Last time I checked “humanitarian” wasn’t a dirty word,
**************************************************
It's not a dirty word, but some people have almost made it seem like one.

Not the ones who are genuinely concerned with humanitarian efforts. but the ones who do not really care about that, just delight in amything that damages America.

You know them. The "Iraq was better off under Saddam" cadre.

I find the outrage of those who cut off a man's head while he is still alive a little unconvincing.

I find the outrage of their allies less convincing.

Michael you have made it clear that you do not think comparing the recent torture with Saddam is a valid defence.

But I DO think that the views of some Iraqis are valid. They have a right to a say?

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_healingiraq_archive.html#108419872368065802

Iraqi doctors ask: "What about us?"
A number of renown Iraqi specialist doctors have expressed their outrage over the Iraqi, Arab, and international public reaction to the images of abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib. This following an alarming increase in the number of assassinations and abductions of Iraqi intellectuals and top medical professionals recently in Baghdad.

"They scream and whine about abuse of prisoners, most of who are criminals, but I don't recall anyone mentioning what we have gone through let alone condemning it, which was much worse. Now they are openly calling the Americans to release thousands of those criminals from Abu Ghraib.", a relative of ours told us a couple of days ago. He was kidnapped months ago and held for 2 weeks, after which his family paid a large ransom. Now he is considering leaving Iraq after he had recieved threats. He has already been offered a job as a professor in a Medical college in Europe.
**************************************************
The rest is worth reading.

This humanitarian do-gooder thanks you, Michael. :)

Whoh...Rummy's in Baghdad!!!

Grant,

Welcome back! I hope things are working out.

MJT,

Inhofe is right to be outraged at the outrage. The orgy of self-flagellation over Abu Ghraib is obscene. What happened there is disgraceful, but we need to keep it in the right perspective. I'm still trying to figure out what the right perspective is, but the beheading of Nick Berg sheds some light.

Ultimately, the decision to go to war is the decision to support evil. In this war we are in, the good side (that's us for those who are uncertain) is choosing to temporarily commit evil in order to defeat the bad side (that's them for those who are uncertain) and prevent a greater, permanent evil. Is what happened at Abu Ghraib a greater or lesser evil than the collatoral damage that we accept as a part of war? I really don't know with certainty.

But make no mistake, when people like you and I decided to support this war, we were accepting the fact that our side would commit acts that are evil in order to avert a greater evil. The challenge our side faces is to insure that we don't become what we are fighting against,so that when the conflcit is over we can reclaim what we once were.

In the final analysis for me, the events at Abu Ghraib must be judged by whether or not on balance they helped or harmed the war effort. If they helped the war effort, then they are acts of evil that diminished a greater evil. If they harmed the war effort, then they served a greater evil.

I believe that what happened at Abu Ghraib harmed the war effort. For that reason, and that reason alone, I believe that those who perpetrated the events at Abu Ghraib must be punished.

Since 'human rights violations' are anti-American why do we continue to support those very organizations which perpetuate anti-humanitarian platforms such as the United Nations, UNICEF, International Red Cross, and the multitude 'Green' groups waging world-wide eco-imperialism.

"I believe that what happened at Abu Ghraib harmed the war effort. For that reason, and that reason alone, I believe that those who perpetrated the events at Abu Ghraib must be punished"...

HA, I can't believe you actually said that. Maybe you're just really pissed off about Berg and aren't thinking rationally. I was really pissed off for a while as well, and probably would have said some pretty dumb stuff in those moments too. I hope to God you didn't actually mean it. Those who perpetrated the events at Abu Ghraib ought to be punished for their crimes against humanity, for their crimes against fellow human beings. PERIOD.

As for the rest of your argument, I'm thinking you are probably just really upset because it's far weaker than what I've come to expect of you. There's the fact that war is evil and then there's the fact that senseless physical humiliation and sexual abuse are less than human. The two have got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER.

Furthermore, your strict utilitarian system of "greater" and "lesser" evils begins with the premise that we ought to be morally comparing Saddam Hussein and the United States. I accept no such premise and find the notion rather repulsive. Saddam's regime was damn near pure evil. To say that it's okay for us to be half as bad as him because we're not as bad as him is an insult to the greatness of everything this country was founded upon. There's a reason everyone is calling it "un-American", what they did.

War is always evil and sadistic torture is always evil, but the two are hardly the same. Apply the utilitarian standard of "greater than" and "lesser than" to War all you want because there is such a thing as a Just War. That's all fine and well. But don't apply it to sadistic torture for the sake of sadistic torture and then say it's no big deal because Saddam was way more sadistic than we've ever been.

That kind of thinking is truly un-American and makes us a lesser Saddam. Saddam's brutality and American liberal democracy ought to be like oil and water. The moral relativism of your argument turns my stomach.

And I never decided to support this War on the assumption that we'd EVER be doing things like the things we did at Abu Ghraib.

I accepted this War on the assumption that hundreds or even thousands of innocent civilian lives would be lost. I also accepted this War on the assumption that hundreds or even thousands of American troops would die for the cause.

There is no justifiable cause to make right what happened at Abu Ghraib, however. Not now. Not ever. If my outrage upsets you, well then I'm sorry. I'm only outraged because I know my country is better than this.

My feeling is that the outrage is being used in a politically destructive manner. And the most dangerous part is that they do have a point. The abuses are totally unacceptable, and indicative of a systemic problem in Iraq (especially if other prisons are involved). The abuses are of such a nature that they deeply undermine our mission, our national honor, and our morality.

OK, so where do we go from here? The problem is that while their critique is correct, their response to the problem of terrorism and instability in the middle east is still non-existent (or, in some cases, it's just completely inadequate).

This is much like the Cold War all over again. There, the Left excoriated the Right for allying with the Contras in south america, with the Phillipines under Marcos, with China over their human rights record, etc. They criticized the Right during detente because the USSR had an awful human rights record. But when the US confronted the Soviets, 99 Luftballoons was the answer: peace at any price.

The problem is that ANY policy can be criticized. And even honest pursuit of the right strategy produces unpleasant consequences, forseen and unforseen. No amount of "nuance" can navigate those waters unscathed.

The Left's foreign policy strategy since Vietnam has been to be the opposition party whenever big decisions are being made. Reading Kerry's plan, I see nothing new except "I'll bring in the UN to run this" and "I'll do the same thing, only better because I'm smarter". Absent a policy to criticize, you get a policy by momentum-- and to be honest, we saw that very thing from Carter and Clinton. In this time of intense conflict, the results would look more like those under the former than the latter.

Even as we're outraged by what's happening, we have to remember that this was our best option: the problems would be different-- but worse-- if we were still sitting in Saudi Arabia trying to contain Iraq. Can we do better? Sure, we need to. We need to crack down on the war criminals.

We also need to continue to take the war against islamofascism seriously. Scoring political own-goals just to engineer an election-winning foreign policy disaster is wrong-- and sadly, some people are straying dangerously close to doing just that. As demoralizing as those pictures are, we're still on the right track overall and can't let the Ralls's and Kos's of the world keep us from seeing that.

whew... that was longer than I expected...

Uuuuuugh...I'm still reeling over what you said.

How in the hell can you suggest that what happened at Abu Ghraib could of possibly served a greater good, or, excuse me, "diminished a greater evil": Sodomizing and raping and shocking inmates just for fun.

I'm tempted to ask for an apology, here. I'm that upset. Not that you really owe it to ME as much as I think you owe it to humanity in general for what you said. And as much as I think you owe it to your country, perhaps, your country who ought never be associated with the likes of Saddam Hussein (even if only in a fraction of the way).

Sorry that I'm totally crapping on your warm greetings in saying all this, but you deserve it. I'm not really back, by the way. I just can't sleep right now. I'll still be gone for quite some time after today. Hopefully when I return for real you won't give me such ample reason for ripping into you.

Your anger is TOTALLY mis-directed.The comment by Sen Inhofe is perfectly reasonable.
I have made this point previously and I am about to make it again.
WE ARE AT WAR WITH SCUM!!!
One reason why the abuse in Iraq was so objectionable is that it was so clearly DENSE and destructive to our goals and image.
HOWEVER,theoretically speaking,should an Al-Queda operative be captured in NYC and should that operative know where a nuclear device was planted,I DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST PROBLEM IN TRYING TO GET THAT INFORMATION BY WHATEVER MEANS REQUIRED.That is NOT what was done in Iraq.
This may be a monstrous viewpoint,but I don't believe that it is, by definition un-defendable.
As to the comments by the Senator,I am firmly convinced that SOME of the LLL comments,including those by Ted Kennedy,are nearly as revolting as the original crime (considering the context of our times).Some of your old colleagues on the liberal-left are contemptable people (if you believe that we are legitimately at war).If you don't believe that we are legitimately at war,then the current administration is basically CRIMINAL.
There is no room in the middle on these fundamental issues----NO ROOM AT ALL.
If you want to argue that this is not a critical conflict and therefore we must err on the side of RIGHT,fine---- but if you want to argue that we must fight against the barbarians with a copy of Emily Post in one hand while they gleefully saw off assorted heads,you will have a hard time convincing me.
VICTORY IS EVERYTHING whether we want to admit it or not,and I am perfectly certain that WW2 was NOT won by good thoughts and pleasant actions.

Yeah, I kinda have to agree with you Rob. There are those who are strongly criticizing what happened because it deserves criticism and then there are those who are criticizing what happened as a criticism of the War in general.

I'm just as upset as anybody about all of this, as you can probably already tell. I do, however, think that it's got nothing to do with whether or not the War was a good idea. I've supported the War from day one and I still support it today. How some people could possibly think this makes the decision to go to War any less just is beyond me. The Left is in a pretty sad state, indeed.

In a post that veers perilously close to a kind of sanity (after all, reasoning from false premises is at least a form of reasoning, an improvement), HA writes:

"Inhofe is right to be outraged at the outrage. The orgy of self-flagellation over Abu Ghraib is obscene. What happened there is disgraceful, but we need to keep it in the right perspective. I'm still trying to figure out what the right perspective is, but the beheading of Nick Berg sheds some light."

Lest the debate descend into some infinite regress, into a debate about outrage over outrage over outrage over outrage over Abu Ghraib ....

Let's change the subject. Yes, let's. Let's talk about what Nick Berg's death might mean in global terms.

I think the video of Nick Berg's decapitation is a great subject, if you really want to talk about where things go from here.

Granted, it's not a comfortable subject. I've looked at some stills, but I can't quite bring myself to watch the actual snuff film. I don't think this is what Boingboing meant when he said that digital photography and the Web are the biggest thing since Gutenberg. Clearly, this technology cuts both ways. Words are not images. Reading is thinking. Having thought, one can rethink - or forget. But seeing is believing. And some images are unforgettable.

All disgust and outrage aside, let's agree on something: this was great theater. Great art in the sense that the composer Stockhausen meant, when he said (mind you, in a context in which he was utterly deploring the attacks themselves) that 9/11 was a kind of work of art. Picture the plane slicing like a knife through hot butter into one of the towers of the WTC. We've all seen that. Many times. Worthy of Salvador Dali, don't you think?

With this video, as with 9/11, you have to admire the timing. The world was erupting into outrage and controversy over the Abu Ghraib images. Mere words could never have done this. Now the world is shocked into stillness, then provoked toward another debate, by the video of Berg's slaughter.

And consider the (claimed) source: a group within Iraq that was the one very tenuous link between al Qaeda and Saddam - and that, only by some weird enemy-of-enemy=friend logic that nobody in the Arab world would buy for a second. Surely, this purported link will be seized upon for I-told-you-sos.

But let's not forget for a minute what's really going on here. What does al Qaeda want? They want Saudi Arabia - 30% of the world's proven reserves, and the top two holiest cities in Islam.

One way for al Qaed to get Saudi Arabia is to make Saudi Arabia too hot to handle, ASAP. They are certainly whittling away at that. You can count on it.

The other, however, is to loosen America's hold on Saudi Arabia. In that, they've been pretty successful in direct results: the U.S. bases from which the Iraq war was directed have been decommissioned, diplomatic staff are largely gone, and now companies are pulling their employees out. The stick part of their strategy is slowly working.

But there's the carrot, too: the world's second largest oil reserves. Those are in Iraq. Any major media event that might cause Americans to get cold feet about staying in Iraq actually endangers al Qaeda's agenda - it might prompt the U.S. to start investing more heavily in stabilizing Saudi Arabia. Abu Ghraib bids fair to be just such an event. Support for the war has finally fallen to below a majority in the U.S., and that was right after the Taguba report surfaced and the images got out. Something had to be done, and quickly.

It's one thing to be staging small-scale terror attacks in Iraq that mostly just kill Iraqis. Those actually work for al Qaeda. They don't contribute much to the U.S. casualty count, and the Bush administration can say, "See? Being in Iraq really is part of the War on Terror." (Even as it avoids counting those attacks in the annual Global Patterns of Terrorism report, so that it can claim on the basis of cooked statistics that we're "winning".)

But what about an event that gives the majority of Americans a sick feeling in the pits of their stomachs about being in Iraq at all? Like Abu Ghraib's torture chambers? Very bad. Al Qaeda needs to make sure that America gets Iraq oil access in the end - it's part of loosening America's hold on Saudia Arabia, reducing America's commitment to stability in Saudi Arabia (a stability that is inexorably slipping away in any case, a slippage that can only be slowed, not halted.)

What better time to put out a video of a totally outrageous, cold-blooded, viscerally wrenching, mind-bending video from a purported al Qaeda insurgent group that once made an alliance of convenience with Saddam? It's perfect. Look at how this works.

(1) It bids fair to make Iraq all about the War on Terror again, always a pretty dubious proposition on the face of it.

(2) It breathes new life into the supposed Saddam-al Qaeda association. Most Americans fell for that anyway, but Abu Ghraib was too big of a distraction from that. Well, this new video sure puts the focus back where both al Qaeda and Bush would like it to be.

And so it fights fire with fire - outrage with even greater outrage. After all, even the innocent Iraqis in American torture chambers were still just Iraqis. This is a dead American.

Now, I've phrased much of the above as if I considered my theory a certainty. I don't. I'm just trying to fit my imperfect knowledge to what seems like time-tested human motivations. I could be wrong in my theory, and even if I'm right, this Nick Berg decapitation video could be just a blip. Somehow, I don't think so.

Terror isn't just asymmetric warfare - it's asymmetric information warfare. I doubt any terror grouping in the world understands this fact better than al Qaeda.

Hmmm...nothing from Michael about a man getting his head chopped off in cold blood.

But so much compassion for genocidal killers! Hell, these Iraqis didn't even have cable TV in their cells! Outrage! Shameful!

Doug, it's like you said, "that is NOT what was done in Iraq." You can at least try and defend torture as a means to an end, but there was no end in torturing the Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.

It was sadistic and senseless torture that occured for absolutely no reason. They weren't even trying to accomplish anything with what they did! They just did it for shits and giggles: Crimes Against Humanity.

James Inhofe is a fucking idiot, Doug. The guy gave a speech in front of Congress arguing that we ought to unconditionally support the Israelis in whatever they do "BECAUSE GOD SAID SO". He opened up his fucking Bible and starting reading a chapter out of Genesis, for Christ's sake!!!

You're defending a bonafide zionist who defends American sadism and who's outraged at those who would suggest otherwise. I just thought you might like to know.

And I'm more outraged at those who served at Abu Ghraib than I am those who criticize what happened there not because Saddam never tortured anybody, but because when it comes to this it doesn't matter to me how many people Saddam tortured. WE'RE NOT SADDAM!!!

Jesus H. Fucking Christ!!!

One on side of the debate we have this Turner fellow who describes what happened to Nick Berg as "great theater" and on the other we have EX mocking the compassion people have for Iraqis getting raped and beaten and shocked and tortured at the hands of Americans.

My Conclusion: Neither side takes the value of human life very seriously. One side views the cold-blooded murder of an innocent American as entertainment and the other views the sadistic and senseless torture of Iraqis as justifiable, implicitly.

Witness the wingnut mentality, ladies and gentlemen. Leftists always blame America and Rightists never do. Doesn't matter who's actually to blame, it's always America to some and never America to others.

No point in my being here any longer. Ideology dictates now. I'm out.

One last thing before I go, everybody please go back and read Michael's last paragraph there. You know, the one about it being possible to support our soldiers and humanitarian do-gooders at the same time. It'd do y'all alot of good.

Thanks for the preaching, Brother Grant. For the record I don't think most these genocidal animals qualify as human. If they caught the ANIMALS that beheaded Nick Berg, would you give a shit if they "tortured" them? Or if "torturing" them yielded information that would prevent future murders?

Well, maybe you would. Afterall, preservation of your self-annointed, good-vibrations, childish, mush-headed centrist ideology is the supreme value.

Oh, and one more "one last thing"...

Some of the soldiers in the pictures torturing the Iraqis are now saying they were merely ordered to do so. I just want to say that I for one don't give a shit. That old bull shit excuse didn't work at the Nuremberg Trials and it shouldn't now. If they were ordered to, all that changes is the number of people who need to go to jail for 20+ years along with them.

We have Godwin's Law violation #1. Which ex-hippie will bring up Vietnam?

Pat yourselves on the back, all of you. Your shame is testiment to your annointed nobility. Maybe it will replace a few adiministrative positions in the government too! A new bureaucrat, wouldn't that change the world!

Meanwhile the military already solved the problem. Meanwhile a man had his head cut off. But don't watch that. Don't think about the implications. Just be a good little boy or girl and pat yourself on the back.

Grant McEntire writes: "James Inhofe is a fucking idiot, Doug. The guy gave a speech in front of Congress arguing that we ought to unconditionally support the Israelis in whatever they do "BECAUSE GOD SAID SO". He opened up his fucking Bible and starting reading a chapter out of Genesis, for Christ's sake!!!"

I wouldn't say that makes him an idiot, per se. It may mean only that he represents Oklahama better than anyone else could.

He's certainly no beast. Read his tribute to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with whom he shared vanishingly political ground. He says the only liberal whom he felt had similar courage and integrity was Paul Wellstone. Tilt.

Many of his opinions may be moronic, but hey, he's a politician in a democracy. That bible-thumping schtick works well, where he comes from. On one level, he may well know that the Middle East can't be reduced to simplistic theocratic terms. On another level, ... well, he's gotta get reelected or he can't work his other agendas for his constituency. This is what democracies make politicians do. Democracy is, as Churchill said, the worst system except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. Inhofe is just a product of that system.

You're un-American, EX, justifying torture for no real reason or purpose other than to inflict pain and suffering. The Founding Fathers would bitch slap you something terrible were they still alive. You know that right?

The bastards that killed Nick Berg are animals. So are the troops who committed the sadism at Abu Ghraib. In not fully calling them both out, you join their ranks.

I justify nothing. The soliders who did it should and will be punished. Probably worse than those who behead the innocent. The fact you put both sets on the same moral plane is vile, disgusting and irrational.

The only thing I am guilty of Grant is actually thinking instead of politicking.

And as for the Berg question, EX...

If they caught the bastards and proceeded to torture them for no reason whatsoever, yes, I would most definitely oppose that. Not because they don't deserve it, but because America is better than that. We're not the animals and we shouldn't be acting like it.

As for torturing them with the intent of preventing future murders, I would say it's probably justified though wholly unneccesary. Hard torture as a form of interogation has proven to be no more successful than other methods in getting prisoners to talk. This fact has been widely established. Torture also has the downside in that they're more liable to lie in the heat of the moment if they think the lie will prevent future torture better than the truth.

This "childish", "mushy-headed" stuff to which you were refering is called logic. And in the case of torturing them for no reason: Standing behind the principles upon which this country was founded...in other words, patriotism.

Grant McEntire writes: "... we have this Turner fellow who describes what happened to Nick Berg as "great theater" ..."

Try taking my remarks in context. (That context notably included my inability to look at the video, even now.)

It was a theatrical production. It was intended to have a dramatic impact. It was scripted, choreographed. It was also a cold-blooded murder, a heinous crime. I can't help but be disgusted, horrified, appalled. However, I also refuse to be manipulated in the way that they want, if I can possibly help it.

"My Conclusion: Neither side takes the value of human life very seriously. One side views the cold-blooded murder of an innocent American as entertainment ...."

I never said it was entertainment. I did say it was great theater, and I didn't mean it was great theater and therefore not a horrific crime. It derives much of its power precisely from being a horrific crime.

Be appalled. But don't be manipulated. Think about what they want you to think, then think independently about whether the course of action they hope to set you upon actually makes sense.

If you want to fight the War on Terror in some way that you think is right (obviously, Michael Totten and I differ on that, and even on definitions of the enemy), who would you rather fight beside: someone who sink to their knees intellectually, in horror at every atrocity committed by the enemy? Or someone who notes the angle of fire, the damage done, and says, "Jesus H. Christ! That was a good shot. These guys may be ruthless, but they aren't idiots."

The terrorists aren't beasts. They are men with brains who know that acting like beasts will make most of us underestimate them in ways that are useful to them, and also make us overestimate them in ways that are useful to them. Acts calculated to shock put them at a psychological advantage over those taken by surprise. Don't let them hold that advantage over you for longer than it takes you to get a few deep breaths. Start thinking again as soon as possible.

The terrorists aren't beasts. They are a much more dangerous kind of animal: they are human beings. True victory over them will depend on keeping that fact in mind.

And I'm not putting the two acts on the same moral plane. The killing of Nick Berg is the far worse crime.

I'm only as upset about what we did as I am because I would expect more out of the United States.

The terrorists who killed Nick Berg are animals and so I almost expect them to act like it. Our men and women in uniform are not animals, however, and so it greatly upsets me that a few of them are acting more like the terrorist-animals than upholding everything the uniform stands for.

If it seems I'm more upset about Abu Ghraib than I am Nick Berg, it's only because I know America to be better than what we did. My anger is coming from a sense of patriotism in that I'm very upset with those tarnishing my country.

Michael Turner: Great points. As clarrification, my definition of these creatures as "animals" is strictly on a moral plane. I agree we cannot ignore that the video was a weapon like any other, wielded with tactical and strategic purpose. But it was also a peek at their hand, a view of how little they hold individual human dignity in esteem. They are fully capable of nuking a city (if they had the means).

Can someone explain to me where in this quote that Sen. Inhofe said the abuse at Abu Ghraib was okay:

"I hasten to say yeah, there are seven bad guys and gals that didn't do what they should have done. They were misguided, I think maybe even perverted, and the things that they did have to be punished. And they're being punished. They're being tried right now, and that's all taking place. But I'm also outraged by the press and the politicians and the political agendas that are being served by this, and I say political agendas because that's actually what is happening."

"I also am -- and have to say, when we talk about the treatment of these prisoners, that I would guess that these prisoners wake up every morning thanking Allah that Saddam Hussein is not in charge of these prisoners. When he was in charge they would take electric drills and drill holes through hands, they would cut their tongues out, they would cut their ears off. We've seen accounts of lowering their bodies into vats of acid. All these things were taking place. This was the type of treatment that they had."

"And I would want everyone to get this and read it. This is a documentary of the Iraq special report. It talks about the unspeakable acts of mass murder, unspeakable acts of torture, unspeakable acts of mutilation, the murdering of kids -- lining up 312 little kids under 12 years old and executing them, and then of course what they do to Americans, too.

"There's one story in here that was in the I think it was The New York Times, yes, on June 2nd. I suggest everyone take that -- get that and read it. It's about one of the prisoners who did escape as they were marched out there, blindfolded and put before mass graves, and they mowed them down and they buried them. This man was buried alive and he clawed his way out and was able to tell his story. And I ask, Mr. Chairman, at this point in the record that this account of the brutality of Saddam Hussein be entered into the record, made a part of the record."

He is explicitly outraged by the outrage - some would say lack of perspective - he is not defending or arguing in favor of the military's behavior at Abu Ghraib.

First of all Grant, it wasn't the "United States." It was a handful of individuals. Secondly, how dare you judge them? I agree that it isn't justified. But it is UNDERSTANDABLE. Which is why there are systems in place to react and fix the problem (and those systems are not the defeatists on the left!). Third, the abuse scandel is a tempest in a teapot, a manufactured scandel to undermine the war. Finally, you are a mush-head. You are attempting to shame me into submitting to your view (as mush-heads do) instead of thinking. Luckily you can still plug in your brain and remove your mush-head status.

Hey Grant, you are probably out by now, and on your "away." Good luck. Hopes and good wishes. One day at a time.

You fought a hell of a battle aginst Inhofe's apologists here. I agree 100%. But then I'm one of those mush-headed centrists who is willing to put sticking a cattle prod up someone's @ss in the "always wrong" category.

"I believe that what happened at Abu Ghraib harmed the war effort. For that reason, and that reason alone, I believe that those who perpetrated the events at Abu Ghraib must be punished"...

HA -- Glad to see you admit at least the possibility that "we [could] become that which we are fighting." What are you doing to guard against that risk?

The ONLY reason the actions harmed the war effort is because they were broadcast to the world. If they hadn't gotten out, they wouldn't have harmed the war effort. Would it not be more accurate to say then that you are opposed to the fact that they were publicized?

HA, I hearby pronounce thee "Machiavellian moral relativist."

I read somewhere once an explanation of the differing ideas of patriotism in this country...

Conservatives, the man said, love their country the way a child loves his mother. They love her unconditionally, but tend to think their country (like a child to his mother) can do no wrong. Their patriotism is more like nationalism than anything. Didn't they used to have old bumper stickers that said "My Country: Right or Wrong"? It's kind of like that.

But liberals (not leftists, mind you, who are not patriotic in any sense of the word) love their country, the man said, more like a husband loves his wife. It's more mature and grown-up. The liberal patriot loves his country unconditionally as well, but loves her for the principles upon which she was founded. That means, in other words, that according to the theory the liberal patriot can question and even denounce the actions of his country if he feels she has lost her way. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism". It's kind of like that.

Just thought I'd throw this out there. I more or less agree with this, other than to make a stronger point than the author did in saying that there's a hell of a difference between a liberal and leftist.

Grant: Thanks for the lesson. So conservatvives are just blind idiots? You forgot to add they are greedy and fascist. Not a very original contribution.

PS: Repeating a Party Line is not dissent.

You silly people,

Let's see:

1. American Soliders torture prisoners of war, now we find its possibly under orders.

2. Terrorists commit an act of terror.

Let's see if the Bushites can play the old Sesame St game "One of these things does not belong"!

Well, Terrorists are bad people who do bad things. I kinda remember something about planes and buildings a couple years back, which makes a ritual beheading look like a small legume. Ergo, if someone said "Would you be surprised if extremist muslim terrorists chopped the head off of someone?" most Americans would say "No, I wouldn't be surprised."

Americans are supposed to be better. Thats why we supposedly went over there... well at least thats what we're told now... I was sure there were Weapons of Mass Distraction or something... but I digress.

Ask an American if they would be surprised to learn that American soliders may be torturing prisoners under orders, and your answer will probably be much more along the lines of "They would never do such a thing!"

Bringing up the beheading of Nick is nothing more than a desperate red herring tossed about hoping
to bury the black eye of Abu Ghraib.

But, feign indignation, shout and scream about the left wing media and the hippies. Do what makes you able to sleep at night.

The Law of Hell says that Hell is reserved for those that believe in it. The deepest pit of Hell is reserved for those that believe in it, only because they afraid of going there if they don't.

Say hi to Ol' Toby when you see him.

Tosk

Steve, quoting Inhofe's testimony at some length, asks: "Can someone explain to me where in this quote that Sen. Inhofe said the abuse at Abu Ghraib was okay?"

Steve, can you tell me where, in either Michael Totten's post or in any of the followups in the comment section, somebody accused Inhofe of condoning that abuse? I know I didn't, and I can't see where anyone else did.

What's the name of this particular 'debating tactic' again? I forget.

Michael Totten seems to be outraged that somebody says he's more outraged over the outrage over Abu Ghraib than he is over the actual abuses. Me, I just figured somebody was going to take this stance at some point - most likely a politician whose district contributed a disproportionate number of soldiers to the war. Inhofe may be politically calculating here, or he might simply be as emotional and sincere as John Kerry was in 1971 about Vietnam, while being similarly impolitic and inaccurate. Inhofe may actually think he's the conscience of America. Or he may think he's sounding like he thinks his constituency thinks the conscience of America should sound like. That's between him and his conscience.

Never forget that it's a politician talking whenever it's ... a politician talking.

Why are Americans supposed to be better? Are we saints and angels? Perhaps we are not all are as morally pure as the chosen annoited we are blessed with here. Hence we have systems in place in our military and other institutions which appear to have worked.

But that won't stop some self-hating Americans from using the issue as a political weapon.

Inhofe may actually think he's the conscience of America. Or he may think he's sounding like he thinks his constituency thinks the conscience of America should sound like. That's between him and his conscience.

Agreed. I don't know the motivation behind his remarks, and quite frankly I'm not sure that I really care. While I'm not "outraged over the outrage", I can see where someone can feel that way, especially when taking into account recent events.

With that said, the horrible death of Mr. Berg does not make the abuses null and void. Puts them in perspective, maybe, but even perhaps that is wrong.

Ex:

"Why are Americans supposed to be better?"

What an absolutely brainless comment. What the hell are we doing in Iraq if we aren't better?

Grasp at those straws, cause your falling off the roof pretty fast.

Tosk

Why are Americans supposed to be better? Are we saints and angels?

If you mean that in the context of this war, or in the sense that "to beat pure evil, you gotta be a little evil yourself", then that's worth debating. I don't think I agree with that, but I understand your point.

But I don't know if that's supposed to be taken in context, or a general statement. If it is a general statement, that's pretty morbid.

STEVE...

You said that he's explicitly outraged by the outrage. That, in and of itself, doesn't really bother me so much. What bothers me is that he said he's more outraged at the outrage than he is the treatment. That to me seems extremely un-American and in line with the false "conservative patriotism" I was talking about a minute ago.

He's more outraged that people are criticizing Americans than he is Americans not acting like Americans should. The way I see it, if he were to be more outraged at the treatment then he would be outraged on principle. But he's not. He's more outraged at the people being outraged on principle (and yes, yes, the ones manipulating it too but that's not the point).

I guess what I'm trying to say, I might as well just throw it out there, is that liberals love their country on principle and that conservatives love their country...well...just because America is always right. Inhofe is loving his country because his country is always right and at the same time bashing those who love their country on principle. Call me a damned arrogant liberal if you want, but that's what I think and that's why I'm so peeved at the guy for saying it.

John McCain was so upset by what he said that he had to leave the room, by the way, so it's not just liberals who love their country on principle. McCain understands why America doesn't and shouldn't torture its prisoners even when others are more than willing to torture us in return. AND HE WAS IN THE FRICKIN' HANOI HILTON FOR 4 YEARS!!! If anybody should be out for revenge or really not be giving a shit either way, it's him. But he gets it. We're better than that, on principle. It's what makes us great.

Tosk: We are in Iraq to kill those who are worse. That does not make us angels. But please don't question your premises! We wouldn't want to actually discuss anything here!

jrr: It is just the sad truth. There are bad people in the US military and always will be. War is hell.

That isn't news and is the reason for internal checks within the military. The checks worked. This so-called "outrage" is politicking. And disgusting now that we have once again seen the extent of the threat from our enemies.

Grant,

Well said!

I love the America that could be, a land where the federal government concerns itself with protecting the right to Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness, where the populace invokes its will at the local and state level for most issues, and where the words "All Men are Created Equal", are actually understood by most of the population, instead of mistranslated into "All Americans Are Created Equal".

But, it doesn't matter... the apologists here and on other blogs are unable to understand anything that doesn't make their position look like sitting at the right hand of God.

They live in a different reality I think, one where deluding oneself is akin to sucess and happiness. They are cabbages, fit for coleslaw, sourkraut and maybe a soup or stew. You can peel away their dogmas, their prejudices and their hate, but when you get to the center, you find, not a brain, but a bitter core.

Me, I'm eating more cole slaw. YUM!

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Maker of Right Wing ColeSlaw

"Have some with our Fried Compassionate Conservative Dinner."

Sorry to interrupt Grant's sanctimonious finger-wagging.

Anyway, the second statement about the "humanitarian do-gooders" is pretty silly. However, I completely agree with Inhofe's first statement and I'm glad that a politician had the guts to say it. (Insert standard disclaimer. What happened at Abu Ghraib was horrible, deplorable, morally wrong, yadda yadda yadda) The level of "outrage", which I think deserves scare quotes because most of it wasn't genuine but was politically motivated and was led by people who opposed every aspect of the war from the beggining, has been totally disproportionate and hysterical. It's been seized upon and hyped by the media endlessly to the point that it's caused even war supporters to endorse bizarre concepts like forcing the Secretary of Defense to resign because of the misconduct of at most, some small minority of soldiers, an event that would have, literally, no precedent in the history of the world. There's outrage fatigue on Abu Ghraib, thanks to the 24/7 Media campaign, but the over-the-top and partisan reaction (see Kennedy, Ted) is by this point far more outrageous.

I don't know what world pro-war liberals live in where they thought we could fight this war with no atrocities of any kind being committed by our side. There's never been a war in history in which both sides haven't committed atrocities. Our soldiers did far worse to the original Nazis. Was it terrible? Yes. Is war terrible? obviously. Did it invalidate that war effort? no.

The differnece between us and virtually all other countries is that when we commit atrocities the generals are held to account and the Secretary of Defense ends up fighting for his life in front of Congress. We're fighting in a part of the world where rape, torture, and murder are official state policy, directed from the highest levels of the governments there with no remorse or equivocation.

The only truly stupid "right wing meme" I've seen on this has been Rush Limbaugh and Charles Johnson saying that the word "torture" should never bee invoked in this case and that the whole thing was more like frat boy stunts. That indeed, was ridiculous and deserved to be pointed out. Only, however, if the reports of guys being sodomized with light sticks are true. That's torture no matter how you slice it.

The human pyramids and stuff aren't torture but are more like "shock art" by Mappelthorpe or someone. I'm surprised to see lefties wanting to censor this kind of transgressive, breakthrough work. (Throwaway line. Obvs.)

Ex:

Nope, you don't bother basing your arguments on anything but anger, empty words and temper tantrums, so I figured that's your prefered method of discourse. I always try to talk on a level my audience can understand. giggle

Checks Ex to see if he's ripe for Conservative Coleslaw

Tosk

How some people could possibly think this makes the decision to go to War any less just is beyond me. The Left is in a pretty sad state, indeed.

--this is the most encouraging post of the day. now some over 40% of Americans are left wing by your view.

EX...

You mock the "liberal patriotism/conservative patriotism" thing, but I think there's some merit to it.

There were bumper stickers like that back in the day, weren't there? And was that not pretty much the position of the Right at the time?...that, right or wrong about Vietnam, it's somehow unpatriotic to protest it and show dissent?

Was it not John Ashcroft who labeled those civil-libertarians who, out of a sense of protection for the Bill of Rights, stood against certain parts of the Patriot Act? Was it not he who said, in fact, "those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty...only aid terrorists"?

I think there's a real merit to what this guy said, man. History's littered with examples of conservatives calling others unpatriotic and un-American for questioning things on the basis of Constitutional principle. The John Birch Society and J. Edgar Hoover come to mind.

The human pyramids and stuff aren't torture but are more like "shock art" by Mappelthorpe or someone.

--hmmm. i don't recall mappelthorpe forcing detained prisoners to take broom sticks up their butts, nor did he punch anyone against their will, kill anyone, rape anyone, force them against their will to do anything,. your analogy is weak in the extreme.

The orgy of self-flagellation over Abu Ghraib is obscene. What happened there is disgraceful, but...

Hmm, why does this remind me of lefties saying things along the lines of "9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but..."?

left wing?

http://www.w3schools.com/Visit W3Schools

How about this quote:

"I still haven’t found anyone who explicitly supports the torture of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison. But some people do like to push it."

The implication being that "push it" is close, if not actual, support for the actions of the guards at Abu Ghraib - or am I overreacting?

He's outraged by the lack of context and perspective, but not as an argument in favor of what was done.

At the risk of being accused of being a Conservative with Liberal tendencies, let me say this: there is a distinction to be made based on the fact that our response to the actions of those soldiers at Abu Ghraib (and I admit we don't know the entirety of the list of participants) is to identify, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators. It is useful and legitimate to compare our response to that of our enemy.

Where is the outrage in the Arab world at Saddam's atrocities? Where is the outrage at Nick Berg's execution?

Here is a link to a summary of all the self-directed outrage in the Arab world/press:

www.theydonteffingexist.com

Hmm, why does this remind me of lefties saying things along the lines of "9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but..."?

--actually it's different, very different. you won't find leftists who say, '911 is justifiable'. you will find people like the good senator from oklahoma saying exactly that.

Hmm, why does this remind me of lefties saying things along the lines of "9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but..."?

Because you're a moron. 9/11= 3,000 innocent civilians just going about their daily business being massacred. No "but" justifies that. Abu Ghraib = well, I won't say exactly, because the media has already credulously repeated a bunch of fake stories and pictures, so we don't know what for sure.

We've already seen Abu Ghraib= My Lai, Abu Ghraib=Algeria, Abu Ghraib=Saddam, and now Steve Silver gives us Abu Ghraib=9/11. Can Abu Ghraib= Auschwitz be far behind? I shudder to think.

Grant: Speaking of logic and debating who REAL patriots are, ever hear of the true scotsmen fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

we have a new justification here, '911' was worse than abu graib, therefore the latter was justified.

Eric, don't bother. It's a bot. MT, it's ruining your comments section.

I don't recall mappelthorpe forcing detained prisoners to take broom sticks up their butts, nor did he punch anyone against their will, kill anyone, rape anyone, force them against their will to do anything,. your analogy is weak in the extreme

I said specifically that I was referring to stuff like the human pyramid, not the more serious stuff. At least put the bong down and read the comment you're responding to before you post your drivel please.

Calibar, you're full of shit and you know it. Leftists have tried every which way since 9/11 to blame what happened on us. They empathized with the poverty and put themselves in their shoes and yada yada yada...

I had a fucking class last semester in which half the class discussion was based on whether or not the 9/11 attacks were truly terrorism at all. Don't tell me there isn't an attempt to justify the shit and pin it on the "American Imperialists". I see this BS every single day.

Let me make sense of this for you, Steve. As I said earlier, leftists always blame America and Rightists never do.

That's why Leftists have tried to blame America for 9/11 and that's why Rightists can't accept responsibility for Abu Ghraib without putting a conditional "but" on the end. Leftists and Rightists don't think. They're wingnuts. It's only ideology.

I said specifically that I was referring to stuff like the human pyramid, not the more serious stuff.

--again, the analogy is weak and loopy. mappelthorpe didn't force with violence his subjects to engage in such acts.
so much for the bong.

Leftists have tried every which way since 9/11 to blame what happened on us. They empathized with the poverty and put themselves in their shoes and yada yada yada...

--stop talking about president Bush like that, for you are referring to things that Bush has said countless times in the aftermath of 911. not to mention his military advisors. get real.

Eric,

"Because you're a moron."

You know you should really stop talking about yourself. Your post was pathetic, I had once considered you one of the more literate of the cabbages, but... alas, your leaves are showing.

Where is my slaw sauce?

Tosk

Eric, don't bother. It's a bot. MT, it's ruining your comments section.

I'm getting that sense. Perhaps we should administer a Turing test?

Can Abu Ghraib= Auschwitz be far behind? I shudder to think.

Easy there. Someone may say it for shock value; Ted Kennedy's "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." blurb was a dumb one, but your average liberal won't follow suit.

Grant: It isn't that simple and ignoring their arguments is put blinders on.

"They're wingnuts. It's only ideology."

Hear Hear! Grant says five words that describe the entire political blogsphere!

(And it conforms to The Law Of Fives)

Well done Grant, I doff my hat to you!

Tosk (and believe me, a squirrel in a hat looks silly!)

You know you should really stop talking about yourself.

So, in essence "I know you are but what am I"? Is that really the best you can do there Tosk?

I had a fucking class last semester in which half the class discussion was based on whether or not the 9/11 attacks were truly terrorism at all.

--what's wrong with discussing that, if there are those out there who actually think it's not terrorism. The best way to strengthen the argument that it is terrorism is to confront the counterargument.
I don't recall reading in The Nation, In These Times, The Progressive, Monthly Review, etc. writers who have said that 911 wasn't an act of terrorism. Please show me where the writers in these journals have argued that.

As I said earlier, leftists always blame America and Rightists never do.

--really? you blame an entire segment of the American population for sympathising with the attackers, you must be kidding. not only that, you also blame liberals for being too soft on terrorism and thereby causing it.
---------------------------

Eric: Your time has got to be more valuable that sparring with the chomskybots.

Okay...well, if you actually want to talk to me like a human being for a change, EX, I'd be more than happy to hear your reasoning of how I'm ignoring anybody's agrument and wearing blinders.

Otherwise, if you just want to keep on calling me names and talking about cole-slaw like the good little troll, don't even bother.

my own perspective is quite simple actually, we need the alleviation of global poverty and other socio-economic ills from which terrorism draws its strength.

You know, it's not just "Chomskybots" that are ruining this site. As far Left as they are fellas, a few of you are equally off in looney land to the Right.

I'm here bridging the Chomsky/Birch divide and it's getting old.

"So, in essence "I know you are but what am I"? Is that really the best you can do there Tosk?"

Eric m'dear, that is exactly right. I've tried to have actual conversations with the conservative cabbages, yet they respond with crap, not debate. So I have happily lowered my standard to match yours. Enjoy, you leafy headed vegatable... just watch out for my automatic conservative cloeslaw maker. Yum!

well, grant, has it occured to you that if we get rid of global poverty that we can weaken terrorism?

Grant: You don't consider me a troll, otherwise you wouldn't respond. If you do consider me a troll and still respond you are a bigger mush-head than I thought. But you are so very close to not being a mush-head!

Anyway, to answer your question: Essentially you are saying that arugments from those with extreem opinions (or bias) are invalid. That is just dodging their arguments.

PS: I never claimed to not be an a-hole!

9/11= 3,000 innocent civilians just going about their daily business being massacred. No "but" justifies that. .

We've already seen Abu Ghraib= My Lai, Abu Ghraib=Algeria, Abu Ghraib=Saddam, and now Steve Silver gives us Abu Ghraib=9/11. Can Abu Ghraib= Auschwitz be far behind? I shudder to think.

I've said none of those things, of course, and I'm not saying Abu Ghraib=9/11. But "it's not as bad as 9/11" or "not as bad as Saddam" is no defense at all. For those to say "it was a terrible atrocity, but" is similarly an attempt to defend, justify, and rationalize the indefensible by making excuses for it.

Grant: Who said I was on the Right?

well, grant, has it occured to you that if we get rid of global poverty that we can weaken terrorism?

You act as if this can be done so easily.

I should go to the IMF in an effort to try and refinance my college loans. The looks I'll get should be priceless.

Ex,

"Essentially you are saying that arugments from those with extreem opinions (or bias) are invalid."

Duh! Bias makes an argument invalid. A valid argument must be based in fact, not the emotion of bias. Its really ashame that you never took any debate classes, you might have learned how to communicate. But, communicative cabbages are a rarity.

Tosk

Okay, Tosk, was that sarcasm a minute ago when you were talking about summing up the blogosphere in only 5 words or not?

Because I can't tell.

If it isn't, well then just let me say that Michael's site wasn't always like this. The John Birch types showed up one day and the whole place became overrun with uber-cons. Then, all of a sudden, the leftist brigade arrived to combat John Birch with Chomsky and Marx! And it's just kind of getting sucked into a giant black hole now.

But if that was sarcasm...well, then, fuck you! ;)

EX...

If you say you're not on the Right then just let me ask...is there something further to the Right than the Right in your world that wraps back around or something?

Grant:

You seem like a really nice guy, and I agree with your position on an issue probably 90% of the time, no joke, however, I find that oftentimes you present yourself in a condescending, holier-than-thou manner which doesn't serve you well, and you're really doing that in this thread.

Anyway, I admire the fact that you've been able to shake off the leftist indoctrination of college while you're still in college, but sometimes, I could be wrong, perhaps your youth shows, in the way I described above? I don't think you should take offense at this as it's a subject you've mentioned here.

As for everyone else. Yes, ex, you're right. This has become a complete waste of time. I've never been a regular commenter here, but the quality of commenting here seems to have gone way down, mostly due to bots like calibar, and immature, self-regarding jerks like Ratatosk, whose tiresome shtick is as welcome everywhere as a fart in church. I'm sorry that this has happened here.

I think, with due respect however, that Grant is wrong to describe it as Chomskybot/Bircher divide. While calibar displays about the same level of original thought and humanity as a Chomskybot, I don't think anyone here is remotely a "Bircher", and this is an innacurate and out-of-date slander. Jon Birch types are more like the "paleo-cons" of today, isolationist, anti-Semitic (though not nearly as openly anti-Semitic as the far left is now) and bare very little relationship to mainstream conservatives of today.

Grant: You need a new model. The world is not two-dimensional.

Grant,

It was not sarcasm, I was applauding your statement.

Eric the Awful says : you present yourself in a condescending, holier-than-thou manner which doesn't serve you well, and you're really doing that in this thread.

Talk about the Pot calling the Kitchen Sink black!!! This is from "Eric I'm reasonable and everyone who doesn't agree with me is a self-important ass Deamer. Whoo Hoo, we're way off in fantasy land now!

And he opened his mout and this little nugget fell out:
"...immature, self-regarding jerks like Ratatosk, whose tiresome shtick is as welcome everywhere as a fart in church. "

The eloquence of Eric is rare in cabbages, usually they revert to words like commie, pinko, American hater, etc.... but he constrains himself to self-regarding jerk, and from a cabbage whose shown no real understanding of anything going on, I consider it a compliment that he can even get my name right. Thanks Eric... you remind me why I like coleslaw.

Yum Yum,

tosk

You know, EX, I would have said the same exact thing to you. I can't recall you ever not taking the hard-right opinion on something. Please, explain to me how you're not a conservative.

And Eric, please explain to me how (outside of this thread because in this thread I AM being a bit of a prick) I act holier-than-thou or condescending.

I honestly want to know. If you think I'm being an asshole all this time, maybe I am being an asshole all this time and I didn't even realize it. If I'm being an asshole, I want to change that. But I don't think I am. So, explain.

Oh, by the way, I'm not trolling. Trolls attempt to start arguments, flame wars etc... Like posting to a linux newsgroup, something extremely pro-microsoft. What I am doing is somewhat different, this is called abuse. Its fun, enjpoyable and gets me all sorts of points with Eris (who is one hot babe, even if she is older than the universe).

Of course, I don't expcet cabbages to understand the difference... perhaps if I speak in theri language:

Frop, Fnord, Kulli Kulli Bang Bang! CUHH IA fathagan!

Ok, I think they understood that.

Tosk

We're in Iraq because a system of democracy, with great respect for human rights, is a better system for (almost) all humans to live in.
The SYSTEM is better, or not -- not the people.

And the Rumsfeld led system was working, certainly deserving of some criticism, as of Jan. getting rid of a General.

Sacking a general for mostly misdemeanor level of abuse. I am a little "outraged at the outrage." Sorry, it is really stupid to believe Americans as guards will never be abusive in any country where they are not almost universally cheered as liberators. Stanford Prison Experiment. Plus the US prison rape scandals.

Michael JT, on a scale of badness, 1 to 10, please try to rate the acts of the guards.

Hitler's 10 million death camp murders, -10;
also Pol Pot; Stalin; Mao.
Saddam's mass graves, -9;
The allies fire-bombing Dresden, -8.
(because of the timing -- had it occurred six or more months prior, it wouldn't be so bad)
Japan's Pearl Harbor attack, -7 (Nanking, -9)
Hiroshima nuke, -5
...
Individual beheading (Berg, Daniel Pearl) -3
Lynchings, murders, -3
Manslaughter, rapes, under stress killings, -2
Non-fatal abuse in prison, -1

I understand there have been some 25 Iraqis who have died in US custody -- perhaps 10-15 are murders, each of which would be a worse act than what most trophy fotos show.

If you can't quantify it, you can't rationally compare it. Be honest, put this abuse on a graph with Hitler and much closer to the 0 line. I'm sick of the "America isn't perfect, Bush is Hitler" Leftist junk.

Where is talk of the Jewish mother murdered, with her 4 kids? Little room, too much Abu outrage.
What about genocide in Sudan? Abu outrage takes the space.
Increases in rapes in S. Africa? Abu shows the US is terrible.
Future famine in Zimbabwe? Abu is the outrage this week.
Journalists jailed in Cuba? UNSCAM oil for bribes & terror? Saudi support for export of hate? The Arab League calling for more Arab democracy? (good news!) -- Abu, Abu, Abu. How much Abu news is too much? We're already there -- it's become neo-sadistic on-looking porn.

Should "torture" ever be used? Or how much; when? I'm outraged at the lack of discussion on this truly difficult and important, and totally relevant subject. Whatever answer you have, there will be two situations: some Americans will wrongly do too much for limited/ useless info (false Positive), some will wrongly do too little, and NOT get info, and then Americans, or other humans, will die (false Negative).

The "never torture" school accepts some bombs murdering folk that could have been prevented, by "better interrogation". Such a discussion doesn't fit in a sound bite, (nor perhaps even on a blog comment). Nor is there any particular right & wrong answer, unless one accepts the never torture one-- as many fundamentalists do, both secular and religious.

Yet Gandhi, unwilling to kill for his beliefs, can only lead against an enemy unwilling to kill for domination. Saddam is willing to kill to dominate, as is AQ. And I'm outraged that so little coverage is happening about the murders and kidnappings of the Iraqi intelligentsia.

If we don't know why the "moderate" Iraqis don't fight against their domination, we won't know why we might really lose.

Grant: Why would I bother to prove a negative?

And to whoever said I need a new model, my model works fine thank you. And it's not just liberal and conservative. In terms of poltics, it's more useful anymore to think of things a little different. And I have my own "model" for thinking of things. My way works pretty damn well, actually.

Grant:

"Asshole" would be far too strong a formulation. As I said, I was mostly referring to this thread, which is on a topic that appears to make people get unreasonably heated, and anyway you've admitted that you've gone a bit over-the-top here.

I would have to dig deep into the comment theads the last few days to give concrete examples of what I'm talking about, which I don't have time to do and which would be far too depressing given the general level of the discussions. It may me just a misimpression on my part. I guess what I'm talking about is a lot of instances in which you are "Shocked! Appalled! Outraged!" by something someone,usually right-of-center, says, and then kind of lecture them about it from a position of assumed moral superiority. Really though, it might not be your fault at all. The neighorhoood here seems to really be deteriorating from the way I remember it, and when that happens the new dynamic throws everyone off.

No, EX, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Whatever that's supposed to mean. I can tell you up front, from everything you've ever written on this website, that unless you're blowing smoke up all our asses and putting on a front...you're a conservative and you're pretty hard-right.

You said, how do I know you're on the Right. I would say in response, by listening to everything you've ever said here. Maybe you don't think of yourself as being on the Right for some reason. But ya are.

Grant: Why would I bother to prove a negative?

Heck, Ex, I'd be happy to see you prove anything, negative, positive, or ground. Your debating skills are such that I'm not sure you could prove that the sky is blue.

But, then cabbages are very good at proving things...

Well, thats not really true... Red cabbage, once its been squashed is good for pH testing.

Tosk

So if you're running a blog with this many people commenting on a regular basis, just how exactly are you supposed to keep it from deteriorating? Is it a matter of monitoring it not enough or something? Steering the conversation in the right direction? I'm just curious.

Grant: I don't really have an opinion on how you choose to classify me.

And would the Hiroshima bomb dropping really only be a "5"?!

I know it was all a part of war and what not, but come on! How many tens of thousands died on that day alone? How many hundreds of thousands got cancer and all kinds of problems passed on to their children?

Seems like that would rank a little higher than a "5" in my book.

Sorry, but this is a case in point:

And to whoever said I need a new model, my model works fine thank you. And it's not just liberal and conservative. In terms of poltics, it's more useful anymore to think of things a little different. And I have my own "model" for thinking of things. My way works pretty damn well, actually.

Also, see your whole "discussion" with Ex here. As far as we know, Ex is completely right to say that you are looking at things with at two-dimensional model, and an over-simplified one at that. You've casually thrown around the slander "Birchers" to describe vast swaths of conservatives, and the way you're using it I don't think you know what that really means. Then you start bragging about how you really look at things in a much more comlex way, and with a condescending tone. Well, at least do us the honor, of trying to summarize this nuanced way of looking at the world? I think Ex asked a fair question. And, putting someone through some "Prove you're not hard right! Prove it!" inquisition is just obnoxious.

It's good that you are able to call out the far left on their idiocy, but from what I've seen you really don't understand distinctions between different types of conservative thought, yet you still throw the terms around and bash people with them. For instance, you once asserted that National Review is not worth reading because they publish crackpots like WFB. That's ludicrous man. He's the father of modern conservatism and an advocate of legalizing marijuana for one thing. You need to find out more about this stuff, before you start using it against people.

So if you're running a blog with this many people commenting on a regular basis, just how exactly are you supposed to keep it from deteriorating? Is it a matter of monitoring it not enough or something? Steering the conversation in the right direction? I'm just curious.

That's a really good question. It's sort of a magical process which I can't really explain. One aspect is the blogger monitoring and commenting more, but that takes a lot of time, and it would be churlish to criticize MJT for this if he simply doesn't have it.

Ex,

You may not care what slot we put you in... but we do. The Illuminati has been watching you for some time, and we have almost reached the point where we will classify you. Right now, you're close to gettiung classified as a cabbage and will not recieve enlightenment (not even with the coupon and the Box Top UPC collection you have under your bed). You can change this though.... if you work hard and eat all your veggies, we might upgrade you to Greyfaced Hunchbrain, at which point we'll simply deposit you into the land of Thud where you won't be a danger to yourself or others. We'll also keep sharp, pointy objects away from you, since we're not sure you have any sense.

Remember, eat all your veggies!

Tosk

Tosk: Illuminatus wasn't that great a book and RAW does it a lot better than you.

Wow, all these comments while I slept.

I don't have much to add except to say "what Grant said."

I'm not sure that what happened could be fairly characterized as "torture," but I will stipulate that the acts of the US guards were wrong and deserving of punishment. Moreover, the General officer in question was deservedly sacked for lapses of discipline, accountability and training in her unit (see the Taguba Report).

That said, WAY too much is being made of this: abuse occurred, an investigation was commenced in a timely manner, and the legal process is ongoing. There is absolutely no evidence of a whitewash or any tampering with the investigation. In short, nothing is known at this point which would justify the amount of scrutiny and "outrage" (motivated mostly by partisan politics and/or sensationalism, in my view) currently being expressed. Let's let the matter play out, and see what happens.

An M.D. friend of mine commented yesterday that the US has the personality of an addict (short attention span, extremely egocentric personality, very high highs, very low lows, etc.). I have not fully thought this through yet, but he may have a point.

Ex:

Actually, RAW didn't write Illuminatus. It was written by Jon Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt the III (not to be confused with his Uncle who had a song written about him).

And you are a talking monkey... nah nah weehooo oggy boogy.

Tosk

Of course, part of it may also be that I have difficulty mustering the level of outrage necessary to be a real partisan.

Whenever I hear someone mention that we are in a "Just War" I cringe. No war is ever "just". However, there's a world of difference between fighting an invading army hell bent on destroying you and everything you hold dear and a pre-planned, calculated, highly organized effort to change a part of the world through sheer force.

I'm sure the German army commanders truly thought they were "justified" in bombing, killing and occupying the countries they did. Self-righteousness knows no bounds in this world. So get off your high horse and admit that the only reason we are in Iraq is because our government deemed it "righteous" to use force to try to change Iraq into their own image. I suspect the people of Iraq, left to their own designs, would end up like Iran with a cleric controlled government. Is this what our government wants?

Anyway, I digress. Several comments have it right on. Torture is NOT a collateral effect of war. If it was, then the military would excuse it. It's not and it's a criminal act and is punishable. I do think torture, looting, rape, etc. are things that are likely to happen in a large scale war. This is one reason why war is an option of last resort.

How many times has a superpower taken control of a third world country, ending up creating a successful democracy without severely curbing the civil rights of its people or having the whole thing collapse at some point? How many people have died in these failed efforts? History is against us here. Sad as it may seem, the best course of action would have been to rally the world against Saddam's brutality, continue to pressure him and let time take care of the rest. A lot of people would have died, probably more than in this war but eventually you would have a real, people led government.

It's interesting, I asked for a citation from The Nation or In These Times or The Progressive or Monthly Review that stated that 911 wasn't a terrorist event, yet the Mussolini lobby and the 'moderates' haven't been able to provide me with one. What was your point about the left supporting 911 or not saying it was a terrorist event? aside from rhetorical hyperbole?

Grant, no answer on the need to get rid of poverty to get rid of terrorism? or is it your position that that is a left wing position?

Marc!

Don't go talking about anything sensible! Whats wrong with you?! You dare insinuate that America isn't the Hand of Gawd bringing FREEDOM to The HEATHENS?!

For shame,

Tosk

PS this was sarcasm.

Godwins Law violation #2. Thanks Marc! C'mon, we need another Vietnam reference too.

Marc --

If you believe that a government "by the people" would have emerged in Iraq without a war, I have a certain Bridge available for sale that I would like to offer to you. The ONLY chance for a democratic government in Iraq is successful completion of this war effort.

A lot of people would have died, probably more than in this war but eventually you would have a real, people led government.

--very very few mideast experts would agree with you on that contention. the number of deaths, wounded, and amount of economic destruction would have been far less, reference Libya as but one example.

Caliber,

"yet the Mussolini lobby and the 'moderates' haven't been able to provide me with one. "

Of course not... they didn't get that information from something as silly as the news media, it was from the voices that they get psychicly in their minds. You see, Ex, Eric and all the other cabbages hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see and pat each other on the back for the most pitiful, nonsupported comments.

Until you too get Super Conservative Anti-Reality Powers, you will never understand.

The ONLY chance for a democratic government in Iraq is successful completion of this war effort.

--it's definitely the only chance to get your buddy chalabi into office.

Look, this shit's not that complicated:

The John Birch label I do use as a derogatory. You're right. I use it because alot of you guys start echoing this paranoid "enemy within" crap a la the John Birch Society back in the day. Anyone who questions Bush's policies in the War on Terror is soft or implicitly unfocused and unpatriotic. It's hawkishness to the extreme, to a near-comical level, and it's pretty common in the blogosphere. When I bring up the terminology here, I'm not really talking about particular policies or issues. I'm really more trying to hit on the uber-paranoid-Michael-Savage-style rhetoric and attitude and general worldview that alot of you guys go into all the time. I'm not overgeneralizing wide swaths of the Right. I'm just talking about you and a few others at this site. And, yeah, the analogy fits.

Secondly, I'm taken aback at the fact that you two are calling me oversimplified. Everything to you guys is black-and-white all the time. You're like "you're either with us or against us" pep squad. I've never EVER heard EX take even a moderately-liberal stand on anything. Usually his thoughts are what I would consider to be to the Right of the Republican Party. But then he comes across and asks me how I know he's on the Right. This is a beyond dumb question. Asking him to explain how he could possibly be anywhere else but the Right isn't that crazy when he's trying to hint to me that he's not somehow. It's not obnoxious and oversimplified or whatever the fuck you want to call it. He hinted at something absurd and I was just hoping he'd follow up on that.

Third...that William Buckley wants to legalize weed is mighty fine with me. I didn't know that and I'll be the first to say, in light of that, I probably don't know the Right as well as I should. At least the individual actors, especially the older ones. I know paleo and neo philosophy out the wazoo, however. I know where Neo-Conservatism comes from like the back of my hand. I know the history. I know Irving Kristol and AEI and the fact that Perle's still a Democrat for some reason.

Fourth...I don't know where in the hell you're getting that I said I look at things in a more "complex" way. I never said I was complex or whatever. It wasn't holier-than-thou. I said I have a different way of looking at political science other than the simple liberal-conservative spectrum and I only said it because the two of you were attacking me for being fucking simple-minded! I use the classic liberal-conservative spectrum but I've added alot on to it. I generally break things down into economic worldviews, social values, and foreign policy alone on a 4-sector 2×2. To totally construct the son of a bitch, you have to do it in 3 dimensions. The only reason I did this is because I'm a political science student and one of my professors asked me to put together some kind of system into which damn-near everyone can fit with no contradictions. So, I did. It works well.

Any other questions, concerns? Something I didn't address?

Ben,

Can I use your crystal ball too? I want to check on the future stock market, not Iraq if we hadn't invaded... or does your seer abilities extend only to Bush's forign policy?

Tosk

Ben,

I never said that Iraq would eventually have a democratic government. I believe that they would evetually, with the non-violent assistance of the rest of the world, have a people determined government. If that's a religeous fundamentalist government, so be it. Who are we to say that's wrong.

I really don't see the war as solving anything other than stirring the pot. Maybe by throwing a country into chaos you'll get a better system once the chaos settles. It seems like a long shot though.

Political science student, eh? Explains quite a bit. Looks like you have it all figured out. But watch out for that Real World kid, it's a real bitch!

And, Calibar, if it seems like I'm ignoring you it's because you're not worth the paying attention. I think EX may be a borderline troll. Sometimes, alot of times he goes off into troll mode. But you're completely not even dealing with what it was I was saying.

I was quoting personal experience mostly, talking about how no one in academia can talk about terrorism with saying "terrorism" and finding a way to blame America for it. And, yeah, winning the War on Terror by working solely at alleviating the world's poverty would be a BIG position of the Left. And it's pretty fucking dumb.

That's all I'm going to say. Quit bothering me.

Grant, I applaud your outstanding effort at true debate, I am only sorry that you have no worty adversaries.

Trying to map out politics is a great debate issue. What fits where, why, how... opinions, experiences and resources can make a debate like that productive.... But the group here is much more comfortable with the "Yes it tis, No it tisn't level of discussion". However, you do give me hope, that someday, when we put all the right wing people who want to destroy America in prison camps as "Dumbass Combatants" that debate will live on.

Tosk

PS - Since some people on here are too stupid to read between the lines or understand sarcasm and hyperbole when it hits then in the 'nads, I will explain my post:

A - Good post Grant, it was well thought out, unlike Ex and his buddies.

B - I do not really want all of you right wing neo-conservatives to go to prison camps. I would really like you to chill out, get stoned and stop worrying about the world you want to make. However, since you happily throw anyone who doesn't support your side in the "Dangerous Enemy Within, Anti-American" slot, I decided to do the same. If you want me to stop posting sliilness, then make a fscking argument, support it and debate... until then I'll just mimic you.

C - PBFFFFT!

What do you have against political science, EX?

Nothing, it is a fine way to waste four years. The fact you take it serious is sad.

Hopefully you are getting laid a lot.

Nothing, it is a fine way to waste four years. The fact you take it serious is sad.

Hey now, I'm a polysci minor. Keep it up and I may have to say something about your mother...

In all seriousness though, about 4/5 of the other kids in my political science classes are of of the "I have all the answers" cloth

They aren't nearly as redundant as I, however.

Preview is my friend, preview is my friend...

Yep, it is a waste of 4 years if that's all you take of it. You can't really go into the business or trade of political science, so the bachelors degree doesn't do much.

But I'm goin' to Grad School, my man. And I'm thoroughly enjoying myself right now because I'm studying what I enjoy learning about and am interested in. Politics is my passion, really. It's fun as hell to me.

And I do indeed get laid alot, thank you very much.

I was quoting personal experience mostly, talking about how no one in academia can talk about terrorism with saying "terrorism" and finding a way to blame America for it.

--you mean american foreign policy when you say 'america' of course. i haven't heard people in The Nation, for example, blaming FDR or Martin Luther King's visions of America for 911. I have heard solid criticisms of how aspects of US foreign policy increased the likelihood of a 911 occurring. Then again I've heard those from 'moderates' and even right wingers too, so nothing really unusual or treasonous in that.
-----------------------
And, yeah, winning the War on Terror by working solely at alleviating the world's poverty would be a BIG position of the Left. And it's pretty fucking dumb.

--who said anything about solely, i was just repeating the position of President Arroyo of the Philipines, which she said in the approving presence of George Bush on May 20, 2003.

Hey EX, what did you study while at you were at college?

have your read the Republic yet? The Politics? I know those are just hard right-wing propaganda. Or do you just stick with your Party Line textbooks?

sam: beer bongs mostly

Sam,

He went to Cabbage College, where they learn to not Think. Its great if you want to live a life always knowing you're right damn any reality to the contrary.

Tosk

Ex,
Fair enough, what's your opinion on History students?

"sam: beer bongs mostly"

HAhahahaha, you know Ex that was pretty good! (No sarcasm, real compliment)

Very funny.

:)

Toskie

And about that whole "having all the answers" thing. I was like that my first year or year and a half or so. Then you really get into it and really start to get to know your professors. That's when you realize you don't know shit.

It's a humbling experience. Good for the soul, though. Alot of the upper-level stuff will kind of blow you away after a while, too.

Go and read Foucault's stuff about the "Panopticon". The book's called "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison". Shit will mess with your head.

Damn Grant, I'm impressed, Foucault is some pretty heavy stuff!

Tosk

The Republic is great. Yeah, I've read it.

There's an entire class devoted to it at my school. Different interpretations. The Straussian point of view. Awesome stuff.

Surprised?

Grant,
That "having all the answers" bit applies to the philosophy students too. I know a few who are alright, but most of them you just want to slam their heads into a wall after five minuites conversation.

They always resort to violence after 5 minutes of something they're uncomfortable thinking about. Sorta like Mr. Bush.

Tosk

Then you really get into it and really start to get to know your professors. That's when you realize you don't know shit.

Yeah, I got schooled pretty early when I tried to counter something a professor said, and was left to pull one of those "yeah, but...but...". Let's just say I was pretty sure I was right going into the discussion as well.

I think I do want to go into international relations somehow; right now I'm heading toward a BA in Economics and I despise it.

Sam-

I took a philosophy class as a gen ed a couple of semesters ago.

I vow to never take one again just for that reason.

sam: My opinion is similar to polysci, mostly a bunch of commies that can't get laid!

I'm really more trying to hit on the uber-paranoid-Michael-Savage-style rhetoric and attitude and general worldview that alot of you guys go into all the time. I'm not overgeneralizing wide swaths of the Right. I'm just talking about you and a few others at this site. And, yeah, the analogy fits.

Well, I barely comment here and as far as I know you don't know me personally, so I'm amazed at how much you purport to know about my "worldview". Personally, I think Michael Savage is an idiot, a racist, and an anti-gay bigot, and I'm glad he got fired from his job. What's more, I don't know a single conservative who listened to him or defended him in any way. (Though his "books" do sell, so presumably someone's reading them). Anyway,
you're engaging in guilt-by-association by associating me with every single thing that Ex has ever said to you, using statements such as "you two", "you guys" etc., yet you claim you're not overgeneralizing. Aside from the "sanctimonious figger wagging" comment, which you've implicitly admitted was somewhat warranted, I've approached you in a respectful manner. You have not done the same, but have continued to generalize and over-simplify with this John Birch/Michale Savage crap. It's pretty much a personal insult, as far as I'm concerned to implicitly equate me with Savage, particularly without knowing me. (If I remember, immigration is one of the things that Savage is always railing against, and I"m very pro-immigration for one thing). So, your argument has consisted of guilt-by-association, ad hominem insults, and mostly been drawn from a misunderstanding of the history of American conservatism, which you admit you don't know enough about, and you have the nerve to attack the level of other people's rhetoric? Please. I take back what I said about you seeming like a nice guy.

Eric,

Lots of words, little content.

Tosk

so grant, any examples of writers in The Nation or The Progressive or Monthly Review saying 911 was a good thing or wasn't an act of terrorism?
or is that just a product of paranoid fantasy?

Actually Savage is pretty entertaining.

Ex,
Whats with this idea that history majors are commies? Is this from personal experience or what?

Grant, could you please clarify how Arroyo is a dumb left winger?

"mostly a bunch of commies that can't get laid!"

Ex, you seem to have a fixation on getting laid... is there something you need to talk about? Have you been sleeping alone alot lately, or just not getting it anymore?

And its good that you can identify the Commies. If only we were a few decades back, maybe you could work for McCarthy.

You could combine both issues and just watch some Jenny McCarthy porn, you'll be fine.

Tosk

I had a buddy in college who was a bleeding-red commie and a history major and couldn't get laid. It is interesting to watch his progression to a married guy with conservative views.

what is it the warhawks are saying about no muslim condemnation of Berg's killing?

I had a buddy in college who was a bleeding-red commie and a history major and couldn't get laid. It is interesting to watch his progression to a married guy with conservative views.

--I seem to remember your telling us you have a friend Vietnam Vet who was 'spat on' by hippies.
any other tall tales?

Ex,
The whole not getting laid thing is actually a pretty accurate description of most history students where I am. But I dont think that there are any communists in the student body here. If there are they've been keeping pretty quiet about it.

'I had a buddy in college who was a bleeding-red commie and a history major and couldn't get laid."

Yeah, women aren't into furry hats and red stars. (Don't most people bleed red or am I somehow confused here?)

It is interesting to watch his progression to a married guy with conservative views."

Yeah, drinking the Kool-Aid will do that to anyone. Sorry to hear about your friend. I hope he gets better.

Tosk

Sam,

If they study history, philosophy or polsci, they're probably closet commies.

Its probably best to burn down their dorms.

This blog needs an enema.

i found born again christian girls to be the most wild in bed actually. something about repression helps make for a wild time when they let go and decide they're not gonna wait till they're married.

Hey, Eric, look man, I'm gonna apologize at this point. I think I'm confusing you with another Eric, maybe even two other Erics. I didn't realize this up until a few moments ago. There's alot of Erics around these parts.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off like a dick. I'm on no sleep and I'm pretty beyond stressed out about some personal issues in my life right now. I'm not acting like myself, here, and I'm sorry if I said some pretty stupid things to upset you. Just trust me when I say I'm really not at all myself right now.

If you think Michael Savage is an idiot, than I've got you all wrong and I apologize. Hope it's not too late to take back the take back.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108442400579177434

it should throw some cold water on the "When are the Arabs going to condemn the killing of Berg????" shrieking out there in Blogistan.

Grant it looks like you've got the same level of confusion about Eric as you do about the Left in the US, what with your fantasies about the Left thinking 911 wasn't terrorism.

Calibar, you should try Muslim women. When they shed that burkha and get down, man, you wouldn't believe.

i found born again christian girls to be the most wild in bed actually. something about repression helps make for a wild time when they let go and decide they're not gonna wait till they're married.

Sir, I salute you! Though I've not yet found a good christian girl who doesn't do everything but 'defile their marriage bed'. They usually do more on the first date than any of the pagan girls I;ve dated.

you should try Muslim women.

--you think most Muslim women wear Burkas? wow, now that is an interesting perception.

Grant:

'Tis cool. I understand. Things get heated in these little boxes, which is why I've been staying away mostly lately. I apologize to you and to everybody for whatever unprovoked dickishness I displayed. Should have resisted the temptation. The topic is just too heated. Get some sleep.

Cheers,
Eric

Joker,

I'll have to keep that in mind! Me and the missus need to find one or two of them.

Tosk

Well, since everyone else is apologizing...

I'm not sorry for being an ass, its what I do when the mood strikes me (Eris needs her sacrifice). However, I'm sure that tomorrow I'll probably try actual discourse again.

Here's to a better tomorrow

Tosk

The Words of The Foolish and Words of the Wise, Are Not Far Apart in Discordian Eyes.

And I apologise for The Nation Magazine stating in their editorial yesterday that Michael Berg deserved to die. That damned left media has no shame.