The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position, which, when challenged with an overwhelming amount of evidence of success on the ground in Iraq, you have done. This sort of "faulty reasoning" has the following pattern:
Here are your responses in red followed by mine in regular type:
Yes, it WOULD be a false analogy, IF I had been comparing WW2 to , which I was not. Your original snarky entry was looking at the situation 4 years AFTER the invasion of , MY comparison did the same, looking at the situation 4 years AFTER the end of WWIE. You are blowing more smoke, trying to conflate the argument by now bringing in MORE irrelevant data by decoupling Iraq form nazi germany (Another argument for another day), which has nothing to do with your original illustration of present day Iraq. NOR did your original piece discuss military conquests, nor did mine. IRRELEVANT, and therefore another FALSE arguing technique on your part. Muddying the Waters or Deflection is what my high school debate coach would have called it. Since your underlying premise of what I said is therefore false, it invalidates all the rest of your argument which flows fromit
It?s still a false analogy since the violence in at the end of WWII did not rise to the same level of There were zero (0) American combat deaths attributed to the Werwolves and the total number of deaths attributed to them (including Allied reprisals) only reached 3,000. And if you are going to talk about the end of WWII being analogous to the end of the war, then one would assume that you are comparing the war to WWII, and thus you should get the full WWII treatment. Otherwise what war are you comparing it to?the Boer War? I could also just as easily compare the end of the war with any number of endings from other wars that mitigate the comparison to WWII (i.e. we have to stay in because of threats).
Again, irrelevant, you were NOT discussing any type of threat
Well the rationale for staying in post-war was to prevent its rise as a superpower (threat) and to prevent the dominance of Western Europe by the
\
Geez, so did Nazi Germany, to the Russians and the Western Allies.
Yes but that was after WWII. Since you are comparing the aftermath of WWII to the aftermath of the GW2 it is implied that However after Gulf War 1 Iraq did not manifest itself as a threat, unlike So I was comparing pre-Gulf War 2 Iraq with pre—WWII Germany.
.
Again, how is this germane to your original post? It isnt, and is another deflection, a MacGuffin, if you will.
Well I brought up in the original post as in ?do we need to fight Iran?? and you brought up the Soviet Union: ?do we need to fight the Soviet Union? Oh well...um..er...you know...some day the ...er...the Nazis or Soviets,.um...slight problem of ht eSoviets right next to us, stirring up trouble, and maybe go thermonuclear in 4 years, they may be a future menace...and we got to be ready for them...er...you know...something like that may happen. in the future...er..we don't know what...but US troops must remain in til the cold war is over..for freedom and stuff...? So I was assuming that you were making an analogy between the two.
Oh really? and how do you know that, other than to assert it? Asserting an opinion does NOT make it a fact, no matter how much you want to believe it so. Again, a fallacious argument. You can not draw conclusions on not A based upon B.
So you can point out the Iranian military bases in Iranian meddling is a problem but it doesn?t compare to the Soviets in All I need is one example; there are US troops (a lot of them actually) in Iraq , there were no US troops in Eastern Europe. Even without US troops there, Iranians would probably be hard-pressed to control in a Soviet-style. The Sunnis would revolt against any perceived Persian dominance and the Saudis would back them, such a scenario did not occur in in 1949. Also in the Iranian backed party is out of power, and doesn?t have full control of the electoral process there, unlike the Soviets who established communist regimes in all of its client states.
Actually, you did , which I have shown. Once your original strawman was blown down, you then attempted to bring in other irrelevant data to bolster your teetering strawman argument, since you have NOT by any means exposed any false analogies onmy part, since there were none to expose. Your consequent comments and conclusions stem from YOUR original strawman, which were shown to be just
Vets for Freedom continues their efforts to push for a successful conclusion to the war in Iraq with their latest ad..., ?Some in Washington?. The ad produces quotes from notables such as Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Obama?s latest BFF and Iraq tripmate Chuck Hagel all declaring the surge a failure before it even started and the war lost. The veterans then introduce headlines from this year proclaiming how wrong these ?leaders? turned out to be:
At the same time, Centcom has released its latest unclassified report on security trends — and they continue to show improvement. The number of attacks have declined to the lowest per-week level since March 2004, and guess when the trend started? Coincidentally, when General Petraeus took command and got his additional surge troops:
See that dramatic decline starting in May 2007? The dramatic slope of the decline shows the effectiveness of the surge and the new counterinsurgency efforts of Petraeus. Some claim that the real reason for the improvements was the Anbar Awakening movement that formed in autumn 2006, but that didn?t result in any immediate improvement. As this chart shows, violence increased to a crescendo in May 2007 when American troops began aggressively attacking terrorist strongholds.
But what of sectarian violence? Critics warn that Iraq will melt down in Shi?a-Sunni hatred and violence. In fact, that has all but disappeared entirely, even in multisectarian Baghdad.
The red line shows sectarian deaths for all of Iraq, and the blue specific to Baghdad. As we can see, most of the sectarian violence in Iraq has been limited to Baghdad anyway. And when did those numbers begin their dramatic decline? When Petraeus took command and began implementing a new security plan for the capital as well as one for the nation as a whole.
StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy
