An Exercise in Logic or Why Republicans Have no Sense of Reality

One of the things I hear the most from the right about anti-war veterans goes something along the lines of "They joined after the war started. They knew what it was going to be like. They should just stop whining." Note that this is the same logic that one would use to say that a man who had been i n gang in his youth shouldn't speak out against gang violence. "He knew the gang was violent when he joined it. He should just stop whining." See the similarities. According to many Republicans you aren't allowed to decide that you made a bad decision, or that you've changed your mind. Doing so makes you either a coward or a flip-flopper or both.

It seems odd to me that people from this right leaning side would read this and say "Oh no, that's not the same." Isn't it? The examples given use identical logic. Both involve someone joining an organization prone to violence where exposure to death and injury is likely. Both later decide that what that organization is doing/did is wrong. Both decide to speak out against it. The difference that Republicans would most likely quote is that the 'war' in Iraq isn't about crime like being in a gang is. Well that of course just starts an endless debate (endless because anyone left supporting this war must be insane or stupid or both, and you can't argue with a stupid crazy person) over the legality of the 'war.' Ok fine, let's pretend that the war is perfectly legal and we as a country are not just a lumbering giant of an asshole. The logic is still identical between the two. Right and wrong are purely subjective concepts. So whether or not you happen to think that gangs or the 'war' or anything else is wrong, it is up to the person making the decision to speak out to figure that out for themselves. This right to freedom of thought can not be suppressed.

So what do we learn from example one? That Republican's don't think it's ok to change your mind or reform a decision based on environmental input. Interestingly enough this also contributes to an explanation of the right winged resistance to evolution and similar concepts that require analyzing information rather then being spoon fed it by a minister. This also suggests that the far right prefers to have other people think for them.

The second example goes along similar lines. They say "We have to finish what we started. We can't cut and run because then everything would be a waste." This is argument compares to "I can't stop doing cocaine. I know it's damage my body and costing thousands of dollars that should be going to food shelter medicine and education, but if I stop using now then everything would be a waste." Note again how similar these arguments are. I know that this is causing harm but if I stop then I'll have said that all the harm already caused didn't matter.

No cocaine addict trying to quit is going to make suggestions like "Well I'll consult with my dealer and we'll start negotiating a time table for me to stop using, but expect it to be gradual and happen over the next five to ten years. During this time countless more damage will be done and money wasted, but if I quit all at once then my dealer may have a hard time finding new clients." Anyone saying that would be thrown into rehab faster then he could blurt out the entire paragraph. So why should this logic be reasonable when dealing with something that impacts millions of lives rather then just a handful? No one wants to admit that the human lives lost so far were lost over something that shouldn't be going on in the first place. They were. Saying this does not disrespect the dead. On the contrary admitting this means less dead in the long run which is something soldier's generally prefer. So who are we helping by staying in this mess? The estimated cost of the war is over five hundred billion dollars and growing by the day. That's one pricey addiction. And that's only the financial side, which frankly isn't what bothers me. Money is money. A plaything for the rich and a drug for the poor. No, the thing that concerns me is the over 1.2 million lives lost and the countless millions affected by this ordeal. Imagine a country occupied by drug dealers running around injecting people with heroin. No one would allow that to happen. In this case however, we have a few men at the top injecting the proverbial heroin into millions of people in three different countries.

There is no strictly logical refute to these analogies. Any argument would have to be based on either lies, mis truths, or subjective statements. When you can no longer provide a concrete logical argument based on fact (i.e. no subjectivity or opinion involved. So no exclaiming moral rights and wrongs.) then it is time to admit a wrong and cease activity. We are not going to cause further damage by stopping the 'war.' This is the same as saying a coke addict would only be hurting himself if he stopped using as soon as physically possible. Leaving Iraq quickly won't cause a seizure. It may cause a semblance of peace, however, and we all know that peace is not in the best interest of the 'dealers' of the United States. i.e. Haliburton, GE, Texaco, Bush et all, etc.

The question basically comes down to this. Are we as a nation willing to take care of ourselves and dictate our own futures based on logic and reason, or are we going to let the king think for us? No one tells me how to think and I highly recommend it. Thinking for yourself is better then cocaine and best of all it doesn't cost a dime.