Well, long-time flamethrower Richard Bennett has unleased his fury on the participants of No War Blog by painting us as being “pro-Saddam.”
No War Blog is the eloquent voice of the pro-Saddam contingent on the web: Jim Henley, Patrick Teresa-Hayden, Atrios, Radley Balko, that sort of crowd. They seem to specialize in on-line petitions, demonstrations, condemning American hegemony, and the pretence of moral superiority, which you would expect.
It seems like only yesterday that the too-pure-for-this-world crowd was complaining about a surfeit of correct blogs; oh, how I miss those golden days.
I wonder what comments like “that sort of crowd” are supposed to infer. It seems to me some of the most principled bloggers on the web are “that sort of crowd”. I can hardly think of finer, more principled bloggers than Radley Balko, Jim Henley and Patrick Nielsen Hayden. Only a true reactionary would divide the world with an “either you’re with us or against us” litmus test based on childlike logic and a complete lack of tolerance for the right of their fellow Americans to disagree without resorting to namecalling and generalizations.
Geez, what were we thinking, disagreeing with such trivial decisions as to when to send young men and women to die in combat. I mean, that kind of stuff should really be left up to the likes of Richard Bennett and others running on the “disagree and you’re a traitor” circuit. What Bennett was really implying was that disagreeing with the Administration’s call to war makes you a disloyal American. As a Marine, I gave six years of active duty and several more in the reserves, including my time participating in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. A quick look at Bennett’s resume reveals that he’s a chickenhawk. How’s that for namecalling and generalizations.
As a libertarian, I view disagreement with irresponsible or overreaching government policies as a personal responsibility. I wouldn’t expect a conformist, don’t rock the boat by disagreeing with King George conservative to understand such beliefs. Disagreement with the Adminstration’s position on issues of major importance to the nation doesn’t make a person “pro-Saddam.” For Bennett to imply that it does reveals a childlike approach to political and philosophical disagreement. It is possible for a person to understand the pro-war argument while continuing to disagree with the Hawks and still despise Saddam.
Radley Balko’s take on the issue is available here.
—-
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
UPDATE: Richard Bennett, douchecanoe extraordinaire, fled from the comments like a coward and retreated to his own blog with another whiny shitpost. You know, like he did from when he refused to serve but expected others to die in wars for him. A literal “tough guy.”
Interestingly, Richard has a habit of fading away rather rapidly when confronted in mid-smear. I wonder why that could be.
Posted by Doctor Slack on January 22, 2003 11:46 AM
Why pick on this guy, he’s just a sad case.
Posted by Eric M on January 22, 2003 12:19 PM
Take this smear as an admission that the warmongers can’t handle your arguments, or the issues you raise; and be proud.
Calling dissenters “traitors” is the standard response of the entrenched reactionaries. That’s why the exact definition of “treason” is in our Constitution.
Posted by Dave on January 22, 2003 12:32 PM
Why is this site turning into a place to respond to every idiot who wishes to smear people or categorise them in a way as to discredit them without actually listening to their argument?
Do we serve any purpose by doing this but to console each other that the smears are not true? Are we not already aware of what we’re not?
I fail to see the point or objective of this counter-argument.
The people who believe this kind of crap a) don’t visit this site and b) wouldn’t be persuaded by us if they did.
All we do by highlighting their ignorance is increase their traffic and possibly search engine rankings and hence their profile. Perhaps we may feel more self-satisfied but that doesn’t change the world and it certainly doesn’t help the poor bastards in Iraq.
Let the rats shit quietly and lets say no more about that.
Sorry if I sound arrogant and I don’t want to criticise anyone on this site. I just don’t understand why a response to this kinda crap is desirable.
Posted by Seyed Razavi on January 22, 2003 12:56 PM
Geez, Seyed if you don’t like this particular posting feel free to post something else and get discussion rolling on that thread.
I mean, it’s not like I’m stopping you or anything. I hope that didn’t sound arrogant or critical either.
Posted by James Landrith on January 22, 2003 01:20 PM
distraction: I agree.
James: I have no argument with you nor with you posting whatever you feel appropriate. I just wondered if it was generally worth the effort. If I sounded off then put it down to a bad day.
Peace.
Posted by MonkeyX on January 23, 2003 05:47 AM
Seyed: well, it’s also columnists like on National Review or FrontPage Magazine and big think tanks and op-eds on larger-circulation newspapers that often like to use that kind of “arguments”. So I don’t think it’s that irrelevant to point out how much rhetorical nonsense they are. It’s all obvious stuff to anyone who doesn’t think in the absolutist terms, but unfortunately absolutist terms is exactly what a government pushing for war needs to rely on. Though they’ve toned down the crap already. It’s inevitable this smart shift in PR has not yet been fully grasped by those who *really* fell for the “either with us or traitors”, because, let’s face it, they’re not exactly as skilled in political games…
Posted by distraction on January 23, 2003 04:15 AM
I think one lesson the antiwar movement needs to learn from the liberals of the ’90s is that if you let the smears go unopposed, they will stick. In a perfect world we’d be able to take the high road, but in this one I’m glad to have cogent responses to the nonsense out there, and I for one appreciate James’ (and Radley’s) contribution to this.
Posted by Doctor Slack on January 22, 2003 01:47 PM
Seconding Dr. Slack, me.
I think we’re getting on to “crunch time” for the war; if the US can’t launch it soon, war will have to wait until fall (or later?).
Smears will become more and more frequent in this situation. It won’t be enough to argue that Saddam Hussein is a threat or that Iraq needs be democratized, but that those who oppose war are evil, vile–for an example of how low it’s already gotten, see:
http://www.tacitus.org/archives/000340.html#000340
In one sentence, “Joshua Chamberlain” convicts Scott Ritter of being a child molester and hints that Justin Raimondo could be a NAMBLA supporter. Never mind that a dispassionate reading of Justin Raimondo’s post that” Chamberlain” links to should dispell those charges; the games gotten dirty, and it’ll run on rhetoric and emotion from here on in. Thinking otherwise is self-delusion.
Posted by Curtiss Leung on January 22, 2003 03:25 PM
Aside: why did I write “Chamberlain” above? Well, who is tacitus.org? Or perhaps I should say whois -h whois.networksolutions.com tacitus.org. Once you’ve done that, get out a map. It’s interesting.
Posted by Curtiss Leung on January 22, 2003 03:28 PM
Dr. Slack: I agree that we need to actively oppose the smears. Their intended audience is the large number of uncommitted or weakly committed Americans(on both sides) who aren’t likely to check the “facts” offered by the warmongers; therefore, we must state the facts (or lack thereof) that will disprove their case.
The first step must be to assess the warmongers’ case against us, in order to anticipate and refute their arguments – or at least to prove there isn’t a case. I would like to ask those readers of this Blog (pro-war or anti-war) who attended any of last weekend’s protest events to answer the following questions:
1) Did any of the speeches you heard contain rhetoric that might be considered anti-American (as opposed to anti-Bush or anti-war)? If so, quote specifics.
2) Did any of the speakers attempt to hijack the event for a cause other than that which prompted you to attend? Which cause?
3) Did anyone offer praise or excuses for the likes of Osama, Pol Pot, Milosevic, or other enemies of the US?
Posted by Dave on January 22, 2003 03:57 PM
Hi Dave:
For my money, there are a few different approaches possible on this issue.
– FIRST, FOREMOST AND ALWAYS identify the smear tactic clearly for what it is: dodging of the substantive issues.
Then, as needed:
– Put firmly in perspective both the records and role in the movement of thegroups whose “agenda” is being raised.
– Question the questioner about any double standards being employed.
And finally (and in timely fashion)
– Ask what the substantive case is for war, again?
That’s my $.02.
I’m in favour of an aggressive stance on this — at risk of sounding broken record-ish, because I’ve said this elsewhere, it could otherwise all too easily degenerate into the game of “let’s you and him fight” that the smearers are so desperate to strike up.
Just for amusements’ sake, though (my experience is from a Canadian rally):
1) Nope.
2) Nope. Some speakers brought a perspective on “labour” or “women” totheir speeches, but they remained on-topic about war from what I could hear.
(A better sound system needed in future.)
3) Not even remotely.
How’s that? 😉
Posted by Doctor Slack on January 22, 2003 04:41 PM
Dave,
“The first step must be to assess the warmongers’ case against us, in order to anticipate and refute their arguments”
Well judging by the Tactus site their case is that we are all gay Stalinist pedophiles.
I have not heard of any criticisms based on actual logic. The main reasons for favouring war appear to be that you are ill informed and that the mass media lies and repeats the governments propaganda.
For example as Doc predicted (I think?) the empty heads have now become “chemical warheads”. Nearly half the country thinks Saddam has nukes and3/4rs think he was behind 9-11.
Posted by DavidByron on January 22, 2003 06:52 PM
“Well judging by the Tactus site their case is that we are all gay Stalinist pedophiles.”
Stalinists or unwilling to denounce and take your movement back from Stalinists – yes.
Gay pedophiles – don’t know where you get that part.
Oh, right. It’s David Byron. I should have known…..
BTW I wrote a response to Tacitus on Kesher Talk – it’s about halfway down the page by now.
Posted by Yehudit on January 22, 2003 11:56 PM
And speaking of smears, where does DavidByron get the statistic that “3/4rs[of Americans] think he [Saddam] was behind 9-11?” I have never heard of such a poll result, at any time since 9/11/01, from any source. Not only that, I haven’t heard anyone, in or out of the White House, seriously making that allegation, or offering any supporting evidence beyond mentioning that meeting between Mo Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official. As far as I can see, that issue seems to have died by the end of 2001.
Posted by Dave on January 23, 2003 09:43 AM
Dave:
I wasn’t intending to smear anyone, but rather comment on how successful the propaganda of the regime has been. I agree that (to my knowledge) Bush has never said that Saddam was behind 9-11 or ever mentioned any link. I’m not sure, but I don’t think they even went on about that Czech thing at the time.
Just as when you look at it carefully, the piece by Condoleezza never says that the inspectors found any chemical weapons. It’s just phrased in such a way as to imply that. It’s verbal prestidigitation. “Is this your card?” says Condoleezza whipping out a WMD threat from a dozen empty rockets and saying (quite truthfully) that they weren’t listed in Iraq’s “full disclosure” while failing to say that they weren’t required to list them……..
I’m sure you agree they have been hinting at a Saddam 9-11 link for many months and the result is that public opinion has been shifting towards a sense that Saddam was behind 9-11 for some time. This is hardly the fault of the American public. Those most at fault are the media for cravenly repeating deceitful propaganda without any kind of balance.
Anyway specifically the statement I made was based on the recent poll that asked people if they knew how many Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on9-11. There’s a link to it a few pages back. Three quarters of those who said they knew the answer said that at least one Iraqi was involved.
However the last time I recall a more direct poll asking about an Iraqi link to9-11 was months ago and it was at about 50% back then which was an increase from a few months before.
Posted by DavidByron on January 23, 2003 11:01 AM
DavidByron: You wrote: “Three quarters of those who said they knew the answer said that at least one Iraqi was involved.”
That’s not nearly the same as believing that Iraq was “behind” the 9/11attacks.
And no, I do not agree that “they have been hinting at a Saddam 9-11 link for many months,” or that “public opinion has been shifting towards a sense that Saddam was behind 9-11 for some time.” I have heard no such hints, nor seen or heard of any such shift in public opinion. If anything, the public have come to agree that 9/11 is one atrocity we _can’t_ blame on Saddam.
And as for your “comment on how successful the propaganda of the regime has been,” I can only point to the tepid support for this war – and the surprising turnout at last weekend’s anti-war demos – as evidence that such propaganda has not been nearly as successful as you seem to think it has.
I’m not hearing as much pro-war propaganda as I’m hearing propaganda about the propaganda – sort of like an advertizer bragging about how effective his ads are.
Posted by Dave on January 23, 2003 11:45 AM
Dave:
The Bush Administration’s early attempts to link Saddam and al-Qaeda are very well documented. (Condi Rice’s infamous soundbite “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” refers to precisely this.) They eventually gave up trying, because they could produce no evidence.
According to a recent poll,
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/4920860.htm
it would seem that DB is exaggerating somewhat. Only 50% of respondents to that poll believed there were Iraqis among the hijackers, and 21% believed most of the hijackers were Iraqi. Given that the fact that none of them were Iraqis has been very public for some time now, that’s still a pretty disturbing figure and indicates we have some anti-propaganda work to do.
Incredibly, that same poll shows 91% belief that Saddam probably has nukes, and 65% belief that the inspectors won’t find them. That indicates significant success in Bush Admin attempts to portray Iraqi WMDs as an urgent issue and war as the only conceivably effective form of action to address it. Given their repeated failures to present any convincing evidence for any of this, that indicates a major area where a lot of propaganda rollback is needed.
On the other hand, the poll also clearly shows that hawkishness recedes as people become more informed about the Iraq situation. Which shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
Posted by Doctor Slack on January 23, 2003 03:45 PM
Doc:
I said 3/4 of those who claimed to know the answer said there were some Iraqis. That’s 50/67 by the poll you quoted. True, a third said they didn’t know the answer.
41% to 36% says Saddam has nukes. The figure you quoted was for any WMD not just for nukes.
Dave:
No it isn’t the same as saying Saddam was behind 9-11, but don’t you think it is significant? I have been watching the numbers and they have increased from something like 25% 8 months or so ago to 50% and then onwards I would guess. But if you have any evidence to the contrary please mention it.
Blair repeated the old “there is a link” deceit just the other day. Yes I agree there is a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam (both have an ‘a’ in their name; both are from the middle east; both have been labeled bad guys by the US; both are former associates of the US etc etc).
The US regime has said there is a link often, but has never said what that link might be so I expect they meant one of the above four too. If you’ve never heard them suggesting links then listen up!
I remember going over all of this last year and explaining to those folks who supported the Afghan invasion — on the grounds that they were hoodwinked into thinking the Taliban were behind 9-11 — that that was exactly the reason a lot of people supported an Iraq war — because they’d been hoodwinked into thinking Saddam had been behind 9-11.
Possibly the trend has leveled off by now. At any rate the wider issue is that a lot of people have been led to believe a lot of crap about this war. Those who have believed the lies tend to be pro-war, but even things like “America reserved the right to invade Iraq without a new resolution” get parroted by people who are anti-war.
Posted by DavidByron on January 23, 2003 10:44 PM
–And no, I do not agree that “they have been hinting at a Saddam 9-11 link for many months,” or that “public opinion has been shifting towards a sense that Saddam was behind 9-11 for some time.”
It’s not that directly suggested, at least, no longer, but the very fact we are no longer even bothering about bin Laden and have focused entirely on Saddam is quite a feat. Seriously, think about it. Le Carre in his “gone mad” rant on the times quoted the same poll, and commented on how spectacular the change of focus is. It is. There’s no denying it.
The very fact Saddam is now enemy number one implies some link to terrorism, which implies the possibility that Saddam may do something like bin Laden did, etc etc. It’s all the way propaganda works, and the fact it’s effective is not in the polls regarding support. It’s in how much manoeuvring there’s been – first it’s WMD then it’s terrorism then it’s kurds then it’s human rights then it’s democracy. Just throw in a lot of “motives” and you got some kind of connection in people’s minds.
The way that poll worked, is it works on the unconscious associations. If you show a person the picture of bin Laden repeatedly, then switch it to the picture of Saddam, he’s gonna make the link regardless. When that goes on for months, the link gets reinforced. Even the most rational coherent intelligent person has by now associated the two – then of course if you consciously think about it, you don’t associate them in terms of Saddam being behind 9/11 or being linked to Al Qaeda Still, it’s there in the back of your head, and it’s been reinfoced by several bits of news or statements that came out and then were denied or unconfirmed (see story on meeting in Bulgaria between Iraqis officials and bin Laden). Besides, when the poll question is already slanted – “how many *iraqis* were there” – you’re like instinctly drawn to take for granted there was at least one iraqis. Another slick trick. That’s the way experiments on cognitive behaviour work. “Propaganda” – which is really nothing more and nothing less than pushing for popular support with any possible means – is not something done at random, it takes a lot of that as basis.
Posted by distraction on January 23, 2003 07:40 PM
.. i meant, at last one iraqi. ie. if you’d asked “do you remember IF there were any iraqis among the terrorists” you bet the yes results would have been a lot lower, hardly anyone would have said “yes there was one/two etc.”. polls are commissioned, with a goal, and this one is already intended to push for the answers it wants. so I don’t think it’s representative of what most people know and think, consciously; it’s representative of the kind of tricks the administration played.
article was at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-543296,00.html
bit on poll is:
How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two American snow believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre.
Posted by distraction on January 23, 2003 07:52 PM
The best comment on the topic was from Orcinus
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ that defined these sorts of arguments as being objectively anti-democratic.
Posted by natasha on January 22, 2003 03:40 PM
Why, just yesterday, I was being bashed for working with ANSWER, now I’m Pro-Saddam. It is SO difficult to keep up with all the evil things I’m doing…
(I think we blindsided them, the hawks had no clue the peace movement was so large).
Posted by Bob Morris on January 22, 2003 04:08 PM
Actually, Bob, The American public had no idea the peace movement was so large.. The hawks(and the corporate media the hawks control) knew it and did/have done everything they can to sabatoge it.. Now that it’s out in the open, people are looking at each other and saying “wow, maybe there are more people out there that question this thing than me”, and people with no opinion are starting to form one..
Posted by Bigtoes on January 22, 2003 04:21 PM
Bob Morris:
I should hope that you don’t think that I was bashing you for working with ANSWER. I apologize for offending you, this was not my intent. I have no reason to think you a person of less then admirable intent and conduct.
Posted by The Littlest Cynic on January 22, 2003 10:07 PM
“From Richard Bennett,
posted on May 28, 2002 09:43 PM:
Don’t be so coy, Teresa – Pat can smear with the best of ’em, and he’s just shown his colors right here.
This post is accessible from my blog, BTW – it’s an object lesson in the way the hive mind punishes those who don’t comply. Pat’s making his own web history here.
And we all know about the Wellberts.”
From: http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/000254.html#000254
The line: “it’s an object lesson in the way the hive mind punishes those whodon’t comply.”
🙂
Posted by Bigtoes on January 22, 2003 04:32 PM
These sort of mindless, almost incoherent smears are a sign the anti-war movement is drawing real blood, so to speak. Witness:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23564-2003Jan21.html
I’m flattered, and motivated to keep chuggin’
Posted by mike on January 22, 2003 04:46 PM
This guy puts a lot less energy into the fight than we do, there’s no point in getting sucked into it with him. The chickenhawk part was a great find on the other hand.
Is this a bit of a turning point for blog discussion? I mean the people who marched actually participated in the news event. If you link to a news item, then the pro-war side can go dig up their own guy to counter you and on and on. But nobody can tell you that you believe something you don’t. Nobody can tell you that by going to the demonstration you endorsed the worker’s world party if you didn’t.
On the other hand it kind of degrades the general blogging experience. What do you guys think?
Posted by Eric M on January 22, 2003 05:08 PM
Where’s Dick? Sunshine really is the best disinfectant…
Posted by Glenn on January 22, 2003 06:52 PM
Let’s get this straight: when I point out that those of you who oppose the war, with your diverse excuses ranging from generic pacifism to anti-Americanism to anti-Bushism to anti-Statism are keeping Saddam in power, that’s a smear?
But when you call me a “chickenhawk” (gay argot for “pedophile”,) that’s rational discourse?
Just trying to get to the objection here.
Posted by Richard Bennett on January 22, 2003 06:58 PM
Gee Richard you didn’t say that those of us opposed to war are keeping Saddam in power. You said we were “pro-Saddam.” That’s the smear. For those us paying attention there is a world of difference between the two. Favoring a dictator and disagreeing with a war are two entirely different concepts. In the real world, it is possible to oppose one thing without favoringthe other. As far as my “chickenhawk” remark regarding your lack of military service, it was a sarcastic employment of your own tactics, not an endorsement of said tactics. I think most people got that.
Posted by James Landrith on January 22, 2003 07:07 PM
Whatever your excuses for opposing regime change in Iraq may be, the end result is the same.
So calling you pro-Saddam is simply cutting through the rhetoric and facing the facts. Your protest organizers, ANSWER, don’t make any bones about their hatred of America and support for Saddam, so at least they’re honest.
Posted by Richard Bennett on January 22, 2003 08:06 PM
How exactly is the peace movement supporting Saddam? Richard you do know that Saddam was a US sponsored dictator, right? You know that the US literaly supported him with aid and weapons, right?
Are you saying that the peace movement is giving Saddam chemical weapons or bio weapons seeds as the US administration did? Are you saying the peace movement is giving Saddam money?
No?
Well then, is your comment merely meant to say that Saddam would benefit from no war? Are you then happy to admit that you are helping to keep Al-Qaeda in power, since they would benefit from a war? If you are willing to admit you are supporting Al-Qaeda then I will agree that your comments were not cheap flame, but just a slightly odd choice of words.
Posted by DavidByron on January 22, 2003 08:09 PM
Byron, you need help. If, as you have claimed several times now, the USA had installed Saddam at some time in the dark past, that would make it our clear obligation to correct the mistake by removing him from power, and the same goes for bin Laden, Kim, and the rest of the anti-American scum around the world.
Posted by Richard Bennett on January 22, 2003 08:34 PM
Please also state for the record that you support Kim Il-Jong since he also benefits from a war on Iraq — even this long running threat of war.
Posted by DavidByron on January 22, 2003 08:12 PM
You didn’t answer my question.
Are you going to describe yourself as a supporter of Al-Qaeda and Kim Il-Jong?
Look: I gave you the benefit of the doubt here that your comment was not flame but simply an odd way of putting things. Your answer, “Byron, you need help” strongly suggests you are just here to flame people. That is; you’re a troll.
I suggest you apologise to the board for your behaviour if you want to continue to be taken seriously.
Posted by DavidByron on January 22, 2003 10:11 PM
I like the new DavidByron much better than the old DavidByron.
Posted by Eric M on January 22, 2003 10:19 PM
Seriously, Byron, see a shrink — you’re in bad shape and politics is just cover for your underlying sickness.
If you’re going to advocate leaving a brutal dictator in a position to terrorize his own people and the rest of the world as well, you’re going to be called on it. That’s how the world works, so deal with it.
Posted by Richard Bennett on January 23, 2003 08:26 AM
Mr. Bennett: Are you not familiar with the concept of choosing one’s battles carefully and not fighting a particular battle unless it is relevant to one’s objectives, and one sees a reasonable chance of winning? Are you not familiar with the concept of recognizing the limits of one’s power, and acting within them?
In case you haven’t noticed, there are plenty of evil people all over the planet, doing things whose evil is obvious and undeniable. No sane person expects the US, or any other nation, to fight all that evil at once.
According to the logic of your posts here, Ronald Reagan was “pro-Soviet” because he didn’t nuke the bastards when he could have; every President since 1949 was “pro-Red-China” because none of them attacked that regime; a city police chief is “pro-drug” if he doesn’t bust every drug dealer in his jurisdiction today… Do you see where this is going?
No, we’re not “pro-Saddam.” We oppose this war because we don’t see a reasonable chance that it will achieve any of the stated goals of the Administration, or any other good objective, and may in fact make things worse for the Iraqi people, their neighbors, and the US.
Decisions of war and peace are far more complicated than passing judgement of our adversaries.
Posted by Dave on January 23, 2003 09:09 AM
“According to the logic of your posts here, Ronald Reagan was “pro-Soviet” because he didn’t nuke the bastards when he could have; every President since 1949 was “pro-Red-China” because none of them attacked that regime; a city police chief is “pro-drug” if he doesn’t bust every drug dealer in his jurisdiction today… Do you see where this is going?”
Some petty dictators can be contained and controlled by embargoes, diplomacy, and other sorts of pressure tactics, but Saddam isn’t one of them.
The Soviet Union no longer exists, BTW.
Posted by Richard Bennett on January 23, 2003 03:47 PM
And your point is…?
Posted by Dave on January 23, 2003 03:52 PM
Reagan’s approach to the USSR was appropriate.
Not too bright, are you?
Posted by Richard Bennett on January 23, 2003 04:37 PM
Richard, this is the part where you produce evidence for why Saddam can’t be contained.
Or you could rant a bit more about “anti-American scum” if you like. That’d be fine by me, too. Don’t let me cramp your style.
Posted by Doctor Slack on January 23, 2003 04:45 PM
“Richard, this is the part where you produce evidence for why Saddam can’t be contained.”
You haven’t been paying attention to the inspection process for say, the past five years or so, have you?
Posted by Richard Bennett on January 23, 2003 11:49 PM
Bennet, you’re so amusing, and it’s so heart-warming than in this age of doubt and uncertainty there’s someone with such rock-hard beliefs such as you. Yes, of course you are completely right, anyone opposing the *war* is opposing *regime change* and in fact, as you logically suggest, *actively*keeping Saddam in power. Everyone knows billions of dollars were collected at marches to send to our friend which we like to call with the affectionate name of “butcher of baghdad”, actually, half of those billions went into purchasing Saddam a new set of missiles and chemical weapons as well as a new plan for nuclear development after he lost the last one in the confusion of his backyard, and the rest of the money went into buying his son (who’s so cute!)a new pack of Jaguars and Rolls Royces and Cadbury’s chocolates, he’s so fond of them.
What? it was actually British and US governments and companies that sold him all that stuff? you don’t say… I was so sure it all the fault of the first amendment! what a disappointment. and I was deluded enough to believe free speech as as powerful as the weapon business! the anti-war groups should definitely get back on track in the challenge to “who wants to be aSaddam supporter?” and start asking for donations, dammit. We can’t let corporations lead the game. it’s to exciting to give it a miss!
Posted by distraction on January 23, 2003 04:08 AM
Well, this thread sure got amusing. Dick, ROTFL! That “gay argot for ‘pedophiles'” thing sure salvaged your credibility. I suggest you keep it up with that.
Given that you apparently despise a large and growing number of your countrymen for disagreeing with you, forgive us for not taking your unhinged ranting about “anti-American scum” seriously. But keep trolling. You are, in and of yourself, as good a case against war as any we could ever make.
DB – I think it was Curtiss who correctly noted the mutation of “empty warheads” into “chemical warheads.”
Posted by Doctor Slack on January 23, 2003 09:52 AM
RB jokes.
There is no truth to the rumor that Richard Bennett is a Saddam Hussein plant whose mission is to discredit the pro-war movement. I’m pretty sure.
On his blog, Mr. B says he was thinking about getting his 12-gauge and providing some ‘education’ to the demonstrators. But if the Viet Cong had nothing to fear, I don’t see why we should worry either.
q. How many Richard Bennetts does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
a. He can’t. He’s got a twisted pair.
Posted by Max Sawicky on January 23, 2003 05:24 PM
“q. How many Richard Bennetts does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
a. He can’t. He’s got a twisted pair.”
That’s cute, Max; jealous?
Posted by Richard Bennett on January 23, 2003 11:51 PM
“You haven’t been paying attention to the inspection process for say, the past five years or so, have you?”
Hey, I like this content-free one-liners thing! Keep it up, RB. You continue to be an assett for Stalinist Command Central.
Posted by Anonymous on January 24, 2003 12:08 AM
That last was me — Stalinist Command Central is Bennett’s pet name for this site. Cute, innit?
Posted by Doctor Slack on January 24, 2003 12:09 AM
Richard is doing a poor job of representing pro-war interests. Someone else should ask Mary to get back over here:
http://www.whataretheysaying.org/blog/index.html
As is often the case with those who support the establishment view, Richard is intelectually rather out of shape. Too much fattening Fox News and those sugary talk-radio shows.
Richard? You’re not among friends so you must shape up or ship out.
Posted by DavidByron on January 24, 2003 12:16 AM
David,
One of the problems with arguing propaganda is that both sides use it. As an example off this blog.
http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/000407.html#000407
It’s titled, US set to use mines in Iraq. It takes a really weak argument and omitts certain facts, throws in a few meaningless statistics in what I assume is an attempt to misguide the reader.
check out
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mines.htm
Look at the mines in the US inventory versus the policy outlined. Our stuff is either command detonated or self destructs after a few days. The anti-mine post fails to mention that.
I don’t want to chase the mine rabbit down it’s hole. I just think that both sides of the war debate need to realize that neither side is innocent of using propaganda.
Posted by Jim M on January 24, 2003 12:36 AM
Hey Jim
While I knew about self-deactivating mines (which still, incidentally, fall short of the Ottawa Convention standard in exploding on contact and not differentiating between friend and foe), I thought command detonated mines were an “RMA” thing mooted for the future. Your link doesn’t mention command detonated, unless I’ve missed it.
Posted by Doctor Slack on January 24, 2003 12:57 AM
Dr Slack,
The M18 claymore mine has been in the Army inventory since the ’60s. It is detonated by electrical impulse supplied by a “clacker”. The clacker is held in a soldier’s hand and is depressed rapidly to generate the electrical impulse. As the clacker must be in a soldiers hand to be detonated it is a command detonated mine.
David,
I thought the link was clear that the longest our stuff hangs around is 15days. This shouldn’t be hard to understand. We drop mines, fire them from artillery or set them up with a Volcano or MOPPMs equipment. Do these things explode when they land? No they don’t, otherwise they’d just be a cluster bomb. So, is it safe to assume that there is some mechanism for arming these mines? I’d say so. that same mechanism also sets a timer that causes the mines to self detonate. Sounds new fangled and complex. I admit it, it does tome but if a more complex timing mecahnism can be implemeted on a thumb sized fuze for a 60mm mortar round it’s not hard to do it on a mine.
I didn’t want to chase the mine thing down and that’s exactly what happened. I don’t mind it. I love talking/writing about military hardware. The bottom line is you’re missing the point that the article is an example of anti-war propaganda. Work hard to show pro-war folks are lying but realize that the anti-war side tells its lies also.
Posted by Jim M on January 24, 2003 11:22 AM
Jim I don’t understand – you’re saying all those land mines America dropped in Afghanistan are being left to kill civilians a year after open hostilities ended– just for the hell of it?
Or is this like the “smart bomb” hoax, where they show a photo of one smart bomb on TV, but use very dumb bombs the rest of the war?
Posted by DavidByron on January 24, 2003 09:09 AM
And you, DavidByron, are doing a poor job of representing the anti-war interests. Let me try…
Yo, Mr. Bennett: Why would Saddam attack the US with any WMD, when he knows damn well that we could and would retaliate with crushing force and no popular dissent?
Reagan’s approach to the USSR consisted in part of the “endless cycles of diplomatic overtures” with which you seem so impatient. It was also attacked by anti-communist hawks, using exactly the same rhetoric you use today. If patient diplomacy worked for the USSR, why would it not work for Iraq, whic his smaller, weaker, less brutal to its people, and more easily contained, than the post-Stalinist Soviet regime?
The US pursued diplomatic solutions with the USSR, not because we liked their government, but because we knew that war with that country, even if we won it, even without nukes, would do us more harm than good.
I fully agree with you that “the approach to one problem in one country at onetime doesn’t work in all other countries at all other times.” This is as true of military solutions as it is of diplomatic solutions, and it is not always easy to tell in advance whether a solution that worked well in one area will work in another. Large nations like the US often make the mistake of thinking that victory in the last war proves they’re invincible – only to blunder into the next engagement and get screwed.
Before you commit yourself to a military solution in the Middle East, you would do well to consider the situation of Israel in the occupied territories – and its similarity to our situation in Iraq. The IDF are the supreme military power in these territories; no other force can touch them, and no other nation is seriously considering attacking them directly. But is there peace in the occupied territories? Are Israelis or their supporters safe there? Is the Jewish state’s domination of a large non-Jewish population doing anyone any good?
This is the most appropriate military analogy I can find to America’s upcoming war in Iraq. If you can offer a more appropriate analogy, please do so.
Whichever way this engagement goes, it will involve huge expenditures of capital and loss of life. If you really cared about the stakes, you would do more serious thinking and less easy, reflexive name-calling. Our fellow Americans who are ready to die halfway around the world demand nothing less.
Posted by Dave on January 24, 2003 09:26 AM
“The bottom line is you’re missing the point that the article is an example of anti-war propaganda.”
maybe not (I don’t think the big part of US strategies relies on landmines today, though, it’s mostly air strikes isn’t it?), and the total numbers of deaths and maiming caused worldwide by mines are probably correct – but it does fail to mention that regardless of what the US will use in Iraq, the landmines in Afghanistan were all left by the Soviets years ago. in other countries, it was civil wars. not all wars are made by the US…
Posted by distraction on January 24, 2003 11:42 AM
Distraction,
It might not be propaganda? What exactly is it then? Are you willing to apply the same standard to pro-war “propaganda”? Let’s see what that amounts to.
Error of fact #1: US position on the use of mines.
Omission of fact #1: Current US active inventory of mines.
A teeny tiny amount of bias: “The Bush Administration and its warmongers…”
Would you honestly listen to a pro-war statement containing these three criteria and go longer than 6-8 seconds before labeling it propaganda? I wouldn’t and I won’t do it for an anti-war statement either.
Posted by Jim M on January 24, 2003 08:11 PM
Would you support a war with Iraq without France and Germany’s support?
Yes 32% 1952 votes
No 68% 4109 votes
Total: 6061 votes
4109 more Pro-Saddam people. Just by voting no, they just tortured another Kurd.. Don’t these people ahve any shame?
Posted by Bigtoes on January 23, 2003 10:49 AM
Lindsey Graham, why do you hate us?
****
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he agrees with President Bush’s handling of Iraq, but believes the president needs to explain to the American people “why we as Americans should shoulder the burden — the money burden, the human sacrifice.”
****
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76458,00.html
Posted by Eric M on January 25, 2003 02:24 AM
and yet this awful war keeps on.
Posted by MP3 Master on August 13, 2004 09:42 AM