DEAR MISSED MANNERS: I’m trying to decide whether or not my government is telling me the truth about the war in Iraq. Can you give me any clues as to how I can determine what is true and what is false?
DEAR HEART: You mustn’t be so cynical about governments. Like all of us, they were brought up with the saying, “Honesty is the best policy,” and, although they may shade the truth a little to make themselves look better, you can rest assured that they take this saying to heart.
Consider the following: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein reported to the United Nations that he had no weapons of mass destruction, which, of course, would have been a violation of United Nations resolutions. Then, the United States found about 100 Al-Samoud missiles with an effective range as much as 30 kilometres greater than allowed by the UN. Iraq should have fessed up immediately to having the missiles.
Of course, if they had, the United States would have immediately led a coalition into war against them, probably with UN backing. If he wanted to ensure his safety, Hussein should have claimed to have had nuclear weapons – as the case of North Korea has shown, the US is highly reluctance to take on an enemy who has the capability of fighting back.
Of course, Iraq doesn’t actually have such weapons, so, technically, this would be lying. So, umm, maybe this isn’t the best example.
The case the United States presented to the United Nations should better illustrate the point. The grainy photographs, barely audible and web of suppositions didn’t fool anybody into believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was aiding terrorists. The US should have told the truth: it had no credible evidence for such an accusation.
Of course, it would have been laughed out of the Security Council if it had. What it should have done if it really wanted to go to war against Iraq was to manufacture irrefutable evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Gulf of Tonkin: The Sequel – any competent Hollywood studio could have put it together in a matter of days (just look at what they were able to accomplish with just an Ambassador’s daughter and non-existent baby incubators).
Uhh, okay, so that wouldn’t be honest, either. Still, the lesson should be clear: whether between you and your parents or nation states, honesty is still the best, uhh, policy.
DEAR MISSED MANNERS: I want to write a letter to a news organization that disagrees with their coverage of the war in Iraq. Is there anything I should know about letter writing that would help them take me seriously?
DEAR HEART: Going by samples I have read – including some directed at this very feature! – emotions are running high and letter writing, once considered the pastime of idle gentle folk, is now a take-no-prisoners form of battle where the object is to obliterate the enemy. In such an atmosphere, I can recommend the following rules:
* DO use the most inflammatory language you know. “You [COPULATE]ing piece of [EXCREMENT]” was once sufficient to get a reader’s attention. Now, nobody will take you seriously if your letter doesn’t begin: “You mother[COPULATE]ing, [MALE GENITAL]-sucking, [BLASPHEMY]damn piece of [COPULATE]ing dog[EXCREMENT]!”
* DON’T admit that anything the person with whom you are arguing says cold possibly be right. “I think we can agree that…” might score you points in a debating club, but this is the real world. “Only a moron like you would claim that the earth revolves around the sun!” is much better.
* DON’T let facts get in the way of your argument. This is not about engaging in reasoned, rational discussion, it’s about winning, and your opponent will see your acceptance of facts as a sign of weakness. Example: “Only an uneducated moron like you would persist in the delusion that two plus two does not equal 27!”
* DO send at least 27 copies of your letter to your opponent in the first three days of the argument. This is known as the “Shock and Awe” approach to arguing. And, repetition is surprisingly effective: why do you think so many Americans believe Iraq was involved in the terrorist attack on New York and Washington when all the credible evidence shows it wasn’t?
* DON’T change the wording of your letter in the slightest. Doing so will only confuse the issue.
