Professor Bikey Bike's Bike Shop

his is really basic stuff. However, it appears that people peddling this war have forgotten history, or chosen to ignore basic rational thought. See below for a short list of some slogans that are thrown around to sound good and confuse very basic issues. Feel free to contact PBBBS if you have an idea for another one or would like to edit the PBBBS interpretations.

'Terrorism'

This is quite possibly the most misused buzzword in this entire mess. The most basic definition of terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion. A more complicated definition, found in various legalistic definitions is the use of violence against individuals with no immediate control over policy as a means of coercing change. As usual, Noam Chomsky has it right in regards to recent 'terrorist' acts:

A suicide attack by military forces resisting an invasion can't possibly be called an act of terrorism. Suppose the Iraqi army were surrounding New York and the Iraqi air force were bombing it unopposed. If an American carried out a suicide attack against the invading forces, would anyone call it "terrorism"? Or a violation of the laws of war? Or would we rather regard it as remarkable heroism, and grant the person an honored place in history?

'Diplomacy Failed'

This is a particularly obnoxious phrase regarding the current situation in that diplomacy was never tried. Certainly, the United States attempted to be diplomatic in persuading out UN 'allies' to see things our way. However, regarding relations between the US and Iraq, diplomacy was never even an option.

Using diplomatic means assumes that some sort of negotiation of positions is possible. The US required, under various guises—ranging from humanitarian to imminent threat—that the leader of the sovereign nation leave. This is not a negotiable position. In dealing absolutes, one cannot exercise diplomacy.

So to CNN, ABC and NBC: take your fancy graphics and sloganeering about how diplomacy failed, and consult a dictionary.

'Weapons of Mass Destruction'

Or, as Michael Moore would say, 'Weapons of Mass Distraction'.

One need only watch about 5 minutes of 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' to realize—if one never poked one's head out of one's turtle shell before—that the largest possessor of weapons that can truly be dubbed as weapons of mass destruction, is no other than the United States itself.

Arguments regarding Iraq's possession of such weapons, and their threat to Jimmy Schlep in Iowa are baseless—as is evident by the failure of the US to convince the United Nations, as well as the world, of necessary action.

'Brutal Dictator' or 'Regime Change'

There is no denying that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. Indeed, he did gas his own people. However, when has the US ever been concerned solely with humanitarian issues? Look at Nicaragua, or Guatemala or Chile. We are in a fairly regular habit of sponsoring brutal regimes. Indeed, at the time that Saddam Hussein actually gassed his people, he was our ally and did so with the State Departments knowledge, and through inaction, approval.

We generally can only support humanitarian needs, or support democracy in foreign nations if our interests are served. If US interests are better served by dictators, then we support the dictators. Take Saudi Arabia for example. Take Turkey: we wanted them as an ally in this war, yet they have an even worse history with the Kurdish people than Iraq does.

'Pro-troop'

The media has dubbed the people out rallying in support of Bush's war of aggression as being 'pro-troop'. This is doubly misleading. First, it paints the numbers of antiwar protesters appear to be anti-American or unpatriotic monsters. Secondly, it makes it appear that the pro-war people actually care what happens to the troops. 'Pro-troop' rallies are always mentioned before antiwar protests. Little to no mention of world opinion seeps into the media coverage.