Today we wish to examine a fallacy, or error in reasoning, which we have found springing up now and again in today's popular discourse about the so-called War On Terror. This one comes straight from the top -- well, not the VERY top -- but from Washington D.C. You have heard the President say it on national teevee, and so have we: "We either have to fight them [the terrorists] over there [i.e. Iraq], or we have to fight them over here [i.e. inside the U.S. border]."
Now we have chosen to examine this particular Bushism because, here, Mr. Bush has offered quite the textbook example of what informal logic-addicts call, a "false disjunction," or simply the "either-or" fallacy. To commit this error in reasoning, you only need to oversimplify a range of many options, reducing it to a pretended range that limits them to two logically-possible options only.
For instance, isn't possible that, if the U.S. pulled its troops from Iraq, using many of them to assist with border patrol duties, that we could avoid fighting "them" here by not letting them in, and yet not fight them "there" either? Now, to be sure, many will hasten to point out that they see this as impractical, ill-advised (for whatever reason), etc. My only point remains this: the option I have mentioned is logically possible. And I could imagine quite a few others.
For instance, the U.S. could spend a handsome little sum on policing our domestic internal affairs, and arrest all terrorists before they can do any harm. We have already arrested quite a few of them here without any fight whatever. One might argue that bloodless arrests seem much better, not to mention a good deal cheaper, than national invasions where the whole countryside gets shot up.
Now, if the U.S. can act with pre-emptive success in Iraq (for the president has suggested many times that it can), why can it not do so also much closer to home? But if the U.S. cannot do so on its home turf, why should anyone think they can do it in Iraq?
Remember, I do not mean to argue here against the U.S. presence in Iraq, but only to critique one particular reason offered for it by the president. He has, after all, listed quite a few different reasons for the invasion, at different times -- which may or may not be a good thing.
For today, then, let the reader take away this lesson in the logic of popular discourse -- never reduce a range of many possible options to two only, unless you prepare well enough to show that the others do not represent truly logical options. Otherwise, you will have committed the either-or fallacy.
I recently saw an article entitled "Clinton: Iraq War Bush's Responsibility". I very rarely touch on political topics because I feel politics in general is such rubbish. Not to mention, it effectively creates the perception of separation and elitism which is totally against every universal and spiritual principle known to man.
Nevertheless, I read about 2 paragraphs of the article and amazingly, Clinton and other people actually feel the war in Iraq is Bush's "fault" and responsibility. As if Bush elected himself president (twice), flew over to Iraq, pushed a guy's shoulder and said, "Hey I'm picking a fight with you so I can profit a few billion off the oil trade". Not!
WE created this war. Bush is only the personification (result) of the United States' (and the world's) thoughts of creating war, corruption, and every other negative event that we encounter in our lives. We created this reality. We are just as responsible as Bush, the Taliban, Osama and everyone else who talks about war, thinks about war?and writes about war. Yes, just the writing of this article contributes to war.
The Law of Attraction states: You attract and bring forth what you think about and focus on the most. We are the creators of the world we live in. We, the people of this great nation (or whatever nation you may come from) have created a burning desire to create war against anyone who may "hurt" us. So war happens. And war continues to happen as long as it is the focus.
Just recently, Sen. Mitch McConnell said he doubts that a resolution opposing a troop buildup in Iraq will pass. Vice President Dick Cheney said the administration would proceed with additional troops even if a nonbinding resolution won Senate approval. Sen. Joe Biden, who's now running for President, was just quoted saying, 'It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy'it's the failed policy of this president ?.' Wrong! It IS the American people - holding the thought of war in their minds, talking about war, arguing about war. Let's not mention the media's role in adding to the whole ?war conversation'.
Even these so-called ?anti-war' rallies are only just creating more war. ?Fighting' against war is about the most ridiculous oxymoron I've heard in a while. I loved Mother Teresa's stance on anti-war rallies? She said, I'll never attend an anti-war rally, when you decide to have a ?pro-peace' rally, invite me!"
Obviously, Clinton's and Biden's comments were just blatant political ploys, but they are the embodiment of public thought ? passing blame. Most people put blame on other people, events or things for the conditions in their lives. People blame their bosses, their ex-wives, the government, the terrorists, technology?even the weather for what's going on in their lives. They find any and everything to point the finger at to avoid personal responsibility.
The world needs to see that creating peace means focusing on finding, developing and utilizing methods for peace. Really all that needs to happen to create a successful campaign for peace is people believing that peace is the answer. Just because a couple of people with particularly "big mouths" say they don't want this war, doesn't mean that the majority is not still calling out for it. When the Majority "believes" it is time for peace, we will have it.
There is a common phrase that is perfect to illustrate my point on how to achieve peace: "First you must believe (in peace) ...in order to achieve (peace)!" Just think about how quickly the world would change if we all believed in the principles of peace.
Both Carson Day & Antonio Thornton are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Carson Day has sinced written about articles on various topics from Politics, Research and Science and Self Improvement and Motivation. Carson Day has written approximately 1.3 gazillion articles, has been quoted as saying, "What box?" and remains at large despite the best efforts of the civil authorities. See OGC sites?. Carson Day's top article generates over 5400 views. to your Favourites.