When you think of the vast percentage of Americans who can't be bothered to come out and vote...and that musicians develop an overwrought campaign called "Vote Or Die," which really doesn't mean much of anything, as opposed to the "Vote And Die" message being spread by Iraqi terrorists...
It's just pretty damned impressive, the Iraqis turning out to vote in their first election. Make no mistake, it's still a horror show, we still shouldn't be over there, Bush lied to America, and Bush's List continues to grow. But at least Iraqis are braving all manner of risk to vote, as opposed to many Americans who are so cavalier about a right they never earned or had to fight for.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at January 31, 2005 02:30 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI agree that it's impressive, and seeing it all unfold and how happy (most of them) are almost makes it seem worth it. *ALMOST* ;)
As a former (fingers crossed) member of our military I have some very strong beliefs concerning democracy and our current occupation of the unwilling nation of Iraq. The turn out in their elections lifts my heart and reminds me what it means to give one's life for democracy. Now if we just could import some of that dedication here maybe I wouldn't be the bitter, jaded veteran I am =) Of course things could be worse, Bush could still be my boss AND my president.
I would *love* to know where the better voter turnout was, our last election or the Iraqi election?
on a semi-related note, here's an article written by a female iraqi (whoo lives in Britian) who is refusing to vote in the elections:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=605289
Bravo to Peter for calling the "insurgents" by their true name--terrorists. one hopes that after the elections not even Michael Moore will be able to compare them to the Minutemen or any other organization...except maybe the KKK, with more sophisticated weaponry.
Whoever had the idea for the inked finger should get a medal. An unforgettable image. Of all the victories against terrorists we have had in the past few years, the picture of ordinary Iraqis holding up their ink stained hands may be the most potent. I wonder what the citizens of other middle east countries are thinking (I think I know what their leaders are).
I can't speak for everyone, Peter, but I can't wait for our next presidental election. :-)
Seriously though, I have voted every major election year since I turned 18 (2000, 2002, and 2004).
Commendable, yes.
I can't speak for the U.S.' poor voter turnouts, but you'd get more people tunring out to vote in Canada if you could arrange three things:
1 - Give us someone to vote FOR instead of always someone to vote against.
2 - See to it that they do keep their promises (what's the point of voting if nothing changes but the names on the doors?)
3 - Eliminate the Party system's stranglehold on individual Members of parliament's voting. What good electing someone if they then ignore my wishes and votes party Line instead of how their constituents want them to?
By the way ... #2? An idiot judge in Ontario ruled that one could not, and should not be able to sue governments for broken promises. He went on to say people should not be so naive as to believe what politicians say during elections, and that, if one could hold them legally accountable for breach of promise, our Democratic system would collapse.
A poster boy for the hazards of doing drugs, this guy. He doesn't seem to be clued in to the hazards to society as a whole when our so-called leaders can lie, cheat, break verbal contracts at will and get away with it. What sort of an example does that set for the masses?
Peter, are you a "true" American?
Fortunately the good folk at THIS MODERN WORLD has this handy dandy quiz that will help you out here:
Here's question #1 to ponder while your browser links up: Do you *genuinely believe* the terrorists are motivated by nothing more complex than a blind, unreasoning hatred of *freedom*? Yes or No?
If you happen to pass then obviously you've been confused by the LME (Liberal Media Elite) and their fancy arguments. That's okay, THIS MODERN WORLD also shows how you can counter their arguments with one simple phrase:
"Why do you hate America so much?"
-- Ken from Chicago
Woops, seems the hyperlinks didn't show up. My programming skills stopped with C, just before HTML and the internet took off in the late 80s early 90s:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/07/01/tomo/
http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/04/01/tomo/index.html
-- Ken from Chicago
"on a semi-related note, here's an article written by a female iraqi (whoo lives in Britian) who is refusing to vote in the elections:..."
Also saw her column in one of the Stateside papers. She misses one simple point, though: While conditions are, shall we say, less than ideal in Iraq today, if she refuses to vote, she misses her chance to affect things for the better. Abdication of responsibility, by and large, is cowardice, not protest.
Saddam's Absence on Ballot Thrills Iraqis
By ELLEN KNICKMEYER
ASKAN, Iraq (AP) - In the "triangle of death," where voting is a life-threatening experience, Karfia Abbasi held up her ink-stained finger, elated that for the first time she has been able to cast a ballot for someone besides Saddam Hussein.
"This is democracy," Abbasi said. "This is the first day I feel freedom."
For U.S. Marines helping guard Sunday's vote, the streams of men and women walking into the gritty polling places of this area south of Baghdad was a payoff more impressive than the toppling of Saddam's statue in the capital during the fall of his regime in April 2003 - less spectacular but tougher to bring off.
"That was a work of triumphs - those are always easy. This is the hard work of democracy now," Lt. Col. Bob Durkin of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines said Sunday morning, from a rooftop where Marine marksmen stood watch over voting sites.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050130/D87UKVK00.html
BTW, two of my friends were in the embassy in Baghdad when it got hit on Saturday. They're both okay and both dedicated to staying to finish their job.
So, what happens if the Iraqi council elected by this vote turns around and drafts a constitution that calls for the appointement of a military warlord with all the power and trappings that Saddam held? Do we sit back and call that a success of democracy, or do we then invade again and start all over?
1 You make me sad. I really enjoy your writing for the most part, but in future, when I make my shopping decisions, I don't know if I will be able to bring myself to financially support you and your views. I have been able to hold my nose and watch West Wing, so maybe I will be able to.
Just for the record, I suppose Pres. Clinton never lied right? Our troops will be out of Bosnia in 6 months right? The milk factory is a chemical weapons factory right?
And Kerry sailed into Cambodia wearing his magic hat?
While conditions are, shall we say, less than ideal in Iraq today, if she refuses to vote, she misses her chance to affect things for the better.
The thing is, is that this is only a first step. There is no guarantee that, just because they voted yesterday, things will turn out for the better.
We got to vote last November and, well, I can't say that it was for the better.
But in Iraq, right now, they are still in a worse situation than they were when Saddam was in power: daily attacks and bombings, lack of food, water, and electricity, potential for civil war after this vote. Martial law.
Not to mention the Bush Administration jumping for joy at the possibility that the "domino effect" could cause similar civil unrest... err, the rise of democracy... to break out in the rest of the region.
Of course, the last time the threat of a "domino effect" occured, it lead us to Korea and Vietnam, and boy what a wonderful time that was.
Anyways, people are electing a general assembly, and if people thought voting along party lines here was bad, I'm curious to know how it goes when they could have voted purely along religious lines, how they are going to form a constitution when entire parts of the population won't be or don't want to be represented, religious aspects, rights for women, etc.
I don't know if I will be able to bring myself to financially support you and your views.
Didn't we just have this discussion the other day?
Our troops will be out of Bosnia in 6 months right?
I don't recall that, but at the time we went to Bosnia, Milosevich was in the middle of his little tirade as Latest Dictator of the World.
Plus, I don't think our body count began to approach what has happened in Iraq.
So, face facts: you just want to piss on Clinton and wave your little banner that says you support Bush, regardless of how many lives he throws away.
So, what happens if the Iraqi council elected by this vote turns around and drafts a constitution that calls for the appointement of a military warlord with all the power and trappings that Saddam held? Do we sit back and call that a success of democracy, or do we then invade again and start all over?
Depends. Will they still have oil?
Of course, Bush and his crew already picked the winned before the election, and if the Iraqis voted for the wrong guy, you know who'll actually (be declared) win...
PAD wrote: "It's just pretty damned impressive, the Iraqis turning out to vote in their first election. Make no mistake, it's still a horror show, we still shouldn't be over there, Bush lied to America, and Bush's List continues to grow. But at least Iraqis are braving all manner of risk to vote, as opposed to many Americans who are so cavalier about a right they never earned or had to fight for."
It really bothers me that you felt the partisan need to qualify your acknowledgement of the truly inspirational and remarkable bravery of the Iraqis who went out and voted yesterday. The response of the Iraquis should make it clear to even the most jaded cynic that democracy and the urge to be free is a fundamental dream for every person, regardless of their cultural roots or faith. It is also clear that historically, such freedom never comes to those who are not willing to fight, and possibly risk it all, for such a privilege.
Throughout history, the price of freedom has usually been paid for with sacrifice, misery and blood -- not safely pursuing the status quo.
I like how they play with the numbers. Pat Robertson said on The McLaughlin Group (it was either Pat or that guy who looks like Norm from Cheers) that all but four of the Iraqi provinces were safe to hold elections. Yeah, the four provinces where most of the people live. Then the news yesterday was reporting a seventy-two turnout. Seventy-two percent of what? They didn't say.
I also find it interesting that most Iraqis didn't even know what they were voting for, that it was widely believed they were voting for a president. The TV commercials were misleading, too, showing people voting immediately followed by American troops evacuating. Which we know won't happen any time soon.
"I don't know if I will be able to bring myself to financially support you and your views.
Didn't we just have this discussion the other day?"
And yet somehow it just never gets old. I get at least one e-mail a month from someone who informs me of just that. The most recent was from a fellow who made a point of cc'ing me on an e-mail he'd sent to Marvel informing them that because of Guido wearing a shirt with a political statement in "Madrox #5," and because of my annoying liberal blog, he wouldn't be continuing reading my work. I expressed my annoyance with him, especially in that the bit with the shirt was Pablo's idea and I didn't even know about it. His response was that my attitude was unprofessional. Ah well.
"Just for the record, I suppose Pres. Clinton never lied right?"
Just for the record, I suppose I defended any lies Clinton told by saying, "Nixon never lied right?" Oh. Wait. I didn't.
Support my work, don't support my work, it's your call. I suppose if Iraqi voters can risk terrorist bombs in order to express their views, I can risk the wrath of consumers who are so irate that I'm an American expressing my opinion that they feel they must drop attempted financial bombs. Just keep in mind which side of free expression that puts you on.
PAD
The only think I want to know is why the Iraqi people have a shot at a fairer election the citizens of the United States? I'm not trying to incite party arguments, but I find it interesting that the Iraqis are allowed to vote by methods that generate a paper trail. God forbid that in our modern, wired, Diebolt-centric country, we be afforded the same privilege.
Not that I'm sayin' anything. I'm just sayin'.
The only think I want to know is why the Iraqi people have a shot at a fairer election the citizens of the United States? I'm not trying to incite party arguments, but I find it interesting that the Iraqis are allowed to vote by methods that generate a paper trail. God forbid that in our modern, wired, Diebolt-centric country, we be afforded the same privilege.
Not that I'm sayin' anything. I'm just sayin'.
"clear to even the most jaded cynic that democracy and the urge to be free is a fundamental dream for every person"
Freedom, yes. But freedom from what? The Iraqis want freedom from the US military and the violence brought about by the military's presence in their cities. The only Iraqis who don't seem to mind us being there are some of the ones who don't live in Iraq.
But democracy? Not necessarily. Is Algiers a democracy? Is Kuwait? Believe it or not, not everybody in the world wants to follow our political model.
"It really bothers me that you felt the partisan need to qualify your acknowledgement of the truly inspirational and remarkable bravery of the Iraqis who went out and voted yesterday."
Well, I'm sorry it bothered you, but it was most to stave off what I figured would be a fast conservative tidal wave of "Ah hah! So you're saying Bush was right!" If I've learned anything, it's that Bushies are quick to seek any opportunity to try and twist opinions in their favor (witness the loopy endeavors to misconstrue "Bush's List" as an anti-woman's-right-to-choose argument.) So I felt constrained to point out that, no, I still don't feel the ends justified the means.
PAD
And was it Voltaire (or maybe Bugs Bunny) who said, "I do not agree with what you have
to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Brian (actually agreeing with PAD on his political views)
Just as an interesting aside, my wife and I found it funny while playing Everquest 2 (an on-line RPG for those that don't know) the in-game "bad-word" filter wouldn't let me use the term "Bushites," which of course I was using to refer to those that seem to defend everything Bush says, does, or supports.
It may just be a game developer letting a political bent show, or maybe an honest attempt to keep profanity from the game, but we found it amusing that it could be considered a "bad word."
I tried to do a quick search to see how the Iraqi election was set up, and didn't find any details. Was the vote nation/expatriate wide, meaning every candidate could receive votes from anywere? Or was it based on provinces, with certain areas only voting on a smaller group of candidates?
Because for a representatvie democracy to truly work, you need representatives that come from every province, such as the colonies/states providing representatives to the congress that drafted the US Constitution. Without that, you can't have anything close to equal or fair representation of the various parties and interests in the country. And without that, you will never have a government viewed as legitimate by all, and instead of creating a stable government, Iraq will just be a perpetual area of instability and insurgency.
R. Maheras:
>The response of the Iraquis should make it clear to even the most jaded cynic that democracy and the urge to be free is a fundamental dream for every person, regardless of their cultural roots or faith.
The urge to be free, absolutely. The reaction says very little about a desire for a democratic government by the majority of the population. A few sound bytes does not equate to people desiring a democratic government. What the turn-out does seem to indicate is that these people need to feel that they have some control in the current situation. The latter does not necessarily imply the former.
>It is also clear that historically, such freedom never comes to those who are not willing to fight, and possibly risk it all, for such a privilege.
So are you supporting the U.S. troops in Iraq or the Iraqis who are fighting against them?
Gahrie wrote:
You make me sad. I really enjoy your writing for the most part, but in future, when I make my shopping decisions, I don't know if I will be able to bring myself to financially support you and your views. I have been able to hold my nose and watch West Wing, so maybe I will be able to.
As others have pointed out (See this post), that conversation's already been had.
Just for the record, I suppose Pres. Clinton never lied right? Our troops will be out of Bosnia in 6 months right? The milk factory is a chemical weapons factory right?
And Kerry sailed into Cambodia wearing his magic hat?
What do the lies of Clinton and Kerry have to do with Peter's accusations of Bush lying? If Bush lied (I've yet to see any evidence that he knew there were no WMDs, and that wasn't the sole justification anyway), then he was wrong. It wouldn't matter if every Democratic president and candidate since the dawn of time was a pathological liar -- just because your opponent does something wrong doesn't mean it's okay for you.
This is what annoys me about the administration's apparent stance on the whole "torture" thing. Yes, the terrorists and their ilk are bad, bad men. Yes, they've done horrible things that would make the Chinese "dentist" from Alias (does he have a name?) look like a fuzzy bunny. No, the Geneva Conventions aren't legally binding, given the complete disregard for them that our enemies are showing.
Not one whit of that matters, though. Torture is not an American value. That's why I was so anxious to see some action on the Abu Gharib scandal -- we needed to show that we took these things seriously. Unlike those who would cheer terrorists who behead civilians, we should have standards for our troops actions beyond the treaty-defined legal boundaries.
I support the President. I think his heart is in the right place, though some of his decisions are, to my mind, wrong. I voted for him not because I think he's perfect, but because he was better than the alternative. Still, some of the things I've heard coming from this administration with regards to the treatment of some of our prisoners unnerves me. (I do think that there are, unfortunately, times when extreme measures must be taken to get information, but those instances should be extremely rare. The almost dismissive attitude that I sense from Gonzales is disturbing.)
Fred, that appears to be part of the problem now. Are the insurgents really just terrorists, as the Bush Adminstration claims? Or are they Iraqi freedom fighters? Or maybe a mix? I'm guessing there's a mix of true terrorists and Iraqi revolutionists.
From the English point of view, the Colonial Rebels were little more than terrorists.
Finally, something the left and the right can agree on.
I admit...I got chills at the image of people holding up the ink stained fingers.
It's nice to see that instead of the gesture with a finger we USUALLY get from people in that region of the world. :)
I don't support your political views, and you probably don't support mine. I guess thats a fair trade off. :)
I'll continue buying your work.
(On a political note.. Would mutant-human marriages be legal or an abomination? *steps away from the box*)
How many Americans these days are willing to stand up to our government for their frredoms?
And consulting a pussy lawyer doesn't count...
Hmmm. "But in Iraq, right now, they are still in a worse situation than they were when Saddam was in power: daily attacks and bombings, lack of food, water, and electricity, potential for civil war after this vote. Martial law."
Well, all of those things are illegal now, rather than government sanctioned. Girls are being educated, women and girls aren't being legally raped, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, Iraq IS better off today than before.
I'm of two minds. Iraq, as an imminent threat needed to be dealt with. Okay, so Iraq wasn't the imminent threat it was cracked up to be (but it was in violation of just about everything it could violate; and by thumbing it's nose at the UN with impunity it served to weaken the UN to a global suggestion. The UN should have dealt with them...) Still, knowing then what we knew now, probably we shouldn't have gone in. I do think the indicators were there that we should have gone in at the time - and I think the adminstration was acting in good faith, not lies.
But... we're there now. Prosecute to win and win completely. We're there, finish the job. And not with some half-hearted exit stategy that would mean damage to the middle-east. Barbarism is over, time for the barbarians to figure it out and change or die.
As for another issue, Peter, I was in agreement until you told the benighter that he fell on the other side of free speech. That's simply not true. He has the right to do with his money as he wishes; and he has the freedom to tell your publisher why he's not spending his money on you. If you disagree, then isn't it you fall on the wrong side of free speech?
KingBobb:
>Fred, that appears to be part of the problem now. Are the insurgents really just terrorists, as the Bush Adminstration claims? Or are they Iraqi freedom fighters? Or maybe a mix? I'm guessing there's a mix of true terrorists and Iraqi revolutionists.
I totally agree. A more important focus, should anyone choose to continue this direction of thought here is how are so many of these Iraqi citizens being convinced to join up against the troops?
>From the English point of view, the Colonial Rebels were little more than terrorists.
Again, both sides could be argued. When the founding fathers organized colonists, a main rationale given was the obnoxiously high over-taxation. The truth was that the colonists were paying less than those living in Great Britain and the taxes collected weren't even enough to cover the costs of the British expenditures for the support of these people.
Does this mean that it was wrong to revolt?
It is all a matter of perspective. Unfortunately, whether the focus is poverty, self-entitlement, or moral values, too many in this world see things from a very egocentric point of view.
Robinn:
>>Hmmm. "But in Iraq, right now, they are still in a worse situation than they were when Saddam was in power: daily attacks and bombings, lack of food, water, and electricity, potential for civil war after this vote. Martial law."
>Well, all of those things are illegal now, rather than government sanctioned. Girls are being educated, women and girls aren't being legally raped, etc. etc. etc.
Nope, just caught in the crossfire on a daily basis, bombed and shot. Collateral damge. Illegal when perpetrated by whom?
>Yes, Iraq IS better off today than before.
This is all a matter of perspective. Slightly less than 4% of Iraqi children were suffering from malnutrition before the invasion. Now that number is approximately 8%. Are they better off? Stats certainly can be thrown out from both sides of the argument.
Fred
I get PAD's "other side of freedom of speech" argument. Saying "He has the right to do with his money as he wishes; and he has the freedom to tell your publisher why he's not spending his money on you" is NOT upholding the ideals of freedom of speech. At its heart, the concept of freedom of speech is that ideas can be expressed without fear of repurcussions. If you claim to hold to that ideal, then you shouldn't seek to repress ideas that you disagree with by excercising economic pressure on those that generate those ideas. While anyone is free to choose what they want to buy, and what they don't want to buy, writing in to a person's boss to state, explicitly, that they are no longer going to be a customer of Marvel or DC or whoever because of the political musings of said author is a direct attempt to purge that political view through economic means. Anyone who claims to be a proponent of free speech cannot also support such attempts to impede free speech without falling under the label of hypocrit.
Fred wrote: "So are you supporting the U.S. troops in Iraq or the Iraqis who are fighting against them?"
As a former military person, I obviously support the former.
Using the U.S. Revolution as a rough comparison template, I'd say the U.S. military is playing the role of the French (without whom the Colonials would have definitely lost), while the democracy-seeking Iraqis are Washington and his Revolutionary band. Saddam, of course, filled the King of England's role, while the insurgents are the Tories, or perhaps even, arguably, the Hessians (who were funded by the Crown).
PAD wrote: "Well, I'm sorry it bothered you, but it was most to stave off what I figured would be a fast conservative tidal wave of "Ah hah! So you're saying Bush was right!" If I've learned anything, it's that Bushies are quick to seek any opportunity to try and twist opinions in their favor (witness the loopy endeavors to misconstrue "Bush's List" as an anti-woman's-right-to-choose argument.) So I felt constrained to point out that, no, I still don't feel the ends justified the means."
Yeah, but I also know such crowing goes both ways. Still, I understand where you're coming from.
Posted by: kingbobb
Are the insurgents really just terrorists, as the Bush Adminstration claims?
Suicide bombers and beheadings of innocents would be 100% terrorists!
Or are they Iraqi freedom fighters?
No
Or maybe a mix? I'm guessing there's a mix of true terrorists and Iraqi revolutionists.
From the English point of view, the Colonial Rebels were little more than terrorists.
Yeah, the Colonial Rebels cut off tons of innocents heads or shot tied up prisoners in the back. Comparing Colonial Rebels to Iraqi terrorists is really really poor and shows how desparate some on the left are. A recent poll by an Iraqi newspaper stated that 80+% approved of violence against the Iraqi terrorists.
It is also clear that historically, such freedom never comes to those who are not willing to fight, and possibly risk it all, for such a privilege.
And if I remember correctly, we fought the British in our revolution, the French overthrew their own monarchy, etc.
I didn't see the Iraqis overthrowing Saddam.
I don't see the Iranians doing the same to their governement either... not without our troops "liberating" them.
So, in this instance, we are essentially "forcing" freedom upon them - not a bad thing, obviously, but it makes one wonder if they really want it, or our style of government.
the in-game "bad-word" filter wouldn't let me use the term "Bushites,"
Probably the fact that it's easy to hide shit in a BuSHITe? ;)
I'd say the U.S. military is playing the role of the French (without whom the Colonials would have definitely lost),
In your example, it would be more appropriate if we gave aid to the Kurds while they fought the war themselves against Saddam.
But that is not what happened - we fought their war for them.
"A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.
The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
The children that are suffering from malnutrition will, at least, have a chance to get healthier and live full lives...unlike these children who, while most likely well-fed, wound up in a mass grave while Hussein was in power. I'm sure that the UN is using that Oil-For-Food money, channeling it to UNICEF instead of personal bank accounts and rapidly sending supplies to Iraq to help the malnourished children.
If you want to shift the stated reasons for the invasion and subsequent war (calling it, as Ann Coulter did, "at worst a humanitarian effort") then you're gonna have to explain why we don't do something about the political unrest currently going on in Mexico. That has a lot more bearing on the US than some goat farmers in the Middle East.
And if you want to focus on the horrible things Saddam Hussein and the Baath party perpetrated against the Iraqi people, you're gonna have to own up to the fact that we're the ones who put Saddam in power in the first place.
Eric!, where's your information come from? What pollsters are wandering among the insurgent campes taking count? Because of course, only "bad guys" (meaning terrorists) engage in such evil acts as targeting innocents (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and engaging in horrific acts of violence like beheadings (see public exocution via guillitine).
But, good to know that the insurgents don't allow anyone fighting for the idea of an Iraq free from US control or influence in their ranks. Your proof?
And for the record, I didn't compare Colonial Minutemen to Iraqi terrorists. I just stated that, from the English Crown's point of view, they were terrorists. Local fighters engaged in military conflicts using unconventional tactics to oppose the ruling party. Colonials attempted to reason with the Crown, and when that failed, they turned to unconventional means in order to "scare" England away. From this point of view, they were, in fact, terrorists.
That statement in no way denigrates the Colonial fighters. It's just meant to bring caution to those that would decry any act of terrorism.
If you want to shift the stated reasons for the invasion and subsequent war (calling it, as Ann Coulter did, "at worst a humanitarian effort") then you're gonna have to explain why we don't do something about the political unrest currently going on in Mexico.
Or Africa, or a few other places.
Everybody loves to quote the mass graves, but I don't seem them bringing up Somalia in the same sentence, a situation that Clinton atleast tried to do something half-assed about (and one of the biggest problems I had with his presidency).
Now, if we could just get democracy to take hold in America....
"He has the right to do with his money as he wishes; and he has the freedom to tell your publisher why he's not spending his money on you. If you disagree, then isn't it you fall on the wrong side of free speech?"
Well, no, because I'm not attempting anything punitive against him simply because I disagree with him. I could answer in greater depth, but Kingbobb's repsonse already covered it.
PAD
Hm. Is the Iraqui violent opposition monolithic? Or are there several factions, some of which are clearly terrorists, some of which are not known>
If only we could get some journalists embedded with the Iraqi insurgents, find out what they want, who they are, where their bases of operation are, when they plan their next attack, how many of them are there...
Wait, those probably wouldn't be journalists, they'd be SEALs or something...
"Would mutant-human marriages be legal or an abomination?"
Of course. Despite claims to the contrary, the Marvel Mutants are not a separate species of human. They would be more akin to dwarfs or other people with a congenital disease or deformity, albeit one that may make them better at certain things than the average human.
So does that mean that Wolverine gets to park in the handicapped parking spots?
I mean, he probably can park anywhere he wants. I'm speaking legally, bub.
Powell Pugh wrote:
"If you want to shift the stated reasons for the invasion and subsequent war (calling it, as Ann Coulter did, "at worst a humanitarian effort") then you're gonna have to explain why we don't do something about the political unrest currently going on in Mexico. That has a lot more bearing on the US than some goat farmers in the Middle East."
The best explanation is that this is just another theater in a larger war, one that's arguably been going on since Jimmy Carter's term in office. Despite our best efforts to ignore this war by covering our ears and closing our eyes, our enemies kept pushing it, and it came time to do something. Mexico isn't part of this war (except for the fact that the border with Mexico is a bit entirely too porous).
So, that's why Mexico won't work, but why Iraq?
Steven den Beste wrote a top level briefing a while back that covers most of the reasons for the war at large, and Iraq in particular for this stage of the war.
That's not an extremely detailed look (though most of the points he makes are supported by long essays elsewhere in his archives), but it's a good start. It also explains why some "goat farmers" are important to us. (Note that the expansion of democracy fits into both VI.A.5 and VI.A.6)
There's also an old column by Orson Scott Card here that asks if we invaded the wrong country. I suspect that Card will be dismissed out of hand, but I think the column makes his case well.
We have (and had) a solid pragmatic reason to get Saddam out of power and promote democracy in Iraq. The humanitarian effort is a noble one, but it's not feasible for us to end every tragedy of this type in the world (at least not by force).
Craig Reis wrote:
"I'm curious to know how it goes when they could have voted purely along religious lines, how they are going to form a constitution when entire parts of the population won't be or don't want to be represented, religious aspects, rights for women, etc."
Isn't that kind of what we have in America? Aren't there entire sections of the population that aren't represented? And don't a large number of voters vote based on religion more than anything else?
To those who seek to contrast the Colonial Revolutionaries with the Iraqi insurgents by noting the lack of beheadings, etc., I would like to point out that many Tories who failed to leave their homes often found themselves attacked by their independence-minded neighbors, even to the point of being tarred and feathered, especially if the Tories were in positions of leadership (mayors, governors).
Very few Americans who supported the Crown were able to remain in the newly-independent United States during and after the Revolution without fearing for their safety.
Then, again, it should be remembered that the rebels were all very well aware that they faced the likelihood of execution for treason should the Revolution fail, so they weren't all that sympathetic to the Loyalists among them.
"I would *love* to know where the better voter turnout was, our last election or the Iraqi election?"
God bless Google. Around 60% of the American people voted in the November election. Estimates in Iraq are around 72%.
In numbers, 122 million Americans voted while 78 million did not, versus (approximately) 9,335,078 voters and 3,630308 non-voters in Iraq.
Proportionally, two-and-a-half Iraqis voted for every Iraqi that didn't; that ratio is 1.5:1 for the US.
Why yes, I do have nothing to do.
Because for a representatvie democracy to truly work, you need representatives that come from every province, such as the colonies/states providing representatives to the congress that drafted the US Constitution. Without that, you can't have anything close to equal or fair representation of the various parties and interests in the country. And without that, you will never have a government viewed as legitimate by all, and instead of creating a stable government, Iraq will just be a perpetual area of instability and insurgency.
However, when one large minority bloc is sitting out just to avoid giving legitimacy to the majority, and to get a bargaining chip for themselves, then I have little sympathy for them.
>God bless Google. Around 60% of the American people voted in the November election.
I believe that was actually 60% of U.S. eligible and registered voters.
Fred
Oh, and because they told me in school to show my work, my numbers came from here:
Why is it that everyone is so jazzed up over the election just for being an election? No one knows who the hell was on the ballots including the people who did the voting and the situation in Iraq is just as big a mess today as it was on Saturday.
I commend the Iraqi people for bravely going out to make a statement by voting but what exactly did they vote for? I'd have been a lot more pleased if the election had been held off for a year or so while we actually made Iraq a safe and livable country that didn't need ridiculous amounts of armed guards and precautions in place. As it stands we all just watched a bit of theater that may have warmed the cockles of our hearts as "freedom lovin' americans". What exactly was accomplished?
And a bit of info for those who may not know...Iraqi's aren't unfamiliar with the practice of voting. Sure when Saddam was in power he was the only guy on the ballot but before that Iraq was perfectly capable of having democratic elections. Well at least until the US backed, CIA coup that overthrew Iraq's democratically elected leader in 1953.
Isn't that kind of what we have in America? Aren't there entire sections of the population that aren't represented? And don't a large number of voters vote based on religion more than anything else?
Yes, and I never said I was happy with it.
I hate the two-party system, and the fact that the "best" candidates we've come up with, regardess of religious, education, background, etc, in the past two elections was Gore, Kerry, and the bumbling idiot Bush.
Robin S. "Mexico isn't part of this war"
I'm not talking about "this war." I'm talking about the need for humanitarian, military intervention in an essentially lawless nation that we happen to share a rather large border with.
Derek!: "what exactly did [the Iraqi people] vote for?"
For us to get the hell out of there.
>
Which is why, in his Inauguration speech, Bush let the world know that we are no longer in the cold war frame of mind, i.e., he may be an SOB but he's our SOB. Basically, Dubya threw out a policy that has been in place since the 50s. Now, before the ritalin-deprived start going on about Saudi Arabia and China, bear in mind that it's best to take care of what you can when you can and then move on to the next problem. Writers can't write 5 books all at the same time, can they?
"I believe that was actually 60% of U.S. eligible and registered voters."
Well, yes, of course. Little point in including toddlers in the statistics. Total US population in November was around 294 million. The current Iraqi population is kind of hard to gauge, since the Pentagon doesn't see the need to track the number who have died since the war began (estimates of those killed as a direct result range from ten to thirty thousand), but the population stood at 24 million in July 2002.
"No one knows who the hell was on the ballots including the people who did the voting"
One would assume they at least read them.
One would assume they at least read them.
But no one campaigned and the names were kept under wraps until you got to the voting places. They had no clue as to what any of the people they voted for were about politically.
I get putting a good face on this considering that good news isn't all that common coming out of Iraq but this "election" is dodgy and can't be taken seriously.
Bob Jones:
Writers can't write 5 books all at the same time, can they?
How many titles is PAD working on at the moment? Seems to me that last month he had at least 4 (Ninja turtles is still going, right?), and that's without counting his What if? contribution.
Seriously, though, "take care of what you can when you can and then move on"- wasn't that the mentality behind Vietnam? Seems to me like we're more in the Cold War frame of mind (perpetual war for perpetual peace, to quote Vidal), than we have been for a few decades. Say what you will about the various conflicts that Reagan, Bush (sr), and Clinton got us into, they seemed to be in-and-out conflicts, by and large, even the original Gulf War.
btw, Craig, I think we're pretty much in agreement.
Bob Jones:
>Which is why, in his Inauguration speech, Bush let the world know that we are no longer in the cold war frame of mind, i.e., he may be an SOB but he's our SOB.
Don't go blaming me for that one. I refuse to take any credit for it. Far from denial about him being the president of this country, but I'm not going to embrace him or the policies that I disagree with as mine.
>Basically, Dubya threw out a policy that has been in place since the 50s.
Seemingly without much forethought.
>Now, before the ritalin-deprived start going on about Saudi Arabia and China, bear in mind that it's best to take care of what you can when you can and then move on to the next problem. Writers can't write 5 books all at the same time, can they?
No they can't, but it makes more sense to me for a writer to begin in a place where his readers can follow what is going on. Also, while many writers have subtext and even deeper, secretive messages/intent behind their writing, most attempt to be honest with their audience about their story. Bush comes across as fiction everytime that he speaks. The latest example? Social Security in immediate need of revamping and allowing people to take allocations away from it make sense to anyone who has been following it?
Basically, Dubya threw out a policy that has been in place since the 50s.
That policy would be to prevent the dominos from falling. Instead, he wants to do it from the Communist side: force the dominos to fall in favor of democracy.
Yet, his current policy isn't any better: get attacked by Al Qaeda, go after Iraq and ignore bin Laden, and wonder why the problem continues when you've cut the limb not from Al Qaeda, but from another body altogether.
Powell Pugh:
I'm not talking about "this war." I'm talking about the need for humanitarian, military intervention in an essentially lawless nation that we happen to share a rather large border with.
No, you didn't mention this war -- you wondered why we could justify going to help out "goat farmers in Iraq" when we ignored Mexico. If the humanitarian effort in Iraq was the entire justification, you might have a case (though, it's arguable that the situation in Iraq with Saddam was our responsibility anyway since we didn't just oust him in '91).
I brought up the war (which, despite what some people here seem to think, we didn't start -- it was happening despite our reliance on the snooze bar of ignorance and the pillow of apathy) because it provides some additional justification for the invasion of Iraq.
While the humanitarian effort in Iraq is important, it's not the only justification for the war. Going into Mexico wouldn't have ANY other justification, as far as I can tell. The situations simply aren't the same.
"But no one campaigned and the names were kept under wraps until you got to the voting places. They had no clue as to what any of the people they voted for were about politically."
That doesn't jibe with several reports I heard on NPR and assorted other sources. Can you verify this?
Has anyone read Mike Golds' "On Deja Vu"? Scroll down PAD's main page and click on it. Instead of Communism, Iraq will be Islamic in a little while. Who says history doesn't repeat itself. Especially, as in this administrations case, when you don't bother to read the lessons.
1That doesn't jibe with several reports I heard on NPR and assorted other sources. Can you verify this?
I read an ABC or MSNBC online report a few days before the election about candidate names being kept secret. I'll see if I can find it.
(though, it's arguable that the situation in Iraq with Saddam was our responsibility anyway since we didn't just oust him in '91).
Yeah, Bush would love to think that. The thing is is that Bush Sr followed UN mandates back in '91 that said that we couldn't invade Iraq itself.
So, our "responsibility" would be that we supported Saddam and Iraq against Iran.
If you DID chalk this one up to Jr making up for the woes of Sr, well, revenge is such a wonderfully motivating factor, isn't it?
"the snooze bar of ignorance and the pillow of apathy"
Umm... what?
Similes and metaphors used in the discussion of social, political and legal issues are almost always applied very badly, serving little purpose other than creating schisms. People who use them, more often than not, are just fearmongers who'd rather lean on pre-packaged non-solutions, rather than address the actual issues.
Regime change was not our objective in '91. BushSr. was at least intelligent enough to realize that.
I never post msgs here, but with all the crap that has been posted in the comments section lately i just have to.
Listen to yourselves, threatening a man and his financial livelyhood simply because he dares to have different views from the thousands of american zombies who listen to Bush's blatant L I E S.
Where is bin Laden? Where are the WPDs? The latter doesnt exist, what does exist is oil.
As an outsider it makes me sick to see the attitude the US has towards other counties who dont support their policies. People say the french are arrogant, but to me, americans are the most arrogant race in the world.
Do you know why? becuase in their schools they are brought up to BELIEVE they are the greatest nation in the world. So heaven forbid another country not playing along with them and having their own ideas. I mean look at bush's comment when he first went into afghanistan "your either with us, or against us". I mean COME ON, doesnt that seem wrong to anyone?! It isnt any wonder why half the world hates or sees the US in a bad light. Dont get me wrong, alot of great things come from the US, but a BIG dose of humility would go a long way to making this world truely a better place.
there, my first post. I'll take this chance to say to PAD, i love your work, i truely hope an x-factor book is in the works, with alot more guido! Hopefully you can steal polaris/havok/quicksilver back too :)
regards
outsider
Craig wrote: "Yeah, Bush would love to think that. The thing is is that Bush Sr followed UN mandates back in '91 that said that we couldn't invade Iraq itself."
Bush Junior had different UN resolutions in his pocket than his father, and those resolutions -- which I suggest everyone read -- clearly allowed the U.S. to use force if it believed its interests were threatened.
The UN allows such use of force, which is why the French recently bombed the hell out of the Ivory Coast military, reducing the IC's modest air force to rubble.
But, as I said in an earlier post, there was not international outcry against France. However, if the U.S. had done the exact same thing as France did, for the exact same reason, "the world" (or parts of it anyway) would have been up in arms against the U.S.
Russ:
>>Craig wrote: "Yeah, Bush would love to think that. The thing is is that Bush Sr followed UN mandates back in '91 that said that we couldn't invade Iraq itself."
>Bush Junior had different UN resolutions in his pocket than his father, and those resolutions -- which I suggest everyone read -- clearly allowed the U.S. to use force if it believed its interests were threatened.
Here again is where this discussion repeatedly gets bogged down in the political shellgame that this administration has continually used. The threatened interests position was pushed as the initial rationale for war with Iraq and there were holes being punched in it even before the declaration was formally made (A recording of bin Laden condemning Iraq as being just as much an enemy of the true Muslim cause was played on NPR a good week or so beforehand.). The administration threw out so many half-assed reasons to go in and jumped from one to another when questioned that there is no possible way to reason with their defense style as they have refused from Day 1 to give pause to consider that just maybe they were wrong.
Fred
Don't we bomb the hell out of things all the time with little or no outcry?(at least as reported by american media). Didn't the world applaud when we bombed the hell from Serbia's air force? Didn't we bomb the hell out of Afghanistan three years ago? Didn't we bomb the hell out of Iraq for over ten years?
Outsider says:
"People say the french are arrogant, but to me, americans are the most arrogant race in the world."
You are obviously confused. American is not a race. Americans are made up of a great number of different races.
As for arrogance, don't make the mistake of assuming that just because people tend to be dismissive of someone who throws out terms like "the thousands of american zombies who listen to Bush's blatant L I E S.", that automatically makes them arrogant.
This administration has made obvious that they do not care what anyone thinks. They didn't even bother to listen to their own military commanders on the proper way to wage the war and win the peace. They didn't let the UN inspectors complete their work because then they would have had no reason compelling enough to win a portion of the American public over to the notion that we HAD to go to war. They created an environment where torture was an acceptable response. We are not the worst nation in the world, but we sure aren't anywhere near the best anymore. Aren't some of you as ashamed as I am that we invaded a country that was not able to fight back, much less launch an attack at us? Aren't you ashamed that we condone torture? Aren't you ashamed that diplomacy is now "You stand with us or you're against us"? If we disagree with this administration we are called unpatriotic. If another country disagrees they are shunned. We should not have gone into Iraq and the biggest favor we could do for them now is to get out so the terrorists have to find new targets.
Before some of you start reading into my last sentence, I do not meant for the terrorists to come here. (Although with all the holes these people have left in our security, it probably wouldn't be that difficult.) I simply meant they wouldn't have anything left to fight against in Iraq.
clearly allowed the U.S. to use force if it believed its interests were threatened.
Fred summed it up pretty well.
All I want to add is that Iraq was no threat to us whatsoever.
If you believe Iraq was, well, you better find some WMD to back that up.
Aren't some of you as ashamed as I am
Yep. I'm sure millions of other Americans are as well, and rightly so.
"Before some of you start reading into my last sentence, I do not meant for the terrorists to come here. (Although with all the holes these people have left in our security, it probably wouldn't be that difficult.) I simply meant they wouldn't have anything left to fight against in Iraq."
Zarquawi (sp?) has made it clear that he will fight against any attempt at democracy in Iraq. It would be very naive to believe that the terrorists will just fold up their tents and leave once the Americans are gone. Most of the targets these days are Iraqis and will continue to be so.
It's a little disappointing that the original point has been lost. PAD is one of the relatively few liberal/left bloggers I visit who actually gave the Iraqi people the praise they richly deserve. Most seem afraid that any such sentiments will somehow cost them their membership in the He-Man Bush Haters Club. Everyone should be happy for them. They showed the world true bravery and dealt the terrorists a greater blow than all but the most effective military campaign could.
Yeah, Bush will win some points from all this. That doesn't mean anyone should try to denigrate it (some of the idiots at Democraticunderground.com have GOT to be Karl Rove plants! NOBODY could be that stupid, right? Right?). Kerry showed the worst timing since Al Gore endorsed Dean when he showed up on the talk shows and showed all the enthusiasm of a Baptist at a freakdance. Jesus! Those of us who value the idea of the two party system are going to have to start hoping for the resurrection of the Whig Party at the rate the Democrats are embracing suicidal negativism as a strategy.
Fred wrote: "Here again is where this discussion repeatedly gets bogged down in the political shellgame that this administration has continually used. The threatened interests position was pushed as the initial rationale for war with Iraq and there were holes being punched in it even before the declaration was formally made (A recording of bin Laden condemning Iraq as being just as much an enemy of the true Muslim cause was played on NPR a good week or so beforehand.)."
I'm not justifying the administration's whys or rationales, because I wasn't privvy to their intel, and frankly, I wasn't in their shoes.
What I can do, however is read the U.N. resolutions myself and see if, in fact it authorizes the U.S. to use force if it feels its interests are threatened (i.e., see if the action against Iraq was legal). Craig said Bush Senior used discretion with the U.N. resolutions while Bush Junior did not. And others here have said Bush's action in Iraq was illegal.
What I'm saying is that, according to U.N. resolutions more recent than those used to justify Desert Storm, the U.S. was allowed to use force against Iraq if it felt its interests were threatened. Thus, when the U.S, took decided to take action, it did so legally.
Now, if you want to argue whether it was a good decision, or whether the action met your moral standards, then fine. Go for it. But don't be so blind in your dislike for the administration that you no longer check your facts and try to speak the truth. If you distort your viewpoint to try and make it even stronger, you actually end up undermining your argument, no matter how righteous you believe your viewpoint to be.
PAD,
I could come up with a complicated response or go into the peripheral isues are, but let me just say two words: thank you. Thank you for pointing out what I have been feeling all weekend, awe and wonder that so many risked so much for a right that so many of us and others throughout the world take for granted. Thank you for acknowledging that this historic moment, regardless of what you think of Bush, the war, etc. - which many Iraqs might never thought they'd see - is indeed a good thing.
Thank you.
Russ:
>>Fred wrote: "Here again is where this discussion repeatedly gets bogged down in the political shellgame that this administration has continually used. The threatened interests position was pushed as the initial rationale for war with Iraq and there were holes being punched in it even before the declaration was formally made (A recording of bin Laden condemning Iraq as being just as much an enemy of the true Muslim cause was played on NPR a good week or so beforehand.)."
>*snip* Craig said Bush Senior used discretion with the U.N. resolutions while Bush Junior did not. And others here have said Bush's action in Iraq was illegal.
>What I'm saying is that, according to U.N. resolutions more recent than those used to justify Desert Storm, the U.S. was allowed to use force against Iraq if it felt its interests were threatened. Thus, when the U.S, took decided to take action, it did so legally.
>Now, if you want to argue whether it was a good decision, or whether the action met your moral standards, then fine. Go for it. But don't be so blind in your dislike for the administration that you no longer check your facts and try to speak the truth. If you distort your viewpoint to try and make it even stronger, you actually end up undermining your argument, no matter how righteous you believe your viewpoint to be.
My dislike of the administration has nothing to do with my vision. I wear corrective lenses and attempt to educate myself so that I can see a fairly balanced scene as well. Your contention was that the resolution supported Bush's actions. There has clearly been no proof that there was a threat to our nation's "interests". Bush has had many opportunities to present such evidence and has instead repeated the same ole song over and over again. One could pose that he is innocent until proven guilty, since we weren't privy to their intel, but to say with any certainty that his actions were legal is just as preposterous as stating with certainty that they weren't. My point was that he has given us absolutely no evidence to indicate that when he "felt that U.S. interests were threatened" it was anymore than a reaction gas after a bad dinner served up by the White House staff. The facts reported to the public both within the U.S. and in the newspapers around the world supported that he take a step back and get advisement. He never slowed down.
If I misinterpreted your point, I apologize. Honestly, my impression of the president before this whole fiasco began to go down was one of ambivalence at getting through 1 term with the guy. I didn't think he was a very bright guy, but we've had them in office before. My feelings towards him went south when he began reacting the way that he did after 911 and made the world a much more dangerous and black-and-white place to live.
Fred
To R. Maheras: Which specific UN resolution are you referring to which allowed force? UN Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force solely for threats against US interests (and that was the last adopted resolution relevant to the discussion of war). There was a draft resolution advocating the use of force proposed by the US, UK and Spain, but that was all it was--a draft resolution. Resolution 1441 was the keypoint of the draft resolution, that if Iraq failed to follow through on 1441's requirements, then force should be used. 1441 dealt with Iraqi compliance regarding its weapons programs and allowing UN inspectors to have complete access to all sites, but at no time was force mentioned in 1441. The problem with the draft resolution, though, was its presupposition that Iraq had not followed through with its obligations, yet weapons inspectors were in Iraq, doing their jobs until a few days before the US launched its attack (the US even recommended the inspectors leave before the deadline proposed in the draft resolution). The draft resolution also presupposed that Iraq had lied in its declarations (one supposes this presupposition was based on the same faulty, or non-, intelligence that Colin Powell used in his presentation). While the draft resolution did acknowledge Resolution 678 (authorizing use of force against Iraq relating to the invasion of Kuwait), 678 had no true bearing on the current situation.
Zarquawi (sp?) has made it clear that he will fight against any attempt at democracy in Iraq. It would be very naive to believe that the terrorists will just fold up their tents and leave once the Americans are gone. Most of the targets these days are Iraqis and will continue to be so.
No, I don't think they will actually all take the first bus out when we leave. However, they are there because we are there. With us gone, they have much less reason to be there. Democracy is the excuse, but hatred of us and our ways is the reason they went into Iraq. AFTER we got rid of Saddam. Another reason we were told we must go to war.
It's a little disappointing that the original point has been lost. PAD is one of the relatively few liberal/left bloggers I visit who actually gave the Iraqi people the praise they richly deserve. Most seem afraid that any such sentiments will somehow cost them their membership in the He-Man Bush Haters Club.
I'm not sure where you get your info. All of the liberal blogs I visit are thrilled there wasn't more violence and applaud the courage of the Iraqi people. We don't think this administration should take credit for Iraqi courage, though. This was a win for the Iraqis, NOT the Bushies.
I get PAD's "other side of freedom of speech" argument. Saying "He has the right to do with his money as he wishes; and he has the freedom to tell your publisher why he's not spending his money on you" is NOT upholding the ideals of freedom of speech. At its heart, the concept of freedom of speech is that ideas can be expressed without fear of repurcussions.
Without political repercussions, certainly. I'm not sure the same argument holds for economic repercussions, however. Put yourself in Joe Quesada's position. You're in charge of Marvel Comics, and your job is to sell comics and make money for your corporation. If customers are so turned off by one of your writers that they have stopped buying one of your flagship publications, isn't that information that you would want to know?
If you want to make the arguments that boycotts are inherently lame, I would tend to agree with you. They're logical and sometimes work, but I just don't like them for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they seem petulant somehow, as if they're really saying "You're not doing things the way I want, so I'm taking my marbles and going home." For instance, I know some Methodist churches recently boycotted a certain well-known fast food chain over reputed exploitation of migrant farm workers. In each case, the boycott is designed to use economic pressure to impose the boycotter's will on another person. You may find one actor's urge to be closer to your own ideology, but I don't feel that boycott is any more or less moral than the Gehrie position. Seriously, which ability do you want to screw with, PAD's ability to make a living by selling stories, or some poor slob of a franchisee's ability to make a living by selling food? Freedom of speech is an important right, but it's not the only right. I choose not to engage in either behavior, but I don't think Gehrie is as unAmerican as Kingbob implies.
There's a fine line between obnoxious boycotting and rational spending; there's no need to give aid and comfort to the enemy. I didn't stop reading USA Today because they hired Michael Moore to cover the Republican convention, although I've been privately boycotting Michael Moore since 1993. My first reaction on seeing "Roger and Me" was to think, "What a jackass." Who wants to financially support a jackass? It might encourage him to be a jackass again in the future. On the one hand, I refused to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" because I figured he'd use my admission money for some odious political purpose, but on the other hand I didn't write Harvey and Bob Weinstein a letter whining about their support of the jackass.
I did quit reading USA Today when they jacked the cover price 50%, but that's another story.
"No one knows who the hell was on the ballots including the people who did the voting and the situation in Iraq is just as big a mess today as it was on Saturday."
Whoever was on the ballot, I'll bet they got screwed by Nader.
PAD
That statement in no way denigrates the Colonial fighters. It's just meant to bring caution to those that would decry any act of terrorism.
Then it's a tremendous non sequitur. If you want to make the argument that, to the British, George Washington was a traitor, you're right. But why in the would would you want to exercise caution in decrying an ACT of terrorism?
originally posted by Michael Pullmann: Around 60% of the American people voted in the November election. Estimates in Iraq are around 72%.
While 72% was the number being tossed around during the voting as an estimate of how many might be turning out, it was admitted at the time this was just a guess. Following the voting, the figure I have seen is 57%. I have not yet seen how this was calculated, however.
originally posted by Bob Jones "A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.
The question being discussed was whether the Iraqis are better off following the US invasion. You cite a massacre from the 1980s as evidence they are.
So, yes -- they are better off in that regard than the were in the 1980s. The question, however, is whether they are better off than they were in 2001 when we invaded.
Do you know of any similar massacres that occurred in the years 2001, 2000, 1999, or 1998? If not, then what you have shown is that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam under UN sanctions and UN inspections -- the situation prior to the US invasion -- than they were a decade previously. In other words, you are presenting evidence that the UN sanctions were working.
What you have not shown, although it is the point you appear to want to make, is that the Iraqis are better off after the US invasion than they were in the years immediately before the invasion. Perhaps the reason you are having difficulty showing evidence to support this view is that it's not true?
PS: I havent had a chance to post here in quite a while. It's nice to see that some things -- such as the lack of a working preview function -- haven't changed.
I believe that the turnout in Iraq is a good thing and the very fact that the election came off at all is certainly a step in the right direction.
However, I would like to temper this optimism with the observation that in late 1967 the South Vietnamese went to the polls with a slightly higher turnout (over 80% if memory serves), again with the aim of democracy taking hold. Unfortunately, we all know what happened after that, and the ensuing conflicts that lasted another 7 or 8 years.
I'm not saying this will be the case, but it is possible.
Only time will tell.
I was just about to mention the Vietnamese parallel Joe. You're right of course.
It seems once more that those who do not learn the lessons of history...
The vietnam/iraq comparisons are overdone. As Christopher Hitchens points out, it is generally aknowledged that Ho Chi Minh would have won had their been an actual vote of all the peole of Vietnam (I'm pretty sure he was not on the ballot). Sunday's election should satisfy all but the most stubborn that the Iraqi people do not support the forces behind the terrorists. Big Difference.
Me: It's a little disappointing that the original point has been lost. PAD is one of the relatively few liberal/left bloggers I visit who actually gave the Iraqi people the praise they richly deserve. Most seem afraid that any such sentiments will somehow cost them their membership in the He-Man Bush Haters Club.
Keren: I'm not sure where you get your info. All of the liberal blogs I visit are thrilled there wasn't more violence and applaud the courage of the Iraqi people.
Well, as I said, I was talking about the ones I go to. Your results may vary. Admittedly, if one hangs out at democraticunderground.com one does tend to see the more Moonbatty elements of the left. Some claimed that Karl Rove (aka The Boogeyman) had deleiberately made them think that the election would be ruined by violence, thereby making them (the left) look stupid when their predictions of same did not occur. (Mr. Rove was unavailable for comment, being busy drinking the blood of elderly residents of a nursing home).
Karen says: Democracy is the excuse, but hatred of us and our ways is the reason they went into Iraq.
So you believe that most of the terrorists are foreign fighters? I'm not sure, though I'd prefer that to be true. I'd suspect the vast majority are displaced bathist party members wishing for a return to the good old days when a man could rape and mutilate the same people who are now jumping around with purple stained fingers.
Then it's a tremendous non sequitur. If you want to make the argument that, to the British, George Washington was a traitor, you're right. But why in the would would you want to exercise caution in decrying an ACT of terrorism?
Simply because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I'm sure some of those "terrorists" in Iraq are fighting simply because they see us as just another conquerer, not a liberator.
But it is convenient for this administration to call anybody who doesn't fall in line in Iraq a terrorist.
Well, Craig, you do have to admit, it is a bit more specific than "evil".
"It is also clear that historically, such freedom never comes to those who are not willing to fight, and possibly risk it all, for such a privilege."
Not necessarily. Both the overthrow of the British colonials in India and the end of Apartheid in South Africa were remarkably bloodless affairs. Just the people deciding "we ain't going along any more" and walking away as a unit to the point where the rulers had no choice but to either go along, or kill/emprison everybody, or watch the country simply do a crash-and-burn. True, that won't necessarily work with all dictator types, but it does show that, depending on the circumstances, freedom can be won by the simple expedient of showing a united front and saying "no more". And being able to wait until the desired results are attained.
David, I wasn't implying that boycotts and calls for them were unAmerican. If anything, history has proven that Americans hold to their ability to boycott tightly, and concept like freedom of speech and free enterprise protect the boycott. What I meant was simply the idea of a boycott clashes with the basic concept of free speech. The only consitutional protections we have are from government restrictions of free speech.
But to say that one supports and believes in free speech, and then turn around and try to exert economic pressure on someone who holds beleifs you disagree with, is the very heart of hypocrisy. I'm not talking about the individual who decides not to be a customer of those he disagrees with, but rather the person that actively seeks to get somone fired, or prevent someone from working because of their ideals or political leanings. It's an attempt to coerce someone away from a line of thought through economic pressure, essentially trying to eliminate that idea by preventing those with that idea from earning a living. If enough engage in that activity, the "offending" person must literally starve, conform, or suffer in silence. It destroys the foundation of the concept of free speech.
Covering several points:
Posted by kingbobb at January 31, 2005 08:48 AM
So, what happens if the Iraqi council elected by this vote turns around and drafts a constitution that calls for the appointement of a military warlord with all the power and trappings that Saddam held? Do we sit back and call that a success of democracy, or do we then invade again and start all over?
Before i went to Viet Nam, i was sent to Counter-Insurgency School by the Navy.
One of the things that we were told as part of the curriculum was that a US-backed referendum on Viet Nam's statue was held in 1954. And the Bad Guys won.
And the US said "Oops, that didn't come out right" and more-or-less unilaterally set aside the results and began sticking its toes into the quagmire.
Posted by Brian Czako at January 31, 2005 10:11 AM
And was it Voltaire (or maybe Bugs Bunny) who said, "I do not agree with what you have
to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?
Neither, actually -- i don't have the reference handy, but it was a later writer who said "As Voltaire might have said..."
Posted by Robbnn at January 31, 2005 11:32 AM
Well, all of those things are illegal now, rather than government sanctioned. Girls are being educated.
Ummm, it was my understanding that, under the Saddam regime, women and girls had about as much freedom in everyday life as males did -- at least so far as government activity went; as the column by an Iraqi woman referenced up-list points out, there was quite a bit of mistreatment of women and girls by their own families and relatives because they started getting "uppity".
Posted by Craig J. Ries at January 31, 2005 12:47 PM
I'd say the U.S. military is playing the role of the French (without whom the Colonials would have definitely lost)
In your example, it would be more appropriate if we gave aid to the Kurds while they fought the war themselves against Saddam.
In their support of the Us presence in Iraq, the Kurds would do well to remember the word "Montagnard"
Posted by Derek! at January 31, 2005 05:31 PM
That doesn't jibe with several reports I heard on NPR and assorted other sources. Can you verify this?)
I read an ABC or MSNBC online report a few days before the election about candidate names being kept secret. I'll see if I can find it.
According to "All Things Considered" Monday evening, the ballot did not list candidates, but rather political groups/coalitions, many/most of which were identified only by icons on the ballot.
Posted by David Bjorlin at February 1, 2005 12:13 AM
That statement in no way denigrates the Colonial fighters. It's just meant to bring caution to those that would decry any act of terrorism.
Then it's a tremendous non sequitur. If you want to make the argument that, to the British, George Washington was a traitor, you're right. But why in the would would you want to exercise caution in decrying an ACT of terrorism?
Possibly because the example of the US Revolution demonstrates that the usual attitude runs "I am a freedom fighter, you are a revolutionary, he/she/it is a terrorist", and one person's terrorist is another's Heroic Freedom Fighter.
Consider the King David Hotel and the Jerusalem railroad station, and then consider Menachem Begin's attitude as Prime Minister of Israel.
Powell Pugh:
Similes and metaphors used in the discussion of social, political and legal issues are almost always applied very badly, serving little purpose other than creating schisms. People who use them, more often than not, are just fearmongers who'd rather lean on pre-packaged non-solutions, rather than address the actual issues.
Actually, I just love The Tick, and the link amused me. I thought it might do the same for others (because it does sound like something Tick-like, though not quite up to Edlund's standards, and even if you disagree with the arguments, the style is amusing). When I resort to prepackaged arguments, I (try to) do so with links, preferably to places that provide a little more than just quips or party line arguments.
You know, you're the one who asked why we didn't just go fix things in Mexico. When I explained, you said my reason wasn't valid because YOU didn't mention it. When I then justified bringing something extra to the table (the situations weren't analogous, and the war at large was at least part of the reason why), you focused on the 9 words that I'd included as a joke (with a link to provide context for it), and completely avoided the substance of the comment.
Then you accuse ME of avoiding the issues?
Powell Pugh wrote (and Craig J. Ries made similarly minded statements just before that.):
Regime change was not our objective in '91. BushSr. was at least intelligent enough to realize that.
It was obvious, even then, that it should've been our policy, and there was, as I recall, an attempt to affect regime change indirectly, when we offered to support Iraqi Freedom Fighters against Saddam. However, when the time came, Bush Sr. opted to let us be shackled by U.N. demands.
Whether it was an explicit objective or not then, the information I have is that it should've been. Maybe that's a case of hindsight (the idea of mass graves or prisons for children doesn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy about Saddam), but I'm pretty sure we had every reason to know he was evil. Regime change should have been a goal, and our leaving that man in power so he could kill a few hundred thousand of his own people was a travesty.
Craig J. Ries wrote:
I'm sure some of those "terrorists" in Iraq are fighting simply because they see us as just another conquerer, not a liberator.
Actually, I suspect that most of those fighting against us in Iraq are either outsiders interested in keeping the people in Iraq from gaining a little say in their own lives or displaced Saddam supporters who, as Bill Mulligan put it, are "wishing for a return to the good old days when a man could rape and mutilate the same people who are now jumping around with purple stained fingers." In either case, I'd wager that those fighting us who actually have an interest in freedom are an extreme minority.
Maybe I'm wrong, though. It has happened before.
Mike Weber:
Posted by Brian Czako at January 31, 2005 10:11 AM
And was it Voltaire (or maybe Bugs Bunny) who said, "I do not agree with what you have
to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?
Neither, actually -- i don't have the reference handy, but it was a later writer who said "As Voltaire might have said..."
Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote those words (or something very similar. I think it was "I disapprove of what you say...") in Friends of Voltaire, as I recall. It was a paraphrase of Voltaire's ideas from an essay, and closely related to something he'd said in a letter, as I recall.
Too bad the Iraqi's didn't EARN the right to vote, America freed them, they did nothing to fight Saddam and earn this...
Not buying PAD's books because you disagree with him is fine from a Free Speech point of viewm trying to get him fired for it is Ecomonomic Terrorism (I can play Bush's word games too...)
*grumble* damn lack of working preview...
economic
>Ecomonomic Terrorism (I can play Bush's word games too...)
Although that does sound like a Bushism, I had Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat in my head when I read it. :)
Fred
O, dear Lord, I will now hear Murphy's Buh'Wheat voice over every Bladestar post....
And speaking of Bladestar, he does have a good point: The Iraqi's didn't "earn" their freedom, the US handed it to them (some would say the US brought them anarchy, but that's another argument).
Unless you count as "earning" the 20 years of fear and suffering brought about by Saddam's regime. But as was discussed in relation to the tsunami victims, that was something that happened to them, not something they earned.
So I guess it depends on which side of the fence you fall on. Do you have to work at something to earn it, or is suffering pain and death enough of a cost to mean that you've earned salvation?
SPPPOOOOONNNN!
"David, I wasn't implying that boycotts and calls for them were unAmerican. If anything, history has proven that Americans hold to their ability to boycott tightly, and concept like freedom of speech and free enterprise protect the boycott. What I meant was simply the idea of a boycott clashes with the basic concept of free speech. The only consitutional protections we have are from government restrictions of free speech."
"But to say that one supports and believes in free speech, and then turn around and try to exert economic pressure on someone who holds beliefs you disagree with, is the very heart of hypocrisy. I'm not talking about the individual who decides not to be a customer of those he disagrees with, but rather the person that actively seeks to get someone fired, or prevent someone from working because of their ideals or political leanings. It's an attempt to coerce someone away from a line of thought through economic pressure, essentially trying to eliminate that idea by preventing those with that idea from earning a living. If enough engage in that activity, the "offending" person must literally starve, conform, or suffer in silence. It destroys the foundation of the concept of free speech."
I agree with much of this...but where exactly does the line from boycott to hypocrisy get crossed? It seems as though you are saying it is fine to boycott, say, Dominoes Pizza because the founder is a right to lifer, but if you take out ads urging others to do so or send letters to organizations telling them not to use Dominoes for catering events or you will not participate in said events, you are crossing the line into blackmail.
But no boycott can have any effect if it isn't publicized and if the "offending" party isn't aware of the reasons for the boycott.
Let try an example. You find out that the owner of a local hamburger joint is an active member of a far right white supremacy group. Nonviolent but otherwise your classic Jew-hating anti-minority whackjobs. Obviously, (I would think) you might want to avoid eating there. Would it be a violation of one's commitment to free speech to also send letters to the editor informing others of this fact?
If a teacher is a member of NAMBLA does a school have the right to fire them (I'm assuming here that the teacher in question has no record of actually ACTING on the principles he espouses. His "crime" would be strictly limited to the free expression of his beliefs, such as they are).
In both cases I would see this as a violation of someone’s right to free expression, repugnant as they are. But in neither case would I lose any sleep over it or be likely to leap to the defense of either guy. So maybe I'm a hypocrite.
Boycotts alone are not hypocritical. Those that claim to adhere to the ideals of free speech while calling for boycotts are.
I don't see an individual's private choice to not be a customer of someone with views repellant to that individual as a boycott. I think you're right: boycotts are public, organized efforts to change the behavoir of someone or some organization through economic or public pressure.
In your first example, I'd say, yes, if a customer discovers that about the owner, and then publishes that in the local paper with the intent of driving him out of business because of his belief, that's a huge violation of the ideal of free speech. If all he does is express ideas, and does not discriminate against minorities, then taking action to deprive him of other cusotmers does violated the ideals of free speech.
Yeesh, I don't think I want to touch the NAMBLA example. Too complex. Raises the issue of free speech clashing with child endangerment. I think protecting kids is going to win out in that one.
Even boiled down to its core values, I think everyone recognizes that the idea of free speech is not unfettered. Other basic rights can and will trump free speech at times. So I don't think your lack of sympathy in the above examples makes you a hypocrit. If the teacher works at an all girls school, maybe the firing would be unjustified, but if he's teaching a coed class of 4th graders, I doubt it.
JosephW wrote: “ Which specific UN resolution are you referring to which allowed force? UN Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force solely for threats against US interests…(etc., etc.)….. the current situation.”
Oh, man, I haven’t read all those resolutions in six months (as you know, they are long, repetitious, and at times, boring), but let’s see how good my memory is.
Prior to 1441, I believe at least two resolutions gave the U.S. permission to use force, if it felt its interests were threatened. The White House cited, I believe, 17 different resolutions they say Iraq did not comply with since 1991. Many of those violations involved inspection cooperation issues because Saddam had been jerking around inspectors (and had even expelled them) countless times since the end of the first Gulf War. When you mention that weapons inspectors were in Iraq just a few days before we attacked – inferring that Saddam was benignly complying with the U.N. resolutions – what you don’t mention were the countless lies, inspection roadblocks and other non-compliance shenanigans Saddam heaped upon said inspectors for years – including, as I mentioned, the inspector expulsions.
Resolution 1441 actually weakened the U.S.’s case for invading Iraq (which is probably why it was unanimously approved – those cagey Europeans), but it was still fuzzy enough that it gave the U.S. leeway to attack if the U.N. Security Council met over the issue – or so pro-invasion lawyers contend.
The draft resolution you mention, which was later withdrawn by the U.S. when it knew France (and others) would probably veto it, was going to specifically spell out that the U.S. could use force against Iraq because of Iraq’s years of noncompliance. I suppose it was to be the legal “icing on the cake.” The fact that it was never voted on was a setback of sorts, but the administration believed that even without that final resolution, it had enough legal wiggle room with existing resolutions to take action. I tend to agree.
Face it, it was obvious that the U.N.’s strategy was to “kick the can down the road” forever regarding Iraq, and with the eye-opening, billion-dollar conflicts of interest it had with Iraq regarding the “Oil for Food Program” (not to mention the billions in contracts France, Russia and Germany had with Saddam), the U.N.’s intransigence was not surprising at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, though. It has happened before.
*shrug* I did say "some" of them. But it makes no difference to the Bush Administration. The whole "you're with us or against us" mentality that's serving us oh so well.
Face it, it was obvious that the U.N.’s strategy was to “kick the can down the road” forever regarding Iraq,
And the US strategy was to make Saddam guilty by whatever means possible. Up to and including insinuating that Saddam was behind 9/11.
In the end, Saddam didn't have WMD and he was not an immediate threat.
and with the eye-opening, billion-dollar conflicts of interest it had with Iraq regarding the “Oil for Food Program” (not to mention the billions in contracts France, Russia and Germany had with Saddam),
Yet, once those contracts were negated, Halliburton stepped right up to save the day! Talk about conflict of interest.
The US has as much blame in what has happened in Iraq, and specifically how it happened, as the UN.
It's a shame that people are trying to paint the picture a different way.
"The vietnam/iraq comparisons are overdone."
Really? Y'think? Because Glenn brought up the following:
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967
PAD
I agree with much of what David B said in response to Kingbob. I do think there is a misunderstanding of "free speech" though. Free speech doesn't mean anyone has to publish my writing or speaking. If disgruntled decided he wanted Peter David locked down, thrown in prison, or hands removed so he can't type, then yes indeedy that's abridging free speech, but urging a publisher to drop him (while nothing I'd do) isn't abriding free speech, only free publishing which doesn't exist.
I'm far too selfish to boycott PAD's writing. I have passed on a couple political preachy issues, but his writing is so enjoyable that to drop him because I disagree with his politics is harming me, not him.
Robnn, I guess I'd say the publisher has a role in deciding what they want to publish, and should monitor that. If PAD submits a story that Marvel feels would be offensive to some, and could hurt sales, then the editor should get back to PAD and inform him of that. PAD (or any author, for that matter) can either make changes to accomodate the publisher, or take his work elsewhere. That's not really limiting speech.
And I'm not even really saying there's anything wrong with trying to influence through boycotting actions, just pointing out that claiming to support free speech while calling for a boycott based on suppressing ideas is hypocritical.
I fear people are VASTLY oversimplifying the political state in Iraq. There are several motivating forces there and they simply do not boil down to pro-US/anti-US, pro-freedom/anti-freedom or anything else that ideology dictates.
No, the terrorists are not going to leave. But they aren't there just because the US are there; when the US leaves, terrorists elements are going to remain. Why? Because they do well in an area where it is chaotic and the native power structure is weak or still forming. That's basic tactics (and something few people have recognized, particularly in the current administration).
There is a considerable religious component to the Iraqui situation. The natural movement is toward a heavily Islamic flavored government (if not domination), for which I see nothing being done to prepare for (from the US perspective). There is also a strong multicultural problem: Sunni vs. Shiite, Kurds vs. everyone else, etc. If you thought American multiculturalism is problematic, you simply haven't been paying attention where multiculturalism is a REAL problem.
It's my contention that current conservatives, most specifically the current administration, are the ones LEAST likely to appreciate the multiple factors at play here. They understand and use military force well, but they do not seem to comprehend or even acknowledge the multiplicity of factors that are at work here or that may come into play.
Tsunami's are a natural phenomenon, Dictators aren't. America (while it had help) started throwing off the British itself...
There are only two factors in Bush's empty head:
1) What George says
and the other?
2) Those who don't agree with GWB are evil
those are the only factors Bush sees
To RMaheras: Does this then mean you don't have any substantial backing for your assertion? No Security Council resolution passed following the results of Desert Storm has ever authorized any specific use of force (via that specific phrase or the phrase "all necessary means") against Iraq since SCR 678. Check the website http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html; that's where I've read the various Resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
Still siding with Bladestar on this one. Iraqi Freedom is something the Bush administration imposed on Iraq. They didn't struggle for it, fight for it, claim it from the hands of the dictators ruling over them. And maybe they couldn't have, and maybe they will be better off this way.
On the other hand, given that about 40 people died as a result of suicide attacks on election day, and every voter knew going to the polls would make them a potential target, I still think the Iraqis could show US citazens a thing or two about the respect the right to vote deserves. Due to a clerical error, I was prevented from voting in the elections held 2 years ago. My appreciation for my right to vote increased greatly that day, and hopefully I will never take that right for granted, as some in this country do.
"And I'm not even really saying there's anything wrong with trying to influence through boycotting actions, just pointing out that claiming to support free speech while calling for a boycott based on suppressing ideas is hypocritical"
not even close to true, free speech means the government will not lock you up for saying something, it means they will not stop you from speaking out, that is free speech, you have no understanding of free speech at all, not even the basics it seems.
for some one to boycott, they are using their free speech, just because i believe in free speech does not mean i can not call for you to lose a job, because again, free speech means the government won't slap the cuffs on you and haul you off, not that i have to listen to you or not boycott.
come on mcfly think!
Welcome to the conversation, Wally. Please do a scroll up and check the "what's gone on before."
I wasn't discussing the Constitutional concept of free speech, of which I have more than a passing familiarity with. Just the core concept of freedom of speech and expression. If your concept of free speech begins and ends with the protections contained within the Constitution, then you're correct. The larger discussion of which you jumped into the middle of dealt more with the core principles of free speech.
On the Iraq/Vietnam comparisons, PAD wrote:
Really? Y'think? Because Glenn brought up the following:
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967
PAD
Weren't the Vietnam 1967 elections were marred by extensive voter fraud and the fact that popular Buddhist and pacifist candidates were kept off the ballots?
(I'm pretty sure they were, but I could very easily be wrong. My institutional history education is severely lacking, and most of my free-time history reading centers around the American Revolution and the surrounding years -- just a few years short of Vietnam, you know.)
I've heard no accusations of fraud (from anyone who has any way to back up those accusations), and I'm not aware of any popular candidates that we kept off the ballots in this case.
I've heard no accusations of fraud (from anyone who has any way to back up those accusations), and I'm not aware of any popular candidates that we kept off the ballots in this case.
Well, it sounds like we don't even know who the candidates are - only party names.
So, we know about as much as the Iraqis do when it comes to knowing who they've just elected for the General Assembly.
To be honest, I don't know that candidate names matter all that much, as long as the voters had a party name and the party platforms were available.
I don't know about you, but it comes time to vote, I would have to do a lot of work to know the specific stances of those running for certain offices. I try to do this where I can, but when I can't, I rely on the party names. The fact that "John Doe" is running against "Jim Smith" in a particular race doesn't give me as much information as knowing their parties will. I try to be as informed about every election (local, state and federal) that I vote in, and there are almost always one or two elections where I'm reduced to voting for a party. In a national setting, where a large number of parties are running, I don't know that giving the candidate names would've provided any significant information (other than to those who were trying to stop the elections -- killing off the candidates would be a good start for that, I think.)
In a safer environment where the people had more widespread access to free information, I'd prefer that they have data on the candidates themselves (and I imagine that future elections will move in that direction), but the system for this election is better than what they had just a couple of years ago.
Do we have any evidence that a party was restricted?
"The vietnam/iraq comparisons are overdone."
Really? Y'think? Because Glenn brought up the following:
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
Yes, I do think so. Unless one can show compelling evidence that the Iraqi vote is analogous to the Vietnam one. As I mentioned right after the sentence you quote "As Christopher Hitchens points out, it is generally acknowledged that Ho Chi Minh would have won had there been an actual vote of all the people of Vietnam." Right or wrong, the communists were the choice of the majority. Is there ANYONE who actually believes that the Iraqis would put the terrorists in charge if they could? The ones who threatened to kill them if they voted at all? Anyone? Bueller?
I'm waiting for some right wingers to take these Vietnam=Iraq ideas and turn them into an equally bogus argument for increased military presence--we don't want all the other Arab governments to become like Laos and Cambodia.
Yes, those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it but one can also argue that those who believe that history repeats itself are doomed to be surprised. Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam or Germany or Japan or Afghanistan will almost certainly prove more wrong than right.
At any rate, you can read Hitchen's reply at http://slate.msn.com/id/2112895/
"Do we have any evidence that a party was restricted?"
I think I heard on NPR that to qualify a party could not have an armed militia. Reasonable request and a good incentive to get some of the weapons off the streets.
Kingbob, guess we'll agree to disagree, then. Thank you for the civil discourse, though. I appreciate gentle reasoning over slapping each other around.
Driving home yesterday, I was rather shocked to see a woman walking down the street in scarves draped around her neck and a belt around her waist and literally nothing else. She was functionally nude (and quite pretty, to boot. I pray for her safety, because this was NOT a nice part of town... hooker or not, she was putting herself in ridiculous danger). If she was doing this in her own home, no problem. But on a public street? No. I have no difficulty with someone repressing her right to free expression in this instance, for the sake of traffic and her own protection... okay, this had NOTHING more than a minorly tangental point of contact with our discussion, but I really wanted to tell someone about it :) (And honestly, no is no, but as much as I hate this phrase, she was asking for trouble. If she were raped, I'd have no problem prosecuting the offender, but I'd be shaking my head while I did it...)
Robnn, I don't think there's anything contradictory between supporting free speech and recognizing that there are limits to it. I'm not sure that walking around with mulitple wardrobe failures would qualify as protected free speech. But even if it did, it could be trumped by other rights and needs, such as keeping the peace. Nudity aside, she could have been charged with disturbing the peace, I suppose, which free speech doesn't protect.
Although this goes more to the Constitutional protections of free speech, and how they intersect with other rights.
Now, if you had suggested that, in addition to someone making the woman cover up some, they then call her employer and inform them of her massive wardrobe failure....
And what's wrong with a naked woman?
Fall already america, if you are so pathetic you fear nudity...
===============================================
Who Will the Iraqis Print on Their Money ?
President Bush ? Dick Cheney ?
===============================================
One of the most important 'ties-that-bind' that
has held America together since 1776 is the collection
of portraits that are prominently displayed on our Dollars
and Coins. These portraits present those courageous original
Americans who bet their very souls to make America a realized
possibility.
The Portraits [on our American money] are a constant reminder
of the life, times, travail, and beliefs of those indigenous
Americans who put-forth Leadership. Such an ever-present
reminder is Inspiring and has helped to keep our country bound-
together [like some sort of magic encapsulation- Glue] for over
200 years !!
[....sorry I "shouted" {'!!'}; I
guess I just got carried-away by
all the pent-up Inspiration. Does
using an exclamation-mark indicate
that I have lost my Argument ?....]
So I ask, at this point, what Portraits will the Iraqis print
on their money ? US President Bush ? Dick Cheney ? Can
someone name at least [5] prominent Iraqi leaders who were
ardently advancing the cause of Democracy prior to their
emancipation by US Forces ?
The Answers don't really matter that much, anyways. Why?
Answer: the makers of American mind-control public service messages
are already plying their "craft" to brainwash Iraqi television-viewers
IN Iraq. Using all-powerful Television and Public Service Messages,
the reformation of Iraq is ultimately assured.
John Berry:
>So I ask, at this point, what Portraits will the Iraqis print
on their money ? US President Bush ? Dick Cheney ? Can
someone name at least [5] prominent Iraqi leaders who were
ardently advancing the cause of Democracy prior to their
emancipation by US Forces ?
Not sure of the full intent of your post, but I'm not sure that there are % Iraqis to put on their bills. The Iraqis ain't runnin' the show. They may eventually find a few individuals who will step up to the plate to handle the mess they are currently in, but this plan wasn't theirs.
Fred
Hmmm...I was thinking that the pertinent parallel between Vietnam and Iraq was the lack of understanding of the political dynamics of the country, leading to results that the administration does not want. It's not a binary situation there (the US vs. the terrorists); there are all sorts of political outcomes that nobody in the US would want...
"And what's wrong with a naked woman?"
"Fall already America, if you are so pathetic you fear nudity..."
Oooookay...we're kind of busy but we'll get right on it,sir.
Back to reality...not that you were under any obligation to do so but I would wonder if a naked woman wandering around a bad neighborhood might not be in serious need of help. Either she's off her meds or maybe just been raped...from your description I'm guessing she was more likely a prostitute, though you have to wonder...
The last time a half naked woman wandered off the streets anywhere near me it was a girl who had been gang raped by her bother's gang in retaliation against the family trying to get the brother out of the gang (in other words, the brother, while not one of the rapists, was an accomplice). Nasty, nasty stuff. We took her in to the lab I worked at and called the cops, tried to console her (but what exactly are you supposed to say). Anyway...sad to say that's my first thought when I see a naked woman in public, I'd like to go back to the days when it would trigger happier thoughts.
What kind of lab were you working at? (If I recall correctly, you are a teacher, but I don't know what subject you teach.)
In this case it was a lab in a soybean oil refinery. I made sure the soy bean oil was hydrogenated to the proper melting point and other stuff I've long forgotten. Of course, now we know that hydrogenated oil is probably very very bad for you so every time Nightline does some report like "Hydrogenated Soybean Oil: The Silent Killer" the faces of those I have wronged haunt my dreams.
Regarding John Berry's comments about future Iraqi currency, who mandated any requirement that ANY person's image must appear on the currency? Many countries have no specific people represented on their currencies, and among those which do, there's no limitation that requires the people be politically connected (German and French currencies have featured artists and scientists as often as, if not more often than, politicians). Several Middle Eastern countries (Egypt, the UAE, Lebanon) often avoid depicting any people, preferring to use historic sites or natural features and landscapes or commonly seen images (dhows at sea, animals).
Of course, now we know that hydrogenated oil is probably very very bad for you so every time Nightline does some report like "Hydrogenated Soybean Oil: The Silent Killer" the faces of those I have wronged haunt my dreams.
It's ok, you're not a politician, so you have a conscience and all that.
I mean, let's face it, politicians sell their souls to the devil... or special interest groups, whichever come first. ;)
The concept of potential fraud in the Iraqi election is an interesting one, if only for the fact that the results have yet to be announced.
This of course opens the possibility of ballot manipulation at the counting stage. For one thing, supposing that the folks we consider to be less acceptable candidates win, what then?
This thought brings up the question: exactly who is counting the votes? Iraqis, Americans, Iraqis under supervision of Americans, Americans under supervision of Iraqis, or an independent group of third party observers?
Also, where are the ballots? If I was a terrorist hell bent on disrupting the election, I would target the storage facility or facilities where that immense number of ballots must be stored.
Interesting possibilities.....
Craig,
"I mean, let's face it, politicians sell their soul to the devil...or specal interest groups, whichever comes first."
I saw you had a smiley, so will not go off. But I feel this kind of statement is the kind of lazy, cliched nonsense spouted from the loudmouth at a bar to Jay Leno. Most politicians I know are honorable people who do what they think is right. If they are unsure about an issue, then , yes, they will listen to "lobbyists" make their arguments, be it the National Organizatio For Women, MADD, the AARP or businesses or communities that may be affected by legislation.
It truly is a thankless job.
Most politicians are heroes.
Most politicians are heroes.
Sure, but then there's the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. "Special interests" aren't always good things.
Bush's latest bit? To halt this ridiculous and insane spending, he wants to have a near-freeze on an increase in government spending... except for national defense.
I wonder, does national defense include invading other countries?
Anyways, I think you find more of the soul-selling in Washington than anywhere else, because that's where the ones that have the most money already are, and the ones with more money to hand out are going to make their voices heard.
Take the new Washington Nationals, for example. MLB is a "special interest" group as any of them. I wouldn't be surprised that, upon building of the new stadium, it has more luxury boxes than any other baseball stadium in the country.
Why? Well, you gotta have those perks for Congressmen to make sure that MLB keeps that monopoly exemption status (when stricter drug testing should have been forced down MLB's throat).
"Most politicians are heroes"
Ah yes, hiding behind the secret service and sending other people's children off to die is SO heroic.
Wasting tax dollars on perks and pork is SO heroic.
Bloody waste of life is what politicians are.
Make it truly democratic and representative. No one is allowed to run for office, citizenship and SSN are drawn at random from eligible candidates in the appropriate district (2 dsenators from each state, 1 rep from each district, Pres and Vice Pres from the entire national pool..., etc)
Then maybe you'll have something closer to the way it should be...
Bladestar wrote:
Ah yes, hiding behind the secret service and sending other people's children off to die is SO heroic.
As opposed to how the entire nation hides behind the adult soldiers who volunteer to do a job (an admittedly risky job, but that's not the same as "sending children to die") to protect us all?
The Secret Service exists to protect something more than an individual; the death of an important member of the government, especially at the top levels of the government, has a significant effect on the nation's security as a whole.
Make it truly democratic and representative. No one is allowed to run for office, citizenship and SSN are drawn at random from eligible candidates in the appropriate district (2 dsenators from each state, 1 rep from each district, Pres and Vice Pres from the entire national pool..., etc)
Right. Because there's NO WAY we could do worse than the elected officials we have in office right now. (Oh, wait, yes, we could. We just narrowly avoided doing just that on November 2nd of last year, didn't we?)
I'll grant you that the current system tends to get people whose greatest strengths aren't so much in the areas we'd prefer, but rather in being charismatic. A purely random system could never be better, though, and a system that selects from an "elite" group of people who are deemed "qualified" (by whoever decides such things) would be horribly corrupt.
And that "horribly corrupt" elite is what we currently have. And Bush is worse than Kerry would've been.
The only plus is no more GW next election.
As opposed to how the entire nation hides behind the adult soldiers who volunteer to do a job (an admittedly risky job, but that's not the same as "sending children to die") to protect us all?
Except, they aren't protecting us by being in Iraq.
Oh, wait, yes, we could. We just narrowly avoided doing just that on November 2nd of last year, didn't we?)
No, we didn't avoid it: Bush is still in office.
Ah yes, hiding behind the secret service and sending other people's children off to die is SO heroic.
That was a particularly stupid cheap shot. Rather have them than somebody who'd say this.
As if I care what an astronaut's breakfast drink thinks...
Because there's NO WAY we could do worse than the elected officials we have in office right now. (Oh, wait, yes, we could. We just narrowly avoided doing just that on November 2nd of last year, didn't we?)
No, we didn't avoid it: Bush is still in office.
That doesn't even make sense, we didn't avoid worse than the current elected officials because they are in office????
Wouldn't they be equal, not worse?
PAD,
If you are still checking up on this, I wanted to say I agree with the first half of your post. I was in the Czech Republic for the last week and did not hear much news. While we may disagree on why we are there, etc., your comments about the Iraqi's are exactly on target. It is a shame that so few vote here. While I think Bush still would have won, I would prefer a Kerry victory with 80% of the population voting than a Bush victory with 49% (or whatever it was).
Iowa Jim (aka Jim in Iowa)
Wouldn't they be equal, not worse?
When Bush backed his ass into office 4 years ago, I really thought, "how bad could it be?"
But now that he has another 4 years I think, "how much worse is it going to get?"
Let's hope that:
A) The Iraqi votes are being accurately counted and whoever is declared winner was the person actually elected rqather than who Bush & Co. WANT elected
And
B) The Iraqi people voted more intelligently than the American people.
Congrats Iraq, you about to learn just how corrupt an elcted goverment can be...
Fun with reading comprehension. In response to kingbob's statement That statement in no way denigrates the Colonial fighters. It's just meant to bring caution to those that would decry any act of terrorism., I said:
Then it's a tremendous non sequitur. If you want to make the argument that, to the British, George Washington was a traitor, you're right. But why in the would would you want to exercise caution in decrying an ACT of terrorism?
Kingbob replied, Simply because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
And then someone else jumped in and stated, Possibly because the example of the US Revolution demonstrates that the usual attitude runs "I am a freedom fighter, you are a revolutionary, he/she/it is a terrorist", and one person's terrorist is another's Heroic Freedom Fighter.
OK, that's why I specifically said, IN ALL CAPS, an "ACT of terrorism." You can support whichever political faction you like, but a car bomb is a car bomb. Attacks on civilian targets are attacks on civilian targets. I don't give a flying fuck whether you're in favor of a unified Ireland or British control of Ulster, but ACTS of terrorism are unacceptable whatever your political beliefs.
kingbob wrote in a separate part of this debate, And I'm not even really saying there's anything wrong with trying to influence through boycotting actions, just pointing out that claiming to support free speech while calling for a boycott based on suppressing ideas is hypocritical.
I understand with your point, but I disagree with it. If I recall correctly, you previously noted that boycotts are themselves a manifestation of free speech. How is it hypocritical to proclaim support for the very right that you are exercising? Make no mistake, I think it's petty. My disagreement with a huge majority of PAD's political beliefs are irrelevant to my purchasing decisions (although, while we're sort of on the subject, I did think the third Apropos book was a little preachy). But the Domino's Pizza analogy is, in fact, entirely apropos-- I don't recall that boycott being criticized on the basis of limiting the Domino's owner's right of free expression. I think you have to either accept boycotts in their entirety as acceptable, or not. I don't believe you can cherry-pick targets of boycotts and proclaim some to be hypocritical. I don't think you can distinguish between boycotts based on their motives, because boycotts are free expressions. People have often said that the cure for bad free speech is more and better free speech. If we believe that, we have to accept that Gehrie has the right to think that the cure for PAD's free speech is his own free speech. He's not the one being hypocritcal. He is, as I said, being petty, but that's not the same thing.
Make it truly democratic and representative. No one is allowed to run for office, citizenship and SSN are drawn at random from eligible candidates in the appropriate district (2 dsenators from each state, 1 rep from each district, Pres and Vice Pres from the entire national pool..., etc)
Random != democratic. Democracy requires that the governed choose their governors. Having nobody choose the governors would scarcely be an improvement. Whatever you may think of the choices we are presented with in alternate Novembers, for the most part the system does weed out the David Dukes and the Eugene Debses.
Democracy requires that the governed choose their governors.
Which we aren't anyways.
We are a Republic, which means we have representative democracy, and even then, we don't vote in federal judges, cabinet members, nor technically our own president & vice president.
We don't get to vote on filling vacanies on the Supreme Court either....
"OK, that's why I specifically said, IN ALL CAPS, an "ACT of terrorism." You can support whichever political faction you like, but a car bomb is a car bomb. Attacks on civilian targets are attacks on civilian targets. I don't give a flying fuck whether you're in favor of a unified Ireland or British control of Ulster, but ACTS of terrorism are unacceptable whatever your political beliefs."
I know that I really shouldn't provoke the internet law that says sooner or later, all discussions hit world war 2 and then are essentially over, and I'm not just trying to be a smartass, but does your definition of "attacks on civilian targets" mean that firebombing dresden, bombing hiroshima and nagasaki were terroist acts?
Jon, in my opinion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the biggest acts of terrorism this world has ever seen.
David, to a point, I agree with you. Although I hope I haven't given the impression that I feel that some boycotts are consistent with the concept of free speech, and others not. I think all boycots are incompatible with the ideals behind free speech.
I do recognize that boycotts have been protected under the Constitution as free speech. I don't think they should be...free speech protections end when you start taking actions based on your ideas. boycotts take an idea ("I don't like company/person X") and take the next step, that is, organizing others into a group that is taking collective action to drive company/person X to change their behavoir. It's not really answering one idea with another idea, it's responding to an idea with economic pressure in order to get the other party to conform to your way of thinking. Free speech involves an exchange of ideas. If there's a competition between the ideas, then it should be limited to the merits of each idea, not whoever has the most economic power.
Having said that, I recognize that organized boycotts are often the only way an individual can hope to match the economic power of a corporation, which is probably part of the reason why free speech protections are extended to boycotts.
Maybe the cases where people here have tried to boycott PAD have emphasized the negatives of the boycott, when it is directed against an individual, rather than a mega corporation.
Hmmm, after thinking about that boycott thing some more, I think there is a distinction, and that the cause for the boycott matters. If the goal of the boycott is to combat an idea that you dislike (boycotting PAD because of his political views, especially when they are not blatantly pushed in his public works) is inconsistant with the concept of free speech.
Boycotting McDonalds because they use processed cat parts in place of beef is protesting an act, not an expression. In that case, there's nothing inconsistant with the concepts of free speech.
Ok, show of hands: How many people did I just totally confuse?
Jon, in my opinion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the biggest acts of terrorism this world has ever seen.
Only because you have confused the meaning of a "terrorist act" and an "act of war." Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is a far greater act of "terrorism," if you want to change the meaning of the term. The fact that we used one bomb to tens of thousands rather than 10,000 bombs to kill tens of thousands is really irrelevant. Either way, people were killed. The more important fact is that Japan was very clearly the aggressor and that we were defending ourselves.
Iowa Jim
Jim, the difference is that Japan attacked a military target, the Pacific US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Sure, it was a sneak attack, and I'm sure some civilians were killed during the attack, but the target was the US' Military capacity. In that case, it was only a matter of time before the US entered, and Japan's strategic plan of eliminating the US capacity to wage a naval war before war could be declared was sound (as far as aggressive, militaristic expansionist strategies go).
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily civilian targets intended not to destroy Japan's capacity to wage war, but to use fear as a weapon to destroy Japan's willingness to wage war. Yes, we were defending ourselves. Yes, we had a right to. Did every one of the tens of thousands of Japanese civilians killed in those 2 events support the Emporer's war?
Name me one incident (other than the event protrayed in the movie 1941...an excellent piece of historical film if ever there was one) that involved a Japanese attack on civilians. I can't recall one. Which is not to say that Japan was in the right. And clearly there's evidence that Japan conducted horrifying experiments on POWs. None of which excuses the US' use of a weapon of terror as anything other than a terrorist act, as defined by today's standards. The fact that they were deployed during a time of war against our enemy does not change that.
Did every one of the tens of thousands of Japanese civilians killed in those 2 events support the Emporer's war?
It comes down to simple logic: You can take all the figures you want about how many were killed, civilian or otherwise, in the two nuclear attacks.
Or you can try and figure out how many lives, civilian or otherwise, would have been lost had the US been forced to do an invasion of Japan.
Look what the Germans did to England during WW2 with their bombings. I wonder how many civilians were lost there. But you don't see people calling that a "terrorist" attack. Cripes.
I'm sure most would agree that if the US had to do a "conventional" attack on Japan, more lives would have been lost.
"Name me one incident (other than the event protrayed in the movie 1941...an excellent piece of historical film if ever there was one) that involved a Japanese attack on civilians."
The Rape of Nanking.
You may also want to look up Unit 731 while you're googling the Rape of Nanking.
Craig, if we're going to use "attack against civilian targets" as the definition of a terrorist attack, than the V2, V1, and daily bombing of London etc. by Germany all would be called terrorist attacks. They weren't directed at military targets, and they were intended to use fear as a weapon.
Does that make them invalid or immoral attacks? Not as far as acts of war go. The question of "is there a moral war" is one that is far older than any of us here, and we're no more likely to come to an agreement on it than any other debate that has occurred over the past 5,000 years.
If a terrorist act can only be commited by a non-aligned group of individuals, then no, very few of the actions and atrocities committed during WWII would be called terrorist actions. Essentially, countries and governments are incapable of committing terrorist acts by definition.
Nanjing....well, there's a huge, gaping hole in my history education. Now, thanks to the wonders of the internet, filled by warm, gooey images of rape and murder....
Craig, if we're going to use "attack against civilian targets" as the definition of a terrorist attack, than the V2, V1, and daily bombing of London etc. by Germany all would be called terrorist attacks. They weren't directed at military targets, and they were intended to use fear as a weapon.
Does that make them invalid or immoral attacks? Not as far as acts of war go.
Hold on a second. You consider the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki immoral (since you called them terrorist attacks), but not the "vengeance weapons" assault on London?
Does that make them invalid or immoral attacks? Not as far as acts of war go.
Also part of the quoted text.
Actually, I don't view any of the war-time acts being discussed as moral or immoral (with maybe the exception of the Nanjing events...those were plainly evil). I was just responding to the idea that terrorist attacks were those directed toward civlian rather than military target. Under that definition, the nuclear attacks against Japan were of a terrorist nature. Bringing that forward to today's "terrorists = evil" mentality, then the US acted in an evil way.
The morality of such is something others have talked about. Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about the surrender of Japan, so they are seen by some to be morally acceptable.
As Jim suggested, what you call these attacks is kind of irrelevant. People die as a result either way. Is one death better than another? I know some would argue that civilian deaths are worse than those of soldiers, but that's a personal issue, and not something that I think a consensus can decide.
Essentially, countries and governments are incapable of committing terrorist acts by definition.
So... where does that leave Iraq? Iran? N Korea?
Terrorist nations indeed.
I would not just use "attacks on civilians" as a definition of terrorism. I think it has to be three things:
1) An attack on a non-military target
2) The attacker is passing themselves off as a civilian (they aren't wearing a military uniform of a state sponsor).
3) There is no declared war by a sponsor state.
In WWII, we bombed Hiroshima from a US military plane during declared hostilities between the two countries. Therefore, it was not a terrorist act.
Kingbobb wrote:
Nanjing....well, there's a huge, gaping hole in my history education. Now, thanks to the wonders of the internet, filled by warm, gooey images of rape and murder....
I always thought my history education was pretty solid. Not excellent, but solid. I believed this because I aced every history class I ever had, in high school and college.
Recently, I've been obsessed with the American Revolution, and if what I didn't know about that war is any indication, then my "solid" education in history is close to the average American citizen's knowledge about Fallen Angel.
Kingbobb wrote:
Nanjing....well, there's a huge, gaping hole in my history education. Now, thanks to the wonders of the internet, filled by warm, gooey images of rape and murder....
Robin S:
>I always thought my history education was pretty solid. Not excellent, but solid. I believed this because I aced every history class I ever had, in high school and college.
>Recently, I've been obsessed with the American Revolution, and if what I didn't know about that war is any indication, then my "solid" education in history is close to the average American citizen's knowledge about Fallen Angel.
I hear ya. I still remember hearing some of the original motivators for the American Revolution and statistics about British taxes and treatment of the colonists, possible financial gains of the initial leaders of the revolution, etc and shaking my head at the beginning of my understanding of how one-sided history and modern day "news" is.
Fred
Robin S, indeed, it makes one wonder. I by no means criticize the staff and program offered by my high school. Yet, given that I don't recall any large uproar about curriculum back then, and given efforts today to, let's say, *amend* what is taught in schools, you really have to wonder what huge, gaping holes today's kids are going to have.
KingBobb:
>Robin S, indeed, it makes one wonder. I by no means criticize the staff and program offered by my high school. Yet, given that I don't recall any large uproar about curriculum back then, and given efforts today to, let's say, *amend* what is taught in schools, you really have to wonder what huge, gaping holes today's kids are going to have.
One has to understand the fact that young children have a difficult time grasping the concept of moral ambiguities as well as one of the initial motivations and original designs of public education as being that of producing good and productive citizens. It makes sense to me that concepts are taught as more black and white at a younger age, but the fact that these "historical facts" aren't ever fully colored in is a bit disturbing. A mentor in my undergraduate program at Penn State told us a story of his teaching a more complete picture of history and, in particular, of the roots of the American Revolution. A faculty member caught wind of this and, without hesitation, lectured him in front of a faculty break room full of other teachers and administrators, on teaching lies to the children [high school kids, mind you]. This guy said nothing in response, but the next day came in with a dozen original sources to back him up. Which one looked like a moron? ;)
People are imperfect and everyone has multiple motivations behind their actions. It is when we, as a society, put on our blinders to that fact and decide that it makes us feel better to march in step with whatever is going on, rather than explore and educate ourselves, that we find ourselves marching down a dangerous and often repeated path.
Fred
"So... where does that leave Iraq? Iran? N Korea?
Terrorist nations indeed."
If any of the mentioned countries (or any other) is training or supplying nongovernment entities to carry out attacks on other nations, THAT would make them party to terrorist acts.
North Korea bombing the USA, that would just be an act of war. And the last thing they would ever do but that's beside the point.
Re- Nanking. I love the Japanese. Love them. Love the culture, the art, the rich history...but the treatment of the Chinese during WWII is a black mark that cannot be erased, at least not as long as the current generation seems so determined to sweep it under the rug. It's not that I ever believe that people have to be ashamed of acts that their ancestors did--I hold no German under the age of 75 responsible for Hitler's atrocities and, with all respect to my native american friends, when they start talking about how I slaughtered innocents at Sand Creek I want to explain to them how they must have mistaken me for a much older gentleman--but you have to at least be able to admit that SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED! The refusal to do so may explain why the Koreans and Chinese are still so pissed.
Aye, Bill, reading about what happened at Nanjing, it explains a little. Although I'm sure if you look back far enough, you'd see something similar from the Chinese directed against the Japanese, although most likely not on the same scale. And from some excerpts, individuals involved in Nanjing have expressed remorse, but I don't recall anything official from the government.
And I just KNEW I recognized you...and now I know...I remember it well, like it was yesterday....it was a cold day at Sand Creek....
Actually, I don't view any of the war-time acts being discussed as moral or immoral (with maybe the exception of the Nanjing events...those were plainly evil).
There's no "maybe" about it.
I was just responding to the idea that terrorist attacks were those directed toward civlian rather than military target. Under that definition, the nuclear attacks against Japan were of a terrorist nature.
It's not the same thing at all. The U.S. had been at war with Japan since 1941. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deemed military targets, as they were both industrial cities. Furthermore, the decision to drop the bomb was based on the realisation that a D-Day-style invasion of the Japanese home islands would result in at least one million casualties. Faced with that staggering figure, and the fact that so many millions of lives had already been lost over the course of the way, Harry Truman made the decision to use the bomb. It was a terrible decision, but that doesn't make it a wrong or unsound one. And it certainly wasn't an unprovoked act of terror.
Actually, I don't view any of the war-time acts being discussed as moral or immoral (with maybe the exception of the Nanjing events...those were plainly evil). I was just responding to the idea that terrorist attacks were those directed toward civlian rather than military target.
Thanks for the clarification. I admit, I do see the word "terrorist" and "terrorism" as being immoral and evil. Hence my reaction to your use of the term. Obviously what we did was done to strike "terror" into the Japanese. But, and this is a dangerous path to take I admit, I do think that when we are attacked we must do what it takes to win. Even if that means attacking civilian targets. Torturing, rape, etc., are NOT necessary to win. But killing, unfortunately, is. I would prefer we target military targets, but that is a luxury that is rather recent. In the past, you had to conquer everyone in your path in order to win.
While you can't read someone's mind, you can look at their actions. When Japan conquered, they enslaved. When we conquered (both in Japan and in Europe), we then rebuilt and empowered. That is a key difference between our actions during a war and the acts of a true terrorist. We only terrorized in order to preserve our own lives. They terrorized in order to usurp control of another country and its resources. (And whether we were right to invade Iraq or not, that is also the difference today between us and the insurgent and other terrorists.)
Iowa Jim
If any of the mentioned countries (or any other) is training or supplying nongovernment entities to carry out attacks on other nations, THAT would make them party to terrorist acts.
We supported bin Laden. Does this make us a terrorist supporting state? Probably.
We supported Saddam, knowing who he was from the start, and then we accuse him of being a terrorist as well.
It seems like we need to stop worrying about everybody else and perhaps look at the blood on our own hands for once.
But then, I've not seen anybody, aside from this Administration, insinuate that a sovereign nation that is recognized around the world can be a terrorist nation/state/what have you.
Such as North Korea.
Bush & Co. are just playing the Card of Fear... over and over. "You're with us or against us" over and over.
And if you're against us, you are a terrorist, regardless.
"We supported bin Laden. Does this make us a terrorist supporting state? Probably."
My understanding is that we supported the Afghani rebels during their occupation by the Soviet Union. Some of those rebels later became the Taliban, which became supporters of Bin Laden's Al Quaeda. That's not quite the same thing.
Bill Mulligan,
"We supported bin Laden. Does that make us a terrorist state? Probably."
'My understanding is that we supported the Afghani rebels during their occupation by the Soviet Union.Some of those rebels later became the Taliban, which became supporters of Bin Laden's Al-Quaeda.That's not quite the same thing.'
Your understanding is correct Bill. But of course it is "the same thing" to those who are determined to Blame America First.
That's not quite the same thing.
Really? We created bin Laden, we created Saddam, and we created a few other dictators.
And I refuse to buy the "lesser of two evils" argument on why we *had* to support these guys in the first place, only to drop bombs on them later.
But now we say that anybody that doesn't fall in line is a terrorist, that they're out to get America.
Hmmm, after thinking about that boycott thing some more, I think there is a distinction, and that the cause for the boycott matters. If the goal of the boycott is to combat an idea that you dislike (boycotting PAD because of his political views, especially when they are not blatantly pushed in his public works) is inconsistant with the concept of free speech.
I disagree with you there. You're basically taking the position that, in order to be true to the ideals of free speech, the erstwhile boycotter has to shut up. Morally it's no different from any other tactic that people use to shout down their opponents. If shouting down your opponent is per se unethical, then there's a host of free-speech protected activities that are hypocritical. Raucous protests outside the Republican National Convention spring to mind.
Craig,
'That's not quite the same thing.'
"Really? We created Bin Laden"
Really? I thought his parents did.
"we created Saddam and we created a few other dictators."
I realize your hatred for Bush and eagerness to blame America for basically all the world's problems has rendered facts and basic information virtually irrelevant to your postings, but it would be nice if gave some weight to them.
The French played a larger role in "creating" Saddam than we ever did. And they seemed to enjoy it so much they continued to do it to the day he fell from power, even if it meant turning a blind eye to the Oil For Food Scandal.
"And refuse to buy the "lesser of two evils" argument on why we had to support these guys in the first place, only to drop bombs on them later."
First, what a very black-and-white postion to take! So you're saying there are only "good" countries and "bad" countries, and that we can never deal with or interact with "bad" countries even if it means helping them against other "bad" countries, because then, gee, that would make us "not so good".
And that would be bad.
Second, some of these allies became our enemy years after the fact. Heck, I have some people I couldn;t stand growing up who i a now close friends with and i have former friends who have turned into obnoxious, pompous douchebags. Unless you have a crystal ball, spare us the righteous indignation.
Someone "betraying" us or "revealing" themselves after the fact hardly compares to those who harbor those who want TO KILL US RIGHT NOW!
Third,did you ever take a history course? In World War II we were faced with dangerous Japan and a man called Hitler from Germany. Hitler was actually allies with this man called Joseph Stalin, who was head of something called the Soviet Union. It is estimated that Stalin killed about 15 million people.
But when Stalin turned against Hitler, the U.S., Britain and others were suddenly allies with Stalin.
Would you argue that we should not have "dirtied" ourselves by joining forces with a mass murderer, whose country would be our chief rival/threat for the next 4 1/2 decades, to stop the immediate, growing threat of Hitler.
This is the way the world works sometimes. You have to make hard choices, and sometimes you have to face the consequences of those choices. But it sure beats not making any choice at all.
The French played a larger role in "creating" Saddam than we ever did. And they seemed to enjoy it so much they continued to do it to the day he fell from power, even if it meant turning a blind eye to the Oil For Food Scandal.
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld about that handshake with Saddam some time.
Or Cheney about Halliburton's dealings with Iraq and Iran. While they were under US sanctions.
You're the one that makes it sound black & white, that we're oh so righteous and always doing what's best for the world...
Only if you believe that creating more terrorists has made the world a safer place. Enjoy such delusions, Jerome.
Jerome,
Stop accusing people who criticize the actions of this administration of "blaming America first." Are you implying that because we do not agree with the direction this country is being led that we somehow love the USA less than you? No one is blaming America. We are blaming the wrong-headed policies of the people that should be looking out for the best interests of all people in this country, not just attempting to give more wealth to those who already have enough.
Craig,
'The French played a larger role in "creating" Saddam than we ever did. And they seemed to enjoy it so much they continued to do it to the day he fell from power, even if it meant turning a blnd eye to the Oil For Food Scandal.'
"Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld about that handshake with Saddam some time."
Next time I see him I will, just for you.
"Or Cheney about Halliburton's dealings with Iraq and Iran. Whle they were under U.N. sanctions."
Gee, is it possible for Democrats/lberals/ Bush haters to talk about any topic without bringing up Halliburton? Or domestic policy without mentioning Enron?
It's like a bad comedy...
TEACHER: What do you think about giving aid to improving the infrastructure of those hit by the tsunami?
CRAIG RIES: It's probably not a good idea.
TEACHER: Why not?
CRAIG RIES: Because Cheney will make sure all the contracts and profits go to Halliburton.
TEACHER: Hmmm...Okay, what do you think of the motivations for war with Iraq?
CRAIG RIES: Well, I know a huge reason was so Cheney would make sure he got contracts for Halliburton.
TEACHER: Okay, what about Bush's plan to settle the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
CRAIG RIES: I don't think it will work, because if there's peace Cheney won't be able to give his buddies at Halliburton contracts for future wars.
TEACHER: (starting to get agitated) Okay, let's switch the subject. What can someone tell me about the political and cultural situation in Iran?
CRAIG RIES: Doesn't really matter. Cheney is going to have Bush invade Iran soon so his Halliburton buddies can get even bigger contracts.
TEACHER: (clearing throat) There are some who say many of the Iraqi insurgents are coming from Syria, and that Iraq's WMD are there. Any opinions?
CRAIG RIES: Those are just lies to justify another invasion to make money for Cheney's buddies at Halliburton.
TEACHER: Oooookay! Now, we all know North Korea is a potential threat. How should we handle it?
CRAIG RIES: More propaganda from the Bush Admnistration to justify an invasion so Cheney can make money for Halliburton.
TEACHER: AAAAAAAAHHHH!!! Class dismissed!
Seriously, though, you equate possible giving of arms two decades ago against a common enemy to the Oil For Food Scandal?
That money was EXPLICTLY to be used for food and medicine for average ctizens. Yet the French were basically paid to look the other way.
That is a bribe. And it is disgusting. And ANYONE proven to be involved when the dust clears, be it Marc Rich or Jaques Chirac or Jack Kemp or Kofi Annan's son deserves to burn in hell.
"You're the one that makes t sound black and white, that we're oh-so-righteous and always doing what's best for the world."
Not always, but more often than not. And I refuse to apologize for looking after or defending our interests.
Sorry.
"Only if you believe that creating more terrorists has made the world a safer place. Enjoy such delusions, Jerome."
It would be a delusion if your statement were a fact and not simply your opinion, which it clearly is.
No, what I enjoy seeing is the image of Iraqis dancng in the streets after their historic election last weekend.
I enjoy tales of soldiers who have come back from Iraq near where I live and talk about how good it felt to help build a school, or the many people who thanked them for being there.
And they have been very angry with media coverage that has almost totally been negative.
But the success of the election has changed things somewhat. Because such a strong turnout means there is at least a grain of truth to Bush's claim that a stable, free Iraq is possible, one that can be an ally in the region serve as a model for other Arab nations and REDUCE the number of terrorists.
Any other conclusion is a delusion.
Karen,
"Jerome,
Stop accusing people who criticize the actions of this Admnistration of 'blaming America first".
Funny, never actually said that, as i'll explain more fully below.
"Are you implying that because we do not agree with the direction this country is being led that we somehow love the USA less than you?"
No. You are inferring that. I was responding specifically to Craig's "we don't look at the blood o our own hands" comment and similar statements made by others.
Because, frankly, have grown tired of illogical and unfactual "everything sucks" mentality. I have grown tired of inflammatory statements and ideas going unanswered. So I am answering them. If doing so hits you the wrong way, let me say that that is regrettable - since you are one of my favorite people on this board - but I am not going to stop saying what I feel. That is MY right, and I cannot control how you react to things.
"No one is blaming America."
Bull. People like Michael Moore make a good living going around the world blaming again. But if you're limiting the talk to the posts here, let's see..
You alone used the word ASHAMED about five tmes in one post in the past week, and have stated "there are so many things wrong with this country I can't begin to list them all." PAD has claimed the U.S. has "jumped the shark" and made a mild analogy to us following the path of Nazi Germany. Tim Lynch has stated he would like to see the U.S. lose it's superpower status, basicaly because he does not like what we've done as the sole superpower...which goes beyond this Administration. Craig Ries compares the minor probles in Ohio to the Ukrainian candidate being poisoned, and says as a result we have no standing to say anything about that near-injustice/tragedy. He also has said of JFK's quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"..."It is quaint, it's also ass-backwards."
Note, the Dubya Administration was not in office when Kennedy made the comment.
Oh, and he also at worst defended and at best was blinded by a poster who said "spitting is in order" on U.S. troops because of Abu Ghraib. When caled the poster on it Craig tried to defend the guy (or else he hates the Administration so much he completely missed the point) by saying the poster was just upset with Bush, Rumsfeld, etc., when that is NOT what he said at all.
You are "tired of being called unpatriotic". I am tired of being lumped in with so-called "conservatives" like Dee and Poe every time one of these insane people spew bile. Dee was quite insane and quite an idiot - saying Nixon was a one-term Democrat was an example - and saying such a person is "conservative" is like calling the Unabomber liberal.
Oh, and Bladestar offends everyone and gets a pass.
I am tired of being told that I "hate" women if I don't feel the "right" to an abortion has been decreed by a Higher Power.
I am tired of being told I "hate" gays if I don't feel gay marriage is even on the list of important things to talk about in this country.
I am tired of Christian bashing on this blog that would have been screened out long ago if you replaced the word "Christians" with "Jews", "Blacks" or "Muslims".
I am tired of beng lumped in with the nimrods who give PAD a hard time as "conservatives" when I have done nothing but support PAD's work with my wallet, my mouth and my newspaper stories for years now.
I know that's a long post, but it's been a long time coming. I have been silent on some of these things for a while. No more.
Of course, we also have Bladestar calling America a "sham", but he's unique anyway.
Oh, and while I agree one can honorably dissent from or oppose the war in Iraq, I have come to the conclusion one cannot do so and then claim to "support" the troops.
This does not mean you hope our troops will come home in bodybags. No sane person would think such a thing.
But as poll after poll indicates that a vast majority of those serving support - deeply - the mission in Iraq, it is worth asking,
"How can one say they "support the troops" when one does not support a cause they overwhelmingly support?"
I can just see the replies now...."You're the one who doesn't support the troops because you think they should be sent into harm's way for an unjust, ill-conceived, ill-considered and pointless mission. We, who want the war ended, are the true supporters of the troops."
Now, that line of argument sounds wonderfully humanitarian. Doubtless, most who use it believe they're expressing positive sentiments toward the U.S. military - and that they believe those who think otherwise are indifferent to the difficulties facing armed Americans involved in a tough struggle in Iraq.
But there is something exquisitely condescending about the attitude that members of the military need Americans here at home to save them. Every person now serving in Iraq entered the service voluntarily and as an adult.
What we have learned from recent polls is that those who have served in Iraq are the most enthusiastic about our efforts there. They aren't seeking rescue by well-meaning stateside Americans.
No, it apears they are seeking to win this thing - and they are willing to risk a great deal to win.
For, dificult as it may be for many to understand, many people enter military service because they see something noble, something elevating, something empowering in putting it all on the line.
Achieving glory through martial means s an idea as old as cvilization itself, from Achiles battling the Trojans to Shakespeare's Henry V telling his soldiers that al those in their beds back in England will think themselves accursed because they were not among the "band of brothers" atacking the French on St. Crispin's Day.
Americans in Iraq are in harm's way to make possible the transformation of that country from a totalitarian instability generator into a functioning free society. The nobility of that effort and the glory that will attach to all those who were involved in it seem self-evident to many of those who support the effort.
But those who have opposed the war from the outset seem to feel that the goal isn't noble and that it would be best to figure out some kind of quick and cheap face-saving exit strategy at best or an appropriately humiliating defeat at worst.
They deny the nobility of the goal in Iraq and therefore they also deny the attendant nobility and glory due those who are seekng to achieve the goal. If what our soldiers, sailors, Marines and Guardsmen are doing is pointless, or even injurious to American interests, how can glory result from it?
That's why say that those who say the war isn't worth fighting cannot justly say they also support the troops - because they are also saying their risk and sacrifice are pointless rather than glorious.
Thank you Jerome. After reading this (and other blogs) over the last several days, I'm feeling the same way. This whole "Bush is evil" and "war over oil" is getting to the stupid level now. If it were really a war for oil, then by carpet bombing Iraq and sending in troops ONLY to the oil fields would have been the result. Take the oil fields, erect a fence and a 10 mile barrier full of land mines. But no, FREE elections were held in Iraq to help determine the leadership of the country.
Bush is evil.
Bush can't speak.
Bush is stupid.
Bush beat Kerry.
Oh, and while I agree one can honorably dissent from or oppose the war in Iraq, I have come to the conclusion one cannot do so and then claim to "support" the troops.
Which just goes to show, again, how delusional you are.
I can support our troops while fully damn well knowing that they should not be dying in Iraq, that they are not actually dying for our freedom.
See? This can be rather black & white after all.
I just can never remember how to do that italicas thing...
"I disagree with you there. You're basically taking the position that, in order to be true to the ideals of free speech, the erstwhile boycotter has to shut up."
Not at all. When a boycott is targeting some action a sector of the public disagrees with, ad that action itself is not protected under free speech, I don't see any conflict. But when the point of the boycott is to get someone else to essentially shut up, then there is a conflict.
It's admittedly a fine line, and maybe I'm not expressing it clearly. Raucus protests outside a GNP rally aren't really a boycott. The protesters just want to be heard, they don't want to silence the GOP. Well, ok, maybe some of them do, but overall, it's more about getting heard.
The examples we've seen on this Blog of people claiming to have written letters to PAD's publishers, and calling out for others to join them in boycotting PAD's works, simply because they find PAD's political ideals offensive, aren't just trying to be heard. In many cases, they don't offer any contrasting political ideals, either. They just are trying to exert economic pressure to make PAD and his liberal leanings go away. It's more than just a shouting match. It's trying to eliminate your opponent by taking away his ability to provide for himself and his family.
If you truly support and uphold the ideals of free speech, then you must internalize the concept of "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." Then, after killing in order to preserve that right, turn around and say "Ok, now that I've preserved your free speech rights, I'm going to get people to stop giving you work until you stop saying those things I disagree with."
If that's not the height of hypocrisy, then I don't really know what I'm talking about at all.
And don't everyone rush all at once to agree with me on that....
"Oh, and while I agree one can honorably dissent from or oppose the war in Iraq, I have come to the conclusion one cannot do so and then claim to "support" the troops."
So you support the use of torture? Our troops did it in Iraq at the orders of their "superiors".
I can easily support the troops while pointing to the asshole who sent them to die there for NO GODDAMN GOOD REASON quite easily.
Bush is a war criminal, he's slaughtered thousands of American troops in a pathetic sham "anti-terrorist" invasion of Iraq, because, all of Saddam's WMDs were ready to destroy America....except Saddam didn't have any, and didn't have the ability to deliver them to US anyway even if he did have the WMDs...
I pity the military, many of them joined to protect their country, but instead they're being misused and slaughtered for something that does NOTHING to protect America...
Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith, who spent his boyhood in Tampa, became a man in the Army and died outside Baghdad defending his outnumbered soldiers from an Iraqi attack, will receive America's highest award for bravery.
President Bush will present the Medal of Honor to Smith's wife, Birgit, and their children Jessica, 18, and David, 10, at a ceremony at the White House, possibly in March.
The official announcement will come soon, but the Pentagon called Mrs. Smith with the news Tuesday afternoon.
"We had faith he was going to get it," Mrs. Smith said from her home in Holiday, "but the phone call was shocking. It was overwhelming. My heart was racing, and I got sweaty hands. I yelled, "Oh, yes!' ... I'm still all shaky.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/02/Tampabay/Iraq_hero_joins_hallo.shtml
Craig Ries,
'Oh, and while agree one can honorably dissent from or oppose the war in Iraq, I have come to the conclusion that one cannot do so and then claim to 'support' the troops.'
"Which just goes to show again how delusional you are."
Not really. I made a pretty thorough argument, if you bothered to read it all.
"I can support our troops while fully damn well knowing they should not be dying in Iraq, that they are not actually dying for our freedom."
See, that's where the condescension comes in. You KNOW this? You're not just stating an opinion, but you KNOW this? Better than the men and women who are actually OVER THERE DOING THE FIGHTING?
'Supporting' our troops does not mean you simply don't want them coming home in body bags. No sane Americans, or human beings, want that to happen Craig.
But if a majority of our troops believe in their mission, believe in the goal, take pride in what they are doing to better people's lives and feel their risk is worth the reward...then, while you obviously have a right to a different opinion, but by definition you do not support the troops.
Jerome,
There is a difference between blaming this administration and blaming America. You seem to be conflating the two.
And, while I, and many others, blame this administration for this poorly conceived and planned war of theirs, we go out of our way to say we support the troops for three reasons.
1. Whether they think this is a worthwhile mission, or not, is beside the point. I do not. I support them for being in the military and their service to this country. I do not have to support the mission they are currently on. There is a difference between the troops and what they are doing. My opinion on the war has nothing to do with the people serving in the military. My opinions on this war relate entirely to the folks running things. The troops follow orders and as long as they are legal orders they will continue to follow them. I blame those giving the orders. That is how I can support the troops while not supporting the war.
2. During Vietnam, the war and the troops serving were one in the minds of many. They were mistreated when they returned. By seperating the two and specifically saying we support them, we are saying that these men and women are worthy of our respect and not scorn, even if we completly and entirely oppose this war.
3. At the start of the protests against the war, we were accused of being against the troops, too. Since there is a difference, and since words have painted liberals in a bad light, we continue to state our positions. Our words and deeds are misconstrued and twisted so we appear disloyal. Many of us love our country. We do not like the direction it is going and if you think that makes us unpatriotic, well, so be it.
Are you daft? Regardless of their courage the Iraqi's would have been put to death under Sadaam. Bush is a bad bad man for liberating 25 mllion people? Remember that it was the combined intelligence of Russia, Brittian, and the US that said Iraq had WMD. The UN said it, the Holy Clinton said it. It was bad intelligence, not lies. Remember that Sadaam was in violation of 17 UN sanctions and the evidence now is that he was using money diverted from the food for oil program to bebuild his military. Oh woe is us, we have an evil war monger who has the backbone to oppose evil (it's not just a word or an obsolete concept). If we can't call butchering 100,000 helpless men, women, and children evil then we are forgetting aushwitz and are moving closer to allowing horrors like the holocaust happen all over again.
The difference is those people you cite listened to ALL the intelligence and did not invade. Bushco. listened only to the intelligence that supported what they wanted to do. This was not sold as a war of liberation. They used the old bait and switch when their ideas din't pan out. You can hardly compare Saddam to Hitler. Hitler actively went about invading other countries and torturing those captured without letting them have any rights. Saddam was not capable of invading others. The UN sanctions were working. But Bush wanted his war and he got it.
Your right PAD the Iraqis are brave to vote. I'm glad you were able to pay that a compliment without letting people think you actually thought there was some success to efforts our government and soliders. And I like the way you were able to cut Bush at the same time. (PAD you really do come across as bitter sometimes...just think about it).
Jim:
>Your right PAD the Iraqis are brave to vote. I'm glad you were able to pay that a compliment without letting people think you actually thought there was some success to efforts our government and soliders. And I like the way you were able to cut Bush at the same time. (PAD you really do come across as bitter sometimes...just think about it).
Before we start congratulating ourselves, let's wait to see about this "succss". I've already heard about initial counts from the voting as showing about 60% backing an Iranian-affiliated party and some possible voting irregularities. We won't begin to know anything for a bit now, but one would hope that steps were taken to protect and ensure the integrity of this process. Too much rests on the purity of this process (Regardless of the results) for both Iraq, the U.S. and the rest of the world at this point.
Fred
engaging in horrific acts of violence like beheadings (see public exocution via guillitine)
apples and oranges. decapitation comes in many fruit.
the swift blade of the guillotine was not as slow or agonizing as somebody getting his head sawed off.
The videos have people screaming and such. That's. not. quick.
"but no one campaigned and the names were kept under wraps until you got to the voting places."
What the heck was that story on NBC about the other week... the one about the husband and wife both running their own seperate Presidential campaigns... under distinct issues, both approved by Sistani?
They were campaigning.... I remember! Campaigning. I guess they weren't. Damn that right-wing NBC! or left-wing. or whatnot.
Bladestar,
"So you support the use of torture?"
Yes. I remember saying that. Oh, no, wait..I said nothing of the kind.
"Our troops did it in Iraq at the orders of their 'superiors'."
You're right! Just the other day I read about how Bush himself was caught on videotape ordering Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs to torture Iraqis.
No, wait...that hasn't been proven either..or even given any credibility. But keep believing your negative fantasies, it's what you do best.
"I can easily support the troops while pointing to the asshole who sent them to die there for NO GODDAMN GOOD REASON quite easily."
Seeing as how your first statement was to bring up our soldiers torturing people, and since you have yet to state one positive things our soldiers have done there, and since you obviously don't support their mission your statement is QUITE EASILY refuted.
"Bush is a war criminal."
See, here's a perfect example of the illogical indignation many have when told they do not support the troops.
If you truly feel Bush is a war criminal, that means are troops are committing war crimes. If you truly feel they are committing war crimes, how can you then claim to support their actions? If you claim "they're just following orders". that still doesn't mean you give their mission much nobility and glory. Which is your opinion. But you cannot credibly say you "support" the troops while then saying they are doing something that ranges from unworthy to war crimes.
"I pity the military"
They don't need or want your pity.
"Many of them joined to protect their country, but instead they're being misused"
Most don't feel they're being misused at all. And they're the ones doing the work. I'll take their word for it, thank you.
"and slaughtered for something that does NOTHING to protect America."
John McCain supports this war wholeheartedly. Is he a war criminal in your opinion, too?
Does John McCain have the power to send them to their deaths?
No, he doesn't, does he.
He's just expressing an opinion. Bush is killing our soldiers, not McCain.
Karen wrote, You can hardly compare Saddam to Hitler. Hitler actively went about invading other countries and torturing those captured without letting them have any rights. Saddam was not capable of invading others.
Yes, he was just killing his own people. He hadn't invaded any other countries in, like, years.
Seriously, there were good and principled reasons to oppose the Iraq War but "Saddam was harmless" isn't one of them. The man was a butcher. Always has been a butcher. Would have continued to be a butcher until someone stopped him. He wasn't butchering us, and we can have an intelligent argument about whether that makes the war unjustifiable, but don't try to pretend he was something he wasn't: harmless.
Not at all. When a boycott is targeting some action a sector of the public disagrees with, ad that action itself is not protected under free speech, I don't see any conflict. But when the point of the boycott is to get someone else to essentially shut up, then there is a conflict.
It's admittedly a fine line, and maybe I'm not expressing it clearly. Raucus protests outside a GNP rally aren't really a boycott. The protesters just want to be heard, they don't want to silence the GOP. Well, ok, maybe some of them do, but overall, it's more about getting heard.
I very much disagree with you about that last part. (I disagree with you to some extent philosophically about the other parts too, but on the latter statement I think you're flatly wrong.) The natural objective of a protest is to silence your opposition. If the objective were to be heard, there are a variety of other options available. Let's stick with my example of the Republican National Convention. The would-be protesters could hold a rally away from the convention site. The opposition party could hold its own convention with national television coverage-- which in fact it did. The tactical choice to protest at the convention site, harangue Republican convention-goers in the city, hold marches during the convention time, sneak people into the convention to shout "No Blood for Oil," and to object loudly to the "Free speech zone" restrictions, all combine to tell me that the ultimate goal of protests is to get their message out while minimizing the ability of the protest targets to communicate their own message in peace. The First Amendment enshrines a series of rights, one of which is the right to peacefully assemble, and that right along with the right of free speech were the obvious targets of protesters.
Going back to my original point, I don't believe this makes the protesters First Amendment hypocrites. When you have dueling rights, there's nothing wrong with competition. Markets have winners and losers. I believe the concept of a "marketplace of ideas" allows for one idea to become the dominant force in the market, and I believe that the proponents of that idea are perfectly free to use whatever legitimate tools they have available to promote their positions. Some ideas belong on the dustbin of history. Feel free to point out-- loudly-- that your opponent's position is one of them. That's not hypocrisy any more than an aggressive prosecutor is hypocritical when he says the defendant is entitled to a fair trial at the same time he's trying to convict the miscreant.
He wasn't butchering us, and we can have an intelligent argument about whether that makes the war unjustifiable, but don't try to pretend he was something he wasn't: harmless.
And nobody is arguing that.
However, Bush sold this war on Saddam having WMD, on being an immediate threat to us, and, in a series of insinuations, that Saddam was behind 9/11.
He was none of these things.
And our government, oh so quietly, has admitted these things, but nobody has listened.
But there are many not-so-harmless people in the world, but you don't see us targetting those that are committing such genocide NOW.
So I can only conclude that how many people Saddam killed in the past isn't the issue. It was a matter of revenge, or oil, or Bush needing a scapegoat to get another four years in office.
David, somewhere in your last post is the key to my point. I'll try to bring it out.
The key to free speech is that you have to take the good with the bad, and even occasionally the ugly. All three, in a free speech society, can discuss, talk, even shout at one another. But once they start calling for the silencing of one or more positions, the concept of free speech vanishes, and is replaced with a market controlled by those in power, with the ability to prevent newcomers from entering the market.
I don't necessarily see raucus protests as trying to close down the opposition. Engage in a shouting match, yes, but not silence. When the protest starts to disrupt, it does start to interfere. Although I still don't see disruption how injection of a contrasting viewpoint translates into an attempt to silence.
Granted, there are less disruptive ways of expressing your message. But I don't see the free speech market as only one engaged in discourse through news and other media outlets. At its heart is the direct exchange of ideas, and the concept of a "free speech zone" is a blatant attempt to regulate and control when those market exchanges occur. Raucus protest and disruptive convention crashers are a natural result when one body feels that their message is being regulated out of the market. This administration has demonstrated a lack of willingness to hear contrary views, which in turn creates an impetus for desparate measures in order to *make* the administration hear opposing views.
I'd bet that Bush would receive less of a volatile reaction were he to truly open his administration up to considering alternative views and ideas, and to respond to them. Not in slick, pre-packaged and one-sided speeches, but in true discourse.
Well, this thread is dying out, but I thought I'd post something from Yahoo right now. This isn't the entire article, but enough to show that our invasion hasn't done squat:
"
Iraq Shiite leaders demand Islam be the source of law
Sun Feb 6,11:48 AM ET
NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) - Iraq (news - web sites)'s Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and another top cleric staked out a radical demand that Islam be the sole source of legislation in the country's new constitution.
One cleric issued a statement setting out the position and the spiritual leader of Iraqi Shiites made it known straight away that he backed demands for the Koran to be the reference point for legislation.
The national assembly formed after last month's historic elections is to oversee the drawing up of the new constitution and Sistani is the figurehead of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance expected to become the largest single bloc.
The role of Islam has been at the heart of months of debate between rival parties and factions as well as the US-led occupation authority which administered Iraq until last June.
Sistani leads the five most important clerics, known as marja al-taqlid, or objects of emulation, who had portrayed a more moderate stance going into the election.
The surprise statement was released by Sheikh Ibrahim Ibrahimi, a representative of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad, another of the marja.
"All of the ulema (clergy) and marja, and the majority of the Iraqi people, want the national assembly to make Islam the source of legislation in the permanent constitution and to reject any law that is contrary to Islam," said the statement."
Craig's news article is the reason why democracy as we know it is doomed to fail over there. This has been repeated by a huge number of political and religious "experts" since before we went in.
Craig's news article is the reason why democracy as we know it is doomed to fail over there.
It's also why I keep saying that they have to want it for themselves, and that we can't force democracy upon them.
Craig:
>>Craig's news article is the reason why democracy as we know it is doomed to fail over there.
>It's also why I keep saying that they have to want it for themselves, and that we can't force democracy upon them.
Are you reading the rest of the threads? You aint the only one here saying so. :p
Take a walk around and ask your neighbors.
Are you reading the rest of the threads? You aint the only one here saying so. :p
Yes, I know. But I was given some rather amusing responses when I mentioned that a few weeks back on one of these threads (may have even been this one).
It appears that many here in the US believe, including the Bush Administration, we can force them to have democracy, and that they'll willingly accept it.
Maybe some day the hard-core Bush supporters will listen to the rest of the sane, civilized world.
When the protest starts to disrupt, it does start to interfere. Although I still don't see disruption how injection of a contrasting viewpoint translates into an attempt to silence.
Try injecting a right-to-life essay into NOW's next newsletter and see if they feel it's an attempt to silence.
Raucus protest and disruptive convention crashers are a natural result when one body feels that their message is being regulated out of the market. This administration has demonstrated a lack of willingness to hear contrary views, which in turn creates an impetus for desparate measures in order to *make* the administration hear opposing views.
Not to be flippant, but since when does anyone have a right to be heard? I'm not kidding. Everyone in this country has a right to attempt to get the message out, but nobody is entitled to an audience, particularly not the right to subject the audience of their choice to a particular message, whether the audience is interested in hearing it or not. That's really what you're suggesting (if not quite openly stating) here; that if an audience has the temerity to want nothing to do with the speaker, then the speaker, up to a point, is entitled to take invasive measures to be heard. The RNC had no real interest in hearing what the protesters had to say, and in fact were so uninterested as to cordon off areas where the protesters could do their thing without getting in the RNC's way. The RNC doesn't have to listen to opposing viewpoints. It may be a good tactical move to do so; President Clinton listened to opposing viewpoints after his party had its collective ass handed to it on a platter in the 1994 midterm elections, hijacked some of the better opposing viewpoints, and managed to be the only Democratic President to serve two terms since Franklin Roosevelt. It was a smart move, but not a morally imperative move, because every speaker has every right to ignore, oppose, or outmaneuver any opposing speaker.
If you were right about one body being genuinely regulated out of the market, you might have a better point. The fact is, though, that no political viewpoint in this country has been eliminated from the market, certainly not by governmental regulation. The government in this country seems to spend infinitely more time regulating dirty pictures in comic books than it does in suppressing political dissent. Thank God. (I'd rather it did neither, but surely if we had to choose one of them to be stifled it would be this one.) The entire Dean campaign and moveon.org were premised on the ability of low-funded speakers to get their messsages out. The left weren't regulated out of the market; they lost because the "consumers" (i.e. voters) in this country are generally center-right. The left got its message out and managed to win over the second largest number of voters in American history, which would have been more impressive if the largest number of voters in American history hadn't simultaneously lined up to support an obvious conservative. The problem for the left wasn't market access, it was the composition of the audience.
I maintain that the example of the protesters is not a bad parallel to the Marvel Comics boycott hypothetical: a writer is not entitled, in any meaningful sense, to the forum of his choice for the airing of his work. He can self-publish, he can start a blog (and if he's masochistic enough let people like me post on it), he can seek various publishers, but he's not entitled to have one specific publisher risk losing business in order to facilitate his writings, or to have a member of the public refrain from communicating his views back to the publisher. Make no mistake, I believe the boycott to be fairly slimy (Not to mention absurd; I mean, seriously, basing a COMIC BOOK BUYING DECISION on national politics? Get a grip. Hell, I bought a "Rock Against Bush" CD.), but it neither deprives the writer of something to which he's entitled, nor takes cynical or hypocritical advantage of the First Amendment.
The RNC doesn't have to listen to opposing viewpoints.
"[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." - President Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2003
The RNC just doesn't want opposing viewpoints at all, regardless of who they are from.
The RNC just doesn't want opposing viewpoints at all, regardless of who they are from.
Yes, well, it's hard to compete with the DNC's legendary tolerance for any viewpoint... that comes from someone in a blue state.
Yes, well, it's hard to compete with the DNC's legendary tolerance for any viewpoint...
Really? I don't recall people being coroned off miles away from Bush at his inaguration, at the RNC convention, at many stops Bush made early on in the campaigning for reelection.
Hell, the war in Iraq and Powell's not coming back for Bush's 2nd term should tell you enough about what Bush thinks of opposing views.
Yes, well, it's hard to compete with the DNC's legendary tolerance for any viewpoint...
Really? I don't recall people being coroned off miles away from Clinton at his inaguration, at the DNC convention, at many stops Kerry made early on in the campaigning for reelection.
These are all things Bush did. Btw, this might've been posted twice, so this one is a correction... still early for me so thoughts sometimes don't type out the way my brain intended this early. ;)
Hell, the war in Iraq and Powell's not coming back for Bush's 2nd term should tell you enough about what Bush thinks of opposing views.
David, honestly, of what value is free speech if it's not heard? I think inherant in the right of free speech has to be access to the public. It's not a right to be heard, it's a right to have access. And I'd agree with you, that liberals do have access to the free speech market. But that access is being limited. Designated "free speech zones" are like concentration camps for ideas. Let's put all the undesireable concepts that we don't want to talk about, think about, or react to "over there," and maybe they'll go away.
I think I said pretty clearly that sneaking into the RNC proper and shouting out your disruptive message goes too far. You suggest trying to "inject" a counter message into someone's newsletter. that's not free speech, and private publications are under no obligation to open their pages for anyone to publish. I know that you are aware of that, so I'm kind of a little surprised that you'd raise it as an example since it doesn't go anywhere to advance your point.
It is absolutely true that the liberal message has valid entry points to the free speech market. I think it is also absolutely true that many liberals felt that their access has been restricted over the past few years. The right to be heard may not exist, but the right to access has to go hand in hand with free speech. If access is not included as a substantial part of free speech, then the whole concept is meaningless. What use saying we treasure the free expression of ideas if we're going to relegate in public where those ideas can be spoken?
Put another way, what use is free speech if the "free speech zone" is over there in the woods? So if a liberal rallies against conservative agendas in the middle of a forest, do the squirrels and birds really care?
Regulation of this kind is a sign of fear and weakness. And maybe an indication that one party has gained too much power. Fear that they can't counter with reason and ideas alone the ideas of the opposition. Weakness in giving in to the tempation of silencing the opposition rather than letting the ideas compete in the market of free speech. And power, in being able to restrict the opposition's access to the market.
I think I said pretty clearly that sneaking into the RNC proper and shouting out your disruptive message goes too far. You suggest trying to "inject" a counter message into someone's newsletter. that's not free speech, and private publications are under no obligation to open their pages for anyone to publish. I know that you are aware of that, so I'm kind of a little surprised that you'd raise it as an example since it doesn't go anywhere to advance your point.
Because by the same token, political conventions are private gatherings. The press is invited, because the organizations hosting these gatherings very much want to use them for public relatoins, but that doesn't mean every Tom, Dick, and Nader is welcome to park on the doorstep and shout at the attendees. I view the protests at the RNC to be identical to pro-life protesters at abortion clinics: obnoxious but engaging in a legal activity. And it's worth noting that abortion protestors are cordoned off at a distance from the clinic entrances routinely. And for that matter, contrary to Craig Ries's statement, "free speech zones" were pioneered at the DEMOCRATIC convention... in 2000. When Gore was the nominee. During the bucolic golden age of a Democratic presidency. Before Ashcroft. And repeated at this year's Democratic convention in Boston. I think that really diminishes your argument that these regulations indicate that one party has too much power, since both of them are doing it. Your beef may be with the two-party system in general.
It is absolutely true that the liberal message has valid entry points to the free speech market. I think it is also absolutely true that many liberals felt that their access has been restricted over the past few years.
Feeling it doesn't make it true. Honestly, is liberal speech really restricted anywhere but on the O'Reilly Factor? And if it's "absolutely true" that they have "valid entry points," what's the big deal about having slight restrictions on their ability to express themselves to convention attendees? Their access to one audience with no obvious interest in their message is restricted, but only slightly due to the existing legal doctrines that assure protesters the right to be within "sight and sound" range of the target. If liberals feel that their rights have been restricted of late, they need better evidence than this to support their claim. I honestly don't see a problem here, and I'm not aware of any more valid complaints.
The right to be heard may not exist, but the right to access has to go hand in hand with free speech. If access is not included as a substantial part of free speech, then the whole concept is meaningless. What use saying we treasure the free expression of ideas if we're going to relegate in public where those ideas can be spoken?
Time, place, and manner restrictions have always been accepted parts of "free speech" jurisprudence. The phrase that traditinoally appears in court opinions concerned with a variety of rights, not just free speech, is "ordered liberty." How do you otherwise reconcile the speaker's right to get his views out with the audience's right not to be bothered?