The White House has hit on an ingenious way to win the war in Iraq. It is all laid out in a White House policy paper, “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” The strategy was conceived and written not by the nation’s top military strategists but rather by Peter Feaver, an associate professor at Duke University whose field is public opinion… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (210)Given that the National Strategy really says nothing that hasn’t already been clearly stated or publicly presented in the past two or three years; given that it was in response to baseless criticisms that there was no strategy (ie critics who can’t read the daily news or comprehend simple speeches), it is not surprising that the published strategy should be led by someone who can restate the obvious to people who are incapable of understanding the obvious.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 16, 2005 at 11:28 PM What I gather you are saying, Jay is the new bullshit is no different than the old bullshit.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 17, 2005 at 4:16 PM Given that the Natioinal Strategy really says nothing that hasn’t already been clearly contradicted by subsequent events (weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaida connections, the gratitude of a grateful population for their salvation from the tyranny of Hussein’s regime, the degradation and torture of ordinary Iraqis in order to capture and torture those who resist the occupation of their country by foreign invaders), given that, as such, it was stated in response to criticisms that there was no justifiable strategy for the invasion or subsequent occupation of Iraq, it’s not surprising that such a strategy should be propagated by someone who can only restate the obvious misrepresentations and remain completely incapable of understanding any of them.
Posted by Major Major on Dec 17, 2005 at 4:33 PM Wow! Is this article insightful or what?
Joel Bleifuss states the obvious and, quite naturally, chooses the part which suits him for dissing.
“When the public believes the mission will succeed, the public is willing to continue supporting the mission, even as costs mount. When the public thinks victory is not likely, even small costs will be highly corrosive.”
Hey, Joe, the second sentence is what you and most media types have been parroting and the polls now reflect. Bush finally woke up to discover people want an honest admission not everything is going as expected. Therefore, “The “strategy for victory” is not aimed so much at the war in Iraq as the domestic war at home.”
You think this is because, “ ...Bush needs to win in Iraq…” Yes, but it’s not about just Iraq.
This WAR is for REAL!
Suggested reading:
http://upstatenyman.blogspot.com/2005/07/this-war-is-for-real-by-mg-vernon.ht tml
Dr. Vernon Chong’s credentials:
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 18, 2005 at 2:59 PM WTH:
Here is the good General Doctor’s complete analysis of why “the Muslims” are attacking us. “Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.” That’s it. Wow! Is that insightful! Then he goes on to say that the US has done nothing to provoke attacks. That is horseshit pure and simple.
Islamo-Fascism! Islamo-Fascism! Islamo-Fascism! Islamo-Fascism! Just repeat until your brain turns to jelly.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 18, 2005 at 4:13 PM The author is really covering two distinctly different issues here: There is the war and the economic scam which is now spreading through globalization.
Since I knew full well what to expect in response to my first post on this article, I decided to deal with what I believe to be the second of the two topics in a separate post.
—————————
Unfortunately it is not just the Republicans who are playing fast and loose with lobbyists. This is bipartisanship at its most efficient. The author didn’t mention this, but I recently heard 47% of those lobbying for foreign companies and countries are former members of Congress.A friend just sent me this Einstein quote…
“The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil…. Private capital tends to be concentrated in a few hands…[resulting in] an oligarchy of private capital, the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists…. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interest of the underprivileged sections of the population.
Moreover…private capitalists inevitably control directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). it is thus extremely difficult and indeed in most cases quite possible for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.”
Albert Einstein, 1949
So this is not new, however, the practice has been developed into a fine art form. A good example: The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 does not guarantees jobs will created in America. It manages to give corporations a big tax break while catering to foreign trade objections and still sounding good to U.S. voters.
As for the reforms ever being enacted… Not likely, but those proposing them may just be doing so knowing full well they can get credit for the talk, while never needing to walk the walk.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 18, 2005 at 7:24 PM What the heck, WTH?;
What are you saying? Politicians lie? Unregulated capitalism sucks? Both parties’ establishments are bought and paid for by corporate interests? Tell me something I don’t know.
Here’s some reading for you WTH:
I know he’s just an editorial writing journalist in the MSM and therefore having zero bona fides in your oh-so-well-informed opinion, but he writes well and what he says is consistent and well reasoned.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 18, 2005 at 8:50 PM LB
You say, “Tell me something I don’t know.”
I don’t think I can. If you already know you get sarcastic and if you disagree with it you reject it out of hand.
I’ll ask — not tell.
What if Vernon Chong’s view is absolutely correct?
What if we are hit by a dirty bomb, chemical or biological device, what if a few square miles of the U.S. is destroyed and unuseable forever and thousands of people die?
Wouldn’t you still think it is our own fault?
Don’t you pretty much have that reaction to whatever the issue?
Is it not likely the response would be a demand to nuke the bastards and to hell with them?I heard a bit of that after 9/11.
As for telling you anything, it reminds me of a story my mother used to tell about men and women arguing.
Someone had cut the rope and a man and his wife were adrift in a small, leaky boat.
He said, “It was cut with a knife,”
“No, declared his wife, a scissors.”
As they continued the boat sank lower and finally went under. Up through the bubbles came the wife’s hand — her two fingers forming a scissors action.
No matter what, the woman still gets the last word 60+ years later.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 18, 2005 at 11:15 PM Oh. That woman might be me.
What if? What if? What if, WTH? You might want to do a little research on “dirty bombs”, it might bring you around to the conclusion that they’re not nearly as devastating as a Chernobyl, and so you might want to rail against the threats posed by nuclear power plants—-especially at a time when most of our reactors are old or new, and most statistically likely to malfunction. One in five chance of a Chernobyl type nuclear accident in the next decade. And NASA is taking a 1 in 300 chance of accidentally spilling plutonium on our beloved little planet.
Oh, the fact that we’ve contaminated a good deal of Afghanistan and Iraq with radiological material is different, isn’t it? It’s always different when the U.S. does it, though our victims always ends up just as sick and dead as they would be if someone else had done it.
If the U.S. can’t get over a dirty bomb, it shouldn’t be raring to make tactical nukes, unless of course, fairness is not an issue and double standards are justified on the basis of our ‘chosen people’ status. Dirty bombs and chemical and biological weapons may be called “weapons of mass destruction” but they don’t hold a candle to nukes.
If you can’t see how pathetic it is to take pride in the fact that we haven’t nuked a country then I think you might want to consider raising your standards on behalf of our beloved nation.
The U.S. has a first strike policy, even against countries that do not have nuclear weapons, if the administrations thinks that the targeted nation might pose a threat. What is noble about this farce?
What makes you so sure that the administration would not use nukes when they are making practice runs to do just exactly that right now, AND not against a country that set off a dirty bomb in our nation, but a country that might because it is enriching uranium, just like we enrich uranium to use as fuel in nuclear reactors.
Japan, whom we have nuked* makes plutonium for their reactors. Why aren’t we threatening them? Oh yea, they aren’t a Moslem nation. And Moslems are evil and envious of our freedoms (so we better get rid of ‘em (the freedoms and the Moslems (just to be on the safe side))).
And—-oh yeah (one last word) the threat of global annihilation through accidental launches or misread signals is greater now than it was during the Cold War. If you feel threatened by radioactive possibilities you might want to root for disarmament instead of killing all possible enemies and poisoning their land for all time. Nothing like an enemy that has nothing to lose.
*We are the only nation to attack a nation with nukes thus far.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 12:55 AM Ah, WTH:
If is the biggest word in the English language.
If there are persons among the Islamic Nations that wish us harm through terroristic demonstrations, there is no rational reason to think that continuing a brutal occupation in Iraq will either diminish their number or their determination. To think that because this handful of criminals (at least before we went into Iraq they were a relative few) cloak their political agenda in religious rhetoric, declaring war on that religion is going to strip them of credibility is not just stupid, it’s pathological.
I really am not concerned with placing blame. On America or Islam. I really am concerned with creating the conditions for all human beings to live in relative peace and happiness. Do you wish to help or hinder? I really would like to know.
In the end, man is not entirely guilty — he did not start history. Nor is he wholly innocent — he continues it.
The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole men are more good than bad; that, however, isn’t the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. There can be no true goodness, nor true love, without the utmost clear-sightedness.
Albert Camus
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 1:09 AM Just looked up “blame” in the dictionary. 1. to hold responsible; find fault with; censure: I don’t blame you for leaving him. 2. to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.)(usually followed by “on”): I blame the accident on her. 3. informal to blast, damn (used as a mild curse) : Blame the rotten luck. 4. to blame, at fault; censurable: <i>I am to blame for his lateness.
I’m comfortable with blaming this administration for the mess in Iraq. If they can’t handle blame reasonably they can’t handle power responsibly.
I have yet to see the MSM challenge this administration with 1/4 of the censure with which slackers were faced in my painting classes at critique time. It’s ridiculous how little music these people have had to face thus far.
When I think of the horror that they have dealt I think “blame” is simply not enough. To impeach, to accuse, to indict, to prosecute, to convict, etc, first requires the laying of blame where blame belongs. And the blame most certainly does not belong to Iraq and its people.
Blaming the victim is wrong. Blaming the perpetrator is what we’re supposed to do when we want justice.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 6:06 AM I am not taking pride in not having used nukes on them (so quick to jump to conclusions). I fear public reaction could bring that kind of reaction if attacked again.
You may choose to believe what you will, but people react to perceptions — it will not be you nor I who will be making the decisions.
(I am concerned about nuclear plants as well. I happen to live downwind of one less than 20 miles away.)
I firmly believe we are in a fight in which there is no second place winner.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 19, 2005 at 3:47 PM No first place winner, either WTH.
We, individually, can only decide to conduct our selves morally and with compassion or go along with the mindless passions of the herd. Which shall it be, WTH?
Wiley, I am in love with your passion, but I personally would be happy just to see an end to the perpetuation of injustice. Locking the perpetrators up for the rest of their sorry lives would just be icing on the cake.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 4:53 PM whattheheck,
Thanks for the link to Dr. Chong’s site. Interesting.
Though in the wake of yet another example of success for the Iraqi Democracy, I think all the shrill pontifications we are hearing is more from those who have a worldview mindset that they refuse to accept as no longer relevant.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 5:03 PM Wheee! Another dog and pony show and we can declare victory and all go home. What? We can’t go home? We gotta stay and kill more irrelevant brown people? Damn, I feel so shrill.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 5:48 PM Speaking of the success of Democracy, Jay-Jay, how does this FACTOID fit in with your theory of no longer relevant weltanschauungen? Will you be reconsidering next year when Mexico elects uno presidente socialismo?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 6:07 PM Speaking of the success of Democracy, Jay-Jay, how does this FACTOID fit in with your theory of no longer relevant weltanschauungen? Will you be reconsidering next year when Mexico elects uno presidente socialismo?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 6:29 PM lb,
You are a putz.
Democracy is not a right or left issue.
It is one of freedom.
People get the kind of politics they vote for, and have a right to.
The choice of President for Bolivia is up to the people of Bolivia. Are you saying the election was rigged?
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 6:52 PM No, Jay-Jay, I’m just saying the election in Iraq was a dog and pony show. It won’t make Iraq into a democracy. Only the people can do that. I’m so glad you admit that the people of Bolivia are not irrelevant.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 7:04 PM But I guess you feel the Iraqi people are irrelevant?
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 8:05 PM Not at all, Jay-Jay.
I just have little faith the tightly vetted and empirically powerless ‘government’ that this so called ‘free’ election establishes will in any respect reflect the considered will of the Iraqi people.
I feel the participation of ten million as the most visible and available act of expressing their hope that the U.S. military will leave their country at the soonest possible time, enervating. I am, contrariwise, filled with dread their hope may be a vain one.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 8:30 PM Lumens, I understand your desire. I also just happen to believe that after attacking and arresting Iraq, apology will be meaningless without consequences for the offenders.
It would be more than icing on a cake, it would be an important and long overdue message to the world that we don’t think it’s o.k. to attack innocent people in their homes. And it would send the message that rich white guys with power can be every bit as criminal and more than poor black guys with squat.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 9:02 PM WTH, why do you bring it up that we haven’t nuked anyone (lately). You insist on giving U.S. credit for that. I haven’t set a cat on fire today, never did. Aren’t I sweet.
I’m sorry you live close to a nuclear power plant. You are wise to be concerned about it, I hope you and your family have prepared yourselves and have a plan for meeting up and getting clear of the area. Seriously. We all saw New Orleans, right.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 9:07 PM I agree, Wiley. It’s just that stopping the killing and abuse strikes me as a priority. These legal things take awhile. I don’t expect them to disappear because “I” am not emphasizing their importance. But you’ve got my willing permission to do so.
“Let it ring from every mountaintop… ‘Let my people go!’”
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 9:17 PM Yep and amen, Lumens.
It pains me to see this over and over again. After our government sends troops to kill people for whatever reason, the national debate focuses on whether or not it was “worth it”. “Worth it for whom?”
What “justifies” it? “Winning”, of course. And if we don’t “win”, well there is always “good intentions”.
As long as a political body can get away with this crap, they will continue killing and abusing.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 9:55 PM Do you have any concept of the formation of the U.S.? Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions here and you are not U.S. citizens.
The war lasted eight long and difficult years. It took a year to ratify our Constitution. We stumbled allong for a while with the Articles of the Confederation. England, for several years after the fighting stopped, thought we would fall apart annd crawl back to them.
Instead of blaming every death in Iraq on the U.S. you could read something other than sites like this and broaden your scope a bit.
I have had the advantage of hearing live and in person from returning soldiers and Marines, male and female who tell a much more encouraging story than the media and politicians.
I get the feeling you will be totally disappointed if the Iraqis, with our help, can pull this off. Are you total pacifists who just freeload on those who have given their lives for this society where we can say whatever we choose?
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 19, 2005 at 11:03 PM Yeah. And that war wasn’t over until the British Army left.
What we had after the Constitutional Convention was an Autocratic Republic with the sop of a popularly elected House of Representatives through the franchise held exclusively by white men of property. We’ve struggled for two hundred years plus to extend that representation and franchise but we are still a long ways from a true democracy. We’ve been advancing to the rear mostly during my lifetime. I actually have more hope for the Iraqis than for us. Once the US gets outta there.
Most of the people who have given their lives for the advancement of freedom were not soldiers.
Most soldiers have given their lives for the advancement of the powers that be. Only rarely has any military action protected or advanced freedom. The Civil War and WWII come to mind, but I still don’t think advancing freedom was a predominant factor in those conflicts. Just a side effect.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 19, 2005 at 11:51 PM WTH;
The fact that you hold pacifism in such disdain means to me only that you do not possess the courage to be a pacifist.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 12:07 AM For those other soldiers you don’t want to talk to WTH:
AND THE BAND PLAYED
WALTZING MATILDAWhen I was a young man I carried my pack
And I lived the free life of a rover
From the Murrays green basin to the dusty outback
I waltzed my Matilda all over
Then in nineteen fifteen my country said Son
It’s time to stop rambling ‘cause there’s work to be done
So they gave me a tin hat and they gave me a gun
And they sent me away to the war
And the band played Waltzing Matilda
As we sailed away from the quay
And amidst all the tears and the shouts and the cheers
We sailed off to GallipoliHow well I remember that terrible day
How the blood stained the sand and the water
And how in that hell that they called Suvla Bay
We were butchered like lambs at the slaughter
Johnny Turk he was ready, he primed himself well
He chased us with bullets, he rained us with shells
And in five minutes flat he’d blown us all to hell
Nearly blew us right back to Australia
But the band played Waltzing Matilda
As we stopped to bury our slain
We buried ours and the Turks buried theirs
Then we started all over againNow those that were left, well we tried to survive
In a mad world of blood, death and fire
And for ten weary weeks I kept myself alive
But around me the corpses piled higher
Then a big Turkish shell knocked me arse over tit
And when I woke up in my hospital bed
And saw what it had done, I wished I was dead
Never knew there were worse things than dying
For no more I’ll go waltzing Matilda
All around the green bush far and near
For to hump tent and pegs, a man needs two legs
No more waltzing Matilda for meSo they collected the cripples, the wounded, the maimed
And they shipped us back home to Australia
The armless, the legless, the blind, the insane
Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla
And as our ship pulled into Circular Quay
I looked at the place where my legs used to be
And thank Christ there was nobody waiting for me
To grieve and to mourn and to pity
And the band played Waltzing Matilda
As they carried us down the gangway
But nobody cheered, they just stood and stared
Then turned all their faces awayAnd now every April I sit on my porch
And I watch the parade pass before me
And I watch my old comrades, how proudly they march
Reliving old dreams of past glory
And the old men march slowly, all bent, stiff and sore
The forgotten heroes from a forgotten war
And the young people ask, “What are they marching for?”
And I ask myself the same question
And the band plays Waltzing Matilda
And the old men answer to the call
But year after year their numbers get fewer
Some day no one will march there at allWaltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda
Who’ll come a waltzing Matilda with me
And their ghosts may be heard as you pass the Billabong
Who’ll come-a-waltzing Matilda with me?copyright © Eric Bogle
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 12:18 AM WTH, it is so obvious that it’s embarrasing to have to point it out—-when “we” fought for “our” independence “we” were fighting for “our” independence”.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 20, 2005 at 12:20 AM The fact that you hold pacifism in such disdain means to me only that you do not possess the courage to be a pacifist.
Thank you Luminous Beauty.
What the Heck, I would also mention that plenty of pacifists have given their lives for their respective societies.
Being a pacifist to save your own life is normal, being a pacifist for the lives of others is true pacifism.
Jacob Borer
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 20, 2005 at 1:18 AM Have I posted this before? If so, it’s worth repeating:
Without Blinking
During the civil wars in feudal Japan, an invading army would quickly sweep into a town and take control. In one particular village, everyone fled just before the army arrived - everyone except the Zen master. Curious about this old fellow, the general went to the temple to see for himself what kind of man this master was. When he wasn’t treated with the deference and submissiveness to which he was accustomed, the general burst into anger. “You fool,” he shouted as he reached for his sword, “don’t you realize you are standing before a man who could run you through without blinking an eye!” But despite the threat, the master seemed unmoved. “And do you realize,” the master replied calmly, “that you are standing before a man who can be run through without blinking an eye?”
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 2:44 AM To my shame it just struck me that ordinary generosity behooves me to share
the source of this short tale.
A nice little collection.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 2:54 AM I love stories. A very nice collection. Many thanks.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 20, 2005 at 3:32 AM If all had been pacifists we would not be having these conversations.
Your distain for the U.S. is so evident, where is it better?
It must be a real downer to be so dissatisfied with everything.
Too sad.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 20, 2005 at 2:13 PM WTH: Your efforts at sarcasm are small.
If all had been pacifists there would have been no wars. It would be a completely different world in which people are free to govern themselves through mutual consideration. Free from the manipulations of machiavellian rulers who pit one people against another to secure their own power.
My disdain is not for my country or the vast majority of its people which I deeply love. My disdain is for our corporate rulers and their bought and paid for politicians of both parties who mouth the words ‘liberty’, ‘justice’, ‘democracy’, and act only to feather their own nests by protecting the unearned accumulation of unconscionable wealth by the very rich and leave ordinary people to fend for themselves in an atmosphere of dog eat dog competition for an ever shrinking piece of the pie. My disdain is for old men who send young men off to die for no good reason. My disdain is for fools who never question authority but sycophantically echo whatever they are told by scurrilous lying demagogues.
The lack of specificity makes your question “where is it better?” difficult to answer. I’ve been all over this country and to Canada and Mexico and seen much of beauty and wonder. I’ve met fine, funny, generous, open and friendly people everywhere. But I still feel my home in the west is best. It’s a matter of personal prejudice. I’m sure that view is shared by others where ever they are from. It is their right.
What is sadder than seeing the true nature of the conditions of human existence is being oblivious in one’s protected little petty bourgeois fantasyland.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 3:24 PM lb,
you continue to amaze me with your ability to ignore the obvious and twist the truth.
Are you comparing 18th Century Britian in America with our troops in Iraq today? The parallels are so uncanny that I don’t see even one.
Please educate me.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 6:01 PM luminous beauty - “I actually have more hope for the Iraqis than for us. Once the US gets outta there.”
I also have hope for the Iraqis now. Did you have the same hope while they were ruled by Saddam? I did not (i note that, in my humble opinion, his children were likely to be even worse tyrants than he was). . .
One possibly interesting note. According to the recent issue of Time magazine (19 Dec), most Iraqis that are not in the Sunni region: 1) think they are better off now than they were before the invasion; 2) think the invasion was a good thing. The Sunnis, of course, strongly disagree.
Posted by wolf on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:11 PM Jay-Jay,
It was WTH who introduced the comparison of the American Revolution to our occupation of Iraq. I was just following with that ancient method of falsifiability to which you profess such admiration yet display such incompetence in utilizing or recognizing.
Are you educable?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:18 PM wolfie,
I always maintain a degree of hope for all people. Even you.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:22 PM Ah, typical lb misdirection.
You must have studied under Randi?
“I didn’t start it!”
Yet, you, not whattheheck, introduced the comparison of the Redcoats and the circumstance they operated, with the American troops currently in Iraq.
Do you stand behind your own words or not?
Are you capable of educating?
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:28 PM To educate,
whattheheck was comparing the trials and tribulations of the early American republic, as they gave birth to American democracy, with the near-identical trials and tribulations of the Iraqis as they struggle to create a democratic society.
You, not whattheheck, made the flippant comparison between the Redcoats leaving after being defeated at Yorktown, with Amercian troops in Iraq.
Please don’t make me use the “disingenuous” argument again…
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:31 PM A rant.
I am completely mystified by how certain people are of the opinions they hold and espouse. The war was just. The war was immoral. The war was necessary. The war was all about corporate profits and stealing oil. Etc.
I am simply unable to think in such terms. To be so very certain. When i look at complex events, i try to see them from as many points of view as i can. Which leads more to a grey scale point of view, almost devoid of black and white. To a large extent, both the right and left eschew such “wishy washy” thinking, preferring to cast issues as good/bad right/wrong moral/immoral.
Surely even those against the war must be able to see the good that comes from it? And equally surely, those for the war must lament the bad that results from it?
I wonder - is it this certainty that allows posters to call each other rude names, adding nothing to the debate other than venom? Is it too hard to be polite and respectful, or is it that the mere act of disagreement on subjects like the war cause us to believe that those people are simply not deserving respect?
Is there not a contradiction between believing in pacifism, whilst calling others morons or worse? Or is this simply stating *obvious* facts (to disagree is to be a moron?)?
Anyway, i come here to read the opinions of others, in order to understand those who hold different views from me. I wish all of you well. Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
end of rant
Posted by wolf on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:31 PM wolfie,
Newsday has a decidedly different take on that Time poll:
[url=“http://tinyurl.com/8njlm”] President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.
The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war.[/url]
There’s an old blues line that may give one some insight into perceived Iraqi optimism, “been down so long, down looks like up to me”
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:36 PM That little experiment didn’t turn out so well.
<a > HERE’S </a> the link.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:38 PM luminous beauty - from the link you posted, it is not clear to me that the two polls are all that different. There is, however, one striking difference: Newsday did not break down the results by region, as the Time poll did.
It seems likely to me that the Sunnis are the “losers” in this conflict, the Kurds and Shiites the “winners”. Thus the Sunnis, having lost their privileged status, are unhappy, whilst the formerly oppressed Kurds and Shiites are quite a bit more upbeat. Is this controversial?
Posted by wolf on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:59 PM Yes, Jay-Jay, I stand by my words. Your arguments are trivial.
wolfie, there are no shades of grey between the danger of being blown to bits by implacable combatants and living peacefully in one’s own home. Only the comfortable can afford to make abstract generalities of issues of life and death.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:01 PM It’s the same poll, wolfie. You were making false general conclusions. Now you want to be more specific. OK, but why don’t you admit your error?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:11 PM luminous beauty - “there are no shades of grey between the danger of being blown to bits by implacable combatants and living peacefully in one’s own home.”
I do not disagree. However, i do not think i would classify living under the rule of Saddam and UN sanctions as “living peacefully in one’s own home”, at least for a significant fraction of the Iraqi population. . .
I think your quote above could apply to any US soldier sent to WWII (that is, he left his peaceful home at the risk of being blown to bits). Do you agree?
Posted by wolf on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:13 PM wolf - “One possibly interesting note. According to the recent issue of Time magazine (19 Dec), most Iraqis that are not in the Sunni region: 1) think they are better off now than they were before the invasion; 2) think the invasion was a good thing. The Sunnis, of course, strongly disagree.”
luminous beauty - “It’s the same poll, wolfie. You were making false general conclusions. Now you want to be more specific. “
I would be happy to admit my error. Can you point it out for me? (Perhaps you missed the part “most Iraqis that are NOT in the Sunni region” (emphasis added)?
Posted by wolf on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:19 PM wolfie, I, for one do not shy away from moral arguments. Nor do I easily tolerate sophisties that cloak themselves in moral terms. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:21 PM lb,
Well, I’m glad we have come full circle, though without progress.
So,
Are you comparing 18th Century Britian in America with our troops in Iraq today? The parallels are so uncanny that I don’t see even one.
Are your words indefensible? And please, the mock condescending attitude won’t work this time. You drew a parallel that no one understands. Or do we two-step and swing the other direction now?
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:24 PM wolfie, Sorry, I missed your qualification. Nonetheless, you would exclude the Sunnis from ‘most Iraqis’. Rather selective and disingenuous, don’t you think?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:30 PM luminous beauty - ” Nor do I easily tolerate sophisties that cloak themselves in moral terms.”
You have completely lost me. What are you (sophisties, moral terms?) referring to here?
Posted by wolf on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:32 PM luminous beauty - “Nonetheless, you would exclude the Sunnis from ‘most Iraqis’. Rather selective and disingenuous, don’t you think?”
This is NOT my intent. In fact, i stated: “The Sunnis, of course, strongly disagree.”.
Posted by wolf on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:36 PM Excluding Sunnis from ‘most Iraqis’ still leaves 80% of the Iraqi population.
No, that is not selective nor disingenuous.
Merely more detailed than the less detailed stats you have been quoting.
Iraqis are three different populations. It is not inaccurate to say, Iraqis blame America whilst saying in the same breath Iraqis are grateful for the freedom from the Sunni rule that the Americans have provided. wolf is absolutely proper is qualifying the poll data.
As I have argued with David in Levin’s article ‘To Leave or Not To Leave’,
David,
I have quoted numerous polls here and at other ITT topics that indicate that, while the Iraqis would like the American troops to leave as soon as possible, which is certainly reasonable, the Iraqis themselves mostly do not believe now is the time.
That there is animosity and resentment to be sure, particularly among the Sunnis, does not change that fact.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:39 PM Jay-Jay,
I didn’t draw any comparisons between the Redcoats and American Occupation Forces. What I did say is that our collective struggle to establish a democracy did not begin or end with the Revolutionary War or the establishing of the Constitution. The same will be true for the Iraqis. If you can’t understand it is not my problem.
If I may presume to a didactic function. Your argument rested on your characterization of WTH’s analogy as being ‘near identical’ and my (erroneously assumed) analogy as being ‘flippant’ without any evidence but your own opinion. Supremely trivial.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 8:51 PM Jay-Jay, you completely forgot the Turkmen and Assyrians, not to mention those Iraqis who might have a more nationalist or internationalist and secular POV. But I guess they being even less than 20% are just too insignificant for you to consider.
It is of some limited interest to compare the differences of distinct segments of a population. However by excluding one segment from a general conclusion about the whole you are just going along with the divide and conquer strategy, and again, being disingenuous.
I infer from what you are saying the US should leave sooner rather than later, nes pas?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 9:15 PM lb,
Thank you. That makes more sense.
However, whattheheck did not say that our democracy was in full place immediately after those events either. What was being argued was that Iraqi democracy is still a work in progress, and the long and laborous efforts of the fledgling American Republic was an apt comparision. To say that it wasn’t over until it is over, as you did, is merely repeating what has been argued by those supporting the American foreign policy in Iraq.
Now, I would not argue that repeating such an obvious comparison is not trivial, but our oft mutual misunderstandings would be greatly diminished with a little mutual honesty.
And respect.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 9:19 PM lb,
again you presume too much. Maybe we should just start to argue our own POV and let others post their own.
Your characterization aside, allow me to quote three statistics that every one knows:
Iraqi Shiite - 60%
Iraqi Sunni - 20%
Iraqi Kurd - 20%60 + 20 = 80
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 9:51 PM In the case of the Iraqis, it is more than just limited interest to “segment” the Iraqi population.
These three populations are distinct populations. What would be disingenuous is to characterize and stereotype the entire population by refering to merely one.
You infer wrong. As the argument rages across America, the dividing line is between those who believe in a timed withdrawal (sooner or later) and those who believe in one driven by events and necessity.
I believe in the later.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 9:54 PM Jay-Jay,
Go back and re-read what has been written and it might make a little more sense. And you might even discern my actual points of contention.
I’m glad you agree in principle to honesty. Now if only you can find in yourself the capacity. No disrespect meant. Just constructive criticism.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 9:57 PM Actually, Jay the difference between Sunni and Shia Arabs is historically not all that distinct. Particularily in Iraq, the wedge driven between them is mostly a result of US policy going back GWI. Bush I first encouraging the Shia to rise up against Saddam, and then, not only failing to support them in that uprising, but allowing Saddam full access to ruthlessly put it down.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 10:10 PM I’m reposting this as a refutation to that too convenient breakdown of the Iraqi populations:
Shia are definately not a tribe. Shia and Sunni are the two main sects of Islam. You were correct in assuming that most of southern Iraqis are. Shia-they are. But tribes in Iraq can be both sects of Islam, and some of the bigger tribes are both Shia and Sunni. In fact, there are 10s of thousands of marriages in Iraq are between Shia and Sunni.
Kurds are an ethnicity in Iraq…and most of them are Sunni. But Kurds are not figured into the mix when folks talk about 60% of Iraqis are Shia and 20% are Sunni….they keep Kurds separate based on their ethnicity. This is because most of the Shia and (other) Sunni are Arab.
So that’s the rough break down.
If you talk about tribes in Iraq-they go by names-like Dulaimey,
Samarri, Falluji, etc.Hope this helps some,
Dahr
What was being argued was that Iraqi democracy is still a work in progress, and the long and laborous efforts of the fledgling American Republic was an apt comparision.
Iraq is a work “in progress” for and by whom? People in other countries are not our tinker toys for nation building. Had the Iraqi people asked, I would think differently, perhaps; but still, I think the fact that the U.S. doesn’t require a referendum or as much as a straw vote before spending our money and mobilizing our troops to “liberate” a nation after declaring the intention of disarming it tells me that our little experiment in democracy is so far from fruition that we shouldn’t be “spreading” it.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 20, 2005 at 10:22 PM Clearly, I failed to delineate here—-The quote in italics after the name “Dahr” belongs to Jay Cline. Just a typos Jay. Sorry ‘bout that.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 20, 2005 at 10:25 PM wolfie,
Of course the Sunni population is massively against the occupation. So much so that it effects the majority opinion. Otherwise you would have no need to exclude them. Perhaps you are being less than honest with what your intentions are. Is it to find a dialectic that can bring us to concensus or is it to nail my sorry ass to the wall?
That question goes for you too Jay, WTH.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 10:26 PM luminous beauty - i have no desire to exclude any part of the population of Iraq, for the purposes of the poll i quoted or any other reason. In fact i explicitly included them when i stated: “The Sunnis, of course, strongly disagree.”.
If i were to state that blacks vote overwhelmingly democratic, would that be excluding other Americans? How about if i say that people who make more than $100K/yr vote overwhelming republican, would that be excluding (i do not know if the latter is true, it is meant merely as an example of the use of demographics)? Is the use of demographics objectionable?
I prefer more information to less. Thus knowing the demographics of who wants what, whether here in the US, there in Iraq, or even in the Himba tribe of southern west Africa can be informative to me (i have been wanting to work in a Himba reference ever since i saw those wonderful people on a broadcast a few days ago!).
It is worth pondering why the demographics in Iraq are the way they are, or so i believe. Of course, the answer is pretty obvious. . .
Posted by wolf on Dec 20, 2005 at 11:15 PM Had the Iraqi people asked, I would think differently, perhaps
um, they did.
Repeatedly.
Clinton ignored them
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 11:17 PM Again, and for the last time. Sunnis and Shiite have both excommunicated each other, both refers to the other as heretics, both have vowed to exterminate each other.
That Saddam used the difference (that some claim is no difference) to consolidate his secular power by using his Sunni heritage is important.
To infer they are mere kissing cousins is, well, I have promised not to start throwing mud, so I won’t.
And as far as the work in progress, it is the Iraqis doing the work.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 11:20 PM lb,
honesty and respect are two way streets. I am glad you see the value. I just wish you could see the mutual value.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 11:21 PM Jay,
When you begin to cop to your own lies and distortions, and cease to project them onto me, then we might have some grounds for mutuality. Begin with the obvious falsehoods you use in the post of 5:20pm. You are not merely misinformed, you make absolute truths out of partial ones.
wolf,
When you say ‘most Iraqis excepting those in the Sunni regions’, you are explicitly excluding most of the Sunnis from most Iraqis. ipso facto. It is a distortion. It is putting a spin on the fact that most Iraqis are not supportive of the US invasion including substantial portions of the non-Sunni population.
Quit playing games.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 20, 2005 at 11:55 PM Jay, can you give us a reference for your statement that the Sunnis and Shiite have “excommunicated” each other? I’m not asking to be pedantic, I read two to six hours a day (no television) and I’m not much of a secretary or librarian, so I don’t expect opinions to come with bibliographies. Fair is fair.
But, since you are so adamant on this point, I would like to know where you got this information. Last I heard, Shia leaders asked their followers to stand down and not attack Sunnis who were going to vote.
Is this “excommunication” something that happened in the last week or so?
Nobody says they were kissing cousins, but a source that I personally, think of as reliable has said that they marry. I’ve also heard an Iraqi quoted as saying “What?! You think I’m going to attack my wife?!” Somehow this makes more sense to me than a radical and thorough “excommunication”.
BTW, “excommunication” is usually a formal procedure, is it not? How is their newly elected government going to function if the Shia and Sunni are “excommunicated”? Will we have to bomb them into agreement now or just eliminate one of the groups for the sake of concensus.
P.S. Chalabi and a bunch of expats in the INC asked—-the people of Iraq did not ask us to bomb their cities and towns into rubble so that they could begin the long hard struggle for “democracy”. Hmmm. Dead children/democracy, dead parents/democracy, dead self/democracy….
O.K. democracy!
And democracy is so absolutely, miraculously, marvelously, splendid, that we’ll have an order of cancer to go with it and some mutant babies. Thanks America for destroying our country and using it as a dumping ground for your radioactive waste. Thank God (our name for God is “Allah”, like the spanish name for “cat” is “gato”) for rounding up our men and boys and torturing them! Thank you for dumping white phosphorous on Fallujah. With our newfound democracy we will struggle until we kiss your feet by teaching us democracy the only way you know how—-through indiscriminate force and massive ordinance. Thank you for the cluster mines. Thanks for the strafing. Thanks for the tanks with insults written on the side that roll through our towns and cities. Thank you for incinerating families at roadblocks. Thanks for destroying our infrastructure and giving money to Halliburton not to fix anything. Thanks for destroying our hospitals and not footing the bill for the injuries you’ve caused and the disease that is a direct result of the shambles our nation is in.
Democracy is so perfect and wonderful that if half the world’s population must be murdered to achieve it then it is worth it.
Signed, the hand-full of Iraqis that still like being under assault on behalf of removing Saddam Hussein from power or any other excuse parading as “reason”.
And before you go off on your little diddy about “sarcastic” remarks, you might want to look at your little sanitized version of the war and ask yourself what you omit.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 21, 2005 at 12:20 AM Thank you, Wiley.
Mama scold. I’m getting tired of being polite.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 21, 2005 at 12:39 AM Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.
Otto von Bismarck
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 21, 2005 at 2:46 AM Wolf,
You said and I agree,
“When i look at complex events, i try to see them from as many points of view as i can.”When I put myself in the position of the President & Commander in Chief after 9/11 and consider what I would have done had I been he, I am pretty sure I would have reacted similarly.
I am willing to assume there is information only the president and top military personnel have which is not and should not be public.
After reading the long exchange between several people here, I am truly thankful Luminous Beauty was not our first woman President of the United States.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a Happy New Year.
(Feel free to think “Happy Holiday” in place of Merry Christmas if you prefer.) Machs nichts.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 21, 2005 at 9:29 PM whattheheck - I remember the day when the war with Iraq began. I was completely amazed that we were actually going to war, and had many doubts as to the threat Iraq might pose to us. However, i had a Palestinian friend who had been constantly inundating me with the horrors of the UN/US sanctions, so i thought/hoped that the invasion would ease the plight of the Iraqi people. I remain hopeful, for their sake.
Me, i am truly thankful that I am not the Prez (as i imagine are many of the posters here!).
Merry Christmas! And may freedom spread across the world. . .
Posted by wolf on Dec 21, 2005 at 10:08 PM I am willing to assume there is information only the president and top military personnel have which is not and should not be public—WTH
Sorry, I’m not so willing to give up my necessary right in a democracy to informed consent. It is refreshing, though, to see you declare so explicitly your willing obeisance to tyrannical rule. It makes everything you’ve said so clear.
Bye the bye, it is impossible for me to ever become the first woman president of the US, as you have assumed incorrectly my gender. Just an object lesson in the possible error one risks when one assumes (even more likely for assumptions based on one’s willing ignorance).
Merry Christmas and Namaste!
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 21, 2005 at 10:41 PM whattheheck,
For the record, it is okay to ignore lb’s gender bending trick. S/He seems to feel that it is illuminative of her/his opponent’s stereotypes.
What s/he fails to realize is that, far from stereotypical male dominance, it is just as likely, in these times, that with a name so deliberately construed to confuse genders, those of us who respect the other gender and their hard won equal rights would rather risk falling for her/his puerile trap than inadvertently reinforcing historical gender prejudices that says a woman is incapable of intelligent thought or debate. Not that lb’s debates are that intelligent, but s/he seems to think so.
The usual suspects again, seeing only trolls.
What is telling is the stereotypes and prejudices of the bender…
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59 PM Jay,
When you begin to cop to your own lies and distortions, and cease to project them onto me, then we might have some grounds for mutuality. Begin with the obvious falsehoods you use in the post of 5:20pm. You are not merely misinformed, you make absolute truths out of partial ones.
uhm….
lb,
Unless you and wileywitch are one in the same, the 5:20pm post was so obviously in direct response to ww’s 4:22pm post, not anything you posted.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, nez pas?
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 21, 2005 at 11:04 PM lb, ww in the 6:20pm post seemed to understand that.
ww,
the excommunication and charges of heretics goes back hundreds of years. I will have to get back to you one that one, though.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 21, 2005 at 11:06 PM Jay;
Perhaps I’ve been too harsh in my use of the word ‘lying’. Would the term ‘dissembling’ be more acceptable?
When you get back from your research expedition we can discuss it.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 22, 2005 at 1:37 AM Not at all, lb.
Though I am becoming concerned. Despite your obvious predilication towards adolescent hijinks, I fear you may be suffering from some form of senility.
By ‘lying’, what do you mean? The only reference to ‘lying’ anywhere within this posting is your admonishment against fools who never question authority but sycophantically echo whatever they are told by scurrilous lying demagogues.
As I do not disagree with that, I certainly take no umbrage whether you call demagogues liars or dissemblers. That you choose to slander people with such patent nonsense is entirely up to you.
Of course, I am merely offering this as a little constructive criticism. I pray you don’t take offense.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 22, 2005 at 1:52 PM Jay and LB,
Jay has it here as I intended.
“...whattheheck did not say that our democracy was in full place immediately after those events either. What was being argued was that Iraqi democracy is still a work in progress, and the long and laborious efforts of the fledgling American Republic was an apt comparison.”
Just sitting back and watching this exchange between the two of you is perhaps instructive. I can’t help wondering how much communication goes astray when written as opposed to spoken face to face. The lack of sound with all the nuances of the human voice, body language and the advantage of knowing a person under other circumstances and topics can easily lead to hasty conclusions and misunderstanding.
Dealing with theory and hypothetical situations is fine for passing the time interestingly. I suspect if we were together and faced with an imminent crisis our actions may not be all that different. It is much easier to maintain our prejudices at arm’s length than against a person you’ve come to know by name, personality and shared events.
———————————& —-Just to try to make my position clear on the war —
I believe…• It is the most serious threat to this nation in my lifetime. (b:1938)
• This seriousness has not been properly portrayed to the nation and the world.
• Unless the entire free world unites the threat cannot be removed. (containment not an option)
This is not a contest between our intellects. If the threat is NOT real, then the main benefit is having gotten rid of Saddam. And yes, the cost is high. If, however, the threat is real the cost will have been less than doing nothing. Even then there are no guarantees since we can still ALL lose.
——————————— ;————-
As LB stated, “...the wedge driven between them is mostly a result of US policy going back GWI. Bush I first encouraging the Shia to rise up against Saddam, and then, not only failing to support them in that uprising, but allowing Saddam full access to ruthlessly put it down.”
IMO a huge, unforgivable mistake. But… for us to pull out now (we must deal with the NOW only) would lead to the same kind of mass killing and completely destroy U.S. credibility.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 22, 2005 at 4:32 PM Jay-Jay;
You’re above arguments about polling numbers are blatant and egregious. By throwing out data to obtain a result that is consistent with your opinion, you are committing a fraud, plain and simple. If this was the only case it could be dismissed as mere ignorance, however you consistently argue without the slightest concern for either facts or reason.
Even when you on the rare occasion present an empirically true fact, the reasoning you employ in determining the significance of that fact is invariably turned on its head and twisted topsy-turvy. Like saying for example:
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
Ergo: All men are mortalEven though all statements may be true, the reasoning is false because the conclusion does not follow. This is precisely the kind of argument that you would have to employ in your contention that Sunni and Shia Moslems are eternal and implacable foes. (That conclusion is not true, bye the bye.)
When I showed you with plain language your errors in your mistaken interpretation of the use of the word libertarian on the politicalcompass site, carefully answering each dodge you threw out six ways from Sunday, after offering you a reasonable way out of the dilemma into which you were painting yourself, after editing and posting the complete relevant back and forth, so it could be easily seen, did you admit to your error? Not a bit. You said “I think lb has just proved I am a troll” and then left thinking your specious opinion was somehow still justified.In the same discussion, when I showed you chapter and verse how you were using a straw-man fallacy, did you cop to it in the slightest. No, you proceeded with a scurrilous, baseless attempt to accuse me of making a straw-man argument.
This is not even a plausible rhetorical argument. It is a demonstration of what is known in psychology as transference. This is reflected in spades by the above post, wherein you try, in a parodical fashion, to use my words against me. It is the equivalent to the childish argument ‘I know you are, but what am I?’. This kind of projection in children is understandable because of their limited moral and mental development. In an adult it is, when habitual, a clear symptom of pathology.
As the twelve-steppers say, “The first step in overcoming a problem, is admitting you have a problem”.
I have not been childish in my rhetorical undermining of your opinions, but merely taking a child-like pleasure in pointing out the absurdities inherent in them. Since you then or since have not shown the slightest interest in engaging in a sober and rational discussion, but instead create the superficial pose of one who is serious, I really have little option other than letting your intentional falsehoods stand. In the interest of seeking what is true and good, I cannot in good moral conscience allow that.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 22, 2005 at 8:23 PM WTH:
I fail to see how piling unforgivable mistake on top of unforgivable mistake upon unforgivable mistake is defending US credibility.
You illustrate so transparently Wilde’s observation that “consistency is the hob-goblin of the small minds.”
It’s not at all clear to me that immediate US withdrawal would result in any more bloodshed than is occurring NOW. (I do think it important to examine the future consequences of present and past actions. It’s called mental maturity)
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 22, 2005 at 8:40 PM The world is getting a quite different picture than what either the Pres. or the relatively compliant mainstream press are saying. HERE is a view from the Iraqi street that puts your arm chair speculations to shame. If you guys are capable of shame?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 22, 2005 at 9:29 PM That’s quite all right, lb. I have made it clear in other discussions that devolve into “my poll vs your poll” argument that polls alone are not enough to establish facts. As I am sure you must be aware, they give a sense of opinion only, and as your dear friend admonishes quite often, opinions are not facts. Certainly they have their uses, when not abused.
I do find it curious though that you so vehemently object to the “correctness” of polling data that counters your arguments, but all you can offer is an article with such patently biased anecdotal information.
But that too is ok. I do like your Logic 101 lesson. It is quite clear. Let’s try another. I say Shiite and Sunni have a history of animosity. You conclude I am asserting that I have proclaimed they are implacable and eternal enemies and proceed to create a fantasy opponent to argue with.
Incredibly amusing! Thanks for the chuckle!
So, I guess we will just let that argument rest on its own merits. I would greatly dislike embarrassing you further, though I do continue to advise you take your own counsel. The 12-step process is indeed a good place to start.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 22, 2005 at 10:18 PM The facts of the one poll under discussion are the numbers of that poll. It is not my poll vs. your poll. It is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of uncontroversial fact. It is the same poll and it is the same numbers. once again blatant data-mining, removing data that do not agree with your desired conclusion is FRAUD, plain and simple. If you were presenting a study using such conclusions to any legitimate scientific body you would suffer the most severe sanctions.
Exactly.So you are backing off the argument that The Shia and Sunni consider each the other ex-communicated heretics, in a global historical sense and only that maybe there are instances in history when Shia and Sunni may have been at each others throats. That is good. That is reasonable. But it leaves you with no argument against Wiley’s and my contention that, in general, the differences between Sunni and Shia globally, historically and in particular existing communities are not so great. So why defend such a weakened useless redoubt? You are only salving your narcissistic pride, with another display of squalid dissembling.
So you have no other response
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 22, 2005 at 11:46 PM LB,
What I said was in response to your statement of our cutting out after the First Gulf War.
“...encouraging the Shia to rise up against Saddam, and then, not only failing to support them in that uprising, but allowing Saddam full access to ruthlessly put it down.”My reply:
“IMO a huge, unforgivable mistake. But… for us to pull out now (we must deal with the NOW only) would lead to the same kind of mass killing and completely destroy U.S. credibility.”
While you have a broad vocabulary (no pun intended) you do seem to have either a problem with comprehension or retention. If you read the above slowly you may discover that I am proposing NOT to repeat (a consistency) the pull-out.
I suspect you were already composing a retort when you could have simply been accepting that there is a possibility someone has reason to hold a differing opinion.
You stated, “It’s not at all clear to me that immediate US withdrawal would result in any more bloodshed than is occurring NOW.”
Commanders must act in real time, even when “unclear” what the result may be. Not acting the result is also unclear. They don’t have the luxury of days, weeks, months, to reflect or the advice of a committee input. Likewise even in a longer time frame the outcome is always speculative.
Even worse they often have more than one life or death decision to make at the same time.
Then you added, “(I do think it important to examine the future consequences of present and past actions. It’s called mental maturity)”
This is exactly what my comments were doing — Based on what happened when we left too early thousands were slaughtered. If we do it again I see no reason it would not happen again. In addition it would give the terrorist leaders wonderful recruiting material. “Blow yourself up — chase an American Army away.”
Unlike you, who blame each Iraqi death on the U.S. I see the suicide bombers and those planting the IEDs as killers, NOT patriots.
Finally, i must admit you have changed my mind about one of my opinions. I no longer believe if faced with an imminent crisis our actions would be similar. While many of us would choose to act against a threat, you would be attempting to skewer it with your sharp tongue. (No match for an AK-47.)
P.S. By the way, I believe your quote about consistency/small minds is by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Wilde was out having his hair done at the time.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 23, 2005 at 4:04 PM WTH;
You’re right, Emerson said it first. However, Emerson was dead before Wilde was in an English prison for the crime of being himself.
You say:
Based on what happened when we left too early thousands were slaughtered. If we do it again I see no reason it would not happen again. In addition it would give the terrorist leaders wonderful recruiting material. “Blow yourself up — chase an American Army away.First, we really never left. No fly zones, sanctions, UN inspections. US troops were still on the ground in Iraq when the US gave Saddam permission to use helicopter gun-ships to suppress the uprisings.
As to the second. Isn’t the current situation a recruiting tool for ‘terrorists’? Isn’t the current situation a training ground for insurgents seeking to kill Americans? I cannot see how depriving them of these real world conditions is going to increase their credibility or capability.
All your speculations and assumptions seem founded on beliefs based on opinion, circling the facts without ever touching them.
You say:
Unlike you, who blame each Iraqi death on the U.S. I see the suicide bombers and those planting the IEDs as killers, NOT patriots
I repeat this quote from Albert Camus.
In the end, man is not entirely guilty — he did not start history. Nor is he wholly innocent — he continues it.
Read it carefully. If your comprehension is up to par, you might be able to infer that I am saying there is plenty of blame to go around, but playing the blame game is more heat than light. An affective diversion from the pursuit of understanding. I believe this is a moderate position.
Your opinion on the Iraqi resistance is only of interest to you. What I would have you consider is if they believe they are patriots.
You really seem a little overboard in your defense of force.
Do you really think pointing a gun in my face would make me more agreeable to your point of view?Bye the bye, that has happened to me more than once. I’ve also broken up more than one fight between people wielding fists, knives and/or guns. Without killing anybody.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 23, 2005 at 6:24 PM LB,
War is about force. Where Al Camus places what percentage of blame is irrelevant. In a combat situation poking a gun in your face would have nothing to do with attempting to change your mind — just your longevity.
I have no illusions of ever changing your mind. The only reason for my comments lately has been due to Jay having pointed out that other people may be reading this stuff and open to more than just the usual anti-U.S. propaganda generally packing this site.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 23, 2005 at 9:29 PM Yes WTH, your illusions are incompatible with changing minds. Before you can change a mind you must first begin to understand it. You should begin with examining your own mind. It’s never too late. It is apparent to me that you mindlessly cling to core beliefs you vainly desire to be fixed and absolute. Any new idea outside of what you already believe you can only interpret as a threat. Like Jay, you put on the mask of reason and moderation, but the only compromise you offer is an ignoring and confused middle ground between the search for what is true and accepting pleasing lies. (Pleasing to you. They horrify me) Tres Mephisto.
You have not the foggiest idea what Camus is saying or I am saying. Only that you disagree because when you come down to it all you believe or understand is that your side must win no matter what. Lies, trickery, force, coercion, intimidation, corruption. None of it matters as long as you and your tribe gets its way. Objective reason is not something you can tolerate, much less understand.
To say open and free dissent and criticism of government policy are anti-U.S. is about as anti-U.S. a statement as is possible. Shame on you!
Namaste.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 23, 2005 at 10:35 PM LB,
A great idea! Why don’t you go over and join the Quakers?
Surely, the Iraqi “patriots” you favor will follow your objective reasoning.
You must know deep in your heart they would never resort to lies, trickery, force, coersion, intimidation, or corruption, so you will be able to get them to abandon THEIR “core beliefs” and we can all live pacifistically ever after.
Question: Do they remove a woman’s head covering, before they chop, or just remove everything in one fell swoop?
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 24, 2005 at 3:46 PM Merry Christmas, WTH;
“Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now; for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now; for ye shall laugh.”
“But woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! For ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! For ye shall mourn and weep.”
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you: Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.But I say unto you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. Thus you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even publicans the same? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more than others? Do not even publicans so?”
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you: Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not life more than meat, and the body more than raiment?”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
“Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.”
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 24, 2005 at 5:37 PM selah salaam aleichem, comrade.
May peace be upon you.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 24, 2005 at 8:22 PM Merry Christmas Luminous Beauty and What the Heck and Jay.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 24, 2005 at 9:19 PM This poem was written by a Marine. The following is his request. I think it is reasonable…..
PLEASE. Would you do me the kind favor of sending this to as many people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to our U.S. service men and women for our being able to celebrate, these festivities. Let’s try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe. Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us. Please, do your small part to plant this small seed.
A Christmas Story
TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF
PLASTER AND STONE.I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO
IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT
CAME THROUGH MY MIND.FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.
THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER.WAS THIS THE HERO
OF WHOM I’D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?I REALIZED THE FAMILIES
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.
SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY
.
THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.I COULDN’T HELP WONDER
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME
.
THE VERY THOUGHT
BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES
AND STARTED TO CRY.THE SOLDIER AWAKENED
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
“SANTA DON’T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON’T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS, MY GOD,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS.”THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN’T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED
FROM THE COLD NIGHT’S CHILL.I DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, “CARRY ON SANTA,
IT’S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE.”ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
“MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.”
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 25, 2005 at 3:23 PM For your marine, WTH;
Christmas in the Trenches
words & music by John McCutcheonMy name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool,
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders to Germany to here
I fought for King and country I love dear.
‘Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost so bitter hung,
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung,
Our families back in England were toasting us that day,
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I, “Now listen up, me boys!” each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear.
“He’s singing bloody well, you know!” my partner says to me
Soon one by one each German voice joined in in harmony
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war.As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
“God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” struck up some lads from Kent
The next they sang was “Stille Nacht,” “Tis ‘Silent Night’,” says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky.
“There’s someone coming towards us!” the front line sentry cried
All sights were fixed on one lone figure coming from their side
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shone on that plain so bright
As he bravely strode unarmed into the night.Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man’s land
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare-lit soccer game we gave ‘em hell.
We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own
Young Sanders played his squeeze box and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men.Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each began to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wondrous night
“Whose family have I fixed within my sights?”
‘Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung
For the walls they’d kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone for evermore.My name is Francis Tolliver, in Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas come since World War I I’ve learned its lessons well
That the ones who call the shots won’t be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we’re the same.©1984 John McCutcheon/Appalsongs (ASCAP)
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 26, 2005 at 6:34 AM ‘Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house
every creature’d been tortured, including the mouse.Grandpa was hung from the doorframe with care;
And bound in a corner was Grandma, quite bare.For Mama and Papa, some discreet waterboarding
might serve to uncover the secrets they’re hoarding.The children fared better, just hooded and gagged,
for the CIA guys weren’t quite sure what they’d bagged.The thing started simply (as things often do)
when Grandpa sent email he later would rue:“My idiot son and his little Miss Thing
have unleashed on the world a terrorist ring.”He meant just that Junior’s young children lacked manners,
and not that they marched under terrorist banners,but the NSA listeners were carefully listening,
their eyes with the patriot’s fervor were glistening,and they knew in a flash that they’d heard quite enough;
it was off with the kid gloves, and high time to play rough.It was well into morning when the case finally broke
and it wasn’t the grownups, but the children who spoke.They gave up the red-suited bagman named Nick
who snuck down the chimney and out again, quick,picking up messages and laundering loot
while disguised with a beard and that fairy-tale suit.So don’t expect Christmas, and take care whom you sass
’cause they’ve rendered St. Nick and they’re watching your ass.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/18/171530/69
Posted by Major Major on Dec 26, 2005 at 7:57 AM Saw THIS interview
on C-SPAN over the weekend.This week on After Words former Marine Corps Captain Nathaniel Fick who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, reveals how the Corps trains its leaders in his memoir “One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer .”
Watch this interview, WTH. He strikes a genuinely middle view between your mindless jingoism, and the absolute rejectionism you attribute to me. You might learn something.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 26, 2005 at 3:35 PM LB,
I’ll see if they are going to rerun it on the Book Channel. I cannot play it on line without upgrading my browser, which requires upgrading my system to Mac OSX, which I am waiting to do after I can go from dial-up to either cable or satellite.
I did go to Amazon to read some reviews and it looks interesting.
As for “mindless jingoism” and “absolute rejectionism” — if you are still talking about the war, I view your description of my nationalism as incorrect and unfair and I’m unsure about whether you are an absolute rejectionist on the subject of war. I don’t know if you consider yourself a pacifist or if I got the impression you are due to your extreme reaction to some earlier comment of mine.
I do not hold the position of, “My country, right or wrong.” I do believe the threats are real, some decisions have been wrong, and do not like the idea that torture is acceptable as a general policy. Debating what may or may not be done by some individual in the extreme situation of an imminent attack is not worth the time to debate.
Too many conclusion jumping exchanges and too much to backtrack through for me. I tried to make my thoughts on the war clear a few days ago. If you are indeed a pacifist — fine. However, in order to negociate or compromise any two opposite views there needs to be some sort of common ground or all is futile.
I carried on a lengthy discussion along these lines prior to 9/11 with the son of a friend in London. He is definitely a pacifist to the point of declining to defend an old lady if under attack by a sex crazed maniac. I would waste no time taking extreme measures — he was unable to give an answer. End of our attempts at discussion.
Perhaps you and I should simply apply your comment regarding Oscar Wilde to each other’s views, “...just being himself.”
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 26, 2005 at 9:15 PM I’d rather say some wrong decisions were made. What were mostly imaginary threats are now real threats. Let us not assume that those new real threats are at all the same as the imaginary threats that led us to make those original wrong decisions.
Some questioning of the underlying assumptions is indicated. That’s what we on the Left do best.
If it suits you to reduce the totality of millenia of pacifist thought and practice to the rhetorical and hypothetical hyperbole of your friend’s son it does seem difficult to help you understand that your view of pacifism might in itself be just as naive and lacking informed nuance as your friend’s son’s juvenile ranting.
The common ground is and always has been the simple fact of our basic humanity, warts and all.
The Fick book looks well worth a gander. Right now I’m just getting into “Windows on the World” by Frederic Beigbeder. It’s a French novelist’s take on 9/11. Hmmn?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 26, 2005 at 11:00 PM After what happened on 9/11 I don’t understand how you can view the situation as “mostly imaginary threats.” A good friend of mine is an officer in Aon Insurance and lost a lot of people in the WTC attacks — it is very real to him.
IMO we should have gone after the terrorist’s training camps when the earlier attacks on our military took place. We should have removed Saddam after the First Gulf War. Back then perhaps we could have gotten an international joint force like NATO to act if we had pushed for it. The U.N. is too poluted with terrorist sympathizers to be of any use.
Do you by any chance know if the Fick review will be repeated this week? Our TV guide doesn’t list it by name.
I’m about 2/3 through McCollough’s “John Adams” and have found so many parallels between the news in 1788-89 and today. Adams was accused of being a foreign agent by a preacher cousin just before he returned from being our ambassador to Great Britain. Newspapers and pamphlets were spreading misinformation. His close friend was very pessimistic due to the greed which had taken over the wealthier class. There was a movement to make government service non-paying which of course, would mean only the wealthy could afford to govern.
Everything is a rerun.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 27, 2005 at 2:10 AM LB,
I guess since the Fick program was already on once before it may be too late to see it. While reading the amazon reviews I was reminded of William Manchester’s, “Goodbye Darkness’ which I read many years ago (shortly after the Viet Nam War).
At that time it was especially appropriate since so much attention was being given to the Nam vets’ stress symptoms. He begins by telling about his nightmares being the reason for returning to the scene of his WW2 horrors as a young Marine at most of the major Pacific island battles. The trip was to purge himself of the memories — strangely, I don’t remember the ending just the beginning.
I had already heard similar comments from some of the WW2 and Korean vets when TV discussions made it sound like something new. I expect it has always been so and will be.
The mind replays both the best and the worst of life’s experiences in present tense. I nearly drown as a boy at Scout camp. Our canoe overturned in the river and I came up inside the canoe. One of the older boys pulled me out and gave me artificial respiration. I have had nightmares of it occasionally. (Probably not close to Manchester’s, but it’s been almost sixty years and it’s still in there.) When I got asthma at age fifty, I was immediately reminded what it is to drown.
My drowning dream still causes me to wake with a start, sweating and my heart racing. Like Manchester, I “went back” to try to rid myself of it. As an adult I took swimming lessons at the Y, but even though I am confident I can stay afloat, I do not enjoy being around water deeper than my six foot frame.
I got to thinking about this in relation to your comment about “imaginary Threats” and how, real or imaginary, we react to our perceptions. I believe this is at least as true as a group, maybe even more so due to the herd or mob mentality.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 27, 2005 at 3:36 PM (lb)
So you are backing off the argument that The Shia and Sunni consider each the other ex-communicated heretics, in a global historical sense and only that maybe there are instances in history when Shia and Sunni may have been at each others throats. That is good. That is reasonable. But it leaves you with no argument against Wiley’s and my contention that, in general, the differences between Sunni and Shia globally, historically and in particular existing communities are not so great. So why defend such a weakened useless redoubt? You are only salving your narcissistic pride, with another display of squalid dissembling.
So you have no other response
lb,
Not at all. I do pity you, though. You base your arguments on fallacious interpretations of other’s statements. I have failed in the past to dumb things up sufficiently for you to understand, but I am an eternal optimimist.
I will try again.
Do try to keep up.
I say that the Shia and Sunni have historical reasons for anomosity, to the point where they see each other as heretics (historical fact).
You claim that when I say Blue, I mean Red, therefore I have no argument?
The only wishy-washiness going on is the sloshing noise between your two ears.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 5:34 PM Jay-Jay;
You really are funny when you try to be sarcastic.
I am still waiting for you to back up your claim of historical fact with evidence.
I’m curious. How I have fallaciously interpreted your statements? Don’t dumb up your response on my account. I’ll do my best to keep up.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 27, 2005 at 6:29 PM Jay,
I can’t seem to find your website. I know I had it at one time.
Just curious about the debate between you and LB about various Muslims opinions of each other —
What difference does it make to us? Nothing I have read sounds as if the really religious ones of any stripe object too strongly to killing us.
Note: They’re expect a bunch of virgins post big bang event. They assume these are women. I’ve heard thay may be camels.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.:-)
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 27, 2005 at 6:32 PM wiley (apologies if this ‘nickname’ or ‘first name’ is inappropriate - I get lazy when typing out people’s full name),
I agree that breaking down the Iraqi population into three, and only three, distinct populations is a convenience, yet I would disagree that for broad discussions on current Iraqi politics, it is not ‘too’ convenient.
As the latest round of Iraqi elections has shown, the results do breakdown quite sharply between these three cultural divides.
As far as the animosity between the Shia and the Sunni, that goes back to the succession of the Islamic leadership after the death of the Prophet in the early seventh century. At the risk of painting the differences too broadly, in matters of legitimacy and Islamic succession, the Shia believe that the Prophet’s son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib, was personally chosen by the Prophet and is the rightful heir. In fact, the etymology of the designation Shia means ‘follower of Ali’.
Sunnis, on the other hand, believe that Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s father-in-law, was the legitimate heir as he was chosen by the community in accordance with tradition. The etymology of Sunni is from sunnah, Arabic for ‘way’ or ‘custom’.
Risking an even broader stroke of the brush, it is similar to the dogmatic differences in Christian history between Catholics and Protestants that came out the Reformation of Luther (yes, I know there were more reformers, but Luther really nailed the Reformation down).
That the modern Iraqi Shia leaders asked their followers to stand down and not attack Sunnis who were going to vote does not imply that it is all water under the bridge. Iraqi Sunnis and Shia continue to kill one another; Sunnis killing Shia under the auspices of the Sunni insurgency, Shia killing Sunnis under the auspices of the Shia brigades empowered by the Shia-dominated Iraqi government. It is therefore no surprise that the Sunni accuse the Shia of using the power of the government to wage a campaign of genocide against the Sunni.
What is surprising is that the Shia leaders, despite decades of brutal repression under the nominally Sunni Saddam, recognize that, for the time being at least, it is more advantageous for them to restrain their more radical elements and work with the Sunni. Regardless of my ‘kissing cousin’ hyperbole, to say that because some Shia and Sunni have happily married and thrive, and then conclude there must not be that great a social, cultural and political divide, is no different than to observe the increasing rates of inter-racial marriages in America and conclude racism in America is no longer an issue.
So, allow me a sarcastic observation when I say that I have always believed that when inter-racial couples get those ‘looks’ from strangers, it is merely a look of appreciation towards the wife’s dark-haired beauty.
I know that is most certainly true in my case.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 6:56 PM lb,
I am afraid I can’t answer your question if you persist in misinterpretation.
I can only regress so far before I starting instructing you with baby talk.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 6:57 PM I can only regress so far before I starting instructing you with baby talk
Jay-Jay;
That ship has long since sailed, bro. Your range has so far been limited to the gray area between gobbledegook and gibberish.
I think you’re afraid of me.
Here’s a taste of what
< a href=“http://www.submission.org/terrorism.html”> genuinely religious Muslims </a> actually believe about the blasphemous sins of terrorists and the urban myth of
houris of paradise.Inform yourselves and then maybe we can talk.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 27, 2005 at 7:43 PM lb,
Ah, the Alzheimers is kicking in again.
So, first, let me just quote myself,
Unless you and wileywitch are one in the same, the 5:20pm post was so obviously in direct response to ww’s 4:22pm post, not anything you posted.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, nez pas?
And then, with regards to “houris of paradise”, let me quote another, not me,
They’re expect a bunch of virgins post big bang event. They assume these are women. I’ve heard thay may be camels.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.:-)
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 27, 2005 at 12:32 PMHere is your own advice,
Jay-Jay,
Go back and re-read what has been written and it might make a little more sense.
lb, you really need to clean up your own act before you go around criticizing others…which I believe is more of your own advice.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 8:02 PM hmm,
I do notice a pattern, though. The taunts, as they grow more and more ineffective, are getting more and more puerile.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 8:15 PM Jay-Jay, you are afraid of me! You are damn near incoherent.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 27, 2005 at 8:40 PM Ah, to live in one’s own little fantasy world…
What a thing to believe.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 8:52 PM I still don’t see anything that constitutes real evidence that the sons of Ali and the followers of uncle Bak’r have ever considered the other’s faith and practice in Islam heretical. Your broad brush picture reveals the schism is historically over ecclesiastic authority and not religious doctrine.
I really don’t think you know exactly what it is you are trying to prove with this argument.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 27, 2005 at 9:34 PM the schism is historically over ecclesiastic authority and not religious doctrine.
As in the Reformation, or as in the split between the Western and Eastern Roman churches, schisms over ecclesiastic authority often leads to schisms over religious doctrine as those diverging authorities make changes to dogma to define and broaden whatever differences intially existed. However, your argument means little as a schism in both areas is not a necessary requirement for animosity between two peoples.
The only point I have made is that (engaging hyperbole again) the Sunnis and the Shia are far from kissing cousins. The differences between them are large enough to be a difference.
Certainly the Sunnis and the Shia that are dying by each others hand consider it a difference worth mentioning.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 10:08 PM I really don’t think you know exactly what it is you are trying to prove with this argument.
Of course, you mean you don’t know.
Failure to understand simple statements on your part does not consitute faulty argumentation.
This time allow me to offer a little advice: Argue your own point and let others argue theirs.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 10:10 PM Jay-Jay;
So, do you do rescind your language of heresy and ex-communication or don’t you? It’s not nice to change the goal-posts in mid argument.
I know I don’t know what exactly it is you’re trying to prove. I merely suspect you don’t, either. Since you haven’t made an effort to clarify, my suspicion is only confirmed.
If you believe the present differences between Iraqis are fundamentally because of irreconcilable religious disputes, that would seem to preclude existential material cultural and political causes. If you think that these sorts of causes may have some relevance then we are really not in disagreement.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 27, 2005 at 10:33 PM No. The “rescinding” was a figment and product of your over eager imagination. If you don’t like changing the goal-posts in mid argument, then stop doing it.
If you are confused, let me help.
A=A
I have stated quite clearly that I believe the differences between Sunnis and Shia are fundamentally because of religious disputes.
I am glad that you have finally understood that when you change peoples words and then add and insert your own words, the meaning changes dramatically.
There may be hope for you yet.
It is amusing to see you gyrate though.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 27, 2005 at 11:06 PM have stated quite clearly that I believe the differences between Sunnis and Shia are fundamentally because of religious disputes.
So tell me, what exactly are these irreconcilable differences in dogma and doctrine?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 27, 2005 at 11:27 PM lb,
I don’t know. You are the one repeatedly characterizing them as irreconcilable.
I merely maintain they are very significant in the context of the current political situation, sufficiently significant to warrant making a distinction between the two populations when evaluating polling data.
I have made the distinction between Sunni and Shia, to the extent necessary for the argument I have consistently made. Neither considers the other as legitimate, as the Protestants and Catholics did during and after the Reformation and as the Western and Eastern Roman churchs did during and after their schism.
Again, I feel the urge to lecture a child. Take your own advice and start re-reading what has already been written. This trite and contrite behavior becomes tiring.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 28, 2005 at 5:42 AM Jay-Jay;
Heresy and ex-communicate are not reconcilible differences. The Protestants and Catholics fought for thirty bloody years over those words. In some sectors they have currency still. They have distinct and particular religious meanings that apply to central doctrinal understandings. They just do not apply to the differences between Shia and Sunni.
Your ignorance of that history is as obvious as your ignorance of Islamic history. There has never been any question between the Sunnis and Shia as to each other’s religious legitimacy. They have lived shoulder to shoulder since the very beginning of Islam. Social and cultural differences have been aggravated for political purposes. Mostly by non-Muslims. Extremist Islamic sects such as certain Salafi sheiks who have anathemized Shia have also anathemized other Sunnis and are generally held to be heretical by the vast majority of all Muslims.
You make a statement that such and such is so and expect it to be accepted without evidence, only on the basis of ludicrous gross comparison. You are an irrational idiot. Children have a better grasp of reason.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 28, 2005 at 3:15 PM LB,
I went to your reference, “genuinely religious Muslims” and while they speak of justice that is a large loophole open to individual interpretations. I recall reading that the kill order on Rushtie was thought to be “just” even by those who would not have killed him themselves.
Any religion’s “holy writings” can be tailored to suit the aims of the spectrum of adherents. IMO more people have have died for religious reasons than any other excuse.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 28, 2005 at 3:17 PM WTH;
While what you are saying is generally true, reality is in the specifics. The gross over-reaction to Rushdie’s novel was particular to a single fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini. The condemnation of terrorism is broadly affirmed by all sects of Islam. Even the majority of Salafis, to which the Al Queda leadership nominally belong.
IMHO religious war is the invention of Christians against other Christians in the 2nd century. It is generally the result of exceptionalism among monotheistic religions. It is far more often the superficial rallying cry used by political leaders to manipulate the affective perceptions of the masses. It is rarely if ever connected to genuine spiritual differences.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 28, 2005 at 4:13 PM lb,
Not at all. In fact, your own twisting of the argument proves my point.
First, irreconcilable means not being able to reconcile. Yet, your Protestants and your Catholics, after your war of thirty years, are now reconciled, at least to the point of coexistence, if not dogma. When did that happen? Luther was excommunicated five hundred years ago, yet anyone familiar with contemporary Christian church is well aware of recent attempts to seek reconciliation, not only between the Protestant denominations, but with the Catholic Church as well. This reconciliation is in the very early stages to be sure, but definitely not irreconcilable.
I resist your characterizations because your past behavior here has shown you are always so argumentative about them. You go out of your way to split hares, then you pull out the house painting brush and gloss it all over.
As far as your attempt to dictate history, particularly the schism between Sunni and Shia, dude, The Emperor has no Clothes. Yes, they have lived shoulder to shoulder. In the land of their fathers. Not because they like each other. Just as the Hatfields and McCoys lived shoulder to shoulder. In the land of their fathers.
And they have been killing each other, shoulder to shoulder. The current crop of Sunni deaths by Shia brigades and the Shia deaths by the Sunni insurgents is real, no matter how hard you trivialize them. Or do you believe it is just incredible coincidence that Sunnis are targeting Shia and Shia are targeting Sunni? And what of that doomsday scenario trumpeted so recently? You know. The one where this was all going to devolve into an Iraqi Civil War? Between Shia and Sunni?
C’mon dude. Admit it. You just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
Again, the core point in all of this, the core point that I have not wavered from, yet you continue to dance your little jig around, is that the fundamental differences and animosities between the two major sects of Islam, differences founded on the legitimacy of each sect, differences upon which they themselves differentiate, differences that have their origins in the very origin of each sect; these differences are sufficient to characterize them as distinct populations.
Taunt, slander, demean all you will (which you have a profound talent for) you cannot change those facts.
But, there is still some daylight left, so go ahead and play in the sand. If you have to go potty, don’t wait until the last minute. Papa is getting tired of cleaning up after you. And no argument when it is bedtime, young man!
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 28, 2005 at 5:02 PM In the vain hope of elucidating exactly what I am arguing in this thread, allow me to repeat the body of my quote from Camus:
“The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole men are more good than bad; that, however, isn’t the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. There can be no true goodness, nor true love, without the utmost clear-sightedness.”
This goes for us and them, and you and me. I cannot make myself any more clear.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 28, 2005 at 5:15 PM As to the ‘justice’ exception for capital punishment, how is that any different to the capital punishment exceptions of Christians and Jews to “Thou shall not kill”? Or ‘just war’ doctrines?
The problem I have with legalistic arguments such as you present WTH is this: When you split the difference between opposing viewpoints you are giving unwarranted weight to that viewpoint which may be grounded in sophism and falsehood and diminishing the relevance of that based on fact and reason.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 28, 2005 at 5:49 PM Jay-Jay;
The Shia tradition stems from the private traditions of the household of Mohammed. The Sunni traditions are those of the Generals of the first jihad who were united under Bak’r and the banner of protecting Islam and bringing to justice the slayers of the Prophet’s family. They are better understood as the core and the flesh of a single fruit.In Iraq, Sunnis are killing Sunnis and Shia are killing Shia as well. Over a third of the documented violent civilian deaths are directly attributable to US aggression, over a third to criminal activity and less than a tenth to insurgents. A tiny fraction to religious extremists. The worst are likely attributable to counter-insurgency false flag operations by US covert intelligence operators or their surrogates meant to inflame existing differences. The history of Sunni political domination is attributable to class distinctions, not religious ones. The same goes for resentment in predominately but not entirely Shia communities.
I only argue with you Jay-Jay because you are so wrong and misguided.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 28, 2005 at 6:24 PM lb,
You abuse statistics yet one more time. Do Sunnis kill Sunnis? Yes. Do Shia kill Shia yes?
During the most egregious racial violence in America’s history, did blacks in America kill blacks? Did whites in America kill whites?
Yes. Yes.
Again, during Nazi Germany, were there instances of Jews killing Jews? of Germans killing Germans?
Yes. Yes
So, the logic of your argument is that the Holocaust never happened.
Come now. You do try to pretend to have a better understanding of logic than that.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 28, 2005 at 9:13 PM LB,
Religious wars have probably gone on since man first started to worship a tree, an animal or whatever in hopes of gaining victory, better hunting or better weather. Certainly the Old Testament is full of edicts to wipe out anyone not a worshiper of their god - even down to their goats.
The masses, IMO, don’t really examine their religious beliefs enough to realize when they are being manipulated. I struggled with Christianity until about forty. At an early age I figured I was a Christian by default and circumstance of birth. I would have been a Muslim, Buddhist, or some other if had been born in the corresponding location. Since then I have come to believe even those who know WHAT they believe, seldom ask themselves WHY they believe it.
I once asked a young man who was translating for a Buddhist priest why he believed what the priest was telling us. His response was, I believe, quite frank, “I must because my whole life is based on my belief.”
I signed on for a two year Bible course and came away with more questions and doubts than answers. I was told by the pastor teaching the class, “You ask questions which shouldn’t be asked.” This led me to about ten years of reading nearly all of the well known theologians and philosophers and a conclusion that people will believe what they want to believe in spite of a lack of evidence.
I am currently a BAA (Born again agnostic).
On Camus: He is more generous than I. I would say on the whole man is neither essentially good nor bad. Under extreme conditions (Katrina) both the best and worst of man comes quickly to the surface.
I didn’t know we were discussing capital punishment. Thirty years ago I argued against it, but after so many totally wicked individuals were released from their “life” sentences only to kill again, I am now in favor for the worst of them.
When people say it is not a deterrent it is simply because the process takes so long. We had a man here who killed six people in multiple gas station holdups. He was wounded in an escape attempt and it took fourteen years to finally execute him. (If the cop had been a better shot the result would have been the same and we could have saved a lot of expense.)
This guy Tookie that Hollywood was so upset about probably would have died much sooner if he had not been on death row. 20 Years! Put a gun to someone’s head and it is an instant deterrent. At least it would be for me.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 28, 2005 at 9:32 PM I abuse statistics? How droll.
What about the ignorance, WTH? You didn’t know we were talking about capitol punishment, yet you brought it up as a loophole… what did you say?...open to individual interpretation. You apparently didn’t even realize that was to what ‘justice’ was explicitly referring. Your prejudice was doing your thinking for you. Ignorance, amigo.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 29, 2005 at 1:56 AM WTH, I am opposed to the death penalty for a lot of reasons, but especially on the point that sociopaths will not be deterred from the threat of death. They have no empathy, not even for themselves, and tend to be immune to threats.
There was a time when most groups of people would have looked the other way while someone bashed the bully’s head in with a rock, but we’re supposed to be better than that now (or at least we are supposed to pretend that we are).
I understand the sentiment of gunning the madman down in the heat of a crime, but how often does that happen?
Also, if a state wants people to respect its laws, it should make respectable laws. When the state murders, it sets a terrible example. Our court system is adversarial and more about “winning” than uncovering the truth. Poor people often “lose” simply because they can’t afford a “winning” lawyer. Rich criminals often “win” because they can.
Our system is too faulty, IMO, to be killing people who could easily be not guilty.
BTW, Tookie did good deeds while he was on death row, and has always maintained his innocence. If you’ve got proof of his guilt, then show it. Otherwise, you are overstepping the bounds of your knowledge.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 29, 2005 at 6:45 AM LB,
Do you always resort to name calling when a simple clarification would do as well?
I think of capital punishment as an act by a duly constituted government body not a religious vendetta. As I understand the fatwa on Rushtie, it was due to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s allegation he had insulted Allah. This idea of “justice” if applied to Christianity would demand believers kill every guy who ever hit his thumb with a hammer.
Wiley,
As for the purpose of capital punishment, I do not see it as a universal deterrent. However, whether a sociopath or other, execution is a very effective preventer of recidivism. IMO the primary reason for execution, or for that matter, imprisonment, is to protect society in general — not just to “punish.”
I think too many are currently imprisoned for realitively minor offenses which are harmless to others. Drugs or alcohol use should not absolve an individual from harmful behavior toward others, but if a person chooses to screw up his own life — so be it. While prison may not be a deterrent, it is probably going to make a person worse rather than better in these cases.
I am opposed to painful methods such as gas and electrocution when a bullet to the head or better still, injection would do the job. If you have never witnessed a family pet put to death by injection I can tell you it is very quick and apparently painless.
Even a sociopath, if a gun is put to his head, would probably alter his current activity. If not and the action was bad enough — goodbye and good riddance.
I believe Tookie had as fair a trial as possible. What he did while in prison is of no consequence. Even Joe Stalin could put on a happy face when it suited his purposes. My sympathy is for his victims and their families.
Yes, our system has a lot of faults. But we’re talking about more than just bullies here. I see no excuse for letting some of these bastards out on the street for another opportunity to kill, rape, rob, etc.
The wife of a friend of mine was attacked in the 1960s by a previously convicted sex offender out on parole. He screwed up her sex organs with a screwdriver and she could never have kids. Every few years he comes up for parole again and they have to relive the whole disgusting event and convince the board not to let him out. They should have eliminated him forty years ago. He has no social redeeming value.
Life is NOT fair! But in this case who got the worst of the deal? If he is ever released I am confident Jack will kill him. That’s only fair.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 29, 2005 at 6:07 PM Becker-Posner (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/) have an interesting debate on capital punishment. The essence of their argument (both favor capital punishment) is that the deterrence need not be total, merely sufficient.
Becker summarizes it thusly,
I favor capital punishment because and only because I believe it has “sizeable” deterrent effects. I would join the anti-capital punishment side if this view turns out to be wrong, if it were proven that many innocent persons are wrongly executed, or if it is administered in such a racially biased manner as to wrongly convict many black persons, and to be little used against white murderers. But I do not believe that the available evidence strongly supports any of these arguments against the use of capital punishment.
Posner takes a much stronger viewpoint, arguing even the revenge factor does play to deterrence,
I do not consider revenge an impermissible ground for capital punishment. Revenge has very deep roots in the human psyche. As I have long argued, basing the argument on work by evolutionary psychologists such as Robert Trivers, the threat of revenge must have played an essential role in maintaining order in the “ancestral environment.”
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 29, 2005 at 6:18 PM WTH, my condolences to your friend. That is horrible. Am wishing her blessings and strength.
Though clearly the offender would not have been able to commit that act had he been put to death, if he had been imprisoned for life (and kept separate from other prisoners) he also would not have had the opportunity to commit this act again.
IMO, anyone who committed an act that heinous should be imprisoned for life and studied. Then your friend and others wouldn’t have to go through the hearings, etc.; and someone would have more information with which to figure out how a person becomes that dreadful (which is not the same as looking for circumstances to make excuses) in order to educate people about such pathology(ies) for the purposes of prevention and recognition. Clearly, the offender in this case is too much of a threat to be allowed to return to society.
At least we agree that prison should be for truly harmful people.
Innocent people are on death row and innocent people have been put to death. That’s a mistake I don’t think the government should be allowed to make. ‘
And throwing non-violent people in with psychopaths and sociopaths for breaking rules that adults should not be required to obey is a crime in its own right, in my book.
Is this the Tale of Two Wars thread? I’ve forgotten the gist of the article. I’ll wander off now. Maybe read the article again later.
Jay, how can an evolutionary psychologists have a clue as to what our ancesters thought? Especially, how can one divine if prehistoric peoples killed in self-defense or for revenge? Even if you study existing cultures with the assumption that they are direct descendents of a prehistoric people, how can a psychologist, especially and evolutionary psychologist, rule out the possibility—-probability—-that the tribe has changed?
Until agriculture came along, “order” was not such an issue. All the genuine anarchist tribes are hunter gatherers and they do not require government or any other form of policing of adults through force.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 29, 2005 at 8:05 PM Wiley,
I suppose they postulate and hypothesis like any good scientists, but you’d have to ask Prof. Posner.
It is his argument.
But I would point out that even hunter-gatherer societies are not anarchist. Even in the absence of more formal modern-day governmental institutions, the policing of adults would exist through tribal customs and social pressures.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 29, 2005 at 8:25 PM WTH;
You are in error if you think a fatwa is a legally binding declaration, even one by an Ayatollah who is also Head of State.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 29, 2005 at 9:01 PM LB,
I would say we have a definite communication problem. You accused me of bringing up capital punishment as a “loophole.” Also of prejudice and ignorance.
The website you referred me to had a bunch of quotations which included the word justice.
[Quran 6:151] “...... You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand.”[Quran17:33] “You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. .....”
Their interpretation of justice can include executing anyone who they deem to have insulted Allah. I would judge that idea as either prejudicial and ignorant or playing on the ignorance of the religious adherents.Therefore, I say anyone can find a religious verse to suit his interpretation of justice.
I do not think of any religion as having the authority to demand a death penalty or if you wish “capital punishment.”
Not being a Muslim, or a citizen of any theocracy, I see that as a function of civil government only. If my friend were to kill the man who attacked his wife forty years ago, he may think it just. I might think it delayed justice. He would by our system be a murderer and subject to state imposed capital punishment.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 29, 2005 at 9:05 PM WTH;
Any clown can interpret a religious verse to suit his own version of reality. A wise person approaches scripture judiciously.
The Koran does not demand the death penalty, it merely allows it, in the course of justice. It allows for the possibility of people to realize the death penalty is not just.
Selah.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 29, 2005 at 11:46 PM WTH;
I am suggesting you are both prejudiced and ignorant. Seriously. I believe I presented credible evidence. Not just name-calling.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 30, 2005 at 12:14 AM Actually your own words are the only evidence necessary. I just pointed to where and how they show ignorance and prejudice.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 30, 2005 at 12:16 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
- Block ’Em, Sock ’Em
- Buy Back Our Government
- A Specter is Haunting Dems
- Bailout Bandits
- Building Utopia
A new documentary profiles the rise and fall of a Depression-era utopian experiment in the Bronx. - To Boycott Israel…or Not?
Naomi Klein and Rabbi Arthur Waskow debate whether divestment will bring peace to the Middle East.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
