I don't support your war, but I wouldn't, as I think the earth is flat
Jackie D from Au Currant cites approvingly of posts by James Lileks and John Hawkins.Lileks argues that "...(W)e live in an era of non-contiguous information streams. I believe one thing; someone else believes another – and the bedrock assumptions are utterly contradictory. This is what drives me nuts about discussing current events with some people. It’s like discussing the Apollo program with people who think it was all faked, or discussing archeology with those who believe the world is six thousand years old. I think the Iraq Campaign was part of a broad war against Islamicist fascism and the states that enable it; others think it’s all about oil and Halliburton jerking the strings of a Jeebus puppet. No. Middle. Ground."
So there we have it. Opposition to a war in Iraq has no more validity than believing the Apollo programme was faked, or that the world is only 6,000 years old. In other words, The War Against Straw continues.
It gets worse. Hawkins argues that, "It's absolutely impossible to rationally discuss the invasion with many people on the anti-war left. It does not matter what facts you trot out, what arguments you make, or how many mistaken assumptions of theirs that you correct, because they are opposed to the war because of unverifiable feelings they have about George Bush's "real" motivation for the invasion. At it's root, their position is basically, "I believe George Bush is bad, so everything he does must be a bad thing". You can't ever "prove" them wrong because their position is based on "feelings," not logic. "
In many ways it is a beautiful thing, supporters of George W Bush harping on about facts and rationality, given the company Bush keeps is hardly confidence inspiring in these matters. Furthermore many of the 'facts' so beloved by most pro-war, pro-Bush supporters seem as solid as Ian Huntley's defence - the 'fact' that Saddam was close to building a nuclear bomb, the 'facts' about the 'Vans-of-Doom', the 'facts' about the uranium from Niger.
Hawkins continues,
"Once you understand what's really going on, all the contradictory positions, bizarre theories, and dubious arguments that people on the anti-war left trot out make much more sense".
(The links might not be quite what Hawkins means, I grant you).
Finally, Hawkins notes, "The truth is that many people on the anti-war left are just grasping at any straw, no matter how flimsy, because they're embarassed to admit the truth; that their position on the war is based on little more than their dislike of George Bush."
Now D-Squared has already pointed out that that dislike and distrust of the man running a war is quite a good reason to oppose one. If George Galloway was PM of the UK I would oppose ex ante any wars he took us into on grounds of his personality and political views.
More fundamentally though do these people really believe there is no middle ground between those who support the war and those who oppose it?
posted by Matthew @ 12/31/2003 07:36:00 AM
Comments: 0
