|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
Fallacious pacifist arguments
SGTObvious
3/12/2003 1:47:59 PM
|
Here's a general tool for use by those confronting the logic-contorting rants of the "anti-war" crowd. They seem to be shy on ethics and/or, here's why.
1. "It's Hypocrasy to attack Saddam now, since Reagan supported him and built him up."
Factually and Ethically wrong.
Wrong in facts: We were not attempting to "build him up", as is evident in the left wing's favorite Reagan era misdeed, "Iran Contra" (I am not so sure it was a misdeed at all). Note that the whole crux of Iran contra was the selling of weapons to Iran, which was, at the time, firing them off at Iraqi troops. Funny way to build someone up, selling missiles to his foe.
Wrong in Ethics: If supporting Saddam was wrong in the past, then opposing him now is not hypocrasy, it is the correcting of a past error. If the left wing REALLY beleived that the US Government supported Saddam and was wrong to do so, the proper, ethical reaction would not be "Hypocrasy!", it would be "At last, you've come around to the side of right!"
2. "We supplied Saddam with biological and chemical weapons"
Wrong in facts. We did no such thing.
3. "We supplied Saddam with weapons"
Correct, but very misleading, to the point of being deceptive. The only piece of military hardware supplied by the US to Iraq was the Hughes 500 helicopter, in small numbers. This is a light duty observation/liaison aircraft, one of those "dual use" things as it also has civil transport, traffic control, police, and other non-military roles. Compare this to the Fighter Jets and missiles from France (spare parts still being delivered, despite the "sanctions"), tanks and arms of all kinds from Russia, Rockets from Brazil, and Artillery from South Africa. They almost got warships from Italy, but the Italians impounded them. This claim, therefore, is a deception.
4. War will kill Iraqis.
Ethically wrong, if it turns out that Non-war kills even more.
5. "US sanctions kill Iraqis."
Ethically wrong, as the sanctions are the result of Iraqi actions.
Factually wrong, as the sanctions are utterly ineffective to the point of permiting French aviation hardware to arrive. Any net that lets parts for fighters slip through is going to catch little else.
6. "The inspections are working"
Factually wrong. Blix's own report indicates that the inspections have revealed just the tip of the iceberg. In other words, only what the Iraqis wish to show. Since the purpose of the inspections is to monitor Iraq's complete and cooperative disarmament, and instead they are not even close to that, factually, the inspections are not working.
7. "It's about oil"
Factually wrong. The oil lobby is against the war, and against sanctions. Note that the "it's about oil" claim was made in 91, when the US, after an overwhelming victory on the battlefield, obtained exactly 0 barrels of oil as spoils of war, and in fact now BUYS more oil from our proposed enemy than from the nation we defended.
8. "It would be OK only if the UN authorizes it"
Ethically wrong. If morals depended on consensus, every lynching would be a correct action. Every great moral thinker in history, Budda, Lao Tze, Hillel, etc, would agree that even if every last human being on earth supported an immoral choice over a moral one, that choice would still be immoral, and if one lone individual dissented, that one isolated hold-out would be doing the right thing.
This is a strange turn in history, from a philosophical point of view. In a rare turnabout, it is the pacifist crowd that lacks ethcical and factual argument. That is why they rely on cheap, mindless slogans -"war is not the answer" ignores the reality that to many human problems, historically, war HAS been the answer- and blind hatreds, especially of Bush. In debates, you will see, from television pundit confrontations to college debates, it is the "pacifist" side that quickly falls back on shouting, lies, insults, and abuse.
If they were to have their way, and allied forces were to be withdrawn from around Iraq, what would be gained? Would Iraqis doe in fewer numbers? No. If anything, an emboldened dictatorship is an even more brutal one. Would US security increase? No, especially with the weapons programs going back on line in Iraq. So what do they seek to gain?
I see only one thing behind it- they hate Bush, with a passion, and will oppose ANY policy he makes, regardless of how many American lives are at risk. A left wing "pacifist" cares nothing for peace and security; a thousand Americans dead would be worth it if only it could somehow discredit their enemy, Bush. As a result, a "pacifist" would actually PREFER any US attack on Iraq to be bloody and nasty, only because that makes Bush look worse. That was the ENTIRE point of the human shields. These people are so focussed on their hatred they make my skin crawl. REAL peace cannot possibly come from such mannic hatred.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
