If you provide an invalid premise in any argument, no matter how rational the argument sounds, you are doomed to receive an invalid conclusion. It’s simple logic, and a concept that I learned here in the United States during my first year in college, years ago, with an enthusiastic teacher named Marsha. But today’s reality seems much more irrational than philosophy 101. It was in early 1999 when I met Dr. Mohamed Al-Douri, Iraq’s representative to the United Nations. The ambassador had only been in his post for a few months. Just as I turned my tape recorder on and readied myself for the interview assignment, he uttered with conviction, “the U.S. is desperate to find an excuse to unleash a war on Iraq.”
It is not only Al-Douri, but millions throughout the world who are sensing that the prospects for a U.S. war on the sanctions-hit Arab country is much more than your average war pretext, “restoring democracy and upholding freedom”.
It is not only Al-Douri, but millions throughout the world who are sensing that the prospects for a U.S. war on the sanctions-hit Arab country is much more than your average war pretext, “restoring democracy and upholding freedom”.
True, now you have “saving the Iraqi people,” another fabulous pretext to be added to the tons of lame justifications, “Iraq is a threat to its neighbors”,
“Saddam Hussein is a danger to humanity”, etc.
Now, lets go back to our philosophy lesson. Need I even suggest that saving a nation can hardly actualize by starving its children? Need I reiterate that blocking medical supplies, which results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands will not free the Iraqis?
(Please continue...)
“Saddam Hussein is a danger to humanity”, etc.
Now, lets go back to our philosophy lesson. Need I even suggest that saving a nation can hardly actualize by starving its children? Need I reiterate that blocking medical supplies, which results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands will not free the Iraqis?
(Please continue...)