Global Warming Solution analogous to Iraq War?

My buddy Shaun’s blog resolves Global Warming using a Logic Matrix.  Take five minutes to watch this compelling video, and then tell me how it’s different than the possible Logic Matrix Bush used when invading Iraq.  Spare me the Bush is an idiot/corrupt/coked up etc.  I know, Bush IS an idiot.  Let’s move past that.  On to the the logic presented by Global Warming guy.

Look at my Logic Matrix using the same pattern, but applied to pre-Iraq U.S. policy:

IRAQ has Weapons Mass Destr. USA military occupation YES USA military occupation NO
TRUE (Iraq has a nuclear stash) 🙂 Economic/Human Life cost, but better world due to finding and destroying Saddam’s nukes.  Ultimately a good decision if nukes found. 🙂 Full scale nuclear war, lose Israel, lose balance in Middle East, possible World War, environmental problems due to nukes, everyone dies in a pool of molten Cesium 237.  We’re F.U.B.A.R.D.
FALSE (Iraq has no nukes) Economic/Human Life lost, division within country, loss of global influence and rapport. i.e. our unfortunate, yet current situation. 🙂 Iraq doesn’t end up having nukes, and we never invade.  Great! 🙂


Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Global Warming Solution analogous to Iraq War?

  1. You’ve forgotten a few key historic points regarding the Iraqi war.

    Saddam Hussein had WMDs before (in the form of chemical weapons) and had used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. Beyond that Hussein said several times that the Iraqis were developing or had WMDs in order to keep Iran at bay.

    Secondly, the UN had enacted sanctions against Iraq dating back to the Clinton administration. Iraq continued to ignore those sanctions.

    Whatever aid was given to the Iraqi people tended to end up funding the army and the oppression of Saddam Hussein.

    We didn’t confirm the lack of WMDs until we had won the war against Iraq. Suggesting that we should have known knowledge that we didn’t even know we didn’t know isn’t fair (wordy argument sorry)

    So we had an oppressive dictator who had used WMDs in the past, violated UN sanctions and committed countless human rights violations saying they were developing or possessed other WMDs. I say we made the right decision.

    Some side arguments. In Iraq we’re fighting two wars: the war against Saddam Husseins regime, and the war against terrorists/insurgents. We won the war against Saddam, and we’re now in the process of cleaning up the insurgency war.

    Many of the insurgents fighting now, aren’t even Iraqi.

    Compare our casualty count (which is sad, as no life should be lost in vain) to the battles of Korea, Vietnam, WW2, WW1, any other war in history. The current count in Iraq is roughly 5000. That’s 5000 over the course of six years. 5,000 soldiers died in the opening seconds in the Battle of Normandy. 51,112 died at Gettysburg. 800,000 casualties were at the battle of Verdun. We cannot say that this is a serious conflict when the loss of life is so small compared to the objectives accomplished. Again, this is a purely logical argument. I feel keenly for the soldiers and their families involved in this war.

    • You’re absolutely right. I simply wanted to present a Logic Matrix for the Iraq situation (to which Dems were opposed) that is analogous to the Logic Matrix for Global Warming (to which Dems agree with).

  2. Grading papers is fun. Now that I have time, I can reply to KillerJ. I’ve got some thoughts:

    1. The title of your post is “Global Warming Solved?” which to me says something like “There’s a proposed solution, but I challenge that solution.” As I was reading your post, I didn’t see that. You basically took that logic matrix and applied it to the Iraq War. It’s a good logic matrix, but I didn’t see that replying to your post. Perhaps the post’s title should’ve been “Applying Global Warming Matrix to the Iraq War”? Yeah, it’s a bit wordy and, I’ll admit, it’s not attention-grabbing, but it kind of confused the hell out of me.

    2. In your logic matrix, it fills out pretty good. However, I think the dis-analogy goes along the rows of the matrix. In the movie clip, the assumption is that we don’t know if global warming is true and we perhaps never will. However, when it comes to the war in Iraq (from the standpoint of 2003), we could’ve found out if Saddam had WMD’s. Thus, waiting it out might’ve been a better shot instead of just “risking” it and invading Iraq. After all, if we follow this matrix, couldn’t we say the same thing with Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebenon, and countless other nations? It seems that finding out if those statements are true are more prudent than “hedging our bets” and invading anyways.

    3. Finally, you say in your last comment that this Logic Matrix is providing an analogy. You say “I simply wanted to present a Logic Matrix for the Iraq situation (to which Dems were opposed) that is analogous to the Logic Matrix for Global Warming (to which Dems agree with).” This is a double-edged sword. I could say this: “I simply wanted to present a Logic Matrix for the Iraq situation (to which Repubs agree with) that is analogous to the Logic Matrix for Global Warming (to which Repubs are opposed). If we hold this Logic Matrix consistently, then it seems like you’re saying that if one supports the War in Iraq, then in order to be consistent, one must also support measures to fight Global Warming. Likewise, if one supports measures to fight Global Warming, then one must also support the war in Iraq, even if Global Warming is false and even if Saddam doesn’t have WMD’s.

    Those are some thoughts I had, but I have to admit, your logic matrix is interesting, but can we apply it?

  3. For #1: I like grabbing attention. I’m a sensationalist, sue me.

    For #2: I don’t know what you mean by “we could have found out if Iraq had WMD’s.” That seems super dangerous to sit and wait for a mushroom cloud. About as dangerous as waiting for the ice caps to melt, no?

    For #3: I didn’t intend what you assert, although I see why it appears that way. I just wanted to point out that the Logic Matrix can be applied to a lot of controversial things regardless of your political background.

    • #1 – But so are televangelists, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann. Why do you want to be in the same camp as those folks? Why fall into the realm of sensationalism and communicate in the realm of reason? Why not leave Plato’s Cave, and then once out, teach others how to leave the cave instead of staying in the cave or at least, making people stay in the cave?

      #2 – That’s just empty rhetoric. First of all, the country was ready to go to war without using the WMD line. So why did Bush and crew use it? In order to convince the UN. Bush has argued for a concept of self-defense that’s more broad to include pre-emptive use of force in order to meet the changed circumstances of international security.
      Ok, so to attack preemptively, it necessarily means that one has advanced knowledge of an impending attack. This is the first time in history that a war has been advanced through human intelligence. The problem is that intelligence, especially imperfect intelligence, is shaky. But this is what the allies did. This intelligence was vague, inaccurate, or misleading. In 1991 after the Gulf War, the UN weapons inspectors dismantled Iraq’s nuclear program. Although Iraq was interested in restarting it, there was no evidence that it had done so. Nuclear facilities tend to be large, expensive, dependent on imports, and every hard to hide. Through UN inspectors and the life-shelf of chemical weapons, Iraq was virtually no threat.

      With that, Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspectors, stated that Iraq’s disarmament obligations had become “active, or even proactive.” However, the US and Britain said that it wasn’t good enough and that Iraq had been in “material breach” of resolution 1441. But, resolution 1441 only required the reporting and discussion by the Council of Iraq’s failures, it didn’t authorize force. Thus, going to war in Iraq broke international laws and is inconsistent with the UN Charter. Indeed, voting for resolution 1441 was attractive because it didn’t have any “hidden triggers” and the US agreed to this.

      Remember, the prospect of success depends on how great the danger was, in particular with the WMD. Interestingly, the Coalition was afraid that Iraq had WMD, but they weren’t afraid that Iraq would use them during the war. Considering that there’s still much violence and causulties since the invasion, it’s arguable that the Coalition didn’t plan seriously enough for the aftermath before committing themselves to war Invading is easy, occupation is hard. Lt. General William Wallace said that, “Well, we’re making this up here as we go along.”

      Two weeks before the invasion, Hans Blix pleaded for “a few more months” to complete the inspectors’ mission and bring about a peaceful resolution of the stand-off with Iraq. Blix even stated that there was “an accerleration of initiatives by Iraq since the end of January [2003],” including that its missiles must be destroyed. There were two other alternatives:
      A..Allow the UN inspectors to complete their searches until there was general confidence that Iraq had no WMD, or if the inspectors were obstructed.
      B. This came from France, Germany, and Russia to impose on Iraq a tougher program of “coercive inspections” backed by a 50,000 strong international force and the imposition of no-fly and no-drive zones.

      Weeks before the invasion, Iraqi officials made desperate peace offers to Washington. These offers included internationally monitored elections within two years and to allow 2000 FBI agents to search for banned weapons. Thus, this was definitely not a last resort to war. To say that we’re just waiting for a mushroom cloud is empty because we knew, and could’ve known in 2003 that Saddam didn’t have any nuclear weapons, but it’s also a fallacy: an appeal to fear. The certainty of truth about Saddam having nuclear weapons is greater than the certainty of truth about global warming. This is where, I believe, the analogy falls apart.

      #3 – Yes, the logic matrix can be applied to lots of things, so I’ll grant you that.

  4. 1) You have to go IN TO the cave to drag people out. They won’t follow your ass if they don’t know you’re out there to begin with. My title (was) a bit hyperbolic, but I think my actual post was based in reason.

    2) That’s a lot of stuff to read man, come on! How about this: I’ll GRANT you the Iraq war argument because you have way more info on it and I simply can’t battle back. You win the Iraq war; at least from a hindsight perspective.

    My analogy still has some weight though. Global Warming folks are using fear right now, a very similar tactic. There are plenty of scientists (regardless of funding source, mind you) that strongly question man’s effect on climate change. There was a shady information leak among the Global Warming SUPPORTERS, etc. A LOT of readily available information showing factual disputes of many of the biggest arguments among the Global Warming folks, etc. etc. etc.

    My one concession is I will agree with you that we had a better chance of knowing about nukes than we do about truly knowing about the cause of climate change.

    #3: Title changed, but only because I had to attempt to go in to the cave and drag people out first.

    • In chess, there are good moves and bad moves. With bad moves, there’s no thinking required because you basically lost the game. In good moves, the opponent has to re-think his position, re-stratigize and see where the next move can go.

      You, my friend, made a very good move.

      In terms of using fear tactics for global warming, this is true. Their fear tactics are a lot more subtle, but they’re still there. As for the info leak about those scientists about hiding info, that was very shady. Still, I think the TRUTH about global warming hasn’t been decided, at least with certainty which makes this logic matrix applicable. You know me, I’m for pragmatics instead of ideology. 😀

      By the way, check out The Known Universe on my latest blog. I’m seriously impressed with that video clip. However, I’ve always been impressed with space and the universe so I’m biased.

Reply to Killer J!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s