In my all-too-brief study of rhetoric, I learned that the side that gets to define the terms of the argument most often wins. This often comes down to deciding what to call the two sides. David Eddings tackled his head-on in “The Belgariad,” when the protagonist asked if they were the good guys in the struggle between “Good” and “Evil.” The ancient sorceror answered that he prefers “us” and “them,” as it avoids a lot of useless arguments.
Nonetheless, names mean a lot. This is hugely obvious in the abortion issue, where one side insists that its a matter of “pro-choice versus anti-choice,” while the others say it’s “pro-life versus pro-abortion.” Simply accepting the other side’s name is a huge rhetorical concession.
Similarly, with the argument over the war on terror, ‘our” side has a bit of a dilemma. The other side has staked out “anti-war” as their rallying cray, leaving us to be called “pro-war.” That’s not entirely accurate, at least in my case, and rather damning. So I reject that.
So, what should “we” call ourselves? That’s a tough one.
I thought about “pro-freedom,” but I disliked it. It’s too vague for my tastes. It could mean anything, and therefore means nothing. I don’t like that sort of thing. We need something clearer, more precise, perhaps with some historical context that truly captures the sentiment that we didn’t choose to fight this war on terror, but dammit, we’re gonna win it.
And then it hit me. Let the other side be “anti-war.” If they choose not to recognize that the war started a long time ago, and we’ve only recently started fighting back, that’s their stupidity. We have more important things to worry about than their whining and kvetching.
We’re pro-VICTORY.
It’s a good word. It says exactly what our goal is: to win, to defeat the enemy, to stop those out to destroy us and our way of life and impose their tyrannical vision on people.
And it has positive historic connotations, too. In World War II, we built “Victory” ships, bought “Victory” bonds, sent heroes on “Victory” tours. It’s clear, it’s concise, and it doesn’t overpromise or overcommit or flail about in rhetorical helplessness.
And it casts a lot of the “anti-war” movement into exactly their role (yeah, ANSWER, I’m talking to you): they’re not against the war, they’re simply rooting for the other side.
I think I read that it was Ronald Regan who said, “The opposite of war isn’t peace; it’s surrender.”
Pro-victory–well said.
Works for me. These rhetorical wars are part of the whole in advancing positions. I’d just as soon advance “Victory” since everyone will choose their own arms anyway. As you stated, why concede anything?
So does that mean we use the “V” sign a la Winston Churchill, or should we show the back of our hands to the crowd a la European verison of the middle finger?
Or maybe a rapid alternating version?
Absolutely brilliant!
Jay, What do you think the response would be if instead of replying to the “anti-war” crowd that you (we) are “pro victory” you replied that you (we) are “anti-surrender”. Seriously, this has been a “war ” where I find it difficult to actually state with clarity what victory will be or look like. If I understand history, this fundamenatlist movement has waxed and waned in its impact over the centuries – initially locally and now globally. But it is quite clear to me that we cannot retreat or surrender to any threat the terrorist movement directs at our civilization.
If “anti-war demonstrators” were consistently referred to as “pro-terrorist demonstrators” it would drive them nuts. It seems most view them in that light anyway and it would quickly catch on. With everyone but the MSM, of course.
Choosing a stupid name doesn’t stop you being pro-war. It just makes you look and sound stupid. It’s as pathetic as the Fox News decision to start calling suicide bombers “homicide bombers.” But maybe that didn’t sound so bad to you.
If war were declared against Iran because of its almost certainly non-existent nuclear weapons program, calling yourselves “pro-victory” would also fail to change the fact that you are pro-war. Of course, as in the case of Iraq, even when you were presented with incontrovertable evidence that that program did not exist, you would continue to deny the facts. “Pro-victory! Pro-victory!”
So how about anti-reality? Or pro-delusion? There are plenty of other choices – pro-American Empire, would be one. (That’ll get the deluded ones going…”We don’t have an empire…quack, quack, quack..)
And when you say that you were attacked first, take a look back at history. The United States didn’t start the invasions of the Middle East – that was countries like Britain, France and Russia. But when you took over from the Europeans and supported the eviction of Palestinians from their land, you donned their mantle of guilt. (Ah yes, mention of Palestinian land will get you going too, won’t it…because having lived on that land longer than your country has existed is obviously no reason to claim that it is theirs…Pro-victory! Pro-victory!)
Here’s another possible name – pro-oil.
Or here’s another thought. Read 1984…or Animal Farm, come to that – because your “Pro-victory! Pro-victory!” sounds rather like the barnyard animals conned by the pigs into chanting “Two legs bad! Four legs good!”
“Pro-victory! Pro-victory!”
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
….
He took down from the shelf a bottle of colourless liquid with a plain white label marked VICTORY GIN. It gave off a sickly, oily smell, as of Chinese ricespirit. Winston poured out nearly a teacupful, nerved himself for a shock, and gulped it down like a dose of medicine.
….
He took a cigarette from a crumpled packet marked VICTORY CIGARETTES and incautiously held it upright, whereupon the tobacco fell out on to the floor.
…
The Ministry of Truth — Minitrue, in Newspeak — was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The Ministry of Truth contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below. Scattered about London there were just three other buildings of similar appearance and size. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that from the roof of Victory Mansions you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty.
Ah, cat, you make me laugh. Thanks for that.
Cat is obviously pro-Saddam’s-mass-graves. I never understood that particular cult of moonbatism. They claim to care but really don’t, that part I get, they’re inherently dishonest, but they don’t even care enough to try make it look like they believe the crap they spew. How can you be that poor of a liar with all those years of experience?
>Choosing a stupid name doesn’t stop you being pro-war.
And have the name Anti-war doesn’t stop you from being capitulators.
Or here’s another thought. Read 1984…or Animal Farm, come to that – because your “Pro-victory! Pro-victory!” sounds rather like the barnyard animals conned by the pigs into chanting “Two legs bad! Four legs good!”
Only to the mentally deranged people like you who don’t understand Animal Farm but pretend like they do.
I think that we can conclude that Pro-Victory strikes exactly the right chord. It annoys exactly the right people.
It seems that some people are comically stuck in that “negativity equals intellecutal superiority” rut that I’ve noticed from Berkeley frosh.
Oh, there you go… stop calling them anti-war and use the term pro-defeat instead.
Supporting the jihadist is not anti-war.
The only way to abolish war is to surrender to any who threaten you. To be truly anti-war is to ask to be enslaved.
Cat? Animal House doesn’t mean what you think it means.
argh….. Animal Farm
sheesh
“Cat is obviously pro-Saddam’s-mass-graves.“
A sharp-suited, but not so sharp-minded member of your government used that lie when he was debating the war with the veteran Labour MP Alice Mahon. He was shot down in flames when she pointed out that she had been campaigning against Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime when Bush Sr., Reagan and Rumsfeld etc were providing him with his weapons. She nailed him on his lie and reduced him to silence, but you happily babble the same tired lie. That only reflects badly on you.
But go for the “Pro-Victory” slogan. Anything that makes you look like the bleating idiots you are is fine by me. Now I give way to your Two Minutes of Hate.
cat said:
“A sharp-suited, but not so sharp-minded member of your government used that lie when he was debating the war with the veteran Labour MP Alice Mahon. He was shot down in flames when she pointed out that she had been campaigning against Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime when Bush Sr., Reagan and Rumsfeld etc were providing him with his weapons. She nailed him on his lie and reduced him to silence, but you happily babble the same tired lie. That only reflects badly on you.”
You might want to check link this out, seeing as how badly you are offended by liars, I am sure you are not spreading such lies of your own intentionally.
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
B Moe, you’re assuming Cat cares that it is lying, that’s not the case, never has been, never will be.
B Moe, I followed your link – and out of officially recognized arms sales to Iraq up to 1990, the United States ranked No. 11, just after Libya. I also followed the link within that link – which showed that official US arms sales to Iraq started in 1983 – the same year that Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad – just after he had used chemical weapons for the first time.
Yep, we helped get him going early on to stop Iran from spreading Islamic fascism. We made a bad decision and it made us even more obligated to remove him.
But France was still selling arms to Iraq 20 years later, long after even those gutless, reeking wastes of oxygen voted to block arms sales in the U.N. Not that it would matter to Cat, it’s a fact, not a moonbat belief.
Since I’m getting dangerously close to being banned by the webmasters – as my very last comment today, let’s get away from the French and the Libyans and return to the original subject:
Pro-Victory! Pro-Victory!
“banned by webmasters”
translation
“This thing is moving beyond talking points and I got nothing.”
Banned? Who said anything about banning? I do believe you are the first person to bring it up. Unless you’ve been banned before and are back again somehow, I’d say you’re being paranoid.
Here’s another “Winston” quote for you, cat:
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
–Winston Churchill
I think we’ve all read Animal Farm (House! ha!), and here’s a tip for you: it’s FICTION, no matter how politically prophetic you imagine it to be.
Typical for the “Reality”-Based Commune to see the world through the lens of fiction, though. 😉
cat:
Not to suggest that I speak for them, but given what I’ve seen Kevin, Jay Tea and even Paul put up with around here, I’d say you’re safe.
You’re too insignificant to bother banning.
Shorter cat:
Root for the losers! America sucks! America sucks!
I really did mean it when I said I was making my last comment, but after reading the protestations of the credulous, I have to reply. Silverbubble and jpm – ask Jay Tea if he ever hits the block button. That’s all, just ask – I’m sure you want him to confirm that I’m a paranoid moonbat. He does, of course, have every right to ban me – I’m a guest here, and an unwelcome one at that. But, nevetheless, ask him if he has hit that button.
“If war were declared against Iran because of its almost certainly non-existent nuclear weapons program”
Oh, so a country that’s basically a layer of sand on top of an ocean of oil is working to build nuke plants for electricity. Uh-huh.
Next I guess you’ll tell us that “the Great Satan” is a cute little nickname likening us to an adorable furry puppy called “Satan” featured in Iranian cartoons.
“pro-American Empire, would be one. “
You think having the whole world live in a representative republic with guaranteed rights would be a bad thing? Hell, getting conquered by the United State of America was the best thing ever to happen to my neck of the woods.
“Here’s another possible name – pro-oil.”
Yeah, I’ll buy that. Oil makes machines go, and machines replace human labor and make slavery unprofitable. So, yeah, put me down as pro-oil.
Now when the moonbats let us have as many nuclear plants as we need, then we’ll ease up on importing and using oil. But I’m not holding my breath.
Oh my God! No matter how much I want to leave, there always seems to be someone who says something that just has to be answered. Beth – you really should be careful about quoting Winston Churchill. Here’s another Churchill quote:
“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.”
Who were the “uncivilized tribes” he was condemning to a truly horrifying death? The Kurds of Iraq. The same Kurds who were gassed decades later by Saddam Hussein. And this is a man you want to quote to back up your argument?
Animal House doesn’t mean what you think it means
Damn. I better change my life now!
cat, I’ve banned a few. Let me reassure you: the closest thing you’ve done to justify banning was the lengthy quote from Orwell — but you attributed it.
Been a tetch annoyed at you? Yup. Been the slightest tempted to go hit the “ban” button? Not in the least.
I’ve banned people for plagiarism, for grotesque and repeated obscenities, for misrepresenting themselves as other regulars around here, and in one memorable case, simply for being a deranged, psychotic stalker of another blogger who tried to make every thread about the object of his obsession. Compared to them, cat, you’re a rank amateur.
But if it makes you feel any better, go ahead and indulge in your paranoid persecution fantasies. Go and tell all your whacko friends how you were brutally oppressed and suppressed for speaking truth to power.
Just don’t expect me to waste any more energy beyond this to justify it. ‘Cuz you just ain’t worth it.
J.
Jay, you started well, then you exaggerated. But perhaps I did get a bit paranoid after I was subjected to a mass-block because of a certain multiple-posting idiot claiming to speak for God. You hit the button that day and I was presented with a notice saying that only “registered” users could post directly. Your very polite notice said that comments would now only be allowed after they had been approved (reminded me of that libertarian publication – the China Daily). You never did get around to allowing my comments about Iran. So, forgive me for being “paranoid” but you should perhaps be a bit more honest.
Whatever…go for the “Pro-Victory” thing. Your acoloytes definitely like it.
I have absolutely no recollection of any such incident ever happening, cat. I have NEVER instituted any such blocking, have no idea if it’s even possible, and wouldn’t want to do it anyway.
Unless…
Say, you didn’t used to post under another name, did you? I recall another pain in the ass who screamed “censorship!” when his piece was held AUTOMATICALLY by the site for having too many links and being suspected spam. That was based solely on the site’s software, NOT content, and I approved it the instant I was aware of it.
If that’s not the case, cat, then I gotta say you’ve been getting into the GOOD drugs. Why don’t you share?
J.
So would mebers of this “pro-Victory” movement be “pro-Victorians”, and would we have to cover the legs of our pianos?
Do you really not see the difference between “Reagan and Rumsfeld etc were providing him with his weapons” and the fact the US only had 1% of the total arms sales to Iraq?
And you haven’t addressed this statement at all:
Supporting the jihadist is not anti-war.
The only way to abolish war is to surrender to any who threaten you. To be truly anti-war is to ask to be enslaved.
Do you have any rebuttal as to how to be anti-war and not be a slave to the warriors?
Jay, you have no recollection? You have NEVER instituted such a blocking? I wouldn’t have any idea if it’s possible or not either. But I do know it happened – and I have no reason to post under a different name. So, we could be charitable and blame it on a software glitch.
Very good post Jay Tea. Yes that’s the clux of our side. We are of the Pro-Victory gray camp and not of the failure camp.
Thank you, Jay Tea. Support the troops and their mission.
Cat, why do you use an ad link instead of your own email or URL?
alright, david eddings rocks! you seem to have very good taste in books jay tea.
If Cat is still around, I’d like to post this from Dennis Prager and see if it can comment:
So Kitty, fess up. Are you of the ilk that can never seem to see evil in anyone but Americans or Jews?
*crickets*
B. Moe,
Thanks for the link about arms sales to Iraq.
I’m still not settled on the whole issue, though. But I think probably we helped Saddam a little bit and liberals made a mountain out of a mole hill about it.
For sure, we sold Saddam many dual use items. But dual use items, believe it or not, are dual use. We might have sold him blood testing equipment or water pumps and it would be “dual use”.
My point, though, is that those wouldn’t be in the graph you linked to. Not that that invalidates the argument, I just thought it was worth pointing out.
We did give him some anthrax and precursors to sarin gas according to Wikipedia ( http://tinyurl.com/dxjnv ) I don’t know what the “other use” for those is but I consider Reagan, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to be good men who wouldn’t just give Saddam those things with the intention that he use them to kill people. As far as I know, there’s no link between WMDs we gave him and the ones he actually is known to have used (i.e. mustard gas). If he had anthraxed the Iranians that would be a different story.
Smarter liberals claim that we gave him money to buy all those conventional weapons from those other countries. That doesn’t make sense to me, though, since Saddam was never short on cash, what with all the oil and all.
Now that I think about it, it should have been obvious to me before seeing the graph that Saddam didn’t get his weapons from us. Iraq had AK-47s and T-52s, not M-16s and Abrams’.
I did a little more research.
Thiodiglycol is a precursor to mustard gas but is also used extensively in the inks/dye/photographic industry for things like printing inks, ball point pen fluids, and paints (http://tinyurl.com/a6hlw).
There’s such a thing as an anthrax vaccine which explains how anthrax can be dual use (you can use it to make the vaccine). You can also study it. According to the Riegle Report (http://tinyurl.com/6x7ym) anthrax was the only really nasty bacteria given to Iraq (as far as I can tell) and it was approved for transfer to the Ministry of Higher Education. Seems more like a research sale to me. Iraq did end up making biological weapons with that strain, though.
I can’t address the precursor to sarin gas since Wikipedia doesn’t name it. But of course, sarin gas is not a WMD or else the IED that blew up on the side of the road last year with sarin gas in it (http://tinyurl.com/28mzd) would have been a WMD in Iraq and everybody knows there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Okay, sorry, just one more post:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Fact Sheet (http://tinyurl.com/7qebs):
“Mustard gas may be made in different ways according to whether ethylene, vinyl chloride or thiodiglycol is chosen as the starting material. Published UN findings suggest that the Iraqi mustard had been made from the last of these precursors. Thiodiglycol is a quite widely used industrial commodity, finding application as an antioxidant, as a vulcanizing agent, as an intermediate for other commodities, and as a solvent for dyes used in the textile industry. Its conversion to mustard gas is very simple indeed, the only technological problem being that of preventing its manufacturers from becoming its first casualties. That, however, is not a small problem. When Britain first manufactured mustard gas, there were, over a six-month period during 1918, 1.27 cases of mustard illness per person employed.”
(http://tinyurl.com/dloee):
“Thiodiglycol: This chemical is widely employed in water based dyes for the cloth manufacturing industries, including the rural industries of developing countries. It is a key component in water based inks used in the manufacture of felt tip pens and in certain printing inks. It is also a starting chemical for the production of specialty resins and adhesives, and is used as a lubricant additive.”
… so the next time liberals say that there’s some magical chemical you need for the complex process of making mustard gas, and only the U.S. and USSR have it, and we gave it to Iraq knowing that it could only be used for mustard gas, tell them it’s used for lots of other things, many developing countries already have it, and making mustard gas is not that hard. Then kick them in the shins for me.
I wish someone would detail, and I mean detail, “pro-victory” can be attained. The goal, as stated above, is “to win, to defeat the enemy, to stop those out to destroy us and our way of life and impose their tyrannical vision on people.”
First, how do we “defeat the enemy.” In World Wars that was to take over the country by force of arms. We obviously cannot do that, as demonstrated by our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. Then, we are to “to stop those out to destroy us and our way of life.” First, this is as wrongheaded as the first. Thinking that they (whoever “they” are) can “destroy us” is ludicrous. Any suggestions on how that would be accomplished? Maybe “they” could get all of Russia’s WMD and drop them on the US. Finally, what “they” really want is for us to get out of their face. Studies have shown that once we left a city, state or region, the violence enventually subsided. As to imposing a “tyrannical vision on people,” good luck. Tyrannical visions have been imposed on people since the beginning of time, and it is highly unlikely that we will be able to stop this evil.
Until we try to attain “victory” by a means other than force, we will not attain “victory.” We can’t kill all of them, and we can’t impose peace in either country. The citizens have to be willing to do this. So far they have not been successful, but it is their problem, and they need to solve it sooner, rather than later.
“First, how do we “defeat the enemy.” In World Wars that was to take over the country by force of arms. We obviously cannot do that, as demonstrated by our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan.”
Uh, what color is the sky on your planet, Clyde?
Jay. Just what exactly are you fighting for in Iraq? The liberation of the Iraqi people? The removal of a vicious dictator?. How will victory reveal itself? When there are no more insurgents left to kill?
The case for war in Iraq has been discredited, for example there were no WMDs. Had the War on Terror been confined to Afghanistan and the pursuit of Bin Laden then perhaps Iraq could have been contained. But no, Bin Laden is still at large, granted with a somewhat weaker power base. Instead we have a hell hole that is Iraq with no end in sight to the hostilities. Sure the insurgents are being reduced in numbers daily. But the threat of civil war is perhaps greater now that it has ever been. And also the threat to the west is even greater. Why, whereas Iraq was a secular state under Saddam, the prospect of it becoming an Islamic state is even greater especially with Iran providing support for the insurgents.
It is sad that, America once percieved as the great liberator, hark back to WW1 and WW2, is now perceived to be an evil empire. Were it not for America the vast majority of Europe could be speaking German! Thankfully and as much as I like the German language, that is not the case.
Now old friends Europe and America are at loggerheads over the war. Insults are traded at every level from heads of state to pundits from either side of the pond. Had America listened to the rest of the world, (and of course Tony Blair listened!) the world might be a safer place. Your Pro Victory slogan is nothing but a vacuous chant, something to rally the patriotic and the ill in formed. Similarly, your inference that those opposed to the war are in fact anti American and pro terrorist is offensive and insulting. After 9/11 I was 100% behind America’s right to seek out Bin Laden and his band of terrorists. But 9/11 does not give the US carte blanche to stick its nose into any conflict it sees fit to enter. The decision to invade Iraq will in my opinion rank as one the most idiotic ever taken by a world leader.
I am so sick of these idiots that claim The USA to be the evil empire , guys your lucky cause if I was in control guess what ,we here do not need any of you out there , so I would bring all my troops home ,also any others stationed in any bases , they will guard the borders , also if you think we will give aid to anyone , sorry go get iot else where , next , we will offer 10.00 a barrel for oil to the oil whores in the middle east , they dont like it , fine let them eat it … we can make do with what we have , maybe after a few months of their oil sitting there and overflowing they will be eager to sell ..
from now on the americas will not take in anyone .
I wonder what you would think of us then … anyone caught with any kind of affilate to any terroristic ties , will be deported immediatly and if caught will doing a terroristic attack here will be in our jail for life ..
like I said your your all lucky I am not in charge ..