{"id":4091,"date":"2003-02-06T22:10:47","date_gmt":"2003-02-07T03:10:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/?p=4091"},"modified":"2003-02-06T22:10:47","modified_gmt":"2003-02-07T03:10:47","slug":"shrug_2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2003\/02\/06\/shrug_2.html","title":{"rendered":"Shrug"},"content":{"rendered":"

I was really tempted to fisk Jill Nelson’s MSNBC screed<\/a> against war on Iraq. I mean, the thing begs for it, from painting Colin Powell as a governmental yes-man to portraying the UN as a sage council of learned philosophers confronted by an egotistical cowboy tyrant named George W. Bush. Every paragraph, every sentence, is a shotgun spraying of critiques, most of which seem to bear only the most superficial resemblance to reality.<\/p>\n

But, in the end, I decided, why bother? I’ve made my own views clear on the subject. Nothing I say is going to sway Ms. Nelson, or those who believe as she does. The basic axioms of her universe (peace and negotiation are always the answer; the UN has the highest moral legitimacy in the world; Bush is a plutocrat who stole the election; you can score points if you throw around words like “tyrant” and “minions” and “cowboy”) are so divergent from my own (peace and negotiation are certainly the first steps you should take, but there are circumstances where force, and threat of force, are the only effective answers; the UN is a useful place to coordinate activities, but its member states are all largely out for their own interests; Bush won the election, so, like this Gore voter, get over it; namecalling as a primary rhetorical device is the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt) that it’s almost no use even trying to argue against what she has to say.<\/p>\n

Looking out upon the anti-war folks, post-Powell’s presentation, I see the following strains of thought:<\/p>\n