The Times (UK) has a page full of interesting podcasts from the Oxford Literary Festival. Of particular interest are the podcasts from Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.
Well worth a view and listen.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Ghosts of Vietnam destroy logic, Part II
It seems like every week I am forced to comment on the same inane protestations of Sweden’s involvement in Afghanistan. In SVD this morning, former Minister of Defense and Palme biographer, Thage G. Peterson wonders when the Swedish government and the Social Democratic opposition will protest against the US’s brutal war.
Once again a relic from Vietnam invokes the ghost of Olof Palme as an argument against “US imperialism”. I have commented previously on the empty rhetoric of comparing the actions of the US following 9/11 to Vietnam, but to no avail to some apparently. Mr. Peterson delights in reliving the well-worn fantasy that Olof Palme had more influence on US policy than was actually the case in the 1970’s. Mr. Peterson also commits the fallacy of lumping together the actions in Afghanistan with Iraq, thereby insinuating that both of these actions are in violation of the UN, when, in fact, the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent security force, ISAF, have a UN mandate and the occupation of Iraq is justified by a number of UN resolutions following the formation of an Iraqi government.
The argumentation of Mr. Peterson displays his flailing sense of being on the wrong side of this debate. In one part of his article, he decries the fact that it is shameful that there has not been more of a debate concerning the egregious behavior of Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe. Obviously, Mr. Peterson in his elderly years has not followed the recent statements by the US and the UK concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. It is also about time that a representative of a number of Swedish governments who sponsored Mr. Mugabe with aid money from Swedish taxpayers for many years in the 1970’s and 1980’s has now come to a realization about his true nature. A realization he still can’t seem to face regarding Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
One can also wonder why this complaint of silence about Mr. Mugabe appears in a piece dedicated to poo-pooing US intervention against other despotic regimes. Is it to innoculate himself against the complaint that he is soft on dictators? Such a throwaway comment does nothing to dispel that well-established notion.
One wonders what is more pathetic; a former member of the government reliving his glory years of opposition to the Vietnam War and his knee-jerk pacifism or that many who will read the piece will agree with his delusions?
Once again a relic from Vietnam invokes the ghost of Olof Palme as an argument against “US imperialism”. I have commented previously on the empty rhetoric of comparing the actions of the US following 9/11 to Vietnam, but to no avail to some apparently. Mr. Peterson delights in reliving the well-worn fantasy that Olof Palme had more influence on US policy than was actually the case in the 1970’s. Mr. Peterson also commits the fallacy of lumping together the actions in Afghanistan with Iraq, thereby insinuating that both of these actions are in violation of the UN, when, in fact, the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent security force, ISAF, have a UN mandate and the occupation of Iraq is justified by a number of UN resolutions following the formation of an Iraqi government.
The argumentation of Mr. Peterson displays his flailing sense of being on the wrong side of this debate. In one part of his article, he decries the fact that it is shameful that there has not been more of a debate concerning the egregious behavior of Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe. Obviously, Mr. Peterson in his elderly years has not followed the recent statements by the US and the UK concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. It is also about time that a representative of a number of Swedish governments who sponsored Mr. Mugabe with aid money from Swedish taxpayers for many years in the 1970’s and 1980’s has now come to a realization about his true nature. A realization he still can’t seem to face regarding Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
One can also wonder why this complaint of silence about Mr. Mugabe appears in a piece dedicated to poo-pooing US intervention against other despotic regimes. Is it to innoculate himself against the complaint that he is soft on dictators? Such a throwaway comment does nothing to dispel that well-established notion.
One wonders what is more pathetic; a former member of the government reliving his glory years of opposition to the Vietnam War and his knee-jerk pacifism or that many who will read the piece will agree with his delusions?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Ghosts of Vietnam destroy logic
In today's SvD debate page, there is a signed op-ed by a number of members of Sweden's left where they compare the situation in today's Iraq to that of Vietnam. It is a curious ailment in Sweden, more so here than in other countries, that the generation that protested the Vietnam War (and rightly so) can't seem to let go of it. In no other country that I have ever been to is the spirit of Vietnam regurgitated as often as in Sweden. One wonders why this is so. Is it because it was the entrance of Sweden on the world stage with Olof Palme making a worldwide name of himself? Is it because of the enemies he attracted, namely Richard Nixon? Whatever the reason, no matter what action the US takes in the world; if there is a military component, there will be a comparison to Vietnam.
The merits of their argument are faulty, to say the least. They commit the common fallacy of comparing a situation in the present to one in the past based on some superficial likenesses. In this case, that many American troops are in a foreign land. It is just as wrong to compare the action in Iraq to Afghanistan or Vietnam as it is to compare modern dictators, such a Mugabe or Hussein with Hitler and Stalin. The cases are very different and one undermines one's argument by making false comparisons for rhetorical points.
It is also an insult to the reader's intelligence to think that we can't tell the difference between the conditions and facts of each case. And it is morally dishonest to even consider the US's actions in Vietnam as the same as what the international community is trying to do in Afghanistan, as the authors would like us to do.
What remains is a pathetic reminiscence of their youth. Their op-ed uses dubious facts and false analogies and what floats up through that murky mix is a desire to see themselves on the right side of an argument as they were in the 1960's. Never mind that the world has changed. Never mind that the US has changed. Never mind that Sweden and Europe have changed. Never mind that their initial call for solidarity 40 years ago was so successful that it has led world leaders today to conclude that oppression in one part of the world will eventually find its way back to our doorstep and that we must help those who suffer under the thumbs of theocratic and despotic regimes.
It has been said that despite one's advancing years most people still have the minds and view of the world that they had when they were 18. The authors of this fallacious piece have proved that point once again in spades.
The merits of their argument are faulty, to say the least. They commit the common fallacy of comparing a situation in the present to one in the past based on some superficial likenesses. In this case, that many American troops are in a foreign land. It is just as wrong to compare the action in Iraq to Afghanistan or Vietnam as it is to compare modern dictators, such a Mugabe or Hussein with Hitler and Stalin. The cases are very different and one undermines one's argument by making false comparisons for rhetorical points.
It is also an insult to the reader's intelligence to think that we can't tell the difference between the conditions and facts of each case. And it is morally dishonest to even consider the US's actions in Vietnam as the same as what the international community is trying to do in Afghanistan, as the authors would like us to do.
What remains is a pathetic reminiscence of their youth. Their op-ed uses dubious facts and false analogies and what floats up through that murky mix is a desire to see themselves on the right side of an argument as they were in the 1960's. Never mind that the world has changed. Never mind that the US has changed. Never mind that Sweden and Europe have changed. Never mind that their initial call for solidarity 40 years ago was so successful that it has led world leaders today to conclude that oppression in one part of the world will eventually find its way back to our doorstep and that we must help those who suffer under the thumbs of theocratic and despotic regimes.
It has been said that despite one's advancing years most people still have the minds and view of the world that they had when they were 18. The authors of this fallacious piece have proved that point once again in spades.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Unspeak
As a tip to those who are interested in the use of language, particularly the political use of language, a fine book to read is "Unspeak" by Steven Poole. A writer for the Guardian, Mr Poole analyses modern sound bites for what they imply and what they argue for and against with their limited size. Indeed, what is unspoken by sound bites like "pro-choice","pro-life", "climate change", etc.
A valuable book for all interested in truth in the public discourse and seeing behind the tools of spin-doctors.
A valuable book for all interested in truth in the public discourse and seeing behind the tools of spin-doctors.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
A well-needed rebuttal
The lead editorial in today's DN is an excellent and well-written rebuttal to the group of five hundred who have called for Sweden to leave Afghanistan. The article points out, quite clearly, the need for a continued international presence in Afghanistan and the morally bankrupt view of those who argue against foreign military interventions of the type in Afghanistan and in the wider struggle for human rights and democracy in the world.
It is pleasing to see a major newspaper defend (Sweden's largest morning daily) what is a noble mission on the part of the world community.
It also exposes the fatuousness and fecklessness of the so-called enlightened intellectuals of the far left. Their calls for solidarity and justice ring truly hollow when calling for the removal of forces that guarantee the rebuilding and promise of a nation wracked by conflict and previously subjected to an inhumane oppression by religious fanatics. The fact that those who claim to be the friends of the third world, of women, of homosexuals and others repressed around the world would deny the freedoms and rights they enjoy in an attempt to score cheap political points against the US and the west is beyond contempt.
Their treason towards the ideals of the enlightenment and the true anti-fascistic left is one that should be condemned by all those who believe in solidarity, social justice, human rights and democracy.
That it takes a center-right newspaper to do what the center-left should be doing is an insult to all of us who believe in social democracy and progressive values.
It is pleasing to see a major newspaper defend (Sweden's largest morning daily) what is a noble mission on the part of the world community.
It also exposes the fatuousness and fecklessness of the so-called enlightened intellectuals of the far left. Their calls for solidarity and justice ring truly hollow when calling for the removal of forces that guarantee the rebuilding and promise of a nation wracked by conflict and previously subjected to an inhumane oppression by religious fanatics. The fact that those who claim to be the friends of the third world, of women, of homosexuals and others repressed around the world would deny the freedoms and rights they enjoy in an attempt to score cheap political points against the US and the west is beyond contempt.
Their treason towards the ideals of the enlightenment and the true anti-fascistic left is one that should be condemned by all those who believe in solidarity, social justice, human rights and democracy.
That it takes a center-right newspaper to do what the center-left should be doing is an insult to all of us who believe in social democracy and progressive values.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)