Is Baghdad really safer post-Saddam? Don't be ridiculous.

Yes, some of them are more informed and grounded in reality than are others, which are pulled out of your arse.

 

Well, under Saddam, it was pretty much a rout. Saddam destroyed and no one fought back. At least now it's a fairer fight.

 

Ah ... so mutually assured destruction is a more fair fight.

Don't suggest that at 1600 Pa. Ave ... they'll make it their next talking point.

 

'yab --
If the architects of this clusterfuck were as honest as you are, I wouldn't loathe them half as much.

 

Shadid's work from the Middle East is stellar. His fluency in Arabic allows him to cut through the BS translators and get some real answers from the people in the region. Sometimes, I wonder if the translators are just telling the reporters what Americans would like to hear.

 

Go fly a kite, guys. After all, Baghdad was a kite-flying paradise under Saddam, right?

 

I'm confused.

Are you guys saying things were better under Saddam? Are you pro-fascism? Pro-tyrants?

Aren't you the same folks who cry like little girls whenever you think the Patriot Act or anything Bush does come close to infringing on your rights? But a tyrant in Baghdad is somehow a good thing?

Fascism for others is good but not for you? Is that it?

I'm sure a little martial law could lower the crime rates in some of our inner cities. Are any of you "things were better under Saddam" Nancy-boys going to advocate for that next?

 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Let the shell game begin.

 

Chris captured the logical fallacy two-fer, by managing to build a strawman argument AND promote a false dichotomy.

No one has argued things were wonderful in Iraq under Saddam, except Chris. And no one believes -- again, except Chris -- that one must be content with the prosecution of the war or else a fan of Saddam's.

An argument any polisci or history professor would give a failing grade.

Try again, if you really want to.

 

I'm sorry. I though I was posting on a thread with the title "Is Baghdad really safer post-Saddam? Don't be ridiculous."

Because that title indicates that things were better under Saddam and that anyone who would argue otherwise was not only being wrong - he would be ridiculous.

You people started out with a strawman - not me.

 

Who are "you people"?

I didn't start the thread, merely responded to your post.

Guilt by association. Logical fallacy #3.

These are organized in several books that might be of help to you.

 

Zeke - the "you people" I was referring to are the SportsJournalists.com echo chamber of Bush-haters not-so-anonymous.

Half the posts on this thread were along the lines of "let's see the neo-cons argue this!" (and Fenian wonders why half of the threads he starts get no replies).

The very title of the thread is not meant to further genuine debate but to argue that anyone who does not engage in your sort of same-think is being ridiculous. And "you people" wonder why nobody wants to play your little reindeer games.