…and this is a 
A Sudanese woman, Lubna Hussein, is facing the barbaric punishment of 40 lashes for a crime against public morality: wearing pants. Not not wearing pants, but wearing pants. She was busted in the act of wearing pants while having dinner at a nice restaurant in Khartoum. They were green. I'm sure those little details have got your imagination churning away now.
This is an interesting case, illustrating the way some people feel that social mores are a club to be used to smash individual freedom, and how women especially are targets for opression. Hussein's 'offense' was so trivial, and her punishment so disproportionate, that it highlights the absurdity and criminality of the strict traditionalist position. The story also has a poll that brings up another interesting point:
Should the UN step in and protect this journalist, considering she works for them?
Yes, they need to protect her and stand up for woman's rights. 81%
No, she broke the law of the country. It is not for the UN to solve. 16%
I'm not sure. 3%
There is an issue of cultural autonomy here — we have this kind of 'prime directive' mindset that we shouldn't be imperialists disrupting different societies. It seems to me, though, that when we're talking about large groups of human beings who are being consistently oppressed by a bizarre historical and partly biological quirk like patriarchy, perhaps we have an obligation to meddle.
Comments
Posted by: PGPWNIT | July 30, 2009 9:39 AM
I was going to post something about Roman Citizens being protected by Rome no matter where they were, but I've decided just to say this.
The UN fails if this woman is punished in this manner.
Posted by: b00ger | July 30, 2009 9:39 AM
Disgusting! I mean, come on! Green Pants! What was she thinking? /sarcasm
Posted by: Savior Breath | July 30, 2009 9:40 AM
Yes - 81%, No - 16%
Posted by: Nils Ross | July 30, 2009 9:41 AM
What's the point of meddling, though? Will it actually change anything for the better for Sudanese women?
Probably not.
Posted by: hje | July 30, 2009 9:41 AM
I say we meddle. That's what Kirk always did. Prime Directive be damned.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 30, 2009 9:43 AM
Absolutely! In this case, however, I think the UN should let the trial proceed, while simultaneously condemning the whole thing and saying that Sudan sucks a big fat one for even thinking about this. They should let the trial proceed because Hussein has basically volunteered to be a test case to try and get this law changed.
If she is convicted, I could see the UN trying to intervene at that point. But until then, I think the UN should respect her wishes and allow the trial to proceed (with the utmost condemnation of the Sudanese authorities, of course).
It would be different if she was like, "Get me outta here!" In that case, fuck their primitive and oppressive local laws, it would be time to intervene like now-ish.
Posted by: Kane148 | July 30, 2009 9:45 AM
Regardless of what we think of that cultures' treatment of women in general (which I personally find abhorrent), in this case the journalist is being subjected to a very violent punishment for a completely non-violent offense. There should be no question that the UN should step in to protect her.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 30, 2009 9:45 AM
When I read that the Sudanese intepretation of Sharia law forbids women to wear pants, I was almost ready to convert... but then I read it again and was very disappointed.
Posted by: JD | July 30, 2009 9:46 AM
Extricate superstition and repression with a green flame thrower.
Posted by: PGPWNIT | July 30, 2009 9:46 AM
By wearing pants, this woman is forcing men to want to rape her. She should be punished severely.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 30, 2009 9:47 AM
Here is the original story http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/world/africa/14briefs-Sudan.html
What's very important to notice, is that Islamic Law only applies to Muslims in Sudan, yet they are enforced on everyone. This ruling will almost certainly be overturned, but the barbaric laws have to be abolished.
Posted by: Joe | July 30, 2009 9:48 AM
Ah, the old cultural relativism argument. Some societies really are objectively better than others. For example, a society that is the same as another for all aspects but the fact that it holds slaves is objectively worse. There are some things that are wrong no matter what social system you have - like rape. Treating women as chattel is right there bordering on "completely wrong in all contexts".
Posted by: Rorschach | July 30, 2009 9:50 AM
I heard on the radio she is to receive 50 lashes,not 40.
She apparently wore the green pants to the "court" hearing today.
That is one brave woman, who is perfectly aware that she is likely to suffer as a test case and a picture case for Sudanese sharia law.
Very, very brave. She should receive any help the UN can possibly give her, these people are nutters, and the world needs to be made aware of it.
Posted by: Walton | July 30, 2009 9:51 AM
I totally agree with Professor Myers here; indeed, the Prime Directive was always one of the things that irritated me about Star Trek plots. Since when is "non-interference in other cultures" a moral imperative superior to that of saving lives, or of improving others' quality of life?
My belief is that civil rights, freedom to trade, and other essential liberties belong as of right to all human beings, not just those fortunate enough to be born in free countries. The fact is that modern democratic-capitalist societies are far, far better, in terms of maximising the quality of life of their ordinary citizens, than any other form of politico-economic organisation in history. I don't care if this is characterised as "imperialist"; I have no qualms about saying that a free, liberal society is inherently superior to a theocratic Muslim (or, indeed, theocratic Christian) society. Freedom is not a "Western" idea; it is a universal good.
This is why I strongly support continued UK and US presence in Afghanistan. We have a continuing moral obligation to do whatever we can to guarantee to the Afghan people some semblance of civil rights and individual freedoms. While the corrupt Karzai government is far from ideal, and our efforts are far from wholly successful, it is still better than pulling out and letting the Taliban return to power.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | July 30, 2009 9:53 AM
And how, exactly, does anyone propose to "meddle". Economic sanctions? Navy SEALs? Cruise Missiles? Tactical Nuclear Weapons?
I assume there will be some diplomatic pressure, but in the end if Sudan tells us to shove it there's not much constructive we can do. After all they've been doing much worse in Darfur for years now.
And yes, in this respect, the UN is essentially fail. But then again fixing this type of problem was not the original purpose of the UN.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 9:54 AM
Didn't you actually read the story, PZ? She's bravely making this a test case. She doesn't want intervention, has refused to make use of possible immunity as a UN employee, and says she is prepared to suffer the penalty if convicted. Other brave women are attending the trial similarly dressed. They have not asked for, and do not want, outside meddling (your word); they are taking action themselves.
Posted by: Russell | July 30, 2009 9:58 AM
What makes anyone think the UN is capable of stepping in? Think of the UN as a debate club for its member nations. It can act only when some of those member nations step up to the plate and act under its name, providing the resources and initiative for some action. Yes, the US and the UK and other nations have sometimes fought wars under the UN's name. But always and only when those nations, mostly the US, wanted to do so anyway.
If you want the UN to act, say which nation and which national leaders should act.
Posted by: Martin | July 30, 2009 9:59 AM
The UN WILL most certainly fail, because by now the UN is just a farce of what it was supposed to be.
Meaning that it is by now (except the Security Council)mostly controlled by dictatorships and other anti-liberal and anti-democratic and/or totalitarian countries,often islamic, which work very well together and protect themselves from any criticism or any other actions.
And frankly, yes we should step in and take all actions we can. There is liberal as in promoting freedom and there is "Liberallala". A derogative german term, which I use to describe the people and mindset Pat Condell describes in this post linked here earlier in this blog.
It's really pretty simple: If your culture thinks it is Ok to punish someone causing Grievous Bodily Harm, because he is wearing a piece of clothes, then your culture is utter, total and complete shit. It's as easy as that.
Oh ... and by the way.... what do you expect would happen, if e.g. a "western" country would ban the veil and punish muslim women which are wearing one anyhow with 40 lashes?
The same people, leaders (and Liberallalas) going on about imperialism and cultural autonomy would scream (for a part rightfully) about racism, discrimation and start to kill people, burn embassies, start boycotting wares etc. .
Maybe it's time we start behaving like this too. It certainly has much more effect than calm reminders about human rights and how we should all live together peacefully.
Posted by: Dunc | July 30, 2009 10:00 AM
I might be tempted to agree if it wasn't for (a) the rather obvious "people in glass houses" problem, (b) the fact that there's nothing like foreign intervention to make people circle the wagons.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes | July 30, 2009 10:00 AM
I was about to point out what Knockgoats said -- she was offered an out by the UN. She could say she worked for them, which would allow her the 'privilege' of wearing pants legally. She resigned from her job to waive the protection, just to make a point that the laws regulating women's dress were unjust.
While I think the UN should provide whatever backing this woman requests, ultimately, she and her sisters in pants should be the ones in charge. Sometimes all you can say is 'we'll be here if you need us to help -- call if you need anything'. And mean it, and make sure to keep lines of communications open.
(Illegal Pants would be a great band name, also.)
Posted by: AF Comm Guy | July 30, 2009 10:01 AM
One of these days I think we should crash a poll and run up the "not sure" votes, just for laughs and giggles.
Posted by: KI | July 30, 2009 10:09 AM
I'm disgusted at how anti-racism devolved into this "all cultures are relative" bullshit. If your culture condones genital mutilation, or cock/dog/bullfighting, or foot-binding, or some other horror, then that aspect your culture is garbage to be thrown out. There is nothing "imperialistic" about disparaging these kinds of activities.
Posted by: andyet | July 30, 2009 10:09 AM
As many liberal Western critics of the American Christian Right correctly point out, fundamentalist theocracy is the enemy of freedom. Though for some reason they seldom (except for Gays like Pim Fortuyn, Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bawer)get around to criticising Islam for the same failing. The others seemed to have sacrificed their own tolerant and secular liberal ideals to the Moloch-god of multi-culturalism.
On the Left, only Gays seem to understand the threat.
Posted by: GregV | July 30, 2009 10:09 AM
> perhaps we have an obligation to meddle.
No. I believe in the Monroe doctrine. Besides, this is just one case that has come to our attention - these sorts of things are probably regular practice.
I would much prefer embargo and other political tactics on the country as a whole, rather than sending in crack ninja teams to interfere with specific cases.
Posted by: CybrgnX | July 30, 2009 10:12 AM
We as a whole have no concept of how good we have it here with an almost secular gov. powered by mostly common secular law.
I find this activity VERY disgusting...can ya hear the BUT coming????
BUT..it is their country and their law. We are fighting to prevent the Xtians doing the same thing here, and we don't like any thought of Islam enforcing their BS here as well. So if we are not prepared to walk in and kick ass and force our culture onto them then we should but out.
She is suppose to be smart enough to know that she would not get away with it there. Any women smarter then a 2yr old would know that fundamentalism on ANY front is BAD on women, its islamic controlled area--send a man.
Sounds disgusting? You bet! wrong? you bet! can we do anything about it?? Don't even waste your time. See what is going on in Iran??? Big surprise!!! All we can do is either kick ass COMPLETELY or support the internal groups who are trying to get things changed for the better.
Posted by: Watchman | July 30, 2009 10:16 AM
Here's a compelling tale:
Malalai Joya: The woman who will not be silenced
Posted by: Dianne | July 30, 2009 10:17 AM
It seems to me, though, that when we're talking about large groups of human beings who are being consistently oppressed by a bizarre historical and partly biological quirk like patriarchy, perhaps we have an obligation to meddle.
I see two potential problems with the obvious answer.
First, where do you draw the line? Or do you? This woman is clearly being oppressed. Are kids who go to church summer camps and have to make popsickle stick crosses? What if they are bullied and put in danger (didn't someone recount having his/her head held under water at a church camp?) or harassed? Should the UN or some other agency intervene? What about an atheist family being harassed in some little town in Oklahoma? What consititutes a bad enough situation to intervene and who has the right to decide that?
No doubt someone's going to say, "Duh! Getting lashed for wearing pants is much, much worse than having to sit through a boring church service" and I agree. But I'm not sure how to make a bright dividing line between "none of our business" and "need to intervene." Because the traditional "I know it when I see it" definition of when to intervene tends to lead to unequal reactions.
Second, assuming we have a definition and good grounds, what intervention is likely to be helpful rather than harmful? An invasion is likely to do more harm than good, even if it could be justified socially. A UN resolution is likely to simply be ignored. A boycott or similar might well backfire. What can be done to help women in this situation without making things worse for other men or women in the same country?
A related question, if the above are solved: How are you going to set up your intervention so that powerful countries are at the same risk of being intervened on (by whatever method from public scolding to full scale land invasion) as poor and weak countries? The US has been committing some pretty horrific human rights abuses in recent years and I'm not sure it's stopped. Who will take the US to task for that behavior? (And between being sentenced to 40 lashes for a trivial "crime" that I at least am guilty of and repeated waterboarding and isolation for a crime I did not commit, I'd take the whipping, thank you.)
Posted by: ice9 | July 30, 2009 10:18 AM
You are all so wrong...That woman should have compromised and muted her objections, regardless of whether Officer Crowley was in the house or not. Cambridge cannot require women to wear pants, especially in Dartmouth colors. The police are Patriots, Risking their Lives for Us.
There. Clarity.
ice
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 30, 2009 10:21 AM
Walton, I'm Impressed!
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
July 30, 2009 10:24 AM
Roddenberry's Prime Directive was always intended for isolated cultures. We are living in (or quickly moving towards) a global society. Our economies are interdependent; our cultures bleed back and forth; we can communicate with each other instantly. Yes, our new ethics need to be more multi-cultural and tollerant of all the different cultures under the umbrella, but individual cultures will need to adjust in order to be accepted by the global community (some more than others). The kinds of "backwards" and misogynistic customs described here are quite frankly intollerable. They need to be fought at every turn! Lubna Hussein is a brave woman and I comend her for this!
Posted by: Sgt Skepper | July 30, 2009 10:24 AM
The Sudanese government actually offered her immunity because she works for the UN, but she refused on principle to bring publicity to the ridiculous laws.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 10:29 AM
Meaning that it is by now (except the Security Council)mostly controlled by dictatorships and other anti-liberal and anti-democratic and/or totalitarian countries,often islamic, which work very well together and protect themselves from any criticism or any other actions. - Martin
"Except the Security Council"? You do know that the Security Council is the only part of the UN with any real decision-making power, no? The General Assembly can pass all the resolutions it likes and it makes doodly-squat difference. Oh and by the way, the proportion of states with reasonable claims to be democracies is higher now than for decades. Still, why let facts get in the way of a good prejudice, eh Martin?
Posted by: FastLane | July 30, 2009 10:31 AM
andyet the buffoon
Complete and utter bullshit, complete with a heaping dose of fatwah envy. The most vocal critics of the Kooky Kristian Krusade (what you call the Ameican Christian Right) are peole like Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, etc. If you actually paid any attention to what they said instead of turning your brain to mush listening to Faux News, you would know that they are very vocal critics of islam and muslim societies.
Dumbass.
Posted by: frog | July 30, 2009 10:31 AM
GregV:
> perhaps we have an obligation to meddle.
No. I believe in the Monroe doctrine.
That's hilarious. Professional comic, perhaps?
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 10:32 AM
As many liberal Western critics of the American Christian Right correctly point out, fundamentalist theocracy is the enemy of freedom. Though for some reason they seldom (except for Gays like Pim Fortuyn, Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bawer)get around to criticising Islam for the same failing.
Andyet, you're a liar, as this very post and many others here demonstrate. Fuck off.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 10:36 AM
This is why I strongly support continued UK and US presence in Afghanistan. We have a continuing moral obligation to do whatever we can to guarantee to the Afghan people some semblance of civil rights and individual freedoms. - Walton
Walton, if you really believe that's what the troops are in Afghanistan to achieve, you really shouldn't be out without Mummy.
Posted by: rick | July 30, 2009 10:42 AM
Do you know why Americans are feared/despised in many parts of the world? This "we know better -- we should fix that for you" attitude.
Observe, comment if you want, but keep your hands to yourself.
The situation there will only be fixed if the people living there want it to be fixed. You managed to do OK with Iran (but just barely). See if you can keep that up.
Posted by: protocol | July 30, 2009 10:44 AM
The political naivete of some of the so-called 'rational' posters here is astonishing. If you think affairs of states are conducted on the basis of ethical considerations, you have no right to blame people for believing in imaginary friends. Though thanks are due to #15, #17, and #32 for staying close to the real world.
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 10:50 AM
From an objective, scientific perspective, cultural mores are indeed relative (protestations of some commentators here, not withstanding). There is no way to empirically establish that a behavior is right or wrong. You cannot see, or in any way, measure rightness and wrongness.
Right and wrong are definitions. They are ideas invented to serve the needs of the people who establish what is right and what is wrong. The point is, right and wrong are inventions, not discoveries. If you have a different definition of right and wrong than someone else, it is because you have different needs than someone else.
I may think driving a car is good. It meets my needs. Someone else might think driving a car is bad as it goes against their needs (e.g. a staunch environmentalist or an Amish person).
It is illogical to say that someone is using the wrong definition as if there is a universally correct definition of what is good and what is bad. If you don't like that someone has defined a behavior as good, then you are free to create a different definition and define the behavior as bad.
Some people want to follow their interpretation of a scripture that they think bans women from wearing pants, so they think women wearing pants is bad. Some people want women to be free to wear whatever they like, so they think that women wearing pants is good. There is no way to objectively say that one way is wrong and the other right.
You may like one way over the other and you may declare one to be the right way, but that is not objective (and I think most people here strongly prefer objectivity). Wanting something to be true or declaring something to be true does not make it so.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 10:50 AM
"Do you know why Americans are feared/despised in many parts of the world? This "we know better -- we should fix that for you" attitude."
No, what pisses people off about US foreign policy over the years is the hypocrisy. It is the US saying how important democracy is, but then santioning coups to remove democratically elected governments. It is the US saying how important human rights are but then holding people without trial indefintly and using torture.
The US is not alone in being hypocritical like this, of course, but being so powerful does tend to mean people take a closer look at what it does.
Posted by: Chinomalon | July 30, 2009 10:52 AM
The UN really has no moral strength to step in in this case even though Lubna works for them. You may remember that it was the UN itself who recently approved (although mainly brought forth by Islamic countries)a resolution which I call the Infamous Resolution 62/154 which seeks to ban "defamation of religious beliefs" by all its members. You can read all about it here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/.
That is what you get with the marriage of religion and state.
Now the UN will need to shut up for good, as they should respect the religious beliefs of all its represented countries based on their own non-rational resolutions.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 10:54 AM
"Some people want to follow their interpretation of a scripture that they think bans women from wearing pants, so they think women wearing pants is bad. Some people want women to be free to wear whatever they like, so they think that women wearing pants is good. There is no way to objectively say that one way is wrong and the other right"
So the concept of proportionate harm escapes you ?
If one assumes that people are free, and that freedom should only be curtailed when the harm done to freedom by that curtailment is outweighed by the harm done to others by not curtailing it.
Thus we find it pretty easy to work out that killing others unless you can show good reason, such a self-defence, is wrong.
Try reading some works on moral and ethical philosophy.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 10:57 AM
Knockgoats:
I agree that she doesn't want any intervention in her particular case (I posted a link to this story in another thread yesterday)... but it's not obvious that she doesn't want some sort of intervention in the larger sense.
The only logical reason she would be willing to subject herself to a punishment that shocks the conscience of the world is that she hopes to shock the conscence of the world with regard to the violence and misogyny of Sharia law (at least as practiced in Sudan). I assume she's not willing to suffer 40 or 50 (depending on what you read) lashes — a horrific and, if the flogger is not careful, potentially fatal punishment — for any reason other than she wants this law changed. So while I agree that we shouldn't send in the Marines to rescue her from a fate she clearly embraces, I think it would also be a betrayal of her bravery to simply say "oh, yes, those Sudanese Muslims are brutal bastards... but after all, it is their country."
This goes to the conversation in another recent thread about the existence of universal morality. There are two essential liberal imperatives in tension here: The imperative to defend individual human rights, and the imperative to defend communities' right to self-determination. Is there a principle of personal bodily autonomy sufficiently unviversal that it trumps cultural standards of appropriate dress, or that it places transcultural bounds on the parameters of physical punishment? Is there a right to basic gender equality so universal that it trumps culturally determined legalized misogyny? And at what level do allegedly univeral concepts of human rights legitimize outside intervention into nations and communities that contravene those rights in law and custom?
What Sudan will do to this woman — beat her half to death for "dressing like a slut" — is the sort of thing that would get a man tossed in prison for a nontrivial amount of time in virtually any developed country not ruled by religious law... but there are many differences between what a nation may do and what an individual may do. So at what point does a government forfeit its legitimacy, and expose itself to the judgment and intervention of outsiders, by acting like a criminal individual.
I don't pretend to have the answers to those questions, but my heart aches at what this woman must endure to get us to raise them.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 10:59 AM
It's horrible to hear that the religious fundamentalists want to give her 50 lashes just for wearing pants but don't you atheist fundamentalists realize that saying she should get zero lashes for the crime only makes you just as extreme, just in the other direction.
I'm a moderate and so I think she should just get 25 lashes.
So long as she doesn't name a teddy-bear 'Mohammed' then its off with her head!
;)
Posted by: Dianne | July 30, 2009 11:00 AM
If you think affairs of states are conducted on the basis of ethical considerations, you have no right to blame people for believing in imaginary friends.
I don't think that affairs of state are conducted on the basis of ethical considerations, but I think that they should be. And in this case PZ's appeal for a state intervention is based on ethics so it is reasonable to consider ethics in answering the question of whether to intevene and, if so, how to intervene. But I no more expect Obama, Sarkozy, et al to see it that way than I expect Zeus to solve the problem by blasting the person who sentenced Ms. Hussein with lightening.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 30, 2009 11:04 AM
Does the Golden Rule apply here? Maybe we in the rest of the world should lead by example, not force.
Posted by: daycoder | July 30, 2009 11:04 AM
The whole thing seems slightly less implausilbe and yet more funny in the UK, where 'pants' means 'underpants' (and trousers means pants).
Licentious pants might the sort of think Agent Provocatuer sell.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 11:05 AM
The "Prime Directive" thing is tricky, isn't it. Imagine a nation in which being naked in public was legal (Netherlands?). If a journalist for the U.N. was arrested in the U.S. for being naked in public, should the people of the Netherlands expect the U.N. to do something to stop the naked journalist from going to jail?
I suspect that the punishment for a man wearing a dress is more severe than 40 lashes (unless he's an imam, of course).Personally, I have a problem with 'punishing' any criminal, and I also think that most 'victimless crimes' shouldn't be classed as crimes at all. However, the world is not mine to rule.
Posted by: randombloke | July 30, 2009 11:14 AM
Regarding the punishment; is it that you feel that lashing is barbaric in itself, or is it that you feel the punishment does not fir the crime (or even that there is a crime)?
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 11:14 AM
Matt @42,
The concept of proportionate harm is not relevant to what I said. Harm is just another concept to judge by one's own definitions of good and bad.
You may use proportionate harm as a means to determine rightness or wrongness, but there is nothing that necessitates us to do so. You have simply chosen to use it. You don't HAVE to use it.
Killing people is not any more demonstrably wrong that a woman wearing pants. You and I may define it as such, but that is a declaration. And again, declaring it does not make it true.
By the way, I have read moral and ethical philosophy, as well as philosophy of science and this is where I stand.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 11:14 AM
Can we swap her for Britney Spears?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 11:16 AM
daveau:
What example do you have in mind? Not beating our women half to death for wearing pants? Aren't we already doing that? And has it had any noticeable effect on Sudanese law to date?
"Leading by example" in a case like this is like trying to prove a negative. You can attempt to lead people into good by providing a good example; it's not so obvious that you can effectively lead people out of evil by simply not being evil.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 11:18 AM
I think most countries condone genital mutilation. There was one country (Denmark) which made moves to ban all circumcision not so long ago, but I don't know if the law was passed.Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 30, 2009 11:20 AM
Mr. Deity is a big believer in the Prime Directive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ieW__BbjHU
Posted by: robotaholic
|
July 30, 2009 11:21 AM
Wow! I guess the Sudan really DOES have fashion police.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 11:24 AM
PsyberDave,
I would ask you to define what you mean by harm and wrong, since they clearly not standard usages. However I cannot be bothered, since I suspect you will just play silly sophistic games. If you cannot see that killing others, absent justifiable reasons like self-defence is wrong becuase it causes harm to others then I can hope you stay well away from me.
Posted by: Roadtripper
|
July 30, 2009 11:25 AM
Posted by rick: "You managed to do OK with Iran (but just barely)."
We did??! I'm confused to see this. Respectfully, it looked to me like the fuck-up of the century. Five thousand US personnel killed, ten or a hundred times that many Iraqis (depending on who you believe, too many either way) and a trillion dollars wasted. Top it off with war crimes for which no one in the old administration will never be prosecuted, and the fact that they instigated the whole disgusting mess by with a series of bald-faced lies.
"See if you can keep that up."
Not if I have anything to say about it...and on polling day, I do. It may be setting the bar a bit low, but voting for the candidate least likely to spend a trillion dollars on an illegal war has become my political 'litmus test.'
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 30, 2009 11:27 AM
I am a Brit. As such the following statement may shock you since it is out of character for we of the stiff upper lip brigade. First of all let me say that the very idea of a woman suffering the monstrously barbarous punishment of 40 lashes for the 'crime' of wearing pants in public makes me sick to my stomach and fills me with loathing for the so called 'men' who run this oppressive medievalist patriarchal government. My first viceral, kneejerk unthinking reaction is that we should go there and beat the misogonist bastards over the head until they fall over . . . then I stop and think for a moment. The unpalletable truth is that we cannot intervene. Not only has the woman in question specifically requested that we should not get involved so that her case can function as a test case, but there is also a broader geopolitical concern.
If we intervene in another culture because we find expressions of that culture repugnant then we set a precedent for cultural intervention that could be used by other powers. What if, say, China pulled another annexation of Tibet style manouver on one of its neighbours using the same justification? We could hardly complain. We would have opened the door to a flood of idelogically based aggression and straightforward landgrabs. As much as our impulse may be to do something, there is little we can practicably do without opening another Iraq style war front.
I am just glad I live in the UK where (as of yet at least) I can say whatever I like about this primitive display of religious sadism without fear of being on the receiving end of lashes myself.
Posted by: KI | July 30, 2009 11:29 AM
@53
I probably should have been more specific (i.e. female genital mutilation), but as someone who got his dick chopped without permission, I am generally against all genital mutilation without prior consent.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | July 30, 2009 11:29 AM
Who is this WE you speak of?
The UN?
Do you KNOW who the most active UN members are?
Are you serious?
And how should WE (the US) meddle? Perhaps send in an army ala Iraq?
Or just shout from the sidelines "You're idiots!" ?
Maybe we can set up blockades and prevent food and medicine from entering the country?
You obviously haven't thought this through...
Now go think this through.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 11:29 AM
The whole thing seems slightly less implausilbe and yet more funny in the UK, where 'pants' means 'underpants' (and trousers means pants).
Licentious pants might the sort of think Agent Provocatuer sell. - daycoder
Or indeed the reaction their goods might provoke (and be intended to provoke) when worn without additional clothing.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 11:29 AM
randombloke:
All of the above. The restriction on women's dress is both arbitrary in general and arbitrarily gender-specific, and there can be no rational demonstration of social harm, so it is entirely irrational to consider this act legitimately criminal.
Punishment by the deliberate infliction of physical pain is, IMHO, illegitimate on its face, serving no purpose that is even arguably protective of the larger society. Even execution can be more rationally defended than punishment by pain. And flogging is not only the infliction of pain, but of extreme pain and potential bodily harm. Nothing, including offenses so severe that they are routinely punished by lifelong incarceration or even execution, could rationally justify a flogging of 40 or 50 lashes.
But even if you reject both of those arguments, and assert that wearing pants is a legitimate crime and flogging is a legitimate punishment, it's still cosmically difficult to make any sort of case that 40 lashes is a proportionate punishment for the crime of wearing (apparently very modest, unsexy) pants.
I'm sorry, but I can't escape the conclusion that anyone defending Sudan's position in this matter is Michelle-Bachmann-class crazy.
Posted by: inkadu | July 30, 2009 11:31 AM
You guys wouldn't be saying ANY of this stuff if it was MUSLIM nation that was -- oh. wait. never mind.
I vote we get David Letterman's production company, World Wide Pants, to represent her.
And no to meddling, yes to pressure.
Posted by: CW | July 30, 2009 11:33 AM
Joe @ #12
Bordering on? I'm afraid you must be looking at a border map from 1950, or maybe 1850.Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 11:34 AM
#16
I suspect that changes made from within end up being the most stable.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 11:37 AM
#59
I'm glad you said you were against the genital mutilation of both males and females, because otherwise you would have been guilty of the same cultural relativism that you were criticising.;-)
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 30, 2009 11:38 AM
PsyberDave, did you seriously attempt to establish moral equivilency between the cold blooded murder of a sentient human being and the wearing of pants by women? If I thought you were being serious, I would say that your inapproprite appliaction of abstract philosophy to the potential bodily harm and even death of this woman, and the ACTUAL mutilation and death of thousands of innocent women on the same theological basis, left you in serious danger of inserting your cranium into your anus, metephorically of course. As it is I am going to assume this is a Poe.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | July 30, 2009 11:40 AM
Fun Fact: Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for a similar heresy.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 30, 2009 11:43 AM
Too true AwesomeRobot, too true. However, I had hoped that as a species we had moved on a little since then. Silly me.
Posted by: windy | July 30, 2009 11:44 AM
Walton:
Malalai Joya disagrees:
In 2005, I was the youngest person elected to the new Afghan parliament. Women like me, running for office, were held up as an example of how the war in Afghanistan had liberated women. But this democracy was a facade, and the so-called liberation a big lie. (...)
For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the "democracy" backed by Nato troops.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 11:45 AM
Bill Dauphin@43,
Yes, I agree - and the fact that we know about the story shows she has already had considerable success in publicising the case. Good on PZ for posting about it. What I'm saying (and this case backs up what I was saying in the Condell thread) is that if you really care about the rights of women under Islam, give your support to the women concerned, where this is feasible, on the terms they ask for it. Just as important, don't intervene in ways they have made clear they do not want.
Posted by: Turkey Trotsky | July 30, 2009 11:48 AM
These sorts of laws under Sharia amount to legitimization
(& a concommitant reduction in the worst abuses) of the
sorts of gang-like or vigilante activities which occur in
many Arab countries. Typically, a 'committee for the
approval of virtue & the condemnation of vice' will consist
of ordinary men who take it upon themselves to chastise
women dressed immodestly or men without the correct sort of
beard. In Sudan (& other countries) the authorities have tried to make this sort of thing consistent & formal. Not
saying I like it, just that it is better than having roving
bands of unemployed young men acting as moral arbiters.
Posted by: Woman | July 30, 2009 11:50 AM
How painful it is to see this treatment continuing. The flogging, the stoning, the raping. I'm going to buy a pair of green pants and wear them in solidarity. It's not much, but maybe someone will ask me and I can tell them her story. But this must be contested and their flawed beliefs must be exposed to the world. It can only be broken down from within. This woman is so brave. I only hope I could be so brave faced with the same punishment.
Posted by: amphiox | July 30, 2009 11:50 AM
"How are you going to set up your intervention so that powerful countries are at the same risk of being intervened on (by whatever method from public scolding to full scale land invasion) as poor and weak countries?"
You can't. So long as there does not exist an international coercive power more powerful than the most powerful nation, this is impossible. (And if such a power existed, then no nation would be considered powerful, because the ability to choose to act without being restrained by consideration of consequences is what being powerful means)
There are only two solutions to this dilemma. One is to arrange for some supranational entity (hopefully a benevolent one) to conquer the world, by force or other means, which will then make all the nations toe the line and enforce equality between them. The other is to wait for nation-states to naturally evolve to a level of ethical maturity in which they will voluntarily restrain themselves to produce a functional equality irrespective of individual power and resources.
At present, nation-states as entities behave with an ethical maturity equivalent to an average 3-year old. And historically they seem to have matured ethically at a rate of 1 year or so every 2 or 3 centuries. So you're going to be waiting a long, long time for option 2.
Option 1, of course, will result in a world war.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 11:50 AM
Hmmm... as someone also circumcised at birth, I prefer not to think of myself as "mutilated." But in any case, it's silly to compare male circumcision with female genital mutilation (which I refuse to dignify with a neutral, clinical term like circumcision): Whatever the many arguments against (and the relatively fewer, but nontrivial, arguments for) circumcision, it is not intended to deliberately turn individuals into sexual cripples, nor to, by extension, suppress the sexuality of an entire gender; female genital mutilation is both, and nobody seriously advances any other justification for it. It is about denying half the human species the essentially human experience of sexual pleasure.
Back to the main topic of this thread: If we were making a list of offenses against fundamental human rights so extreme that they justify international intervention into the affairs of a nation or community, legally sanctioned female genital mutilation would be high on my list; legal tolerance of traditional male circumcision wouldn't be on my list at all. YMMV.
Posted by: amphiox | July 30, 2009 11:52 AM
So the question is, do you do nothing, because you cannot act without being unfair, or do you do something regardless, accepting the fact that at present, only the weak nations will be subject to coercive meddling when they trangress.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 11:53 AM
Gregory Greenwood,
PsyberDave is just another adolescent wally who thinks he's the first to realise you can't prove moral precepts from first principles. Hopefully, he'll grow up.
Posted by: Schmeer | July 30, 2009 12:01 PM
PsyberDave,
You are a vile, immoral, inhumane cowardly, piece of shit. Whipping a woman for wearing pants is fucking wrong because it harms her when she caused no harm.
If we are to follow your example I think I'll revise my moral code to include feeding moral relativists to bears. Fuck you. I hope you meet a horrible death in a backwards theocratic state.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 12:05 PM
@Bill #75
It's true that as commonly practised, male genital mutilation is less severe than female genital mutilation, but there is variation. I can't imagine that you would be okay with the more severe forms of male genital mutilation, but would you be okay with type 1a female genital mutilation (removal of the clitoral hood)? The clitoral hood is homologous with the male foreskin, even though the male foreskin is larger and has many more nerve endings.
I just want to know whether you are against female genital mutilation but not male genital mutilation (a hypocritical position due to cultural indoctrination), or whether you are accepting of both male and female circumcision as long as it is 'not too severe'.
I'm guessing that you're from the U.S. From a non-U.S. perspective, the forced genital mutilation of children is probably more barbaric than the lashing of a woman who chooses to wear trousers.
Posted by: KI | July 30, 2009 12:08 PM
@75
I agree that the reasons for and the outcomes of female mutilation are far more extreme than circumcision, but to me it's a matter of degree, and it's the permission thing that really bugs me. Both acts are bad, one is minor surgery and one is horrifying mutilation, but in neither case is the subject giving their consent.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 30, 2009 12:09 PM
Exactly. And I'll just repeat the link to my blog post I gave on the Condell thread, since it does provide some ideas for what people can do, at least in the case of Afghanistan:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/07/women-in-afghanistan-some-revolutionary.html
(Although in this case I believe I'm justified, it's still a good thing there are no internet decency police to come after me for immodest and immoderate blog-whoring.)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 12:11 PM
"I agree that the reasons for and the outcomes of female mutilation are far more extreme than circumcision, but to me it's a matter of degree, and it's the permission thing that really bugs me. Both acts are bad, one is minor surgery and one is horrifying mutilation, but in neither case is the subject giving their consent."
Since male circumcision is normally carried out on minors, then clearly they cannot consent. However we do allow operations to be carried out on minors, providing that the operation provides benefit to that individual. I have not seen a convincing argument that male circumcision provides benefit to the person being circumcised and thus it violates the normal criteria for consent.
Posted by: KI | July 30, 2009 12:18 PM
@82
*puts finger alongside nose, nods head*
Posted by: daveau | July 30, 2009 12:19 PM
Bill D@52-
I was referring more to the interfere/don't interfere context in general, which I should have stated. And thinking of Matt's comments at #40, suggesting that a lot of countries should get their own house in order before pointing fingers at everyone else. So, yeah, my fault for not being clear. I'm suggesting that once we are a exemplary beacon for the way it "ought to be", then maybe our opinions would carry some weight. And then, maybe, others could actually respect any actions we take.
As a US citizen, I'm appalled at some of the stuff we have done in recent years, much of which continues even though we voted specifically for that type of change. But I wouldn't want other countries actively interfering in our legal system. OTOH, I wouldn't have any problem with an international indictment of the previous administration. There should be an effective world court.
I'm as appalled as anyone on the "pants" issue. I sent PZ a link to the BBC story 2-1/2 weeks ago, in which it states "Non-Muslims are not supposed to be subject to Islamic law" in Khartoum. Ms. Hussein is willingly engaging in a test case. She was within the law. Hopefully, the law will win out. What would you suggest we do, Bill, bomb them? I say we don't interfere unless/until lives are at stake.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 12:29 PM
"I say we don't interfere unless/until lives are at stake."
At the very least I think it is incumbant on other governments to make an offer of asylum to victims of laws like this. As a Brit I would expect my own government to do so, but given its track record I do not hold out much hope.
Posted by: paradoctor | July 30, 2009 12:31 PM
Lubna Hussein could have taken UN protection, but is instead making this a test case. Very courageous of her.
So what international intervention is called for? Just what we are doing here; publicity, critique, mockery. (Get a load of those theocrats, scared of green pants.)
It's soft power, a.k.a. reason, which rules the universe. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes awhile to work.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 12:32 PM
Speaking of circumcision there was a very illuminating post on truthdig the other week written by a woman who was defending the practice of female genital mutilation.
Yes, you read that right.
The most interesting aspect of her article was the fact that her arguments were exactly the same ones that are used to defend male circumcision practices in the west.
All the usual arguments were there - that its more hygienic,
healthy, more aesthetically pleasing looking, helps the children blend in since everyone else in the community has it done, that it boosts womens self esteem, that its better to do it with infants since they don't feel pain, etc - all the EXACT same arguments made to defend the practice of circumcising males.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090702_designer_vaginas_is_female_circumcision_coming_out_of_the_closet/
Posted by: Obstreperous Anti-Theist | July 30, 2009 12:32 PM
Sigmund, you're an idiot.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 12:36 PM
#88
And you are a quote-miner.
;)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 12:38 PM
Obstreperous Anti-Theist,
I think you missed the sarcasm in Sigmund's post. I suspect he was pretending to be an accomodationist like Chris Mooney when he wrote that.
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 12:39 PM
I am not being a sophist here. And I am not Poeing, either (to coin a word), so far as I can tell. I think what I am saying comes right from scientific philosophy. If you think that is Poe, well I find that fascinating.
Rightness or wrongness of ANY behavior is not a matter of empirical discovery. It is a matter of declaring it to be right or wrong.
I am just making the observation here that among the many of us that revere objectivity and empiricism, that declaring someone's behavior to be right or wrong is not an objective observation of fact that can be argued from evidence.
I think this is a useful point because you have one group of people saying behavior x is wrong and another saying it is right. Both groups oppose each other and would like to prevent the other from having their way. Each group may even want to inflict pain on the other as a means of getting their way. None of this establishes which group SHOULD have their way or which group is REALLY correct.
Discussions on these boards of natural phenomena often entail establishing which view is correct. Observed evidence is used to establish correctness in those cases. I am saying that in this instance, that approach is not possible and I find it worth noting because it appears to be lost on some who think that their way is really the right way as if it was a matter of fact.
If you have an objection to what I am saying, by all means, say so. I hope that it is substantive rather than just calling me names.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 30, 2009 12:40 PM
Matt Penfold @85
That's exactly the kind of leadership by example I'm talking about. But, of course, how do we get her out of the country? There's the rub...
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 30, 2009 12:46 PM
"Discussions on these boards of natural phenomena often entail establishing which view is correct. Observed evidence is used to establish correctness in those cases. I am saying that in this instance, that approach is not possible and I find it worth noting because it appears to be lost on some who think that their way is really the right way as if it was a matter of fact."
No you seem to be saying there is no way of examining how well a society functions.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | July 30, 2009 12:47 PM
Meh. I'm a moral relativist in the very general sense. People who believe in absolute morals disagree with each other over what is moral, so their all probably wrong, in my opinion. In my personal, subjective morality, beating someone for what they choose to wear is a vile, immoral act. I also think most people in the world would agree with me. So I vote that we intervene in some way. But I don't know what the best way to intervene would be. I can't prove that my belief on the morality of this act is true, but I don't care about proving it. Morality falls outside of science, and that's ok.
Obviously you can't "prove" something is moral or immoral. You can probably prove that holding certain morals in a society can have x or y effect on said society. We can prove that treating women like this is bad for your economy, global standing, and emotional well-being of citizens.
We can also prove that trying to muscle into another country and force them to treat women better is harder than it sounds, and can have bad unintended consequences. I'm not sure what can be done about this, but I think bringing it to everyone's attention is a good start. We should at the very least try to shame Sudan into not having such a shitty misogynistic culture.
We can also try to get our act together on how we treat our own citizens. So we can lead a better example for the rest of the world. I'd start with telling the moral absolutists who say homosexuality is absolutely immoral to shut the fuck up.
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2009 12:49 PM
A rhetorical question. When are these Islamic countries like Sudan, Somalia, etc. going to grow up and join the 21st century. If ever. They certainly don't show any signs of it being soon. FWIW, not all Moslem countries are so dead set on being backwards, mostly it is the Arabs in the ME.
Someone recently made the comment that modernizing Afghanistan will probably fail because they don't want the modern world. Lifespan there is 44 years average and falling. A few years ago it was a whole 47 years.
And you can't just point and laugh at the Moslems. Fundie xian cultists in the USA want to join them in the Dark Ages, heading backwards rather than forwards. If anything that is even dumber.
Posted by: Martin | July 30, 2009 12:50 PM
@knockgoats:
"The General Assembly can pass all the resolutions it likes and it makes doodly-squat difference. "
Yeah, but it certainly shapes public opinion to a very high amount. And that's a lot of what it's all about, isn't it? Just look at what it did to you.
Posted by: Jadehawk | July 30, 2009 12:52 PM
so Walton, let me get this straight:
you're against us, as a (more or less) democratic society, deciding for ourselves, (more or less) democratically, how we want our society run; but you're all for you, as an outsider, deciding militaristically for another society, without their consent, how they should run their society?
what precisely are you basing this whopping hypocrisy on?
----------
I agree with Knockgoats and SC that instead of barging in and making demands*, what we SHOULD do is offer as much support as possible to the groups within a society trying to change their society for the better*. Intervention from the outside has a catastrophic failure rate, and backfires on a regular basis. As XD said, change from the inside is the most stable and successful.
*however, a certain well-placed amount of outside pressure can certainly be of help, similar to the outside pressure that helped South Africans end Apartheid.
**except weapons trade and supporting illegal coups, that is; that generally tends to backfire, as well.
Posted by: Martin | July 30, 2009 12:52 PM
@knockgoats: And it also obviously has the power to distribute money and other help. And it does this for example in a way which prefers the palestinians above all other refugees to an amount, which isn't even laugheable any more.
Still... why let the facts destroy your Liberallala ?
Posted by: Obstreperous Anti-Theist | July 30, 2009 12:53 PM
Forgive me if I fail to find the humor. I just finished reading the piece on Joya and my blood is just boiling. I recall reading the Ms. magazine article back in 1993 or 94 that discussed the Taliban and the evils it represented, and I could only shake my head and feel impotent. Here is a whole 'nother situation over which I have no say, no input, or control over. I can postulate all day what I would do, how brave these women are, and how icky theocracies are, and I feel the same impotency. It's shitty how women are treated by all of society, including our American one, and it seems like we're never going to move forward! We're never going to improve the status quo. We're never going to have justice or freedom while I'm alive and the fact that I refuse to have children is the only way I can stop them from being abused and discriminated against OR part of the problem. It ends with me.
So I'm sorry Sigmund - I'm not finding a lot funny right now.
Posted by: co | July 30, 2009 12:53 PM
Psyber, we all understand that (at least I hope we do).
I think it's the arbitrariness of the ruling which is pissing most people off. Definitions have been (from my point of view) arbitrarily made up (women and men have different restrictions placed upon them, and these restrictions are 'based' upon religious precepts), and applied in a fickle manner. It's the *unfairness* (and here is where Psyber has a valid point) which makes me mad, even the fact that she was offered some sort of leniency because she's a UN representative.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 12:54 PM
#87
I'm not at all surprised. It takes more courage than most people have to say that the genital mutilation endemic in a culture is wrong. A person who does that is not just admitting that they think their parents basically abused them (albeit not maliciously), but also that their genitals are somehow 'inferior'. It's much easier to continue the practice.
What I can't understand is the insistence of some people that all FGM is wrong (even the mildest forms which are less severe than MGM), and some MGM is fine. That would result in Francis Collins levels of cognitive dissonance, I think.
Posted by: co | July 30, 2009 1:00 PM
I'd also like to point people to Sciencewoman's post at http://scienceblogs.com/sciencewoman/2009/07/did_you_know_you_could_lose_yo.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link . It seems somewhat related.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 1:00 PM
Yeah, but it certainly shapes public opinion to a very high amount. And that's a lot of what it's all about, isn't it? Just look at what it did to you. - Martin
No, it doesn't, and no, it has had no effect on me. As I've said on another recent thread, peabrain, Islam is false, misogynistic and repulsive.
Posted by: Stuart | July 30, 2009 1:02 PM
Took me a while to work out that she was wearing trousers in public.... i wasn't that surprised it had been a problem when i thought she was displaying her green pants in public!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 1:09 PM
My position really isn't based on severity, and it isn't based on gender, either, except in a de facto sense, so let me state the principle in a more general way: I am opposed to the systematic, culturally mandated denial to an entire class of people one of the essential aspects of human-ness, and especially adamantly opposed when such denial is achieved through forcible violation of individuals' bodily integrity.
It really has nothing to do with the details of the procedure, nor with how painful the procedure might be: It's all about intents and effects.
I would be the last person to claim encyclopedic knowledge of this issue, but in every case I've heard of, the intent — and generally speaking, the achieved effect — of female genital mutilation is to deny sexual pleasure for culturally/religiously determined reasons, with no ostensible medical justification. IMHO, the attempt to extinguish from an entire class of humans an essential aspect of human experience is morally similar to genocide. I haven't heard of a nation or culture in which anything even vaguely similar is happening to males, but if any such situation exists, I would condemn it with equal vehemence.
In all instances that I'm aware of, male circumcision is performed, whether for religious reasons or not (I'm not Jewish; I just happened to be born at a moment in history when most middle-class Americans and their doctors seemed to think circumcision was medically appropriate), without any intent to harm or to deny boys' sexuality... and in fact, it does not seem to have the effect of destroying the capability for sexual pleasure, either1. I'm not aware of any equivalent procedure for girls (i.e., a childhood genital surgical procedure not intended to invidiously affect sexual function), but supposing one existed and was practiced somewhere in the world, I would view it in precisely the same way I view male circumcision: It may or may not be (probably is, I suppose) bad medicine, but that's different in kind, and not merely in degree, from something that's morally similar to genocide.
Consent isn't really the issue either: Infants and small children never consent to their medically treatment; we hold them incapable of doing so (and until they can speak and read, they are in physical fact incapable of giving informed consent). Children inherently must rely on their parents or guardians for consent to medical procedures. It's either good medicine or it's not, but in any case, the child hasn't consented to it, and that's just the way it must be.
Of course, female genital mutilation generally doesn't even pretend to be "medicine," so IMHO different standards should apply. Also, if I understand correctly, it is usually applied not to infants but to pubescent girls, who, though minors, are presumably more capable of participating in decisions about their own bodies, making the issue of consent more worrisome... except that it's such an horrific act in the first place that nobody ought to be able to consent to it.
Yes, I'm an American, and a white, middle-class one at that, and my experience, like everyone's, no doubt influences my views. But I honestly don't think my opinion in this matter is a symptom of some culturally induced blindness, and I certainly don't think I'm being hypocritical.
The question in this thread is when culturally determined invasions of human rights justify potential outside intervention. I argue that a state-sanctioned and widespread practice of mullahs holding down screaming 12-year-old girls and slicing off their clitorises for the specific purpose of permanently denying them any experience of sexual pleasure is probably such a case. The fact, OTOH, that my parents were legally entitled to decide, in consultation with my pediatrician, that circumcising me was (rightly or wrongly) an appropriate medical procedure probably does not justify UN sanctions or foreign military invasion.
You disagree?
1 Nobody who's circumcised can ever know with any certainty what sex would feel like if he weren't, of course, and similarly nobody uncircumcised can know what circumcised sex feels like... but evidence seems to suggest that, broadly speaking, both groups enjoy and pursue sexual pleasure at roughly similar rates.
Posted by: Obstreperous Anti-Theist | July 30, 2009 1:11 PM
I had the "to cut or not to cut" discussion with a Jewish friend of mine after his son was born. He had asked my honest opinion about whether he should have the kid cut because of family tradition, and I told him that if he wants to mutilate his son then he would have to live with that decision forever. He told me no one had ever put it that way to him before, but he was trending towards doing the circumcision because he was worried about the social stigma of having a foreskin (wtf? most of the world's male population isn't cut from what I understand), and also he wanted his son to identify with his father by their penises having the same appearance. And then there was the Jewish thing. I did my best to talk him out of it, but there is one more mutilated kid in the world.
How do we overcome these barriers to keep people from mutilating their children's sexual organs?
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 30, 2009 1:12 PM
Sorry for skipping to the end; I'll catch up later as you all formulate your no-doubt witty and insightful responses.
I totally agree with Professor Myers here; indeed, the Prime Directive was always one of the things that irritated me about Star Trek plots. Since when is "non-interference in other cultures" a moral imperative superior to that of saving lives, or of improving others' quality of life?You have a good point. The Prime Directive is, to a certain extent, a simple extension of the Naturalistic Fallacy; what occurs on its own is good, what occurs through (non-divine) conscious agency is bad. But the Prime Directive still makes sense without this, though it would be considered a legal directive rather than an ethical one. Think of it as the Federation saying "our insurance won't cover that."
But the Prime Directive is still a moral imperative in the way you describe because it, unlike your position, takes into account that it is not infallible. A bell cannot be un-rung, and while you may believe, even have what you consider convincing empirical evidence, that your actions will save lives or improve the quality of life for others without any other side effects , you may still be wrong. Given a rudimentary knowledge of science, post-Popper, you should be willing to admit you ARE wrong, though not necessarily "more wrong" than any alternative theory. The universe (or God, for it seems clear that Gene Roddenberry was a theist) may cause a great deal of suffering, and you may consider it your moral duty to reduce that suffering, but you may not (should not/ought not/must not/shall not) presume that your are sufficiently omniscient to know either what is best for everybody or what all the ultimate results of your "meddling" will be.
The case in point is a perfect example. Many women were arrested and charged. Most simply accepted the punishment (possibly a lesser one, similar to a 'plea bargain'). This woman insists on defending herself in court. This woman demands that the facts of the case be made public. This woman invites the punishment as an example to every person of conscience in her country, or suggests the law be made more just. She is a great hero, regardless of the outcome. She is proof positive that change is made from the inside.
I am not an isolationist, I do not think we should turn a blind eye to what happens in other countries. We should instead turn a watchful eye. But we must and we should keep our hands to ourselves, less we commit the most unpardonable arrogance of believing we can trump history and start imposing "better" rules on the citizens of other peoples' countries.
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 1:14 PM
Saying how well a society functions never entered my mind. I was just trying to focus on individual claims of rightness or wrongness about a circumscribed behavior.
I think AwesomeRobot comes quite close to describing the resulting product or attitude that comes from what I was saying. AwesomeRobot acknowledges personal preference and a desire to have others adopt the same preferences. Of course, the those who oppose AwesomeRobot's preferences might also want AwesomeRobot to be the one to change.
When the question is one of observable fact, we have a method (e.g. observation, fact gathering, offering evidence, etc.) to decide which view is correct. When the question is moral, we don't. Often we fight over it and try to force others to do as we want.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 30, 2009 1:20 PM
And it [UN General Assembly] also obviously has the power to distribute money and other help. And it does this for example in a way which prefers the palestinians above all other refugees to an amount, which isn't even laugheable any more. - Martin the Amazingly Ignorant
No, funding for refugees is effectively decided by the Executive Committee of the UNHCR. This currently has 78 states as members, of which I reckon at least 50 have a good claim to be functioning democracies.
Posted by: Didac | July 30, 2009 1:25 PM
If "we" must meddle with "cultures", first we must define who are "we". "We" need a world-government. Otherwise, the meddling would be of a "part of the world" against other "part of the world". For example, if USA shift from being a "national/federal" government to be a real "world" government (e.g. all people in the world partaking in presidential elections), then it would be very justifiable to intervene in Sudan as well as intervention took place in 1960s Alabama. Otherwise, we can convoke a UN army and intervene in Sudan.
In any case, if any "Western" soldier is needed to meddle in Sudan, I would prefer, as in 1945 Japan, to prepare the terrain Truman style, so to speak.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 1:28 PM
Bill Dauphin, I'd advise you to read the article I linked to earlier in this thread. The writer certainly didn't seem to regard her female circumcision as anything like the way you are portraying it. Indeed she begins the article by describing herself as a "circumcised and sexually fulfilled African woman".
Don't get me wrong here, her article is horrifying for the tortured reasoning she uses throughout but it is pretty much exactly the same reasoning used to justify male circumcision in the west.
The idea of mullahs holding down screaming pubescent girls is hardly representative of the practice which is usually cultural rather than religious (thus muslems, christians, jews and animists in Africa have done it) and mostly performed by female elders of the community and carried out on infants.
As Olujobi states:
"Now, my grandmother performed these “procedures” all her life. As early as 5 a.m., mothers would line up in our backyard with their baby sons and daughters to be circumcised by her expert hands. Among the Yoruba of Nigeria, circumcision is done in early infancy.
Grandma took special care and pride with female babies. She would do her job deftly and pass the screaming baby to her mother saying, “Your daughter has been beautified.” The satisfied mother would then go back home and cook a celebratory chicken feast to mark the occasion."
There is no scientific reason for performing circumcision on either males or females, only post-hoc rationalization. More children are seriously injured by the practice than are potentially saved from future medical problems and its benefits in prevention of sexually transmitted diseases are tiny compared to simple alternatives such as condoms.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 30, 2009 1:31 PM
Logic fail. One of the terms in that statement clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.
I admit, if you refuse to believe that the word "wrong" has any meaning, that statement makes sense. It still isn't true, but at least it isn't incomprehensible, as it is if we recognize that the term "wrong" does have meaning, in that it is used to refer to something in the real world. It has no metaphysical properties, true, and you are free to claim the harm you're causing by killing a human being is equivalent to that caused by wearing pants. You are even free to believe it is true, provided you are a sociopath. And you may feel it is only a 'difference of opinion' that almost everyone everywhere ever disagree with you. Because it is not physically impossible for you to be incredibly stupid.
Posted by: Didac | July 30, 2009 1:34 PM
There were a time, moreover, when white guilty was not existant, than Napier could say: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours". I thik that the same case applies to Sudanese.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 30, 2009 1:40 PM
This thread is a showcase for the persistent and pervasive failure to understand how our international institutions work. The UN is merely the sum of its parts, the nation states. It cannot act unless it gets agreement, and resources from the nation states. It also needs all 5 security council members onboard, or to at least abstain from tabling their veto.
When the UN "fails", it is because many, or in some cases just one nation state, wants it to fail; The latter scenario courtesy of the absurd security council, and its patently ludicrous veto system.
For those of you looking for action on this, you have a long road ahead that starts at a minimum with UN reform, and probably ends with a directly elected global parliament. Click on the link to cast your vote in the referendum:-)
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 1:41 PM
tmax,
The word I find to be most to the point is "demonstrably".
If someone claims the Earth is round, they can demonstrate their claim with observable evidence, not just declare it round by edict.
If someone claims that killing people is wrong, what is the observable evidence?
My point is that one claim of truth is demonstrable and the other is not (so far as I know).
Posted by: False Prophet | July 30, 2009 1:49 PM
Let's remember that even modern Western societies can have reprehensible ideas about women's clothing as well.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 1:53 PM
Reduction of sexual pleasure has historically been used to justify MGM as well as FMG. And as Sigmund (#87) points out, the reasons given by FGM advocates are almost identical as those given by MGM advocates. I can't think of any other unnecessary surgery parents are allowed to have carried out on their children (except to correct deformities, I guess). Perhaps if earlobes were routinely excised there would be a parallel. Actually, some cultures do practice extensive body modification (though I'm not sure they do this on minors). Not even adults? I've got no problem with adults (of sound mind) electing to have any body modification done. It's the children that I think ought to be protected. Outside of the U.S., Africa and the M.E., the practice of MGM seems as weird as the practice of FGM. I would (respectfully) say that you do have a culturally induced blindness. I'm not sure what would work. You've read the reasons given by women for FGM; how do you counter that? The prevalence for type I, II, and III FGM in half-a-dozen countries is higher than that of MGM in the U.S. How do you get those populations to realise that genital mutilation is both unnecessary and wrong? The women who have had the procedure don't know what feelings they have lost. You can tell them that the bits cut off contained thousands of nerve endings, but you could say the same about the foreskin. What good does it do those women to contemplate lost sexual pleasure? They would be more likely to deny it, or rationalize it somehow.Anyway, genital mutilation is a big, contentious subject. Although it does have relevance in a thread about social norms, and their relative right-or-wrongs, I don't want to hijack.
I'll let you have the last word.
(I want to add that I don't think of you as less of a man for having been circumcised. I would however think of you as less of a human if you were an advocate. From what you've said, I'm confident that you are not. Peace.)
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 2:04 PM
And I should also add for completeness, Bill, that I don't think your parents are monsters for electing to have you circumcised. They were just doing what everyone else in their society was doing at the time, and probably didn't want to feel like outsiders (or for you to feel like an outsider). Actually, circumcision rates in the U.K. were just as high at that time. I think it's now just Jews and Muslims which practice it, and there are now even Jewish groups which are against the practice.
Posted by: Michael Eybye | July 30, 2009 2:05 PM
Wearing pants? she was wearing pants? Is there no decency left? She was wearing pants! The sheer outrage, the sheer immorality! What will be next? Waders?
On a more serious note, It is certainly not unexpected that such people would sentence a woman for wearing pants. That it is not unexpected does not make it alright though. We all know this.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 30, 2009 2:08 PM
Actually, you were just mistaking those individual claims for universal proclamations, which they were not meant to be. I understand the point you're trying to make, and it should indeed be introduced into this discussion. You just did it very poorly.
That is the one I would have picked, too. You clearly are misusing it.
There are two ways in which you are mistaken. Both are relevant to this conversation. First, they can demonstrate it is roundish. In point of fact EVERY claim they make about the shape of the Earth can be demonstrated to be not perfect enough to actually describe the physical reality. So obviously (if I were to the use the logic you are attempting to extend to morality) the Earth is not round.
Second, there is no truth to your claim that the "wrongness" of murder cannot be demonstrated. Provided, I will remind you, because it is important, we don't start denying that words mean anything ever.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 2:11 PM
daveau:
Yah, but the "interfere/don't interfere context" is influenced by the efficacy of the proferred alternative to intervention. Tens of millions of American men heroically refrain from beating their wives, but that sterling example doesn't seem sufficient to dissuade a relative few batterers from their actions... nor does it relieve us from our moral obligation to intervene on behalf of the battered. As I said before, some types of bad behavior are more amenable to correction by example than others.
Of course, intervention across state or national borders is problematical in ways that intervention within political or cultural borders is not... and that's the crux of the issue we're grappling with here.
Well, first, unless the people who administer the lashes are very well trained (a chilling notion in itself) and careful, lives are already at stake! But "interfere" covers a wider range of responses than a binary choice between do nothing and bomb them. The specific thing you yourself endorsed — granting asylum to people threatened with prosecution under this law — constitutes fairly significant interference, insasmuch as it amounts to harboring people the Sudanese would certainly consider fugitives from justice (never mind how powerfully most of the rest of the world might disagree with their notions of justice). The harboring of political refugees has historically been considered a fairly agressive act.
But what gave you the impression I was claiming to have answers? What I've consistently said is that this is a legitimately difficult problem, because it involves the clash of two goods: the right of communities to govern themselves according to their own values and the basic human rights of individuals to personal liberty and bodily integrity. I never claimed to have the answer; I was simply arguing that folks who present this as an easy call, one way or the other, are not coming to grips with the whole issue. One possible step in the right direction is suggested in your text...
...but I think any such court would have to have jurisdiction over states as well as individuals, because no accumulation of individual prosecutions can overturn atrocities that are integrally woven into a country's laws and customs. But enforcement of that sort of jurisdiction would potentially require some sort of military force, and we're back to the same thorny questions.
XD:
Speaking of cognitive dissonance, it's strange indeed that being compared to someone as generally intelligent and accomplished as Collins should be an insult, though I grok that it is.
As for your charge, does #105 help clarify anything for you? Feel free to disagree with me as much you please, but your concern for my cognitive function is quite unnecessary, I assure you. (In the context of a conversation about circumcision, I decided it would be the outside of enough to say "...your concern is unnecessary, dickhead!")
Mind you, I'm no advocate for circumcision. Though I honestly don't feel particularly damaged by it (I'm cognizant of the fact that it's impossible to convince anyone that's not just self-delusional wishful thinking... but whatever...), I wouldn't have chosen it for my child if I'd had a boy, and I wouldn't weep if the practice were completely discontinued.
But this very conversational detour demonstrates what a disservice is done to the victims of female genital mutilation — an horrific practice that is arguably a crime against humanity — when they're lumped in uncritically with the recipients of a controversial and probably unnecessary, but nevertheless benignly intended, medical procedure. This is not just apples and oranges; it's apples and pipewrenches.
As an example of a religiously motivated, culturally determined crime against fundamental human rights, female genital mutilation is relevant to the core question of this thread; discussion of male circumcision of the sort that was done to me, OTOH, is a total red herring.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
July 30, 2009 2:12 PM
...19% said anything but "yes". I want to meet that 19%.
Posted by: Ian Monroe | July 30, 2009 2:14 PM
You would start a war over this (can't imagine what else the normally powerless UN would do)? Give me a break. I certainly won't kill for it. Funny I don't see you enlisting yourself either.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 30, 2009 2:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Development_Programme#Budget
But with justification based on criteria like upset and pain that are imperfect but clearly real and relevant.
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 2:14 PM
...there is no truth to your claim that the "wrongness" of murder cannot be demonstrated.
Demonstrate it. Show the wrongness.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
July 30, 2009 2:14 PM
PS: I am wearing NO pants!
And...Are short shorts against the rules too?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 30, 2009 2:15 PM
(PsyberDave @ 115) Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. My sarcastic post at no. 67 was unecessary and for this I apologise. However, I still feel that you will have a hard time convincing myself or most other people that there is universal moral equivalency in all things...The proposition expressed by the head of the ancient Assassins movement (or Hashashin which is the root term [that i think I have mispelled]) was similar; that all things are allowable.
If as you say there is no moral basis to describe the murder of a human being as immoral then I am curious; what is your position on murder being illegal? I accept that pure morality, especially of the culturally specific kind, may be a weak argument for the passage of a law, but if you base the argument for law on the idea that laws exist to create an ordered, stable society in pursuit of some kind of collective good, is this not also an argument from morality and as such inadmissable since there is no moral difference between order and chaos? Indeed, a social Darwinist might argue that legalised murder might actually work to the social good since only the strong would survive and these people would go on to create a superior culture. Though the creation of a 'stronger' or 'superior' culture could also be seen as a goal growing out of a set of arbitrary social values no more valid than morality.
I am not trying to be disrespectful or insulting. i am genuinely curious as to how you would resolve this quandry.
Posted by: Ian Monroe | July 30, 2009 2:17 PM
@Marc Abian: look at the Korean War. The UN certainly does have the method to step in, it doesn't have to be with blue helmets.
That said, I'm surprised Myers thinks anything positive could come from war. Or did Hitchens just hack into the site? :)
Posted by: MTGAP | July 30, 2009 2:29 PM
The funny thing about the prime directive is that the Enterprise broke it dozens of times. And how many times did things turn out okay? Every time. So what does that say about the prime directive?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 30, 2009 2:31 PM
(Bill Dauphin @ 121) Your post is food for thought indeed. Persoanally, as I posted earlier at no. 58 i think that effective direct intervention of a military nature may be impossible and most certainly would be unwise.
As for the circumcision debate, once again I find myself agreeing with you. I can see no parity between male circumcision (though I do not approve of MGC at all, and would never allow any son I might one day have to be subjected to it) and female circumcision. MGC, while doutless highly unpleasant, is a largely non-invasive procedure that does not significantly impair urinogentital function. Female circumcision, on the other hand, inflicts massive internal and external tissue damage along with agonising pain that often continues into adult life. It is a desecration of womanhood aimed at robbing a woman of her capacity to experience sexual pleasure. In addition, death of the victim through bloodloss or infection is a common outcome. It is truely a vile practice.
Posted by: Didac | July 30, 2009 2:31 PM
Some people have suggested the alternative between "Bomb/Nuke Sudan!" and "granting assylum to Sudanese people". The first option is against any moral. However, the second option cannot be indiscriminated. Nowadays we have a huge force to introduce Sharia in Europe precisely for a too generous policy of granting assylum. Granting assylum, moreover, encourages illegal immigration into Europe through the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. Granting assylum, moreover, takes Sudan from a great number of democratic and tolerant people, reinforcing intolerant authorities. So, if there are only these two options, I think one of both is far better than the other.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 30, 2009 2:35 PM
Bill Dauphin @121
Acknowledged and appreciated.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 30, 2009 2:39 PM
Trying Again
It doesn't have to invade the country, it could well apply pressure because she's associated with them. The UN, as an organisation or via certain members, probably provide aid to the country and thus influence. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why that English schoolteacher who called a teddy bear after Mohammed was allowed back to merry ol' Blighty.
Ultimately I hope situations like this around the world can be affected by UN working through its current methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Development_Programme#Budget
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 30, 2009 2:39 PM
PsyberDave@125, RE: your request that I demonstrate the "wrongness" of murder.
Demonstrating the wrongness of murder is trivial. Convincing you that it has been demonstrated is a potentially impossible task, however. What definition of the term "wrong" are you going to use, and how do I know you aren't going to start changing it? Am I allowed to use the word "harm"? Am I allowed to assume that because a human being is showing signs of unnecessary emotional turmoil that means something "wrong" has happened?
In other words, first prove to me you are not either dishonest or a sociopath. Do this over the internet, within the next few minutes. Then I'll respond to your challenge.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 2:41 PM
Gregory Greenwood #130 said:
"Female circumcision, on the other hand, inflicts massive internal and external tissue damage along with agonising pain that often continues into adult life."
Nobody is denying the fact that some forms of female genital mutilation are exactly as you describe but there are other forms that are pretty much analogous to male circumcision and which do not have the disfiguring features of the extreme form of the practice.
Does anyone think that the milder form should be allowable for parents to perform on their female children (say in a sterile hospital setting)?
If you don't then can you really say the same thing should be allowable for male children?
Posted by: Mark G. | July 30, 2009 2:44 PM
With all the talk of 'teachable moments' doesn't this qualify? Can't we educate folks around the world about the drawbacks of barbarism?
Posted by: Frankl66 | July 30, 2009 2:54 PM
We all know goddamm well that the "Executive VP" of "Raping The World Of Its Minerals And Oil - Africa Division" - a US holding company, will be asking the officials, "Can I watch?"
It is a disgrace when people allow that behavior because "it is their culture." The same people would fight to the death against such barbarity if their daughter was to be subjected to the same thing.
Is it a NIMBY thing?
Posted by: ctgopks
|
July 30, 2009 3:00 PM
@#25 et. al.
There is no rule of law, logic, or experience anywhere that says the only responses to a problem are to kick ass or butt out. False dichotomy.
If anything, when cultures and societies persist in this sort of injustice, justice cries out for more creative and thoughtful responses.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 3:06 PM
One question which I don't think has been asked yet, is what do the people of Sudan think about women being lashed for wearing trousers?
If most Sudanese believe that it is wrong for a woman to wear trousers, and that women who do wear trousers should receive corporal punishment, does that have an effect on what action you think other countries should take?
Posted by: Dianne | July 30, 2009 3:19 PM
And how many times did things turn out okay? Every time. So what does that say about the prime directive?
That if the writer, aka god doesn't favor the idea then it will work out poorly.
I've always thought that the backstory of the prime directive might be that there might be some history of serious F^&*%ed up interventions in the ST universe which eventually led people to conclude that it was best to just not intervene no matter what because look at the horrid results when intervention was done. Whether this parallels the real world or not is open to interpretation.
Posted by: Helen | July 30, 2009 3:19 PM
You may want to read this peace for some background before you take a stance: http://www.siawi.org/article869.html
This is a Sudanese woman deliberately trying to make a case not for herself, but for all Sudanese women, and it's less about pants than about fighting agaist state power curbing personal rights.
It is of course particularly absurd since lots of muslim women are traditionally wearing _pants_ (eg. all the Turkish peoples from Turky to Central Asia).
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 3:19 PM
FTFY
Posted by: Helen | July 30, 2009 3:21 PM
#139: They do wear pants also in the muslim part of Sudan. It's not like in Iran where you are _inevitably_ beaten for showing your hair.
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 3:22 PM
Gregory @127
First, thank you for your civility. I appreciate it. Second, thank you for engaging me on a substantive level. I think your response is thoughtful.
You ask about universal moral equivalency. I know a lot of people have a hard time with this. It seems people think that their morals are definitely true, as if their morals were factually true. My point is that morals are definitions, not observations about the world outside of us. Just like laws, they are rules that we make up to serve our needs and desires.
I don't anticipate you would disagree that morals are rules and laws are rules. I am saying that we invent and adopt rules to suit us. I am saying WE are the ones who make up the rules rather than merely perceiving them from outside of us as if they were a part of the observable world. Morals are not statements of observed truth. They are expressions of what we want, and what we want varies from person to person, culture to culture, etc.
We say killing humans is wrong, not because it objectively IS wrong and we have discovered it's wrongness. We say killing is wrong because it serves our needs and desires to make and follow a rule like that.
Less killing of fellow humans allows for many things to happen that we like (including lowering the likelihood thwe we might be the ones being killed). But sometimes the proscription of not killing people gets in the way of getting things that we like, so we change the rule against killing from "No killing any people" to "No killing people except for the following exceptions...".
Then we start disagreeing about the exceptions. The disagreements arise not because one party knows the truth while the other doesn't. The disagreements arise because the rules don't meet the needs of both sides.
When you paraphrase my position as "no moral basis to describe the murder of a human being as immoral", I would say that that isn't how I would phrase it.
I would say that killing a human is not objectively, demonstrably wrong (though I might cry and throw up if I saw it happen). It is wrong simply because we say so, not because we have observed the wrongness in the act.
Morality is a collection of what we have declared to be right and wrong rather than discovered to be right and wrong. So killing people is not moral if you say so and it *is* moral if instead, that is what you say.
I resolve your quandry by saying that we make laws to suit our needs. We may *say* that some of the laws are based upon morality (as if that was some kind of observed truth), but like I say, morals and laws are both rules and we make them up based upon what we want. I see no quandry. We make laws in anticipation of creating a world that we like and we make morals in anticipation of creating a world that we like. Conflict arises because we don't all like the same things.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 3:36 PM
XD:
Your 117 and 118 passed my 121 in the wires; forgive the somewhat aggressive tone of my response.
I really don't have any desire for the final word, but I do feel we've been getting lost in the trees and failing to see the forest I originally meant to be commenting on: The female genital mutilation I've been addressing is the practice of deliberately physically damaging women's capability for sexual response and pleasure, for either the religious purpose of "protecting" them from sexual "sin" or the cultural purpose of discouraging them from cheating on their husbands (or both)1. If there are traditions of surgical genital modification that don't have those invidious purposes or effects, I'm not talking about them... but where and when those are the purposes, FGM constitutes the systematic oppression of women, by means of physical assault, at the hands of a patriarchal culture. This is arguably a crime against humanity, and cries out for the attention of all humankind.
OTOH, there are untold millions of circumcised men walking around who don't feel particularly damaged or oppressed thereby. If you assert the moral similarity of FGM and what has happened to those men, you will effectively be convincing them, whether you mean to or not, that FGM isn't that bad, and doesn't deserve their attention or concern. IMHO, that would be an unfortunate outcome. However strong the arguments against male circumcision may be, it's a whole different argument, and the women of the world hardly benefit from mixing the two conversations together.
It seems to me that this conversation often unfolds in ways that implicit minimize the evil of FGM, and thus do no service to its victims.
1 Note that the existence of women who defend FGM doesn't really suggest it's defensible: People have been complicit in, or blind to, their own oppression for all of human history... and that includes the mothers and grandmothers who, as you yourself put it, "deny [their loss of sexual pleasure], or rationalize it somehow," and thus participate in subjecting their daughters and granddaughters to the same practice. If individual women manage to be sexually satisfied despite the best efforts of their oppressors, more power to them... but that does not in any way justify what's been done to them, or why.
Posted by: Hyperon | July 30, 2009 3:40 PM
So if a Muslim man is pummeling a woman on the street, we ought to just leave them? Respect the Prime Directive? Well no, you'll say, that's illegal, and it's happening within the borders of our own country.
So now we have the perplexing result that legal technicalities and arbitrary national boundaries play a critical role in moral decisions.
Nah. It's better to reject the Chomskyian school of thought wholesale. Chomsky and his followers are fanatics, and they've confused political discourse even worse than they've muddled philosophy and cognitive science.
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 3:50 PM
tmaxPA,
I am not a psychopath or sociopath. I have empathy and a conscience. I am capable of feeling guilt and I have people in my life that I love and care for.
I am definitely being honest in what I post here. I take science and skepticism seriously. I readily welcome corrections and differing views. I know I can be wrong and I can be fooled. I change my mind when I come across compelling evidence against previously held beliefs. And, I don't try to win arguments for the sake of winning or compelling others to believe as I do. I genuinely offer my ideas to the scrutiny of others in the spirit of examining them. I know others like creationists and politicians seem to value winning or convincing over discovering underlying truth. Not me.
How's that?
Now, regarding observing wrongness...I honestly don't know how it can be done. I say what is wrong is conceptual rather than anything real and observable.
If, as you hint, you are going to say that killing someone hurts them or their loved ones and therefore it is the hurt that makes it wrong, I agree that we can see that hurt occurs, but then how do you establish that hurting someone is observably wrong?
I don't mean to move the goal posts. But the question is generally applicable, how do you observe the wrongness in anything? I say all we have is our declarations of what is wrong.
If you say it isn't just a matter of declaring something to be wrong, but that you can observe and discover the wrongness, I am sincerely interested.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 30, 2009 3:52 PM
Wasn't the Prime Directive created by Roddenberry to protest the Vietnam War? It turned out to be a great plot device where the ridiculousness of not intervening became too great to withstand or where an accidental/hapless romp on a planet's surface turned into an alliance-shattering standoff with potentially fatal consequences for violators. Always good fun.
But for reality, look what good the Iraq War did. If you subscribe to Hitchens' viewpoint that it was a necessary war to depose a dictator, then what do you think of the consequences? There are not many good things you can say about it. Besides, there are plenty of times bad things happen under our own legal systems that we have no control over, but would we want an external force to intervene? Not really.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 30, 2009 3:56 PM
(PsyberDave @ 144) I think I perceive the gist of your argument. One could argue that all societal norms exist for, and possess no instrinsic value outside of, their utilitarian value in pursuit of our subjective desires. Economists commonly talk of happines as being the outcome with the graetest utility for the graetest number of people.
What worries me is that, if you are right and 'rules', in this context meaning all morality all laws, are simply expressions of what we find expedient from one moment to the next then there are no universal standards of behaviour within a culture or universally. There is no intellectual or ethical basis to prosecute an individual for a crime however heinous or to claim a right to a legitimate state monopoly on the use of force. In such a scenario all that remains is a true state of nature. Might makes right. Or, as Thucididies put it (paraphrasing here); 'the strong do what they have the strength to do and the weak endure what they must endure.'
I would hope that the purpose of civilisation is to distance ourselves from the idea that the only authority flows from who carries the biggest club. Or, in a modern analagy, the greatest number of ICBMs or the largest body of deluded young men and women prepared to strap bombs to themselves to make their argument with indiscriminate violence. It may be an illusion, but perhaps this once the illusion may genuinely be beneficial.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 30, 2009 3:56 PM
You know I've lived in two countries very close to Sudan. I've lived in several other parts of the world too. I know I'm speaking from my earliest conditioning but I've found, for some strange reason, I just can't put my finger on it....a,,a,,,a,,,,,something that tells me the morals and laws we have in NA and Western Europe, though not exlusive to there, are the best.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 3:56 PM
XD:
IMHO, no... but this is the very heart of the question: To what degree does the right of cultural self-determination excuse or defend practices that shock the conscience of (most of) the world? Personally, I think there's some set of deep, fundmental human values that transcend culture, and the violation of which forfeits the legitimacy of a cultural regime or goverment.
For example, internally, we make a lot of allowances for religious practices under the umbrella of freedom of religion... including some things (snake handling, peyote use, etc.) that might constitute violations of law or regulations if done outside a religious context... but we don't recognize anyone's right to kill people or sexually abuse children as expressions of "religious freedom."
Similarly, there must be things a government can do to its own people that would not be excused by "oh, well, it's their country, after all." I would put whipping women for wearing pants in that category... but I don't pretend it's easy to make (or defend) any such declaration.
BTW, WRT your "FTFY" about Collins: Aww, c'mon! Even his biggest detractors here have admitted Collins is a smart guy and an able administrator; you got my point, I'm sure.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 30, 2009 4:03 PM
Bill Dauphin, genital mutilation is genital mutilation regardless of the victim's sex. Adults are free to snip off pieces of their bodies however they want, but it should not be forced on children. Furthermore, genital mutilation is strictly religious regardless of the victim's sex. There is no rational support for it. (I am not talking about corrective surgery.)
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker | July 30, 2009 4:04 PM
As soon as I hear someone use words like "cultural autonomy" or "national sovereignty", I immediately know who the bad guys are. The very concepts are morally repugnant, used as excuses to justify what is not otherwise justifiable. Hell, yes, we should interfere; just as anthropologists should do everything in their power to interfere with religious rites like genital mutilation; and journalists should stand up and call bullshit when China complains about our imposing our "Western" ideas of human rights on them.
It is sad that the UN will almost certainly not do this, since as far as I can see, the only reason for the UN's existence is to legitimize oppressive governments.
Posted by: Watchman | July 30, 2009 4:09 PM
PsyberDave:
No, that's not all we have. Our declarations are not completely arbitrary. They are based on conclusions drawn from observation. We have thousands of years of accumulated first-, second- and third-hand experience observing the negative consequences that various action have on the victims. (Where do you suppose the "victim" concept comes from, anyway?)
Posted by: RBH | July 30, 2009 4:16 PM
I don't think this has been noted: Thirteen women were arrested when Ms. Hussein was arrested. According to the AP, relayed by MSNBC, ten of them have already been flogged at the police station:
Posted by: la tricoteuse | July 30, 2009 4:19 PM
@116
Italy is only ARGUABLY a modern Western country. Quite a large percentage of it lacks quite a lot of what I, at least, would consider essential if one is to run around applying words like "modern," even in the capital.
Also, I'm completely unsurprised by your link, in light of somewhat more recent comments from the Prime Minister of Italy himself (who is a prat, incidentally), something to the effect that it would be impossible to sufficiently protect women in Rome from being raped because Italian women are too beautiful, and therefore too tempting.
And the Italian people keep voting for him.
More on topic: Excessive moral relativism pisses me RIGHT off. Preventing A from violating B's basic human rights is not equivalent to violating A's rights. Saying "hey, you can't beat that woman half to death for wearing an article of clothing you don't approve of" is not oppression.
Also, there is a pretty handy measuring stick for where to draw the line with interference. Preventing the infliction of bodily harm as a punishment for non-violent "crimes" is not on the wrong side of the line.
(Note: as others have pointed out, this lady doesn't want to be rescued from her punishment, as she's trying to bring publicity to the practice, so I'm speaking in general terms about practices that SHOULD be condemned.)
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 4:29 PM
Bill #151
I right with you there! Both "let other countries do whatever the hell they want" and "our way or no way" are wrong, IMO. The relativity of morality outside of ideological dogma is like a mine-field in dense fog. To forge ahead in the direction that one feels strongly is right, risks unintended and potentially awful consequences. Who was it who said "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? That's not to say nothing should be done, but that progress should be both informed and sensitive. As much as we berate them, it probably is just the sort of thing that the diplomats of the U.N. are trained to do. You missed my point: I was making a comparison to just one aspect of FC -- his cognitive dissonance -- not any other (such as his intelligence, administrative abilities, singing voice, guitar playing abilities, etc.).
Posted by: protocol | July 30, 2009 4:31 PM
As soon as I hear someone use words like "cultural autonomy" or "national sovereignty", I immediately know who the bad guys are. The very concepts are morally repugnant, used as excuses to justify what is not otherwise justifiable.
Absolutely, how I wish someone would have invaded the United States and at least arrested the entire executive before it could order the invasion of Iraq (or Philippines, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama; did I miss a few?). Alternatively, I really wish the U.N. would have sent a force or somehow pressurized the South in the 19th and 20th centuries to ban such horrible practices as lynching etc. Yeah sovereignty is highly overrated./sarcasm
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 30, 2009 4:31 PM
(Sigmund @ 135) I see your point. I am betraying my ignorance here by admitting that I had no idea that there was a form of female circumcision that was equivalent in terms of physiological impact to male circumcision. In answer to your question, if it were up to me alone I would not allow any form of circumcision or genital mutilation to be performed on any child of either gender for any reason. Of course, legitimate corrective durgery is a seperate issue. However, it is not up to me.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 30, 2009 4:32 PM
The analogies being drawn in these cases are as bad as those used by those complaining about PZ's cracker desecration; same goes for the vague proposals for action and characterizations of those who oppose particular courses of action. People who want to discuss this intelligently should discuss the concrete situation at hand, in the real sociohistorical context, rather than resorting to these idiotic comparisons which serve no purpose.
In this case, few if any here would fail to recognize how outrageous this situation is - I haven't seen anyone argue that this should be respected or ignored out a cultural relativism. That's not the issue. In our various roles as individuals, we have many courses of action open to us. The route we choose should be decided based on a sober assessment of the situation and how it's come about, the motives and interests of the actors involved (including ourselves, and centrally the people we say we want to help), and the probable outcomes of various forms of intervention by various actors based on context and precedent.
Alas, despite the best efforts of some reasonable people, neither this discussion nor that on the Condell thread has gone in that direction.
(Thanks for the link @ #141.)
Posted by: protocol | July 30, 2009 4:33 PM
As soon as I hear someone use words like "cultural autonomy" or "national sovereignty", I immediately know who the bad guys are. The very concepts are morally repugnant, used as excuses to justify what is not otherwise justifiable.
Absolutely, how I wish someone would have invaded the United States and at least arrested the entire executive before it could order the invasion of Iraq (or Philippines, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama; did I miss a few?). Alternatively, I really wish other countries would have sent a force or somehow pressurized the South in the 19th and 20th centuries to ban such horrible practices as lynching etc. Yeah sovereignty is highly overrated./sarcasm
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 30, 2009 4:36 PM
I think you underestimate the importance of a population's right to make it's own laws if you dismiss them as legal technicalities. And arbitary though they may be, such boundaries work to bind similar people into a governable unit.
Don't misunderstand, I'm an interventionist in principle.
Elaborate as much as you can on this please.
Posted by: Hyperon | July 30, 2009 4:38 PM
Italy's nominal GDP per capita is ahead of the EU average and ahead of Japan's. Human Development Index is higher than UK's and Germany's. I hope you're not perpetuating the ignorant American misconception that Italy and various other European countries are utterly backward and probably have horses and carts up to this day.Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 4:40 PM
I would again like to repeat that calling Andyet names isn't doing much good. I've quickly skimmed the threads and at first you seemed to have some conversation going, but then the ganging up again got sort of embarrassing. Yes, Andyet may be a Christian (and therefore an idiot - I don't care if typing that makes me socially retarded in Andyet's eyes) but you still have to either reply to the substance of what he says or say nothing at all, because otherwise that'll just make him look more sympathetic. Just as an example, don't accuse him of saying that Hitchens is going light on Islam, while he obviously didn't say that and it's extremely unlikely that could have been what he intended.
Posted by: la tricoteuse | July 30, 2009 4:45 PM
Hyperon: I'm Italian. I was raised bilingual, and with dual citizenship, in both Italy and America, to an Italian (born and raised) mother and an Italian-American father. I've lived exclusively in Italy for the past three years to be closer to my mother after my parents divorced. So no, I'm not. I know whereof I speak. :)
Posted by: tnkrbl | July 30, 2009 4:46 PM
When my two sons were born, my husband and I had the discussion about whether or not to circumcise. I am an atheist Jew, my husband was raised Southern Baptist and is now atheist. I was against it, my husband insisted on it. His rationalization was that they would be self-conscious in gym class if they were uncut and everyone else was cut. I still live with the guilt that I didn't protect them from mutilation. I could hear their screams from the waiting room.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 4:47 PM
>>163
Some of the same things could until the recent crisis have been said of certain mini emirates.
I think the person you're replying to has standards of civilisation that go beyond simple material well being. I'm too tired for a rant on overbearing government, tolerance of the Vatican within its borders, Berlusconi and the media, Naples, and so on, but at least in my eyes all Italians could be twice as rich as they are now and other factors remaining equal I still wouldn't be able to consider Italy fully civilised. Or even reasonably civilised. Finding a fully civilised country is left as an exercise to the reader.
Posted by: not a gator | July 30, 2009 4:49 PM
F*** the Prime Directive. It was a stupid idea.
When Picard decided in Season 1 that it was better to let a whole planet's worth of people suffer through horrible drug withdrawal symptoms than break the precious PD, I checked out.
WWJTKD?
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 30, 2009 4:49 PM
Overwhelming control of the mass media helps :):
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/who-s-afraid-of-silvio-berlusconi
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 4:49 PM
#163
France is exactly like that; I saw it on The Simpsons.
;)
Posted by: Mr T | July 30, 2009 4:49 PM
Anon Coward:
The formula isn't X is a Christian, therefore an idiot.
Whenever andyet manages to make a non-idiotic argument, then hopefully it will be treated as such. Please, everyone, try to respect the person while fervently disrespecting the idiotic argument the person makes.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 5:06 PM
aratina cage:
Well, great, then. The next time someone tries to get me to be concerned about the victims of forced clitoridectomy, I'll just shrug it off... because I don't feel especially oppressed by my circumcision, and all genital "mutilation" is the same, right? One less class of oppressed people for me to worry about! </snark>
I actually agree that it's not about the victim's sex... but it just dumb to make a moral equation between forcibly mutilating people for the purpose of stripping away a significant aspect of their humanity and thereby asserting oppressive social control, on the one hand, and subjecting infants to a medical procedure that, however wrongheaded and unnecessary, isn't actually intended to do any harm.
It's not about the victim's sex in principle... but it conveniently happens that most of the victims of the former practice are female, while most of the "victims" of the latter are male. Hardly surprising, given the history of patriarchy and oppression of women in the cultures we're talking about. But since clitoridectomy is really no worse that a common bit of elective surgery, I can stop worrying, right?
I don't disagree. It's others who've made the distinction between religious and cultural motivations, and I've tacitly admitted the point as immaterial to my point, because I think FGM is horrific either way. Personally, I think most of our "cultural" hangups related to sexuality are rooted in religion, even when the connection isn't superficially obvious.
That said, in the U.S. at the time of my birth (and for some time thereafter, and to a certain extent still today), male circumcision in infancy was widely practiced by families with no religious motivation (nor, AFAIK, any intent to limit sexual function), who genuinely believed it was medically beneficial. As it turns out, they were probably wrong about the medical benefits, but that doesn't retroactively modify their intentions.
You know, at one point in medical history, bloodletting was a perfectly respectable medical practice. Now, that turned out to be (mostly) wrong (and perhaps male circumcision will someday soon be on the same historical trash heap of medicine), but it doesn't mean the practice was morally equivalent to torture, just because both involved blood and blades.
Don't give the oppressors of women and destroyers of female sexuality a pass by equating them with the relatively innocent (even if innocently mistaken) pediatricians who've performed so many routine circumcisions.
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 5:07 PM
tnkrbl @ 166 --
That's a sad story, and my heart goes out to you. It's easy to make mistakes, fortunately it's just as easy to learn from them and move on a little wiser (although the damage done can sometimes never be fully healed).
My parents made the same decision you did, but for more religious reasons (they're both creationist believers in biblical inerrancy.) I didn't even know I was circumcised until I graduated from college, and shortly after I found out I stopped talking with my parents.
I could take the "you have no morality" anti-atheism comments they'd been dishing out for a while, but when they actively defended male circumcision, and called me insane for being upset it had been done to me -- even in light of all evidence and studies that show circumcision has no health benefit to children and is a massive, major mutilation (which I admit they did not have access to 20 some odd years ago), I just left.
I hope you've had a better experience. From my own experience, if your sons ever express regret about it, a simple apology could go a long way.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 5:09 PM
>>171
Would "idiot insofar as he's a Christian" have been okay? I'm sorry for speaking my mind, but I'm an open kind of person from the continent and I call'm as I see'm. I meant no disrespect for Andyet, but I hope that was clear from my post.
To return to the argument at hand, I'm pretty sure Andyet wasn't referring to Dawkins e.a. but to the general trend in Europe's (or at least my country's and Britain's) academic/liberal/upper middle class sort of circles to sort of snub people who don't give Islam a free pass on everything (I've written a short note about my experiences in a previous thread) while not knowing much about it.
Of course his comment that only gays understand the issue is bullshit. If meant as a hyperbole it was badly executed. Although I can imagine that gay people might actually be more likely to know what Muslims think of them and thus could have looked deeper into the matter. But I doubt it.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 30, 2009 5:09 PM
The problem with this claim is that it presumes that 'we make up' means the same when applied to laws as it does when applied to morals. We do not make up our morals. They are set for us by very complex and relatively unknown physiological actions; we discover them, we do not invent them. It is true that they were "created" by contingency acting through evolution to affect psychology, but this does not make them imaginary or fictional.
You seem to be trying to claim, like religionists do, that atheists cannot rationally have morals. I don't necessarily think that's what you're trying to claim, but when your argument is that murder is "just as wrong" as wearing pants because "wrong" isn't an objectively measurable quantity, it is hard to see it any other way. Perhaps you haven't extended your reasoning that far, but everyone else has.
If it is true that morals are socially negotiated, and it is true that laws are socially negotiated, it does not mean that the term 'negotiated' points to the same referent in both phrases. The social "negotiation" of morality is a psychological behavior leading to a "Nash equilibrium" of equivalent grievance. The social "negotiation" of laws is a rhetorical activity leading to the judicial enforcement of written legislation. So to say they are both negotiated does not indicate any degree of equivalence in the things themselves or any of their (other) properties.
So your attitude, which seems to suggest that you are thinking that, because they are 'negotiated', they are therefore entirely unrelated to what is right or wrong (or what would be those things if you were willing to accept that right and wrong exist.) Just because something isn't a measurable quantity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 30, 2009 5:12 PM
andyet proved hisself fool! (reference to the Mr. T thing only)
respectfully yours,
BLAD
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 5:20 PM
Bill Dauphin --
You may want to do some independent research of the American medical history of male circumcision. It is expressly sex-related, specifically it was intended to prevent masturbation by injuring the penis. Masturbation in the early 1900s was seen as a serious psychological (and medical) problem. I have some links, but don't take my word for it, you can do the research yourself if you're interested.
History of Circumcision
Furthermore, the _original_ original history of male circumcision is Jewish in origin. We're talking old testament here. Circumcision is _the_ Covenant with God. It's literally like branding cattle -- when God made the Israelites his chosen people, he branded them. By slicing up their dicks. That's where the practice starts.
If you still think male circumcision is not about control, or sexuality, consider this quite from Moses Maimonides (a Jewish saint if they had them, comparable to St. Augustine for how revered he is among Jews as a scholar and theologian).
Moses Maimonides, in the 1100s, felt it necessary to explain why a barbaric practice over a thousand years old still needed to be performed. Here is his explanation of the historical context of circumcision:
Maimonides goes on to explain why it is important that the babies be cut, and why circumcision cannot be left to be a choice of the adult man:
I hope you will consider doing some research of your own, and will perhaps refrain from arguing against those fine male genital circumcision as offensive as female circumcision.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 5:20 PM
>>175
>we discover them, we do not invent them
Not necessarily, at least not to the extent that I think you meant it. Of course you could say that given a goal society, there would theoretically be one particular set of morals that would reach that most reliably and thus in a sense lies to be discovered, in practice that problem is untractable.
Most often people see specific deviations from their utopia and invent ways to deal with that which trickle (or sometimes storm) through society, become laws, sometimes are fought over, and then become so ingrained in our culture that the mere thought would still be repulsive if the law were cease to exist. Many things that are considered immoral and repulsive today only became that way because of invention, legislation and time.
Also, some morals appear to have been with us since prehistoric times and those in a sense cannot be meaningfully said to have been discovered.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 30, 2009 5:20 PM
Is Sudan run by Irish Protestant Muslims, or are they just backwards? I'll vote for backwards - religion is good for keeping places backwards. I'm bored, let's go to the stoning.
Posted by: not a gator | July 30, 2009 5:23 PM
Some perspective on the Prime Directive (and why it's so idiotic):
Gene Roddenberry, who created Star Trek and the PD, is well known as a free thinker. What's less well known is that he was a pantheist who embraced a number of strange beliefs. He believed, for example, in the separation between mind and body. Although in his TV show he suggested that the mind might live on through technological means (an artificial brain to take over the personality when the organic brain is dying), he also endorsed the idea of disembodied minds.
In one episode which he wrote, a man and a woman switch minds, even though their bodies--and brains!--stay put. In another episode he wrote, a human takes the "next step in evolution" and gains powers of telepathy and telekinesis--classic "mind over matter" in the sense that a powerful will can act without a physical body. In yet another episode he wrote, an entire race has taken "the next step in evolution" and left physical bodies behind, existing as creatures of "pure energy" with a set of rather bizarre powers, if you will. They can condense themselves into material form, then turn into energy, apparently teleport themselves, communicate telepathically, and, in energy form, super-heat objects of their choosing in seconds. Huh.
Roddenberry had what could only be termed a Lysenkoist view of evolution. Rather than understanding that natural selection acts to select for adaptive traits according to environment, Roddenberry viewed evolution as a fixed process, like an assembly line, with enlightenment at its end. The aspirations of a people would lead towards a more enlightened society, in a sort of social evolution. Yet, implicitly, there was the idea that this social evolution would lead to some sort of physical evolution for their descendants.
Moving this process along through genetic manipulation, however, was anathema. Roddenberry repeatedly expressed, through his show, the concept that tampering with the genetic code was tantamount to eugenics, that cloning was evil, that all such insults to what could only be termed the holy genetic code could only lead to the same fate that befell the Nazis. After Roddenberry's death, the writers on DS9 took this to its logical conclusion, suggesting that in the Star Trek universe, there was a black market providing gene therapy for developmentally disabled children, because providing that therapy was illegal. One wonders what he might have said about that.
The PD is an outgrowth of these same beliefs. If his social evolution (my term, not his) is a holy journey to enlightenment, and nature abhors tampering with this journey, whether through technological or medical means, then it could only damage a culture to interfere with this process, trying to give them a leg up.
The reality is that the spread of improved farming methods, modern medicine, and personal computing have greatly improved the lives of poor, rural dwellers throughout the world. While paternalistic interventions often are failures, there is an alternative to disengagement: partnership. Numerous NGOs and charities work in partnership with local populations to develop solutions suited to their particular situations. Nor is technology a bugaboo which wipes out all that is good or unique about human cultures. (Insert gripes about impact of TV here.)
Technology does bring about changes. Most of them have been good for women, good for children, good for the disabled, and good for working people in general, enhancing mobility, connectivity, comfort, lifespan, health, etc, while reducing brute physical labor, dangers, economic risks, etc.
Roddenberry didn't seem particularly enthused by these changes. His show often idealized primitive cultures with no seeming cognizance of the problems of disease, childbearing, early marriage, starvation, and of course the back-breaking work that villagers--especially women--were required to shoulder on a daily basis. In one episode Kirk goes so far as to start talking about "Tahiti syndrome" (a fever to be on a desert island with no responsibilities--though presumably on vacation) and promptly gets himself trapped on a planet with Sabrina Scharf in a squaw costume. Apparently life in pre-Columbian North America consisted of walking around the forest breathing the fresh air and having bitchy confabs in the teepee with the rest of the tribe. Not to mention knocking up the chief's daughter. Anyway. (That last episode was written by Margaret Armen, not GR, but the themes of the episode are not atypical.)
As a scientist, atheist, skeptic, feminist, and secular humanist, and a Trekkie, I've come to realize that Roddenberry's philosophy was distinctly unhelpful with regards to biology, medicine, and public policy.
His brand of woo was not unpopular in California. May explain why we keep catching our liberal "friends" are liplock with charlatans and anti-science crusaders.
Posted by: AlanWCan | July 30, 2009 5:29 PM
Yet another pants-on-head moment for theocracy.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 5:30 PM
tnkrbl (@166):
Unless your boys have complained, or are suffering from some urogenital problems, I beg you to forgive yourself and forget about it. I'm sure there are some (probably fairly subtle) sexual differences between "cut" and "uncut" men, but they're in no way sexually crippled, and unless you (or some insensitive sexual partner) make a big deal about it, they'll probably never give it a second thought.
The flip side of this equation of forced clitoridectomy and circumcision is that, in addition to making the real evildoers seem more innocent than they deserve, it also makes pefectly innocent parents feel far guiltier than they should. Give yourself a break!
Posted by: Mr T | July 30, 2009 5:30 PM
Anon coward: Agreed. I just think we'd do ourselves a favor by not appearing to commit ad homs. I was agreeing with your post #164, but had to quibble on the "therefore an idiot" part. That's a non sequitur, but "insofar as..." certainly sounds right to me.
andyet has displayed copious amounts of idiocy. Ergo, ispo facto, natura naturans, he's an idiot. Perhaps he could stop being an idiot some day, but I'm too poor to waste my money on such a gamble.
I pity teh fools.
Posted by: Mr T | July 30, 2009 5:34 PM
. . . which, of course, in German means a whale's vagina.
Posted by: XD | July 30, 2009 5:34 PM
Re. not a gator #180
It's informative posts like that which make this blog such a pleasure to visit every day. Thank you.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 30, 2009 5:39 PM
Well, Bill, I appreciate the machismo snark and I recognize the horror that genital mutilation does to women, but I think you're being hypocritical in a small way. The part they cut off in male circumcisions is the most sensitive part. Just because our culture does something without ill intention doesn't mean it is OK. Imagine if the circumstances were reversed and our culture innocently practiced genital mutilation on newborn girls in the hospital so that there were very few complications other than the loss of a very sensitive part of their bodies. Would that make it OK?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 5:40 PM
No, I don't want to; this is not an issue of any particular importance to me. The only reason I've been talking about male circumcision at all in this thread is that I feel its insertion into the discussion created (wittingly or un) a distraction from the very serious concern of violent sexual repression of women, of which whipping women for wearing "licentious" clothing and forced clitoridectomy are just two examples. I could happily live the rest of my life without ever thinking of male circumcision again.
Doesn't work! ;^)
And that, I promise, will be my very last word on the subject.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 30, 2009 5:42 PM
The general consensus is that whipping someone for wearing what we consider to be modest clothing is doubleplus ungood. Now the question should be what to do about it?
Sudan is ranked third on the Fund for Peace's Failed State Index. The president is under indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The civil war in Darfur continues unabated. Slave-taking is still a major industry for Afro-Arab Sudanese. Given all this, what can be done about Lubna Hussein?
Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 30, 2009 5:45 PM
tnrkbl:
My heart goes out to you. But at that time, you did what you (and your husband) thought the best for your kids. I agree with the other poster above, that a simple apology to your kids may go a long way in assuaging your guilt about this.
I am not circumcised since I was born Hindu. But will someone please tell me about the process? I was under the impression that it is done with proper anesthesia under medical supervision; at least that is what is done when circumcision is prescribed for correcting phimosis or sometimes in treatment of balanoposthitis. Is that not so? I am shocked by the screaming part - it seems like a barbaric ritual!
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 5:47 PM
Bill, if you don't want to do any research or learn any more about circumcision, maybe you should refrain from opining on it, or at least refrain from telling those who _have_ done the research that they don't know what they're talking about?
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 30, 2009 5:50 PM
Speaking practically, we can't do much about it. She is pushing the issue and rightly so. No better way than to bring more cruel actions of an illegal government to light. We should support her and watch them. Can you & I do it? No. We can scream to our Reps. and others to do something and I think we should. The practice is wrong & I don't give a shit about any cultural relativity crap. It's wrong no matter how you slice your gravy.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 5:51 PM
>>180
As an avid scifi fan, I must agree that your post was very interesting.
>Roddenberry's philosophy was distinctly unhelpful with regards to biology, medicine, and public policy.
And episode writing. Those were some of the worst ST episodes.
>>182
It's no use crying over spilt milk, just put the glass on the table next time. Not that there'd be a next time in your case, but we all learned a little from your experience and what's done is done, no use feeling guilty about it.
Posted by: not a gator | July 30, 2009 5:51 PM
@23
Andrew Sullivan is a hypocritical, bare-backing, disease-spreading, testosterone-self-dosing, hero-worshipping, self-absorbed, muddle-headed ponce.
And who said anything about him being a leftie?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 6:00 PM
>>186
>the most sensitive part
Eh!? But I'm glad I kept mine precisely because it's essentially a normal piece of skin protecting the much more sensitive whatever-it's-called-in-English; that does not compute.
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 6:00 PM
@ Kausik #189,
Routine circumcision of male infants is done under medical supervision, but not always with any anaesthesia, and it is doubtful any anaesthesia is effective. The part being carved away is the largest erogenous zone on the male body. The foreskin has more nerve endings per square inch than any other part of the body, penis head in included.
Recent neurological studies have shown that babies feel pain just as acutely as adults -- there is no lessening of the pain just because the baby can't write an essay on how much it hurt.
Modern, American circumcisions literally have the baby's penis-head clamped in a vise while the cutting is done. A small percentage of all baby's who are routinely circumcised do die due to septic complications (PZ posted about one such case in 2007).
For a quick overview of modern circumcision, check out Penn and Teller's episode on it from their "Bullshit" series.
Posted by: not a gator | July 30, 2009 6:02 PM
@48
I suppose you've never heard of diplomatic immunity?
Butt of a lot of jokes in DC. The cops knew better than to bother, and I knew some Russian kids in high school who evaded a speeding ticket by pretending to speak no English.
OTOH, there was that Georgian diplomat (the country, not the ...) who killed someone in a hit and run and faced no punishment. He did go back to his country because I think the social heat was rather severe.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 30, 2009 6:04 PM
AC@178
First, it should go without saying that in practice, any moral system is untractable (sic). If it isn't intractable (or, rather, dealing with problems that are intractable), it isn't trying hard enough, and can't rightly be considered moral. It doesn't go without saying, but it should. Ethics can concern itself with practicality; morals cannot be limited by what is merely physically possible.
Second, you are misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding morals. There is no 'goal society' from which we extract rules to get us there. There are rules concerning fairness. Whatever society that gets us to, fine. It is merely a primeval assumption that this will lead to a Utopia when in the future everyone follows the same morals. On that point we are free to be infinitely and eternally wrong because we never get to the future, just more present and an ever-growing store of past. This is as much true for secular progressive morals as it is for any totalitarian god-king.
I would characterize it differently. We invented those things because the immorality was always there. But not necessarily in large enough "quantities" to outweigh some other moral wrong that also needed to be addressed. Yes, inventions make new things 'immoral', but because it makes accessible alternatives that are more moral, not because it causes older ways to become less so.
I would have thought those would be the only ones that can be said to have been discovered, while it is the rest which are 'invented'.
The dichotomy obviously fails. Morals are neither invented nor discovered. Compare and contrast: language, math, science, ethics, engineering, physics ...
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 6:05 PM
Anonymous Coward @ 194 --
The foreskin is called the 'most sensitive part' because it has more nerve-endings per given area than any other body part, glans (penis head) included.
You are quite right to note that the foreskin protects the glans, which is supposed to be an internal part of the body, kind of like the tongue.
For those who have been circumcised, the glans undergoes a process known as keratinization, where it basically slowly dries out, making it in many cases less sensitive.
Having a functioning foreskin will protect and moisten the glans, making it more sensitive. That might help things computer for you :)
Posted by: not a gator | July 30, 2009 6:11 PM
PsyberDave wrote: I am not being a sophist here. And I am not Poeing, either
But you don't deny being an adolescent. A-ha!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 6:25 PM
>>193
I don't know Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bawer, but I'm pretty sure that no one in the Netherlands would have called Pim Fortuyn left. A liberal, yes, but certainly not left, in fact it has often been suggested that the smear campaign from the left in the media against him set the stage for a societal environment where less stable people in the autistic spectrum could have started to think that killing him was okay and therefore do it.
Of course I realize that left in the Netherlands doesn't mean the same thing as elsewhere.
>>195
You've seriously made my stomach turn inside out. I had no idea it was that bad.
Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 6:28 PM
Dood, you don't know Jack. From WebMD: Those anti-circumcision/PRO Prepuce sites are the informational equivalent of Answers in Genesis. Get a clue.Posted by: tmaxPA | July 30, 2009 6:28 PM
nag@199:
So he's a kid, so what? That's an ad hominem at this point. Sure, he's grappling with existential problems the way any teenager does, so what? Ken Ham is over the hill, and he still doesn't understand half of what pd does.
The problem, pd, is the same one that mathematicians face. Some of them, they go mad thinking about it. Morality has its own Incompleteness Principle. Whether something "is" right or wrong is not a question that can be answered solely based on the terms used to describe the thing (plus any putative limit/definition on what 'good' or 'bad' means.) A whole lot (practically all, IMHO) religionists are essentially deists who are stuck just where you are, philosophically. The rest are insane fundamentalists, some dangerous, some not.
For our part, atheists are willing to beg the question until it becomes irrelevant, because we know that's how its going to turn out anyway, no matter what we do.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 30, 2009 6:51 PM
I don't know how Pim Fortuyn comes into it, but since he was mentioned...
(For those who don't know, Pim Fortuyn was a Dutsch politician who, though not 'right wing' in the typical sense, blamed a variety of social ills on Muslim immigrants, and was assassinated on May 6th, 2002.)
A few years ago, I went on a little European Vacation with a friend of mine. She had personal business to take care of in England, and then wanted to spend a few days on holiday in the Netherlands, and asked me to keep her company. This was in May of 2002, and it just so happens that on May 5th, we were at some museum in Amsterdam. There was a wide pedestrian tunnel under the museum, which we took because she wanted me to see some musicians that play down there. At eye level right at the walkway on a cement beam (holding up this huge old building above us) in this tunnel someone had used a stencil to graffiti a two-color image: Pim Fortuyn with a sniper-scope sights centered on his forehead. At the time I had no idea who Pim Fortuyn was. I asked and was told, and didn't think about it until I saw the same face the next day on the TV news.
The day after that, on May 7th, I went back and took a picture of the graffiti. I lost the image several hard drives ago, but I still remember how bizarre that all was.
Posted by: Smidgy | July 30, 2009 6:53 PM
andyet #23:
The main reason for that, el idiote extraordinaire, is that, by your own admission, they don't need to. If they (whoever 'they', precisely, are) have said, as you claim, that, 'fundamentalist theocracy is the enemy of freedom', that doesn't say 'but only for Christianity'. That means that ANY fundamentalist theocracy, of any kind, is the enemy of freedom - whether that be an Islamic theocracy, a Christian theocracy, or some other kind of theocracy. If you're saying these people (whoever they are) seem to concentrate on Christianity in their complaints, and wonder why that is, well there's probably two very simple reasons for that:
1) Christianity is the form of religion that could potentially turn a country into a theocracy that they most commonly encounter in their day-to-day lives, and;
2) The chances of the US becoming an Islamic theocracy are ludicrously slim, whereas Christianity has a certain amount of power in the US (though, despite this, the chances of the US becoming a proper Christian theocracy are also relatively slim).
Posted by: not a gator | July 30, 2009 6:53 PM
@159
Of course "legitimate corrective surgery" brings up an interesting issue.
What if a child is born with ambiguous genitals?
Some children have a genetic mutation that causes them to be born with ambiguous genitals, but, when they reach puberty, their genitals develop normally.
It was once common practice in the US for doctors to "fix" babies' genitals, often without even informing the parents (lest they be upset by the news their child was a 'freak'). "Fixing" a child's ambiguous genitals could be considered GM, and it might indeed lead to diminished sexual functioning later in life.
There is one case where a botched circumcision led to the decision to deliberately perform reassignment surgery and raise a male child as a female. The individual ended up reclaiming a male identity as an adult and wrote a book about his experiences. He essentially characterized the attempts by the psychologist to mold him into a female as child abuse.
To me, a legitimate reason for surgery would be problems with the urethra, or conditions that are not necessarily identified at birth but are identified in childhood such as complete closure of the hymen or a foreskin that won't retract.
Cosmetic surgery runs the risk of snipping something functional ... when it very well might correct itself in a few months or at puberty. (My sister's ears weren't fully formed when she was born, but they look normal now--should she have received plastic surgery at birth? Pff. And it's not like anyone cooing over a baby looks in the diaper.)
And if an individual is intersexed (chromosomally one or the other sex, but developmentally only partially masculinized), isn't it really up to the child which way they want to go? Around 2 or 3 years the child will tell you what sex they are.
We need to stop cutting infant's genitals for unnecessary reasons.
Posted by: Smidgy | July 30, 2009 6:56 PM
Actually, I should have pointed out there that this is not just true for the US, but for any Western country.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 30, 2009 7:00 PM
These organizations* seem to be following the case and asking for support:
http://www.anhri.net/en/
http://www.wluml.org/english/
The calls for support don't seem very specific thus far, and seem to be going out to groups and organizations, though one does give email addresses to send letters of protest to. If nothing else, more publicity wouldn't hurt. Lubna Hussein also seems to have a Facebook page.
(Amnesty appears just to be picking up on it.)
*[about which I know little to nothing]
Posted by: JafafaHots | July 30, 2009 7:05 PM
I'm sick and tired of seeing people characterize a couple of slaps in the face as being "physical assault" and wanting it to be illegal. All they are trying to do is lessen the stigma of ACTUAL assault which we all know is being beaten to near death. To equate a couple of harmless slaps in the face to being beaten almost to death is offensive to those who have suffered the TRUE assault of having been beaten to near death.
etc.
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 7:10 PM
E.V. @ #201, you appear to be citing commentary on this study.
The conclusion of the study is:
The study used a group of 40 men to make its conclusions.
It may be that there is no reported, subjective difference in sensitivity, but I would suggest similar studies would be found in testing the sensitivity of the chest in whole people vs. amputees.
Having ones legs or arms removed does not necessarily affect how one's chest will feel. Having 50% of one's penis skinned may not necessarily affect how the penis head feels, but the part that was removed is certainly quite gone, and it remains a medical fact that the foreskin has more nerve-endings than the penis head, and is the largest erogenous zone on the male body. It may be no more 'sensitive', but it is larger.
And anyway, E.V., don't you think it's a little ridiculous to be arguing that it is okay to skin the genitalia of babies of either gender, so long as it doesn't change how sensitive they are, as a adults, during intercourse? Is that standard we should use when deciding whether or not to cut babies?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 30, 2009 7:16 PM
(NotAGator @ 205) You raise a very good point that had not occurred to me. I think that your description of surgery required to repair a functional problem with the urinogenital tract, such as an occluded urethra, is the correct standard for any surgery on a child's genetalia. It should not be done for religious or aesthetic reasons whether that impulse flows from the parents or the doctor or anyone else. No one has the right to perform gender assignment or gender reassignment surgery on anyone without that person's express and informed consent.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 7:21 PM
>>198
Thanks, both for the explanation and for making my stomach do a painful twist yet again.
>>197
You cannot a priori say that it's necessarily intractable without providing proof. Which you can't because it's a Devil's Proof.
Your definition of the difference between ethics and morals (or at least the way you formulate it) is meaningless to people who don't believe in the supernatural, sorry.
>There is no 'goal society' from which we extract rules to get us there.
You are wrong on this. Not everyone holds the exact same goals, but that doesn't matter. Even fairness is a goal in a sense. And no, whatever society that gets us to is not necessesarily fine in the eyes of most of your fellow humans as long as you can't prove that this wouldn't entail for example unacceptable loss of human happiness or freedom. From there on that paragraph is a bunch of non sequiturs.
>I would cha...
Take a history class.
>I would hav...
If you're going to switch definitions midstream, you'll have to excuse me for tuning out. I'm not in the mood for word games.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 7:29 PM
[sigh]
Richard:
I promised I wouldn't say any more on the subject, and I won't, substantively... but as a conversational "point of order," I invite you to go back and re-read the thread: I didn't bring the subject up, nor did I ever say I thought it was an important part of this particular discussion. Exactly to the contrary, my point all along has been that male circumcision was a red herring in this conversation... and I don't know about you, but I don't feel obligated to research other people's red herrings for them.
I have been careful not to claim detailed knowledge that I don't possess, and I've carefully used qualifying language to indicate when (most of the time, in this instance) I was speaking from anecdote, speculation, or opinion. It seems to me that the burden of proof — to the extent that concept even applies to this medium — rests upon those who are asserting a moral and social equivalence between male circumcision as currently practiced in the U.S. and forced clitoridectomy as practiced in the Middle East and Africa; it doesn't seem to me that I'm required to become an expert in the history of medicine to disagree.
And while I'm at it...
aratina cage:
Snark it certainly was — I said so right upfront — but machismo? Riiight... because arguing on behalf of oppressed, sexually victimized women and insisting that the relatively far less serious complaints of socially privileged males are an irrelevant distraction is so macho! ;^)
I actually had to laugh at this, because IRL I'm about the least macho straight guy you could hope to meet.
And now I'm going to go get ready to watch So You Think You Can Dance... see y'all later.
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 7:38 PM
I'm going to have to bookmark JafafaHots' comment @ #208 for future reference, it's a very nice bit!
Posted by: tomh | July 30, 2009 7:41 PM
@ #151 Bill Dauphin wrote:
we don't recognize anyone's right to kill people or sexually abuse children as expressions of "religious freedom."
Not exactly true in the US. Many states have a religious exemption to child-abuse laws, in the name of "religious freedom", especially in the matter of withholding medical treatment. The recent trial in Oregon, where the parents were acquitted of manslaughter in the death of their 15 month old baby from easily treated pneumonia, brought to light their church, the Followers of Christ, which favors prayer over medical care. In the last 40 years a large number of children have died because their parents follow the teachings of this church. The church cemetary has dozens of children buried in it. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The only reason the parents were able to be charged, when no case had gone to trial before, was that Oregon law was changed to preclude a religious defense in most manslaughter cases. It did no good, however, as a religious defense seeped through anyway and the acquittal followed. This is not unique to Oregon. The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996 (most recently amended in 2003) mandates that states require parents to provide medical care for children, but the act also gives states the right to allow parents to withhold treatment on the basis of religious doctrines. Thirty nine states allow religious exemptions within child abuse statutes. Children die regularly on account of this.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 30, 2009 7:49 PM
Richard (@214):
Reading comprehension, dude: Re-read the words you quoted from me, paying special attention to the adverb that modifies abuse. Nothing of your response about child abuse that follows actually meaningfully replies to what I wrote. And by "kill people," I meant, you know, actively kill people, not neglect them to death. I wrote that very carefully, despite its being a somewhat tangential analogy.
Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 7:51 PM
I knew the AntiCircumcision/IntactGen/Fire-In-The-Belly/Naked Drumming Sweatlodge crew would derail the thread. Female circumcision=/= male circumcision. It's a separate subject for a different thread.
And it's full of emotional traps and blatant disinformation all trying to appeal to emotion when logic fails. My boys are circumcised because we weighed the health risks/humiliation associated with not performing circumcision at infancy versus getting trimmed at puberty or later should the need - um - arise. If they find that it has somehow emasculated them or that it has impaired their sexual pleasure or performance they can sue me for their therapist's bills and put me in a home in my declining years. I myself am perfectly happy with my own member, if not in size, then because I never have to deal with smegma or (past) rejection of partners who were uncomfortable with performing oral love on uncircumcised partners. & besides, my wife prefers her man trimmed. I'm sure there are those who love uncircumcised men, and i'm sure there are enough men intact to satisfy those demands. TMI? Too bad.
Posted by: Nanu Nanu | July 30, 2009 7:56 PM
It seems to me that when the subject of circumcision comes up no one is really arguing that male genital mutilation as practiced (common circumcision) is directly equivalent to to the more extreme forms of FGM such as clitoridectomy, merely that it is wrong to perform unconsensual and potentially damaging surgery for aesthetic or cultural reasons.
JafafaHots @208 says what I believe (from previous threads) the common thinking is: slapping someone in the face is still assault even though it pales in comparison to being beaten nearly to death. It's really a matter of degree with extreme FGM being worse but both are still wrong.
note: I use the modifier "extreme" just to clarify as I've read of lesser forms of FGM that I really don't think we're discussing.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 7:58 PM
>>208
I remember reading a story in the paper (~ ten years ago I think) about a boy who had been hit (just once) in the face and died from the injury the following morning. Head injuries are actually quite scary and sometimes the worst of the effect comes long after the actual injury. And people are stronger than they think and can easily do a lot of damage.
I think that in a civilised society it's best to stick to one simple rule: you don't hit, stomp, kick, push, pull, or otherwise unnecessarily touch people, period. (Except in self defence of course.) What you can't resolve by talking it over, you resolve in the courtroom.
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 8:01 PM
Bill @215 --
Not to clutter the thread, but I'm not the one who posted 214! I know we've been hashing it out a bit here, but this one wasn't me >.>
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 30, 2009 8:03 PM
Usually what happens in cases like this is the diplomat is declared persona non grata and required to return to his own country.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 30, 2009 8:07 PM
Male circumcision has become as hot a topic here as calling someone a "bitch." If you don't like circumcision, then don't have one.
Posted by: tomh | July 30, 2009 8:07 PM
@ #215
The fact is that in the US we do allow people to be killed in the name of "religious freedom." Unless you don't consider children to be people. When one has a choice of giving an antibiotic that will save a life, or not giving it which will mean certain death, to claim that not giving it isn't killing the person is splitting hairs a little too fine. It's true that we don't allow this to be defended on religious grounds with regard to adults, but we do with regard to children. But all that means is that we don't consider children to be people.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 8:07 PM
>>220
Which is way too good for him. I understand where the concept of diplomatic immunity came from, why it was fully necessary once, and why between countries with radically different legal systems it might still be, but in a modern western state? We should have outgrown that.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 30, 2009 8:07 PM
Or maybe you didn't know this, E.V.:
That's from the same website you quoted, one year earlier in 2006. The actual study referred to by the doctor you quote was published in April 2007:
Why would a WebMD physicians assistant write that there is strong evidence of greater penile sensitivity in uncircumcised penises just one year earlier? From the BJU (British Journal of Urology) International:
So it is not some kook fringe lunatic left liberal idea, but I do appreciate the information.
Posted by: Richard | July 30, 2009 8:12 PM
Aratina, E.V. has already established (in #216) that he thinks cutting children is acceptable so long as it helps avoid "humiliation" when the kid is among his similarly cut peers. I don't think medical research is the point here for E.V., but I for one appreciate your BJU link =)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 30, 2009 8:13 PM
>>224
In short, our sample size is a few dozen men. Too little data to do real statistics on.
But what about primum non nocere? If you don't know if a treatment is harmful or not, don't do it. That's what my medical friends were taught in University. Don't they teach that in the US?
Posted by: Rorschach | July 30, 2009 8:42 PM
This has been discussed at length here before, recently(including many funny TMI self-confessions btw) in the thread that will not die somewhere.
In Australia by far the most male circumcisions are religiously motivated ones in kids of middle-eastern descent, the medically indicated ones(phimosis, paraphimosis) are now rather rare, and the hygiene/cancer risk reduction ones are rarer still, that's 70's.
Posted by: Jadehawk | July 30, 2009 9:07 PM
can we please stop harping on the Prime Directive?
it's not like this isn't a sensible real world policy in some cases; or are you lot suggesting that we should abandon the practice of leaving uncontacted tribes uncontacted unless and until they initiate contact? there's good reason for those rules; which has shit-all to do with nations that are already part of the global community. nuance people, nuance!
Posted by: The Chemist | July 30, 2009 9:17 PM
Ah, I guess I came late to the thread. I'm not going to read all the comments where there are this many. Normally, I justn read the last 30 or so to get the gist of where of where the discussion has progressed and jump in. It seems we're talking about circumcision now- so I'm just going to plop in here and say what I think of PZ's post: It was stupid. Well, really just that part at the end.
Meddle? What?! I have a friend back home who told me not too long ago in an entirely different and irrelevant context, "Americans have very short memories compared to the rest of the world." I tried to convince him it wasn't as bad as he was arguing. Now I might have to revisit that opinion.
Do you not remember the past six years of "meddling"? How well has that worked out? Look, leave this sort of thing to the people who know what's going on and speak the language. It's not a fucking battle of the sexes. Women are as much part of the culture as men, you can't attack one side of the culture and expect the other side to come at you with flowers and be greeted as "liberators". They will respond to meddling with backlash. Read up on your history, look up foot-binding and find out of how it surged in Han China as part of anti-Mongolian backlash. That's not even recent history.
Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 9:56 PM
Chemist:
The woman in question is facing a punishment of 40 lashes for wearing an innocuous pair of green trousers. WTF?
Posted by: PsyberDave | July 30, 2009 10:19 PM
Gregory @149
I think you pegged it. What you said flows logically from what I was saying.
Your statement, "There is no intellectual or ethical basis to prosecute an individual for a crime however heinous or to claim a right to a legitimate state monopoly on the use of force." I would agree with that, as disturbing as it may be to some. But I would like to clarify. Yes, I think that morality flowing to us from outside is an illusion. I think the intellectual or ethical basis for prosecution ultimately flows from 1) desire to enforce rules we make and find useful and 2) the ability to enforce those rules. Essentially yes, the strongest guy wins.
I, as do almost everybody here, do not think rules (be they laws or morals, norms, etc.) come from an invisible man in the sky or a magic book. Though many make such claims as the source of authority, I know of no other source than humanity, not even the natural world around us.
Now, tmaxPA @175 says "We do not make up our morals. They are set for us by very complex and relatively unknown physiological actions; we discover them, we do not invent them. It is true that they were "created" by contingency acting through evolution to affect psychology, but this does not make them imaginary or fictional." I find this claim to be unsubstantiated, but I am quite interested in seeing it substantiated. If you are talking about things like a sense of reciprocity being evolutionarily selected for, then that is a possibility I see, but maybe we would have to clarify an operational definition of morals. I suspect grave difficulty in demonstrating a connection between DNA and broad human concepts like morals. But like I say, I'm open to suggestions.
Also, I draw parallels between morals and laws because I find it useful to do so. I say they are rules. I say that in both cases the source of the rules is us. Are you saying the source of laws is us, but the source of morals is something else?
Your post @202, I don't know how to respond to (I apologize, I just don't quite understand it) other than to address the least important part regarding me being a kid. Let me assure you I am not. Were you and that other poster serious in thinking that I am some high schooler or were you just trying to be derisive?
Watchman @154
Our declarations are not completely arbitrary. They are based on conclusions drawn from observation. We have thousands of years of accumulated first-, second- and third-hand experience observing the negative consequences that various action have on the victims. I agree with you, actually. I'm not saying our declarations are arbitrary. Indeed, I say they are based upon what we want, and yes, what we have observed informs us and helps us form ideas of what we want.
Posted by: Moonkitty | July 30, 2009 10:31 PM
I'm truly sick of the moral false equivalence being touted regarding FGM and male circumcision.
Aratine: "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis."
Right. (According to some, not all, studies.)
Female genital mutilation removes, at the least, the entire clitoris. That's equivalent to removing the male glans, itself.
circumcised glans possibly less sensitive = no glans at all?
--Not even close.
--And Aratina, the earlier WebMD article you quote was clearly an opinion piece; the Dr. was explaining why he doesn't do circumcisions.
"Why would a WebMD physicians assistant write that there is strong evidence of greater penile sensitivity in uncircumcised penises just one year earlier?"
Um, I dunno; maybe because different studies showed different results? Which would kind of suggest all by itself that the difference in sensitivity between a circumcised and uncircumcised glans is not so great as to warrant comparison of male circumcision with the horrific practice of clitoral amputation.
"No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[106] Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.[118] In a 2007 study, Sorrells et al., using monofilament touch-test mapping, found that the foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis, noting that these parts are lost to circumcision. They also found that "the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis."[119] In a 2008 study, Krieger et al. stated that "Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 30, 2009 10:59 PM
Moonkitty, who is making a moral equivalence? I already said I agree that female genital mutilation is horrendous, and I know it is often carried out barbarically in unsanitary conditions under duress; it enrages me that it is done at all.
However, I was responding to people claiming that male circumcision is not mutilation of children's genitals. They are wrong; it is an amputation. It is not done for rational reasons or presented as a choice. It is a religious sociocultural holdover that researchers have strained to fit data onto to show that it is beneficial--Christians patting themselves on the back for such a wonderful cultural practice.
Excu-hu-hu-hu-huse me for speaking up about what I feel is tantamount to culturally tolerated child abuse.
Posted by: Moonkitty | July 30, 2009 11:00 PM
PsyberDave,
"Essentially yes, the strongest guy wins."
No, PsyberDave; social animals have evolved a little thing called empathy. It's empathy that informs our morals and our rules. Empathy, also known as the Golden Rule, is what tells us that beating a woman half to death is wrong under any circumstances, and doing it because she had the temerity to wear pants is absurd as well as criminal.
"I suspect grave difficulty in demonstrating a connection between DNA and broad human concepts like morals."
Is empathy coded in our DNA? Probably, but given that the interplay between our genes and our behavior is complex and only partially understood, I don't suppose it's realistic to expect anybody to be able to "demonstrate a connection". It's also probably not possible at the present time to demonstrate a connection between DNA and the human response to beauty; nevertheless, there seem to be universally agreed-upon aesthetic standards.
For the evolution of morality, and the exhibition of empathy by non-human species, I recommend you read Frans de Waal.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 30, 2009 11:08 PM
E.V.
My boyfriend prefers women with large breasts* and large breasts are the societal norm for attractiveness. Also, I wouldn't want my daughters to be teased for having small breasts. Therefore, any female children we have will be forced to get breast enhancement surgery.
*note, this is actually false
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 30, 2009 11:11 PM
What's the distaste circumcised men have for smegma? I've never known an uncircumcised man to complain about it. It seems as ridiculous as a woman complaining about vaginal fluids. They're there for a reason people.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 30, 2009 11:15 PM
"It seems to me, though, that when we're talking about large groups of human beings who are being consistently oppressed by a bizarre historical and partly biological quirk like patriarchy, perhaps we have an obligation to meddle."
Precisely my argument for going into Iraq. There really is a lot of despotic medieval barbarism going on out there in the world. As much as I wish it was not the case there's only one country in the world with the equipment, the manpower, and the will to such things. I'm glad I'm living in it. Endeavors like that are the only worthwhile things my taxes go to.
Posted by: moonkitty | July 30, 2009 11:24 PM
"Moonkitty, who is making a moral equivalence?"
Aratina, both XD and Sigmund have argued for the moral equivalence between FGM and male circumcision. When Bill Dauphin pointed out the differences between the practices, you weighed in by referring to an article that cites some studies that have indicated that circumcision decreases male sexual pleasure.
I pointed out that that outcome is possible, but as yet unproven, but still in no sense equivalent to the outcome of FGM.
My opening sentence was not directed at you personally.
Posted by: SusanR | July 30, 2009 11:26 PM
I say we send in CIA planes to drop copious amounts of photos showing women of all races and cultures wearing pants. Desensitize the population to the sight of women in pants, and maybe they can take one small step towards reason.
And the UN is usless.
Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 11:35 PM
Ok guys, I'll say it again. This is not the thread to be hijacked. I was being somewhat silly in my replies BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE and allow the thread to go to hell for the "circumcision is mutilated" crowd (which has merit for debate - JUST NOT FOR THIS THREAD).As for sensitivity, I will compare my toe curling, blood spurting out the ears orgasmic experiences with anyone with a still intact member (on second thought... nah).
I reiterate: we chose circumcision for our sons for purely healthful considerations - not aesthetics, not to "fit in"
, but because of the increased risk of higher HIV & HPV infection rates and transmission and penile cancer rates. Period.
I shattered my leg in high school and had to share a hospital room with a 12 y.o.kid who had to have a circumcision due to an infected abscess. Every time the nurse came to change his bandage he told me how he wished he could die then and there. The nurse actually told him to be still so she could "doctor his little weenie". I still laugh and cringe at her bedside manner.
Several years ago an acquaintance had to have the procedure done because his prepuce was too tight. They tried to just give it a little snip but it began to split from swelling. His mortification wasn't as funny as it sounds since what he ended up with can be accurately describe as mutilation. That's why I mentioned the humiliation aspect. I personally know of 2 incidents, which I do realize is a very insignificant number in the grand scheme of things. Are we done now?
Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 11:41 PM
Wisdom teeth? Appendix? Coccyx? The plica semilunaris? Do tell...Posted by: moonkitty | July 30, 2009 11:41 PM
PZ: "...perhaps we have an obligation to meddle."
Coldwell: "Precisely my argument for going into Iraq."
Since when does "meddle" mean occupation, or military action? I took PZ to mean that we should use our words, not our fists, tanks, or bombs. We should publicize this incident, and the trial, and the outcome. We should make reasoned arguments why this prosecution and the proposed punishment are both abhorrent, and we should also point fingers, and generally make a fuss. We should support Ms. Hussein and others in Sudan who oppose such barbarity morally--and monetarily.
Will it help? Who knows?
Military intervention has an unintended consequence: people who might've been won over wind up so pissed off at the invaders that they wind up siding with compatriot oppressive jerks they may well have hated to begin with. Nothing unites people like a threat from the outside. But then I don't understand why so many people here seem to have assumed PZ was suggesting military "meddling" in the first place.
Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 11:44 PM
Maybe not, but I can give you names and addresses of a multitude of women who have.Posted by: E.V. | July 30, 2009 11:48 PM
G'night one and all.
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 31, 2009 12:04 AM
Jadehawk #97: so Walton, let me get this straight:
you're against us, as a (more or less) democratic society, deciding for ourselves, (more or less) democratically, how we want our society run; but you're all for you, as an outsider, deciding militaristically for another society, without their consent, how they should run their society?
what precisely are you basing this whopping hypocrisy on?
Oh don't trouble yourself about Uncle Walty. He's a libertarian scumbag from the UK or Canada or somesuch. His favorite whine is a little Chardonnay that has a delicate dash of outrage over the fact that he gets healthcare whether he likes it or not in his eeeevil commie country. He thinks it's eeevil when a country becomes democratic enough that it can vote contrary to the wishes of the elites he idolizes (the rich) but thinks societies that are run by authoritarian elites that he doesn't like (certain types of religious asshole fundamentalists) should be bombed until they are ruled by the proper, correct sort of capitalist, wealthy asshole elites he favors. If he were writing a personal add I'm sure he would click "it's complicated" for his relationship status. In short he seriously thinks that his wacko-Randolitarian worldview is something that actually drives or should drive major military decisions around the world. The people he idolizes, ironically, laugh their bowels empty at the thought that he exists and pursue the ancient logic of empire and conquest sure in the knowledge that their actions will be defended by the Uncle Waltys of the world.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogfeministress | July 31, 2009 12:11 AM
Came across this while preparing a post on Lubna Hussein:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/07/remind-anyone-of-anything.html
Hee.
Posted by: echidna | July 31, 2009 12:21 AM
This case is about powers-that-be going out of control, not about religious laws.
For those who assume that the Sudanese law is clear about trousers, it seems that this is not so. Here is a quote from Al Jazeera quoting al-Hussein:
"I want to ask the authorities to define what clothing exactly causes offense to the public. Trousers are the official uniform for Sudanese women soldiers and officers. So how come now trousers have become indecent? This is my question: Are trousers un-Islamic for the general public but permissible for government workers?
"As for the article in question, I am determined to take this to court, not to prove my innocence but because it is unconstitutional."
Posted by: VolcanoMan | July 31, 2009 12:22 AM
I don't understand why some people have a problem with the idea that some cultures are simply better than others. If we want to undo problems like pathological patriarchy we need to propose universal values, basic things like equality for all, freedom of speech, non-violence (with a caveat that you are free to subject yourself to violence among other consenting parties), etc. It is certainly unethical to impose beliefs that we don't consider fundamental human rights on other cultures, but to let governments and institutions systematically violate human rights is at least as unethical.
What about a brute-force technological assault? Air-drop a couple of million functional but inexpensive cell phones pre-loaded with videos showing popular celebrities in the community in question decrying the traditions that take away fundamental rights that all humans should enjoy. I am sure there are other, maybe cheaper, multi-media projects that you could pioneer in a similar manner to get people who are being oppressed to question why they put up with it. Giving away free technology with no strings attached, only the option of viewing some media that advocates, simply and perhaps sensitively (if religion is the main tool of oppression) that people have the right to think what they want, say what they want, wear what they want, and do what they want as long as they are not breaching the rights of another person. Woman, man...politician, pauper, all born with these same freedoms, which, when taken away, are worth dying for to regain.
It's like the whole argument that Cheney uses to defend torture: "you liberal morons, it worked, we prevented attacks!". A country that successfully defends its citizens by denying people their human rights doesn't deserve those rights. If America was attacked again because "harsh interrogation" (love the euphemism) was not implemented, that is the cost of America's freedom; otherwise there really is no difference (except one of scale) between the American government and the terrorists. In the case of Sudan (and much of the Islamic world), if womens' rights are trampled upon (for whatever purpose) then men should expect the same treatment of women. Didn't anyone ever teach these clowns the "golden rule?"
Now, normally I would argue that we should get our own houses in order before we start to take the moral high ground with other countries. However, the social disparity in most of the developing world is far more severe than here in North America. Only rarely is it a matter of life and death here, but for hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) elsewhere, it can be that significant. Male/female, rich/poor, white/black, one religion/another equally irrational religion...if we force change upon them, we're acting unethically, but if we subversively suggest ways in which change can be affected by the people, we are being humane.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 31, 2009 12:26 AM
Moonkitty, sorry. I thought you were characterizing me. I went back and read from the top (which I had not done before) and saw that the whole genital mutilation discussion started quite reasonably with KI @ #22. I probably should have read everything before because my first comment on the topic @ #152 had already been said in the 20 topical comments before me. I think it may have seemed like I was being morally equivalent in later comments to Bill Dauphin, but I was really trying to emphasize the absurdity and irrationality of male circumcision, not downplay the barbarity of female genital mutilation.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 12:29 AM
moonkitty,
You're absolutely right. 'Meddling' does not explicitly imply military force. But, I think is does imply action. Action by people like us who have a well calibrated, civilized moral compass. If you think a woman deserves 40 lashes for wearing pants for an evening I don't think you can claim to be civilized. We understand that certain crimes require action proportionate to the offense. We recognize cruel and unusual punishments even when they are done to cruel and unusual people. In this single case its completely proportionate to use our words, points fingers, and publicize this as you say. A critical mass of negative press could even spare this girl her punishment. But, what if you had a regime like you had in IRAQ where they actually made a plan for the systematic killing of an entire ethnic group who were the largest minority on the planet who did not have their own county? A military intervention to stop that nonsense would be totally proportional. In a way what I said may have been a little tongue in cheek and I don't mean to put words in PZ's mouth but I completely agree with his final premise. Perhaps we have an obligation to meddle.
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 31, 2009 12:34 AM
Coldwell #237: Precisely my argument for going into Iraq. There really is a lot of despotic medieval barbarism going on out there in the world. As much as I wish it was not the case there's only one country in the world with the equipment, the manpower, and the will to such things. I'm glad I'm living in it. Endeavors like that are the only worthwhile things my taxes go to.
My sincerest hope is that Coldy's insurance cancels him just before he gets penis cancer and that he is forced to apply for Medicaid. Oh, he won't learn anything. Faux Newz will keep him thinking that the gays or the liberals made him sick and that HIS medicaid was fully funded by his prior contribution - but at least I will be laughing.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogfeministress | July 31, 2009 12:35 AM
It also appears to be about Hussein being a reporter who in her column, "Men's Talk," has long been vocally critical of the government. According to some that I've read, the ridiculous general discipline law is being used to silence political opponents. I've read that she's also refused a presidential pardon. This is not a voiceless, powerless victim.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 31, 2009 12:35 AM
E.V. said:
Yes, because the lubricating fluids of the vagina and penis are as useless as an appendix. That's why there are so many artificial appendix products out there to replace the damn thing when you have to get it removed. Oh wait, there aren't. There is, however, an entire section of the drugstore with various replacements for the natural sexual lubricants our bodies produce You need lubricants during sex. Otherwise you're at a much higher risk for tears, STD transmission and wearing the skin off your dick. Yep, that's right boys, if you don't have adequate lubrication for a prolonged period of time, you can rub the skin off of your penis (I have personally seen this on a man due to masturbation), to say nothing of what such a thing would do to a woman.
WE can play the anecdote game, though it's not very effective. I know a single man who's had to be circumcised later in life. He said it hurt, but I don't think he found it "humiliating." He also wishes he didn't have to get it done. His wife was very upset about it too.
Posted by: Rebecca Bradley | July 31, 2009 12:41 AM
I've come late to this thread, and am daunted by the thought of reading through 240+ posts - however, I have had some experience in the Sudan, as an archaeologist and anthropologist. Skimming through the posts, I thought I could maybe contribute a bit to the discussion on a couple of points. Apologies if I'm repeating things said earlier in the thread.
Female circumcision (aka infibulation) is a pre-Islamic practise in the Sudan, but thoroughly integrated with Muslim attitudes towards female sexuality. However, it is generally not enforced by men, but by women, particularly the older generations - grannies etc, who do not feel a woman is truly a woman (and therefore marriageable) until she has been properly "sealed". Even when the male relatives object, the girl may be taken off by grannies or aunties to visit relatives in the country, and come back mutilated. Altogether, female circumcision is nothing so simplistic as a tool of male oppression, or male control of female sexuality.
Second, in my opinion, there is no equivalence between male circumcision and the female variety as practised in Sudan and the Horn of Africa. Infibulation usually takes place when the girl is much older and fully conscious of what is going to happen to her. It is not just clitoridectomy. Full excision of the genitalia is common, done without anaesthetic and with primitive instruments, including broken glass; what is left can look pretty much like the sexual equipment of a Barbie doll, once the scar tissue forms. The long-term effects are dire. Sex is difficult, and childbirth dangerous and fraught with nightmarish complications. You don't want to know. Even as an anthropologist of sorts, I have to say: cultural relativism be damned, cutting the private parts off little girls is WRONG.
As for the trousers controversy - when I first started working in Sudan in the 70s, girl students working with us from the University of Khartoum would wear jeans because it was more convenient - and more modest - climbing in and out of the trenches. Even as late as 2005, when I was last there, we had a few trouser-wearing girl students. Evidently, things are getting worse. This case and that of the infamous teddy bear, are to me sobering demonstrations of how tragic it is when fundamentalism gets a good solid stranglehold on a country.
Posted by: Dan W | July 31, 2009 12:45 AM
Oh noes, a woman wearing pants! Gasp! It's clearly a sign of the apocalypse!
Dropping the sarcasm for a moment, the poll is currently at 91% saying the UN should protect the women from these barbaric sexist a$$holes in Sudan.
Posted by: B | July 31, 2009 12:45 AM
I just watched a man die from penile cancer, something circumcised men almost never get. (He was uncircumcised.) It's extremely rare in the U.S., and fairly common in countries where most men are uncircumcised. By the time the poor man died, he had a gaping hole in his body through which you could see intestines, and most of his testicles had been eaten away.
I circumcised my son, and I would do it again. He's told me he would have committed matricide if I hadn't.
Is there some sort of google alert that goes out when this subject comes up? It's like the Ron Paul thing, flights of fanatics come winging in, armed with statistics and talking points.
Oh, well, as E.V. said, this thread shouldn't have been hijacked with this. I shall follow his excellent example and bow out myself.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 12:46 AM
12th Monkey,
I hope it doesn't upset you to know that I don't have health insurance of any kind. I can't afford it. But, if I did get sick I wouldn't ask anyone to pay my debts for me. And I wouldn't be very excited if I was forced to pay yours if you got 'penis cancer'. Taxes and legislation of morality is a whole other topic. Your characterizations are funny but I'm afraid you're wasting them on the wrong person.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 31, 2009 12:47 AM
Rebecca Bradley,
Thanks for the insight into the circumstances in Sudan. I was so caught up in responding to E.V. that I forgot about the specific issue at hand.
It's absolutely awful that there are places in the world where anyone would think flogging is an appropriate punishment for anything, nevermind inappropriate dress. Cultural relativism is a useful tool for investigating other cultures, and sometimes you find out that another culture does things better than your own. It is not the same thing as saying that all cultural practices are okay.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 31, 2009 12:57 AM
Dude, you are SO twenty years ago.
Altruism is real. Generosity has been demonstrated in monkeys. We SO don't need God to know what is right and wrong.
Posted by: Captain C | July 31, 2009 12:58 AM
"There is an issue of cultural autonomy here — we have this kind of 'prime directive' mindset that we shouldn't be imperialists disrupting different societies."
Eventually, someone's going to start claiming that it's an intrinsic and essential part of Western Culture or American Culture to conquer the sh*t out of everyone else, and stopping us from doing so is awful and oppressive. That won't end well.
Posted by: 12 | July 31, 2009 1:01 AM
Coldwell #257
And your characterization of imperialist war as the only justifiable use of taxes is equally humourous to me you vile little fascist.
Posted by: The Chemist | July 31, 2009 1:11 AM
@ EV #230
I know. What are you going to do about that will
A) Be effective.
B) Not make things worse for women in the country in general.
Hmm. Nothing. Do you not understand that you might not have the context necessary to be proposing any kind of realistic solution? Hell I'm not even sure most of the commenters here know what the real problem is. You want to be outraged, fine, so am I. I was outraged when I read about it here. Before it hit the mainstream news cycle. I understand from context (there's that word again!) and actual reading (instead of knee jerk reaction to a single news source) that pants are the least of her concerns. She's a leftist reporter who's critical of the government. (To wit, she probably agrees with much of what I've been saying. Which you would know if you were familiar with leftist thought in the Arab world.)
This goes for all the keyboard warriors with weird and unrealistic schemes of air dropping panted photos. Women wear pants in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa. They have internet and satellite TV in Khartoum- they've seen it, they do it, and the simple fact that a good portion of the comments here are clueless about this from beginning to end is part of how you can only make things worse. For a group of people who like to discuss the merits of objective reality, it seems that no one here understands that working off bad assumptions and misinformation might be a bad idea.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. BACKLASH. Call it "blowback" or "unintended consequences" if you prefer. When the ICC indicted the president of Sudan, it made the situation in Darfur worse, whether or not the president deserved the indictment. This isn't about pants on women. It's about a gutsy journalist getting screwed over by an authoritarian government. That same government WILL try to deflect attention about the matter- how? By making it ABOUT pants on women. What part of that is just so hard to understand?
@ moonkitty 242,
When you live in a country that has demonstrated it's willingness to use force against other countries, has a proven track record of using intelligence services to undermine governments, and has engaged in controversial economic ties with your country- you don't get to say things to people from other countries and have them look at it as anything more than soft-spoken words with a big stick behind them. They will respond accordingly.
-------------------------------------------------
I hate these threads.
I hate these threads.
I hate these threads.
Islam threads, Middle East threads... You name it. There's also some basic fact missing from the conversation, some element (sometimes appallingly small-seeming) that's crucial to understanding things. It's less frustrating talking to God-botherers, because at least they're usually moderately stupid talking-point regurgitators. You don't expect much. What the fuck is everyone else's excuse?
If it seem I take it too personally, it's because you get to do whatever you want and forget about it as soon as it leaves the news cycle ("Michael Jackson v. Iran" anyone?). I get to see it affect people I actually know in real life. Every time I decide to wade into these threads, I always get shit on my feet, and I always get to the point where I am now, which is wondering why I bothered in the first damn place.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 31, 2009 1:16 AM
Propose? Fine. Impose? You're undoing any good you might have done.
And that is the problem with the idea that some cultures are simply better than others.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 1:27 AM
12th Monkey,
Liberating an entire country from a psychotic crime family dictatorship who treated everything and everyone around them as their private property is, in my opinion, not only justified but noble. IRAQ in one the most oil wealthy nations in the world and what does it have to show for it? The growth and stability of a huge region of the earth was stunted for decades by one man. IRAQ was a wasteland in terms of culture and infrastructure long before we arrived. Now that this regime had been removed IRAQ can know something new: progress. My vileness and fascism aside I'm going to insist that's a great use of my tax dollars if Washington continues to insist I pay them. Better that then they go to subsidizing some worthless bio-fuel or bailing out a wealthy banker.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 31, 2009 1:35 AM
B,
Wow, you're just full of useful information. The total estimated number of new penile cancer cases in the US for 2009 is only 1,290. That's according to the National Cancer Institute. The total number of deaths will be approximately 300. The USA has about 145 million males and a rough percentage of uncircumcised males is 15-20. That's from Wikipedia. So, assuming all 300 of those deaths are among uncircumcised men, there is approximately an .001% chance that an uncircumcised man will die from penile cancer this year.
In contrast, the estimated number of new breast cancer diagnoses for males, again according to the National Cancer Institute, is 1,910. Estimated number of deaths, 440. Here's the source .
Do you support radical mastectomy for all males to prevent this deadly disease? Would you have your son's breast tissue removed to mitigate the threat of this cancer?
Just because you happened to know one of the very few people who will die from penile cancer this year doesn't justify your decision to have an unnecessary surgery preformed on an infant.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 31, 2009 1:38 AM
Hmmm, Scienceblogs deleted that third link. Here's the source for breast cancer cases in the USA. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/breast
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 31, 2009 1:39 AM
The shit on your feet is called 'internet', and why you bother is how we learn. God bless you, whoever you are, and whether or not there is a God.
Posted by: Michael Meadon | July 31, 2009 1:41 AM
I'm reminded of George Bernard Shaw's fantastic quote: "Forgive him, for he is a savage and believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature."
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogfeministress | July 31, 2009 1:44 AM
Um, let's stop with the rampant generalizations. Thanks.
Look, you fucking arrogant, ignorant, oil-bloated dipshit, read and view:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/historical-issues.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159&ei=z4JySufVLpTolQeI6Mls&q=history+of+oil&hl=en
Come back when you're done. And not before.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 31, 2009 1:50 AM
SC, OM
You go! I threw up a little when I read that! Coldwell, you're a complete idiot and an arrogant jack-ass.
Posted by: moonkitty | July 31, 2009 1:59 AM
The Chemist:
"When you live in a country that has demonstrated it's willingness to use force against other countries, has a proven track record of using intelligence services to undermine governments, and has engaged in controversial economic ties with your country- you don't get to say things to people from other countries and have them look at it as anything more than soft-spoken words with a big stick behind them. They will respond accordingly."
So in other words, unless and until we live in Utopia, we don't get to express our moral outrage? OK. Guess only the politically correct-est amongst us get to say anything--and they choose to say nothing, lest they come across as tools of the big bad imperialists.
Is this about "pants on women"? Well, clearly this is about authoritarianism--but in this case, the form of authoritarianism being specifically targeted involves enforced dress codes for women. Here's what Ms. Hussein herself said:
"This is a case about annulling the article that addresses women's dress code, under the title of indecent acts. This is my battle. This article is against the constitution and even against Islamic law itself," she said after the hearing. -- (per HuffPo, which I'm sure you won't find an acceptable source, but the link you provided is in a language I neither read nor speak.)
And no, Chemist, we don't need to know the entire backstory to get behind this woman and speak out. World outrage (often directed, yes, at symbolically-loaded incidents like this one, by ordinary people who may not know the entire cultural and political context) can help to sway opinion within repressive regimes. And in any case, Ms. Hussein herself has clearly chosen to force the issue.
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 31, 2009 2:07 AM
Coldballs #264: 12th Monkey,liberating an entire country from a psychotic crime family dictatorship who treated everything and everyone around them as their private property is, in my opinion, not only justified but noble. IRAQ in one the most oil wealthy nations in the world and what does it have to show for it? The growth and stability of a huge region of the earth was stunted for decades by one man. IRAQ was a wasteland in terms of culture and infrastructure long before we arrived. Now that this regime had been removed IRAQ can know something new: progress.
Wow, you have some ignorance enhanced X-ray fish fucking power there Coldy. Under the (American supported) Hussein dictatorship Iraq was actually very productive oil-wise. It was only when Murka dipped its gold plated dick into the place that it turned into a boondoggle and shithole. As for human rights and women's rights, well it was Sadaam who educated women and sent the Jihaddis to prison or the gallows. Of course you, in your simple minded way will see this as support for Sadaam. To this I say fuck you in advance. It's an awareness of something that is beyond simple minded fish fuckers like you. Complexity. Fuck you.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 2:08 AM
SC,
I'm not completely ignorant of all the events leading up to the invasion of IRAQ going back into the 60s when the CIA propped up the Baath party. I've written a lot about that and later instances of bad decisions made by the US towards IRAQ. None of which come close to getting into the evils of the CIA. I'm aware that many of the ills facing IRAQ were a direct result of US policy. I know we propped him up and sold him weapons. I know the US is thirsty for oil. That's why I'm so relieved all that is starting to be put somewhat right with ousting of Saddam. I couldn't care less about oil except as far as keeping it out of the private control of an insane dictator. Your venom is perplexing. Seriously. I ride a bike.
Posted by: moonkitty | July 31, 2009 2:09 AM
Aratina, no need to apologize, but it was nice of you to.
I'm a noob here myself (is that what the kids say?) I love it, but wading through the comments is sooo darn time consuming; I'm not surprised you didn't obsessively read them every one. (I did, but that's only 'cause I don't have a life....) ;)
Posted by: The Chemist | July 31, 2009 2:18 AM
1. It's not about the source, it's about the completeness of the story. Huffpo is fine.
2. I shouldn't have to say this, since I thought it was clear: Be pissed off all you like. Don't. Meddle. That is all.
Posted by: 12 | July 31, 2009 2:23 AM
Coldwell ---
You seem now to backtrack from the rank idiocy of your earlier posts. Good fer yu. But seriously yu ride a bike. Fuck U.
You are an asshole. You deserve penis cancer and much worse. You further claim "I've written a lot about that and later instances of bad decisions made by the US towards IRAQ. "
Provide sources. You are complete human garbage. You vilify your fellow humans who need health care and support the vicious, immoral crusades of the rich and privileged against the poor and needy who need justice and compassion. You are garbage, you are shit. You are filth.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 2:27 AM
12th Monkey,
You're right. IRAQ was very productive oil wise. It's to bad not a single Iraqi benefited from any of it. The sham that was the Oil For Food program is well documented. Saddam was gracious enough to take the profits and build himself a presidential palace in every province of IRAQ. And he was such a humanitarian he made it his personal responsibility to wipe the Kurdish people off the face of the earth. The kind of people who like that kind of thing, like that kind of thing. I, however, like that the new President of IRAQ is a democratically elected Kurd. I don't know how to apologize for it.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogfeminister | July 31, 2009 2:33 AM
"And not before" is evidently too complex for some.
You're a first-order moron. Or that was a joke.
Either way: Next.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 31, 2009 2:38 AM
moonkitty said:
"Aratina, both XD and Sigmund have argued for the moral equivalence between FGM and male circumcision."
Lets not start spreading false accusations here.
My point is not that male circumcision is equivalent to all forms of female genital mutilation.
My point is that unlike male circumcision, which basically has one form (and which on the whole scheme of things is physically somewhat mild and non-debilitating compared to other surgeries), female genital mutilation is the name given to a wide variety of surgical procedures.
MOST of these procedures are horrifying and are far worse than anything done to males and are certainly not equivalent in any sense of the word. The disgust that people have shown in this thread regarding these treatments is entirely shared by myself.
What is purposefully being ignored by various people on this thread, however, is that there are indeed some forms of female genital mutilation that ARE equivalent to male circumcision.
Can anyone seriously argue that the removal of the clitoral hood, while leaving the clitoris intact, is not equivalent to the standard male circumcision procedure?
I find it entirely disingenuous of people to simply ignore the fact that this is the reality of many women who have undergone this procedure as children.
What I find amazing is the fact that the African woman arguing IN FAVOR of female genital mutilation of children, linked to earlier - http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090702_designer_vaginas_is_female_circumcision_coming_out_of_the_closet/
-also uses a tactic of mixing up the categories of FGM in order to excuse the more serious type.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | July 31, 2009 2:41 AM
Should we meddle? Yes. Why? Just ask yourself, do you or do you not believe in equality between boys and girls, men and women? If yes, then surely you believe in equality. Therefore you should also believe in equality between Sudanese women and Western women. You can't say that equality should be one of our ideals, then turn around and say it only applies to some women. That's racism.
Same with human rights in general. Do we believe in human rights or in the rights of people who happened to be born in the Western world?
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 31, 2009 2:44 AM
Still can't provide those sources where you criticize the US decisions regarding Iraq. This "debate" would be much easier with them. But without them I feel justified in just calling you a stupid fascist and being done with it.
By the way, just for my own moral gratification I thought I would repost this:
You are complete human garbage. You vilify your fellow humans who need health care and support the vicious, immoral crusades of the rich and privileged against the poor and needy who need justice and compassion. You are garbage, you are shit. You are filth.
And add this:
And remind everyone that this pile of shit that calls itself Coldwell doesn't think everyone should have healthcare though it does think they should have American Bomb Care if they aren't on washington's program.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 2:49 AM
12,
Not true! I haven't said anything about health care. Only how I want to see my own money spent. As I said before taxes and legislation of morality is a different topic. There's a lot more to that argument. Like how the government spends money, the size of government, and its cost to operate it, other forms of income available to government other then taxes, social quirks like America's love affair with fast food. Justice and compassion are marks of civilization just as I was saying earlier about having a moral compass and proportionality to punishment being similar markers. I think people are good. That's way I don't believe in taking money by force nor would I myself take something that belongs to someone else by force. "As I would not be a slave I would not be a master." The Golden Rule. etc. I think when they say you can judge a civilization by how it treats its sick, poor, and elderly their right. But, I don't know what that has to do with what you're saying about crusades. I don't think rich people are evil. And I don't think that all poor people are good. And I insist that I'm not backtracking from anything I've said earlier. I think that was just you assuming certain things about me from my stance on one issue.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogfeminister | July 31, 2009 2:51 AM
Define "we."
Define "meddle."
Explain your concrete plan and the reasoning behind it.
Much appreciated.
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 31, 2009 3:01 AM
#Coldwell #282: I don't think rich people are evil. And I don't think that all poor people are good
The rich are not good, the poor are not evil. All are corruptible. Once you penetrate the mythology that the rich perpetrate you realize that most make their money the old fashioned way - they inherit it. Wealth is a hereditary aristocracy. The poor are not good, the rich are not evil, but it remains to be seen who, in every generation, truly deserves privelege. As far as health care goes - all deserve it as a right of citizenship.
Posted by: moonkitty | July 31, 2009 3:20 AM
Chemist,
Since I clearly defined "meddling" as speaking out, your order (how very authoritarian of you) to "not meddle" (no need to shout, C) translates into: don't say anything.
"But Hussein and two other women decided they wanted to go to trial and Hussein invited human rights workers, western diplomats and fellow journalists to Wednesday's hearing." (From the Huffpo article I quoted earlier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/lubna-hussein-pants-trial_n_246901.html)
Kinda sounds to me like the lady herself wants people to "meddle".
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 3:21 AM
12th Monkey,
I'm sorry, but like so many things today I'm going to have to disagree with you. I wouldn't say health care is any kind of right. Let me explain that before your head explodes. I think people do have some rights. Like a right to their life, a right to their property and the fruits of their labor. But I don't think you have a right to someone else's productive services. You don't have a right to someones else's labor. Doctors, teachers, and people of any other profession are not obligated to provide anything under someone else's terms. I think we agree on the over arching health care issue, though. This is all semantics. Sorry if I'm so libertarian about it.
Posted by: 12 | July 31, 2009 3:31 AM
Doctors, teachers, and people of any other profession are not obligated to provide anything under someone else's terms
Well,they absolutely are if they intend to be effective. Their professional licenses demand that they are.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 3:39 AM
12th Monkey,
Right. If their not effective people go somewhere else. Thats kind of the point. I wish you would sotp trying to end your posts with these cute one liners. It makes is hard to grab onto anything. "Their professional licenses demand that they are." is quite simply a true statement. Is it really worth saying?
Citizen of the Cosmos,
I agree with you completely. Either you believe in these ideas of equality or you just pay lip service to them and they go out the window when you're talking about someone far far away.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | July 31, 2009 3:44 AM
No, I don't have a concrete plan for how to promote good ideals throughout the world.
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 31, 2009 3:48 AM
Coldwell: Doctors, teachers, and people of any other profession are not obligated to provide anything under someone else's terms
Yes, they are asshole. We trined them using medical knowledge that is the common property of all mankind, The sad side effect is that even propertarian fascists like you can benefit. You are filth.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | July 31, 2009 3:53 AM
Coldwell,
It just astounds me that people who are otherwise anti-racists or feminists can actually say that women's rights do not apply to women who were born in societies where they have no equality. But surely that's where it's needed the most. People who think that human rights are only for us and not for people who were born somewhere else are selfish, racist and in some cases anti-women's rights.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 31, 2009 3:54 AM
aratina:
Just to be clear, I never meant to suggest that anyone was intentionally downplaying the barbarity of FGM; only that introducing the issue of male circumcision had the (presumably unintended) effect of doing so.
As for asserting moral equivalence, as you implicitly point out, it's easy to seem like you're doing that even if you don't mean to. But others in the thread clearly did mean to: The whole point of the analogy @208 was to suggest that FGM and male circumcision differed only in degree of severity, and Nanu Nanu says that explicitly just a couple posts later.
I actually agree with #208 that a single slap in the face is essentially just a less severe instance of the same crime as beating someone half to death... but I disagree that that's an apt analogy for this conversation. Let's do a thought experiment:
Imagine two different rooms, in each of which is a mother, a small child, and a third person engaged in driving sharp objects through the child's earlobes. The difference is, in one case the holes are being made at the mother's request, for the purpose of decorating the child's ears with jewelry; in the other, the mother and child are present against their wills, and the third person is intentionally inflicting pain on the child for the purpose of coercing the mother into revealing some secret information.
These two acts are physically nearly identical — much more similar than male circumcision and FGM — but the former (i.e., ear piercing) is consensual (at least on the part of the mother), legal, and commonplace, while the latter is by definition torture, and a crime against humanity.
Now, there's a perfectly good argument to be had about the morality of getting a child's ears pierced. Some might argue (and I might not disagree) that it's cruel, unnecessary, even mutilation... but that whole argument is entirely irrelevant to a conversation about torture. The two acts differ in kind rather than merely in degree, regardless of their physical similarities, and talking about the two together risks muddling the issue.
That's really all I've ever been trying to say about this. Sorry if I got a bit aggressive about it at moments.
Rebecca Bradley:
Thanks for the very interesting post @254. One question (and it really is a question, not an argument in question's clothing):
I knew, of course, that FGM was often enforced by women (hence my several references to mothers and grandmothers), but I had taken that as evidence of how deeply embedded, and thoroughly internalized, were attitudes about female sexuality that I took to be fundamentally patriarchal at their core. I know cultural patterns like this are never truly simple enough to sum up in a sentence, but do you not think the desire to blunt and control female sexuality is inherently patriarchal, regardless of whose hand is holding the shard of glass?
I've always thought this was yet another case of Men Being Assholes® (even if it was manifested in women doing their dirty work); honestly, speaking as a person of the male persuasion myself, it would be something of a minor relief to learn it wasn't that simple.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 4:01 AM
12th Monkey,
What you just said would make perfect sense if extensive medical training was completely free. People who go to medical school sometimes get scholarships, federal money, or they were lucky enough to inherit a lot of money and pay their own way. And then these evil rich oppressors turn around and treat poor less fortunate people. Or.. They go out and treat other rich people. The horror.... the horror...
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 4:02 AM
You're right. IRAQ was very productive oil wise. It's to bad not a single Iraqi benefited from any of it. - coldwell
You're either a liar or just ignorant - probably both since you're a "libertarian". While Iraq under Saddam and his Ba'ath predecessor was a dictatorship, until the war with Iran Iraqi standards of living, healthcare and education improved enormously, largely thanks to oil revenues due to the nationalisation of the oil industry.
Posted by: maureen Brian
|
July 31, 2009 4:03 AM
I wish I believed in a god so that I could swear at her. I just woke up here to a disproportionate amount of rubbish and too few talking sense.
My thoughts for the day is simple. Could we not simply express verbal support for Lubna al-Hussein - who sounds well able to look after herself - and just get on with those things which we can understand and which we can do something about?
Persons with brain cells to spare have any number of interesting topics to research and then come back with evidence. For instance there is some evidence on health benefits of male circumcision but not nearly enough to base a plan for world government upon.
Others may have the knowledge to discuss whether the rights of women in Iraq were better protected under Saddam before the Iran-Iraq war - and who funded it anyway? - or under the occupation.
Philosophers might want to explain why after 61 years many Palestinians are still living in refugee camps - which then get bombed.
Not you, SC, you're over-qualified! I'm off to Yarn Harlot until this thread shows signs of sanity.
Posted by: moonkitty | July 31, 2009 4:11 AM
Sigmund, I apologize if I mischaracterized your position. However, I don't think anybody is "ignoring" the fact that the mildest form of FGM may be analogous to male circumcision. I have simply not heard much about it, nor have I found anything on the web so far to suggest that that particular practice is as widespread as you say:
"Sunna circumcision refers to the practice of letting a small amount of blood from the clitoral hood or removing sections of the clitoral hood. This is not a widely practiced type of circumcision and is confined primarily to sections of Malaysia. Sunna circumcision is the closest analogue to male circumcision, although the delicate nature of the operation increases chances of surgical error." (Italics added by me).
http://family.jrank.org/pages/265/Circumcision-Female-Circumcision.html#ixzz0Mowy3nUB
Please note that the above may still be misleading in comparing "Sunna" or type I style FGM to male circumcision, since practices referred to as "Sunna" also may include clitoridectomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
But all this is off-topic, and it's getting late. I promise not to comment any more on this subject.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 4:22 AM
Citizen of the Cosmos,
I don't know if I would go so far as to call anyone a racist. I think a lot of people really do think that a more subtle approach is more effective in the long run. They would say their trying to win hearts and minds or that their looking at the bigger cultural picture. Its a contest of ideas. I don't see the point in being culturally sensitive. I don't care if we win hearts and minds in the long run. I don't really care about insulting everyone. I'm sure we've all collectively agreed not to tip toe around religion. Why do it around another culture? What their doing is insane and I don't think its completely unrelated to her writings. I liked what Bill Dauphin saidearlier: "What example do you have in mind? Not beating our women half to death for wearing pants? Aren't we already doing that? And has it had any noticeable effect on Sudanese law to date?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 31, 2009 4:30 AM
Coldwell, like other looneytarians, doesn't want his tax money providing services for other people. He subscribes to the looneytarian ideal: "I got mine, fuck you."
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 4:36 AM
Knockgoats,
So the annexation of Kuwait was a humanitarian move to bring more people under the sheltering umbrella of the IRAQ health care system? Was the Anfel campaign supposed to make a little more breathing space for IRAQ's overpopulated masses? Were the 18 palaces Saddam built for himself actually homeless shelters? Were all the nerve gas canisters let loose as IRAQ was withdrawaling from IRAN supposed to be filled with glitter? I had no idea Saddam was such a great guy. I was wondering why you all seem to like him so much.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 4:52 AM
'Tis Himself,
Not at all Mr. 'senior executive for a largish company'. Theres nothing about being a libritarian that requires being selfish. In a sense, you're right. I don't want my tax dollars providing services for any one else. Because, I have no say in what those services are. You have to understand where I'm coming from a little bit. In some small way wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing you're tax dollars weren't providing carpet bombing services in two wars on the other side of the world? If you're anti-war wouldn't you rather just pay a state tax so your money benefits your locality and your government can't fund a war? Look, we send all our money over to Washington in a big pile. Then we fight over it. And none of it goes where we want anyway.
Posted by: Rick R | July 31, 2009 4:56 AM
"Theres nothing about being a libritarian that requires being selfish."
Jaw, meet lap.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 31, 2009 4:58 AM
moonkitty,
Actually, it's almost universal in Indonesia. See also here. (Research on its prevalence in Indonesia wasn't done until fairly recently.)
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 5:15 AM
So the annexation of Kuwait was a humanitarian move to bring more people under the sheltering umbrella of the IRAQ health care system?... I had no idea Saddam was such a great guy. I was wondering why you all seem to like him so much. - coldwell
You are shamelessly dishonest. You made a false statement; I called you on it. Your response is to claim that I'm a supporter of Saddam. Why not just have the honesty to admit you were wrong?
Posted by: Sigmund | July 31, 2009 5:15 AM
moonkitty, I didn't actually make any claims about whether the analogous type of genital mutilation is widespread or not.
To be specific here we are talking about type 1a FGM.
Its difficult to get exact figures for its prevalence since it is usually grouped together with type 1b (which involves complete or partial clitorectomy and is thus 1b is certainly not equivalent to the male procedure).
I would, however, point out that you are incorrect in the description of Sunna circumcision. 'Sunna' is an arabic expression meaning 'tradition'. In connection with FGM it is most often used to mean type 1 (both 1a and 1b) procedures and as such is widely practiced in Africa and the middle east.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 5:41 AM
Knockgoats,
I didn't make any false statements. When you say 'improved enormously' what are you comparing it to? The Iraqi people did get a few kick backs when the pressure was on from the US or the UN. But, the dear leader giving his subjects enough to prolong their torment doesn't sound like a benefit to me. If you really want to argue semantics then you could read it as, 'Iraqis saw no significant portion of the oil money to improve their culture, infrastructure, or standing in the world.' or whatever. I would not call the minuscule amount they got of it a benefit so I stand by what I said. I was also trying to point out that its not the only issue. And lets say, hypothetically, that I was wrong, or ignorant, or I intentionally lied. So what if IRAQ had the best health care system in the world? Their leader was still a genocidal maniac provoking his neighbors, annexing small territories, executing opposition, and using WMDs as he was RETREATING from Iran. I really feel like you picking this one thing out and obsessing over it is tantamount to picking out someones spelling or grammar mistakes (which we all make a ton of) and continually bringing it up as if its an argument.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 6:08 AM
I didn't make any false statements. When you say 'improved enormously' what are you comparing it to? coldwell
Yes you did: "IRAQ was very productive oil wise. It's to bad not a single Iraqi benefited from any of it."
That's either ignorant or a lie, as I said. It is not controversial among those with any actual knowledge of the area that prior to the attack on Iran (and to some extent even after that), Iraq had one of the best health and education systems in the Arab world, immensely improved (along iwth the general standard of living) from when the Ba'ath Party seized power, through the use of oil revenues. This was clear in my earlier comment, but like the dishonest shit you are, you simply ignored it, and falsely accused me of supporting Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 6:57 AM
Knockgoats,
There's so much sarcasm and personal attacks going around I thought I'd embellish a little. I didn't realize your pride was so paper thin. You must go around calling people 'dishonest dipshits' so often that you hardly notice. I thought you could dish in AND take it. I'm sorry I hurt your little feelings. Just tell me where to mail the cookies and milk. I feel like to answer you I would just have to repeat myself. When you say best health care and education system in the Arab world what does that mean? I don't think an education system muddled with Ba'athist ideology is very beneficial. Could we discus the standards of living, health care, and education for the Iraqi Kurds and what benefits they got? Does everyone forget about them? No one living above those oil wells got as much out of it as Saddam did. Baghdad could have been paved in gold on a whim but that was reserved for the presidential palaces. What Iraqis got out if it was minuscule. It was the bear minimum amount that it would take to make the state function to the Party's ends. I hate to repeat myself but I'll say that all again if you really insist.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 6:58 AM
Coldwell,
Would you care to explain why the excuse to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein was not that it was an opressive regime but that the regime supposedly still possessed WMD's ?
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 7:10 AM
Coldwell,
When you say best health care and education system in the Arab world what does that mean?
Based on life expectancy, the number of doctors and hospitals, infant mortality, literacy rates - especially for women. All these improved. You made a false and stupid claim, I called you on it, you proceeded to make unfounded accusations against me. You're a lying shitbag.
Posted by: Cimurdain | July 31, 2009 7:27 AM
Coldwell, KG's tantrums can be a little tiresome, I agree.
A quick scan reveals the usual moral-equivalence nellies out in full force. Anyone who thinks that Islam and Christianity are comparable should have to wander around for a day with a sign denouncing Christ and Christianity, and then for a day with one denouncing Muhammad and Islam. We'd get the results from their next of kin.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 7:31 AM
Kg,
And don't forget: Saddam made the trains run on time! Dammit, I agree with you for once. Back in good ol' uncle Adolph's days, why, we ne'er had ta worry about poor health care, or lousy road systems... 'Course, it t'was a bit rough on all them fellars that got gassed...
And, yes, the parallel is exact here.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 7:51 AM
Cimourdain,
Your disdain for the truth has been made clear repeatedly. Unlike you, I consider that it's important, even when considering the record of an evil tyrant like Saddam or Hitler. For one thing, if you pretend no-one but the dictator benefited from their rule, you cannot understand how it was they remained in power. But I appreciate this will be far too sophisticated an idea for either you or coldwell to grasp.
Incidentally, Saddam was also a secularist, under whom women were far freer to dress as they liked and pursue professions than they are now in most parts of Iraq, and the mullahs had almost no power or influence.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 7:56 AM
Knockgoats,
If you're the kind of person who thinks being given the bare minimum to run as a coherent state to be used as a means to an end for a single dictator is a benefit then you're the kind of person who thinks thats a benefit and there's nothing I can do to help you. If that's your idea of calling someone out then please do it more often. I like typing the same thing over and over again. I stand by my claim. If you're still upset about my unfounded personal attacks in which I never named you then tell me where you live and I'll call and whhhhaaambulance.
Matt Penfold,
We went into IRAQ to enforce UN resolutions that were not being complied with. On the point about WMDs, we knew he had used them before, and that he couldn't account for the ones he said he had. Iraq has also violated every significant resolution passed by the UN. For example, The Genocide Convention, and the non-proliferation treaty.
Guys, I could do this all day but I think its gotten off to a terrible tangent. Your acting like this is the first time you've argued with someone who thinks some people, especially insane people just shouldn't be allowed to have sole control of an oil rich country and subjugate its people for their own whims. Can't we focus on our commonalities? Like Lubna Hussein shouldn't be lashed for wearing pants?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 7:58 AM
I would also add that if the case is to be made for overthrowing oppresive regimes a fair bit of explaning is needed as to why Iraq was the country chosen. Yes it was an oppresive regime, but there were, and still are, worse regimes.
Burma would have been a more appropriate chose.
Posted by: XD | July 31, 2009 7:59 AM
From the pdf in #302
As it was the medicalization of MGM in the U.S. which led to it becoming an largely unquestioned ritual, you can understand the WHO's concern.
Posted by: Matt | July 31, 2009 8:01 AM
Coldwell,
You have not answered my question. If you cannot do so, just say.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 8:04 AM
If you're still upset about my unfounded personal attacks in which I never named you - coldwell
A barefaced lie: #299 was directly addressed to me. By the way, I'm not in the least upset - I just enjoy pointing out that liars like you are liars.
We went into IRAQ to enforce UN resolutions that were not being complied with. - coldwell
Another barefaced lie, as evidenced by Alan Greenspan and Paul Wolfowitz.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 8:04 AM
Fixed.
We didn't go there to take the oil but we sure went there to make sure he didn't have control of it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 8:08 AM
"Your acting like this is the first time you've argued with someone who thinks some people, especially insane people just shouldn't be allowed to have sole control of an oil rich country and subjugate its people for their own whims."
Well at least he admits it was about oil. Parsing that sentence you get the impression he would not be worried has Iraq not had oil.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 8:14 AM
"Your acting like this is the first time you've argued with someone who thinks some people, especially insane people just shouldn't be allowed to have sole control of an oil rich country and subjugate its people for their own whims." - coldwell
No, actually we're acting like this is the thousandth time we've argued with arseholes who parrot neocon lies.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 8:22 AM
Knockgoats,
Oh, c'mon. Do you even listen to yourself? Saddam had the manpower and the military muscle to wipe out 100,000 of his own people and bury them. Do I really need to think long and hard about how he managed to stay in power? And whats this about #299? I see some sarcasm, some opinion, a lot of facts. No lies. Must be a typo on your part? I'm glad to see I've been downgraded from 'dishonest dipshit' to 'liar' in any case.
Matt,
I tried to tell you. We went to enforce UN resolutions. I guess I disagree with the premise of your question. Its like asking me 'How do feel that Jesus died for your sins?' I don't believe it in the first place.
Rev. BigDumbChimp,
I don't disagree with that statement at all.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 8:24 AM
"I tried to tell you. We went to enforce UN resolutions. I guess I disagree with the premise of your question. Its like asking me 'How do feel that Jesus died for your sins?' I don't believe it in the first place."
No, you told us it was about removing Saddam.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 31, 2009 8:29 AM
Just adding my endorsement of the video SC linked, Robert Newman's History of Oil. It's a stand-up comedy (of sorts) looking at western intervention in the middle east, and related issues. Well worth watching
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159&ei=z4JySufVLpTolQeI6Mls&q=history+of+oil&hl=en
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 8:32 AM
Do I really need to think long and hard about how he managed to stay in power? - coldwell
It's quite clear you're incapable of thinking much about anything. Your original falsehood was that no-one but Saddam benefited from the oil revenues. Now if we want to understand how he stayed in power, we need to understand why his generals mostly remained loyal, why his troops did not desert, why the middle class did not flee the country in larger numbers than they did, why both Talabani and Barzani were at different stages prepared to cut deals with him, why the economy and social structures did not collapse. If we start the analysis with stupid falsehoods, we've already failed.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 8:33 AM
Knockgoats,
Are you saying that the anfal campaign, the annexation of Kuwait, the war with Iran, and Saddam's liberal use of WMDs on civilians are all noecon inventions? I'm pretty sure that all really happened.
Matt,
You're right. Because he wasn't complying with UN resolutions. If Saddam didn't have a vast amount of oil wealth to wield to his own ends we couldn all have been a lot less worried. Iran and Kuwait could have been a lot less worried. I don't know why you would think that a controversial thing to say.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 8:43 AM
"You're right. Because he wasn't complying with UN resolutions. If Saddam didn't have a vast amount of oil wealth to wield to his own ends we couldn all have been a lot less worried. Iran and Kuwait could have been a lot less worried. I don't know why you would think that a controversial thing to say."
Earlier you saying invading Iraw was the right thing because it was an oppresive regime. Now you are saying it was becuase he did not comply with US resolutions. Lets leave aside the inspections that were taking place right upto the the time of the invasion (and which were not finding the stuff the Americans said was there) and just get to clarify which is your argument.
If you want to claim it was because it was an oppresive regime you also need to explain why Iraq was chosen over say Burma.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 8:45 AM
Knockgoats,
Zing! I should have seen that one coming. Iraq was a hard country to get in or out of. Just ask the Kurds. It doesn't surprised me that anyone in the military would be loyal. Their the ones who got the best deal. You don't give the people in charge of keeping you in charge scraps. There's also advantages that your social and economic structures don't collapse because then you don't have a country to run. Every one in a high place in government was either family or a close friend. You have easily called Iraq Saddam INC.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 8:48 AM
Are you saying that the anfal campaign, the annexation of Kuwait, the war with Iran, and Saddam's liberal use of WMDs on civilians are all noecon inventions? - coldwell
No, moron. I'm saying the claims that the invasion was "to enforce UN resolutions" and was about WMDs are neocon lies. Greenspan made this clear by publicly admitting that the war was about oil; Wolfowitz by saying that the WMD justification was just something everyone could agree on. Moreover, the conduct of the invasion made it quite clear the invaders did not expect to be attacked with chemical weapons; if they had, they would never have dared to mass troops in Kuwait or Cyprus.
Of course, right up to the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was regarded as "our son of a bitch" by successive US administrations, despite them knowing all about his mass murders and use of chemical weapons. Those involved in supplying and supporting him include some of the most prominent neocons: Cheney and Rumsfeld. You think they suddenly had a change of heart?
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 8:57 AM
It doesn't surprised me that anyone in the military would be loyal. Their the ones who got the best deal. You don't give the people in charge of keeping you in charge scraps. There's also advantages that your social and economic structures don't collapse because then you don't have a country to run. - coldwell
Your starting point was that no-one apart from Saddam benefited from the oil revenues. Glad to see we've got past that. Now, do you think you might just manage to grasp, given what you've said above about having a country to run, that a healthy and literate population might be advantageous to a dictator wanting to build up a powerful country? And that if he provides facilities that make that possible, a lot of people will inevitably benefit from them?
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 8:59 AM
Matt,
Of course! I knew I forgot something. As for Burma. Iraq was the only dictatorship guilty of violated many major UN resolutions multiple times. Not even Burma could stack up. What I'm hearing from you is that since we can't go everywhere and do everything perfectly all the time we shouldn't even start the project. I'd have to disagree. If you have to start somewhere you might at well start with the worst. It was Iraq. I'm not shifting on anything. I'm telling you why I'm glad Saddam is not longer in power regardless of whatever the official reasons given. If the CEO of Haliburton got on TV and said we should go to war with Iraq because he needed a new Bentley, I'm sorry, I'd still be all for it. Because we needed to fix out past wrongs in that region. Yes. I think Saddam was THAT bad.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 9:11 AM
Coldwell,
Earlier you were arguing that invading Iraq was justified becuase it was an oppresive regime.
It was an opresive regime, but it was not the worst around. Burma was, and still is, far more oppresive and yet there has not been any talk about forcing regime change in that country. What I take from that is talk about invading Iraq on humanitarian grounds is bullshit. You have even stated the reason yourself:
"Your acting like this is the first time you've argued with someone who thinks some people, especially insane people just shouldn't be allowed to have sole control of an oil rich country and subjugate its people for their own whims."
What does oil have to do with it ?
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 9:11 AM
Knockgoats,
Yes. That was my starting point. Its also my ending point and my thesis if you like. I'm going to say this again because I know you enjoy reading it by now. Providing the minimum amount you're required to a population in so far that you can used them as an approximation of cattle is not something I would call a benefit. You might. And if you do you're welcome. But, it's like saying North Koreans benefit from the scraps they get to eat. I guess its beneficial. I GUESS. In some way that I can't see.I mean, its something. Sort of.
Posted by: Walton | July 31, 2009 9:15 AM
This is an interesting point, but I think it's necessary to consider it in historical context.
Christianity has existed for, roughly, 400 years longer than Islam. Think back to the condition of Christianity 400 years ago. Theocracy was the norm; those whose beliefs deviated from whatever happened to be the local state-sanctioned dogma were often tortured or burned alive. The state's right to enforce religious "moral values" - including patriarchy and the oppression of women - was rarely questioned.
This, of course, is more or less the condition which prevails in many Islamic countries today. But as modern education becomes more widespread in these countries, and ideas of secularism and democracy take root as they did in the West, we can hope that things will get better.
What we certainly shouldn't do is use the dangers of radical Islam as a pretext for anti-immigrant hysteria. I believe in free movement across borders as a matter of principle; and I would point out that Western radical nationalism is at least as harmful a political force as Islamism. (In my own country, recent race riots in Northern Ireland led to numerous deaths.)
Besides, it's a mistake to disregard the nasty elements still existing in Christianity; the various loony fundamentalist churches, and their continuing influence on politics in the US and other countries, is one of the many forces for evil in the world today. And reactionary Catholics still have enough influence to dissuade many people in the developing world from using contraception, contributing unnecessarily to the spread of HIV.
On the topic of the Iraq war: I agree in principle that, Saddam being an evil piece of shit and a mass murderer, removing him was certainly a morally justifiable act. But do bear in mind that the US and NATO cannot single-handedly bring freedom and justice to the whole globe; to believe so is naive idealism. By removing Saddam, we've actually done a lot of damage in some respects, by strengthening the hand of Muslim fundamentalist groups who have now gained much more power in Iraq. So, while morally laudable in principle, the action was poorly-thought-out IMO.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 9:17 AM
I'm glad Saddam is not longer in power
As, of course, is everyone else involved in this discussion. The question is the cost - in terms of hundreds of thousands of mostly Iraqi lives, around 4 million displaced, vast destruction of infrastructure and cultural heritage, greatly increased power for the religious bigots over women's lives. Then of course there's the opportunity cost: the same amount of money and effort would have relieved far more human suffering if used to fund health and education programmes in Africa, or if you insist on a military use, intervening in the DRC.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 9:23 AM
Matt,
Oil has a lot to do with it. You can't run a despotism, wage war for decades, and kill 100,000 of your own people with happy thoughts. You have to power that economic machine somehow. In Iraq's case it was oil. If Iraq was not as oil rich nation Saddam couldn't have done what he did for as long as he did. So we removed him from the equation. Now the President of Iraq is a democratically elected Kurd who probably doesn't need to build himself a palace in every province. I'd call that a step forward. And I really just have to disagree with you about Burma.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 9:30 AM
Yes. That was my starting point. Its also my ending point and my thesis if you like. - coldwell
No, a thesis has to say something at least minimally rational. If at one point you're living under a dictatorship with poor health and education facilities, then the dictator, using oil revenues, provides better ones while remaining a dictator, that's a benefit for you from the oil revenues.
Posted by: matt@dandderwen.co.uk | July 31, 2009 9:31 AM
Coldwell,
Strange sense of morality you have.
Posted by: windy | July 31, 2009 9:31 AM
At least now the Kurds are free to use their oil as they wish... oh, wait.
"Iraq’s Kurdish leaders are pushing ahead with a new constitution for their semiautonomous region, a step that has alarmed Iraqi and American officials who fear that the move poses a new threat to the country’s unity."
"American diplomatic and military officials have said the potential for a confrontation with the Kurds has emerged as a threat as worrisome to Iraq’s fate as the remnants of the insurgency."
So, now they are a THREAT. Nice work there.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 9:32 AM
KG,
As I recall, Christopher Hitchens said that there are two things that people say when they know nothing about Iraq. Neither know nor care. The first is to say that Saddam was a secularist. The second is to say "yeah, Saddam was a bad guy".
So, you're an Islamapologist and a Saddam snuggler. Lovely.
Posted by: Coldwell
|
July 31, 2009 9:33 AM
Knockgoats,
I can only agree with you. This war was orchestrated by a criminally negligent administration who seemed to falter at every turn. The costs have sky rocketed, and we've been there far to long. The CIA should not have gotten involved in the first place. We should have backed up the Kurds when we said we would instead of abandoning them. But I'm going to have to insist that despite all of that the US intervention in Iraq was the finest example in American statecraft in a long time. There. I said it. I don't really think I need to say anything else.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 9:37 AM
I was responding to your naturalistic fallacy. Exactly how much lubrication does an uncut penis provide exactly?
Yeah, it's a bitch about how inefficiently designed we are... oh wait! We aren't designed. There's that "nature is always right" naturalism fallacy again. Are you claiming Uncircumcised males are protected from this? Uncut penises are not the equivalent of slime eels and as a male, hell, as any male who is not so sexually repressed as to cease from any masturbatory practice knows that lack of lube = friction burns - we as owners of the apparatus know this out of hand, so to speak regardless of foreskin or the lack thereof. We know, we have first hand experience. Evidently your reading comprehension skills have been compromised since I wrote, "I personally know of 2 incidents, which I do realize is a very insignificant number in the grand scheme of things. (i.e. -anecdotal and too small a sample for scientific evidence) Again, you seem to have chosen to elevate some weird attack against my mainly tongue in cheek posts from some emotional response to culturalism/naturalism and then blame me for distracting you from the issues of the thread which I repeatedly tried to circumvent by urging one and all to drop the whole cut dick crap for this thread. Sheesh. You're provoking a battle I want no part of. If you like 'em uncut - go for it; I'm not advocating global bris campaigns. I have no animosity toward you Pygmy, so let's let this cut/uncut yaya-ing finally drop.
We now return you to our current Saddam Hussein:Killed for his Evil Deeds or for the Oil; plus the Attendant Rewriting of History by Conservatives and/or Liberals.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 31, 2009 9:46 AM
I like how Christians set such high standards for themselves. 'Compared to those religious fanatics, who will kill blasphemers, we ain't so bad!'
This has more to do with culture than religion. Five centuries ago denouncing Christianity in Europe would have gotten you killed.
_ _ _
As for Iraq, two questions:
1) If the Bush administration was really serious about democracy in Iraq why not provide support for the Iraqis in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and let them set up their own government instead of invading the country?
2) If the Bush administration wanted to spread democracy in the Middle East why did they ally themselves with the Saudi regime, which violates human rights, treats women as second class citizens and is anything but democratic?
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 9:52 AM
So, you're an Islamapologist and a Saddam snuggler. - Cimourdain
I'm neither of course. Hitchens is a neocon apologist. And you're still a lying scumbag.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 9:55 AM
"If the Bush administration wanted to spread democracy in the Middle East why did they ally themselves with the Saudi regime, which violates human rights, treats women as second class citizens and is anything but democratic?"
This is key, and gives the lie to those who would claim the invasion of Iraq had any moral or ethical dimension.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 31, 2009 9:56 AM
"...As for Burma. Iraq was the only dictatorship guilty of violated many major UN resolutions multiple times..."
I feel I should note the unbelievable irony of the individual that holds that because Saddam violated UN resolutions, that was the reason to go. Many of the people who made such arguments prior to invading are the same people who have, before and since, decried the UN as an international intelligentsia subverting America's sovereignty. Israel has violated many UN resolutions, yet nobody would even suggest invading Israel. We ourselves hold out on specific UN resolutions we don't like. Nobody here or nearly anywhere would suggest we deserve to be invaded because of it (regardless of the fact that we created the UN). The argument that Saddam violated weapons resolutions, and was consistently found to not have anything (indeed having complied with some of them) was, is, and always shall be, a very thin PR veil under which to attempt to justify the reasons for invading. History has already proven us wrong, but it's not as if nobody could have seen it coming. We chose to ignore the evidence.
"...Not even Burma could stack up. What I'm hearing from you is that since we can't go everywhere and do everything perfectly all the time we shouldn't even start the project. I'd have to disagree..."
And what measuring stick are you using to conclude "Not even Burma could stack up"? You could probably count on two hands the Americans that knew what was happening in Burma in 2002. And two of those people would have been Walter Koenig and his son, who've been activists for the Burmese people for quite some time. Iraq was about oil and profit,, and avenging daddy. Whatever gloss you try to put on it to convince yourself invading was right will still be wrong. Saddam threatened nobody in any major sense. The claims that Saddam financed suicide bombers is, while true, still highly ignorant of the fact that people we call our friends in the ME (namely the oppressive Saudis, who also have oil) financed Palestinian suicide bombers as well. As far as that is concerned, Saddam was no worse that a Saudi prince or a Syrian government providing a little hush-hush money for proxy wars.
"...If you have to start somewhere you might at well start with the worst. It was Iraq. I'm not shifting on anything. I'm telling you why I'm glad Saddam is not longer in power regardless of whatever the official reasons given..."
Iraq was far from the worst. Nobody ever mentions the sort of dictatorial hole a place like Kazakhstan is. Or, indeed, many places on the Eurasian continent, or in Africa. The war justification was and remains to this day about resources. It has nothing to do with freedom and liberty. Those are merely bi-products that our former leaders admit they never planned for, they just liked saying the words a lot because it scored cheap political points. The oft-used "I'm glad Saddam is out of power" is typically a loaded expression meant to imply anyone saying we shouldn't have gone to Iraq is an America-hating hippy who wants to farm fresh roses every day. It's intentionally and arrogantly denialist of the fact that nobody would ever seriously argue keeping any dictator in power was a good thing. The cost issue was, and remains, the lasting legacy of the second war in Iraq. It's a legacy those of us alive now may never know the final effects of. I'm glad to see Saddam gone too. But it's entirely beside the point, and you can't use that as a justification for the worst military planning in American history, most of all for the intentionality and mendacity with which any planning was looked down upon.
"...If the CEO of Halliburton got on TV and said we should go to war with Iraq because he needed a new Bentley, I'm sorry, I'd still be all for it. Because we needed to fix out past wrongs in that region. Yes. I think Saddam was THAT bad."
Then don't complain if I think your way of thinking lead to the needless deaths and permanent injuries of thousands of American service people. And that's without taking into account the $1+ trillion of national treasure we'll have used to do it, all with a very milquetoast result compared to the historic victories and successes we had in say, WW2. But that's the difference between clear thinking and that of the vengeful mind drunk on American self-interest. If I heard the CEO of Halliburton on TV saying we needed to invade because he wants a car, I'd tell him to go fuck himself. In fact, I would even go so far as to say he can show up to the closest Air Force base, we'll supply him with a pistol and an M4A1, and priomptly drop his fat ass over Iraq so he can go get his Bentley himself.
I notice also how you stated that. You said "...we should go to war with Iraq..." With Iraq indeed. I thought this was about Saddam, not the people of Iraq. So what is your position? And you do realize that "past wrongs" would not have occurred if we did not subvert their free elections in the 70s and place Saddam in charge, right? That's an awfully nice back door you have there, basically justifying abusing the sovereignty of other nations so we can right our past wrongs (which should never have been committed in the first place...see what overly misplaced fear of communism gets you 30 years later). When exactly will that back door close? After all, we are America. We spend 50-60% of our GDP on defense every year. We should be able to do anything we want if we put our minds to it.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 10:03 AM
#345:
Spot on.
Posted by: Walton | July 31, 2009 10:07 AM
You what?! No you don't. Not even close. A country which spent 60% of its GDP on defence would be bankrupt and starving. As of 2005, the CIA World Factbook showed that US spending on defence amounted to about 4% of GDP (which is nowhere near the highest proportion in the world, incidentally.)
Perhaps you meant 60% of government spending. But even that isn't accurate. In the 2008 fiscal year, the US federal government spent $613 billion on defence, which constituted 21% of total federal spending. (This was a similar amount to that spent on Social Security for the year, and slightly less than that spent on Medicare and Medicaid.)
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 10:07 AM
And you do realize that "past wrongs" would not have occurred if we did not subvert their free elections in the 70s and place Saddam in charge, right? - Feynmaniac
You got that wrong, Feynmaniac. The Ba'ath Party seized power in 1968 (they had been briefly in power after an earlier coup in 1963). Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr was formally the President until 1979, but Saddam Hussein was the effective ruler as VP.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 31, 2009 10:16 AM
Coldwell,
You do realize that the US supported Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war in the form of billions of dollars and weaponry? The US even helped prevent the UN from condemning Saddam on using chemical weapons on Iran.
KG,
I didn't write what you quoted, BlueIndependent did.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 10:25 AM
Feynmaniac,
Profuse apologies!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 31, 2009 10:35 AM
KG,
No worries, :)
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 31, 2009 11:11 AM
Sorry, I did mean to say federal spending. But 21%? Uh, highly doubtful. The last time I saw a set of numbers for what we spend on national defense (admittedly a few years ago) we were spending $680 billion and around 50% of our annual budget. Obviously the numbers will fluctuate a little year-on-year but I find it hard to believe, with the rampant wasteful spending on defense projects that never see the light of day, those that routinely fail, and the unbelievable expenditures wasted on Blackwater, Halliburton, et al, to say nothing of the war cost itself, that we only spend $613 billion and 21%.
Obviously on the issue of Iraq's administration, I have my facts incorrect. My limited understanding was that we interrupted the ascension of a freely-elected ruler of Iraq because the fear at the time was that he would swing the doors open for Soviet Russia, somewhat similar to Nixon's "Communist Sandwhich" argument for Chile and South America, but this one falling under the sub-heading of trying to prevent the core of Asia falling into communist hands. My understanding further held that our interruption culminated with Saddam assuming power in the late 70s, our support of him going unabated in the 80s, and the eventual souring of the deal come 1990-91.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 11:21 AM
KG,
You're an idiot if you think a denial of Saddam-support or Islamapologetics can be taken at face values. Have you never heard "Of course, Saddam was a bad guy, but..."?
If this sounds vaguely familiar to your rotted ears, KG, it should.
Posted by: Walton | July 31, 2009 11:23 AM
BlueIndependent, the three biggest items of federal spending in 2008 were:
Medicare and Medicaid: $682 billion
Defense: $613 billion
Social Security: $612 billion
Your quoted figure ($680 billion) is not that distant from $613 billion, so was probably the correct figure a few years ago.
As to your 50% figure, I suspect the figures you were looking at covered only expenditures from the general revenue pool; Medicare and Social Security, of course, are drawn from separate funds and not from general tax revenues. If Medicare and Social Security are excluded, then yes, defence spending probably accounts for around 50% of expenditure. But clearly this isn't a very useful metric, as it ignores the federal government's two most expensive programmes.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 11:24 AM
Feynmaniac, that's all true, but doesn't that increase the responsibility of the US to get rid of Saddam?
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 31, 2009 11:33 AM
Indeed.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 31, 2009 11:47 AM
That is called "fatwa envy." I didn't know an atheist could have it, but there it is. It is stereotyping Muslims and Christians, some of whom are very violent about blasphemy, some of whom give a rat's ass about blasphemy.
Are Islam and Christianity comparable? Yes. Completely. Christianity is a parent of Islam and both are almost wholly based on fictional accounts of reality. We just happen to exist during an Islamic Dark Ages. You go back several hundred years and you see the reverse of what we see today with respect to Islam and Christianity.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 11:54 AM
aratina,
No. you. don't. The big claim that Islam makes is that, at the absolute best it's been, it was a little better than Christianity at it's absolute worst. I'm sure that there were some high-school classes on "the Islamic Golden Age", but it's just not good enough. There has been real, serious scholarly work done on this subject. I'd strongly recommend Ibn Warraq's Defending the West and Bat Ye'or's histories of dhimmitude.
Even if your assertion were accurate, it would not change the fact that an equivalence between modern day Christianity and modern day Islam is insane.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 11:56 AM
You're an idiot if you think a denial of Saddam-support or Islamapologetics can be taken at face values. Have you never heard "Of course, Saddam was a bad guy, but..."? - Cimourdain the Liar
Actually, no, I've never heard such a statement that I recall, other than from Hitchens in the quote you gave; I've met real apologists for Saddam and they say he was a great national leader, the only Arab leader who stood up to the Zionists, etc.. On the broader issue, of course you have to judge all denials of repulsive attitudes in the context of what else the person says and does. I'm quite content to be judged on what I've said on Pharyngula over time, but of course I don't take anything lying racist shitbags like you say seriously. What lying racist scumbuckets like you mean by "apologist for Saddam" is simply an opponent of the invasion of Iraq. What you mean by an "Islamapologist" is simply someone who does not demonise all Muslims or believe Europe is in danger of a Muslim takeover.
There's a classic logic fail in your #339:
"As I recall, Christopher Hitchens said that there are two things that people say when they know nothing about Iraq. Neither know nor care. The first is to say that Saddam was a secularist. The second is to say "yeah, Saddam was a bad guy".
So, you're an Islamapologist and a Saddam snuggler."
Let's suppose Hitchens is right: that anyone who knows nothing about Iraq says those two things (actually he couldn't be literally right, as such a person would not know who Saddam is, but lets assume he meant "doesn't know enough to make a sound judgement"). It does not follow, except in your feeble excuse for a mind, that anyone who says those things knows too little about Iraq, or is an apologist for Saddam. They are, after all, both true statements - but then, I know your disdain for the truth.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 31, 2009 11:58 AM
"Feynmaniac, that's all true, but doesn't that increase the responsibility of the US to get rid of Saddam?"
Instead of continuing to evince a striking level of arrogance, why don't you pose that to the Iraqi people instead of Americans? Notice the compplete lack of respect for the *Iraqi* position on the matter decades later. The will of the Iraqi people has been known for quite some time, and remains the majority opinion there today. Viet Nam was France's and the US's mess too; are you suggesting we re-start that one? We have those two messes, and then we have the former mess we caused in Chile. Judging by where Chile is at now, see what happens when we leave them alone?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 31, 2009 12:00 PM
Using that logic any nation can invade a country if it had earlier supported a dictator there. I doubt you would support that argument if the US was replaced with Russia or China. If anything the US gov't supporting a mass murder should make you suspect of claims that aims of their policies are for democracy and peace in the Middle East.
The claims that the aims of invading Iraq to spread democracy seem like a 21st century version of "the White man's burden". Not only is it condescending as hell assuming these child-like beings can't decide from themselves, but it is a blatant lie. It wasn't done out of concern for the people. It was done to get the resources of their land. Far from being a "burden" it was immensely profitable (for some anyway).
Also, the war wasn't sold as "spreading democracy". The claims were that this impoverished country (not even considered a threat anymore by its neighbors) was a threat to the Earth's sole superpower halfway across the world (who accounts for nearly 50% of the world's military expenditure). It would be laughable if not for the all the damage this obvious lie caused.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 31, 2009 12:08 PM
I forget to mention, if the Bush administration merely wanted to get rid of Saddam they could have supported the local Iraqis in overthrowing him. If they really cared about the Iraqis perhaps they would have taken into account the fact that most didn't want US soldiers in their country.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 31, 2009 12:17 PM
The use of Hitchens as the ultimate bulkhead for the pro-Iraq war position is, while the best argumentative selection you could possibly make, still doomed to failure. Hitchens is obtusely pro-Iraq war. I would even say he is for it more than neocons in the sense that neocons perceive an economic end to their imperialism. Neocons are interested in the payoff and notliberty or freedom at all, aside from being tremendously poor, factless debaters in making an honest case for their actions. Hitchens on the other hand is a, purer, anti-totalitarian idealist. I think Hitchens argues his position well, but his facts just don't bear out, and neither have the results of our intervention. As I have pointed out here in the past, and as a YouTube link about Hitchens posted by someone in one of PZ's threads the other day showed, Hitchens' support for the Iraq war comprises a multi-faceted hate of totalitarianism on his part that is tinged, I think, with his very active promotion of atheism. In the YouTube clip he is clearly heard making a case against Saddam because of allusions to religion and Islam that Saddam had made.
Thus, Hitchens, while being 100% right in the utopian sense, isn't right in reality because real life is not as easy as rounding up our troops, plopping them down in oppressive places, and expecting a totally free society(otherwise known as a quasi-American state) to occur within a two week timeframe. The further assumption on the part of Hitchens-Iraq sympathizers is that because Hitchens is imminently intelligent and because he knows a lot about Iraq and Saddam, he must be right. I don't know a tenth of what Hitchens does on world affairs. On Iraq I can say, however, that without a doubt he has not been proven right just based on the thin layer of media-reported history cable news has shown over the last seven years. Dig one layer further and you see that Hitchens and the neocons were largely wrong on the outcomes, and many very pertinent facts. The argument that removing Saddam was the right thing to do no matter the cost is an argument of temporal convenience whether it comes from Hitchens, who is otherwise brilliant, or a neocon thug looking for his next seven figure paycheck from wasted government defense expenditures.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 12:19 PM
BlueIndependent,
As a matter of fact, I did. Or, rather, I listened. How about, oh, I don't know, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan? You see, they have some rather sharp things to say about fat, effete Western suck-ups to Saddamists and goons like Al-Sadr, and would like a little solidarity. Poor saps; don't they know all that leftist rhetoric is bullshit, and it only counts as long as you can run down the West?
Or what about the Iraqi communist party, which was against the war, but couldn't believe the way it's supposed
You should read Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens on this. Incidentally, for the scummy likes of KG over here who don't know what principle means, when you take a position of solidarity, you take it sink or swim. You don't suddenly decide that fascist tyrants are okay because Dubya's in the White House.
There are cold-blooded conservative arguments for preserving a tyrannical status quo. There are no progressive or liberal ones for doing so.
Finally, I don't require Bush's permission to think something, and I find I can live with seeing a Republican politician making a case I believe in and make it badly. That doesn't change my mind, and the real "Bushies" are the kind of people who'll chuck every principle of internationalism, solidarity and justice overboard just because they don't like the current occupant of the White House.
Posted by: protocol | July 31, 2009 12:42 PM
I read a few things about the oil for food program. Let us remind everyone that the program was basically accompanied by quasi-blockade--enforced at the behest of the U.S.-- against the people of Iraq, which killed over a million children (for lack of medical supplies); remember Madeline Albright's macabre statement that the death of a million infants was "worth it"? Look up Denis Haliday, and Hans Von-Sponek btw., two U.N. officials running the oil for food program who had the integrity to resign when they could not stand the policies directly responsible for the death of thousands. This in addition to the no-fly zones and almost a daily bombing of Iraq for years.
Posted by: Hyperon | July 31, 2009 12:43 PM
Clearly society at large, and even intellectual types like us, have yet to reach a sufficient state of enlightenment that we can coherently discuss the reality of human suffering.
Actually, that's not fair. The real issue is this. A sizeable chunk of liberals would rather show off than arrive at any conclusion of substance. To them political discourse isn't an exchange of ideas, but is instead an opportunity to showboat and prove how compassionate they are.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 12:50 PM
protocol,
I remember that. I also remember hearing, ultimately from the Iraqi opposition to Saddam, that the sanctions hurt the people worse than the regime, but lifting them would benefit the regime far more than the people, and would allow Saddam to acquire the most terrifying weaponry. Now, given a crux of this kind, you could go to the "anti-war" types and say, well, we could lift the sanctions, but Saddam would have to go. We could decapitate the regime and bring Iraq back into the family of nations. The response was always, No, that's a bit extreme, better keep Saddam in power and let the kids go on dying.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 31, 2009 12:52 PM
Nice round of assumptions you've made there Cimourdain. I don't recall labeling you as a "Bushie" myself. But then, I wouldn't, because it wasn't Bush who came up with the idea of invading Iraq. He was simply the very maleable enabler. Neocon imperialist ideology is what came up with it, and I would label you a neocon in that sense before ever considering labeling you a "Bushie". I also never claimed you needed Bush's permission to think what you think. You nor pretty much anyone of similar mind needed Bush to take your position.
Second, of course I know about the Kurds and Saddam's oppression of them you idiot. The Kurds are a large reason why Saddam had become a weak dictator. You're not making a strong case for yourself. On the one hand you beg of us to accept that Saddam was evil and powerful (when everyone readily admits it), and on the other you expect us to ignore the fact that he was a shell of his former capability by 2003 and barely controlled major parts of his own countryside. You want me to forget that we ran sorties in his airspace to control from for 12 years. You want me to forget we never found any WMDs there. You want me to forget facts that are inconvenient for your position. I'll bet the Kurds have a lot of things to say about "fat, effete Western suck-ups to Saddamists". Unfortunately for you and them, that is their opinion and not necessarily reality. I recall us having solidarity with another band of people in Afghanistan; they ended up hashing plans for crashing planes into our skyscrapers. This is not to say the Kurds would do the same, but only that we cannot take up the cause of every opporessed minority in the world, as much as you or I would like to. And why should we take up all our arms to go get Saddam when the Kurds were doing quite a good job, all things considered, of keeping Saddam in check? Further, you are again making blanket generalizations and false intellectual logic chains. Just because someone disagrees with the Iraq War it means they are Saddam apologists? It means they are enablers of the world's worst? It means they are left-wing hippies? Then I guess I'm an enabler of every criminal and thug the world over, because the extreme of your argument is the height of unchecked idealism, and impossible to achieve in practice. What you demand is as vapidly high-minded and utopian as a communist living the Marxian dream in his khaki fatigues.
On to your further assumptions, you pose that people are only anti-Iraq War because Bush was in the White House. How about the more logical, real answer: That Bush started a war and wasted national treasure on a country that didn't attack us? How about the fact that republicans far and wide derided war detractors as un-American traitors? How about the fact that Bush voiced sympathy for the idea of avenging his father by re-prosecuting Saddam even before he moved into the White House? How about all the revealed documentation that shows the Bush Admin doctored everything they could to make a case to go over there? How about etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum that you are conveniently leaving out?
Cimourdain, you are trying to change history. I'm sorry, but you've lost the debate. You're not going to change what has happened and what we know because it all is what it is: the truth or reality.
Posted by: protocol | July 31, 2009 1:00 PM
I'm sorry but you forgot another option in #367: removing the sanctions and not invading Iraq to remove Saddam and whatnot. The sanctions and the sabre rattling actually further strengthened Saddam and arguably extended his reign. Given the economic and political situation in Iraq pre-sanction, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would have been overthrown (for a good historical overview read the historian Hana Batatu's work). The U.S. never had any desire to let that happen, since even a quasi-democratic Iraq would have foiled its plans (again the otherwise idiotic Thomas Friedman's columns on this are quite revealing).
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 31, 2009 1:07 PM
Cimourdain, for the effectiveness of sanctions we need only look not only at Iraq as protocol points out, but also at Cuba. 50 years of sanctions on Cuba have done nothing to remove Castro from power. For insights into how certain dictators might have been deposed or at least weakened earlier, I suggest you read Lee Iacocca's latest. He has a very interesting tale of his meetings with Castro.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 1:14 PM
Correct. I'm labeling you one. go through this thread and time and time again, you'll have someone say, when you make a point, say, about the Kurdish situation, "Well, that's not what Bush said when he took us into war". Uh-huh. And I care - why, exactly?
Well, speak for yourself. I take the stand of Condorcet, and I'm not apologizing for it. "The day will come..." I take the unique view that the Convention on Genocide - which, btw, is the legal embodiment of "Never Again" - means what it says. That's a stance that can't just be dropped because it's politically inconvenient to do so. The Clinton administration can never absolve itself of the shame of what it failed to do in Rwanda - and nor can the Bush administration absolve itself of the shame of listening to the peaceniks and the UN fetishists about Darfur. Thanks, but no fucking thanks.
As regards to the Saddammist suck-ups, I'm referring, as you should know, to the creepy euphemism that's extended to guys like the al Qaeda in Mesopotamia gang, the al Sadr brigade and so forth, whereas there is no hand of support extended to the Peshmerga.
Don't like the removal of Saddam? Against the invasion? Fine. But where is the lefty alliance with those Iraqis who have had enough of decades of fascism and want something better than civil war or theocracy?
Incidentally, my more pointed digs at KG is due to the fact that he feels free to characterize as racist people who explicitly denounce racism. I thought the little maggot would benefit from a little of his own medicine.
As regards the WMDs and so forth, you could take the stance that a tyrannical megalomaniac who boasted of his desire for these weapons, and had used them before now, should be given the benefit of doubt, but I can't really find myself saying that, now or ever. Especially when you have the French selling the guy nuke tech, the Germans selling him Mustard gas (now there's two words you don't want to see next to each other), the North Koreans selling him Nodong missiles and so on, and so on.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 31, 2009 2:01 PM
"Correct. I'm labeling you one. go through this thread and time and time again, you'll have someone say, when you make a point, say, about the Kurdish situation, "Well, that's not what Bush said when he took us into war". Uh-huh. And I care - why, exactly?..."
Go ahead, label me one. Your projection complex is your own problem. The point about what Bush said versus what he did is pertinent on a level so basic I don't see why I need to point it out, but if I must. First of all, bush's argument about liberation, aside from the fact that it was his stop-gap excuse for going in in order to publicly silence opposition, was far more referenced in relation to the Shiites than the Kurds. We already knew Saddam was trying to get rid of the Kurds as early as the late 1980s. Bush Sr. certainly didn't make the case, nor did anyone with meaningful and respected experience in the military, intelligence organizations, or the government, that we should march on because of his oppression of the Kurds back then. Dick Cheney himself agreed as late as 1994 that toppling Saddam would've been a costly mistake in Gulf War 1. Further, the Kurds actually have a means of defending themselves. This is not the Hutus taking up machetes and slaughtering Tutsis en masse in a campaign that was hatched one evening and put in place the next day. And why not strike up some diplomacy to let refugee Kurds into surrounding countries for a nice temporary payoff? Why not pressure Turkey to quit the nonsense over the Kurds? Your arguments on this point are of the sort of begging-the-question=justification that leads people to make bad choices, especially when it comes to international politics.
I freely admit that I would love it if I could snap my fingers and have every evil dictator disappear. I would love to snap my fingers and have everyone live well like we do. I probably would even be on board with taking up military actions around the world if it were feasible. But it's not. Clinton should be held responsible for Rwanda, and he has accepted that as his biggest failure. I have never personally given him a pass on that, although it appears you assume I would. But then, Bush did next to nothing either when it came to other genocidal actions taken in other parts of the world. So, your argument is more than a little convenient. I'll say it again: We *do not* have ther resources to police the world. It sucks, but it's the truth. Nor do we have the power to force everyone to take our position and insert the UN and NATO into every dire situation. We did a wonderful job of burning bridge for 8 years, thus complicating the very matters you'd like to see resolved. Are you so blind as to not see the weaknesses in the very sorts of prosecution you support?
We should take military actions when warranted and when we can handle the outcome and not bankrupt ourselves (thus causing other problems that will likely inflame future situations we can't predict). The neocon position on Iraq and Iran assumes that we can apply WW2 to everything and remake the world exactly like we want it. Sorry, but I'm much more practical. Label me a sypathizer all you want; it won't make your utopian vision come true, and it doesn't mean your being practical at all. I am not a sympathizer regardless of what you say, and I wholly reject your beating around bushes to make your point. The people you've read obviously have facts to consider, and I'm sorry but I don't have the time to read everything being in the middle of advancing my degree. But because those facts exist doesn *not* automatically mean their justification is the right one. There are counter-facts that make things a lot less cut-and-dry than you claim.
"..Especially when you have the French selling the guy nuke tech, the Germans selling him Mustard gas (now there's two words you don't want to see next to each other), the North Koreans selling him Nodong missiles and so on, and so on."
Then why didn't we find those things there when we invaded? I'm not the one supporting those pushing drawings of fanciful things Saddam *might* have had to the UN assembly. Things he had no resources to buy or develop in the first place. It's indicative of the must-invade mindset that Saddam, while having the world's 6th most powerful military, was still so far in the dark ages militarily speaking that we rolled him even faster the second time than we did the first. Yet you exclaim that he had all this technology from our own allies, and are further surprised that other coutnries act in their own self-interest by selling him some weapons, when we did not only the same with him 20 years earlier, but continue to do so throughout the world?
I rest my case man. Ignore evidence all you want. I'm not going to be feared and shamed into taking your position, especially when invading could have cost us something down the road we have no idea of yet. NK and Pakistan actually have nukes, yet Saddam was more of a threat? Please. Genocidal maniac? That was not the case made and if that was one of the reasons, why wasn't it made? Why is the pro-Iraq War lobby *so utterly incompetent* at making its case?
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 2:28 PM
I repeat - why do I care about what Bush said? That's relevant if you want to indite Bush about this, that, or t'other - it doesn't effect the moral case for removing Saddam Hussein. I'm not a spokesman for Bush and Cheney, and - I repeat - I'm capable of making up my own damn mind, thank you very much.
Actually, I didn't assume anything of the sort. I was trying to make a point about the long, wretched failure to live up to the ideals of Never Again. I deplore it in all instances; but the failure in so many cases does not change the moral imperative to uphold it when you can do so.
That's a very good question. Why didn't Bush demand that Saddam be indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Well, because it would have dragged out the sordid business deals with Kissinger and the rest of it, that's why.
Just get rid of this idea that I am somehow obliged to defend the wretched record of realpolitik support for tyrants and fascists. Call me strange, but I prefer a situation where America is removing tyrants and holding elections, to one where it is installing tyrants and canceling elections. I consider that a change of fundamental policy, and a damn healthy one, and one taken not a moment too soon. A great number of problems are traceable to the fact that, instead of taking a principled stance against Communism and exporting the values of the Enlightenment, America preferred to find a pliable sonofabitch and install him in power. I'm against this sort of pragmatic, range-of-the-moment bullshit, and I find the change of policy welcome.
Also, let me make one little dilemma easy. Can I get a show of hands? How many people think that the removal of Saddam Hussein made life worse for the Iraqis? Now, how many consider that an argument against his removal?
Now, do you chaps also think the end of Apartheid in South Africa was wrong? South Africa has murder rates higher than those of Iraq, over a hundred and sixty women are raped every day there, and I could tell you a whole slew of horror stories about the criminal incompetence, corruption and downright negligence of the post-Mandela ANC.
That, however, doesn't change the justice of the end of Apartheid. It breaks my heart, but it doesn't alter the justice of the case.
Posted by: protocol | July 31, 2009 2:47 PM
Ehh, so who invaded South Africa to end apartheid?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 3:25 PM
>>228
No. If you take the stance that we shouldn't interfere in other civilisations, you are in essence taking the side of whoever is in power there. And if they are making other people's lives miserable or abusing their power or whatever, that'd be bad. I'm not saying that you should always interfere, for one you might have more urgent things to do, or you might not have enough information, but we shouldn't forget that we're talking about people here, who can suffer, no matter how primitive or uncontacted they are.
>>229
>we're talking about circumcision
No, we're talking about the prime directive, among other things. That circumcision thing is just a side track, but this blog doesn't have real threading and reply support so it's hard to tell.
>How well has that worked out?
Rather well actually. There are still no weapons of mass destruction in Irak, Afghanistan is doing sort of okay, not as good as we'd like but it's getting better, Pakistan has decided to hate the taliban of its own accord, China will sort itself out whether it want to or not, just North Korea is a bit of a problem, but that would have been rather difficult to deal with even if most troops wouldn't have been tied up elsewhere because of the dire repercussions on Japan and South Korea (don't forget many South Koreans have family accross the border). Hopefully it will implode, but yes it's bad.
>>230
Yup. The reason it isn't a battle is because you can hardly call it a battle if all the weapons are on the same side.
>>232
Yes, I would agree. If the clitoris is removed that is an order of magnitude worse than just missing your foreskin. (Although I've by now read up a bit about circumcision and I think we should consider it a form of mutilation.) Of course there are plenty of things better than sex so it isn't like their life is over but on the other hand, in such countries women are generally not allowed to enjoy those freely either.
>>236
I think that is because they picture it increasing to visible and then gruesome levels, apparently without realising that people shower every day.
>>251
You can't assume he get's all his news from Fox. A few decades ago America (along with Canada and others) invaded my home country, and I'm glad that they did so. And you shouldn't wish for bad things to happen to people (unless they're like Hitler or something).
...>>257
...You would probably have said exactly the reverse if you had been living in a country were universal health insurance is the norm for your whole life.
......>>261 >>269 >>276 >>298 >>303 >>312 >>317 >>320 >>324 >>328 >>329 >>336 >>343 >>359
......That was uncalled for. Keep the conversation civilised please. How can you be so boorish?
......>>308
......That people support the war doesn't automatically mean they support the excuse.
......>>326
......Wars are seldom fought over one reason alone. Also, you don't need to believe a war is the ideal war to fight to support it once it's started.
>>254
Great post.
>>256
Judging by the statistics, it's much more likely that he died from bad hygiene than from having a foreskin.
>>275
Now that is a silly overgeneralisation if ever there was one.
>>338
The longer that story unfolds, the more I'm starting to think that trying to protect that countries supposed unity wasn't that great of a move.
>>341
>lack of lube = friction burns
I've never needed lube in my life. Which I do realize is a very insignificant number in the grand scheme of things. Hehe, I quoted that back at you. Maybe now you see why it's still a wee bit deceptive to say.
>>343
That's false, as anyone who as ever read more than ten pages of his work can plainly see.
>>346
Actually no, he he didn't fact check before hitting submit.
>>362
I don't think that would have worked, given how Saddam used to run things.
>>363
Strawman.
>>229
Oh wait. It appears we're talking about Irak now... what the fuck?
P.S. To clear up any misunderstandings, I still think that George W. Bush fought the Irak war in a most incompetent and insensitive manner.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 3:26 PM
protocol,
Is that the extent of your concern? Whether or not American armed forces were committed to battle? And if that is the case, consider that a great deal of pressure was brought to bear to remove Apartheid - that's certainly interfering in the affairs of another county. If this standard is the one you judge this by, then by what standard can you object, say, to the CIA-sponsored coup to bring Saddam to power in Iraq or Zia ul-Haq to power in Pakistan?
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 31, 2009 3:45 PM
Cimourdain, your position shows how taking an idealist stand can still cause one to be all over the map. Why should you care about what Bush said? Well A) because he's an elected official for one, asking people to die. Second, the case was moral enough on its face but extremely complicated by the fact that he and so much of the administration was and remains connected to people who profiteer from war. They stole our tax money and wasted it wantonly to prosecute a war that is costing probably double or triple what it might actually have cost had the Bush Admin not been so mendacious and careless in its policies. It took years to even properly arm the troops. Why are you leaving the entire context of the Iraq question out? Because toppling Saddam gets your rocks off? Bush saying one thing when he actually meant another is like me telling my wife I’m going to get a new car because mine broke down. She says OK, soo I go out and buy a six-figure luxury ride because I want to, to hell with the fact that I had to mortgage the house two and three times to pay for it, and damn the financial contributions from the work she does. But never fear! The new car will get us groceries, transport us, get the kids to school! Everything will be great! Sure it has four wheels, and engine and a roof like a car ¼ the price, but why just drive any car when you can overpay for one that might actually not be as useful as the one you should buy? (Not the best analogy but with respect to spending it fits.)
Are Iraqis better off without Saddam? I don't know; ask all the Iraqis that have died either by our hands deposing Saddam or those of the suicide bombers that didn't exist with him in power. My guess is Saddam may not actually have killed as many people as have died since we invaded. The rape rooms and mass graves weren't happening on so regular an occasion in the late 90s and early "oughts" before we went in. Further, Iraqi families' domiciles would not get searched randomly and forcefully if we weren't there, in the middle of sectarian unrest we were not educated on or prepared to bust open but made worse by setting it loose with the crudest of can openers. Saddam was pretty powerless by the time we walked in for round two. Frequent sorties overhead, Kurds occupying part of his territory, international revulsion and disdain, sanctions, need I list more?
But you’re asking me to prove an unknowable thing, and I can only offer you what was a decent prediction not only voiced by me, but backed up by facts we knew ahead of invasion, and that have come to light since the conflict began. Again, you are making another obtusely convenient argument. And to top it off, basic services were for so long not up and running for regular Iraqis that could have gained Iraqi support for our actions. Another item Bush botched and another failure that could have been a success. Rapes, beheadings, sectarian conflicts; all of this is the product of applying war, and frankly I'm sick and tired of the cop-out "war is hell" justification for it. "Collateral damage" is an easy quite the simple thing for people of your position to bandy about (whether or not *you* have) in open conversation about difficult things. One feels inclined to inquire how are you not as fat and effete a Westerner as any liberal while you sit here playing armchair general while someone else does the work? Spare me your concern. You are as guilty as anyone. Nobody ever did get back to me on how many broken eggs it took to make that omelette...
"...I repeat - I'm capable of making up my own damn mind, thank you very much..."
LOL OK, just explain to me where I told you you couldn't. You seem to be hearing voices.
"...That's a very good question. Why didn't Bush demand that Saddam be indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Well, because it would have dragged out the sordid business deals with Kissinger and the rest of it, that's why..."
So saving face from airing what most of the world already knows is justification for running rough-shod over international laws we help write? All in the name of expediency huh? Motives indeed. As for removing tyrants instead of installing them, you are trying to justify the other side of the same coin you are decrying. Removing tyrants comes before the installation of them. In fact, by definition removing a tyrant is in one way or the other installing another leader good or bad. Man are you blind. Your argument is chicken-and-egg. OK so we depose their dictator and let them elect one (think Hamas); OK they elected someone we don't like again. Now what? Another Etch-A-Sketch redo at the barrel of a tank? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. And in Iraq's case, so stupidly in fact that one of the sectarian groups we sought to save ended up enabling another tyrant we hated (Ahmedinajad)? I'm smiling at all the twists and turns you're taking that leave out the context. Invading Iraq was so smart it justified possibly empowering Iran, another of the Axis of Evil. That's basically what you're saying. And next you'll tell me we need to invade the, meanwhile NK is flinging nukes and missiles around like a 5-year old given the wheel of a Dodge Viper. Where is it you are going intellectually, sir?
"...Now, do you chaps also think the end of Apartheid in South Africa was wrong? South Africa has murder rates higher than those of Iraq, over a hundred and sixty women are raped every day there, and I could tell you a whole slew of horror stories about the criminal incompetence, corruption and downright negligence of the post-Mandela ANC.
That, however, doesn't change the justice of the end of Apartheid. It breaks my heart, but it doesn't alter the justice of the case."
How that example is even relevant escapes me. First of all, Apartheid didn't end with an invasion; it ended through application of non-violence by Mandela. How odd that you would choose a non-violent example to justify a violent one. It’s also an example that really works against the case you are trying to make. One man helped bring together a nation to end Apartheid. He took action himself to do it, he took the power in his hands. He didn’t call for planes and carriers and tanks. How do you think referencing Mandela helps your case *at all*? As for what has happened post-Mandela, that is their problem to fix. I feel the need to make a mention of the fact that we imprison more people than just about any country on Earth; but I guess we're too violent to solve our own problems. Murder, rape, and theft...not the kinds of things we Americans can handle...
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 31, 2009 4:01 PM
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 2:28 PM
WMDs? None found. The nearest anyone came to finding anything was some degraded munitions from 1991 - leftovers that had long since expired.
And I like how you list Germany and France, ignoring just how far back that was, but forget to include the UNITED STATES.
Now if you are going to argue that the Iraq war was a good thing based on Saddam being an evil prick, well look around you. The world is full of dictators, is it America's job to ovethrow them, while in the middle of another war?
Thanks to the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan ended up being neglected, resulting in it becoming the world's top producer of Heroin and the Taliban ending up with a foothold in Pakistan.
Pakistan is a nuclear power.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 31, 2009 4:06 PM
Posted by: BlueIndependent Author Profile Page | July 31, 2009 3:45 PM
Well said.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 4:17 PM
>>378
>None found.
Irrelevant. We know he's had them at several points in time because of use, we know he could acquire them, we know he had plans to acquire them, and we've found evidence of a massive concealment scheme*, and we know he said he had a huge stash and never told us what he did with them. Maybe they never existed in the first place, in which case he pretty much brought all this upon himself and his people, or maybe he sold them off.
>And
I agree the way all countries dealt with Iraq is a fucking disgrace, and this includes pretty much all forms of intervention, non-intervention, non-caring, collusion, and so on. I think the whole Iraq story is a wonderful example of how not to handle this, that all involved countries should take very seriously.
>Now
You can't ask for the impossible.
>Thanks
You cannot ‘thank’ him for other people's failures.
* To conceal what exactly we don't know, but in this case I think not finding out is still better than finding out the hard way.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 31, 2009 4:19 PM
That, however, doesn't change the justice of the end of Apartheid. It breaks my heart, but it doesn't alter the justice of the case."
The ANC is corrupt, incompetent, and frequently a threat to the rule of law. Our country is violent, riddled with disease (Particularly AIDS) and we are suffering from occassional outbreaks of Xenophobic violence, where frequently the people being targetted are from provinces within South Africa.
All of that, and you use one thing a South African can be proud of, that we achieved freedom through diplomacy, through the use of "soft power", as an argument for war.
It doesn't break your heart the condition my country is in.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 31, 2009 4:40 PM
You knew he had them once, but you didn't know if he could acquire them again, in fact sanctions were slapped on him specifically to prevent him acquiring WMDs, and the massive concealment scheme - turned out to be nothing.
In short you conjectured that Saddam was a WMD threat, even as the French, the Germans, and little liberals like me pointed out that the evidence just wasn't there. The UN concluded that the evidence that Saddam had WMDs was not sufficient to justify a war.
That in the end no WMDs were found showed that people like me who called the war what it was from the outset - a war of choice founded on a fake threat - were absolutely right. The evidence wasn't there because the WMDs weren't there. The threat of Saddam was mythical.
So on the contrary that they weren't found is supremely relevant because you didn't know, you guessed.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 31, 2009 4:53 PM
And one last thing:
"but in this case I think not finding out is still better than finding out the hard way."
That is just religious reasoning applied to war. It is the essence of Pascal's wager "You don't want to find out the hard way", "just in case" like war is somehow the easy alternative, and religion isn't something which effects the rest of your life.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 4:59 PM
>>383
>is just religious reasoning
That was uncalled for.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 5:04 PM
>you didn't know if he could acquire them again
Yes, we did know, yes he could.
>evidence wasn't there
The evidence was there, for everyone plain to see, they just denied that it was evidence.
>a war of choice
No, that doesn't follow.
On second thought, an insult + lying = I'm not going to discuss with you, I'll put you in my killfile. (No, I'm not posting this for you, it's just to prevent confusion for others.)
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 31, 2009 5:10 PM
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 4:59 PM
No, it is perfectly called for.
The threat of hell, is essentially an appeal to adverse consequences in order to get you to believe something for which the evidence is shaky at best. It is there to illicit a fear response with a solution being presented in the form of religion.
The threat of WMDs, was essentially an appeal to adverse consequences in order to get you to believe something for which the evidence was shaky at best. It was there to illicit a fear response with a solution being presented in the form of a war.
The fear of a WMD capable Saddam was not evidence that Saddam had WMDs, or could get them.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 31, 2009 5:13 PM
Still claiming that I am wrong to point out that this is essentially the same sort of thinking as we get from the religious?
"Oh, there is lots of evidence, but those atheists deny that it is evidence!" Pfft. Moron.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 31, 2009 5:22 PM
I am responding to this basically for the lurkers seen as the complete wussy has added me to his killfile.
>The evidence was there, for everyone plain to see, they just denied that it was evidence.
And who was right in the end? Oh, yeah, those guys who claimed the evidence wasn't actually there for the war. Gee, I wonder why that was? Maybe it was because we were right.
>On second thought, an insult + lying = I'm not going to discuss with you, I'll put you in my killfile. (No, I'm not posting this for you, it's just to prevent confusion for others.)
Where did I lie? That's right, I didn't. Nor did I actually insult you, I criticised your reasoning. After you killfiled me, then I didn't so much insult you as state my evidence based view of you.
Coward is pretty much the right name for you.
Posted by: Cimourdain | July 31, 2009 5:46 PM
Bruce,
My country, too. I grew up there. I remember the real hope and promise when Nelson Mandela was released. It truly does break my heart to see this happen. But that's not an argument for retaining Apartheid. It's an argument against the ANC, it's an argument for bringing every imaginable pressure to bear on SA to improve itself - but it's not an argument for keeping Apartheid.
-----------------------
BlueIndependent,
I think I only have time to answer some of this, but I must start with the most salient point:
I say this because you insist on trying to force me to defend positions that are not mine. I'm not a spokesperson for the Bush administraiton. I'm not a defender of the Bush administration.
If you want to have an argument about what is and what is not wrong in the method of removing Saddam Hussein, I'm all ears. It's a very necessary matter. However, that's not even the constituent of an argument about the moral case for removing one of history's worst monsters.
The mistake you're making is that of making the best the enemy of the good. I'll quote you the Hitch on this: there are four reasons why a state can be deemed to be outside the law: 1. If it violates the genocide convention, which mandates action, btw; 2. If it messes about with WMDs and violates the nonproliferation treaty; 3. If it invades and occupies a sovreign nation, and 4. If it offers safe haven to hostis humanis generis, terrorists, gangsters and so forth. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the only state to violate all four. If you're not in favour of acting then, you're not in favour of any kind of international accountability, period.
Now, I - as I hope I've made clear - am willing to hang my hat on the first of those, the matter of genocide. Well, by all means let's see the Janjaweed burnt off the face of the planet By all means lets see the Interahamwe hunted down to the last man.
I'm rather saddened by the paleoconservatism of some of your positions, but, in the end, we just can't breath the same air as these people. Take Darfur (I hope you're happy with what the peaceniks have wrought there). We will need allies in this long fight, and the ability to show the world the Arab supremacism that is indelibly part of Islam would be a devastating weapon. There's no division between the moral and the practical.
Indeed, it is a very easy term to bandy about. It is also not the peaceniks who had to perish under machetes in Rwanda, or are enslaved in the Sudan. The peaceniks have a record of enabling genocide from Cambodia to Rwanda to two, count them, two genocides in the Sudan. If I had that track record, I'd be very modest and I would not be demanding explanations from those who think that, for once, Never Again should mean something.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 31, 2009 5:57 PM
Explain
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 6:12 PM
>>390
Indeed, you would first need to prove that the genocides could have been at least partly prevented by military intervention. (That is, that the resources were available and intervening would have helped.)
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 31, 2009 6:22 PM
Name me a government that isn't.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 31, 2009 6:28 PM
AC, you've written a huge amount on this thread. All of it, apparently, crud.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 6:30 PM
>>392
True. :-) But to avoid trivialising the issue, otherwise he would have needed to plug in "a lot more ... than average" three times in there.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 31, 2009 7:10 PM
>>393
All of it? That says more about you than about me I'm afraid. Surely if I have written so much I must have written some sentence most of us can agree with, if only by accident. But maybe you're right that I've been reading this thread too long; it's getting stale and probably won't return to topic. Maybe if some more news gets in. Nighty-night.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | July 31, 2009 7:15 PM
Cimourdain,
You keep mentioning that Saddam violated the Genocide Convention. That was in the 1980s. Both the United States and Australia were violating the Genocide Convention into the 1970s. Would you have advocated military intervention to prevent the Australian government from forcibly removing Aboriginal children from their homes? Should the United Kingdom have invaded the USA to prevent the forced removal of Native American children from their homes or the forced sterilization of Native Americans?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 31, 2009 8:00 PM
It appears that the Iraqi War fans have fallen on the "Saddam was a big meanie" excuse for wasting American, British and Iraqi lives, and American prestige and treasure. Robert Mugabe is a big meanie as well. Why aren't we invading Zimbabwe? Kim Jong Il is a bigger meanie than Saddam Hussein ever dreamed of being, but North Korea remains uninvaded.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
August 1, 2009 12:39 AM
What I notice is that Cimourdain keeps harping on me supposedly telling him what he thinks, when he's telling me what he thinks straightforward. Just because Bush and members of his admin hold the same positions, apparently means he thinks I think he's a Bushie. Unfortunately Bush's leadership is the closest available (and recent) embodiment of a lot of what Cimourdain holds to be true, so I don't know how he can necessarily distance himself while still holding their foreign policy model largely in hand. Cimourdain apparently seems as if he doesn't agree with how Bush prosecuted the "war on terror", but it's a bit of trying to play both sides of the fence when you say "I believe in ideology A", and then after someone implements it with bad results, the same person says "but I don't think it was implemented right". Yeah, sure. That's what communists claim too.
What Cimourdain *should* be doing instead of harping on my about Bush-blame is answering my questions to him (her?) on how Mandela ending Apartheid through peaceable action is similar to a world superpower going about the Earth imposing its military on anything and everything it deems bad for everyone. Cimourdain has yet to address a substantive point I've made at any sort of length, and leaves a lot of holes wide open for me to walk through.
Posted by: Cimourdain | August 1, 2009 1:27 PM
Okay, I'll take this piecemeal. If you are willing to say that the crucial difference between the change of Saddamist Iraq to post-Saddamist Iraq and pre- and post-Apartheid South Africa is that the US did not commit military force to remove Apartheid, fine. Yet then you can please leave all the arguments that things are worse with an intervention in Iraq than they would have been without one.
It's the ancient problem of ends vs. means in the argument about moral responsibility. The provable end of the removal of Apartheid has been to turn South Africa into one of the most violent places on earth, with skyrocketing rates of murder and rape, the Farm-murders which some have called a case of genocide and so forth. That has been the end, to date.
Now, as regards criticism of the Bush administration, I think I could say more and say it better about its failures than anyone on this forum. To take one example, the failure to stop the genocide of Darfur. To take another, the failure to prevent Iran's nuclear program - which, if it will be completed, and there is every indication that it will, will be an eternal mark of shame on both the Bush and the Obama administrations, mark that well.
To deal with this matter of the removal of one of the worst genocidal tyrants in history being carried out by the Bush administration, here's a parallel. Not just now, but at the time of Operation Gomorrah - the plan to firebomb and reduce Germany to rubble, and to specifically target those areas where the buildings were clustered closer together - there was a fierce argument against it. There were many who were absolutely appalled by that decision. That does not mean, however, that the war should have been abandoned because it was being executed by a man like Churchill capable of that. Churchill, mind you, was someone who supported using poison gas against Kurdish tribes. The American army was segregated, and not segregated and equal. That doesn't go to the justice of the war.
If you are going to try and put me in this position of having to defend the Bush administrations many foibles and stupidities, ask yourself how you would like to be put in the position of defending the likes of Ramsey Clark, George Galloway and Michael Moore - fucktoys of fascism to a man.
This would not, however, have been such a wretched problem if the bulk of the opposition to Bush didn't come in one of two useless flavors: gutless and mendacious.
If we're going to make this a question of justification, in legal terms, Iraq had violated all four of those crucial points under which a state has lost its sovereignty. If you're willing to ignore those, then you are saying that international law is meaningless in its entirety. This is a point of view with which I have some sympathy, but let's be clear about our terms. Let's talk safety and the defense of the free world, then. You say that, thanks to the sanctions and the no-fly zones, Saddam was, as they say, "in his box". Let's leave it aside that the box in question could only be constructed at the expense of the people of Iraq. The box was crumbling. Post invasion, we know that the guy was trying to buy weapons off the shelf from North Korea. Scott Ritter, a very strong opponent of the war, mentioned that, after the Ba'athists had sworn they not only had no nuclear enrichment material, they weren't seeking them, - after this, Mr. Ritter, in the aftermath of Desert Storm, intercepted a convoy of nuclear enrichment material. Then there's the matter of Saddam's chief nuclear envoy showing up in Niger, a country that had previously sold yellowcake to places like North Korea and Libya (amongst others). This went utterly unnoticed by Joseph Wilson who was too busy sipping mint tea to wonder what this chap was doing on that soil.
Now let's take the matter of international terrorism and gangsterism. One really stupid thing people still say is that Saddam was a secularist. Saddam clothed himself in all the ancient Islamic trappings of Jihad and holy war - the campaign to exterminate the Kurds was named Anfal after a Koranic surah; he routinely pumped out the rhetoric of Jihad and Islamic supremacism. The way the liberal lefties call Saddam secular is the exact, precise equivalent of the religious right calling Hitler secular. Then there is the matter that Saddam was up to his neck with every jihadi gang in the Middle East, from supporting HAMAS, to allowing Abu Nidal to start his campaign of murder from an Iraqi government office, to taking in Abdul Rahman Yasin who planned and executed the first WTC bombing, to providing safe haven for Zarqawi. I can extend that list, believe you me.
Now come on. Get real. Given the above, what administration with a hint of responsibility could say "Well, let's take the guy at his word?". Remember that Hillary Clinton and Al Gore both said that co-existence with this man was flat out impossible.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
August 3, 2009 4:02 PM
Cimourdain, you are not going to win anyone over by repeating lies, especially lies that have been so roundly refuted as to suggest someone would question your taste in headware. You are honestly peddling the Niger yellowcake story? Sorry. You eliminate your own credibility from consideration. You use the same rhetoric and lies the other Iraq war supporters do (Wilson was sipping tea on a junket, blah blah blah I wallow in my own self-indulgence at the perceived life-shredding decadence of others). All your high-minded talk alluding to your not-so-veiled conclusion that removing Saddam was worth any cost is, in a word, breathtaking.
I do not dismiss your point about Saddam violating items on that 4-part list...except for the one about terrorism. Saddam's Iraq, bad as it was, was not the sort of suicide-bomb nightmare other regional countries had been. Iraq barely knew such acts until we went in there. Now many thousands of Iraqis have died by such deeds, having been made inadvertent pawns to be blown about as if part of the scenery. In the name of stopping terrorism we ended up allowing it to happen. If the aim is to stop the kind of totalitarianism that terrorism prides itself on, how moral are you in the end if you've set in motion an irreversible course that gets people killed by the very thing you're trying to stop, amplified further by bombs dropping, guns blazing, and sectarian divisions flourishing (all of this for several years before coming under some modicum of control no less)? You don't have a leg to stand on, so stop trying. Your attempts to run away from Bush's prosecution of the Iraq War garner little sympathy. The results in Iraq would largely still have been quite bloody even if Bush's administration employed the most ardent planners money could buy. Why? Because anyone that knew anything worth anything about Iraq and the ME knew that going into Iraq, especially with such a small roundup of support, was doomed to entangle us in a huge mess. And that's exactly what happened. Coalition of the Willing my ass. More like coalition of the Photo Op, or "Hey ma! Look at me I just invaded a country!"
And as far as pursuing advanced weapons goes, um, gee, just about every country on Earth is guilty of that. I fail to see how his attempts to get them, fail as they did, distinguishes him as any worse than an Iran or Syria. The other unfortunate reality for you is, and I can't believe I have to point *this* out as well, that any WMDs Saddam had were from the US or its allies. When he used them on people, they were from us. Sorry, but if you put a thug in power to serve your ends you don't get to exclaim said thug is a threat to the world when you helped make him so. We dismantled the man roundly in 1991, and to assert that Saddam was well on his way to regaining his footing to challenge us at all is beyond absurd. In fact it's David Icke-grade absurd.
Are you really this stupid with a big vocabulary? Saddam an outright Islamic radical? HAH! Any chance he was using religion as a tool to steer actual Islamic sympathies among the populace? I've seen the video of Saddam with the rifle, Saddam paying his thin homage to Islam by praying on a carpet facing East (odd how we have so little video or audio samples of him doing anything remotely Islamic at any sort of length). I can't believe, although I apparently must, that you think Saddam was such a rabid Quranaholic. What level of expertise have you read makes you think this is worth believing? So he made an allusion to Anfal in slaughtering the Kurds; big deal. Saddam wanted power above all else. Why is it so damned poignant that Saddam made that reference considering so many other factors? I think Hitchens' harping on that point is his atheism and forceful anti-theism showing through more than a little. And on atheism I certainly agree with Hitchens, but my point is he I think takes an unreasonably large dollop of assumption to make Saddam into an Islamist radical. The man clearly wasn't, especially considering the fact that people of other faiths (Christians for one) were part of his administration. There are far more meaningful examples of dictators using religion to further their ends. Saddam is a heretic in this sense compared to nearly all of them.
You make it sound as if Saddam was ready to strap a bomb on himself and blow up a coffee shop in Tel Aviv. This just doesn't wash. Saddam was not the worst purveyor of terrorism in modern times. Far from it. All the supposed reports of terrorist X, Y, and Z having at one point or another been inside Iraq's borders != Saddam harbored them openly, let alone met directly with them. To say nothing of the fact that such reports have been shot down by our intelligence services. As I have already pointed out, Saddam liked to pile on Israel like everyone else by paying off a Palestinian to do the job from afar. Evil, despicable, and reprehensible yes. Unique amongst other Islamic countries (some of whom we call friends)? Hardly.
And I especially enjoyed this one:
"...Ramsey Clark, George Galloway and Michael Moore - fucktoys of fascism to a man..."
Oh yes, the locus of the fall of man rests on the fat-laden shoulders on Michigan's own. All of those men have also been called communists, and various other eviscerae. How odd that you seem to have co-opted Hitchens' very personality and inter-personal conflicts. You practically sound like the man. Perhaps you enjoy playing him on someone's biology blog. How evil of Michael Moore to point out the obvious in a movie. How dare Galloway challenge Hitchens in public. Yes, if you are against something it must mean you are for something else in all cases. Ironic that you decry others as fascists while demanding of us the very definition of fascism.
"...It's the ancient problem of ends vs. means in the argument about moral responsibility. The provable end of the removal of Apartheid has been to turn South Africa into one of the most violent places on earth, with skyrocketing rates of murder and rape, the Farm-murders which some have called a case of genocide and so forth. That has been the end, to date..."
That end was not the reason to remove it however. I don't see where at all you are going with the Apartheid argument. So the end arrived at a bad place; I'm not sure why you are looking for me to apologize for it, or what you are even getting at. Best I can tell you are trying to fortify your position by saying that good revolutions can end up bad, or that one group of people in SA was truly not fit to lead in the long run and should have been kept as they were before Mandela. You're going to have to be a lot clearer in whatever point you are trying to make.
"...To deal with this matter of the removal of one of the worst genocidal tyrants in history being carried out by the Bush administration, here's a parallel. Not just now, but at the time of Operation Gomorrah - the plan to firebomb and reduce Germany to rubble, and to specifically target those areas where the buildings were clustered closer together - there was a fierce argument against it. There were many who were absolutely appalled by that decision. That does not mean, however, that the war should have been abandoned because it was being executed by a man like Churchill capable of that. Churchill, mind you, was someone who supported using poison gas against Kurdish tribes. The American army was segregated, and not segregated and equal. That doesn't go to the justice of the war..."
No the segregation of the US Army doesn't go to the justice of WW2. I don't see how that makes any major point on your part though. The point about the Iraq War is that as many people as Saddam had killed himself have been killed, maimed, and scarred for life because of us and the influx of terrorists after we removed him. If you kill the very people you are trying to save, and end up turning them against you, what morality is left? The firebombing of Dresden is your example? I don't recall Dresden being inhabited by captives of an invading foreign force. Dresden was peopled by Germans, the very instigators of WW2. Your analogies fail yet again. Yes there was opposition to bombing Dresden, but the people living there were largely sympathetic to their government war waging. That is *not* true of Iraq.
The point is that we threw the baby out with the bath water. It's that simple. If the excuse was to liberate Iraqis from Saddam, then killing them by dropping bombs looking for the actual terrorists that had then invaded and the gang lords that set up shop doesn't make your cause more just. That's the argument from "collateral damage", and it destroys whatever semblance of morality your cause wanted to start with. But the initial reason to enter Iraq was because Saddam had WMDs (when we knew for damn near beyond a reasonable doubt he didn't) and that he could attack the US (which was an absolute joke before GW1, and patently ludicrous on its face by 2003). That was the argument, and I don't need to provide evidence to prove it, because we've all seen it. The "liberation of Iraqis" came later, and that excuse was aimed primarily at the Shiites (who were the majority of Iraq's populace), who Saddam oppressed a little less than the Kurds who were the biggest thorn in his side (and the smallest of the three ethnic groups). But, in releasing the Shiites Iran became enabled and then in a few years Iran became major bugaboo and presidential whipping post #2.
The pro-Iraq War stance also at times negates the very obvious economic angle to the war. After all, it as the oil fields we secured first. Oil that we were told would belong to Iraqis, but wasn't allowed to be controlled by them. The "oil revenues would pay for the war" was another line that never came to fruition. Other times the pro-IW crowd (including Hitchens) says that going in for the oil was a perfectly moral purpose because it would've completely hamstrung Saddam (aside from the fact that he was already pretty toothless). While I can understand that argument, when it's the world's hungriest oil power doing it (and I don't have to tell anyone how much we depend on oil) don't tell me it's about liberation first and all other things second. We went in and set up shop around their resources. It's a fact. Moral considerations on your part are meaningless if the liberation of Iraqis comes by side effect, rather than intention. If the purpose were moral from the outset, Bush wouldn't have set out bashing everyone that didn't join the "COTW", and instead would have rallied people like his much more able father, and made the change more of a world-backed effort.
On paper you are correct: Removing Saddam or any dictator oppressing people is never a bad thing. But when you try and take that paper plan and implement it uniformly across the world without considering how the world really works, then your moral crusade transforms into imperialism. If the case was moral, we wouldn't need to hatch plans prior to taking the reins of leadership, we wouldn't need to fake intelligence saying X bad guy did things he didn't when we already knew he was bad, we wouldn't have given no-bid contracts to economic idealists that bankrupted our national treasure, we wouldn't have seen a lot of things happen. Sorry, but that's what happened. I don't need to defend my position because everyone knows at this point what happened. The thing you are 100% missing is war brings out not only the worst of man on the battlefield, it bring out the worst in economic opportunists seeking to suck as much money and resources as they can, and it drags down whatever moral purpose you may have once had. Your argument is that removing tyrants is noble, but you ignore the rare occasions in history where the war was really and truly justified. The examples of wars based on choice are myriad.
And I must say blaming Obama for Iran now when it was Bush that back-handed them across the face when they offered help after 9/11, and have shown nothing but open belligerence to Iran (and probably causing them to elect Ahmedinajad) on several occasions when they were malleable to our cause, is carrying things out quite too far. Obama has been in office 6 months, yet he gets blamed for so much as if he's been in office for 6 years. Obama didn't enable Iran to get nukes, so don't play us for fools. You're straw man begging-the-question about "Well, let's take the guy at his word" is a pathetic ploy. You assume someone is evermore intelligent and battling totalitarians, or stupid and ignoring them. Obviously we would not have been bombing Saddam for 12 years if our leader was the latter. Co-existence with Saddam is impossible...in the same way other Islamic countries say the same about Israel. Again, you are highlighting known quantities that barely stand out amongst their peers, and screaming about them being direly necessary to address. I'm not surprised at all at what Hillary and Al said. But co-existence with NK looks pretty damn impossible too, and we're not invading them now are we? Why? Because they have nothing of value aside from the fact that they regularly threaten others with nukes (which I believe is far more worthwhile as a war option). Precious few others have much we would want as well, which is another reason why the IW was done for less than moral purposes. Your claim is that the outcome of the IW is ultimately moral, but we now know that whatever thin version of freedom they *might* have now came about not by planning, but by the dollar signs and political ambitions.
Posted by: Cimourdain | August 3, 2009 6:28 PM
For all that you call my points "lies", you offer precious little to refute them. I will therefore concentrate on those factual assertions you have made, and skip over the ridiculous abstractions ungrounded in any such prosaic matter as proof.
That Zahawie, Saddam's chief nuclear diplotmat was monkeying around in Niger is not denied. That Niger is also famous for its dealings with nuclear yellowcake is also not denied.
However, I find the following quite revealing:
So you admit that Saddam Hussein was in pursuit of WMDs. Good. Nice to have that settled.
Even assuming this is true, that the only weapons he used were US built, then that only makes the removal of a tyrant like Saddam not only a right, but a duty. That's a debt that can't be shirked.
Your attempt to dismiss the hub that Saddamist Iraq was of jihadist gangs by the cheap "they weren't active within Iraq" is, simply, false. THe Fedayeen Saddam were an SS-style force that was recruited directly from these elements. Zaraqawi showed up in Kurdistan trying to kill off Saddam's main enemies. Next question, please.
As a matter of fact, I considered making this point myself in the previous posting, but deleted it due to size restraints. Well, be that as it may, this is no different from the apologetics that you get about the Catholic and Protestant involvements in the Final Solution. It doesn't change one iota about the facts. Furthermore, there's something that I don't think you quite understand: the church-state separation is just not found in Islam, so the idea that Saddam was "secular" nonsense from the getgo.
Now there speaks someone who truly does not know anything about either Islam or Islamic societies, or Saddam's Iraq. Saddam capitalized on the Jihadist interpretations and pumped out jihadist propaganda and was the guy who hailed 9/11 as the beginning of a greater attack to come. Yeah, sure, "just to distract from his internal problems" - and I care, why? That is practically textbook fascism.
Yeah, the way Baghdad was exclusively populated by the aggressors against Kuwait and Kurdistan... Try a little learning. You could start with I Shall Bear Witness a Jewish diary written from Dresden. You know how few Nazis show up in it? Do you know about the anti-Nazi resistance in places like Hamburg, that vanished off into the firestorms of the RAF?
A couple of classes in high-school are not learning in a subject as important as the Third Reich.
In great contrast, I might add, the removal of Saddam Hussein went to superhuman lengths to prevent civilian casualties and unnecessary destruction. Compare that with the immolation of Germany.
How about dealing with what I write, rather than telling me how I sound? Let's take it again. I said that Saddam paid for, openly, the ones who did, as a matter of fact, strap bombs on themselves and blow up in a coffee shop in Tel Aviv.
Do you really think someone like these people got into or out of Iraq without Saddam knowing it? Hitchens notes that Abu Nidal was working out of an Iraqi office, and the hijackers of the Achille Lauro were travelling on Iraqi passports.
Re: South Africa
My point precisely.
No, excuse me, that's a bridge too far. Moore is on record as praising and defending the killers and gangsters destroying Iraqi civil society that you purport to abhor as much as I do. He has openly called for the killing of more coalition troops. He produced the most propagandistic vision of Iraq under Saddam that I think I've ever seen.
Galloway is a man who was provably and demonstrably on the take from Saddam as part of the Oil for Food racket. That is, he provably defrauded the wretched of the earth in order to defend one of the most hideous tyrants on earth. This is a man who goes to Syria and praises Assad and the 145 attacks per day carried out in Iraq and then goes to the US to appeal to the families of those so murdered. And he is the man who said that the worst day of his life was the fall of the USSR.
I have said before that I am not a spokesperson or defender of the Bush administration. I am certainly not a defender of its inability to name the enemy, or its palling around with Saudi Arabia. I reserve the right to think for myself and decide these matter on my own. Now let me make one clear. If you want to take up these scum and be bound by their moral character, fine. If George Bush ranks so high in your consciousness that you are willing to go to the bat for any filth that happens to attack him, your problem.
There have been plenty of decent, human opponents of the removal of Saddam Hussein. I give you Scott Ritter as an example. Galloway and Moore are of a different breed, openly in alliance with fascism and theocracy.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
August 3, 2009 8:44 PM
"For all that you call my points "lies", you offer precious little to refute them..."
Um, ex-squeeze me? did someone who's posted exactly dick about anything to back himself up just call someone else out for not posting anything that backs him up? Gee that's odd, I missed the last time you posted a link to anything. Oh that's right, you haven't. And I'm the one not providing proof. I re-checked though just to make sure I was right, and I was. In fact the only people providing links backing their position up are people further up that agree with me. You've done nothing in kind. You don't really need to though. Facts are stubborn things, and well, they left your party circa 2006.
"...So you admit that Saddam Hussein was in pursuit of WMDs. Good. Nice to have that settled..."
LOL so *you* admit you're harping on something so patently obvious and that we have to monitor on *everyone* in the world. Glad to see you're making a total strawman argument. Mountain out of one particular mole hill in a sea of them. You have yet to show how Saddam is unique in this respect, and further how incapable we were of stopping him when he never accomplished amassing anything. Pakistan already was a military junta as well, had/has nukes, and was less stable, while engaged in an active turf battle with India. Oh but Pakistan has nothing we need at the moment...damn, that resources element keeps popping up...
"...That Zahawie, Saddam's chief nuclear diplotmat was monkeying around in Niger is not denied..."
It is very much denied, by intelligence reports that say that never happened. One more word: Curveball. Learn to say it. This has been investigated and shot down man. Stop trying.
"...Well, be that as it may, this is no different from the apologetics that you get about the Catholic and Protestant involvements in the Final Solution. It doesn't change one iota about the facts. Furthermore, there's something that I don't think you quite understand: the church-state separation is just not found in Islam, so the idea that Saddam was "secular" nonsense from the getgo...
You mistake what I am saying. I am not saying that religion was mis-used. I am an atheist and know perfectly well the apologetics vis a vis the Nazis and the Church. I am saying that Saddam, from all outward appearances, was not a strict practicing Muslim, and he used the idea of jihad without actually believing it himself. I'm saying of course he would use something like that. He was a thug in power. This should be no surprise to anyone. Stalin at times invoked god in impelling the populace; it doesn't mean he was a raving member of the orthodoxy. A thug in power uses whatever cudgel is at his disposal. Dictator is as dictator does. Picking little pieces out to try and differeniate him from 100 others in this world in an attempt to make a case for war is, shall we say, picking a few nits.
As for Saddam and the definition of the word secular, Saddam was about as "secular" as you could get in the region. Which other ME country *doesn't* have a Muslim or like sympathizer as head of state? Again, Saddam was not a man known for being outwardly Muslim. The videos I've seen of him worshipping looked pretty staged to say the least. And again, even if he was a raving Islamic radical, it would change pretty much nothing about his former status. The WMDs he had were signed off on by us, his funding of terrorists in other lands was not unique at all amongst his neighbors as you readily admit (Saudi Arabia), he had already been invaded and defanged 13 years earlier because he attacked another nation, and he was seeking weapons like everyone else. The only difference is that he had oil. You will never convince me he was more of a potential threat than Pakistan, for reasons I've already covered.
"...How about dealing with what I write, rather than telling me how I sound? Let's take it again. I said that Saddam paid for, openly, the ones who did, as a matter of fact, strap bombs on themselves and blow up in a coffee shop in Tel Aviv..."
I already did focus on what you said. Why are you bothering to attack something we both agree on, and that I've already referenced more than a couple times?
"...Now there speaks someone who truly does not know anything about either Islam or Islamic societies, or Saddam's Iraq. Saddam capitalized on the Jihadist interpretations and pumped out jihadist propaganda and was the guy who hailed 9/11 as the beginning of a greater attack to come. Yeah, sure, "just to distract from his internal problems" - and I care, why? That is practically textbook fascism..."
No, textbook fascism is dividing people into groups and pitting the strong against the weak under the guise of the strong being dragged down by the weak, thus legitimizing the destruction of the weak. How is Saddam trumpeting and abusing Islam textbook fascism? It's called a con job, not fascism.
"...Do you know about the anti-Nazi resistance in places like Hamburg, that vanished off into the firestorms of the RAF?..."
Contrary to your assumptions of my level of understanding on the matter, yes of course I know about the anti-Nazi Jewish forces within the country. Nice strawman extrapolation though.
"...In great contrast, I might add, the removal of Saddam Hussein went to superhuman lengths to prevent civilian casualties and unnecessary destruction. Compare that with the immolation of Germany..."
Due certainly to changing and advancing military technology. But don't tell me we were largely surgical most of the time. If so, hundreds of thousands wouldn't have died in the process. If the policy was truly as sound as our policy during WW2, we also wouldn't have been torturing prisoners, busting into homes, and other such actions that made the situation worse. All that surgical force would have been better served by having people familiar with the ME and far more capable than those Rumsfeld sent in. When it comes to behavior in wartime, WW2 is hard to surpass. FDR's expectations of our military then was miles ahead of Bush's expectations much more recently, and his malfesance in this respect detracts from whatever moral cause he thought he was engaging in. We went after terrorists and ended up taking far more civilian lives taken than terrorists dead. And that gets to another very salient point about the IW: It plays right into the hands of people like bin Laden. Get us stuck somewhere in a sectarian battle trying to find terrorists in hovels (shadows of Viet Nam no less), while he and others conduct terrorism globally. Terrorists didn't all flock to Iraq just because we were there. Terrorism can hatch itself anywhere (look at the Phillippines), and fighting unconventional means like terrorism with conventional tactics is, frankly, stupid. Building greater international intelligence, cooperation, and policing will have a far greater affect in stopping terrorism over time than one big conflict poorly planned, executed, and later patched by more capable leaders. And btw, just to clear things up before you might make an errant conclusion, I have no problems with our fight in Afghanistan. That country harbored terrorists openly and attacked us while trying to obtain greater weapons. I will point out however that they didn't outwardly attack another country, one of the four criteria.
I'm attacking your criterion and the convenient application of them. I'm not attacking you totally for Bush's mistakes. As I pointed out I am attacking your reasoning and claim to a moral stance as inevitably flawed, one that convinces itself of something it is not. And no I'm not an automatic Bush hater any time someone bags on him. He did a couple things I have no problem with. It's just that he was the worst president we've ever known, and his Iraq policy will define his place in history as such. But you cannot deny that at the core his international policy was closer to your personal position than pretty much anything you can point to. I frankly have no interest in giving those sorts of policies another college try, that is unless far more countries that truly are our friends are involved, and unless the international community is committed like they were in 1991. That's the *only* way your position begins to tread water, especially with me.
"...Do you really think someone like these people got into or out of Iraq without Saddam knowing it? Hitchens notes that Abu Nidal was working out of an Iraqi office, and the hijackers of the Achille Lauro were travelling on Iraqi passports..."
Well what I do know is that it was not uncommon for ne'er-do-wells to fool the system with fake documentation. The question is, is there proof Saddam signed off on these passports, or that he even gave the nod? Saddam knows about all terrorists in his country at all times? We don't know that about our own country. The case you're making is rather absurd because it's based on the assumption that because Saddam was a dictator, Saddam automatically had said persons on stakeout at all times so their whereabouts were known. That doesn't sound feasible to me quite frankly. Working out of an Iraqi office? With Saddam's bidding? And all of this goes against what we know to be the truth, that bin Laden had no love for Saddam, who was viewed as a heretic by more than a few Muslims in the ME. Even further still, all of this under the assumption no other ME country harbored terrorists (which is demonstrably false, SA and Yemen come to mind) targeting Western countries. Based on the harboring and payment of terrorists alone as cause for invasion and war, plenty of countries in the ME (who also have oil but happen to have Bush family friends in place) were certainly tempting targets by those standards.
"...Galloway is a man who was provably and demonstrably on the take from Saddam as part of the Oil for Food racket..."
Galloway is an idiot. I have no love for the man, I'm simply pointing out the vein popping that occurs whenever singular individuals like Moore or Galloway are mentioned vis a vis the IW. I know who Galloway is.
"...There have been plenty of decent, human opponents of the removal of Saddam Hussein. I give you Scott Ritter as an example..."
On that we agree. Although I do find it odd that you qualified with "human".
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
August 3, 2009 9:44 PM
Oh and by the way, lest you think I take my IW stance thinly and arrogantly from my computer chair, and without having proximity to anyone involved in our actions over there, I have a friend fighting in Iraq right now giving his all. I don't sit here and talk about things I haven't talked to actual service people about. But I know the IW supporters love to convince themselves of the illusion that IW opponents are all sitting at home sipping tea and eating French doughnuts...
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
August 3, 2009 9:58 PM
And that's in addition to a friend of mine who has a friend serving in Iraq right now as well. A couple soldiers from his unit were killed very recently. Don't think IW opponents don't know what the loss of our service people is like, because you would be arrogantly mistaken.
I've also given money to groups supporting our military as they fight the war, so don't think you can get in my (internet) face about being a cheap talker. I gave Bush's election bribe money (otherwise known as an election year tax cut) to the troops last year. I am not a one dimensional caricature.
Posted by: Calling it like it is | August 19, 2009 3:43 PM
Just how do the moral relativists say it's wrong to intervene, wouldn't that be taking a moral position, saying something is wrong? "We can't intervene in their [insert non-white culture here] because who are we to say it's bad? And that would make us imperialists and racists."
They are so inconsisent. If you're a true moral relativist, and not just the average multiculturalist, then you should have no say on what's good or bad, you couldn't say it was wrong to intervene, you would have no stance, not simply on what the various third world cultures do to women {which seems to be the default position of such} but also INCLUDING any response/intervention taken by other countries, and yes, that's oh-so-hard when the average self-defined "moral relativist" has to apply their own {non-stance} towards USA, U.K. or any other developed nation, with a high percentage of white caucasian population.
Posted by: Calling it like it is | August 19, 2009 3:52 PM
Just how do the moral relativists say it's wrong to intervene, wouldn't that be taking a moral position, ya know, saying something is wrong? "We can't intervene in their [insert non-white cultural practice here] because who are we to say it's bad? And that would make us Imperialists and therefore Racists." They are so inconsisent. If you're a true moral relativist, and not just the average multiculturalist, then you should have no say on what's good or bad, you couldn't say it was wrong to intervene, you would have no stance, morally, not simply on what the various third world cultures do to women [which seems to be the default position of such] but also INCLUDING any response/intervention taken by other countries, and yes, that's Oh-so-hard when the average self-defined "moral relativist" has to apply their own {non-stance} towards USA, U.K. or any other developed nation with a high percentage of white caucasian population.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 28, 2009 11:54 AM
CILII, nice of you to distort the reality of a situation like Iraq. The facts is Iraq didn't attack us, on 9/11 or at any other point. They didn't have WMDs, and a lot of the killing of Kurds that Saddam did was with our weapons years before 9/11 happened and a while before Bush decided to go in. We knew well ahead of the start of the second IW what Saddam had done, and we spoke nothing of it until it came time for another Republican administration, one that was a radical extension of his father's more moderate presidency from eight years earlier. We know they planned to go into Iraq if Bush II was ever elected, and we have that sentiment dated on paper before Bush even assumed office in 2001. These people had an agenda to attack a nation that didn't attack us. This is undeniable fact, and the thin excuses used to prosecute the war were a pathetic attempt to hide the real intentions. Read everything I and other anti-IW posters posted further up. We've already covered this and I'm not going to re-explain myself or my position.
As for moral relativism, I note the historic irony of war supporters who proceed from a false position of moral superiority. One the one hand you claim intervention is the only option, and then on the other you seek to do for Iraqis what in another breath you claim they must do themselves (i.e. fight for their own freedom). You use bombs to spread democracy, you pay defense contractors billions of taxpayer dollars running a mercenary operation while our real soldiers' supply line languishes for years, you pay the Blackwaters and Halliburtons who employ people that couldn't tell an Iraqi from a Saudi and are not inclined to care because they're there to wipe out Islam for Jesus, you allow the few to war profiteer and mistreat and kill civilians in the name of the United States, and you botch a massive operation by having no exit plan in place and no Pentagon leadership willing to make sure the people they claim to be liberating have what they need and to earn their trust. In the process we end up spending $2 trillion on an operation many experts now think will do nothing more than benefit Iran, we have ended up killing about half as many people as Saddam did in less time through bombing campaigns and inadvertently causing terrorism in a land that didn't have it prior to our arrival, and "liberation" of a country the size of California has now taken much more time than WW2 while showing through the shoddiest of military leadership at the top that the US can't handle a country of 30 million people (let alone 2), to say nothing of having to go after NK if things get worse.
Wars of choice are the antithesis of your weak moralizing. You think you are being morally consistent when all you are doing is acting out of convenience while ignoring the facts and other more dire situations elsewhere in the world. If entering Iraq was about moral absolutism, we would have invaded much of Africa years ago to stop widespread humanitarian atrocities there occurring every day in multiple banana republics. But Africa has no resources we want, which is why we didn't go. I wholly reject your fake moral superiority because as Bush has shown, it's far more interested in getting a payoff, not in actually liberating anyone.