tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post116378598298989167..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164398578501711562006-11-24T15:02:00.000-05:002006-11-24T15:02:00.000-05:00As for the latter Anonymous,I respect your positio...As for the latter Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I respect your position, but I've been through this one lots of times before, and just can't bring myself to do it again.<BR/><BR/>Quickly: if a group of people has been enslaved and is being systematically oppressed, slowly starved, and occasionally killed, the situation is basically the same as the gunman case.<BR/><BR/>It's a question of costs vs. benefitsWinston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164398361432634112006-11-24T14:59:00.000-05:002006-11-24T14:59:00.000-05:00As for the previous Anonymous, he's such a mentall...As for the previous Anonymous, he's such a mentally defective dildo that I it would be a waste of electrons to blow him to hell. So why waste the time?<BR/><BR/>But, then, anybody who's followed this discussion so far knows how far he's got his head up his ass.<BR/><BR/>I WILL mention, however, that by repeatedly pointing out that I finally concluded that the war was a mistake about a month (3 Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164305127741134552006-11-23T13:05:00.000-05:002006-11-23T13:05:00.000-05:00Winston,While I don't agree with the previous Anon...Winston,<BR/><BR/>While I don't agree with the previous Anonymous' attack on your intellectual honesty, I do believe your SWAT team analogy fails on the following grounds:<BR/><BR/>We don't engage the SWAT team in operations which are generally assumed to result in significant collateral damage unless the situation is sufficiently exigent. Of course nobody would object to them busting in when Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164304054163547372006-11-23T12:47:00.000-05:002006-11-23T12:47:00.000-05:00Good to see your war on straw continues unabated. ...Good to see your war on straw continues unabated. It'd be interesting to read a post where you don't actually bring up the boogeyman of people - who knows who because you never back up accusations with real links - who's primary focus is yelling and screaming at those who don't admit (ADMIT, DAMMIT!) that the war was an *obvious* mistake. You bring up the false mirror of "imagine things in the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164208585401406652006-11-22T10:16:00.000-05:002006-11-22T10:16:00.000-05:00Well, again, we've been through all of this before...Well, again, we've been through all of this before, but:<BR/><BR/>ALL wars America engages in now are supposed to be fought with humanitarian means. We are supposed to fight only in accordance with the constraints associated with *jus in bello*.<BR/><BR/>So there should never be any worry whatsoever about us fighting a war in an unjust/inhumane way.<BR/><BR/>The real worry should not have been Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164145195035314062006-11-21T16:39:00.000-05:002006-11-21T16:39:00.000-05:00Yes, that's my position. You don't need to respond...Yes, that's my position. You don't need to respond to it. I just think it's unreasonable to assume that a war waged without concern for humanitarian ends will be waged with humanitarian means. And "hoping for the best" is downright immoral when you're gambling with other peoples lives. If the Iraqi people decided that they would risk their lives to be rid of Saddam's tyranny, it is their choice Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164129127999442072006-11-21T12:12:00.000-05:002006-11-21T12:12:00.000-05:00Matthew,For the five millionth time: Nobody in hi...Matthew,<BR/><BR/>For the five millionth time: Nobody in his right mind thought that Bush & co. were invading for humanitarian reasons. Hence your caps are puzzling.<BR/><BR/>Let me repeat fo the five million and first time:<BR/><BR/>NOBODY THOUGHT BUSH WAS INVADING FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand how we can not be clear on that by this point.<BR/><BR/>Now your argument Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164085942312565092006-11-21T00:12:00.000-05:002006-11-21T00:12:00.000-05:00That's why I parenthetically pointed out the invol...That's why I parenthetically pointed out the involvement of Cheney and Rumsfeld, two figures who had actively intervened on behalf of Saddam during periods when he was killing far, far more Iraqis than he was by 2002. It stands to reason that people who have shown no interest in promoting human rights during decades upon decades of involvement in foreign policy, people who had ignored atrocitiesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164039861683474362006-11-20T11:24:00.000-05:002006-11-20T11:24:00.000-05:00Winston,I'd be the first one to say that I've read...Winston,<BR/><BR/>I'd be the first one to say that I<BR/>'ve read some incredibly brilliant stuff in TNR, but it strikes me as accurate that they have a blind spot on Israel policy, and it's contributed to what I feel is a real drop off in its overall quality the past few years.<BR/><BR/>It's frustrating to be constantly bombarded with the paradigm of Likud=Israel, a perspective that has informedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164026841230786682006-11-20T07:47:00.000-05:002006-11-20T07:47:00.000-05:00Anyway and just for the record... I don't think T...Anyway and just for the record... I don't think TNR gets it right anything like all the time.<BR/><BR/>I just don't think people are fair to them on the war issue...mostly b/c many liberals don't think very clearly about the war issue.<BR/><BR/>You want to talk about dumbness at TNR...talk about their weird Israel fetish. WTF is up with that sh*t, anybody know?Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1164026728639018972006-11-20T07:45:00.000-05:002006-11-20T07:45:00.000-05:00Well, I agree, but--and, remember, I went through ...Well, I agree, but--and, remember, I went through all this reasoning myself at the time--the thinking can go like this:<BR/><BR/>Bush & co. are NOT going to intervene *anywhere* for humanitarian reasons, they are NOT going to address AIDS in Africa seriously, they are not going to address third world hunger or the Congo or any other humanitarian cause with anything like serious effort and Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163996504586790202006-11-19T23:21:00.000-05:002006-11-19T23:21:00.000-05:00But the Iraq-as-humanitarian-mission argument illu...But the Iraq-as-humanitarian-mission argument illustrates just what is wrong with that mindset: in a world with epidemic AIDS in Africa and millions dying from diseases that are EASILY preventable (two dollar misquito nets could drastically cut African malaria infections), it strikes me as helluva goofy to seize on a potential invasion of Iraq proposed by a pack of incredibly shady characters (Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163972983536812142006-11-19T16:49:00.000-05:002006-11-19T16:49:00.000-05:00Um, Winston, The Nation and NR certainly have thei...Um, Winston, The Nation and NR certainly have their own problems, but to pretend that TNR is some paragon of political reasoning is merely wishful thinking:<BR/><BR/>http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-beltway-class-cant-comprehend-russ.html<BR/><BR/>Maybe it's lost a lot of circulation for a reason?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163950051629932462006-11-19T10:27:00.000-05:002006-11-19T10:27:00.000-05:00Egad, _The Nation_ and _The National Review_...God...Egad, _The Nation_ and _The National Review_...God help us all... If we ever move to _Mother Jones_ and _The Weekly Standard_, we're all doomed...<BR/><BR/>MC,<BR/>I actually agree that TNR should put more emphasis on non-military humanitarian stuff--but they DO push those programs fairly often. Their advocacy of such programs, however, doesn't get much attention. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, their Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163946624642851262006-11-19T09:30:00.000-05:002006-11-19T09:30:00.000-05:00Matthew,I don't know about 'influential', but one ...Matthew,<BR/><BR/>I don't know about 'influential', but one thing TNR isn't right now is widely read, at least compared to its past figures:<BR/><BR/>http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative_magazines_audience.asp?cat=3&media=8<BR/><BR/>The Nation is now the most widely subscribed-to opinion publication, followed pretty closely by National Review.<BR/><BR/>FWIW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163919935873484982006-11-19T02:05:00.000-05:002006-11-19T02:05:00.000-05:00Winston, (I hope this doesn't get lost amidst the ...Winston, (I hope this doesn't get lost amidst the deluge)<BR/><BR/>My position is that a.) TNR brand liberal hawkery is vociferous in its endorsement of military-intervention-as-humanitarian-duty. b.) they are not nearly as sanguine about non-military uses of American resources for humanitarian purposes c.) since U.S. resources are finite, it stands to reason that resources used on military Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163875504909245382006-11-18T13:45:00.000-05:002006-11-18T13:45:00.000-05:00I think Tony D is exactly right about making sure ...I think Tony D is exactly right about making sure we recognize that there need be no link whatsoever between the reasons for going to war and the reasons for staying...though I'm not sure I can stand to admit that we need to stay b/c of oil.<BR/><BR/>Re: Anonymous's point about competence...I simply don't believe that we had enough evidence of administration incompetence before the war to supportWinston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163874974684761132006-11-18T13:36:00.000-05:002006-11-18T13:36:00.000-05:00Jeez, good points all around, it seems to me.I'm p...Jeez, good points all around, it seems to me.<BR/><BR/>I'm particularly struck by Anonymous's *bon mot* about going to war with the administration you have... Heh heh. Freaking wish I'd thought of that line...<BR/><BR/>More on that in a sec.<BR/><BR/>FWIW, some thoughts on Myca's point:<BR/><BR/>This may have been an issue in which too much philosophy blinded me to something I should have seen.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163872038987798402006-11-18T12:47:00.000-05:002006-11-18T12:47:00.000-05:00Winston,Another issue which cannot be de-linked fr...Winston,<BR/><BR/>Another issue which cannot be de-linked from the prudence of going to war is competence:<BR/><BR/>http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001961.html<BR/><BR/>Remember, you go to war with the Administration you have, not the Administration you wish to have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163870160038058292006-11-18T12:16:00.000-05:002006-11-18T12:16:00.000-05:00Although I shared your belief in #2 at the outset,...Although I shared your belief in #2 at the outset, WS, it was the blindingly obvious truth of #3 that made me question it.<BR/><BR/>The way I figured it, if something's true, you don't generally need to make shit up to support it . . . and considering that the Bush administration did little to support #2 <I>except</I> make shit up, I ended up reconsidering my own previously held belief.<BR/><BR/>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163863292224693792006-11-18T10:21:00.000-05:002006-11-18T10:21:00.000-05:00Jim,We're actually on the same side on this aspect...Jim,<BR/><BR/>We're actually on the same side on this aspect of the issue. The WMD/national-defense case for war was very weak. So weak, in fact, that serious people who weren't administration sycophants only bought it at all against a background presupposition that Saddam probably already had 'em. That's a background presupposition I shared, actually, and said to one friend of mine just Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163862224617338112006-11-18T10:03:00.000-05:002006-11-18T10:03:00.000-05:00Quoting Matthew C:"The unstated assumption behind ...Quoting Matthew C:<BR/><BR/>"The unstated assumption behind TNR's brand of liberal hawkery is that the best way to save lives and increase the general wellbeing of people around the world is through military action."<BR/><BR/>There's a missing quantifier in that statement.<BR/><BR/>Are you asserting:<BR/><BR/>1. They think the best way is ALWAYS to use the military<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>2. They Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163815170946496892006-11-17T20:59:00.000-05:002006-11-17T20:59:00.000-05:00I didn't support the Iraq war, but I see why some ...I didn't support the Iraq war, but I see why some people might have thought Iraq posed a threat or that the war was worth it for humanitarian reasons. I disagreed. But come on. Was Tony Blair either immoral or an idiot for signing on to the war? Was John Howard? Was Bill Clinton an idiot to make the US's official Iraq policy regime change or to believe that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163802682173226772006-11-17T17:31:00.000-05:002006-11-17T17:31:00.000-05:00TNR's stated reasons for supporting the war were n...TNR's stated reasons for supporting the war were not good. The unstated assumption behind TNR's brand of liberal hawkery is that the best way to save lives and increase the general wellbeing of people around the world is through military action. As such, any kind of invasion plan suggested against a dictator, no matter the motives or competence of those proposing it, becomes THE LIMTMUS TEST of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1163797145813327612006-11-17T15:59:00.000-05:002006-11-17T15:59:00.000-05:00I respect Ackerman, and think that TNR is worse wi...I respect Ackerman, and think that TNR is worse without him. And I was eager to read something informative...<BR/><BR/>But I don't see anything in the piece you link to that tells us anything important. Maybe he'll write something more substantial on this at some point.<BR/><BR/>But it's not clear how it will matter--TNR's stated reasons for supporting the war were good, so, unless they're Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.com