Re: a little something worth noting . . .

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 15 April 2003 12:45, dep wrote:
> . . . comes from mark steyn:
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn13.html

once again we see an otherwise intelligent individual making a rather absurd 
misstep in logic, namely that "anti-war" means "pro-Saddam". did Mr. Steyn 
get all those "if all As are Bs, and some Bs are Cs, then are all As Cs?" 
questions on his SATs wrong, too. "if all people who are pro-peace are 
against the war in Iraq, and some people against the war support Saddam 
Hussein's regime, are all people who are pro-peace in support of Saddam's 
regime?" anyone with the ability to grasp basic logic can see how utterly 
ridiculous such a position is, especially if you actually speak with people 
who are pro-peace. most of the grass-roots level people who are against such 
wars are against them not on the principle that woeful regimes are good, but 
that wars of aggression, nation building and creating humanitarian disasters 
are Bad.

but Mr. Steyn paints the picture that it was either this war or else Saddam 
the dictator. so if you are against the war, you are obviously FOR the 
dictators. and of course in Mr. Steyn's world, war has nothing but upsides, 
or at least no downsides that are worth mentioning. and in Mr. Steyn's world 
we're going to ignore the fact that the American supported emargos against 
Iraq that lasted throughout the 90s actually helped Saddamn stay in power.

my guess is that Mr. Steyn actually DOES understand the shaky ground upon 
which his arguments stand, and that he is purposefully using such flawed 
logic to drum up support for what he perceives to be "his side". and so he 
goes on to spew out a number of other equally moronic concepts:


Concept: Eastern Europe was liberated because of US/UK efforts and that has 
been a good thing, ergo so is the war on Iraq. 
Why It's Moronic: Eastern Europe wasn't liberated by warfare, but by its own 
peoples rising up against the powers that be in their own lands. This is not 
what happened in Iraq, and continues to confuse the idea of the war in Iraq 
with the idea of liberty in Iraq.

Concept: Russia and France have been selling Iraq nuclear reactors: "The 
Coalition of the Willing To Go On Selling Saddam Nuclear Reactors In Exchange 
For Oil Concessions For Another Decade Or Three No Matter How Many People He 
Kills"
Why It's Moronic: If this were true, you think Colin Powell would've had to go 
to the UN with known forgeries purporting the sale of nuclear goods into 
Iraq? No. I am aware of Russia is/was involved with Iran and Syria regarding  
reactor building, but Iran/Syria isn't Iraq, now is it? I am also aware that 
France built a "research" reactor in Iraq in the late 70s, but that this was 
destroyed by an Israeli attack in '81. The French turned down contracts to 
help rebuild it. The fuel the Iraqi's got from France were destroyed by 
American forces in '91. Mr. Steyn makes it sound like Russia and France were 
selling Iraq nuclear reactors right through the 90s. Since even legitimate 
medicines couldn't make it through the embargos, what makes Mr. Steyn think 
that France or Russia could accomplish it with nuclear materials? This is 
just another bit of poor-form propaganda on the part of Mr. Steyn.

Concept: Other countries allegedly sold Iraq more weapons than the US/UK, so 
the US/UK weren't supportive of the Iraqi regime. (I say allegedly because I 
really don't know for sure. It was not stated how those percentages were 
calculated (weight? dollars? lethality?) nor what was included in the terms 
"arms" nor a reference to the study or the organization who conducted it.)
Why It's Moronic: It's known that American companies DID sell weapons to Iraq. 
Try telling a judge that you only sold a little cocaine and see if that 
clears you. Of course, weapons are not the only way to support a regime, 
diplomatic relations and funding are other ways.  But this is almost all 
detail since those who decry the war probably also decry the sales of arms by 
Russia, France, etc... "But wait," you say, "Steyn is actually arguing 
against the mouthpieces of France and Russia, the hypocrites!" but in that 
part of the article Steyn was actually combating Fisk's words.  

this point is really nothing more than interesting subject for conversation, 
though, since the real issue is that of waging of an agressive first-strike 
war, not who supports Saddam. the fact that the powers involved previously 
sold arms to Iraq is more ironic than important to the real situation at 
hand.

Concept: "Peacenicks" in the 60s were communists.
Why It's Moronic: Even assuming that's broadly true, it has nothing to do with 
the current situation (even Steyn says so in his next breath). It does, 
however, help paint those who are pro-peace with the brush of 
"anti-democracy" by association with that phrase. 

Concept: Canada's govenrment refrained because the PM's son-in-law stood to 
profit from Iraqi oil. Since it's "all about oil" according to those against 
the war, this shows that people and governments against the war are obviously 
hypocritical and wrong.
Why It's Moronic: Actually, many of those against the war don't care why the 
war is waged. For those that do, there are reasons besides the simplistic 
"the USA wants oil". Case in point: 
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3450&sectionID=41
Also, the USA stands to profit from the destruction of Saddam. Does that mean 
that was their motivation, and that it was equally bad? 
Perhaps Canada as a country listened to its populace on this matter? Well, 
let's assume for a moment that Chretien did indeed take the position he did 
to protect his son-in-law's financial interests as Steyn purports. How does 
that make this war of aggression more acceptable? How does that make the 
Anglo-Saxons the worlds best hope?

Concept: In a European poll (which one, Mr. Mark "I Don't Attribute Facts" 
Steyn, failed to note) 1/3rd of the French hoped Saddam would win. Ergo, the 
French government is a place for and support of people like Saddam.
Why It's Moronic: This means that 66% of the French *didn't* want Saddam to 
win. For the alleged 1/3rd that did, why? Was it because they didn't want the 
USA to win or even be at war in the first place, or was it because they 
actually supported Saddam and his methods? These are two different things.  
There are millions in the states who didn't want the USA in the war either. 
Is the American Senate a good place for Saddam, then?

Concept: Baghdad in 1917 was a good place, so today Baghdad is a good place.
What It's Moronic: Not only do the two times have little to do with each 
other, other than we hope that Baghdad will again be a place of peace in the 
future, but it neglects two facts: right now Iraq is a hell hole thanks to 
both Saddam and the American aggression, and that being against the war 
doesn't mean one is against a peaceful and liberated Iraq.

Concept: Quote, "The ''Anglo-Saxon'' view--the Bush Doctrine--thinks that 
liberty will do for the Middle East what it's done for Eastern Europe and 
Latin America."
Why It's Moronic: That's not what the Bush Doctrine is at all. Either Mr. 
Steyn is an idiot with no knowledge of contemporary politics (and I *highly* 
doubt that) or else he's purposefully trying to associate the Bush Doctrine 
with democracy, because he feels few will argue against democracy by and for 
the people being a good thing. Rather, the 'Bush Doctrine' is most closely 
linked with the action and threat of first strike (aka "pre-emptive") war to 
coerce and enforce foreign political alignment with domestic American policy. 
The Bush Doctrine is not about creating democracies in lands abroad at all, 
it's about nation building and domestic protection via first strike war.

I bet if I actually studied this article I could find more such deceptions. 
Bottom line is that this is a propaganda piece, and not one I'd personally 
trot out into the light of day even if it did come from someone I otherwise 
agreed with.

Perhaps THAT's something to take from this article: there are people who 
qualify for the loony bin on both sides of this issue?

- -- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE: The 'K' is for 'kick ass'
http://www.kde.org       http://promo.kde.org/3.1/feature_guide.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+nKIP1rcusafx20MRAtUBAKCjiSMl02WXmOktxnyJy0AJ8N+G8QCfUZSL
2morgu8yR3Hs+ZO3FOKYcLE=
=4zea
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent KDE or the author's employer.