Being anti-war means never having to say you're sorry

New Ross Standard (Ireland) ^ | April 17, 2003 | Anne Marie O'Connor

[Happygal]

I like to call him Michael Twee :-)

[MadIvan]

If Robin Cook is a Malevolent Garden Gnome, does that make Michael D. Higgins a Demented Leprechaun? ;)

[Happygal]

does that make Michael D. Higgins a Demented Leprechaun? ;)

He certainly has the look of one! ;-)

[MadIvan]

Darling, perhaps I should show a picture then to let people decide:

Love, Ivan

[Happygal]

Smug lookin' ain't he?

[MadIvan]

Indeed. Yuk.

[JennysCool]

What a stunning commentary. This woman's goin' places! :-)

[Happygal]

I have it on good authority that this particular article has caused quite a stir, particularly among the 'silent majority' who, unlike the protesting anti-war brigade, have felt it appropriate to write many e-mails and letters of support to the editorial team on this Irish weekly. :-)

[sultan88]

A great article by Anne Marie. I think I will bookmark this one!

[countrydummy]

bump

[uglybiker]

BUMP!

[arasina]

Ping! Read this one!

[AmishDude]

Somebody should tell him that he can grow his hair to his shoulders if he wants -- you're still going to be bald.

[AmishDude]

"Mr Bush, when are you coming to liberate us?"

I have no comment, I just want to bump this.

[TopQuark]

anti-war factions are not thinking rationally, and thus will neither respond to rational argument, nor apologies for taking up irrational positions, which are detrimental to the actual rights and welfare of the Iraqi people.

Beautiful!

What an excellent article! The hypocrisy aspect is important: having endured the largely artificial pre-war debates --- artificial because only one side was arguing on the basis of fact --- it is important to establish the truth. Those who argued in bad faith should be brought to task, and not only in the name of fairness: they continue to do so, only the target has moved to "colonization" and "occupation," as you pointed out so well.

Although you stated your premise from the outset and thus disclosed your position, you went through a considerable number of facts to justify your position rather than simply woo the reader. In the NY Times, for instance, I often see the opposite: while pretending to be objective, hiding the pertinent facts (witness a recent article in which four Marines killed by a suicide bomber were said to have "died when a taxi in which the bomb was placed exploded." As if by accident. As if there were no humans in that taxi. The same wording was used the second time; Arabs commit no suicide bombings, thus). I am an old-fashion reader: I like learning something from the article. Yours certainly provided for that.

I liked also your point about the syllogism. This aspect has bothered me for some time: disregarding for a moment the differences in positions is it not amazing how poorly the other side expresses theirs? They pull "facts" out of thin air and, if that was insufficient to make their arguments laughable, cannot maintain simple logic and internal consistency of their arguments. Which points to precisely the syllogism you stated. I have seen Mark Steyn adderss that point before, but I think you made it more clear. In fact, it may be fun to keep it handy and mechanically apply to future cases: I am sure many of them, once you remove the pomp and pretense, will fall neatly into the three simple steps of teh syllogism you stated. This is because theirs is not an examined position but a state of mind, as you have shown so well.

No wonder your screen name is HappyGal: I too would be HappyGuy if I could write so well! Best wishes to you in your career and otherwise.

[RedWhiteBlue]

Take a bow for a job well done!

[sauropod]

OK. So where's the obligatory post of the authorette?

[sauropod]

OMG! Finally! Someone worse looking than Her Heinous and Helen Thomas :-).

[Happygal]

OMG! Finally! Someone worse looking than Her Heinous and Helen Thomas :-).

You talkin' about me? *LOL*

[Incorrigible]

Look, when they're done over there, can they get over to Ballybunion and tear down that statue of Bill Clinton!

Great article BTW.