|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,145595,00.html
........................................... Just remember when reading articles from Mr. Lind that he onced worked for Gary Hart. |
||
|
|
Member |
Have anyone notice that as soon as the news stated we are winning in Iraq. This really upset a certain group of people.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
When hasn't the media reported that we are winning in Iraq? Anyway, there is a more important matter that we need to discuss, and remedy, before we attempt to understand our current level of success in prosecuting our war on Middle Eastern based extremists. Basically, we have a simple communication breakdown that prevents Americans from working towards a common goal just as it prevents our allies in the Middle East from doing the same. This poster has demonstrated that nicely. I read Mr. Lind's article, and I see concern. I do not see him suggesting that we should surrender. It is clear that he believes in an alternative approach, that is all. On the other hand our previous poster, like many posters here, read the article and see nothing but "cut and run". (I think that this has something to do with our president's original "You're either with us or you're against us" stance, but I could be wrong.) The point I'm trying to make with all this is that we Americans are working against one another, so much so that we fail to realize that we may both be working towards a similar goal. This appears to suggest that our national goals have not been introduced to the American people in such a way as to unite them. We see this clearly demonstrated by the posters here at military.com, where the explaination of our national goals differs widely. (Here I'm speaking of the administrations goals as explained by individuals and not of individual ideas of what our national goals should be.) This message has been edited. Last edited by: TinyTerror, |
|||
|
|
New Member |
post hoc ergo propter hoc?
What the...? Did anyone else get that? I'm no dummy, and even my wife who has a PhD has never heard it. I'm smart enough to recognize it must be Latin, but it's certainly not a phrase in common usage. I can only assume the author's intent is to communicate, rather than impress us with his knowledge of arcane language. Why not use words the majority of your audience will understand? |
|||
|
Member |
for what it's worth. I suspected it was this (from context, not understanding), but had to look it up to be sure. But while on the topic of logical fallacies, ones that continue to thrive like dandelions are: 1) the gross misperception that criticism of the status quo means "cut & run" 2) that momentary news of particular "successes" suddenly means "winning" 3) that working for a purportedly "liberal" politician means anything regarding objectivity, any more than working for a so-called "conservative" politician affects objectivity. Effective military strategy and tactics are the same regardless of politics. Or to put it more directly... bullets don't care. Is Mr. Lind "on target" militarily? I defer to other posters. What I recall from Mr. Lind's previous op-eds is that he is greatly concerned that our planning, strategies, etc do not meet the realities of the conflict on many levels and therefore the costs are outweighing the benefits. In addition, the seemingly misguided involvement is making things worse in a number of ways (ME-US relations, relationships with allies, relationships with those already skeptical of US ambitions). When you hear many authorities(much in recent news and on Military.com) agreeing that withdrawing troops in the "safest" manner possible (but still costing lives and $billions) would take a minimum of a year-and-a-half! probably years! it seems in the crap-shoot of analysis and prediction Mr. Lind is as good or better than most. This message has been edited. Last edited by: bwf27, |
|||
|
|
Member |
Wow, awesome analysis there. So because he worked for Hart nothing he writes is credible? I smell another fallacy called ad hominem reasoning. This means you've attacked the man rather than his arguments. Have a nice day. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Looks like you missed the point. The question Lind posed was whether it is legitimate to argue that the decrease in violence is because we're winning or is it because of other factors. He enumerated some of the other factors, which include the success of racial cleansing especially by Sunnis of formerly mixed or Shiite neighborhoods, and the AQI blundering which is causing a Sunni backlash, among other things. It would have been helpful for Lind to explain the meaning of the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc". It's a false causality fallacy meaning "after this, therefore because of this". In other words, it is a fallacy to assume that because a desired result has occurred it is necessarily due to actions undertaken. It's like saying that I had a cold, then I took some antibiotics, and now my cold is gone so therefore the antibiotics worked. However, it's now known as a fact that a cold is caused by a virus, that antibiotics don't work on viruses, and that colds resolve themselves within a few days whether or not the sufferer uses antibiotics. To assume that antibiotics cure the common cold, therefore, is to engage in false causality. I'm troubled by the failure of war advocates to notice, while touting all our supposed gains there, that almost all of the Sunni ministers have split from the Maliki government, that just a few days ago Maliki was filmed walking hand in hand with Ahmadinejad, and that NONE of the benchmarks have been reached even now. |
|||
|
Member |
 Excellent explanation and post. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
