tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post5195548570952289669..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-11274324898216066432007-08-28T07:07:00.000-04:002007-08-28T07:07:00.000-04:00Yes, it's true.I guess folks like me who flirted w...Yes, it's true.<BR/><BR/>I guess folks like me who flirted with being pro-invasion got stars in our eyes over the prospect of ousting Saddam.<BR/><BR/>I remember having exactly this kind of conversation with a friend of mine, arguing that this administration would never use U.S. military force to promote humanitarian ends, and that, though nobody could figure out why they had a boner to go into Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-33889112248764020082007-08-28T00:27:00.000-04:002007-08-28T00:27:00.000-04:00WS, thank you for addressing the question I raised...WS, thank you for addressing the question I raised.<BR/><BR/>FWIW, I think that the anti-war folk had a wide range of reasons for opposing the war. (Hell, I <I>know</I> so, for I was one of them.)<BR/><BR/>But all were united in believing that the burden was on those who supported invading Iraq to show beyond reasonable doubt that war was <I><B>necessary</B></I> -- not just that the preferred Jim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-36727283882951442202007-08-26T16:33:00.000-04:002007-08-26T16:33:00.000-04:00Well, that was just bald assertion on my part, an...Well, that was just bald assertion on my part, and now that you call me out on it I want to retreat from the claim. I was half-way just granting Tom his point, half for the sake of argument.<BR/><BR/>What I really think: MANY anti-war folks held their positions for bad reasons (they were just anti-Bush, or quasi-pacifists, or whatever).<BR/><BR/>But I have no evidence that most of them did.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-78008836803319194742007-08-25T15:42:00.000-04:002007-08-25T15:42:00.000-04:00WS posted:"And most support for the war was based ...WS posted:<BR/><BR/>"And most support for the war was based on false information, nationalism,militarism, authoritarian inclinations, etc."<BR/><BR/>"So the mass of supporters on both sides seem to have held their positions for bad reasons." <BR/><BR/>WS -- The first sentence supports half of the second (that most pro-war supporters held their position for bad reasons. However, it does not Jim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-41237755803260024852007-08-25T14:56:00.000-04:002007-08-25T14:56:00.000-04:00Well, even if I disagree with your final conclusio...Well, even if I disagree with your final conclusion, it's nice to boil it all down without the bedfellows and resulting yelling.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-69689722915704666832007-08-25T07:18:00.000-04:002007-08-25T07:18:00.000-04:00And most support for the war was based on false in...And most <I>support</I> for the war was based on false information, nationalism,militarism, authoritarian inclinations, etc.<BR/><BR/>So the mass of supporters on both sides seem to have held their positions for bad reasons.<BR/><BR/>But the question is: what were the best reasons on each side.<BR/><BR/>Most of the best reasons were anti-invasion, though there were some decent pro-invasion Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-17486083816046783362007-08-24T15:57:00.000-04:002007-08-24T15:57:00.000-04:00Except when I say:"Objecting to the war on prudent...<I><BR/>Except when I say:<BR/><BR/>"Objecting to the war on prudential grounds was certainly principled, but represented a low percentage. Most were fanned by anti-Republican president, anti-American, anti-globalist feeling, or sentiments against the ickiness of all war in general."</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I was referencing Bernard Kouchner, a gentleman of the left. Ad hom him, not me.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-27154995565459925102007-08-24T13:00:00.000-04:002007-08-24T13:00:00.000-04:00Any support for the war I felt evaporated when it ...Any support for the war I felt evaporated when it became clear that the Bush administration felt the need to lie in support of it . . . over and over and over and over.<BR/><BR/>If the case for invasion is solid, one does not need to make shit up.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I'm sure that there are all sort of <I>very sophisticated reasons</I> that <I>very serious people</I> will offer as to why my Mycahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06169534197143405966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1473130299441623502007-08-24T06:47:00.000-04:002007-08-24T06:47:00.000-04:00I dunno what the percentages were like, but I stop...I dunno what the percentages were like, but I stopped supporting the invasion when the lies and deception became intolerable and the charges of unpatriotism began flying.<BR/><BR/>I wanted Saddam out, but the smell of rat became overwhelming.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-18668112081291589692007-08-23T23:25:00.000-04:002007-08-23T23:25:00.000-04:00I can only speak for myself except when I make and...I can only speak for myself except when I make and obscenely broad statement that not only summarily dismisses anyone who might disagree with me but also points out that if they do they are traitors. Tom come on now this is getting out of hand.tehr0x0rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12837174315984980040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-16756057360074535852007-08-23T21:24:00.000-04:002007-08-23T21:24:00.000-04:00"I can only speak for myself." Except when I say:..."I can only speak for myself." <BR/><BR/>Except when I say:<BR/><BR/>"Objecting to the war on prudential grounds was certainly principled, but represented a low percentage. Most were fanned by anti-Republican president, anti-American, anti-globalist feeling, or sentiments against the ickiness of all war in general."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-81919845170909838592007-08-23T18:45:00.000-04:002007-08-23T18:45:00.000-04:001) That's fine if that's what YOU think, Tom, but...1) That's fine if that's what YOU think, Tom, but WS is saying that the administration never thought that way.<BR/><BR/>2) I don't know how this war can be considered to be justified in any way that even closely resembles humanitarianism. Saddam killed how many? Well, he was on trial for the deaths of 148 people. Johns-Hopkins University last gave the estimate of the deaths caused by the warThe Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813641115915460692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-68615275655856325732007-08-23T17:36:00.000-04:002007-08-23T17:36:00.000-04:00C'mon, Tom, this administration didn't give a shit...<I>C'mon, Tom, this administration didn't give a shit about the moral case against Saddam. Conservatives don't operate like that.</I><BR/><BR/>This one does. I can only speak for myself. No butchery, no war, and I can't think I was alone in this.<BR/><BR/>We all end up with strange (and undesirable) bedfellows, as Kouchner pointed out. Objecting to the war on prudential grounds was certainly Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-6171676748938597232007-08-22T16:25:00.000-04:002007-08-22T16:25:00.000-04:00Precisely right, Winston.It's not that I'm saying ...Precisely right, Winston.<BR/><BR/>It's not that I'm saying that prudence overrides morality or that morality overrides prudence or anything of the sort.<BR/><BR/>Both are important considerations and both should be taken into account.<BR/><BR/>However, if, as someone opposed to the war, I say, "this is a bad idea, and it's going to be a big freaking disaster," and I am met with, "clearly you Mycahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06169534197143405966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-2709784107321247802007-08-22T15:55:00.000-04:002007-08-22T15:55:00.000-04:00I dunno, Tom, maybe you've got a point. But the co...I dunno, Tom, maybe you've got a point. But the conversation moved to this point organically, whereas your comment just seemed irrelevant fulminating.<BR/><BR/>I mean, what's that crap about how:<BR/><BR/>"People on the right like me took for granted that EVERYONE (your caps here, I prefer not to shout) recognized the moral imperative of toppling Saddam.<BR/><BR/>That was not so, and was a grave Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-2849498080862848802007-08-22T14:58:00.000-04:002007-08-22T14:58:00.000-04:00Funny that this discussion has completely taken th...Funny that this discussion has completely taken the form of moral justification vs. prudence yet I get accused of irrelevance. Hmmm, could it have something to do with my political leanings?<BR/><BR/>Sort of reminds one of the post above this about how awful it is to stifle dissent. The irony is daily around here lately.<BR/><BR/>And yes, WS, you did miss some subtlety, or maybe what was Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-6283951402707377422007-08-22T14:12:00.000-04:002007-08-22T14:12:00.000-04:00OK, Winston, if I understand you correctly, I agre...OK, Winston, if I understand you correctly, I agree.<BR/><BR/>That is, the quote would more completely capture the moral implications of action if it said "...A state comtemplating intervention of counter-intervention will FOR BOTH PRUDENTIAL AND MORAL REASONS, weigh the dangers to itself...".<BR/><BR/>Do you agree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-62051030394732036052007-08-22T13:52:00.000-04:002007-08-22T13:52:00.000-04:00Good points, Myca and A.I was thinking not of the ...Good points, Myca and A.<BR/><BR/>I was thinking not of the prudential consequences of a war against China, but of the moral consequences, but I didn't make myself clear.<BR/><BR/>A war against China would be a moral (as well as a prudential) disaster, b/c it'd probably cause more harm than good.<BR/><BR/>That's what I was thinking, anyway.<BR/><BR/>Also, re: A's point:<BR/><BR/>Not every appeal Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-55584941962495588152007-08-22T12:56:00.000-04:002007-08-22T12:56:00.000-04:00At this point in this discussion, an excerpt from ...At this point in this discussion, an excerpt from a book by someone who has dedicated themselves to a thorough, logical and consistent analysis of the justness of war seems in order.<BR/><BR/>I don't offer this as dispositive, since nobody but the most philosophically impaired is persuaded by appeal to authority. I just think it sums up my discomfort with the Iraq War as a worthwhile Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-48831032057437489372007-08-22T12:30:00.000-04:002007-08-22T12:30:00.000-04:00Well, I don't think that China is a good counterex...<I>Well, I don't think that China is a good counterexample, Myca, because *that* war would be a catastrophe.</I><BR/><BR/>No, no, that's specifically why I brought it up. It would be an utter catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions . . . but remember, <B>this isn't about prudence.</B> It's about doing what's morally right, whether it's prudent or not.<BR/><BR/>If the argument is that, "Sweet god, Mycahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06169534197143405966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-55163592177335288012007-08-22T12:19:00.000-04:002007-08-22T12:19:00.000-04:00Well, I don't think that China is a good counterex...Well, I don't think that China is a good counterexample, Myca, because *that* war would be a catastrophe.<BR/><BR/>But Darfur, the Congo, and all the place like them, where conservatives would never even consider raising a finger, do give the lie to Tom's claim.<BR/><BR/>Think about the rabid conservative opposition to intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. Think of the criticisms of Jimmy Carter forWinston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-57263068601380532782007-08-22T12:11:00.000-04:002007-08-22T12:11:00.000-04:00The certainty was moral, not political and certain...<I>The certainty was moral, not political and certainly not born of prudence.</I><BR/><BR/>Right . . . which is why we're in Darfur, right? It certainly seems to be a more pressing moral imperative.<BR/><BR/>Aaaaand why we're invading China. Brutal dictator, killing his own people, yadda yadda yadda . . . What's that? It's a horrible idea that will end in bloody disaster? Prudence has no place Mycahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06169534197143405966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-34306117203228352842007-08-22T09:25:00.000-04:002007-08-22T09:25:00.000-04:00Jesus, Tom, you just don't give up, do you?These p...Jesus, Tom, you just don't give up, do you?<BR/><BR/>These points have all been refuted before. t-r0x is right.<BR/><BR/>But one note:<BR/>Funny how the right only recognized moral imperatives when there's oil involved. They give the brutal bastard Saddam Sarin when it's convenient, and when guys like me object they ridicule them as naive. Morality, they tell us, has no place in foreign policy. Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-36121598708780795012007-08-21T22:49:00.000-04:002007-08-21T22:49:00.000-04:00Tom, I would point out how pointless your post is ...Tom, I would point out how pointless your post is on specific levels but I will just say that as usual you have taken your post in a direction that has little to do with the topic at hand and leave it to WS or someone else who has more time on their hands to point out the specifics. But at the end of the day this isn't a debate about if the war is justified or not, it is a debate about if thosetehr0x0rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12837174315984980040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-39590664001042496412007-08-21T22:23:00.000-04:002007-08-21T22:23:00.000-04:00The certainty was moral, not political and certain...The certainty was moral, not political and certainly not born of prudence. That Saddam was an unrepentant butcher, that he adored WMDs, that he had no compunctions using them, that he left hundreds of thousands in mass graves, that we stood by doing nothing while he slaughtered the very people we'd urged to revolt, that our own sanctions killed their tens of thousands of Iraqi women and childrenTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com