Do ministers really expect us to believe they don't know what a fallacy is?
"Is the report saying it was a mistake to allow Afghanistan and Iraq to exercise their democratic rights?
"These are the hard questions the report does not address."
Their argument goes like this:
"If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the people of these countries wouldn't have known democracy"
Well, that's debatable. Who can assert as a fact that democracy couldn't have come from within?
"Those who oppose the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq must therefore be pro-Saddam/Taleban".
This is a 'guilt by association' fallacy. Saddam Hussein and the taleban were dictators, therefore to oppose their removal (by the US, UK and others) is to support them.
This fallacy ignores the real reasons for opposing the invasions, the first of which is to oppose illegal intervention in a sovereign state. Next is that the invasion and war exacerbates resentment towards the 'West' and attacks on the 'West'.
Leading on from this, Blair claims there can be no link between the war in Iraq and the bombings in London because there were terrorist attacks before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Another red herring. The fact that terrorists had other reasons to attack 'western' targets does not mean that the war in Iraq is not one of them.
Of course, those responsible for the attacks are first and foremost those who perpetrated them. That Blair and Bush are also responsible through their actions in the Middle East and elsewhere, is also clear.
|