Decius wrote:
] If we all agree that the stated reasons for Iraq weren't the
] real motivations...

[ Alas, nationally, we don't yet agree on that. ...]

] I don't see us doing it. What we're doing is saying that the
] stated reasons were wrong (which has always been obvious) and
] then claiming that we need to get out, and we shouldn't have
] been there, without stepping back and having the conversation
] about the actual reasons we went there. Usually, favorite
] conspiracy theory X about oil, personal issues in the bush
] family, or whatnot is inserted instead of the actual
] geo-political strategic issues and we rail against that
] instead.

[... again, not obvious to some. Nonetheless, I think the resistance to discuss the actual geopolitical strategic issues as you say comes from the fact that the war wasn't presented in the context from the beginning. Frankly the oil theories and personal issues are bs, but they're not entirely a product of the wingnut left -- No one would've harped about personal reasons if W hadn't talked about Saddam trying to kill his daddy. Nevertheless, you're absolutely right that they miss the point. I think there were probably valid reasons for the war, but the administration didn't present those to the american people, so it doesn't get to use them ex post facto. If we start discussing all the good reasons we could've done it, we give them an out they frankly don't deserve. If those were the reasons, why didn't they use them to begin with? ...]

] This was not an intellectual appeal. It had nothing to do with
] any of that. This is on par with the Bush ads which included
] pictures of 9/11. It is a purely emotional appeal. It seeks to
] associate pain and suffering with Bush, personally.

[... Bush, personally, is the most responsible. This associates that real and actual responsiblity for dead soldiers with Bush. That it does so with emotion doesn't undermine it's validity, in my opinion. ...]

] It defies all reason, thought, or discourse, and reaches straight
] for the most base kind of emotions. It is intended to produce
] hate. That is why it is offensive.

[... I disagree. The photos aren't of dead bodies or mutilated wounded men. They're of people who gave their lives on the assumption that the guy in charge was using them for the best and purest reasons. If the first reaction one has to this is real, actual Hate, then I think that emotion is probably well established already. I don't actually hate Bush, but I do hate his falsity and I hate his obfuscation and evasion. I can't agree that hating someone's actions is offensive.

Not to mention, i think this entire milti-page thread proves directly that emotional appeals can produce an awful lot of reason, thought and discourse. -k]

RE: Bush photomosaic of American dead in Iraq