VeeshanVault

This editorial ran in today's Toronto Sun. While the paper itself is not held in such high regard as many others the editorial hit the nail right on the head.

Enjoy....

The Iraq war - for dummies

And how to deal with those annoying peaceniks, left-wingers and do-nothings
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN -- Toronto Sun

As the American-led invasion looms, what follows is a dummies' guide to the war on Iraq.
First, be warned. Left-wing types will try to impress you by throwing around terms like the dangers of "American Hegemony." Just so you know, "hegemony" is a $1.98 word that simply means "dominance" or "leadership", so when someone denounces "American Hegemony" what he or she really means is American dominance or leadership of the world.
Since the poor old U.S. Consulate (not "embassy" - that's in Ottawa) at 360 University Ave., will be in for the usual rough ride from peace protesters over the coming days , I feel it's only fair to note how people can symbolically register their displeasure with the man most responsible for what is about to happen - not George Bush, but Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, there is no Iraqi consulate in Toronto, but anyone out Ottawa way could protest at Iraq's embassy at 215 McLeod St., Ottawa, Ont., K2P 0Z8, or contact the embassy by phone at 1-613-236-9177 (no one was picking up yesterday), by fax at 1-613-567-1101 or by email at iraqyia@on.aibn.com.
Over the coming days, you will hear peace protesters and various commentators babbling about how Bush is leading a "Crusade" against Iraq, Arabs, Muslims and the Islamic world. Try to help these people by informing them that if they do just a little research, they will learn that the Crusades were in fact a Christian counterattack against Islamic expansionism in the Middle Ages, after the Muslims captured the Holy Land (Palestine) from the Christians. And those of us who support the U.S.-led invasion should certainly object to calling it a "Crusade." The Crusades failed.
Whenever peaceniks and other commentators lament the loss of the " Canadian compromise" or the "French compromise" or any other proposed compromise at the UN Security Council - all of which were built around the idea of setting "deadlines" for Iraq to meet certain disarmament conditions - try to point out the logical fallacy of their thinking.
That is, none of these compromises ever spelled out what would happen after the final "deadline" was reached.
Obviously, at the end of any "deadline" there would had to have been a Security Council vote based upon how various countries interpreted the reports of the UN weapons inspectors. And since France, with its veto power, had been saying for weeks it would veto any resolution leading to war, had the U.S. and Britain agreed to any of these "compromises" they would have in effect been committing themselves to never-ending "deadlines" while their 300,000-strong military force cooled its heels, at their expense, on Iraq's borders.
While we're on the subject, why, if France et al. were so interested in resolving this peacefully, did they never offer to replace the U.S. and British forces building up on Iraq's borders with their own? Everyone knows the only reason the UN weapons inspectors were achieving any co-operation at all from Saddam was due to the troop buildup, which the do-nothing nations then cynically used as "evidence" that the inspection process was "working." Of course as U.S. commentator George F. Will rightly noted, using this logic, the disarmament process couldn't possibly fail. If the inspectors found nothing, it was evidence Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. If they found something, it was evidence the process was working. Small wonder Bush finally got fed up with this game - after waiting more than four months at the UN after Iraq had failed to comply with all previous disarmament resolutions for 12 years.
The ridiculous characterization of British PM Tony Blair as "Bush's bitch" or "Bush's poodle" by the peaceniks has to be one of the most laughable and unjust criticisms ever levelled at a world leader. Whatever one may think of Blair's stand in favour of disarming Iraq, he is risking his political career - even more than Bush - on what to him is clearly a point of principle. We always say we want leaders who will make the tough decisions and say "to hell with the polls." Then one comes along and he ends up being insulted by know-nothings.
It's funny. We say we want leaders who will do what they think is right regardless of what the polls say. But we reward those who always take polls before deciding what to do and lead from the rear. Sound like anyone we know in Canada?


Cheers

Haha Bush's Bitch, that is funny, although I like Blair~

Hehe, you actually read the Sun, Atokal?

GAH, your right. Nail

I've seen better written opinions on this forum. The only thing interesting about the article is in how many different ways it failed to address anything what-so-ever, yet still managed to look down upon people who oppose the war.

miir wrote:Hehe, you actually read the Sun, Atokal?

I read the editorial page of all the major newspapers in Toronto today and happened to agree with the one in the Sun. As a general rule I read the Globe.

Quoting the Sun is an embarrasement to Canadians. If you want to quote a journalist, quote a real one... like from the National Enquirer.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/Art ... Editorials

Here is one for you Dregor from the Globe.

As to the Sun, well I stated clearly in my post how I felt about the paper itself. However, the editor wrote a very intelligent article about the situation unfolding in Iraq. But grats you on commenting regarding the paper and not the article.

Cheers

Hehe, the only guy in the Sun worth reading is Michael Coren.
I don't agree with most of the shit he says but he's alsways an interesting read.

Good Read.

Thanks Atokal

Alright, grats to me. Here's my opinion on the article. It was not intelligent, it was inflammatory. But of course it was, it was an editorial on a subject such as war. So lets delve deeper into why it was a piece of journalistic fluff. She tries to talk down to the reader, treat those who do not back the war as children. Bzzt. Wrong way to try and win an argument.

Over the coming days, you will hear peace protesters and various commentators babbling about how Bush is leading a "Crusade" against Iraq, Arabs, Muslims and the Islamic world. Try to help these people by informing them that if they do just a little research, they will learn that the Crusades were in fact a Christian counterattack against Islamic expansionism in the Middle Ages, after the Muslims captured the Holy Land (Palestine) from the Christians. And those of us who support the U.S.-led invasion should certainly object to calling it a "Crusade." The Crusades failed.

This makes absolutely no sense. Yes, the crusades were a Christian attack on the Islamic world, it was a war. Someone tell me what that point matters? Saying Bush is trying to lead a crusade now, and I'm sorry, but he is crusading, doesn't mean he's fighting a holy war. And by the way, I feel this one will fail too. He might win the battle, but he's already lost his war.

That is, none of these compromises ever spelled out what would happen after the final "deadline" was reached.

Including going off half-cocked, guns blazing, killing thousands without any proof yet to be seen, bad forgeries done by one of Dubya's daughters don't count. The U.N. may as well disband right now if America is just going to follow it's own agendas. Call me a peacenik, as inaccurate a name as that is, not to mention moronic, all you want. Shame on me for not supporting murder.

And yes, Tony Blair is Bush's bitch. I used to like the guy, but his complete disregard to reason has changed that. Both him and Dubya have committed political suicide, in the past tense, not the possible future tense notice. I just pray they haven't put the noose around the rest of the world.

Here is a nice pic for you liberals

Tony Blair is still the pwn for Britain. He is an intelligent, and genuinely good moraled politician-type. Hard to find some that portray that look and actually are "that look". Hell, if his political career is over in Britain, I'd vote for him here in the US.

Unfortunately, he comes off as Dubya's toy because he is agreeing on a tough decision...and agreeing verbally to the world. If everyone around is not liking your best friend, they probably will stop liking you too...

Back to the post though...I did not like the article. It really is bad when the only way to try and "win an argument" is just to insult. I kind of turned over the past couple weeks into being a supporter of "no-war" at the present. I do not agree with the Security Council's efforts on a solution either. No one is making solid decisions right now except for Bush/Blair et al. They are doing what they said was going to happen...I may not agree...but atleast they told the truth about something...