|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: March 16, 2003 An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch (Charlie Daniels) -- "Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic, spoiled mugwumps. get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning." (Comments: Mugwumps is a real word. Fascinating.)
Reader Comments...
Too bad the author incorrectly used 'mugwump.' If he's not specifically referring to the 19th century republicans, then the term is used to describe a person who is 'straddling the fence' or being neutral. Taking a peace / anti-war stance is not being a mugwump. By the way, my dog's name is Mugwump, which is a family tradition of sorts. We prefer to pronounce the word "mug-whomp." The article is not educated (informed) or thoughtful. It does not advance the pro-war agenda and merely rolls eyes with the anti-war folks. It's pure rant. Posted by: Not My President on March 17, 2003 03:25 AM
Awwww.... somebody needs a hug! This article has many logical fallacies. It is also factually incorrect in many places. It would take me a while to destroy the whole thing. Oh well, it's a slow afternoon, what the heck. Let’s say that we cut the military budget to just enough to keep the National Guard on hand to help out with floods and fires. I don't think anybody wants the entire military to be eliminated. Not wanting military action isn't the same as not wanting a military.
That was the Al Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden, which the US has already bombed. There's no evidence linking Saddam Hussain to the WTC attack. Not one of the terrorists involved in the hijackings was an Iraqi. Saudi, yes, Egyptian, yes. Iraqi, no. (Potential red herring. Maybe he's just misinformed.) Barbra Streisand’s fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing. Dissent is hate? What does Michael Jackson have to do with anything? Personal attack, unsubstantiated by anything else. Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don’t think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong. Fallacy: Appeal to belief. What one person believes doesn't change the merits of the case. How is a truck driver more of an authority on war and terrorism than anyone else? Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States has no right to defend itself. Appeal to emotion. The US does have a right to defend itself. Perhaps if Iraq actually attacked USA... Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the
You're a traitor if you don't agree with everything your goverment does? Can you spell "democracy" and "freedom of speech"? You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth Wow, he even brings the abortion issue into a discussion on terrorism. This guy is amazing! (Some might say the US was evil when it supported Iraq in the war against Iran.) You scoff at our military who’s boots you’re not even worthy to shine. Protesting against military action isn't scoffing at soldiers in the army. If anything, not going to war could save some of these great lives.
Saddam may be an evil, cruel, dictator (he is) but what's the evidence supporting his direct involvement in any terrorist attacks on USA? I don't think he even has the missile range to deliver any weapons as far as USA. Non sequitur. America is in imminent danger. You’re either for her or against her. The old "with us or against us" line. See earlier link for False Dilemma. The truth is rarely black and white. In a democracy, it is completely possible to have a position between extremes that supports fighting terrorism but is opposed to just attacking a foreign country on just suspicion. Like the earlier poster said, this is just pure rant where the only argument is "you are all traitors if you disagree with GW Bush". Now why did I spend time writing this?
Well, I'm not about to defend this particular article. I wonder why, of all the articles that might have been posted that defend the war with Saddam or attack the so-called peace movement, this one was chosen? Could it be so you have an easy strawman to knock down? No, surely Webword wouldn't lower it's standards of what to post for that reason! Was the attraction of the word mugwumps really that interesting? Tom Posted by: Tom - Attach Saddam on March 17, 2003 10:14 AM
Tom, you need to learn what a straw man argument really means. It's not one that's easily dismissed. Why don't you post your own article? (Why is the peace movement "so-called"?) Posted by: Jerry on March 17, 2003 12:02 PM
Why does Tom want to attach Saddam? Sounds painful. Posted by: amy on March 17, 2003 12:24 PM
attach, v. tr. Amy, Tom may have intended to write "attack," but his "attach" typo can still convey similar meaning. straw man, n. Jerry, a straw man really is an argument that is easily dismissed -- by the audience being presented the straw man argument. mugwump, n. Not My President, the author could have intended mugwump to refer to people who do not support President Bush, ala James G. Blaine. If so, it's a poor example because it implies Bush will end up as obscure and unimportant in the eyes of history.
You should read the Charlie Daniels Message Board - frightening would be an understatement. Posted by: Gerald on March 17, 2003 01:12 PM
Jerry:>> Why don't you post your own article? (Why is the peace movement "so-called"?) Okay since you asked... http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,6141557,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35568-2003Mar16.html http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003205 Posted by: Tom - AttacK Saddam on March 17, 2003 03:11 PM
Ok...but the US and its blind allies are still going to war. I wonder how many people will be cheering in the US, UK, Spain or Australia when the body bags start coming home. I am surprised in the US at least that it is dismissed with the price of war, or the price of freedom - can any family be so stupid as to think that their off spring are expendable? Remember everyone, Uncle Sadam has done nothing but "try to kill my Daddy"
"Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets." Who said that? Robin Cook, in his speech yesterday when he resigned from Tony Blair's government. I don't know how widely this is being reported in the USA, but Cook was Blair's first Foreign Secretary, from 1997 to 2001, and remained a member of his cabinet until yesterday. He's seen all the same intelligence sources which Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and Straw have seen, and he doesn't think there's a credible threat. For the full text of his speech, go to Posted by: Alan Fisher on March 18, 2003 06:25 AM
Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction? Yet? VX gas is damn dangerous - does it really matter whether or not they have a long-range missle to deliver it? Couldn't they deliver it other ways (e.g. briefcase bomb)? Check out these resources: VX? It's in that hole over there... - a Marine Corps Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense Specialist gives a chilling explanation of why we shouldn't believe Saddam's regime has destroyed their chemical weapons. "It is likely that Saddam will use chemical weapons to attack his own people and then try to blame the Americans" - so says Mohammed Nafee, a former general in the Iraqi army. Vexing Questions On Iraq's Arsenal - "According to Black, a batch of liquid anthrax could be mixed up in about a week." Iraqi chemical weapons official shot after trying to escape - He was allegedly shot in the head just after the UN inspectors’ arrival.
The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Growing Crisis in Global Security The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq Without war, we'd still have Hitler's version of Peace. Posted by: Lyle, Lyle - Croc O' Lyle on March 19, 2003 02:01 AM
All very interesting stuff, Lyle. But Robin Cook has had access to all this and all the stuff that the ordinary public will never get to see, and he still doesn't think war is justified. I don't think this point has been stressed enough - this is the first instance of someone who has been on the inside of the Bush / Blair stockade for the last few years, and who has now broken cover and said No. Doesn't that give you pause for thought? P.S. He's not even French. Posted by: Alan Fisher on March 19, 2003 07:08 AM
And if Saddam has a few tactical nukes hidden somewhere in America, may The Force save you guys. He's a lunatic; don't think he'll just sit on his arse and do nothing. (BTW, they too can be hidden in briefcases.) I'm still wondering why, with all these weapons he has, he hasn't attacked USA in any way in the last 12 years. (This isn't supporting him; just trying to counter your argument.) North Korea has nukes. Why isn't USA invading them? They're not exactly a "peaceful" nation. Pakistan has nukes and is run by an army general dictator who toppled a democratic government and took over. No US troops there. Oh wait, no oil there either. Posted by: MadMan - USA rules the world! on March 19, 2003 12:04 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |