The Undercard Robert George vs. Steve Gilliard.
Fight Synopsis: Steve Gilliard paints Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (who is running for Senate) up in blackface and calls him simple Sambo. Robert George responds.
The Kaine Campaign (he is running for Gov. in VA) then pulls their advertising from Steve Gilliard’s website. Gilliard goes apeshit, calling both the Kaine campaign and Robert George cowards, and having a general meltdown.
The Decision: TKO. Gilliard knocks himself out with a left hook.
The Main Event: Peter Daou v. BlackFive, LGF, and (perhaps) Michelle Malkin
Fight Synopsis: Daou surveys the blogosphere, does not like what he reads from the right regarding the ‘vigils’ over the 2000th casualty in Iraq, and pens a missive:
Last week Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs characterized candlelight vigils by the Quakers marking the milestone of 2000 military deaths in Iraq as “parties.”
Today, the MilBlog Blackfive follows them into the gutter. “There are two groups that will celebrate and use George Alexander’s sacrifice. The morally bankrupt anti-war movement. And Al Qaeda.”
I find this rash of posts suggesting that anti-war activists “celebrate” the deaths of American soldiers to be both tragic and telling.
Tragic, because it represents a descent into depraved, gutter-level slander as a form of argumentation, and it is a profoundly un-American approach to a most American of activities: dissent. Telling, because it means these bloggers have nothing left to justify the deaths of Americans in Iraq but desperate and transparent attacks on those who want our troops home…
Bottom line: If Malkin, LGF, and Blackfive think opponents of the Iraq war are “celebrating” the deaths of American troops, let them answer the basic paradox of their position, namely, how is it that wanting our troops NOT to die is worse than wanting them to remain in the line of fire?
BlackFive swings back:
Using the deaths of my friends as an excuse to spout socialistic and anarchistic drivel is not acceptable to me.
And you don’t believe that the left isn’t celebrating the deaths of my friends? Don’t believe it’s a celebration? Zombie has the proof. It’s disgusting and reprehensible. Did you know that they’re planning a large protest at Walter Reed where wounded vets are recovering? Is that acceptable to Peter?
Of course, I don’t want our troops to die. I’ve lost three very good friends in this war. I talk to my friend’s widow every week. I’ve had several friends wounded. And I’ve visited wounded heroes. I’ve met Iraqis, too.
They aren’t numbers to me. That’s why I blog. That’s why folks like Peter Daou and others on the far left side of the aisle don’t want me to have an opinion.
Some things are worth fighting for. A free Iraq is worth fighting for. A free Middle East is worth fighting for. A world free of terrorism is worth fighting for.
My friends believed that, too.
The people that are against a free Iraq are people that don’t believe that anything is worth fighting for.
Blackfive then tags Charles at LGF, who writes:
If Daou doesn’t like our description, perhaps he should ask these people why they look so happy as they carry pictures of dead soldiers: Celebrating the 2000th American Death in the Iraq War.
The Decision: None yet- Fight still in progress. Daou received a one point penalty for having the logical fallacy in his question, while Black Five is penalized for characterizing Daou’s opposition as ‘socialistic.’
This one could go a few rounds.
Lines
BlackFive penalized another point for implying that terrorism was something that can be fought to an end, where terrorism will just cease to exist. This requires large amounts of stupidity or drugs to believe. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he’s doping, possibly just for this fight.
salvage
he should ask these people why they look so happy as they carry pictures of dead soldiers
dar I dunno maybe because someone was talking der pichure?
So happy? Yes, there were balloons, and cakes and clowns! Jugglers and high wire acts, a bonfire with minstrels! It was the part-tay of the protest season.
What should they be doing? Throwing themselves on the ground weeping hysterically? It doesn’t matter what the protestors / vigilers? (vigilantes?) do, LFG and the rest of the marching morons would have to have said something to buttress their crazy ass deflection of the mess that Iraq is in.
Fact: 2,005 U.S. soldiers are dead and that’s what the events were designed to draw attention to.
Geek, Esq.
Uh, Blackfive gets deducted five points for misrepresenting the nature of the protests both for the 2000 figure (they are stupid, but the AFSC isn’t going to celebrate anyone’s death) and the protests at Walter Reed.
He gets deducted 1000 points for making common cause for an unprincipled liar like Charles Johnson.
Another Jeff
I think Kaine is running for VA Gov, and Steele is running for Senate in MD. Just an FYI.
Regardless, though, kudos to the Kaine people for pulling the plug. Gilliard is a racist idiot.
But at least he’s not a hardcore racist, since he never said Steele could run fast.
Ancient Purple
Because I know that when I really want to party down, my first thought is to head on over to a local Quaker gathering.
As for Blackfive, his contribution to the war effort is to blog, vote Republican, and put a “Support the Troops” magnet on the back of his car.
How noble.
Geek, Esq.
Gilliard definitely goes places a white blogger could never get away with.
Still not smart for Kaine to have his ads running next to something that bears a surface resemblance to Klan materials, even if the point is exactly the opposite.
Geoduck
I used to enjoy Steve Gillard, and still admire his fighting spirit, but.. after a while.. you start to get the distinct impression that he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
John Cole
Another Jeff- Fixed. Worst thing is- I knew that. I just watched all the Kilgore commercials yesterday.
Geek, Esq.
Isn’t Blackfive a vet? No need to disparage his service. Just his far-right whacko comments.
Jack Roy
First, the obvious: Gilliard’s post makes me very uncomfortable. Andrew Sullivan calling him a racist is asinine (and very Sullivan), but there’s a limit to which even I can follow the visceral logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” or whatever the equivalent might be for blogs. “The flamer of my flamer,” perhaps. In any event, Gilliard going ape-shit bananas over the blowback is completely ridiculous.
As to the second fight, I confess I don’t understand what you mean by Daou’s “logical fallacy.” I suspect you mean his query “how is it that wanting our troops NOT to die is worse than wanting them to remain in the line of fire?”, which I gather you think erroneously states the position of the pro-war crowd, but Daou never said pro-war types are actively desirous that the troops die or remain in danger, merely that that was part of a paradox he saw in their position. A man is held to intend the natural consequences of his actions, as all us lawyers learned in first-year torts. And so the necessary or probable consequence of someone’s favored action, it seems to me, is fairly chargeable to that him. It wasn’t thought to be an unfair rhetorical tactic last year when critics of John Kerry’s stance on the war said that, if he’d had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power—surely a fully honest such charge would include “and 2,000 American GIs would still be alive,” but no one thought it was fallacious for Dick Cheney so to say. (Perhaps you did, I don’t know, but if so, you have rather severe standards.)
I suppose this kind of hits at the central dispute over the war among those who accept the problematic nature of its mission: Namely, to what extent does “supporting the troops” entail supporting their mission? Daou’s interlocutors obviously have this someone on their mind—the proper rebuttal to “anti-war protesters aren’t rejoicing in American casualties” is “yes they are, see?”, not “A free Iraq is worth fighting for.” The former answer, if dubious, is at least on topic; the latter requires as its logical antecedent the belief that supporting the troops means supporting what the troops are there to do. It’s a respectable position, of course, but so is its opposite. And I think that’s at the heart of what people disagree about when they disagree about the war. You may take one side, to be sure, but those who take the other are not engaging in “fallacy.”
neil
He’s a veteran? He must have fought to secure the right of Peter Daou to shut the fuck u[.
Pug
As for Blackfive, his contribution to the war effort is to blog, vote Republican, and put a “Support the Troops” magnet on the back of his car.
Using the deaths of my friends as an excuse to spout socialistic and anarchistic drivel is not acceptable to me.
I don’t know much about Blackfive, but reading what he wrote I assumed he must be a soldier in Iraq what with talking about the deaths of his friends and all. If he isn’t he loses by DQ for trying to sound like he’s a hard-ass fighting man when he isn’t. If he is in Iraq and he is a hard-ass fighting man, carry on.
Dan Spartan
Screw the fights, I want more pictures of the card girl!!!!
Matt D
Ah, yes, the Homer Simpson-esque “minus 1,000 points!!!” (remember when Patty & Selma flunked him during his limo driver’s exam?) What else should one expect from the majority of the commenters here? Right, sure, of course those people in the pictures were just smiling for the cameras.
“What should they be doing??” Most vigils I’ve ever heard of are pretty serious, solemn events. I guess when you’re entire social calendar consists of protest gatherings in San Francisco (home of the famous placards that read “I [Heart] NY–Especially Without the Towers” or “We Support the Troops…When they Shoot their Officers”) it’s hard to sort out the somber vigils from the rip, roaring party-down America-Bashing orgies. Maybe they were just confused and thought the 2,000 vigil was for Saturday.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Uhhh excuse me? I’d love to see him explain that one. I mean if all goes well and Iraq sets an example as democracy for the other nations in the middle east that is great but how in the hell is a free Iraq–in-of-itself–worth fighting for?
Sounds like stupid bullshit rethoric to me…”A Free Vietnam is worth fighting for”
Jane Finch
Ugh…more proof that the blogosphere is still Grade Nine in oh so many ways.
Ancient Purple
Point taken. I would never disparage the service of any person in the military (and I am the proud uncle of a serviceman in Iraq right now), past or present.
But the “You hate America because you disagree with the war in Iraq” is absurd prattle.
Jack Roy
Ancient Purple—really? Lt. Wm. Calley?
Pug
Ugh…more proof that the blogosphere is still Grade Nine in oh so many ways.
Yeah. I do wonder, though, when did it become the duty of young Americans to die for the freedom of Iraqis?
Dying to fight against a “gathering threat” of weapons of mass destruction to be used against America I can understand. Dying in a fight against Al-Qaeda, who attacked the US, I can understand.
Dying for the freedom of the Iraqi people? That would have been a tough sell back in 2003 if that was the proposition, straight up. Democratizing the Middle East? Ask Brent Scowcroft about that one.
srv
If these people are so happy celebrating dead soldiers, why do they want the war to stop?
Faux News
Ugh…more proof that the blogosphere is still Grade Nine in oh so many ways.
I would respectfully disagree and state the bologosphere is 8th Grade. You know, the akward phase.
Pug
If these people are so happy celebrating dead soldiers, why do they want the war to stop?
Pretty damn good question when you think about it.
Steve
The people that are against a free Iraq are people that don’t believe that anything is worth fighting for.
This is such an absurd statement I don’t know where to begin. No one is against the concept of a free and democratic Iraq. There is a broad consensus in favor of a free and democratic Cuba, a free and democratic Sudan, a free and democratic China, and so forth. But only a true warmonger could conclude that just because something is a good idea, it is worth going to war to make it happen. The rest of us believe the case has to be stronger than that.
Implying that democracy in Iraq is the #1 cause American troops could be fighting for is just empty rhetoric.
Mike
Now according to the San Francisco Wackos we Americans (not the terrorists mind you) have murdered 100,000 Innocent Iraqis in cold blood. Whereas the Wackos in Houston say we’ve only murdered 27,000 Iraqis in cold blood. I’m confused. How big of mass murderers are we exactly? Or did one group do a better job of personally going over there and counting than the other? Which is it?
Shygetz
Dammit, he didn’t get a picture of the strippers!
Please. He took a bunch of pictures. Some of them were obviously smiling for the camera. Others, he could have easily taken pictures between solemn events when people were chatting (I’ve never been to a funeral where no one smiled ever, and that’s with the body and survivors right there). Zombie only proved that he was there with a camera. And I loved the way he set himself up against future discrediting by saying that the liberal press wasn’t covering what was really going on.
Slartibartfast
Grade 8 is pretty hard. I’d hate to think what Grade 9 would be, if there was one.
Shygetz
Where did you get those numbers, Mike? I don’t know where they got them from.
Defense Guy
Damn those warmongering abolitionists, how they could think it was worth a war I have no idea. Good call.
salvage
A free Iraq is worth fighting for
Sure, but is what’s going on the best way to make that fight? So far not really.
BumperStickerist
He gets deducted 1000 points for making common cause for an unprincipled liar like Charles Johnson.
Could you run through the reasoning for the ‘unprincipled liar’ tag for Charles Johnson one time lightly for me?
Joey
Wow, that was a stupid statement. We didn’t get into the Civil War because of slavery – Even 8th graders know that the reason the war started was because of state’s rights issues. Slavery became a cause after the fighting.
Defense Guy
Joey
You’re making me laugh man. I suppose there was some OTHER states right issue besides slavery that you would place as the cause of the Civil War.
Joey
*GASP* Those people are looking right into the camera and smiling!!! They must be celebrating American deaths!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, how fucking idiotic can people be? It’s painfully obvious that those people knew they were getting their picture taken, as the great majority of them are looking DIRECTLY at the camera. This guy, and anybody who thinks like him, is a complete and utter waste of organic material.
Joey
Ummm…. in a word, YES. The right to secede is a pretty big one. The right to run their economies how they see fit another one (excluding slavery). Slavery was pretty low on the list of causes actually, especially when you include the plethora of cultural differences that had been straining relations between the two sides since the American Revolution.
Lines
Wow, DG, you just made it perfectly clear that you have NO idea what the hell you are talking about. Would you like to go on and prove that ignorance is at its best only when its talking louder than everyone else?
Defense Guy
Joey
You running around in circles, and you don’t even know it. Sad really. The reason for cessesion was? Some OTHER economic issues? Please. It may be a fun acedemic pursuit to pretend that the cause of the war was something other than slavery, but it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Defense Guy
You mean regarding the civil war? Jesus, where do you people come from? Fine Slide, oh cherrypicker of facts, enlighten me.
gorillagogo
This whole notion that a free Iraq is worth fighting for seems a little too cart-before-the-horse for me, since it assumes that a free Iraq could be attained through invasion. Maybe I’m just nitpicking, but I wouldn’t refer to the current situation over there as “free”.
demimondian
Good God, did I just read somebody seriously saying that the right to secede was the basis of the Civil War? DG — did you read that, too?
Sheesh. Go read the Southern papers during the build up to the attack on Fort Sumter. The Southern elites were desperately worried that Lincoln would find a repayment strategy which would buy back and free the slaves that there was huge pressure on the elected officials of the South to start a war. That’s why the South attacked Sumter, not the other way around.
The Disenfranchised Voter
salvage–You say that a free Iraq is worth fighting for. Care to explain why?
Joey
Other economic issues? How about that the North was was in the middle of the Industrial Revolution and enjoying the relative explosion of a middle class, while the South was in a relative economic rut, and dealing with a massive amount of poor people controlled by an incredibly small percentage of rich land owners? Pride in one’s region can quickly turn to jealousy, even if within the same country. And as for other causes of secession, while slavery certainly was certainly a major player among them, the election of 1860 really pushed it over the edge. The North wanted one democrat, the south another. Naturally, neither won; divided parties never win. The south felt that they should be ruled by somebody of their choosing. And, once again, Lincoln did not fight the war for slavery. While he was against it, he never once prior to the war advocated it’s complete repeal. He, like most Northerners, was fighting just to preserve the Union. The eradication of slavery was merely a welcome bonus.
Joey
But we really could argue this all day, and as there is a rampant debate among historians to this very day about the causes, we shall have to just agree to disagree. Truce?
Defense Guy
I did. I find it amazing as well.
Defense Guy
Joey
It’s not a war, but I’m all for a truce.
Lines
demi and DG: It depends on the view of the person. The south was fighting for its ability to retain slaves, even after it was made clear that the practice of slavery was nearing a practical end (many many papers have been written about the end of slavery being a foregone conclusion and it was recognized by the North before the Civil War began). The South, also beginning to recognize an end to their lifestyle, wanted to distance themselves from the North and its economics in order to maintain a class distinction.
In the end, it really was more about economics and Democracy than ending slavery.
Joey
I wasn’t implying it was. I just wanted to stop it before it got there, as I’m sure you would too :). But, for the record, the right to secede is cited by many, many historians as the key cause.
salvage
salvage—You say that a free Iraq is worth fighting for. Care to explain why?
Sure, but first to be clear I’m very much against the invasion of Iraq and it’s bungled aftermath.
A free and democratic anywhere is a good thing, if you live in a free and democratic country I don’t have to explain why. Bush is right when he expresses these sorts of ideas in his stumbling demented child-king way. It’s good for them, it’s good for us.
Now how that fight is fought is the question, and in Iraq’s case invading was simply retarded. Bush Sr. knew it wouldn’t work and I wish he had explained it to junior. The fight needed to take a far more subtle form and the no-fly zones, sanctions and inspections and the threat of violence against Saddam’s regime was a start. Perhaps not the best but better than what the U.S. has now.
So worth a fight? For sure. Worth the fight that the U.S. is currently stuck in? No. They’ve tried to do the right thing the very wrong way and as a result we have more war in the Middle East and more terrorists being created, trained and motivated.
Andrei
Oh… it’s worse than that. The question should be:
Is a free Iraq is worth DYING for?
Is a free Vietnam is worth DYING for?
Is a free North Korea is worth DYING for?
Is a free Iran is worth DYING for?
And of course, the follow-up: Is a free Iraq worth my children dying for?
The problem of course is that when you ask this question, I think most Americans would agree the answer to be “hell no.” Dying so that others can be free is not in and of itself a reasonable sacrifice to ask your fellow countrymen. It may be noble in some twisted nation-building exercise sort of way, but it’s not enough to ask people to die for that cause alone.
I know my answer is a very large “fuck no.” And we know Bush and most of our elected officials have risked little of their personal safety or the safety of their families for a war that is supposedly so critically important to our future that we had to wage it pre-emptively.
The issue is that the war was sold as providing ourselves with security, to stop terrorism, which has the nice side effect supposedly providing freedom to these oppressed countries. That’s how it had to be sold. Because when you try to sell it along the lines of “the sacrifice of your life is worth it for all those Iraqis that need freedom” you’ll hear a huge “fuck that” coming from all corners of America.
And yet, of course as we all should know by now, fighting a war to remove Saddam Hussein seems to have little to do with fighting terrorism directly. It just doesn’t, and if it does, we won’t know that answer until some 20 years from now.
Support the troops? Fuck, we can’t even get people on the pro-war side of the fence to be fucking honest about WHY Americans dying on foreign soil is worth the cost. It wasn’t until two weeks ago Condi Rice on MTP finally admitted this whole thing was a “bold experiment.”
So there you go… Is a “bold experiment” worth DYING for?
The Disenfranchised Voter
I think you missed my point.
If you don’t mind me being selfish here…Why should Americans have to die to free Iraqis? I can understand fighting for OUR freedom but I fail to see why the freedom of Iraqis is worth fighting for. Frankly, that should be up to the Iraqis.
Joey
I tend to agree. Now, if they had a substancial fighting force that was actively fighting Saddam for freedom, then helping them out with special forces, supplies, logistics, etc. would be fine. But they have to earn it themselves. This isn’t like Afghanistan, who was harboring people who had attacked us. Iraq wasn’t a threat to us. Iraq was only a threat to it’s own citizens, which makes them no different than dozens (a conservative guess) of countries all around the world.
Otto Man
A year ago, we went to bury my wife’s grandmother. After the funeral, she and two cousins she never sees were talking and she asked me to take a photo. In the photo, they all put forth a smile, which is what human beings do when a photo is taken of them. But by this moron’s argument, they were just happy their grandmother had finally died.
I’ve yet to see anyone answer the basic question here — if antiwar protestors are so damn happy about the soldiers’ deaths, then why are they calling for the end of the war?
What’s that? Michael Moore is fat? Oh, OK then.
Mike S
The “celebrating” bit is bullshit but just as with Sheehan I’m willing to over look stupid statements. Well most of them anyway.
These people have a much more personal stake in this war than most of us. When you have friends or family that is fighting or has died over there you tend to be more strident in your opposition/support for what is going on.
Therefore some leeway is deserved.
JonBuck
A few days ago I was accused of being selfish in a “I’ve Got Mine, Fuck You” manner because of my opinions on universal health care.
Now I’m seeing the same thing reflected who apparently don’t care about the freedom of others. Oh, they say they care. The most selfless act I can think of is risking your life for a total stranger.
Is someone else’s freedom worth DYING for?
JonBuck
And here is my answer. In plain words, no less.
Defense Guy
It has been in the past, so it seems likely that it should be now. However, freedom of the Iraqi’s isn’t the entire argument for war or a continuation of the struggle in Iraq. Countries in the ME have begun to export the violence that their teaching of stupid hatreds has wrought. To do nothing is simply not an option anymore.
Mike S
What do you think would happen with recruiting if the stated position of this government was that we would wage war in any country that did not give freedom to it’s people? And How many wars would we fight? And are you willing to sign up to go into Saudi Arabia, Uzbechistan, Iran, China… to give your life for their freedom?
Joey
Bit of a difference between the deaths of citizens and a raise in taxes that would benefit citizens of this country. Just a small one. I’m not saying you’re wrong about universal health care (I’m for it heavily, but I can at least see where people who are against are coming from), but it’s not a fair comparison.
JonBuck
Correction.
That was not my personal answer. But it is the answer to the question I posed in my earlier post to people here.
SeesThroughIt
The Daou vs. LGF/Blackfive/Malkin fight isn’t even close. Daou roundly whooped all of their asses. The only real question is if LGF/Blackfive/Malkin deliberately misconstrued the vigils, etc. as “parties” or if they just plain don’t know any better.
Lines
Would you give up your life to save another: yes.
Would you give up your life to try to change another’s way of life? No.
jaime
A) The South is STILL fighting the Civil War.
B) The “Outrage” over those pictures are SO dishonest.
This quote is most ridiculous:
“Most of my subjects were not even aware that they were being photographed, at least until afterwards when they saw the flash”
It seems like in EVERY shot where someone is smiling they are quite aware they were being honest and the photos where they are not smiling or engaged in conversation, they were not aware of the presence of the camera.
Josh
Whether the Civil War was started to end slavery is not really the problem with Defense Guy’s statement. The real problem is that he apparently thinks the Civil War is somehow relevant to the war in Iraq.
CS
Yeah, its possible to “celebrate” the deaths of 2000+ soldiers and also want them withdrawn, for the simple reason both instances provide sufficient embarrassment to the current administration.
After reading the peacenik quotes from Republican leaders during the Kosovo affair, its easy to note that they would be celebrating the casualties and demanding withdrawal if this war had been launched by Clinton.
At the end of the day, its nothing but politics for both sides. The merits or lack of the matter are meaningless.
Ancient Purple
Oh, please.
But to clear it up for you, let me edit my statement to say “served honorably.”
Feel better now?
pmm
The idea that we must fight everywhere or fight nowhere is pretty weak. Is it not like arguing that the police must stop all crime or they should stop no crime?
Instead, how about we fight when we can where we must?
Joey
Now, in fairness to DG, that wasn’t so much his argument. He was responding to another person’s argument using that as an example. I thought it was a bad example, and that’s how we got off topic.
Andrei
Oh really? Examples? And just how is this a convservative position to take, politically and historically speaking?
And of course, Iraq was a key player in this, seeing how Saddam was the most secularist of all those “islamofascists” in exporting terrorism to rest of the world.
Further, it’s quite clear that the war has succeed is quelling terrorist activity in the region and abroad, as there’s now less of it than there was before the Iraq war.
Let’s pull out the distraction card now!
One more time: Just because many of us are against this war doesn’t mean we are for doing “nothing.” Other policy options, diplomatic or otherwise, were never given a fair debate, and to this day the war is treated as the only viable option and has some bizarre sense of inevitablity to it as if it were the only thing that was possible to do.
Even the White house has been caught on this as exemplified with the Plame affair. Why bother with backhanded attempts to discredit dissent on fighting a war? Why not have more open debate about the thousands of options that were on the table to solve the problem of islamic terrorism.
jaime
My big question is this:
Is that UFC CardGirl in the photo too muscular for your tastes?
Blue Neponset
I think the people who ask these types of questions have selective memories. We went into Iraq to supposedly keep ourselves safe not to free Iraqis. I am sick of pointing out that Iraq had been ruled by a brutal dictator for decades, and the Repubs and Bush never mentioned freeing Iraqis by invading their country until it was politically convenient for them.
The answer to your question is maybe. If Peru invaded Canada I would be all for sending US troops to help the Canadians regain their freedom. If Cuba was ruled by a communist dictator who oppressed his people for close to 50 years I am not so sure I would want to send US troops to Cuba. Good thing for us the Peruvians aren’t strong enough to tackle Canda yet, and the Cuban people live country that is free and Democratic.
SeesThroughIt
Yes, but they have renamed it “The War of Northern Aggression” (or “The War Between the States,” if they’re feeling generous). Seriously.
She’s borderline, that’s for sure.
Joey
Yes, but beggars can’t be choosers, so I wouldn’t complain. That, and if I did she would probably beat my ass.
salvage
Why should Americans have to die to free Iraqis?
They shouldn’t if they don’t want to, I certainly woudn’t.
I’ve often had a thought that runs along the lines of “Wasn’t Saddam really Iraq’s problem to solve? Doesn’t every house there have an AK-47? Perhaps the Iraqis knew what a Saddam-free Iraq would be like and decided that it was better to stick with the status quo for the time being.” but I have no idea if this is true or not.
salvage
Is that UFC CardGirl in the photo too muscular for your tastes?
Oh hell yes.
Mike S
A man made of straw is even weaker.
Cyrus
Okay, just so we’re totally clear here, are the protests that BlackFive said were planned at Walter Reed related to the ones discussed on this blog a couple months ago? The ones which were protesting a lack of funding to the VA as much as protesting the war, made up in large part by proud veterans? Is he talking about something like that?
Asking for information. If not, his argument potentially has a point. But if so, he’s probably got himself lodged firmly in the “hack” column by that alone.
Andrei
Oh… I keep forgetting to ask:
What logical fallacy?
Lines
I don’t think they knew what a Saddam free Iraq would look like, but I think they knew that the chances of things getting better for them would be slim, and that the death and destruction that would result from the attempt, successful or not, would definately cost more than they were willing to pay.
pmm
Also, a free Iraq isn’t necessarily worth fighting for simply to liberate the Iraqi people, but rather because a despotic Iraq presented an ongoing threat to the US, and our policy towards Iraq prior to OIF was ultimately unsustainable.
A key take away from recent military expeditions has been that the US public will tolerate the expenditure of resources for fuzzy altruistic reasons, but that body counts serve to focus the mind. That’s why we bailed in Somalia and Lebanon but were willing to stick around Bosnia for a decade and Kosovo to this day.
In Iraq, there’s more at stake than simply liberating the Iraqi people. Whether you think that’s worth 2000+ US servicemen and women is debatable, but deciding that “a free Iraq” is all about liberation and not about how a democratic Iraq would support US strategic interests is ignoring a lot.
Finally, ‘worth dying for’ is a tall order for damn near anything. Few people volunteer on suicide missions, regardless of the goals. Soldiers play the percentages, just like everyone else. To paraphrase Patton, they’re counting on the other guy getting killed. Some would say (in the abstract) that they are willing to die for something, but until it happens that’d just be bravado and bluster. Putting oneself in harms way is remarkably different from dying. Perhaps it’s a poor analogy, but it’s the equivalent of playing Russian roulette versus just putting a semi-automatic to your head and pulling the trigger.
Steve
That’s not at all true. DG was responding to my argument that said not everything which is a good idea is worth fighting a war over. His use of the Civil War was a silly example because I never disputed that SOME good ideas might be worth fighting a war for.
From where I sit, the Civil War was started by the South, anyway, to preserve slavery against the abolitionists. So the better analogy would be if Saddam attacked us in order to preserve his right to oppress his people, would we be justified in fighting back? Well, obviously.
There are billions of people all over the world who live under tyranny and undemocratic governments, and yet, we don’t normally go around invading all these countries to make them more democratic. We don’t have unlimited manpower or resources, and we need to choose our priorities. Why Iraq was our #1 priority in 2002 – so important that it was worth diverting resources that could have been used to finish the job in Afghanistan – is anybody’s guess.
Lest we forget, the statement I scoffed at was not an assertion that Iraq was a good idea, but an assertion that if Iraq is not worth fighting for, then nothing is. It’s positively silly to assert that throughout human history, this is the most just war ever fought, and somehow the vast majority of the world fails to realize it.
Joey
And I said it was a bad argument. I was defending you! That’s how we got off on the tangent about what the main cause of the Civil War was.
pmm
What’s the straw man, MikeS? The policy (as paraphrased in the 2nd Bush Inauguration Speech) is that we liberate where we can, with what tools are best suited to the job. Based on your argument, you seem to think that liberation of an oppressed people can not be used in support of a given armed action such as OIF unless we commit to liberating all countries.
In short, if I made a straw man, it was only because I thought yours was looking lonely.
Steve
Oh, ok, Joey. I misread your sentence and thought you said I was the one using the Civil War as an example. Peace.
Joey
It’s alright, it’s not like I haven’t misread something before. :)
Mike S
Reread the question I was responding to. Did I say we should never fight anywhere? Of course not yet you threw a little straw at it to make it so.
But you tell me, where is the next place we should “liberate.” Should we go back to Somalia? Or should we back off on our strange new relationship with Sudan?
The initial question was an open ended one that made little sense to me for the reasons I stated.
When I was younger I was all for interventions. But as I got older I realised that it’s a tricky business. There are some that I think are worth while still. Like Boznia or Rhwanda or even Sudan in order to stop genocide.
But I am not willing to go fight in those countries so it is unfair to me to demand that others do. But if some feel that it is a good idea to change the mission of our armed forces to intervene in areas that are not a threat to us shouldn’t anyone who may be willing to sign up be made fully aware that that mission has changed and they could be sent to fight wars where there no dangers to the US?
Brian
http://ownedbycats.blogspot.com/2005/10/question.html
Regarding this post, originally linked from Balloon Juice.
…
The Disenfranchised Voter
Bullshit. Look let’s stop pretending that Saddam was actually a threat to the US. I don’t give a shit if Saddam was a threat to his neighbors. As far as I’m concerned that is their fucking problem.
pmm
Yes, Disenfranchised Voter, since the US lives in the bottle like that lost city of Krypton, and regional threats can never be our problem.
Darrell
True enough, but middle east terrorists had attacked us numerous times. We more or less left them alone, and by not aggressively fighting them, they took that as weakness and came at us hard on 9/11. ME terrorism is widespread, not limited to a few in Afghanistan. Saddam’s connections to terrorists are well established as is his record of producing and using WMDs.. he was no doubt a threat. As the Duelfer report makes clear
Iraq had violated it’s 1991 terms of surrender and other BINDING UN resolutions so many times, making Iraq the most logical choice to begin a much needed middle east shake-up of the status quo. We’ve already seen Syria withdraw from Lebanon and Khaddafi has dropped his drawers on his WMD program (which was much further along than our intelligence reports had previously indicated). You can chalk that up to good timing or whatever, but there can be little doubt that the dominos are already starting to fall, and we will be safer as a result of toppling Saddam
Jack Roy
Yes, thank you!
I was actually just being petty, vaguely in recognition that Everyone Knows that of course we must always praise the bravery and freedom of the troops. Agreed, so far as it goes, but I just wonder to what extent this is empty piety. It’s not a point really worth making, but… hey, that’s why God invented blogs.
Mike S
The idiot liar has arrived so it is time for me to leave.
Darrell
When you have no argument and no brains, this is what’s left. Hello kooks!
Darrell
Why would you support military action to topple leadership in Bosnia, Rwanda or Sudan, but not Iraq?
Joey
Because there was/is active genocide on a massive scale. While Saddam did participate in the mass murders of Kurds, it was years ago. Intervention now didn’t save any lives. If we wanted to go there for humanitarian reasons, we should have done it when we first found out about the genocide. It’s a little late now.
The Disenfranchised Voter
And why isn’t you ass over there if you believe in the cause and the cause is so “noble”?
Spare with with your trivial bullshit. Saddam was not a threat to us. There are many more serious threats facing us.
Mike S
Reading is fundamental. Try it sometime fool.
Joey
*cough*North Korea*cough*
Lines
I suggest to everyone on this board that you actively ignore anything Darrell has to say. There is nothing in his arguments that improves or advances the discussion, most of his attacks are personal and juvenile. When you address him in your arguments, you tend to egg him on, creating a queered thread that no one can read.
But thats just me.
pmm
Mike S, I’ll try not to be a jerk here and answer you honestly, but the issue you’re describing has been the status quo for a while. I signed up in September of 1995. Two months later I was watching the President put our troops into Bosnia. In 1999 I was there myself. It’s been going on longer than that–we’ve deployed soldiers everywhere from the Philippines to China to North Africa to Central America for both strategic and ‘humanitarian’ purposes. We’ve had Marines in Haiti in 1915, and again in the 1990’s, and we’ll probably have them there in the future.
I think it’s pretty f*cked up that we let Rwanda happen, and I think the fact that we’re letting Sudan go down is pretty awful. I’d note that we got to Bosnia too late, too.
If we have the ability, and alternative means do not present themselves, I say we should intervene militarily. I think Iraq met those standards.
It’s rare that we’ve ever risked much solely to help another people. I wish we did more, since I’m a firm proponent of the concept that the US is strategically better off as well as true to its principles when we export freedom abroad. However, that’s just me.
By arguing for a free Iraq, us warmongers are using shorthand for a whole host of benefits democracy brings, not simply the liberation of a people. You can fault that for being sloppy language, but as an original participant in OIF I’m pretty darn proud that I helped liberate a country, and I’d do it again in a heartbeat.
And you’ve got to let this go:
It’s impressive that you strive to apply such standards to yourself, but it’s got to be the first case of a self-inflicted wound using the crummy ‘Chickenhawk’ argument.
Darrell
Why would it ever be too late if the Iraqi people were suffering? Seriously. You leftist hypocrites claim to care sooo much about the poor and suffering, but when the US toppled the bloodiest living dictator on earth you scream BushHitler. I am NOT saying that the humanitarian case alone justifies toppling Saddam, but it was a justification. But you unprincipled hypocrites who claim to care so very much about the oppressed and downtrodden, yet you oppose the liberation of the Iraqi people.
pmm
Disenfranchised Voter says:
In case it wasn’t obvious in my last comment, I was over there in 2003 and guess what? I just signed the volunteer statement that has me going back in a couple of months. So to you, I say that I now have absolute moral authority to speak on the rightness of this cause, and I hope that my mere words announcing the merits of OIF will be accepted as the final say in the argument.
Of course, that would be total bullshit, but you’re the one setting the terms of the debate here.
Joey
Wrong. I have my doubts as to whether or not he is the bloodiest living dictator, for starters. Genocides in Africa have involved a far greater amount of people, I’m sad to say. As for the hypocrite remark, how is it hypocritical to say that we should intervene DURING genocide, but not years afterwards when there is little good to be done? Had Saddam had a series of death camps around Iraq that were actively running, I would be all for intervention. That’s not the case. And yes, you hit the nail on the head: I oppose the liberation of the Iraqi people. I also hate puppies and kittens and like to steal childrens’ ice cream.
pmm
To clarify my last post: as a Reservist, the ‘volunteer statement’ is required that waives the maximum mobilization time for a given mission. Since I’ve already clocked X amount of time in Iraq, I had to sign a statement that said I was willing to go over the 24 months total in support of OIF.
Also the ‘total bullshit’ I reference would be the idea that I’m specially embued with the Right to Judge simply because I’m a veteran of OIF.
Darrell
But none of the leaders of the greatest genocides in Africa were in power during 2002 so that blows that argument out the door.
The penalty for opposing Saddam was death. He had a f*cking children’s prison for chissakes for the children of his political opponents
If you opposed the toppling of Saddam the practical effect would be continuation of Saddam’s murderous regime. You can laugh it off if that’s your style, but that would be the consequences had you had your way
salvage
Iraq had violated it’s 1991 terms of surrender and other BINDING UN resolutions
It’s so cute how the UN suddenly becomes the Rule of Law when it comes to certain situations.
Say how about all them resolutions against Israel and the U.S. should they be enforced with equal vigor?
bloodiest living dictator on earth
That’d be North Korea, followed by China then possibly Saddam but Uzbekistan will probably catch up and I bet Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies could be competitive.
Oh and if it’s so noble why the lies about WMD and Al Qeada conections?
Joey
Okay, you’re going to have to explain that one to me, but whatever. Last time I checked, Darfur is still going on, as is the situation in the Congo…It’s really a technicality anyway…
I don’t dispute this, but that’s not exactly uncommon throughout the word, and it really isn’t on a scale large enough to be called genocide. Now the Kurdish gassings most certainly would be, but, again, that was years ago, and we did nothing about it.
You’re right, it would. And there would also be 2,000 more Americans alive, more troops in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden, we would have an extra few hundred billion dollars, and a lot more respect around the world. Look, I’m glad he’s gone. I just don’t like it that all of a sudden everybody is using that as an excuse that this was a good war. We were lied to about the reasons for going to war. Do you not have a problem with that?
Darrell
Unlike Iraq, no binding Chapter 7 resolution has ever been passed against Israel. Chapter 6 resolutions are legally NON-BINDING.. Effectively, they are recommendations and no UN member can enforce them. I hope this helps clear things up for you
Saddam killed over 100,000 of his own people, along with a lot of innocent Kuwaitis and Iranians. Comparing that to Uzbekistan and Pakistan shows how ignorant you truly are. Why is it that the most stupid and the most ignorant, tend to be leftists?
Andrei
That would be a relevant point had the Iraq War been sold to the American public to fight (and risk dying for) it on that basis.
It clearly wasn’t.
Darrell
.
Tommy Franks has stated that he has all the troops he needs in Afghanistan. I think he’s a bit more qualified to make that judgement than you. You’re right about the 2,000 American lives and the $200 billion dollars. But had we stuck our head in the sand and left Saddam alone with the status quo, I believe it would have resulted in the loss of more American lives and more money. We had to shake up the status in the middle east which was/is spawning so much islamic terrorism
Mike S
Darrell
My comments were totally uncalled for. I’m not in a good mood today, nothing to do with politics, and shouldn’t have taken it out on you.
I haven’t read anything here since my last post but if you slammed me I deserved it. I was nothing if not an asshole.
Sorry.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Good for you. Seriously.
I may disagree with you but at least you are man enough to actually strive towards the mission you believe in. I wish you luck.
Darrell
Mike S Says:
Darrell
Apology accepted. That was classy of you
Joey
Funny, the fact that we have reservists and national guardsmen there right now says otherwise (relatives of mine included. Well, that and the whole “not being able to find Bin Laden” thing. And for the last time, they were not a threat to us. They had no links to Bin Laden. Bin Laden hated Saddam almost as much as us. Saddam was not spawning Islamic terrorists. He was a die-hard secularist.
Joey
Okay, I’m really confused now…
The Disenfranchised Voter
This is the way I see it. If you truly believe the cause is just, worthy, and noble–yet choose not to serve then you really don’t believe the cause is worth the risk. It is easy to risk OTHER peoples lives and say you believe in the cause. Risking your own life is truly believing the cause is worth it. Actions speak louder than words.
Darrell
Absurd myth believed by the looney left. Ever hear of the phrase: Enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Mike S
Thank you and good night.
Joey
Indeed. I see now why there was a warning to just ignore him…. Have a good one everybody
The Disenfranchised Voter
Ask any middle east expert. It is a FACT that Bin Laden hated Saddam.
Darrell
A “FACT” huh? Saddam offers bin Laden asylum
Krista
Good thing for us, you mean! Ah well…let ’em arrive. We’ll get them drunk, bring them to some of the peeler bars in Montreal, take them to a hockey game, and before the week is out, we’ll all be best buds.
Krista
And I find that very, very interesting that you guys all think the scorecard chick is too muscular. She’s got the kind of figure that most of us women aspire to.
Darrell
Back in 1998 before bin Laden became so well known, this Grand Jury indictment against Bin Laden:
But everybody knows that Bin Laden would never cooperate with Saddam, right? Abu Nidal given govt offices in Iraq too. Zarqawi operating freely in Iraq. What say you “Reality based community”?
Darrell
And one that most of us men aspire to get our hands on
jaime
And Saddam offering asylum to Bin Laden means that Bin Laden liked Saddam? Did he accept Asylum? No. Bin Laden first became angry at the U.S. because Saudi Arabia turned down his offer to fight Saddam.
Saddam was playing politics with his offer. Just like his funding of Suicide bombers in Palestine and changing the Iraqi flag to include Allah Akbar (IIRC). The pressure from the West were direct causes for these actions, not the other way around.
Darrell
1999 Guardian article (pre-9/11 and pre-Bush spin machine)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
The Disenfranchised Voter
It is a well-documented fact, and accepted by all experts–even ones who agree the Iraq war–that Bin Laden hated Saddam. Do some actual research on your own, for a change insteadof regurgitating shit–and it is nothing but shit–from Newsmax and WorldnetDaily. Both are “news sources” that I guarantee you read.
Frnakly, I’ve had enough of you. Debating with you is pointless as you are 1) ignorant as hell about the facts and 2) have absolutely no intention to change from closed-minded, Neo-con, extremist positions.
This is absolutely the last post I am addressing to you.
Have fun in la-la land.
Darrell
I don’t read Newsmax or Worldnet Daily with any regularity. On this thread I linked to CNN, UK Guardian, and to a transcript of the Grand Jury indictment against OBL. What are you talking about with this Newsmax and Worldnet Daily business? Where did I link to either? You’re part of the ‘Reality based community’, right?
The information and articles I linked to above disprove that assertion. Do you have even 1 shred of evidence contradicting those sources?
Defense Guy
TDV & Darrel are both correct
The record bears out the idea that, at one time Osama did wish great harm come to Saddam, and even went so far as to provide help in ensuring it would happen via financing and material help to Kurdish seperatists. The hatred didn’t last, & they eventually came to terms with. It’s in the 9/11 report, somewhere between pg 80 & 90.
jaime
Mix some hearsay, conjecture, assumption, and a dash of Ahmed Chalabi and you get…
Darrell. We’re not stupid. Zarqawi entered Iraq through IRAN in 2001. He was a part of Ansar al Islam, a KURDISH based organization. You know, the part of Iraq not under control of Saddam. Your idiotic explanation is that Saddam and Al Qaeda are linked because Zarqawi roamed freely in Iraq after it was invaded by the U.S.?
And Abu Nidal? Seriously. Abu Nidal? The guy who hadn’t attacked the west in 25 years? Who died in 2002? Abu Nidal?
I know. Saddam had intentions to hijack subway cars because they found an old copy of Taking of Pelham One Two Three in one of his palaces. Ah, to live in your world Darrell.
salvage
Darrel:
So that’d be you pick and choose which UN resolutions you like (I love that, these ones are legally binding! Those ones are just foolsies! Duh!), you pull numbers out of you ass (100,000 and how many of those bodies belong to the Regean administration who was Saddam’s bestest buddy?) and China doesn’t count?
Followed by an ad hominem attack. Natch.
I’m newish here but I can see why many regulars treat you as they do. I think I’ll join in the ignoring you brigade now rather than later.
a guy called larry
Is this the thread about the relative merits of smiling for the camera while screwed-up stuff is taking place? Where’s that link to Tom DeLay celebrating his indictment… i had it here a minute ago…
Lee
holy crap…. will ya get a load at all the left wing worms on this site…. amazing.
and please note regarding the blackface comments: liberals CANNOT be racists. just can’t happen. now, please resume with the hypocracy.
Mac Buckets
I was going to post, but this thread is over. PMM wins by KO in the 1st minute of the first round. My favorite part was the Chickenhawk Boomerang by Disenfranchised Whackjob (we’re all a little more at ease that you aren’t allowed to vote now). Good on you, PMM, and Godspeed.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmmm…Interesting. Did you accidentally push the submit button?
PS, I never called the man a “chickenhawk” as you imply. I just wanted to see if he really believed in the cause. Unline you, he does, and I even conceded that fact.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Unlike*
Stormy70
Yep. He gets to win all arguments with you now, by your own criteria, DV. His opinion now trumps yours according to the Reality Based Community Handbook. It is filed under Chickenhawk.
Veeshir
I understand that on-topic comments stopped long ago, but I have to do it.
I had forgotten that Gilliard was the nitwit who thought Glenn Reynolds was a racist for wearing his ‘Celebrate Diversity’ T-shirt, the one highlighting various, “diverse” guns.
And in the same post called FrnakJ a racist because he doesn’t like “monkeys”, and we all know what “monkey” is a code word for.
So Instapundit is a racist for wearing a shirt with guns that uses and makes fun of the “Celebrate diversity” tag and FrnakJ, the funniest guy on the intertrons, is a racist because he has a running gag about monkeys but Gilliard posting a photoshopped black man in Sambo attire is perfectly ok?
h/t Julliette who I won’t link from here because I don’t think she wants to listen to the “progressives” who will most likely call her a racist chickenhawk who wants black people to stay on the plantation.
But by all means, go insult FrnakJ, he absolutely loves it when tolerant progressives come and show him the error of his ways.
Jack Roy
I’m with you until you say the guy from imao is “funniest guy on the intertrons.” Actually, to put it finer, until you say he’s funny at all.
Defense Guy
Not sure how I missed it, but Thanks for your service pmmm. Keep yourself safe over there, and may the mission come to a successful conclusion soon so that you can all come back home.
The Disenfranchised Voter
No, his opinion does not trump mine as I never implied it didn’t trump mine because he wasn’t fighting the war. My point about him serving is that since he said he believed the cause was worthy and noble, why isn’t he serving. The fact that he is serving merely validates his own opinion. It doesn’t mean he is right, it just means that he can actually say that he believes in the cause instead of just talking out of his ass. That was the point.