Her description of the conflagration in Lebanon as the “birthpangs of a new Middle East” was about as callous as it gets, matched only by Bush’s remark that the conflict represents “a moment of opportunity." ...This is the kind of talk one hears around Madison. If the U.S. or Israel does something violent, you speak only in terms of your horror and righteous anger that we have killed people. If our enemies do something violent, you call attention to their understandable frustration and outrage and our role in making them feel that way.
Rice’s cruel opposition to an immediate cease-fire has left the whole world outside of Israel (and Tony Blair’s kennel) aghast.
July 29, 2006
"Condoleezza Rice: Midwife from Hell."
Speaking of magazines, here's a lovely piece from a little magazine from Madison, Wisconsin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
I'm familiar with what you describe, and I don't dispute it. But I'm wondering if you also notice the tendancy of those who support this war to romanticize our fighting, who are outraged at any criticism of civilian deaths, of any discussion about atrocities committed by rogue troops or in official holding centers. After all, they attacked us so our rage is justified.
This phenomenon of being outraged only the violence that conflicts with your sympathies is not restricted to the far left.
I don't see any cheering over the violence by people who support the military actions of Israel and the United States. I think we feel very bad about having to do it, and I think the leaders who are making the call feel bad about it too. It's pure delusion to think we're into violence as violence. Our side strives to avoid civilian deaths, and the other side behaves in a way that makes civilian deaths more likely, and they do it cleverly, knowing it works to undermine support among people who do agonize over these deaths.
Speaking from past personal experience, the "extreme left/ liberal" perspective on foreign affairs comes from an absolute refusal to recognize that there is a different morality in relations between nations than there is for relations between people.
The way that foreign affairs are conducted (including war, but also trade and immigration) seems monstrous if regarded in terms of the behaviour and consequences for individuals.
With more knowledge and experience, I would now say that it is both inevitable and desirable that relations between countries have different rules from those of individual morality. It is part of the modern condition, and modernity is better for most people most of the time.
There is nothing new (indeed, it is centuries old) that we feel the psychological alienation of a dis-integrated world where different aspects of life are increasingly fractured. It is necessary, it is intractable, but it is still painful.
Articles like this express the pain. In effect the article is an inarticulate howl against the contradictions of the human condition.
If the author were more insightful (and less addicted to advertizing his own moral superiority) there would be a recognition that Condoleezza Rice may be doing a job that needs doing, and doing it very well - but it _is_ tragic that the job does need doing, and CR would probably be the first to acknowledge the fact.
I would think that Hezbollah would be the abortionist from hell -- trying to kill the new Middle East before it is birthed.
"Criticism" is not the right word. Civilian deaths are taken completely out of context. If Hezbollah would come out and fight, civilian deaths would be nil -- except for the ones they are causing in Israel -- and those they are killing in Lebanon who won't obey. When Hezbollah holes up among the civilian population -- and they continue to fight -- they become legally and morally responsible for the civilian deaths.
An odd thing (an aside) is I've lived in some pretty red cities -- I've never seen a right-wing version of Madison, Austin, Santa Fe and Taos, NM, San Francisco, Boulder, CO. Even Orange County, CA is not as red as the bluest blue region. Not even close. Maybe out in the sticks in White Settlement, TX (I kid you not), but not any city of any size or repute. Are there any right-wing lunatic fringe cities or does it take a large state university or capital.
Ann, I don't see cheering either, but that wasn't the tone you identified in the Madison story; it was more of a sympathy, to "call attention to their understandable frustration." I don't share your faith that we do all we can do to avoid civilian deaths. I think we're better at it than most. What I'm struck by is the sense of obligation. The Madison talk you cite comes from people who feel obligated to excuse inexplicable violence by blaming it on our provocation. We excuse the enormous civilian death rate in Iraq by pointing to 9/11, to justify our belief that we were obligated to go into Iraq.
What I may not be making clear is that I don't share the view expressed in the Madison magazine; I simply see the frame of mind it comes from in views expressed by some supporters of our actions in Iraq.
I don't know that from our perspective here, relying on news reports for most of our information, that we can judge Israel's response to Hezbollah fairly. It's obvious that Hezbollah violates rules of warfare by hiding within civilian neighborhoods. There's no question that they set up rocket launchers within civilian areas, and that they keep weapons caches in or adjacent to schools, mosques and hospitals. So when Israel targets those sites, it's not a crime on Israel's part, but on Hezbollah's. Moreover, unlike Hamas--and this is not an endorsement of Hamas--Hezbollah is not even a legitimate resistance movement. Israel doesn't occupy Lebanon.
Nonetheless, as much as I see Israel's right to take on Hezbollah, I have to worry about Lebanon, and its hopes for a more modern democracy. I don't really know to what degree Hezbollah has the support of the average Lebanese citizen (surely they will gain some support after the civilian death count in this engagement, whether that's logical or not), or to waht degree Hezbollah is able to frighten Lebanese citizens' into compliance. Is it wrong to want the U.S. and Israel to take those concerns into account as they pursue Hezbollah?
The left sees itself as champions of the victim. Thus, no matter how ruthless or immoral the terrorists are, they are viewed as weaker and therefore victims by the left. The Left does not care how one became weaker or stronger, they only care what is. As long as the terorists are weaker both culturally and economically the Left will excuse their actions of murder and terrorism.
If a poor man worked all day and night to dig a ditch, therefore making twice as much as the poor man who only works 1/2 the day, the Left would view the 1/2 day worker as a victim in the context of the harder worker. Then the Left would work to take down the harder worker in pursuit of equality.
It has to be a mental illness.
I agree Elizabeth. The war waged by Israel should have as its end goal the replacement of Hezbollah by the Lebanese authority.
As such, Israel needs to tread carefully to achieve this goal. However, it may be impossible unless Hezbollah is completely wiped out.
Rothschild's piece was unintentionally comic, just like Pacino's over-the-top performance in "And Justice for All."
"Don'tcha care, Condi?! Don'tcha even CARE?!!!"
Sloan, I have to disagree on your victim analysis, at least from my position over on the left. I have no problem distinguishing the individuals who are victims of more than a century of colonial and post-colonial governments and economies in the Middle East, and the terrorist organizations who recruit from those ranks, and easily convert justified anger into murderous rage. If our only response to this pattern in Islamic cultures, in the Middle East and in Europe, is violence, then we're going to lose.
We are in agreement on the tightrope Israel and the U.S., as Israel's main supporter, have to walk in crippling Hezbollah while not pushing Lebanon to the point where the Lebanase military takes up arms beside Hezbollah.
It's a scary situation. Lebanese people managed to demand the ouster of Syrian authorities in their Cedar Revolution, but then they vote into office Hezbollah-backed candidates. Which way will they tip now, given Israel's decision to go full bore after Hezbollah?
If you want to read about Lebanon and Hezbollah, read Michael Totten, Elizabeth. He spent quite a bit of time there.
I also do not see any cheering or even indifference over civilian deaths by this government, or people like me. We brought in food and housing to Afghanistan, and would be rebuilding Iraq as well if the militant Islamists were not attacking and killing and destroying their own people! And our rogue troops are arrested, shackled, and tried when they do wrong--as individual soldiers have for eons--not set up as icons.
As for their being "victims of more than a century of colonial and post-colonial governments and economies," what was the excuse before 1918?
So, yes, I am outraged by violence. But our silly 'peace' of the 80s and 90s has been proven to be only an opportunity for the bad guys of the world to armor up. By the moral calculation of the left, we should just be peaceful until Iran or Pakistan decide to nuke someone.
Ah, dangit. Just when this is getting good, I have a full day of housework ahead of me. Contractors have finally finished repairing and painting our crumbling plaster walls (it only took 11 months after Katrina!) Our books and other belongings are boxed, and our furniture was scattered from room to room, so we have much to do to put things right. Remember those little handheld slide puzzles? That's my house right now.
It's good to see dialogue snapping along here again. I hope that can last.
Thanks for the reference, Pat. I do read Michael Totten.
As for pre-1918, who cares? I mean that, I'm not being flippant. If you can't address the point I was making, then don't. But don't change the subject.
I agree, if not for the civil war in Iraq, we'd be going great things there. Who coulda foreseen problems? Well, Bush I did back in the first Gulf War. And lotsa folks warned that it wasn't going to be a cakewalk after the initial invasion. You should ask Rummy about that, but don't expect more than an exasperated, "Oh, I don't know!"
Pakistan is our ally, Pat. We're officially expecting them not to nuke us, or any of our allies.
You brought it up--you blame terrorism on colonialism, Elizabeth, so why stop at 1918?
As for Pakistan being our ally, consider, for instance, A. Q. Khan. Are you really that sure about the radicals in that country being our allies?
Why don't you give us some examples of some supporters of Iraq to back up your claim that the villification is equal?
As for for the "where was Condi when" questions of the progressive article, I would answer that our government and Condi and other diplomats have been trying to mediate between Israel and Islam for decades. To date we have paid over $1.5 billion to the Palestinian Authority--enough to compensate every dispossessed Palestinian-- too bad it was swallowed up by the crooks who run the place.
It seems to me that Hezbullah is disproportionately at fault for the civilian body count.
First, they cynically use civilians as "cover" and don't wear uniforms, dressing for battle disguised as those who they use for cover.
This tactic almost assures that anyone fighting these avowed terrorists will certainly kill or injure a certain number of civilians. This fact, in turn, can then be exploited for maximum propaganda purposes.
Second, Hezbullah has been firing rockets into Israel which have no military objective because they are not aimed or guided, but are equipped for maximum killing power by loading them with ball bearings. These have no objective but to kill and terrorize civilians.
I submit that these are cynical inhumane tactics that, under any International Rule of War are war crimes.
My question of you is what is the most effective and legal tactic that should be used by Israel and its allies to stop these war crimes?
It was quite interesting to see Anderson Cooper reporting in Lebanon, and showing how Hezbollah sends out ambulances with sirens just so cameras can see them. Not because anyone is hurt(this instead is during moments that hit a bit of a lull), as they just drive around with sirens on, but just so they get the effect they are looking for broadcast to the drones who believe it.
Corgi Mom... I love Ft. Worth -- one of the best cities... real Texas. Yeah I knew White Settlement, et al. are being swallowed up. I lived in Arlington when it used to be a quasi-rural drive to either Ft. Worth or Dallas and had a friend in Burleson hen it was completely separated too -- and not all that long ago.
Actually the smaller towns in Texas were almost all "yellow dog" until the switch --- starting with the Phil Gramm switch in the 1980s.
"We excuse the enormous civilian death rate in Iraq by pointing to 9/11, to justify our belief that we were obligated to go into Iraq."
Frankly, I think that that statement is ridiculous on several levels.
First, pardon me if this thinking seems 'nuanced', but I think there is a vast difference between stating that 9/11 gave us an imperative to go into Iraq, and that 9/11 justified our going to Iraq. The Iraq war was not justified by 9/11, any more than Operation Desert Fox was justified by 9/11. For one thing, 'Operation Desert Fox' occurred in 1998 and if you will recall, 9/11 occurred in 2001. It was the official policy of the United States of America that we should do something about the situation in Iraq before 9/11 even occurred. 9/11 was only involved in the decision in that it forced us to stop procrastinating.
But perhaps even more importantly, I don't know of anyone who supports the Iraq War that thinks that the killing of 60-90 innocent Iraqi's each day in Iraq is justified by anything. No one that supports the Iraq War excuses that at all. Quite the contrary, those of us who support the Iraq War are utterly outraged by those deaths. The difference is, those of us who support the Iraq War blame the deaths on the suicide bombers, car bombers, and death squads of the terrorists who are responcible for the vast majority of civilian deaths that occur and have occured in Iraq. We don't blame the US for them. Even those deaths caused by the coalition forces in Iraq we for the most part blame on the practice of the insurgents of blending into and hiding amongst the civilians. It's this practice which leads an innocent American soldier to shoot up a car containing an innocent Iraqi family whenever a miscommunication and a lapse in concentration occurs, not any bloodthirstiness on the part of the soldier.
But the opponents of the war don't see it that way. They are more likely to excusing the tactics of the insurgents and blame the Americans. The argument of the Left tends to run along the line that most of the insurgents in Iraq are 'freedom fighters', and tends to focus on the moral equivicating question, "If you're country was invaded, wouldn'ts you hate the invaders too."
Similarly, the Left excuses Hizb'allah with the same sort of argument.
But this sort of thinking breaks down, or ought to break down, when you consider the reality of the situation. First, lets engage in a little disambiguation here. Civilians in the context of both wars technically refers to both non-military armed groups and unarmed noncombatants. Killing a 'civilian' who happens to be an armed member of, for example, Hamas is not the same as killing a civilian who is only a child caught up in the conflict. So, I'm going to use the more precise term 'noncombatant' to refer to what we normally think of as 'civilians'. When Americans or Israelis kill noncombatants, it is because we have missed (or misidentified) our target. When Hiz'ballah or the terrorists in Iraq kill noncombatants, it is because they have not missed thier target. That is what makes the difference, and this is the view we use to 'excuse' the death of civilians.
"I would hypothesize that the violence may weaken the fragile democratic state of Lebanon and may also strengthen the support of Hezbollah within Lebanon.
These are some of the potential risks of the violence."
Yes, I agree. I also agree that they were some of the risks of non-violence. Israel was in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't situation'. After 9/11, so were we.
"And if nothing productive is accomplished - then the deaths of both the Lebanese and the Israelis will have been in vain."
Yes, absolutely. Which is precisely why we must resist premature calls for a cease fire. The violence has to drag on for a while, otherwise the combatants of neither side will see a reason to avoid violence in the future. Right now, if you look at the conditions of the cease fire, the calls for a cease fire are simply calls for Hizb'allah to unambigiously win. The war has to go on long enough that the side that is losing this war (which ever side you think that is) realizes that it has been defeated so that they are tempted to do this again in 2-3 years - or 2-3 months as the case may be.
Ah, the Progressive. I used to read it in college. I have to admit, it really did appeal to the angry adolescent in me, the one convinced that someone needed to DO something, and that daily suffering must be somebody's fault.
I graduated, got a job, had kids, and grew up. The Progressive began to seem, well, juvenile. I started arguing with it in my head, then I quit reading it altogether when I noticed there was never any shade of grey in their world. There are good guys (the left) and bad guys (everybody else), but nothin' inbetween. Not much like the world I actually lived in.
I see nothing much has changed. They can't even muster a feeble wrist slap at Hezbollah for starting this damned chapter. All I learned from this is that the mag is from Madison. Wonder when Barrett will get his own column?
you blame terrorism on colonialism, Elizabeth
No, I didn't, Pat. I can't respond to this because you misrepresent what I wrote. Shifty, that.
daryl,
Pat asks if we should just be peaceful until Pakistan nukes someone. My answer to that was to remind her that right now, Pakistan is our ally. It's a troublesome ally, but as she asks, can we be anything but peaceful with Pakistan if we're asking their government to help us in the fight to contain al Queda there and in Agfhanistan?
One thing I absolutely frigging hate about this blog is when rightwingers pile on me or some other person with the temerity not to be a conservative, shouting a variety of irrelevant, tangential, and strawmen issues and ending with "what about that, huh, lefty, huh?" They don't read what I post, they just take off on some jag about whatever they imagine my position might be because I'm not conservative. I don't feel obligated to answer bullshit accusations and rants. Just saying.
daryl and andrew, are you guys French? What's up with the nuance? Or is that supposed to be little pointy-headed dig at liberalism? Whatever.
I don't defend insurgents in Iraq, Andrew. I read alot of blogs, left and right, and on the left blogs, I don't find what you allege to be true, no impassioned defense of freedom fighters and such. What many people who oppose this war realize is that until we invaded Iraq, with no plan for the peace other than to be greeted with flowers in the street, those insurgents and terrorists from other Islamist states weren't in Iraq, blowing up Iraqis and servicepeople. Deciding to invade a country without have some clue how to keep it from falling to ruin is a bad thing; we should be held accountable for that. Saying that isn't defending terrorists. But maybe I'm not nuanced enough for y'all.
Anyone who thinks I'm not in favor of Israel defending its borders and people hasn't read a thing I've written here. To argue for something like a 72-hour cease fire to allow civilians to get out of the firing range isn't arguing that Israel shouldn't exist, or that is has to put up with aggression from Hezbollah. There are two sides to should Israel exist, yes or no, but there are always more sides to questions about how anything should be accomplished.
To argue for something like a 72-hour cease fire to allow civilians to get out of the firing range isn't arguing that Israel shouldn't exist, or that is has to put up with aggression from Hezbollah.
But I would say its a naive suggestion.
Hezbollah exists and continues to exist only because it hides behind civilians as cover. It would never volunteer to, in effect, step out of the dark and wear a bright red bullseye for Israel to tear it to ribbons.
This is what's wrong with asking for any such "cease-fire" - it only gives Hezbollah more precious time to build up its recourses and find more civilians to shield itself with.
but ascribing all the problems of the Middle East to the fact that it was once colonized by Western powers is facile and pointless
I didn't ascribe all the problems to colonial history. But the things you cite, the incessent teachings of hatred and external blame, enjoy exploiting the West's history with the Middle East, to recruit. You and I are in complete agreement about the irrational hatred for Israel in countries that have no complaint other than a deep belief that Jews should not exist in the Middle East.
But as for addressing the "Elizabeths of this world," that's exactly the kind of idiotic rightwing ranting I despise. I don't represent anyone else other than myself. Your need to build some icon of the left to joust with is strange, but apparently endemic among the godfodders of this world.
Funny thing is,Hezbollah has always had the unilateral means by which to force a cease-fire:
1. It can stop lobbing missiles into Israel.
2. It can return the kidnapped soldiers.
Both would stop the civilian deaths from Israeli missiles. Why hasn't hezbollah done so yet then? Because it knows the world press better than the rest of us.
Hezbollah is never, ever blamed for anything. I just watched the news this morning. CNN, MSNBC, Fox. All are shocked, shocked at Israel for killing 50 civilians (oh, um, there were bombs being shot from the location into Israel -from a location chosen precisely because it's surrounded by civilians- but no fair, Israel! Bad dog, Israel!
Why doesn't Mexico continue to attack the US, over and over, for Texas? And lose, over and over, and chose to live in a state of eternal war and loss? Why not?
Given the actions and rhetoric of Mexican activists and politicians on both sides of the border, this might yet be in our future. Many Mexicans (and Americans) do consider there to be an undeclared war waged by illegal immigration that the Mexicans are currently winning.
Pogo:
You forgot that Israel also dropped leaflets and told residents to leave. The majority of those killed were 4 families who stayed behind thinking they would be fine. Smart people, eh?
Suppose Israel is succussful in disarming Hezbollah. Does anyone out there really think this will be the end of the matter? In five, ten or fifteen years a new Hezbollah will have arisen. Only this time in all likelihood it will be armed with tactical nuclear weapons. And then what?
It's time to start thinking about an imposed settlement of this whole mess.
godfodder, unkind is not the word I'd use for your rhetoric, just silly. And I didn't say I despise you, but what you said. Our friends Daryl and Andrew would urge you to be more nuanced.
I think this is a "festival of stupid." At this rate we're going to end up with a Christian Maronite wing of Hezbollah.
At this rate, I can only nod my head in agreement. Israel's modern preference of air power over infantry is counter-productive.
This link explains perfectly Israel's "fallacy of air supremacy", where, thinking it can convince the civilians to rise against Hezbollah, only creates a rally-against-Isreal attitude that independent journalists like Michael J. Totten have noted.
This is not to take away from this post's general point - that it's deeply misguided to condemn Israel for reacting to a thanksless situation, where attempts to defend itself are roundly criticized by intellectual "betters," while Hezbollah gets a relatively free pass.
For example - they would have received, among other things --
1) Freedom of movement.
2) The right to civilly contest the ownership of land in Israel proper.
---------------------
And, most importantly, a permanent underclass, determined by blood and birth would not have been created in Israel.
--------------------
Imagine in California if for three or four generations a permanent class of people were stateless. They had no citizenship rights, no state, unequal political and civil rights, and the knowledge that their children would be in the same situation. It would have created a lot of problems in California.
Roughly 15% (about a million people) of Israel’s pop is Muslim – not the West Bank, but Israel proper. This group, with some exceptions has the same rights, you can vote, move, own land, etc.
This is the group that stayed in Israel after 48. The other group didn’t get those rights immediately after 48 and couldn’t have gotten them because they left Israel. Argue over settlement conditions, but after ‘48 the settlements were on Jordanian turf; they were in Lebanon; they weren’t in land controlled by Israel.
There were 20 years when they lived outside of Israeli control. The Palestinians were granted more rights afterward than they received when the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Arab countries.
So why the focused animus towards Israel? I don’t think it’s just anti-Semitism, but the fact of the matter is Israel, the British, the U.S. etc. didn’t just stick guns in the Palestinians faces at the time and tell them to get out of homes so a Jewish family could move in. The people that left did not want to live in a country with a majority of Jews having power.
What groups like Hamas also ought to have realized by now is that when they’ve sent bombs to Israel, it's resulted in concessions. When they did the same thing in Jordan, they got massacred by the thousands.
Israel really isn’t that unique in attracting violent militants, the groups that are attacking it have done the same thing, getting into wars with the governments of all of Israel’s neighbors. In the 70s the PLO was fighting with Lebanon and Jordan the same way they fought Israel. The difference is there it was recognized for what it is: a power grab. Turn around and shoot at Israel and all of a sudden it’s a 2,000 year old conflict that needs detailed and heavily negotiated talks to be resolved.
Israel is being attacked right now for the same reason that campers who give out food in a forest will keep getting harassed by bears while a hunter who kills for sport will get left alone. That says nothing about who is originally in the right, but it doesn’t mean one party should be presume guilty here. Assuming the Palestinians merely wanted rights-wouldn’t you expect the violence and protests to be proportional to that? This is what I don’t get, wouldn’t you expect those to decrease as Israel becomes more reasonable?
If they wanted to live side by side, they’ve had the opportunity many times. There’s no need to be hypothetical about all of this--they explicitly state it: they don’t like a state where Jews are the majority, they don’t like a state where Jews would have the same rights as they do. You don’t need to guess here about their intentions, you merely need to take them at their word. There’s no need to run the risk they’re telling the truth.
This is the kind of talk one hears around Madison.
eh, not just in Madison, apparently. This thread has some doozies.
When once it was whispered, "Maybe Israel shoudn't exist," more and more it is not being whispered. Soon, I fear, it will be shouted.
Yeah, it's getting ugly. It really feels like the shit's about to hit the fan. And it's shocking and scary how many people conodemn the U.S. and Israel when they take any action. It really baffles me. The implication is that everything would be fine if we just do nothing? Should we have just joined in on the oil-for-food-fun with everyone else? Really, it's just ridiculous.
"The implication is that everything would be fine if we just do nothing?" I know--I don't understand their thinking. As if the jihad movement was doing nothing, being peaceful, during the '80s and '90s!
This thread has some doozies.
Knoxgirl, how about some examples? I think this has been an extraordinarily thoughtful discussion, and not a single person has said anything even remotely implying Israel has no right to exist, or to defend its borders and people. What are some Madisonian "doozies" in the thread?
I've re-read this entire thread, and nowhere is it implied that Israel should just do nothing. Nowhere. Of course, anyone reading this can see that statement for a lie, so I suppose there's no point disputing it, other than to call bullshit on principle.
As for listing of quotes, that would be entirely too tiresome.
That's cool Freder, I'll amend it.
List any quotes
at all
As far as Reynolds,
here is Glenn Reynolds obliquely countenancing genocide.
he's doing nothing of the sort. Like I said, you're looking for stuff to be outraged about. He says in the post if it came down to what Bin Laden wants, one side not being able to live with the other side--we'd be the side that wins.
He specifically says: "This is why I think it's important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don't, the military strategy we'll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond "vigorous.""
This isn't a statement of someone who looks forward to total war, but someone who's specifically saying we need to go a different route to avoid it.
We can make some kind of deal--for every quote you cite of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or Reynolds advocating violence against Muslims, I'll delete a post of mine from this thread-how's that?
Their only gripe with this administration seems to be that we are not killing, torturing and detaining enough Muslims.
That's pretty much my position, and I spent the last twenty years being pro-Palestinian.
We are in a clash of civilizations here, a war for survival. Our civilization avoided destruction once, at the Battle of Tours a thousand years ago. We are now involved in that struggle again.
Half measures are seen as weakness, mercy as the act of a fool by our enemies. They will not only sacrifice our civilians, they will slaughter their own.
Freder, yeah I cringed, but the poster isn't Glenn Reynolds and saying the guy advocates genocide won't change the fact he doesn't. For that matter, the post dates from 2002--if Reynolds was clearly advocating violence against Muslims, don't you think you could come up with something more than this in the past 5 years?
While you're at it, why stop with posting them on a message board? Call the police...seriously. if you have links to Reynolds, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly advocating violence, you can have them put in jail for this. The deal still stands--for every quote you can cite advocating violence, I'll delete a post on this thread. Now, maybe you think it's futile to get me to do it, but if I'm being unreasonable here and if they're clearly doing it--you can at least post enough quotes to make me look foolish.
Make me look like an idiot here, Freder. "Obtuse" doesn't win arguments. This does. I'm sure you can come up with some better ad hominems....maybe, if I'm not careful, you'll even call me "foolish." But that doesn't win debates. Go for the Gold.
Elizabeth,
you have a tendency to *demand* proof, evidence, etc... You are not the host of this blog! If you disagree with me, fine; I will respectfully cite your suggestion that people on the right find "atrocities committed by rogue troops" "justified" because of their "rage" as an example of a doozie.
I will totally agree with you that at this point in time people on the right tend to be more resigned to the horrible necessity of civilian deaths and perhaps impatient with people who question Israel's actions. Some of us still might even harbor some "rage" about 9/11.
But I think lumping in the torture stuff with civilian deaths was very unfair and inaccurate.
Freder:
Here's a quote by me.
If you ever to make the same argument about me for whatever reason feel free to. Just link to this post.
"If we were willing to use nuclear bombs, we would have won this war by now."
How many people do you think would disagree with the statement?
I assume you wouldn't, but I could be wrong. Anyway, do I want us to use nuclear bombs? Am I advocating that we use them?
Of course not. I'm merely stating plain fact.
Again--to make the arguments you're making, you're going from the simple unarguable fact of the matter - that if we'd use fiercer tactics, the war would be over - to the person that's saying it actually advocating we do it.
Assuming you don't actually think I'm advocating nuclear war, edit that sentence to what it should look like if I were advocating nuclear war, and you'll be able to see the difference between to.
If you can see the difference between
"If we wage the war the way Saddam handled Iraq, then we would have already won."
and
"If we were willing to use nuclear bombs, we would have won this war by now."
Sorry, buddy. I can't, please explain.
Rush is closer to the mark of what I'm looking for, though. And to show good faith on my part, provide a link to the entire quote (I don't trust ellipses) and I'll delete a post.
Done.
The point is moral equivalence between the two sides. If we actually were no better than Saddam Hussein or Hezbollah it would be a wholesale slaughter. Given U.S. firepower, deserts would be turned into glass. When critics of the war and Bush focus on Abu Ghraib and call Guantanamo a concentration camp and yet you don't hear them getting as outraged about the other side, you'll point out what this war would actually look like if we were no different.
knoxgirl, it's just damned uppity of me, is it, to dismiss wild generalizations with no evidence to accompany them? What has that got to do with this not being my blog? If you care to take a moment, you'll see many, many instances of other commenters doing the same thing. Since this isn't your blog, why are you making up bogus rules?
I see your point about putting torture and civilian deaths in the same list. That isn't coherant. But you overlook my point about the atrocities and torture: too often defenders of this war are angry that the topics are raised, rather than at the fact that there are atrocities being committed, or at conditions at Abu Ghraib. If you want evidence, browse back to the threads last month on McCain, and before that, on Abu Ghraib.
You scare me! I'm just not going to reply to you anymore for fear of you ripping me a new one...
Freder, you posted - I don't know what the purpose of contemplating all these horrible tactics are if you are not endorsing them.
When I say "the point is", this is the point I'm getting at.
I'm saying why. These points are brought up for other reasons than that. It's cool you don't see us as no different than Saddam, but I've been in debates with too many people who gloss over the guy as a mild benevolent dictator ("Authoritarian? Sure, but not that bad as tyrants go"). That's one area where statements like this come up.
I've gotten into a number of arguments over whether Iraq was actually better with or without Saddam and in that context you're going to find me and anybody familiar with this saying these same sorts of things.
You scare me! I'm just not going to reply to you anymore for fear of you ripping me a new one...
I honestly have no clue what you mean, knoxgirl. My reply to you was direct and civil. You seem to be opposed to dialogue. That's a shame.
Elizabeth,
I said I wouldn't reply, but I will explain since we're both long-time Althousers. Basically, I feel like you have been increasingly biting and disrespectful for a while now. To me and to other *regular* commenters who don't deserve it--I'm not talking about random trolls who pop on just to agitate--for them, go to it, and more power to you.
It really bothered me today when you went medieval on *reader* of all people, who's been posting here forever, and who deserved miles more credit than you gave her before you went off. Then you took out the big guns on another regular for bringing it to your attention.
it's just damned uppity of me, is it
If you care to take a moment
this is what I'm talking about: direct, certainly, but not civil. I don't want that directed at me anymore.
knoxgirl, thanks for taking time to respond. I apologized to reader for my tone, and had no argument with the need to do so. icepick, on the other hand, has been in it toe to toe, with as nasty and condescending tone as any I've ever encountered here.
I'll take your words as sincere, and give them thought. I suspect you and I will disagree again in the future. I'll try a different approach in responding, if it seems appropriate. As one of the people on the left side of things here, I encounter more than my share of overgeneralizations demonizing liberals, and some of them have come from you. I'm not likely to just let that pass when I think it's unwarranted, misleading, or unfair. But I'm all for a shift in tone, and will keep that in mind.
Post a Comment