War In Iraq Argument Analysis

The thinking processes and opinions of every human differ at one point or another and are influenced by many variables around us. People will argue their differences in order to persuade others to agree with their perspective. We see these arguments in our daily lives around our workplace with our peers and bosses, at home with our family, and within our society with politics and social movements. Arguments attempt to use reason to allow people to establish conclusions, but how do you know if you are giving or hearing a good argument? This discussion will analyze two arguments about the War in Iraq and determine if they are good arguments.

Arguments are common in everyone’s lives, but what actually constitutes a good argument? Obviously, a

It was thought that a terrorist group call al-Qaeda was responsible for carrying out these attacks. Later it was brought up that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction within his possession. Looking at the perspective of President George W. Bush we can see his attempt to persuade the American people to take action by manipulating their emotions by speculating that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a threat to peace by being affiliated to al-Qaeda and has weapons that could be detrimental in that hands of the wrong people. He stated that after the Persian Gulf War he was required to “destroy its weapons of mass destruction, cease development of those weapons, and stop all affiliations with terrorist groups” (Boss, 2012). He claims that the regime has violated all of those conditions, but offers no evidence to support that it is a true premise. It is further escalated when he states that “IF we KNOW Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons -AND WE DO-…” (Boss, 2012). I form a conclusion that his choice of words may indicate there is unsureness about the matter and he was trying to reassure by stating “and we do.” It is then brought up that Iraq is training al-Qaeda terrorist to make bombs and chemical weapons, but then contradicts the statement by stating that our enemies would be “eager” to use

It shows that arguments can even sound logical even with false premise and that conclusions can be formed with minimal relevance to the premise provided. It also shows that there is a clear difference between an effective argument and a “good” argument. The logic has to make enough sense for you audience to be persuaded not to make complete sense. Knowing this and what strategies to utilize when formulating an argument is the true key to being successful. While using a “good” argument that uses true premise to develop a conclusion is ideal it may not be as effective if the right strategies are not implemented with