O/T Reality Check Sad and Insane May be Hung Soon

[Archive]

Posted By: Miguel Danielson

I agree with the person who said that these threads tend to be redundant and usually do not involve much new material -- people here tend to believe today what they believed yesterday (at least with regard to Iraq).

These types of threads make me wonder what each side of the debate would say in response to the following question: are there circumstances which, if they occurred, would lead you to say that your position in this debate is incorrect? If the answer to this question is no, then I don't believe you have a principled position (because a position which does not change under any circumstances is not informed by reality and is therefore not logical). If you can name circumstances which, if they occurred, you would consider your position to be ill-conceived, then you at least have a principled position.

For those who are against the Iraq war, I would expect that circumstances meeting the above criteria would be: (1) weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and/or (2) a successful military campaign in Iraq concludes with a stable, self-run government in Iraq. Neither of these has happened, though it is at least plausbile that each might (though, clearly, each has grown less and less plausible over the past four years).

I am at a bit of a loss, however, as to what those who are pro-war would list as circumstances meeting the above criteria. Put another way, is there anything that could (plausibly) happen which would make supporters of the Iraq war admit that their position is wrong? I fear that the answer is no, because many things that, two or three years ago, I would have thought would qualify as such circumstances, have in fact occurred, and yet most of the pro-war people here and elsewhere seem to be unwilling to admit that their position is incorrect -- that the Iraq war was not a good idea. (Some examples of conditions that, three years ago, I might have said would "convert" pro-war supporters would be: (1) the death of over 2,000 U.S. soldiers, (2) the failure to find any WMDs after a three year period, (3) the occurence of civil war in Iraq, or (4) the death of more civilian Iraqis at the hand of the U.S. military than divilian Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's regime -- all of these things have happened and yet those here who support the war seem not be changing their position on the propriety of the war.

Thus, I put it to those who support the Iraq war:

(1) Are there any concrete, plausible circumstances which, if they occurred, you would admit that the Iraq war was ill-conceived? If so, what are the circumstances? Perhaps the answer here is just that war supporters would put the "limit" of acceptable solider fatalities at something more grim -- say, 10,000. Or perhaps there is some other plausble circumstance that still may yet occur and which would make war supporters finally agree that the war was not a good idea, and I am simply missing it. I am intersted to hear from those supporting the war on this narrow question that, I hope, will help all of us better understand your position.

Regards,
Miguel