- Compare and contrast former President Bush's claim that Iraq was a threat to world peace with Dave Koehler's position on the issue.
President Bush claimed that Iraq was a threat to world peace by presenting arguments and rhetoric that is pro-war and anti-Saddam regime; the same holds true for Koehler if only given enough evidence to support war against Iraq. On the other hand, Bush arguments are fallacious given the fact that he based his ideas on insufficient and even forged documents (Ensor, 2003; Hersch, 2003) whereas Koehler used logic to analyze every bit of Bush’s statement in waging a war against Iraq. Although there could be a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda terrorists group, there is no supporting evidence to back up Bush’s claims that Iraq was, indeed, a threat to world peace. Even the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the US Twin Tower do not have a link involving Saddam with terrorist group/s such as Osama bin Laden . Even UN inspectors have no solid proofs that, indeed, Saddam is developing weapon of mass destruction. There are other many instances where Bush and Koehler were not in total agreement whether to wage war against Iraq or not simply because Iraq’s is a threat to world peace.
- Did Koehler use any fallacies in his argument against Bush's justifications for a preemptive strike against Iraq? Identify any fallacies and evaluate if they weaken his argument.
Koehler used fallacies in his argument because he based only his refutation against Bush’s speech for a preemptive strike against Iraq or Saddam. First, the Bush administration possesses intelligence reports, genuine or falsified, that are beneficial to the general welfare of US (Marshall, 2003). Second, Bush administration acts out of its intent to protect its reputation as a world superpower. It has to find a scapegoat for its incompetence; the Bush administration failed to prevent the occurrence of the 7/11 attack. Third, Bush administration has other secret agenda that only high-level officials knew (Raddatz, 2003). Fourth, Bush administration does not know what else to do but to go after these terrorists or tyrants to protect itself against the recurrence of any other possible or impending threat to its national security. Fifth, Bush administration only hope during those times is to attack Iraq, and let the world see how things are for terrorists like madmen like Saddam and bin Laden . In view of Koehler’s ad hominem fallacious arguments, he based his reasoning that the US president cannot use informal logic, rhetoric, propagandist speech, or other type of statements addressed to the whole American society. As US president, for example, you have to use ethos, pathos, and logos that most people would understand. It is the president’s prerogative to employ a persuasive, polemical, and conversational style addressed even for its detractors. Overall, Koehler’s argument was not weakened just because he does not know everything about the President’s; he based only his counter-arguments on the President’s “Remarks.”
The different claims Bush made in his speech concerning his argument that Iraq was a threat to US are, as follows:
- People are either with us or not in the US fight against terrorist Saddam .
- Iraq has weapon of mass destructions, linked with the terrorist Al Qaeda, etc.
- Saddam is a threat specifically towards America and to world peace.
- Saddam is a madman, a mass murderer, and an evil man.
Most, if not all, of the claims numbered above are all invalid because they are formally illogical or based on fallacious reasoning. Bullet #1 do not offer other alternatives, but only two resolutions to a false dilemma. Bullet 2, while maybe partly true, commits the argument from ignorance because it does not have enough supporting evidence, that is, in human court, the accused (Iraq) should be held innocent beyond reasonable doubt unless otherwise proven guilty. Bullet 3 is a fallacy of generalization or slippery slope. I don’t think that Saddam can harm the whole of US territory; more so, the whole world in general. Maybe, a connivance or collusion among terrorists and their pact may do so, but not Iraq alone. Bullet 4, though there are evidences to support it, is not enough for the US to wage war to Iraq as a whole. It may be true that Saddam is a powerful, evil political figure, but not all other leaders will agree to his terms.
- Looking at the evidence we now have regarding Iran's nuclear weapon's program, what conclusion can you draw regarding the United States' intervention in Iran? If we found out today that Iran did have a hidden stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, discuss how would this affect your position.
Given the evidence concerning Iran’s nuclear weapon program, US is doing all it can to contain the situation in Iran (Cordesman & Al-Rodhan, 2006; Katzman, 2013). As the only existing world superpower, it has to be vigilant against possible aggressions and threats in its territories. Although the United Nations or other countries have their stance or responses on the issue, the US has to be constantly on guard not to be caught off-guard (just like what happened during the 9/11 terrorist attack). Tyrant-leaders, religious fanatics, terrorist and extremist groups, and other similar factions will do everything they can to advance their cause. If we found out that Iran hid stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, it is urgent for the US to act immediately. Just like what it did in Iraq, it should immediately demilitarize, paralyze, and capture the Iranian regime. Before Iran can outmaneuver, blackmail, and/or wage war or conquer its neighboring countries, the US, UN and other countries should do everything they can to prevent the occurrence of another war. There are many alternatives (e.g., international embargo) to contain a country other than war, which only cause too many military and civilian casualties.
Reference
Bush, G. W. (2011). Remarks on the Iraqi Threat. In J. Boss, THiNK: Critical thinking and logical skills for everyday life (Second ed., pp. 161-162). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Conason, J. (2003, February 12). What Colin Powell failed to mention about the bin Laden tape. Retrieved from Joe Conason's Journal: http://www.salon.com/2003/02/12/osama_5/
Cordesman, A. H., & Al-Rodhan, K. R. (2006). Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Washington: The Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Ensor, D. (2003, March 15). Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S. (C. N. Network, Producer, & Time Warner Company) Retrieved from War in Iraq: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
Feldmann, L. (2003, March 14). The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq. Retrieved from The Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Hersch, S. (2003, March 31). Who Lied to Whom: Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’s nuclear program. Retrieved from Annals of National Security: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/31/030331fa_fact1
Katzman, K. (2013, June 17). Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses. Retrieved from Congressional Research Service: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32048.pdf
Koehler, D. (2011). Fallacies and War - Misleading a Nervous America to the Wrong Conclusion. In J. Boss, THiNK: Critical thinking and logic skills for everyday life (Second ed., pp. 162-163). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Marshall, J. (2003, April). Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan. (The Washington Monthly) Retrieved from Practice to Deceive: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
Raddatz, M. (2003, March 10). Questionable Evidence: Is Weapons Case Against Iraq Disintegrating? Retrieved from Good Morning America: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/Qevidence.html
