Spinsanity: Myths and misconceptions about Iraq

Lots of times spin is not intentional. My bias gives spin all the time.

Unilateral IS a pretty straighforward word, it is also an irrelevant one because due to Britain this was never unilateral.

The central issue over the course of this debate was never about Sadaam's ties to 9/11, anyone worth their salt knew the truth about that one from the very beginning. The issue was the "with or without" move. It was long made clear that opposing us would not stop us but it would bring our retaliation. We did not convince most countries to work in tandem with us. We convinced them to stay on our good side and let us use their name. The recent PR push has been to construe this as a broad colalition.

Despite what you think about the garnered support you will probably concede that the issue of global support is not a closed case. It can be argued both ways. The article reduced this to a logomachy about a word (unilateral) that was never relevant and chose to ignore the more relevant issue of whether we succeded or not in our PR campaign.

If the question was about unilateral then as soon as the Brits jumped onto the wagon the debate should have fissled.

i will also have to only bm this; sorry, tres, will read later!

Precisely, which is why the answer to the question of whether this was unilateral is an unqualfied "No". No caveats and no spin. Right?

No caveats no spin.

Okay, so let me get this straight. I stated something true, with which you disagree, and for which there is really no other factual response, and you call that "spin".

Um, okay... (?)

Seems to me all I have done is refuse to buy into the spin others want to put on this question. But hey, I'm sure I'm wrong.

Sometimes, Tres, what one thinks is true is (maddeningly enough) a selected fact shorn of context.

Look, you can argue that the US didn't have enough international support or that they had the wrong kind, but you cannot intelligently claim that they acted unilaterally. Context has nothing to do with it.

Words mean things. "Unilateral" means to act by one's self, alone. Not, "acting with others, but not the specific others with whom certain people think you should act". There is ZERO spin in stating that fact. (There is LOADS of spin in pretending "unilateral" sometimes means something it does not.)

Tresspasser is right.

This was not a unilateral move by the The United States.

The United States -- along with its lacky, Great Britian -- managed to coerce several other states into joining this "coalition of the willing" (laugh, laugh, laugh).

They also bought and bribed the cooperation of several other states.

Without reservation or caveats, it was not a unilateral move at all. In fact, I am sure Great Britian and the others would have moved against Iraq even if the United States decided not to participate (cough, cough, gag, grrrrahhh).

Tress,

If you really think a perfect balance exists then this is pointless. I'm not going to try to convince you about the spin, it's not a big deal to me.

But I will just say this. Spin does not consist exclusively of answers to questions.

E.g.

Has Michael Jackson been accused of sexual abuse? yes
Did Michael Jackson proove he was not guilty? no
Have Michael Jackson's recent albums done well? no
Is Michael Jackson weird? yes

The set of questions has a spin, it's biased toward negativity against MJ.

In the article, the spin I mentioned was that the question of unilateralism is moot (in both meanings of the word). And by focusing on UNI, it sidesteps the more relevant question. The article's caveat at least acknowledges this in passing.

Frank is right. There are but, but, buts to every statement of "fact."

"Saddam has for many years been the leader of his people. "

But, but, but...

"George W. Bush is the elected leader of the US."

But, but, but...

In both statements, it's The Rest Of The Story which gives the true picture.

"Fox gives fair and balanced news."

Must be true. That's what Fox says!

Craven - My point is that the very question of unilateralism was manufactured by people trying to spin reality. That is what makes it moot. I don't think that pointing that out constitutes another form of spin. If you do, so be it.

Physically speaking, there are two ways to stop something that is spinning:

1) Apply an equal amount of spin in the opposite direction.

2) Apply friction or in some other way take enough energy out of the system to bring it to rest.

I think I did #2. Maybe you think I did #1. If so, that's fine with me.

Let's forget spin. We're just spinning wheels here.

My point is that when most people use the word unilateral they are using the wrong word. It does not make the point moot (in the not important meaning).

By focusing on the poor choice of words, the point of the argument is avoided.

Let's say I think that the war wasn't multilateral enough and that the diplomatic effort was poorly conducted and prematurely terminated.

Since UNIlateralism was never an issue I consider the previous opinion relevant while the word UNIlateral is not.

By focusing only on UNI the more relevant (in my opinion) point is side stepped. And side stepping the opposition's main argument is less than objective debating.

I don't want to convince you that you did number 1. I'm saying that doing number 2 without recognizing the "main argument" (that I referred to above) is side stepping the main argument.

Side stepping the main argument of one side's position in a piece that purports to be balanced is not balanced. IMO

But this is a fine point that is moot, we are wasting too much time on it.

Craven - I see your point. Feel free to ignore mine. Okay?