You may have noticed that Pudge has an Ask Pudge page. His last podcast, as of this writing, makes it clear why it's not worth listening to. He claims that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence".
Yup. That's his view on liberals. Conservatives, of course, are the sober, realistic individuals who, unlike liberals, actually think about things.
Silly me. I stupidly thought that disparate value systems might lead people to reach different conclusions about the relative merits of varying political and economic systems. Not so! Clearly no liberal has thought about the merit of their positions. It's all wishful thinking. I'm so grateful that Pudge has shown me the light.
(Mind you, if that's not his view on liberals, he shouldn't have said it. But you can listen to the podcast yourself and see if I'm misrepresenting him.)
Re:Yup...
Aristotle on 2006-09-27T00:13:26
For a well-stated dismantling of that notion, see Aaron Swartz’s excellent short essay The Intentionality of Evil.
Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-27T01:33:54
I also loved how he defined a "just war" as one where you "really believe" the made-up facts against Iraq
You love how I did something that I didn't do?
Try listening again. What I said was that you can define it either way. If going into Iraq is to stop Hussein from doing something terrible, that is Just, according to the Just War Theory. This is a given. And I said the war is NOT a Just War if you think the motives were otherwise, such as for oil.
and then goes on a rant about violating sanctions, yet these were UN sanctions and the UN did not authorise this war
That is entirely beside my point. My point was about the Just War Theory, which couldn't care less about such trivialities as whether the UN authorizes it or not. And again: if you believe that Hussein was going to cause great harm unless he is stopped by force, the war was arguably Just, acc. to the JWT. If not, then it was arguably not, acc. to that Theory.
Presumably made up facts about Iran will also be justification for an invasion.
I personally never believed for sure that Iraq had WMD (and am on record before the invasion saying so), and certainly never used the purported WMD as justification for invading Iraq, so it's funny that you're attacking the "made up facts" as though that hurts me personally in some way.
Presumably when I do talk about Iran at some point, you will make up things I didn't say then, too... ?
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-27T01:50:56
Try listening again. What I said was that you can define it either way. If going into Iraq is to stop Hussein from doing something terrible, that is Just, according to the Just War Theory. This is a given. And I said the war is NOT a Just War if you think the motives were otherwise, such as for oil.
You're very careful to not say whether or not you think it is or isn't a Just war. If you believe that it wasn't Just based on your reasoning then please feel free to respond to this comment indicating so. Otherwise your lack of criticism of your administration (of whom you're a very public and vocal supporter of, yet critical on other matters) enforces my view that you believe this is a Just War. I can't really comment on your other points until you clear that up.Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-27T02:15:14
You're very careful to not say whether or not you think it is or isn't a Just war.
Correct. The reason is simple: because I am not entirely sure, and even to the extent I think it is, I wouldn't try to convince anyone else.
Just because I am opinionated doesn't mean I have come to a conclusion about everything, or that I would attempt to convince others of all my opinions.
If you believe that it wasn't Just based on your reasoning then please feel free to respond to this comment indicating so.
There is no "fact" about whether it was a Just War. It's a matter of perspective. I respect (and disagree) with the perspective that it was Just and that we should have gone in because of WMD (since I didn't believe in the WMD). I also respect (and disagree) with the perspective that it was Unjust because there was no legitimate and good interest in our invasion.
My personal view is a bit more complex (and has remain unchanged since months before the invasion): that in order for us to achieve long-term security, we need to help foster a transformation of the Middle East to increase both economic and political liberty in the region, and that a great first step to that was removing one of the biggest evils and destabilizing influences in the region, which was preventing it from progressing: Saddam Hussein.
Otherwise your lack of criticism of your administration (of whom you're a very public and vocal supporter of, yet critical on other matters) enforces my view that you believe this is a Just War.
I've criticized the administration on the war many times. I criticized them in the buildup of the war for the extremely poor WMD presentation, and overall poor "marketing" of the war. And just this month I slammed Bush for saying we are safer, when that is quite simply unknowable.
Of course, none of that means the war is not Just. I tend to think it is, but as I've said for years: my view of this whole thing was based on a belief about what would happen if we do NOT go in (basically, a war with the entire Middle East sometime in the next several decades, that we need the aforementioned transformation to accomplish), so it's impossible for me to prove it's Just one way or another, since I can't prove my prediction would come true. I've never once tried to convince anyone that my prediction will come true, let alone that this is is the only or best way to go about it, and so certainly won't try to convince anyone that the war is Just based on those things.
I can't really comment on your other points until you clear that up.
You can't even comment on your misrepresentation about what I actually said? Oh, come on...
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-27T02:38:19
You can't even comment on your misrepresentation about what I actually said? Oh, come on...
I don't believe I did that, so what can I say? I'm sorry you think so, but that's one of those back-handed apologies that isn't worth much. Regarding your lack of criticism of the Bush administration - perhaps I've been reading the wrong blog and if so I can apologise for my lack of knowledge on that. Certainly I can't recall any such criticisms on use.perl though maybe my memory is faulty.
Your reasoning for believing the war may be Just sadly isn't one being pushed to the world by the US administration, and as such it is rather a weak defense of the administration (in that I wish to attack the administration, not *you* by any stretch). This possible future war with the Middle East seems all too far fetched for my liking though - where is the basis for this hypothesis?Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-27T03:08:22
I don't believe I did that, so what can I say?
So you still think I defined a "just war" as one where you "really believe" the made-up facts against Iraq. Except, I didn't. I said that that reasoning could be one justification for saying the war was Just. But I added quickly that there was no obligation to believe those things, and that if you didn't, well, then probably, to you it wasn't Just. I did not define what a Just War was, I simply gave one way in which you could reasonably call the war Just, and noted that it depends on your own perspective.
Regarding your lack of criticism of the Bush administration - perhaps I've been reading the wrong blog and if so I can apologise for my lack of knowledge on that. Certainly I can't recall any such criticisms on use.perl though maybe my memory is faulty.
I stopped posting political entries on this site long ago, mostly because of rampant misunderstandings and inflamed passions. I found much more reasoned and dispassionate and interesting discussion on my Slashdot journal.
Your reasoning for believing the war may be Just sadly isn't one being pushed to the world by the US administration
Yes, it has. Since the beginning, too. It's just figured less prominently, and has been presented very clumsily.
and as such it is rather a weak defense of the administration
I did not intend it as a defense of the administration. It is merely my reason for supporting the war.
This possible future war with the Middle East seems all too far fetched for my liking though - where is the basis for this hypothesis?
Watching and learning. An increasingly radicalized subculture that is ever-expanding its borders and spreading itself through fear, suppression, terror, at such a rate and to such a degree and with such tactics that I see very little other possible outcomes if something doesn't change. It's a complicated and involved discussion, and I don't have the time to get into it right now, but I didn't want to just brush off the question, so I hope that summary suffices.
And again, I know it's impossible to reasonably prove this view about a somewhat distant future, and I don't and won't try. I'll only try to explain what I think and why I think it. The most damning criticism of my view (I'll save you the trouble:-) is that because it is so hypothetical (we can argue about probability, but I won't), it's a poor reason to go to war. To that I merely say, I think the costs are too high to take that chance. Maybe I'm wrong. I dunno.
The other common criticism of my view is that it didn't work: it just made things worse. To that I say two things: a. we do not know things are actually worse, especially for the long run; b. just because I favored going in doesn't mean I favor how the whole enterprise has been handled.
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-27T03:36:53
... To that I merely say, I think the costs are too high to take that chance. Maybe I'm wrong. I dunno.
The other common criticism of my view is that it didn't work: it just made things worse. To that I say two things: a. we do not know things are actually worse, especially for the long run; b. just because I favored going in doesn't mean I favor how the whole enterprise has been handled.
Right now the only thing we do know is that a) things are actually worse and b) the costs have been enormous.
When does it become time to say they screwed up? And not just in a small way, but in an enormous and almost incalculable way.
Regarding the "Just War" issue - you have now stated it was a Just War but for entirely different reasons than given in your podcast, so I'm utterly confused about why you would even state such reasons. You could have just said "If you believe Saddam is ugly then it was Just", which would have had as much weight as your podcast point. There has to be more reasoning for a Just war than just believing it was the right thing to do, and far more evidence for a possible "future war with the middle east" for killing tens of thousands of civilians. You can't just stomp all over other countries because you think they might do bad things in the future - the results are (a), above.Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-27T04:21:07
Right now the only thing we do know is that a) things are actually worse and b) the costs have been enormous.
We do know b. As to a.... worse than what? Worse than they would have been otherwise? We do not know that. It's perfectly reasonable to suppose, for example, that terrorism would be even worse had we not gone in.
For example, after the USS Cole attack, when the U.S. did not respond, that actually encouraged terrorists; if we backed down to Hussein, would that have encouraged terrorists too? Obviously, the terrorists and Hussein are not the same thing, but neither were the terrorists the same thing as the Somalian warlords, and that too emboldened the terrorists. And remember, of course, we didn't invade Iraq before 9/11.
But perhaps you mean that things are worse than they were before we invaded Iraq. That's probably true (although I don't think we can know it for certain), but I think it's not very relevant, because I don't think it's reasonable to say things would be better today had we not gone in, and because I still think in the long run we will likely be better off, even if not better off in the short run.
Again, the cost question is without question, though it's again worth asking (as I did before the war) what the potential costs are if we didn't act.
When does it become time to say they screwed up? And not just in a small way, but in an enormous and almost incalculable way.
If you actually believe it, then go ahead and say it. I still think the war's the right thing to do, as do many people who know a lot more about the war firsthand than you or I do. Of course, many people who know a lot more than we do also think it's a terrible thing to do. The point I am making is that reasonable and intelligent people can disagree, and the only thing that really offends me in this whole discussion is the notion (on both sides, but far more in the last year or so on the anti-war side) that if you disagree, you're stupid/evil/ignorant/etc.
Regarding the "Just War" issue - you have now stated it was a Just War but for entirely different reasons than given in your podcast, so I'm utterly confused about why you would even state such reasons.
I am utterly confused why you would be confused.:-)
You could have just said "If you believe Saddam is ugly then it was Just", which would have had as much weight as your podcast point.
No, because no one holds to such a view, that I know of.
Many people, reasonably, hold (or held) to the two views I offered. Many Democrats voted for military action because they believed that Hussein had WMD and was prepared to use them, because that is what the U.S., UK, and many other intelligence agencies believed. So they supported the war, and thought it was Just. Even though I disagree with them -- because I didn't accept the evidence for WMD -- I won't claim their support of the war was Unjust, because it was a reasonable conclusion based on their beliefs at the time.
I gave that reason because it is a pervasively held one. The context was not me trying to say why the Iraq War is Just, but to give an example reason why, from a Christian perspective, the war may, arguably, be considered Just.
There has to be more reasoning for a Just war than just believing it was the right thing to do
Sure. But it was more complicated than I wanted to get into in a short podcast. Basically, Augustine identified three elements, and this fits under the most commonly cited, "defending against an external attack."
What muddles the issue, of course, is the issue of preemption. Some have said, with good reason, that "within the framework of just war theory, pre-emption can be morally justified only in rare circumstances -- when the attack is likely to be imminent, the threat is grave, and preventive means other than war are unavailable." And of course, the reported threat of WMD fit the second of those criteria quite clearly, and the first to some degree (though specific evidence was scant, one could still easily believe Iraq might use their weapons imminently); and the third is pretty subjective and could be argued either way.
I suppose I should emphasize here that I am talking about belief, as I said in the podcast. Belief and proof are different things. I wholeheartedly agree with those that claim that the war was not proved to be Just based on the WMD question, at any point. But that doesn't mean someone cannot honestly and intelligently come to the conclusion that the war was Just based on the WMD question, according to the information available at the time.
and far more evidence for a possible "future war with the middle east" for killing tens of thousands of civilians.
Sure. Obviously, my view doesn't fit the "imminent" criteria, but frankly, I don't find imminence to be of significant importance if the other two criteria are met (if it is a grave threat that cannot be avoided in any other way, why does it matter if the threat is imminent? and more to the point, what if the threat must be confronted now, because if you wait until it is imminent, it is too late?)
And again, this is why I don't try to convince anyone: I believe it, but I can't prove it. Can't even come close. Even though I supported the war because I believe what I do, I am not so sure if I were in charge of things, I'd have pushed for war on that basis, because as the actual people in charge, you need to answer to the people... and I can't convince anyone of this.
(For the record, I did argue a lot prewar about the legal aspects of what was going on with the UN and Resolution 1441 and so on... I did and do maintain the war was legally justified. But that does not in any way make the war Just. And I don't want to have that argument now ... but in case you looked around and saw all my arguments about the international legal and political process from 2003, I didn't want you to wrongly think I was being disingenuous. At the time, I did distinguish too, noting that even though it was legally justified, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.)
You can't just stomp all over other countries because you think they might do bad things in the future - the results are (a), above.
Again, you can't know things are worse now than they otherwise would have been.
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-27T15:40:18
worse than what? Worse than they would have been otherwise? We do not know that. It's perfectly reasonable to suppose, for example, that terrorism would be even worse had we not gone in.
Had we not gone into Afghanistan, sure, that's a reasonable supposition (not one I subscribe to, but it is reasonable). Cost: $88bn
I do not think it is reasonable to suppose that terrorism would be worse had the US not gone into Iraq. There is no connection there. Cost: $318bn
(source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf#search=%22war%20costs%20iraq%20afg hanistan%22)
There was no threat of "backing down" to Hussein. The UN inspection process was continuing and working. I can only presume that the US hoped (or assumed) the inspections would find WMDs and thus got frustrated when they didn't. Funny how they didn't find them either. So the inspection process was *clearly* working as otherwise the US troops would have found WMDs in places Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to look. So I believe things are provably worse - the US has pissed off a good proportion of the muslim population of the world by attacking a nation for no clear reason, and massively increased the US debt load in doing so, which has the potential to throw most of the modern world into another depression. None of this is a good thing.
FWIW I don't think you're stupid/evil/ignorant - well maybe a little ignorant - but that's based on the fact that I grew up with a terrorism that was finally solved, not by war, but through discussion. And I feel that the current US administration (and your support of these policies) is misinformed in believing a war can stop or even reduce terrorism. But just because that's my belief doesn't make it an absolute - I am a reasonable person who respects there can be different viewpoints.
Beam me up, scotty;-) Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-27T16:12:01
I do not think it is reasonable to suppose that terrorism would be worse had the US not gone into Iraq. There is no connection there.
I'm sorry, that's just wrong. We know the terrorists were watching our reaction to Iraq, whether we would stand up, or back down, to the implicit threat of Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UN resolutions. We know that when we back down -- whether politically or militarily -- that it emboldens the terrorists.
(For what it's worth, the Duelfer Report also makes clear that Hussein was going to restart his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted.)
There was no threat of "backing down" to Hussein. The UN inspection process was continuing and working.
This is just false. It was continuing, and not working. Hussein had already irrevocably violated Resolution 1441, with no hopes of ever coming into compliance with it. The marker for whether inspections were working was 1441, passed unanimously by the Security Council in late 2002, and there's no way to read 1441 without coming to the conclusion that inspections had irrevocably failed.
I can only presume that the US hoped (or assumed) the inspections would find WMDs and thus got frustrated when they didn't.
No. The clear language of 1441 forced Hussein to comply immediately and fully (he did neither), because if he did not, then the time spent in the interim could be used to try to hide any WMD they had. The very fact that it took them months to comply fully means that 1441 had been violated, and that there was no way to trust that Iraq had no WMD, no matter how long the inspections went on.
So the inspection process was *clearly* working as otherwise the US troops would have found WMDs in places Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to look.
One has nothing to do with the other, unless you are implying the inspections process caused Hussein to hide his WMDs, which would not be a success of the process, but a failure. Other than that possibility, there is no connection to the inspections process, and whether Hussein had weapons.
Perhaps you mean the other two parts of the process that Blix's UNMOVIC were involved with (monitoring, verification, and inspection). Except that they'd not done any monitoring or verification (or inspections) for five years. There's only one thing the international community did in between the time that UNMOVIC left Iraq in 1998, and went back in 2003: the U.S. bombing of Baghdad in late '98. If anything "worked" to get rid of Hussein's weapons, it was U.S. bombs, not UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC documents and the Duelfer Report confirm this, saying that Iraq had no WMD primarily because they were destroyed by the U.S. in '98 (this was also Iraq's claim during late 2002/early 2003: we can't account for it because you destroyed it!).
So now we get to late 2002, and the UN Resolution says, fine, you don't have WMD? Then freeze, do not move a muscle, and prove it to us by giving us all the info you have and giving us free reign to investigate. Failure to comply immediately and fully means you failed to prove anything. But, Hussein stalled and pushed back.
So I believe things are provably worse
It cannot possibly be proven, because you cannot come close to proving what might have happened had we not gone in.
the US has pissed off a good proportion of the muslim population of the world by attacking a nation for no clear reason
Well, *I* think the reason is clear. But we've already gone over that.
and massively increased the US debt load in doing so, which has the potential to throw most of the modern world into another depression
No it doesn't. It's bad, but it's not nearly that bad. The economy is still very strong, despite a rising debt. This is a long-term problem that won't lead to depression, but if unchecked will lead to an ever-decreasing standard of living in the U.S., relative to our trading partners.
None of this is a good thing.
Sure, but the part you cannot prove is that it wouldn't have been worse otherwise.
FWIW I don't think you're stupid/evil/ignorant - well maybe a little ignorant - but that's based on the fact that I grew up with a terrorism that was finally solved, not by war, but through discussion.
Sure, and I think you're a little bit ignorant (not because of your opinions, because of some of your facts, such as enumerated above about inspections working). OBL and al Qaeda are completely unwilling to have discussion. Either we comply with their ever-changing demands, or they try to kill us. There's no negotiation to be had. They do not want to peacefully coexist.
And I feel that the current US administration (and your support of these policies) is misinformed in believing a war can stop or even reduce terrorism.
Sure it can. Just not in the short term. Before this whole thing started, I readily conceded this would inflame the Middle East and, in the short term, increase terrorism. The question was never how much terrorism there would be in 2006 or even 2010, but in 2050.
Recall what Bush said at the end of Woodward's Plan of Attack from 2004."It would be impossible to get the (historical) meaning (of the war) right in the short run," the President said, adding he thought it would take about 10 years to understand the impact and the true significance of the war. "There will probably be cycles," I said. "As Karl Rove believes," I reminded him, "all history gets measured by outcomes." Bush smiled. "History," he said, shrugging, taking his hands out of his pockets, extending his arms out and suggesting with his body language that it was so far off. "We won't know. We'll all be dead."
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-27T17:58:59
We know the terrorists were watching our reaction to Iraq, whether we would stand up, or back down, to the implicit threat of Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UN resolutions.
We know this how? Did I miss a memo?
Clearly the terrorists were running scared after Iraq was attacked - that really showed them who not to mess with. </sarcasm>
This is just false. It was continuing, and not working. Hussein had already irrevocably violated Resolution 1441, with no hopes of ever coming into compliance with it. The marker for whether inspections were working was 1441, passed unanimously by the Security Council in late 2002, and there's no way to read 1441 without coming to the conclusion that inspections had irrevocably failed.
There was a process, and nobody expected it to be entirely smooth against a country like Iraq and a dictator like Saddam. Following 1441, which Saddam cooperated with, the process was working again. You can see as much from the timeline of events leading up to the war. Yes, it wasn't on the demanded schedules, but that's a far cry from being utterly broken.
Before this whole thing started, I readily conceded this would inflame the Middle East and, in the short term, increase terrorism. The question was never how much terrorism there would be in 2006 or even 2010, but in 2050.
The terrorists aren't running scared by the Iraq attack, as evidenced by the continuing (some might say increased) level of terrorist attacks since the war (Madrid, London, Bali, Mumbai, and the alleged liquid bomb plot - all linked either directly or indirectly to Al-Qaeda), and yet you believe (or support the notion? Again you've been very careful to not say) that things will be better by 2050 (presumably that means better than they were in early 2001). I just don't see how they're going to get better. A democracy in Iraq isn't going to solve global terrorism. This plan makes no sense.
OBL and al Qaeda are completely unwilling to have discussion. Either we comply with their ever-changing demands, or they try to kill us. There's no negotiation to be had. They do not want to peacefully coexist.
That's what most people believed about the IRA too.Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-27T18:30:49
We know this how?
From statements they've made, both about Iraq specifically and about other incidents.
There was a process, and nobody expected it to be entirely smooth against a country like Iraq and a dictator like Saddam.
Then they should have written 1441 differently.
Following 1441, which Saddam cooperated with, the process was working again.
No. He irrevocably failed to comply with 1441. This is a simple fact. He was never, at any point, cooperating with 1441, so as to be in compliance with its requirements.
You can see as much from the timeline of events leading up to the war. Yes, it wasn't on the demanded schedules, but that's a far cry from being utterly broken.
Actually, no, it is not. Not if you read the actual text of 1441. If he did not cooperate immediately and fully (which he did not), then he was in material breach of 1441:... failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations. ...
The terrorists aren't running scared by the Iraq attack, as evidenced by the continuing (some might say increased) level of terrorist attacks since the war (Madrid, London, Bali, Mumbai, and the alleged liquid bomb plot - all linked either directly or indirectly to Al-Qaeda)
I deny your claim. I think the increased attacks are evidence precisely of that: they are scared and are lashing out more.
and yet you believe (or support the notion? Again you've been very careful to not say) that things will be better by 2050... because I cannot predict the future?
I just don't see how they're going to get better. A democracy in Iraq isn't going to solve global terrorism. This plan makes no sense.
Of course it does. The main problem confronting the Middle East, that causes Islamism (radical Islam), is a lack of social, economic, and political liberty. People are not progressing, and are desperate, and blame all their problems on us. Over time, as they gain liberty, they have more to lose and less to gain by wanting to bother blaming, let alone attacking, other people.
(presumably that means better than they were in early 2001).
No. It means better than they otherwise would have been. Also, things were much better in late 2001 than early 2001, so I don't know why you would say early 2001.
That's what most people believed about the IRA too.
They were wrong about the IRA.
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-27T19:47:41
- We know this how?
From statements they've made, both about Iraq specifically and about other incidents.
Got a cite? (I clearly missed this)
- There was a process, and nobody expected it to be entirely smooth against a country like Iraq and a dictator like Saddam.
Then they should have written 1441 differently.
On the contrary - I think the wording was entirely necessary to get action, as was the threat of an attack from the US. I just don't think it was necessary to carry it out.
I don't really see how you can argue that Saddam's lack of full cooperation with a UN resolution was any justification for a US-led war. It was a UN resolution not a US resolution, and the US did not have UN support for the war.
I think the increased attacks are evidence precisely of that: they are scared and are lashing out more.
To use one of your phrases: Oh come on.
They are angry not scared. The terrorists aren't in Iraq! Why should they be scared?
Over time, as they gain liberty, they have more to lose and less to gain by wanting to bother blaming, let alone attacking, other people.
I agree. But how is a war in Iraq going to achieve that? Especially given the size and significance of just Iraq in the whole scheme of things here. It might achieve stability and democracy in Iraq, but again, where is the link to global terrorism?Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-27T20:41:11
Got a cite? (I clearly missed this)
Yes, but no time to look it up now. Just quickly:
On the contrary - I think the wording was entirely necessary to get action, as was the threat of an attack from the US. I just don't think it was necessary to carry it out.
Whether or not we should have acted is beside any point I am making here. The point I am making here is that Hussein was, irrevocably, in material breach of 1441.
I don't really see how you can argue that Saddam's lack of full cooperation with a UN resolution was any justification for a US-led war.
I really don't see how you can think I made such an argument. In fact, in this discussion I specifically said I wasn't making that argument.
I think the increased attacks are evidence precisely of that: they are scared and are lashing out more.
To use one of your phrases: Oh come on.
Back at you.
They are angry not scared. The terrorists aren't in Iraq! Why should they be scared?
First, yes, they are scared. They know if they let up, or lose Iraq, they will lose ground. Read that Zarqai letter the CPA released in October 2005. Second, yes, they are in Iraq, in very large numbers, controlling much of Iraq's Anbar province. We killed Zarqawi in Iraq. Not sure why you think they aren't there.
I agree. But how is a war in Iraq going to achieve that?
Refer to what I already wrote about Hussein being a roadblock to progress of the entire region.
Re:Yup...
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T18:04:47
The UN inspection process was continuing and working.
... So the inspection process was *clearly* working as otherwise the US troops would have found WMDs in places Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to look. You define "working" as "Iraq was prevented from developing or continuing to possess WMD." (And take "no WMD could be found even by those who had a very vested interest in finding them -- the US military" as proof that Iraq was indeed prevented.)
I define "working" as "Saddam Hussein complied with all terms." He didn't, so I say it didn't work.
Did that justify war? I'll leave that for people who aren't pacifists, like me, to decide.
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-28T18:10:30
You define "working" as "Iraq was prevented from developing or continuing to possess WMD." (And take "no WMD could be found even by those who had a very vested interest in finding them -- the US military" as proof that Iraq was indeed prevented.)
Was more required to make the world safe? And fwiw it wasn't just WMDs, he also dismantled his medium range missiles.
I define "working" as "Saddam Hussein complied with all terms." He didn't, so I say it didn't work.
You forgot to say "within the timelines specified". He was complying with the terms on a slightly slower timeline, yet while progress was being made the US decided an attack was the better option.
Did that justify war? I'll leave that for people who aren't pacifists, like me, to decide.
Why? Do you not get a vote because you're a pacifist??? That makes no sense whatsoever.Re:Yup...
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T18:21:59
Was more required to make the world safe?
There's a very thin shade of difference in definitions here, so parse this answer closely: no, more was not required to make the world safe, but more was required in order to determine that the world was, in fact, safe.
You forgot to say "within the timelines specified". He was complying with the terms on a slightly slower timeline, yet while progress was being made the US decided an attack was the better option.
I may be misremembering, or I may have even swallowed some propaganda from a vast right wing conspiracy war machine or something, but my memory tells me that Hussein had made clear his contempt for the process and his intent to comply only as much as necessary to placate people, not to actually comply with the terms. It wasn't like when you get behind on a loan payment and call the loan company to say, "Look, I'm very sorry I'm behind, but can we work this out?" It was more like calling them up to say, "I'm behind, and I'm not going to cooperate with you, and I don't see an obligation to, and you can just accept whatever payments I choose to give you whenever I feel like. If I do." In other words, in addition to dragging his feet, Hussein was announcing his intention to not comply 100% in the future.
Why? Do you not get a vote because you're a pacifist??? That makes no sense whatsoever.
I recognize a right of all human beings to self-defense and I choose not to exercise mine for religious reasons, and I believe I've restrained from interfering with other people exercising theirs. I believe all just war would have to be an extension of this right to self defense. The exact terms under which exercising that right is valid is going to have to be between those who exercise it and those who are on the other end. For my part, I'll never again vote for a politician who believes in using lethal government force, since I don't believe in doing it myself and can't authorize someone to do so as my representative. But if other people think they are legitimately threatened and need to take action to defend themselves, that's for them to determine.
Does that clear it up, or make it worse?
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-28T18:57:41
I may be misremembering, or I may have even swallowed some propaganda from a vast right wing conspiracy war machine or something, but my memory tells me that Hussein had made clear his contempt for the process and his intent to comply only as much as necessary to placate people, not to actually comply with the terms.
Perhaps you swallowed the propaganda. More likely is that US reporting on world affairs is notoriously shoddy. Here's an abridged timeline for you:
November 8, 2002: The UN Council votes unanimously for resolution 1441
November 13, 2002: Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.
Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.
December 7, 2002: Iraq files a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements of resolution 1441. UN weapons inspectors, the UN security council and the U.S. feel that this declaration fails to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents (it was later proved that the declaration was in fact accurate, and the suspected missing weapons were missing because the US and UK had destroyed them in their earlier bombings).
January 27, 2003: Chairmen of the inspections effort report to the UN Security Council that, while Iraq has provided some access to facilities, concerns remain regarding undeclared material; inability to interview Iraqi scientists; inability to deploy aerial surveillance during inspections; and harassment of weapons inspectors.
February 5, 2003: At the United Nations US Secretary of State Colin Powell presents the US government's case against the Saddam Hussein government of Iraq, as part of the diplomatic side of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. The presentation includes tape recordings, satellite photographs and other intelligence data, and aims to prove WMD production, evasion of weapons inspections and a link to Al-Qaida. This is the event that Colin Powell later stated that he owed the US an apology for, because it was misleading and in some cases entirely fabricated.
February 7, 2003: The chief United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix says Iraq appears to be making fresh efforts to cooperate with U.N. teams hunting weapons of mass destruction, while Washington says the "momentum is building" for war with Iraq.
February 12, 2003: An audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden is released by al Jazeera television. It recounts the battle of Tora Bora and urges Muslims to fight the United States and to overthrow the Iraq government of Saddam Hussein.
February 13, 2003: A UN panel reports that Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles, disclosed by Iraq to weapons inspectors in December, have a range of 180 km (above the 150 km limit allowed by the UN), splitting opinion over whether they breach UNSCR 1441.
February 14, 2003: UNMOVIC chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei present their second report to the United Nations Security Council. They state that the Iraqis have been co-operating well with the inspectors and that no weapons of mass destruction have been found
March 1, 2003: Under UN supervision, Iraq begins destroying four of its Al Samoud missiles.
March 2, 2003: Iraq destroys six more Al Samoud missiles.
March 3, 2003: Iraqi technicians use bulldozers to crush six more of the banned Al-Samoud 2 missiles.
March 4, 2003: Iraq destroys three more Al Samoud 2 missiles, bringing to 19 the number Baghdad has crushed out of 100 ordered destroyed by the UN. Iraq also destroys a launcher and five engines in a rush to prove it is disarming before a crucial U.N. report on March 7. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls the new actions "a positive development" while the White House remains unconvinced saying, "Despite whatever limited head-fakes Iraq has engaged in, they continue to fundamentally not disarm."
March 5, 2003: Two days before his scheduled update to the United Nations on Iraqi cooperation with inspection, Hans Blix credits Iraq with "a great deal more of cooperation now". Iraq destroys nine more Al Samoud 2 missiles, bringing to 28 the total number of missiles scrapped.
March 6, 2003: Iraq flattens six more Al Samoud 2 missiles
Things pretty much go downhill from there to March 20th, as it becomes clear to Iraq that the US isn't backing down it's threats despite their increased cooperation.
During this time period Iraq have yet to fully disarm, so there's a question mark there over that issue, and indeed I suspect if pressed that's what many who support the war might focus on. But was the inspection (and disarmarment) process working? Damn straight it was - I don't see how you can read the above and think it wasn't.
The above is abridged, and while I've tried not to be biased (it's all copy-paste) I have entirely focused on putting Iraq's actions in a positive light. Even doing this makes me feel a little dirty because I don't for one second think that Iraq was a terrific nation led by an up-standing gentleman. I just think that the US-led actions there have made the world a much worse place. And I don't think it will be a terrific place led by an up-standing person in the future, because there's just too much possibility for corruption and carpetbagging there now.
Read the full un-abridged timeline at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003Re:Yup...
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T19:32:54
Okay, here's what I thought happened: it was insisted to Iraq (by the UN, the US, and/or the inspectors) that immediate access be granted to certain sites. Iraq said, "No, wait, hang on a minute, uh, we don't want to do that right now." It was a situation that, if I remembered, could have been completely cleared up if Iraq had just said, "Come on in. Today." And they didn't.
And I see things in there like, "harassment of weapons inspectors," and I have to ask, "Isn't it clear that this is not cooperating with the terms?" I see, "They state that the Iraqis have been co-operating well," and I want to know, "Is this like when your two-year old finally does one out of ten things you asked and you say, 'Good job,' or does this mean they were cooperating 100%? Were they giving full compliance, or just surprising us by actually complying a little bit?"
And I see, "UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls the new actions 'a positive development' while the White House remains unconvinced saying, 'Despite whatever limited head-fakes Iraq has engaged in, they continue to fundamentally not disarm,'" and I ask, "Okay, which of these two opinions do we accept as an accurate appraisal of the situation?" I don't take Kofi Annan's pronouncements as Gospel truth any more than you would take George Bush's.
"Hans Blix credits Iraq with 'a great deal more of cooperation now'": okay, but were they cooperating 100%? I can't see indications even in Hans Blix's quotes where he felt that, "Okay, Iraq is now doing everything in their power. They are cooperating fully. They are not dragging their feet at all, nor denying us access to anywhere. We have free reign to inspect anything and everthing anywhere in the country."
Damn straight it was - I don't see how you can read the above and think it wasn't.
My reasoning above still makes me think it's rational to question whether or not they were fully cooperating. Sounds equally probable that they were destroying some minor missles hoping to stall for more time and make the world say, "Oh, look, yes, they are working with us now." As long as there were still uninspected areas, the issue was letting in the inspectors, not proceeding with the weapons destruction.
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-28T19:53:39
I agree, they were not fully cooperating, however the inspectors were (I imagine) dealing with some very deep seated hatred against the inspections from those who ran the sites Blix was trying to gain access to, so I'm sure he didn't expect it be a completely open door policy.
Regardless, the inspections and disarmament were moving forwards, even if not entirely within the bounds of the UN resolution (though it should be noted the UN wished to amend the resolution with new deadlines, but it was made clear to them that any such change would be vetoed). The US decided this wasn't good enough for them. This is why the US gets a bad rap for being a big bully on the international stage - they operated outside of the UN because they weren't getting to choose what was "good enough".
Regarding: I don't take Kofi Annan's pronouncements as Gospel truth any more than you would take George Bush's., remember that Annan was merely reporting on what Blix was telling him. I *far* more trust someone on the ground in the country itself than someone sitting behind the desk in the Oval office, especially given what we now know to be the complete fabrications that the administration presented as facts in this time period. Any American (republican or democrat or "none of the above") should be damn suspicious about the continual stream of lies coming from the current administration (most recently: "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight Al Qaeda").Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-29T03:28:44
Regardless, the inspections and disarmament were moving forwards
In a way that could never possibly bring them into compliance with 1441.
even if not entirely within the bounds of the UN resolution
Completely OUTSIDE the bounds of 1441.
though it should be noted the UN wished to amend the resolution with new deadlines
Yes, and thankfully that was impossible. Amending the resolution would be exactly equivalent to saying that 1441 had no meaning whatsoever, because the "immediately" provision of 1441 was the whole point. Stalling == cheating. That's the message that was sent. Those who wanted to give Iraq more time were saying Cheating == OK, if it averts war.
The US decided this wasn't good enough for them.
Because they were entirely sensible.
This is why the US gets a bad rap for being a big bully on the international stage - they operated outside of the UN because they weren't getting to choose what was "good enough".
And this is why the UN has virtually no respect among civilized people: because it never means a damned thing it says. It's being a "bully" to insist on holding Hussein's feet to the unanimously approved fire of 1441, and telling the UN, fine, if YOU don't do it, WE will.
Even if I were not in favor of the invasion, I would have been at least very happy that this whole process showed the UN to be the complete sham that it is. For 12 years, it refused to do jack to enforce anything against Iraq, even though way back in 1991, the Security Council threatened the use of force if Iraq didn't comply. For 12 years, the UN threatened force. For 12 years, Iraq said "yeah, right," and the UN backed off.
Frankly, the real cause of war here is the UN and its process; without that nonsense, we never would have gotten to where we were in late 2002/early 2003. The UN allowed the problem to fester and escalate because of its absolute refusal to do what it says.
Remember Hans Blix saying the threat of US force in early 2003 helped force Iraq's hand? How much would Iraq have complied in the intervening 12 years if the UN had lived up to ITS threats against Iraq?
Anyway. The message here is: I have no respect for the UN.:-)
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-29T13:25:49
Remember Hans Blix saying the threat of US force in early 2003 helped force Iraq's hand? How much would Iraq have complied in the intervening 12 years if the UN had lived up to ITS threats against Iraq?
This I agree with entirely, and said so in a previous reply to you. The UN was weak, but I still think that the world was safe enough from Saddam's harm because of the process (and the threat of war) that war wasn't necessary in the end. That's the point we'll have to agree to disagree on.Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-29T15:18:09
I still think that the world was safe enough from Saddam's harm because of the process (and the threat of war) that war wasn't necessary in the end.
Fine, but what you're missing is that the process *was explicitly stated* to work so that without *full and immediate cooperation,* we would not be able to *know* that the world (or region) was safe from Hussein. You might think we were safe enough, but the process had already irrevocably failed to prove that. There was no way to trust the outcome of the process once Hussein failed to live up to its requirements.
As such, I deny the claim that the threat of war was enough: obviously it wasn't, because the process had failed under this threat. Hussein apparently thought he could violate 1441 and still avoid reaction if he just slowly dragged the process out, as he had done under the UN's lead for 12 years. Next time, however, the threat probably will be enough, if we still have people in power that mean the threats they make.
(And once again, I am not saying this failure justifies war. There still remained the question: OK, so the process failed... now what do you do about it?)
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-29T17:30:01
Fine, but what you're missing is that the process *was explicitly stated* to work so that without *full and immediate cooperation,* we would not be able to *know* that the world (or region) was safe from Hussein. You might think we were safe enough, but the process had already irrevocably failed to prove that. There was no way to trust the outcome of the process once Hussein failed to live up to its requirements.
I mostly agree with you, but I still don't think war was the right action as a result. There were successes following 1441 that I won't just ignore.
It's a shame that the war in Iraq doesn't have as explicit an agenda (a plan, a timeline, a budget, criteria for success. etc) as resolution 1441 had.Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-29T03:19:18
Was more required to make the world safe? And fwiw it wasn't just WMDs, he also dismantled his medium range missiles.
Before I forget... there is no proper distinction, insofar as the UN resolutions are concerned, between the medium range missiles and "WMD." They were all proscribed in Resolution 687.
You forgot to say "within the timelines specified".
No. If I tell you to run around the block in one minute, and you fail, I don't say you succeeded if you show up in 1:30. You failed.
He was complying with the terms on a slightly slower timeline, yet while progress was being made
You are denying the plain language of Resolution 1441: he had already failed, and there's no way around this truth except to ignore what 1441 actually said.
The point of the timeline and the very strong language about it is that by taking more time, he is therefore able to subvert the entire process. The fact that he took too long means he may have hidden his weapons, in Iraq or in Syria. I'm not saying that happened, just that we can't know, because the timeline was ignored. That's the whole reason it was there, to say "we need you to finish on time, or else you fail, because any more time than that and we can't know you're being straight with us."
This is what the U.S. signed on to. Maybe the rest of the UN didn't actually mean it, but the U.S. sure did. And when the U.S. signed it, they also made perfectly clear that they were under no obligation to come back to the table if Iraq did not comply, and would feel free to act on their own if they felt it necessary. There was never any doubt that any failure by Iraq would constitute, in the eyes of the U.S. and Britain, an actionable material breach of 1441. And yet, Iraq not only failed, they completely failed, they failed miserably, by refusing to cooperate well past the deadline set.
If you are a parolee out from prison, and are wanted on a warrant for a crime, and I am a cop, and I track you down, and tell you to freeze, put your hands on your head... and instead you turn around and stick your hands in your pants pockets ... I am going to shoot you.
Remember, Iraq was not just any country: they were found guilty by the UN and under obligation by the UN Security Council to submit to 687 and following resolutions. They do not get the benefit of the doubt; they have to prove their own innocence, as terms of their "parole," UN Security Council Resolution 687.
So in March, after Iraq's failure to comply, Bush said, "You've screwed up, and there's no more hope. Give up now, or we're coming in." That the UN never pressed the issue in 12 years just proves the UN cannot be trusted with such a task ever again.
Again, I am not saying that justifies war wrt the Just War Theory. But it certainly does justify it legally, and the circumstances leading up to the war are not in the UN's or Iraq's favor. They did everything wrong, and the U.S. did everything right. Again, that doesn't mean the U.S. *was* right in invading. Just that within the process, the U.S. was right. Unequivocally.
Re:Yup...
Alias on 2006-09-27T14:08:25
Without getting involved too much in the can of worms, and without offering an opinion either way, I seem to recall seeing figures on terrorist attacks (and yes, that has definition issues) that said while the total number of terrorist acts was up greatly since before the war, the number of attacks once you factor out those happening in Iraq were notably down on beforehand.
So at least for now I guess one could argue it's making those of us outside of Iraq somewhat safer.
And of course, my country hasn't had to pay a huge amount (or at least, their costs are only about 10% of our current budget surplus).
Which is a lot, but not THAT much more, and we can afford it, and nobody has been killed in enemy action yet.
So maybe we got off light...
Re:Yup...
Matts on 2006-09-27T14:18:12
There are definitely too many issues with the concept of "terrorist attacks". For example does the recent alleged plan to attack airplanes in the UK constitute an attack?
The problem with the cost aspect is it has the potential to throw the entire world into another depression, because the US is relying solely on debt to fund this war, and debt can only go so far - what is the plan to repay that debt? I don't believe there is one.
So despite Australia getting off lightly on the current cost of the war, there is potential for a very scary future not too far down the line.Re:Yup...
pudge on 2006-09-29T20:25:09
So at least for now I guess one could argue it's making those of us outside of Iraq somewhat safer.
One could argue that, but one can't know that. You can know you are potentially safer from those terrorists in Iraq, but that doesn't mean terrorist activity outside of Iraq hasn't increased.
Re:Yup...
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T17:54:06
I found much more reasoned and dispassionate and interesting discussion on my Slashdot journal.
Man, that's pathetic. Who runs this place, anyway?
:P
Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense now - GWB really believed all those "facts", so it MUST be Just.
Who needs facts when you have truthiness
You're clearly not putting that into the larger context of everything pudge has to say. I think it's clear pudge doesn't sit around dismissing liberals because "it's just wishful thinking" or "they think we can all have a Star Trek like existence." However, these are specific things that have been brought up to him. The Star Trek question was brought up two or three episodes ago.
And all of this was in the context of, "Do you think conservatives are motivated by fear? And do you think liberals are just motivated by wishful thinking?" And his answer is basically, "I don't think either side is motivated by fear more than the other. Look here, you could make the same charge about liberals (lists examples), but really that's not very useful for addressing the issues either way. Are liberals motivated by wishful thinking? Well, sometimes, I guess, but again dismissive labels aren't that useful for addressing the real issues."
Re:Context
Ovid on 2006-09-26T16:16:48
Pudge deliberately chose a very narrow description of liberals -- and not one that I know of any liberal subscribing to -- and then used that to contrast against conservatives who reject that thinking. That's about as unfair a comparison as one can get and it definitely meets the criteria of straw man.
Re:Context
pudge on 2006-09-27T01:26:56
Pudge deliberately chose a very narrow description of liberals
OK, now you are just lying about me. Please stop. You posted this AFTER you admitted I didn't say what you said I said. And now you continue to claim I did say it. Why are you lying about me?
Re:Context
Ovid on 2006-09-27T06:48:14
Sigh. I am not lying, Pudge. I very specifically apologized to you for saying that you accused "all liberals" of the idiocy you described. That was clearly a mistake on my part and I am genuinely sorry for that mischaracterization.
But as anyone who wants to read my comments in context can see, I take exception to your choosing to present a minority view (a minority so small I've never met anyone who subscribes to it) of Democrats, described them as "many Democrats", and deliberately used that as a contrast to your wise, thoughtful, enlightened conservatives. It's technically not a lie, but I believe it's disingenuous at best.
To repeat the gist of my disagreement for those who don't want to wade into the other thread, here's a counter-example:
Many conservatives are on a mad, hate-filled frenzy of xenophobia, willing to kill anyone who opposes America. Their thinly veiled -- sometimes open -- racism is harming our country. Liberals reject this viewpoint and accept that different people and cultures must learn to live together in peace.Of course, since I'm fuzzy on the word "many", that's also technically correct and if I posted that to my LiveJournal blog, there are probably quite a few folks out there who wouldn't see a problem with that statement, though it's so over the top I'm sure I'd be called on it.
Remember when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman"? Because of how he defined "sex" and the fact that he may have been pointing at someone other the Monica Lewinsky, many people have pointed out that what Clinton said might not technically be untrue. That's a far cry from making the statement honest.
Re:Context
pudge on 2006-09-27T07:10:00
Sigh. I am not lying, Pudge. I very specifically apologized to you for saying that you accused "all liberals" of the idiocy you described. That was clearly a mistake on my part and I am genuinely sorry for that mischaracterization.
And then you keep making that mischaracterization.
But as anyone who wants to read my comments in context can see, I take exception to your choosing to present a minority view (a minority so small I've never met anyone who subscribes to it) of Democrats, described them as "many Democrats", and deliberately used that as a contrast to your wise, thoughtful, enlightened conservatives. It's technically not a lie, but I believe it's disingenuous at best.
I didn't say anything about Democrats. I was talking about liberals. And I already told you I didn't do that. You are lying.
Re:Context
Ovid on 2006-09-27T07:28:26
I should have said "liberals" instead of "democrats". I just woke up and replied too quickly.
Has it occured to you that instead of being a liar, I might genuinely have a difference of opinion? I am not lying. I've linked to the context so that people can see for themselves. They might disagree with my conclusions, but that does not make me a liar.
Re:Context
pudge on 2006-09-27T07:33:14
Has it occured to you that instead of being a liar, I might genuinely have a difference of opinion?
That is not possible. You keep repeating something (that I said this is the viewpoint of liberals) that you admitted I did not do.
You're lying.
Ovid Said All Christians Are Evil
pudge on 2006-09-27T07:40:51
I know Ovid said he was only talking about SOME Christians. But I feel he really does mean all Christians. And I know he didn't say they are evil, but I feel that's what he really meant. And even though he denies it, I am not lying, because it is my opinion.
So, Ovid is a bigot against Christians. And he also hates blacks. You can totally infer that from what he said.
Re:Ovid Said All Christians Are Evil
Ovid on 2006-09-27T08:03:06
Pudge, this is getting really ugly. Can we just stop this?
Re:Ovid Said All Christians Are Evil
pudge on 2006-09-27T15:02:14
Can you stop lying about me?Re:Context
Aristotle on 2006-09-27T00:18:53
I don’t accept that. If he wanted to dismiss the notion correctly, he would have compared a ridiculous liberal notion not against a reasonable conservative one, but against a reasonable liberal one and drawn a parallel from ridiculous conservative notions to reasonable ones. Changing multiple variables at once makes a comparison worthless unless you are trying to imply that they are correlated.
People are correctly jumping at his throat. They would have been correct to do so even if his statement was further qualified to point out that the liberal view he chose is not pervasive.
Re:I wonder how it applies to Australia...
Ovid on 2006-09-27T07:17:58
Well, it's not too different over in the US. The country's been dragged so far to the right that the Democrats are a right wing party and the Republicans somewhat further to the right. There are a lot of commentators out there who refer to prominent Democrats as being left-wing radicals and people with no passports, who've never been to another country and who's views on world politics are carefully formed by Fox News nod their heads in agreement. The US and both major potical parties are so far to the right -- both in terms of political and economic freedom -- that people are being presented with red and maroon as their wide spectrum of choice and many no longer realize it. In fact, this has largely destroyed the Democratic party because they no longer know who they are and they're riding the anti-Republican sentiment right now.
(Of course, there are those who get apoplectic at the merest suggestion that our two-party system of rich white men isn't representative of the broad scale of political beliefs, but what can you do?)
Re:I wonder how it applies to Australia...
pudge on 2006-09-27T07:39:44
No, the Democrats are not at all on the right. In fact, it's the Republicans who have been dragged far to the left, violating the Constitution to give pay for public schools and medicine and so on; using the language of progressivism ("it's good for society!") to support things like cutting the inheritance tax (which needs no such justification); and so on.
This country has never been as far to the left as it is right now.
Re:I wonder how it applies to Australia...
sigzero on 2006-09-27T13:59:58
This country has never been as far to the left as it is right now.
You are so correct. The Founding Fathers would have a cow if they saw what both parties were doing.
Re:I wonder how it applies to Australia...
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T18:13:56
The country's been dragged so far to the right that the Democrats are a right wing party
I really have trouble seeing the evidence for that assertion. I hear it a lot, but usually it just makes me think, "Ah, that person is so far skewed to the left he's confused."
I tell you this because I consider you to be the kind of rational person who could actually examine and back up this assertion, if possible. When I start listing issues, and then look to see which side the Democratic Party is on, I get a list of "left
... left ... left." I see a little bit of waffling around, and certainly there is a distinction between the quiet mainstream and the vocal radical. But the Democratic Party looks pretty leftist to me. I haven't seen them calling for smaller government on much at all, except for a few social issues. And remember, I'm not exactly what you'd call right-wing; I'm libertarian/anarcho-capitalist. I favor drug legalization and all that. I'm just looking for issues where the Democratic Party isn't leftist, and I'm not seeing them.
Re:I wonder how it applies to Australia...
Ovid on 2006-09-28T22:30:41
I've answered, but not here, since I don't want to draw this out any more. If you don't know where I've answered, drop me an email and I'll send you the link.
Re:Wow. Just Lying.
Ovid on 2006-09-27T06:51:41
This is getting old and I won't keep retyping this. For anyone who wants to see my rebuttal (again), read this.
Re:Wow. Just Lying.
pudge on 2006-09-27T07:32:12
This is getting old and I won't keep retyping this.
Yes, your lies are getting old.
You keep saying I 'claim that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking"' and so on. You insist on making this clearly and obviously false claim that you admitted was false.
You are lying.
For anyone who wants to see my rebuttal (again), read this.
And for a rebuttal of your rebuttal: there's not one damned thing wrong with contrasting a viewpoint to my own. I don't know what bizarroworld you live in where this is wrong or "disingenuous." In no way did I charactrize this as anything other than the view of some people (which it is) and my comparison to my own viewpoint was not remotely misleading in any way.
Seriously, what the hell is your problem that you get pissed off that I compare a viewpoint to my own that you do not have, that I never said you have, that you admit I never said you have?
And that you have to keep lying over and over by saying that I characterized this as the viewpoint of "liberals" in general?
Re:Wow. Just Lying.
ask on 2006-10-03T18:17:34
Pudge,
Your insistence that Ovid is lying is malicious and mean-spirited.
I find it hard to understand that you don't see it as a miscommunication. You said this; he heard that.
Sure, you might have chosen your words carefully to not exactly say that, but you should realize that as the speaker you have as much, or more, responsibility for what people hear as the listener himself does.
- askRe:Wow. Just Lying.
pudge on 2006-10-03T18:25:19
Your insistence that Ovid is lying is malicious and mean-spirited.
No, but his lying was.
I find it hard to understand that you don't see it as a miscommunication. You said this; he heard that.
He continued to state I said something I neither said, nor meant, despite my repeated insistence that I did not say it or mean it.
I find it hard to see how you can think that's mere miscommunication.
Sure, you might have chosen your words carefully to not exactly say that, but you should realize that as the speaker you have as much, or more, responsibility for what people hear as the listener himself does.
Yes, and? I conceded to him directly that I should have been more clear, but that I didn't mean what he thought I did. I repeated this, several times. And he continued to say I did. He's lying.
My mother told me that ignoring such people would make them give up and go away. Online at least it really works. Yay
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
sigzero on 2006-09-27T14:05:33
Wow, and you call him shrill?
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
mw487 on 2006-09-27T14:34:18
Yeah, when you ignore him, he thinks he won, and he finally stops. Just let him have the last word. You can't ignore someone unless they get the last word.
http://use.perl.org/user/pudge/journal/23556Re:A better reason not to listen to him
pudge on 2006-09-29T20:42:45
Heh, you didn't know who Che Guevara was. It is common knowledge among everyone who's studied him, that he as a racist. I didn't "win" because you didn't respond, I "won" because I made an obviously true statement. I'm not the one who said "The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving..." that was Guevara.
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
mw487 on 2006-10-03T17:24:46
See, pudge, you had to get the last word! And please recall how I pointed out that you often take some minor point and drive on that, while leaving the major points unresponded to? You never responded to where "Bush" was the topic of the original post, and now you do this Che thing. Many months later, you choose to put out an incomplete purported quote with no citation as demonstrating the Che Guevara is a racist. I suppose that an uncited incomplete quote more determines a man as a racist than a trip to Africa for the purpose assisting the inhabitants/natives in revolting against their colonizers. The totality of a man's life seems like a better measure to use of racism, wouldn't you say? Is a man a racist if he utters a racist sentence? Or two, or three? Then I think we can presume that nearly all leftists are racists. Or are we going on the acts of a life, such as lynchings, and filibusters, and defiance of the National Guard, the acts of the Klu Klux Klan, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace.
However, I will easily grant you that the incomplete quote has made me think, even though what I don't yet have is context.
So, for the sake of our discussion, let's allow that Che Guevara is a leftist Communist Leader racist. So that is one, and thank you. You won. I had no idea who Che Guevara was, I concede, and I have benefitted form your study of this subject.
And there is no need for you to get the last word. I stand defeated on the points we have discussed.
Humbly yours,
mw487Re:A better reason not to listen to him
pudge on 2006-10-03T18:21:31
See, pudge, you had to get the last word!
You mean, I responded to your ad hominem attack against me by addressing your false allegations? Gasp, how dare I?
And please recall how I pointed out that you often take some minor point and drive on that, while leaving the major points unresponded to?
And please recall how what you pointed out is absolutely false?
You never responded to where "Bush" was the topic of the original post
Sorry. False.
and now you do this Che thing.
That thing that doesn't do what you said I did?
Many months later, you choose to put out an incomplete purported quote with no citation as demonstrating the Che Guevara is a racist.
Dude. Google. Your friend. It should quickly show you that it's from the Motorcycle Diaries (which he wrote).
I suppose that an uncited incomplete quote more determines a man as a racist...
No. But his actions, too.
The totality of a man's life seems like a better measure to use of racism, wouldn't you say?
Yes, including his pervasive and longstanding distaste for blacks, Jews, and many whites, too. Not to mention his mass murdering, which I suppose is far worse than his racism, if you think about it.
And there is no need for you to get the last word.
You still have a serious misunderstanding about how discussions work. You asked several questions; and now you don't want me to respond to them, and think there's something wrong about doing so. That's stupid. Also, you say other things I want to respond to, which may not be questions; and you think there's something wrong with me doing so. That, too, is stupid.
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
mw487 on 2006-10-03T19:19:43
But pudge, you did not respond to the content of my alleged ad hominem attack. That failure would tend to support my assertion. I am ready for your response to the content of the alleged attack, in part because I am not sure which attack you refer to.
Now, on Bush, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I refer to "Is the word Bush there in TorgoX's post?". You seem to say you dealt with that, and honestly, I do not see where. Now maybe that is stupid of me- I can not even find you dealing with it with my search function for "Bush". Maybe you can enlighten me? My guess is you will change the subject or not even revisit this. So, score some points! Prove your "sorry, false"- and no editing the posts! We who were there know.
And actually the Google of which you speak so highly seems to also point to a site that gives another attribution to a complete sentence that contains the fragment you used. Maybe Che plagarized himself, but to me there is some doubt where it comes from. Or do you have the book in front of you? Open to the quote? For 10 points, let's see if you can find the longer quote and the other citation. I already know them- see, I was trying to find if you could finish the quote. Perhaps, like a good researcher, we should go back to the reference before we cite incomplete quotes that may be out of context. I had already done the Google homework before I baited you. And wasn't it you in our last discussion who was disparaging wikipedia, apparently on the basis that the internet can say whatever it wants? btw, My guess is you will change the subject or not even revisit this.
And don't forget your farewell post in that previous exchange,
"You accomplished other things: e.g., you proved yourself to be someone whose post I won't read past the first few sentences of."
It is the only way you will leave me with the last word. This might be the best time, with your back up against the wall...
Regards,
mw487
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
pudge on 2006-10-03T22:00:38
But pudge, you did not respond to the content of my alleged ad hominem attack.
It was devoid of content,
That failure would tend to support my assertion.
No, it wouldn't. That's a logical fallacy.
I am ready for your response to the content of the alleged attack, in part because I am not sure which attack you refer to.
The one where you attack the very fact that I respond to you.
Now, on Bush, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I refer to "Is the word Bush there in TorgoX's post?". You seem to say you dealt with that, and honestly, I do not see where.
OK. But I did.
Now maybe that is stupid of me- I can not even find you dealing with it with my search function for "Bush". Maybe you can enlighten me?
Where I argued that his implication was obvious.
My guess is you will change the subject or not even revisit this.
Ad hominem attack.
So, score some points! Prove your "sorry, false"- and no editing the posts!
Another ad hominem attack, implying I would ever do such a thing.
Maybe Che plagarized himself, but to me there is some doubt where it comes from.
No, there is no such doubt, actually.
Perhaps, like a good researcher, we should go back to the reference before we cite incomplete quotes that may be out of context.
You feel free to do that. I've already done so.
I had already done the Google homework before I baited you.
So you lied when you said you didn't know he is a racist. OK.
btw, My guess is you will change the subject or not even revisit this.
Are you even capable of not making ad hominem attacks against me? Every single post of yours in this discussion, and most of those in the previous one, have done so.
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
mw487 on 2006-10-04T12:31:42
I really wish I had time to respond to all this good stuff, but the job of responding keeps getting bigger and bigger. But I am prepared to be made to look foolish on one point.
"Where I argued that his implication was obvious."
I read the posts. I searched for "implication" and "obvious". And I assert that your argument is not there. A link that shows me that it is there will show me to be careless and a time waster. I will humbly apologize.
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
pudge on 2006-10-05T15:36:47
Ah, I see. I was arguing with phillup in that discussion too, and he linked to the discussion which explained it (although in a slightly different context). I took his posting of that link as the explanation.
There's history behind that discussion, which is why it is so short. But considering I was responding to phillup, I at that point considered the complaint answered. I now realize that was insufficient for you.
So to be clear: TorgoX was endorsing the quote, which directly referenced Bush by referring to "ownership society," which is Bush's phrase. And even though this had been going on for (acc. to the article) six years before Bush took office, it mentioned "current rates" which are greater since he took office.
So the combination of focusing on the current rate and blaming it on Bush's concept, "ownership society," and then TorgoX's explicit attack on the lack of "decent government in the US," is a pretty clear attack on Bush himself.
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
mw487 on 2006-10-05T20:31:10
To be clear: I take it that I do not have to humbly apologize and this topic does not show me to be a time waster, because your argument is not there. Apparently another arugment about another quote is somewhere else, however, and that might have been sufficient for me. Your new arugment in the recent post (new at least to me, after having done all I can to follow your posts in this area, and please make a citation if it is not new, but found somewhere I missed) is that:
The use of the term "ownership society" is the code phrase that allows us to know why TorgoX posted Mr. Buffett's quote- to disparage Bush- right?
----
on Thursday March 10, @02:14PM (#38783)
But in all the excitement of you and pudge going to the races, pudge might have forgotten to comment on my original post.
on Thursday March 10, @02:57PM (#38787)
But, I would also like to call to your attention that you still have not commented on my initial post in this thread in any substantive way,
on Friday March 11, @12:02PM (#38799)
I provided Mr. Nandor with an opportunity to realize that torgox had said nothing about Bush in the cited post. DONE.
October 03, @01:24PM (#50728)
You never responded to where "Bush" was the topic of the original post,
on Tuesday October 03, @02:21PM (#50731)
And please recall how I pointed out that you often take some minor point and drive on that, while leaving the major points unresponded to?
And please recall how what you pointed out is absolutely false?
You never responded to where "Bush" was the topic of the original post
Sorry. False.
Tuesday October 03, @03:19PM (#50735)
Now, on Bush, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I refer to "Is the word Bush there in TorgoX's post?". You seem to say you dealt with that, and honestly, I do not see where.
Tuesday October 03, @06:00PM (#50746)
Now, on Bush, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I refer to "Is the word Bush there in TorgoX's post?". You seem to say you dealt with that, and honestly, I do not see where.
OK. But I did.
Wednesday October 04, @08:31AM (#50758)
"Where I argued that his implication was obvious."
I read the posts. I searched for "implication" and "obvious". And I assert that your argument is not there. A link that shows me that it is there will show me to be careless and a time waster. I will humbly apologize.
>
>
>
And thank you for your response.Re:A better reason not to listen to him
pudge on 2006-10-05T21:07:12
To be clear: I take it that I do not have to humbly apologize
I could not care less whether you apoloigize.
and this topic does not show me to be a time waster, because your argument is not there.
Well, yes, it is. You just didn't recognize it, which I cannot and did not fault you for.
The use of the term "ownership society" is the code phrase that allows us to know why TorgoX posted Mr. Buffett's quote- to disparage Bush- right?
Part of it. Also TorgoX's own call for replacing the US government. Also familiarity with TorgoX's arguments.
Context and attribution, google and MY doubt gone
mw487 on 2006-10-07T17:44:47
"THIS STRANGE TWENTIETH CENTURY
The worst of my asthma attack is over and I feel almost all right, though now and again I resort to my new acquisition, a French inhaler. It's extraordinary how much I miss Alberto. It's as if my flanks are unprotected from a hypothetical attack. I'm always turning round to tell him something and then I realize he's not there.
Well, there's not much to complain ahout: painstakingly well looked after, good food in ahundance and the expectation of going home to start my studies again and finally getting the degree which will enable me to practise. Yet the idea of saying goodbye definitively doesn't make me altogether happy; all those months we've been together through thick and thin and the habit of dreaming the same dreams in similar situations has made us even closer.
Turning all these ideas over in my head, I drift away from the centre of Caracas and walk towards the suburbs, where the houses are much wider apart. Caracas extends along a narrow valley which encloses it and limits it sideways, so that you can't go very far without having to climb the surrounding hills and there, with the dynamic city spread at your feet, you see a new feature of its heterogeneous make-up. The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: the Portuguese. And the two ancient races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently of his own individual aspirations.
This far up the hill concrete houses have totally given way to adobe huts. I peep into one. It is a room half separated by a partition with a fire and table on one side and on the other piles of straw which seem to serve as beds. Several bony cats and a mangy dog are playing with three naked black kids. Acrid smoke from the fire fills the room. The black mother, with frizzy hair and droopy breasts, is preparing the food, helped by a girl of about fifteen, who is fully dressed. We start chatting and after a while I ask if I can take a photo of them which they categorically refuse to accept unless I give it to them straight away. I try to explain that I have to develop it first, but no, they want it straight away or nothing doing. I eventually say yes, but now they're suspicious and won't co-operate. One of the kids scampers off to play with his friends while I carry on talking to the family. In the end, I stand at the door with my camera ready and pretend to snap anyone who sticks their head out. We fool around like this for a while until I see the little kid come nonchalantly back on a new bicycle; I get him in focus and press the button but the effect is disastrous. To avoid the photo, the kid swerves, falls off and bursts into tears. They all instantly stop being camera-shy and come rushing out hurling ahuse at me. I withdraw with some trepidation because they are great stone throwers, followed by the family's insults, amongst which is, the height of contempt: 'Portuguese.'..."
From "The Motorcycle Diaries" by Ernesto "Che" Guevara, translated by Ann Right, Verso, NY, 1995. scan and ocr, any mistakes are mine... mw487Re:A better reason not to listen to him
mw487 on 2006-10-04T22:01:12
"No, there is no such doubt, actually."
But pudge, google showed me:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2141593
Quoting from which:
"Last but not least...Che Guevara, the ultimate anal icon:
"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."
"The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."
"The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto."
"The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort."
Che Guevara quotes from his book "The African Dream" diary of the revolutionary war in the Congo."
(end of quote)
I doubt, pudge, I doubt! Help me! I asked for help earlier and you only got more insistent of your correctness.
Since you are now insisting that google is my friend and there is no doubt, what are we to conclude? I suppose if we were to conclude you were wrong about the infallibility of google it would be an ad hominem attack.
Reading the full quote and its reference to America, I am guessing that the quote is more likely from the Motorcycle Diaries- and I intend to check, because then I will know. And I can see the context. I will let you know, because the method you recommended to me appears unreliable.
Regards,
mw487Re:A better reason not to listen to him
pudge on 2006-10-05T15:40:29
I doubt, pudge, I doubt! Help me! I asked for help earlier and you only got more insistent of your correctness.
False. My level of insistence has remained constant.
Since you are now insisting that google is my friend and there is no doubt, what are we to conclude?
That you read too much into those statements, believing I was implying they would provide you proof, instead of merely implying that they would help lead you to the proof you want?
I suppose if we were to conclude you were wrong about the infallibility of google it would be an ad hominem attack.
Also a straw man, since I never implied Google was infallible.
Re:A better reason not to listen to him
pudge on 2006-09-29T20:28:06
That is that he's boring and shrill. He repeats the same arguments over and over again, presumably in the mistaken belief that spouting the same tired verbiage over and over again will make people believe him.
Wow. You sure are stupid.
That might work for the idiot masses, but it doesn't work for an intelligent audience.
Oh which you obviously are not a member.
I expect that he knows this and he just wants attention.
Yes, you expect that, because you're stupid.
Seriously. None of what you said above has any bearing on reality. In fact, I am quite uninterested in making people believe my opinions, and if I wanted attention, why is it that I don't post about politics on useperl? I stopped because I was getting too much attention from ignorant assholes like you who can't have reasoned discussion, but are only capable of insulting people they disagree with.
Re:Pudge
Ovid on 2006-09-27T15:52:49
This is true. And the fact that he's tolerant of allowing these discussions here is a credit to him.
Re:Pudge
sigzero on 2006-09-27T17:17:47
Does that mean it can all stop now? We are all adults.Re:Pudge
pudge on 2006-09-29T20:31:07
This is true. And the fact that he's tolerant of allowing these discussions here is a credit to him.
I don't understand this at all. Do you think the normal state of conservatives is to try to censor those they disagree with? Or do you just mean people in general, including liberals, are prone to such censorship?
Either way, I don't see how NOT being a jerk is a credit to oneself.
Re:Pudge
Ovid on 2006-09-29T20:56:05
I'm not making any sort of political comment. I've just seen a lot of forums where people with the power to censor people seem to do so when they don't like how the tone is going. I was happy to see that you didn't do that. It genuinely mean that as a compliment.
Re:Pudge
pudge on 2006-09-29T21:19:21
OK, I am glad it was not meant to be political. I still don't take it as a compliment though. I think only totally lame jerks censor their web sites, and so I would think that it should be expected that I do not do that... that it would be shocking if I did. From my perspective, it's like saying "it is a credit to him that he doesn't steal candy from babies."
Re:Pudge
Aristotle on 2006-09-29T23:21:35
Not many people steal candy from babies, but in online political discussions a lot of them (regardless of chosen position) are lame jerks. I don’t see why you would go “meh, what kind of compliment is that” in response to “dude’s decent and not a lame jerk.”
Re:Pudge
pudge on 2006-09-29T23:59:44
I don’t see why...
For once, you said something I agree with. Yes, you don't see why.
