For those who still don't understand why the Iraqis are shooting at us, and base all their support of Bush's policies on the Ends-Justifies-the-Means philosophy (Saddam was bad, therefore what we did was good), and don't comprehend why the world doesn't love us, I offer the following recollection:
I spent several weeks of my life in Romania in connection with some movies I wrote that were filmed there. And whenever I went anywhere with whatever Romanian guide was assigned to me, the guide would always bring up Ceausescu. Ceausescu was the Romanian dictator from the mid-60s through to the late 80s, finally overthrown by his people in fierce battle in 1989 and subsequently executed. Wherever we would go, guides would say, "And this was a palace Ceausescu was building before we overthrew him." "And this was where Ceausescu's favorites were housed before we overthrew him." The fact that they had taken charge of their lives and tossed out a parasite--a parasite the U.S. had supported until the mid 1980s, by the way--was a source of great national pride.
The Iraqis have no national pride. They're the United States' bitch. To seize control of your destiny engenders pride. To have someone do it for you and then not leave causes frustration, self-loathing, and anger directed at your intended liberators. And outside of the country, it's seen as presumptuous and arrogant.
Get it now?
PAD
Posted by Peter David at July 22, 2003 08:38 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingThus, we should have let the German people overthrow Hitler rather than get involved, so that the German people could have a sense of national pride.
Jeez, next thing you know, you're going to be advocating that the Iraqi's be allowed to hold free elections among candidates that they select & thereby form their own government.
/scarcasm off
Mr Price, please check your history book - Hitler declared war on us after we declared war on Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Saddam didn't declare war on us, nor did he attack the U.S..
Thus, we should have let the German people overthrow Hitler rather than get involved, so that the German people could have a sense of national pride.
Actually, the popular thought at that time was that we should have stayed out of WWII. We had no business in it (given that, and we had no business in the biggest cluster at all... WWI... which we did until the last year of the war). There was even a popular support of Hitler brewing out there.
It took Japan bombing the Hell out of us, and as stated above, Hitler declaring war on us... a truly stupid move in perfect hindsight.
I agree with PAD here... helping someone claim their own is different from taking over and saying here... you owe us big time.
Travis
Maybe I'm crazy, but I seem to recall that Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor of Germany. The idea that the German people as a whole were oppressed isn't quite accurate. There was, in fact, quite a lot of popular support for Hitler...which isn't to say all Germans supported him.
My point is that if you like your leader, you have no desire to organize a revolution. Castro's folks keep saying "¡vidas de la revolución!" but how long has his "revolutionary" government been in power in Cuba? Is it still a revolution if it's been the status quo for 40+ years?
No need to sound so condescending. Get it now? I don't think you do.
PAD,
I'd distrusted the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush, and jingoist patriotism for specific reasons unrelated to the one you brought up...but it's a damn good reason nontheless.
For those not getting the point...imagine if the French had entered heavily with troops and ships during the American Revolution, and then set up our government for us.
For further study, I recommend reading Amrose Bierce, HL Mencken, George Orwell and Mark Twain. For extra credit, review Bill Mauldin's work, before and after WWII.
People, please keep things in perspective! Hitler actually invaded Germany`s neighbours and was most definitely a threat that became bigger and bigger. I am actually surprised that efforts hadn`t been made MUCH sooner to stop him for good.
A much better example would be East Germany after WWII. Not unlike Iraq under Saddam, people weren`t starving but they were oppressed. There were no executions in the DDR as in Iraq but on the other hand, there was the Iron Curtain and people trying to leave WERE often executed if they didn`t die by stepping on mines. There was the secret police, the STASI (state security service), not unlike the Ba`ath party.
All of this is now part of history, thanks to non-violent peace movements and pressure also from abroad. It took a long time but this dictatorship fell. Even today, there are significant economic differences between former East and West Germany but it is a stable region and people are indeed better off.
The USA would never have invaded because it would have been extremely unwise, politically. The USSR was much too powerful. I don`t think they will attack Korea or Israel/the Palestinians either, for the same reasons. But countries like Iraq are no real threat for the US military and the same applies to Iran and Syria who recently have been warned by the USA again, now that the official war in Iraq is over.
The UN has obviously no teeth and the USA is the only super power left: This means they do what they want with the countries that can`t fight back hard enough to cause real problems for the USA. Or who don`t have powerful friends and allies or are important to the USA for trade or other reasons.
The USA marched into Iraq without being invited, without being properly prepared to what has to be done to rebuild the country. Afghanistan may be free but it is still a mess. I am afraid, Iraq will have the same fate. Who is next?
No weapons of mass destruction have been found to date. It has been revealed that a lot had been exaggerated. The heroic story of saving Private Lynn (I think that was her name) has been proven to have been a propaganda lie and I certainly don`t understand why in general, people in the USA don`t share the disgust about the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
In this connection, other anti-American sentiments are coming to the surface again, like the death penalty and the right of Americans to bear arms. Should the USA actually execute foreign (for example British) prisoners, this will be a complete disaster.
No, Bush is not Hitler but nevertheless, I think it is time that he is stopped.
As a Canadian I have noticed that The US will let you do whatever you want in your country as long as it doesn't interfere with American interests.
Absolurely.
"Thanks for kicking out a brutal dictator who has maimed, tortured, and killed many of us, bankrupted us, and drug us into constant war with our neighbors.
We appreciate your sacrifice of you sons and daughter so much so that we will kill one to two of them everyday while they try to restore order and rebuild our country so we can be safe and rebuiild our country so we have a future. Just leave. We'll call you when we need more of you to die fighting our battles for us."
Still to writing funny books. International politics isn't your forte.
"My point is that if you like your leader, you have no desire to organize a revolution."
Which doesn't matter if you don't like him and cannot. You forget that Saddam had his own SON executed for ostensibly plotting against him. The man had a virtually impenetrable network of informants and spies. People knew damn well they didn't have a chance. One of the reasons the Soviet system did fall was that, when push came to shove, the army didn't have the stommach to fire on their own, unarmed population. The Chinese army had no such reservations at Tiannanmen(sp?) Square. Want to bet Hussein's goons would have held back? Especially after gassing the Kurd who had foolishly listened to the encouraging words from the US, which subsequently let them out to hang when Hussein fought back. This is not conducive to people standing up and saying enough. It works in countries where the 'oppressors' are [relatively] 'reasonable' about it (British in India, for example) but gets you squashed real fast when dealing with a nutbar such as Hussein.
> Castro's folks keep saying "¡vidas de la revolución!" but how long has his "revolutionary" government been in power in Cuba? Is it still a revolution if it's been the status quo for 40+ years?"
Sort of like the Red Chinese government, you mean? it's especially funny there since the proud 'revolution' ain't what it used to be in that country.
No need to sound so condescending. Get it now? I don't think you do.
Oh, whatever minor "condescension" I might muster can't compare to the barrage of everything from arrogance to name calling (and everything in between) routinely hurled at me on this blog by those with opposing views.
Sauce for the goose, as it were. Honk honk.
Still to writing funny books. International politics isn't your forte.
Nor is writing coherent sentences yours (could you possibly have meant "stick to writing"). I do, however, do reasonably well with common sense. In your fabricated quote, you might have wanted to add "Not that we actually *did* call you to fight our battles for us, and we cowered in fear while you bombed us. And we didn't ask for your help, but since you felt constrained to do so, thanks loads, now get the hell out of our country."
But that wouldn't have served your purpose.
Again...honk honk.
PAD
"Again...honk honk. PAD"
I wish you hadn't written that. Now I get visions of someone standing on the side of a busy road, holding up a sign...
"Honk if you agree with PAD."
*honk*
8-)
As for someone else's comment about Hitler being elected so obviously not everyone was oppressed there, they should read SOLDAT by Siegfried Knappe (and Ted Brusaw) which recounts the 1936 - 1949 period from the point of view of a German footsoldier who fought in all the major Wermacht theatres of operation. It is hard to dismiss as unconvincing or selective memory the way we see people being swept up into the ardour to right what was injustly done to them not all that long ago in Versailles and then find out that their rulers had led them down the proverbial garden path but by then the mechanisms were in place (Brown Shirts et al) to ensure no one dared complain about it.
Mr. David,
While I agree that the manner in which the US liberated and subsequently occupied Iraq has damaged their pride and created a feeling of resentment, I don't believe it's the primary reason of why "they're" shooting at us.
The problem with your argument is that the overwhelming majority of post-war attacks have been limited to less than 1% of Iraq's area -- the "Sunni Triangle," as it were. Most of the people attacking US troops are holdovers from the old regime and tribes loyal to Saddam; in other words, people who had a lot to lose in the fall of the old regime and nothing to gain in a new, democratic one.
Now, this isn't to say that a lengthy occupation wouldn't create such a widespread resentment to the point where the common Iraqi will rebel, but that is not the case right now. When you're saying that "they're" shooting us, understand that "they" consist of a small, predominantly Sunni minority whose political interests are in conflict with the idea of a liberated Iraq.
Alex
Here's a good quote for you: "The problem with the world is that stupid people are cocksure, and intelligent people are full of doubt." It's always amazed me at how utterly loyal the supporters of this war have been, how completely unwilling to question literally any action of the administration's policy. I have had several long arguments with co-workers about the justification for the war. It is amazing how quickly they will change their story to match the tune of the administration.
In the beginning it was all about the weapons of mass destruction. Sadam was massing huge stockpiles of hidden weapons, and he was going to use them any day on the US allies in the area, and he'd eventually be able to use them on us. Then, as the war progressed and Sadam failed to use the WMD on US troops, the story changed; obviously he wouldn't use them because he would lose the international support that he had gained when the US launched its highly unconventional, unconstitutional, and irregular preemptive war.
Then, as the war stretched on and Bush declared victory, the justification for the war completely changed. Let's forget the WMD. They weren't important. The administration started whining about how they "needed more time" to find the weapons (even though they refused to allow the United Nation's more time to find evidence when they begged for it in the first three months of this year). Suddenly the justification became overthrowing an evil dictator and liberating an oppressed people.
Never mind, of course, the literally dozens of countries that are ruled by dictators who oppress their people. It doesn't hurt that Iraq contains the second richest oil fields in the world (second only to Saudi Arabia) and that Bush Jr. had a grudge on behalf of his father. Justification didn't matter.
I also think that the position of Republicans is an interesting one to behold. While Clinton was in office it was all they could do, for eight consecutive years, to constantly attack him and discredit him. They spent most of his term in office looking for evidence to prove real estate fraud, and the best they could do was prove that he'd had extramarital affairs (something Larry Flynt was able to prove wasn't restricted to the Democrats). They impeached him for refusing to admit to the American people that he'd received...favors from an intern. Then, when Bush gets into office, suddenly the Republicans stand together and claim that it is unpatriotic to ever question the judgment of a President in office; that questioning him and putting him on trial during times of war is an incredible breach of etiquette. And the fact that Bush and his administration knowingly lied and deceived the people to gain support for a war? Well, that pales in comparison to Clinton's infidelity, doesn't it? You've got to have your priorities!
Phinn
I'm another Canadian, and I'm appaled at the constant negative reaction to PAD's words.
One thing I've noticed from American views (some, not all. I'm not going to generalize.) is this view of "If you're not with us, you're against us.". So, every time Peter states a disagreement with some US policy, people label him "partisan" or "a bleeding-heart Liberal".
Firstly, we Canadians must be a nightmare to you folks in the US... our governing party are the Liberals! Mind you, many of us are unhappy with the current person in power; he'll retire in early 2004 and someone else will replace him - and probably get re-elected. Why? Because the other parties have lousy ideas for the country.
The difference is: they are ultimately governing. "Dubya" isn't. He's just following the same party tenets established at the party convention: "Look at our weapons! Here's the list of all the wars we started - and won!".
Your economy is downhill. I just have to see how strong the Canadian dollar has become to yours to know. Medical science is at a near standstill - but look at all these wars we've won!
That Saddam is a monster is not in doubt. That the war's reasons were BS is becoming more and more certain. That Bush has been doing a bad job is something not in question at all.
Neither is the fact I'll now get the same treatment as The Dixie Chicks for not mindlessly following Bush also isn't in question. Nor is the fact that folks will continue to blast Peterfor not agreeing with the party line - and that's sad.
As far as trying to topple a tyranical regime without resorting to military force, that's what we had been trying to do in Iraq for the past 12 years with UN sanctions. Before Bush decided to take out Saddam, support for these sanctions was waning, with countries like France trying to have them dropped because they claimed they were responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people, while at the same time French oil companies were signing contracts with Saddam. I doubt any money from France actually helped feed starving Iraqis. Of course, Saddam had no blame in the suffering of his own people, even though his non-compliance with UN resolutions was the reason for the sanctions. I sincerely believe that the only way to remove Saddam from power was through force.
However, I have serious problems the way we went about it, and the way we are attempting to rebuild Iraq. We should have taken Saddam out in 1991 or given support to the rebellion that came about after the Gulf War. The way the Bush acted confirms the image of the American government as arrogant and oblivious to the concerns of the rest of the world. I think this war, whose main purpose was to get the US military out of Saudi Arabia, could have been conducted in a mouch more organized manner with more popular global support if given more lead time. But, that's an academic argument now. Now we're up shit creek no paddle in site.
Phinn - Don't forget, the administration, via Rumsfeld, said "We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that".
So we have a right to overthrow rulers who don't divert dollars directly to the benefit of their people? What about the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care for all of its citizens? What about the fact that our government would rather buy another bomb than provide healthcare for newborn babies? What about the fact that the administration has consistently cut back on schooling, federal funding for states, veteran's benefits, and just about anything that doesn't either 1.) buy another bomb, or 2.) go directly into the pockets of people who are already immensely wealthy.
What about the fact that the nation's unemployment rate is at the highest level it has been in 10 years while the average salary of CEOs has gone up 17% in the last year? Or the fact that the budget surplus that Bush inherited turned into a massive debt but he continues to cut taxes to provide huge breaks to the wealthy (yes, I'm sure his cut on capital gains taxes is doing a lot to put food on the tables of the recently unemployed)? Or the fact that his administration gladly looks the other way while modern day robber barons loot their corporations for millions of dollars, raid retirement funds, and use off-shore "incorporations" to avoid paying taxes? Or a leader that actually dares enemy troops to attack and kill our soldiers while he sits safely thousands of miles away?
Wouldn't you consider a regime that makes every effort to line the pockets of the already super rich, while cutting back programs to help the needy to be fairly oppressive and evil?
The cut on veteran's benefits is the one that really gets me. The whole time the administration whines about supporting the troops, it's working behind the scenes to stab them in the back.
Phinn
Taken from the blog of Will Shetterly:
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong, and multiplies instead of indemnifying losses." Thomas Jefferson
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Thomas Jefferson
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." James Madison
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." Benjamin Franklin
Great point PAD, people appreciate freedom more when they actually work, sacrifice and die to get it. Those who bring up WWII overlook the fact that to rebuild Germany and Japan in our image we literally pounded them into the ground. We crushed the German will to fight by waging war not only on their army but also on their civilian populations, they call that terrorism today. Was it horrible and barbaric? Yes. Was it worth it? Definitely. In Iraq we didn’t destroy the people’s will to fight, we just rolled in and took over. I fear that even if we do get Saddam, (there are reports that we’ve killed his sons) the Iraqis will keep fighting.
"While Clinton was in office it was all they could do, for eight consecutive years, to constantly attack him and discredit him." - Possible Hypocrite
Did those of you who are against this war protest the War in Kosovo in 1999, when President Bill Clinton went into Yugoslavia without the consent of the UN? In 1999 reports of bloodshet increased and the Clinton administration came to the conclusion that it could be nipped in the bud through decisive military action. A historically conscious president, aware of the perpetual blemish that will accompany his name in every school book published hereafter as a result of his impeachment, seeks to salvage his wounded presidency. Seizing the opportunity to redeem his administration as a champion of the oppressed, the Clinton administration used his close partnership with liberal allies in Britain and Canada to press upon more reluctant partners the urgency of limited action in the region. Confident that an expedient and politically advantageous victory could be achieved, and bolstered by a fierce propaganda campaign that could silence even the most cynical, the American led NATO forces began bombing Yugoslavia in late March. Ignoring those facts which were not convenient to the advancement of their cause, dignitaries in Brussels, Ottawa, Washington and London led the masses to believe that they could end six centuries of conflict in two weeks. the U.S led coalition pointed to dramatic stories of suffering on the part of ethnic Albanian refugees to justify its continued involvement in the conflict, ignoring the "collateral" damage toll in Serbian lives. Pressed by critics who sought to end the war once and for all, whether it be through withdrawal or decisive and potentially politically damaging action on the ground, the commander who fled his responsibility in a similar war thirty years earlier persisted in his view that he could act with impunity against a battle-hardened nation without dealing with the guilt of shed American blood. In Canada, were protests in most major cities against the war by those who feard for the lives of friends and relatives in their homeland were occurring daily. Where were you liberal protesters then? When your socialist cousins were marching the streets did you care? Or did you just watch your CNN-sterilized news with total faith in liberal leader?
So I ask you again, did you protest Kosovo in 1999? No?
How about Somolia? .....
PAD, could you explain then why Kofi Annan wants us to send troops to Liberia? And why Howard Dean wants us to send troops to Liberia? And why a large number of Liberians want us to send troops to Liberia?
They had what, 30 some years to do it, and they didn't. Chances are they would never have been able to do it themselves.
It will always be a left/right issue.
Kudos to James Tichy for a solid post.
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.
Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.
THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West ...
Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.
"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."
The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to £500m has been whittled down to single figures ...
- - - - -
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.
... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism." ....
- - - - -
The Observer. December 19, 1999.
Sanctions reviewed in West as Saddam wields sword of Islam
The Iraqi dictator has rejected a UN deal to lift sanctions. The Western blockade, far from toppling the regime, has bolstered it. He's ditched the sunglasses and taken up the Koran to harness the fervour of fundamentalists.
By: Jason Burke, in Baghdad
... This time last year the U.S. claimed that another delegation had met Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist mastermind and tried to woo him to Iraq.
Senior officials claim that the Islamisation programme is an attempt to defuse the threat of Islamic militancy rather than encourage it ...
- - - - -
United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...
- - - - -
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999. Sunday 1 STAR EDITION.
BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE
By: From Beacon Journal wire services
DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN:
... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq.
A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial....
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle
Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq
DATELINE: Kuwait City
An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours.
The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.
Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.
The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq ....
- - - - -
Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999.
Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown
... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.
Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. history ....
- - - - -
San Jose Mercury News (California). February 14, 1999 Sunday MORNING FINAL EDITION
U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN
DEADLIER WEAPONS
U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ...
In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden.
"It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency ...
Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.
... (in) late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world.
Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ...
More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ...
"The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official....
- - - - -
Associated Press Worldstream. February 13, 1999; Saturday 14:32 Eastern Time
Bin Laden said to have left Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown
... It is very unlikely bin Laden could remain in Afghanistan without Taliban officials knowing his whereabouts.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.
U.S. officials believe bin Laden masterminded the Aug. 7 bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania ...
Bin Laden urged devout Muslims to attack U.S. and British interests in retaliation for their joint assault on Iraq.
U.S. officials demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, who has been indicted in a U.S. court on murder charges in connection with the bombings. But the Taliban had refused.
- - - - -
The Bulletin's Frontrunner. January 4, 1999, Monday.
Defiant Saddam Looks To Provoke U.S.
... Time also reported, "For now, the White House will respond to each provocation by counterattacking the offending battery."
Saddam Reaching Out To bin Laden.
Newsweek (1/11, Contreras) reported, "U.S. sources say (Saddam) is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden." ...
(Osama bin Laden was) calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq." In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to his government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective....
- - - - -
The White House Bulletin. Copyright 1999. Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.
In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to his government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective, he....
- - - - -
United Press International. January 3, 1999, Sunday, BC cycle.
UPI Focus: Bin Laden 'instigated' embassy bombings
... (The Taliban) government in Afghanistan says the Saudi does not have the money to finance projects in the country. Newsweek also reported that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been making new overtures to bin Laden in an attempt to rebuild his intelligence network and to create his own terror network....
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday.
International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries
By Rich Hood
... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States....
- - - - -
Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition.
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk.
HEADLINE: OSAMA BIN LADEN
Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a sideshow....
- - - - -
National Public Radio (NPR)
MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM
on ET)
February 18, 1999.
THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW.
ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS
REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER
... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.
Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.
SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony....
- - - - -
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999.
Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition
Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday.
"If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."
... Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden, who has gone missing from his base in Afghanistan, would never seek refuge in secular Iraq on ideological grounds. "I think bin Laden would keep quiet or fight to the death rather than seek asylum in Iraq," the London-based dissident, who asked not to be named, told AFP last week.....
- - - - -
From James Tichy: "the commander who fled his responsibility in a similar war thirty years earlier"
I'm always amused to see conservatives bring up this little tidbit. Clinton opposed the Vietnam War on philosophical grounds and, so, did not serve. The Resident, however, was a hawkish supporter of said war, but also did not serve in country. He used familial influence to jump over hundreds of more qualified candidates to enter the Texas Air National Guard. And he didn't even serve there. The Resident actually went AWOL for the last year and a half of his time with the National Guard, failing to report for duty or even let his commanding officers know where he was. Again, thanks to his family and friends, nothing bad happened.
And now this cretin is leading us into unjustified, pre-emptive wars, wars in which the sons and daughters of our fellow citizens are dying. And still conservatives have the nerve to say their guy has the credentials to lead.
"The problem with the world is that stupid people are cocksure, and intelligent people are full of doubt."
The problem isn't that the intelligent people are full of doubt. It's that they're paralyzed by that doubt and do nothing or next to nothing. The longer the U.S. does nothing or next to nothing concerning Arab dictatorships (y'know, our *enemies*), the more they end up like their impotent neighbors to the north, constrained as they are by their virtually nonexistent military.
But who needs security when you have your own inefficient and outdated health care system (but at least it's universal! And if you live in the Toronto area, and were unlucky enough, it came with free SARS! Oh, and it's not free, either--let's send that myth to its grave), foolish 'hate speech' laws, high tax rates, government funded daycare (because why should parents take care of their own children?), and a gun registry that is likely to cost $1 billion dollars before it runs its course?
I think we could all learn a lesson from Canada, but only from its more conservative writers (has anyone here checked out Mark Steyn lately--great stuff!), who seem to have the heads screwed on straighter than your average American conservative scribe.
-Dave O'Connell
Anthony X, that's a very nice selection of news stories you've got there. However you ignore two important facts.
1.) Most of the "intelligence" regarding a Saddam/Bin Laden team-up comes from the INC and Iraqi defectors who have shown to be of questionable honesty.
2.) I notice you left out any reference to the Feb, 2003 Bin Laden tape where he urged Iraqis to overthrow the "socialist" Saddam.
I have also noticed that Bush takes resposiblity for declaring war on Iraq because at the time of the war it was supported by a vast majority of people in the US, however the reasons for delcaring that war, i.e. the WMD (I really really hate that word) were in error. Now that it has come to light that there isn't vast amount of hidden weapons Bush is trying to deflect the blame to others. So my point is Public behind him he takes credit, Public not behind him blame someone else. Whatever happened to personal responsiblity?
Actually this doesn't just happen in the Us but all over the world. Any Political party in power wants to stay in power and will do almost anything to sway the public to their cause.
On a side note I totally agree with the fact that Saddam needed to be kick out of power, but the US sure has a double standard with their dictators.
Rick Jones, really
Thank you for your coments, but feel free to address what my post was actually about.
But who needs security when you have your own inefficient and outdated health care system (but at least it's universal! And if you live in the Toronto area, and were unlucky enough, it came with free SARS! Oh, and it's not free, either--let's send that myth to its grave), foolish 'hate speech' laws, high tax rates, government funded daycare (because why should parents take care of their own children?), and a gun registry that is likely to cost $1 billion dollars before it runs its course?
As for our Health Care system it may need help but it if FAR superior to anything in the US. Hospitals in the US are about making profit and how do they make the profit? By making deals with the Insurance agencies. And how do the Insurance agencies make profit? By selling insurance to people and not paying out for them.
The main reason that there isn't any universal health care in the US is because it wouldn't make people money. This is also what is happening in Canada. The Government here is eroding it's tax base by getting out of business and this is making it so that the government has less money to spend on social programs such as health care.
And here is the biggest argument for our Healthcare system. If you are poor you are not going to get turned away at the door of a hospital because you don't have insurance.
Take a look at some of the European countries to see how universal health care and free education should be here in Canada and the US. All I can say is that I know that the way things are in Canada aren't perfect but they are infinitely better then the US.
I make it a habit to question any military action. Not once did I say that I was a Clinton supporter, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy and complete, total, utter about-face stance that the Republicans took once one of their own was in the office.
We went from a group of people willing to delve into any aspect of the president's life (no matter how private, personal, and unrelated to the job) to a political group that now constantly waves a banner of "executive privilege" as an excuse to seal any documents that might shed light on their shady practices.
The administration doesn't even bother to hide the favors that it extends to wealthy friends and lobbyists, offering lucrative contracts to Cheney's old county to clean up the chemical fires in Iraq even though they were not the lowest bidder, and will likely only subcontract to a company that is more capable of handling the mess (that we created by the way) after taking their cut.
It's also nice to see that, within days of taking oil wells in Iraq, the US was already formulating a generous plan in which the oil in Iraq would be pumped and sold at HALF the going rate, meaning that all of the US oil companies selling it at hugely unjustified inflated prices (oil prices are higher than ever, but there is absolutely no shortage of supply...I wonder why that is?) and make twice the profit that they now make, all while claiming to be doing the Iraqi people a service by giving them 50% of the value of their only domestic product.
What conservatives fail to understand is that it is not “us against them”. It’s not the left versus the right. It’s one of the reasons (one of the many, many reasons) why the Democratic Party is so weak today. The would be supporters of the left see the same flaws in their political leaders as they do in the GOP, whereas the folks on the right blindly follow anything that their brave leaders tell them to, even if the story changes several times and is the exact opposite of what they were preaching the last time a Democrat was in the office.
It’s unfortunate that one political party can be made so strong from a loyalty that springs from utter blindness and ignorance while the other suffers due to lack of vision and strong leadership. No wonder voter apathy is at an all time high; we have to make the choice between the lesser of two evils and it just doesn’t feel like a choice worth making.
Phinn
Re: Rick Jones, really comments
He used familial influence to jump over hundreds of more qualified candidates to enter the Texas Air National Guard. And he didn't even serve there.
He served in Houston from 1968 to 1972.
The Resident actually went AWOL for the last year and a half of his time with the National Guard,
He did not go AWOL. Only the U.S. military can determine if a soldier goes AWOL, and in Bush's case, they didn't determine that.
failing to report for duty or even let his commanding officers know where he was.
He actually was supposed to serve in Alabama after his fourth year to help with a Senatorial campaign, and while he did have a habit of not showing up, he did make up the time. This is not uncommon for the ANG to allow their people to make up missed time. He wasn't pulling strings to get out of duty, as your post implies.
While these discussions are enjoyable to read, they are also frustrating because it seems that not enough focus is put on questioning the source of the information from which they are making their opinions. I do not take what Dan, Pete or Tom say for granted (that is, if I listen to them).
PAD, while I appreciate the your recollections of Romania, I don't think you can jump to the same conclusion for Iraq. Maybe, if the Iraqis had overthrown Saddam, they would feel the pride of liberating themselves. But we will never know. And now some very small minority is using guerilla tactics to take out our soldiers while we try to create an environment where the Iraqis can enjoy a non-dictatorial government. To say that we are being targeted because we did the job for them is a stretch, at best.
He actually was supposed to serve in Alabama after his fourth year to help with a Senatorial campaign, and while he did have a habit of not showing up, he did make up the time. This is not uncommon for the ANG to allow their people to make up missed time. He wasn't pulling strings to get out of duty, as your post implies.
Which is exactly why the ANG was such a lucrative place for rich fathers to place their sons, and why the Bush family pulled so many strings to get Dubya in there.
Phinn
[B]
Nor is writing coherent sentences yours
[/B]
Hilarious. I point out that you are not qualified to make such a conclusive statement and international relations, and hurl back a schoolyard taunt. Beautiful. Truly.
If you must know, I am legally blind. Typing isn't my strong point. However, I got my point across, and your response shows an emotional immaturity which speaks volumes more than I ever could.
[b]
But that wouldn't have served your purpose.
[/b]
You know nothing of my "purpose," nor apparently, any historical context regarding the aftermath of war in countries that have been oppressed.
[b]
Again...honk honk.
[/b]
Indeed.
You may, of course, mock my poor use of HTML tags while you are at it.
As for our Health Care system it may need help but it if FAR superior to anything in the US.
That's about as untrue as statments get. How do you figure? Why do wealthy Canadians come to the US for heart bypasses and other major surgery? Because the medicine is good and there's no wait. Our system isn't perfect, but it's far better than any socialized program.
The main reason that there isn't any universal health care in the US is because it wouldn't make people money.
Well, yeah. We're a capitalist, market-based economy, in spite of the Clintons. You should try it sometime.
And here is the biggest argument for our Healthcare system. If you are poor you are not going to get turned away at the door of a hospital because you don't have insurance.
Do you truly think this happens in the states? Or are you guessing because you think we're evil? The reality is there are plenty of government health programs for poor US citizens.
Take a look at some of the European countries to see how universal health care and free education should be here in Canada and the US.
Broken beyond repair? People dying while waiting for operations? Governments going broke because they can't pay for a socialist agenda? Thanks, but Europe can keep that.
All I can say is that I know that the way things are in Canada aren't perfect but they are infinitely better then the US.
Regardless of what measuring stick you use, that's wrong.
Do you truly think this happens in the states? Or are you guessing because you think we're evil? The reality is there are plenty of government health programs for poor US citizens.
actually this happens. Alot.
That's about as untrue as statments get. How do you figure? Why do wealthy Canadians come to the US for heart bypasses and other major surgery? Because the medicine is good and there's no wait. Our system isn't perfect, but it's far better than any socialized program.
The only reason that this has happened is because the Canadian Government isn't puting enough money into Health care as they once did. If you would have read my earlier post you would have read that The government is not spending nearly enough on our social programs as they once did. The could have afforded this spending on social programs if they would have stayed in the business sector and made money that way, but no they went for the quick gain back in the 80's and made money for now instead of keeping the business and making money over a longer period of time.
And I don't hate Americians I just don't like how your government and your companies think that the rest of the world has to be run the same way America is run. I also don't really care for your government system.
It's worth pointing out that AnthonyX's list of articles is copied from frontpagemag.com (authored by "Anonymous") and used by other oh-so reliable sources as newsmax.com.
The actual articles don't seem to be online so it's tough to verify them. However, from reading them over, most seem to be repeating the same single rumour.
Despite my support of our troops, our President, and the cause in Iraq, PAD's point is a good one and a valid one.
However, I do not believe leaving would be the best option. Typically when a nation in Iraq's economic position is left alone, they just erect a government that's worse than before.... typically.
This is fascinating. Always is. But if you're looking for one of the most persuasive, intelligent, well-documented and researched opinions out there right now, I point you to Newsday's "Tilting at Windmills."
PAD, you might appreciate it, as you have used Don Quixote before in your own writing.
If anyone else agrees that George Bush and Don Quixote have a few things in common, check out the following link:
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vppin153372005jul15,0,1147490.column?coll=ny-news-columnists.
You won't be disappointed.
It looks like the Iraqi oil was divided up long before the liberation.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/07/18/national1810EDT0716.DTL
It looks like the Iraqi oil was divided up long before the liberation.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/07/18/national1810EDT0716.DTL
i interupt this bickering for some GOOD news..Odai and Qusai are DEAD!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92591,00.html
i interupt this bickering for some GOOD news..Odai and Qusai are DEAD!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92591,00.html
Well, yeah. We're a capitalist, market-based economy, in spite of the Clintons.
I don't know what drugs you have been taken, but the Clintons, those vile, enemies of humanity that people who lean right call them were more republican than democrat.
He was as capitalistic as Lott, Newt and the gang... even more so. Because he understood that our government is for sale. And went about selling it at the best possible price. From Chiquita Bananas to NAFTA, there was nothing and noone who would not make money.
Clinton made the Democratic party into the Republican party with a liberal veneer before our eyes, and most democrats lauded him for it.
Of course, he had some great spin doctors.
As a Populist, I think Clinton did more harm than good. The Democrats have tried to jump down the middle, getting more and more conservative as the day goes on.
Personally, Jim Hightower said it correctly:
"There's nothing in the middle of the road, except for yellow lines and dead armodillos."
Travis
That line should have been "I'm a Populist and I think Clinton did more harm than good."
Travis
"Do you truly think this happens in the states? Or are you guessing because you think we're evil? The reality is there are plenty of government health programs for poor US citizens.
actually this happens. Alot."
So, are you basing this on actual events that you have witnessed or documented, is is this statement based just anecdotal evidence? Where I live, in Louisiana, there are places where anyone can get free health care: Earl K Long Hospital in Baton Rouge, and Charity Hospital in New Orleans. You may have ot wait a while, but that's no worse than it is in Canada or Britain or anywhere else with socialized medicine.
Damn. Before anyone blasts me for my obvious grammatical errors and relates them to the fact that I live in Louisiana, replace that "is" with "or" and insert "on" between "just" and "anecdotal."
I'm Italian, here is my two cents' worth.
Actually, every occupation army has to face the problems Americans are facing in Iraq, even if Americans struggles are emphasized by two different elements:
- Media coverage. For example, during Anglo American Sicilian campaign died more than 10,000 allied soldiers, even if according to US intelligence Italians wanted to get rid of Mussolini (and, actually, a few days after the start of the Sicilian invasion, Italian King Vittorio Emanuele III put Mussolini under arrest and nominated Badoglio premier).
Now, with CNN, Al Jazira, etc. everything gets the spotlight.
During WWII Americans bombs destroyed entire cities, thousands and thousands of civilians died: it was considered a necessary evil back then in order to fight nazis, now public opinion and media wouldn't allow it.
- Bush administration has never considered a priority the so called "nation building": they can win the war, but so far they weren't able to win the peace. It's happening the same in Afghanistan where Karzai is only the major of Kabul, not the leader of a nation.
I was against the war, but I don't understand those (I don't think PAD is among them) who seem happy to see Bush administration failing. If disorder goes on in Iraq, everyone loses: Iraquis and western people. If Iraq become a new Vietnam, it will be a nightmare.
On a lighter note: US citizens, don't criticize Canadians too much: after all, God is a Canadian! ;-)
Have you seen Kevin Smith's Dogma?
Best,
Stefano
I don't know what drugs you have been taken, but the Clintons, those vile, enemies of humanity that people who lean right call them were more republican than democrat.
Your use of words is confusing, but if I understand you correctly, you're right that Clinton did much for the conservative agenda. However, we were discussing healthcare. When it came to healthcare, President Clinton entrusted his wife with the task, which they tried to keep secret, of socializing America's healthcare. It was the failure of that program, and the '92 elections, that resulted on Clinton whipping to the center.
And why, because we disagree, do you accuse me of taking drugs? Will your points not make the argument, so you must resort to insults? Anyway, I'm off to get hopped up on goofballs.
B]
Nor is writing coherent sentences yours[/B]
Hilarious. I point out that you are not qualified to make such a conclusive statement and international relations, and hurl back a schoolyard taunt. Beautiful. Truly.
If you must know, I am legally blind. Typing isn't my strong point. However, I got my point across, and your response shows an emotional immaturity which speaks volumes more than I ever could.
Noooo no no. You write a snotty posting, I responded with a dose of your own medicine, but hey. I'm supposed to feel bad because you're legally blind? I don't care if you're the guy from "My Left Foot." You post snotty, you're not entitled to get huffy if I respond in kind.
PAD
On a lighter note: US citizens, don't criticize Canadians too much: after all, God is a Canadian! ;-)
Ha ha ha! Although in my/our defense, I believe it was a Canadian who touched off the U.S./Canada bickering. Which was funny, because they're usually so meek and polite.
And if you Canadians keep complaining, we'll change the name of canadian bacon to freedom bacon and put you in your place once and for all. Mu hu ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Feasting on liberty cabbage,
David O'Connell
Did those of you who are against this war protest the War in Kosovo in 1999, when President Bill Clinton went into Yugoslavia without the consent of the UN? In 1999 reports of bloodshet increased and the Clinton administration came to the conclusion that it could be nipped in the bud through decisive military action. A historically conscious president, aware of the perpetual blemish that will accompany his name in every school book published hereafter as a result of his impeachment, seeks to salvage his wounded presidency.
And there it is, right there. The screaming, suffocating hypocrisy. To question anything that Clinton does makes you a good Republican. To question anything that Bush does makes you a bad American.
The differences between the two situations are mind-boggling. Here was Kosovo, a straight up humanitarian effort from the get-go, involving a coalition of NATO troops.
They went in with a specific plan--drop bombs on Yugoslavia until the Serbian generals agreed to a peace plan. And when they did, the United Nations then came in to set up a temporary government and help rebuild.
Military might was planned with a specific goal for a specific period of time in conjunction with other nations, and accomplished its aim. In other words...Clinton did everything right. But naturally, Conservative pundits pilloried him for it (including, horrifically, Senators and Congressmen who were supposed to be voting on impeachment) because he couldn't *possibly* have had any motivation other than making himself look good. Of course, if he had refused to aid in the bombing, he would have been accused of being a cretin insensitive to those suffering in Yugoslavia, and too gutless to use military force.
So now it's several years later. A President--not only without the cooperation of most other nations, but in direct opposition to them--unilaterally attacks another country, NOT because of humanitarian concerns, but because ostensibly the country poses a direct threat to the United States via weapons so destructive, so devastating, so awesome, that in four months of fighting they've yet to be trotted out or even found. Humanitarian concerns only became a belated "reason" once the weapons never surfaced. The United Nations not only is NOT brought in to rebuild the government so that we can pull our men out, but their weapons inspectors aren't allowed in. No after-the-war plan is made, no clear military purpose exists, and there's no telling how long soldiers will continue to be killed with no clue what they're doing there or for how long.
But those same Conservative pundits who scrutinized every breath Clinton took, close ranks and proclaim that any questioning of Bush is anti-patriotic, and that the entire attack--no matter how slipshod in planning and damaging to the U.S. in the eyes of the world--is hokey doke because Saddam was a Very Bad Man and "Bring 'em on" is a Very Good Thing for a President to say. Yeeehaw.
Gawd.
Was I happy that Clinton authorized the bombing in Yugoslavia. No. I questioned it. Just as I question what Bush has done. The only difference is that Conservative pundits are all for challenging Clinton's motives while supporting Bush's. Liberals protest wars. Conservatives protest liberals.
PAD
Oh, and from now on, please state your disability *before* insulting Peter. That goes for blind people, those with Parkinson's Disease, our friends in the deaf community, paraplegics, the mentally challenged, and Canadians.
-David O'Connell
p.s. Sorry Canadian posters, I couldn't resist.
p.p.s. Okay. Cerbeus is cool. And he's Canadian. There, have I made it up to you?
p.p.p.s. Oh, alright. I'm a Kids In The Hall fan too. And a big fan of The Pursuit of Happiness (too bad they're only in the one-off reunion concert business nowadays). Satisfied?
p.p.p.p.s. But Celine Dion truly sucks and I am never forgiving you for that, you bastards.
Re: Peter's criticism of Bush's "bring it on" remark (which I admit does make him sound like a teenager in a movie about rival cheerleading squads)
I direct you to Mark Steyn's latest piece in The Spectator, joined in progress:
The trouble with all this bleating about how you feel ‘misled’ is that you sound not like a putative commander-in-chief but like an Arkansas state employee in Bill Clinton’s motel room. The other day, speaking about Iraq, the President said, ‘There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.’
Bring ’em on? Oh, noooooooo, wailed the Dems, we can’t have that kind of provocative talk. John Kerry said it was ‘unwise’ and ‘unworthy of the office’. Dick Gephardt said he’d had ‘enough of the phoney, macho rhetoric’.
The rhetoric may be macho, but it isn’t necessarily phoney. Indeed, its authenticity is what strikes a chord with the American people. In these pages in November 2001, I noted various California commuters’ reactions to the governor’s announcement that terrorists were planning to blow up the state’s major bridges. The TV cameras positioned themselves at the Golden Gate Bridge to measure the downturn in traffic, only to be confronted by drivers yelling, ‘Come and get me, Osama!’ More to the point, Bush’s bring-’em-on is not just macho swagger, but the core of the strategy. My distinguished former colleague, the dean of Canadian columnists David Warren, brilliantly characterised what’s going on in Iraq as ‘carefully hung flypaper’. In other words, the US occupation of Iraq is bringing Saudis and other Islamonutters out of the surrounding swamps — and that’s a good thing. If they’re really so eager to strike at the Great Satan, better they attack its soldiers in Iraq than its commuters on the Golden Gate Bridge.
And, whaddayaknow, they’re falling for it. On al-Arabiya TV in Dubai, an al-Qa’eda affiliate insisted they, and not Saddam, were behind the attacks in Iraq. ‘I swear by God no one from his followers carried out any jihad operations like he claims,’ chuntered the spokesterrorist. ‘They are a result of our brothers in jihad.’ Plenty of room for both on that flypaper, boys.
If Democrats are still so consumed by chad fever that they don’t get the basic soundness and success of this strategy, they’re heading for a bad fall in the election — and not just at the presidential level. Last year, Dick Morris suggested Bush was another Churchill — i.e., a loser. When the war was over, the voters would dump him. Instead, he’s doing a passable impression of being Winston abroad and Clement Attlee at home, taking America a little further down the slippery slope to socialised health care with a ghastly new universal prescription-drugs entitlement for seniors. It boils down to a massive transfer of wealth from pimply teenage burger flippers to Brooke Astor and Gloria Vanderbilt, but the President’s advisers justify it as ‘neutralising’ Democratic issues, and in crude party terms they may be right. Meanwhile, it’s Tony Blair who’s looking more like Churchill in ’45.
But tarring Bush as a liar won’t make him a loser. Step back and look at the two years since 11 September. In 2001, the Islamists killed thousands of Westerners in New York and Washington. In 2002, they killed hundreds of Westerners, but not in the West itself, only in jurisdictions like Bali. In 2003, they killed dozens — not Westerners, but their co-religionists in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The Bush cordon sanitaire has been drawn tighter and tighter. Meanwhile, the allegedly explosive Arab street has been quieter than Acacia Gardens in Pinner on a Wednesday afternoon, and I wouldn’t bet that blowing up fellow Muslims and destroying the Moroccan tourist industry and Saudi investment will do anything for the recruitment drive. All of this could be set back by a massive terrorist attack on the US mainland, and if John Kerry is banking on disaster, that at least has a certain sick logic about it. But if he genuinely believes that Bush’s war is as disastrous as he says, he’s flipped, and the Dems will wind up as helplessly stuck to that flypaper as al-Qa’eda. Bush is doing what the lefties wanted: he’s addressing the ‘root causes’ — by returning the cause to its roots, and fixing it at source.
Just throwing it out there to see what you all think. Good strategy? Bad?
David O'Connell
The Canadian government has apologized for Brian Adams on several occassions.
**[B]
Nor is writing coherent sentences yours
[/B]
Hilarious. I point out that you are not qualified to make such a conclusive statement**
PAD was been a professional writer for, what, 20+ years? I would say that qualifies as being "qualified to make such a conclusive statement". Or does he need to be an editor of the OED?
Ah.... man. This is all a pretty funny read, guys. Good to know that PAD readers have an opinion, but really, it's being debated on a forum in which nothing could possibly be settled.
Though quite frankly, I'm surprised at how much of a little tool PAD is being. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but he seems physically offended that people disagree with him -- regardless of what their particularly political alignment is. PAD, for god's sake, you write comic books. COMIC BOOKS!!! (yes, yes, and the occasional hardcover). Feel free to claim expertise in matters relating to such, but don't buy your own press outside of it. Just like no one cares what athletes think about the economy, no one really gives two shits what your opinion is on politics. Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old.
Good stuff.
"PAD, for god's sake, you write comic books. COMIC BOOKS!!! "
And of what conceivable relevance is that to anything whatsoever? I am a delivery person and I agree with everything PAD had said. Am I not allowed to have an informed opinion (and mine and PADs are both informed opinions) about anything except what we do for a living?
Personally, even though I started out as a fan of PAD with his comic work ('The Death of Jean DeWolff' specifically), I havent bought a comic in years and consider PAD to be a novelist. (Other that Trek Ive read both Sir Aporpos books, both 'Knight Life' books and 'Howling Mad'),
"Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old."
Posted by DanTaussig "
Look whos talking.
"PAD, for god's sake, you write comic books. COMIC BOOKS!!! (yes, yes, and the occasional hardcover). Feel free to claim expertise in matters relating to such, but don't buy your own press outside of it. Just like no one cares what athletes think about the economy, no one really gives two shits what your opinion is on politics. Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old." - DanTaussig
Oh, my goodness! Stop everyone and look! We have yet another authority on who has a right to express an opinion. I mean, what would we all to do without the benefit of such lauded expertise on, well, just EVERYTHING. DanTaussig, I'm in awe of you.
In awe that you think that "anyone really gives two shits what //your// opinion is" on PAD. Nor should they, especially since in one post you showed that your emotional maturity isn't much higher than what you are accusing PAD of. Since you think all of this is such a good read, maybe you've noticed that there are some people who disagree with PAD who actually present an excellent counter-argument. Why don't you try to be like one of those guys? As it is, you wasted like 150 words when you could have said "get bent" and been just as stupid.
M Davis
To follow up on DanTaussig's comment, PAD, could you at least indicate where you're getting the information on which you're basing your postings about articles outside the realm of your expertise? For instance, have you read news articles in which Iraqis have said they feel like America's bitches, or are you projecting your own values onto them based on the fact that you hate George Bush? Or are you just making shit up? (Hey, did you give a goddamn when the Iraqis were being Saddam's bitches on a scale we could never achieve?)
And what about your prediction that we were going to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the war? What happened?
Oh, and we just killed Saddam's sons in a firefight. Guess they're not alive and well any more.
Did those of you who are against this war protest the War in Kosovo in 1999, when President Bill Clinton went into Yugoslavia without the consent of the UN?
Yes.
Okay, since everybody in America seems to have taken to the left or right on the argument of whether or not we should have entered Iraq (and that in and of itself makes me wonder why the American public allows itself to be horse-wrangled into toeing either the Dems or the Reps ideology)... let me throw another spin on this issue.
Taking the whole issue of "should we?" and placing it aside, let's examine the area of "where do we go from here?" Looking at what the U.S. military has done since the overthrow of the Iraqi government has me thinking of the political shortsightedness that complicated the Vietnam conflict.
Before everybody starts frothing at the mouth, hear me out. We enter into the country and hit it hard and fast- knocking out communications, munitions, etc. And then what do we do? We allow the citizens to begin looting, robbing, destroying property, etc. What are we thinking here? I can't understand why they didn't just declare a form of martial-law after the end of the major fighting (curfews, etc.).
Of course, we know why they didn't do this- POLITICS! Rather than tarnish our already soiled reputation in the eyes of the Middle East Oil Barons, the U.S. Powers That Be opted for a more "politcally sensitive" approach. Let the people run around for a bit- (see everyone, we're letting them live their lives- we're the good guys, right?) loot the palace, make off with heaven knows what kind of information, dangerous equipment, etc.
I just don't understand how they thought this could be conducive to rebuilding a strong, healthy, viable nation.
They should borrow a page out of WW2 history here. Think "European/Japanese Reconstruction" here- rebuild it from the ground up with a solid foundation, etc. It would certainly help ease the situation... although I know it would more than likely tick off the already angered Arabic World.
Man... this seems more and more like we bit off more than we could chew, especially since the other nations aren't really putting any kind of effort into helping this situation. (Yes, I know that other nations have expressed interest- but that's like me expressing interest in wanting to go shopping with my girlfriend.. I don't really want to go, but if I'm pressured long enuf I will) I mean, how many other nations have actually put themselves into the mix here? It seems like the rest of the Democratic World is taking the "it's your mess, you clean it up" approach to this situation.
Anyways... that's just my twisted point of view... what do you guys and gals think?
*Noooo no no. You write a snotty posting, I responded with a dose of your own medicine, but hey. I'm supposed to feel bad because you're legally blind? I don't care if you're the guy from "My Left Foot."*
Take a deep breath and think a minute. You said I did not write a choherent sentence. I told you I can't see very well and make typing errors.
At no point did I imply I gave a rat's behind about your sympathy.
*You post snotty, you're not entitled to your opinion*
I never said that, It's your blog. You may be as insightful or ignorant as you please. I merely suggested you shouldn't be such a crybaby if someone disagrees with you.
You tried to make a parallel between the checks and the Iraqis. I thought that was ridiculous. Two cultures, not the same mindset. How dare I imply such a thing, no?
You lea this board open for comments, yopu are going to get dissenters as well as sycophants. You don't want to hear a differing opinion, get rid of the board.
When you leave your frnt door open, you can't be upset about who is siting in the living room when you get home.
(God. This is too, too rich...)
The longer the U.S. does nothing or next to nothing concerning Arab dictatorships (y'know, our *enemies*),
We do plenty about Arab dictatorships. The problem is, what we do is primarily SUPPORT them (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and, yes, Iraq in the '80's).
the more they end up like their impotent neighbors to the north, constrained as they are by their virtually nonexistent military.
Yeah, but funny thing, nobody seems to be plotting to crash airplanes into anything in Canada, either...
But who needs security when you have your own inefficient and outdated health care system
Hate to break it to you, but the US pays more TAX money, per capita, for health care than any nation that DOES provide universal health care. And they STILL have to pay for their own insurence. The US healtcare system costs more and provides less. Who's inefficient, exactly?
Why do wealthy Canadians come to the US for heart bypasses and other major surgery? Because the medicine is good and there's no wait. Our system isn't perfect, but it's far better than any socialized program.
Cadillac makes a mighty fine automobile, but that doesn't help you if you've only got a buck-fifty and there's not city bus, if you get my meaning.
The US is a much better place to be rich, there's no doubt...
We're a capitalist, market-based economy, in spite of the Clintons.
There is no "free market" in healtcare, and never was. You can't shop around for the cheapest hospital when you've got a sucking chest wound. More to the point, the US and state governments pay for health care for the uninsured JUST LIKE they do in Canada and the rest of the civilized world. The only difference is, the US only does it when the patients show up in ER's needing critical treatment, instead of paying for regular care. This is why it costs US taxpayers MORE to maintain the "capitalist" healthcare system than it would to provide universal coverage.
You do the math: would you rather pay MORE in taxes, and have less coverage; or pay LESS in taxes and have more coverage?
Do you truly think this happens in the states?
The Institute of Medecine estimates that about 18,000 Americans die needlessly each year because they had inadequate access to healthcare.
http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=4333
Yes, there are programs that provide healtcare for the poor in the US, but a great many of the uninsured are in the MIDDLE CLASS. Regardless, the programs that exist do not provide the sorts of routine care and screenings necessary to keep people healthy. If you have a acute illness or injury, you can get care, but if you have a prolonged chronic illness, you're scrod.
Ah.... man. This is all a pretty funny read, guys. Good to know that PAD readers have an opinion, but really, it's being debated on a forum in which nothing could possibly be settled.
I don't think the goal here is to settle matters, any more than discussions about evolution vs. creationism are intended to settle that argument.
Though quite frankly, I'm surprised at how much of a little tool PAD is being. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but he seems physically offended that people disagree with him -- regardless of what their particularly political alignment is.
I haven't seen that at all. Sure, I think he's getting a bit offended at times, but it's understandable. See, I don't think he cares one way or the other if people agree with him or not, as long as they can defend their positions on the matter. Sure, it's nice to have people agree, but if the response is, "I don't think it's a matter of national pride. Rather, I think the case is (some other thing), and I think we can deal with it by (whatever)." That's an intelligent argument. A bad response is "Oh yeah, well what the hell do you know you clueless liberal, who gives a damn what you think, you write COMIC BOOKS, for god's sake."
See the difference? Say anything you want about the argument, no matter how vicious or mean-spirited, and you've done nothing wrong. The moment you turn your venom on the individual who holds that opinion, you're heading into trouble, and you deserve to be smacked down.
Feel free to claim expertise in matters relating to such, but don't buy your own press outside of it.
Ummmm.... When did Peter David claim expertise at these matters? He's expressing his opinion. He can do that if he wants. We have laws that say so and everything!
There's nothing, no topic in creation, that two genuinely rational adults can't discuss peacefully and without any sort of name-calling, no matter how strongly they disagree with one another. I like seeing other people's perspectives on matters such as this. I don't necessarily agree with him on everything, and I'm not required to. Nor do I feel I have the right to tromp onto his website and tell him to shut the hell up, just because I may disagree with him on some matter or another. I would think that that would just be common sense.
Of course, in this day and age, perhaps that's too much to ask.
When it came to healthcare, President Clinton entrusted his wife with the task, which they tried to keep secret, of socializing America's healthcare.
Actually, he abandoned that position as soon as it ceased to be to his advantage, which is one of the reasons real liberals don't much care for him.
If you want to look at Clinton's conservative legacy, remember that he was the one who did away with Aid for Parents of Dependent Children ("welfare"), and came up with the idea of government funding for "faith-based initiatives".
The only difference between Clinton and the average Republican is that Clinton has gotten a blow-job in the bast 15 years...
Varjak - I wholeheartedly agree with you... it seems the concept of manners and civility is a dying one in today's world. Thanks for taking the time to write up that wonderfully put exposition on the difference between debating and name-calling. Cheers!
Varjak - I wholeheartedly agree with you... it seems the concept of manners and civility is a dying one in today's world. Thanks for taking the time to write up that wonderfully put exposition on the difference between debating and name-calling. Cheers!
Posted by Tony
I agree with you as well. Although I think part of the problem is the medium in which we have these discussions. Would some these anonymous people be so rude in a face to face discussion? Or do they take advantage of the safety of a BBS format to be real pricks? (yeah I know 'pricks' constitutes name-calling. I never claimed to be too-overly civilized.)
You know Steve, I was wondering the same thing myself the other day. Does the anonymity of the internet free oneself to say...er, type things that you wouldn't normally do in person? I mean, how many of the people who have typed rude comments on this Board would have the conviction to say them in person? I mean, it's all well and good for me to disagree with someone's POV online and type back that they're an F-ing Snotrag- but how many of us would also do that to the person's face? Just a random thought...
"Personally, even though I started out as a fan of PAD with his comic work ('The Death of Jean DeWolff' specifically), I havent bought a comic in years and consider PAD to be a novelist. "
Well, I think you're the norm, because evidently nooone else considers PAD a comic writer either, since anytime I point out a Peter David book in my store people tend to run the other direction. Evidently, contrary to PAD's assertion that it is wrong to do, people do vote with thier wallet, and when someone pisses them off, the don't buy their stuff. Being in the middle of conservative America doesn't help. (Not my opinion, but one that does effect my pocket book. I'd rather sell more of PAD's stuff, since I have tons of it sitting on my shelf, not moving).
Jerry
"Evidently, contrary to PAD's assertion that it is wrong to do, people do vote with thier wallet, and when someone pisses them off, the don't buy their stuff."
I can assert to this. I saw T3, but the ticket I bought was for Legally Blonde 2 because there was no way in hell I was going to contribute to Arnies Gubenatorial campaign fund. I like him as an actor, but as a politician, he needs to get real. Of course the difference here is that PAD isn't running for office.
Does the anonymity of the internet free oneself to say...er, type things that you wouldn't normally do in person?
Absolutely. And like most other things, it's a double-edged sword. People who are timid or shy, or are easily intimidated, can feel free to take things at their own pace, piece things together, and post them at their leisure. People can open up about things that they would never tell another individual in person, private or traumatic things that they need to open up about, and can finally feel comfortable enough about it in a setting as depersonalized and anonymous as an internet server.
At the same time, paradoxically, people can get to know each other in a more genuine manner, because of that anonymity. You don't know if the other person is black or white or whatever, how old they are or what gender or if they're in a wheelchair or talk with a lisp or have a scar that would always draw your attention in person. Or even their gender, if push comes to shove. (Sure, they can tell you all these things about themselves, but you never really be sure, can you?) Therefore, your opinions about them tend to be formed more by who they are inside, rather than what they are outside.
Also, you have no shared experiences with the person on the other end, so you can't just reminisce. On a topic, you need to discuss the matter at hand, or explain how your story is relevant to that topic. In that way, discissions tend to stick to matters of more depth.
On the other hand, of course, are the people who take advantage of this to attack people with impunity and use strangers as their own whipping boys, knowing that when they've finished they can turn off the computer and get on with their day, leaving the wreckage they create behind. (I've had to deal with someone online who openly admitted that was the only reason they ever visited that particular chat server.)
This medium also allows you to type things and post them without taking the time to actually consider them, so one angry (or misinterpreted) post can piss off incredible numbers of people.
But my feeling is, on the internet there are still good people, there are still bad people, there are people you like and people you hate, profound and eloquent speakers, and juvenile and offensive speakers... There's a change of context, but in the end, it's still real life.
Steve,
While I disagree with PADs stance on economic boycotts of entertainers, what you did is essentially theft. It's like buying a Tolkien book, but then secretly swapping it for Harry Potter on the way out of the bookstore because you don't want to financially support witchcraft. The bookstore gets money, you get your entertainment, and nobody gets hurt? Nope, sorry. If you are opposed to giving Arnie support for his campaign, then don't go see the movie. If the movie is so important that you have to see it, then give Arnie his deserved dollars.
A boycott is "speaking with dollars" and it is within your rights. Theft isn't.
You know Peter, you say that people insult you for having "Logical" view points.
You say some people insult you on your blog, and I sometimes can't tell who exactly your talking about. You say people are attacking you, but it seems very much that you can give as good as you can take.
It's only my opinion, but if you really want to discourage name calling and non-rational views than try doing it yourself.
*Honk Honk*??? Gee, real mature. And making fun of someone's writing abilities. Sorry it's not a perfect world. Sorry we don't see the "Logic" of your arguments all the time.
I don't know you personally, and you certinly don't know me. So why can't you accept someone who see's the same situation diffrently. We don't all see through logical "Peter Eyes"
Really, I don't mean to insult, but from my view you seem to insult just as much. Just my opinion. Hope this wasn't insulting. Hope you can accept that some people just won't "get it". Live with it.
More or less, i agree with Surges. Just less tactful then him. C'mon now, gentlemen. PAD writes his political commentary like it's a sermon from the mount. That alone deserves some contempt in light of how much information there is to synthesize. As a result, I respect him less than i did before. It doesn't cost him jack shit, but he should at least be entitled to hear what a barebacker he is.
Incidentally, i agree entirely that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Deliveryman, dogwalker, or whoever, feel free to express yourself however you want. But do so at the risk of your own credibility. I simply state this -- peter david posts as if he is the mouthpiece of god, despite having no particular expertise on the topic.
For the record, i have a B.A. in cultural anthropology, concentration in middle eastern studies. I've worked with IFMSA and now work for an MD/MPH for international relief work. i still feel unqualified to assess the middle eastern quagmire without limiting the boundaries of the discussion. I feel nothing but contempt for someone who does.
Yeah, we do vote with our dollars. for me, i can't seperate the art from the artist, and i doubt i would ever want to. So i'll be thinking a little more next time i decide to pick up a title that PAD writes. That sucks donkey balls, but what can you do?
"If the movie is so important that you have to see it, then give Arnie his deserved dollars"
Even if I hadnt seen the movie in the theaters, I would just buy it used when it comes out on DVD, which is how I buy all DVDs.
Arnie doesnt get his money there either. Is that theft?.
Arnie doesnt get his money there either. Is that theft?.
That's a bit more grey. The artist feels a sense of entitlement to that extra sale, but someone has already bought and paid for that DVD before. He's really got all the money he's entitled to off that one.
"He's really got all the money he's entitled to off that one."
As long as he doesnt get it from me.
Second-hand stores are not theft. Artists/Companies shouldn't get money from a resale for the same reason the government shouldn't be taxing money twice.
(Of course, government DOES tax twice - which is why we have corporate taxation followed by capital gains taxation and income taxation followed by estate taxation. The second of each of these should be eliminated, but that's a totally different debate.)
"The only difference is that Conservative pundits are all for challenging Clinton's motives while supporting Bush's. Liberals protest wars. Conservatives protest liberals."
PAD, I didn't claim to be conservative or liberal. If you must know I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.
However, to say that Liberals protest wars and Conservatives protest liberals is just silly.
Both sides support, for the most part, the actions the leaders of their political parties take.
I can assure you that if Al Gore was president today and made the same choices President Bush has made Liberals would be using the same propaganda to support this war that conservatives are using.
Saying that most of the world is against this war as a reason for protest is lame at best. While the UN is against this war they were also against action in Kosovo. Clinton collected support from Canada, Britain and others and claimed he had support. In the same way Bush has support from Britain, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia, and others. No matter what the conflict most of the world will be against it.
Europe was a little more pro Kosovo as it was in their backyard. Though even they understood that it was a lost cause and to this day skirmishes and bloodshed continue.
You know what? *This* is never gonna end. Not until people get over the fact that they are from this country, and it's so great and so on and bla bla bla and just learn to like/tolerate each other. We are all part of the human race here people. We are not supposed to be killing each other. Once we realize this, maybe, we'll stop hurting each other.
That or aliens landing, taking myself and others who have no desire to cause pain, away to a place where no one wants to hurt anyone, and the rest of the human race can continue to kill each other. To whomever that may be, once I'm gone, have at 'er! Once you've wiped yourselves off of the planet in a hundred years or so, then maybe I can come back, and go through a day where I won't have to worry about who's gonna kill who next. Wouldn't that be nice.
And to those of you who think I am being rather silly and far-fetched, ask yourselves, why is an idea where no one hurts anyone silly or far-fetched.
Jamie: Still to writing funny books. International politics isn't your forte.
Dan Taussig: PAD, for god's sake, you write comic books. COMIC BOOKS!!!
Luigi Novi: Ya know, I’m really sick and tired of people responding to opinions by comic book professionals by pointing out that they can’t argue about politics because they’re comic book professionals.
The ability of any person to draw a conclusion or develop a belief and articulate or argue it stems from their ability to properly obtain all the relevant facts, and to illustrate their point with logic, consistency, and objectivity. It has nothing to do with their occupation, and ultimately, any argument rises or falls on its own merits.
No one would ever walk up to a janitor or garbage man, and say to them that they aren’t qualified to argue about international politics because of what they do for a living. It’s a snotty, stuck-up position that implies that those in less prestigious jobs are uneducated, stupid, and have no interest in learning about their world around them. But with people who work in the entertainment industry, there’s this odd tendency to act as if they’re not citizens first, with the right to speak their minds, and this bizarre resentment on the part of some people when they hear a celebrity say something they don’t like, a resentment that degenerates into an non sequitural “stick to your chosen profession” refrain that they don’t use with the everyday schmuck that they disagree with standing next to them. Sure, they might employ a logical fallacy when disagreeing with them, but generally, they don’t say, “Stick to [fill in the profession].” It’s cheat, and a copout.
I myself am an aspiring illustrator currently working in market research for the film industry. I had a B average in high school and art school. But I READ. I read books, novels, newspapers, the Internet, listen to the radio, watch TV, and go to the movies. I read about history, politics & current events, science & pseudoscience, criminology, trivia, and of course, science fiction and fantasy. I pay attention to the news. I recognize the scientific method as it pertains to debating, as well as study the logical fallacies that make poor arguments. Ultimately, my ability to argue a point rests on those things, not what I do for a living. If you want to disagree with me, do so by pointing out where the logic is faulty, or inconsistent, or biased, not by invoking my occupation, which has nothing to do with it.
So let’s get this straight: Peter’s occupation, and for that matter, anyone else’s has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with the validity of their arguments or opinions. Whether he writes comics or novels is 100% irrelevant to his statements on politics. (And should we assume, Jamie and Dan, that you are both foreign policy experts yourselves?)
Acting like Peter’s a pee-on because he writes novels, TV episodes, B movies, newspaper columns and comics may pass for a valid argument in your minds, Jamie and Dan, but in the real world, we have a word for it: Argumentum Ad hominem. Attacking the person instead of their argument.
Perhaps debating honestly and objectively isn’t your forte.
Jamie: Hilarious. I point out that you are not qualified to make such a conclusive statement and international relations, and hurl back a schoolyard taunt. Beautiful. Truly. You know nothing of my "purpose," nor apparently, any historical context regarding the aftermath of war in countries that have been oppressed.
Luigi Novi: So he doesn’t know anything about you, but you know enough about his knowledge of history? You see it as your place to determine what his qualifications are to discuss a given topic, but when he points out that your own qualifications to post messages are less than ideal, it’s a schoolyard taunt? It seems that this is just your hypocrisy stemming from your resentment over his having an opinion you disagree with.
Jamie: If you must know, I am legally blind. Typing isn't my strong point.
Luigi Novi: The mistakes in your posts don’t seem very different from the same mistakes other posters make. For example, when you say, “Still to writing funny books,” how is it that you confused the “l” key for both the “c” key and the ‘’k” key? How can you hit the same key twice when you intend it for two different letters?
Moreover, when I write lengthy post, I usually do so in Microsoft Word first, so I can use the Spell and Grammar Check.
Dan Taussig: he seems physically offended that people disagree with him…
Luigi Novi: He physically offended? What exactly does this mean? Is it something distinct from being emotionally offended?
And where did Peter express offense at someone disagreeing with him? Peter gave his view on something. People challenged his views, and he responded to them. Where did he express offense at the mere disagreement?
Dan Taussig: Just like no one cares what athletes think about the economy, no one really gives two shits what your opinion is on politics.
Luigi Novi: I think what you mean to say is that you disagree with his opinion on politics, not that no one cares about it. People actually do care about his opinion, and you’re one of them, because they—and you—posted here to respond to it.
Dan Taussig: Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old.
Luigi Novi: What precisely was immature in Peter’s response to Jamie? He pointed out Jamie’s sentences were less than perfectly coherent, and responded to the devil’s advocate quote of Jamie’s by pointing out that the Iraqis never asked us to invade their country.
Given both Jamie’s and your own reliance on stuck-up ad hominem arguments, perhaps it is your own ability to debate with maturity that is in question, rather than Peter’s.
You post snotty, you're not entitled to your opinion*
Jamie: I never said that.
Luigi Novi: Neither did Peter.
He said You post snotty, you're not entitled to get huffy if I respond in kind. He did not say, You post snotty, you're not entitled to your opinion
First you used an ad hominem argument, and now you’ve attributed words to him that he never said.
Jamie: It's your blog. You may be as insightful or ignorant as you please. I merely suggested you shouldn't be such a crybaby if someone disagrees with you.
Luigi Novi: No, you did not say that.
You indicated that his occupation was somehow germane to his ability to argue a point regarding international politics. Not once did you ever make any statement about Peter’s reaction to someone disagreeing with him, nor have you demonstrated where he displayed this reaction.
Jamie: You tried to make a parallel between the checks and the Iraqis. I thought that was ridiculous. Two cultures, not the same mindset. How dare I imply such a thing, no?
Luigi Novi: If you actually did imply such a thing, that might’ve made for a better argument from you.
But you didn’t.
Putting aside the fact that Peter never drew a parallel between the two, but instead tried to speculate as to how Iraqis might feel, and why, using only Romania as an example (not Czechoslovakia), you never implied that any such analogy was false. What you did was to make a devil’s advocate quote, and to tauntingly remark that Peter’s argument did not rise or fall on its merits, but on what he does for a living. Subsequent to that, you and Dan Taussig have argued that Peter has resorted to schoolyard taunts and immaturity (not once considering that your own arguments had a fair share of them), and that he should accept people disagreeing with him, when his acceptance of others disagreeing with him had nothing to do with his response to you.
The problem isn’t that you’re legally blind. It’s that you’re a poor debater.
Steve: I saw T3, but the ticket I bought was for Legally Blonde 2 because there was no way in hell I was going to contribute to Arnies Gubenatorial campaign fund
Luigi Novi: Steve, Arnold got a flat salary of $30 million for T3. Unless he were to get a share of the profits, your paying for that ticket one way or the other wouldn’t make a difference.
Surges: Really, I don't mean to insult, but from my view you seem to insult just as much. Just my opinion. Hope this wasn't insulting. Hope you can accept that some people just won't "get it". Live with it.
Luigi Novi: Well, this is just my observation, but as someone who has disagreed with Peter on a great number of issues (the death penalty, invading Iraq, not patronizing the work of someone who offends you), I’ve never observed Peter speaking disrespectfully to anyone who didn’t do so first with him.
If, however, you can recall an instance in which he insulted someone without provocation, Surges, I’d be interested to read it.
James Tichy: I can assure you that if Al Gore was president today and made the same choices President Bush has made Liberals would be using the same propaganda to support this war that conservatives are using.
Luigi Novi: If you say so. But to the best of my recollection—and it’s possible my recollection isn’t perfect—I don’t recall liberals saying that anyone who disagreed with Clinton’s interventions in Somalia, Kosovo or Iraq was somehow anti-American, or anti-patriotic.
You know what? *This* is never gonna end. Not until people get over the fact that they are from this country, and it's so great and so on and bla bla bla and just learn to like/tolerate each other. We are all part of the human race here people. We are not supposed to be killing each other. Once we realize this, maybe, we'll stop hurting each other.
Luigi Novi: First of all, Ryan, people are not going to get over the fact that they are from this country for the simple reason that they’re not. Iraqis aren’t from this country. Saddam Hussein isn’t from this country. Neither is France, or everyone in the United Nations. Second, I’m pretty sure you and I know that we’re not supposed to be killing each other, but I don’t think Saddam Hussein has taken that lesson to heart. There will always be war so long as there are tyrants who rule over poor oppressed people.
"Just like no one cares what athletes think about the economy, no one really gives two shits what your opinion is on politics. Nor should they, especially when you post with the emotional maturity of a five-year old." - DanTaussig"
How DARE you insult every five-year old of the planet??
Three year old is more like it.
"You know Peter, you say that people insult you for having "Logical" view points.
You say some people insult you on your blog, and I sometimes can't tell who exactly your talking about. You say people are attacking you, but it seems very much that you can give as good as you can take."
Sadly he is as bad if not worse then those he accuse of being insulting,
But since he his "logical", he has to be right and every one elses has to be wrong.
"Nor is writing coherent sentences yours (could you possibly have meant "stick to writing")."
Great argument.
That almost helped to prove your point.
I guess we went from "might is right" to "the one with the best spelling his right".
Goddam. A child in grade shool wouldn't go so low.
Sorry to hear about your problem Jamie.
I know exactly how you feel. I have been fighting for the past 15 years with a desease that is slowly but surely destroying my eye sight. So I sure as hell do more then my share of spelling mistakes. Also English ain't even my first language.
Hang in there buddy.
So now it's several years later. A President--not only without the cooperation of most other nations, but in direct opposition to them--unilaterally attacks another country, NOT because of humanitarian concerns, but because ostensibly the country poses a direct threat to the United States via weapons so destructive, so devastating, so awesome, that in four months of fighting they've yet to be trotted out or even found.
Yeah, that's my major beef with Bush too. I knew that the reasons he gave us for going to war weren't his real reasons. I mean, the guy sucks at communicating. I look at the guy, and the word "liar" just pops into my head. Yet every once in a while, the truth slips through, such as when he vows on live television that he will "restore chaos" to Iraq. Some people thought he meant "order," but I got the feeling that was the one time he was being honest with us.
Whenever I hear him speak, it's infuriating. Anyone ever look him in the eyes while he was delivering his "let's go to war" speeches? Couldn't you just tell he was full of BS? He has the same vacant look in his eyes that Ben Afflek does when he looks at Jennifer Lopez. No benevolence. No conviction. Nothing. Like an actor playing a part, and not doing it particularly well, either.
I was speaking with my friends about the reasons Bush gave America for his war. Why did he push the weapons thing instead of the oppressed people thing? Obviously, because he believed that pushing the weapons--appealing to our fear and hate, strengthened by 9-11--would gain more support from us. That caring for the welfare of other human beings and wanting to act on that alone was beyond us. That our primal instincts were stronger than our more evolved senses of justice and empathy. If that's not what he wanted, then why did most of his reasons revolve around the whole weapons thing? Does he think that all we care about are the threats to ourselves? Has 9-11 transformed America into a new generation of foreigner-fearing isolationists?
Anyone out there actually got the answers? I sure don't.
"PAD writes his political commentary like it's a sermon from the mount." Actually, I don't see that much difference between the way he writes political commentary on this blog and the way he writes non-political commentary. Perhaps the whole nature of blogs or columns is that they feel like sermons on the Mount, because after all they're one-to-many communication.
Ah, Rumania (or, as Jamie might say, Czechoslovakia) under Ceausescu. Been there, done that, got detained at the airport until my dad could convince the authorities that his 13-year-old daughter, who was carrying around a bit of paper that said, "To be is to do - Kant; To do is to be - Rousseau; Do be do be do - Sinatra; Do be a do be - Romper Room" wasn't a spy but just a kid who liked wordplay. Bucharest under Ceausescu was a lovely city where every hotel room was bugged, where you could stroll through gorgeous parks in which you heard no children laughing. And that's only the tip of the iceberg that's stuck with me these lst 30 years.
"Oh, whatever minor "condescension" I might muster can't compare to the barrage of everything from arrogance to name calling (and everything in between) routinely hurled at me on this blog by those with opposing views"
-PAD
And to think, these are your fans! LOL.
The problem with your argument is that you're comparing this situation with an ideal and unrealistic one. No one disputes that the best scenario would be for the Iraqis to overthrow the Saddam regime. Yet after decades of repression, Saddam was firmly in control. And with really nasty sons waiting in the wings.
Then you say that the Iraqis will resent our intervention. Some will, others may not. For the sake of argument, let's say you're correct. That doesn't mean that they're worse off. It's entirely possible that the vast majority of Iraqis will be much happier (better standard of living, etc.) and still resent our invasion. The important thing is helping people, not getting a "thank you."
And then there's our national interests and those of our allies...
I did not support the war, but I will reserve judgment on whether it was the right course of action. Let's see how it plays out.
"Firstly, we Canadians must be a nightmare to you folks in the US... our governing party are the Liberals!"
In name only ... for the most part. Despite years of shouted promises, they didn't change ANY of the major right-wing initiatives of the preceeding administration. In fact, they just gave us more of the same.
"Why do wealthy Canadians come to the US for heart bypasses and other major surgery? Because the medicine is good and there's no wait."
Thank you. You make our point. If the U.S. medical system is so great, why aren't POOR people lining up to make use of it. Oh, wai, I used that word "poor". Silly me. Yes, the US is wonderful ... if you're rich. A country great this does not make. (To misquote a certain green gnome.)
"If you are poor you are not going to get turned away at the door of a hospital because you don't have insurance."
Denzel Washington starred in an excellent film which disproved that myth. JOHN Q. Heard of it? No one has been able to shoot it down because the director was careful to get his facts straight.
"Do you truly think this happens in the states? Or are you guessing because you think we're evil? The reality is there are plenty of government health programs for poor US citizens."
Tell that to many of my friends in the US who dread the idea of getting sick as they don't want to lose their house over medical expenses. Tell that to my aunt who holds a valid US citizenship and wound up in hospital there a while ago. Only a day-and-a-half, no major procedure or anything ... and still owed over $6000 for it. Tell that to a friend who made the mistake of being in the US when he found out he was diabetc the hard way and woke up in an American hospital to discover his great grandsons would probably be still paying off his debt to the wonderful American health care system.
"p.p.s. Okay. Cerbeus is cool. And he's Canadian. There, have I made it up to you?"
OK. But Sim is a jerk nonetheless.
>p.p.p.p.s. But Celine Dion truly sucks and I am never forgiving you for that, you bastards."
Hey, I'm Canadian and I have no use for her, either. That's why we're so happy she goes on world tours. That way we're rid of her for that time :p
"Varjak - I wholeheartedly agree with you... it seems the concept of manners and civility is a dying one in today's world."
Heinlein saw it coming 20 years ago. Read one of his last novels, FRIDAY and worry about the passage where he describes this (correctly, I fear) as one of the major signs of a society on its way out.
I'm about as conservative as they come. I enjoy reading PAD's rants because the leftist extremism is always entertaining.
But when the man has a good point, you have to give it to him.
The nationalistic pride of the Iraqis is going to suck big time. Quite probably, without an Iraqi statesmen of amazing calibre, Iraq is going to be a crippled government, always looking for a hand out.
The better way is to let the people do their own overthrowing. But the question is, could they? Or had Saddam gotten too powerful? If WE are having a hard time with all our resources, what makes us think ragtag revolutionists could have done it?
Such choices are beyond difficult. Where's Solomon when you need him?
Anyway, PAD, this conservative salutes your point. Well made.
Yes, let us all salute PAD's random, non-sequitur analogies in which he take a single aspect of nation building and uses it as a staging point for another of his incoherent rants. Note that nowhere in that sentence is left-wing, liberal, or peacemonger. Thankfully, this being America, there are equal opportunities to be a cocksucker republican or democrat alike. Which is what he is.
You'd think a writer would know that analogy is among the weakest ways to defend an argument. But no. You'd think if someone wanted to criticize the Bush Presidency in regard to the war, they would try to cite actions taken without precedent -- i.e., NOT acting without UN Security Council Approval. But no.
But wait, there's more Johnny!!! You get tired arguments of "more soldiers die every day, while the lives of Iraqis remain unimproved" type-garbage. Wow! Amazing! I suppose you know something about the shi'a, sunni, and kurdish populations that no one else knows about, SINCE THE COUNTRY IS A BIG FRIGGIN' SINKHOLE OF INFORMATION. Amazing as it may seem, the situation has not resolved itself as of yet. Criticize USAID for being hopelessly naive in their reconstruction plans. Or criticize the lack of consensus building in the UN that led to US unilateralism. If you want to criticize from a moral standpoint, at least do so under a scheme that obeys some kind of categorical imperative, rather than the chum bucket you seem to operate from.
Whatever. I may be an asshole, but PAD is a goddamned tool.
Luigi Novi
I must say that I have always liked your posts. :-)
*Luigi Novi: Ya know, I’m really sick and tired of people responding to opinions by comic book professionals by pointing out that they can’t argue about politics because they’re comic book professionals.*
You've missed the point. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That goes for writers, doctors, garbagemen, and chipmonk proctologists. I couldn't care less what job PAD has. The entire tone of his post was this is how it was in Romania (forgive the error), so it is obviously that way in Iraq. Afterall, a tour guide told me so. And, of course, anyone who doesn't "get it", as PAD says, must be an idiot. I called him on it. There's a deeper cultural issue which he completely ignores because it conflicts with his opinion.
*The ability of any person to draw a conclusion or develop a belief and articulate or argue it stems from their ability to properly obtain all the relevant facts, and to illustrate their point with logic, consistency, and objectivity.*
DING! DING! DING! Exactly.
*If you want to disagree with me, do so by pointing out where the logic is faulty, or inconsistent, or biased, not by invoking my occupation, which has nothing to do with it.*
I have done this. However, everyne who disagrees with me has said: "Oh, he's just seeking synpathy for poor vision," (Not true) or he's insulted PAD for being a comic book writer (Again, not true.) and preceded to tear down these straw men rather than acknowledge I just might have a point regarding culrural differences, or, heck let's go out on a limb here--since the Irawis are celebrating Sadaam's sons deaths, I might have a *gasp* valid point? I say thee nay! It tis inconcievable.
*So let’s get this straight: Peter’s occupation, and for that matter, anyone else’s has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with the validity of their arguments or opinions.*
You will not find any post hear where his right to have an opinion is invalid. You will instead find, at least twice, where I said he can have any opinion he wishes, no matter how ignorant or insightful. But he's going to have to be prepared to be called on it. Judging by his reaction, I'd say he was not. His problem, not mine.
*Argumentum Ad hominem. Attacking the person instead of their argument.*
There's is also a name for your argument: Straw Man, in which you do not debate the actual issue, but instead declare your own, precede to break it down, and declare you have won the original debate.
*Perhaps debating honestly and objectively isn’t your forte.*
I'm a third year law student. I debate to win, not to win friends and influence people.
*So he doesn’t know anything about you, but you know enough about his knowledge of history?*
I've read enough of his work to have a good idea of his socialization, yes.
You see it as your place to determine what his qualifications are to discuss a given topic, but when he points out that your own qualifications to post messages are less than ideal, it’s a schoolyard taunt? It seems that this is just your hypocrisy stemming from your resentment over his having an opinion you disagree with.
*Riddle me this, you seem to believe I have nothing but conyempt for the lowly profession of writer. If that were true, why would I care that a "lowly comic book writer" disagrees with me? That doesn't follow.
*Given both Jamie’s and your own reliance on stuck-up ad hominem arguments, perhaps it is your own ability to debate with maturity that is in question, rather than Peter’s.*
An ad nom argument in an argument against ad homs. Gotta luv dat one.
*First you used an ad hominem argument, and now you’ve attributed words to him that he never said.*
So I didn't cut and paste the whole quote. You're reading an awful lot into it that isn't actually.
*You indicated that his occupation was somehow germane to his ability to argue a point regarding international politics.*
No, I did not. I said stick with what you know, which is darn good advice.
*Not once did you ever make any statement about Peter’s reaction to someone disagreeing with him, nor have you demonstrated where he displayed this reaction.*
Well, I'll be honked. I could have sworn that clinched fist, foot stomping tantrum where I'm a poor typing snotty poster and it doesn't matter if I the My Left Foot Guy and have type with my eyebrow certainly seemed liked that type of reaction.
*The problem isn’t that you’re legally blind. It’s that you’re a poor debater.***
Thanks for your input
--a parasite the U.S. had supported until the mid 1980s, by the way--
Sorry for breaking up the debate, but what does "support" mean in this sentence? This was the first I'd heard of the U.S. "supporting" the brutal communist dictator of Romania, and I did a little research on this and couldn't find anything that really supported this comment.
PAD writes his political commentary like it's a sermon from the mount. That alone deserves some contempt in light of how much information there is to synthesize.
Ah, yes. I've seen this argument, too. The approach is more or less "You can have your opinion as long as 1) it is the same as mine; or 2) you explicitly state that it's an opinion so that my opinion, not so explicitly labeled as such, sounds more like a fact in comparison; or 3) you make every effort to come off as apologetic for your opinion, as though you don't have the right to disagree with me. Either (any) way, the important opinion--mine--will hold the high ground."
Well, Varjak, thanks for showing us what a friggin' idiot you are. Disagreeing with a person's methodology is not tantamount to disagreeing with their position. In this case, i am also anti-war/pro-diplomacy.
Thanks for your time, slappy.
Sorry for breaking up the debate, but what does "support" mean in this sentence? This was the first I'd heard of the U.S. "supporting" the brutal communist dictator of Romania, and I did a little research on this and couldn't find anything that really supported this comment.
A little more research will give you this quote from the AOL on-line Encyclopedia:
Ceausescu worked to make Romania independent from the Soviet Union, which was Europe's top Communist power. This policy was supported by the United States. But Ceausescu was a dictator and placed strict controls on the lives of the people. He also established economic programs that caused severe shortages of consumer goods. Ceausescu illegally used his power to gain great wealth and put many of his relatives in high government positions. By the late 1980's, the United States had withdrawn its support of Ceausescu.
PAD
Dan, I didn’t read anything in Varjak’s post that indicated it did. He was commenting on the use of the comment “sermon on the mount.” In what way do Peter’s posts come off that way? In what way is he not simply expressing his opinion like everyone else?
And thank you, Jason. :-)
Jamie: You've missed the point. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That goes for writers, doctors, garbagemen, and chipmonk proctologists. I couldn't care less what job PAD has.
Luigi Novi: Then you should not have brought it up as a supposedly relevant point, Jamie. In doing so, it was you who digressed from the point, not I.
Jamie: The entire tone of his post was this is how it was in Romania (forgive the error), so it is obviously that way in Iraq. Afterall, a tour guide told me so. And, of course, anyone who doesn't "get it", as PAD says, must be an idiot.
Luigi Novi: Nope. He never said that. “Idiot” is a word you’ve attributed to him, but he never used it in his log on Romania. Your Straw Man just fell apart.
Jamie: I called him on it. There's a deeper cultural issue which he completely ignores because it conflicts with his opinion.
Luigi Novi: Whether the cultural differences between Romania and Iraq might lend themselves to an explanation of the how the situations are different may very well have been a good topic. Unfortunately, you did not call him on it, because you never bothered to enlighten us with an examination of these differences, which I, for one, would’ve been very interested to read, Jamie. Not once in your first post did you even mention this point. You instead made a devil’s advocate statement from the supposed point of view of an Iraqi, and then made an irrelevant comment about Peter’s occupation, which has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of his opinion. You didn’t even mention this in your second post. Or your third. You didn’t get around to bringing up the point of the analogy until your FOURTH post. So please stop saying that you stated from the start that Peter’s “analogy” was ridiculous, because that’s just plain untrue.
Jamie: I have done this. However, everyne who disagrees with me has said: "Oh, he's just seeking synpathy for poor vision," (Not true) or he's insulted PAD for being a comic book writer (Again, not true.)…
Luigi Novi: My, you do like to rewrite history yourself, don’t you? The idea that everyone who disagreed with you has resorted to these two statements is a flat-out LIE. Do you honestly think the people here can’t go through the log and see how it’s untrue?
Luigi Novi: So let’s get this straight: Peter’s occupation, and for that matter, anyone else’s has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with the validity of their arguments or opinions.*
Jamie: You will not find any post hear where his right to have an opinion is invalid.
Luigi Novi: Nor did I say you did. I said that validity OF his opinion has nothing to do with his occupation, not the validity of his RIGHT TO HAVE ONE.
Jamie: You will instead find, at least twice, where I said he can have any opinion he wishes, no matter how ignorant or insightful. But he's going to have to be prepared to be called on it. Judging by his reaction, I'd say he was not.
Luigi Novi: Again, what in his reaction indicated that he was not prepared for disagreement?
Jamie: There's is also a name for your argument: Straw Man, in which you do not debate the actual issue, but instead declare your own, precede to break it down, and declare you have won the original debate.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. First, I responded to that something YOU SAID, Jamie. You stated that he should stick to writing funny books because International politics wasn’t his forte. I stated that one had nothing to do with the other, and that his opinion on the matter—and for that matter, your assessment of it, rises or falls on its own merits, not in relation to what his occupation is, as if the only thing he’s good at is what he does for a living. Whether he writes comics does not preclude an ability to debate on either politics, or any other topic.
Second, I never declared that I “won” anything, for the simple reason that I don’t hold such a childish view of the role of debate.
That’s not a Straw Man Argument. It’s a response to what you said.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps debating honestly and objectively isn’t your forte.
Jamie: I'm a third year law student.
Luigi Novi: So what? My sister is a law school school GRADUATE, and a practicing lawyer, and I can assure you that whenever she gets into an argument with me, she couldn’t form coherent logic with Mr. Spock pointing a gun at her head.
Law school teaches you torts, and precedents, and so forth. It does not make a poor debater who can’t resist using logical fallacies into a good one.
Jamie: I debate to win, not to win friends and influence people.
Luig Novi: Perhaps that’s your problem. Putting aside the fact that I never said anything about winning friends or influencing people, debating has nothing to do with “winning” anything. An argument is a search for the truth, or a medium for the expression of ideas. Not a battle.
Luigi Novi: So he doesn’t know anything about you, but you know enough about his knowledge of history?*
Jamie: I've read enough of his work to have a good idea of his socialization, yes.
Luigi Novi: You’ve read his fiction. That does not necessarily qualify you as to his knowledge of history.
Jamie: Riddle me this, you seem to believe I have nothing but conyempt for the lowly profession of writer.
Luigi Novi: No, and if you actually read what I wrote in regards to that, you’d see what I did say.
Luigi Novi: Given both Jamie’s and your own reliance on stuck-up ad hominem arguments, perhaps it is your own ability to debate with maturity that is in question, rather than Peter’s.
Jamie: An ad nom argument in an argument against ad homs. Gotta luv dat one.
Luigi Novi: It isn’t an ad hominem argument. I pointed out that your own arguments were poor on their merits, not on the fact that you’re a law student, or blind, or pro-war, or any other aspect of your pedigree.
Luigi Novi: First you used an ad hominem argument, and now you’ve attributed words to him that he never said.
Jamie: So I didn't cut and paste the whole quote.
Luigi Novi: Um, no, that is NOT what you did, Jamie. You did NOT simply “not cut and paste the whole quote.” You took part of one sentence Peter stated, and ended with words that he never used. That has nothing to do with “not cutting and pasting the WHOLE quote.” What you did was FABRICATE something that he never said, and pass it off as if he did. Again, this is what he said:
You post snotty, you're not entitled to get huffy if I respond in kind.
This is what you supposedly quoted:
You post snotty, you're not entitled to your opinion
Again, this supposed quote, and your explanation of it, is a flat-out LIE. So much for your third year law school debating skills.
Luigi Novi: You indicated that his occupation was somehow germane to his ability to argue a point regarding international politics.
Jamie: No, I did not. I said stick with what you know, which is darn good advice.
Luigi Novi: No, it was not. It was a snotty, stuck-up comment that had nothing to do with the issue.
The fact that someone is good at one thing does not mean they can not also have interest or ability in another area, and invoking the one has no place in an objective, mature critique of the other. The fact that he writes comics has nothing to do with the validity of his argument on international politics. There are many people who educate themselves on history and politics by reading and watching the news because they want to keep abreast of what’s going on in the world, and to express their opinion on current events. Mentioning their primary occupation when disagreeing with their opinion on current events is not “good advice.” It’s condescension.
Luigi Novi: Not once did you ever make any statement about Peter’s reaction to someone disagreeing with him, nor have you demonstrated where he displayed this reaction.*
Jamie: Well, I'll be honked. I could have sworn that clinched fist, foot stomping tantrum where I'm a poor typing snotty poster and it doesn't matter if I the My Left Foot Guy and have type with my eyebrow certainly seemed liked that type of reaction.
Luigi Novi: It’s easy for it to seem that way if that’s the way you want it to seem, Jamie. The fact remains that Peter does not generally react badly to people who merely disagree with him, and only insults people when they insult him first, and so that reaction had to do with your snotty reference to his occupation and his opinion on Iraq being mutually exclusive, not with the mere fact that you DISAGREED with him.
To attribute his reaction to mere disagreement, and not to your snide comment—THAT is a Straw Man argument.
Jamie: Thanks for your input
Luigi Novi: Any time. :-)
Interesting article at 1010WINS news online, the website the for the NYC newsradio station.
It's at this
URL: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/COUNTER_CLINTON_LIBRARY?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
According to the story, John LeBoutillier, a former Republican congressman from New York, and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, will open a museum just blocks from the future Clinton Presidential Library that will be devoted to mocking him.
I found myself wondering if those who weren't fond of Nixon, Reagan or Bush had done the same with their Presidential libraries. As if anticipating this, LeBoutillier stated that other such Presidential libraries do not require such immediate rebuttal the way Clinton's does, arguing, "Reagan, Nixon, that's the past."
Ah. I see. THAT's in the past. I get it.
Actually, Luigi, the "sermon from the mount" comment was addressed as if it was made solely because I disagreed with PAD's opinion. My correction was that i was questioning his methodology. And i still am. He makes blanket statements, and backs them up with retarded vignettes and analogies. No doubt PAD is a good writer, and probably a very intelligent man, but there is no friggin' way anyone should have cart blanche against criticism. And he deserves it here.
A little more research will give you this quote from the AOL on-line Encyclopedia.
Fair enough. That's what I get for using Compuserve.
After doing even more research, I found out that the "support" of the US for Romania amounted to Most Favored Nation trading status, in reward for, as the AOL encyclopedia suggests, anti-Soviet policies; the typical product of an often tragic "enemy of my enemy" Cold War strategy.
On the other hand, according to the Human Rights Watch Report for 1989, the Bush Sr. administration brought the hammer down on Ceausescu, revoking MFN status and applying significant political pressure, measures for which HRW gave tremendous credit at the time.
For the HRW report, go to the link below.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Romania.htm
Nevertheless, your point stands, albeit now in a more nuanced perspective.
'I may be an asshole,'
Posted by Dan T.
Good to see you being honest with yourself
Not too sharp there, eh steve? I would hate to have interrupted you in the middle of sucking PAD's dick, but thanks for the input.
Just out of curiosity, all these people who've said that PAD should stick to writing comics, because politics isn't his forte.....
how many work as political commentators?
Not too sharp there, eh steve? I would hate to have interrupted you in the middle of sucking PAD's dick, but thanks for the input.
Posted by Dan
Oh, I'm all a quiver and in utmost awe over the eloquence and intellegence of your retort.
And if I were sucking PADs dick, they at least he, unlike you, is getting a blow job that he didnt have to pay for.
Oh, steve... man. So easy. So very easy. How long did you spend editing that first sentence? I mean, geez. I suppose it sounds good enough though.
You've brightened up my day, holmes. Suck away!!!
And if I were sucking PADs dick, they at least he, unlike you, is getting a blow job that he didnt have to pay for.
If you were, I think you'd have Kathleen looking over your shoulder, wondering what the hell was going on, to say nothing of PAD's reaction.
"Oh, steve... man. So easy. So very easy. How long did you spend editing that first sentence? I mean, geez. I suppose it sounds good enough though.
You've brightened up my day, holmes. Suck away!!! (edit from Steve- Mr. Intelligence here obviously doesnt know what the meaning of 'if' is...Typical.)
Posted by Dan"
You think I'm easy? Hey, YOU were the one who called YOURSELF an asshole. When you're stupid enough to leave yourself that wide open, you should expect somebody to use the opening.
Actually, you didnt call yourself an asshole, you said you MAY be one. Of course, now you've proved it beyond any and all shadow of a doubt. Congrats.
Of course after this you will no doubt pollute this topic with more your blatent ignorance and predjudice against anyone who would have the AUDACITY to state an opinion other than your own (Because, as your posting style suggests, you are just SOOOOOOO intelligent ), and you are completely free to ,do so.
However, I am no longer going to play your childish and pathetic game. All you do is call people names, as if you know that you cant back up your argument, and quite frankly the likes of yourself just isnt worth any more time than you've already wasted. Pathetic. Truly.
Go ahead, unleash your pathetic little neurotic name calling tirade. on me. I can use a laugh.
Steve
Mercy, mercy, mercy. Masochists and sadists meeting yet again.
*Luigi Novi: Nope. He never said that. “Idiot” is a word you’ve attributed to him, but he never used it in his log on Romania. Your Straw Man just fell apart.*
If you didn’t gather from his post that if someone didn’t “get it,” that someone must be ignorant, what in the world did you think his point was?
The idea that everyone who disagreed with you has resorted to these two statements is a flat-out LIE. Do you honestly think the people here can’t go through the log and see how it’s untrue?
Malarky. Anyone who addressed my post mentioned one or both.
*Luigi Novi: I said that validity OF his opinion has nothing to do with his occupation, not the validity of his RIGHT TO HAVE ONE. *
I disagree. A gardener may know everything there is to know about rebuilding a car engine, but I wouldn’t go to him for advice even though he ‘watched some guy do it once and is certain it will work for me.” I’d go to a car mechanic.. And a specialist at that. Call it the right tool for the right job, if you so desire.
Luigi Novi: Again, what in his reaction indicated that he was not prepared for disagreement?
The general condescending tone, comb8ined with the, “Get it?” implied he was lecturing down with no no possible room for a reasonable person to disagree.
First, I responded to that something YOU SAID, Jamie. You stated that he should stick to writing funny books because International politics wasn’t his forte.
And it isn’t, anymore than brain surgery is mine. That’s the key reason I’ve never critiqued any cranial surgery.
I stated that one had nothing to do with the other, and that his opinion on the matter—and for that matter, your assessment of it, rises or falls on its own merits, not in relation to what his occupation is, as if the only thing he’s good at is what he does for a living.
This is completely subjective. Whether is a good writer or even good at anything he does for a living is subjective opinion. It’s no different than liking vanilla ice cream rather than chocolate. Whatever I decided he’s good at is my opinion, and is neither right nor wrong.
An argument is a search for the truth, or a medium for the expression of ideas. Not a battle.
A noble notion, but I’m a results oriented person.
You’ve read his fiction. That does not necessarily qualify you as to his knowledge of history.
You don’t think you can glean someone’s general point of view from his body of work? You can’t be serious. What do you think writing is if not an expression of the writer’s inner thoughts?
It isn’t an ad hominem argument. I pointed out that your own arguments were poor on their merits, not on the fact that you’re a law student, or blind, or pro-war, or any other aspect of your pedigree.
Actually, I was referring to your “immature” comment, but that’s no big deal.
Um, no, that is NOT what you did, Jamie. You did NOT simply “not cut and paste the whole quote.” You took part of one sentence Peter stated, and ended with words that he never used. That has nothing to do with “not cutting and pasting the WHOLE quote.” What you did was FABRICATE something that he never said, and pass it off as if he did.
Malarky. I pointed out his “snotty” answer with my post and fabricated nothing.
The fact that someone is good at one thing does not mean they can not also have interest or ability in another area, and invoking the one has no place in an objective, mature critique of the other. Mentioning their primary occupation when disagreeing with their opinion on current events is not “good advice.” It’s condescension.
No, it’s called having a good shit detector, if you’ll pardon the profanity.
It’s easy for it to seem that way if that’s the way you want it to seem, Jamie. The fact remains that Peter does not generally react badly to people who merely disagree with him, and only insults people when they insult him first, and so that reaction had to do with your snotty reference to his occupation and his opinion on Iraq being mutually exclusive, not with the mere fact that you DISAGREED with him.
Bullocks again. His entire post left no room for disagreement. The whole tone was “This is the way it is. Get it?” (And for the record, that his not a direct qote from him, lest I be accused of lying again.)
Tell me, when Sean Penn assured us everything was hunky-dory in Iraq and we didn’t need take any action, did you believe him, or did you say, “He’s an actor, what does he know?” Penn knows nothing of Iraq, WMD, or terrorism, but was just as cocksure that no one knew better than anyone else of the situation in Iraq.
Sorry, but I can’t check my brain at he door for that, or automatically assume I have the only rationale conclusion on a situation I’m not even a part of.
To attribute his reaction to mere disagreement, and not to your snide comment—THAT is a Straw Man argument.
If he’s insecure about his job how his job relates to his credibility in my eyes, I’d say he needs to not worry about what some pissant he’ll never meet in his life thnks about it. Judging by the fact that he started his next post by defending himself against my “silly” comment then listed the newsmagazines he subscribes to establish his legitimacy, I’d say he’s not off to a good start.
I’m, at least, admit I could be wrong though. I’m not a psychologist.
Wow. I'm really shocked. You haven't flamed/been flamed much, have you?
Well, anyway. Steve, my good man, it's not that i'm annoyed by you, or that i left an opening. Or even that i care. If you haven't figured it out yet, there's a reason any retard can post online. Man. Really, for future reference, you shouldn't let anything a poster writes ever piss you off. It makes you look vaguely ridiculous.
For the record, everything i said strips down to one point. PAD, with no particular expertise, makes blanket statements regarding the middle east that are not up for discussion. Simple. I wouldn't posted at all, since you're more likely to get hit by a truck than have a fruitful discussion online, but the man keeps filling his log with increasingly retarded sermons. Such is life.
Not too sharp there, eh steve? I would hate to have interrupted you in the middle of sucking PAD's dick, but thanks for the input.
Okay, I do think this was waaaaaay out of line.
Do ANY of you who enjoy hurling taunts think that maybe alls you're doing is negating your own arguments? For example, if I see a post where there is a cohenrent argument, but then at the end of the post he calls someone a "c0cksucker" or a "five year old" or even a three yearold, I'm not gonna take them seriously anymore.
Much worse for those of you who chime in ONLY to insult others.
Come'on guys. We're all intelligent adults, bad typists maybe (myself included, and hey I've got my own blog and write for a hobby, so you know, typos don't indicate whether or not you can't debate/argue), but I think we ALL could put maybe just a little effort into being respectful. Or at least be more creative with the insults :)
Luigi Novi: Nope. He never said that. “Idiot” is a word you’ve attributed to him, but he never used it in his log on Romania. Your Straw Man just fell apart.
Jamie: If you didn’t gather from his post that if someone didn’t “get it,” that someone must be ignorant, what in the world did you think his point was?
Luigi Novi: First, what I gathered from his essay was that it was his opinion, one based on his observation, not that anyone who disagreed with it was ignorant.
Second, you didn’t say anything about ignorance. You said, “And, of course, anyone who doesn't "get it", as PAD says, must be an idiot.” Peter never said that anyone who disagreed with him was an idiot. That was a word you inferred, and it was that word, not “ignorant.” “Ignorant” and “idiot” are not the same thing. One is clearly an insult, the other, while not a favorable assessment, is not.
Luigi Novi: The idea that everyone who disagreed with you has resorted to these two statements is a flat-out LIE. Do you honestly think the people here can’t go through the log and see how it’s untrue?
Jamie: Malarky. Anyone who addressed my post mentioned one or both.
Luigi Novi: You didn’t say anything about addressing your post. You said that anyone who disagreed with you. Not everyone who posts in reaction to yours will necessarily reference you by name.
Luigi Novi: I said that validity OF his opinion has nothing to do with his occupation, not the validity of his RIGHT TO HAVE ONE.
Jamie: I disagree. A gardener may know everything there is to know about rebuilding a car engine, but I wouldn’t go to him for advice even though he ‘watched some guy do it once and is certain it will work for me.” I’d go to a car mechanic.. And a specialist at that. Call it the right tool for the right job, if you so desire.
Luigi Novi: What does that have to do with my statement being confused with the one you interpreted? I said the validity of his opinion has nothing to do with his occupation, and you inferred that I was accusing you of saying that it had bearing on his right to have one. You’re changing the subject of this particular exchange. The ORIGINAL point referenced was the connection between occupation on political opinion. The one at this point was your misinterpreting one comment I made for another.
But since you want to shift it over to that…
You stated that a gardener may know everything there is to know about rebuilding a car engine, but you wouldn’t go to him for advice even thought he “watched some guy do it once and is certain it will work for me.” This analogy falls apart for three different reasons.
First, you state first that the gardener “knows everything there is to know about rebuilding engines.” Then you state that he asserts that he can do because he “watched some guy do it once.” If he watched some guy do it once, then he doesn’t know everything there is to know about rebuilding them. So you contradict yourself right there. Is he an expert or not?
Second, while Peter has some fame in a specific, esoteric area, he is, in regards to politics, a private citizen. Whatever views, observations or opinions he states are those of just that: a private citizen, and so it holds as when any of us post an opinion here. In your gardener/mechanic analogy, you said you wouldn’t go to him for advice about rebuilding cars. In other words, if I understand correctly, if you needed your engine rebuilt, and needed a pro, you wouldn’t go to him, right? (Correct me if I’ve misunderstood this.) This is where the analogy with Peter falls apart. Peter isn’t a professional on international relations/politics, and no one ever said anything about anyone “going to him” in a professional capacity. Did anyone here mention Fox News or CNN or the New York Times hiring him as a Middle East policy analyst? No.
The third way in which the analogy fails is the same in which I’ve been stating it up until now: The fact that the guy is a gardener has NOTHING to do with why he’s not good at rebuilding engines. (Since you gave two contradictory estimates of his engine expertise [knowing everything about them, and only having seen one guy do it once], and this explanation requires the given that he’s not good at it, we’ll assume the latter.) The reason he’s not good at engines is clear, as you yourself stated: HE DID NOT STUDY OR LEARN ABOUT THEM. The fact that he merely saw some guy do it once does not qualify him to do it himself. The fact that he is a gardener has NOTHING to do with it. Someone could very well be a gardener, and also know how to rebuild engines.
Peter’s views on international politics have nothing to do with his being a writer. If you find something fallacious in his reasoning, you should point it out, and explain it. The only time you even tried to do this was in your FOURTH post, in which you opined that cultural differences between the Czechs and Iraqis meant that his argument of national pride was invalid, a point that you still have not elaborated on. Indeed, I think you might not even have brought up the point of his being a writer if he stated an opinion that you agree with. You only say it because he stated one you disagree with. I’ll say it again: What exactly is the nature of the cultural differences between the two, and how does Peter’s argument fail to take it into account?
And btw, since this is your belief regarding qualification, may I ask in what way are you, as a third year law school student, qualified to discuss it? I’m just curious, and I’d like to read what you have to say.
Luigi Novi: Again, what in his reaction indicated that he was not prepared for disagreement?
Jamie: The general condescending tone, combined with the, “Get it?” implied he was lecturing down with no no possible room for a reasonable person to disagree.
Luigi Novi: In my opinion, it did not imply that.
I saw nothing more than Peter giving a very strongly opinionated essay. What exactly is it about “Get it” that by definition, means there is no possible room for reasonable disagreement? What? Can you tell me? Why won’t you admit that this is just an interpretation, one that many others on this board did not make? Why are you acting as if your interpretation of a statement is somehow what he intentionally implied? Since when does “Get it” mean there is no room for disagreement? And what exactly indicated a condescending tone? (I notice you mentioned a condescending tone “combined with” the “Get it” comment, indicating that there was something else additional besides that remark that you deemed as such.)
Luigi Novi: First, I responded to that something YOU SAID, Jamie. You stated that he should stick to writing funny books because International politics wasn’t his forte.
Jamie: And it isn’t, anymore than brain surgery is mine. That’s the key reason I’ve never critiqued any cranial surgery.
Luigi Novi: Again, you’re changing the subject.
1. I referred to your comment about his occupation as an ad hominem argument.
2. You responded by saying that my saying so was a Straw Man argument.
3. I responded that I did not use a Straw Man, because my pointing out that you were using an ad hominem one was based on what you said about his occupation, not something that you did not say.
You are now responding not to that thread, but back to the original point to which I responded in item #1. I’ll say it again. I have not used a Straw Man, because my comments pertain to that which you did in fact say, not what you didn’t say.
Try to stay on point, okay?
But again, if you want to go back to that original pre-digression point, current events and politics is distinct as a topic of debate from brain surgery in that in American philosophy, the public is both required and encouraged to learn about it and express itself in it, and doing so, while sometimes entailing complex, detailed matters, does not require the specialized training that brain surgery does. Your argument again implies in a condescending, snotty manner, that private citizens like myself or Peter are not qualified to form opinions on matters of politics, which is false.
Luigi Novi: I stated that one had nothing to do with the other, and that his opinion on the matter—and for that matter, your assessment of it, rises or falls on its own merits, not in relation to what his occupation is, as if the only thing he’s good at is what he does for a living.
Jamie: This is completely subjective. Whether is a good writer or even good at anything he does for a living is subjective opinion. It’s no different than liking vanilla ice cream rather than chocolate. Whatever I decided he’s good at is my opinion, and is neither right nor wrong.
Luigi Novi: Oh my god.
Dude, what are you talking about??
We’re not talking about whether Peter’s writing is good! Are you that absent-minded? Christ, you even included a quote by me in this exchange that SHOWS that that’s not what the point is about!
Where, in what I just said above, did I indicate that an assessment of his writing is objective, rather than subjective? Who said that it wasn’t a matter of an opinion, or that it’s a matter of right and wrong? Putting aside the fact that both you and I have indicated that we both like his writing (given that we both frequent this site regularly, and your admonition to him to stick to writing comics), the POINT of that quote above is that his arguments on a political topic have NOTHING to do with whether—I’ll say it again, WHETHER—he’s good at writing.
That’s the THIRD time you’ve changed the subject.
Luigi Novi: An argument is a search for the truth, or a medium for the expression of ideas. Not a battle.
Jamie: A noble notion, but I’m a results oriented person.
Luigi Novi: The only “results” of debating on a message board is to express your views, and to learn about those of others. I’m not sure what criteria you’d use to measure “winning,” but if the apparent quality of one’s arguments versus another’s is one, then given your total inability to maintain a coherent exchange, your constant changing of the subject, your inability to distinguish between an interpretation of someone’s words and a foregone conclusion, and your tendency to rely on invalid ad hominem equations between the validity of a person’s argument and their occupation (not to mention other logical fallacies), I’d suggest a more practical position on debate would be in order for you, since a so-called “win” isn’t likely in your case.
Luigi Novi: You’ve read his fiction. That does not necessarily qualify you as to his knowledge of history.
Jamie: You don’t think you can glean someone’s general point of view from his body of work? You can’t be serious. What do you think writing is if not an expression of the writer’s inner thoughts?
Luigi Novi: That’s number FOUR, Jamie.
We’re not talking about his view or his inner thoughts. We’re talking about his knowledge of history and politics. Not the views he draws from that knowledge. Staying on track that much trouble for you, eh? Or do you really have that much trouble distinguishing between two different things?
But since you ask (and this is now the THIRD time I’ve answered a extraneous question), the degree to which you can glean a writer’s view or thoughts from his work varies with the writer, the work, the topic in question, and the specific detailed aspect of that topic. Can you sometimes determine such a thing? Perhaps. But generally I don’t think one can with certainty. Certainly not to the degree that people seem to do when they “protest” some supposed message or theme in a book or movie, and certainly not to the degree that you seem to think you can, Jamie. I can understand where Peter was coming from when he had Entropy tell Genis in Captain Marvel #5 that George W. Bush’s entire presidency was based on G.W.’s desire to validate his own worth by making his old man happy, but then again, that’s because I already knew what Peter’s position on Bush was from his columns and logs. I wouldn’t pretend to be able to read his view on any given topic from the way he may treat a topic in something he writes. One of the things writers have to do is to get inside the mind of characters that both hold feelings the writer agrees with and disagrees with. How many times has some parent or other member of the thought police raised a controversy based on some message or theme that they thought an artist intended in his work?
People thought that Chris Ofili’s “Blessed Virgin Mary,” a work that was part of an exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum a few years ago, and which featured a depiction of the Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung was anti-Catholic, but Ofili himself is Catholic. People thought the same of Kevin Smith’s Dogma, but he too is Catholic. And what about that doctor who raised a ruckus on A Current Affair because Todd McFarlane did an issue of Spawn featuring the KKK spouting epithets toward black people, when it was obvious that they were the villains of the story, and were depicted as such, just as they are in any story in any movie or TV show with an anti-racism theme? For that matter, what about Frederic Wertham, and the ridiculous messages that he saw in comic books?
I certainly didn’t get from Incredible Hulk #380 that he was anti-death penalty. Peter, is also, if I’m not mistaken, is pro-choice, but in a story in X-Factor #77-78, a doctor developed a test to determine if a fetus is a mutant, which would give parents the option to terminate the pregnancy on those grounds. X-Factor failed to get to his clinic before Wildside of the Mutant Liberation Front mortally wounded the doctor, but as he lay dying, he asked Rahne (Wolfsbane) to allow his computer to finish transferring the specs on his test to a disk and give it to the government. Rahne was so offended at the idea of parents terminating pregnancy because the fetus was a mutant, that she destroyed the computer. And in the current Captain Marvel series, the main character has gone from a benevolent hero to a psychotic murderer with no moral center. So how do you explain this? Are you saying that Peter is a proponent of psychosis and murder? Or that George Lucas is in favor of blowing up planets?
Luigi Novi: It isn’t an ad hominem argument. I pointed out that your own arguments were poor on their merits, not on the fact that you’re a law student, or blind, or pro-war, or any other aspect of your pedigree.
Jamie: Actually, I was referring to your “immature” comment, but that’s no big deal.
Luigi Novi: And what did I say? I said to Dan Taussig his own ability to debate with maturity, and yours, may be in question because of the way you both relied on ad hominem arguments. That wasn’t an ad hominem itself. It was my opinion of your own arguments.
Luigi Novi: Um, no, that is NOT what you did, Jamie. You did NOT simply “not cut and paste the whole quote.” You took part of one sentence Peter stated, and ended with words that he never used. That has nothing to do with “not cutting and pasting the WHOLE quote.” What you did was FABRICATE something that he never said, and pass it off as if he did.
Jamie: Malarky. I pointed out his “snotty” answer with my post and fabricated nothing.
Luigi Novi: A lie.
I’ll review it again:
This is what Peter said:
Noooo no no. You write a snotty posting, I responded with a dose of your own medicine, but hey. I'm supposed to feel bad because you're legally blind? I don't care if you're the guy from "My Left Foot." You post snotty, you're not entitled to get huffy if I respond in kind.
This is how you responded, Jamie:
You post snotty, you're not entitled to your opinion
I never said that, It's your blog. You may be as insightful or ignorant as you please. I merely suggested you shouldn't be such a crybaby if someone disagrees with you.
He did not say “you’re not entitled to your opinion,” and if you assert that he did, you are, quite plainly, a liar. No one reading this has to believe me. They can just scroll up and see the evidence for themselves. Not once in that post did he ever say anything about your entitlement to your opinion. He said that if you post a snotty remark, you’re not entitled to get huffy if he responds in kind. You’re supposed quote from him was fake.
Luigi Novi: The fact that someone is good at one thing does not mean they can not also have interest or ability in another area, and invoking the one has no place in an objective, mature critique of the other. Mentioning their primary occupation when disagreeing with their opinion on current events is not “good advice.” It’s condescension.
Jamie: No, it’s called having a good shit detector, if you’ll pardon the profanity.
Luigi Novi: I thought you said it was giving good advice? Now it’s something else? Is “having a good shit detector” another phrase for “giving good advice”? Or are you just flip-flopping back and forth again?
In what way does mentioning his primary occupation when disagreeing with his opinion on Iraqi pride “having a good shit detector”? I didn’t understand this at all. Could you elaborate?
Luigi Novi: It’s easy for it to seem that way if that’s the way you want it to seem, Jamie. The fact remains that Peter does not generally react badly to people who merely disagree with him, and only insults people when they insult him first, and so that reaction had to do with your snotty reference to his occupation and his opinion on Iraq being mutually exclusive, not with the mere fact that you DISAGREED with him.
Jamie: Bullocks again. His entire post left no room for disagreement.
Luigi Novi: In what way? You disagreed with it, didn’t you?
He put it on his public blog where people who read it could post their thoughts and disagree with it, didn’t he?
Jamie: The whole tone was “This is the way it is. Get it?”
Luigi Novi: Yeah, that was his observation, and the opinion he formed from it. In what way did that leave no room for disagreement? What “tone”? What is it in what he said that indicated there was no room for disagreement? What? Where? Tell me. What indicated this so-called “tone”? In what way does saying “Get it?” mean “there’s no room for disagreement”? I didn’t get that. Nor did many others here. He started off his blog with “For those who still don't understand why the Iraqis are shooting at us…, and proceeded to explain why he thought they were doing so. He ended with “Get it?” as his way of asking if the reader understood now why (according to him) Iraqis are shooting at our soldiers. Nowhere in that do I get “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong/ignorant/an idiot/.”
That is an interpretation, and you’re acting as if your interpretation of his intention is somehow a fact. If you got this reaction from that remark, why didn’t you simply ask him if that was the case? Why assume a condescending intent, and thereby go out on a limb and accuse someone of it when you’re not sure, rather than simply ASKING HIM to elaborate on that comment or explain it? Were you afraid of what he’d say? Wouldn’t it have been better to tie up that loose end by being certain about this theory, so that your argument would be stronger?
Jamie: Tell me, when Sean Penn assured us everything was hunky-dory in Iraq and we didn’t need take any action, did you believe him, or did you say, “He’s an actor, what does he know?” Penn knows nothing of Iraq, WMD, or terrorism, but was just as cocksure that no one knew better than anyone else of the situation in Iraq.
Luigi Novi: Neither. If I had heard that statement when he made it (I don’t recall having heard it), I’d have reserved judgment because I didn’t have the ability to assess the validity of the statement one way or the other, and, as in all matters, I try to consider information from as many different sources as I could, of which his would’ve been only one. The fact that he was there might have been one point by which to judge his statement. The fact that some unfavorable conditions might’ve have been hidden from him would’ve been another. The fact that he’s an actor would not have had anything to do with it one way or the other.
The problem with this argument is that you are focusing on a positive rather than a negative. Specifically, focusing on what one is rather than on what one isn’t. You’re focusing on what a person IS (an actor, a writer, etc.), rather than on focusing your argument on what they DON’T have (i.e.: knowledge of the topic at hand). The problem with this silly little insistence on an ad hominem argument of yours is that you seem to think that knowledge in one area precludes knowledge in another, which would mean that if I see someone posting on an astronomy board that the speed of light is 168,000 miles per second, I can’t correct him by saying that it’s really 186,000, because I work in market research, and my vocation is in illustration rather than astronomy. Sure, you could argue that I might know that figure because I looked it up or because I’ve always loved astronomy and have some knowledge of it, but then, why does the same possibility not hold true for Peter and politics? If an actor working on a TV show said they wanted to be a reporter on CNN, would you say that their being an actor precludes it? That would be a fallacious argument, because the real question is whether they have knowledge in broadcasting, which isn’t precluded by being an actor on a TV show. Thus, NYPD Blue star Andrea Thompson left acting to become a reporter for CNN, which she was able to do because she had knowledge and experience in broadcasting. (Indeed, I wonder what might have been your reaction if she made an opinion on Iraq you disagreed with at the time she was still on NYPD Blue. Pointing out that she was an actress would ignore the fact that she had experience and interest in journalism, and therefore might be knowledgeable of the matter.)
If you want to argue why a given statement is invalid, you have to do so by illustrating where the logic is faulty. You said you’re in law school. I don’t know if you intend to be a courtroom litigator, but if you want to voir dire a witness’ expertise in a given area, you’re going to have to ask them what they’re qualifications are in that area, not ask them if they hold another occupation in another area. If you limit your voir dire to the latter rather than the former, and without showing any relevance, and the judge rules that line of questioning irrelevant, you can have a sidebar and argue with him all your want about the benefits of your promotion of the ad hominem argument you’re trying to use, but I’d imagine you’d be laughed out of court.
Jamie: Sorry, but I can’t check my brain at he door for that, or automatically assume I have the only rationale conclusion on a situation I’m not even a part of.
Luigi Novi: You didn’t say that Penn said he had the only rational conclusion. Only that he formed one of his own.
Luigi Novi: To attribute his reaction to mere disagreement, and not to your snide comment—THAT is a Straw Man argument.
Jamie: If he’s insecure about his job how his job relates to his credibility in my eyes, I’d say he needs to not worry about what some pissant he’ll never meet in his life thnks about it.
Luigi Novi: Again, a condescending interpretation that you subscribe to simply because it’s one that’s consistent with your predisposition toward him.
Why does responding to a condescending remark necessarily indicate insecurity? Does the fact that you have responded to me mean that you’re insecure about my opinion of you?? Or does this argument only work when you’re insulting Peter?
It’s not insecurity. You made a fallacious argument, and he called you on it, much as I have. The only one who connected insecurity in his job with his credibility in your eyes is you. “Insecurity,” much the rest of your statements, is merely rhetoric, rather than any conclusion based on evidence or reason.
Put it this way:
You mention his occupation when remarking on his political opinion. He points out that one has nothing to do with the other. Now one of at least two things is possible:
1. He is insecure about how his job relates to his credibility in your eyes.
2. He is merely pointing out that your argument is fallacious.
Now either is possible. So here’s the question: What evidence (not interpretations, but evidence) do you have that points to one over the other? The fact of the matter is, you don’t. You are simply deciding that which gives you justification in your mind to continue attacking him.
Jamie: Judging by the fact that he started his next post by defending himself against my “silly” comment then listed the newsmagazines he subscribes to establish his legitimacy, I’d say he’s not off to a good start.
Luigi Novi: In other words, you describe any kind of response from him to you in the most negative way possible. If he states a political opinion you don’t like, he’s just a comic book writer. If he points out that he reads and studies the issues, and brings up some of the sources he uses because the subject came up in the previous log, then he’s insecure. He’s damned if he does, and he’s damned if he doesn’t. What a fucking hypocrite you are.
This blog is for Peter to interact with his fans. Naturally, he responds to them, sometimes to agree, sometimes to disagree, sometimes to answer questions or respond to comments. What you’re saying is that the ideal situation would be for what we say here to not have zero effect on him, and that he not react to any of it at all? Thanks, but I like that fact that talks back, thank you very much.
PAD, with no particular expertise, makes blanket statements regarding the middle east that are not up for discussion. Simple.
Simple but wrong, and easily disproven: If I truly considered them not up for discussion, then I would have clicked on the simple option on my journal menu which would have prohibited responses.
My patience, however, is being sorely tried on the language I'm seeing here...language which is coming, more or less, solely from people who hold opposing viewpoints and therefore are not doing themselves any favors.
I'm trying to keep it so that parents looking over their kids' shoulders won't be upset by the language on this site, and many of the by-now-predictable ad hominem attacks are crossing lines. In future threads, I *will* simply delete entire postings that have language and/or insults I consider counterproductive.
PAD
I completely disagree with Peter's politics and think he's wrong in most of his political opinions. That said, he's got as much right to his as I do to mine. Now, past that obvious point, I will much more quickly side with him than with someone whose opinion is almost 100% identical to mine, if that person is:
a. Offering only profane insults.
b. arguing just to hear themselves argue, as two posters are doing. I don't even bother to read it all now; it's just dumb.
I once saw a rather crude quote on the net: "Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Either way, you're still retarded." Again, a little mean-spirited, but a fair observation. None of us are ever going to change each others minds in a forum where we don't even have any face to face contact. The very best we can hope for, which is too seldom reached, is that we keep discussion at a civil level. Most of us all fall short as tempers begin to flare, but the point is to strive continuously for civility.
Just out of curiosity, who are the two posters arguing just to hear themselves argue, Rob?
Peter, I apologize for my prior language. :-)
Luigi: I forget :). There's simply too much in this thread for me to go back and read it all.
Geez, Luigi. Tell you what. I'll let whoever feels like thinking I'm a lying, hypocritical, martyred, antisocial whatchamacallit or have warm fuzzies about me, rather than write another treatise on the subject.
You're right. A debate board is a place to express opinions, and I have not changed mine.
Well, maybe one doesn't have to write a 'treatise," but I repeatedly asked you to elaborate on two specific points:
1. If a private citizen or writer cannot form a valid political opinion, what qualfies you to make such a statement yourself?
2. How exactly is it that the cultures of the Romanians and Iraqis are different to the extent that Peter's notions of national pride to do not apply, and on what reference or knowledge of the topic do you base this on?
...and you have done nothing but use Straw Man, ad hominem arguments, and fabricated quotes. You have not offered one solid argument on this topic, even when asked. Your posts are houses of cards, and you've put the final nail in the coffin by deliberately and repeatedly evading the question.
Take care.
The problem with your argument is that the overwhelming majority of post-war attacks have been limited to less than 1% of Iraq's area -- the "Sunni Triangle," as it were. Most of the people attacking US troops are holdovers from the old regime and tribes loyal to Saddam; in other words, people who had a lot to lose in the fall of the old regime and nothing to gain in a new, democratic one.
Actually, a Sunni stronghold is not a Ba'ath stronghold - Saddam was never popular in that area.
I will announce my disability, since it's germane to the healthcare argument: A few months ago I had (free!) surgery for a macular hole in my right eye. I can sorta read with it now. But I bet I know why wealthy Canadians go to America for hospital stays, from my own experience.
As it happens, by a happy accident, the only bed available for me when I checked in to Moorfield's Eye Hospital in London was in a a private room that wasn't being used. Ordinarly, you pay for that. But you know what? It's only marginally better than what you'd get free normally from the NHS. You still share a loo with the entire ward, the door to the room opens into the ward itself, there's no call button, the only phone available to you is a pay phone on the ward (unless you bring your cell, but of course you aren't supposed to turn it on inside a hospital), etc.
In other words, it's the frills. The room I had in the US when I had my tonsils out as a kid was more than four times the size of my premium private room at Moorefield's. I can still remember seeing our family doctor, some other docs and nurses, and both of my parents at the foot of my bed in that room. In the room I had here in London, there was space for my bag at the foot of my bed, and that's all. I could go on....
(When my father was dying, his room at Holy Cross was smaller than the one I'd had as a kid, but we still had the whole family in there. There was room for one chair in my room at Moorfield's.)
If I had money, sure, I'd rather stay in an American hospital because it's nicer. But the truth is, the care I got at Moorefield's was medically top-notch. And it was free.
Now, understand, when I say "free", yes, of course I pay taxes of various kinds. But I'm not working at the moment, so I'm not paying taxes, and I couldn't have paid for my eye surgery, either. But I didn't have to.
Nor did I have to wait long for it. In fact, they would have been happier if I hadn't freaked out and delayed my decision - they were ready for me a week earlier than I was ready for them.
What kind of taxes do I pay when I'm working? 20% income tax. I think the personal deduction at the moment is somewhere around four thousand pounds or more. I don't have to pay state taxes, there are no county taxes, and my real estate taxes (or "rates", as they call them here) are about six hundred pounds a year for a house that is pretty nice for London. That's actually less of a bite out of my income than I paid in the US.
I think Peter's point was a good one. And I find it a bit scary that some people arount here can't see the difference between Hitler and Saddam. But then, if there's one thing we learn from history, it's that we don't learn nothin' from history....
Jamie said: A gardener may know everything there is to know about rebuilding a car engine, but I wouldn’t go to him for advice even though he ‘watched some guy do it once and is certain it will work for me.”
WHAT??? Wait a sec. This makes no sense! I know that if I watched a guy do an oil change once, I would by no means consider myself knowing everything there is to know about it.
If a gardener DID know everything there was to know about rebuilding a car engine, I wouldn't care what he did during the day time. That night, I'd lure him over to my place, offer him beer and money and let him fix my car.
So he works as a gardener...That doesn't mean he CAN'T fix cars if he knows how to.
I consider myself to be a jack of some trades. Even though I have a degree in journalism, I have also, at one point or another, done accounting, graphic design, photography, acting, singing, and computer consulting, amongst other stuff.
Just because I currently work in retail DOESN'T mean that I'm NOT proficient at anything else. In fact, I consider myself more proficient at some of my hobbies/other interests than I am at my job skills!
And this is why the whole "So-and-so does THIS job, so they shouldn't stick their nose into an issue which doesn't concern the field they're working in" argument is just plain wrong...
Exactly, Jago, this is the problem with the argument put forward that Peter cannot have a valid political opinion because he writes comics. If one can educate themselves in a given area, they can most certainly form a solid conclusion in an area somewhat removed from their chosen profession.
Peter, for example, used to work in ad sales. Could he not provide valuable advice or criticism to a friend who needed help tweaking a story prior to his becoming a writer? What if he gave the advice right after he sold his first novel or comic story? Would it be valid then? Or what if he wanted to give his view on a matter of ad sales now, given that he's no longer in that field? Such a dividing line (professional in the field vs. not) seems wholly arbitrary. It ignores the fact that it's all about whether the statement he gives is true/reasonable or not.
I am reminded of a story on comets and other Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) that I saw on the Discovering or Learning Channel, and how a very small portion of NASA's budget is devoted to tracking all the potentially hazardous objects that could cause an impact on Earth, and so some amateur astronomers build their own telescopes to track them using old-fashioned photographic plates. One in particular built his observatory, with a telescope made largely of wood that could be slid forward or backward on wheels. If I recall accurately, he had tracked and therefore named a large number (perhaps the record holder for the largest number, I'm not sure) of comets/asteroids, an unusually high number for a civilian, non-professional scientist. What do the promoters of this snotty little ad hominem argument make of that? There's just too many examples we could easily cite or research that shows being a pro in a field is simply too arbitrary a criteria for judging a particular point of debate invalid.
I am loathe to beat a dead horse. Win. This is the last pst on the subject.
1. If a private citizen or writer cannot form a valid political opinion, what qualfies you to make such a statement yourself?
I made an offhand comment that got undies in a bundle. Yes, iI think he's wrong, and I said so in a smart alce of the cuff way. It got everyone's undies in a bundle. You're right, it was dumb, spur of the moment and I should have explained things better and apologized if someone had broughyt that up reasonably. Instead, PAD mocks my disability and pisses me off. I'm stubborn. No way am I going to apologize to a man that does that even if I have to defend that the moon is made out of green cheese.
End of story.
2. How exactly is it that the cultures of the Romanians and Iraqis are different to the extent that Peter's notions of national pride to do not apply, and on what reference or knowledge of the topic do you base this on?
Muslims "respect a might makes right" philosophy. The Iraqis don't trust us now because Bush I "offered" them support to over throw Sadaam an they got slaughtered when they didn't have our support. We have to now gain respect in their eyes by showing srength in the face of these attacks.
I've already explained why I attacked PAD's credentials, so I am not airing out mine.
Jamie: This is the last pst on the subject.
Luigi Novi: Hate to disappoint you, dude, but I got another one right here.
Luigi Novi: If a private citizen or writer cannot form a valid political opinion, what qualfies you to make such a statement yourself?
Jamie: I made an offhand comment that got undies in a bundle. Yes, iI think he's wrong, and I said so in a smart alce of the cuff way.
Luigi Novi: An “offhand” comment whose central argument you continued to repeat and promote in several subsequent posts?
Uh…no.
I don’t think so.
While you may not have prepared or thought out the initial comment, you cannot use that explanation for the continued defense of it throughout the thread. Now that I’ve discredited each of your arguments for the shams that they are, you’re trying to backtrack. Guess what, Jamie? It’s not working.
Jamie: You're right, it was dumb, spur of the moment and I should have explained things better and apologized if someone had broughyt that up reasonably. Instead, PAD mocks my disability and pisses me off. I'm stubborn. No way am I going to apologize to a man that does that even if I have to defend that the moon is made out of green cheese.
Luigi Novi: So in other words, you reserve the right to make such mistakes, but not others who may respond to them in the same less-than-constructive way? If you acknowledge that you made an unwise comment that made others angry, why can’t Peter or others be forgiven for the same thing? Why insist on the both the right to make such mistakes and how others be obligated to respond to them with more maturity? Sure, Peter might’ve responded without referencing your typing or disability, but you sure didn’t give him much motive by refusing to apologize for the first salvo you made until right NOW. Why couldn’t you just say, “Look, Peter, I’m sorry I made a condescending remark to you, and I’m assuming you would not make a similar one to me about my disability if I hadn’t done so.” Why admit you were wrong, but not grant him the same opportunity to come halfway himself?
Hey, hear that chirping sound? (Turns toward the window) Oh, look!
The hypocrites are in season!
Jamie: End of story.
Luigi Novi: Really? Hmm….is that anything like “Get it”?
I ask, because you insisted Peter’s use of that remark indicated that there was no room for disagreement—an interpretation that I myself just don’t see, personally—but the phrase “End of story,” on the other hand, actually is used by some people to indicate just such a thing.
Luigi Novi: How exactly is it that the cultures of the Romanians and Iraqis are different to the extent that Peter's notions of national pride to do not apply, and on what reference or knowledge of the topic do you base this on?
Jamie: Muslims "respect a might makes right" philosophy. The Iraqis don't trust us now because Bush I "offered" them support to over throw Sadaam an they got slaughtered when they didn't have our support. We have to now gain respect in their eyes by showing srength in the face of these attacks.
Luigi Novi: What does that have to do with what Peter said about his observation of Romanians? He stated a people have pride when they’ve worked hard to claim their own independence, and that our invading Iraq to do this for them may have raised their ire. What you said about their reaction to George Bush’s policy in 1991 is probably true, but why does it mean that Peter’s isn’t? I don’t see how it’s a one-or-the-other situation. Can’t it be both?
Also, you have not illustrated why the statement is wrong specifically because of cultural differences between Romanians and Iraqis. Again, what is the cultural difference that would make Romanians proud after overthrowing their own dictator, but not so with the Iraqis had they done so with theirs?
Lastly, your statement ”Muslims "respect a might makes right" philosophy” sounds like a somewhat racist generalization. Which Iraqis? Sunni? Shiite? Salafi? Ahmadis? Deobandi? All of them? All of the world? I have a friend who’s a Sunni Muslim, and I don’t think he’d agree with your statement, or think very highly of you judging him in this way.
I just read an interesting account of the rebuilding effort in Iraq here:
To those people who compare the creation of a democracy in Iraq to Germany after WWII:
It's completly different. Iraq doesn't know what freedom means, they only know dicatorship. Germany knew and existed throughout democracy and monarchy. Before Hitler took over Germans remembered various different governments, unlike the peoples of Iraq.
And someone mentioned that all germans stood behind Hitler. That was just propaganda. They cheered when Hitler was elected, not because they wanted war or kill jews, but because he spoke of freedom, peace and a united Germany. He appealed to the unemployed, to the poor, to the disappointed. And disappointed they were after the fall of the Weimar republic.
Hitler then used the holes in the Weimar laws, to bring the whole government to a stand-still and to be the only one with power left.
So when people realized who Hitler really is, it was too late. To be fair, any smart person would see through Hitler's rethoric. But then german economy was so bad, people really wanted to believe his words.
Pascal
"There's just too many examples we could easily cite or research that shows being a pro in a field is simply too arbitrary a criteria for judging a particular point of debate invalid"
Almost twenty years ago, the city of Ottawa decided to renovate part of the downtown core. Taking a pleasant neighbourhood with lots of old family-owned shops which had been there for decades and turning it into a large, indoor mall, with transit connections and reworked (less car-friendly) road network surrounding it.
As I tried in vain to negotiate this silly maze (called the "Rideau Center", it was more appropriately referred to by most as "the "Ridiculous Center") I had occasion to grumble about it. My passenger at the time, a professional Engineer, tut-tutted me and asked if I had a degree in civil engineering, or had taken any courses in transportation theory. Uh ... no. Then how is it that I could make disparaging remarks about something which I knew nothing about. I probably didn't even understand what they were trying to accomplish there.
Uh ...
So I shut up. But, over the next few years I quietly accumulated a large file of articles and letters to the local newspapers. All of them negative concerning that tangled mess. And culminating in an admission by the city that it was a failure and needed to be changed drastically.
It was with great pleasure I brought the thick manilla envelope, filled with these clippings, to the aforementioned engineer and smiled as I told her "See? Sometimes you don't need a PhD in ornithology to recognize a turkey when you see one."
It was her turn to shut up.
Not to mention that pretty much anyone online who writes reviews (be it the eight million comics reviewers, the nine million movie reviewers, or the various Trek reviewers like ... er ... me) is doing so without benefit of an MFA in film studies or any such thing.
There is such a thing as an intelligent observer. At least, there used to be.
TWL
And speaking as one of Tim Lynch's fans who loved reading his Trek episode reviews (he was one of three Trek reviewers whose reviews I regularly read), I can say that his recent announcement that he will no longer be reviewing Enterprise, while not entirely shocking, is sad, and his reviews (as those of David Sluss, another one of the three who announced his retirement) will be sorely missed.
Good luck, Tim. :-)
I'm joining in a bit late, but according to your logic, PAD, we should've waited. Right? Until when? 35 years the bastard was in power.
Also, according to that logic we should've never taken Hitler out. We should've waited for the Germans to get their heads together? Right?
Come on. Worst example ever.
PAD, let me put it in another way:
Lets say there's a bully who threatens your family. A real threat that may mean death to you and your loved ones.
It'll be great for your self esteem if you could take out that guy, right? But if he's stronger and better armed than you, wouldn't you just swallow your pride and call the police? I know you would. Well, the Iraqi people decided to take the "easy way out" and let the "police" do the job.
Maybe 6,000,000 Jews wouldn't have died in the holocaust if someone came to their rescue instead of letting them "do it on their own".
Posted by: Michael Bregman at August 1, 2003 08:14 PM
PAD, let me put it in another way:
Lets say there's a bully who threatens your family. A real threat that may mean death to you and your loved ones.
It'll be great for your self esteem if you could take out that guy, right? But if he's stronger and better armed than you, wouldn't you just swallow your pride and call the police? I know you would. Well, the Iraqi people decided to take the "easy way out" and let the "police" do the job.
Maybe 6,000,000 Jews wouldn't have died in the holocaust if someone came to their rescue instead of letting them "do it on their own".
So good to hear a voice of sanity. It is the greatest sin when a man sees transgressions and evil and does nothing. WHile the war in iraq had planning and excuse problems, our biggest mistake in that country was waiting as long as we did to take out its leader. The man was filling mass graves, and was working on weapons, or getting them (missiles modified to hold nuclear warheads were found. though no one mentions it.)
"he who tells the truth shall be chased out of nine villages."
interesting to have peter davids village be one