Background: In this passage, William Thorsell is arguing that the waging of war is a necessary means of opposing tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. His piece, “The Decisive Exercise of Power,” appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail for December 19, 1999. In the 1930’s the aversion to war in France and the United Kingdom was so pervasive that some pacifists preferred their own subjugation to resistance in the face of violence. Dandies in the best schools developed. . eloquent rationales for inaction and appeasement, even treason, to avoid the contest for power that was so obviously rising in Europe. They rejected the wisdom that good and evil are perpetually in conflict, and that it is only for good men to do nothing for evil men to triumph. Remarkably, some of the leading nations in the world still don’t appear to ‘get it’ when Saddam Hussein reappears. At root, it seems to be a matter of non-recognition. They just can’t see the man for who he is, just as many people just couldn’t see ‘Mr. Hitler’ for who he was (the limits of the parallel noted). If you cannot recognize your enemy, you will not defeat him, except by luck of circumstance, and that will rarely do.

Question. What fallacies, if any, are present in the following passages? Be sure to explain and justify your answer, that is, if you say that a fallacy has been committed, show where the fallacy occurred, how the passage exhibits the characteristics of the fallacy and explain why you think it is a fallacious argument.