Some of you already know this very well, of course. It was kind of what I was infamous for at dKos (you could always count on Bob Johnson to show up in my diary entries, regardless of their subject, to bring up Iraq). But I picked up a vibe, from responses my post about DSM today, that a lot of people here at BT didn’t know that was where I was coming from–so I figure rather than explaining that individually over and over, I’d use a diary to officially state my position.
And of course, those who have known me for a while probably know what’s coming next: my “brush with greatness” you might call it. I, along with a few other people, was profiled in the Washington Post right around the time the war began. If you go to the library and look at the actual issue, you can even see a full colour picture of what I look like (or looked like two years ago, anyway); but that’s sadly not available online. Anyway, I think the reporter did a good job of conveying my position in a nutshell, and I still stand by everything I said (including decrying human rights violations, which I have certainly had to do in spades). Still, I think Iraq is on the whole better off than they were before the war, and I’m glad Saddam is in a jail cell rather than in one of his many former palaces.
Below the fold, you’ll find my WaPo profile conveniently excerpted:
An avowed leftist, Alan Thomas, 33, doesn’t like Bush, but he believes in the war. “I don’t support the president. I’m skeptical about his sincerity in wanting democracy in Iraq. But I feel he’s committed to it,” Thomas says.
Thomas works the night shift in a group home for mainstreamed developmentally disabled adults in Kirksville, Mo. He’s the son of college professors. He and his wife, Kate, 27, live in an apartment and drive a 1989 Chevrolet van. They have two mutts rescued from the humane society. They also run a small shop that sells things they think are cool, such as bumper stickers that read “Bush/Cheney: America’s Second Choice.”
“I’m sympathetic with the plight of the Kurds and the Iraqi people,” Thomas says. “And I’m disappointed in, and embarrassed by, the left.”
Asked if he voted for Bush, he laughs. “No, no way. Never.”
Though Thomas enthusiastically supports the war, he says he’ll reevaluate his position after the regime change. “If Bush tries to install a puppet dictator or if there are human rights violations, I’ll be decrying it as loudly as anyone else on the left,” he says.
“I feel that the original Gulf War was conducted in an immoral way. . . . They rained down so many bombs on troops who were conscripted.” He supports a war that minimizes civilian casualties.
The United States, Thomas says, “should clean up the world. We have the power. I’m kind of a weirdo. It’s wrong for us to sit on our hands and not do anything.”
He adds, “It’s very simplistic to treat this as a black-and-white issue.”
why not enlist?
I assume you’re in favour of having a fire department in your town, right? Are you a firefighter, though? Better go sign up, otherwise you’re a hypocrite…right? Can’t be expecting other people to put their lives in danger when you won’t.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
The local fire department has no trouble filling its ranks with people who want to be there. It’s a good job with benefits and a good image.
The military on the other hand is desparate for recruits. Soldiers have been stopped-lossed repeatedly and the poor national guards have had their lives turned upside down with years long deployments. Recruiting is a disaster, even at the academies.
The military desparately needs people. I do wonder if people who supported this war so strongly ought to be doing something to shore it up. Or is just other people who ought to sacrifice?
.. more accurate challenge would be to ask if he would be prepared to go and live in Iraq to appreciate the improved conditions there under US occupation.
Our local fire department suffers from poor pay and working conditions and esultant low morale. The reason: right wingers who took control of the City Council and cut their budget.
In both cases, I am 100% for raising pay and benefits, and absolutely willing to pony up my share to support that.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
This war was/is a unjust, poorly executed waste of money and lives.
I agree that you should go sign up.
If you’ll read my comment again – all four words of it – you’ll see that none of the four words were “hypocrite.” I asked an honest question out of interest, given that our military is facing a recruiting crisis and that many who are committed to serve, unlike you, do not believe in the mission (also unlike you).
Your instinctual defensiveness is entirely unwarranted by the tone of my question. I suggest you save some of it for the next time I make the mistake of responding to one of your posts.
Your post had a clear implication, and though I suppose I technically was “defensive” in my reply, I think that defensiveness was both warranted (given the number of times I’ve heard the same thing) and quite measured.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
And you don’t know me, or anything about me or where I’m coming from. If you feel you already know the possible responses to your point of view, as well as the possible responders, then honestly, why bother posting it again?
It stings.
No one can assume that you’re eligible for enlistment, here’s some of the paperwork – just in case: DD-4
If you’re not eligible for enlistment you could encourage friends and/or family who are eligible to do so – there are a lot of people who have been and are in harm’s way due to dubya’s policies – it’d be consistent with your view that this war was the right thing to do.
I don’t think it too likely that I’m eligible (I have a bum knee that requires a knee brace, though as long as I wear it I can still play a mean game of tennis). That’s not really relevant though; if I were “A-1” I’d still not go sign up, any more than I’d sign up to do Coast Guard helicopter rescues or (as I mentioned) be a firefighter. I appreciate those who do it, want to pay them what they deserve, but (like, let’s face it, most of us) don’t personally have the courage. Still, I would absolutely vote for a draft that gave me the same chance as anyone else to be called up.
And yes, I would encourage others, and do encourage my brother-in-law (who, despite not being a blood relation, is definitely a friend) in his mission. If he were to ask me whether he should re-up…my wife would kill me for saying this, but I would be supportive. (Her dad, interestingly, had not voted for a Democrat since 1976, but voted for Kerry because he wants to get his son out of Iraq.)
You could get a desk job. Stop making excuses and go over and support YOUR war.
You compare the war to fire departments? Give me a break! We run a society where we problem solve anything from a fire to hurricane by voluntarily hiring people who courageously go to the scene and help people. War is something inflicted on from one country to another in a very methodical, precise and calculating way. We do not ask this society of which we are about to drop bombs on whether they approve or dissaprove of their new lifestyle. We do not pay them for their daily jobs of survival, we do not provide medical and dental and a social security plan for years of service while being bombed. When you decide that war is good for another country it should only ever be about whether “we” are in grave danger! Seriously, do ya think Saddam was going to nuke us. I honestly think the government approves of you because you’ve bought in to the “if your not with us then your against us” routine.
<sigh>
No, nicky, I didn’t think Saddam was going to nuke us. I specifically stated that Saddam’s Iraq was of NO threat to us whatever, and that had nothing to do with my reasons for wanting to get him out of there (which were solely for the sake of Iraqis themselves). I certainly don’t buy into Bush’s “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists” bit–ugh! Frankly, I think 9/11 has been incredibly overrated as a “national tragedy” and was a criminal act, not an “act of war.” The moment I saw the towers in flames, my greatest worry was that right wingers would use it as an excuse to curtail civil liberties.
But if you don’t like the firefighter analogy, how about the police? There are way too many of them that are racist and abusive. But there are others who are good people, trying to do a good job–and I think we’d almost all agree (except the anarchists) that in an ideal social organisation (that still included less-than-ideal individuals like rapists and murderers) we’d need police, right? But your rationale would work perfectly to justify cancelling all laws against police intervention to arrest those guilty of domestic violence. (Think about it, and if you don’t see the very exact analogy, I’ll spell it out.)
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
Sorry my friend, you can come up with a thousand comparisons for why it’s good to invade another country to any career we have here and it doesn’t jive. When you have conflict in this world such as Sudan, or Pakistan and India, or Iran, North Korea, you obviously attempt sanctions, movements from within, the United Nations peace corps, diplomatic means of communication, etc, etc. And the biggest weapon you can posses is patience. For a country like Iraq that would have been the recipe.
There are a lot of dictators in this world and a lot of good people under these regimes. With the right support, common ground and persistence something will give. If we were to invade countries based on humanitarian logic we would surely need a draft to keep up with the invasions.
And lets back up a step. Lets take a hard look at our policies and the constant contradictions we send out to all these countries. This invasion had nothing to do with humanitarian issues and everything to do with planting ourselves right in the middle of the oil fields and ensuring our “right” to the supply. lol.
We seldom intervene in areas so grossly in need but by God if the theirs oil or a chance to dominate a region count us in. If we can supply weapons to put the right president in charge, oh boy. Why did you ever let yourself think that humanitarian intervention was on the list? How can you be for freeing a people while bombing them? It’s o.k to kill a hundred to get to the one? The end justifies the means? No, it doesn’t. Consequences. Always. And only historians, greatly removed from the war zone will sit in their arm chairs analyzing whether the enforcement of democracy was good for the people.
I’ll credit you this: you make a great argument for the pacifist approach. I still don’t think it will, at the end of the day, get the job done in every case or even most cases; but if that approach were being tried in any particular instance, I’d want it done just as you laid out in your post.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
only one reason those war supporters won’t enlist
CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK!
First, I wonder from reading this if you are so attached to this position because of your “brush with greatness.” It is hard to back down when you have taken so public a stand. I could be completely wrong about this, but you might give it some thought.
Second, I’d like to suggest that whether you “think Iraq is on the whole better off” is a bit beside the point.” What do the Iraqis think? It is their country, right? Also, are we better off? Isn’t that also a consideration? Since it turns out that Iraq was no threat to us, isn’t it all cost and no gain for us? Even if we were going to start a war for humanitarian reasons, was Iraq the best choice?
Thanks for the interesting observations–a lot more nuanced than what I usually get.
You’re right that people are driven strongly to show consistency in their views–even to themselves. An English professor friend of mine gave me an article about this, indicating that it is a great idea to take petitions door to door when fighting for some community project, because people will be much more likely to vote for it if they have signed a petition–even if it’s a secret ballot, etc. (In fact, apparently some nonprofits use this psychological tool by having people sign petitions that are never actually presented to anyone.)
As it happens, I had already taken a pretty strong pro-war stand online (which is how the WaPo reporter found me). I won’t claim to be sure that I am somehow special and would rise above all of this psychology; but I would point out that my support was, and is, conditional. And I don’t support a lot of the specifics of the policy.
But on the whole, I still think it was worth doing; and I feel even more strongly that though we can all make different judgment calls on the wisdom of going to war, it’s ridiculous to treat it as the worst thing Bush has ever done, as many liberals do. He’s done far worse, from his tax cuts for the rich or his support for Ariel Sharon, to his environmental fraud or his judicial appointments.
I’ve posted links in the past to polls which show that a majority of Iraqis do think they are better off now, without Saddam, in spite of their problems. (No doubt the Sunni minority tends to feel differently than do the Shiites and Kurds; but I’m not terribly sympathetic to them, frankly.) When I have done so, these have been denounced as shams. <shrug> Are we better off? No, we aren’t. And I have never claimed we would be. The WMD rationale was never one I believed in, though sadly I do think it was the only way to get the public behind the war (we’re kind of a selfish and provincial people for the most part).
Finally, was Iraq the best choice? No, probably not. Sudan, or even Saudi Arabia, might have been better–and there are numerous other examples. But just as “two wrongs don’t make a right”, the argument that “we shouldn’t take out Saddam, because he’s not the worst human rights-abusing dictator in the world, only one of the worst” doesn’t impress me that much. So we went a little out of order, big deal.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
I guess you did not read any diaries about my Iraqi friend Diva, and actual Iraqi who actually lives there and has an opinion. Why is it that you and a lot of people presume to think for them. Many have spoken out on the internet, including diva, who has spoken to me personally about it.
In a nutshell, she is glad we came, wish we would have left after Sadaam was brought down, not destoryed everything that now needs to be rebuilt and not make such a mess of the whole deal.
She does not think war was the only way to deal with it.
As to life now, well I guess you haven’t been paying attention and now I must assume from a lack of communications from my friend, she may well be dead, dying or just trying to maintain her life in hell.
Iraq may have been bad before, but not it surely is hell of the deepest, fireist, darkest hell you can imagine. No they are not better off and no the majority does not think so.
Do I have to go into details or will you go back and read my diaries.
Would you feel the same if you had a friend there, who fears to leave her house and indeed does not feel one bit safe there whatsoever…….
Thank you for your diaries and for putting a human face on the war. Hurt people all the way around whether they be “civilians” or “soldiers” or “insurgents”…..nobody ever kills another or watches another die or sees their fellow man dead in the streets without being forever changed, sometimes in ways that live on and destroy for years and years to come. I have grown to hate what happens to the knowledge of war also as time goes on. There will always be those who have theories and who focus on certain social outcomes and never can actually come to grips with the human factor fighting for their lives in the streets or deserts or jungles and I have no cure for that. What the history books though do to war has really smacked me right in the face lately. In the history books I will read figures and numbers and who lost and why and who won and why and I will find all sorts of definitions for different types and styles of government…….but no blood and no bone. The corpses have all been buried and earth takes back what was once given and we begin to breed new generations of new fools crazy as ever it seems.
Obviously I disagree with you pretty strongly, but it does seem worth having a civil discussion about it. One thing though. You say:
” (No doubt the Sunni minority tends to feel differently than do the Shiites and Kurds; but I’m not terribly sympathetic to them, frankly.) “
I’d be very careful with that attitude. The future of Iraq is going to depend on these three groups forming some kind of working coalition. And the Sunnis run right through the middle of the country. It’s very dangerous to write them off. My fear from the beginning has been three way civil war. The Sunnis can bring this about if they are furious and hopeless enough.
So, when do you think we should leave? What are the milestones? What does “we won” look like?
I’m glad you agree we can have a civil discussion! Thanks for the interesting, provocative input.
I tend to think that in cases like Iraq, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, Israel, etc., the best thing to do would be to divide the countries in question into ethnic enclaves. In my heart, I wish this were not necessary; but pragmatically, after so much (often justifiable) hatred has built up, I can’t see any other way.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
Why you haven’t responded directly to my comment. Why?
Well, Diane, I guess it seems that you are passionately invested in your POV, and I don’t want to get into a position where I seem to be denying the humanity of your source. But I don’t agree with this gloomy prognosis, and I don’t think it’s fair to invest one person (Iraqi or not) with the sceptre of Truth. Don’t you think there are plenty of other Iraqis who see it differently?
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
WEll slacker, that is exactly the point to invest this conflict with humanity.
I think my friend is in a better position to assess the common feelings of the Iraqi people than you are or some survey that was prob. controlled by the US just like everything else so why would you trust that.
Have you read any of the web sites written by Iraqi residents…..It doesn’t seem so…
How old are you slacker, old enough to remember Vietnam. Old enough to remember this last half century and all the conflicts therein.
Are you even old enough to remember the gulf war or the lead up to it. If you do remember how in depth is your understanding, were you a teenager for example.
All these things would color your view which is completely based in naivete IMO. I have followed your arguments lo these many weeks as you inserted and interjected and diaried about them. You my dear are just plain naive..
But Diane, you are asking me to privilege the opinion of one (or a few) Iraqis with access to the Internet, over a scientific poll which was “co-sponsored with ABC by the German broadcasting network ARD, the BBC and the NHK in Japan, with sampling and field work by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England.” Do you see why I might have a hard time with that? Do you also see why I might feel hurt that you insult me by calling me “naive” when I haven’t said anything like that to you?
FTR, I’m 35, I was 21 during the first Gulf War, and I was against that war and still am (not only for the reason mentioned above in the WaPo piece, but because it didn’t actually “liberate” anything but oil; Kuwait was a dictatorship). I may be younger than you, but I majored in history the first time I went to college. And yes, I have read my share of Chomsky and Zinn.
As for Vietnam, I actually believe the NVA and the VC were largely on the “good” side, at least compared to the government of the South. That is a far cry from the insurgents in Iraq, or the erstwhile Baathist government.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
I didn’t mean to insult you by calling you naive, just could not think of a better word. I merely think that you hold a naive postion on this. didn’t know you would think it an insult, much like you do not think giving 3’s is an insult. If it hurt your feelings I do apologize, that was not my intention.
Now as to you assesment of the poll data which you hold so dear, I don’t lend much credence to it at all. What kind of cross section of opinion is it possible to even attain in presentIraq under the best of circumstances. Do you think the poll takers had access to all manner of citizens when it is barely possible to talk to a citizen or to travel anywhere in Iraq. Furthermore do you not think citizens might view poll takers in the same manner as US soldiers or other forces in Iraq, with fear of saying the wrong thing that could end them up in prison.
Even to speak to a non Iraqi is dangerous so I doubt that people are even willing for the most part to participate in any kind of poll.
What is the date of this poll btw, are there followup polls, pre polls to compare to.
I just went and looked at the link you provided above and do you realize this poll must be date Mar. 15, 2004, it was not dated for the year. This is over 1 year ago Slacker, do you think this data is revelant today, really? I think you would agree things have worsened significantly in the last year, so don’t you think this might have changed people’s opinions if they really did hold the views then, in 2004.
Analysis
March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.
Okay, truce on the “naive” thing (which did hurt my feelings coming from you).
I posted above (below?) about that same poll and mentioned that it was a year old. I think first of all that things are not worse than they were a year ago. In the interim, they have elected and seated a government! What really happened is that things got better by around election time, and then have recently gone downhill again, but compared to a year ago–no.
And furthermore, I don’t think that’s relevant. By a year after the invasion, Iraqis had had plenty of time to decide how they felt about the invasion itself. If they have changed their mind about the presence of coalition forces since then, that is more of a “current events” issue, not an issue of the war itself. KWIM?
Finally, I just don’t find it credible to argue that a poll conducted by some pretty big legitimate names doesn’t represent Iraqis’ true feelings, but a few blogs do. You seem to be picking and choosing based on what jibes with your own beliefs. (Go ahead, accuse me of doing the same; but my “ammo” is a scientific poll from a legitimate source.)
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
Oh, you’ll have such an email from me…..
Where’s the email? I keep refreshing my browser looking for it, like one of those rats on cocaine! LOL
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
I went to the grocery store, and got some ice cream…. and in the ensuing dopamine rush, I kind of forgot what I was going to rant on you about…
and you call yourself a slacker… sheesh..
Slacker I am not sure I can continue this with you…And truly sorry about the naive thing, but I will substitute no fully grasping the very real situation.
YOu statmeent about the iraqis had plenty of time to think about what they were doing is truly astounding, you don’t think that 2 years later with still no electicity more than 2 hours a day, dirty drinking water when there is some, sweltering in the heat or cold, many a days Diva told me of putting all these clothes on in the cold of winter just to sell as there was no heat or lights and she had to live by candle light at night. Going to bed early as there was little to do huddled away in a tiny apt. afraid toleave, getting up to go to work with no water, no toilet working, driving through roadblocks to get to work, always fearing the US soldiers, not able to do her job in time due to no electirity, staying late to finish if she can and then making her way home now even more dangerous due to night time.
Home to a dark house, with a few small candles and no heat.
That is the reality of Iraq today in Baghdad, in the better area of the city, that is the reality. That and far worse. In view of this do you still think they are better off today, and would say so….
“” Diva told me of putting all these clothes on in the cold of winter just to sell as there was no heat or lights and she had to live by candle light at night.”””
Muy comment above meant to say just to sleep, instead of just to sell.
do you insist on clinging to the flimsiest of stuff???
Oxford Research International the actual polls – not nearly as pretty as you make them out to be.
Seriously Slacker – must I run around fact checking you???
But slacker. Not only does this poll demonstrate decidedly mixed results about the popularity of our government’s efforts it is also over a year old.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between March of 2004 and June of 2005. Do you have one available?
My guess is that with each month the remnants of popular support in Iraq for the invasion and occupation have fallen more there than they have here while support for the ‘insurgency’ has grown. Of course there are now many thousands less people to poll too, seeing as they’re dead.
What do you think about the Downing Street leaks and concerns about the planning for this war?
It seems pretty clear to me that Rummy wanted a war on the cheap and only listened to those who agreed with him. History has shown that with Iraq cheap means long and losing.
There were stories of the military bypassing tons of information and war materiel and leaving it for looters. One story suggests that the insurgents are now becoming better equipt than our troops.
Then you have the whole issue of the National Guard. Rummy is dependent upon the Guard but they don’t get the equipment for training that RA gets and they don’t get the respect from RA when they get there. Remember the story of the poorly armored convoy where they refused to go?
Then there is the business of the “coalition” which consisted mostly of Britain and smaller countries that we gave a lot a money to so they would become part of the coalition.
Then there is the billions of dollars going to an unbid contract to a Halliburton branch which continually has audit problems and overbid problems. And you have the 9 billion that got lost somewhere but no one knows where. And you have the repub Senate and Congresscritters sitting on their hands rather than hold hearings on such malfeasance.
Then there is the prisoner abuse scandal. Only the small fry are being targeted but they are not the ones who started it. Again we have whitewashing going on.
Then the troops armoring, where the manufacturer said there was a government hold back on armoring humvees. Again my repub Senators keep saying that is fixed but they lie.
This war is worse in some ways than Vietnam because in Vietnam we didn’t have Gitmo and the prisoners in limbo, we didn’t have unbid contracts in such huge quantities and we didn’t have three sets of ethnic and culturally distinct groups as we do in Iraq.
I don’t agree with all that much of what you wrote, Grandma Jo. In the specific details, Rummy and Co. have screwed up royally. (Remember, what I really wanted was to take out Saddam with a Democrat as commander-in-chief!)
And as I mentioned below, I don’t think the Netherlands (the country I respect most in the world) could have been “bribed” for their support of the Iraq war. And, I’m sorry, I like Tony Blair too!
But as for the DSM, that gets little more than a yawn from me. I am in full agreement with what Bill Maher said on CNN about three months ago:
.
Slacker I saw that interview and he it was immediately following the election in Iraq when things looked hunky dory for a day. Wasn’t so hunky dory in Iraq at the time, I was on im chat with Iraq(Diva) off and on during the weeks up to and after, and I heard a nearly day by day assesment. I know what the Iraqi’s that she knew and was around thought about the whole thing.
Do You know one single Iraqi or have you made any attempt to know one so that you could find out for yourself.
Yuo seem to pick and choose from old data, support for your arguments and support that agrees with the perspective you have and seem to hold dear.
I challenge you to find an iraqi email person and begin to communicate with them. Then tell me you support the war and you know at least what one Iraqi thinks.
from your diary why you chose 2 years ago to support the war, but frankly, I’m having a hard time understanding your continued belief that Iraq is somehow better off. Could you elaborate?
I was worried about your reaction in particular, zander–I thought you’d really think you found a skeleton in my closet now! 😉
I have mostly the same sources to judge by that we all do (the media); but I do also have, since January, an “inside” source as well: my brother-in-law, who is one of the “backdoor draftees” who got sent to Iraq via stop-loss (he was supposed to be out of the Army altogether by now, having served his whole commitment Stateside).
I see, first of all, that Saddam is not in power and there is more political and social freedom than they used to have. Which is not to say they have as much as I’d like them to; but they have gone from a totalitarian Stalinist nightmare to an above average level of freedom for the region. I was very encouraged by the peaceful elections and the establishment of the government, though of course there have been more problems since then. But the key for me is that the problems, the violence, does not in my opinion stem from an authentic uprising of the people as was found in Vietnam, and as Michael Moore believes it to be in Iraq. It is by and large coming either from disaffected former Baathists, who want to go back to being the ruling elite; or from “Al Qaeda in Iraq”, who themselves don’t exactly believe in human rights (especially, women’s rights) or a democratic, free society.
Point being that the people doing the killing there are bad, evil people. That’s not just simplistic Bush rhetoric (though you can find plenty of that); it’s really true. I deeply regret the unconscionable things our side has done (Abu Ghraib, being too quick to shoot civilians); but we are in no way anywhere near as bad as those we fight. And the majority of Iraqis, I believe very strongly, are against the insurgency. The new government appears to be trying to take on that insurgency themselves now, and that’s fantastic. I’m an optimist about the future of Iraq, I’ll fully admit that.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
You said “I see, first of all, that Saddam is not in power and there is more political and social freedom than they used to have. “
I would like to point out that this is not true for women, though.
I’ve heard this claim made before, and it is troubling. I would have preferred, frankly, for the U.S. to force upon Iraq a constitution like that which liberal Democratic bureaucrats wrote for Japan, guaranteeing equal rights for women.
But I have to wonder: is it really that women have less political and social freedom in absolute terms than they used to, or just that their freedom has not increased as much as men’s freedom has, and thus they lost ground in relative terms? (Hope that made sense.)
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
that women in Iraq have less freedom in absolute terms . . . in education, in the professions, in civil service positions, in everything except being whores for the Americans (which would not have been permitted under Saddam). And the fundamentalist “government” placed in power by the US wants to make women’s status worse, not better.
It is probably a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that men have it particularly better either . . . what with schools in chaos, the civil infrastructure destroyed, doctors fleeing the country in droves, and the the majority of the “opportunity” being the opportunity to sell out your country by collaborating with a tyrannical invasion/occupation.
Granted some things have improved for the Shi’ite fundamentalists . . . they are now more “free” to oppress women and to persecute Christians than they were under Saddam. Your support for that is no doubt appreciated . . .
I for one would not be able to stand living in a system in which I might be able to do a number of things with my life–as long as I never spoke out against government policies. Let’s face it: all of us on this site are “dissidents” in this country, and if we had been dissidents in Saddam’s Iraq all those freedoms you speak of would be summarily taken away without any kind of fair trial, and we would be tortured and likely killed.
None of which is to minimise the importance, in their own context, of the human rights problems you cite. They should be dealt with, but not by pretending it was actually a better, more open, freer society under Saddam.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
It is you who is pretending . . . that it is better, or getting better, now.
and dissident only sounds noble when you have electricity, water and food to give your children. Without those things… ‘freedom’ gets a little bit distant and irrelevant.
This is a longstanding issue, the tension between civil liberties on the one hand, and material comfort and security on the other. And I won’t argue that the majority of Iraqis were probably better off materially back a ways, particularly before the first Gulf War. But it is also pretty inarguably true that Hitler and Mussolini brought greater material comfort to their respective peoples (like in Iraq, as long as you weren’t part of the wrong group), along with, of course, strict repression of any individualistic expression, much less political dissidency.
I have never had to live with the level of privations many around the world do. I have lived, briefly, under a dictatorial regime (Daniel arap Moi’s Kenya, mid-Eighties), where a miniature Tienanmen Square type event occurred a couple miles from our home, at the University of Nairobi, and involving friends of ours (who, luckily, escaped unhurt). I was expressly warned never to say anything negative about Moi, even in private; and was well aware that there was nothing remotely resembling a Bill of Rights to protect me.
I suppose I’d have to experience the severe hardships of abject poverty (I have spent quite a bit of time literally in federally defined poverty, including right now; but I’ve always been able to get food stamps and such so I know it’s not the same) before I could really compare. But few of us who post on blogs get a chance to experience either type of hardship, yet we still make judgments, don’t we?
My general judgment is that when a society gives up the uncertainties and–sometimes–material hardships of an open, democratic society, in exchange for the security and comfort of the dictatorship, it is a grave mistake. And furthermore, the type of people who live such conformist lives that they don’t even notice the political oppression (cf. the “proles” in Orwell’s 1984) are not those I’m easily able to relate with, and thus are not those I’m ultimately most invested in fighting for.
In the specific case of Iraq, my judgment (shared, it would appear, by the majority of Iraqis) is that they are alreay better off without the political repression of the Baathists, and that they are likely, over the long haul, to be materially better off as well.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
one damn bit who’s about to shoot you when you’re about to get shot, as I’m sure you wouldn’t give a damn about the ideology of the people who killed your children.
And you have to back up “the majority of Iraqis” who share your optimism – I’d love to see that.
And don’t you dare get defensive with me – I’m still smiling. <smirk>
How about this one? It is admittedly a year old, but since it was taken a year after the invasion, it ought to be a good reflection of how they felt about life before and after the ouster of Saddam.
I think that last part is especially significant, since those populations (which make up a majority of the Iraqi people) were the ones most oppressed by Saddam, and I think it’s clear they are overwhelmingly and unequivocally in disagreement with the position of the antiwar left.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
If you go to the original polls (pdf link) done by Oxford Research International, you’ll find some interesting stuff that Gary Langer and ABC left out of their analysis. The most recent poll available from Oxford is from June 2004 – it asks…
from now? Will they be much better, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?
Base = All respondents
Count %
Much better 724 27.4
Somewhat better 967 36.6
About the same 463 17.5
Somewhat worse 335 12.7
Much worse 155 5.9
Total 2644 100.0
It also asks…
(Open-ended free response)
Base = All respondents
Count %
No security/fear of chaos 543 29.6
Occupation forces will not leave Iraq 357 19.5
Personal worries 267 14.5
Fear of civil war/internal trouble 149 8.1
Other concerns 104 5.7
Current situation continues 101 5.5
Lack of Iraqi political control 68 3.7
Bad conditions/living standard 68 3.7
No services (electricity, water, etc.) 15 .8
American forces leaving Iraq 14 .7
Return of Saddam/former regime 12 .6
None 3 .2
Other 134 7.3
Total 1834 100.0
Notice that what is happening right now is way up there, and saddam is at the bottom? It seems as is the worst fears of the entire country have come true.
Maybe that’s why they’re not doing those silly little polls anymore. Even an ABC analyst would have a hard time with this years….
(sorry I couldn’t make this format worth a damn)
Boy, I interpret that a lot differently than you do. (Your interpretation would not be consistent with the other responses, wouldn’t you agree?) I see it as simply a recognition that Saddam and his gang don’t have a snowball’s chance in Basra of getting back into power. And if something’s not going to happen, why fear it?
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
They lived in a secular society where they were proffessional and most did not wear the traditional dress. All of that has changed.
Children are not better off either. Many are now orphans.
Christians are mostly refugees, they are not better off and the few Jews who were left there are surely gone over the border.
No the people there who are killing others are not evil people. The insurgents from other countries wouldn’t be there if Saddam was still in power. The Iraqi insurgents want us out of their country. How can anyone blame them
In addition, we have killed more Iraqi people than they have.
You cousin is probably like a young man I know. He never saw combat, he bought into the bush propaganda and once he came home he continued to spout it.
I hope both of them have their eyes open one day so they can be of some use to humanity rather than enabling this disgusting war for oil.
suffering from malnutrition
It’s a very good article. A decade ago, obesity was a public health concern among young Iraqis….
the people doing the killing there are bad, evil people”
Point being that a very high percentage of the killing there is being done by Americans, and a good portion of the rest of it wouldn’t be happening if it were not for the American presence.
I appreciate the challenge.
Am I correct in guessing that you’re at home in the “geopolitical power plays trump other considerations” camp?
That was a really cool site–thanks for pointing me there! I remember reading about Sufis in my History of Islam course and thinking they sounded pretty cool, kind of like Zen Buddhists. This piece of writing really reinforces that opinion. So, was it this part you were directing at me?
To which I can only say, “:P” (LOL)
As for that last question, I’ve got little warning bells going off that you’re trying to pin my down in a way I’m not fully comfortable with. Can you flesh that out a little?
… the other being a completely selfish exploitation of you as an exasperating element to ‘practice the virtue of Ettefaq”. …, … <wince> – oh, that so violates some other principle….
I’ll flesh out later – I can’t keep up in here. (fun to watch though)
recommend Dahr Jamail as an addition to your information resources?
No way! Who would have thought you’d mention the article? 😉
Hey – I remembered why you gave me one of your “infamous threes” in the past. It was in response to a post in which I expressed my passionate opinions against this war. Apparently I didn’t express them well enough to warrant a four.
I need to hit the road. Good night.
That’s where I got my Slacker 3 too! I was merely good, not excellent… it was traumatic.
Have a good night.
My “infamous threes” (which I have resolved to stop giving, as they were so widely misunderstood) tended to be given as recognition that someone made a very strong argument, but one with which I still didn’t agree (if I agreed with them and they argued it well, they got a four).
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
Did you fully think through what would happen if we ALL made our own rules? Did you? I didn’t think so. 🙂
We can’t even put a lid on things in Iraq, so I don’t know how you expect the United States to “clean up the world.” Human rights are violated in every country on the planet–including right here at home. (Innocent people sentenced to death? Yep, we got ’em.)
So when you say America should clean up the world, I’ve gotta ask–you and what army?
Also, war is not a scalpel that can be used to carefully excise the bad stuff. It’s a blunt instrument that smashes everything in its path. If you really think the Iraqi people are fine and dandy and eating cupcakes right now, go read Baghdad Burning. Riverbend will give you an earful.
Finally, Bush Inc. isn’t fighting your war. Democracy on the march may be one of the pretexts they’re hiding behind, but this war isn’t about human rights or WMD or even about Saddam being a bad guy. This war is about control over oil. Once the premise of preemptive war becomes acceptable (as long as it’s to promote human rights, for example), don’t you think the thugs in power will throw a “human rights” cloak over every nasty little war they want to start?
War is a dirty business. Something that dirty can’t “clean up” the world.
No one who hides kickbacks to Big Polluter campaign donours behind “Clear Skies” doublespeak, can be trusted with anything. And unlike some others from the left who supported the war (like Christopher Hitchens), I never supported Bush as a candidate–quite the opposite. But what I did support, unlike most of the hardcore Democratic base, especially those found online, was those Democrats who were also for getting Saddam out by force. That included John Edwards (my choice in ’04 and still, again, for ’08 unless something changes, which it well could) and, btw, Bill Clinton.
As I said, it’s not black and white. Some on the left seem to believe you’re either on Bush’s side or Saddam’s side, and that’s absurd.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
But, wow. Maybe it’s, in part, because my husband is a Marine and he had to fight over there, and maybe it’s, in part, because he could still be called back because we don’t have enough troops to continue exercising our bloated imperial policies, but I gonna have to disagree with you. See we have Department of DEFENSE. It’s not a Department of War, anymore. It’s not the World Police Force. Defense. It’s very simple. Did they pose a threat to us? No? Then it is not up to us to unilaterally decide whom to “fix.” We are not carrying the “white man’s burden.”
As my husband said to me, after his Fox News watching cousin went on for 20 minutes about the righteousness of our cause, “I watched people get blown up over this bullshit.” He had to leave the room because he was so angry, he was afraid of what he might do. Real people have been killed, maimed, and mentally destroyed — “coalition” and Iraqi. That we have spent our blood and treasure on this tin horn dictator, when we live a world of evil men (many of them our allies) would be comical if it weren’t so fucking tragic. So, I’m afraid I cannot look at the devastation we have left in our wake, the breeding ground for terrorism we’ve created, and say, well, they’re better off. They’re not. We’re not. The world is not. This never should have happened.
As do you and of course your husband. But you do recognise, don’t you, that others who have served (or are currently serving, like my brother-in-law) believe what they are doing is right?
And you are very right that the U.S. has had a shameful history of collaborating with dictators. One of those shameful eras was when Reagan (and Bush pere until July 1990) cosied up to Saddam Hussein. Antiwar activists often point to that fact; and my response is “yes…it was wrong to help Saddam maintain power, but it is right to push him out of power.” They are, I suppose, pointing to GOP inconsistency, and that’s fine with me; but it doesn’t make any kind of reasonable argument against the war itself, to jump up and down and say “these guys didn’t use to feel this way”.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
be fundamentally different with Zalmay Khalilzad and Jalal Talabani how exactly?
As compared to under Saddam, you mean?!? Please tell me I misunderstood you, or that you are joking…!
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
Kalmay Khalilzad
Simply put, Khalilzad’s appointment means oil. Oil for the United States. Oil for Unocal, a U.S. company long criticized for doing business in countries with repressive governments and rumored to have close ties to the Department of State and the intelligence community.
Zalmay Khalilzad was an advisor for Unocal. In the mid 1990s, while working for the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Khalilzad conducted risk analyses for Unocal at the time it had signed letters of approval from the Taliban. The analyses were for a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. In December 1997, Khalilzad joined Unocal officials at a reception for an invited Taliban delegation to Texas.
Etc, etc, etc, – Unocal, special envoy to Afghanistan, family connections, University of Chicago in 1979, “protege of a famous hard-line strategic thinker”, State Department, Wolfowitz, Rand Corp, Dick Cheney at the Defense Department during the Gulf War, National Security Council official in charge of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, and now….da, da, da, dum…. ambassador to Iraq.
I’m sorry, I misunderstood you–my bad. (I thought you meant Iraq’s new leaders were just as bad as Saddam.)
Oh, you’re absolutely right about Bush and especially Cheney and cronies. Those guys will always play things as shamelessly corruptly as they can, the better to benefit their corporate cronies. But that just means we have to get this gang out of there! It is a pervasive problem, systemic in the way they deal with every country and every issue, domestic and foreign.
Nice research though, and on the fly, too! Count me as impressed once again.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
more confidence in leaders installed by the Bush regime, by the way. Talabani? Please! And Rafsanjani (he’s my bet, anyway – we’ll see in a couple of days) – they don’t help me feel particularly confident in the ‘free and democratic’ future of the region.
I’m tempted to ask you again about your thoughts on the importance of geopolitical superpowers….
It’s a matter of law, slacker. Pushing dictator’s out of power, without provocation is illegal. A lot of us recognized that going in. Now, it’s finally coming to light that the British knew that and recognized that we trumped up a case to make it appear legal. If it violates international law, it violates the US Constitution, because under that Constitution, any treaty we are a party to, and we are a party to the UN Charter, is the supreme law of the land. No, we cannot just go willy-nilly around the world redressing our past wrongs by removing sovereign leaders from power. It’s illegal.
Further, it would not have the stamp of approval from the American people. Most of us, across the political spectrum don’t want to be world policemen. Was there a humanitarian case there? Yes. Was it as compelling as Rwanda or Sudan? No. Do you see a groundswell of support for sending troops there? Or Uzbekistan, our current allies, who boil their political prisoners to death. No, we don’t have the capacity to go running around the world fixing all these problems. We should be working with the United Nations, in concert with our allies and take action, when it is within the law.
Yes, there still are troops over there who believe in what they’re doing. A good number of them are so brainwashed by Fox News (which is in every common area on every military base I’ve ever been in) that they still believe Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. And, when they learn the truth, a lot of them are disillusioned and shattered. People can hold all kinds of views in this country, but we are a nation of laws, and many were violated in prosecuting this war.
First, I just want to say that my brother-in-law is way too smart, and subversive in his own satirical way, to be “brainwashed by FOX News”. But there really is a lot of “Hallmark moments” over there when troops do something nice for kids, or build a new school, etc.–that’s not just GOP propaganda (though I don’t blame anyone for being sceptical).
Now, as for international law: I fundamentally don’t accept the idea that a representative body (the U.N.) can be legitimate, when many of those voting for or against various resolutions don’t let their own people vote (and that goes for Israel, btw, as much as for anyone else). And if it’s “illegal” to remove dictators from power, I guess I’m going to have to go down as opposed to that law, just as I’m opposed to laws against gay marriage or the possession of marijuana.
You’re right that the American people wouldn’t have supported the war if there was nothing in it for us. That is a shame, and frankly I really find it hard to get too upset when selfish Americans are tricked into doing something against their self-interest, if it is in the broader human interest, which I believe it is (though others obviously disagree).
As for there being more compelling cases like Rwanda and Sudan, I agree. One of Bill Clinton’s great failings was not sending troops to Rwanda; and it is certainly a failing of Bush that he doesn’t do anything about the Sudan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I’m not narrowly just for taking out Saddam; I’d be all for getting involved in all those places and more. And you know what? After we made it plain we were going after the dictators, one by one, I bet we wouldn’t have to go to war in each case. Offer them a chance to go into exile, and a lot of them would take them up on it, if their own military didn’t take them out first (to preserve their own skins).
Btw, I think actually the most pressing problem we should have dealt with long ago is Pakistan. What AQ Khan did could well mean nuclear incineration (or slow, agonising death) for millions around the world. And he’s not even in fucking prison! Aarggghh.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
You’re right that the American people wouldn’t have supported the war if there was nothing in it for us. That is a shame, and frankly I really find it hard to get too upset when selfish Americans are tricked into doing something against their self-interest, if it is in the broader human interest, which I believe it is
How very Machiavellian of you. And, while I don’t have a terribly high estimation of America’s magnanimity, either, that was not my point. It’s not about what’s in it for us, but about what is legitimately germane to our national defense, and this was not. There are lots of laws we don’t agree with but the solution is not to just start breaking them, but to attempt to change them through the process we have. If you don’t care for the UN, then you can join the wingers in trying to extricate us from it, but as long as we are a party to it, we have an obligation to work within that framework. Instead, we have repeatedly used it as an instrument of our Imperial design, and have had quite a hand in its failure and its corruption.
It was not Bill Clinton’s failure that he did not send troops to Rwanda. It is not the President’s job to deploy troops at his whim. The framers made a point of not placing decisions of war and peace in the hands of any one man. How tragic that we have managed to unlearn that in 200 years. Perhaps military action is appropriate in many of these cases. However, I find appalling the suggestion that war should be a first resort and not a last. There are times when there is no other option, but this notion that we should just be throwing troops at everything is the road to hell.
you make it sound as if American foreign policy is anti-dictator, without acknowledging the vital role the US has played in establishing and sustaining most of the dictatorships in the world.
My head hurts now….
I did acknowledge that:
will be installed in Saddam’s place will be different/better how exactly? They’ll promise to never even think about selling oil in Euros???
You’re pretty feisty for a “shy” person who doesn’t like to argue! 😛
But I guess I’m not that pessimistic/cynical, to think that the new leaders of Iraq are being “installed”. If I see credible evidence to the contrary, I’ll be outraged, and speak out about it just as I told the WaPo guy I would.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
surprisingly easy to get along for a resident shit-disturber.
ROFLMAO!
We need to go on the road with this snappy banter, you and I. 😉
“After we made it plain we were going after the dictators, one by one, I bet we wouldn’t have to go to war in each case. Offer them a chance to go into exile, and a lot of them would take them up on it, if their own military didn’t take them out first (to preserve their own skins).”
Or perhaps one of them would make a deal with China that would result in the kicking of our overextended ass.
Imagine a United States where every child was conscripted into the armed forces on his or her 18th birthday. Imagine that none of our citizens could safely travel abroad because Americans were universally despised and vulnerable to attack. Imagine constant terror attacks at home–not just a trumped-up color-coded politically expedient threat, but actual attacks motivated by America’s shoot-first policy. Imagine (oh, the irony!) having our own human rights sharply curtailed because it’s wartime–all the damn time.
If we expect the rest of the world to act in a civilized manner, we can’t just go around shooting anyone we feel like getting rid of.
I would argue that it was our previous (and, in most cases, ongoing) form of foreign policy that got us in the most trouble abroad: that is, propping up dictators in some places, and installing them (via coups against popular, progressive leaders) in others. If we were to engage in the foreign policy I propound (and I’m not saying it could be done with Bush or his ilk in office by any means), I think the long term effect would be positive in terms of worldwide goodwill.
BTW, my favourite progressive nation, the Netherlands, joined voluntarily in the war against Iraq. Hard to see how they could be “bribed”. I don’t know specifics in this case (it’s been 15 years since I was there), but I can only surmise that they actually believed in it for the sake of human rights.
Speaking of human rights, did you know the executive director of Amnesty International USA told Newsweek that Amnesty did not oppose the Iraq war, since they had been screaming about how terrible Saddam was for ages? (I should have brought that one up earlier, damn…)
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
believes that killing over a hundred thousand people and devastating a country and destroying Falloujah and driving the rest of the country to stone age fundamentalism, all over non-existent WMDs (and other lies) is right?
I wonder if he’d feel the same if it was being done to him, and his country, and his family.
but didn’t want to get into an argument over the validity of the Lancet numbers…
I’m in Canada – population roughly 30,000,000 – Iraq is just a little bit smaller – roughly 25,000,000.
I think I can intuitively get what 100,000 dead countrymen would look like. It’s not pretty – and I know I would stoke my rage and desire for revenge until the day I died.
Here is what you are supporting. Here is how Americans treat women in Iraq. Here is how Americans “build schools” in Iraq. Here is how Americans bring their faux “freedom” to Iraq. Here is what you support. Look at her picture, weep with her husband and family. Your brother-in-law killed her. You killed her. I will not forgive you for what you did to them. I will not forgive you for the shame you bring upon America:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11902609.htm
and no . . . it’s not an “isolated incident”. Read to the end:
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/trib12.html
It was your brother-in-law’s boots which dirtied her floor.
“Freedom” does not come in jackboots (or whatever your brother-in-law wears).
“If Bush tries to install a puppet dictator”
Dictator, followed by sham government . . . strike one.
“if there are human rights violations”
Abu Graib, regular “home invasions” by US troops, 20,000 plus in concentration camps . . . strike two.
“He supports a war that minimizes civilian casualties”.
Falloujah, the Western provinces, etc. . . . strike three.
How’s that “re-evaluation” coming ? ? ?
How ? ? ?
“The United States, Thomas says, “should clean up the world”
The United States should start at home. As one of my Air Force ROTC instructors said (40 years ago) . . . “lead by example, not by command”.
a justification of your position but instead it was a little vanity puff for you ego.
To support an illegal invasion of a small country where thousands of people have been killed, where the infrastructure has been destroyed, where the museums have been robbed and looted, where the two oldest rivers in the world are being polluted, were natural resources are being stolen by profiteers and this is all you got? You got nothing.
I’ll cop to a bit of “vanity puff”, but I’d also point out that it is in my comments that I actually justified my position. (I prefer to work by the dialectical method, I suppose.) And, again, I would assert that your somewhat patronising concern for the people of Iraq appears to be misplaced, according to the Iraqis themselves. (But please, go ahead and tell me how Karl Rove somehow pulled the wool over the eyes of the BBC et al.)
And yep, that was snarky–I give as good as I get.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
^up there to look at my response to your poll – thoroughly debunked, if I say so myself….
It was ABC, by the way – that’s not hard, they work hard at pumping out propaganda.
you can’t forget Babylon – American’s fucked it up…
emanate from the left. They started out wanting something better for the oppressed of the world and came round to seeing US influence and particularly military power as being the vehicle to deliver. This (neo-con) diary seems to have a similar slant – sympathy for Kurds and Iraqi people and using the war to improve their lot.
The problem is of course hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, less freedoms, no infrastructure, more malnutrition, no security etc which means the “oppressed” have not been helped and their is of course a new oppressd group.
By the way didnt even Fukuyama denounce Krauthamer and Bush and say the whole project had gone wrong?
That’s a fantastic point. I had heard that about the neo-cons before, though I don’t know that much about them. (Apparently some of them were Trotskyites? I don’t think I’d call myself a “Trotskyite”, but I do admire Trotsky in many ways.)
So, maybe my intellectual journey has been similar to theirs in some ways, though I hardly think that actually makes me a neocon! First of all, I support Democrats in electoral politics, whereas neocons support the GOP–right? Secondly, where do they stand on issues like national health care, living wage legislation, the environment, civil liberties, police brutality, etc.? If they are progressive on all those, then yes: I am a neocon. (But in that case, I’d have to seriously question whether the “con” label is accurate at all!)
When I see or read neocons on the subject of Iraq, it’s absolutely true that I don’t find them all that objectionable–though I don’t like their position on Israel as I understand it (I think Israel is no better than apartheid South Africa was). It is the paleocons like Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan (both of whom opposed the war for selfish, isolationist reasons) that are my true polar opposites, politically.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
“I’d have to seriously question whether the “con” label is accurate at all!”
Labels are probably not all that accurate anyway. How many real people are 100% conservative or 100% liberal or 100% anything? Usually we have a mix of beliefs with maybe a majority of beliefs leaning one way or the otherAs much as I personally dislike the neo-con agenda (even before the Fukuyama split) I can see why it would theoretically actually appeal to some of those on the left. Actaully I have more problem understanding why any “conservative” would be attracted by its spend big approach.
This is fascinating to me–thanks so much for contributing this info. I guess I am woefully ignorant about the neocon movement, as I didn’t know who Fukuyama was until I Wiki’d him just now. So why’d he not approve of the Iraq invasion “as it was executed”? And do you know the answer to the question of what the neocons believe on other issues, like minimum wage, the environment, etc.? Someone once told me they were “agnostic” about those issues, but I find it hard to believe they don’t have any opinions either way!
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
From what I remember Fukuyama disagreed strongly with a speech Krauthammer made claiming the Iraqi adventure had gone very well. Fukuyama felt this was to deny the evidence. He also felt that the whole venture had been based on overestimating US power and the ability to engineer Iraq into a western style democracy. Fukuyama then called for Bush’s defeat in the election because he felt anyone who presided over such a policy disaster should be held accountable.
On domestic policy I think traditional neo-cons like Fukuyama believe in intervention, and are not worried by big government. Things like tax cuts are also not a priority for them. While they do agree with social engineering as they call it they think that it has gone too far. However, whether most of the so called neo-cons of today would still think like this I am not sure as they are more mixed in with other conservatives now and recntly domestic policy has not been a main issue for them although the crusades like homeland security that whip up “patriotism” would be a neo-con favorite.
This is truly incredible. I sat and watched as we dropped the bombs on Iraq. All I could think about was the innocent people being blown to bits below. The buildings collapsing, exploding into fragments, the children crying, pure panic of what the next minute might bring, the next second. I paid for that bomb! I paid for the plane and pilot to yell Yee haw, down with you #uckers! I paid for Bush and Comp. to come out and tell us that Iraq was tied to terroism, to 9/11, where I also sat and watched as entire buildings collapsed onto themselves , squashing the life out of my own people.
War. My definition. (only when our country is in danger, needs to defend itself).
Today, I pay for our guys to circle towns and root out the insurgents. What is the definition of an insurgent? A guy that comes from Saudi Arabia, a guy that sees Americans and hates that their invading his country, a guy that finds it easy to kill the enemy because he’s lost loved ones because of us?
What we’ve done is taken a country that was screwed up and brutilized and quadrupled the pain on all sides. Ask any press reporter over there that is afraid to walk the streets and talk to people because they might be the news instead of make the news. Look at the photo’s of sewage in the street, hear the conditions of the green zone where garbage is seldom picked up, look at the buildings that have blown out windows or entire sides missing. What could you possibly say if another country felt they could bring “us” democracy? Remember 9/11? That would be the first thirty days daily, our streets littered with people dazed and confused without gas for their precious SUV’s. No country should decide that through pure military might they will enforce democracy on another country and it’s people. It doesn’t work. It’s not earned, it’s imposed, enforced, coerced, manipulated, bought, sold and worst of all it’s a killing field.
That’s where were at, because a group of educated people got to far away from common sense and too entrenched in their power to see reasonably. And by the way, we paid for it.
“Though Thomas enthusiastically supports the war, he says he’ll reevaluate his position after the regime change. “If Bush tries to install a puppet dictator or if there are human rights violations, I’ll be decrying it as loudly as anyone else on the left,” he says.”
Puppet dictator? Check.
Human rights violations? Check and double-check.
So why are you not now “decrying it as loudly as anyone else on the left”?
I don’t agree that there’s a puppet dictator in Iraq–and I’m not sure where you get this. I have, however, decried human rights violations there all along, starting with the family that was blown to pieces (except, IIRC, the parents) as they approached a checkpoint; and of course including Abu Ghraib et al.
Here are some examples (left as URLs so their source is obvious):
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/3/25/121033/559#64
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2005/4/11/154225/140/75
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/5/27/13120/3282/21#21
Why didn’t you decry the people being blown to bits when we started the actual war?
The civilians? I did (though I’m at a loss as to how to search for those posts; I hope you’ll take my word for it).
I also strongly denounced the way the U.S. went about the Afghan war, btw. I was powerfully affected by a story (the kind of thing FOX News would never cover) about a father who held his dead two year old son in his arms. My son was two at the time. I said we should be using troops on the ground instead of dropping bombs. That probably would have caught Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, too.
But no, we’ve always got to do this calculation where we sacrifice god knows how many civilian casualties (non-American casualties, of course) so that we can slightly reduce our own military casualties. I’m strongly against that philosophy, but it is in large part the American people who are to blame for it, not any particular political leader. (Bill Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo, for instance, against Wes Clark’s urging.)
So, you said you went to the community center. Where is it? I don’t see it…
stomach for war is because they fundamentally know that war is wrong. Period. You backtrack an awful lot Slacker. Maybe I haven’t read all your diaries in the past but as you would have it, no-one gets killed, you can’t go because you have a bum knee and above all we get to play God and decide where to intervene and on whom to do it. Men on foot, is thier a difference . Bullets to bombs. Do you think that every country engages in war drawing battle lines like when we were kids and lined up the plastic soldiers. These countries don’t have that kind of equiptment to fight in these old fashion standards. Guerilla war fare is the poor man’s way. Do you think the little girl hiding in her home behind the insurgent doesn’t feel the “bullet” that just went through her brain? This is basic stuff Slacker. You can’t help in a humanitarian way with bullets. At least not imposed from one country to another. Now I would be for an uprising within a country. Why? Because the assumption is that people are taking back what’s theirs. And sometimes they have to fight for it. But of course this isn’t black and white. There are countries who go through long struggles to get to a better place and there are many ways , we as a country , can influence in an honest and consistent way, democracy.
Boy, nicky, I thought I showed that I respect your POV, and I fully admit you make a strong case when you’re not just bashing me. You sure don’t seem to respect my POV, or my intelligence, when you characterise my arguments in the straw man way you did here.
The bottom line is that I think Stalin came up with the perfect “system” for a dictator to seize control, and hold it indefinitely, without permitting any revolt to take place. Stalin held power for decades, until he died. Saddam studied Stalin’s methods (purges, secret police, etc.) and even his personal style, and applied them faultlessly to Iraq. I don’t believe Stalinist dictatorships can ever be overturned from within, unless–as with Ceaucescu in Romania–there is a withdrawal of support from an erstwhile military backer.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
I’ll be in the community center now….
Formulating a theory of Slacker and the conflict diaries….
Nori
I am sorry that you have been treated so politely. Others have stated that “you have every right to your opininon”. If your opinion is what you appear to be saying it is, you may have the right to hold it but you have to accept the consequences for it.
By now it is absolutely clear that the case for war was fabricated. There were no WMD and Saddam was accepted as not being a threat to the region.Congress in the USA and Parliament in the UK wer misled into voting for military action. As a lay person I could see that Blair’s “non dodgy” dossier was shot through with doubtful claims immediately I read it after it was published. So much so that they have been made fun of here in the new series of the children’s sci fi series “Dr Who”.
I accept it was a perfectly honorable position to hold that the weapons programs did exist and therefore Saddam presented a threat. I even accept that the information being spun by the two governments could persuade someone that the threat was imminent. But that is not the case that you stated at the start of the war and maintain now.
You quite clearly supported and still support the war on the grounds of regime change. That is illegal. Do not take my word for it, read the intital full advice given by the UK Attorney General in early March 2003.
In the absence of a specific UNSC resolution, the only legal grounds for the war may (and I use that word advisedly as there are some caveats to it) have been that Saddam was obstructing the UN Ispectors and thereby the earlier Security Council resolutions from the 1990s authorising military action were re-activated. In the full advice the A-G makes it clear that the Security Council would make that assessment by convention and that the USA’s unique position was that it could unilaterally make the decision. The initial advice clearly cast doubts on the propriety of that view but the it was on those grounds that Blair went to war.
If Blair’s position, even if dubious, is that he had UN authority revived from the 1990s, Bush and you maintain that the war was justified on the grounds that Saddam was oppresing his subjects. While that may well have been the case, most often called in aid are the gassings of the Kurds and the suppression of the Shia revolt in southern Iraq encouraged by Bush 41 after the Kuwait War. The A-G’s advice makes it clear that there were no grounds to justify an invasion on the basis of the prevention of an imminent genocidal attack as was the case in the former Yugoslavia.
Your argument of the unique unpleasantness of Saddam, as others point out, is fallacious. Where are the US forces in Darfur? Where are they in Zimbabwe were millions have been slowly starving for three years because of the deliberate policy of Mugabe and hundreds of thousands are in danger of freezing at night as their homes have been destroyed? Where are they in China where millions have been forcibly removed from their homes for a dam project and corrupt officials are hiring thugs to terrorise and kill protesters objecting to having their land confiscated for a car plant?
If the US is going to take on the role of world policeman, it must acknowlege that the police enforce laws. There is a body of international law and the final aribitur of that law is the UN or in extremis the international community, not the US President. Without even the figleaf of revived UNSC resolutions, the A-G makes it clear Bush acted illegally and you are complicit still in that. Bush’s order, which you support, is a Crime of Agression under the Nuremburg Principles which form part of the Geneva Protocols which the US has ratified. Since you are an accessory to Bush’s War Crime you should not join those who might commit further crimes by enlisting but surrender yourself as a war criminal to the nearest law enforcement agency competent to prosecute you.
All this “please respect my point of view.” All this “you’re entitled to your opinion.”
I don’t respect your opinion. That forty-something percent of people still cling to your point of view, knowing what we know now of the justification for war, is a testament to the complacency and stupidity of the American citizenry.
Go ahead and believe that your opinion is respectable and right. I hope it makes you feel good sitting in Missouri, is it, where no one has decided to drop a bombs on your city because they really think President Bush is a dangerous leader.
I agree that you need to take your ass down to a recruiting station at the earliest opportunity. (I’ve already served in the U.S. Imperial Army — so I’ve done my share).
And, I think you should do some research on Google (because it makes us all so smart) and draw up your list of leaders in the world who bother you with how they treat their citizens. It’s going to be a long, ugly, bloody slow decline. But, the quicker we do it, the quicker we can run ourselves into the dirt, and the next bully on the block can take over. And just for cosmic justice, I hope the next bully starts by dropping bombs all over this little haven of crack-pots.
Nice opinion.
and frankly, leftist or not, your moral position suffers from the overwhelming hubris that has gotten our country into this situation (again).
You may believe that Iraq is “better off now” – but even if that assesment is correct, you are ignoring the moral cost involved in bring this state of affairs about.
The world is not better off with the resultant lack of respect for international law, the United Nations, the Geneva Convention, our strained alliances with former friends.
Our country is far from better off with a military on the brink of a draft.
Any choice – such as should we or should we not invade Iraq – involves an adult assessment of both the good and the bad which will inevitably result from that choice.
Personally I think any pinhead could have found a better way for our country to spend 400 billion dollars and the lives of 1700 servicemen and women.
pc crap. Slacker, you need to get your ass on a plane to Iraq immediately. THEN and only then can you come back here and tell us how swimmingly things are going over there. Yeah, screw your bum knee, they are desperate for enistees, they will take you and you say you are 35 and they are taking up tp 39 year olds now. Shit, I will pay for your plane ticket over. Be sure to take pictures of all the rebuilding and great economy and how much their own oil fields are paying for this occupation. You all can 0 bomg me into oblivion but I just have to say this…you make me sick!
I have gone from unsure about the war, to supporting it somedays to bagging it on others…..and now I seem to have settled on against the war. What with some of the difficulties that my husband has had and now losing my Uncle to PTSD from Vietnam. I think that war is a bad choice. I just love it that you are on here though and that something like the war can get good solid conversing and debate from all possible angles.
and content of war knowledge on Booman. Blown away would be a better description concerning how deeply understood the current situation on the ground in Iraq is. If it wasn’t for people like Slacker though stoking the fire all this knowledge placed here so generously by so many in the know would have been harder to accumulate in one place.