I don't even know what AFAIK stands for.
Flamer bingo?
If this were an actual conversation, I'd appreciate being given the courtesy of allowing me to refine and clarify my thoughts and intentions as the conversation progresses.
It's been my experience that this is how 90% of conversation works. One person says something, the other person says something back, if there is a disagreement and the one person thinks they've not clarified or need to explain further, they do so, the second person updates their understanding of what the first person meant, etc, etc.
Or are you going to tell me that you "get it right, every time" with every statement you ever make, either typed or spoken?
PJ @ #72,
Dude, can I please be forgiven for not knowing that Phelps and Co. had crashed funerals?
'Denial' would mean I knew about the civilian funerals, but spoke and acted as if I did not know.
Until Roger posted his links, I was unaware that Phelps and Co. operate beyond military funerals, since the only ones I'd ever been told about were military.
Can I please be allowed to integrate new information as it is provided to me?
"I didn't know" and 'denial' are two different things.
For all the haters.... Neh. Whatever.
I cause "trouble" because I sometimes hold convictions that don't jive with the conventional wisdom of the ML populace, and I am willing to speak on these differences and not automatically back down just because a few people get upset, or think I am full of shit.
As for being a bully, WTF? I am not the one chasing people from thread to thread and questioning their every move, using invective and ad hominem attacks, etc.
Look in the mirror, haters.
Lizzy @ #129, an enormously thoughtful post which deserves a considered response. I have to run out of the office for a bit, but I will try to give your post the response it deserves this afternoon.
In post #120 Terry writes, "You said you wouldn’t confess to something you haven’t done. Allow me, in my professional opinion, to tell you this is also wrong. Give me three days, and you will confess. No pain is needed. Just some sleep loss, a bit of time dislocation and a modified eating schedule. You may not want to believe it, but the evidence of years; the records of thousands of people, say that you are wrong."
In post #128, Iowerth Thomas writes, "[sleep deprivation, loud noise, light deprivation] Yes. They're psychological torture. Irrelevant to the main thrust of the argument, I know, but it should be pointed out that not all torture is physical in nature. There's at least one South American country where the dominant mode of torture by the secret police was psychological; it still f***ked up the victims something chronic."
Now unless I am mistaken, the methods Terry would use to make me sing are well within his legal abilities as a trained National Guard interrogator. They involve no physical harm, per se, and are strictly psychological in nature.
Yet Iowerth has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he believes these methods do, in fact, constitute 'torture'.
I said before that the danger of drawing moral absolutes lay in the fact that 'torture' is defined differently from person to person, that even with Geneva in mind, what one person, group, or nation defines as "torture" can and will change, based on circumstance, based on politics, and that men (such as Terry, such as other Army people I know who have been to Iraq) are potentially being set up for unjust derision, judgment, or even legal punishment, if we just sit back and declare, "Torture is wrong and torturers are evil and should pay!"
Again, what is "torture"? Who decides? Who punishes the 'torturers' and why? We have Geneva, sure, but Geneva is just paper. It's what's in the national consciousness that will ultimately affect the lives of servicemembers, and if the national consciousness broadens the umbrella of "torture" to include methods currently being used by many soldiers in Iraq....
We're entering a period in our national history when the public desire to seek "justice" for everything that's happened since 9/11, might reach the point of bearing fruit.
I would like for us, as a country, to not take out our anger over Iraq, over Bush, on men and women in uniform who are simply trying to do their jobs.
Some here might scoff and say, "That would never happen!" I am not convinced. Not when people like Iowerth are already equating methods Terry would use, with torture. Hindsight is 20/20 and if enough Americans, in their desire to expunge the nation of the stain of torture, turn that desire into legal action against members of the armed forces....
Does this make my motivation a little clearer?
Again, I am not an apologist for sadists.
I'll say it ten more times.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am not an apologist for sadists.
I am a defender of Soldiers trying to do their jobs in a time when their jobs are politically unpopular and they might wind up being hung from the proverbial lamp-post for what are, essentially, political decisions being made up top.
Again, will we prosecute or cast out Terry for 'torture'? I don't think anyone here would do that, because you know Terry and support him as a fellow traveler.
But if someone who doesn't know Terry, someone in a position of power, decides that everyone like Terry needs to be brought up on court martial, simply because the definition of "torture" has been politically broadened too far, what's going to happen to Terry and everyone like him? Is it fair to court martial Terry so that we, as citizens, feel like we've "rectified" the torture issue, for the sake of our collective conscience?
Oh please. I never "denied" Phelps crashed civilian funerals.
I said I had not been aware of such cases, since I only ever hear about the schmuck from other Army and Army Reserve I know who forward me shit in AKO going, "Look at this fucking clown!"
KRCL-FM, YEAH BABY!!! (screamed in Plankton-voice)
Sounds silly, but getting back to my community radio roots is one of the big plusses about coming back to Yewtaw.
Spent two hours down there tonight, helping answer phones for Fall 'Thon. Their new building (heh, new, they've been there 7 years now...) is a vast improvement over the semi-homeless-shelter they occupied in 1993.
Shared a few laughs with one or two of the guys who were actually there in 1992-1993. Found out what happened to a few other people. The pot-smoking hippy former program director is now in Texas, and his son is at the U of U being an ultra-right-wing conservative. Somehow, that fits, like Alex Keaton from Family Ties.
Anyway, such a gas to be at the station. Community radio, gotta luv it.
Now if I can just get my biodiesel guy I know here to sign up as a business underwriter....
Administrative Note #4
================================================
abi, excellent idea!
my old View All By
Administrative Note #1
=============================================
The old e-mail associated with this alias is actually defunct, on account of moving two states further East from when I originally created the account. (Frakin' Comcast....) As a result, I am having to use a new e-mail. Not wanting to lose the thread-post chain forever (or risk being labeled as things I'd rather not be labeled as) I am posting this here, under the old e-mail, to be followed on by another post with the new e-mail.
Administrative Note #2
=============================================
I've argued with a heap of people over the last 6 years. Some self-identify as liberal, some as conservative, some as libertarian, and some as nothing in particular. Re-reading the LibHawk thread it occurs to me that not once, in that entire 6 years, did anyone ever really sway me from my original positions; nor did I have much success in swaying them from theirs. In point of fact, if I drift back in my mind through all the internet discussions that have been political in nature, and in which I participated to any degree, almost nobody said, "Whoa! I never thought of that before! You might be right!" People (myself included) tended to stick to their guns, and more often than not, things got angry, and then we all really had cotton in our ears.
Anyway, the reason I mention this is because I had something of a come to Jesus moment. A friend of mine, and with whom I have disagreed heatedly on many political issues over time, said to me, hey, you know what, I am sick of all the internet debating. And he didn't just mean between the two of us. He meant between himself and the whole cyberverse. He was exhausted. He felt like all that was being accomplished was a whole lot of people getting pissed off at each other, and for what? What good was it accomplishing or doing anyone in their lives? It was anger for the sake of anger, rancor for the sake of rancor.
I sat back and thought pretty hard about that, and had to conclude that he'd touched on an almost spiritual meme: when does dialogue cease to be dialogue, and instead become a corrosive on the soul?
By nature, I'm not a guy who enjoys being angry, nor staying angry. And when I think of all the internet debates I've been party to since 2001, I must conclude that I've wasted vast personal resources getting upset over all kinds of shit and at all kinds of people, and it never actually accomplished anything positive. Not a lick of good came out of any of it, either for me or for the people who participated.
So he and I made something akin to a pledge.
For the next 90 days I'm swearing off political cyber-debate. Cold turkey. Here. On the other forums I frequent. Gonna pull the needle out of my arm. I can't stop the rest of the world from enacting the final scenes of "Needful Things", but I can cease my participation in the soul-corrosion. Either as a giver or a taker of said corrosive.
Because in the end, what good is accomplished--personal, political, social, psychological, spiritual?
Not much.
Assuming the 90 days goes well, I might get out of the arguing racket for keeps. At least on political issues. I might not give up having an opinion, but I can eschew expressing it and harping on things through communication modes which lend themselves to corrosive, pointless results.
Anyway, just wanted to put it out for the group.
I'm on the road tomorrow (new job and all) and won't be able to check in or read much. I'll be curious to see what people have to say.
Maybe I'm just talking to the air on this one? Nearly everyone here seems to think I am out to lunch, and some people are downright pissed off about it.
Maybe for most of you it is a pure Vulcan logic scenario: needs of the many versus the needs of the few.
For me, it's just not that simple.
Goodnight, all.
I was going to save this for the morning, but thought I'd put it out for tonight.
It seems to me that the crux of the whole "Invasion = disaster" argument rests on the idea that the cure has been worse than the disease; that the post-invasion period under U.S. occupation has been far harder and more deadly on Iraqis than their previous life under the Saddam Hussein dictatorship.
Before I continue, I just wanted to point out that very few long-lived dictatorships in modern times, were terrible for everyone who lived in them. Germans, Austrians, even the French, and other Europeans who were friendly to the Reich, enjoyed a great deal of material and physical well-being, prior to the turning of the tide and the crumbling of the Nazi government under Allied bombardment. If you weren’t a homosexual, gypsy, Jew, artist, dissenting intellectual, or other “unwanted†type, and could be counted on to be a good, patriotic Deutschlander, the Reich was good for you. Especially in the beginning, when the Nazis were on the offensive and the Fatherland had not yet begun to feel the pinch of rationing, nor the taking of both old and young men to fight in the final days.
For most Germans, the Hitler years were pretty good; and a German who didn’t have to experience the depredations of the SS or the “Final Solution†would have been hard pressed to cite any examples of how Hitler, or the Reich, were ‘bad’ for Germans.
Of course, most of these Germans never knew about the labor and death camps, until after the war. A secular or Christian German wouldn’t necessarily know the ever-present terror of the Juden in their midst; or if they did, they did not care. Such is the ease with which the ‘friendly’ population in a tyranny can exist. Why complain when, for you and your family at least, life is good?
This is why I always take reports out of Iraq, from Iraqis, about how life under Saddam was so much better than it is now, with a big grain of salt. I have no doubt that for many Iraqis, life really was better under Saddam; especially for the Sunni, and those with Baathist ties and connections. When you’re part of the ‘inside’ group which controls and exercises unjust power, of course life seems good. You don’t have to worry about things in the same way as the ‘out’ group.
Consider the post-invasion opinion of a Baghdad-dweller who had a relatively comfortable and care-free life under Saddam, with the opinion of a minority Kurd who lost friends or family to Saddam and the mass graves. You’re going to get two, quite different opinions on Saddam, life under Saddam, life after Saddam, etc.
So whose opinion is more valid? When considering whether or not the cure has been worse than the disease, whose opinion matters more?
Going back to World War II, whose opinion, in the final play of history, mattered more? The opinion of the homosexuals, artists, gypsies, and Jews who lived and died by the millions in the labor camps? Or the patriotic Deutschlanders who bitched and moaned after the Reich surrendered about how tough it was to make a living in the crumbled, burned out remnants of Germany’s former glory?
There is no single opinion in Iraq. The post-invasion experiences of the Marsh Arabs are different from those of the Badghdad Sunni which are in turn different from those of the northern Kurds, which are again different from those of the Shiite majority in various locations. All will tell different tales, contradict one another, based on their own personal experiences under (and after) Saddam.
So again, whose opinion matters more? The Kurd who lost his brother and sister to the gas attacks? Or the Sunni in Baghdad who now has to scrape and be afraid like his Kurdish counterpart?
In a sense, all of Iraq now has to suffer the same fear, terror, and unknown, as everyone that suffered under Saddam’s rule. For the moment, all Iraqis who used to live comfortably are getting a huge taste of what it was like to be a Kurd, a Marsh Arab, a vocal Shia dissenter; or anyone else who dared oppose Saddam, or who just happened to be in Saddam’s way. And of course they’re going to look back on the Saddam days and say, damn, those were good days! This freedom thing under the new government is such bullshit!
I have no doubt that good Deutschlanders thought the Allied occupation was ‘bullshit’, even through the Berlin airlift and several decades of American shielding against the Soviet threat. When you’ve been enjoying your spot in the sunny places of tyranny, only to find yourself demoted, cast down, or otherwise forced to live a life of difficulty (like everyone else) your natural reaction is not going to be one of gratitude.
Again, we must ask: whose opinion matters more? How do we balance the ‘security’ and material ease of the one part of Iraq, under Saddam, with the terror and death of the other parts of Iraq, under Saddam?
The Allied taking of Europe and the destruction of Germany eventually cost almost two million German civilians their lives. Two million. Best estimates place the total German Jewish death toll, on account of the Final Solution, at 160,000 people. Was this a fair bargain? The death of so many countless civilians and the destruction of their entire infrastructure and their comfortable lives, against a mere 160,000 Deutsch Jewish lives lost? Even if we factor in all the other Jewish and “unwanted†peoples, bringing the Nazi toll up to the familiar 6 million mark, was it worth it? Did all those German civilians deserve to die and have their comfortable lives ruined so that the Jews could have a chance to live without fear of the Reich?
We’ll never know how many more mass graves Saddam would have generated, had he been left as-is. Certainly the mass graves generated by Saddam generated fewer headlines on the front pages of our Western newspapers. It’s easier to go easy on Saddam when much of what he did flew under the radar; especially when you have blog posts from a Baghdad-dweller endlessly complaining about present living conditions and violence and relatives being shot at or shot up in a post-invasion nightmare.
But again, just because our Baghdad-dweller is having a nightmare now, does not diminish the nightmare of Saddam. Certainly not for the Kurds, or Marsh Arabs, or other peoples and villages that fell afoul of Saddam’s plans. While the ‘inside’ peoples of the Baath era enjoyed a relatively painless existence, those on the ‘outside’ remained in very real danger of genocide.
Has the post-war period been properly managed by the U.S?
No.
Is the chaos of Baghdad largely a byproduct of American failure to properly plan?
Yes.
Does this automatically make the 2003 invasion a moral or practical failure?
Again, we have to ask ourselves, deep down inside, can we really tell ourselves that it was OK to let Saddam stay in place, when it meant creeping extinction for the Kurds? Why are we in the West seemingly so comfortable with the controlled heinousness of Saddam, versus the chaotic bloodshed of the troubled post-invasion occupation? Is it just that Kurds and Marsh Arabs and Shia dissenters didn’t matter as much, person for person, than all the rest? Is it merely a Vulcan logic game? The stability and safety of the many outweighing the death and murder of the few?
I’m sorry, but I can’t just glibly say, “Oh well, life under Saddam sucked, but at least it didn’t suck as bad as life without Saddam!†I think that’s too easy for us, in the West, sitting in our heated, safe, comfortable homes and offices, to make that call. It’s almost like Northerners in 1860 saying, “Oh well, slavery sure sucks, but at least the plantation owners are taking care of those poor negroes! Besides, it isn’t worth the deaths of white men to force emancipation.â€
The German-Jew analogy, the Confederacy-slave analogy, these might seem like stretches. I use them to illustrate that for LibHawks, the Iraq question had nothing to do with Bush or oil or any of that bullshit, and everything to do with an oppressed and murdered people being allowed to languish and suffer, simply because we in the West felt it was not our job, not our business, to go in and get rid of “President†Hussein.
Now that the post-invasion is going so badly, most everyone initially opposed to the invasion is crowing, “AHA! We were right all along!†And I have little doubt that for those who were committed anti-invasionists, right from the start, the current situation must feel and seem enormously gratifying; the Republican strategy in shambles, Bush exposed as a massive liar, NeoCons on the run, and even the misguided LibHawks forced into questions and rear-guard maneuvers.
Doubtless, it must seem bizarre or even insane that anyone still stands up and says, “Yes, I supported and continue to support the military removal of Saddam.â€
But some of us do exist. And we feel there is moral merit to our position. And we resent being made into ideological clay pigeons, along with the NeoCons and Republicans and everyone else who took the country to war.
If it makes some people feel better about themselves to lash out at LibHawks and paint us with the same broad brush usually reserved for the conservative side of the spectrum, fine. Throw us in the ideological dungeon with the NeoCons and wipe your hands of the matter, assured of your moral, ethical, and pragmatic superiority.
Me, I’m still going to express objections to the notion that Saddam was better for Iraq. It wasn’t that long ago that Americans were overlooking the evils of the Reich, or the sickness of Stalin, simply because another war in Europe was unthinkable, or people were so in love with the Soviet experiment they couldn’t bring themselves to face the horror of the Gulag.
On that note, a few links I dug up, regarding the "Life under Saddam" meme.
Woman recounts life under Saddam regime
Iraqi Women Speak Out about Life under Saddam's Dictatorship
49% preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, only 26% preferred Saddam
Babies found in Iraqi mass grave
Uncovering Iraq's Horrors in Desert Graves
Secrets of Iraqi mass grave revealed
Still cogitating.
However, a little humour to try and lighten the mood.
Perhaps my all-time favorite Bloom County strip.
Terry,
An honest and thoughtful answer, on your part.
I shall retire for the evening and cogitate.
If I read you right, you're saying the cure has been worse than the disease.
Anyway, back tomorrow...
How about this:
Would everyone just be happy if I threw myself at the feet of the forum and begged forgiveness for daring to disagree with the general consensus, where Iraq is concerned? People seem prepared to believe all sorts of nasty/bad things about me, simply because I think you can support removal of Saddam without being a Bushie. I would further add that you can support the 2003 invasion without thinking all has gone peachy since.
But what do I know, I'm just the sock puppet around here.
Fuck it. I am going home. Wasted my day on this thread. Shoulda been workin'...
(muttering....)
Terry,
You misquoted me in post #115. The bold portion was someone else. Those were not my words.
Just pointing it out.
Scott @ #120: no, you're right, my comments to Lenny were not exactly constructive. But then, when serge told me to fuck myself, that wasn't constructive either. It would seem that people are allowed a little "steam valve" language now and again? I would hope that applies as equally to me as to someone like Serge?
Lenny @ 122: I didn't realize that there was an invisible litmus test for posters on this blog. I didn't know my comments were being carefully deconstructed and examined for evidence of sock puppetry. I do know I think the, "If you're not against the invasion, you're a drooling Bushie!" argument is pure horse shit. If that means I fail the litmus test, oh well. I think shibbolethism is for small minds, and it would sadden me to find it practiced by this cosmopolitan group.
At this point, I am not sure what else I can say to illustrate my point of view.
I do have a few problems with some of the assumptions people have made.
For instance, how can Teresa possibly know that, "before the war, Iraq had infrastructure and a civil society and a functioning economy. Its people had thousands of social organizations and ties that had nothing to do with Saddam or his regime. Most days, most of Iraq's citizens had something approaching normal lives." Unless Teresa has been holding out on us, and spent several months (at least) traveling Iraq, prior to 2003, I am not sure where she arrives at the conclusion that the life of an average Iraqi, prior to 2003, was anywhere near functional, or normal, to say nothing of safe.
Likewise, where are people getting their death figures? Nobody has a consistent number, and I have to wonder, do any of these very-high numbers, over half a million to one million or more, even account for natural death, accidents, disease, etc. Do they also lump part or all of the deaths under Saddam's rule, but prior to his capture, under "innocent dead"? Statistics can be misleading.
For example, the U.S. lost 43,000+ lives to auto accidents in 2005. That's the entire population of a large town or small, incorporated city. If all a foreigner was ever told about the U.S. was that 43,000 people died every year on U.S. roadways, what conclusions might he draw? Especially if we don't break out the numbers? How many of these deaths were alcohol or drug related? What age groups were involved? How many were a result of car chases or police pursuit? How many occurred in rural versus suburban areas? Etc, etc.
To just throw up a number and say, "650,000 Iraqis are dead since we invaded!!!" doesn't tell us anything about who died, where, when, or how. And yes, the who, when, where, and how of it DOES MATTER. How many of the dead are dead from internicine fighting, not U.S. bullets? Are any of these dead Baathists or other Saddam soldiers who fought through and after the invasion? How many Shia? Sunni? Kurd? Where did they die, and how?
Death figures, all by themselves can be scary, and they are a great rhetorical tool if all you want to do is bludgeon someone into silence.
Again, 43,000+ Americans died in 2005 behind the wheel. Assuming that's a rough average, that means approx. 200,000 Americans will have been killed in their cars since the Iraq invasion began over four years ago.
If we count all American deaths total for the year 2003, the American Heart Association places that figure at 2,440,000.
Two million, four hundred and forty four thousand Americans, dead. In 2003.
If all someone said to you in 2004 was, "Over two million Americans died last year!" what might you think? If all you did was see the gross figure? Was it a plague? War? What horrible event could kill over two million Americans in a single year?
See, death statistics, if not broken out and examined carefully (and honestly) can be very, very misleading.
Which is not to belittle the deaths of the innocent in Iraq who have died. I am not belittling those deaths at all. But I think it does do the truly innocent a diservice to lump their demise in with the demise of, say, two dozen foreign jihadis caught running a torture house in a local village, and who are gunned down by U.S. Marines, along with a dozen more local jihadi sympathizers who showed up for martyrdom.
Can anyone name for me the annual or average Iraqi death toll, prior to 2003? Does anyone even know? What would Iraq's "peaceful" annual death toll be? A peaceful (more or less) America loses over 2 million a year. Assuming a populace of 300 million Americans, a 2.5 mil death toll accounts for 0.8% of the populace. Let's say a third world nation has a higher percent, due to poor sanitary and living conditions, aside from war; say 1.3% or thereabouts. If Iraq has a nominal population of 28 million people, a natural, peaceful death toll is going to be 364,000 dead every year, whether the occupation is happening or not!
Now I am no statistics wiz, but even with basic arithmetic at work, I can see how these ridiculously high "war death" figures could be grossly inflated by the natural, inevitable death toll, on account of disease, old age, accidents, and all the other stuff that hits all countries, regardless of whether they're at war or not.
Again, if people can cite their sources for these figures; sources that seperate the "annual dead" from the truly "war dead", I would like links.
Thanks for the lecture, Lenny.
You are clearly this forum's expert on annoying.
When can I expect the police to be by to pick me up as a clear-cut accessory to the crime? After all, if I support the invasion I must be a Bush "sock puppet" right? Because nobody in their right mind could have possibly supported the removal of Saddam without being a Bush "sock puppet", or so I have been told by minds vastly superior to my own.
It's a black and white world, I guess.
[/sarcasm]
(Checking back in to give Albatross wild applause for post #94)
As for all the other comments....
Hopefully, in the long run, things work out for Iraqis. That the U.S. will withdraw is a foregone conclusion at this point. Once we leave, I hope the Iraqis can get things cleaned up and they can move on, preferably without a Saddam clone at the helm. I never gave a shit about 'defending' Bush or his policies. I just wanted Iraqis to have a life that was better than what they'd known under "President" Hussein. Once we're gone, it really is going to be all up to them. I hope they can figure it out without too much violence and unrest.
If this makes me a "sock puppet" (thanks, Lenny, I can feel the love) or a Bushie.... Albatross is right, that kind of binary thinking is pure crap.
Serge,
I am baffled as to what, if anything, I wrote in post #69 that deserves a GFY. But whatever. If you feel you've been angered to the point you can't have a reasonable discussion anymore, it probably is best to remove yourself. You're a better man than I am, in that regard, as I've too often kept arguing on this blog past the point at which it's been productive.
On that note, I think I'll withdraw from this thread as well. I am not sure how many ways I can explain or illustrate my feelings.
For some people, no amount of explaining can change their feeling that Iraq is 100% wasteful and needless and unnecessary, and that anyone who supported the invasion is, whether they like it or not, a Bushie.
I disagree with that, as I've said many times. But if people keep insisting that I am wrong, well.... OK. End of conversation.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 65 |
Total: 65 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by CommunityRadioVet:
Show all comments by CommunityRadioVet.