Comments on ANSWER Press Release

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to ANSWER Press Release

One Sided? I Admit It!

The one side that's getting virtually zero airplay right now!

These Comments are getting longer than the blogs that spawned them! So I’ll try to be brief here.

 

I unreservedly accept the point you make several times – that I am presenting a one-sided view. And I do so without apology, because if the view coming from Bush / Blair right now is in any way balanced, then I’m a monkey’s uncle (as they say in this part of the world). My one-sidedness is to do my bit to balance the one-sidedness of the other side. And it’s partly founded, admittedly, in strong coincidental and circumstantial evidence, but a large part of it comes from strong factual data, irrefutable and, more importantly, independently checkable by anyone who chooses to check (unlike those satellite photos).

 

Having said this, the chances of finding The Truth in all of this are remote indeed. We just need to accept that as a given. But there’s some meta-truths here, which can be expressed in sayings such as “Poke a cornered rat and he’ll bite”, “No one wins wars”, “Nine out of ten casualties will be civilian.” Oh, and I don’t rate civilian human lives over military – both are equally precious and sacred. The element that’s missing from the civilian casualty is choice. The soldier chose (mostly) to be a soldier, to be armed, to go fight. The civilian didn’t choose to get trapped and mown down in a war zone that was, a few days earlier, a peaceful farming village.

 

You make a good point about the press release scare-mongering over the use of nuclear weapons. But no-one seems to be considering this – what if Saddam IS armed to the teeth, and has nuclear weapons in hiding? And what if he uses them against the Americans first? They’d retaliate, for sure, but the resulting conflagration would have been provoked by America / allies attacking first. I doubt History will view that move to kindly.

 

I’m not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse about the oil issue, but ‘America is wealthy enough to buy what it needs’ kinda misses the point – completely – that it’s irrelevant how much oil America can afford to buy (and I’d argue that one too, if I had the time) if the fella controlling the production of the oil refuses to sell it to you for strategic reasons, economic reasons, or sheer bloody-mindedness.

 

Overall, I come back to your point on truth. I’m not saying my views are the only correct ones – never been that dogmatic! – but equally I feel no need to present the other side of the coin because you just have to wake up in the morning and that side is getting plenty of airplay, thank you very much. I'm also conscious that the pro-war message is being led by Mr Bush; now he's not known for his honesty, is he? Lied about his previous criminal record, scammed the electoral role in Florida? Not upfront about his corporate and political agendas? So I’m airing A-nother side of the coin – a side that is widely dismissed, borders on treason in some eyes, yet just might have a grain or two of that elusive truth in it. I think it has several boulders of truth in it, but that’s just my opinion.

 

 

posted by DamonLeigh on February 7, 2003 at 11:29 AM | link to this | reply

Still One Sided

Heh, another in our ongoing series of comments concerning war and peace.  First, I respect your viewpoint and the grounds on which you base it.  From our back and forth comments that would appear to be a morally based objection due to violence and suffering caused to innocent parties.  There is no chance that I would try to find fault with your basic beliefs and value systems.  So, likewise, my comments are certainly not a personal attack and I hope they do not come across that way either.

However, I do still think your presentation of issues is one sided.  When you quote someone strongly opposed to the war concerning their views of Colin Powell's speech, it isn't fact.  It is someone elses viewpoint based on their beliefs and judgements.  For example, well in advance of the presentation Colin Powell made it known that he had nothing striking to show, just a series of things that taken together that would indicate a pattern of behavior.  Of course, whether or not you believe what was presented is another issue.  The media is the party that used words like "proof" and other incorrect statements as they later discuss issues.  The UN security council is not a court of law and suggesting that the material presented would have been laughed out of a court of law is not really a salient point.  Perhaps by the time you get the reports your media has already perverted the news?

When you talk about hypothetical weaponry, you are getting closer to the issue at hand.  Whether or not Iraq has this material is currently unknown to most of the civilian populations.  However, I do believe that the administration believes that Iraq does have it and that in particular Colin Powell is convinced.  Colin Powell has a lot of stature or respect in the US and I doubt, seriously, that he would risk that by knowingly presenting incorrect material.  This doesn't mean that he cannot be mistaken, but it does mean I then have to consider that the material could in fact be correct.

There is more to think about in this regard.  Several of the nations on the security council are not actively in favor of war.  These same nations have their own information gathering capabilities.  If the US was to present material that was wildly out of line with the internal agencies of these other countries then it is likely that there would be some outcry concerning this.  The only outcry so far is that there are different possible interpretations or that the inspectors should be given this type of information in an attempt to catch Iraq at this alleged deception.

Then we launch into real hype.  Your comments, though quoting another, suggest that the US is seriously planning to nuke Iraq.  As a matter of policy the US will never exclude any possibility from a war scenario.  This doesn't imply intent, it is a valid strategic ploy to make sure the other side cannot discount anything.  However, if the US were to throw nukes at Iraq world opinion would shatter.  The outcome of this would be incredibly negative.  To mention something like this in a publication or in your blog seems to be just another type of fearmongering.  Apparently, since the US is accused of this, two wrongs make a right?

Lets look at a few of the issues that lend credence to the position of the Bush administration.  Iraq has previously been found to have weapons of mass destruction after vehement denials.  This doesn't mean they do now, but it does mean I have to be wary of believing their statements.  I should be at least as wary as you are in believing anything that the US puts forth.  If you are going to assume or state that the US is being untruthful, you should assume or state the same concerning Iraq.  Both countries have reason to present issues in a way that makes them look good.

Going back a bit further, I didn't say Iraq was using public opinion ploys.  I said Mr Blix complained about the public opinion ploys of Iraq when he addressed the UN.  He was concerned about the UN inspectors being called spies, he was concerned that off duty inspectors visiting a mosque were characterized in an improper way and he was upset at something else I honestly can't remember right now.  He expressed concerns that Iraq was not cooperating as required.  He expressed concerns that Iraq had not addressed the disposition of its weapons of mass destruction that it had admitted to having years earlier.  Are you suggesting that the UN inspection teams are simply tools of a US propaganda machine and that they will lie on behalf of the US in order to promote war?  I've been watching the events in the UN directly as they happen, not secondhand through reported news.  I don't believe the entire UN is a US run conspiracy to sway world opinion.  It could be, but I don't believe it to be so.

When you question why Iraq is "especially dangerous" right now, I will admit you make a good point.  I think I can understand why the Bush administration considers them especially dangerous right now, but that doesn't mean I share that reasoning either.  Then you go on to state that Iraq could not have weapons of mass destruction right now and you lose me again.  If a determined nation wanted to decieve the world, then it could.  I'm not convinced it is truly that difficult to create dangerous gases or biological agents if you really want to.  I also think it would be easy to make sure everything you did had a dual use plausible excuse as we continually hear from Iraq.  This possibility from my point of view obviously does not mean it has actually happened.  Mr Ritter has his opinion that it could not happen, but it doesn't mean that he is correct either.

Now, you finally grudgingly admit that there might be a chance the administration is telling the truth, but only to state that if they were then they had committed a different offense by not sharing this info.  What about the other countries with spy agencies?  Historically, the intelligence community does not like to reveal what information it has or how it was obtained.  It is very plausible that the US has other information that it is not willing to share.  Not because the US says so, but because of the way intelligence organizations protect their sources for strategic reasons.  What I want to know, is not how you think the US should have shared its information, but what if the information is correct?  Does that not matter at all?

When you state that I make a link to September 11th, you are presenting what I said in a different light then I had used it.  I made no implication that Iraq had anything to do with that event.  I was not trying to tie the issues together in that way whatsoever.  What I did do is discuss the possible impact of the event on the Bush administration in an attempt to highlight some of their possible thinking processes.  Obviously, I can't say for sure what they are thinking, but just as I respect your moral beliefs, I can also respect the concept of protecting the populace of western countries from future attacks.  You and I may or may not agree with their conclusion, but personally I can respect the underlying criteria if I have guessed them correctly.

Again, you mention that oil is the one and only cause for all of this.  I strongly doubt it.  While the US is perhaps the so called thirstiest nation, it is also one of the most affluent.  If the US wants oil, it can buy it.  If it really wanted to it could spend the money to move in other directions as well.  The whole world is currently dependent on oil.  How come the whole world isn't barging into Iraq then?  Perhaps where you are these things are commonly accepted as truths, but that doesn't mean they are true.  They are also simple allegations by people who may believe these things to be true, but it doesn't mean they are.

Later, when you suggest that my concept of civilization is biased, you suggest that my viewpoint is biased when you don't know what my viewpoint is.  Perhaps it is, but perhaps every single person living in every single country will have a biased viewpoint of civilization based on their upbringing and so on.  When I talk about civilized, I refer to respect for life, willingness to consider the wellbeing of others, unwillingness to hold civilian populations hostage and so on.  While this might be a biased view, I consider low level basic morality issues to be a good indicator of civilization.  I'm not used to anyone discussing civilization in this way.  This isn't a simple determination as most countries have made mistakes at one point or another and often continue to do so today.

So, again, the fact that I'm calling your arguments one sided doesn't mean that you are wrong.  However, if you are trying to convince thinking people to form an opinion similar to your own, I think you will have to point out both sides of the issue and then make a case for why certain points should be believed or why certain actions should or should not be taken and so on.  For example, I believe that often the anti-war movement is based on the moral principle that killing or causing suffering is wrong.  On the other hand, I believe that the Bush administration is acting on the principle that its citizens are under credible threat from terrorists who are willing to use any means to attack the US.

Both of these principles have some measure of merit.  I would truly hate to see some type of biological or other attack against civilian populations.  I would also truly hate to see the people of Iraq or any other nation suffer needlessly.  War is war.  Death is death.  I can't see any reason to consider the life of a soldier any less significant than the life of a civilian.  They all die a painful death or suffer other indignities.  Soldiers may be more willing to take the risk, assuming they are volunteers, but their lives are no less precious.

Finally, I don't think I've resorted to hype when I try to point out the other side of the story.  I've tried to point out why I don't believe some statements to be facts but instead possibilities.  I've also tried to point out other possibilities which I also do not claim to be facts.  I think we have to look at the actions of all involved, as close to the source as possible, so that we can decide what should be believed.  I don't think one sided emotional presentations help people determine the truth, but I do think they do cause people to make conclusions.

posted by vroom on February 6, 2003 at 6:12 PM | link to this | reply