Recently, while Becky and I were staying with the Zaks during the run-up to our wedding, we got into a rollicking family debate with my brothers-in-law about Cindy Sheehan. I was frustrated at the time, because I was feeling inarticulate that day, and thus I didn’t express myself as well as I could have. I felt that I “lost” the argument, even though I feel just as strongly that I am right on the merits. The issue returned to the forefront of my mind the other night as I watched David Letterman’s contentious interview with Bill O’Reilly, and again just now when a TV show Becky and I were watching showed clips from that interview. So I figured I’d take a crack at addressing it here.
The bottom line is this: I have nothing against Cindy Sheehan personally. Indeed, I have the utmost sympathy for her awful loss. I don’t agree with her politics one iota, but that has nothing to do with my level of compassion for her plight.
But I do have a problem — a very big problem — with the attitude that many anti-war folks, and some elements in the media, have taken toward Cindy Sheehan. Specifically, it is frequently said or implied that Cindy Sheehan’s statements, opinions and actions are somehow above reproach because of the personal tragedy of her son’s death. She is the mother of a slain soldier, the thinking goes, therefore we dare not criticize her or take issue in any way with what she says. “Who are we” to question Cindy Sheehan? Letterman made this explicit when he asked O’Reilly: “How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?”
Excuse me?! Cindy Sheehan willingly stepped into the public eye and made a whole bunch of controversial statements about the Iraq war. She effectively became the spokeswoman for the anti-war movement in this country, for heaven’s sake. At the moment she did that, she invited those who disagree with her to “take exception with [her] motivation and…position.” That’s how public debate works. Like all Americans, Cindy Sheehan has the right to her opinion, and she has the right to express that opinion publicly, if she wishes. She does NOT have the right to be insulated from criticism while expressing her (highly controversial) opinion. No one has that right, at least not once they enter the public arena.
If this faulty attitude toward Sheehan were merely expressed in the occasional David Letterman diatribe, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But it’s far more common than that. The “how dare you criticize her” line is frequently used as a bludgeon with which to bash those on the Right who find her positions objectionable and her motiviations highly suspect (more on that in a moment). Indeed, in my opinion, the idea of Cindy Sheehan being “above reproach” is the very reason she has become so prominent in the media, and so successful and disseminating her message. I believe the anti-war movement made Sheehan its spokeswoman precisely because she is difficult to criticize without seeming callous. This is an extremely cynical tactic, and I absolutely deplore it.
Letterman said to O’Reilly, “I’m very concerned about people like yourself who don’t have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.” But demanding “nothing but endless sympathy” — i.e., just listen to her, don’t respond unless you agree — for someone who has injected herself into the public debate is an outrageous perversion of the concept of political dialogue and the marketplace of ideas. Saying that compassionate people cannot criticize Cindy Sheehan is the moral equivalent of saying that patriotic Americans cannot criticize the war in Iraq. Asking, “Who are we to criticize Cindy Sheehan?” is no better or worse than asking, “Who are we to criticize President Bush?” Both attitudes are utterly logically specious, absolutely outrageous, and downright un-American. Neither attitude has any place in civilized, educated discussion.
Okay, you might respond, so Sheehan’s opinions are obviously fair game; Letterman clearly went too far when he wondered how O’Reilly can possibly take exception with her “position” on the war. But shouldn’t her “motivations” indeed be off-limits? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Because Sheehan has been put forward in the manner that she has — her prominence being premised on the notion that she opposes the war because she lost a son in Iraq — it is indeed crucial to look at her past positions to discern whether this premise is correct. And, of course, the facts show that it is not. Sheehan was a vocal member of the far left long before her son’s death, and if he hadn’t died, there is little doubt she would be against the war anyway; she’d just be a far less prominent anti-war activist.
Why is that relevant? First of all, because it shows that the above-mentioned premise underlying Sheehan’s prominence is a lie. But more broadly than that, Sheehan’s status as a long-time anti-war advocate is relevant for the same reason that Congressman Murtha’s past status as a military hawk was relevant to his sponsorship of last month’s big anti-war resolution. Past actions and motivations are highly relevant to determining the importance of a person’s present statements and actions. If Joe Lieberman came out against the war tomorrow — or, alternatively, if Dennis Kucinich came out in favor of it — their past positions would obviously be relevant, and would make their new positions far more newsworthy.
By the same token, Sheehan’s present statements against the war are made less newsworthy by her past statements on the issue. (It would be a bit like if Kucinich “came out against the war.” Is that front-page news?) It is provably false that her son’s death “turned” Sheehan against the war, and to discuss her present position without revealing this fact is fraudulent, because it creates the false impression that she is part of some rising tide of gold-star mothers against the war. Cindy Sheehan isn’t part of any rising political tide; she’s a member of a political extreme, and you cannot sensibly discuss her place in the Iraq debate without considering this fact.
Moreover, Sheehan’s radical politics are relevant because they raise important questions about the seriousness of the anti-war movement in this country. When the effective spokeswoman of the movement — someone who the Village Voice recently suggested should run for president — is on record as calling insurgents “freedom fighters” and branding George W. Bush “the biggest terrorist in the world,” it makes you wonder what the anti-war movement is smoking, that it would give such prominence to someone who would say such things.
Imagine, if you will, a rally in favor of the war, in which the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq says, “We need to go over there and kill all those Muslim bastards.” Do you think the mother would get a free pass? Do you think she should? I certainly don’t think so. Indeed, I suspect the entire pro-war crowd at the rally would be tarred by association with the mother’s racist comment, unless they distanced themselves from it. Similarly, I don’t think Cindy Sheehan should get a free pass for calling the insurgents “freedom fighters” and making various other comments equally repugnant to all but the most radical anti-war activists. And I don’t think it’s wrong to ask why the anti-war movement puts up with her (indeed, pratically lionizes her), given her tendency to say such things.
A bit of Googling reveals another example of a repugnant comment by Ms. Sheehan:
I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support [President Bush] and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves. … How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don’t understand it. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these ‘continue the murder and mayhem’ moms to see the light.
So Cindy Sheehan believes that other mothers of dead soldiers are “brainwashed” fools incapable of “thinking for themselves” because they disagree with her, and she is “starting to lose a little compassion for them.” Well, that’s great. Perhaps I should take back what I said above about how “I have nothing against Cindy Sheehan personally.”
I wish David Letterman had read Sheehan’s comments about her “brainwashed” fellow gold-star moms because asking O’Reilly, “Have you lost family members in armed conflict? … Well, then you can hardly speak for [Sheehan], can you?” Needless to say, Letterman’s question is idiotic — O’Reilly wasn’t speaking “for” Sheehan, he was speaking about her. But Sheehan, on the other hand, is purporting to “speak for” mothers of fallen soldiers… yet she has the unmitigated gall to dismiss those who disagree with her as “‘continue the murder and mayhem’ moms.” And we’re supposed to grant her some sort of mythical, overarching “moral authority” in the public sphere? I think not.
Cindy Sheehan is entitled to her opinion. She is also entitled to our sympathy. But as soon as she, or anyone else, tries to combine those two concepts, and says or implies that her opinion is more important, or less susceptible to criticism, because of our sympathy, I am going to become very outraged, very quickly. And because there’s so much of that sort of crap going around with Cindy Sheehan, I have a problem with her and what she represents.
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
January 9th, 2006 at 1:25:35 am
Correct on all Counts.
(Speaking as One who has become distinctly more Dubious about Dubya’s War than you are. )
January 9th, 2006 at 2:13:26 am
I’m sure there’s a woman out there who lost her innocent infant child to American ordnance in the opening hours of Operation Iraqi Freedom. If she goes on TV and claims that the war is an Anglo-Jewish conspiracy for western hegemony over the middle-east and a bid for oil money, arguing that the only honorable course of action for the Islamic faithful is to blow themselves up and murder westerners–I’m not going to defer to her simply because of her lost son.
If I were to defer to every mother who unfortunately and/or unjustly lost a son, I would have cast my lot with Palestinian terrorists a long time ago–Irish ones too, for that matter
January 9th, 2006 at 2:13:29 am
Wow, I’m just amazed it’s taken you six months to express this outrage. I’ve been bashing Cindy Sheehan for her nutty, anti-American views for months now.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:21:52 am
Well played. The problems here are the harsh truths that exist. I would say: Disagree with the war if you wish, but, no, your loss does not make you wiser by virtue of your loss alone. Others have suffered their losses and disagree with you–how does that reconcile with the moral high ground you claim?
Then there’s this. The GOP goes to bed dreaming of a Sheehan-sympathetic candidate in 2008. Versus McCain or Guliani? Somebody pinch them.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:24:33 am
I’m just amazed it’s taken you six months to express this outrage.
Actually, I did post some anti-Sheehan stuff back in the pre-Katrina days. Looking at “Page 2,” I find:
I haven’t been following this whole Cindy Sheehan business very closely, and I haven’t posted anything about it, largely because I find it to be more spectacle than substance, borne mostly out of the media’s desperate need to find something to talk about in the midst of the annual August news drought rather than out of any desire to engage in serious discussion of the complex and deeply important issues at stake in Iraq right now.
That said, I do have a few passing thoughts about the matter, and I thought I’d share them with y’all, as flame-war fodder if nothing else.
1. I gather that some people on the Right have been calling Cindy Sheehan a traitor, or words to that effect. That’s outrageous. Dissent is not treason. Vigorous dissent is not treason. Even irrational, vigorous dissent with which you disagree very, very strongly is not treason. And finally — here comes the important, controversial one — dissent which happens, as an unwelcome side effect, to give aid and comfort to the enemy, still is not treason. It can’t be treason; if it were, all wartime dissent would be potentially treasonous, because domestic opposition always has the potential to embolden the enemy. And declaring wartime dissent to be de facto treasonous would be an absolutely unacceptable result. Wartime dissent MUST be allowed; it is NECESSARY for the health of the republic… for our freedom, the very thing the troops are fighting for. We must not allow ourselves to go down the road of saying that otherwise legitimate dissent is treasonous merely because it the unwanted side effect of pleasing our enemy. (Saying that nothing which pleases our enemy can ever be right is just as foolish as saying that anything which displeases our enemy must always be right — for example, nuking Mecca.) Now, if the dissent in question consists of saying “I hope American troops die,” or if the intent of the dissent is to embolden the enemy, then sure, that’s treasonous (perhaps not legally, but morally). But if all you’re saying is, “our policies are horrible, we’re doing a very bad thing, our president is a very bad man, and our troops should come home this instant,” you might be an idiot, but you’re not a traitor.
2. I gather that some people on the Left are under the impression that Cindy Sheehan is immune to criticism, that she’s basically untouchable and should not under any circumstances be branded a crazy loony liberal or what-have-you, because her son died in Iraq. That’s incorrect. Anyone who steps into the public limelight in the politically charged fashion that Sheehan has, clearly opens himself or herself up to be lambasted by political opponents. Any other conclusion would allow sympathetic figures, on either side of any issue, to render their political opponents completely defenseless. Clearly, Sheehan is trying to exploit her status as a sympathetic figure for political gain, and it’s working — and I’m not saying there’s necessarily anything wrong with her doing that, but to suggest that people should tread lightly on her public activism because of her personal loss is wrong. If Michael Moore had made Fahrenheit 9/11 in response to the death of his son in Iraq, would everyone have been obligated to refrain from criticizing its lies, deceptions, and faulty conclusions? Or, to turn the tables a bit, suppose Zell Miller’s anti-Democrat tirade at last year’s Republican National Committee had been inspired by some sort of personal tragedy, like perhaps his daughter having been driven off a bridge by Ted Kennedy or something. Would we have been forbidden, because of sympathy, from pointing out that he’s a demogogic blowhard? Of course not. And Cindy Sheehan doesn’t get that privilege either. Not once she’s stepped into the public eye and made a spectacle of herself, for good or ill.
To tie together points #1 and #2: a healthy democratic discourse requires that Cindy Sheehan be allowed to harshly criticize the war effort without being branded a traitor, and it also requires that the war’s supporters be allowed to respond to her criticisms with equal harshness without being branded insensitive assholes.
Finally… 3. I don’t see any particular reason why President Bush should be obligated to meet with someone who calls him “the biggest terrorist in the world.” I’m very sorry that she lost her son in Iraq, and I’m sure Bush is too. But if presidents were somehow morally obligated to meet with every wingy ideologue who experienced a personal tragedy that can be attributed to administration policy… well, let’s just say I think that idea is nuts. I mean, what if some right-wing nutjob Clinton-hater had lost a son in Bosnia? To the extent that liberals (and the MSM) are acting like Bush is doing something outrageous by “refusing” to meet with Sheehan — and moreover, acting like it’s obvious that it’s outrageous, as Jon Stewart has been implicitly doing in his discussion of the issue on the Daily Show this week — their premise is, at the very least, poorly thought out in the extreme.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Also, in a later post, I extensively and approvingly quoted a Jonathan Chait column on the subject.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:51:23 am
Joe - it’s no more Dubya’s War than WW II was Churchill’s War … or the IRA fought “The War of Southern Aggression” …
Yes, you can make a case for calling any of those by the above names - and they are very weak cases …
January 9th, 2006 at 3:49:14 am
Question: which is more “offensive”: the implication that Cindy Sheehan is “above reproach” because she lost a a son (an implication I’ve never gotten from any media sources because I watch the right wingers engage in the politics of personal destruction constantly against people like Sheehan) or a President who CONSTANTLY and OPENLY uses the “you’re either with us or against us” logic to justify all kinds of illegal and unconstitutional policy decisions and directives, i.e. like the NSA directive which is probably — and my guess will eventually be shown– snaring ordinary citizens?
Which is really more worthy of outrage and having greater impact in the public arena?
Are you also ooutraged by Murtha because he voices an opinion that is impliedly backed up, even though he never said it explicitly, by his military service for this country?
Are you outraged by the people in this administration who talk about supprting the troops yet have never served nor have any children who serve?
Are yiou outraged by an administration talking about supprting our troops yet not supplying troops with the gear that would save their lives?
Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07armor.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=6a69abccc77d978f&hp&ex=1136696400&partner=homepage
Put in context, Cindy Sheehan’s opinions are a lot of hype, no matter which side of the politcal Isle one sits on. The real issues worthy of outrage are coming from the people at the top. Put Cindy Sheehan in the larger context…..
January 9th, 2006 at 4:14:00 am
P.S. I think it’s the current Administration and the more conservaitve members of the Republican Party who ALMOST MAKE IT A NECCESSITY that one either a) have a relative who has died in Iraq or b) that one has actually served in Iraq in order to be able to have an anti-war opinion that isn’t also “anti-American”. That’s what gives people like Sheehan and Murtha their attractiveness to the media….These aren’t your typical “America haters”.
You’re totally putting the cart before the horse.
One has to have served, or have a relative who died in Iraq, or have lost a limb or been wounded in Iraq, etc. in order to be able to speak out without being a “traitorous, anti-America, America hating LIBERAL”….
January 9th, 2006 at 5:50:06 am
Just a quick note, Murtha was not a hawk on Iraq.
“Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administrationÃÂs policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democratsàmost visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is ìunwinnable.î”
That was from May, 2004.
“But in this morning’s edition of the Capitol Hill newspaper, “Roll Call,” Murtha is quoted as describing the ongoing conflict in Iraq as “unwinnable,” and saying the administration doesn’t know what it’s doing there.”
September 27, 2003
“Today, the powerful backroom dealmaker finds himself in
an even more politically lonely position: questioning a war-powers resolution that even most Democratic leaders seem reluctant to oppose. ”All of us want to get rid of Saddam,” Murtha says. But he believes that the younger Bush ”went about it the wrong way.””
That is from September 24, 2002
Now whether you agree with his criticisms or not is up to the reader, but to say Murtha was a hawk for the War is a mischaracterization.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:53:08 am
Nun -
I would like to be have been able to speak out against the McCain torture bill with rational concerns without being labelled a medieval torturer who enjoys waterboarding brown-skinned people.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:28:28 am
Congrats, Brendan. You agree with Ted Rall.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:06:24 am
Brendan, you are confusing politics with reality and asking it to meet some level of logic. This is a mistake and will only lead to frustration and confusion. Politics is about winning. Governing is about doing what is right. There are very few people left that are actually willing to govern.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:17:24 am
Nun - my larger concern with the NSA thing is not entirely ordinary citizens. When there is no oversight what is to stop the Hoverite style FBI crap of the mid twentieth century. Beyond that, what is to say that Bush didn’t use the lack of oversight to, say, spy on political opponents. It would be damn hard to prove he didn’t just like it was damn hard for Sadam to prove he did not have WMD.
The thing is because of how the system is set up the only reason not to get a warrant is because your doing something your probably not supposed to be doing and don’t want anyone to know about it. I mean you have 72 hours to get a retroactive warrant based on material you gained from the wire tap itself for which you are attempting to get a warrant. I mean seriously, the requirement is basically give a judge the list of people you are spying on - is that really so hard?
January 9th, 2006 at 9:32:07 am
dcl -
The people who leaked the whole NSA story also acknowledge that the program has been through a serious overhaul due to concerns and criticisms received for its previous work.
This is all academic, of course, as all this information is classified we have no idea how much has been done, hasn’t been done, or what extent, if any (and I’m sure at least some is present), abuse has happened of the program.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:40:25 am
I hadn’t realized Cindy Sheehan was a saint. I guess she should be perfect before making comments out of grief.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:12:05 am
Lojo, this is true. And rather the whole point regarding the program and the trouble inherent with it.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:24:09 am
A&A, you’re joking right?
Cindy Sheehan is a POLITICAL ACTIVIST. If she was making these comments off the cuff in the first few days after her son’s death, that would be one thing. But she’s been saying these things for months and months. It has nothing to do with her “not being a saint.” Clearly, these are her actual opinions, not mere expressions of grief. If you are seriously suggesting that she should get a permanent free pass on outrageous comments because they are “out of grief,” then you are the biggest idiot on this blog.
Are you outraged by the people in this administration who talk about supprting the troops yet have never served nor have any children who serve?
No, but I am absolutely appalled by the bullshit from people like you and Michael Moore suggesting that politicians ought to “draft” their own children. And more broadly, I am appalled by the “chickenhawk” nonsense. People’s opinions should be judged ON THEIR MERITS, not based on whether they served in the military or not. When Republicans try to smear Democrats for never having served, and imply that they are therefore not qualified for high office, it’s outrageous… and when Democrats echo this tactic, it’s equally outrageous, and hypocritial to boot. Say it with me: military service is not a prerequisite for political service in this country. Our government is run by CIVILIANS.
As for this “America-hating” crap… you vastly overstate the issue. But to the extent that the anti-war movement really does get branded in that manner, perhaps it would help if they didn’t put forth as their leaders people who call terrorists “freedom fighters” and Bush “the world’s biggest terrorist” and so forth. Serious, reasonable, rational criticism of the war effort — including harsh, but still reasonable, criticism — is not anti-American, and very few serious people on the Right will say that it is. But glorifying the enemy and saying that our side is worse than the enemy… well, how is that NOT anti-American? You tell me.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:35:36 am
I think in the United States of America EVERYONE gets a permanent free pass to express their opinion.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:41:52 am
Everyone gets a permanent free pass to express their opinion. But NO ONE gets immunity from criticism.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:58:57 am
Excellent post Brendan. I was reading it wondering what crap A Nun Mouse would post. I was not disappointed.
January 9th, 2006 at 11:29:11 am
Well struck, Brendan. I try to avoid giving Sheehan more credit than she deserves as the poster-child for the antiwar movement, for the same reasons that Pat Robertson’s idiocy is not an accurate reflection of the “Religious Right” in this country. The MSM’s love affair w/ Sheehan this past summer in Crawford makes that difficult, though.
A&A is right that everyone has a right to their opinion in this country, and dbb is also correct that that right also ecompasses the right to criticize those opinions freely. I’d concede that Sheehan’s loss might initially afford her opinion — however obnoxious and misguided –special status. But in the end your opinion has to stand or fall on its merits. Hers falls on its face.
I support Sheehan alright . . . CASEY Sheehan. If I had his mother, I’d join the army, too . . .
January 9th, 2006 at 11:58:43 am
Brendan, actually the service of law makers and their kin is actually relevant. This goes to a much broader question of standing armies and their implications for a society.
At the most basic, and over simplified level, having a standing army is probably bad. It comes down to you have it, your spending a lot of money on it and to justify the expense you have to use it for something - anything, doesn’t matter, you can’t have a bunch of 20 somethings hanging around with guns they can’t use for too long. C.F. Roman empire.
You have a standing army. You’ve got to use them for something. Because being in the military becomes a permanent carer instead of a temporary vocation for your countries’ protection you develop a soldier class - a group of people in society who are acculturated to being in the military. You create a societal schism between military and citizen. You have two groups of people that do not understand one-another — this misunderstanding breeds resentment.
Then you have politicians that don’t really understand the military, but use it for their own ends to accomplish political objectives C.F. Roman Empire.
The military feels mistreated, abused and used. This leads to increased strife and ultimately is damaging to the political underpinnings of the society and ultimately can contribute to its collapse. C.F. — you guessed it.
What does this have to do with politicians today? Good question.
A war in a free society should be something that all the people see as imperative and can fully get behind. When you have a standing army the importance of the fight is diminished. People connect less and less with the Reality of what is going on. At present you have politicians making decision entirely based on the politics of the situation — they have no personal risk in sending the military in. Without that kind of personal risk, there is nothing that keeps the war from being pointless as opposed to something that everyone can get behind. And with the standing army there is nothing that keeps you from going to war because you can’t convince the people to fight and die for the cause. Both of these things present long term problems.
Brendan, you should know this. There is an old adage, no one cares unless it is personal.
January 9th, 2006 at 12:09:18 pm
Brendan,
Well said… I too have become disallusioned with the Iraq War, but her statements are bizzare.
I thought O’Reilly had an excellent point in response to Letterman. He effectively asked “How do you think the parents whose children are still there fighting feel when they hear her call the insurgents trying to kill their sons “freedom fighters”? Of course Letterman changed the subject quickly.
She has a right to say whatever she wants, but she certainly shouldn’t get a free pass.
January 9th, 2006 at 12:22:29 pm
dcl,
Can you think of any risks posed by NOT having a standing army, and how those risks might compare with the problems you mentioned?
January 9th, 2006 at 12:23:51 pm
Clarification: risks posed by the SOLE REMAINING SUPERPOWER not having a standing army . . .
January 9th, 2006 at 12:28:53 pm
Dane, you’ve made this argument before. I’m sorry, but it’s still crap. Politicians make decisions on basically everything with no personal stake in the matter, other than how it will affect their ability to be reelected. So a given Senator casts a vote on a military matter without having served in the military. How is this different than a vote on welfare for a person who has never been on it, or on education for someone who was educated in private schools, or on farm subsidies from someone who was never a farmer?
You accuse Brendan of confusing reality and politics. I think you’re suffering from a lack of reality yourself in trying to argue for a lack of a standing army. Do you recognize the amount of devestation that could be leveled against us–against any nation–in the maount of time it would take to raise an army? Your argument might be valid when your opponents are visigoths, but at the current level of technology, that position becomes insane. It would only be workable if no one had a standing army, and the possibility of that is vanishingly small due to the security inherent in the Realist world view in IR.
And Nun Mouse, you’re falling into the trap of false dichotomy. Whether or not you feel that other issues are more worthy of a feeling of outrage is irrelevant to whether Brendan’s outrage in this incident is justified. “The other side is doing things that are even worse” is not a justification for actions. It’s fine to feel that another group is doing things that are worse, and that therefore on the balance you’re still more annoyed/disgusted/whatever with someone else, but that really does not take away from whether this specific case is outrageous/revolting/etc.
Fundamentally, I’m with Brendan on this one. Arguments should be judged on their merits, not on the emotional justification or the wrappings of moral authority of those who make them. dbb is completely correct that while everyone has the right to express an opinion, no one has a permanent immunity to criticism when doing so.
January 9th, 2006 at 12:56:53 pm
I said standing armies are bad. I didn’t say the alternative is not worse. Be that as it may, there are a large number of problems with them and the United States did not have a standing army until, if I recall correctly, after World War II and it didn’t stop us from beating the Nazis.
At present the elimination of a standing army is likely unrealistic; however, this assumes that an army is actually the best way to fight the present conflict. A point that is debatable, it certainly did not keep us from being attacked.
Mike a farm subsidy is not a war. A farm subsidy might effect a livelihood but it is unlikely to lead directly to the death of thousands of people these two things do not equate. Thinking that something is worth the death of citizens means you should be willing to put your life where your mouth is. Either it is worth death or it isn’t. Mike, I suggest that you posit a counter argument that is not crap also.
January 9th, 2006 at 12:59:51 pm
dcl -
Interesting post on the standing army. But your remarks on the necessity of war seem unrealistic. I mean, frankly, when has the public ever gotten fully behind a War in the US? Even all the way back to the American Revolution, you had some US political parties pushing for treatise with the British.
So, my criticism is that what is going on now is not a departure from what has happened in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, or Vietnam. War is political in purpose 99% of the time anyways. That doesn’t make it wrong or unjust, but it still is by its very nature, political.
The issue seems to be that the expectations of war have changed. Not a month into the Iraq War, people were yelling quagmire. Hell, people were yelling quagmire a month into Afghanistan (the Soviet Killer). The realities of our society has outpaced the realities of war.
And no, I am not saying all criticism is unrealistic or anything like that. I simply am saying that SOME of the criticism has wholly unrealistic expectations on the military.
January 9th, 2006 at 1:14:28 pm
Lojo, good point. However, one of the side effects of a standing army is unrealistic expectations on behalf of the citizenry.
Yes, there has always been decent, but the decent to WW II was less than it is today against this war. Part of this could be unrealistic expectations I grant you.
Part of the problem is we do not understand what the military can do. The mission set out for Iraq itself might be an unrealistic goal for military action. After all, democracy is not Microsoft Office, you can’t just install it and have it work — perhaps that was a bad analogy.
January 9th, 2006 at 1:15:25 pm
wow, can’t spell today… dissent not decent… arg..
January 9th, 2006 at 1:16:21 pm
So you require the potential death of thousands for a comparison? Alright. That means, then, that Bill Frist’s position on health care means more than do other members of Congress simply because he’s had medical training? After all, heart disease will kill far more Americans this year than will die in Iraq, and his specialty is/was cardiac surgery.
In my opinion, the answer is no. His training gives him standing in arguments along the lines of “This procedure will kill someone/this is the recommended course of treatment for a patient with this condition”, but it doesn’t give him special standing in determining the allocation of limited health resources. That involves making value calls about how much various treatments are worth and who should get them–and in such a circumstance, his arguments need to stand or fall on their own, not on the reflected authority of his having an MD. In the same way, those who have served in the armed forces are better equipped than those who haven’t to discuss the logistics of their use, but they don’t have special status in determining whether a given situation calls for intervention. If they try to say that the military would do a poor job handling the situation because of how the military is run, that’s one thing. But if they don’t feel that the goal is worth the cost, in lives or dollars, they’re simply one more voice that has an opinion, and should be treated like any other.
January 9th, 2006 at 1:23:32 pm
dcl - you’re serious, aren’t you ?
You actually typed the following with a straight face ?
” … anything, doesn’t matter, you can’t have a bunch of 20 somethings hanging around with guns they can’t use for too long. C.F. Roman empire.”
Never mind the Roman Empire (which was more likely brought down by the lead poisoning of its aristocracy) - without said standing army, you have the same 20-somethings hanging round with guns on even *more* city street corners … at least the ones in the standing army are pointing them at bad guys more of the time !
January 9th, 2006 at 1:30:12 pm
Alasdair, that is a classiest argument and object to it on the grounds of political correctness.
Mike, health care decisions will have a direct impact on members of congress and their families. A health care decision is capable of having a direct impact on their lives in a way a decision regarding war won’t. You go to war because it is something you are willing to die fighting for. I know that I am not willing to die fighting in Iraq so I knew I had no business supporting the decision on behalf of the President to go to war. Especially since I never felt the case was proven. [Note, this does not mean that I do not now support prudent decision making now that we are involved in the conflict.]
January 9th, 2006 at 2:23:27 pm
And even with a soldier class, Dane, the people in the military chose to be members thereof. Sure, a lot of the reservists never thought that they’d be called into active duty, but it was a risk associated with signing up with the reserves, and if they didn’t read the paperwork before they signed up, that’s really primarily their problem, isn’t it? Much of the beauty of the lack of a draft is the proportion of soldiers who actually want to be soldiers.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with supporting a decision to send professionals to do something that you yourself are unwilling to do, even if it’s because of the possibility of death. For example, I support the existence of SWAT teams without being willing to risk my life as a member of one. These people risk their lives for the protection of others, and I thank them for it. But that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to send them in to deal with a hostage situation that I’m unwilling to deal with–again, they chose the profession, with both the risks and rewards it brings. If we were under conscription, I’d be much more open to the argument that since you’re unwilling to risk your life in this war, you can’t support sending troops to it. But as it stands, it works why you are unwilling to support the war, not why it’s wrong for others to do so.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:32:37 pm
dcl - ummmmm - *which* of us is ‘classist’ ? (I *know* that *I* am classier, and that Brendan is classiest, on this blog … (innocent grin)) …
Which of us reads simple english as saying something classist, rather than the simple words making NO reference to location with a city, yet addressing the boredom-in-young-persons that is a problem that cuts across classes ? Cuz it warn’t me !
Oh - if you’re gonna use a spell-checker, ya may wanna use a semantic-checker, too … (literally licentious grin)
January 9th, 2006 at 2:42:38 pm
Alasdair, I was going to make a really bad joke, but instead I will just say touche, but really, when is the last time you saw a bunch of rich kids hanging out on the corner getting drunk with hand guns in their waist bands? No, they do it at home instead.
Mike, willingly becoming a soldier does not make it any less a class.
Wars require death. The cause of war must be worth death. How do you know if something is worth death? If you would be willing to die for it, if you would be willing to send your loved ones to die for it. Would you object to your brother joining the SWAT team or would you accept his decision?
January 9th, 2006 at 2:48:17 pm
Be that as it may, there are a large number of problems with them and the United States did not have a standing army until, if I recall correctly, after World War II and it didn’t stop us from beating the Nazis.
Interesting point there, Dane. I wonder, though, just how many Jews might have survived the Holocaust had we a fully-equipped, standing army and political leadership that didn’t need the excuse of Pearl Harbor to jump into the European fray.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:51:07 pm
Would you object to your brother joining the SWAT team or would you accept his decision?
At the end of the day, my decision is irrelevant. Just ask Bea how she feels about her brother going to Iraq again….
Going back to the standing army thing, you cite, “it didn’t stop us from beating the Nazis”. Yeah, and blowing scoring opportunities in the first half didn’t stop USC from beating Notre Dame and ASU, but it sure killed us against Texas. Just because the consequences of bad mistakes are avoided or ameliorated doesn’t mean said mistakes should be repeated.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:59:06 pm
My brother’s life is, well, his to live. I’d tell him that I think it would be a bad idea for him to join a swat team–he has a remarkable ability to injure himself by walking into things even when powerful weapons aren’t involved–but he gets to do what he likes with his own life. I still disagree with your assertion about how you know that something is worth death, but I highly doubt we’re going to make any headway on that.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:05:46 pm
Andrew, the political landscape of the US wouldn’t allow us to go to war prior to Perl Harbor regardless of FDR’s feelings on the subject. Some of the most vocal opponents to the war were Republicans if I recall correctly.
Regardless, it does not absolve us of being mindful of the dangers of a standing military and a military industrial complex as outlined and warned of by President Eisenhower.
Mike, when is something worth death. That is the crux of the situation isn’t it. How do you decided? Tough one. Certainly easier to send people to their death when you don’t have a dog in the fight. Sending people to their deaths should not be easy.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:30:03 pm
I wonder, though, just how many Jews might have survived the Holocaust had we a fully-equipped, standing army and political leadership that didn’t need the excuse of Pearl Harbor to jump into the European fray.
Probably not many. Sentiments for the Jews were not very friendly, even on this side of the Atlantic. Furthermore, ‘genocide’ was not a reason to ship thousands of men and tons of materiel across the ocean to fight. (After all, we had been engaging in it ourselves not seventy years prior.)
We had a simpler, less inclusive understanding of ‘national interest’ at the time, and so even with a standing army and a more aggressive leadership it’s doubtful that we would have gone to war much earlier.
But there’s no use in arguing about counterfactuals in history….
January 9th, 2006 at 3:37:29 pm
Of course, the above is a departure from the main point: Sheehan was borderline insane before losing her son, and is so after losing her son. Her ‘arguments’ about the war are largely nonsensical, and the people that for some reason follow her around are, for the most part, using her to advance their own pet causes.
There is a valid argument for us having never gone to Iraq; it seemed (and still seems) to be a haphazard adventure without a clear tie to national interests. There might be a valid one for getting out, although I think that now that we’re there we have to fix what we broke. Cindy Sheehan and her little crusade are not any of these potentially valid arguments, and I personally think she does a lot more harm than good.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:56:17 pm
Question: Since it’s not in dispute that Sheehan held her current views well before Casey’s death, is she not knowingly taking advantage of her son’s death by using her status as a grieving mother to propel those views . . . especially if her son re-enlisted (not sure, but I thought he did)? It’s rather crass to accuse a mother who lost a son of pimping his death for her own political agenda, but it’s kinda hard to come to a different conclusion . . .
January 9th, 2006 at 4:00:34 pm
Regarding the children of leaders serving in time of war, I would like to point out the children of the following Presidents served in the military during wartime….
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
FDR
Dwight D. Eisenhower
LBJ
George H.W. Bush, Sr.
…This doesn’t take into consideration Presidents whose children were too young during wartime (Reagan, Clinton, JFK, Carter).
I don’t get why it is suddenly verboten to question why Bush’s kids, or his nephews at least, aren’t serving in the U.S. military during a time of war. Not serving used to be the exception, not the rule.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:16:10 pm
dcl - it has been a year or two since I last hung out with rich kids on street corners … I drive past it regularly (passing through Beverly Hills) … I suspect that the “rich kids” I “hang out with” most frequently are online … do the ones I see on corners have guns “in their waist bands” ? With such well-tailored clothes, their owners sitting down sipping lattÈs, who can tell ?
I will also dispute that wars require death in the dcl sense of dying for a cause … more often they require death of other people …
If human diplomats and politicians were as well-trained as most modern standing armies, we would fight a whole bunch less wars … if human diplomats and politicians got to *lead* the forces of their respective sides themselves from and in the front lines, we would fight a whole bunch less wars …
January 9th, 2006 at 4:25:24 pm
Joe Mama, is it not equally crass then for the Bush administration and their supporters to use the deaths of soldiers when they claim that we can’t let them die in vain, etc?
January 9th, 2006 at 4:37:04 pm
Alasdair, indeed… you are being funnier than me… I shall have to find a way to catch up some how.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:38:26 pm
I am disturbed by people who believe we cannot end this war because it would mean that we would let our troops die in vain. If that were a valid mindset for continuing a conflict, we would still be fighting the Civil War.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:47:32 pm
nah, everyone in the south would be dead and we would not be engaged in the present war.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:10:02 pm
Angrier -
I’m disturbed in how your making an argument that any military action ordered by a President requires A) they having been in the military, B) have children serving in the military.
I don’t recall Chelsea being in the military when missile strikes and limited engagements where called for by Clinton. When did this become a requirement for being president?
January 9th, 2006 at 5:27:59 pm
The Presidency is a civilian position. The Armed Forces are volunteer forces. This allows for a situation where 1) the President may have not served in the armed forces, and 2) his children may not have. Granted this is the exception (at this point in history), but it will become the rule.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:50:37 pm
we would fight a whole bunch less wars
Alasdair:
The proper English is “fewer” wars. And diplomats tend to be trained better than most, but they follow orders like the soldiers do. Foreign policy is set by the administration in charge (whatever that might be) and the decision to go to war rests ostensibly with Congress — although these days, not as much. (…And so your statement about politicians might be on the mark.)
January 9th, 2006 at 6:07:16 pm
David,
To your earlier question, I think the two are qualitatively different . . . one important distinction being that the vast majority of soldiers in harm’s way, whose deaths (actual or potential) are under discussion, agree w/ Bush and don’t agree w/ Sheehan (And don’t bother trying to argue anger over “stop-gap” or instances of disgruntled reservists or nat’l guard members opposing the war, every possible measure from polls to voting patterns to anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly shows that the anti-war crowd’s hearts are bleeding for people who don’t want their blood).
January 9th, 2006 at 6:21:42 pm
Joe, althought that might be another intersting point it still doesn’t answer the question. Basically what I am asking is this:
If it is wrong for anti-war advocates to use the death of soldiers especially loved ones in their protests, why is it not wrong for pro-war advocates to use the deaths of soldiers especially loved ones in their arguments.
For one thing you state that a vast majority of the military support Bush (which may be true)but where is your proof? You also tell us to ignore a major counter-example, which frankly is ridiculous. I am going to argue that the forced service of soldiers who have served their time, and the use of reservists and national gaurd in capacities which exceed their service temrs as well are PERFECT examples that there are soldiers on both sides of this issue.
January 9th, 2006 at 6:26:51 pm
Were the “stop-gap” measures a surprise, or is that part of the contract one signs when entering the military?
January 9th, 2006 at 6:31:18 pm
In addition, statistics on whether or not the majority of soldiers agree with Bush can be misleading given that it is ILLEGAL for soldiers to publicly criticize, question, or otherwise disagree with the President.
January 9th, 2006 at 6:55:13 pm
David,
What is the major counter-example that I’m ignoring? How is stipulating to potential “stop-gap” measures at the point of one’s VOLUNTARY admission into the armed forces “forced service”? You want proof that there are more war supporters than war critics in the military? Leaving aside the obvious logic, which was alluded to earlier in this thread, that those who are trained for certain tasks are likely to be generally supportive of the policy that enables them to accomplish what they’ve been trained to do . . . why do you think Gore and Democrats in FLA were so eager to try and get absentee ballots from overseas, i.e., MILITARY ballots, discounted in the 2000 election? Because they were chock full of Democratic votes? I don’t think so.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:51:47 pm
Joe Mama, you have tried dodging the question by alluding to a conspiracy theory from the 2000 election. Provide some solid evidence to back up your claim or make a better argument (of course just because a majority of soldiers support the war does not support your conclusion but it would be a start).
Phead,
Although it is true that there are provisions in an enlistees contract that allow the military to continue their service terms beyond the initial contract, there is a limitation, it is only allowed during a time of war. Since we are not currently involved in a war, these soldiers are being forced to continue to serve illegally.
Wait, what, you say, no war? Of course we are invovled in a war!
Actually we aren’t. Despite what the Bush talking points would have you believe we are not involved in a war. In order for the United States to be involved in a war it must be declared by Congress.
Now Bushies would love to have you believe we are in an actual war, but they themselves can’t seem to keep things straight. See if we are in a war we are fighting enemy soldiers, only the Neo-Cons keep insisting that all these insurgents and terrorists we are fighting aren’t enemy soldiers (and hence they aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention). They basically want to have their cake and eat it to.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:11:33 pm
David -
For an enemy combatant to fall under the Geneva Convention, a major requirement is for them to wear a representative uniform. What is it for insurgents? Bomb belts?
January 9th, 2006 at 8:29:29 pm
Lojo
For a conflict to be considered a war, Congress has to declare it. What is it for Bush? Dick Cheney = Congress?
January 9th, 2006 at 8:58:19 pm
Please David, at least make it a challenge. Regarding what you dismiss as a “conspiracy”, from Wikipedia:
“There were a number of overseas ballots missing postmarks or filled out in such a way that they were invalid under Florida law. A poll worker filled out the missing information on some hundred of these ballots. The Democrats moved to have all overseas ballots thrown out because of this. These disputes added to the mass of litigation between parties to influence the counting of ballots. The largest group of disputed overseas ballots were military ballots, which the Republicans argued to have accepted.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
January 9th, 2006 at 8:59:36 pm
If Wikipedia is too biased for you David, I’ll be happy to provide a slew of links confirming this “conspiracy”…
January 9th, 2006 at 9:14:27 pm
Andrew, the political landscape of the US wouldn’t allow us to go to war prior to Perl Harbor regardless of FDR’s feelings on the subject. Some of the most vocal opponents to the war were Republicans if I recall correctly.
The Republican presidential candidate in 1940 was Wendell Wilkie, and when asked if he would pledge to stay out of the European war, he refused. FDR, on the other hand, told the country that, on his word, he would not send American boys to die on foreign soil, knowing full well by tehn that war with Germany was inevitable (hence the lease deal with Britain). It’s true that FDR’s Great Lie secured his victory over Wilkie, but if he had been honest like Wilkie, we could’ve had a GOP president and gone to war much sooner. Plus, while the mood at home was isolationist, the president is still the commander-in-chief and had the authority to instigate hostilities with Germany any time he wanted.
Probably not many. Sentiments for the Jews were not very friendly, even on this side of the Atlantic.
That’s completely irrelevant. In fact, we didn’t truly know the extent of Hitler’s genocide until we liberated Germany in 1945. My point was simply, had we kept a strong, standing army, when the war began in December of 1941 (or, if somehow Wilkie won and we went to war earlier), we likely would’ve turned Hitler back much sooner, and far fewer Jews, Gypsies, and others would have perished. Fact is, it took a couple years to get our military-industrial complex fully humming, and we could have been much more effective far sooner had we been expending appropriations on a larger and more highly fortified standing army and navy.
Furthermore, ‘genocide’ was not a reason to ship thousands of men and tons of materiel across the ocean to fight. (After all, we had been engaging in it ourselves not seventy years prior.)
Again, the point is irrelevant, and I also take issue with your claim that America engaged in genocide. America did not as a matter of national policy advocate the extermination of Native Americans. We found dubious excuses to war with them and drive them off their land, but aside from a few My Lai-like moments, we did not round up Indians and shoot them for no reason except as low-level departures from federal policy.
We had a simpler, less inclusive understanding of ‘national interest’ at the time, and so even with a standing army and a more aggressive leadership it’s doubtful that we would have gone to war much earlier.
Had America been more aggressive in its support of the British, no doubt Hitler would have retaliated against the United States much sooner and provoked American antipathy.
If you really want a good counterargument to my case, you’d be smart to note that, had we been a stronger and more aggressive country earlier, Germany would have likely made greater pains to avoid drawing us into the fray. At the least, if they felt war against America was inevitable and far more risky because of our strong standing military, Hitler likely would have not invaded Russia and would have made sure the Western Allies were defeated before he made the decision for the ill-fated march to Moscow. With Russia as an ally rather than an eastern foe, Germany would have been much better situated to defend itself against a strong America.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:54:16 pm
David -
So I am curious, Dave. Exactly how many, if any, of the rules of the Geneva convention do the enemy actually have to follow (even though the convention requires all of them) to be considered covered by its laws?
January 9th, 2006 at 9:56:51 pm
On this subject of Bush’s kids not serving in the military, I don’t think it should be REQUIRED of any President that his son or daughter serve in the military during a time of war. I just think it speaks volumes about Bush’s real attitude about what separates his children from Cindy Sheehan’s and thousands of other mothers by the fact that his don’t.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:14:48 pm
“We found dubious excuses to war with them and drive them off their land, but aside from a few My Lai-like moments, we did not round up Indians and shoot them for no reason except as low-level departures from federal policy.”
Andrew, that’s a pretty funny statement. “ASIDE from a FEW My Lai-like moments, we did not round up Indians and shoot them for no reason EXCEPT as low-level departures from federal policy.”
So what you’re saying is, we mostly didn’t commit acts of genocide (you know, aside from the few my lai-like moments), and when we were committing genocide it was “low-level.” Wow.
By the way…official sanction or not…our nation as a society had little qualms about slaughtering “savages.” And trust, me, when we slaughtered Native Americans, we did it in a much more reprehensible manner than at My Lai. Indeed, we arguably did it in a more grotesque manner than marching them into gas chambers. It wasn’t simply a manner of “shooting.”
MadMax….are you serious? That’s absolutely stupid. Out of control stupid. Why in the world should the President of the United States be faulted for his child’s decision not to enter into the armed services? Mind you, HIS CHILD’S DECISION.
Moreover, do you really think choosing not to enter into the service is a trait that besmirches one’s character? I’m not talking about a President’s choice, I’m talking about John-Q citizen…if he doesn’t join the service, is he a lesser man for it? And if a man chooses to join, is he a better man for it?
Please! While entering into the service speaks of great character for some, it is certainly a case-by-case situation. For some, its the only option. For others, its required to avoid jail time.
Not joining the service means nothing. Perhaps someone doesn’t agree with the current war…perhaps someone wishes to serve their country in a different way…perhaps someone has a dream of earning a PhD–should that person be faulted?
Give me a break
January 9th, 2006 at 10:25:44 pm
“I’m talking about John-Q citizen…if he doesn’t join the service, is he a lesser man for it? And if a man chooses to join, is he a better man for it?”
Absolutely. I think it goes without saying. That’s why we have statues of soldiers on the Mall in DC and not of accountants. What rock do you live under?
January 9th, 2006 at 10:30:56 pm
Regarding my comment on Bush and his kids, you obviously jumped to a conclusion without really reading what I said. All I said is Bush believes his class exempts his children from having to worry about things like fighting for one’s country because there are plenty of middle class and working class people willing to do it for them. It’s the same attitude that Dick “Five College Deferments” Cheney had during Vietnam when he had “other things to do” than to fight for his country.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:33:49 pm
Wow. That’s one of the most idiotic statements I’ve seen in a long time. Simply because a man chooses to join the service, that makes him a better man. How about all of those who wish to join the service, but due to physical ailments, are not able??
Between you and A Nun Mouse, your comments provide an amusing view on idiocy (although I really do think both of you are simply putting on acts).
January 10th, 2006 at 12:18:37 am
Lojo, none. Thats the difference between us and the terrorists.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:27:57 am
“All I said is Bush believes his class exempts his children from having to worry about things like fighting for one’s country because there are plenty of middle class and working class people willing to do it for them.”
Unless I missed something in the news somewhere along the way, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is in any way true. You’re simply (and wildly insupportably) deducing from the facts that there is a) a President, who b) has children, who c) do not serve, despite d) their father deploying military resources pursuant to his power as commander in chief, that his (or their) attitude is that service in the war is beneath them, and fit only for the lower classes.
The facial idiocy of this argument has been well covered. I’ll simply point out that, on the one hand, unless you have some evidence such as comments from the Bush family to this effect, or proof that the daughters/nephews wanted to enlist but were prevented/talked out of it by their parents because they were destined for better things or whatever, then you have absolutely no basis for your conclusion. On the other hand, I recognize that you will be convinced of your incorrectness by nothing less than Bush himself signing the executive order to draft Jenna and Barbara, so the whole attempt at reason is quite clearly wasted.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:58:55 am
Heh.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:27:45 am
My point still stands: people like Cindy Sheehan and Murtha would not be news worthy in a cultural where anti-war liberals don’t have to prove to the media and those running the country that simply because they are crtical of the war that does not mean they “hate America.”
January 10th, 2006 at 7:34:06 am
David,
For an enemy to fall under the Geneva Convention, they have to do some things, and not do others.
For example, they’re supposed to wear something that identifies them as combatants. This is because they’re also supposed to NOT use civilians as sheilds. Or target them. That they do not makes them ‘illegal combatants’ under the convention, and the convention doesn’t provide much, if any, protection for such (IIRC, they can be executed).
Our treatment of these illegal combatants is what separates us from the terrorists; they’re being accorded most of the rights granted POWs, if not all. I doubt, for example, that they’re receiving pay advances to spend at the Gitmo PX, or being provided with sporting equipmment. They are receiving proper medical care, being well fed, have access to the Koran and religious guidance, and so on.
The Geneva Convention has a LOT of provisions. Which ones are we NOT following - what’s your specific complaint?
January 10th, 2006 at 7:36:27 am
Brendan,
By the way– and I hope Lojo jumps to my defense because YET AGAIN my comments have been misconstured, and we all know how Lojo hates that– I never suggested politicians should have to “draft their own children” into service with the country.
My point was much simpler: it’s easy for people with nothing to risk to say the country should make this kind of sacrifice. I’m not requiring anyone to do anything.
BUT as for the draft, from a larger policy perspective, if this “war on terror” is really all about everything conservatives say it’s about– “clash of civilizations,” a “struggle for democracy,” “a war on terror,” etc.– then a draft should be enacted so everyone contriubtes equally in the conflict. (There is a reason enlistments are way down though…)
But we all know a draft would be political suicide for conservatives.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:54:52 am
David,
You make an excellent point about using the dead soldiers for bolstering arguments: the “stay the course” people in this country do it all the time, yet no one is accusing them of exploiting the fallen soldiers for political purposes. But I HAVE seen and heard Sheehan being accused of just that numerous times on FOX News and by friends of mine.
Anti-war people get it from both sides: first, they have to provide some kind of “pro-America” credentials to prove their love for this country, and when they do, they get slapped down as “exploiting soldiers for political purposes.”
January 10th, 2006 at 8:01:03 am
Brendan,
About your comments about the anti-war elements picking, how did you put it….”if they didn’t put forth as their leaders people who call terrorists “freedom fighters” and Bush “the world’s biggest terrorist,” I mean do you think the anti-war movement got together and held a vote and picked Sheehan? There are a few hundred people following Cindy down there…. I’m not sure how you suddenly decided she spoke for the whole movement.
But quite frankly, I’d prefer people who spoke from the heart and made fools of themselves rather than cold, politically calculating people like Bush, who are clearly doing more damage to this country than any Cindy Sheehan ever could. If all you did was read Bush’s speeches and never examined the actual facts, from a purely rhetorical perspective, he sounds like a “reasonable” man.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:11:36 am
A draft would be stupid, and nobody but Charlie Rangel wants to reinstate it. And then, he’d complain about it. Besides, where do you get the idea that a draft makes everyone contribute equally?
Nobody in the military actually wants to return to conscript armies - everyone there is there because they volunteered, and they don’t want disgruntled, poorly trained draftees.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:42:55 am
Doc,
You dont think there’s an imbalance in the military based on the percentage of minorities in the military versus their percentage of the general population?
You don’t think there are greater economic pressures on the poor and less educated than on the rich and well educated to enter the military?
There’s a reason Credence Clearwater Revival wrote the song “Fortunate Son” during the Vietnam years. They had the draft back then but “fortunate sons,” Bush included, could avoid service. (I know, I dont mean to disrespect his “service” of guarding the Texas coast from North Vietnam’s air force.)
The wealthy and priveleged don’t have to resort to political favors when there is no draft.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:14:59 am
Minorities are overrepresented, but since 9/11 recruits are more representative. Combat casualties match general population percentages. Blacks provide 15% of combat arms, 21% overall.
Since 9/11 a higher percentage of enlistees come from wealthier families. I suspect that given the higher probability of combat, economics is playing a smaller role in peoples’ choice to join the military.
As for the draft, how is it better if some people are forced to serve while others can avoid service, than if everyone is there by choice?
January 10th, 2006 at 9:19:47 am
Jeez, I’m all for a draft . . . if for no other reason than it would shift the discussion from the personal (What did Bush do when he was 20? What are his kids doing now? How rich are they? Whaddaya mean Clinton fled to Oxford because he “loathed the military”?), where all the sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome want to keep it, to the merits. Make no mistake, the “chickenhawk” nonsense has always been the last refuge of someone who can’t argue against the war on the merits and can only change the subject.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:20:05 am
we could’ve had a GOP president and gone to war much sooner. Plus, while the mood at home was isolationist, the president is still the commander-in-chief and had the authority to instigate hostilities with Germany any time he wanted.
1) GOP president in 1940 -/-> “war much sooner”; you’re making a historical leap that simply isn’t there. (and again arguing a counterfactual, which is silly.)
2) “mood at home was isolationist” is a far more important factor in determining the direction of the nation. Even in the waybackwhen — the world existed in sepia tones, or so I’m told — politicians had an interest in being reelected, and respected the ‘mood’ enough to do so.
3) “had the authority to instigate hostilities with Germany any time he wanted.” Not really. At the time the president still respected Article I, Section 8. Funny, that.
My point was simply, had we kept a strong, standing army, when the war began in December of 1941…
…When we had a large, sitting navy, that was subsequently sunk. But I’m sure that here you’ll cite consipiracy theories about how FDR manipulated everything to allow a few thousand sailors die to justify a war.
A standing army had (has?) implications that you are apparently missing. It is expensive; it creates potential cultural strife; it can be a political danger (military coups, and such). These have been manifested time and again through history. That it has not been as much of a problem here is mere accident. It has been expensive, but not fatally so; and it has created cultural strife, but as yet hasn’t been significant enough to cause something like a coup.
Note that I’m not arguing that we could do without one now, as the international climate that was largely shaped by the Cold War sort of dictates that we maintain a significant ready force, but the world as it was — and the U.S. as it was — in the early 20th century did not require us to be so militarized. We had the comfort of two large oceans to protect us.
Had America been more aggressive in its support of the British, no doubt Hitler would have retaliated against the United States much sooner and provoked American antipathy.
If you really want a good counterargument to my case,…
Blah, blah, bullshit. Your fantasizing about what Hitler would or would not have done is, quite frankly, stupid. There is no way to know that, and even what you speculated seems unlikely to me. His actions were not strategically sound, and were constantly colored by his pan-European (or pan-Germanic, ober-European, etc.) ideology.
I also think your attitude regarding war, even an obviously just one such as the Second World War, is a little weird. You’re a f**king caricature when it comes to this stuff. (WAR! WAR! WE MUST HAVE WAR! QUICK, BOMB SOMETHING BEFORE I BLOW A LOAD IN MY PANTS!) You remind me oddly of General Buck Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove. (Except for the fact that George C. Scott was 6′1″, that is.)
January 10th, 2006 at 9:51:13 am
Doc,
Thanks for the stats. Not to be too flippant, but I’ll take those stats as your qualified way of assenting to what I was claiming about imbalances in the military based on class and race.
I think, yes, people make choices. But many of our choices are shaped by the social and economic circumstances we live in. Choices dont happen in a vacuum. (I know you know this but it seems like you continue to avoid the obvious.)
And lastly, my point still stands, that if this war is as dire as conservatives (mainly conservatives but not only conservatives) paint it, then it should be a shared sacrifice from all of the various parts of America. And what way is more fair other than a draft, a random system, rather than taking mainly, though certainly not only, those who sign up out of economic neccessity?
January 10th, 2006 at 9:55:25 am
The “Fact” is nobody related to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Condi Rice and 99% of the members of Congress is serving in the military during a time of war. I would venture to guess from a historical standpoint that this is a relatively new phenomenon. You can make all the excuses that you want. The fact is, the leaders of this country, Republican and Democrat, do not believe their loved ones should make the same sacrifice expected of average Americans. That’s not playing politics. That is the truth.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:59:27 am
Briandot, I could not have said it better myself.
Although, in an effort to conserve precious bodily fluids, I don’t think he would blow a load in his pants.
Historical side note, if I recall correctly when the Secretary of Defense saw Dr. Strange love he liked the war room so much he simply had to have one of his very own, so they built it for real.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:11:26 am
Joe Mama-
“Make no mistake, the “chickenhawk” nonsense has always been the last refuge of someone who can’t argue against the war on the merits”
What merits?
January 10th, 2006 at 10:22:09 am
Being in the military, and being in a combat arm of the military, are two different things. Our combat troops look like America, not like a bunch of brown people dying for the blue-eyed devil. One stat I didn’t mention is 27% of medical and dental personnel are black. Is that good or bad? Is it really an indictment of the military if minorities see it as a better option than a career outside the military?
The military draws mainly from working- and middle-class families. “The poor” are under-represented, as are “the rich”. It provides many with the opportunity to gain skills they would otherwise not be able to acquire, and money for college education. Would you rather these people didn’t have the option? Because it is an option, not something forced on people.
The decision does not take place in a vacuum; as I said, it looks to me like people are making the decision based on factors OTHER than economics. Nobody joins up and then says, ‘Holy crap! I might have to go to Iraq!’
What method is more fair than a draft? How about letting people make the choice to serve?
In what way is conscription fair, particularly, as you’ve pointed out, if the privileged are able to avoid service? How is removing the choice from military service going to serve the country?
This all ignores, as you do, the great damage that conscripted troops would do to our volunteer forces. We have a professional army, highly trained, with high morale, because nobody is forced to join.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:24:37 am
And dcl strikes back on the humor front!
“I wouldn’t want to judge before all the facts are in, but it appears that General Ripper exceeded his authority.”
January 10th, 2006 at 10:24:37 am
And dcl strikes back on the humor front!
“I wouldn’t want to judge before all the facts are in, but it appears that General Ripper exceeded his authority.”
January 10th, 2006 at 11:07:47 am
A&A,
“What merits” indeed. Thank you for making my point.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:08:49 am
(There is a reason enlistments are way down though…)
Dumb Mouse. Get a clue before you start spouting your idiocy. The armed forces are starting to exceed their goals across the board.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051212-110459-3810r.htm
People are getting tired of people like you bitching and moaning that the Evil Booooooshh and his cronies are driving this country into the ground.
What number did the Dow hit yesterday?? Yeah, the economy is really in the shitter.
GET A CLUE.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:16:49 am
Joe Mama-
I should have been clearer. What “merits” does the war have?
January 10th, 2006 at 11:17:31 am
Joshua-
Quoting the Washington Times. No wonder you are so clueless.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:41:51 am
Virtually everytime I see a political post from Brendan, it sounds like a Republican. But then he says he is a Democrat. I think Brendan is leading a double life. I think if Brendan looked deep in his heart, he would realize he is a closet Republican - not that there is anything wrong with that. (Okay, maybe there is).
January 10th, 2006 at 12:26:33 pm
Permit me to translate the first part of A&A’s comment at 10:45 …
‘When I read a political post from Brendan, he sounds reasoned and reasonable. But then he says he’s a moonbat at heart. I think Brendan is leading a double life.’
The second half was written in plain text …
(grin)
January 10th, 2006 at 12:31:01 pm
Joshua - re-enlistments, from those actually with experience fighting in Iraq are *way* up …
The reason new enlistments *were* down was due to the relentless MSM propaganda effort to portray Iraq as another Vietnam “quagmire” …
As promulgated by the Poster Boy Senator from MA, himself - the Senate expert on water torture, whose dog, it seems, in a fit of humanitarian compassion and repentance, is named “Splash” … the Senator has been heard to say that he got the idea for the dog’s name while driving in New England with an ex-girlfriend …
January 10th, 2006 at 12:38:14 pm
Alasdair-
I did a search for “Alasdair” on Google Images and came up with this…
http://www.inveriggan.freeserve.co.uk/alasdair.gif
Is this you? If it is, it would explain a lot.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:54:10 pm
Angrier -
“Virtually everytime I see a political post from Brendan, it sounds like a Republican. But then he says he is a Democrat. I think Brendan is leading a double life. I think if Brendan looked deep in his heart, he would realize he is a closet Republican - not that there is anything wrong with that. (Okay, maybe there is).”
Maybe he’s this wierd thing called a moderate? I think its more that he is conservative on issues that are really in the press now, so get more attention. Just a thought.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:59:25 pm
Angrier - “The “Fact” is nobody related to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Condi Rice and 99% of the members of Congress is serving in the military during a time of war. I would venture to guess from a historical standpoint that this is a relatively new phenomenon. You can make all the excuses that you want. The fact is, the leaders of this country, Republican and Democrat, do not believe their loved ones should make the same sacrifice expected of average Americans. That’s not playing politics. That is the truth.”
The FACT is that we do not have a system of FORCED participation in the Armed Services. Is this not hitting the gray matter? If Cheney’s daughter wanted to join the army tomorrow, how exactly would Dad be able to stop her short of extortion or kidnapping? You are characterizing the children of leaders as mindless drones who cannot make any decision at all. If that’s what you believe, spell it out. But if its not, please don’t run this bullshit line of the leaders deciding whether their grown children serve in the Armed Forces or not.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:11:13 pm
Has anyone yet mentioned the most awesome line from “Dr. Strangelove”?….
“You can’t fight in here, this is the war room!”
January 10th, 2006 at 1:13:57 pm
Joshua
The DOW finally got back up to pre-9/11 levels 4 years and billions of dollars worth of tax cuts later, overwhelingly for the rich.
Wow, that was worth waiting for….Massive tax cuts for the rich to get mainly the rich back where they were pre-9/11…
What kind of world do you live in?
January 10th, 2006 at 1:14:39 pm
Nun -
I didn’t see where Brendan said you were advocating required service, but then this thread is a ginormous beast and could have been easily missed.
But Nun, your making it out like that is far from your statements.
First off, anyone touting their opinions or policies are open to criticism. Simply being in the public limelight is enough for criticism. Because we have freedom of speech, criticism of someone’s statements comes right after, regardless if its, for example, for troop withdrawal or against it.
Secondly, you are saying that conservatives need to back the draft if they are serious when they say this war is critical. Well, are you saying it is not critical, or that drafts are not needed. You are saying that a war as critical as the one we face requires a draft, yet you don’t SEEM to be an advocate of a draft (yes, I assuming that based on what you’ve written, feel free to correct me). Sounds like your not serious about the war then. Or is it only liberals who can say the war is serious but a draft is not needed?
But then, I totally disagree that a draft is needed. This is not an issue of us having more guns than the enemy or more boots on the ground than our enemies army. Its an issue of intelligence and diplomacy. Of special forces and propaganda.
And even if it were, a draft is the ultimate suspension of civil liberties, requiring a person to give up at least 4 years of their lives to the army. All for a benefit of dubious significance at best, given that morale would plummet, waste would skyrocket, and the economy would be wholly screwed.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:23:50 pm
Doc
I’m not sure in what sense you think I was using the term “poor”…..I use the term “poor” to refer to the working poor in this country and the rural poor.
I’m sure that they make up a large percentage of recruits into the military, and if compared with their total percentage in the general population, their recruitment numbers are higher. Remember, you’d have to include the vast majority of many minority groups in the class debate, and they are already better represented than their general population figures.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:25:29 pm
Lojo-
Not that you know everything about Brendan, but please give me an example of where he is either a Democrat or a Moderate.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:28:50 pm
Angrier -
Why the hell are you asking me? I don’t know the guy from Charlie on the street. Since when does someone need to show their Official Moderate/Democrat/Republican card in here to prove that they think that way?
I state easily that I am conservative with the occasional moderate and even liberal bent at times. If Brendan says he’s Moderate. I’ll believe him unless either A) he states otherwise, B) he states a completely left/right position on every issue out there.
Last I check, this blog hasn’t covered everything out there (not that it hasn’t tried, at times).
January 10th, 2006 at 1:29:41 pm
That was me, obviously. Stealthing inadvertenly, it seems.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:29:45 pm
Lojo-
What I am saying is that the current ruling class in this country have not raised their children with the idea of serving their country because, as a member of that class, they don’t have to. I’m not saying anyone should be forced to join the military. I am saying that Bush, Cheney, et al’s children are not serving their country - even in Peace Corps, Red Cross, etc - because they don’t respect the idea. Not unless there is a huge payout in the end which ain’t gonna happen in the Peace Corps or military.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:32:52 pm
Angrier -
“I am saying that Bush, Cheney, et al’s children are not serving their country - even in Peace Corps, Red Cross, etc - because they don’t respect the idea.”
That is one HUGE goddamn bold statement. I hope your going to back that up in someway? And no, under-representation in the armed services doesn’t, because your attributing an intent to it.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:33:25 pm
Yikes, damn HaloScan is acting up. *pulls out drill, hammer, and Duct tape*
January 10th, 2006 at 1:33:46 pm
Lojo,
1. I think Brendan overstated the case of people thinking Cindy is some kind of saint. He references David Letterman in his orginal post, but I certainly haven’t seen much of the media just fauning over her and saying everything she said is gospel.
2. I agree she can be critiqued and debated. But this just shows again why I think Brendan WAY overstated the case: I dont see anyone in the major NEWS media saying “shut up and listen to Cindy because she lost a son” or anything along those lines.
3. Lastly, again, I think this whole situation arises in the context in which liberal anti-war people have some kind of burden they have to pass before they can be deemed to be “respectable” and not “America haters”: they have to either have served or have a relative who died before the media will pay any attention to the anti-war movement. That’s how ridiculous this seems to me.
Brendan can be as put off or bothered by Cindy as he wants to be and she can say whatever ridiculous things she wants and we can debate and argue and whatnot….
January 10th, 2006 at 1:39:29 pm
“That is one HUGE goddamn bold statement. I hope your going to back that up in someway?”
Gee. Do you see them involved in service? F-k no. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, it’s a goddamn duck!
January 10th, 2006 at 1:40:58 pm
Going by quintiles. The bottom fifth of the population contributes about 13%. The top fifth provides closer to 20.
Pre-9/11 statistics show that the average household income for black enlistees is above the average household income for blacks.
Your last comment is confusing. Are you classifying ‘the vast majority’ of minorities as “lower class”?
January 10th, 2006 at 1:49:18 pm
Angrier -
And I’m not a goddman duck expert. Doesn’t mean that I sneer everytime I see a mallard flap by.
Just because I’m not a mechanic doesn’t mean I look down upon Jethro at the shop. Shit, for keeping my absolutely non-fly ride running, I worship the ground he walks on.
Your accusing intent with only a correlation. Got to have something to back it up with.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:50:00 pm
The whole issue of race and military service is B.S. The volunteer military - especially in combat roles - is proportionally more white than the U.S. population. It was the draft in the 1960s during Vietnam that resulted in a larger percentage of blacks serving because in the 60s fewer blacks went to college, so they couldn’t get as many deferments. In addition, draft boards were managed locally, so in the still mostly racist South back then, more blacks ended up getting drafted.
In today’s military, the weapons systems are too complicated to draft somebody and send them into a war zone for a year. I think the volunteer military makes the U.S. military the best in the world.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:52:08 pm
Who are you, and what have you done with Angrier and Angrier?
In other words, I agree.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:54:30 pm
Lojo-
I’m not saying the Bush kids, even the ones getting arrested down in Florida for doing drugs, having sex in public places and getting into bar fights, look down on the military. I’m saying they don’t respect the idea of serving their country. Like Cheney, “They have better things to do.”
January 10th, 2006 at 1:55:27 pm
Doc-
I’m still Angrier, but I prefer facts over “truthiness.”
January 10th, 2006 at 1:57:22 pm
I think the official term is “differently factual”. Or incontrovertibullshit. One of the two.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:57:22 pm
I think the official term is “differently factual”. Or incontrovertibullshit. One of the two.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:08:17 pm
Nun -
1) But the problem with that is Cindy Sheehan is entirely a media construct. Without the press, her name would not be known by the outside world. She would not be famous/infamous depending on your particular bent.
Protestor? Nothing new. Protestor Mother with Child in Army? Nothing new. Protestor Mom with child who died in Iraq? Nothing new, sadly. But because she played her PR right and the timing was impeccable, her words got beamed out across the globe.
Not to mention them glossing over, as Brendan said, outrageous and near anti-semtic statments she’s made. The sheer fact of her fame is the proof the media fawning over here. The positive nature of that fawning is shown by the selective reporting that happened with her.
2)I also don’t see the media giving equal time to the parents of children who died in Iraq, showing up at Crawford to support Bush and the war. Again, selectivity. The media had their storyline (Distraught Mom Demands Answers) and simply molded every story around that.
Seriously, don’t believe me about that. Go back to the print news and the footage and take a critical look with how it was reported. See if that storyline (Distraught Mom Demands Answers) doesn’t shape all of the stories about her or people there.
3) Nun, I’ll tell you why I hate ANSWER and the far left in general. Because they screw over honest, decent, and constructive criticism of the war. Even if its not constructive, they still screw it over.
Its not about a liberal having to come out and say, “I’m an American, DAMMIT!” Its about them saying that while posters against WTO, Bush as Hitler, Sharon drinking Palestinan blood wave in the background.
You are defined by your company you keep. I certainly agree with that. But other’s perception of you IS defined by the company you keep. I could say that the War on Christmas is absurd and people need to let somethings go. But, if I’m doing it from a podium in front of the 700 Club, its not going to hold much weight.
There’s a reason they called it Clinton’s Sister Souljah moment. Because he refused to let those that could be called his company, from distorting his reputation.
I would just die happy if a say, some influential democratic senator went to a stage to criticize the war in front of a whole ton of far left loonies and said, “I am against the war, but I am also against you.”
And yes, same could be said for some republican senators who are talking to some religious groups, but frankly, you don’t get the same kind of graphic posters and anarchy from them.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:11:08 pm
Angrier -
So the only people who respect the idea of serving in the military are those that go and serve in the military?
I’m still lost on where the decision not to enter the military = disrespect for notion of volunteering for service?
January 10th, 2006 at 2:13:25 pm
Angrier -
“In today’s military, the weapons systems are too complicated to draft somebody and send them into a war zone for a year. I think the volunteer military makes the U.S. military the best in the world.”
Though some may scream racism at the inference that blacks cannot undertsand complicated weapon systems (you think I’m joking), I totally agree with you. In the end, many racial disparities end up being class disparities.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:13:59 pm
A+A also Doc,
I can’t believe I went to the trouble to find this stuff online and I can now definitely say, A+A, you are wrong.
Whites make up, according to the US Census Bureau, about 75% of the general population, according to their Quick facts webiste last updated December 2005: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Yet according to the military’s own Semiannual Demographic Profile from March 2005, whites make up 64.4% of the total Dept. of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard: https://www.patrick.af.mil/deomi/Observances%20&%20Demographics/Deomographics/Demographics_2005_03.pdf
Blacks make up 12.3% of the general population and 17.7% of the military.
It’s another thing to find a class/income breakdown of the active military at date of enlistment.
Doc, Please dont imply I was saying something like “all blacks are poor.” But statistically, blacks overwheling come from the lower classes. It’s a fact, not any kind of prejuidice on my part.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:15:54 pm
Nun -
I said, “You are defined by your company you keep.”
Whether you believe Freudian slip or not, that is SUPPOSED to be “You are NOT defined by the company you keep”.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:21:28 pm
Nun -
The is an overrepesentation of blacks and underrepresentation of whites in the army based on the population rates. Question is it significant? +5% one way, -10.5% the other way? Doesn’t really look, smell, or feel like its significant.
But in the end, I really do think its folly trying to compare military representation with general public. (Can’t read the reports from here) Age plays a huge factor in the army with younger segment outnumbering older, likely heavily, whereas with civilians, it would be more evenly distributed. Furthermore, locations, believe it or not, can also play a huge role, with enlistments heavier near bases.
As you pointed out, the class/income survey will likely be far more informational.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:32:48 pm
Lojo-
What made Cindy Sheehan newsworthy was Bush refusing to meet with her at the ranch right when attitudes started to turn regarding the war. You can say all you want about Bush meeting her before, yadda, yadda, yadda. If he had stopped for a moment, spent a couple of minutes talking to her, this would not even be an issue right now.
As for what is keeping the Cindy Sheehan thing going, it is people like you, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. I can’t think of the last time I saw an actual news story from the “liberal media” on her. It is all the harping and carping from the radical right that is keeping her on the national stage.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:32:48 pm
I said it was confusing and asked for clarification. This is what you said:
“Remember, you’d have to include the vast majority of many minority groups in the class debate, and they are already better represented than their general population figures.”
I’m still not sure what you mean here. Do minorities join up because they are poor? If so, how is that racist?
But how do you define “the lower classes”? And how do you justify conscription? That’s the question you’ve been evading.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:35:27 pm
Lojo-
WTF? How was my comment even remotely racist? I said “SOMEBODY” who is drafted. I said nothing about blacks in relation to that statement, nor did I “infer” it. The only thing racist was your jumping to that conclusion.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:42:01 pm
Joshua - re-enlistments, from those actually with experience fighting in Iraq are *way* up …
The reason new enlistments *were* down was due to the relentless MSM propaganda effort to portray Iraq as another Vietnam “quagmire” …
OOooh look, Alasdair parroting GOP talking points mindlessly.
I love how the right wing simultaneoulsy tries to grant the media huge amounts of power AND paint them as completely ineffectual though.
Alasdair, Iraq IS a quagmire. Whether or not you agree that we should or shouldn’t have gone in, or should or shouldn’t stay, the facts show that its a quagmire.
The reason enlistements are down is because people don’t want to be forced to fight Bush’s war, especially when they might be forced to serve longer under an illegal program (Stop-Loss is only valid during wartime). And saying re-enlistments are up from people who have served? Can you back that up? Got any evidence? I doubt it.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:17:05 pm
Lojo, Doc,
Lojo– The main point of my last post was to point out A+A is wrong if he thinks whites have a higher percentage representation in the military than in the general population, and not really for any other reason at that time…I’ll respond more to your other points later if we dont break Halo Scan first.
Doc– Sorry if I haven’t been clear. My point about ways of creating the people who serve your country is one of simple fairness.
Halo Scan also ate my post previously. Here it is…
First, dont get me wrong: I’m not personally arguing for a draft. I’m not sure how I feel about one.
My main point is this: if the people who support the war, the ones who use all kinds of inflated rhetoric and say things like “battle for civilization” or “war on terrorism” or “a fight for democracy through out the region” — all lofty justifications– really believe the words they are using, then a draft is the most fair way to distribute the social responsibility we all must share.
Shouldn’t everyone, not just mainly although certainly not solely the economically challenged in this country, fight the good fight to “save civlization” from the “Islamo-fascist hordes” that are threatening Western Civlization itself?
I mean by the rhetoric used by conservatives who support this war, this war has a FAR GREATER significance than World War 2, in their eyes, yet they don’t want a draft to help bolster out stressed military? We had a draft in WW2 to ‘fight the good fight’ and apparently this war doesn’t measure up. But it shold by their own rhetoric, unless of course the rhetoric is used to simply brow beat the public into supporting the war and the goals are not the publicly stated ones.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:18:28 pm
David,
I too have heard that re-enlistments are up.
By the military is far from reaching their goals of recruitment from the general population.
THAT statement really is a whopper.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:28:30 pm
So, we should have compulsory military service in this country ala Israel(no pun intended). Not only would it unify us as a culture but would change the balance of what is on the line when we go to war(yea - I’m just repeating this to get started). With the way our military is set up right now I would be terrified to join and sceptical about doing anything meaningful as a grunt(careerists are a different, more ambitious story). The apparent collective military mentality on average creates a very dangerous and scary environment that is counterproductive in that it can’t control itself in general and ends up doing more damage than good, imho. Seems like we could become a more intelligent kind of army that doesn’t specialize strictly in war and psychological operations(& pure domination). The PR war has been the real story for a long time now anyways. What happened in the Vietnam era with fortunate sons like Bush etc could be countered better this time around. There is an awareness of this problem now more than back then. Even so, it’s the right and smart thing to do so we can’t just say it’s ruled out just because it is obviously going to be abused in some ways and skirted by rich kids.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:29:58 pm
BUT the military is far from reaching their goals of recruitment from the general population…..
January 10th, 2006 at 3:30:46 pm
PS - I’m talking compulsory service - not to be confused with drafts during war time.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:34:17 pm
Nun -
“yet they don’t want a draft to help bolster out stressed military?”
See, this is half my point, what good will a draft do? If you go strictly by number of troops, yes it will boost them, but the cost in societal terms would be gigantic.
But regardless to that, what is the BATTLEFIELD benefit? A draft will only add stress as many unqualified and unmotivated soldiers enter the army. Will more get done? No, as the battle is one against a hidden insurgency, not a visible rebel force. Nor in the war on terror as information is more critical than any number of troops.
So again, what is the point of a draft? Why is a draft needed if it will provide little benefit for outrageous cost? To prove how important the war is? That is decrying a administration for not using a hollow platitude to show they are serious, and using that to prove the administration is only using hollow platitudes.
Now, if the benefit of having a draft outweighs the costs, or put another way, the NEED of a draft outwieghs the costs, then that is worth discussing whether it should be in place.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:36:42 pm
Angrier -
Relax, I was being facetious about the race thing. What I was trying to say was I agree with you.
Shhh, just relax. Latte’?
January 10th, 2006 at 3:38:17 pm
David -
“Iraq IS a quagmire”
Curious if you could define what you mean by quagmire? Seriously, that term could encompass many things, I’m just looking for specifics.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:53:22 pm
Angrier -
Ooooh, I love it when you do this. On Cindy Sheehan not showing up lately in normal news:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=peopleNews&storyID=2006-01-10T182550Z_01_FOR066368_RTRIDST_0_PEOPLE-SHEEHAN-DC.XML
Thats from 2hrs ago.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10510558/site/newsweek/
Thats from December 26, 2005.
( I am also filtering out Far Left stuff like the Language of the Heart [Marxist Thought Online] as well as Far Right stuff like Red State Org and so forth)
“”It’s often said that war changes soldiers forever. The same is true for those they leave behind. Cindy Sheehan, a mother, has become one of the most visible critics of the war in Iraq. Her vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Texas last summer made her a hero to some, a target of hate for others. Criticism has not stopped her. She’s taken her cause now overseas to England, where another mother is ready to take the baton. Here’s CNN’s Paula Newton.”"
From Anderson Cooper,CNN on December 13th.
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=651550
Thats an AP Story from December 17th.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/11/arts.sheehan.reut/
This one is good. Its the debut of the Cindy Sheehan play in London. December 11, 2005.
Do I need to go on, or are we done Angrier? I can, Lord knows. I didn’t even get out of December. I bet there is a lull at some point.
And to Nun, look at the headlines to tell me exactly how the press didn’t fawn over Sheehan?
January 10th, 2006 at 4:12:25 pm
Lojo-
I just did a Google news search. Seems like most of the articles on Sheehan are rants from the right being covered by the MSM. Pretty much what I said.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:22:08 pm
Angrier -
For for Chrissakes:
“NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with an anti-war vigil outside President George W. Bush’s Texas ranch after her soldier son was killed in Iraq, is writing a memoir, to be published in September.
Simon & Schuster imprint Atria Books said in a statement the book would tell the “wrenching, yet profoundly inspiring story” of how she got over her despair after her son’s death in April 2004 by launching her peace campaign.”
Coverage of right wing rant, huh?
“Dec. 26, 2005 - Jan 2, 2006 issue - Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in the war, staked out President George W. Bush at his Crawford, Texas, ranch last August looking for answers about U.S. involvement in Iraq. She spoke with Martha Brant from London, where Sheehan addressed the International Peace Conference and is currently the subject of a one-woman play.”
Boy, sure sounds like a O’Reilly piece to me.
MADRID, Spain (AP) - Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan led a small protest Saturday outside the U.S. Embassy to denounce the war in Iraq.
About 100 protesters carried banners criticizing President Bush.
A large crowd gathered outside the embassy Saturday to protest the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Paul White) Article Tools
Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, called Bush a war criminal and said, “Iraq is worse than Vietnam.”
Your right! Definitely the right wingers pushing her prominence.
“LONDON, England (Reuters) — U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.
“Peace Mom” received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.
The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan’s letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan’s son, Casey, and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire”
Man, look. Are you seriously sitting here and telling me the reason that this story from CNN on ‘FAME: The Cindy Sheehan Monologues’ was because of right wingers keeping her in the spotlight, than you are deluding yourself for simply partisan reasons. You say she hasn’t shown up in the normal press, and I documented multiple examples in the past month.
Seriously, are you telling me your right, despite what my lying eyes are telling me?
January 10th, 2006 at 4:25:22 pm
Angrier -
And BTW, I got all that from Google too, doing Cindy Sheehan. And, as I said, skipped over the fringe (right and left) stuff because, as you said, “I can’t think of the last time I saw an actual news story from the “liberal media” on her. It is all the harping and carping from the radical right that is keeping her on the national stage.”
NONE of the stories are about how (insert Right Winger) has decried Sheehan or even about Pat Robertson saying she is going to hell.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:48:07 pm
You need to define “economically disadvantaged”. I’m saying that the majority of people in the military come from the working and middle classes.
And this: “Sorry if I haven’t been clear. My point about ways of creating the people who serve your country is one of simple fairness.” makes no sense. We don’t “create” people who serve in the military. They make that choice themselves. I can think of nothing more fair than letting each choose for him or her self whether to join the military.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to get across. Is it that if we had a draft more people would be unhappy? Is it that you think imposing a draft would cause trouble for Bush? Do you think that conservatives want a draft? The only people who WANT a draft are those who want to be able to bitch about it.
Conscription Bad. Volunteer army good.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:48:07 pm
You need to define “economically disadvantaged”. I’m saying that the majority of people in the military come from the working and middle classes.
And this: “Sorry if I haven’t been clear. My point about ways of creating the people who serve your country is one of simple fairness.” makes no sense. We don’t “create” people who serve in the military. They make that choice themselves. I can think of nothing more fair than letting each choose for him or her self whether to join the military.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to get across. Is it that if we had a draft more people would be unhappy? Is it that you think imposing a draft would cause trouble for Bush? Do you think that conservatives want a draft? The only people who WANT a draft are those who want to be able to bitch about it.
Conscription Bad. Volunteer army good.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:50:57 pm
I don’t think Cindy Sheehan is in the press because of a discernable bias (although, I think there’s a good argument to be made that how the press portrays Sheehan is somewhat biased in her favor), but that she is in the press because the press created the story to sell papers and receive viewership.
Sheehan is a nut-job, which is completely obvious to people both on the left and right. She actually sympathizes with the people who killed her son, and she calls those who murder innocent Iraqis hoping to help rebuild their nation “freedom fighters.” She speaks of Anglo/Jewish conspiracies to imperially conquer the middle-east in order to control oil. She’s bat-shit-insane.
But, her story is compelling. A grieving mother, single-handidly taking on the most powerful man in the world in the name of world-peace.
This is compelling stuff. It’s a good story. It’ll get viewership. What’s better, it will stir debate (what is this, the 140th odd post?), which we all know will lead to MORE viewership/readership.
I honestly don’t think it’s a left-wing media conspiracy–I think it’s a capitalist conspiracy…Cindy Sheehan is business for the press.
But the principle behind all of this is still concerning–the press has built up a woman into a viable, legitimate news story. They fuel everything (no way in hell she get’s a one-woman play written for her without huge media attention to fuel the interest in the story), creating an artificial context for the way in which we view events. It’s the tail wagging the dog.
Sheehan’s a lunatic. She isn’t deserving of the coverage she receives–and she polarizes a debate that is polarizing enough without her.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:00:39 pm
There seems to be a sentiment on this thread that parents have far more control of their children’s lives than they actually do. Yes, I know the statement was made about whether they have relatives serving, but do you really think that, say, a nephew choosing not to enter the military is indicative of the value his uncle placed in military service? The fact that the kids of prominent people have not served in the military really doesn’t say anything about whether those prominent people feel that military service is worthwhile/appropriate for their class/worthy of respect. It says that those children have not chosen military service for themselves. Impugning the character of the parent based on his/her own military background is a little more acceptable–I still think it’s idiotic, as the statement that choosing not to serve automatically equates with a lack of respect for service is laughable on its face–but at least in that case you’re judging someone by his or her own actions, or lack thereof. And, incidentally, it should be pointed out that of the 5 individuals specified by name as not having relatives serving, the aggregate offspring pool is 8 daughters and 2 sons. How many people who favor reinstituting a draft would actually want to see men and women drafted at the same rate?
January 10th, 2006 at 5:03:04 pm
*points to thebeef*
“…she is in the press because the press created the story to sell papers and receive viewership.”
“But, her story is compelling. A grieving mother, single-handidly taking on the most powerful man in the world in the name of world-peace.
This is compelling stuff. It’s a good story. It’ll get viewership. What’s better, it will stir debate (what is this, the 140th odd post?), which we all know will lead to MORE viewership/readership.
I honestly don’t think it’s a left-wing media conspiracy–I think it’s a capitalist conspiracy…Cindy Sheehan is business for the press.”
Totally agree. I don’t think bias pushed this story as much as it was lack of news and a compelling storyline.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:54:01 pm
I also see supporting, or questioning, the motives of Sheehan as a family-friendly way for both wings of the MSM to talk about the war without really talking about it.
Peel the onion all the way back and frankly, Cindy Sheehan, like all the rest of us, is what she is, and quite simply who she is provides the basis for her saying what she says.
Did she use her son’s death to promote an already-existing political view? Maybe.
Did her son’s death magnify her views? Maybe.
Who knows? Who cares?
It is fascinating that people spend so much time talking about what appropriate manner they are permitted to talk about the war (with respect to people like Cindy Sheehan) rather than discussing the details of the war itself.
For example, Huffington today linked to an estimate that the final cost of the war will be $2 Trillion dollars, or about 9 full months of government spending (at the inflated Bush Admin rates!)
Except for the ongoing health care of those greviously wounded, and some benefit to military and oil supply companies, America will likely not see the benefit of the multiplier effect of those investments -
- unless of course the middle east is remade in the manner we wish.
In conclusion - hey great Cindy Sheehan, nice to hear your views, why don’t you go ahead and take your spot on the side of those against the war.
Then, the rest of us can get around to the crucial conversation: should we continue to plow 9 months worth of the government coffers into - ?
January 10th, 2006 at 8:21:22 pm
1) GOP president in 1940 -/-> “war much sooner”; you’re making a historical leap that simply isn’t there. (and again arguing a counterfactual, which is silly.)
We’ve been arguing counterfactual “what ifs” the whole freakin’ time, dude. Get a clue. Would Wilkie have led us to war sooner than FDR? We will and can never know, but it is certainly logical to suggest that, because Wilkie wasn’t willing to lie and tell the republic that he would absolutely not send our boys to Europe, while FDR was willing to tell the lie, that Wilkie may have done more to help the British and consequently involved us more deeply in the European war prior to Pearl Harbor. It’s absolutely a counterfactual, historical leap–but one that is supported by logic.
2) “mood at home was isolationist” is a far more important factor in determining the direction of the nation. Even in the waybackwhen — the world existed in sepia tones, or so I’m told — politicians had an interest in being reelected, and respected the ‘mood’ enough to do so.
The popularity of isolationism in America didn’t prevent Woodrow Wilson from ginning up the propaganda machine to support him sending our boys across the Atlantic in WWI.
3) “had the authority to instigate hostilities with Germany any time he wanted.” Not really. At the time the president still respected Article I, Section 8. Funny, that.
The vast gray area between war and non-war as allowed in Article I, Section 8 was not first discovered by Harry Truman. Presidents have been dabbling in non-declared hostilities almost from Day One of the republic.
…When we had a large, sitting navy, that was subsequently sunk.
Since we’re talking about Europe here, not the Pacific hostilities, I’m not sure how that applies. And our Navy was nowhere near beefed up at the time.
But I’m sure that here you’ll cite consipiracy theories about how FDR manipulated everything to allow a few thousand sailors die to justify a war.
Last time I checked, the festering politics of the Left was the breeding ground for loony conspiracy theories (”Bush lied”, “The war is all about oil”, etc.), so I find it rather amusing that you’d insinuate a conservative hawk of needing to rely on a conspiracy to justify our entry into WWII. Amusing, and indicative of a lack of intellectual integrity and prowess on your part.
A standing army had (has?) implications that you are apparently missing. It is expensive; it creates potential cultural strife; it can be a political danger (military coups, and such). These have been manifested time and again through history. That it has not been as much of a problem here is mere accident. It has been expensive, but not fatally so; and it has created cultural strife, but as yet hasn’t been significant enough to cause something like a coup.
I’m a bloodthirsty hawk, I’ll take my chances. In any case, I’m not willing to accept that it is by mere accident America has been willing to survive having a large, powerful standing army. As far as expenses go, the New Deal was pretty damn expensive, but that sure didn’t stop the Democrats of back then from spending money we didn’t have.
We had the comfort of two large oceans to protect us.
As early as WWI and the communist and fascist movements in Russia and Europe shortly thereafter, there were significant intellectual movements arguing to the contrary. We may have been a nation of ostriches at the time, but the public’s isolationism was not automatically accepted by the intellectual and political elite. There was room for movement, as America was not entirely opposed to imperialism at the time.
Your fantasizing about what Hitler would or would not have done is, quite frankly, stupid. There is no way to know that, and even what you speculated seems unlikely to me. His actions were not strategically sound, and were constantly colored by his pan-European (or pan-Germanic, ober-European, etc.) ideology.
Oh yeah, because historians and Civil War/WWI/WWII buffs aren’t constantly bickering about how outcomes might have changed if only certain random events had different outcomes…. [rolls eyes] Of course there is no way to KNOW that, dipshit. This ain’t empirical science, it’s pure speculation. You think it’s stupid, and unlikely because Hitler’s ideology was a greater factor in his decision-making than real-world factors such as the size and power of his enemies’ armies? Great, thanks for sharing. Your opinion is appreciated. Maybe even that’s a better argument. But arguing that my opinions are stupid because there is no way of knowing is to defeat the whole point of the discussion a priori and to render the work of thousands of professional and armchair historians completely meaningless, when I’m quite sure they’d beg to differ. The History That Happened matters, but so does the History That Didn’t Happen.
History repeats itself… farce… tragedy, etc.
I also think your attitude regarding war, even an obviously just one such as the Second World War, is a little weird. You’re a f**king caricature when it comes to this stuff. (WAR! WAR! WE MUST HAVE WAR! QUICK, BOMB SOMETHING BEFORE I BLOW A LOAD IN MY PANTS!)
Hmmm, yeah, heaven forbid that I muse occasionally over whether we might have been able to end WWII sooner and save tens of millions of lives. What a “fucking caricature”, indeed! Next time you shake a Holocaust survivor’s hand—or heck, even a WWII vet–why don’t you tell him it’s a “fucking caricature” to suggest that the free world might have been able to do something differently post-WWI to reduce the tragedy of WWII? I’m sure he’d appreciate your callous rendering of history.
(Note to self: The irony is rich but satisfying when a noted Machiavellian gets to chide a liberal who has so quickly and willingly ceded the moral high ground.)
January 10th, 2006 at 8:41:45 pm
Here’s an interesting exercise:
Go to Excel, and use the PMT function to determine the cost of paying off a $2 Trillion loan over 25 years at a 4% rate of interest.
You’ll find that the annual payment is about $123 Billion.
Next, go to the IRS web site and discover that there were about 224 million taxpayers in the US last year.
For convenience, assume that the taxpayer base grows 2% per year for the next 25 years.
What do you get? How much will every taxpayer have to chip in to finance a $2 Trillion dollar expenditure, every year, for the next 25 years?
Before I answer, obligatory caveats:
1) Clearly not all the $1 Trillion is wasted, some (probably small-ish) part of it will drive the economy.
2) Not all of the cost is incurred up front; some is for the ongoing maintenance of wounded troops.
3) Much of the cost is sunk already (dear god!)
OK, caveats aside:
Cost per taxpayer? - - -
Oh wait, one other thing - many Republicans love the revolutionary Bush agenda which is aggressively CUTTING taxes, to the tune of $300/year.
Cost per taxpayer of Iraq?
Every year, for the NEXT 25 YEARS?
About $430 per year.
That’s right, something like 150% of the vaunted tax cut that makes you love GWB is going to be eaten up by this war for the NEXT QUARTER CENTURY, or for many, THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
So Brendan, when you said a few weeks ago that Ira
January 10th, 2006 at 8:45:07 pm
(Technical difficulty, sorry)
When you said that Iraq would be a success when it was safe to drive there - let’s assume that is four years hence, and the $2 trillion price tag is triggered.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, come 2020, when you have a kid entering high school and another in middle school, worrying about college costs, and the Phoenix country club -
at that time, writing a check for $430 to support the “war to make Iraq’s streets safe” will, well, make you a much bigger war protestor than Cindy Sheehan.
Andrew, I am a bloodthirsty bastard too. Give em hell, I say. However, though my economics may be slightly exaggerated, its hard to imagine writing a check for $400 in 2028 for this Iraqi (insert your own derisive noun here).
January 10th, 2006 at 9:40:52 pm
I just want to congratulate everyone - myself included - for falling into the Cindy Sheehan trap. Everyone has spent hours and hours debating the war in Iraq. That is EXACTLY what Cindy Sheehan wants - and what Bush doesn’t want.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:31:16 pm
Angrier -
Yes, because there has been a systemic stifling of debate over the war by the WH. That’s why Greenday is releasing songs on their CD about it, Hollywood mavens are preaching about it, and leftie fringes have marched repeatedly over it.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:33:13 pm
Wow — I think Andrew blew a fuse! :)
Amazing how you drop into the personal attacks (although I admit my jab about your height might have been a bit cheap). Keep the name calling (e.g., dipshit) out of the argument. Or have you simply been reduced to throwing a temper tantrum?
This ain’t empirical science…
…But arguing that my opinions are stupid because there is no way of knowing is to defeat the whole point of the discussion a priori…
No, but there is historical method, and it aims to be as empirical as possible. I’m halfway through my masters in international history, so I think I can speak as to what the work of “thousands of professional historians” entails. History that didn’t happen is not part of it; such speculation is explicitly invalid, at least as far as professional historiography goes. Armchair varieties, I can’t speak of.
Furthermore, I’m not arguing that your opinions are stupid because there isn’t a way of getting at an objective past, I’m arguing that they’re stupid because they ignore that past — those events that actually happened, instead of might have happened had something — lots of things — been different.
Next time you shake a Holocaust survivor’s hand—or heck, even a WWII vet–why don’t you tell him it’s a “fucking caricature”…
My grandfather, a bombadier in the Army Air Corps during WWII, passed away a few years ago, but I’m quite sure that after being in one he wouldn’t wish war on anyone, let alone be eager to sink our nation into something as horrific as WWII. Necessity is one thing, but outright belligerence is another.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:33:53 pm
Angrier,
I was thinking a while back that there were several arguments you could advance against my “$400/American for 25 years” model. I might take up those arguments, if advanced, but since the estimates are rough I might also let it go.
Still, $400/yr for you, me, him, her, that guy over there, for 25 years comes out to $10,000 for each of us (non-time adjusted dollars of course).
I don’t think I am goaded by the certifiably ‘bat-shit-insane’ Cindy Sheehan. By my view, the Iraq insurgency is almost certainly the $10,000+ expenditure in my life that I will discuss least.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:32:04 pm
Jazz, your numbers require you to buy into that whole $2 trillion thing. In 99% of the cases I’ve seen, whether its trying to gauge the total cost to the economy of the Iraq war or the total cost for healthcare from kids drinking too much soda, the logic and dollar chains are rather specious.
Brian, I actually completely forgot about your dig on my height–it must’ve gone completely over my head.
[rimshot]
I do wonder why you manage to care so much about my height. Is 5′8″ really that much to be ashamed about? I weathered the nickname “shrimp” all through grade school, so do you really think I’m going to be bothered when a fellow internet nerd picks on my height? Okay, granted, it’d be nice to be taller, but all things considered, my height has really only hindered me in one part of life: my ability to play basketball. It certainly hasn’t hindered much my academic or professional success, and it certainly hasn’t hindered much my sex life. I mean, for instance, your mom surely wasn’t complaining about my heights or lengths…. So if my height is not obviously a sore spot for me, why waste your time picking on it? Surely there must be something I’m slightly more self-conscious about, like, say, the way my voice sounds on the phone (and I have audioblogged before, so there’s a chance you’ve heard my voice recorded). In any case, I’m not enough of a psychologist to know, understand, or care why you are so fixated on my height, but I’m more than willing to hear your explanation.
As Jazz (and David, and Dane, and numerous others) can attest to, I freely pepper my arguments with insults when I feel they are well-deserved. To an extent, I think things like politics, international diplomacy, and public discourse are better served by blunt honesty than diplomatic phraseology. So why not mention in the midst of my argument that I think you are a dipshit when in my head, I’m thinking, “Wow, only a dipshit could make an argument like that!”
Fear not, though. My opinions and thoughts of you can change like the wind. In one minute, you can go from dipshit, to idiot, to genius, provided you improve your argument or have a better substantiated opinion. Given that such derogatory appellations are so ephemeral, you’re wasting your time to bother to take offense at them. Look at Don King and Judd Burstein, for example: One minute they’re calling each other “a cancer” or “an insidious insect”, the next they’re working with each other and singing each other’s praises! Maybe Jazz, who says Cindy Sheehan is “bat-shit-insane”, will later say she’s an anti-war goddess of beauty after she poses for Playboy.
Or not.
In any case, don’t be down on yourself. ‘Tis human to be an idiot, and occasionally a dipshit. I’m sure you’ll someday recover and make us all proud….
I’m halfway through my masters in international history….
…Or not.
Necessity is one thing, but outright belligerence is another.
Some of us are blessed (or cursed, depending on your perspective) enough to recognize necessity sooner than others.
History that didn’t happen is not part of it; such speculation is explicitly invalid, at least as far as professional historiography goes. Armchair varieties, I can’t speak of.
Maybe modern history professors teach you to be this ignorant, but whether you’re watching the discovery channel or reading a history textbook, much of history is precisely examining what didn’t happen, what would’ve happened, and why. Whether it’s the series of decisions and intercepted communications that led to the battle at Midway in WWII and the U.S. victory, to the Battle of Trafalgar, on back to the epic Greek battles, history has always used the backdrop of what didn’t happen and why to provide context for what did happen and why it was so vital, important, or monumental. History is not simply, “William the Conqueror defeated King Harold in the Battle of Hastings in 1066.” History is also, “William the Conqueror defeated King Harold in the Battle of Hastings because Harold and his army were tied up by storms and a washed-out bridge after fending off an invasion in Northern England, which is key because the delay allowed William to alter his battle strategy upon landing in Southern England when he fully expected to be met at the shore by Harold’s troops, and a far different battle would have ensued.”
January 11th, 2006 at 6:02:04 am
Here’s a perfect example from just today of how liberals and their patriotism are constantly being called into question by Bush:
“Bush says some war critics irresponsible” http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-10T203804Z_01_WRI057905_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-BUSH.xml&archived=False
From the article: “Bush, who has faced a barrage of criticism over his handling of Iraq, said Americans know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being handled “and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people.”
He added, “So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries.” ”
So if you question Bush and his administration’s motives for going to war with Iraq then you’re lending “comfort to our adversaries”?
This is the kind of bull I’m talking about. And here we are debating Cindy Sheehan. She’s just a distraction from the real issues.
Once again, Bush is trying to bully people into not expressing their opinions because then they are being traitors and lending “comfort to our adversaries.” I have to somehow have opinions Bush allows or I’m not doing my duty as an American.
What utter nonsense! THIS is the kind of stuff that is far more troubling than Cindy Sheehan. We’re talking about the President of the United States villifying a large cross section of the country….
January 11th, 2006 at 6:08:52 am
Doc
“create the people who serve,” as in how we pick the people who serve…how we create who makes up the military…
And yes that was *exactly* my point…”Conscription = more unhhappy people, which is good”
*eye roll*
January 11th, 2006 at 9:49:41 am
You are all forgetting the biggest contributing factor to this story. It happened in August, the news media is very board in August and needed something to do. Why it is staying in the public eye is because people keep screaming about it from both sides.
Andrew, yes, but the Republicans rejected Wilson’s ideas that would likely have prevented WWII… The one problem with arguing what ifs is you can always go a little further back and flap some wings a little differently. Doesn’t mean it can’t be a valuable exercise. But it can also be a futile one. I mean it’s also possible to argue that a captain in the Union Army during the Civil War won WWII because he decided to hold Little Round Top at Gettysburg.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:06:27 am
It’s not surprising that the most partisan critics can’t seem to comprehend the distinction between
“honest critics” and “partisan critics.” And I love how people think Bush is “bullying people into not expressing their opinions,” especially when Al Franken, Michael Moore, et. al. are getting rich giving their opinions to gullible nitwits who think the gov’t is trying to keep them from expressing their opinions.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:10:16 am
I second dcl’s commentary, and also recommend that Andrew make a slightly greater effort to monitor his “dipshit” trigger.
Its difficult, back here, us all being strangers, to hold back when some random person says something that makes you emotional. We’re all guilty (see: the Shawshank Redemption for a Jazz touch point that unleashed an unpleasant torrent!)
But there’s a difference between “emotional because you disagree” and “emotional because the other person is stupid”. I get the impression that you confuse these often.
On the topic at hand, while it is debatable whether your view or Briandot’s is ‘correct’, I tend to lean toward Briandot, though not absolutely, for largely the reasons dcl put forth.
Briandot’s point, at worst, is quite valid, and it is an outrageous stretch to call him a “dipshit” for having put it forth.
Here’s an extreme example of my own view, based on your defense of counterfactual history going back to the epic Greek battles:
Okay, let’s go back to the epic granddaddy of all counterfactual history:
Socrates’ miraculous escape from the Athenian massacre at Delium.
Maybe 1-2% of Athenian troops escaped that destruction, and one was a 45 year old fat philosopher.
At the time Plato was 5.
What if Socrates had, as all odds suggested he should, died?
*Plato goes into politics.
*Socrates doesn’t die in the public square, killed by the throngs of common folk.
*Plato doesn’t write the Republic, which serves as a strong basis of Western thought, complete with the view that common folk are unwashed masses undeserving of democracy.
*Western Civilization doesn’t have to wait 2,000 years for the enlightenment.
*Flowering of democratic principles in ancient Rome leads to an explosion of science, etc.
*Industrial Revolution happens in 300 AD.
*Personal computers are invented in 500 AD.
Now, this is all interesting stuff, to be sure! And depending on how many beers you had, worthy of great debate.
Problem is, (as dcl and Briandot suggested) it just isn’t rigorous.
Arguing so is by no means dipshit, in fact it is spot on.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:11:10 am
Too funny (from scappleface):
NSA Not Spying on Schumer Despite Recent Remarks
(2006-01-02) ó The White House today said that the National Security Agency (NSA) has not tapped the phone lines or internet connections of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, despite recent remarks by the senator consistent with the mission and tactics of the al Qaeda terror network.
Sen. Schumer has taken the lead in recent days in attacking the Bush administration for its covert surveillance of communications from al Qaeda to U.S. residents. The Democrat said Sunday that whoever revealed to The New York Times details of the classified NSA program might not be a felon or traitor, but rather a ëwhistlebloweràdeserving praise.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that, ìalthough Sen. SchumerÃÂs comments sound like al Qaeda talking points drafted by the public relations firm of Zarqawi, Zawahiri and Daschle, we have no evidence to suggest that the senator is receiving them from the terror organization by phone or email.î
ìIÃÂm sure that Sen. Schumer reads The New York Times and gets emails from the Democrat National Committee,î said Mr. McClellan. ìJust because heÃÂs mouthing the al Qaeda party line doesnÃÂt mean heÃÂs getting it directly from Osama bin Laden.î
The White House spokesman reiterated statements by President George Bush that secret NSA wiretaps have been strictly limited, and designed to prevent future attacks on U.S. soil.
ìThe NSA works to protect America from terrorists,î Mr. McClellan said. ìThe agency doesnÃÂt have the mandate, or the time, to protect the Democrat party from Democrats.î
January 11th, 2006 at 10:11:41 am
Nun -
“honest critics who question the way the war is being handled “and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people.”
How is that suppressing opinion? Did he send out the FBI to quash protests? Are ANSWER followers getting firehosed? Are these people STILL free to voice their opinion, yes, they are.
So in short, your getting ticked because people calling Bush the worst terrorist on the planet are being criticized in turn?
And he didn’t paint all liberals and dissenters with that brush. His words specifically point to those advancing dishonest arguments.
Israel pushed us into War. Dishonest. It was all for oil. Dishonest. And the one you love, the Admin mislead the public into the war. Dishonest.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:13:44 am
For all of you w/ the cork in too tight, scrappleface is a parody :-)
January 11th, 2006 at 12:32:36 pm
Lojo wow you mixed all kinds of issues …
Like a massive train wreck of issues…
And I thought you were the one who wanted everyone to be careful about things and try to learn what people REALLY mean before jumping all over them.
LOL
Didn’t you jump all over me because I read the plain English meaning of “His people” at face value? Yet nowhere here do I use the word “suppress,” nor does Bush nor I mention ANSWER, the FBI, firehoses, or the three dwarves following Miss Petunia down the garden path, all of which, except Miss Petunia and the dwarves, you’ve neatly managed to shove into my vocal chords rather abruptly.
If you dont see Bush as questioning the patriotism of people when he describes administration critics as lending “comfort” to terrorists when they question the motives of this administration when said critics suggest the war may have been over oil or some other very possible reason, I guess there’s just no point in furthering this discussion. I mean it’s just absolutely ridiculous. But let’s all get worked up in a lather about one mom in Texas, rather than a President trying to divide America.
January 11th, 2006 at 12:56:07 pm
If you don’t see how calling Bush a liar who only invaded Iraq for nefarious purposes does in fact help terrorists, jihadists, Al Jazeera, and everyone else who wants to see us fail in Iraq (including all to many anti-war folks), then there is indeed no point in furthering this discussion. It’s patently obvious. But let’s put all that aside and get worked up in a lather about the entirely imagined “threat” to the free speech of every know-nothing who wants to spout whatever idiotic bumpersticker nonsense makes the short trip across their mind, free from any responsibility whatsoever, because everything is about THEM. Consequences, shmonsequences . . .
It’s amazing what one can rationalize by simply impugning the motives of others with absolutely no regard for facts and logic.
January 11th, 2006 at 12:59:01 pm
The President is not trying to divide America. That is the only thing that Bush has managed to cross of his to do list during his administration.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:01:00 pm
Joe Mama
Shup…I consider you in the league of All Ass Dare. And the post wasn’t even directed at you.
Lojo is at least polite and has clearly articulated arguments.
Joe, note: I didn’t say anything about “free speech.”
Are you the guy who has trouble with analogies, too?
January 11th, 2006 at 1:07:20 pm
dci
Well I still remember his silly comment after the 2000 election about how he was going to “bring the country together” by pursuing “middle of the road policies” and that he was a “uniter, not a divider,” much like Michael Jackson saying he’s a “lover, not a fighter.”
I guess I consider those the first lies of his administration.
Note to Joe Mama: saying Bush lies for political purposes does not mean I support Hamas or the insurgents.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:18:24 pm
- standard bad jokes about Michael Jackson -
January 11th, 2006 at 1:30:04 pm
Nun -
You read the harshest interpretation of that line possible against Joe. Clearest meaning is NOT, I repeat, NOT exclusionary. “His” is possessive of the people, but not exclusionary to “His” having other people. If your having a problem understanding this, I can get you a copy of Webster’s.
“bully people into not expressing their opinions” = Supression. If you don’t think so, sorry, but that is plain meaning of your words.
And the problem with questioning the motivations of the Administration is two-fold:
1) What good will it do? Seriously, answer me this question. If some people are right, and all this was about oil, and Bush admits it, exactly what does this get us or move us to? How would this help the conflict in Iraq?
2) It was all about oil. Where’s the proof? It was all because of Israel. Where’s the proof? Everyone was misled. Where’s the proof? These half-assed arguments lack any standing in the face of the facts. These are fever swamp arguments, but are being advanced, not to help at all in the conflict in Iraq or War on Terror, but to hurt Bush. Period.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:50:57 pm
Nun -
And I think your misreading how I am looking at this. I want people to question the administration’s performance and abilities. Hell, even their competence if necessary. I have a good list of issues with the administration and would criticize them on a number of issues (Angrier, if you want a list, I’ll be happy to give, so long as I get a list from you of what’s pissing you off platform wise with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) up to and certainly including Iraq.
And the administration is swimming in criticism right now. Whether you think his remarks are bullying or not, does it really seem like to you that there is a chilling effect on anyone?
But Bush’s point, and I agree with it, is that a whole segment of the criticism is simply to bring Bush down. Not to help the situation in Iraq, not to catch Osama, not to fight the War on Terror. Bring Bush down. That’s their whole drive. And those who believe this are peddling these arguments without any substantiation.
They point to a good relationship with Sharon and scream, “SEE!” as if its a foregone conclusion, ignoring any contradictory evidence. They point to Bush’s previous ties to the Oil Industry screaming, “TOLD YA!” without bothering to even prove how these ties managed and influenced or what benefit they could gain, if any. They point to inaccurate and sloppy intelligence shouting, “ITS OBVIOUS”, without taking into account the lack of contradictory evidence or a Senate bi-partisan committee saying CIA groupthink caused these issues, not the administration which believed the data and analyst’s conclusions.
This is no different than the Clinton Haters of the ’90s. Bring down the President at all costs, regardless of any real benefit to the country or even the conservative cause, and regardless of any harm that might be done to both. Ignoring any contradictory evidence to outlandish conspiracy theories.
Yet somehow, your telling me these conspiracy theories are valid criticism. Well, whether they are valid or not is far from obvious, my opinion aside. But what is obvious is none of it is constructive or helpful criticism.
January 11th, 2006 at 2:17:02 pm
I quit responding to this thread yesterday. This is getting tiresome, even for me. Geez.
January 11th, 2006 at 2:36:53 pm
it would be less inane if it was funnier.
January 11th, 2006 at 2:51:10 pm
On the topic at hand, while it is debatable whether your view or Briandot’s is ‘correct’, I tend to lean toward Briandot, though not absolutely, for largely the reasons dcl put forth.
Briandot’s point, at worst, is quite valid, and it is an outrageous stretch to call him a “dipshit” for having put it forth.
Jazz, you misunderstand what drew my ire. The original point which drew me into the fray was Dane’s suggestion that we didn’t need a standing army to defeat the Nazis. My point was, it sure as hell would’ve helped, and who knows, maybe some Jews would’ve lived that otherwise didn’t. Brian’s counter was, I doubt it, but there’s no point arguing the counterfactuals of history. Well, if there’s no point in arguing the counterfactuals of history, with what are we left to analyze Dane’s citation of history that a standing army was not necessary to defeat the Nazis in support of his loose-lips suggestion that one might not be such a necessity today? Essentially, by ruling out what-ifs, Brian is saying I have no grounds to criticize Dane’s historical cite, but one cannot cite history without opening the door to what-ifs. As I cited above, the criticality of events cannot simply be stated, it must be shown by contrasting with what didn’t happen and why. As an example, look at your Socrates logic chain above. Without such a proposed chain, your room to label Socrates escape from the Athenian massacre at Delium as “miraculous” and an important, key event in history is severely diminished. Without “what-ifs”, there’s very little room to label any key event or happening as monumental or important; everything is just one atom colliding into another, with no chance for free will to change events and outcomes. History then is just a recantation of what happened, and provides no real lesson for humanity.
January 11th, 2006 at 3:21:28 pm
As confusing as Andrew’s comment is, he does have a valid point - I think, if I understood what he was trying to say correctly.
Just remember we are not in the stream we are the stream.
January 11th, 2006 at 3:21:51 pm
Andrew,
You make several good points in your post. However, I still feel like counterfactual history has only limited appeal due to lack of rigor.
Perhaps another example will illustrate my point better:
The Battle of Agincourt.
Famous English victory over the French in the 15th century, even though the English were outnumbered (and relied on more lightly armed archers).
The French foolishly relied on a columnar advance, which led to a stampede that pre-figured the Who concert and other modern mass crowd disasters.
Counterfactual question: what if the French had been more knowledgeable, and avoided their bizarre and awful fate?
Counterfactual answer: they weren’t, and that’s a key part of the story.
This is the crux of my resistance to your view:
Yes, you can argue that the what-ifs frame the story; however, much of the time the realities tell us even more (such as Agincourt).
The realities have the added advantage of being empirical and observable, as opposed to speculative.
To be clear, I am not dismissing your view, rather saying that I lean the other way.
January 11th, 2006 at 3:49:37 pm
Hmm, I think this thread is losing some steam. Questioning if it will break 200.
January 11th, 2006 at 3:52:14 pm
Mouse, we don’t PICK the people who serve, people choose to serve. What part of this do you not understand? How is it more fair, in any way, to FORCE people to serve?
So, you’re just for conscription because it would piss people off? How about just having the cops come around and whack people in the balls once a week?
Dane, I don’t think Laurence Chamberlain was a captian. LTC or COL, at least.
How do you justify conscription Mouse?
January 11th, 2006 at 3:53:02 pm
Shit, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? That dood from Maine. You know who I’m talking about.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:08:12 pm
Here. I’ll try to get it over 200…
Cindy Sheehan is a great American hero and should be nominated for the Nobel. Please discuss…
January 11th, 2006 at 4:11:13 pm
Thanks, couldn’t recall the name off the top of my head.
Lojo, just doing my part in the quest for 200
January 11th, 2006 at 4:48:03 pm
dcl - The effort is noted.
Angrier - If Arafat can win, I don’t doubt Sheehan would be a serious candidate.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:05:07 pm
Are meaningless comments allowed in the effort to get over 200?
January 11th, 2006 at 5:23:38 pm
Maybe Sheehan can win the Nobel Prize for Economics, given her opposition to a conflict that will be a massive tax burden for years to come?
(Shameless attempt to resuscitate a poorly-received argument from several dozen posts ago)
January 11th, 2006 at 5:24:16 pm
dcl- yes, see immediately above
January 11th, 2006 at 5:27:15 pm
Let me do my part:
There’s nothing easier than hating someone and then blaming that person for being “divisive”. Shrinks have a word for seeing one’s faults in others: PROJECTION (Mouse, I’m looking in your direction).
January 11th, 2006 at 6:04:54 pm
Joe, I think you should re phrase more clearly.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:41:57 pm
200? Who thinks it can go that high?
As for the nobel, Angrier, are you a professor? Depennding on your field, you could nominate her!
Yeah, could be two posts, but getting to 200 isn’t that important, even if this could be three posts.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:52:31 pm
Lojo and Joe Mama - isn’t it ironic that A Nun Mouse is in such a dark habit of quoting things that she, herself, apparently hasn’t even read …
“So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries.”
A reasonable request at pretty much any time in a genouine democracy or even in a representational republic …
SIGH !
January 11th, 2006 at 6:55:03 pm
Good lord, you people are still talking about this?
Ok, lets make this simple:
Cindy Sheehan is crazy, George Bush is evil. There, now both sides can be happy.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:57:55 pm
Jazz - congratulations ! You *almost* got me speechless !
“Famous English victory over the French in the 15th century, even though the English were outnumbered (and relied on more lightly armed archers).” {my bold}
So a group which had armour-piercing weaponry accurate at over 400 yards, who could have their 4th yard-long arrow in the air before the first had hit was “more lightly armed” … ???
If that’s “lightly armed”, what, back then, constituted “heavily armed” ?
OY !
January 11th, 2006 at 7:33:52 pm
I’m with David. Almost 200 posts!!! Is that a record?
January 11th, 2006 at 8:04:54 pm
“There’s nothing easier than hating someone and then blaming that person for being “divisive”. Shrinks have a word for seeing one’s faults in others: PROJECTION (Mouse, I’m looking in your direction).”
Holy Crap, Joe Mama! I thought you were talking about your treatment of Sheehan for a second there.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:09:02 pm
David-
I think it would be better if we said both Cindy Sheehan and George Bush are evil and crazy.
Speaking of evil and crazy, did you see the Alito fiasco today? Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves - both sides of the aisle. The childish partisan sniping in Congress has become ridiculous. If I didn’t know better, I’d say Congress has turned into www.brendanloy.com.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:36:22 pm
LOL . . . Sheehan leaves the competition in the dust for Idiotarian of the Year 2005:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-poll.php?pollName=idiotarian-of-2005-final1
January 11th, 2006 at 9:36:52 pm
Alisdair:
point conceded on Agincourt. I meant to say “lightly armored”, referencing of course combat in close quarters - in terms of actual ‘arms’, those archers were pretty bad ass for the 15th century.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:38:05 pm
Caught some of the Alito hearings. Even the casual observer will have to conclude that not every conservative judicial nominee is an unethical racist and sexist. Plus, when Kennedy is taking the lead on ethics issues, you know the confirmation is virtually airtight.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:48:35 pm
Max - I’m insulted. The message board here is FAR better informed than any one of the senators. From you, to Angrier, to me, to Brendan, to David.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:02:07 pm
almost there… should this comment even really count?
January 11th, 2006 at 10:25:09 pm
Number 200. AA, as it should be.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:28:34 pm
Some of the great moments in history:
Man setting foot on the Moon.
The fall of the Berlin Wall.
The 200th comment on Brendanloy.com
Now I can die.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:58:15 pm
The Battle of Agincourt.
Famous English victory over the French in the 15th century, even though the English were outnumbered (and relied on more lightly armed archers).
The French foolishly relied on a columnar advance, which led to a stampede that pre-figured the Who concert and other modern mass crowd disasters.
Interesting you note that battle. I actually saw a History Channel episode on that battle, in which it was fairly well documented how the French lost less because of the tactics or superior British armoury, and more because of the lay of the land where the battle took place. Had the battle been on flat, even land, the French would have almost surely won. The fact is, the number of archers the British had and the time it took to reload, with the amount of arrows each archer had, were far too weak and slow to have defeated the vastly larger French army, which was not completely vulnerable to the arrows (the program demonstrated they had sufficient defense armour and tactics to advance past the first rounds of arrows with minimal casualties, and the documentation shows that the vast number of French dead at Agincourt were not killed by arrows, but by sword/knife wounds). But it turns out that the angles of the hills there forced a narrowing of the column (or something like that) at the point of advancement. As the English circled around the rear, the French soldiers were forced into a narrower column stream too quickly (the example they used was of water atoms being forced through narrow passage ways, like a river narrowing, etc.), which led to the stampede and crushing of bodies, and allowed the English to sweep in and slaughter the hapless French. Very interesting episode. My details may be off slightly, but that was the gist of the show.
So the counterfactual question is: What does it suggest if geography and not French military tactics were to blame for the defeat? Maybe, our understanding of the period’s military tactics is flawed. And, fast forward to WWII, maybe the conclusion that we were not harmed by not having a standing army entering into WWII is flawed.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with my view, and I had no problem with Brian disagreeing with my view. The crux of my annoyance is based on the ignorance or hypocrisy of taking that particular point of view while calling oneself an subject matter expert.
Take another field: theology. Suppose a deist is in a deep discussion with a conservative Catholic theologian in an academic setting such as a seminary. Imagine then a naturalist or agnostic in the class joins the fray, attacks the logic of the Catholic theologian, and then moves on to conclude, “Blah, blah, bullshit. Your fantasizing about the nature and personhood of God is, quite frankly, stupid. There is no way to know that, and even what you speculated seems unlikely to me, since none of it can be proven. It’s all meaningless what-ifs.” Now, naturalism, agnosticism, or general skepticism of the metaphysical is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint for one to hold. However, what the hell is said naturalist/agnostic doing even arguing theology then? He should recuse himself from the discussion, and from the seminary, because he has exactly nothing to add to the discussion. If you believe history is simply atoms and forces running into each other, and decisions and what-ifs have little bearing or contextual meaning, then why waste everyone’s time by studying history? Anyone can memorize facts, but that’s not what history’s about. Anyone can observe that there is no apparent physical evidence to support the existence of a metaphysical realm, so if that’s one’s belief, why call oneself a theologian? You have no standing in the field, because your point of view is that it is all meaningless, unprovable conjecture. Choose another field and don’t waste the time and energy of those who believe in the legitimacy of their field.
I’d treat Mike the same way if, after his repeated scornings of the social science methods, he resorted to social science to prove a point, and then retreated back to his original position that social science is flawed and misguided methodology incapable of producing the results or discovering the truth/facts it intends to measure and analyze. Frankly, you’d have to be a dipshit to have that kind of gall.
January 11th, 2006 at 11:36:02 pm
I don’t scorn the social sciences methods, Andrew. I scorn researchers who don’t understand the difference between causation and correlation, and who don’t recognize the difference between support and confirm. It just happens that I’m more likely to encounter that in social science papers than in the natural science ones. I freely admit that I think you’re more likely to learn something with predictive ability in the natural sciences than in the social sciences, but that’s not the same thing as scorning the latter.
January 12th, 2006 at 3:56:53 am
All Ass Dare,
Yes, Bush was using his ploy to bolster and charge up his “base” for the upcoming election.
Does that mean he wasn’t trying to paint people who doubt the Bush administration’s reasons for going to war as unpatriotic?
It isn’t an either/or proposition.
You’re dumber than I thought.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:13:05 am
Lojo,
You want proof for potential other reaons for the war. Yet you never question the use of WMD as a reason…
I could run through the list of reasons why WMD was a horrible justification. I knew intuitively that they would never find any.
My favorite reason is the story about Colin Powell, who, before he gave his speech to the U.N., was reported to have thrown his speech up in the air and yelled, “This is bullshit! I’m not reading this.”
All the stories about the “unmanned drones” ready to fly over the US and spray anthrax (disappeared), the aluminum tubes which were meant for nuclear extraction (El Baradai said and was shown to be right that they were never meant for that purpose)…), the Niger story which has lead to one indictment and may lead to more (The documents originated in Italy under the Berlusconi government), the unfound “tons of biological materials,” the missing chemical weapons, etc. etc.
Or how about how immediately after 9/11, Bush wanted Clarke to look for a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? Or how about even before 9/11 a Neo Conservative group wrote a paper encouraging the invasion of Iraq or removal of Saddam? Project for a New American Century (PNAC) wrote the paper back in the late 1990s. PNAC has included such illustrious members as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Lewis Libby, some of whom co-authored the above paper.
But you dont see any proof that oil might be one of the factors driving the intertest in Iraq? You do know we have an oil based economy and oil is going to be running out, right? There’s just no real reply to make you examine the facts.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:34:44 am
A question here. If someone considers “patriot” and it’s various forms to be an insult, should they get upset if their ‘patriotism’ is questioned?
January 12th, 2006 at 4:41:39 am
Of course oil is one of the deciding factors in going into Iraq. It’s just not the ONLY factor.
Oil is a pretty good reason all by itself, depending on what you mean by “it’s all about the oil”.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:43:06 am
Nun -
For me, at least, WMD was only part of the factor on whether we invaded or not. My mind was not made up on the WMD issue, but, even with a large volume of the WMD intelligence now found inaccurate, I still would have supported going in.
But again, you didn’t answer my questions:
“Seriously, answer me this question. If some people are right, and all this was about oil, and Bush admits it, exactly what does this get us or move us to? How would this help the conflict in Iraq and/or the War on Terror?”
But you say we’re an oil based economy so that is proof that we went in for oil. That’s not proof, thats just innuendo.
OH, and on the whole connections to Terrorism item, read this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
January 12th, 2006 at 10:46:46 am
shall we go for 300?
January 12th, 2006 at 11:15:31 am
“I knew intuitively that they would never find any [WMDs].”
“My favorite reason is the story about Colin Powell, who, before he gave his speech to the U.N., was reported to have thrown his speech up in the air and yelled, ‘This is bullshit! I’m not reading this.’”
Reported by who? MY favorite is CIA Director George Tenet telling Bush that WMD in Iraq was a “slam dunk” case, which was reported by just about everyone, including Bob Woodward. I guess it all depends on whose opinion you should believe.
“All the stories about the ‘unmanned drones’ ready to fly over the US and spray anthrax (disappeared),”
Don’t remember those.
“the aluminum tubes which were meant for nuclear extraction (El Baradai said and was shown to be right that they were never meant for that purpose)”
Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have in fact been used for that purpose. Iran just said they removed the UN seals on various equipment only for the purpose of generating nuclear enegy, not nuclear weapons. If you believe that, I know of some nat’l monuments you may be interested in purchasing, Mouse.
“the Niger story which has lead to one indictment and may lead to more (The documents originated in Italy under the Berlusconi government)”
Every authority that has looked into that story, including the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report and the Robb/Silverman report, have said that Wilson’s findings in fact SUPPORTED the assertion by the British gov’t — WHICH THEY STILL STAND BY — that Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake from Niger, and that Wilson himself was LYING when he said his wife played no part in getting him the assignment. In other words, everything the WH said about Wilson was TRUE, and everything Wilson was spewing in the NYTimes was FALSE. Moreover, the Butler report in Britain confirmed that the assertion by British intelligence about Iraq and Nigerian yellowcake (and hence Bush’s reliance on it) was “well founded.” As a matter of simple logic, since Niger’s exports consist almost exclusively of uranium and animal dung, what do you think an Iraqi trade emissary to Nigeria is interested in? But forget all that Mouse . . . BOOSH IS BAD! ME NO LIKEY BOOSH!
“Or how about how immediately after 9/11, Bush wanted Clarke to look for a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?”
Shit, if Bush DIDN’T look for such a connection he’d be derelict in his duty as CIC. Thank god people who think like you do aren’t in power, Mouse.
“Or how about even before 9/11 a Neo Conservative group wrote a paper encouraging the invasion of Iraq or removal of Saddam?”
So f*ckin what? The foreign policy of the U.S. has been regime change in Iraq ever since Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998. Sorry to say, Mouse, some of us have memories . . .
“But you dont see any proof that oil might be one of the factors driving the intertest in Iraq?”
Looking at oil prices post-invasion, the effect on gas prices, and the obvious political detriment to an incumbent of said prices, the facts are distinctly against such infantile bumpersticker sloganeering that’s based on nothing but impugned motives.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:16:15 am
Andrew,
Well played on the history front. Too bad these posts are coming at injury time during an ancient thread.
First, I disagree with the conclusion that lack of expertise is a basis for not throwing out opinions here. I would guess that Mike would not get involved with a theology discussion, but if he did, it would be far from the strangest thing we’ve seen back here. IMO, throwing out thoughts, attendant with hostility and venom, is part of the fun - even if 99% of it is crap, occasionally a gem squeezes in, and the whole exercise is low-impact anyway (except for the health impact of too much hostility).
I also don’t agree that ‘factual’ history is just memorization of facts. Facts are known, yes, but interpretation is key.
Now, speaking of ‘lack of expertise’, my knowledge of historical inquiry largely comes from
being a science grad student and drinking frequently with a couple of guys from the history department. I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
(Unnecessary) caveat aside, here’s something to consider for why factual history is interesting enough to make counterfactual history unnecessary.
Go back to Socrates’ unfathomable survival at Delium.
Here are several facts that arguably occured because of that very odd incident:
1) Plato became a philosopher
2) Plato met Socrates
3) Socrates was put to death 25 years later, largely driven by “incited” masses
4) Plato wrote the Republic in response to Socrates’ death, in which Plato said the masses were idiots and didn’t deserve enfranchisement.
5) For 1500 years thereafter, successive kings, popes, and potentates pointed to the Republic as convincing evidence that the people needed to be ruled with an iron fist
6) The dark ages happened and lasted a really long time.
Those aren’t really the “facts”, they’re kind of a skeleton outline of the story, but about what you might expect a student studying “Intro to Greek History” might learn.
As should be immediately obvious, beyond those facts are a million questions, some of which are of the “what if?” type, in the “what if Socrates died like he should have?” -
- but there are plenty of “why” as in “why the hell did the people gang up on Socrates? Why was Plato so harsh? Why was Plato so influential? What was the cause of Socrates’ fame? Was it his survival at Delium? How did that impact the views of civic leaders in a sinking, stinking Athens?” and on and on and on to fill several libraries, if they haven’t already.
Or use the Hitler example. Did Hitler exterminate 6 million Jews because he hated them? Or was it because he was fighting a war on two fronts and needed ’sub-human’ labor to support the military machine? Or both?
The massacre in the Warsaw ghetto would support the former explanation.
Auschwitz supports the latter.
Even before we get to “what would have happened if the US had come earlier?” we can spend several years, lifetimes, trying to understand what drove history as it actually happened.
The Holocaust is a cold hard fact.
Understanding it? Not so clear cut, even without resorting to counterfactuals.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:16:58 am
“I knew intuitively that they would never find any [WMDs].”
I meant to say that I, too, won every game I monday morning-quarterbacked.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:20:21 am
And incidentally, Mouse, the Italian documents that were but one piece of evidence supporting the Iraq-Niger connection, which Wilson claimed to have debunked, were not known to be forgeries until 8 or 9 months AFTER Wilson penned his self-serving bullshit in the NYTimes.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:05:13 pm
Wasn’t the pre-war lefty consensus that we were going to plant the WMDs and ‘find’ them right away?
And I ask again. If you have someone who considers ‘patriot’ a dirty word, should they be complaining if their patriotism is questioned?
I don’t think we’re going to hit 300.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:16:17 pm
To hit 300, we need a subject shift. Hmmmm. I know!!
Let’s commend Ted Kennedy’s bravery and patriotism as he fulfills his senatorial duty along with Joe Biden by making Alito’s wife cry.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:24:21 pm
The problem is, who really gives a shit if his wife cries or not, this isn’t about her. I don’t think that will take us to 300…
But I’ll do my part in making pointless comments.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:44:50 pm
A Nun Mouse at 3:01 AM - from *you*, I accept your last sentence as a compliment !
Of course, if you ever start to agree with me, I’ll have to question my own rationality …
Joe Mama - thank you for being thorough !
Andrew - Agincourt has been rethought and simulation-refought many times … and the versions which downplay the significance of the ‘Yeomen Archers) Longbowmen are usually from those who have never seen a skilled longbowman in action … if you hand me such a bow and arrow, you are most likely safe anywhere more than about 10-15 feet away from me … in skilled hands, with the eyesight and dexterity and experience of such a bowman, you would not be safe 1200 feet away …
It is well-known and well-accepted that most at Agincourt died from sword/knife wounds … and that is almost as meaningful as saying that most at Agincourt died when their heart stopped …
The yard-long arrow was armour-piercing in skiled hands … its effectiveness when it did penetrate an armoured horseman was often magnified by the subsequent jiggling around of the arrowhead in the torso by the movements of the horse - resulting in additional tearing of veins, arteries, and potentially significant muscle … such wounds were often sufficiently severe that all that could be done for the person so wounded would be to administer the coup de grace - surprise, surprise - a killing by knife or sword …
Equally truthful yet potentially misleading is the assertion that there were not enough archers to make a difference against the larger French army … which carefully ignores two facts … 1) They *were* enough* to make a significant difference - that is recorded in history … 2) The archers didn’t have to defeat the entire French army - they just had to sufficiently weaken the strength and morale of the heavily-armoured mounted forces so that the footsoldiers would not have to sorry about them - and that’s what they did …
(grin) I may be such a klutz, myself, that I would not have made a good archer, but I also know how effective a seemingly small group of highly-skilled archers can do when opposing armour cannot protect the archers’ opponents … between actual wounding/killing and the hit those do to the morale of the opponents, and if the archers are positioned such that the opponents cannot easily get into melÈe contact with the archers, so that the archers can take that little bit longer to aim carefully,
January 12th, 2006 at 12:49:14 pm
SEE - I said I was a klutz ! (SIGH) …
… 50 arrows may take 25 or more opponents out of the fight …
What many military historians miss is that many bowmen became so skilled because their food supply depended on it … and they had to craft their own arrows … so they had to be very careful to have each arrow count … combine that with the fact that the archer’s very survival depended on his opponents NOT being able to survive long enough to get to the archer, and you get powerful incentive for accuracy and effectiveness …
January 12th, 2006 at 1:19:48 pm
dcl -
I bet you were the kind of guy who told the people decrying McCarthy to grow some thicker skin, eh?
I give a shit if a confirmation process is so ugly that it is causing family memebers to break down, senators implicitly and explicity calling a nominee a bigot. And for the most specious of reasons with no way to back their claims.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:22:35 pm
Q: How does one tell when a thread is “done”?
A: When Alasdair sticks a fork in it.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:25:08 pm
“Wasn’t the pre-war lefty consensus that we were going to plant the WMDs and ‘find’ them right away?”
Actually, I remember much or the pre-war lefty consensus, to the extent there was one other than the silly “all war is bad” and childish “bush is eeeeeevil”, was that we shouldn’t invade BECAUSE Saddam might then use his WMDs.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:26:07 pm
Politics is an ugly business… but look, we’ve come full circle on this one.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:40:46 pm
Two words.
Chappaquiddick.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:42:22 pm
The whole thread was based on assigning David Letterman some kind of “moral authority” to speak for the media.
No one in the news media accorded Sheehan the kind of “moral authority” that the author of this blog claims she was given.
Well, okay, David Letterman and the Village Voice, a very liberal weekly newspaper from a liberal area of New York City, like Cindy….
I guess Brendan feels intimidated by these guys.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:55:57 pm
Threadbare, that’s old news. Next you will be talking about JFK’s affair.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:07:17 pm
Nun -
“No one in the news media accorded Sheehan the kind of “moral authority” that the author of this blog claims she was given.”
Nun, Sheehan is a household name because the media pushed her story. Where is the critique of her claims? Of what she said. They treated her with kid gloves while other groups, some the opposite of Sheehan, support the war in Iraq after having lost children in it, were ignored or marginalized.
Her sheer recognizability and media fawning going on over her demonstrating how much moral authority the media accord her.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:09:26 pm
dcl -
Politics is an ugly business, agreed. But Alito is NOT a politician. He is a jurist. And he should be measured on his credentials as a JURIST. Should he not?
If this was a politician in Alito’s seat, it would not bother me near as much as it has with a jurist who is having to answer, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a conservative?”
January 12th, 2006 at 2:48:13 pm
This
thread
must
DIE
Two more posts to put it below the fold, lets see what I can dig up ;-)
January 12th, 2006 at 2:54:26 pm
David -
Just curious, but how come no post on the Supreme Hearings? Rather surprised what with the legal brain matter running around website (not sarcasm).
January 12th, 2006 at 2:54:43 pm
Lojo, thinking that the courts and judges are not political is silly. This is an ugly business Alito and his wife knew that getting in. In the case of judges, one side blows sunshine up your as while the other side rams a hot poker up it. This is not new.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:56:30 pm
SWM,45, looking for love. No druggies or fatties. Pls respond to Box 451D.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:57:03 pm
Come one David, we only need 70 more comments to break 300…. help us out here before we sink below the fold and into oblivion.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:57:03 pm
Come one David, we only need 70 more comments to break 300…. help us out here before we sink below the fold and into oblivion.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:57:36 pm
Now here’s a topic worthy of 73 posts, if 300 is meaningful to you:
In a world where all war becomes guerilla war, wouldn’t you just torture all prisoners by default?
For perspective, I was watching The Thin Red Line on HBO last night. For those that have seen the movie, recall the scene where the Americans capture the bunker halfway into Guadalcanal.
They have several Japanese prisoners, who would qualify for the soon-to-be-enacted Geneva Convention.
However, the Americans know that there are more Japanese further in the jungle. Maybe the guys they caught know where the rest of their fellows are hiding?
Would you torture a bona fide enemy combatant in that case?
Seems as though you might, given the ground rules by which we fight wars in the 21st century.
A cautionary thought for anyone wishing to take up arms - the Geneva Convention may be on its last legs. Don’t get caught by the enemy friends, make sure your cyanide packet is in your cheek…
January 12th, 2006 at 3:14:08 pm
“No one in the news media accorded Sheehan the kind of ‘moral authority’ that the author of this blog claims she was given.”
You’re shitting me Mouse, right? What color is the sky on your planet?
January 12th, 2006 at 3:14:36 pm
David is really working hard to get this off the home page. Come on everyone, pull together now and lets get to 300.
January 12th, 2006 at 3:15:22 pm
Okay, that’s enough, children! No more comments or I’m turning this blog around and you’ll spend summer vacation at home!
January 12th, 2006 at 3:17:04 pm
oh yeah
January 12th, 2006 at 3:17:25 pm
And what are you going to do about it?
January 12th, 2006 at 3:24:35 pm
For those interested in useless statistics, this comment thread has approximately 28193 words.
January 12th, 2006 at 3:56:58 pm
Joe Mama,
No I’m not shitting you…
As I’ve said over and over….(..and will probably say around another 40 times or so just to make dci happy and get this thread over 300 posts…)…what made Sheehan so “newsworthy” was the mainly conservative enviroment in the media that Bush and Company have generated, i.e. the need for a liberal with the right “street cred” for the conservatives and the media to actually NOTICE them.
Gee, who are the only two anti-war and/or “bring the troops home” advocates that the media has noticed? Murtha, a vet, and Sheehan, a mom with a dead son from Iraq….
THE REST JUST DONT COUNT.
January 12th, 2006 at 3:59:13 pm
dci
How many words now?
Maybe I should insult All Ass Dare aka “Alasdair”?
I’m considering re-nicknaming him “Rock Boy Only Dumber”….
If I insult him, maybe he’ll respond, thus getting a twofer on my single post?
January 12th, 2006 at 4:02:02 pm
dci
And what’s the deadline for the 300th post?
Do we have to reach 300 before the post drops off the main page??
And are you going to compile how many posts each person has and what percentage of the total posts they have?
What about a percentage of the total words ech person has? That way we can figure out which of us is the most verbose know-it-all…
WHAT SAY YOU??
January 12th, 2006 at 4:03:00 pm
Well, I’ve done my share.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:05:13 pm
I hadn’t really thought it through that much.
I think we are just unlikely to get comments after it leaves the home page.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:05:43 pm
It would seem this thread has jumped the shark…
well most would say it did that long ago…
January 12th, 2006 at 4:22:43 pm
Lojo,
To answer your question, although i do post frequently, since I’m a guestblogger I don’t post on everything Brendan might, although I have tried to cover things in his absence he might otherwise post.
I hadn’t really thought about posting about the Alito hearings myself, although there are a good number of law school types on the blog, i’m not one of them, so my interest in it is only cursory.
January 12th, 2006 at 4:51:41 pm
Just for shits and giggles, on a post long since dead, how about riling everyone up on the topic that angers everyone more than any other?
That provocative piece of crap Arianna Huffington is linked to the following article from NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/international/middleeast/12iraq.html?ex=1294722000&en=e03041049e4d745e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The article says that, in spite of many promises to the contrary, the Shiites reneged on power sharing with the Sunnis (surprise!), so the Sunnis are on their own, stuck in a desert…
The classic Dr. Strangelove line is the opening sentence of the final paragraph:
“Desperate to deflate the Sunni-dominated insurgency, United States officials are pushing Shiites to accept constitutional changes…”
Interpreted, that means:
The US, in attempting to ‘win’ a war by means of suppressing an ethnic insurgency, now appear to be saber-rattling with?
Their opponents’…
…opponents…
Now military history is another area I’m no expert in, but the primary reason I oppose the status quo in Iraq is this:
When y’all say “see it through”, what exactly is the “it” you are referring to?
January 12th, 2006 at 5:14:28 pm
Jazz - is it not written that Iraq currently does not have a status quo - at least until they get their elected government up and running and in-charge ?
Joe Mama - interesting how even the two that Santa Rodentetta don’t count, either, isn’t it ?
January 12th, 2006 at 5:34:03 pm
Now Alasdair, you full well know I meant “status quo” as in “war as currently prosecuted”
With that friends, this thread is 1/4 of the way finished
January 12th, 2006 at 7:13:07 pm
I hope you are happy. Your partisan bickering caused Mrs. Alito to cry!
January 12th, 2006 at 7:38:22 pm
Jazz - conventionally, status quo refers to something stable, often (but not always) desirable …
A situation in flux, such as Iraq, doesn’t quite qualify for that concept …
Plus, isn’t it more a ‘war as currently under sentencing consideration’ ?
January 12th, 2006 at 7:39:09 pm
Jazz, it’s awfully soon to be making such formal announcements when the elected Iraqis are still bickering over the formation of their government. They have yet to appoint a president, or prime minister, or anything along those lines. No majority coalition yet exists. Some things in this world, well, take time.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:14:14 pm
Alisdair and Andrew, I could not resist. I could not resist continuing to argue back here in the netherworld of non-entitiness.
I looked it up on dictionary.com, and they say that status quo means “the existing condition or state of affairs”.
As I interpret it, any noun/noun phrase, including “US Army”, “US War Effort in Iraq”, “Spirit of Cooperation among Iraqis” would qualify for a status quo.
Still sticking with my view that continuation of the “status quo” for “US War Effort in Iraq” would be not a good thing.
To your comment Andrew, is it accurate to say that you believe that continuation of the “status quo” of “spirit of cooperation among Iraqis” will lead to positive results?
Not that the NYT article is the final word, by any means, but it would certainly appear that Iraq is headed in the wrong direction.
I am willing to be patient.
As long as things are moving in the right direction.
(Parenthetical aside: one pet peeve is the counterpoint argument to al-Hakim’s disturbing comments that says, for example, “Things are going great in Iraq, irrespective of al-Hakim’s anti-Sunni sentiments. American soldiers are building roads and schools”.
All for roads and schools. Doesn’t Habitat For Humanity build schools too, at much lower cost to the taxpayer?)
Hey! This is fun. Continuing to argue below the fold, long after the thread died seems sort of rebellious.
Almost a bit naughty, really.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:45:33 pm
Jazz - because I am a gentleman (well, some of the time, at least), I will not address you by replacing an “a” in *your* ID on here with an “i”, the way you have done more than once with *my* ID on here ! (grin)
January 12th, 2006 at 8:50:55 pm
There’s something else that is not discussed nearly enough in the context of Iraq (and this is no place to start).
Vietnam: 58,000 dead
142,000 missing and wounded
Wounded = 2.5X dead
Iraq: 2,200 dead
16,000 wounded
Wounded = 7.5X dead
So y’all can say, well, keep the faith and stay the course and I’m with the President, all of which feel good but mean nothing.
However, when an architect of the war such as Donald Rumsfeld says that the insurgency has at least a decade left in it…when does this end?
Heh, you may reply, fight on brave soldiers!
Suppose we do just that for another, I don’t know four years, and then get sick of it and unilaterally install a Sunni to rule the country (British model).
Though we could attempt to install the Sunni today (on a shorter leash), and go home, instead in four years we’ll get ____ more deaths and 8X that number seriously wounded.
Maybe - 10,000 more deaths and 80,000 more wounded?
And as underreported in the media those 80,000 will be very very wounded, much more so than in previous wars. Many would have been fatalities of prior wars (see the Vietnam ratio above), but in this case they will live on with 3rd degree burns over large parts of their bodies, serious brain injuries, etc.
Much more so than in previous wars, many of the wounded in Iraq will be left with staggering suffering. There has been staggering suffering in previous wars to be sure, but never on this scale as a result of the saving “grace” of modern technology.
I completely understand the argument, well, the professional military supports the war! The issue of a professional standing military has been beaten to death. I simply propose that if you asked any of those soldiers if they still supported the war if it meant a lifetime of dealing with third degree burns over a large part of the body -
- and somehow let em try it out? -
ain’t none of em would say it is worth it.
So I am against the continuation of the status quo for financial reasons, that’s my crass side, but also because I am worried about what will happen to our troops who will suffer so much more so than their surviving brethren of previous wars.
In conclusion, if you really believed that whatever we are fighting for is worth it, that somehow Iraq and the middle east will be remade positively because of all this, then you must do so in the face of the extensive suffering that many soldiers will carry around with them for many years to come.
So don’t say you support the war because you think the democratic ideal is a beautiful dream, and cause like you know freedom isn’t free, and god bless the usa and all that -
- say you support it in spite of the terrible toll of human suffering it will inflict on a proportionally unprecedented number of our brave soldiers.
But you know I am against the status quo, so I must be anti our troops :(!
January 12th, 2006 at 8:51:49 pm
Alasdair - noted.
Apologies.
January 12th, 2006 at 9:40:21 pm
Jazz - interesting numbers …
Try these …
960+ dead (homicides) in a major US urban area last year … and that’s just in one such area …
The troops are *safer* in Iraq !
January 12th, 2006 at 10:36:38 pm
Jazz –
With respect to the following:
“*Plato doesn’t write the Republic, which serves as a strong basis of Western thought, complete with the view that common folk are unwashed masses undeserving of democracy.
*Western Civilization doesn’t have to wait 2,000 years for the enlightenment.
*Flowering of democratic principles in ancient Rome leads to an explosion of science, etc.
*Industrial Revolution happens in 300 AD.
*Personal computers are invented in 500 AD.”
“4) Plato wrote the Republic in response to Socrates’ death, in which Plato said the masses were idiots and didn’t deserve enfranchisement.
5) For 1500 years thereafter, successive kings, popes, and potentates pointed to the Republic as convincing evidence that the people needed to be ruled with an iron fist
6) The dark ages happened and lasted a really long time.”
Are you seriously arguing that Plato is directly responsible for the Dark Ages? Seems kind of difficult, given that his text was “lost” to Europe for the Dark Ages, and it was the Transmission of ancient learning, including Plato, from the Arabs to the West in the 12th century that sparked the Rennaissance, and subsequently the Enlightenment:
“One of the characteristics of the Middle Ages was reliance on authority and on scholastic commentaries on writings of Plato and other historically important philosophers, rather than accessing their original works. In fact, Plato’s original writings were essentially lost to western civilization until their reintroduction in the twelfth century through the agency of Arab scholars who had maintained the original Greek texts of the ancients. These were eventually translated into Latin and later, into the local vernacular. Only in the Renaissance, with the general resurgence of interest in classical civilization, did knowledge of Plato’s philosophy become more widespread. Many of the greatest early modern scientists (e.g., Galileo) and artists (with the support of the Plato-inspired Lorenzo de Medici) who broke with Scholasticism and fostered the flowering of the Renaissance saw Plato’s philosophy as the basis for progress in the arts and sciences.”
http://www.malaspina.org/home.asp?topic=./search/details&lastpage=./search/results&ID=19
At best, *if* the Republic is responsible for the Dark Ages, it is only indirectly so, based on second-hand misinterpretation and misunderstanding of its meaning. (For example, the Republic does NOT stand for the proposition that “the masses were idiots and didn’t deserve enfranchisement.”)
January 12th, 2006 at 10:49:10 pm
Brian, as said earlier, I come by my knowledge of history less honestly than you.
My Plato is admittedly a bit rusty, and in any event the contention that “the masses were idiots” is me taking the strong license that the blog tends to forgive.
As the father of Western thought, I think it is reasonable to suppose that Plato’s view of the polity, as set forth in the Republic, became the dominant Western view, whether the masses - or even kings - appropriately read Plato.
The idea of self-governance and enfranchisement is recent (corresponding to the enlightenment), and Plato is certainly one key contributor to the notion that the populace needs to be ruled with an iron hand.
Nevertheless, I do believe that your post supports my larger point, that historical interpretation is interesting enough in its own right that we needn’t resort to counterfactuals.
If this thread weren’t dead, and there were more interest, we could probably generate a pretty compelling discussion without resorting to “what ifs”.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:50:50 pm
Brian - a random clip from the link you posted:
“Plato has all the while been describing the ideal state, ruled by philosopher-kings, a qualification of which is that they are in regular intercourse with the Form of the Good.”
This is essentially my point about Plato’s view of the polity.
Not so ideal as it turned out.
January 13th, 2006 at 12:29:09 am
Oh and Alasdair,
You know I have respect for your respect for the dead by keeping this beast alive.
Still, your email address appears to be a mathematical reference. Are you a mathematician?
You said the troops were safer in Iraq, but that likely was in jest, if you are a mathematician you couldn’t possibly mean that.
Cause you might figure that, if the US keeps up this Iraq thing for another four years or so, that might mean, let’s say 1.5 replacement cycles of the current 160,000 troops. Call it 400,000 total soldiers serving before we give up the quest.
Referring back to my prior post, which showed that the rate of injury in Vietnam was 2.5x fatalities, while Iraq is 7.5x fatalities, you might conclude that the difference are essentially significantly wounded who would have died on the field if not for advances in technology.
If you assume 90,000 casualties (dead and wounded) yet to occur, the math works out to about 25,000 additional grievous injuries (that would have been deaths in Vietnam). The 25,000 is the difference in the 7.5 to 1 and 2.5 to 1 ratios for 90,000 total casualties.
25,000 additional significant injuries (call it 40,000 total significant injuries, when you add the people that would also have been grievously injured in Vietnam?) out of 400,000 total troops would mean that you have a 10% chance of suffering a significant injury that permanently affects you, for those yet to serve in Iraq.
At those odds, I’d feel safer in the worst part of the worst US city at the worst time of day.
And in an unnecessary burst of seriousness, it is precisely that the situation in Iraq in fact IS so much more perilous than the worst US city, that the troops are risking so much (not instant death, mind you, which is often merciful by comparison to what some of the heroes are returning with), that we owe them a more serious discussion of this war than the flag-waving cheese we tend to be fed by all wings of the MSM.
(All of which you certainly knew as evidenced by your email address! :)
January 13th, 2006 at 6:47:56 am
Jazz -
“Much more so than in previous wars, many of the wounded in Iraq will be left with staggering suffering. There has been staggering suffering in previous wars to be sure, but never on this scale as a result of the saving “grace” of modern technology.”
I’m not looking for a fight, and logically that reasoning is sound, but your tone and message seem quite morally repugnant.
“Damn that modern technology for saving lives that would normally be lost!!”
January 13th, 2006 at 7:13:01 am
Lojo -
Your observation is conceded.
I have not suffered a ‘grievous injury’ (!), so I assume it is always better to live when so stricken (thanks, technology).
Nevertheless, to paraphrase the Beatles,
“Boy(s), you’re gonna carry that weight a long time”.
Irrespective of whether it were better to die, the long-term survival of the seriously injured needs to be part of the Iraq war calculus; I think you would agree that thus far such a topic is rarely addressed.
January 13th, 2006 at 7:25:28 am
Lojo,
One other thought - maybe you and I can take a field trip to Walter Reed, and we can ask one of our troops who has been hit with an IED, with 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 80% of his body, how he feels about the saving grace of modern technology.
To your point, 20 years hence he might agree. But he will suffer immensely to get there.
Fighting for us.
So we better be DAMN sure that he is really fighting for our interests, and not just fighting for empty sloganeering.
What worries me about this war, and this blog, is that the proposal “we are fighting to make Iraq secure” is floated as a reason to ask that soldier to carry that unfathomable painful burden.
No.
Either multiply force levels by 3-4X and quash the insurgency (re-insert a Sunni government), or pull up and go home.
The status quo is vicious.
January 13th, 2006 at 8:42:34 am
Okay - I promise maybe I’ll stop.
One last thing - someone could say,
“Okay, Jazz, I get that the $430+ ($860+ for couples) per year forever is a high price to pay. And the unprecedented incidence of suffering for our troops is a high price to pay”
“But we can’t send the wrong message to the terrorists”.
Ah - but we already are.
We are gradually stepping down our forces to insure that a Shiite/Iranian friendly government will dominate Iraq.
Yes, the secure Iraq to emerge will quite likely mirror their buddies to the East, as the al-Hakim quote showed. Maybe not best friends, but surely brothers.
So, you’re okay with the great expense, and the great cost in soldier suffering, all in the interest of “sending a message” to our enemies? Well, we’re propping our enemies up. I was thinking that maybe the current message might describe the US via a certain word Andrew is fond of.
Here’s the issue:
You may say
“I’m uncomfortable paying so much for this thing”
“I’m uncomfortable with the amount our soldiers will have to suffer”
“I’m uncomfortable doing so to put a theocratic Shiite government in place”
BUT -
To say so would be to ‘protest’
which would make you a ‘protestor’
and that is exactly the problem.
Cause if you’re some young professional, “protestor” is synonymous with “Joan Baez grain and berry-eating mf’er”, right?
I mean, when someone with the tagline “A Nun Mouse” comes out against the war, don’t you imagine her having long stringy gray hair, swaying to a Joni Mitchell soundtrack?
In my case, you know I’m male, but you probably envision some bald, long haired f’er who smokes a pipe and wears Western shirts. Turns out not to be true, though some might think that’s an improvement! :)
I wonder what it would take for this generation to move beyond the wretched stigma of ‘protestor’ associated with distasteful impressions of the prior generation, and start to simply advocate for better decisions by our government?
Not sure of the answer.
January 13th, 2006 at 8:58:24 am
I meant “bald, pony-tailed” - but you might envision “bald, long-haired” too…its Friday after all…
January 13th, 2006 at 11:46:08 am
Try these …
960+ dead (homicides) in a major US urban area last year … and that’s just in one such area …
The troops are *safer* in Iraq !
BZZZT WRONG!!
This argument is so dumb its barely worth mentioning but as a mathematician I am honor bound to do so.
Raw number of deaths tells us NOTHING about saftey. Number of deaths relative to the size of the population is far more interesting.
If i live in a town of 200 people say, and there are 50 murders in one year, and you live in a town of 200,000 people and there are 5,000 murders in a year guess which one of us is safest? Its not the person living where there are only 50 murders, since thats a 1/4 chance of being killed, where as you have a 1/40 chance.
BTW, what urban area has almost a thousand homocides? I tried doing a google search for homocide stats, but came up empty (King County, which houses Seattle, Redmond, etc had 76 homocides last year fyi)
January 13th, 2006 at 1:53:10 pm
Jazz -
“One other thought - maybe you and I can take a field trip to Walter Reed, and we can ask one of our troops who has been hit with an IED, with 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 80% of his body, how he feels about the saving grace of modern technology.”
Any damn day of the week if you’ll pick up travel expenses. And while there, lets go ahead and ask how they feel about the war while at it.
I’m sorry if I find it foolish presumptous to speak for soldiers wounded in combat to say for them they’d rather be dead.
Now granted, your right. There will be suffering involved, but the whole argument that medicinal technology has advanced to where it is saving people where it should probably let them die due to sufferring runs counter to the whole purpose and mindset of medicinal technology.
January 13th, 2006 at 2:22:42 pm
Lojo-
Not “rather been dead”
Rather “rather not have gone”
As in “fighting to make Iraq secure for the establishment of an extremist theocratic government is not worth the massive suffering I will endure for the next 10-20 years”.
To be clear, the argument is NOT that medical technology should be avoided -
- by the Hippocratic oath, and all moral means, we should do everything in our power to save all the soldiers we can.
That is without question!
The issue, I repeat, is that because our duty will see to the saving of far more soldiers than in the past, that means
the suffering quotient in this war will be much higher than those in the past.
Problem with that? A little frustrated by your counterpoint, since I never remotely argued that there was something morally questionable about saving all the wounded we can.
Let me reiterate: THE FACT THAT IT IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE TO SAVE ALL THE SOLDIERS WE CAN, COUPLED WITH THE INCREASE IN TECHNOLOGY, MEANS MORE GREVIOUSLY WOUNDED WILL BE SAVED -
and consequently the suffering quotient will be much higher.
Sorry to yell; however, these are serious consequences to take into account when deciding on this war, again, I question how many people have considered them in coming out in rah rah support for the war.
January 13th, 2006 at 2:27:09 pm
Or, Lojo, concise (for once):
When faced with the unpleasant reality of many brave soldiers suffering immensely as a result of this war, an evil (I suppose) argument might be to avoid the suffering by not saving them.
Here’s another way to avoid the suffering: stop fighting.
January 13th, 2006 at 3:38:01 pm
Jazz @ 1:32 PM - yet that leads one to the quintessential conundrum - which is more evil -
To see an evil, and people suffering, and do nothing to correct it ?
or
To see the evil, and correct it, even while bringing suffering to a different group ?
January 13th, 2006 at 3:41:57 pm
Jazz @ 8:03 AM - well, I’m of a c ertain age with beard, ponytail, western shirt, and boots (I’m an experienced computer geek, what do you expect?) … not yet bald …
And yer point is, sonny-me-bhoyo ? (to be heard in slightly quavering voice)
January 13th, 2006 at 3:42:29 pm
Jazz @7:56 PM - apology accepted !
January 13th, 2006 at 4:09:07 pm
David @ 10:51 AM …
The urban area is LA County … stats recently released for last year …
I’m not disagreeing with you that raw numbers are not necessarily meaningful … I am pointing out that statistics often are not what they may seem on the surface …
Remember that some of the wounded from Vietnam were Kerry-level - where the recipient of the ‘wounds’ chose to be gotten out as quickly and permanently as he could and lobbied for years for a Purple Heart … some of the wounded from Iraq are the Mitchell-level - details here - where the recipient of the somewhat more severe wounds (remember, I’m British) is actively working to get back into action …
Now, if I have to choose as to whom to believe, between a Kerry and a Mitchell, I believe the Mitchell who is declaring by his own actions what *he* believes …
A Kerry chooses the first response to the conundrum, above …
A Mitchell chooses the second response, even when *he* is in the different group which suffers as a result …
And I believe that is what Lojo was/is pointing out - those who are over there believe in what they are doing, even knowing that the chances of them themselves being injured or killed are real …
January 13th, 2006 at 4:55:19 pm
Alasdair @ 2:46 PM - - - uh, OOPS.
Listen buddy, if you fit the morph of the “Vietnam-era protestor”, (which in the US is almost redundant), than you might think about getting out there with signs and songs and cries for peace.
Whether you believe in it or not, really.
Just seems that us young folk are transfixed on self-definition for our generation, which means acting in opposition to the, um, previous one -
- no matter what -
- *we* aren’t like THAT -
(But it is positive to think that you fit a morph but not a stereotype; always a good thing in my book)
January 13th, 2006 at 6:45:25 pm
Jazz - my take on Vietnam was sorta Santayanaian or Churchillian (depending on who you believe originated the saying about “Those who fail to learn from history …”) …
Germany failed miserably in Vietnam … France failed miserably in Vietnam … the US charged into Vietnam following a man who held his pet dog up by said dog’s ears …
What more needs be said ?
(grin)
January 13th, 2006 at 7:08:09 pm
The U.S. went into Vietnam because we were treaty bound to do so, basically in order to try and save (yet again) France’s ass.
January 13th, 2006 at 7:26:59 pm
I didn’t remember the treaty obligations as requiring anything more than a toe across the border, a quick “Nice Scenery”, and then back home again for lunch …
January 14th, 2006 at 2:55:41 pm
“Brian, as said earlier, I come by my knowledge of history less honestly than you. ”
Just to clarify, I am not Briandot. My only contribution to this comment thread prior to my post about Plato was back when the hot issue was whether or not the Bushies believed military service was “beneath” their children.
“taking the strong license that the blog tends to forgive”
But license upon license upon license leads to untruth, no? If you first distort Plato’s opinion of the masses (or, rather, the portrayal of the masses in The Republic; because Plato wrote in dialogue form, we can’t be certain of what Plato’s actual views were, although yes it’s likely Socrates in the dialogues represented Plato’s actual views), then further distort the Republic’s teaching on the “just city,” and then inaccurately suggest that the Republic is responsible for the Dark Ages, it seems to me you’ve crossed the forgivability boundary.
“As the father of Western thought, I think it is reasonable to suppose that Plato’s view of the polity, as set forth in the Republic, became the dominant Western view, whether the masses - or even kings - appropriately read Plato.”
Except that, as noted, Plato was lost to the West for most of the period you’re blaming him for — to the extent Greek wisdom controlled that period, it was Aristotle, not Plato, and (so far as I recall) there was little in Aristotle espousing the views you’re ascribing to Plato, either.
“Plato is certainly one key contributor to the notion that the populace needs to be ruled with an iron hand”
If this is true, which I doubt, it doesn’t come from the Republic. The “populace” in the “just city” of the Republic is largely left to their own devices. Yes, the “philosopher-kings” govern, but there is no suggestion at all that they rule “with an iron hand.” The philosopher-kings are selected for their wisdom and intellect, not their ruthless and cunning. They are, if not benevolent, certainly not belligerent either.
Perhaps you’re recalling the very strict and sparse demands for the warriors, the “noble dogs” who defend the city from invasion and attack. No possessions, communal living, etc. But that’s not the masses, that’s the military. The economic/mercantile classes are treated quite well in the Republic’s city in speech.
“I do believe that your post supports my larger point, that historical interpretation is interesting enough in its own right that we needn’t resort to counterfactuals”
True, I have no quarrel with this point. I just think Socrates/Plato is a bad example, at least in the sense that the Republic did not “cause” or “lead to” the events you describe — or if it did, it was only in the most Rube Goldbergian of ways, and almost certainly for very different reasons than you propose.
“”Plato has all the while been describing the ideal state, ruled by philosopher-kings, a qualification of which is that they are in regular intercourse with the Form of the Good.”
This is essentially my point about Plato’s view of the polity.
Not so ideal as it turned out.”
But of course, Plato’s “ideal” state has never been instituted anywhere int he world, so we don’t know how it would have “turned out.” And in fact, close reading of the Republic strongly suggests that the “city in speech” constructed in the dialogue would be impossible (or hugely impractical) to found, for several reasons (two that I easily recall: the philosopher-kings would not agree to serve, and in order to ensure acceptance and loyalty to the regime, everyone over the age of ten must be “removed,” i.e. killed).
So Plato’s “vision,” if indeed that’s what it was, never came to fruition. Perhaps he was misunderstood by some to suggest the “iron hand” stuff. But surely it’s easy to see that direct democracy, Athens-style, simply cannot work on a large scale. The rise of the Roman Empire was as much an administrative necessity as it was a class struggle, and it was a class struggle far more than it was an attempt to realize the Republic. After the Empire fell, and the focus of civilization’s history shifted north and west, Plato didn’t travel with it — we’re now dealing with (an admittedly Aristotle-influenced) Church hegemony. And the Church was certainly not interested in Platonic virtue.