[LINK] Walk against War - sunday in sydney
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:43:53 +0800
Chirgwin, Richard wrote:
>Really, arguing about the electoral value of a march is rather silly - not
>because the march is meaningless, but because its meaning can't be
>quantified. But extrapolating "this person didn't march" to "this person's
>opinion is" is well beyond silly - I can't grasp how JH would make such a
>Let's see. I guess the statement that "non-marchers are in favour of the
>war" falls under "denying the antecedant" in my slip of paper entitled
>"Twelve Errors of Logic".
Sorry Richard, it's was never meant to follow the rules of sylogistic logic, it's the logic of spin that it follows: keep repeating lies and half truths, never allow full discussion of the topic, never respond directly to real content of opposing arguments, and most importantly just keep saying it.
I guess for me one of the most disgusting and depressing things about the prowar governments is the way that they are treating the an attack on Iraq where large, possibly huge, numbers of people will be killed and the what little infrastucture the country has will be largely demolished causing ongoing suffering and death as just another exercise in spin. Lying and misinformation are the order of the day and we are supposed to be the good guys. I know the people in the firing line are arabs and don't speak english but I reckon they are still important. Much of the "discussion" has the flavour of, say, choosing the site for a new airport, or just plain electioneering.
Perhaps, on the careful and sober consideration, there may actually be a good case for an attack on Saddam but I haven't heard it yet - despite extensive reading - and it's patently obvious that GWB, JWH or any of that team have the slightest intention at all of promoting an open, or honest, discussion. The attack is about politics, pride, power and oil. And last 50 years of US foreign policy clearly indicate that the US should not be leading the attack - none of their supposed "liberating" wars have actually worked for the locals. Ask a Nicaraguan, or a MSF worker in Afganistan, for example. The US claims that he has WMD - because they kept the receipts - but in fact Saddam has never been weaker; he is a very minimal threat to the west, if at all. He could barely be more unconnected to Al Qaida terrorism if Iraq was on a different planet. Do Bush and Rumsfeld give a rodents rectum (I refer not to JWH) about the plight of the Iraqi people? The US really only cares about Saddam because he happens to be siting on the biggest single chunk of world oil reserves. But we are not allowed to mention these inconvenient facts. And logic is right out.
m: 04 1243 1243