"John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > At 05:02 AM 10/30/2002 -0800 Matt Grimaldi wrote: > >> This *council of conciliation* ... [disagrees with > >> the term "material breach"] What is it, a foot fault? > >> > >> ... Franco-Russian-Mexican position isn't diplomacy > >> so much as a denial of reality. > > > >What a load of propaganda! Frankly I'm surprised > >that a supposedly reputable newspaper would resort > >to such blatant and frequent name calling. > > Name-calling? It is a statement of fact.
Yet you completely ignore the blatant name calling. That is why I called it propagada. (hint: propaganda can and usually does contain some truth). You presented a document which uses such labels as "soft-on-Saddam queue" and "denial of reality", and says such things as "President Bush is understandably losing his patience with the U.N." It has only one conclusion, which it tries to force with all its might, and you hold it up as a challenge to all opponents. But it doesn't address any of the arguments for a more cautious approach, and neither do you. Those concerns still stand unchallenged. > It is a fact that Iraq is in material breach of > past UNSC resolutions, and it is a fact that > these countries objecting to stating this fact. Yes, those facts that are not really in dispute here, but isn't the journalist supposed to present the facts in an unbiased fasion? The article you presented can at best be described as a "persuasive argument," trying (poorly) to bring the reader to a specific opinion or course of action. Nowhere in that article does the journalist do only what he is supposed to. Why can't you (and the WSJ and the Bush Administration, whom you endorse wholeheartedly) trust people to form their own opinions? If it's because you're certain that everyone will disagree with you on every important point, then you're doing something wrong and should re-think what you want and why you want it. > >You left out "we all know that nobody from those > >countries, even diplomats to the U.N., could possibly > >hope to make competent decisions in such a matter." > > The diplomat to the UN is probably the dictator's > second cousin once-removed. What are you saying? that he could be bribed? that one dictator would never take action against another dictator? that he and Saddam are golf buddies? that he's on the C.I.A. payroll? What? -- Matt _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
