crusades have produced widespread loss of life and economic damage.
How can it be left unexplained, how public health problems, death, and economic destruction, are supposed to in the minds of the mideastern peoples, be outweighed by the blessings of the introduction of a system of government that the administration labels "democracy"? How can mideast persons be expected to cherish a form of government promoted by the same forces that unleash disease, death, and poverty amongst them?
Many people would prefer to be physically healthy, alive, and economically prosperous in a totalitarian nation, as opposed to deathly ill or dead or penniless in a so-called "democracy".
Mr. Prez Dubya, said that the "Islamofascist" form of government, gives rise to hopelesness and despair amongst the inhabitants of the mideast, which expresses itself in attacks on western democracies. Now wait a minute. If some young man from the middle east is feeling hopeless and despondent because his nation is under authoritarian rule, why would he give vent to his dissatisfaction by attacking western democracies? Seems the more understandable thing for such a man to do, would be to attack his own authoritarian government which produces such feelings of grief inside of him.
Mr. Sir Prez Dubya, said that Al Qaeda, which he seems to think was responsible for 911, is busy stirring up Sunni vs Shia sectarian strife in Iraq. The question is, why would Al Qaeda stir up violence between Sunni and Shia, when the Sunnis already have their hands full rebelling against the USA's military?
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
We must fight the Islamofascists by promoting freedom in the mideast. We must not withdraw from Iraq before the mission is complete. We must help reformers fight the Islamofascists. Premature withdrawal from Iraq will embolden the Islamofascists and send the message that we are apathetic about combatting terror through freedom and discourage reformers. Premature withdrawal from Iraq will harm USA security, result in Islamofascist terrorism in the USA, and create a more dangerous world. The world would be worse off with Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. Al Qaeda which was responsible for 911 is trying to get us out of Iraq by promoting civil strife.
An Islamofascist Iraq will be a safe haven for terrorists. Resentment and lack of hope caused by lack of freedom give rise to suicide bombers who attack us. We must believe we can beat the Islamofascists. We must shed our dependence on foreign oil. Chaos in Iraq will unsettle the mideast. Premature withdrawal tells troops their efforts were not worth it. We need the Patriot Act and spying to defend ourselves against the Islamofascists. The Islamofascists will have oil revenues to use against us if we lose Iraq.
This all has to do with the idea that if some action improves the security situation vis a vis Islamofascists, then we should go ahead with the action.
The logical error in this kind of thinking, which we have seen in the speeches made by the rude and angry Farah at WND and others, and which we have seen in the editorial pages of major newspapers with regard to important issues aside from the "Islamofascist threat", is this: the mere fact that some action improves the situation does not mean that this action is a wise choice.
The question is, is the given action the wisest use of limited available resources? Action A and Action B could both result in an improvement in terms of the security situation for the USA and in terms of the welfare of the world, yet at the same time, Action B could be a superior alternative because the benefit-cost ratio is superior to the benefit-cost ratio of Action A. Therefore the mere fact that some action improves the situation, does not indicate that said action should be carried out.
Mr. Sir President Dubya Bush himself talked of the need for quality intelligence information, and the importance of weaning of the USA off its dependence for foreign oil because such strengthens the USA economically (this in contradiction to Nixon's strange idea that we should get the USA hooked on foreign oil so that the USA does not become apathetic about the mideast), and the advantage of depriving "Islamofascist terrorists" of oil revenues through the establishment of democracy in Iraq.
Therefore the obvious alternative to the use of resources in military crusades designed to establish democracy in the mideast, is to use such resources to improve intelligence capabilities and to strengthen the USA economy and deprive "Islamofascist terrorists" of funds, through the development of energy conservation initiatives and alternative domestic energy sources.
Mr. Sir Prez Dubya however failed to establish, how the use of limited national resources in military crusades to spread democracy, is superior to the use of such limited national resources in crusades to improve intelligence capabilities and shift the nation from dependence on foreign oil to the use of energy-conservation technologies and alternative domestic energy resources.
Mr. Sir Prez Dubya produced a list of the advantages of "staying the course" in Iraq. This resembled the laundry lists produced by major newspapers, listing the advantages of entering into free trade treaties which have in the end turned the USA into an economic mirage based on money borrowed from foreigners. A list of the advantages of given actions, is not an adequate defense of such actions. What is required is a list of both the advantages and disadvantages of various policy options, together with an analysis showing which actions produce the better advantage/disadvantage ratio.
Mr. Sir Prez Dubya's emphasis in his news conference was on spreading democracy by force of arms as a way of combatting "Islamofascism". Yet the fact remains, that the USA has been involved in aggression against mideast nations that have been holding elections that some would say, are cleaner and more democratic than the elections we hold here in the USA; and at the same time the USA has allied itself with "Islamofascist" mideast nations.
How can it be left unexplained, why the arguments that justify such alliances with "Islamofascist" regimes, and against "democratic" regimes, do not refute the arguments in favor of a military crusade to spread democracy in the mideast?
The military efforts in Iraq, which have employed a new generation of weaponry, have coincided with dramatic increases in the incidence of serious diseases in the theaters of conflict and amongst USA troops involved in these conflicts. These crusades have produced widespread loss of life and economic damage.
How can it be left unexplained, how public health problems, death, and economic destruction, are supposed to in the minds of the mideastern peoples, be outweighed by the blessings of the introduction of a system of government that the administration labels "democracy"? How can mideast persons be expected to cherish a form of government promoted by the same forces that unleash disease, death, and poverty amongst them?
Many people would prefer to be physically healthy, alive, and economically prosperous in a totalitarian nation, as opposed to deathly ill or dead or penniless in a so-called "democracy".
Mr. Prez Dubya, said that the "Islamofascist" form of government, gives rise to hopelesness and despair amongst the inhabitants of the mideast, which expresses itself in attacks on western democracies. Now wait a minute. If some young man from the middle east is feeling hopeless and despondent because his nation is under authoritarian rule, why would he give vent to his dissatisfaction by attacking western democracies? Seems the more understandable thing for such a man to do, would be to attack his own authoritarian government which produces such feelings of grief inside of him.
Mr. Sir Prez Dubya, said that Al Qaeda, which he seems to think was responsible for 911, is busy stirring up Sunni vs Shia sectarian strife in Iraq. The question is, why would Al Qaeda stir up violence between Sunni and Shia, when the Sunnis already have their hands full rebelling against the USA's military?
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 3:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home