Act Acting » Acting Agency » Relativist Left and the War

Relativist Left and the War

Question:

The point I was making was – he *was* attacking other nations, we stopped him. And the more important point was: comparing anyone with anyone else doesn’t really answer anything. Yeah, but it’s mighty convenient for people who want to justify something they don’t have a justification for. …or at least not a justification they care to tell anyone about.

Complete nonsense.  The terrorist threat has been explained.  You just choose to ignore it.  Just like neo-nazi Gwier.  It’s quite interesting that there is essentially no difference between the position of the neo-Nazis and the position of Bobby D. Bryant.  I wonder why that is?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – April 8, 2003 The Relativist Left and the War By Elizabeth Nickson National Post "Join the other superpower," said the bumper sticker on the back of the clapped out Chevy van on the ferry, "world opinion." How I wish I could. Just walk right into that ocean of warmly felt righteousness until the waves were over my head, then breathe. But that would mean I had an IQ of twelve. That would mean I conflated Bush and Saddam. [snip the remainder of a very good opinion piece] It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles.  It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization. It is almost incredible that these loudmouthed anti-war "activists" don’t see that publicly expressing opinions like that are a sure-fire guarantee of NOT being taken seriously.  If I didn’t know better, I would be receptive to the idea that the Nicholas de Genova types are _agents provocateurs_ infiltrated by the pro-war side into the anti-war movement. An excellent point, Mr. Ball.  But sadly, the truth is stranger than fiction.  Nicholas de Genova hates the United States. Oh, I know it.  They all do.  But that’s what’s so beautiful about it.  They can’t contain their hatred.

Correct.  Look at Blobby, Dannny-boy and the rest of the kooks.  All they can do is whine about this and that.  They have never offered one solution.  All they do is demonstrate their hatred for America.

Response:

Don’t forget that lurkers are judging you

More of Blobby’s nonsense.  You’re not playing to the Lurkers, nor are they supporting you in email. Everything you’ve ever posted is a big fat lie.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are morally confused, and you deliberately mislabel things. Your comparison STILL is inapt, as well as inept.  There is no "empire building" by the U.S.  We have not seized land we intend to rule indefinitely; the Nazis did. Not familiar with the idea of the client state, I take it? Very familiar with it.  It doesn’t apply here. Not familiar with the idea of empires, are you? Very familiar with it.  It remains to be seen if it will prove applicable.  As "empire" used to be taken to mean, it almost assuredly will not be applicable.

A nation goes to a distant region, overthrows the native government, and sets up a new one with a form and content acceptable to itself, and you don’t think "empire building" is a relevant concept? You’re about out of ammo.

And the evidence for *that* claim is…? We engaged in diplomacy to try to get Hussein out of power, and, failing that, to get a UN consensus to drive him from power; Hitler did nothing comparable, simply marching into places he intended to incorporate into the Reich. Funny rationalization.  "We asked, were told ‘no’, and did it anyway; therefor we’re better than those who act without asking." What we did was and is right, and the governments of quite a lot of other democratic governments agreed. And other democratic governments *dis*agreed. The overwhelming majority of democratic governments agreed.

Can you give a roll call to back that claim up? On the days when the non-SC members got to spoke, it was an almost unanimous litany against what the USA was wanting to do. The chief government that disagreed very clearly and obviously was not disagreeing for any principled reasons, unless you consider "naked commercial interest" to be principled.

How do you know what their reasons were?  Do you accept the reasons offered by the USA and its supporters, and reject the claims of everyone else?  Are you unaware that the USA has just as much "naked commercial interest" in who rules Iraq as any other nation on the planet does? You can always "be right" if you only count the votes that agree with you. The unfortunate structure of the UN security council, which either seemed like a good idea at the time or was perhaps a necessary thing to get it to fly at all, allowed a single third-rate former imperial power – a REAL former imperialist, for knuckleheads like you who can’t identify the real thing – to block what was a clear and legitimate consensus, solely for commercial self interest. Revisionist history. Hardly.

There was no clear and legitimate consensus for war in Iraq, as anyone who even casually followed the news would know.  That’s an odd whine to be coming from a loony leftist.

No, it’s a very sensible observation coming from someone who wants to base the discussion on facts rather than lies. The veto was never used, because the USA couldn’t even get a majority vote after throwing its money around. It never came to a vote, so you don’t know if the U.S. would have obtained a majority or not.

Sure we do.  The USA didn’t call a vote because they and everyone else on the planet knew exactly who was in their pocket and who wasn’t. And how do you know certain parties were acting solely for commercial self-interest?  People say the same about us — does the mere accusation make it true? One hoped for result of this will be either a radical restructing of the UN, or its dissolution.  The UN Security Council, as currently embodied, is worse than worthless. Agreed, primarily because of the permanent membership with veto power. Which, BTW, the USA has frequency used in the face of world opinion. If that’s wrong for others, it’s wrong for us as well. Most U.S. vetoes cast in the Security Council were on anti-Israel resolutions.

What has *that* got to do with the topic at hand?  Is a veto legitimate or not?  Why is it OK for the USA to veto anti-Israel resolutions but *not* OK for France to veto anti-Iraq resolutions? Some of the vetoes were justified, some were not.

Yep, and some people think a veto of the USA’s (tabled) resolution would have been justified, some don’t.  Your whinge about the structure of the UN is a red herring in any discussion of the justification for the current war.  There simply wasn’t enough international support for what the USA wanted to do. Do you honestly think the USA will participate in a "New"nited Nations where we don’t have an unchecked veto power? No.

So you need to clarify what you’re getting at.  Are you saying that the veto is fine and good, so long as only *current* superpowers have it? I.e., that a veto by the USA is legitimate but a veto by France isn’t? Are you simply arguing for a might-makes-right doctrine in international affairs? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And it should be noted that no-one went to war with Hitler because of his internal politics, it was his clear and present threat to Europe that was the issue. It was Hussein’s clear and present threat to the stability of the Middle East, and his larger clear and present threat to world peace through his manufacture and use of WMD, that motivated our dislodging of his regime. Funny; we didn’t complain about his use of WMD when he was our ally. Actually, we did.  What we didn’t complain about was his invasion of Iran. Can you document that?  Everything I’ve ever read says otherwise.  We certainly kept selling them arms mean-the-while.  If there was any protest at all it never went beyond the pro forma. http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

Could you find more details about that?  It certainly looks like a legitimate source, but it doesn’t jibe with _piles_ of stuff I’m finding on Google.  A few examples from *many*: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Iraq.asp """ Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons on his own people, which we are always reminded of, occurred during the time that Hussein was an ally of the United States, and was armed by the U.S. (which we are hardly reminded of). The New York Times reported (August 18, 2002) that the Reagan administration had provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance in waging decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. While this story was also re-reported by international media, as William Blum points out, this revelation on the whole doesn’t reveal anything new, and indeed omitted anything about "the furnishing of chemical and biological materials by the United States to Iraq which markedly enhanced Iraq’s CBW [Chemical and Biological Weapons] capability." Furthermore, as Dilip Hiro points out in The Observer (September 1, 2002), if concerns about chemical weapon usage was real, why was there no concern, or even condemnation at the time it actually happened, when it was a well-known incident? (Instead, at that time, Hiro points out that the response was to arm and support Hussein even more. Iraq was supported by the U.S. after its previous ally in the region, Iran, had a revolution where one authoritarian regime — the U.S. puppet, the Shah — was overthrown by another authoritarian regime, the Ayatollah and his religious variant.) Independent journalist Jeremy Scahill also revealed the extent to which Saddam Hussein was supported. The Institute for Public Accuracy, mentioning Scahill points out that, " In August [2002], Scahill broke the story of Donald Rumsfeld’s meeting with Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials in Baghdad in 1983 and again in 1984. Scahill said today: ‘Just as Iraq was beginning its use of chemical weapons, Rumsfeld was not trying to stop it, but was restoring diplomatic relations. Now, Iraq’s use of these weapons is being used as a pretext for massive invasion.’" Scahill, in a report, observes that In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs." In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House. """ http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR122002.htm """ Scahill is an independent journalists who spent five out of the last eight months reporting from the ground in Iraq where he interviewed numerous Iraqi and UN officials. In August, Scahill broke the story of Donald Rumsfeld’s meeting with Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials in Baghdad in 1983 and again in 1984. Scahill said today: "Just as Iraq was beginning its use of chemical weapons, Rumsfeld was not trying to stop it, but was restoring diplomatic relations. Now, Iraq’s use of these weapons is being used as a pretext for massive invasion." """ http://www.socialistalternative.org/justice32/11.html """ 1984: Iraq uses chemical weapons on Iran; US subsequently restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. A US Defense Intelligence Agency official involved in aiding Iraq later commented that the Pentagon "wasn’t so horrified by Iraq’s use of gas. It was just another way of killing people." """ http://www.anomalies.net/archive/Fringe-Political_Belief/BNLSCAND.TXT """         In order for this trade-based foreign policy to work, the United States had to ignore a few Iraqi bad habits including massive human rights abuses, the imprisonment, torture and execution of political … read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are morally confused, and you deliberately mislabel things.  Your comparison STILL is inapt, as well as inept.  There is no "empire building" by the U.S.  We have not seized land we intend to rule indefinitely; the Nazis did. Not familiar with the idea of the client state, I take it? Very familiar with it.  It doesn’t apply here. Not familiar with the idea of empires, are you?

Very familiar with it.  It remains to be seen if it will prove applicable.  As "empire" used to be taken to mean, it almost assuredly will not be applicable. You’re about out of ammo. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -We engaged in diplomacy to try to get Hussein out of power, and, failing that, to get a UN consensus to drive him from power; Hitler did nothing comparable, simply marching into places he intended to incorporate into the Reich. Funny rationalization.  "We asked, were told ‘no’, and did it anyway; therefor we’re better than those who act without asking." What we did was and is right, and the governments of quite a lot of other democratic governments agreed. And other democratic governments *dis*agreed.

The overwhelming majority of democratic governments agreed.  The chief government that disagreed very clearly and obviously was not disagreeing for any principled reasons, unless you consider "naked commercial interest" to be principled. You can always "be right" if you only count the votes that agree with you. The unfortunate structure of the UN security council, which either seemed like a good idea at the time or was perhaps a necessary thing to get it to fly at all, allowed a single third-rate former imperial power – a REAL former imperialist, for knuckleheads like you who can’t identify the real thing – to block what was a clear and legitimate consensus, solely for commercial self interest. Revisionist history.

Hardly.  That’s an odd whine to be coming from a loony leftist. The veto was never used, because the USA couldn’t even get a majority vote after throwing its money around.

It never came to a vote, so you don’t know if the U.S. would have obtained a majority or not. And how do you know certain parties were acting solely for commercial self-interest?  People say the same about us — does the mere accusation make it true? One hoped for result of this will be either a radical restructing of the UN, or its dissolution.  The UN Security Council, as currently embodied, is worse than worthless. Agreed, primarily because of the permanent membership with veto power. Which, BTW, the USA has frequency used in the face of world opinion.  If that’s wrong for others, it’s wrong for us as well.

Most U.S. vetoes cast in the Security Council were on anti-Israel resolutions.  Some of the vetoes were justified, some were not. Do you honestly think the USA will participate in a "New"nited Nations where we don’t have an unchecked veto power?

No. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -And it should be noted that no-one went to war with Hitler because of his internal politics, it was his clear and present threat to Europe that was the issue. It was Hussein’s clear and present threat to the stability of the Middle East, and his larger clear and present threat to world peace through his manufacture and use of WMD, that motivated our dislodging of his regime. Funny; we didn’t complain about his use of WMD when he was our ally. Actually, we did.  What we didn’t complain about was his invasion of Iran. Can you document that?  Everything I’ve ever read says otherwise.  We certainly kept selling them arms mean-the-while.  If there was any protest at all it never went beyond the pro forma.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -TRY to get some facts straight at least on occasion, will you? So far as I can tell, I have my facts straight already.  I stand to be corrected, but not on a ’cause-you-said-so basis. What was the *real* reason for the invasion? Guess I’m not going to get an answer on that one, eh? The point is – argument by historical comparison is always misleading and used for rhetorical purposes. Mostly by the lying loony left. I think Danny’s claim stands without reference to the political leanings of whoever is offering the historical comparison. I think you’re wrong. But you can’t seem to come up with an argument to show it.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Godwin’s Law     prov.     [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin’s Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin’s Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. You were saying? 1.  There is no single accepted version of Godwin’s Law. 2.  The salient feature is that it ends the thread, not that the      person bringing up Hitler has lost.

As well as Bobby’s points: a) this is the first definition hit on Google, I didn’t have to search for it b) I said ‘Usenet rule’, not ‘Godwin’s Law’. It’s related to Godwin’s Law, it’s not the law itself. Not that it matters, of course, but nice to see you responding with your usual well thought-out logical invective. And I note that you *still* haven’t come up with any response to my arguments and quotes on the earlier thread regarding the legality of the war, apart from declaring without any reason that they were invalid. Nor did you back up your bald claim that the Taliban were ‘lying’ when they said they’d give up Bin Laden if given evidence of his guilt, or the claim that the US should not have given such evidence. Danny

Response:

You are morally confused, and you deliberately mislabel things.  Your comparison STILL is inapt, as well as inept.  There is no "empire building" by the U.S.  We have not seized land we intend to rule indefinitely; the Nazis did. Not familiar with the idea of the client state, I take it? Very familiar with it.  It doesn’t apply here.

Not familiar with the idea of empires, are you? We engaged in diplomacy to try to get Hussein out of power, and, failing that, to get a UN consensus to drive him from power; Hitler did nothing comparable, simply marching into places he intended to incorporate into the Reich. Funny rationalization.  "We asked, were told ‘no’, and did it anyway; therefor we’re better than those who act without asking." What we did was and is right, and the governments of quite a lot of other democratic governments agreed.

And other democratic governments *dis*agreed. You can always "be right" if you only count the votes that agree with you. The unfortunate structure of the UN security council, which either seemed like a good idea at the time or was perhaps a necessary thing to get it to fly at all, allowed a single third-rate former imperial power – a REAL former imperialist, for knuckleheads like you who can’t identify the real thing – to block what was a clear and legitimate consensus, solely for commercial self interest.

Revisionist history.  The veto was never used, because the USA couldn’t even get a majority vote after throwing its money around. And how do you know certain parties were acting solely for commercial self-interest?  People say the same about us — does the mere accusation make it true? One hoped for result of this will be either a radical restructing of the UN, or its dissolution.  The UN Security Council, as currently embodied, is worse than worthless.

Agreed, primarily because of the permanent membership with veto power. Which, BTW, the USA has frequency used in the face of world opinion.  If that’s wrong for others, it’s wrong for us as well. Do you honestly think the USA will participate in a "New"nited Nations where we don’t have an unchecked veto power? And it should be noted that no-one went to war with Hitler because of his internal politics, it was his clear and present threat to Europe that was the issue. It was Hussein’s clear and present threat to the stability of the Middle East, and his larger clear and present threat to world peace through his manufacture and use of WMD, that motivated our dislodging of his regime. Funny; we didn’t complain about his use of WMD when he was our ally. Actually, we did.  What we didn’t complain about was his invasion of Iran.

Can you document that?  Everything I’ve ever read says otherwise.  We certainly kept selling them arms mean-the-while.  If there was any protest at all it never went beyond the pro forma. TRY to get some facts straight at least on occasion, will you?

So far as I can tell, I have my facts straight already.  I stand to be corrected, but not on a ’cause-you-said-so basis. What was the *real* reason for the invasion?

Guess I’m not going to get an answer on that one, eh? The point is – argument by historical comparison is always misleading and used for rhetorical purposes. Mostly by the lying loony left. I think Danny’s claim stands without reference to the political leanings of whoever is offering the historical comparison. I think you’re wrong.

But you can’t seem to come up with an argument to show it. — Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We engaged in diplomacy to try to get Hussein out of power, and, failing that, to get a UN consensus to drive him from power; Hitler did nothing comparable, simply marching into places he intended to incorporate into the Reich. Funny rationalization.  "We asked, were told ‘no’, and did it anyway; therefor we’re better than those who act without asking." Actually it was:     We asked, were told yes.     We asked, were told yes again (but they didn’t really mean it)     We got told we should ask again, then told it was going to vetoed        without listening to the question.     So we decided not to ask and go with the first two answers.

About those two purported yeses, precisely which UN resolutions authorized the US to institute regime change in Iraq? That’s the coveted resolution that the USA tried to cozy out of the UN, and never got. — Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are morally confused, and you deliberately mislabel things.  Your comparison STILL is inapt, as well as inept.  There is no "empire building" by the U.S.  We have not seized land we intend to rule indefinitely; the Nazis did. Not familiar with the idea of the client state, I take it? We engaged in diplomacy to try to get Hussein out of power, and, failing that, to get a UN consensus to drive him from power; Hitler did nothing comparable, simply marching into places he intended to incorporate into the Reich. Funny rationalization.  "We asked, were told ‘no’, and did it anyway; therefor we’re better than those who act without asking."

Actually it was:     We asked, were told yes.     We asked, were told yes again (but they didn’t really mean it)     We got told we should ask again, then told it was going to vetoed without listening to the question.     So we decided not to ask and go with the first two answers.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It rarely adds anything to the argument and can always be turned both ways. That’s why we have the Usenet rule where the first person to compare someone to Hitler in an argument is deemed to have lost. That’s not what Godwin’s Law says, stupid fuckwit. Look it up. Godwin’s Law     prov.     [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin’s Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin’s Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. You were saying?

1.  There is no single accepted version of Godwin’s Law. 2.  The salient feature is that it ends the thread, not that the      person bringing up Hitler has lost.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Saddam, like Hitler, is/was a mass-murdering bastard who committed crimes against his own people. But apart from his invasion of Kuwait 12 years ago, he has not overtly attacked any other nation (or covertly, for that matter, as far as we know). Didn’t he also unilaterally start the war with Iran? True – I guess I should have said ’since his invasion of Kuwait’ rather than ‘apart from’! The point I was making was – he *was* attacking other nations, we stopped him. And the more important point was: comparing anyone with anyone else doesn’t really answer anything.

Yeah, but it’s mighty convenient for people who want to justify something they don’t have a justification for. …or at least not a justification they care to tell anyone about. — Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas

Response:

You are morally confused, and you deliberately mislabel things.  Your comparison STILL is inapt, as well as inept.  There is no "empire building" by the U.S.  We have not seized land we intend to rule indefinitely; the Nazis did.

Not familiar with the idea of the client state, I take it? We engaged in diplomacy to try to get Hussein out of power, and, failing that, to get a UN consensus to drive him from power; Hitler did nothing comparable, simply marching into places he intended to incorporate into the Reich.

Funny rationalization.  "We asked, were told ‘no’, and did it anyway; therefor we’re better than those who act without asking." And it should be noted that no-one went to war with Hitler because of his internal politics, it was his clear and present threat to Europe that was the issue. It was Hussein’s clear and present threat to the stability of the Middle East, and his larger clear and present threat to world peace through his manufacture and use of WMD, that motivated our dislodging of his regime.

Funny; we didn’t complain about his use of WMD when he was our ally. What was the *real* reason for the invasion? The point is – argument by historical comparison is always misleading and used for rhetorical purposes. Mostly by the lying loony left.

I think Danny’s claim stands without reference to the political leanings of whoever is offering the historical comparison. — Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It rarely adds anything to the argument and can always be turned both ways. That’s why we have the Usenet rule where the first person to compare someone to Hitler in an argument is deemed to have lost. That’s not what Godwin’s Law says, stupid fuckwit. Look it up. Godwin’s Law     prov.     [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin’s Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin’s Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. You were saying? 1.  There is no single accepted version of Godwin’s Law.

Then you’ll concede that his version was as good as yours, and apologize to him for calling him ‘fuckwit’.  Right? 2.  The salient feature is that it ends the thread, not that the     person bringing up Hitler has lost.

Nice try at weaselry.  "Salience" is irrelevant.  The definition he cites supports the claims he made precisely. Looking forward to that retraction…  (Don’t forget that lurkers are judging you, and hence the political views you espouse, on the basis of how you handle this sort of solecism.  I’d retract if I were you.) — Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas

Response:

It rarely adds anything to the argument and can always be turned both ways. That’s why we have the Usenet rule where the first person to compare someone to Hitler in an argument is deemed to have lost. That’s not what Godwin’s Law says, stupid fuckwit. Look it up.

Godwin’s Law     prov.     [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin’s Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin’s Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. You were saying? Danny

Response:

You are morally confused, and you deliberately mislabel things.  Your comparison STILL is inapt, as well as inept.  There is no "empire building" by the U.S.  We have not seized land we intend to rule indefinitely; the Nazis did. Not familiar with the idea of the client state, I take it?

Very familiar with it.  It doesn’t apply here. We engaged in diplomacy to try to get Hussein out of power, and, failing that, to get a UN consensus to drive him from power; Hitler did nothing comparable, simply marching into places he intended to incorporate into the Reich. Funny rationalization.  "We asked, were told ‘no’, and did it anyway; therefor we’re better than those who act without asking."

What we did was and is right, and the governments of quite a lot of other democratic governments agreed. The unfortunate structure of the UN security council, which either seemed like a good idea at the time or was perhaps a necessary thing to get it to fly at all, allowed a single third-rate former imperial power – a REAL former imperialist, for knuckleheads like you who can’t identify the real thing – to block what was a clear and legitimate consensus, solely for commercial self interest. One hoped for result of this will be either a radical restructing of the UN, or its dissolution.  The UN Security Council, as currently embodied, is worse than worthless. And it should be noted that no-one went to war with Hitler because of his internal politics, it was his clear and present threat to Europe that was the issue. It was Hussein’s clear and present threat to the stability of the Middle East, and his larger clear and present threat to world peace through his manufacture and use of WMD, that motivated our dislodging of his regime. Funny; we didn’t complain about his use of WMD when he was our ally.

Actually, we did.  What we didn’t complain about was his invasion of Iran.  TRY to get some facts straight at least on occasion, will you? What was the *real* reason for the invasion? The point is – argument by historical comparison is always misleading and used for rhetorical purposes. Mostly by the lying loony left. I think Danny’s claim stands without reference to the political leanings of whoever is offering the historical comparison.

I think you’re wrong.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles. It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization. Ad what about the constant conflation of Saddam and Hitler, spouted by the pro-war camp along with words like ‘appeasement’? Is that an acceptable comparison to you? Yes.  It is a perfectly apt comparison.  The only thing that differentiates the two of them is the scale of their crimes against humanity.  In kind, they are identical. Well, there you go. You think that one’s an apt comparison, and I think the Bush-Hitler comparison is also apt, for different reasons to do with empire-building, diplomacy and pre-emptive attack rather than crimes against humanity.

You are morally confused, and you deliberately mislabel things.  Your comparison STILL is inapt, as well as inept.  There is no "empire building" by the U.S.  We have not seized land we intend to rule indefinitely; the Nazis did.  We engaged in diplomacy to try to get Hussein out of power, and, failing that, to get a UN consensus to drive him from power; Hitler did nothing comparable, simply marching into places he intended to incorporate into the Reich. Saddam, like Hitler, is/was a mass-murdering bastard who committed crimes against his own people. But apart from his invasion of Kuwait 12 years ago, he has not overtly attacked any other nation (or covertly, for that matter, as far as we know).

You stupid, ignorant fat fuck:  what do you call his invasion of Iraq in 1980?  What do you call his launching of Scud missiles against Israel in 1991?  Ah, there’s nothing like the willful dishonesty of the loony left. And it should be noted that no-one went to war with Hitler because of his internal politics, it was his clear and present threat to Europe that was the issue.

It was Hussein’s clear and present threat to the stability of the Middle East, and his larger clear and present threat to world peace through his manufacture and use of WMD, that motivated our dislodging of his regime. The point is – argument by historical comparison is always misleading and used for rhetorical purposes.

Mostly by the lying loony left. It rarely adds anything to the argument and can always be turned both ways. That’s why we have the Usenet rule where the first person to compare someone to Hitler in an argument is deemed to have lost.

That’s not what Godwin’s Law says, stupid fuckwit. Look it up. Anyway, Godwin’s Law is offered tongue-in-cheek; sometimes, references to Hitler are germane to the discussion.  They are particularly germane if the discussion concerns Saddam Hussein, but various other heroes of the loony left – Castro, Mugabe, Pol Pot – also qualify.

Response:

Saddam, like Hitler, is/was a mass-murdering bastard who committed crimes against his own people. But apart from his invasion of Kuwait 12 years ago, he has not overtly attacked any other nation (or covertly, for that matter, as far as we know). Didn’t he also unilaterally start the war with Iran?

True – I guess I should have said ’since his invasion of Kuwait’ rather than ‘apart from’! The point I was making was – he *was* attacking other nations, we stopped him. And the more important point was: comparing anyone with anyone else doesn’t really answer anything. Danny

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles.  It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization. Ad what about the constant conflation of Saddam and Hitler, spouted by the pro-war camp along with words like ‘appeasement’? Is that an acceptable comparison to you? Yes.  It is a perfectly apt comparison.  The only thing that differentiates the two of them is the scale of their crimes against humanity.  In kind, they are identical. Well, there you go. You think that one’s an apt comparison, and I think the Bush-Hitler comparison is also apt, for different reasons to do with empire-building, diplomacy and pre-emptive attack rather than crimes against humanity. Saddam, like Hitler, is/was a mass-murdering bastard who committed crimes against his own people. But apart from his invasion of Kuwait 12 years ago, he has not overtly attacked any other nation (or covertly, for that matter, as far as we know).

Didn’t he also unilaterally start the war with Iran? But still, the "appeasement" analogy doesn’t work at all, and is just more of the dishonest (or at best misguided) rhetoric that has been paraded out as faux justification for the current war.  Appeasement would have been an apt analogy if we had let him keep Kuwait on the promise of good behavior thereafter.  Clearly that’s not what happened. And it should be noted that no-one went to war with Hitler because of his internal politics, it was his clear and present threat to Europe that was the issue. The point is – argument by historical comparison is always misleading and used for rhetorical purposes. It rarely adds anything to the argument and can always be turned both ways.

Glad to see such a rational post on Usenet. That’s why we have the Usenet rule where the first person to compare someone to Hitler in an argument is deemed to have lost.

But comparing someone to the Iraqi Minister of Information is still considered good clean fun. — Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles.  It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization. Ad what about the constant conflation of Saddam and Hitler, spouted by the pro-war camp along with words like ‘appeasement’? Is that an acceptable comparison to you? Yes.  It is a perfectly apt comparison.  The only thing that differentiates the two of them is the scale of their crimes against humanity.  In kind, they are identical.

Well, there you go. You think that one’s an apt comparison, and I think the Bush-Hitler comparison is also apt, for different reasons to do with empire-building, diplomacy and pre-emptive attack rather than crimes against humanity. Saddam, like Hitler, is/was a mass-murdering bastard who committed crimes against his own people. But apart from his invasion of Kuwait 12 years ago, he has not overtly attacked any other nation (or covertly, for that matter, as far as we know). And it should be noted that no-one went to war with Hitler because of his internal politics, it was his clear and present threat to Europe that was the issue. The point is – argument by historical comparison is always misleading and used for rhetorical purposes. It rarely adds anything to the argument and can always be turned both ways. That’s why we have the Usenet rule where the first person to compare someone to Hitler in an argument is deemed to have lost. Danny

Response:

It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles.   It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization.

Ad what about the constant conflation of Saddam and Hitler, spouted by the pro-war camp along with words like ‘appeasement’? Is that an acceptable comparison to you? Danny

Response:

It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles.  It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization. Ad what about the constant conflation of Saddam and Hitler, spouted by the pro-war camp along with words like ‘appeasement’? Is that an acceptable comparison to you?

Yes.  It is a perfectly apt comparison.  The only thing that differentiates the two of them is the scale of their crimes against humanity.  In kind, they are identical.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – April 8, 2003 The Relativist Left and the War By Elizabeth Nickson National Post "Join the other superpower," said the bumper sticker on the back of the clapped out Chevy van on the ferry, "world opinion." How I wish I could. Just walk right into that ocean of warmly felt righteousness until the waves were over my head, then breathe. But that would mean I had an IQ of twelve. That would mean I conflated Bush and Saddam. [snip the remainder of a very good opinion piece] It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles.  It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization. It is almost incredible that these loudmouthed anti-war "activists" don’t see that publicly expressing opinions like that are a sure-fire guarantee of NOT being taken seriously.  If I didn’t know better, I would be receptive to the idea that the Nicholas de Genova types are _agents provocateurs_ infiltrated by the pro-war side into the anti-war movement. An excellent point, Mr. Ball.  But sadly, the truth is stranger than fiction.  Nicholas de Genova hates the United States.

Oh, I know it.  They all do.  But that’s what’s so beautiful about it.  They can’t contain their hatred. They didn’t really want the U.S. not to wage the war; they very much wanted the U.S. to wage war on Iraq, so they could justify their hatred. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -However, I’ve spoken with idiots who sincerely and unalterably believe the kind of claptrap that de Genova and others spout. Keep it up, fellas!  Heh heh heh… There are certainly alot of them on Usenet.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – April 8, 2003 The Relativist Left and the War By Elizabeth Nickson National Post "Join the other superpower," said the bumper sticker on the back of the clapped out Chevy van on the ferry, "world opinion." How I wish I could. Just walk right into that ocean of warmly felt righteousness until the waves were over my head, then breathe. But that would mean I had an IQ of twelve. That would mean I conflated Bush and Saddam.

[snip the remainder of a very good opinion piece] It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles.   It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization. It is almost incredible that these loudmouthed anti-war "activists" don’t see that publicly expressing opinions like that are a sure-fire guarantee of NOT being taken seriously.  If I didn’t know better, I would be receptive to the idea that the Nicholas de Genova types are _agents provocateurs_ infiltrated by the pro-war side into the anti-war movement.  However, I’ve spoken with idiots who sincerely and unalterably believe the kind of claptrap that de Genova and others spout. Keep it up, fellas!  Heh heh heh…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – April 8, 2003 The Relativist Left and the War By Elizabeth Nickson National Post "Join the other superpower," said the bumper sticker on the back of the clapped out Chevy van on the ferry, "world opinion." How I wish I could. Just walk right into that ocean of warmly felt righteousness until the waves were over my head, then breathe. But that would mean I had an IQ of twelve. That would mean I conflated Bush and Saddam. [snip the remainder of a very good opinion piece] It took a while for it to sink in, but I’ve come to see these conflations of Bush and Saddam, or Bush and Hitler, or Bush and Stalin, as a very good thing.  They effectively cut the loony left off right at the ankles.   It comes back to what I’ve written earlier about "veganism":  it’s a supreme act of self marginalization. It is almost incredible that these loudmouthed anti-war "activists" don’t see that publicly expressing opinions like that are a sure-fire guarantee of NOT being taken seriously.  If I didn’t know better, I would be receptive to the idea that the Nicholas de Genova types are _agents provocateurs_ infiltrated by the pro-war side into the anti-war movement.

An excellent point, Mr. Ball.  But sadly, the truth is stranger than fiction.  Nicholas de Genova hates the United States. However, I’ve spoken with idiots who sincerely and unalterably believe the kind of claptrap that de Genova and others spout. Keep it up, fellas!  Heh heh heh…

There are certainly alot of them on Usenet.

Response:

April 8, 2003 The Relativist Left and the War By Elizabeth Nickson National Post "Join the other superpower," said the bumper sticker on the back of the clapped out Chevy van on the ferry, "world opinion." How I wish I could. Just walk right into that ocean of warmly felt righteousness until the waves were over my head, then breathe. But that would mean I had an IQ of twelve. That would mean I conflated Bush and Saddam. That I was somehow convinced that Saddam, causing the death of an estimated 300,000 children, not to mention the brutal torture or murder of unnumbered Iraqi adults over the past 10 years, is somehow equal to this transparent, painstaking invasion that counts and publishes every wound and loss on both sides. And that the hatred and ill will towards the West in the Middle East propagated by their intelligentsia, religious figures, media and leadership is less depraved than, say, the corporate malfeasance that has been so thoroughly investigated, criticized and punished for the past 10 months in the West. That this viciously expensive war has been undertaken by the Americans and British so that Dick Cheney and Haliburton can rebuild the Iraqi oil fields and profit. And that a Jewish cabal in New York is pulling Bush’s strings. We are finally reaping the rewards of postmodernism. Thirty years of radical relativism propagated by my addled and destructive generation in the universities, seemingly unchallenged by parents or university regents adds up to this: People believe that there is no objective truth. Truth has become something to be invented, rather than pursued. Reasoned argument is a tool of white males and thus has no value. If you feel it, only then can it be true. War feels bad, therefore in every case is bad, and any argument against it will do. Make it up. Exaggerate. Blow conspiracy theories hard. It doesn’t matter. People unashamedly complain in the same breath about the Americans not invading Iraq in 1991 to rescue the Kurds, and invading Iraq today. They complain about the Americans not insisting that Kuwaiti women receive the vote after the first Gulf War and that Americans are now planning to seed the principles of democracy in Iraq. If one points out that since 1979, Iraqi median annual income has dropped from a respectable $12,000 a year to less than $3,000, that when Saddam took Iraq in 1979, it had a surplus of $50-billion, and now has a debt of $100-billion solely based on his arms build-up, they waffle and fade, still convinced they are right. This tyrant is on the side of right, the Bush team always wrong. Why? Don’t know. Just feel it. We are living within Vaclav Havel’s lie. All the things that we think are true, say the people we pay to teach our treasured youth, are merely the constructs of dominant groups, the creations of the powerful. Last weekend, at an anti-war teach-in, Columbia anthropology professor Nicholas De Genova told 3,000 students and faculty, "Peace is subversive, because peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live — a world where the U.S. would have no place." De Genova continued: "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S.military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus. If we really [believe] that this war is criminal … then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine." Was De Genova reprimanded? Guess. What would have happened to him had he said the same thing that same weekend in Baghdad? He would have been skinned, dropped in boiling oil, fed through a meat grinder, then plopped down on his family’s front lawn with a bill for the grinding attached to the twist tie on the garbage bag. So what is the difference between Nicholas De Genova, or say, Michael Moore or Martin Sheen’s hate-filled, militant, purpose-filled, bourgeois-baiting language and that of Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? It’s merely a matter of degree, since its purpose is fundamentally undemocratic. Martin Sheen has been arrested 70 times for protesting various things. One might well ask about his associations. Until now, the largest organization behind the "peace" movement has been International ANSWER, which has been revealed as front for a Marxist-Leninist party with ties to the Communist regime in North Korea. According to a comprehensive, sympathetic report in The New York Times, factions on the Left became disturbed that the overtly radical slogans of the International ANSWER protests were "counter-productive." Last fall, they met in the offices of People For The American Way to create a new umbrella organization called United for Peace and Justice that would present a more palatable face to the American public. The associated Not in Our Name campaign onto which actors and writers piled in huge numbers last month, pays for, almost exclusively the appeals of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and is organized by a member of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. This outfit is closely associated with another which supports the brutal confiscatory dictatorship that is Fidel Castro’s. I followed that Chevy van onto the Vancouver ferry to listen to Mike Harris articulate a new common-sense foreign policy for Canada. It was like having oil poured on an over-heated forehead. Harris described a simple, clear, humane, based-in-history set of ideas that would point us towards a better, saner world. Don’t get too excited. Adopting it would mean we still knew how to think.

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply