tygerland.net

Oh dear. Someone’s trying to be clever again.

Now far be it from me to suggest that this article is the biggest load of fucking idiocy Dizzy has ever posted (I know, that would be quite a stretch), but I do think it may be in with a shot.

Poor old Dizzy has decided to attack that most eeeevil section of the population: the anti-war left. You see, we’re not actually concerned about the bloodshed or the violence. Oh no. And, we’re not, apparently, bothered about the damage done to our own security and standing, either. You see, the world according to Dizzy, dictates that actually, if we’re honest, we’re just obsessed with our own sense of “moral self-righteousness.”

We also, he explains, sicken him.

Now before we apologise profusely, maybe we should examine the salient points made by Dizzy that have led to his apparent nausea?

Just a quick observation on the situation in Basra. The reports in the papers note that it is now Shia on Shia fighting as the Iraqi forces take on militia. The obvious cry is that of ‘civil war’ and you can guarantee that rabid anti-war protesters that bang on about how the whole thing was ‘illegal’ will play the connect the dot game with logic and say ‘well it’s all our fault’ line.

Civil War? Obvious? Well if you say so, Dizz.

There is no retrospective joining of dots. We have said from before the invasion that it was the wrong thing to do. Now this has been proven by events, we’ve little need for retrospective musing.

You know how it works, if we had not gone into Iraq this fighting would not have happened, ergo, we are to blame for the fighting. It’s understandabe [sic] why they say this because it’s lazy and very easy thinking that is commonplace, particularly on the Left which is defined by its Hegelian tendencies to see the world through a master/slave, oppresser/oppressed type prism.

Hegelian tendencies? Would that be the same Hegelian (?!) world-view that led to a post-imperial mission to spread “democracy” to those barbarians in the Middle East? I wonder…

However, what should really be remembered is this. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and the Shias were considered scum of the earth and subjected to all manner of horrors under his regime. To thus play the comparison game and effectively say that if more die now than died under Saddam it would have been better to have done nothing simply results in two things.

Actually, I’m not sure that should be remembered. Because it’s pretty fucking incoherent. More dying now is a bad thing. Two dead people is worse than one. Oh, and BTW, no-one said we should do nothing. That’s pretty fucking lazy, Dizz. We said that we should continue to work through the UN. We said that we should allow the weapons inspectors to finish their job, which, it transpires, they were doing rather well. What we argued against was an illegal war of choice; going it alone with only the US and a handful of smaller allies and without an international mandate.

You can always spot someone with a wooly argument. They always bifurcate the debate as Dizzy is doing. He knows he’s defending the indefensible, so he tries to demonise his opposition and argues they supported inaction. When in fact, many of those who argued against the war were more than aware what sort of regime existed prior to ‘03.

Pssst! They knew because they criticised the Reagan administration for funding and arming it. Liberals were criticising Saddam back when he was still on the White House Christmas card list. Maybe that is what should really be remembered, eh?

Firstly it is little more than 20/20 hindsight, but second, and much worse, it places the value of human life as little more than a statistic whilst masquerading itself as a moral position.

Er, no. 20/20 hindsight suggests that we’re basing our argument on an unforeseen outcome. Anyone with just modicum of historical understanding of Iraq predicted that it would be a total clusterfuck of pain. Tom Friedman, prior to his eventual acceptance of the bullshit WMD scaremongering from the Bush administration, wrote many articles outlining the sectarian battle-lines within the Iraqi population. He argued that a tribal and religious tempest would be unleashed, and we better be ready for it (FYI we weren’t).

And as for human life as a statistic. Fuck you, you bedroom-warrior fucktard. It’s the anti-war movement that publishes the photos and posts the videos of suffering. It’s the Bush administration that outlawed anyone filming the body-bags of casualties. Don’t lecture us about our moral position. The overwhelming proof that the invasion of Iraq is a complete disaster, is demonstrable both statistically and anecdotally.

Frankly this is what sickens me most about the anti-war Left. They claim to care and cherish human life, and yet they will simultaneously be willing to sit on their hands and reduce that human life they care so much about down to a numbers game.

No we don’t you myopic twat. As I explained above, no-one - other than a fringe of loony lefties and libertarians - argued they should “sit on their hands”. They just weren’t so god-damn fucking desperate to play war with other people’s lives. Capiche?

Oh, and before I finish off; let’s not let this nugget pass: “They scream about a million deaths in the war (a bollocks figure incidentally)…” How exactly do you know it’s bollocks? Are not the Baghdad hospitals and aid agencies better placed to make this judgement? For someone who has so masterfully proved their own ignorance in previous paragraphs, this seems terribly overconfident.

And Dizzy, what was the fucking point of this diatribe? Seriously? Sometimes you seem the most rational of your particular clique, and then you write this dogshit. You haven’t made a single case for why the anti-war movement was wrong. You haven’t defended, in any useful way, the decision to go to war. All you’ve done is pen an ignorant post about how the anti-war left are a bunch of sickening wankers. Get a grip, dude.