More DO Fisking

Okay, I'm a couple hours later than I said I would be, but I've had a long day. The Daily Orange, after a brief period of moderate/irrelevant editorials, is back in true liberal form this week. Today's example uses the "why did we attack Iraq and not another dictatorship" argument, as well as some blatant lies, to try and undermine the war effort. Let's take a look:

Amid all tyrannies, why Iraq?
Saddam was a threat; Chris Malagisi got that right in his column ("Dems switch stance; WMD don't matter," February 10, 2004). Let's not fool ourselves about the evil Saddam perpetrated and the instability he created in the region. I will let down the liberal elements of the Democratic Party. Just because pre-emption is a fuzzy place of uncertain morality, it does not automatically mean "bad."

At least this author is sane enough to recognize evil. I'll give her that.

But here comes the perspective. Saddam is not the only evil dictator out there.

GASP! Really? I had no idea!

Kim Jong-Il of North Korea...

Nuclear inspections...

...Qaddafi of Libya...

"I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

...Castro of Cuba.

Pffft. He'll be dead in 5 years even if we don't kill him.

Add a dozen other rogue states and one wonders if we must launch war with these countries as well?

Well, since we're already making progress with a couple of the ones you mentioned, I'm guessing the answer is "no."

At what cost to our economy? The 18 to 21-year-olds at SU who would be drafted to achieve such objectives might argue from yet another reference point.

She's bringing up the draft now? Where the frick did that come from?

The problem is three-fold.

One, the United States should not deem itself responsible for picking off every leader that it considers a problem. Military intervention is not the first resort - it's the last.

Which is why we gave the Saddamster 12 f-in' years.

In between, there is something called "diplomacy..."

*cough* OIL FOR FOOD *cough* SANCTIONS *cough cough* WEAPONS INSPECTORS *cough*

...a concept as old as time.

I'm sure diplomacy was real common 15 billion years ago.

We are using it in North Korea in cooperation with China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.

Which basically refutes the argument you just made, doesn't it?

Two, Bush's list of American "allies" during his State of the Union was just hot air.

MoDo? You again? How often do you ghostwrite for college newspapers?

The only countries that provide military support are Great Britain, Australia and Spain.

REALLY???

While Bush had to dig into the dredges to find "allies..."

Poodles and lackeys, right?

...America forgot that our strongest allies are historically Canada, Australia, and the EU.

"Historically," a lot of countries have been our allies. What's your point?

By working so hard to ostracize them, we do not help ourselves.

Actually, by showing them that we don't need their approval, we help ourselves quite a lot. You can't redefine the word "ally" just because some countries aren't with us.

Diplomacy is not about how much everyone agrees with America, but how much we work with our allies to achieve common goals...

Unless our common goals were to leave Saddam Hussein in power and not kill his sons, I'd say we're working pretty well together.

...of which there are many - most importantly, a sound international economy.

What do you want us to do, switch to the Euro? Let them handle their own financial problems.

Iraq was not and should not have been a top priority.

Why don't you tell that to the millions of Iraqis we liberated? I'm sure they'd agree with you...

Three, Malagisi's inflammatory comment that the Middle East is home to "radical theocracy and fascism," further emphasizes the myopic, racially and religiously-charged hyperbole that qualifies as intellectual discourse.

I guess Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Palestine didn't get that memo.

Such short-sightedness ignores Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain and that it is only a minority who are fundamentalists.

And this affects their ability to rule by force in what way?

His comments prove to non-Americans that we are as dumb and self-centered as they think.

I knew this was coming. Let's quickly review: Suggesting that the Middle East is home to a lot of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is "hyperbole," but suggesting that Americans are "dumb and self-centered" is fine.

Wait for it...wait for it...

HOORAY FOR CONSISTENCY!!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing like a dumb military He-Man to impress your friends...

Holy crap, she did it again!

"There are fundamentalist terrorists in the Middle East? Impossible! That's just an inflammatory stereotype! You dumb military He-Men are all alike!!!"

America is about more than that. Unfortunately, Malagisi forgot that. Don't you forget it too.

If I do forget it, it'll be because the massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to make sense of this article killed too many of my brain cells.

I might have more respect for anti-war types if they could argue consistently and honestly. On the other hand, it's a lot more fun when they make it this easy to disrespect them.

Posted by CD on February 12, 2004 09:40 PM
Category: