Carthage

« The hip bone connected to the | Main | Twenty years and counting »

May 21, 2004

Oh lord, again with the sniveling

We killed a village in Iraq.

When did I stop caring about what we're doing in other countries? I cared last year. I think it was when I realized there was nothing I can do...if we smash the state there will just be another state. History is built on slaughtered villagers. They were celebrating a wedding and we decapitated their children. It's nothing new.

Maria at work says we're living in the last days. She says it's all there in the Bible. I wonder if we are the Apocalypse horsemen and it's only the rest of the world that has to worry?

Posted by didofoot at May 21, 2004 09:59 AM

Comments

We aren't living in the last days. No matter the scope and fucking disgust of our current bloody violent masacre of helpless unrelated inoccent people, it's happened before, hundreds of thousands of times since our inception as a thinking consious species. Because of this, we've, as societies, constantly thought we were in the last days, since days began. We are sick fucks, we corrupt and destroy, we deserve nothing. Be happy for what you have, feel sorrow and empathy for those that die by your hand (or tax dollar). Live, enjoy it if you can, it's what we get, and I for one, through all of this, am grateful.

Posted by: gene at May 21, 2004 05:30 PM

Gene, good reply. It makes me think of a book I'm reading right now that's a collection edited by Lewis Lapham (editor of Harper's). It contains entries (usually letters or journal writings) that were written by people throughout history who survived apocolyptic events or other times of tragedy that were so extreme that, of course, the people who were suffering it thought that they were experiencing some form of the End of Days.

Some example writings are: an account written in 146 B.C. about the destruction of Carthage (where not only was surrender to the Romans achieved, but also depopulation and razing of all the buildings); a journal entry written by someone who watched as 50% of the population of Florence died of the Black Plague; and an especially gripping entry was one by someone who survived the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii in 79 A.D.. There are letters written by Jews during the holocaust and lots of other entries from times of tragedy that were caused by man.

You'd probably think that the book, called The End of The World, is a real downer to read, but actually the reverse is true: it reinforced my belief in the claim, which Gene already made, that the wretchedness of today is nothing new: it's something that man has been creating and re-creating since the day he could carry a club.

The other thing it made me feel certain of is that fact that humans are capable of uglier acts of hatred and destruction than I can even fathom; there must be something truly sinister lurking inside us.

Kris, you're right that, as a person capable of empathy, it hurts to be on the four-horsman side of the apocolypse. Unfortunately, the non-killing peaceful kinds of people are rarely able to stop their destructive, murderous relatives from being, well, destructive and murderous.

Imagine how it would have felt to be a Roman in 70 A.D. and to hear that your people (a force of 100,000 of them), in a single battle, had just burned the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and slaughtered a half-million people ("...nowhere could the ground be seen between the coprses, and the soldiers climbed over heaps of bodies as they chased the fugitives.") How would that make you feel as a Roman? Disgusted, guilty, sad, and scared? Right on ... see, it's all happened before.

Now that's not supposed to make you feel better about it, but it helped to make me feel less alone (and much more disgusted with being human).

Posted by: Emily at May 21, 2004 09:47 PM

actually it does make me feel better. trust the woods to give me perspective. "into the woods to find the thing that makes it worth the" continuing to live in america. i will look for that book.

Posted by: didofoot at May 22, 2004 11:43 AM

more stuff on what we've been doing to prisoners here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0521-03.htm

the article is pretty much just a catalogue of some of the stuff we've been doing; it's all pretty horrible. i don't think it's the end of days but probably important to know about.

Posted by: didofoot at May 22, 2004 12:01 PM

Didofoot,

You said:

"Imagine how it would have felt to be a Roman in 70 A.D. and to hear that your people (a force of 100,000 of them), in a single battle, had just burned the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and slaughtered a half-million people ("...nowhere could the ground be seen between the coprses, and the soldiers climbed over heaps of bodies as they chased the fugitives.") How would that make you feel as a Roman? Disgusted, guilty, sad, and scared? Right on ... see, it's all happened before."

IF there had been a stronger power than the Romans, and IF that power had decided to stop the slaughter through military force, and IF you had been present at that time, I have no doubt that you would have opposed the intervention and thereby allowed the slaughter. Why do I suppose that?

Well, here we have a regime that had been slaughtering Iraqis for years and years. And here we have U.S. power set to intervene. And here we have people like you with such "sympathy" that they actually opposed the removal of the tyrant.

Did you care that Saddam's doctors regularly cut off ears and tongues? Did you care that Saddam's regime was filling mass graves? Of course you did, but not enough to do anything about it. And if you had lived in Roman times, you would also have sat back and opposed any effort to stop the slaughter. All in the name of "sympathy” and “sadness” and “disgust.” It is really ironic that all of your heightened sympathy and concern translates into opposition to removing dictators and tyrants and mass murderers.

As for the "wedding party," there is plenty of reason to doubt that there ever was one.

A good account of media backpedaling is here:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108505314871225337

Posted by: Meaty Fly at May 22, 2004 04:28 PM

Anyone who uses the phrase "people like you" ought to be taken out and beaten about the head and shoulders with whatever's handy. God. I hate that.

Posted by: Dianna at May 22, 2004 05:27 PM

Dianna,

People like you always hate things like that.

Posted by: Meaty Fly at May 22, 2004 05:57 PM

Boy, that's a fantastic way to rationalize a war.

"We're not quite as good at abusing Iraqis as Saddam, so yay for us."

Gulf War Part I: 100,000 troops and 2,300 civilians killed. Complete with American tank burying-in-mass-grave action.

Gulf War Part II: 13,000-45,000 troops and 5,000-10,000 civilians killed.

Maybe we've got Saddam beat after all.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why hawk pundits tout "removing dictators and tyrants and mass murderers" as a reason for war, but the Iraqis never do? Maybe it's easier to feel good about yourself when you vomit forth crap like that. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the families of those tens of thousands dead by American hands would kick you in the fucking teeth. Let me put it another way: Is tens of thousands of Iraqis dying "for their own good" better than three thousand New Yorkers dying for no reason? Would you have welcomed those planes with open arms if bin Ladin had assured you that things would be better without all those bankers?

Posted by: Jacob at May 22, 2004 07:28 PM

Jacob,

Those figures are, frankly, absurd. This article from the Washington Post (pre-liberation) says,

"The Gulf War [one] killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.

Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.

Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis."

Granted, there are conflicting estimates out there, but your source is wildly inflated.

"Have you ever stopped to wonder why hawk pundits tout "removing dictators and tyrants and mass murderers" as a reason for war, but the Iraqis never do?"

No, but I have stopped to wonder why "peace" activists oppose the liberation of a brutalized people. It doesn't take much effort to uncover Iraqi blogs like this:

"The point behind all these pictures and stories I mentioned is that the people started to speak out and express their feelings and here we’re in great need for support from the free world to back the progress. Moving back is absolutely unacceptable; we’ve put our feet on the right way and we need help from the others. Never let the bad pictures lay their heavy shadow on the good, bright ones. The negative media want our eyes to pause on the bad events to win time in this worldwide battle and to make us forget the good pictures that encourage us to keep the momentum. This includes most of the major western media.

They are ‘unconsciously’ supporting the terrorists and the totalitarian regimes in the region to stop this great progress. The media have managed to create some distrust and hate between some Iraqis and some of the coalition and the west in general. Well, not in my city, it seems to be immune to their poison.
The road is long and hard but together, we can do it."

As I said, if people like you were in Rome, you would have stood by and cried empty tears as the Romans slaughtered with impunity.

Posted by: Meaty Fly at May 22, 2004 08:12 PM

You're very good at knowing what people you don't know would do in circumstances that neither you nor they experienced, aren't you?

Posted by: Dianna at May 22, 2004 09:11 PM

The Washington Post says one thing. Frontline says another. I'll concede that some number of thousands of civilians died. Oddly, your source notes less combatants and possibly twice as many civilians killed. Did you think that was a good thing?
As for Gulf War Part II, what's so absurd about those figures? Early estimates were 1,000 to 2,000 civilians killed. But that was during the main fighting, before the smoke cleared and people actually started counting.

As for Iraqi blogs, I started reading blogs like Dear Raed before the fighting started. When rumors of a war were coming fast and furious I wanted to find out what Iraqis thought about our grand visions of invasion. And I've noticed one that that perhaps you've failed to see: the disparaty in opinion within Iraq. I'll grant you that many people in Iraq are grateful for the US invasion. Not least of them Chalabi, who played America like a sucker.

Iraqis are not of one mind regarding the invasion. Some like it, others would rather we helped in other ways. Because there are other ways we could have helped. Economically, socially, etc. Personally, I wish we had listened to the people who thought there might have been another way besides cluster bombing heavily populated cities.

You state that we went to war to stop killing. Think about that sentence for a second. Think about all of the people who just wanted to go about their lives, but died because we couldn't think of any other way to depose Saddam than to forcefully take over Iraq.

You don't think there were other options? You don't think we could have done something else? The situation was so incredibly grave and dire that we had better just drop everything and get to killin' right away?

That's crap. The United States didn't spend billions of dollars and kill thousands of people to liberate a nation from oppressive rule just because we're nice guys. Liberation was a side effect. And now it's being touted as the only rationale because it sounds really bad to say "We were angry and hit the first thing we saw."

Regarding the quote from Iraq The Model, I'm glad you brought that up. I fully agree that once we've put our foot in, we can't pull it back out. To do so would open Iraq up to rule by warlords and bring everything crashing down. So we have to get everything in working order. But what if we hadn't destroyed it all in the first place? If we absolutely had to get rid of Saddam (for entirely noble reasons, of course), what if we had instead put our little heads together and come up with a plan that didn't involve smashing infrastructure? Now that only U.S. companies are allowed to rebuild, a peaceful Iraq is entirely dependent on America, so sure as hell better get it right and not do a half assed job. BUT, what if we had figured out a way to let Iraqis reform Iraq?

As for being in Rome while the Romans slaughtered with impunity, perhaps you don't realize where that connection has just left you. "People like me" are the ones working for social change against violence. We don't advocate any hypocritical plan of killing to prevent killing, and that's why we vote and protest instead of out-and-out rioting. So where are you in the metaphor? You're the guy bursting with pride at just how many Jews were killed with your tax money last week.

Posted by: Jacob at May 22, 2004 09:54 PM

Also, Meaty Fly, the original post, and the comment by Emily are two different people.

Didofoot != Emily

The comment about Romans was not written by the author of this blog, it was written by my sister.

I also think your a dick.

Posted by: gene at May 23, 2004 01:15 AM

Jacob,

First, it is irrelevant whether all Iraqis support what happened. It is obvious that those who benefited from the previous regime are not happy about the current situation. Were all Southerners happy about the North setting the slaves free? Were all Germans happy when the allies ended the Jewish slaughter? No, they weren't. When you step in and put a stop to oppression, the oppressors are never pleased. There are many Iraqis happy about the end of Saddam's regime, and the number will increase as economic prosperity grows. The economy grew 30% in the first year, and it will no doubt continue to improve in year two.

Second, "peace" activists oppose the violent removal of violent dictators and tyrants. They speak of "other" solutions, but never provide details of how those solutions are supposed to work. Please explain how to stop a Hitler or Saddam in a non-violent manner. Sanctions strangle the regime, but they also kill larger numbers of civilians. The North Korean regime will suck all the blood out of the population just to stay afloat. Sanctions kill. Direct economic aid to the people is not an option. The regimes in power will not allow such aid. The oil-for-food scandal is a case in point.

It must be nice to sit back and speak of "other" non-violent options without ever having to actually come up with a plan that works.

Violent people can only be stopped through violence. That is the hard truth that you "peace" lovers won't accept. And, as a result, you actually end up opposing the removal of tyrants like Saddam, all in the name of "peace," of course.

"You don't think there were other options? You don't think we could have done something else? The situation was so incredibly grave and dire that we had better just drop everything and get to killin' right away?"

As my statistics show, the "killing" was happening anyway. Saddam was killing, the sanctions were killing, our invasion killed. Failure to act killed, and acting killed. The issue is not about whether one course of action killed and another didn't. All courses of action resulted in death. My goal is to minimize the death of innocent people. I do not for a second believe that the invasion has resulted in more death than would have occurred absent an invasion. At least this way there is a positive future (unless the "peace" activists have their way). Inaction simply left Saddam in power to kill with impunity. The sanctions were killing people.

"That's crap. The United States didn't spend billions of dollars and kill thousands of people to liberate a nation from oppressive rule just because we're nice guys. Liberation was a side effect."

You are right. The liberation was a side effect. So? The U.S. didn't stop the slaughter of Jews out of altruism either. We had self-interested motives for destroying the Nazi regime. Do you wish we hadn't destroyed it simply because we gained something? It just so happens that establishing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East is in our own selfish interest. We want a model of Arab success. We want a free press and market that will help erode and undermine the surrounding totalitarian states. Yes, we want these things because they are in our interest, but they are also in the interest of the Iraqi people. You are more concerned about ensuring that the U.S. doesn't benefit than that the Iraqi people do benefit. Both can benefit. Both will benefit if we see this through.

Posted by: Meaty Fly at May 23, 2004 03:54 PM

"... it is irrelevant whether all Iraqis support what happened." How about whether a majority of Iraqis support what happened? Is that relevant? Because as far as I can tell, we have no idea if that's true or not. A majority of Iraqis wanted Saddam out, that's true, but did a majority want that to happen through a U.S. invasion?

As for the economy, you should examine where you got those numbers. What's you're misquoting is a study published by The Economist from the World Bank, not anything based on fact. And if you'll note the headline chart, Iraq's GDP actually DECREASED by 30% in 2003. Surprisingly, however, the World Bank has made the claim that the GDP will inrease by an equal percentage this year. Whether or not that will actually happen remains to be seen.

I'm very glad you predictably brought up "speakin[ing] of 'other' non-violent options without ever having to actually come up with a plan that works." That's the number one response from those who would rather kill a thousand people than try an alternative. I'm also glad that you predictably thought I was talking about sanctions, which, I'll agree, were most definitely not working.
In retrospect, I didn't make myself clear when I talked about other options. I'm not entirely against violence. I'm against dropping bombs on populated cities in an attempt to remove one man from office. So what about assassination attempts? Supporting a political rival? Anything other than an urban war.

As for democracy being our goal, please allow me to laugh in your face.
Free Press - "Report whatever news you like, as long as we say it's true."
Free Market - Read through those guidelines from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce and let me know if you think it's a guideline for free markets to help the Iraqis out, or a quick inroad for foreign market dominance. That document isn't a roadmap for Iraqi economic independence. It's a how-to for companies looking to take a piece of Iraq. If you don't believe me, what about:

"Under the Hussein regime, foreign investment in Iraq was restricted by statute to resident citizens of Arab countries. CPA Order #39, issued and effective on September 19, 2003, has significantly altered the international business environment in Iraq by permitting 100 percent foreign ownership and management of Iraqi business entities except in natural resources sectors, including oil, and with respect to banks and insurance companies."

Technically Iraqi companies are eligible to compete for rebuilding subcontracts. The only problem is that any company big enough to compete "must" have been affiliated with Saddam and had its assets seized by the U.S. Quite a Catch-22, eh? I am not aware of single Iraqi company that has been awarded a contract so far.

I'll agree that the U.S. is doing its damndest to make sectors of the Iraqi economy more modern. But don't think for a minute this is in the interest of Iraqis. It's a fantastic business opportunity for foreign companies, who have the financial advantage of not living in an occupied country.

"Both will benefit if we see this through." You obviously didn't read my comment all the way through. Like I said, I wholeheartedly agree that the U.S. had better get the rebuilding right, otherwise we're to blame for the resulting mess. My entire argument is that WE SHOULD NEVER DO THIS EVER AGAIN. The invasion was a spectacularly bad idea that made us more enemies than friends and left us trying to piece together an entire country. If you don't think there were better ways to accomplish our goals, then I don't know what to tell you. My arguments are an attempt to prevent this particular history from ever repeating, not to derail the rebuilding of Iraq. What's done is done. But I don't want anyone to ever get the idea that what's done was a good idea.

This point-counterpoint is getting pretty fragmented, so let me wrap up. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. From your initial comment it was pretty obvious that you have pretty firm opinions about all of this. I'm just trying to let you see what kinds of opinions are on the other side of the debate. I can appreciate your view that questioning the necessity of the war hurts the publicity surrounding rebuilding. But I strongly disagree with your view that anyone who does the questioning is a gutless wonder who can't and won't stand up for principles. Don't confuse a drastically different ethical viewpoint with a lack of ethics.

I'm going to leave it at that, no matter how many more trolls come out from under the bridge.

Posted by: Jacob at May 23, 2004 09:13 PM

wow, look what happens when my internet goes down for a day.

meaty fly, meaning no offense but i've blocked your ip address. you have a right to state your views no matter what they are, but this is just a personal weblog so it's probably not the best place. i'm too sad about our foreign policy to really enjoy an argument about it right now.

Posted by: didofoot at May 24, 2004 08:19 AM

...but the rest of you, as always, make me feel not alone and i appreciate it.

Posted by: didofoot at May 24, 2004 08:27 AM

further info from the associated press on the question of whether this was actually a wedding party.

Posted by: didofoot at May 24, 2004 11:02 AM

Where I come from, we have a word for that. The word is "fucked".

Posted by: Dianna at May 24, 2004 11:17 AM

a word for what? dianna, people like you always use the word "fucked". that's why i use it all the time.

Posted by: erica at May 24, 2004 12:19 PM

Damn it, Erica, people like you are always making smartassed remarks in response to my comments. That's just fucked.

Posted by: Dianna at May 24, 2004 01:15 PM

Long live free debate

Posted by: Meaty's Pal at May 26, 2004 10:18 PM

Normally I'd agree. But when "free debate" amounts to ad hominem high-horsedness directed at someone who's already said they're emotionally torn up about this..... Well, it's less a debate and more being an asshole.
The anonymizing power of the internet strikes again, I guess. I'll admit that my replies weren't exactly devoid of emotion, either, so I'm just as guilty.

Posted by: Jacob at May 27, 2004 07:25 AM

I'd like to amend that last comment, since I just realized it doesn't really convey the right message.

I'm always in favor of free speech/debate. No qualifications necessary. However, this is a privately owned space (server, bandwidth, maintenance all paid for by an individual). So when an owner removes posting privileges (for whatever reason), it's not a question of free speech. Think of it as a radio talk show. You can call in, but the DJ and producer decide if anyone actually hears you.

Posted by: Jacob at May 27, 2004 08:00 AM

This thread reminded me of something I was thinking of the other day. Namely, that if you'd gone up to someone on the street (Republican or otherwise) a couple years ago and said "We're invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam!", their response would've been something on the order of "What the fuck?!? Are you crazy?" However, after the president went on TV almost every day for six months saying the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" about twenty times each appearance, people started to think there really was an imperative to go to war. It just goes to show you that if you drone something into someone's head long enough that they'll start believing it. This is possibly why cults are so successful at indoctrinating members. The problem is that the administration changed it's justification after the fact. Now we're supposed to believe that we went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people (which we didn't). And surprise, surprise...after it's been droned into our brains for months on end, people like Meaty Fly start believing it. The problem with this justification is not only that it was retroactively inserted after the fact (as preposterous and hypocritical as doing this is) but, rather, that the US has a long history of supporting governments that routinely massacre civilians and commit other atrocities. The history is not limited to Gen. Suharto in Indonesia, but rather is a laundry list of such actions in Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere. The suggestion that the United States acts as a moral force to liberate the people of the world is pure rubbish to anyone that knows anything about history.

Posted by: dr v at May 27, 2004 10:24 AM

Dr V,

Thanks for the laugh.

You opposed liberating the Iraqis because America has done bad things in the past.

That makes sense. You can't support helping someone if the helper has done bad things. I guess you would oppose a convicted criminal's attempt to save a drowning child?

You opposed liberating the Iraqis because America is acting out of self-interested motives.

That also makes A LOT of sense. Based on the same principle, I guess you would oppose saving a drowning child if the person doing the saving was only doing it because he stood to earn a reward?

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 11:04 AM

What a heartwarming analogy. Too bad it makes no mention of civilian deaths and disrupted economies.

Try this on for size: you're on an operating table, and someone who's not a licensed surgeon has volunteered to cut you open. You do, in fact, have cancer and some treatment needs to be tried, but please note that this person has made no mention of chemical or radiation therapy or other non-invasive procedures. He's operated before, and his patients have shown a remarkable tendency to experience fatal or life-threatening complications. Furthermore, evidence suggests that in most of his previous operations he was not removing cancers as claimed, but rather harvesting organs for resale.

You, I assume, would hand him the scalpel and wish him good luck?

Posted by: Dianna at May 27, 2004 11:21 AM

John, what the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say I "opposed liberating Iraqis". I was merely pointing out that that was not our original justification for the war, but, rather, we tried to pretend like it was after we invaded. I was also pointing out that we generally cause human rights catastrophes through our foreign policy rather than prevent/mitigate them. So, our moral authority which our claim of seeking to liberate the people of Iraq rests on is basically non-existant. Please carefully read what I've written before flying off on another absurd tangent.

Posted by: dr v at May 27, 2004 11:46 AM

Dr. V:

The "liberation" of Iraqis was mentioned again and again from day one. It was not the only reason, but it was a frequently cited reason.

I completely agree that liberating Iraqis was not, in and of itself, the primary goal. Our goal is nothing less than the democratization of the region. We want to pull those countries into the capitalist system. We want to create a solid middle class in those countries, a class that will see it as in their interest to oppose radical Islamic fundamentalism. So, it happens that our self-interested plan coincides with "liberating" Iraqis. So? That doesn't in any way detract from the benefits the Iraqis will receive.

"I was also pointing out that we generally cause human rights catastrophes through our foreign policy rather than prevent/mitigate them."

Yeah, we caused the human rights catastrophe in WWII? I'd say we helped rebuild Europe into a prosperous group of countries. The same goes for Japan and South Korea. If you were honest, you'd at least admit that the record is mixed. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and West Germany all benefited from American action, while the leftist paradises on the other side collapsed into poverty and despair. Sure, we pulled some dirty tricks fighting communism around the world. That does not, to my mind, imply that we can't make better decisions going forward. We CAN rebuild Iraq and make it prosper just as we did in Japan. We will do it despite the fact that the "peace" crowd wants us to fail.

Your problem is that it is more important for you to prevent American power from growing than to see the prosperity of Iraqis increase. That is sad.

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 12:24 PM

Dianna,

A better analogy would be:

A doctor has already removed the tumor and is working hard to help the patient recover. Meanwhile, a bunch of "concerned" peaceniks are wringing their hands hoping that the doctor fails. They point out that the doctor removed the tumor for the wrong reasons! They point out that the doctor may actually get paid for removing the tumor! God forbid! Oh yes, they "care" about the patient and are glad the tumor was removed, but it was, of course, WRONG to remove it.

This doctor has removed tumors in Japan and West Germany and prevented the spread of left-wing communist cancer around the world. I consider that, at the very least, a modestly positive track record. I'll leave you concerned "peace" lovers to disagree.

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 12:31 PM

god dammit, i'm so sick of these ass clowns on CH

Posted by: dr v at May 27, 2004 12:50 PM

Left-wing communist cancer? I love it. Welcome to Cementhorizon, Joseph McCarthy.

Posted by: Dianna at May 27, 2004 12:59 PM

Dianna,

You are absolutely right. The communist threat was a product of the American imagination. In truth, it was a successful system that allowed its subjects to prosper. And it absolutely did not try to spread around the world. Nooooo.

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 01:04 PM

Right. And while we're on the subject, all pacifists are radically left-wing, all left-wingers are communists, and I hear they eat babies too.

Posted by: Dianna at May 27, 2004 01:12 PM

Dr V,

The raw air from the outside world must really sting when it smacks your illusions. Rarely have I seen such an insulated enclave of inbred ideas.

Just keep opposing the removal of dictators and tyrants in the name of peace.

And remember, if a doctor gets paid to heal, we should oppose the healing. That’s the peace-loving way!

Bye Bye

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 01:12 PM

Dianna,

I never said all pacifists were left wing, nor did I imply it. Address the argument.

I am simply saying that Communism was a threat.

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 01:14 PM

Can't we spray for this kind of thing? Kristen? Malathion, gasoline, something?

No, Mr. McCarthy, alternate economic systems are not a threat, any more than alternate religions are a threat.

Posted by: Dianna at May 27, 2004 01:35 PM

"The raw air from the outside world must really sting when it smacks your illusions."

to take the advice of a close friend of mine...

Fuck you. I am right. You can go and suck it.

Posted by: dr v at May 27, 2004 01:44 PM

"alternate economic systems are not a threat, any more than alternate religions are a threat."

Exactly. And just as radical Islamic fundamentalism is a threat, Communism was a threat.

Perhaps you should go live in Tibet or North Korea where you can cheerfully extol the harmlessness of alternative economic systems.

Perhaps you should go live under Sharia. A nice stoning or female circumcision might do wonders for your perspective.

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 02:28 PM

"We're responding to the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism."

"We're removing dictators and tyrants in the name of peace."

"We're pulling Iraq into the capitalist system."

"We're creating a solid middle class in those countries, a class that will see it as in their interest to oppose radical Islamic fundamentalism."

These are all defensible reasons for our ongoing efforts in Iraq, and while one can certainly argue with the accuracy of the claims (i.e., the ability to create a "middle class" through only allowing American companies to bid for contracts), they are all promoting essentially noble goals.

The problem is, the original justification for invasion was not the brutality of Saddam Hussein, nor the plight of the Iraqi people, nor a domino theory about the spreading influence of Islamic fundamentalism. The justification was that Iraq was a threat, right now, to the United States. Iraq was linked to 9/11, Iraq was a threat to the safety of American citizens at home, and Iraq had nuclear weapons, the argument went. This was false.

So now, there is a large problem with the credibility of the government and the president, and not just among peaceniks, or Bolsheviks, or commie-lovers, or some other leftover Cold War stereotype to be dragged out and flogged. The original reasons were lies. Companies with close ties to the president, including one that employed the current vice president for many years, are receiving large benefits as a result of this occupation. It doesn't matter what you think of the morality of the war - the WMD lie, and the large amount of graft involved here makes *any* new justifications automatically questionable.

And it has nothing to do with one's feelings about Tibet, or the Marshall Plan, or the feasibility of anarcho-syndicalism. What Dr. V was pointing out was the effect of rhetoric on shaping public perception of American actions globally, and how dishonest much of that rhetoric has been, both in our era and in the past. Even if you have been in full support of the war all along, I would think it would be difficult to view statements from our government, especially after the WMD revelations, without a large degree of skepticism.

Posted by: sean at May 27, 2004 03:34 PM

People seem to forget that Saddam's regime was relatively secular as far as regimes of Islamic countries go. Now, there is just as much, if not a greater threat of a fundamentalist Islamic government gaining power in Iraq as there was under Saddam. So much for the "responding to the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism" justification. If we wanted to fight Islamic fundamentalism, wouldn't we be better off invading Iran, or even Saudi Arabia?

I think that most people agree that we can't just leave Iraq now in its current state and expect any kind of favorable outcome for the Iraqis or anyone else. The controversy seems to surround our ORIGINAL motives for invading. It is totally Orwellian to deny that the main justifications for invading Iraq were that they had WMD's, were tied to Al Quaeda, and posed an imminent threat to US national security. Now that it is clear that none of these justifications were true, the Bush administration is essentially trying to rewrite history and is claiming that we only did it for the good of the Iraqi people. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

Posted by: Doug at May 27, 2004 05:27 PM

Wow, friends! That was a lot of back-and-forth-ing. It reminds me of why I refused to do my ethics degree with the future lawyers in the philosophy department. I tried to go back and isolate the arguments (i.e. series of syllogistic reasoning), but there weren’t any. I tried to tease out the guiding beliefs on either side, but there weren’t any. So I will just point out two historical connections:

John claims that we can do just as good a job in Iraq as we did in Europe and Japan. I’m not a big history buff myself, but I know that both of those victories turned solely on the leadership of brilliant generals. George C. Marshall, author of the Marshall Plan, of whom Secretary of War Stimson said, "I have never seen a task of such magnitude performed by a man," masterminded the entire European reconstruction. General MacArthur, candidate for greatest American hero ever, pretty much single-handedly reconstructed Japan. When he was finished, a Japanese newspaper wrote "we feel as if we have lost a kind and loving father." Who will be Iraq’s MacArthur? Powell? Rumsfeld? An as-of-yet unnamed Iraqi?

Second, this mention of what we would do if we were Romans is interesting in a number of ways (how could I resist?). You see, there was a competing superpower, the Parthian Empire, seated in modern-day Iran (and perhaps ironically, parts of Iraq), who was at war with the Romans in the 60’s. Again, history (or maybe just historical interpretation) turns on the man of the times. Vespasian, the new emperor of Rome, after the suicide of Nero in 68 and three intermittent emperors, each violently deposed over eighteen months, had taken the throne through a military revolt. His son, Titus, known for his ego and fondness for brutality, was leading the campaign to subdue Judaea. There were terrorists there, you see, killing Roman diplomats and rioting against Roman rule.

Supposing for a moment, that I, with all my 20th century American sensibilities were transported back in time to 70 CE and was in charge of the Parthian troops, would I march to Jerusalem to stop the Romans in their conquest, or would I protest our involvement?

What is there to be done? Stop the expansion of the Roman empire? Insist that Jerusalem is a sovereign nation? There seems to be nothing good to be done. It’s too little too late. Rome is so mighty and Titus is a psychopath. If I assassinate Titus, I only enrage Vespasian, so I have to assassinate both successfully, and support my favorite of the alternatives (though they have a bad history of being violently deposed by their fellow Romans). Do I sit down for a chat with Titus? Try to convince him that throwing Jews to wild beasts is less than humane? No. None of the standard, out-of-the-box solutions will work against a psychopath at the head of the world’s greatest power. I can only hope someone who feels destined for greatness, who grew up in Judaea and breathes policy details, with a spirit large enough to rally not only my troops but also the Jews is in command of my army. I need a MacArthur to save Judaea.

Posted by: christine at May 27, 2004 06:02 PM

God, how is there another one of these annoying strings? Where are these jackasses coming from and why do they feel the need to post their useless, uninformed opinions here? Perhaps its because the war is such an undeniably giant mess at this point that they're really stepping up practicing their "Four More Years of War" rhetoric now, to prepare to make another entirely bullshit sell to middle American when that lying, self-serving, treasonous, oil-rich redneck gets reelected. In any event, I enjoy reading the knowledgeable comments of my friends and their incredibly fun dissing of randoms that wander in here and attempt to argue with some of the smartest people I know. As ignorant and these recent visitors to our little universe seem to be about... all kinds of academic subjects and theories, it's their ignorance about us and how badly they're going to get beat down that really amuses me.

Posted by: Kristina at May 27, 2004 06:45 PM

Sean,

First, I would advise against putting all of your political eggs in one basket. If anything, the idea that there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda continues to grow. This article has this tantalizing tidbit:

"Already known, for example, is that two firms doing business with Saddam through Oil-for-Food were linked to financier Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, now on the UN’s own watchlist of individuals "belonging to or associated with" al Qaeda."

It would indeed be a humorous irony if the long sought connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda was none other than the United Nations.

And personally, I think the latest find of a gallon of sarin is just the beginning.

But we can put all of that aside as mere speculation and turn to the meat of your argument.

"The problem is, the original justification for invasion was not the brutality of Saddam Hussein, nor the plight of the Iraqi people, nor a domino theory about the spreading influence of Islamic fundamentalism. The justification was that Iraq was a threat, right now, to the United States. Iraq was linked to 9/11, Iraq was a threat to the safety of American citizens at home, and Iraq had nuclear weapons, the argument went. This was false."

The problem is that that isn't really a problem.

If a doctor removed a tumor because he thought he would make money but it turned out that the patient had nothing to give, would you be angry that the tumor was removed?

What if the doctor thought the tumor was contagious but it turned out that it only threatened the patient? Would you really be angry after it was removed?

Ohh, It is a good thing that the tumor is gone, but goddamn that Bush for lying and tricking us into doing a good thing!

Face it, your argument makes no sense.

The truth is that opponents of the war are most concerned with ensuring that U.S. power doesn't grow any larger. If U.S. removes a dictator, it can only be a good thing if U.S. power stays the same or weakens. You just can't stand the thought that a doctor can actually help people while reaping a profit.

I, for one, want the Iraqis to prosper. And, I want American power to grow even larger. And oh how fortunate it is that, for once, self interest and altruism have converged in the form of the removal of Saddam. We can help others by helping ourselves. May capitalism flourish in the Middle East!

If you want to pull out your hair and cry because we did a good thing for the "wrong" reasons, go right ahead. However, you might want to take a look at the scandal engulfing the U.N. at the moment. Now THERE is some real credibility lost.

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 06:49 PM

Ok, this guy HAS to be kidding. According to his argument, we shouldn't be upset with the Bush administration for lying about justifications for invading Iraq because, hopefully, after the US has spent assloads of money and killed numerous innocent people, the government that ends up ruling Iraq will possibly be better than that of Saddam. A "good" outcome sometime in the distant future justifies lies (or untruths told due to unbelievably poor intelligence) to the American public and the rest of the world. At the very least, Bush (and this John character) should admit that invading Iraq was a mistake instead of trying to brainwash people into believing that the real reason we attacked was to help the Iraqi public.

I (and everyone else) also want the Iraqis to prosper. Whether or not the US becomes more powerful in the world is not the issue at all. Bush claims that he is defending the country from terrorist attacks in the future. Do you think that since the US invasion of Iraq there are more or fewer extremely pissed-off people in the mideast that would love to attack the USA?

Time for some name calling since John seems to enjoy it. John, you are a cockmaster, and exhibit several properties of an assface. Why have you spent so much of your time making comments on a personal webpage of someone you don’t know?

Oh, and what would a post in this thread be without a confusing and barely relevant analogy? If a surgeon operates on you for stomach cancer and finds no tumor, but removes your pancreas and sells it to the Algerians, then uses the proceeds of that transaction to excise your intestines in order to stretch them out in a demonstration to the United Nations of how they really can't stretch around the circumference of the earth, is he a really a surgeon, or is he a performance artist? Get it?

Posted by: Doug at May 27, 2004 08:24 PM

Wow. I just read that article and... Well, wow. Nowhere else have I heard Sevan's private oil empire being turned into a terrifying plot by the evil Kofi Annan. Pardon me while I laugh into my sleeve.

Anyway, apparently you can only think in metaphors, so...

What if a doctor removed a tumor by detonating a small hand grenade inside the patient? As the patient starts to die, the doctor shovels replacement organs in as quickly as he can. "All of this is going to cost you," the doctor says. "And you might need to stay on life support for the rest of your life."
Meanwhile, the man's family watches from the sidelines, becoming more and more angry.

Fuck it. The war is not a metaphor. It has become torture and rape under the American flag. It's all well and good that you don't care about the U.S.'s reasons for invading, but almost every other nation does. Because if those reasons were wrong and we get away with it, it sends a message that unilaterally invading other countries for the wrong reasons is A-OK as long as at least one good thing comes out of it, and screw the other consequences.

Posted by: Jacob at May 27, 2004 08:38 PM

I think it's sad that there are people out there who still consider the United States involvement in Iraq as a positive occurance for people in the region, especially after the indiscriminate torture of detainees was revealed, and the country slips closer and closer to civil war.

Orwellian is the right mindset to appreciate what is going on: suffering is virtuous, war is love, ignorance is knowledge.

Posted by: cody at May 27, 2004 09:49 PM

He He He, the moment I've been waiting for:

"I think it's sad that there are people out there who still consider the United States involvement in Iraq as a positive occurance for people in the region, especially after the indiscriminate torture of detainees was revealed, and the country slips closer and closer to civil war."

Here we have it. It is "sad" that some people think removing Saddam was a positive occurrence. Cody believes that the world would be a better place if Saddam was still in power.

The torture of some terrorists and Saddamites is "worse" than Saddam's torture and murder of hundreds of thousands.

You gotta love those peace-loving opponents of the liberation of Iraq.

He He He. . .

Posted by: John at May 27, 2004 10:33 PM

While we're misconstruing words:

"He He He"
Here we have it. Some people think a civil war in Iraq is "funny."

Give me a break, John. You know full well that's not what he meant. You started off coherent, but with a radically different viewpoint. Now you've regressed to the point where we have to question your intelligence.

And as for the U.S. torturing some "terrorists" (did you know 80% of the people held in Abu Ghraib are later released for lack of evidence?), I do think that's far worse than Saddam's torture. As you say, we're supposed to be the good guys, going in to liberate a nation from a dictator. So what sort of a message does it send when we commit the same atrocities that we vilified Saddam for using? It doesn't matter how many people we've tortured. It matters that we've stooped so low.

Posted by: Jacob at May 27, 2004 11:11 PM

I think it's sad when people are dumbass zombies, mindlessly dictating political propaganda they heard/read somewhere rather than thinking for themselves. No matter what you guys say to this guy, he's only going to read into it and get out of it exactly what he knows already. He won't get anything out of this conversation and evidently has nothing to really contribute other than misreadings and more of the same lines and cliches we've been hearing from the Administration for the last year.

Posted by: Kristina at May 28, 2004 08:00 AM

ditto what Jacob and Kristina are saying.

it's also sad when people have their heads so far up their asses that they can't hear what other people are saying. Fuck you "John" for reading your end-of-days, war-is-good, we-are-the-champions, tired ignorant self-serving WRONG worldview into what I was saying.

FYI, dumbass, you probably didn't get the point that Jacob was making, despite the fact that he was articulate and direct, which was that many of the people in the prisons were TWI, i.e. There While Iraqi, in the wrong place at the wrong time, whose crime was to be in a country that we chose to invade in our own interest. So fuck off and get a clue!

Posted by: cody at May 28, 2004 08:20 AM

once again, i disappear for a day and shit blows up.

i un-blocked meaty fly. he at least was reasonably articulate and did not suggest that dianna should be mutilated. that comment alone really quadrupled my misery over the current state of affairs, so thank you for that, john.

you guys seem to be holding your own against these maroons so i'll leave you to it, despite my desire to virtually cover my ears and yell "na na na, i can't hear you" whenever they comment.

Posted by: didofoot at May 28, 2004 08:38 AM

My favorite part of this is the insistence from neo-cons that the end justifies the means. That is their point, right? It's okay to go in for any reason, self-interested or altruistic, informed or uninformed, as long as removing Sadaam from power was "a good thing." What I like so much about it is how squarely the intelligentsia from every region in every time period have come down against that idea. I think they will only find sympathizers amongst the utilitarians, who, not surprisingly were adopted by the economists who are now justifying the war. Take comfort that you are in the good company of Plato, Confucius, even Kant on this one, while not even the Straussians can help them now.

Posted by: christine at May 28, 2004 08:51 AM

Ditto, Christine, although I think even Mr. Jeremy Bentham would be upset by the Abu Ghraib abuses, even if they'd taken place in a panopticon.

Posted by: sean at May 28, 2004 09:52 AM

When I graduated from Cal, I said that if I ever heard the word "panopticon" ever again, I'd go insane. So, now you've done it; you've made me totally crazy Sean ;)

Posted by: Kristina at May 28, 2004 10:11 AM

one dictionary.com moment later, i am now in love with sean.

Posted by: didofoot at May 28, 2004 10:21 AM

hey! me too. i love you, dictionary.com

Posted by: michele at May 28, 2004 10:30 AM

dictionary.com does kick m-w.com's ass, but I'm in love with dictionary.law.com

Posted by: Kristina at May 28, 2004 10:44 AM

It's time to put the nail in your collective mental coffins. Let's just run through a few statistics to put things in perspective.

First, as Meaty Fly mentioned above, UNICEF estimated that 60,000 civilians (per year) were dying early deaths in the years before the war. I've read 37,000 per year elsewhere, but it probably depends on the period measured.

*I'm pretty sure this doesn't even include the mass graves.

Second, the peacenik www.iraqbodycount.net estimates that number of Iraqi civilian deaths as 9,000 to 11,000 since the start of the war. Given the nature of the counters, odds are this is an inflated number.

Food in Iraq is everywhere available, clean water is flowing, electricity is being produced at levels higher than those before the war, hundreds of schools have been rebuilt and some 30,000 teachers trained—and whereas before the war Iraqi civilians were dying untimely deaths at the rate of 36,000 a year, now even an anti-war group estimates that in the last 14 months the number of Iraqi civilians to die unnatural deaths numbers at most about 11,000.

Now, if Cody and the peace-loving opponents of Saddam's removal had their way (and if UNICEF can be believed), somewhere between 37,000 to 60,000 Iraqi civilians would have died in the past year. Instead, a mere 9,000 to 11,000 died. Hmmm. Yet Cody thinks things have gotten "worse."

There is no civil war, nor is there likely to be one. That doesn't even enter into the equation.

As for American casualties, they have been among the lowest in history at 1.5 to 2.5% (total of 800). Compare these for fun:

Korean War: 7.8%

World War I: 6.8%

World War II: 6.6%

Vietnam War: 6.2%

Sorry, this war is not a disaster. It is one of the greatest successes in the history of warfare thus. There is a sad lack of historical perspective on this board. Sad.

I'll be the first to admit that the prison scandal is bad news. I certainly don't support what happened there. But to suggest that such abuse in any way undermines the worthiness of removing Saddam is laughable.

Have you forgotten about the mass graves?

Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.

"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.

If you can read that and honestly say that it would be better if Saddam were still in power, you are even further gone than I suspected.

Posted by: John at May 28, 2004 11:29 AM

I really hate John, any anyone else who thinks this war is "one of the greatest successes in the history of warfare thus". I think he's missing the point that there shouldn't be a "war" at all, that none of our soldiers should be dying over there and that no matter how bad Saddam was, he was not the "direct threat" that the Administration claimed he was and there is no real link to 9/11. Jackass John, no one here is saying that Saddam was a good person or that he should have remained in power indefinitely, but they are saying that we were lied to about the real reasons for removing him and now that he's gone, we've got a huge mess on our hands that we are not capable of handling in a responsible and ultimately productive manner. Things are messed up, and to deny that is worse than to disregard history (which no one here is actually doing) because you're blinding yourself to things that are actually happening right now. Don't bother responding to me b/c I don't give a shit what you think about my comment. I'm really writing this to make myself feel better and for my friends, no you, asswipe.

Posted by: Kristina at May 28, 2004 11:55 AM

Dipshit, no one is saying that Saddam's government was good. I would hope that the current occupying forces are committing fewer atrocities than Saddam did, but we are still committing SOME atrocities (prison abuse, etc.). Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be pissed when our military does even one evil, Saddam-like thing just because we aren't any worse than one of the most brutal dictators in history? Wrong is wrong, regardless of what happened in the past.

You haven't stated anything new in your past few posts. You keep rehashing the same argument that a good final outcome in Iraq will justify all the misinformation used to justify the invasion, as well as horrific crimes against innocent civilians committed by our military. Even if Iraq turns into a shining example of democracy, it won’t change the fact that the Bush administration has lied and made numerous mistakes for which it should be held accountable. Have you even read 1984? All of the blatantly obvious parallels between the Bush administration and the totalitarian government described in that novel seem to be going right over your head. Frankly, this is getting boring. Your argument clearly isn't convincing anyone. The readers of this site can't be brainwashed by repetition like Fox News viewers. You might want to come up with a different argument because you are basically wasting your time with your current one. If I were you, I would admit that I was outclassed and fighting a losing battle. However, by all means please continue. It is pretty entertaining seeing you make an ass of yourself in front of a lot of intelligent people.

Posted by: Doug at May 28, 2004 12:26 PM

That last post was directed at John, not Kristina, although it should be pretty obvious that John=dipshit.

Posted by: Doug at May 28, 2004 12:29 PM

No worries, I think it was pretty obvious who the "dipshit" was meant to be.

Posted by: Kristina at May 28, 2004 12:33 PM

"First, as Meaty Fly mentioned above, UNICEF estimated that 60,000 civilians (per year) were dying early deaths in the years before the war. I've read 37,000 per year elsewhere, but it probably depends on the period measured."

Yep, that's because of economic sanctions that we imposed you fool.

"If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."

Guess what? We supported Pol Pot even after we knew he was a genocidal maniac.

We also sold Antrhax to Saddam Hussein. Again, crucially, this was AFTER we knew that he was routinely using chemical weapons on civilians.

So, again, I ask that you carefully think about the history of the matter. We knowingly give our full support to genocidal regimes for political gain. Indeed, we enable them to continue their genocide on a larger scale. Then, when our political goals change all of the sudden we start pointing out how bad the genocide is. Nevermind the fact that we were supporting it all along! Can you simply not see the hypocrisy in all of this?

Posted by: dr v at May 28, 2004 12:35 PM

Iraqbodycount.org includes a list of their media sources and a description of their methods of information gathering on their website. They only use figures which are widely agreed on in the mainstream media, so I think to dismiss them as "peacenik" and imply that they are inflating their totals is pretty unfair.

This is tangental, but it's a good site and deserves recognition. I am a bit skeptical of the motives behind some of the sources John has quoted, however.

Posted by: didofoot at May 28, 2004 12:38 PM

Ahhh yes:

Under your logic, if you gave a kid a pair of scissors, and that kid started stabbing other kids at a party, it would be wrong to forcefully stop the kid because, after all, YOU gave the kid the scissors in the first place.

It was wrong to stop Saddam's murderous party because, hey, America helped give him the party supplies.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States was responsible for 1% of all arms imports to Iraq during the period from 1973 to 2002. So, yeah, we helped give Saddam the scissors. But during the same period, USSR/Russia supplied 57%, France gave 13%, and China gave 12%. Three Security Council nations gave 82% while the U.S. gave 1% of the scissors.

And while America wrongly took the scissors away, Russia, France, and China opposed the removal of the scissors. That ought to be deeply satisfying to the peace lovers. Those countries recognized the core principle that if you do something wrong, you can never do something right, especially if its for the wrong reasons.

*All together now*

It is good that Saddam is gone, and we wouldn't want him back, but we were wrong to remove him. America has no right to be in Iraq, but it must stay to finish the job, because America wrongly removed a mass-murdering dictator, which was a good thing, but for the wrong reasons.

This has indeed become a waste of time. Just keep opposing the removal of dictators in the name of peace, because, after all, America has done bad things in the past, and we wouldn't want to change that, even if it helps people.

Posted by: John at May 28, 2004 03:35 PM

Chomsky refers to John's absurd rhetorical tactic as the Doctrine of Change of Course with the content being "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff." He goes on to call the doctrine "dishonest and cowardly".

I never said I was opposed to removing dictators. I'm opposed to all of the bold face lies. I'm sorry but history really does matter. You can't claim that your foreign policy is based on the most noble intentions (democratizing the Middle East) when the past has shown that it's only our own self-interest that matters. If we really care so much about removing dictators then why do we have such a long history of supporting them? Gen. Suharto, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Gen. Noriega to name a few.

Given the substantial history of our support for fascist regimes, I can't help but be skeptical of any claim that bringing democracy to a region is our main military goal. Sure, we'd like a democracy in Iraq as long as they do whatever we tell them to.

Maybe you should respond to some of my arguments instead of presenting more absurd anologies of children with scissors.

Posted by: dr v at May 28, 2004 04:02 PM

I'm not sure how the idea of distrusting the Bush Administration after months of lies has been conflated with supporting dictators and mass graves, but the logical thread in many of the above arguments has long been broken, replaced by analogies to children's birthday parties and operating tables.

A comparison to Iraqi deaths before and after the Unites States invasion is a lot more valid, though there is clearly a lot of disagreement about the figures. Any such comparison should acknowledge that United States planes were bombing parts of Iraq on nearly a daily basis since the middle of 1998. In other words, it's not like the United States just began killing Iraqis last March.

Posted by: sean at May 28, 2004 04:36 PM

Dr V,

"I'm sorry but history really does matter. You can't claim that your foreign policy is based on the most noble intentions (democratizing the Middle East) when the past has shown that it's only our own self-interest that matters. If we really care so much about removing dictators then why do we have such a long history of supporting them? Gen. Suharto, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Gen. Noriega to name a few."

Your reasoning has so many flaws it's hard to know where to start. First, America is a collection of individual minds, and to imply that the minds controlling America during the Cold War couldn't have had different motives and perceptions than those governing now is absurd. The minds that supported slavery are dead, and it is patently absurd to attribute their opinions and outlook to the current members of Congress (with a few exceptions, perhaps). The same can be said for Cold War strategy to some extent. We were fighting a nuclear-armed foe during the Cold War. We simply did not have the options we have now. Right or wrong, we used evil as a pawn against greater evil.

I do not discount the value of history or the value of questioning whether these moves were, all things considered, positive or negative. But the conditions of the Cold War are gone, and with them the justification for propping up dictators (though our options are far more limited with North Korea).

America has a chance to do what it couldn't do then: spread democracy in the Middle East. I support that. You do not. Let us part ways.

Another point. Our perception of self-interest has changed. I support pursuing a foreign policy rooted firmly in the rich soil of self-interest. But the nature of our self-interest has changed. Where it may have required the propping of dictators in one era, it now requires the spreading of democracy. That is another issue, but I believe it. Self-interest and helping people are not mutually exclusive. Doctors want to help people. And doctors also see it as in their interest to help people because they are paid for doing so. THEY WANT TO HELP PEOPLE BECAUSE IN DOING SO THEY HELP THEMSLEVES AND IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD. They hit two birds with one stone! The same logic applies here, though you are too blinded by pacifist ideology to see.

And please, please don't come back with dreamy U.N. solutions. The U.N. is the most corrupt organization in history. It does more to support dictators than to spread democracy. U.N. peacekeepers have been involved in numerous scandals and crimes of late. That is the nature of the beast. Wars bring out some ugly things. But they can be used as a force for good.

Kristina thinks war is inherently wrong. It was wrong to free the slaves, wrong to stop the NAZIS, and wrong to stop Saddam. According to your logic, it would have been doubly wrong to stop slavery because the North had a history of supporting slavery and had helped solidify it as an institution in law. Whatever. I'll leave that warped logic for you guys to pat each other on the asses with.

Sean, politicians lie. I don't trust what they say anyway. Do you trust Kerry? Come on now. I do trust that what we are doing in Iraq is positive. Positive for us. Positive for them.

But this is old and I have other fish to fry.

Ciao

Posted by: John at May 28, 2004 04:48 PM

Bush is a liar, no one denies,
but call him a liar, and little John cries,
"We're doing our best to help Middle East
by bringing democracy, our wealth will increase.

That is not the story that sold the war.
Fear is the story that we heard before.

The world doesn't like us as much as it did,
and it's all the darn fault of President Bush, the kid.

Posted by: Cody at May 28, 2004 05:10 PM

Post a comment