The Welfare of Iraqi Civilians and the Immoral Position of Liberals
I’m wondering if there are any American liberals who actually care about the well-being of the Iraqi civilian population?
They are all too quick to pronounce the (incorrect) data about Iraqi civilian deaths supposedly caused by the US military, though in the same breath they “support the troops.”
But where were the American liberals when Saddam was gassing his own population in a clear case of genocide for which he was convicted?
And what is the American liberal answer to the Iraqi civilian who is now supporting the American presence if we have a sudden withdrawal?
American Liberals: Who do you care about these days? It is hard to know. Do you have any real interest in the human rights of people (especially gay people and women) under the oppressed regimes or tribes run by strict Islamic Sharia law? Or is “human rights” now an inconvenient truth to you?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
73 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » The Welfare of Iraqi Civilians and the Immoral Position of Liberals — July 17, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - July 17, 2007
Oh, they care about everyone – the starving Somalians, the dying Sudanese, the oppressed Tibetans, the poor Iraqis – but you know the old saying: “better a thousand gays be stoned to death, better ten thousand African girls be circumcised, better a million North Koreans starve to death than BusHitler McSmirkyChimp get the credit for freeing one of them.”
Comment by Christopher — July 17, 2007 @ 1:08 pm - July 17, 2007
Bruce, I reject the premise that we have any obligation to care about what happens to people in other countries, other than in our own defense. I disagree with the premise that it’s up to us to save anyone, except in our own strict self-interest.
Yet even I manage to muster more real concern for the ordinary people of Iraq, and for that matter Afghanistan, than I see from most lefties. I guess that underscores your point.
(By the way, lefties: Bruce is 100% right to suggest the Lancet figures for Iraqi civilian deaths are vastly exaggerated and long since debunked. And if we withdrew from Iraq suddenly, as you would like: yes, the country would foreseeably get partitioned among al Qaeda, Iran-backed militias, and possibly Turkey – with a Cambodia-scale bloodbath resulting.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 17, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - July 17, 2007
I reject the notion that anyone, conservative or liberal, should be required to care about anyone (the entire idea is a contradiction), nor do I equate the humanity of an individual with the depth of his emotional attachment to complete strangers in any sense other than one that is completely objective. We’re not in Iraq because we care about Iraqis any more than any other people and you kid yourself if you honestly think that the willingness to sacrifice our military accurately reads our national moral compass. It is right and justified to wish the end of an oppressive regime and to take non-self-sacrificial steps to facilitate that end, but it is another matter to place an unjustified burden of emotional attachment upon someone who disagrees with a policy, in effect criticizing him for simply not engaging in an irrational behavior, let alone taking whatever action such an irrationality may require.
I wish the Iraqi people well, but not to the point where I can honestly say I ‘care’ about them in a subjective sense. I wish Peruvians fighting the Shining Path well. I wish Sri Lankans fighting the Tamil Tigers well. I wish the Myanmarese well. But to demand of myself and others that I care for them to the point that I’m willing to take any steps necessary to ease their and anyone else’s suffering is self-destructive.
Let the United States remain an ideal, a goal, an example for others to emulate. We will argue forever about whether our invasion in Iraq was about self-defense, but that is not the point I’m addressing and nor is it the point of your post. We may also argue about how to address this Iraq mess, how best to pull out of an admittedly bad situation, the thresholds, the timing, etc. That also isn’t the point. I simply disagree with the premise that an honest differentiatiation between objective goodwill and subjective identification (and a supposed superiority that it indicates) is necessarily pure callousness or political opportunism or both. Liberals can be found guilty of a good many things and one of the tragedies of this war is that it has given them traction, a platform. It’s going to take much, much more than jingoism to fight them.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 17, 2007 @ 1:35 pm - July 17, 2007
Concern, incidentally, can be expressed (and in a sense, proven) in concrete personal actions. Of course, nobody likes a braggart and all good Samaritans have a right to privacy if they want it, so I would never ask or want anyone who has taken positive action (including myself) to brag on it here.
There are charities which help our troops, that GP periodically promotes. Other charities provide direct relief to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Anyone can give to them. Those in a position to do so, can volunteer with them. CharityNavigator.org is a good resource for finding them. Or even Google.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 17, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - July 17, 2007
#3 and #4: “You shall love your neighbor as good as you do yourself” And who is my neighbor? Answered by the parable of the good Samaritan.
Was Jesus a liberal or conservative? Of course it does not matter if you believe:
“I reject the premise that we have any obligation to care about what happens to people in other countries”
or
“I reject the notion that anyone, conservative or liberal, should be required to care about anyone ”
Not saying you are wrong. Just pointing out there are other opinions.
Comment by Cecil Kirkman — July 17, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - July 17, 2007
3: Really? where are those figures “overly exaggrated” and have been “debunked”? I guess the infamous “MSM” is over-reporting the daily deaths by bombs we’re reading about?
5: Perhaps the money our government spends on the military should actually go to the members of the military who have chosen to be part of it. Would make me feel a lot better if these dedicated men and women were paid in such a way so they wouldn’t be living in poverty, as opposed to executives of military-related industries who are lining their pockets with huge profits. And that’s not a soicaist view, that’s a decision that’s made by our government, but considering those folks are so in bed with the military industry, it’s not a surprise that our forces are wallowing in poverty while these folks get richer.
Comment by Kevin — July 17, 2007 @ 7:13 pm - July 17, 2007
LOL!!! Now you are worried about human rights? Hysterically funny stuff.
Comment by jimmy — July 17, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - July 17, 2007
Cecil, I’m a nominal agnostic and disagree with much of the sacrificial tenets of many religions, including Christianity and particularly Hinduism. The Good Samaritan is not in our Constitution. More secularly (but subversively religious), nor is Emma Lazarus’ The New Colossus.
Caring about someone is, to me, a very personal response and must always be weighed against the often personal cost true concern often exacts. Thus, concern for others is an individual’s choice and cannot logically be made a requirement of another. To attempt to do so is akin to equating taxation with charity or basing our military’s involvement on the needs of anyone across the globe who may lay claim to it.
Clearly, one cannot support or defend all comers without destroying yourself. I think even the Good Samaritan might agree with that. The Samaritan was not being shot at, was not being taxed to death, was not being harangued into action with guilt and other religious nostrums, and his neighbor was not on the other side of the Earth.
So where do we draw the line? Would that all nations had to answer such a burdensome question! As I stated above, we’re not in Iraq because we care about the Iraqi people; even if I agreed with the other opinions you imply, I disagree that our current adventure is within their moral purview. In my view, our military is for the sole purpose of self-defense and this war is not self-defense. It is and has been a tragic waste. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that we have a moral obligation to fight it not for the false advertising of a bewildered President but even worse: For the purposes of religious sacrifice.
Am I one who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing? You make the call, but I challenge that no support and defense can exist without self-defense. A fine argument can be made that a minimal involvement in Rwanda would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and perhaps that would have been justified. Another justifiable argument could be made that far beyond the well-being of a democratic Iraq (which may or may not use its newly-found democracy to vote itself into an Islamo-fascist dictatorship), we have an obligation to defend our economic interests, including oil fields.
But let’s not accept that the best we offer to the world is suicide.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 17, 2007 @ 7:29 pm - July 17, 2007
Bruce,
I was going to ask if your emotional call to care for the Iraqis has any other applications, if that caring extends to, say, Darfur or Bosnia. After all, people are being oppressed, and, not to put too fine a point on it, slaughtered on a daily basis all around the world, and I haven’t seen conservatives too eager to go save them all. But let’s keep this just in Iraq for now, and focus on just the Iraqis, then.
Some of those Iraqis about whom you are so concerned are, in fact, joining in the attacks on our troops, a fact which your “what about the people?!” post ignores entirely.
Does that change our calculus at all? When the people whose government we are trying to prop up are actively involved in killing us, when do we stop helping them? Does that change anything, or does the “well-being of the Iraqi civilian” conquer all?
(and just to head this off: no, the people attacking us are NOT only AlQ or Iranian fighters, Bush’s latest language games notwithstanding. A substantial portion of the people killing us come from the Shiite and Sunni populations as well.)
Comment by torrentprime — July 17, 2007 @ 7:33 pm - July 17, 2007
HardHobbit, you said: “we’re not in Iraq because we care about the Iraqi people; even if I agreed with the other opinions you imply, I disagree that our current adventure is within their moral purview. In my view, our military is for the sole purpose of self-defense and this war is not self-defense. It is and has been a tragic waste. ”
On that I agree with you 100 percent. I did not in any way mean to imply that it was our government’s responsiblity to save the Iraqi people from themselves. Bush’s goal of establishing a democracy in Iraq is an admirable goal … but not feasible. The Iraqi people must decide for themselves that they want a democratic government. I spent over 7 years in the Middle East, and I can say with assurity that if the Iraqi people are given a free choice, they will choose (Quote) “to vote itself into an Islamo-fascist dictatorship”. (Unquote) (Note the results of the free election in the Palestine territories). Those people have no concept whatsoever what type of government we have. It is not a democracy, but a representative republic. Their idea of justice is founded in the Isamic teachings and not the rule of secular law. Having said that, I do believe (as I believe you do) that we as individuals should care deeply for all people. And as we have the opportunity to do so, we should help those in need. Bush stated as he vetoed the Embryonic stem cell bill, that he would not sanction the taking of life to save life. And neither will we save the Iraqi people by the taking of their lives.
Comment by Cecil Kirkman — July 17, 2007 @ 8:55 pm - July 17, 2007
I don’t think that who the Palestinians voted in is in any way relevant to anyone but the Palestinians. Hamas had the majority but they weren’t the only party running. There *is* diversity of thought in the region. In fact, isn’t that part of the “problem?” There are a variety of traditions and, Historically, a theocratic state is rather a new thing, not something set in stone from antiquity.
In fact, the concept of local rule by tribal leaders who then go meet with other tribal leaders in a big pow-wow and figure out their differences seems to be a common enough model in Iraq considering how often our officers are representing us in those meetings.
That’s not too bad a start toward the concept of representative democracy, the people just get to chose who to send to represent them.
Not that it isn’t something new, but I don’t know of any reason to assume that it’s so foreign a concept that the people can’t grasp it or that, unlike humans elsewhere, Iraqis are uniquely unable to adapt to new circumstances.
Comment by Synova — July 17, 2007 @ 10:29 pm - July 17, 2007
I think it’s multiculturalism… this insistence that culture is a determining factor rather than insisting in the human ability to transcend.
I sometimes suspect that *we’re* expected to grow and change but all the other quaint cultures are just SOL.
Comment by Synova — July 17, 2007 @ 10:32 pm - July 17, 2007
I don’t understand that statement, unless it was tongue-in-cheek and I missed the joke. (Islam’s entire history = theocracy, or not even bothering to distinguish Church from State, much less separate them. Before that, Egypt = 4000 years of the King being worshipped as a god.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 17, 2007 @ 11:31 pm - July 17, 2007
#7
I agree wholeheartedly. Lets abolish the Dept of Education, the IRS, the Commerce Dept, and HUD for starters and use the money we are wasting on useless, liberty destroying, unaccountable bureaucrats to pay our military better.
You mean like Dianne Feinstein and her husband who have profitted millions as a result of the contracts Feinstein directed towards her husbands companies?
Sigh, if only Democrats were interested in investigating real crime and corruption.
Comment by Will — July 18, 2007 @ 6:49 am - July 18, 2007
power. period. and if that means undermining the country in times of war, so be it. If that means leaking (or stealing and destroying) vital national security secrets, so be it. If it means giving aid and comfort to our enemies, so be it. If it means destroying confidence in the electoral process based on nothing but deceitful propaganda for partisan gain, so be it. If it means actually breaking electoral law (as convictions have proven) so be it. If it means broadcasting enemy propaganda and calling it fact, so be it. If it means abandoning allies to chaos and killing fields so be it. if it means breaking our commitments to new democracies struggling to remain free, so be it. If it means betraying the military, our allies and the American people to to pursue a percieved political opportunity, so be it. If it means selling American workers rights for campaign contributions, so be it. If it means trampling the constitution over and over and over again, usurping powers not granted to the congress, violating federal law, wiolating the constitution, you bet theyre more than happy to do it.
There is absolutely positively nothing this criminal, loathesome, reprehensible, treasonous group of democratic scum will not do to get back in power. nothing. and nothing they wont do once they are there to make certain they never lose power again.
Comment by Will — July 18, 2007 @ 7:10 am - July 18, 2007
Cecil, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree with just about everything you wrote with these two exceptions (and perhaps they are mere clarifications):
Bush’s goal of establishing a democracy in Iraq is an admirable goal … but not feasible. The Iraqi people must decide for themselves that they want a democratic government.
If the goal isn’t feasible, especially in that it isn’t even desirable to those for whom our very real sacrifices are being made (such as, as we’ve mentioned, the spreading of democracy to allow the legitimatization of the process of descending into tyrannic hell), then I cannot consider it admirable.
Having said that, I do believe (as I believe you do) that we as individuals should care deeply for all people. And as we have the opportunity to do so, we should help those in need.
I’m not sure we should care deeply, but I think it’s natural and humane that we would share an objective concern about others as well as ourselves. Need is a bit more tricky because we allow the needy to define it. We give billions in foreign aid, ostensibly to those in need. However, much foreign aid (particularly simple financial transfers) wind up in the wrong hands, strengthening the causes of the need by supporting those with a vested interest in hindering the progress at which our generosity is directed. I suspect that like domestic welfare programs and like the Iraqi people, we aren’t really interested in the recipients. We cut checks, ship food, deploy troops either to think better of ourselves or to stave off the moral indignation that would result if we did nothing. We’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t and for ourselves and for our critics, it’s built on the idea that we should help those in need. (Your caveat ‘…and as we have the opportunity to do so…’ probably puts us on the same page and we likely agree that there are borderline cases.)
What would be the most generous, most beneficial act towards a destitute nation such as Zimbabwe? Invade, take over its government, establish a republic with a constitution that limits federal powers, build infrastructure, etc. — in other words, set up a benevolent non-dictatorship via the process of dictatorship. As a result, we would be a pariah the world over.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 18, 2007 @ 7:49 am - July 18, 2007
what sweeping generalizations you state! geez. what do repugs care about these days? money, money, money. profit over people. the gop is a corrupt organization which lives on, albeit barely these days, by hate-mongering and fear.
lest we forget, it was bushco that put us in this horrible position by lying to the american public about an “enemy” determined to kill us. bushco successfully propagandized 9/11 and brain-washed the average joe, and the american “left-leaning” (ha! what a joke) media into thinking iraq and saddam had a connection to 9/11.
this is bushco’s legacy: a failed presidency fraught with lies and hypocricy. he will forever be known as the president who abandoned our principles and he will be forever shamed by his filthy actions.
so, quit trying to defer blame elsewhere, “patriot.” bushco is the problem. thankfully an election in 16 months or so will help us rebuild our stature and regain our credibility.
[This comment got held up in our spam filter. I almost rejected it, given that it fails to address any of the points Bruce raised in this post. It's just a collection of leftist slogans. I decided to approve it because it shows us where so many on the left stand, eager to insult the president, to make allegations against the GOP, based not on the president's record--or the party's actual platform or practices, but on their view of the party. He uses the juvenile term "Bushco" which shows nothing more than a distorted view of the Administration. And brings up the leftist mantra that Bush lied, without offering any evidence to back up this oft-repeated claim. And uses the term, 'failed presidency' as the economy continues to grow and as we gain more allies (increasing our stature) in Europe. Why do these people so hate the president? They're not interested in debate or discussion about his record. Not interested in a serious consideration of this Administration. They just want to vent their spleen--and have made the president, his party and those who, from time to time, defend him the target. --Dan]
Comment by rightiswrong — July 18, 2007 @ 8:07 am - July 18, 2007
The question is not “what do liberals care about” (just like it’s not “are conservatives lying when they say they care about the people of Iraq”). The question is “what’s a legitimate use of American military force (and the lives and blood of American soldiers).” And as much as I despise tyrants and feel for the oppressed around the world, those feelings are not enough to support the use of our military resources. The greatest case for the use of our military is when there is a clear threat to the safety of the U.S. The next best justification for the use of military force is where some government or crisis is destabilizing a region in such a way as to jeopardize the interests of the U.S. or our allies. A purely altruistic motive is the hardest to justify, but you can make a case for it where there is a very clear mission and an easily identifiable objective (for example, defending a particular border or keeping enemy forces away from refugee camps).
Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. And under the former policy of containment, it was not capable of causing regional instability that would threaten the world oil supply and therefore harm the world’s economy. And while Saddam was an evil bastard, rebuilding a country from the ground up is not the kind of short-term, clearly identifiable goal that justifies the use of force for purely altruistic reasons.
If U.S. troops stay, both Americans and Iraqis will continue to die. If U.S. troops leave, a lot of Iraqis will die. In either case, those deaths can be squarely blamed on the idiots who launched this invasion. But there is evidence that suggests that the presence of our troops in Iraq makes the U.S. less safe, and it has certainly made it harder for us to respond to legitimate threats to U.S. interests. So the clear balance is in favor of withdrawal.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 18, 2007 @ 1:04 pm - July 18, 2007
Yes, Jonboy, in part, we can blame the deaths on the US, for not having had, until recently, a strategy to win.
It’s pathetic to blame the US for the ruthless tactics of Al Qaeda, willing to commit mass murder — to bomb Islamic holy sites — to incite civil war and gain media attention. Can you imagine anyone blaming the Allies in World War II for Nazi practices?
If the U.S. is committed to victory in Iraq, then we make the US safer by showing our determination to potential terrorists. They will know that we are, in their lingo, a strong horse.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 18, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - July 18, 2007
Agree 10,000% – but apparently someone needs a newsflash: We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.
If al Qaeda takes over Iraq… and establishes their new and resurgent Islamic Caliphate there… it will be very, very bad for the medium- to long-term safety of the United States. Very bad.
…until Saddam Hussein came to power, pursued all manner of WMDs, and attacked no less than four of his neighboring countries, 3 of whom were our allies and 2 of whom were the world’s largest oil producers. Thank God we had a President who finally got rid of him. (After Bush One and Clinton both failed to.)
Oh, I see where you’re aiming now, JonboyDC. Well, you’re simply mistaken on the facts, but let me move to a different issue: Your operative word is, “was”. How about “is”? I mean: Can we please talk about the threat of today (2007) and forward?
Wow… Plain delusional. (Sorry, JonboyDC… no other way to describe it.)
Ah, now we come to it, folks. Misplaced moral equivalence… Misplaced moral blame, or denial of who is actually responsible for bad acts, such as murders… What today’s anti-war and/or far Left types are all about.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 2:32 pm - July 18, 2007
I am certainly not blaming the U.S. or U.S. troops for any actions taken by al Qaeda (or by the non-al Qaeda insurgents, who are a much larger group). Nothing excuses those who commit atrocities from their own guilt.
But the fact that there is an insurgency that will continue for as long as U.S. troops are present, and the fact that chaos will surely follow the departure of U.S. troops, and the civil war that exists now and will continue for the foreseeable future all follow inexorably from the criminally stupid decision to invade Iraq in the first place. When the U.S. troops withdraw and there is chaos, that chaos will not be the fault of whoever orders the withdrawal — it will be entirely the fault of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and all of the others who pushed for this pointless war.
If someone deliberately caused a blackout in a major U.S. city and looting took place during the blackout, nothing would excuse the looters for the criminal acts they might commit. But we would still also be justified in blaming the idiot who caused the blackout, because the looting would be an entirely predictable result of the blackout.
And “victory” in this war requires that there be peace and stability that does not depend on the presence of our troops — and by that measure, there is no strategy that gets us to victory. It wasn’t a failure to properly execute this war that got us to where we are today — it was the decision to invade for no good purpose in the first place.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 18, 2007 @ 2:44 pm - July 18, 2007
Wrong answer, sorry. Here is what you said earlier:
And who are “the idiots who launched this invasion”? U.S. troops among others.
That’s for damn sure. Read Tommy Franks’ memoir, or any of the others from military figures. The invasion had enthusiastic Pentagon support; and Bush is not the type of President to try and proceed without it.
Further, I’ve been reading milblogs for years now and I can assure you, the Iraq invasion had enthusiastic rank-and-file support. Remember, ours is a volunteer military. No President can just order the troops where they don’t want to go – the Constitution notwithstanding – because then re-enlistment rates would drop off catastrophically. Which they have not.
No. There is an insurgency that will continue as long as (1) the Iraqi people have reason to believe the U.S. will abandon them at any second, and (2) Iraqi and U.S. troops are not working effectively to kill al Qaeda in Iraq.
What civil war, pray tell? Intra-Iraqi sectarian violence has been stoked by al Qaeda – and is in constant danger of dying out, unless al Qaeda continually re-stokes it with further mosque bombings. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people (even Sunnis) do not want it. That’s terrorism, not true civil war.
Criminal how, exactly? Be more specific.
Umm… Yes it will. That is: If we withdraw prematurely, before al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated.
As I said: The moral theory of the Left. (JonboyDC, I do not know how Left you personally are; I am only saying, the Left would be who most typically trumpets your type of theory.)
Folks, note the lip service Jonboy pays to blaming the real criminals, hmm, perhaps because he knows he’ll be shot down in this forum if he doesn’t? – followed by the “but” clause, which completely negates said lip service and functionally shifts the burden blame for the crimes onto someone else.
Indeed. That’s why our troops are training ISF, and why our troops and ISF together are concentrating on killing al Qaeda in Iraq.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 3:54 pm - July 18, 2007
I’ve stated that both the criminal who commits the crime and the idiot who created the conditions under which the crime was possible should be held responsible. You seem to be in favor of letting the guy who deliberately caused the blackout off the hook. Exactly what is your problem with holding people accountable for the results of their actions?
(And I stress that the criminals must be held accountable because I know that every time someone talks about holding people accountable for the results of their decisions, people like you automatically accuse the speaker of wanting to absolve others of their responsibility. Among men and women of good will and normal intellect, you don’t have to scream to the heavens that you believe in holding criminals accountable for their acts, because we all know that every sane person believes that. Among this crowd, where either the good will or the intellect are lacking, failure to establish unequivocally that you believe in punishing the guilty is taken as evidence of treason. Hence my restatement of what is utterly obvious to anyone with half a brain.)
(Finally, criticizing the the generals who may have contributed to stupid policy decisions is not “blaming the troops.” Those who made bad policy decisions should be held accountable; those who have served honorably and done all that their nation asked of them are blameless, regardless of whether they do or not support those policy decisions.)
Comment by JonboyDC — July 18, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - July 18, 2007
And under the former policy of containment, it was not capable of causing regional instability that would threaten the world oil supply and therefore harm the world’s economy.
Except for its funding terrorists — both the Palestinians directly, and, by its use of Syria as an illegal export zone (when the pipelines from Iraq were shut off after the invasion, Syria suddenly had a massive drop in oil “production”), funding Hizbollah and Hamas to create war and instability in Lebanon and Israel.
Plus, remember, Democrats like Boxer, Kerry, and Kennedy voted against military intervention against Saddam even when he invaded Kuwait. Containment is useless when you know that the primary country doing it will likely veto it anyway.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 18, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - July 18, 2007
I’ve stated that both the criminal who commits the crime and the idiot who created the conditions under which the crime was possible should be held responsible. You seem to be in favor of letting the guy who deliberately caused the blackout off the hook.
Probably because I can think of a good reason for him doing it.
Like the fact that a fault had developed in the system that, had he allowed it to continue, would fry the transmission lines. Or a piece of equipment had failed and couldn’t be replaced without shutting off the power.
The Democrat answer is that he should have ignored the fault or the damaged equipment and gone to lunch — just like they did when Saddam invaded Kuwait and just like they did when bin Laden declared war on the United States from his sheltered perch under the arms of the Taliban.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 18, 2007 @ 4:24 pm - July 18, 2007
No, you haven’t. What is this sudden “possible” crap, Jonboy? Crime is always POSSIBLE. Looting is always POSSIBLE. “The idiot who created the conditions under which the crime was possible”, then, is… God. (Or your equivalent.)
You implied, rather – because you couldn’t bring yourself to state it openly; but you implied in the structure of your argument – that if looting breaks out, we should blame “the idiot who made it” LIKELY. Or “the idiot who made it” PREDICTABLE. (Different from “possible”.)
But there again – Who makes it so? Not the guy who caused the power blackout. The criminal is the one who makes his own criminal actions likely, or predictable. No one else.
Except, again, in the twisted moral theory of the Left.
Then why are you here?
Remember Jonboy, when you point the finger at someone else, you have 3 fingers pointing back at you.
Oh, yes it is. Generals are troops, as much as colonels, lieutenants, sargeants or privates. Further: you’ve ignored my point that the U.S. rank-and-file (with some statistical exceptions highly publicized by the Left), generally supported and continue to support the war in Iraq. With their actions. Their lives. Their re-enlistments.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 4:33 pm - July 18, 2007
P.S. To make my position on Jonboy’s example perfectly clear:
If a power blackout did happen – and if, subsequent to that, looting did happen – only someone with a completely inverted moral universe would try to put any blame for the looting on the person who caused the power blackout.
As NDT has pointed out brilliantly: Power blackouts will happen eventually – and are sometimes even necessary, or at least perceived as necessary – for any number of reasons.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - July 18, 2007
P.P.S. OK, I over-emphasized it with the adverbs – I need to cut back on the adverbs.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - July 18, 2007
As for the Iraq “insurgency”:
My good friend’s brother is in Anbar as we speak, and confirms it is getting better there day by day. (GPW: This would be Benjamin’s bro. in the Marines, if you have run into B lately.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - July 18, 2007
jonboy, not to worry re. your blackout example (though I disagree with your conclusion). Most of us understand that you mean a “…deliberate…” criminally intentional blackout rather than the responsible actions taken in the event of an emergency. Ironic and unsurprising, the lack of rhetorical goodwill extended in a thread concerning the caring for and about others.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 18, 2007 @ 5:21 pm - July 18, 2007
(shrug) Those who show up here for the sole purpose of calling others “completely disconnected from fact, reality, or logic” get that type of treatment.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 18, 2007 @ 5:38 pm - July 18, 2007
When I set up this clumsy analogy, I posited that the blackout was caused deliberately. What I failed to state was that I also assumed it was caused for no good reason. Under those circumstances, only a person with a completely inverted moral universe would absolve the blackout-causer of any culpability for anything that predictably followed. Where the deliberate blackout is necessary (you have to cut the power to prevent an explosion at the power plant, for example), I agree that there could be no blame on the person who made the decision to cause the blackout.
Obviously, I believe that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq; the deliberate decision to invade Iraq was not necessary to prevent harm to America or our allies. Thus, I have no doubts that the leaders who made the unjustified and deliberate decision to invade should be held accountable for the everything that predictably followed from that decision.
Ultimately, my initial point in posting in this thread was the opposition to the war, at its outset, as it was conducted, and as it is being continued, is not the result of not caring about the people of Iraq (as Bruce claims in his post) — opposition is based on heartfelt beliefs about when it is appropriate to use military force, how to protect the safety and interests of this nation, and how to best bring about real and longlasting improvement in the lives of oppressed people in other countries. You may disagree with my conclusions, but don’t question my morality because I disagree with you.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 18, 2007 @ 5:39 pm - July 18, 2007
Ultimately, my initial point in posting in this thread was the opposition to the war, at its outset, as it was conducted, and as it is being continued, is not the result of not caring about the people of Iraq (as Bruce claims in his post) — opposition is based on heartfelt beliefs about when it is appropriate to use military force, how to protect the safety and interests of this nation, and how to best bring about real and longlasting improvement in the lives of oppressed people in other countries.
Mhm, mhm.
Of course, the Democrat Party didn’t care because a) those people weren’t black and b) their leftist allies in Europe and the UN were making beaucoup bucks off bribes and kickbacks from Saddam.
Milosevic could have gotten away with it as well — had he been willing to pay the Europeans like Saddam did.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 18, 2007 @ 5:59 pm - July 18, 2007
Let’s assume that the military options are not simply stronger, faster versions of the whack-a-mole we’ve been playing for so long. Let’s assume that the military part continues to work, and we clean the cities and areas we’re targeting. Then what? Sit on them forever to keep them clean? What about the areas we aren’t targeting? How do we then clean the other areas we haven’t cleaned and aren’t directly sitting on?
Don’t forget, Petraeus reminded everyone that there is no military solution to Iraq; that the political solution was required to solve the problem. If things are going so well, why is this blog not trumpeting the assumedly equally-excellent political progress?
The benchmarks that Bush claimed we had met are a joke, since “meeting” the benchmark was defined so low that the passing grades don’t mean anything. Any analysis of that part of the equation?
Comment by torrentprime — July 18, 2007 @ 6:02 pm - July 18, 2007
Dallas, I’ll bet Jesus is so proud of you. Once more I’m reminded of why this blog is so toxic.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 18, 2007 @ 6:28 pm - July 18, 2007
HardHobbit, just curious: if that were true: why would you come here?
You’re not here to spread enlightenment, I can tell that much.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - July 18, 2007
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that intention could not change the answer. Since you need to have it spelled out, let’s do the thought experiment. Suppose someone did create the blackout – from ill intent.
Then they would be criminally and morally responsible for misusing the power company’s property. That’s all. They could not be, and would not be, the least bit responsible for any third party actions they had not explicitly conspired with. The looters, and the looters alone, would still be responsible for their looting.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 7:01 pm - July 18, 2007
And really guys: You really are advancing a completely novel legal (and moral) theory here. Come on. Give me one example where it’s ever been seriously applied.
If someone blew up a dam, they would be responsible for death and property damage that flowed from the resulting flood. That’s different. The death and property damage flowed (so to speak) directly from their blowing up the dam. Water has no moral agency or free will. Gravity has no moral agency or free will.
Third-party looters do have free will and moral agency. That people should loot, just because there is a power blackout (caused by ill-will or otherwise – again does not matter), is not at all predictable, or even likely. Where I live, we have at least one power blackout every winter, and no one loots. Imagine that!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 7:09 pm - July 18, 2007
#33: Obviously, I believe that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq; the deliberate decision to invade Iraq was not necessary to prevent harm to America or our allies. Thus, I have no doubts that the leaders who made the unjustified and deliberate decision to invade should be held accountable for the everything that predictably followed from that decision.
Given what we know now, I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the invasion was justified. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Based what what everyone knew in 2002, it may have been negligent to NOT take out Saddam. He was a threat despite years of (leaky and corrupt) UN sanctions, the no-fly zones, blocked UN inspections, and all the rest.
If Saddam was so well-contained, why all the “pressure” from the international community?
Comment by Robert — July 18, 2007 @ 7:44 pm - July 18, 2007
Is Calarato as desperate as he appears to be or as stupid as he appears to be?
What I wrote:
jonboy, not to worry re. your blackout example (though I disagree with your conclusion). (Emphasis added.)
By ignoring that I disagree with his conclusion, he then attempts to link what I wrote with what jonboy wrote, something with which I obviously disagree (note the words “…I disagree…” in my above statement) and thus imply that I agree with jonboy’s conclusion (see his next comment, beginning with ‘And really guys…‘) that the perpetrator of a blackout (that’s a deliberate, criminal blackout for you dim bulbs) should be held responsible for anything that occurs other than the crime the perpetrator has committed.
Calarato means bad logic. Bad writing, too. Bad person, certainly. And/or just plain stupid.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 18, 2007 @ 8:45 pm - July 18, 2007
And, HardHobbit goes to the personal insults.
Yet, it’s this blog – not he – that’s “toxic”. LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 10:10 pm - July 18, 2007
P.S. And as people of goodwill can see, HardHobbit, my point in the linked item that got bothered you so intensely was that intention does not affect the outcome of the analysis of JBDC’s analogy, one way or the other That’s the specific aspect I was addressing in the linked item.
And what you’ve written, does not respond to it. Please consider aiming higher next time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 10:19 pm - July 18, 2007
Dallas, I’ll bet Jesus is so proud of you. Once more I’m reminded of why this blog is so toxic.
(shrug) I merely provided information — like the fact of how many children alone were killed by sanctions, or how brutal Saddam’s regime was, or the fact that leftist Europeans and UN bureaucrats were making billions in kickbacks and bribes from Saddam’s regime, given with the EXPRESS purpose of stopping any sort of real action against him.
Or the fact that JonBoyDC showed up bragging about his less-than-honorable intentions.
What all of those bring into stark effect, HH, is that liberals were following a, “If I don’t see it, nothing’s wrong” policy towards Saddam — just as they did the consequences of their pell-mell pullout from Vietnam and Cambodia, with the net effect of a few million people being outright killed or “re-educated”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 19, 2007 @ 12:59 am - July 19, 2007
#19
Even the independent Duelfer Report, conducted after it was clear no stockpiles of WMD would be found, disagrees with you. It said that in many ways Saddam was far more dangerous than we believed.
What policy of containment? The official policy of the United States of America towards Iraq, was regime change–as signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1998.
It almost sounds as if you’re suggesting that the United States, or any other nation, can make choices based on something other than the very best intelligence available at the time. But surely you couldnt be suggesting that. I mean, theres no such thing as a time machine–and while congressmen think very highly of themselves, they certainly arent prescient. So suggesting that we should have made a different decision then because we have different information now would be just about as childish an argument as one could make.
To Bill Clinton’s credit, at least he isnt that stupid. “You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks”.
Unfortunately for America, the rest of the Democratic party is making exaclty that argument. They indeed are that childish and irresponsible.
Comment by Will — July 19, 2007 @ 5:05 am - July 19, 2007
Dallas, I think it’s wonderful that your approach to religious faith is so…what’s the word I’m looking for?…oh, yeah: uncompromising. Perhaps Christ should have given us all a (shrug) and some cheap rhetorical retaliation.
I doubt you’ve never considered that it isn’t the non-believer that damages religion — it is the hypocrite, particularly the pompous, self-righteous ass who claims he “…merely provided information…” Way to keep that stereotype alive, brother.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 19, 2007 @ 11:38 am - July 19, 2007
NDT, did I miss something? Have you advanced yourself as some big Christian, on this blog? Ever? I’ve been here 2 years and can’t recall it. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 12:59 pm - July 19, 2007
NDT, I also did a quick re-read for anything you’ve said in this thread that either (1) wasn’t true and relevant, or (2) that attacked HardHobbit (perhaps explaining his charged rhetoric). For the record: I couldn’t find either of those.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 1:11 pm - July 19, 2007
What I’m trying to figure out, ILC, is how HardHobbit got onto the topic of my religious beliefs in the first place.
Perhaps Christ should have given us all a (shrug) and some cheap rhetorical retaliation.
And I bet you would have attacked him for being “toxic” for telling the Samaritan woman at the well, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
The fact that you don’t like my pointing out that a) hundreds of thousands of children were dying from sanctions, b) Saddam was brutalizing and torturing those who weren’t, c) Europeans and the UN were raking in billions in bribes and kickbacks from Saddam to ignore it, and d) Democrat Party members and leftists put pleasing said Europeans and the UN ahead of everything else is not an issue with what I am saying; it is an issue with what it makes obvious.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 19, 2007 @ 1:17 pm - July 19, 2007
Well NDT, I know I’ve seen you understand and quote Bible before. As all educated people used to, and many still do.
HardHobbit, I don’t understand your thought process in jumping from that, to implying that NDT must be a religionist, and a hypocritical one. If I were you, I might simply proceed to make a bunch of assumptions about you now. But my preference, when I don’t understand something, is to ask questions or let the person explain. So: Could you kindly explain your thoughts that lie behind #46? Thanks.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - July 19, 2007
Text Erroni — The San Francisco Treat!
If you don’t like my pointing out your religious hypocrisy, try not mentioning your faith while posting comments on a blog. If you don’t like my pointing out your compromises, don’t claim to be uncompromising. If you think I expect that you behave perfectly, you might try being a bit less self-righteous and a bit more honest. If you suspect that the most loving, Christian response to one whose intentions you believe are less-than-honorable is to respond in kind with ‘…that kind of treatment…’, go to school. If you’re certain I’ll buy that such a petty, vindictive response is merely providing information, have your head examined. If you think you can merely wave away what you know to be valid criticism of your demeanor by linking that criticism with a litany after the criticism was made, claiming I ‘…don’t like…’ the litany (which I never addressed) and worst of all using the words of Jesus in an attempt to deflect my criticism, get on your knees and pray for forgiveness.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 19, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - July 19, 2007
?????????????????????????????????????
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - July 19, 2007
As usual (it is getting soooooooooo boring in fact)….. the Libs avoid the crux of the original premise/question posed by a posting by yours truly.
Dodge, shift blame, change topic.
Comment by GayPatriot — July 19, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - July 19, 2007
It’s called attacking the person when you can’t attack the argument, ILC.
Problem is here that HardHobbit made this disparaging remark about other commentors based on responses to JonBoyDC.
Ironic and unsurprising, the lack of rhetorical goodwill extended in a thread concerning the caring for and about others.
Of course, evidence of JonboyDC’s behavior from elsewhere, including the fact that he called commentors here “completely disconnected from facts, logic, or reality”, makes that lack of goodwill completely understandable; JonboyDC has certainly made it clear that HE is under no obligation to, and will not, extend “rhetorical goodwill” to others.
Thus, HardHobbit has two choices; he can either admit his statement was poorly informed and should not have been made, or he can attack and try to disparage the person who pointed out JonboyDC’s behavior based on that person’s individual characteristics.
He chose the latter, trying to argue that I should be ignored because of my religious beliefs and how I allegedly don’t follow them as he thinks I should.
The irony here, of course, is that if he is a Christian, he’s lecturing me for behavior that he himself is practicing by lecturing me. And if he’s not a Christian, he’s trying to apply a standard of judgment to others that he absolutely refuses to be bound by himself.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 19, 2007 @ 3:47 pm - July 19, 2007
I know I showed Jonboy goodwill, in that I answered several of his (misguided) comments at length. When I don’t answer someone, is when I don’t have goodwill for them.
Yet here we are, talking about “people” and side issues consisting of bullcrap, despite earlier efforts from several of us to answer carefully. Good point about that, Bruce. Jonboy and most of all HardHobbit, good job in making the drama happen
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 4:05 pm - July 19, 2007
I give JonBoy credit in that he (though seriously misinformed about the facts) at least answered the question posed.
Comment by GayPatriot — July 19, 2007 @ 4:30 pm - July 19, 2007
Here’s what I wrote:
“Most of us understand that you mean a “…deliberate…” criminally intentional blackout rather than the responsible actions taken in the event of an emergency. Ironic and unsurprising, the lack of rhetorical goodwill extended in a thread concerning the caring for and about others.”
Funny that some require such an explicit explanation that I didn’t need in order to understand jonboy’s analogy. Is it that those who didn’t understand the analogy are that obtuse or is it that they seize on the example of the ethical person who causes a blackout in a justifiable emergency, using that as a means to beat jonboy over the head, calling his use of the term ‘possible crime‘…let’s see, what was it?…oh, yeah: crap? As jonboy stated in his reference to criminals being held accountable, everyone knows that someone who would cause a blackout as the result of a justified emergency in order to prevent further, greater problems wouldn’t be regarded as a criminal — he would likely be regarded a hero, depending upon the circumstances. But no, Father Erroneus (either out of stupidity or in a search for one more possible way to defeat a fellow commenter with a cheap rhetorical trick) had to attempt to use the obvious against him. And his acolyte (is Calarato ever going to be anything else?) calls such an analysis…what was the word?…oh, yeah: Brilliant.
So my above statement which Pater Erroneus Maximus finds so disparaging is flawed in that I’m not explicit enough re. the two above possibilities, assuming that his assumption that jonboy had never considered the ‘ethical blackout’ scenario was mere stupidity (which my statement does not address); rather, I assumed it was only the rhetorical trick I still believe it to be. So, P.E.M., take it as a compliment. You’re smarter than your comments appear to be.
Re. the latest homily:
He chose the latter, trying to argue that I should be ignored because of my religious beliefs and how I allegedly don’t follow them as he thinks I should.
I argued that you should be ignored? Where? Why am I responding to you now? Shouldn’t one practice what one preaches, or are we selling rhetorical indulgences here? Your problem isn’t that you don’t follow your professed religious faith (not your beliefs — I neither know nor care what they are) as I think you should; rather, your problem is that you don’t follow your faith according to what Christ and The Bible said/state. You’ve no problem with me except that I’m pointing out your obvious hyprocrisy; you should be far more worried about how God interprets how you treat others.
The irony here, Father — with all due respect — is that the only one defending the standards of your professed faith is myself, a professed agnostic. Here’s what I wrote in comment #9:
“I’m a nominal agnostic and disagree with much of the sacrificial tenets of many religions…”
God forbid (and I’m sure he does) that a mere agnostic’s lack of faith be in part caused by faux-Christians and other hypocrites such as yourself. As far as my “…applying a standard of judgment to others…“, the standard is one you applied to yourself, not I. When you proclaim your faith publicly, don’t be surprised when someone (whether of faith or not, it really doesn’t matter) holds you to it. Ideally but not usually, religion does not allow you to pick and choose your favorite aspects and to apply its tenets selectively. The statement
“(shrug) Those who show up here for the sole purpose of calling others “completely disconnected from fact, reality, or logic” get that type of treatment.
is designed to say, in effect, “Whatever. Those who come to this blog with bad intentions (however that is to be interpreted at the moment) have it coming. jonboy deserves whatever he gets.” Do you honestly think this is something Christ would do? This is Christianity? If it is, then you’re right: I absolutely refuse to be bound by it! Thus, my agnosticism. As a witness for your faith, you’re a failure. What? You don’t come here to be an example? Then don’t proclaim your faith! Don’t want to hide your light under a bushel? Then look up the definition of humility!
Once again:
Ironic and unsurprising, the lack of rhetorical goodwill extended in a thread concerning the caring for and about others.
What do I mean? I mean that a certain few participants here make it impossible to engage in normal, rational discussion and dispassionate argument. In this very thread, Cecil and I had a short exchange that was entirely without any kind of malice. Why? Because it was about ideas, not about each other. Sure enough, as soon as the usual suspects respond to jonboyDC, the nastiness begins. It doesn’t matter if he made an indirectly disparaging remark about other participants in this thread. What I’m addressing is how you behave.
This, in a microcosm, is why our politics is so f***ed up. We can’t converse. We think it’s much more fun to hate each other than to help each other see.
Oh, well. To quote Erroneus: (shrug).
Comment by HardHobbit — July 19, 2007 @ 6:12 pm - July 19, 2007
You’ve no problem with me except that I’m pointing out your obvious hyprocrisy; you should be far more worried about how God interprets how you treat others.
Oh, believe me, I am.
But since you’re not God or Christ, it seems rather presumptuous for you to be putting yourself in His place and arguing how awful He thinks what I’m doing is, doesn’t it?
is designed to say, in effect, “Whatever. Those who come to this blog with bad intentions (however that is to be interpreted at the moment) have it coming. jonboy deserves whatever he gets.”
Oh, there’s very little interpretation required. JonboyDC made it quite clear in the quote I cited that he has nothing but contempt for commentors here.
Do you honestly think this is something Christ would do? This is Christianity?
I think there is a particularly apt point in Scripture here.
You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Matthew 12:34-37
Or, if you prefer our Lord at his most colorful, Matthew 23.
In short, Jesus Himself made it quite clear that those who worked with bad intentions were repaid in kind, perfectly legitimately — and He wasn’t shy about it, either.
God forbid (and I’m sure he does) that a mere agnostic’s lack of faith be in part caused by faux-Christians and other hypocrites such as yourself.
The problem here is, HardHobbit, that you have a very twisted and distorted view of Christianity that, in my opinion, is based less on what Christianity actually is than on what you need it to be to justify your agnosticism to yourself. For instance, you see hypocrisy everywhere because, in order to justify your not being one, all Christians need to be hypocrites — despite the fact that our Lord Himself warned us that there were always going to be weeds in the wheat and goats among the sheep, as it were, and that we should not lose faith over this fact.
I have nothing to do with the fact that you’re an agnostic. That is your own decision. You may rationalize it based on whatever you like, but that’s still making excuses, rather than stepping up and simply stating that you believe what you believe.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 19, 2007 @ 8:00 pm - July 19, 2007
I did so in comment #9. You missed it. Whatever. I can’t force you to read.
No, I see hypocrisy in your actions because you don’t comply with the loving nature Christ exhorted us to attain. Not only that, you seem quite proud to treat others badly, thinking yourself a kind of footsoldier, always looking for a battle. (Gee, sounds like some Republicans I know.) You take great offense at jonboy’s remark about participants on this blog, but regardless of religious precepts, what is the best way to deal with someone like him? Is it to respond in kind, as you have done or is it better to prove him wrong, explaining to him why you believe him incorrect, correcting his mistakes and misunderstanding, and doing so in a manner that causes him to doubt his belief that particpants here are intellectually bereft and without good intentions? You chose to affirm his suspicion. I called it for what it is, that’s all. Does this indicate a twisted view of Christianity? Based upon what I’ve observed of you, our respective views are quite different and this is not unusual, between non-believers and believers alike and amongst their respective selves. You choose to respond to a negative stereotype by maintaining it — and do so with a callousness and cruelty that brings precious few Christian texts such as “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love” to mind. Go ahead and jealously guard your interpretation, I don’t care.
And no, I don’t consider myself the voice of God or one that speaks for him. That would be pretty difficult for me to do so since I doubt his existence, right? The presumption is on your part, methinks.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 19, 2007 @ 8:37 pm - July 19, 2007
Taken by itself, that statement is an amazing confession. I mean, even apart from the bitterness/attack it conveys.
In the psychological universe it posits, other people “in part cause” – in other words: are to blame for – the speaker’s spiritual state or lack thereof. Faith (or lack thereof) is to be based on what other people think or don’t think; on what other people do or don’t do.
Not how I operate.
HardHobbit: I know how bitter you are because I, who liberally praise what I know to be good, rarely if ever find something to praise in your poor offerings. You made your hurt and anger clear months ago, in fact. I more than get it.
But if you’re going throw bricks… based on wild accusations of acolyte-ism (you’ve obviously never seen NDT and I have one of our catfights), and/or referring to early thread entries… Why, two can play. Notice back how at #4, HardHobbit, you were my acolyte. You parroted my leading stance in #3, even down to my habitual “I reject the notion…” language, which I used in variation in #3, and which I have used in variations since long before you arrived on GP. Good job
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 9:35 pm - July 19, 2007
Oh, and once again: Good job keeping the drama going, and the thread’s subject on, well, the subject of “you”, HardHobbit. As, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, we see you do so often.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 9:41 pm - July 19, 2007
I did so in comment #9. You missed it. Whatever. I can’t force you to read.
Actually, I already read your statements.
God forbid (and I’m sure he does) that a mere agnostic’s lack of faith be in part caused by faux-Christians and other hypocrites such as yourself.
Or:
Do you honestly think this is something Christ would do? This is Christianity? If it is, then you’re right: I absolutely refuse to be bound by it! Thus, my agnosticism.
That’s twice in the same thread you blamed me and other Christians for the fact that you were an agnostic.
No, I see hypocrisy in your actions because you don’t comply with the loving nature Christ exhorted us to attain. Not only that, you seem quite proud to treat others badly, thinking yourself a kind of footsoldier, always looking for a battle.
(shrug) I bring forth the following examples of what apparently constitutes treating others well and with respect.
Father Erroneus
Pater Erroneus Maximus
Text Erroni — The San Francisco Treat!
But of course, there’s an excuse for that as well.
I mean that a certain few participants here make it impossible to engage in normal, rational discussion and dispassionate argument.
You’re right — and you ignore them, preferring to attack others, as you yourself specifically stated.
It doesn’t matter if he made an indirectly disparaging remark about other participants in this thread. What I’m addressing is how you behave.
So, in other words, HardHobbit is ignoring what someone else specifically said and attacking me instead based on his perception of my religious beliefs and his belief that I am not following them — despite the fact that HE doesn’t believe in them, that HE disparages them, and that HE refuses to follow them.
In short, instead of dealing with someone who IS insulting other commentors, he’s inventing a reason to disparage me.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 19, 2007 @ 9:55 pm - July 19, 2007
NDT, indeed.
This “loving nature” HH now preaches to you: would it be the one HH showed to us all as early as numbers 31, 36, 41 and 46?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2007 @ 10:47 pm - July 19, 2007
So, in other words, HardHobbit is ignoring what someone else specifically said and attacking me instead based on his perception of my religious beliefs and his belief that I am not following them — despite the fact that HE doesn’t believe in them, that HE disparages them, and that HE refuses to follow them.
I see. You think that I have to be a Christian in order to justifiably point out the hypocrisy in other Christians, particularly yourself? I don’t have to believe in anything in order to discuss another’s betrayal of his own alleged beliefs. But I’ll be sure to remember this conversation the next time you mention a liberal’s hypocrisy. And once again, I’ve not disparaged Christianity — you’ve done an excellent job of that via your hypocrisy. I hardly need to add to your, uh, brilliance in that regard. And if I refuse to follow Christianity (most particularly your version of it), that is my affair. I don’t bloviate about my agnosticism on this message board, but only mention it when someone asks or if it lends clarity to my position (such as Cecil’s mention of the Good Samaritan above). Contrast this with your quoting scripture and mentions of your being a “Bible-believing Christian” elsewhere on this blog.
You’ve every right to believe what you like and I have every right to disagree with it and your apparent application of it. But back to the essence of my entire point:
Let’s put aside religion for a moment. jonboyDC came here with a preconceived notion that members of this blog are intellectually incompetent and/or mean-spirited, or whatever it is. I ask you the question: Is it rational to respond by confirming the very suspicions he holds in his mind, the suspicions that you apparently deeply resent? Observe here that I’m not asking if it’s Christian or even if it’s morally decent — I’m asking whether it is rational or sensible to respond the way you did. Did you even once consider that it might be more effective to address your own resentment by quelling his fears by disproving their validity? Is it because you need him to justify your own deeply-held stereotypes of liberals? Is it because you simply want an opportunity to vent rather than engage in the more difficult work of convincing him otherwise, risking that the energies you expend might simply be ignored or laughed at? Are your beliefs that weak? There are fewer things I can think of that are easier than accepting liberalism. It will always be harder to disagree with it because liberalism is a kind of psychic and philosophical gravitational pull, always ready to drag us down to our worst and weakest natures. But I’ve never believed that resistance is futile. You at least pay lip-service to this — why not behave accordingly? Have you been to a liberal blog in recent memory? I’ve been to a few and in every case, the behavior there reminds me of what you just exhibited in this thread.
Once again, as a self-professed Christian, you are obligated to practice as best you can the tenets of your faith. Perhaps what you offer here is the best you can and so I’ve held you to an unfair standard. My bad. But as a non-believer, I’m under no such obligations. Does this give me an excuse to behave badly in a non-Christian sense? Absolutely not. Does this mean I have no right to discuss your bad behavior in a Christian sense? Again, absolutely not. And you seem to be particularly upset that I’m “…ignoring what someone else specifically said…“, meaning, I assume, what jonboy wrote about the participants here on this blog. Just because I didn’t take the same tack as you and attack him mean that I agree with him that members here are stupid/mean/whatever (your best efforts notwithstanding). I’m instead focusing on your behavior and why I disagree that it is the best choice you could have made, whether guided by calm reason or a loving, Christian spirit.
And to address an earlier paragraph whose point you’ve since harped on:
The problem here is, HardHobbit, that you have a very twisted and distorted view of Christianity that, in my opinion, is based less on what Christianity actually is than on what you need it to be to justify your agnosticism to yourself. For instance, you see hypocrisy everywhere because, in order to justify your not being one, all Christians need to be hypocrites…
Hmm. Let’s see if I have this right. The hypocrisy I see is all a figment of my imagination, filtered through my twisted version of Christianity. It’s simply not possible that you might not or (more likely) refuse to recognize your own hypocrisy? According to the Bible, we all fall short of the glory of God. But the issue here isn’t sin, but deliberate, conscious sin. Got it?
Comment by HardHobbit — July 20, 2007 @ 9:45 am - July 20, 2007
Anyone still here: I know I’ve said enough, but a non-participating friend and GP reader e-mailed me this morning and I had to share his point. Because it’s good.
Re: HardHobbit’s effort to insult me above, as “Calarato” who is NDT’s “acolyte” (both nice compliments, by the way, but only one merited)… My friend pointed out, what about this?
The link shows who originated HardHobbit’s approach. A former GP “ally” of his. In other words: HardHobbit is only acting as somebody else’s acolyte, with that insult. Such irony!
More sadly, as the link also reveals, HardHobbit’s mentor nearly had to be banned for bad behavior. I view HardHobbit as that person’s acolyte on several levels.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 20, 2007 @ 9:58 am - July 20, 2007
HardHobbit, newsflash: discussing another’s alleged (but imaginary, on your part) betrayal is one thing. What you’ve been doing – attacking NDT hatefully and hypocritically, sometimes incoherently – is not discussion.
That is a joke. Well, let’s test it out. Let’s look for the first, repeat FIRST person to assert his personal religious belief in, say, this thread.
Why, it’s not NDT! It’s HardHobbit at #9. Check out the opening sentence. Cecil had neither asked your religion, HardHobbit, nor even made a suggestion or implication about it. So, you “bloviated your agnosticism” – unprompted. That one example. I know I’ve seen others.
Where??? Reference, please.
I just did a highlight of the string ‘christ’ in this thread (as in Christian, etc.) and couldn’t find NDT proclaiming he’s a “Bible-believing Christian”. If he has done it “elsewhere on this blog” as you suggest, please come up with at least one reference. (As I was able to do, with your bloviating about agnosticism.)
The Lord HardHobbit (rightly) concedeth…
And the Lord HardHobbit (wrongly) taketh away. Folks, note how biased the question is. HH starts out assuming that Jonboy’s malevolent attitude (euphemized as “fears”) has validity, should be “quelled” by us, and that there was something wrong with NDT’s comments or behavior.
In other words: HardHobbit, you have assumed the very point (about NDT’s behavior) you are desperate to prove. You’ve asked, in effect, “Did you even once consider not beating your wife?”
…Said the child to the grownups.
Sounds much better than what you actually did, yesterday. But far be it from me to prevent anyone from changing. I wish you good luck.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 20, 2007 @ 10:52 am - July 20, 2007
Did you even once consider that it might be more effective to address your own resentment by quelling his fears by disproving their validity?
Of course.
Problem was, you didn’t like what those facts showed, so, rather than dealing with them directly, you made a personal attack and accused me of hypocrisy based on my religious beliefs, apparently under the belief that doing so would somehow invalidate my facts.
And this is perhaps the most amusing thing of all.
Just because I didn’t take the same tack as you and attack him mean that I agree with him that members here are stupid/mean/whatever (your best efforts notwithstanding). I’m instead focusing on your behavior and why I disagree that it is the best choice you could have made, whether guided by calm reason or a loving, Christian spirit.
shrug) I bring forth the following examples of what apparently constitutes “calm reason”.
Father Erroneus
Pater Erroneus Maximus
Text Erroni — The San Francisco Treat!
Perhaps instead of focusing on my choices, you could examine your own instead.
But the point here was not about insults or namecalling or lack of rhetorical goodwill; it was about sabotaging the discussion to avoid the reality of Saddam’s support of terrorism, Saddam’s pursuit of unconventional weapons, Saddam’s bribing the European and UN bureaucracies, Saddam’s threatening his more-moderate neighbors, Saddam’s systematic murder, torture, and imprisonment of millions, including allowing hundreds of thousands of children to starve to death — and the fact that the Democrat Party was adamantly opposed to doing anything about him, and had in fact voted AGAINST military action against him even when he invaded Kuwait.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 20, 2007 @ 12:52 pm - July 20, 2007
NDT – Your list of HH’s “calmly reasoned” and “loving” rhetorical choices might include “pompous, self-righteous ass” and “hypocrite” from #46, LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 20, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - July 20, 2007
Oh, yeah. You’ve divinated my purposes like a veritable clairvoyant. Sabotaging the discussion was precisely my aim. *snicker*
Once again, I must point out the utterly obvious (as jonboy and later I have had to do repeatedly in this discussion) that no one is defending Saddam in this thread. And the original post never mentioned your current litany (funny how it keeps transmogrifying) that includes his support of terrorism, pursuit of unconventional weapons, etc. with the sole exception of Saddam’s gassing of his own population which would fall under the category of Saddam’s systematic murder, no. 5 in your ever-so-enlightening list that everyone (and especially yours truly) have so wilfully ignored. (By the way, did you happen to know that I was one of Saddam’s biggest supporters? I especially liked how he forced family members to search for the body parts of his victims just so they could have a funeral. I’ve never laughed so hard. Seriously, since I haven’t stated repeatedly in comment after comment that I hate everything Saddam did and stood for during his lifetime, that must mean that I love him and everything he did, right? Are you naive enough to think that your discussion of Saddam’s evil imparts you with any kind of authority other than an observer of the completely obvious? Must one actually have to state that one is opposed to his evil in order not to have been giving him tacit approval? Oh, wow — Dallas is against Saddam’s evil. Gee, what a moral vanguard he is! Further, do you think that merely because there is an evil oppressor in the world that that alone is justification for going to war against his regime? I don’t know of a single liberal who supported Saddam. The question placed before Congress was not whether members loved him, but whether it was justified to go to war. Got it?) Anyway, I don’t consider this sabotage on your part; I accept that discussion threads change focus over time. I call it ‘rhetorical goodwill’, fyi. You might try it sometime. But not on me, of course. Try it with a liberal. Who knows? You just might change his mind, if he’s so equipped.
Ah, so you don’t like my sense of humor. Pity. Or, perhaps you didn’t recognize that it was intended as humor, just as your brilliant analysis of jonboy’s analogy didn’t extend him the rhetorical goodwill of the obvious. More’s the pity.
Comment by HardHobbit — July 20, 2007 @ 6:10 pm - July 20, 2007
Now the “humor” dodge. Since the other tactics haven’t worked.
For liberals who, yes, supported Saddam: just Google “iraq human shields”, “iraq george galloway”, and the like.
Further, do consider that anyone – liberal or otherwise – who in 2003 attacked those who removed Saddam **for the policy of removing Saddam** (as distinct from other grounds for criticism), and did so **without having a plausible or feasible alternative** for removing Saddam, was thus functionally or practically Saddam’s supporter – no matter how much the individual may prefer not to admit it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 20, 2007 @ 6:32 pm - July 20, 2007
No. I don’t care. No country came and gave us human rights. We took our rights. Democracy comes when the people demand it, not when it is enforced upon them, and the idea that we are there for gay rights is ridiculous.
Comment by Chaci — July 25, 2007 @ 10:26 am - July 25, 2007
So, by your logic, Chaci, we should not have interfered with Hitler and waited for the people he conquered in continental Europe to rise up and deal with him themselves.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 25, 2007 @ 5:15 pm - July 25, 2007
#72 – NDT, not even Joanie loves Chaci anymore.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 25, 2007 @ 6:19 pm - July 25, 2007