Recognizing the highly mercurial nature of my posting on this site, just a short note. From this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine section–an article I think is worth reading. It’s on poltics, and I think summarizing would do it a disservice, but I think it possess a certain amount of wisdom for those arguing and thinking on all sides of current political debates.
Michael Ignatieff is generally a good read. I recall a similarly interesting piece he wrote in The New York Times back in January 2005 about the complex implications of the Iraqi elections.
dcl,
Thank you for pointing out this editorial. I think it’s excellent and am going to translate it into French so my friends can read it. Many of Mr. Ignatieff’s points arguing against military action in Iraq were exactly those which the French government expressed.
If you don’t care to read it, his thesis is that people narcissistically identify themselves too closely with their political views, making it impossible to change their minds or reason together.
Joe, I think that both articles you’ve linked to today also provide interesting and astute commentary on the current political situation. I also recently finished reading Al Gore’s The Assault On Reason. While I wouldn’t call it a perfect book, I would say that it offers a significant amount of food for thought for those concerned about the general direction that governance is taking in this country. And the attendant problems this might cause.
Haven’t read Gore’s book. I’m generally not interested in books written by professional politicians, but if The Assault on Reason is bereft of Gore’s infamous environmental proselytizing, I might be willing to give it a chance. Besides, if I can get through Micheal Moore’s insufferable Stupid White Men, I can stomach anything ;-)
This article is D or C material. It relies on his elite status (Harvard), uses too many quotes , and it’s main point is not profound (Decision-makers should look at pros and cons ).
The author states no less than three times that he is from Harvard. This serves to make him look good, but does nothing to inform. It appears he tries to make an argument by authority (i.e. I’m from Harvard, listen to me). I understand he takes a swipe at elite institutions, but this comes off as being self-serving rather than self depriciating.
The author then copiously quotes historical figures. This smacks of intellectual laziness. Quoting once or twice is ok, but seven or eight times makes it nothing more than a crutch and/or flaunting of his historical intelligence. They provide little to his point that good leaders look at the pros and cons and make the best choice, despite their own ideological biases and despite the fact that it may be risky.
His point is nothing but a truism, and not profound. Who disagrees with looking at all points of view/evidence before making a decision?
It seems he is simply making a mea culpa to cut him slack for making a bad decision.
Gore’s book is not totally without environmental postalizing… But it is not a significant part of the book. Though he tends to use it by way of example quite a few times.
As to four-stringer. A wise point is not necessarily a new point, or even an obscure point. At times a wise point serves by way of reminder to things we already know. Helps us to rethink or step back in a situation where our thinking has become stalled out and stale or, as the Dude would say, very uptight.
In this case though, I think he is a man that has had a certain degree of an epiphany in his professional life. A move from the theoretical land of the ivory tower to the practical land of Member of Parliament. And to that, the reality that practical decision making and thought experiments are not the same thing. A point which I agree with the author we forget about. And gives a moments pause to reflect on the degree to which our thinking becomes situational. Much as the other article Joe linked to does. Is it profound new ground in philosophy? Not really, but is the reality of ideological blinders enhanced by the psychological need to not admit you were wrong some how not a point that it is helpful to receive a reminder about at times? I should think not.
In this case the article is meant practically not philosophically… Perhaps as a matter of philosophy I would agree with you. As a practical matter he puts into words reasonably well something that needed to be said, and something that needs to be said a bit more often. If only to get people thinking about a problem from a different angle or perspective.
I respect the “move from the theoretical land of the ivory tower to the practical land of Member of Parliament.” Having to face the consequences of being wrong is not something cloistered academics have to deal with very often, which Ignatieff now does.
On the subject of situational thinking and admitting mistakes when it comes to waging modern war, I highly recommend Errol Morris’ Academy Award-winning documentary The Fog of War. His interview with Robert McNamara shows how reason has limits in war, and acting rationally and in good faith can nonetheless produce profound misjudgments.
dcl - the first phrasing that stuck out for me was “The costs of staying will be borne by Americans, while the cost of leaving will be mostly borne by Iraqis.” - and how remarkably myopic a position it takes, for an otherwise reassonably-well-reasoned (albeit biased (it is in the NYT, after all)) article …
The current “costs of staying” are being borne by the Iraqis *much* more than the Americans or Brits … and the “cost of leaving” will mostly be borne by Iraqis only in the short term, until the Iraqi equivalent of the Taliban can get up to speed with the available resources of the country of Iraq … if that is allowed to happen, can any country be safe ?
The NYT bias shows in “Churchill and De Gaulle kept faith with their own judgment when smart opinion believed them to be mistaken. Their willingness to wait for historical validation, even if far off, looks now like greatness. In the current president the same faith that history will judge him kindly seems like brute stubbornness.”
I wonder if Ignatieff wrote those exact words, or if the NYT editors removed any possible interpretation that wise observers, as has been observed historically, are wise to wait to see if it was greatness of stubbornness. Do you think that the word “brute” was Ignatieff’s or the editor’s ?
Alasdair continues in his deft ability never to see the forest for the trees. Think big picture for a moment would you please. Were not talking insular items here we are talking in broader concepts. I find it quite funny and a little sad that you’ve missed all those arguments that you could have used to help your position. Instead you just decided you’d look petty, short sighted, and narrow minded. But then I suppose when you are a conservative with BDS, there really is no other way to be… So very sad.
Churchill ‘did’ likened himself and his countrymen to the English bulldog - so designed that it can chew on you without letting go.
Brutally stubborn imagery, that.
For those who like to ‘chew’ on viewpoints, I’m currently reading ” Kicking The Sacred Cow”, by James P. Hogan. Subtitled: ” Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissable”. Hehe!
It’s easy to misjudge a situation when its potential implications in no way impact you directly. It kind of pisses me off to read articles like this from people who actively supported the invasion and who are now wringing their hands and gnashing their teeths from the comfort of their condos in Canada.
Maybe if more of our leaders had family members in the military or had at least gone to Iraq prior to the invasion to learn the difference between Sunnis and Shi’ites, the results would be different. Hell, I would have been happy if people like Hillary actually read the bills they voted on sending people to war.
dcl #12 - ummm - woudld you care to cite examples, or are you content merely going straight for the ad hominem ? Perhaps I should simply recommend to you a short write-up relating to “Learning from History …” at How to Learn Lessons from History— And How Not To …
nadine #2 - you are likely to find it interesting to read about the interactions between two other members of Parliament - Churchill and Chamberlain … Ignatieff, unfortunately, seems to be favouring the characteristics of Chanberlain - and most of us remember the results for France of *that* particular Member of Parliament’s efforts … (and, no, Loy the Elder, that wasn’t just a Vichy’s rumour :-) …
Umm, given that my comments are confined to a discussion on your comments on this thread I feel no need to elucidate further upon that subject. Though I would suggest that Bush is likely significantly more like Chamberlain than Churchill–so I’m not exactly clear on what parallel it is you are attempting to draw here. The thing you seem to fail to understand is that those of us without BDS are ready willing and able to view the big picture, cogitate upon it and attempt to gain some insight and understanding from it that would inform on our opinion on issues based upon a certain understanding of reality–with a willingness and understanding that there are certain cases where it might be necessary to reformulate our opinions on said topics based on new information or a broader understanding of the reality on the ground instead of just based on circumstances the way we wish they were.
“It’s easy to misjudge a situation when its potential implications in no way impact you directly.”
That is exactly right.
Those advocating for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq will not have to face the spectre of the death squads that will roam freely throughout Iraq once the American military is no longer present.
People think the violence in Iraq is bad now? Just wait.
Critics are absolutely right that the administration should have done a better job questioning the implications of the decision to invade. Similarly, those advocating for a swift withdrawal from Iraq should think of the implications of retreat.
There’s no need to make the same kind of mistake twice.
You are hereby on notice that you have used up your allotment of the word “elucidate” on this thread. Further use of elucidate, elucidates, elucidated, elucidation, or any other variation thereof will result in a $1 fine for each use, payable to brendanloy.com :-)
Are we fighting wars now with countries because they have death squads? I have a list of about 50 countries we need to invade, then.
The priority for the U.S. should be its own national security. If we continue on the current course in Iraq, our military is going to so worn out, over-stretched, over-burdened and under-resourced that is will be incapable of defending the U.S. against other threats.
Screw the Iraqis and their death squads. We’ve been there for four years. If they can’t begin to get their shit together in that time, that’s their problem.
We 1) got rid of Saddam, 2) destroyed what was left of the Iraqi military, 3) ascertained that there were no WMD, 4) killed a bunch of people.
In the words of Dubya, Mission Accomplished. It is time for our troops to come home.
No Angrier, you don’t invade countries because of death squads.
But when you have ALREADY INVADED a country and then withdrawn, creating a vacuum in which death squads may feely roam the streets while murdering innocent civilians, I believe you partly bear the responsibility.
Many liberals criticize the Bush administration for creating an environment in Iraq that has lead to terrorism and murder. Fine, I believe that’s a fair criticism. I believe the murder and terror will exponentially increase with a United States withdrawal.
If, on the other hand, you argue that we should withdraw because it is in America’s best interests, I’m a little confused.
Do you think we should redeploy the troops in Iraq somewhere else? Where? And isn’t Iran a threat? And if Iran is a threat, why would withdrawing from Iraq help us? Certainly Iran would benefit greatly from an American withdrawal. Why do you think it is that shiite militants attack American forces so vigorously?
Either way liberals argue it, I think they’re wrong. If your argument is 1) we need to withdraw because we never should have invaded in the first place and we’ve created a terrorist breeding ground, then I think withdrawing would only worsen the problem. If your argument is 2) it is not in America’s best interests to remain in Iraq because we face threats elsewhere, then surely you’re wrong, because Iran poses a significant threat–perhaps the most significant threat–and what better place to face that threat than on THEIR front doorstep? And what do you believe the troops in Iraq could accomplish elsewhere that isn’t being accomplished already? Do you really believe it is in America’s best interests to move into Pakistan?! Are our officers in Afghanistan begging for 200,000 reinforcements?!
I just don’t buy it. We can throw 1,000,000 troops at al-Qaeda and they’d still find a way to sneak into the US and set off a terrorist attack. The key to success against al-Qaeda is not in the number of troops we throw at them. Rather, it is with intelligence.
I just don’t see how redeploying troops in Iraq would serve any purpose in the fight against al-Qaeda.
But the troops’ presence does serve the purpose of stemming violence in Iraq long enough to bolster a democtratic Iraq, while maintaining pressure on Iran and checking Iranian influence in the region.
“But when you have ALREADY INVADED a country and then withdrawn, creating a vacuum in which death squads may feely roam the streets while murdering innocent civilians, I believe you partly bear the responsibility.”
The death squads are there now whether or not we withdraw.
“Do you think we should redeploy the troops in Iraq somewhere else? Where?”
Kurdish Iraq. The south. Desert west. Away from heavy population areas.
“And isn’t Iran a threat? And if Iran is a threat, why would withdrawing from Iraq help us?”
Iran is not a threat. Iran trying to invade Iraq would result in a repeat of the last war, which the current regime in Tehran couldn’t survive.
“Certainly Iran would benefit greatly from an American withdrawal.”
No. Iran is benefiting now. If we withdrew and there was a civil war in Iraq, Iran and Syria would be overrun with refugees. This would actually be to the benefit of the U.S. because it would put the onus on the regimes in Tehran and Damascus to help resolve the situation in Iraq.
“Why do you think it is that shiite militants attack American forces so vigorously?”
“If your argument is 1) we need to withdraw because we never should have invaded in the first place and we’ve created a terrorist breeding ground, then I think withdrawing would only worsen the problem.”
Al Qaeda is Sunni. If the U.S. forces left, the Shi’ite death squads would hunt them down and kill them.
“If your argument is 2) it is not in America’s best interests to remain in Iraq because we face threats elsewhere, then surely you’re wrong, because Iran poses a significant threat–perhaps the most significant threat–and what better place to face that threat than on THEIR front doorstep?”
Our forces in Iraq are incapable logistically to redeploy to Iran from Iraq. The equipment isn’t up to it and you would require fresh troops in any case. Ask any informed military commander and they would tell you that.
As for Pakistan, Bin Laden is there. He’s the guy we need to kill. You neo-con types would have been happy with the Allied Forces killing Himler and letting Hitler get away.
The key to success against Al Qaeda is to make them irrelevant by demonstrating to the people of the Middle East that the U.S. provides an alternative to Al Qaeda’s cult of death. To date, we haven’t done that.
“But the troops’ presence does serve the purpose of stemming violence in Iraq long enough to bolster a democtratic Iraq,”
Violence is worse now than it was last year or the year before. “Democratic progress” has actually slid backward in Iraq. You are wrong.
“while maintaining pressure on Iran and checking Iranian influence in the region.”
Iran has more influence in the region now than it did before our invasion of Iraq. How many times did Iran come up during the 2000 Presidential Campaign? Not a whole hell of a lot.
1) Yes, the death squads are already operating. However, they cannot operate in the open. Iraq is not currently experiencing a civil war. However, should we withdraw, civil war is a forgone conclusion. And by civil war, think Bosnia. It will be a catastrophe. Genocidal.
2) What will our forces do in Kurdish Iraq, where they’re not needed? You expect our troops to simply WATCH a genocidal civil war erupt in the vacuum WE created?!
3) Iran is not a threat!!!???? WOW!!! That’s a new one.
4) You really expect the shiite population in Iraq to fight against Iran?! You really think the shiite militias and death squads, which are armed and financed from Tehran are going to fight the Iranians? And by the way, who said anything about invasion? The Iranians don’t need to invade. All they will do is exert their considerable clout with the shiite population to dominate the Iraqi government, rendering Iraq a puppet.
5) Yes, Iran does want control of Iraq’s oil. I’d prefer that they don’t have it.
6) Yes, al-Qaeda is Sunni; and yes, the shiites would come down on al-Qaeda–as well as the remainder of the sunni population. You know, what we used to call “ethnic-cleansing” in the 90’s. Glad to hear you’re okay with that, but I’m not. And while the United States cannot possibly be expected to stop every instance of ethnic-cleansing, in this instance we are responsible for creating the environment that has lead to the violence. In other words, it’s on our shoulders.
7) God knows I don’t want to see an invasion of Iran. I would hope nobody does. But I also don’t want to see Iran dominate Iraqi politics. I don’t want to see Iran replace our influence. And God forbid we do go to war with Iran, I’d prefer the fighting to occur in Iraq and Iran as opposed to Lebanon and Isreal. Regardless of whether we can invade Iran from Iraq, we’re still better positioned against Iran with our forces in Iraq.
8) I’d love to have Bin Laden’s head. But don’t be fooled into thinking that Bin Laden is the end-all-be-all of the war on terror. He’s not the fuhrer. Al Qaeda would sorely miss his presence, but they’d still be a threat with or without him. Indeed, al-Qaeda’s a threat right now, and there’s no indication that Bin Laden enjoys any meaningful means of leadership. When was the last we’ve heard from him? We don’t even know if he’s alive.
And like I’ve already said, it doesn’t matter how many troops you throw at al-Qaeda. Going after al-Qaeda with conventional forces–the forces currently in Iraq–is like trying to catch rain in a screen sieve. We could move our entire Iraqi occupation force to Afghanistan and al-Qaeda could still slip a terror cell into the United States.
The key to fighting al-Qaeda is with intelligence. Now, if you want to argue that our intelligence assets are being siphoned from fighting al-Qaeda and are being redeployed to dealing with Iraq, then you might have a better point. But I’m not sure that’s happening, and that’s not the argument I’m hearing from the Dems. And even if it were, it doesn’t follow that we necessarily have to have a total withdrawal from Iraq.
9) Yes, Iran does have more influence now. Let’s not make the mistake of giving them more influence by providing them a vacuum to fill.
WE are sent statistics detailing the chances of an American soldier being fatally shot in Iraq. Apparently the rate is 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
Yet the firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80 per 100,000 citizens.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the US should pull out of Washington.
Yeah it if weren’t for all those soldiers being killed by explosives you MIGHT have a point. Try again when you have a grasp on reality Alasdair.
Your attempt to hide your ignorance behind a veil of “humor” is telling indeed Alasdair.
First, your insinuation that either Dane or myself does not feel compassion for citizens in D.C. is both ludicrous and offensive. The only thing either of our comments did was to point out your blatant misuse of statistics, ignoring completely a MAJOR source of injury and death of soldiers in Iraq.
Second, no, i don’t think the deaths of soldiers in Iraq or citizens in D.C. is funny, sad that you seem to.
Third, the massive list of differences between the situations in D.C. and Iraq demonstrate a clear and obvious disconnect from reality on your part.
The whole D-list thing used to annoy me, but now i am proud to be among a group of people you disdain, because anyone you hold in contempt for not buying into your inane fantasy of a flawless Bush administration is in my mind quite an intelligent person indeed.
Who’s being cold and heartless… You’ve also discounted all of the Iraqi victims of violence and non military us citizens serving in a support role in Iraq. I’m not saying DC is perfect–I live there I should know. But you know I think it seems to be an awful lot safer for someone to go for a walk along the canal than it would be to do the same thing in Iraq… Quite frankly this is childish fun with statistics (when I’m having fun with statistics I generally note the fact by saying something like “fun with statistics” as opposed to some how thinking that they are gospel fact.) So who is it that failed statistics again, oh right… Alasdair. What other classes did you fail in college, or were you even smart enough to get into one? Your mom still helping you on with your trousers mornings? I mean as long as you’d like to go down the road of personal attacks, it’s not like I didn’t have older siblings so shall we continue this childish back seat behavior? I mean as a liberal I’m far more creative than you and can think of quite a few more ways to call you an idiot where as all you seem capable of coming up with is D-list and BDS… Very clever, considering you didn’t even come up with them on your own. So really should we stop this asinine behavior and have a real discussion about something or would you like to go on being six indefinitely?
David - thank you for making one of my ongoing points for me …
“The only thing either of our comments did was to point out your blatant misuse of statistics, ignoring completely a MAJOR source of injury and death of soldiers in Iraq. “
When, during flash-flood anti-Bush attack comments, I raise observations about areas being ignored in the anti-Bush vitriol, the proud D-list folk put forth their tstrawman about how Alasdair has an “inane fantasy of a flawless Bush administration “ …
And how is that different from what *you* have just chosen to do ?
And dcl - the ‘compassionate’, the merciful upon whose name be blessings … for all your claims of education, you seem not to have learned the difference between simply “not mentioning something” and actively “discounting” something …
The former is a common characteristic of thoughtful brevity, the latter is more a characteristic of the D-list folk … for recent example, “So who is it that failed statistics again, oh right… Alasdair. ” pretends to a knowledge of my educational experiences without having any basis for such knowledge … by so stating, you choose to actively discount education about which you know nothing … I suspect that I took and passed classes in Statistics before a certain dcl had even heard of Venn diagrams or other such simple yet very useful algebra … then, again, I could be mistaken about that, since I am merely basing my suspicion on that certain dcl’s seeming unfamiliarity with simple set theory … perhaps you do know the difference between an injection and a surjection … (before Loy the Elder beats me to it - Yes, what I am saying here is that there was initially an injenction of troops into the Baghdad area, and it wasn’t sufficient to curb the terrorists … then, General Petraeus sent in a surjection of troops, and the now-outnumbered terrorists are being beaten back - simple set theory, right, Joe ?) …
Would this be sufficiently serious for you ?
Perhaps we can discuss if you have put the same fervour into efforts to cutting back the “firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80 per 100,000 citizens” as you have into railing against “rate is 60 per 100,000 soldiers.” … or has that simply not been important to you ?
I did suggest that a discussion of the characteristics of the so-called “civil war” in Iraq as compared with the remarkably similar characteristic of everyday life in the US might be instructive …
I started my comment with words that, themselves, gave the setting, the perspective, for the rest of the comment - “Perhaps we can put the Iraq War in perspective” - so just who descended into the ad-hominem swamp first, discounting and ignoring ?
Alasdair, you are seriously missing the point here. We are not arguing the point that the number of US soldiers getting hit by bullets in Iraq is less than the number of everyone getting hit by bullets in Washington DC as a percentage of population in question. Your static demonstrates that. What your statistic does not account for is non-bullet related conflict injuries. In DC the primary cause of violent injury in is bullets. I’m not certain that the same could be said of Iraq. And this does not even account for all violent injury in Iraq per 100,000. In other words you are drawing a conclusion (or the author is) based on apparently comparable sets of data that are not actually logically comparable. Seriously, how are you missing this point? Now if we were to compare all violent injury per 100,000 in Iraq versus all violent injury in DC per 100,000 then we could have a comparable static. Or on duty injury per 100,000 police officers in the US compared to on duty injury to US service men in Iraq per 100,000 that also would be at least a roughly comparable metric. Instead you are going, this kind of makes a glib point I like so I’m going to run with it. Without even thinking about it. That behavior show’s either a lack of logical abilities (highly likely given you are a Republican) or lack of intellectual honesty.
Actually Alasdair i am a strong proponent of repealing the 2nd ammendment and making it significantly more difficult to obtain guns, so no i’m not ignoring that problem at all. In fact it is the NRA and its stranglehold on politicians primarily right wing politicians who are more responsible for the proliferation of guns in our society, but thats a completely different argument.
And actually no Alasdair you did NOTHING to put together a credible comparison between the actual Iraqi civil war and whats happening in the U.S. Gun violence against U.S. soldiers does nothing to compare it, especiallyw hen you quote unsourced statistics.
You ignore the following:
Gun deaths of non-U.S. Soldiers including coalition soldiers, u.s. civilians, civilians from other countries, and most importantly Iraqi’s.
Non-gun deaths of ANYONE in the entire country.
The opinions of the people of Iraq towards us and each other.
Hundreds of years of hatred between the two factions.
The barely functioning government.
That the Kurds want their own country altogether.
The fact that we are there and we didn’t have to be.
In short Alasdair you take one little snippet and ignore everythign else around it without attempting to back up in any way shape or form why that one snippet is actually relavent. Then you have the gaul to back out of your own abject failure to make a point by trying to turn it around on others who accuse you (rightly so) of being an unfettered Bush apologist. My or others making an argument and then you coming back and calling us names because you don’t like it is not the same as myself or others making an argument and then you actually refuting it with data and/or logic. All you have are “D-list” and “BDS” as your arguments. When you can come up with substantial counter arguments, or demonstrate that you are willing to accept that Bush isn’t perfect then people might take you seriously. But you have a logn way to go to demonstrate credibility at this point.
In fact it is the NRA and its stranglehold on politicians primarily right wing politicians who are more responsible for the proliferation of guns in our society, but thats a completely different argument.
Heh, to say nothing of the actual majority of citizens themselves who support the 2nd Amendment! Ask the Democrats just how successful gun control has been as a campaign issue for them. Do some googling, and maybe you’ll quickly realize even the most ardent leftists understand gun control is a campaign killer, and understand that, to become a majority party, Democrats need to embrace guns. I especially love this quote from the Democratic governor of Montana:
I guess I kind of believe in gun control: You control your gun, and I’ll control mine.
But David probably has never handled a gun in his life outside his own pants, so I don’t expect him to have any ability whatsoever to understand why millions of Americans are so passionately defensive of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Got anything to back up your claim that a majority of Americans believe we should have such unfettered access to guns? The reason politicians steer clear of the 2nd amendment is because the NRA has made it so. We don’t NEED to have an amendment for gun ownership to be legal, but it would make it possible to require things, like, oh i don’t know TRAINING in order to own a gun. For you (and other Republicans) to defend such unfettered access to guns and yet bitch and moan when people like me have problems with ever encroaching government into our necessary freedoms like freedom of speech in the name of keeping us safe is ludicrous at best.
I have actually handled a gun, it was nothing amazing, but then I don’t need a firearm to make me feel like a real man like you do, so your right, i guess i don’t understand that sort of personal deficiency.
David, where did I say “a majority of Americans believe we should have such unfettered access to guns”? I said a majority support the 2nd Amendment, and yes, I have evidence to back that up.
A slight majority of Americans do support stricter gun control, and these findings have been consistent for about two decades now. Yet it is also the case that a majority think stricter enforcement of existing laws would be more effective than passing more gun control laws, and that parenting and pop culture are far more to blame for gun crime than the availability of guns. The nation is essentially split 50/50 on whether stricter gun control laws would have any effect at all on gun crime. Again, I have the evidence.
Also, while a majority favors gun control, the anti-gun control’s passion for the issue means they usually win the battle. The previous Boston Globe article I linked to makes clear that increasingly higher levels of NRA money and support have been shifting to Democrats as a result of their shift away from gun control. Anyway, I find your demonization of the NRA pathetic; they are an interest group representing the interests of millions of Americans just like thousands of others on the Hill, and their power is simply a testament to their members’ willingness to put their money and votes where their mouths are. And finally, three-quarters of Americans agree with the DOJ that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
In conclusion, you can continue to beat your head against the wall on this issue all you want, but the political reality means gun control is a perennial loser for the vast majority of candidates, and support of gun control is a death knell to any chances the Democrats have of being a majority party.
For the record, I own a rifle (inherited from my deceased grandfather when I was 16), but I’ve never fired it, nor have I ever given a dime to the NRA.
Oh dear, can we please not argue about gun control here… I really don’t want my email all clogged up with the debate about it and really don’t care that much. Gun control is one of those funny issues where there are so many completely valid points to be made that it becomes a situational and subjective nightmare… That said, I really like the “well organized militia” clause of the 2nd amendment. And I do think we should use it to improve the way in which guns are handled by our country which is a total nightmare of completely asinine proportions.
Andrew, your a fool. Did I ever say that the Second Ammendment DIDN’T protect our right to bear arms? I said we should get rid of it, for exactly that reason. The ability to own a device whose sole reason in being is to kill is not something we need a right to anymore, its an anachronism. And just because the NRA has a lot of power and money doesn’t make it right. Quick quiz for you, of major cities in the industrialized world, can you guess which one has the least amount of violent crime? It’s Tokyo, the one in the country with the strictest gun control laws. Coincidence? Hardly.
Ever wonder why the Right to bear arms is the Second Amendment listed, and has an Amendment all of its own, as compared to say the First Amendment which covers press, speech, assembly and religion?
The Founders understood that all of our other rights depend upon the right to bear arms. Without that right, we would have never fought and won our revolution. There’s a reason why every despot immediately restricts to right to own weapons.
And as for your Tokyo, Japan arguement, it’s a complete strawman. The difference has much more to do with history, culture and mores.
Perhaps you would care to explain why violent crime and home invasion robberies have climbed so quickly in the UK in the past 20 years?
The Founders understood that all of our other rights depend upon the right to bear arms. Without that right, we would have never fought and won our revolution. There’s a reason why every despot immediately restricts to right to own weapons.
Really? So if Bush decided to turn the army on us our guns could hold up against tanks and jet fighters and bombs? In order to actually arm the citizenry to fully with stand a military take over we would need access to similar weapons, dontcha think? Now me personally, i’m not a big fan of having people like you or Andrew or Alasdair have access to a tank.
See, during the revolution the soldiers and the colonists were fighting with fairly close to the same weaponry, now a days thats not even close to true. That and you are ignoring the militia clause. Speech, the press, assembly are all far more important today to protect our freedoms but you and people like you are more than willing to sacrifice them piece by piece to Bush and his administration in the name of ‘freedom’.
Perhaps your right and we would need all those semi-auto guns to protect us from a government gone wild, but if we stop giving away our freedoms we are more likely to PREVENT such a thing from happening. I’d prefer that approach, especially since its safer than living in a gun crazy country.
Really? So if Bush decided to turn the army on us our guns could hold up against tanks and jet fighters and bombs?
Short answer? Yes. 150-200 million armed citizens could defeat our armed forces if necessary, especially since most of our military would refuse an illegal order to supress the citizenry. See the Warsaw Ghetto, and the revolts against the Communists in Czeckoslavkia and Hungry.
Perhaps your right and we would need all those semi-auto guns to protect us from a government gone wild, but if we stop giving away our freedoms we are more likely to PREVENT such a thing from happening.
So far the only person I see trying to give away a freedom is you.
That and you are ignoring the militia clause
Even liberal law school professors and judges are starting to admit that the Right to own guns is a personal right and not a collective right.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:23:10 am
Michael Ignatieff is generally a good read. I recall a similarly interesting piece he wrote in The New York Times back in January 2005 about the complex implications of the Iraqi elections.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:06:22 pm
dcl,
Thank you for pointing out this editorial. I think it’s excellent and am going to translate it into French so my friends can read it. Many of Mr. Ignatieff’s points arguing against military action in Iraq were exactly those which the French government expressed.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:22:38 pm
Roger L. Simon wrote a peice over the weekend on things mercurial that likewise possesses a certain amount of wisdom for those arguing and thinking on all sides of current political debates.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:31:24 pm
Woops…that link didn’t post correctly:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/jon_soltz_and_the_politics_of.php
If you don’t care to read it, his thesis is that people narcissistically identify themselves too closely with their political views, making it impossible to change their minds or reason together.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:20:56 pm
Joe, I think that both articles you’ve linked to today also provide interesting and astute commentary on the current political situation. I also recently finished reading Al Gore’s The Assault On Reason. While I wouldn’t call it a perfect book, I would say that it offers a significant amount of food for thought for those concerned about the general direction that governance is taking in this country. And the attendant problems this might cause.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:34:04 pm
Thanks, good reads.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:44:49 pm
Haven’t read Gore’s book. I’m generally not interested in books written by professional politicians, but if The Assault on Reason is bereft of Gore’s infamous environmental proselytizing, I might be willing to give it a chance. Besides, if I can get through Micheal Moore’s insufferable Stupid White Men, I can stomach anything ;-)
August 6th, 2007 at 2:52:16 pm
This article is D or C material. It relies on his elite status (Harvard), uses too many quotes , and it’s main point is not profound (Decision-makers should look at pros and cons ).
The author states no less than three times that he is from Harvard. This serves to make him look good, but does nothing to inform. It appears he tries to make an argument by authority (i.e. I’m from Harvard, listen to me). I understand he takes a swipe at elite institutions, but this comes off as being self-serving rather than self depriciating.
The author then copiously quotes historical figures. This smacks of intellectual laziness. Quoting once or twice is ok, but seven or eight times makes it nothing more than a crutch and/or flaunting of his historical intelligence. They provide little to his point that good leaders look at the pros and cons and make the best choice, despite their own ideological biases and despite the fact that it may be risky.
His point is nothing but a truism, and not profound. Who disagrees with looking at all points of view/evidence before making a decision?
It seems he is simply making a mea culpa to cut him slack for making a bad decision.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:34:22 pm
Gore’s book is not totally without environmental postalizing… But it is not a significant part of the book. Though he tends to use it by way of example quite a few times.
As to four-stringer. A wise point is not necessarily a new point, or even an obscure point. At times a wise point serves by way of reminder to things we already know. Helps us to rethink or step back in a situation where our thinking has become stalled out and stale or, as the Dude would say, very uptight.
In this case though, I think he is a man that has had a certain degree of an epiphany in his professional life. A move from the theoretical land of the ivory tower to the practical land of Member of Parliament. And to that, the reality that practical decision making and thought experiments are not the same thing. A point which I agree with the author we forget about. And gives a moments pause to reflect on the degree to which our thinking becomes situational. Much as the other article Joe linked to does. Is it profound new ground in philosophy? Not really, but is the reality of ideological blinders enhanced by the psychological need to not admit you were wrong some how not a point that it is helpful to receive a reminder about at times? I should think not.
In this case the article is meant practically not philosophically… Perhaps as a matter of philosophy I would agree with you. As a practical matter he puts into words reasonably well something that needed to be said, and something that needs to be said a bit more often. If only to get people thinking about a problem from a different angle or perspective.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:26:16 pm
I respect the “move from the theoretical land of the ivory tower to the practical land of Member of Parliament.” Having to face the consequences of being wrong is not something cloistered academics have to deal with very often, which Ignatieff now does.
On the subject of situational thinking and admitting mistakes when it comes to waging modern war, I highly recommend Errol Morris’ Academy Award-winning documentary The Fog of War. His interview with Robert McNamara shows how reason has limits in war, and acting rationally and in good faith can nonetheless produce profound misjudgments.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:03:37 pm
dcl - the first phrasing that stuck out for me was “The costs of staying will be borne by Americans, while the cost of leaving will be mostly borne by Iraqis.” - and how remarkably myopic a position it takes, for an otherwise reassonably-well-reasoned (albeit biased (it is in the NYT, after all)) article …
The current “costs of staying” are being borne by the Iraqis *much* more than the Americans or Brits … and the “cost of leaving” will mostly be borne by Iraqis only in the short term, until the Iraqi equivalent of the Taliban can get up to speed with the available resources of the country of Iraq … if that is allowed to happen, can any country be safe ?
The NYT bias shows in “Churchill and De Gaulle kept faith with their own judgment when smart opinion believed them to be mistaken. Their willingness to wait for historical validation, even if far off, looks now like greatness. In the current president the same faith that history will judge him kindly seems like brute stubbornness.”
I wonder if Ignatieff wrote those exact words, or if the NYT editors removed any possible interpretation that wise observers, as has been observed historically, are wise to wait to see if it was greatness of stubbornness. Do you think that the word “brute” was Ignatieff’s or the editor’s ?
August 6th, 2007 at 5:39:11 pm
Alasdair continues in his deft ability never to see the forest for the trees. Think big picture for a moment would you please. Were not talking insular items here we are talking in broader concepts. I find it quite funny and a little sad that you’ve missed all those arguments that you could have used to help your position. Instead you just decided you’d look petty, short sighted, and narrow minded. But then I suppose when you are a conservative with BDS, there really is no other way to be… So very sad.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:16:26 pm
Churchill ‘did’ likened himself and his countrymen to the English bulldog - so designed that it can chew on you without letting go.
Brutally stubborn imagery, that.
For those who like to ‘chew’ on viewpoints, I’m currently reading ” Kicking The Sacred Cow”, by James P. Hogan. Subtitled: ” Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissable”. Hehe!
August 6th, 2007 at 8:19:06 pm
It’s easy to misjudge a situation when its potential implications in no way impact you directly. It kind of pisses me off to read articles like this from people who actively supported the invasion and who are now wringing their hands and gnashing their teeths from the comfort of their condos in Canada.
Maybe if more of our leaders had family members in the military or had at least gone to Iraq prior to the invasion to learn the difference between Sunnis and Shi’ites, the results would be different. Hell, I would have been happy if people like Hillary actually read the bills they voted on sending people to war.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:38:43 pm
dcl #12 - ummm - woudld you care to cite examples, or are you content merely going straight for the ad hominem ? Perhaps I should simply recommend to you a short write-up relating to “Learning from History …” at How to Learn Lessons from History— And How Not To …
nadine #2 - you are likely to find it interesting to read about the interactions between two other members of Parliament - Churchill and Chamberlain … Ignatieff, unfortunately, seems to be favouring the characteristics of Chanberlain - and most of us remember the results for France of *that* particular Member of Parliament’s efforts … (and, no, Loy the Elder, that wasn’t just a Vichy’s rumour :-) …
August 6th, 2007 at 9:53:26 pm
Umm, given that my comments are confined to a discussion on your comments on this thread I feel no need to elucidate further upon that subject. Though I would suggest that Bush is likely significantly more like Chamberlain than Churchill–so I’m not exactly clear on what parallel it is you are attempting to draw here. The thing you seem to fail to understand is that those of us without BDS are ready willing and able to view the big picture, cogitate upon it and attempt to gain some insight and understanding from it that would inform on our opinion on issues based upon a certain understanding of reality–with a willingness and understanding that there are certain cases where it might be necessary to reformulate our opinions on said topics based on new information or a broader understanding of the reality on the ground instead of just based on circumstances the way we wish they were.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:18:20 am
Mad Max writes:
“It’s easy to misjudge a situation when its potential implications in no way impact you directly.”
That is exactly right.
Those advocating for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq will not have to face the spectre of the death squads that will roam freely throughout Iraq once the American military is no longer present.
People think the violence in Iraq is bad now? Just wait.
Critics are absolutely right that the administration should have done a better job questioning the implications of the decision to invade. Similarly, those advocating for a swift withdrawal from Iraq should think of the implications of retreat.
There’s no need to make the same kind of mistake twice.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:19:09 am
dcl - oh, I’m looking forward to this … (and, sadly, I’m *not* surprised by uour non-responsive reply to a simple request for examples) …
And in what way or ways, pray tell, is Bush “likely significantly” more like Chamberlain than Churchill ?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:36:41 am
I suggest Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason for a fuller elucidation on that topic as I would prefer not to reinvent the wheel at the point in time.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:01:48 am
dcl,
You are hereby on notice that you have used up your allotment of the word “elucidate” on this thread. Further use of elucidate, elucidates, elucidated, elucidation, or any other variation thereof will result in a $1 fine for each use, payable to brendanloy.com :-)
On a much more serious note, Bush is worried about a new threat to the U.S. :-)
August 7th, 2007 at 10:15:50 am
LOL… can you el…………..aborate upon that issue?
August 7th, 2007 at 11:15:47 am
Zombies!!!!
—————————-
What’s with the calm (or even, dare I say, polite?) discussion around here lately? ;)
—————————-
Orwell doesn’t mention “elucidate” by name in Politics and the English Language, but I’m sure he would have frowned upon it’s use.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:18:12 am
Although, come to think of it, he might have also frowned upon “frowned upon.”
August 7th, 2007 at 11:21:11 am
Oh dear lord… “its use.”
August 7th, 2007 at 11:22:09 am
Words hard, me go bye now.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:12:05 pm
Are we fighting wars now with countries because they have death squads? I have a list of about 50 countries we need to invade, then.
The priority for the U.S. should be its own national security. If we continue on the current course in Iraq, our military is going to so worn out, over-stretched, over-burdened and under-resourced that is will be incapable of defending the U.S. against other threats.
Screw the Iraqis and their death squads. We’ve been there for four years. If they can’t begin to get their shit together in that time, that’s their problem.
We 1) got rid of Saddam, 2) destroyed what was left of the Iraqi military, 3) ascertained that there were no WMD, 4) killed a bunch of people.
In the words of Dubya, Mission Accomplished. It is time for our troops to come home.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:26:36 pm
No Angrier, you don’t invade countries because of death squads.
But when you have ALREADY INVADED a country and then withdrawn, creating a vacuum in which death squads may feely roam the streets while murdering innocent civilians, I believe you partly bear the responsibility.
Many liberals criticize the Bush administration for creating an environment in Iraq that has lead to terrorism and murder. Fine, I believe that’s a fair criticism. I believe the murder and terror will exponentially increase with a United States withdrawal.
If, on the other hand, you argue that we should withdraw because it is in America’s best interests, I’m a little confused.
Do you think we should redeploy the troops in Iraq somewhere else? Where? And isn’t Iran a threat? And if Iran is a threat, why would withdrawing from Iraq help us? Certainly Iran would benefit greatly from an American withdrawal. Why do you think it is that shiite militants attack American forces so vigorously?
Either way liberals argue it, I think they’re wrong. If your argument is 1) we need to withdraw because we never should have invaded in the first place and we’ve created a terrorist breeding ground, then I think withdrawing would only worsen the problem. If your argument is 2) it is not in America’s best interests to remain in Iraq because we face threats elsewhere, then surely you’re wrong, because Iran poses a significant threat–perhaps the most significant threat–and what better place to face that threat than on THEIR front doorstep? And what do you believe the troops in Iraq could accomplish elsewhere that isn’t being accomplished already? Do you really believe it is in America’s best interests to move into Pakistan?! Are our officers in Afghanistan begging for 200,000 reinforcements?!
I just don’t buy it. We can throw 1,000,000 troops at al-Qaeda and they’d still find a way to sneak into the US and set off a terrorist attack. The key to success against al-Qaeda is not in the number of troops we throw at them. Rather, it is with intelligence.
I just don’t see how redeploying troops in Iraq would serve any purpose in the fight against al-Qaeda.
But the troops’ presence does serve the purpose of stemming violence in Iraq long enough to bolster a democtratic Iraq, while maintaining pressure on Iran and checking Iranian influence in the region.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:37:38 pm
Joe Mama #20 - have you not noticed an exacerbated lack of eh, lucidity, in dcl’s recent comments ?
Sometimes, even, it seems like he’s just e-llucinating …
August 7th, 2007 at 3:48:22 pm
well, you know… Moments of lucidity can be somewhat elusive…
Gotta say though, i’m worried about the zombies now… http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/30944/
August 7th, 2007 at 3:57:52 pm
C’mon dcl, that was so 6 hours ago.
Maybe Alasdair was right . . .
August 7th, 2007 at 5:10:47 pm
Not to mention, in dcl’s comments, e-llusory …
(grin)
So where’s Loy the Elder for all these e-loy-sions of the english language ?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:14:07 pm
“But when you have ALREADY INVADED a country and then withdrawn, creating a vacuum in which death squads may feely roam the streets while murdering innocent civilians, I believe you partly bear the responsibility.”
The death squads are there now whether or not we withdraw.
“Do you think we should redeploy the troops in Iraq somewhere else? Where?”
Kurdish Iraq. The south. Desert west. Away from heavy population areas.
“And isn’t Iran a threat? And if Iran is a threat, why would withdrawing from Iraq help us?”
Iran is not a threat. Iran trying to invade Iraq would result in a repeat of the last war, which the current regime in Tehran couldn’t survive.
“Certainly Iran would benefit greatly from an American withdrawal.”
No. Iran is benefiting now. If we withdrew and there was a civil war in Iraq, Iran and Syria would be overrun with refugees. This would actually be to the benefit of the U.S. because it would put the onus on the regimes in Tehran and Damascus to help resolve the situation in Iraq.
“Why do you think it is that shiite militants attack American forces so vigorously?”
They want control of Iraq’s oil.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:19:23 pm
“If your argument is 1) we need to withdraw because we never should have invaded in the first place and we’ve created a terrorist breeding ground, then I think withdrawing would only worsen the problem.”
Al Qaeda is Sunni. If the U.S. forces left, the Shi’ite death squads would hunt them down and kill them.
“If your argument is 2) it is not in America’s best interests to remain in Iraq because we face threats elsewhere, then surely you’re wrong, because Iran poses a significant threat–perhaps the most significant threat–and what better place to face that threat than on THEIR front doorstep?”
Our forces in Iraq are incapable logistically to redeploy to Iran from Iraq. The equipment isn’t up to it and you would require fresh troops in any case. Ask any informed military commander and they would tell you that.
As for Pakistan, Bin Laden is there. He’s the guy we need to kill. You neo-con types would have been happy with the Allied Forces killing Himler and letting Hitler get away.
The key to success against Al Qaeda is to make them irrelevant by demonstrating to the people of the Middle East that the U.S. provides an alternative to Al Qaeda’s cult of death. To date, we haven’t done that.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:21:21 pm
“But the troops’ presence does serve the purpose of stemming violence in Iraq long enough to bolster a democtratic Iraq,”
Violence is worse now than it was last year or the year before. “Democratic progress” has actually slid backward in Iraq. You are wrong.
“while maintaining pressure on Iran and checking Iranian influence in the region.”
Iran has more influence in the region now than it did before our invasion of Iraq. How many times did Iran come up during the 2000 Presidential Campaign? Not a whole hell of a lot.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:10:33 pm
1) Yes, the death squads are already operating. However, they cannot operate in the open. Iraq is not currently experiencing a civil war. However, should we withdraw, civil war is a forgone conclusion. And by civil war, think Bosnia. It will be a catastrophe. Genocidal.
2) What will our forces do in Kurdish Iraq, where they’re not needed? You expect our troops to simply WATCH a genocidal civil war erupt in the vacuum WE created?!
3) Iran is not a threat!!!???? WOW!!! That’s a new one.
4) You really expect the shiite population in Iraq to fight against Iran?! You really think the shiite militias and death squads, which are armed and financed from Tehran are going to fight the Iranians? And by the way, who said anything about invasion? The Iranians don’t need to invade. All they will do is exert their considerable clout with the shiite population to dominate the Iraqi government, rendering Iraq a puppet.
5) Yes, Iran does want control of Iraq’s oil. I’d prefer that they don’t have it.
6) Yes, al-Qaeda is Sunni; and yes, the shiites would come down on al-Qaeda–as well as the remainder of the sunni population. You know, what we used to call “ethnic-cleansing” in the 90’s. Glad to hear you’re okay with that, but I’m not. And while the United States cannot possibly be expected to stop every instance of ethnic-cleansing, in this instance we are responsible for creating the environment that has lead to the violence. In other words, it’s on our shoulders.
7) God knows I don’t want to see an invasion of Iran. I would hope nobody does. But I also don’t want to see Iran dominate Iraqi politics. I don’t want to see Iran replace our influence. And God forbid we do go to war with Iran, I’d prefer the fighting to occur in Iraq and Iran as opposed to Lebanon and Isreal. Regardless of whether we can invade Iran from Iraq, we’re still better positioned against Iran with our forces in Iraq.
8) I’d love to have Bin Laden’s head. But don’t be fooled into thinking that Bin Laden is the end-all-be-all of the war on terror. He’s not the fuhrer. Al Qaeda would sorely miss his presence, but they’d still be a threat with or without him. Indeed, al-Qaeda’s a threat right now, and there’s no indication that Bin Laden enjoys any meaningful means of leadership. When was the last we’ve heard from him? We don’t even know if he’s alive.
And like I’ve already said, it doesn’t matter how many troops you throw at al-Qaeda. Going after al-Qaeda with conventional forces–the forces currently in Iraq–is like trying to catch rain in a screen sieve. We could move our entire Iraqi occupation force to Afghanistan and al-Qaeda could still slip a terror cell into the United States.
The key to fighting al-Qaeda is with intelligence. Now, if you want to argue that our intelligence assets are being siphoned from fighting al-Qaeda and are being redeployed to dealing with Iraq, then you might have a better point. But I’m not sure that’s happening, and that’s not the argument I’m hearing from the Dems. And even if it were, it doesn’t follow that we necessarily have to have a total withdrawal from Iraq.
9) Yes, Iran does have more influence now. Let’s not make the mistake of giving them more influence by providing them a vacuum to fill.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:55:21 pm
Perhaps we can put the Iraq War in perspective with this wisdom from the Glasgow Herald Online …
Trigger unhappy
WE are sent statistics detailing the chances of an American soldier being fatally shot in Iraq. Apparently the rate is 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
Yet the firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80 per 100,000 citizens.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the US should pull out of Washington.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:05:17 pm
umm, fun with statistics. Operative word in that report might possibly be “shot”.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:37:01 pm
WE are sent statistics detailing the chances of an American soldier being fatally shot in Iraq. Apparently the rate is 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
Yet the firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80 per 100,000 citizens.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the US should pull out of Washington.
Yeah it if weren’t for all those soldiers being killed by explosives you MIGHT have a point. Try again when you have a grasp on reality Alasdair.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:54:24 am
Way to go, D-list-without-sense-of-humour-(or-perspective)-folk !
Still, it’s comforting, I’m sure, for the citizens of Washington to know the compassion you feel for them …
Or shoudl we be discussing how the US is in a civil war right now, just like Iraq ?
August 10th, 2007 at 3:43:23 am
Your attempt to hide your ignorance behind a veil of “humor” is telling indeed Alasdair.
First, your insinuation that either Dane or myself does not feel compassion for citizens in D.C. is both ludicrous and offensive. The only thing either of our comments did was to point out your blatant misuse of statistics, ignoring completely a MAJOR source of injury and death of soldiers in Iraq.
Second, no, i don’t think the deaths of soldiers in Iraq or citizens in D.C. is funny, sad that you seem to.
Third, the massive list of differences between the situations in D.C. and Iraq demonstrate a clear and obvious disconnect from reality on your part.
The whole D-list thing used to annoy me, but now i am proud to be among a group of people you disdain, because anyone you hold in contempt for not buying into your inane fantasy of a flawless Bush administration is in my mind quite an intelligent person indeed.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:17:58 am
Who’s being cold and heartless… You’ve also discounted all of the Iraqi victims of violence and non military us citizens serving in a support role in Iraq. I’m not saying DC is perfect–I live there I should know. But you know I think it seems to be an awful lot safer for someone to go for a walk along the canal than it would be to do the same thing in Iraq… Quite frankly this is childish fun with statistics (when I’m having fun with statistics I generally note the fact by saying something like “fun with statistics” as opposed to some how thinking that they are gospel fact.) So who is it that failed statistics again, oh right… Alasdair. What other classes did you fail in college, or were you even smart enough to get into one? Your mom still helping you on with your trousers mornings? I mean as long as you’d like to go down the road of personal attacks, it’s not like I didn’t have older siblings so shall we continue this childish back seat behavior? I mean as a liberal I’m far more creative than you and can think of quite a few more ways to call you an idiot where as all you seem capable of coming up with is D-list and BDS… Very clever, considering you didn’t even come up with them on your own. So really should we stop this asinine behavior and have a real discussion about something or would you like to go on being six indefinitely?
August 10th, 2007 at 3:13:41 pm
David - thank you for making one of my ongoing points for me …
“The only thing either of our comments did was to point out your blatant misuse of statistics, ignoring completely a MAJOR source of injury and death of soldiers in Iraq. “
When, during flash-flood anti-Bush attack comments, I raise observations about areas being ignored in the anti-Bush vitriol, the proud D-list folk put forth their tstrawman about how Alasdair has an “inane fantasy of a flawless Bush administration “ …
And how is that different from what *you* have just chosen to do ?
And dcl - the ‘compassionate’, the merciful upon whose name be blessings … for all your claims of education, you seem not to have learned the difference between simply “not mentioning something” and actively “discounting” something …
The former is a common characteristic of thoughtful brevity, the latter is more a characteristic of the D-list folk … for recent example, “So who is it that failed statistics again, oh right… Alasdair. ” pretends to a knowledge of my educational experiences without having any basis for such knowledge … by so stating, you choose to actively discount education about which you know nothing … I suspect that I took and passed classes in Statistics before a certain dcl had even heard of Venn diagrams or other such simple yet very useful algebra … then, again, I could be mistaken about that, since I am merely basing my suspicion on that certain dcl’s seeming unfamiliarity with simple set theory … perhaps you do know the difference between an injection and a surjection … (before Loy the Elder beats me to it - Yes, what I am saying here is that there was initially an injenction of troops into the Baghdad area, and it wasn’t sufficient to curb the terrorists … then, General Petraeus sent in a surjection of troops, and the now-outnumbered terrorists are being beaten back - simple set theory, right, Joe ?) …
Would this be sufficiently serious for you ?
Perhaps we can discuss if you have put the same fervour into efforts to cutting back the “firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80 per 100,000 citizens” as you have into railing against “rate is 60 per 100,000 soldiers.” … or has that simply not been important to you ?
I did suggest that a discussion of the characteristics of the so-called “civil war” in Iraq as compared with the remarkably similar characteristic of everyday life in the US might be instructive …
I started my comment with words that, themselves, gave the setting, the perspective, for the rest of the comment - “Perhaps we can put the Iraq War in perspective” - so just who descended into the ad-hominem swamp first, discounting and ignoring ?
August 10th, 2007 at 3:52:50 pm
Alasdair, you are seriously missing the point here. We are not arguing the point that the number of US soldiers getting hit by bullets in Iraq is less than the number of everyone getting hit by bullets in Washington DC as a percentage of population in question. Your static demonstrates that. What your statistic does not account for is non-bullet related conflict injuries. In DC the primary cause of violent injury in is bullets. I’m not certain that the same could be said of Iraq. And this does not even account for all violent injury in Iraq per 100,000. In other words you are drawing a conclusion (or the author is) based on apparently comparable sets of data that are not actually logically comparable. Seriously, how are you missing this point? Now if we were to compare all violent injury per 100,000 in Iraq versus all violent injury in DC per 100,000 then we could have a comparable static. Or on duty injury per 100,000 police officers in the US compared to on duty injury to US service men in Iraq per 100,000 that also would be at least a roughly comparable metric. Instead you are going, this kind of makes a glib point I like so I’m going to run with it. Without even thinking about it. That behavior show’s either a lack of logical abilities (highly likely given you are a Republican) or lack of intellectual honesty.
August 10th, 2007 at 5:18:36 pm
Actually Alasdair i am a strong proponent of repealing the 2nd ammendment and making it significantly more difficult to obtain guns, so no i’m not ignoring that problem at all. In fact it is the NRA and its stranglehold on politicians primarily right wing politicians who are more responsible for the proliferation of guns in our society, but thats a completely different argument.
And actually no Alasdair you did NOTHING to put together a credible comparison between the actual Iraqi civil war and whats happening in the U.S. Gun violence against U.S. soldiers does nothing to compare it, especiallyw hen you quote unsourced statistics.
You ignore the following:
Gun deaths of non-U.S. Soldiers including coalition soldiers, u.s. civilians, civilians from other countries, and most importantly Iraqi’s.
Non-gun deaths of ANYONE in the entire country.
The opinions of the people of Iraq towards us and each other.
Hundreds of years of hatred between the two factions.
The barely functioning government.
That the Kurds want their own country altogether.
The fact that we are there and we didn’t have to be.
In short Alasdair you take one little snippet and ignore everythign else around it without attempting to back up in any way shape or form why that one snippet is actually relavent. Then you have the gaul to back out of your own abject failure to make a point by trying to turn it around on others who accuse you (rightly so) of being an unfettered Bush apologist. My or others making an argument and then you coming back and calling us names because you don’t like it is not the same as myself or others making an argument and then you actually refuting it with data and/or logic. All you have are “D-list” and “BDS” as your arguments. When you can come up with substantial counter arguments, or demonstrate that you are willing to accept that Bush isn’t perfect then people might take you seriously. But you have a logn way to go to demonstrate credibility at this point.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:06:38 pm
In fact it is the NRA and its stranglehold on politicians primarily right wing politicians who are more responsible for the proliferation of guns in our society, but thats a completely different argument.
Heh, to say nothing of the actual majority of citizens themselves who support the 2nd Amendment! Ask the Democrats just how successful gun control has been as a campaign issue for them. Do some googling, and maybe you’ll quickly realize even the most ardent leftists understand gun control is a campaign killer, and understand that, to become a majority party, Democrats need to embrace guns. I especially love this quote from the Democratic governor of Montana:
But David probably has never handled a gun in his life outside his own pants, so I don’t expect him to have any ability whatsoever to understand why millions of Americans are so passionately defensive of their 2nd Amendment rights.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:51:33 pm
Got anything to back up your claim that a majority of Americans believe we should have such unfettered access to guns? The reason politicians steer clear of the 2nd amendment is because the NRA has made it so. We don’t NEED to have an amendment for gun ownership to be legal, but it would make it possible to require things, like, oh i don’t know TRAINING in order to own a gun. For you (and other Republicans) to defend such unfettered access to guns and yet bitch and moan when people like me have problems with ever encroaching government into our necessary freedoms like freedom of speech in the name of keeping us safe is ludicrous at best.
I have actually handled a gun, it was nothing amazing, but then I don’t need a firearm to make me feel like a real man like you do, so your right, i guess i don’t understand that sort of personal deficiency.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:30:51 pm
David, where did I say “a majority of Americans believe we should have such unfettered access to guns”? I said a majority support the 2nd Amendment, and yes, I have evidence to back that up.
A slight majority of Americans do support stricter gun control, and these findings have been consistent for about two decades now. Yet it is also the case that a majority think stricter enforcement of existing laws would be more effective than passing more gun control laws, and that parenting and pop culture are far more to blame for gun crime than the availability of guns. The nation is essentially split 50/50 on whether stricter gun control laws would have any effect at all on gun crime. Again, I have the evidence.
Also, while a majority favors gun control, the anti-gun control’s passion for the issue means they usually win the battle. The previous Boston Globe article I linked to makes clear that increasingly higher levels of NRA money and support have been shifting to Democrats as a result of their shift away from gun control. Anyway, I find your demonization of the NRA pathetic; they are an interest group representing the interests of millions of Americans just like thousands of others on the Hill, and their power is simply a testament to their members’ willingness to put their money and votes where their mouths are. And finally, three-quarters of Americans agree with the DOJ that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
In conclusion, you can continue to beat your head against the wall on this issue all you want, but the political reality means gun control is a perennial loser for the vast majority of candidates, and support of gun control is a death knell to any chances the Democrats have of being a majority party.
For the record, I own a rifle (inherited from my deceased grandfather when I was 16), but I’ve never fired it, nor have I ever given a dime to the NRA.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:35:31 pm
Oh dear, can we please not argue about gun control here… I really don’t want my email all clogged up with the debate about it and really don’t care that much. Gun control is one of those funny issues where there are so many completely valid points to be made that it becomes a situational and subjective nightmare… That said, I really like the “well organized militia” clause of the 2nd amendment. And I do think we should use it to improve the way in which guns are handled by our country which is a total nightmare of completely asinine proportions.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:08:44 pm
Andrew, your a fool. Did I ever say that the Second Ammendment DIDN’T protect our right to bear arms? I said we should get rid of it, for exactly that reason. The ability to own a device whose sole reason in being is to kill is not something we need a right to anymore, its an anachronism. And just because the NRA has a lot of power and money doesn’t make it right. Quick quiz for you, of major cities in the industrialized world, can you guess which one has the least amount of violent crime? It’s Tokyo, the one in the country with the strictest gun control laws. Coincidence? Hardly.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:50:40 pm
David K:
Ever wonder why the Right to bear arms is the Second Amendment listed, and has an Amendment all of its own, as compared to say the First Amendment which covers press, speech, assembly and religion?
The Founders understood that all of our other rights depend upon the right to bear arms. Without that right, we would have never fought and won our revolution. There’s a reason why every despot immediately restricts to right to own weapons.
And as for your Tokyo, Japan arguement, it’s a complete strawman. The difference has much more to do with history, culture and mores.
Perhaps you would care to explain why violent crime and home invasion robberies have climbed so quickly in the UK in the past 20 years?
August 11th, 2007 at 12:24:58 am
The Founders understood that all of our other rights depend upon the right to bear arms. Without that right, we would have never fought and won our revolution. There’s a reason why every despot immediately restricts to right to own weapons.
Really? So if Bush decided to turn the army on us our guns could hold up against tanks and jet fighters and bombs? In order to actually arm the citizenry to fully with stand a military take over we would need access to similar weapons, dontcha think? Now me personally, i’m not a big fan of having people like you or Andrew or Alasdair have access to a tank.
See, during the revolution the soldiers and the colonists were fighting with fairly close to the same weaponry, now a days thats not even close to true. That and you are ignoring the militia clause. Speech, the press, assembly are all far more important today to protect our freedoms but you and people like you are more than willing to sacrifice them piece by piece to Bush and his administration in the name of ‘freedom’.
Perhaps your right and we would need all those semi-auto guns to protect us from a government gone wild, but if we stop giving away our freedoms we are more likely to PREVENT such a thing from happening. I’d prefer that approach, especially since its safer than living in a gun crazy country.
August 11th, 2007 at 12:27:17 am
I said STOP IT!
August 11th, 2007 at 5:46:06 am
Really? So if Bush decided to turn the army on us our guns could hold up against tanks and jet fighters and bombs?
Short answer? Yes. 150-200 million armed citizens could defeat our armed forces if necessary, especially since most of our military would refuse an illegal order to supress the citizenry. See the Warsaw Ghetto, and the revolts against the Communists in Czeckoslavkia and Hungry.
Perhaps your right and we would need all those semi-auto guns to protect us from a government gone wild, but if we stop giving away our freedoms we are more likely to PREVENT such a thing from happening.
So far the only person I see trying to give away a freedom is you.
That and you are ignoring the militia clause
Even liberal law school professors and judges are starting to admit that the Right to own guns is a personal right and not a collective right.