Jacob G. Hornberger, anti-interventionist libertarian and founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, on Is FOX News Supporting the Troops or the President?
What are U.S. soldiers in Iraq dying for now? They’re dying to maintain a brutal military occupation, an occupation whose mission is to prevent what President Bush calls a “power grab” of Iraqis trying to oust a U.S.-appointed puppet ruling regime known as the Iraqi Governing Council, a council that includes the U.S.-appointed Ahmed Chalabi, who hadn’t been in Iraq for 45 years, who just happens to on the lam for a conviction for bank fraud and embezzlement in Jordan, who is proud that he misled America into falsely believing that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction, and whose pockets are currently being stuffed with $350,000 in U.S. taxpayer money every single month.
Of course, our support for individuals like Chalabi is nothing new. We supported Hussein himself from 1958 – 1990 and bin Laden during and following the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Neo-cons, LINOs and chickenhawks can (and will) ignore that last statement. It might make their heads hurt to ponder the complexities and possibilities of history and repeating the same. Instead, they will continue to hide behind their make believe worlds that tell them everyone wants to kill Americans and we've never done anything untoward – like supporting a deadly dictator who gassed his own people.
Can't have that, can we?
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
FOX News and False Support
Jacob G. Hornberger, anti-interventionist libertarian and founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, on Is FOX News Supporting the Troops or the President? What are U.S. soldiers in Iraq dying for now? They?re dying to maintain a brutal…
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that pro-war types have stopped posting comments since things in Iraq got sticky?
Posted by Brendan on April 22, 2004 05:28 AM
Yeah, where’s Rob?
Posted by proficy on April 22, 2004 07:13 AM
Next thing I know, we’ll have people proclaiming that the world is safer because of nuclear missiles.
You know, apart from all the people dead in the invasion, and the lies that started it, this is what fears me most.
It seems the US government wants to create a society where everyone under their control is at constant gunpoint. Stay on the line and you won’t get shot, move a bit to the right or left and you’re dead.
This seems to be GW’s idea of peace. A world where everybody is in control and can’t astray from the line chosen by those in power therefore can’t disturb the peace.
And frankly that it was what scares me most. The constant willingness of those in power to control and adjust all deviant behaviour.
Posted by proficy on April 22, 2004 09:16 AM
Anonymous
It’s just “1984” 20 years late. Read the book to see Bush & Co’s game plan.
Brendan and Proficy
In case you miss Kessler I’ll play him for you: “Great post. But it proves once again that the left is an American hating bunch of liars who would prefer to see Saddam in power, rather than support our troops who are dying every day to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. But what can you expect from a bunch of Chomsky-quoting Marxists? They totally ignore all the great things going on every day in Iraq.”
Feel better?
Posted by aronst on April 22, 2004 11:31 AM
If any one doubts the effectiveness of Bush & Co’s propaganda techniques, read this article about a recent Harris poll:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/19309.htm
19% believe there is proof of WMD! – not even Bush & Co make this claim!49% believe there is proof of the Iraq-al Queda connection! Ibid!
What scares me is not our leadership. What scares me is the willingness of people to live in ignorance and be driven by their basest instincts. Apparently, most Americans would rather watch absurd “reality” shows, then spend five minutes learning about whats really going on in the world.
Posted by aronst on April 22, 2004 12:10 PM
Of course we went to war under lies. But what is important is the result not the reason. Roosevelt campaigned for re-election on keeping the U.S. out of the war while pushing lend-lease and slapping sanctions on Japan. History has judged him rather nicely.
God Bless a free Iraq!
Posted by John R on April 22, 2004 09:39 PM
John R said: “Of course we went to war under lies. But what is important is the result not the reason.”
Only to those who ignore the human lives lost to these lies. If you weren’t doing the dying or losing limbs, I guess such pollyanna rationalizations make sense.
John R said: “Roosevelt campaigned for re-election on keeping the U.S. out of the war while pushing lend-lease and slapping sanctions on Japan. History has judged him rather nicely.”
That depends entirely on the historian. Now, doesn’t it?
Posted by James Landrith on April 22, 2004 11:03 PM
James Landrith said: Only to those who ignore the human lives lost to these lies. If you weren’t doing the dying or losing limbs, I guess such pollyanna rationalizations make sense.
In four years, after I graduate from college, I plan on joining the Army and becoming a junior officer. So I guess those dying and losing limbs will be me especially if the more pessimistic predictions about Iraq come to fruition.
Anyway, I’m not the one ignoring the loss of HUMAN lives; I wasn’t protesting the Kosovo bombings to end ethnic cleansing of Albanians or the war to topple Saddam, who killed more Iraqis than the U.S. would if we stayed there for a century. Who was it that protested these? Oh yeah, self-righteous liberals.
Posted by John R on April 23, 2004 09:44 PM
John said: “In four years, after I graduate from college, I plan on joining the Army and becoming a junior officer. So I guess those dying and losing limbs will be me especially if the more pessimistic predictions about Iraq come to fruition.”
John, officers usually aren’t the first ones to die and lose limbs. If you are serious about the need to engage in interventionist wars, then be brave about it and don’t hide behind a set of butter bars – go to your nearest recruiter now and take an enlisted infantry billet. If you really want to be a liberator, that is. I know quite a few Marine recruiters from my own days in a uniform. I’d be happy to make a personal recommendation for you. 🙂
John said: “Anyway, I’m not the one ignoring the loss of HUMAN lives; I wasn’t protesting the Kosovo bombings to end ethnic cleansing of Albanians or the war to topple Saddam, who killed more Iraqis than the U.S. would if we stayed there for a century.”
Actually, John, since you don’t know your history, let me point a few things out. The U.S. only recently got interested in the atrocities of Saddam Hussein AFTER he annexed the privately owned oilfields of Kuwait in the summer of 1990. Of course, he warned us of his plans first and we did nothing. Hell, even Donald Rumsfeld was photographed making nice with the mass murderer shortly after he gassed thousands of Iraqis. Are you really so clueless as to think that this war about Saddam’s atrocities? When so many past Administrations maintained diplomatic relations and support for the the man? When Donald Rumsfeld took the time to take a grin filled photo with a dicatator who had just killed thousands of his own people? Really?
That’s interesting given the U.S. history with the guy. Let’s see, we we trained the man as a CIA operative in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s and helped him through the 1970’s when he was number 2 and later dictator with chemical weapons technology, equipment and military intelligence and strategies.
We intentionally prolonged a bloody war (by working with both sides to minimize any advantage on the part of the other in order to prolong fighting) that included the use of chemical weapons between Iran and Iraq for several years. Have you ever seen photos of the soldiers from Iran and Iraq who had been exposed to such weapons? Do you really think that our government cared about Saddam’s atrocities, given our support of the man while he was committing the worst of his tenure? Can you say that with a straight face? Really?
John: “Who was it that protested these? Oh yeah, self-righteous liberals.”
As a libertarian, lover of the Constitution and a military veteran of the first Gulf War I find that be one of the most interestingly clueless statements I’ve ever read.
Posted by James Landrith on April 23, 2004 10:10 PM
Response to James Landrith
Obviously more enlisted men die than junior officers since the ratio is highly tilted towards the former. But I would like to apologize for mistakenly believing that lieutenants are killed and that wars are often won on the back of NCOs and junior officers (see: overwhelming Israeli victories against Arab nations possessing superior numbers and equipment)…wait, that is true.
Of course I know about our illustrious history with Saddam Hussein. I have few problems with it since I have long ago accepted that the U.S. often has to make alliances with bad people to fight the greater evil of the day. For example, when we were fighting the Nazis, we made nice with the communists; when we were facing down the communists, we made nice with right-wing dictatorships and even Islamic fundamentalists; when we had trouble with the radicals in Iran, we were more than happy to help Saddam with his grab for some Iranian border oil fields. The only thing I know is that the world is a better place for democracy and freedom than it was in 1941, 1950, or 1980.
Posted by John R on April 23, 2004 11:04 PM
John R
First don’t compare the American army to the Israeli army. The latter has a much less formal command and control structure.
As for your second paragraph, you make the same illogical argumetns that other pro-war types do: you assume whatever America does is right, so you ignore all the damage in lives caused by America’s action. You also ignore the perspective of the people who suffer from that action.
If you were an Iraqi, who had Saddam Hussein imposed on them for whatever reason, and suffered for decades because of it, and since 1991 suffered because of a US imposed sanction regime, why the hell would you be grateful for the US getting rid of Saddam Hussein. At best you would say – “Ok, you just partially undid a little of the damage you caused all these years. But don’t expect me to be grateful for you. All those pits you are uncovering with dead bodies – the blood of those people are on your (the Americans) hands.”
So if you were an Iraqi, its hardly likely you would say your world is better off today than it was in 1950 or 1981.
Posted by aronst on April 24, 2004 07:18 PM
aronst
I wasn’t comparing the American army to the Israeli army. I was responding to a remark made by James Landrith trying to demean my desire to become a junior officer. I felt that the Israeli-Arab wars was the perfect example of the importance of tactical prowess provided by good NCOs and junior officers. The Israelis were supremely competent while the Arab junior officers squandered every advantage.
I do recognize the U.S. has made serious mistakes in the past. However, I don’t expect perfection of mere humans who have to respond to fluid events with limited resources (I agree that the U.S. is not able to take on the whole world by ourselves). The result is that we have to make alliances with questionable people. It is still my contention that the world is much better off from our efforts since the abandonment of isolationism than if we had left the world to its fate.
I also would like to point out an erroneous assumption that you anti-war types make: that no atrocities would occur if the U.S. was not involved with the tyrant. Saddam did not need any help to kill his people. Just wondering, should the U.S. be held responsible for Stalin’s atrocities because we aided him during WWII.
To your last statement, I do believe that Iraqis are better off today than in 1950 or in 1981 since there is now the prospect of real freedom (I am far from guaranteeing that it will materialize). If the prospect of freedom is worth nothing, than I have to admit that I have greatly misunderstood what it means to be a human being.
Posted by John R on April 25, 2004 04:01 PM
John R.
You speak of the prospect of real freedom. There is always that prospect. It is the reality which counts. Part of the task of according others their freedom is the ability to recognise that what their understanding of freedom is may differ from your own. The pilgrim fathers who first left Britain for the New World sought religious “freedom”, but they did not seek freedom FROM religion. In fact they lived under one of the most repressive social regimes in history.
For anarchists, every organised political framework represents slavery, and subjugation. It is the antithesis of freedom.
I am not an anarchist. But the point is fairly made. What makes you think that the American model of “democracy” is “freedom”?
Yours,
Steven H.
Posted by Steven H. on April 25, 2004 06:35 PM
(I agree that the U.S. is not able to take on the whole world by ourselves)
The question is not so much that the US is able to or not, but that they should even if they were able.
Posted by proficy on April 26, 2004 03:17 AM
John R
1. You say you aren’t comparing the American army to the Israeli army, but you still try to draw an analogy from the role of NCOs in the Israeli army, to your own potential role in a very different army.
2. America hasn’t been isolationist since the 19th century. We started out in our own hemisphere, moved into Europe and now the whole world is our play field. You focus on the benefits to America (mostly American industrialists, not the poor saps who fought in the wars) but ignore the death and destruction our adventures caused to the people of the countries we intervened in. With a wave of your hand you attribute that to “human error.” Well a more honest appraisal would attribute it to the greed and deception of the war mongerers. And even if there were good intentions, we all know what road is paved with those.
The only positive exception was W.W. II, and has been pointed out before, the defeat of the Nazis was far more the result of the courageous resistance of the people’s of the U.S.S.R., which doesn’t mean we should all convert to Bolshevism.
3. No anti-war person ignores atroicties. On the contrary, we’re the ones who are always complaining about it while the war mongers cut profitable deals with dictators. War montgers only become concerned with atrocities, when they need some propaganda to cover up their real intentions.
4. The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking: “there is now the prospect of real freedom.” You mean without US intervention, the Iraqi people are totally incapable of bringing about their own freedom? All the evidence indicates that Saddam’s regime was on its last legs. If we had shown some forbearance, he would have been toppled in any case. And since it would have been the Iraqis doing the job, the prospects for real freedom would have been much greater.
All the pro-war commentators are bemoaning the fact that the Iraqi’s aren’t “showing leadership” in the fight against insurgents. What foolishness. The U.S. was not invited in by the Iraqi people. Why should they help out in what they see as Operation Iraqi Liberation?
This war has nothing to do with the freedom of the Iraqi people. They know it. Most of the rest of the world knows it. It’s time the pro-war types open their eyes as well.
Posted by aronst on April 26, 2004 02:47 PM
Dear John R.
So the world is a better place for democracy and freedom? Hmmm. It would appear to me that in the United States, at least, this is clearly not the case. In the US it would seem that, although you have not (yet) become a one party system, you have nonetheless certainly become a two party one. Any independent, or “new” party is immediately shouted down as traitorous to the twin behemoths. And if you feel that such a system is more likely to be democratic than even a one party system, observe that it is, as has been shown, far more stable than any other form, in the sense of being intransigent, and built as a duopoly upon the political landscape as surely as the twin castles of robber barons oversee a valley.
And the robber baron analogy? Well, it is appropriate. Ask yourself whether it is genuinely possible to achieve the Presidency without immense prior wealth? In the past, granted it may have been. But now? Who are the candidates for the next election? What are their corporate affiliations? How were they chosen? Did you get a look in in that process, really? Who is benefiting, really from this war? Is the war representative of the concerns and interests of the ordinary American?
And what happened at the last election anyway? Democracy is strong indeed, in America it would seem…
And Freedom? What of the dramatic erosion of civil liberties and protections in the US in the past two and a half years? What of the Partiot Acts I (and II)? Are you feeling freer than before?
I am sorry if this is all very old, on this blog, but I have only just discovered it. I am tempted to stay awhile by the generally excellent level of comment and debate, particularly those of James Landrith.
Best wishes.
Posted by Steven on April 25, 2004 07:45 AM
I happen to think that Vietnam is now better of now than under The French, The Japanese, The French again, then the Americans who all were trying to install order and freedom in that country.
Maybe that is just my liberal bias. What do you think.
Ohh, one point of advice. The most stupid thing you can do is to join the army. As the song (in the army now)says : “.. Nothing to do ? You better stay in bed. ..”
As soon as you put on that uniform you cease to become a citizen with rights to an independent mind and personal opinions. You become a tool to be used by others as THEY see fit. But more so, you became fair game to anyone trying to kill you. US speaks of murders but there is simply no such thing when you wear an army uniform outside your own nations borders.
Why on earth would you sell out your young body and soul to the ever changing whims of somebody else who most likely will never experience the same hardships or make the same sacrifices (family, living in a danger zone) as you ?
But then again, nobody said that most of us are smart.
Wouter
Posted by Wouter on April 26, 2004 05:06 AM
I might also point out that the comparison with WW2 is grotesque. Roosevelt did indeed want to keep America out of the war, but Pearl Harbour forced his hand (and please dont waste my time with conspiracy theories that Roosevelt ‘knew’ about that: i’ve looked into it and he really didn’t). The comparison would only hold if Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and of course we know he had nothing to do with it.
In terms of ‘results’: the results seem to be at the moment that Iraq is burning, and that the Americans are increasingly being sucked into an unwinnable war. The comparisons with Lyndon Johnson (or even Nixon) are much more striking.
Posted by Brendan on April 23, 2004 08:35 AM
Brendan: FDR did NOT “indeed want to keep America out of the war.” He knew as early as 1933 that Hitler would be a threat to civilization, and had to get his policies around a very strong isolationist voting bloc. When he said in 1940 “Your boys are not going to die in any foreign war,” he was lying about his own intentions, and his assessment of US interests, and he knew it at the time.
PS: I share your total disdain for Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories. The LAST thing FDR wanted was a whole new war diverting attention, lives and resources from the European theater which he considered most important.
Posted by Dave on April 23, 2004 01:05 PM
Free Iraq??
Maybe in some parallel universe.
A free country is where it’s citizens manage their own lives. The U.S. has shown no intention of letting the Iraqis do just that. I know some people believe that if America is in control, then ipso facto the country is “free.” Maybe free for American corporations to have their way. But the Iraqi people sure ain’t free.
Yes they don’t have Saddam on their back anymore. That’s good. But it’s just out with the old crowd, in with the new one. In the past year by any reliable estimate more than ten thousand Iraqi civilianss have died. The fact that it’s American bullets and bombs, or insurgent bullets and bombs, and not Saddam’s bullets and bombs, is of little comfort to the mothers who have lost their children.
Here’s the latest for any one of those people who take the June 30th “hand over of sovereignity” seriously:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/politics/23DIPL.html
And all these comparisons to Roosevelt and Churchill. If Bush goes down in history with the acclaim of Warren Harding or William Henry Harrison or Herbert Hoover, he’ll be a lucky man.
Here’s a more realistic appraisal:
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2004/832
Posted by aronst on April 23, 2004 01:59 AM
Here’s a great one out of this week’s Newsweek:
[quote]In his interview with Woodward, conducted over two days in December of last year, Bush displayed no second thoughts about Iraq’s postwar miseries or the failure to turn up any WMD. “I haven’t suffered doubt,” he told Woodward. When the author—quoting Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove—suggested that “all history gets measured by outcomes,” Bush “smiled,” reports Woodward. ” ‘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’.” [/quote]
On the lighter side, http://www.billionairesforbushorkerry.org – Great political satire
Posted by John on April 23, 2004 02:22 PM
Well,I would just like to say that,judging by the comments posted on this blog alone, at least some of us Americans are more informed and politically aware on a globalscopethan I would normally give us credit for.
I am not an economist, but try this idea:
Despite all the bad news coming out of Iraq,I offer a glimmer of hope for all those who are pro and anti-war in this affair: this will be the last wartime “adventure” America takes on for generations. We have finally proven that we cannot afford to fight even a single regional war. So we’ll take this one up the financial wazoo, but no one – not even the pro-war supporters at FOX news – is going to whip up the war drums again for a long time to come. I am actually delighted by the exhorbitant financial cost for this war – it might wind up acting as a barrier of restraint for adventurism. We are the first empire the citizens of which will not sacrifice a single TV set or SUV to fight an unprovoked war. REmember, the Vietnam slaughter was able to continue so long mostly because Johnson and Nixon were writing a bunch of hot checks. Bush has been doing this, but both leftists and conservatives are trying to stop him relatively early in the game. Now, to make things worse for the militarists, war costs much much more to wage than 35 years ago, making it prohibitively expensive to the American budget and taxpayer. After only one year in Iraq, we are financially/budgetarily where we were in 1972, and that spells trouble in an election year….that is if there is a real choice between candidates, but that’s another argument. Sorry for the rambling…
Posted by Steffen on April 26, 2004 07:06 AM
Dear Steffen,
You are not rambling, but talking good sense. I am afraid that all the talk of Sole Superpowerhood, and all the melodramatic, overblown usages of statements about “The President of the United States, The Most Powerful Man in the World!” etc. has led to a curiously false impression in the minds of many, not just in America, but elsewhere. The false impression is that America is invincible. It is not. Not even slightly so. The thing is, as you rightly point out, America’s military superiority costs an enormous amount of money. An ENOURMOUS amount. This situation, as you rightly point out, is aggravated by the escalating cost of each new type of weapon of superiority. Gone are the days when a bomb would cost as much as the metal and chemicals that went into it, with a few cents per unit to cover manufacturing costs. Gone are the days when a powerful nation could rely on its ranks of expendable grunts, the loss of each of which represented a relatively minor loss in economic terms. If the war continues at its present cost for several years, the US will face what amounts to its biggest deficit in history. And what is its military strength built upon but monetary might? America’s status as a superpower, I would contend, paradoxically relies upon it conserving its might. Profligate use such as that presently ongoing will, as you rightly suggest, weaken the actual power of the nation. Some powers are best retained by their neglect. An example would be the right of the Queen of Britain to dissolve parliament, or veto laws etc. She retains that power only beause she chooses not to exercise it. If she chose to do so, she could, but it would rapidly result in her losing that power altogether. The analogy is not perfect, I know, but has some relevance.
But there is also another kind of inflation here, which hamstrings the “world’s only superpower”. I will illustrate by numbers: on the first day of the WWI Somme offensive, the British suffered 57,470 casualties. On the first day. That is a casualty rate 35 000 times higher than the average US casualty rate in the present conflict. In that one battle 1.4 million soldiers died. In the battle of the Somme alone. And yet the sides kept fighting. And now there is serious concern in America over the US casualties. Why? I contend that it is one simple thing: Improved Communication- television and the internet. The real impact of the war could not be collectively felt in those times (WWI etc.). Faces could not be put to names. Names were just lists, appearing once only in print papers. Grief was private, and scattered. Not now. Now you can go to visit the faces of each US soldier killed in Iraq every minute of every day, updated in “real” time. And of course this is how it should be. Because the other is a lie.
And there is another side to it still. A pyrrhic victory is a victory nonetheless. In WWII, the battle of the Kursk salient, a very much underequipped, poorly trained Russian force decisively defeated a German force far superior in quality, equipment, training, experience etc. The Germans lost 70,000, but the Russians 1,000,000. The ratio of deaths is similar in Iraq at present. And the population of potential Iraqi guerillas is practically unlimited, as it was in Russia for the Germans. And then there was Vietnam.
Put these three facts together, and you may see that superpower status does not a victory make. And that an over flattering self-image is a dangerous asset.
I hope for the best, but fear the worst.
Yours,
Steven H.
Posted by Steven H. on April 26, 2004 11:07 AM
Well, well, well, this place is still the same stagnant puddle it was last June. Some people never learn…
How do I make a coherent response to such incoherent rubbish? I suppose I could just take the worst example, which is Steven’s statement that “For anarchists, every organised political framework represents slavery, and subjugation. It is the antithesis of freedom.”
This yet another reminder, for those who need it, that “anarchist” is merely a synonym for “charlatan,” “hypocrite,” “idiot,” or “spoiled brat.”
Excuse me while I belabor the obvious: “organized political frameworks” give us: armies to protect our land, navies to protect our shipping, laws to protect our persons and property, cops to enforce the laws, institutions for the peaceful resolution of disputes, and money and banking systems without which nothing even remotely resembling a modern wealth-creating economy can even exist, let alone grow. This is why so many people, all over the world, support “organized political frameworks” of one sort or another.
So-called “anarchists” using the government-created, taxpayer-funded Internet to argue that governments only create subjugation and destroy freedom, represent the absolute apogee of brain-dead, blithering, childish hypocricy.
Coming close to that apogee is aron’s statement that “the defeat of the Nazis was far more the result of the courageous resistance of the people’s of the U.S.S.R.” Sure it was – AFTER Stalin encouraged the German Communists to help Hitler come to power, then decimated his own army and country until it could no longer stand up to a German invasion, then signed a treaty with Germany, then spent years ignoring Germany’s obvious intent to violate that treaty.
John R.: don’t waste your time here; I’ve been looking at this place since October 2002, and it was never anything more than a bad joke – possibly a Republican attempt to defame, discredit and humiliate the American left. All you’re likely to get here is open sympathy for terrorists, blame-America-first sloganeering, and everything else a right-winger could possibly use to portray leftists as clueless anti-American idiots.
Just join the armed services, learn as much as you can, do your best to stay alive, and pass your experience on to people who will listen. And may the Gods go with you.
Posted by Dave on April 26, 2004 04:41 PM
Quoting Dave:
“(1)Just join the armed services, (2)learn as much as you can, (3)do your best to stay alive, and (4)pass your experience on to people who will listen. (5)And may the Gods go with you.”
Your prescription amounts to:
1. Abdicate responsibility for yourself.
2. Learn to obey without questioning anything.
3. Put yourself in unnecessary danger while killing people in wars you have not bothered to understand.
4. Advise others who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves to follow steps 1-3.
5. Make gestures towards further justifications and powers you don’t wish to and in this case cannot understand, primarily because they do not exist, thereby abdicating whatever is left of your responsibility.
Courage consists in taking responsibility for your own mind, and in thinking fearlessly, and also in the courage to respect others’ viewpoint, or at least attempt to understand it. It is not to be found in blind obedience and angry rejection.
As to your comments about anarchy. You waste your breath. If you had bothered to read my message carefully, you would have noticed that I expressly state that am NOT an anarchist. It was an analogy, which you should be able to recognise and understand, examine and reject if you wish, but only once you have understood it. It is meaningless to reject something other than what someone has actually said.
As to your revulsion for this weblog, nothing is compelling you to contribute, or to read. It is interesting to me, as it should be to yourself, that you have been “looking at this place since October 2002”. If you really thought that there was nothing worthwhile to learn here, you have apparently wasted rather a lot of your time in the last 19 months. As to your analysis of the political leanings of participants, it is obviously… well, what it is is so self evident that I don’t even need to criticise.
I hope that what keeps you reading is your recognition that you have a genuine curiousity about what others think, and that you wish to use your own mind. If you decide not to, you will obviously be killing a part of yourself, along with the foreigners in step 3.
I wish you all the best,
Steven H.
Posted by Steven H. on April 26, 2004 07:27 PM
Steven H.: Your deliberate misrepresentation of my message to John shows (once again) the far left’s event-proof, unchanging disdain for any thoughts or experiences that do not exactly match or agree with their own.
If you knew ANYTHING about modern armies, you would know that soldiers are not taught to “obey without questioning anything.” Modern war is far too complicated for that, and peacemaking even more so. You sound like a child who has yet to learn that discipline and independent, responsible action go together, and are not mutually exclusive.
Furthermore, where do you get the idea that those who join the armed services “have not bothered to understand” the wars they are sent to fight? Even the dumbest soldiers’ commentaries I’ve read show FAR more intelligence, compassion and insight into the people they deal with than any of the leftist hate-speak I’ve read on this miserable little blog. (Trick question: did John Kerry “not bother to understand” what happened in Vietnam?)
Perhaps that’s why the left show so much hostility to soldiers: soldiers actually get out in the real world and learn about it from harsh experience, test their ideology by fire, and try to do some good amid all the chaos and carnage, thus earning respect from those of us whose votes sent them to war. Most leftists fall short on all four counts, and try to compensate for it by belittling their betters every chance they get. And yes, a soldier who uses his eyes and mind is indeed better than an overgrown child who carps on autopilot from his mother’s basement.
Yes, I noticed your statement that you weren’t an anarchist. I also noticed your subsequent ambiguous waffling “But the point is fairly made,” which I interpreted as kinda-sorta-maybe taking the anarchist position. At the very least, you did nothing to question the sheer stupidity of the anarchist position you represented.
As for why I come here, it is indeed out of “a genuine curiousity about what others think.” I’m frankly amazed that you guessed this, since you (and most commentators here) show so little of that quality yourselves. Perhaps if the far left had a little more of this quality, they’d be a little more relevant.
And now your question back to you: given all the pathetic rubbish that has littered this blog for all the time I’ve been visiting, what do YOU hope to accomplish here?
Posted by Dave on April 27, 2004 09:37 AM
“Perhaps that’s why the left show so much hostility to soldiers: soldiers actually get out in the real world and learn about it from harsh experience, test their ideology by fire, and try to do some good amid all the chaos and carnage, thus earning respect from those of us whose votes sent them to war. Most leftists fall short on all four counts, and try to compensate for it by belittling their betters every chance they get. And yes, a soldier who uses his eyes and mind is indeed better than an overgrown child who carps on autopilot from his mother’s basement.”
You talk about soldiers as being tourists in a devastated area, benevolantly speaking with Iraqis, aiding them as it were. However, the cause of devastation is the American Soldier. You seem to forget why this war started in the first place, who started it, what the situation in Iraq was like a year and a half ago.
I bet you think it has improved, or at least will improve once all insurgents have been taking care off.
Wrong, the Iraqi people are fighting for their freedom, they have been suppressed for over 40 years and they are tired of it. They want things their way and they couldn’t care less whether or not that’s the American way.
Yes, modern day soldiers aren’t dumb or blind. But the US Soldier at this time is in a country where nothing can be won… what’s the goal the US wants to achieve that benefits the soldier?
The only problem the US should have now, is to figure out how to leave, well, that ain’t hard, you just get your boys on the plain and they are out.
What about Iraq? Will it be a safe place? No. Is it now? No.
Solution get an Arab-UN force in.
No WMD have been found in Iraq, if they are found now, they have been planted.
Saddam, the great dictator that killed his own people is gone. His sons are dead.
The Al-Qaeda link was non-existent.
What is the US still doing in Iraq???
Answer: wasting lifes for a mistake.
Iraqi people do not accept to be led by Western people. It’s a matter of pride and religion surely, that can’t be so hard to understand. The Iraqi government counsil is looked upon as western, people like Chalabi are traitors in the eyes of Iraqis, so are the police men working with the US.
Now Dave, you tell me: What do you see as a positive outcome in this war? Present or future…
Posted by Proficy on April 27, 2004 10:28 AM
Editor’s Note: Corrected name to reflect this comment was posted by Proficy
Incoming non-sequiturs from an anonymous poster…I must have hit a nerve.
Just two points. First, “the cause of devastation” is not “the American Soldier,” it’s a certain group of politicians who ordered the American soldier(s) into this war. (Can you name the leader of that group? Here’s a hint – I’ll mention him near the end of this post!) Also, Saddam Hussein caused a bit of devastation as well. (Hint: remember the Iran-Iraq war? The torture chambers?)
And second, it is a documented fact that American soldiers are indeed “benevolantly speaking with Iraqis, aiding them as it were.” You may find this concept alien to your narrow, hateful ideology, but American soldiers (unlike those leftists who pretend to care so much about innocent lives) are indeed speaking with Iraqis, assisting in rebuilding efforts, administering medical care once in awhile, and trying to do the decent thing for the people under their guns. I’m not saying this to justify anything, I’m saying it because it’s a fact. You know what a fact is, don’t you? It’s something that overrides prejudice.
Your braindead haste to insult and demean those Americans who are sacrificing everything as a result of Bush’s mistakes serves no useful purpose – except, of course, to flush your own credibility down the toilet and make Bush look intelligent, articulate and compassionate by comparison.
Posted by Dave on April 27, 2004 11:13 AM
Dave
Talk about non-sequitors and straw-man rhetoric.
1. This site is not populated by “far-leftists” alone. This site is mainly popluated by libetarians. We differe on out economic perspectives (some are left some on right on that measure) but we all come with a great belief in human freedom, human liberty and human dignity. Our criticism of this war is based on that shared value. So enough with the ignorant, invalid and rhetorical talk about the “far-left”
[If you don’t know what I’m talking about check out this site:
http://politicalcompass.org/
]
2. Nearly all the arguments made by the posters of this site (and Steven H. – this is the answer to your question – the two founders of the site, Max and John, review bloggers and choose who can post to the main stream) have been substantiated after the war by sources close to the administration:
a. There were no WMD and even if they were Saddam posed no threat to the US
b. Bush & Co were focusing on Iraq before 9/11 and this has nothing to do with the war on terrorism
c. The war in Iraq is a diversion from teh war on terrorism and in fact will provide al Queda with a recruiting ground
and on and on. Go read through the archives. It was precisely because Bush ignored these types of arguments that America is in the mess it is in now.
As far as criticizing soldiers, I don’t read the anonymous poster as criticizing soldiers. S/he is 100% correct in the analysis that the presence of the American soldier is the source of instability of Iraq. Anyone who ignores that fact is sticking their head in the sand. And the solution is to remove the American soldier. That is not an attribution of blame on the soldiers, but a statement of fact.
As for the specific issue of blame, and going back to John R’s argument that soldiers know what they are doing, I can only speak from my own experience. I know that when I became a soldeir I believed in the cause I was “fighting” for. One would hope that anyone who undertakes such a morally charged taskas taking the power to take someone else’s life, has put in quite a bit of thought around the morality of his or her actions.
Unfortunately, people often make decisions based on incomplete information. For me at least, my army service served as an education which taught me that all the reasons I went to war were lies. I imagine that John Kerry had a similar experience. Making such a discovery is doubly devestating. Not only is there a sense of betrayel by those who misled you and whom you trusted. But there is also a sense of great guilt. If I took another human life and there is no moral justification for it, then I am a party to the the greatest crime any human can commit – murder.
Once you are a soldier and in the situation, the tendency is to continue to believe in your cause no matter what the evidence – because to face the alternative, and understand that you are really a murderer is something too hard for most people to bear. So saying that soldiers believe in what they are doing is the worst evidence for the justice of any war.
Again, I don’t “blame the soldiers.” They were lied to and deceived and now caught up in a system which brings to bear a huge amount of coercion and pressure. It is for this reason that my own experience led me to move much closer to pacifism and support for refusal to serve in the armed forces. Given the fact that a soldier can easily become a murderer, one needs to err on the side of caution before participating in war or justifying a war.
Posted by aronst on April 27, 2004 12:31 PM
“This site is not populated by “far-leftists” alone.”
This site used to be populated by people from all over the political spectrum. They (okay, we) offered sensible arguments against the upcoming Iraq war, and were met with paleo-leftist sloganeering, bigoted attacks agaist all Americans, pro-terrorist cheerleading, idiotic conspiracy theories, empty poseurs, and mindless attacks on people who didn’t oppose the war for the “right” reasons. Anyone who uttered anything contrary to orthodox anti-American leftism, or said anything nice about the US, was automatically labelled “pro-war,” “pro-oil,” or “war-whore.”
This blog advertized itself as a “left-right blog,” but all persons who questioned the slogans of the doctrinaire left were automatically lebelled enemies, regardless of what they actually said.
“Nearly all the arguments made by the posters of this site…have been substantiated after the war…”
This is pure denial, and the archives you cite prove it. What about the repeated mantra that it was all about the oil? What about the “Americans are EVIL” argument? What about the “Israel as agent of US imperialism” drivel? Wnat about the countless posts blaming the US for all the world’s evils, or excusing other countries’ atrocities by reference to US actions? Also, don’t forget your own repeated, pathetic attempts to excuse and minimize Stalin’s atrocities. Have any of those “arguments” been “substantiated after the war?”
Like any phony soothsayer, you are taking the few prophesies that came true and trumpeting them as if they were your only prophesies, thus giving yourself the appearance of a perfect record. Not only that, but those prophesies that came true were uttered first, and more intelligently, by others. This blog contributed nothing to the debate, denigrated the contributions of others, needlessly insulted tens of millions of Americans who might otherwise share our reservations about the war, and gave the anti-war movement a bad name.
Posted by Dave on April 27, 2004 02:12 PM
Dave,
Likewise, I do not try to denigrate soldiers in themselves. I generally feel sorry for them, especially in situations like this. But as you say, they make the choice to abdicate their choice. As to your assertion:
“If you knew ANYTHING about modern armies, you would know that soldiers are not taught to “obey without questioning anything.” Modern war is far too complicated for that, and peacemaking even more so.”
I should like to ask you the following questions, in order that you may enlighten me about these marvellous new “modern armies” in which the soldier is so free:
1. In a “modern army” do soldiers have to obey their superiors in a chain of command?
2. In a “modern army” do soldiers get to choose their war of preference, out of a possible several. Can they chose not to go, if ordered into one?
3. In ordinary circumstances, do they themselves choose their mission?
4. Are they involved in the decision-making process which commits them to war?
5. Do the soldiers choose their own rules of engagement?
6. If, as is happening in Fallujah and Najaf, peacekeeping is quite unnecesarily being turned into warmongering, do the troops on the ground decide when this happens, or if? In short, if a certain Marine, encamped outside Fallujah this evening, were to be given the ORDER to attack, could he decide to say: “No, I don’t think that it is not a good idea just now, I will be peacekeeping today instead.”
7. Tell me, if you will, how “modern war” is more complicated than, say, war in the first half of the twentieth century. Does it mean that you don’t get to kill quite as indiscriminately anymore, because of TV? Is there anything else?
Do please enlighten me.
Also, you seem addicted to name-calling, the most ironic of which is your frequent reference to others’ childishness:
“And yes, a soldier who uses his eyes and mind is indeed better than an overgrown child who carps on autopilot from his mother’s basement.”
This is tiring, pointless, and ironic. I am not a “child” nor have been for a very long time. It is interesting that you always seek to insult in your blogs. It doesn’t hurt me, or help you. What makes you feel you know about anything about me? You assume a great deal:
“Steven H.: Your deliberate misrepresentation of my message to John shows (once again) the far left’s event-proof, unchanging disdain for any thoughts or experiences that do not exactly match or agree with their own.”
I am not a member of “the far left” and never would be. This is once again a simple example of pointless name-calling. You will find that doing this doesn’t make your arguments stronger, or you yourself appear to be stronger or more intelligent. It does the opposite. I am afraid it just makes it seem that you have run short on coherent argument. As to it being a deliberate misrepresentation, if that is what you would like to call a critique, that is up to you. But it was a critique.
I can only say that if you habitually fly into name-calling rages, and assume that you already know everything about persons whom you have never met -and you really don’t know anything about me at all- you would be unlikely to make a very good peacekeeper in a foreign land, as you seem to think you might.
It is never a good idea to allow your prejudices to be on full display while attempting measured debate.
This is the last blog I will engage in either to comment about, or defend myself against your tirades. This weblog is not, as far as I can tell, about you. I will happily engage in discussion about more serious things, such as the reasons behind the fate of people presently dying and being torn apart accross the world, in future, if you wish.
Yours respectfully,
Steven H.
Posted by Steven H. on April 27, 2004 02:48 PM
Steven: I advised someone to join the armed services, and you misrepresented it as “Abdicate responsibility for yourself.” I advised learning as much as one can, and you misrepresented it as “Learn to obey without questioning anything” while fighting “wars you have not bothered to understand.” So yes, you do indeed “denigrate soldiers in themselves,” and your denial of this obvious fact is just as lame as the racist’s standard “some of my best friends are…” dodge. If I misunderstand your meaning, you have only yourself to blame.
The fact that you can’t even own up to the meaning of your own words indicates that you are nowhere near as willing to “engage in discussion about more serious things” as you claim.
Posted by Dave on April 27, 2004 05:02 PM
Dave
“all persons who questioned the slogans of the doctrinaire left were automatically lebelled enemies, regardless of what they actually said.”
Labelled by whom? Some of the loud mouth commentators who populate this site? Other commentators have labelled me and many of the other posters “America haters,” “terrorists sympathizers,” etc. etc. So what? Let them bark.
You also object to ad hoiminem attacks, and yet half of what you write in your various comments above is exactly that – ad hominem attacks on some amorphous group called the “far left.” The other half are fabricated statements that you put in the mouth of other people.
As for the “slogans” so-called:
“What about the repeated mantra that it was all about the oil?”
Most people who put forth that argument, myself among them, pointed out that oil is a shorthand for power and resources. And while this argument can’t be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt until we have access to all the secret conversations, it seems pretty clear to me that Bush & Co are interested in control of Iraq at any price (as long as they and their croniues don’t pay the price). ANd the only explanation for that is powere and resources.
Can you deny that already there has been documented profiteering? Why won’t the new interim government be allowed to change any laws? Could it be because Bush & Co want to keep Bremer’s law that allows 100% ownership by foreigners of Iraqi companies and resources?
If you don’t agree with this hypothesis then give another more logical one or argue against it with fact and logic. Hand waving is no argument.
“What about the “Americans are EVIL” argument?”
Show me ONE main post, only one, in all the archives where one of the MAIN bloggers called Americans evil. You can’t, because there aren’t any. I’m not talking about the comments . All kinds of drivel from all sides flows in these comments. Yes, some anti-war comments are drivel too. But the level of pro-war posters is so low, it is almost embarrasing. So if a few anti-war types descended to stupid statements, they are washed away in the deluge of nonsense posted by pro-war commentators.
“What about the “Israel as agent of US imperialism” drivel?”
Ibid. The argument made, which has been well-substantiated, is that the neo-con “thinkers” (so-called) who were one of the driving forces behind Bush & Co.’s war ideology, share a large ideological world-view with Israel’s Likud. This is a fact, not an opinion. The importance of this fact is for the reader to decide.
“Wnat about the countless posts blaming the US for all the world’s evils, or excusing other countries’ atrocities by reference to US actions?”
As has often been pointed out to the “US is always right crowd,” the US does rule the world now (this is not a “far-left” contention – see Niall Ferguson for exmaple). Hence the actions of the US impacts people all over the world. As such, people all over the world have the right to be concerned about US’s actions. And those of us who are US citizens have the duty and obligation to critique our government’s actions.
As for “justifying atrocities of other countries” this is the typical strawman argument made by those who want to shut the critics up. Again, show me one blogger here who supports dictators of any stripe.
“Also, don’t forget your own repeated, pathetic attempts to excuse and minimize Stalin’s atrocities.”
I am almost at a loss for words on this one. I have been accused of many things, but being a “Stalin supporter” is a new one. Just because I said your argument about Stalin is irrelevant makes me a Stalin supporter? This is a typical tactic of a certain class of posters. Where there is no logical or factual argument to support their case, they make things up and throw around wild charges which have no connection to reality.
“Have any of those “arguments” been “substantiated after the war?”
See above. You have either distorted or completely fabricated arguments made by the bloggers, or raised to the level of “blog opinion,” drivel posted by isolated commenters. So saying those have not been substantiated does not make much of a case for your position. It just adds to the drivel.
Hey Brendan, Dave seems to be picking up where Robert K left off. They have the same modus operendi. Maybe they really are the same person 🙂
Posted by aronst on April 27, 2004 06:38 PM
Aronst,
Thanks for the info.
Yours,
Steven H.
Posted by Steven H. on April 27, 2004 03:02 PM
Still haven’t had an answer to this question:
Now Dave, you tell me: What do you see as a positive outcome in this war? Present or future…
Sorry for anonymous post.
Posted by proficy on April 28, 2004 02:56 AM
Dave,
http://forum.galeyisrael.com/forum/files/dontloot.wmv
what do you think?
Compassionate?
Helpful?
Posted by proficy on April 28, 2004 09:56 AM
Dave
If you find this blog so unappealing and irrelevant why do you keep on coming back? And of course, as typical for those on your side of the discussion, you set up a straw man argument, rip it to shreds and feel oh so smug.
I never said that Nazi Germany’s defeat was due to Stalin’s policies. I said it was due to the brave resistance of THE PEOPLE’S of the U.S.S.R. So telling me all the bad things Stalin did is totally irrelevant to what I was saying.
Speaking of the U.S.S.R, it is a great example. Had Bush & CO’s policies been applied to the U.S.S.R, a country which did possess all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, which brutally murdered its own citizens and was led by brutal dictators (such as Stalin), and presented a clear and present danger to teh United States, the U.S would have been embroiled in a hot war and probably a nuclear holocaust. And using John R’s logic re: Iraq, freedom would never have come to the oppressed people of Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R. without America going to war on their behalf.
But lo and behold, from East Germany all the way to Mongolia, all those people managed to get rid of extremely oppressive regimes without the U.S. going to war and overthrowing the tyrants. Sure it’s not perfect, sure progress is uneven, and in some parts of the old Soviet empire tyrants still reign – but no US attack on Soviet soil was necessary in order for a massive number of regime changes to take place throughout this region. Maybe we can learn something from that?
Posted by aronst on April 26, 2004 07:38 PM
Aronst,
Could you let me know, if you know, how a topic (e.g. “Fox news and false support”) is launched on this weblog? Do you need to be some sort of member?
Thanks,
Steven H.
Posted by Steven H. on April 26, 2004 07:47 PM
Aronst,
Oh yes, and great point: patience, patience.
Smiles,
Steven H.
Posted by Steven H. on April 26, 2004 07:49 PM
52 BRITISH AMBASSADORS AND SENIOR DIPLOMATS CONDEMN BUSH/BLAIR!
Oddly, most US media (NYT, CNN and others) have yet to give airtime to this astonishing statement, although the excellent Detroit News Customwire (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_HUMVEES?SITE=MIDTN&SECTION;=US&TEMPLATE;=DEFAULT) has a link, as it does to most less reported important news. Anyway, please follow the link below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1204085,00.html
And how on earth do you start a new topic here (NoWarBlog)? This deserves one if anything does!
Yours,
Steven H.
Posted by Steven H. on April 27, 2004 04:06 AM