I was using an analogy simply to demonstrate that in doing so one is narratizing a non-narrative process (the real world is not narrated {true: depends on what you believe}).
When using an analogy you are telling a story. Telling stories does not elucidate, it obfuscates. For example, a story has an end. What you are analogising does not. There are about a thousand other reasons for not using them when referring to ongoing events in the life of humans.
We can argue about whos analogy is the accurate representation of the matter at hand. Which is precisely why they are useless, because now we are arguing about the analogy, not the thing itself.
What if I analogise your analogy, which you accept as correct?
Inifinite regression follows infinite regression follows infinite regression follows infinite regression follows infinite regression follows infinite regression follows .....
Let's drop these silly analogies plz.
I don't buy the message that we must disarm Iraq because of some moral issue of doing what is 'right', since doing what is 'right' has bever worried any administration.
The problem has always been coming up with some policy to benefit nation interest and further national aims and objectives, whatever they may be. Then once you've got that policy together, you need to convince your voters that it is the 'right' thing to do.
The head of the admininstration may change but the bulk of the underlying machinery of state does not, and it has a will and inertia all of its own. Britain has always had a cavalier attitude towards the welfare and well being of less well armed people, and it is not alone amongst the western alliance countries in that respect.
That is not about to change any time soon, as our respective governments have to work hard at raking in resources, in order to keep us in the manner to which we have all become accustomed.
The UK (and several of its allies) are also exploiting loopholes in international agreements on chem weapons. You can make whatever chem agents you like and use them, provided you do so as a police action internally, rather than a military one externally. We know more about Iraqi chemical weapons than we do about our own stocks.
As for Bioweapons, again, loophole exploitation. We are keeping signicant stocks (and as Powell demonstrated with his cocaine bottle, significant doesn't need to be very much) of bioweapons. Nor are we allowing inspectors in to verify that they are solely for the purposes of engineering defences against bioweapons. All this finger pointing at Iraq starts to expose a lot of double standards when viewed closely.
The case for war against Iraq is being made in the UK by both the British and the US governments. It is a miasma of hard fact, rumour masquerading as such, ill-checked sources, conflicting conclusions and outright lies that has been neatly wrapped up in the message 'It's the right and moral thing to do'. It's almost another case of narratizing.
Unfortunately the evidence produced by the Prime Minister's press secretary and former Pornographic 'author', Alistair Campbell included a plagiarized PhD thesis from some years ago, outdated documents from Pre-1991 Iraq and a lot of net gossip.
And the other problem with painting Iraq black in the eyes of the public, is that by inference, the painter must be whiter than white. And we look around and hey, we're not whiter than white.
Regardless of the facts, that looks real bad: the public asked for justification for a war, and the PM spent all day frantically searching for one, eventually cobbling together some old crap in the hope it would wash. Sorry Tony .
There are many good reasons to oust Saddam, and disarm Iraq.
But I am going to protest against any war because I simply do not believe that full scale armed conflict and all it entails, is the best solution that the combined brilliance of allied experts and analysts can come up with.
I suspect it (war) might be the most economically and politically expedient method to force a result in a short (electorally speaking) time.
If that is the case, then fine, but at least our Government should have the cojones to say so.
There will of course be many other factors influencing the Government for and against. And please, Oil is not the only reason for going to war but to deny that it has any connection with events in Iraq is breathtaking denial beneath even most politicos.
Defence of the Realm, my arse.
