Let's assume that the war in Iraq is just

[quaoar]

For the sake of argument.

Call this "How To Win an Argument With a Republican About the War"

I have found that when you argue with a Republican about the war, the standard reply is that Saddam was a really evil guy who had rape rooms and killed lots of people and aren't those Iraqis better off now? The standard Republican argument is to accuse you of being willing to condemn innocent Iraqis to a live of murder and torture -- how can you possibly be so callous?

People who support the war cling to this line of argument because, basically, there is nothing else to cling to.

So you say, "OK, let's say for the sake of argument, that we were justified to invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy with rape rooms."

When you take away that prop, the rest of the argument is wide open:

1. Even if the war is just, Bush has completely fucked it up.
2. Even if the war is just, Bush has failed to provide our troops with the proper equipment, including armored Humvees.
3. Even if the war is just, there was no planning beyond the ticker tape parades through Baghdad.
4. Even if the war is just, hundreds of soldiers have died needlessly because of Bush's poor planning.
5. Even if the war is just, Bush's incompetence has resulted in needless death and he is unfit to command the United States military.
6. Even if the war is just, Bush has besmirched the just cause by permitting torture.
Etc. etc.

Republicans won't respond to "this war is immoral." They will respond to "Bush's incompetence has led to needless death."

[Bigmack]

1. I'm replying...

because I think this is an important post.... not because I think anybody can persuade a Bushbot that their "godly" leader has made any mistakes.

During the run-up to the war, I told a few people in our small town that the whole war was gonna be fucked up, and the occupation a mess. I promised to publicly apologize if I was wrong... if they would do the same.

I can't get them to admit this thing is a mess... I can't get them to admit we've done anything stupid, immoral, or incompetent.

They say... "Just wait, it's not over. Things are getting better."

Mass delusion trumps persuasion every time.

[sandnsea]

3. Because "America is good"

And it is simply inconceivable to these people that "American goodness" won't make everything okay in the end.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=870

[quaoar]

5. Yes, that's another standard argument

That we have to wait. They like to tell you that we occupied Japan for many years.

I'm not under any delusion that you can get a hard-core Kool Aid drinker to admit anything -- at least not to your face. But you can make them think.

What I am saying is that if you want to get past the standard defenses they have you have to separate the war itself from the prosecution of the war -- at least rhetorically.

And I think the single most glaring example of fucking up the war -- the one even a hard-core Republican cannot explain away -- is the incompetence regarding body armor and armor for Humvees.

[LynnTheDem]

9. And ask how many people died by troops or insurgency in occupied Japan.

Answer: Zero.

Ask how many died by troops or insurgency in occupied Germany.

Answer: Zero.

And in Iraq? 100,000+ civilians, 1800+ troops.

So far.

[Bigmack]

2. Double post...delete

[wtmusic]

4. Even if Saddam is a bad guy with rape rooms

the war is not justified.

To give them that is to lose. The reason we are losing the war (and will lose the war) is that very reason and that reason alone.

[DistressedAmerican]

6. While You Are At It Why Not Ask Them About Our Allies Uzbekistan?

Torture and rape are a common practice there. We give them weapons and build a military base there?

Ask them about that murdering, torturing, dictator and why we do not invade to free HIS people?

[baldguy]

7. You're trying to hit a moving target.

The original reason for the war in Iraq was because Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to the US and the world - in spite of the fact that everyone in a position to know: the UN, the weapons inspectors, and US & foreign intelligence services - believed that all the WMDs Saddam had had were dismantled or destroyed over the previous 12 yrs since the first war.

So what if Saddam was a "bad guy"? - there are plenty of bad guys in the world that we don't attack. (And until that bastion of freedom Saudi Arabia felt threatened, Saddam was our second best buddy in the Arab world)

The administration also claimed that Saddam was working with Osama bin Laden - a claim which has subsequently been debased. Yet there are well known al Qeada connections in the Pakistani and Saudi governments - and now THOSE people are our bestest friends. Go figure.

[Jacobin]

8. It does no good to debate or argue with

people who are 'faith based' in their world view. They don't deal in facts or logic. They deal in 'beliefs' and magical thinking.

Since there are no parameters or reality involved and since they don't use facts as a basis for their analysis, they just make up 'facts' and arguments out of thin air not connected to reality to 'justify' their positions.

It is an exercise in futility.