Pharyngula

Posted by: Matt H. | August 26, 2009 8:10 AM

Sorry PZ, but why do you think 'we have done it again in Iraq'? Surely you don't subscribe to the 'they did it for oil' conspiracy?

Bush may have gone into Iraq for the wrong reasons (saying there were WMDs where there were none, etc), but there's no doubt that removing a genocidal maniac like Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Iraq is on its way to democracy... nothing was achieved in Vietnam. Don't compare the two.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 26, 2009 8:19 AM

The Calley affair was taught when I was in military college, as part of an ethics and leadership course.

>>but there's no doubt that removing a genocidal maniac
>>like Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Iraq is on its way
>>to democracy

You're wrong. There is A LOT of doubt. It seems apparent to most people that the population of Iraq is not, in fact, better off now than they were under Saddam.

Under Saddam, the streets were essentially safe, and when the USA wasn't torquing the country up, they were prosperous, generally well educated, healthy and for the most part, happy.

Now, the streets are unsafe, there is violence everwhere, the economy and infrastructure are in shambles, random fundamentalist warlords are vying for position, and foreign powers are trying to impose a system of government that the people seem to have little interest in. What there is no doubt of is that the country is worse off now than it was in 1985 after Saddam came to power and will continue to be worse off for many, many years.

That is NOT an improvement. They certainly have lots of reason to distrust a US imposed government and US imposed methods: it was the US that backstopped Saddam in the first place.

Difficult though it may be to understand, not everyone prospers under nor desires a democracy - especially one imposed by military force from outside powers.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 26, 2009 8:24 AM

Matt H, I think he's talking about the gross abuse of power by both soldiers on the ground and politicians higher up, which made sure that a fight which resulted in democracy was fought by leaders and men who quickly became seen as (and somewhat justifiably) as thugs and brutes. Abu Graib, numerous tortures of Iraqi prisoners, some being tortured to death, a number of incidents where US soldiers murdered people who presented no threat to them. Furthermore the cost of war with Iraq on the Iraqi people has clearly been great, resulting in tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths, more than Saddam could have killed over the same period.

Bringing Democracy to other countries is good, but to think that that makes the Iraq War closer to Normandy 1944 than Vietnam 1968 then you're clearly missing the full picture.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 8:31 AM

It's precisely because people like Matt H. believe that bullshit propaganda that LBJ, Nixon, and Kissinger got away with it and Bush and Cheney will.

Posted by: Gilian | August 26, 2009 8:37 AM

"but there's no doubt that removing a genocidal maniac like Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Iraq is on its way to democracy... nothing was achieved in Vietnam"

We could discuss the merits of democracy, but it actually boils down to the bit where you (the USA) interfered in another country and created an environment that's a shitload worse then the 2 penny dictator Saddam ever was. There's more people dead, more people missing and more people tortured than under Saddam. Nothing will be achieved in Iraq either. Neither will anything happen in Afghanistan or any other country where a historian could tell you to watch out or avoid making the same mistakes . Naaah, you just grab a M-16 and a bible and pretend to defend the USA by shooting up anything that moves.

So yes, I agree with PZ's words here: You have become the villain, The rogue statue, The bad guy. Korea=Vietnam=Iraq=Afghanistan.
(and before you get all patriotic over it, there's more countries that fuck things up, it's just that you all seem to be so damn proud of your mistakes)

Posted by: Masklinn | August 26, 2009 8:42 AM

Iraq is on its way to democracy...

It's not. And you can't impose democracy on people, they have to find it for themselves. The only thing you can impose is another kind of tyranny.

Posted by: David | August 26, 2009 8:45 AM

"some things never seem to change" - how apt. If you collect a bunch of 20-year-old men, train them to be aggressive, arm them, and put them in contact with people who look and act different, you run the risk of unleashing the worst aspects of human nature. These are within all of us, as is the capacity for empathy and kindness. Wartime atrocities are a part of war - always were, and always will be.

As for the war on terrorism, our failure to anticipate the inevitable realization of similar acts (Abu Ghraib, Haditha....) means that we will never be able to "win" - our military presence in islamic nations is doomed to create more enemies than we destroy.

some things never seem to change

Posted by: Thunderbird5 | August 26, 2009 8:51 AM

Matt H

Jeez that's a tough one. I mean, if it were a toss up between Saddam's goons breaking down my door at midnight or Blackwater Securities goons ascertaining my 'safety' by doing the same (for Great Profit) I'd have to sit down and think it over.

Meanwhile, the US govt's concerns for Freedom In Iraq being so pressing (viz. an old beef with Bush Snr being more aggressively actionable than blowing up 2000-odd civilians in their offices) we'll just have to sit tight indefinitely for them to get round to dealing with the alleged 9/11 idea-perp in Afghanistan - you know, just as soon as a viable resource presents itself for worthwhile exploitation and extraction. Oh and whenever the UK govt comes to its senses and pulls our troops the hell out of there.

And meanwhile, back OT: so Lt William Calley says sorry ay? Prompted by the fear of an imminent audience with his imaginary Sky Daddy, presumably. I'd be more inclined to buy the sorry if it'd been said 40 years ago, say.

Posted by: Roameo | August 26, 2009 8:53 AM

but there's no doubt that removing a genocidal maniac like Saddam Hussein was a good thing.

Given the US's history of bringing into power, propping up, arming, and giving political credibility to some of the most bloodthirsty dictators in the world, (including this particular genocidal maniac), how can anyone buy the line that you had the Iraqis best interests at heart?
The only people to benefit from this tragedy are the US contractors, their suppliers, and other members of that complex that Eisenhower warned about. It was very much in your country's interest for things in that part of the world to get a whole lot worse, and guess what. they did.

Posted by: littlejohn | August 26, 2009 8:57 AM

The greatest Mad Magazine cover ever: Alfred E. Neuman asking, "What, My Lai?"

Did I just give away my age?

Posted by: Ray Moscow | August 26, 2009 9:07 AM

I have to say that it's a relief to be on a site with people who are not so easily fooled.

What I found very troubling is that most people, even liberal ones, were so easy snowed by:

1. Iraq helped/is helping/will help the 9/11 terrorists! (Despite all evidence and reason to the contrary.)

2. No? Well, then they have WMD ready to attack us at any moment! (Ditto)

3. No? Well, the Iraqi people hunger for democracy, and we should bring it to them! (As if)

Even people who aren't that familiar with world politics must surely realise that if the story keeps changing, they are being lied to? Apparently not.

Posted by: raven | August 26, 2009 9:13 AM

but there's no doubt that removing a genocidal maniac like Saddam Hussein was a good thing.

Oh? There is a lot of doubt. Some people ask whether Saddam lead Iraq or Iraq created Saddam.

No doubt he was a monster. But he kept a lid on the three or more sectarian factions that could have blown Iraq apart. And Iraq was a westernized, secular country for the Arab middle east.

We lifted the lid and bang, it blew up. Most would consider that we accomplished less than zero. The USA stomping around in an oil rich, Arab Moslem country probably created more Islamic terrorists in a day than Osama did in a year.

Posted by: KI | August 26, 2009 9:15 AM

If Kissinger and Cheney aren't in jail, why is anyone? If you won't imprison two of the greatest threats to humanity and civilization why are the prisons full of pot smokers? Fuck the USA, bust it up into a dozen different countries so it stops trying to destroy the planet.

Signed: a citizen of the future Democratic People's Republic of the North Star (Minnesota, Wisconsin, the Upper Peninsula and the Dakotas east of the Republic of Lakota).

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 9:17 AM

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 8:33 AM

When the unremarkable idea that a nation might invade another nation for economic reasons is called an irresponsible "conspiracy theory," that's a sad indictment of history education

The impression we Americans get from our history teachers, not to mention from the press, is that World War II was the rule rather than the exception. You can see the results.

Posted by: Ferre | August 26, 2009 9:20 AM

Mr Myers, I still do not understand why you endorsed Obama, even a child (in the rest of the world, that is) can see that he is the representative of the same powers that brought you JW Bush and Nixon.

As long as you Americans keep blind for the fact that both republican and democrats are owned, and NOT by you, nothing will ever change. It is one party with two faces.

Remember Einstein's definition of insanity; "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" next time you have to vote.

Please, for the sake of the people in the rest of the world, who suffer from your voting stupidity since decades, stop voting for democrat or republican presidents, they are all owned.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 9:24 AM

@6: Are you seriously trying to have us believe that you would have supported interventions in these other places? If you don't support a war to remove a dictator when it also stops him from controlling a huge amount of a resource that happens to be vital to us at the moment, why would you support a war where there isn't any economic incentive at all?

No I'm not, but I am wanting people to be honest about why we went into Iraq and quit making up grandiose supposedly morally superior reasons for it.

I notice you didn't disagree with my statement.

Posted by: Lars | August 26, 2009 9:49 AM

If you can see an innocent having to be killed, then you can see two.

If you can see two ... et cetera.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 26, 2009 9:53 AM

>>1979

Yes, I know Saddam came to power in 1979, but I wanted to allow a few years for him to stabilize things so nobody would pop in here with some trivial detail from January 1980 and say "See, Saddam had a mess too" so what the US is doing now is totally better.

I should have been more clear, perhaps.

Posted by: sethv | August 26, 2009 9:57 AM

No I'm not, but I am wanting people to be honest about why we went into Iraq and quit making up grandiose supposedly morally superior reasons for it.

I notice you didn't disagree with my statement.

No, I don't disagree. We probably would have let Hussein have Kuwait if oil wasn't involved (it would be nice to think otherwise but, as you point out, other situations in the world contradict this). Unfortunately we (US/Europe) live in a society that can't function without oil. I think we should be spending a whole lot more effort and money on alternative energy, but until we wean ourselves I think oil is worth fighting over.

You didn't express this view, but another poster (#3) basically said that some people (presumably far away) are better off with a dictator. My question is: who get's to decide this? The dictator? American biology professors?

I don't think the fact that we probably wouldn't be their if it wasn't for oil changes the moral argument at all, but I do agree that people shouldn't pretend the war in Iraq is purely idealistic.

Posted by: Carlie | August 26, 2009 10:05 AM

As long as you Americans keep blind for the fact that both republican and democrats are owned, and NOT by you, nothing will ever change. It is one party with two faces.

Spoken like someone who hasn't had to live under either. Ferre, if you would get your head out of your ass with regard to American politics, you would notice that there are distinct differences between the parties. There are some underlying principles that are the same, and lobbyists go after both, but believe me, people on the margins of society really do suffer more under one party than under the other. Try reading the actual party platforms. Try looking at tax rates in different administrations. Try looking at which corporations get the biggest tax breaks under different leadership. Try looking at what kinds of presidential signing statements each party tries to get away with. Try looking at Supreme Court decisions rendered when the majority was appointed by one party or the other. People who spout crap like "they're both the same" make me furious because they're not, even if those people are too apathetic or jaded to notice or care one way or the other. Checking out entirely makes no difference at all, whereas agitating within a party at least has some chance of effecting change.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 10:10 AM

What kind of anti-American traitor would apologize for America? I mean really

Great argument.

What's next, he's a Muslim?

Posted by: sethv | August 26, 2009 10:18 AM

Sure it does. We wouldn't give two shits about the dictatorship and its victims if there wasn't an economic reason for us to give two shits.

That severely changes the moral argument.

Some of us do give two shits, but I can't walk over Rambo style and end genocide in Darfur or depose Kim Jong-il by myself. Your argument seems to be that unless we invade Sudan and North Korea we can't say that Saddam Hussein was a fascist dictator.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 10:22 AM

Damn messed up tags. Repost of above:

Posted by: Richard Harris | August 26, 2009 9:19 AM

I thought, when it started, that the (secret) rationale was that if Iraq were democratized, the people of the neighbouring Islamic states would quickly come to realize how good things are under secular governance.

This would then prevent terrorists in Saudi Arabia from turning off the oil, or terrorists in Pakistan becoming powerful enough to threaten oil producers to turn off the supply.

It wasn't a secret. The press didn't talk about it much, but Bush and some of his advisors did. I could never figure out if they were stupid enough to actually believe it was a plausible outcome or if they were just pretending.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 10:23 AM

@PZ Myers:

We became the bad guys, the villains in black hats, in that disgraceful war, and we've done it once again in Iraq.

I served in Iraq. I did not wear a black hat and I did everything I could to make some sense out of a bad situation.

@Gillian:

Naaah, you just grab a M-16 and a bible and pretend to defend the USA by shooting up anything that moves.

Yeah, that's exactly what I did. Oh wait, no it's not, I signed up even before the war started (not that it matters, because plenty of people signed up for the right reasons before and after 9-11 or Iraq). I signed up and then obeyed the lawful orders of the officers appointed above me which were handed down from the duly elected civilian leadership. We do it this way because, though the system might not be the best, this division of labor makes civilized life possible.

I am not looking for a ticker-tape parade (though those are nice) but I am looking for a modicrum of respect. I didn't kill civilians, I didn't wear a black hat, and I wasn't holding a bible in one hand and an M-16 in another. It was an M-4 and I held it with both hands because I am an atheist and I didn't want to face oblivion some decades too early.

@bam:

War puts enormous pressure on people. It's easy to sit here at home and say, with absolute truth, that what Calley did was wrong.

I don't recall the specifics, but I do not think Calley personally committed any atrocities. Someone will please correct me if I am wrong. He was said to have been an ineffective leader and clearly was not in control. I see him more of a scapegoat then anything.

@Jeff S:

War is horrible. I would almost never judge a soldier for following orders.

"Lawful orders," in any case, I really wish people would consider what you just said before making blanket generalizations and oversimplifications. No doubt some people here would say that I should have deserted, risked jail and left my family destitute. Well, they will forgive me for not taking their idealism seriously when they have likely not been faced with a similar dilemma.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 10:25 AM

Posted by: Carlie | August 26, 2009 10:05 AM As long as you Americans keep blind for the fact that both republican and democrats are owned, and NOT by you, nothing will ever change. It is one party with two faces.

Spoken like someone who hasn't had to live under either. Ferre, if you would get your head out of your ass with regard to American politics, you would notice that there are distinct differences between the parties. There are some underlying principles that are the same, and lobbyists go after both, but believe me, people on the margins of society really do suffer more under one party than under the other.

This is true for people on the margins of society inside the US. But when it comes to people outside the US, both parties support interventionist foreign policy equally.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 10:34 AM

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 10:23 AM

@PZ Myers:

We became the bad guys, the villains in black hats, in that disgraceful war, and we've done it once again in Iraq.
I served in Iraq. I did not wear a black hat and I did everything I could to make some sense out of a bad situation.

Way to miss the point. PZ was criticizing the people who started the war. He was not criticizing you.

Posted by: Richard Harris | August 26, 2009 10:36 AM

Truthspeaker, I didn't hear that over here in the UK, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't said here too.

I feel sad for the people who have to suffer over all this - but whatever the outcome, there's going to be suffering, unless & until the poisonous influence of religion can be eliminated.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 10:42 AM

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 10:38 AM

@truthspeaker:

Way to miss the point. PZ was criticizing the people who started the war. He was not criticizing you.
Notice I didn't disagree with PZ's point. I just pointed out that the "we" might be seen to unfairly include people that don't wear black hats.

"We" includes every US citizen. Ultimately we're responsible for what our government does.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 10:44 AM

Some of us do give two shits, but I can't walk over Rambo style and end genocide in Darfur or depose Kim Jong-il by myself.

Yes many of us do. I mean the government in power at the time. My bad for not being clear.

Your argument seems to be that unless we invade Sudan and North Korea we can't say that Saddam Hussein was a fascist dictator.

No my argument is nothing even close to that but you can continue to add keep building that straw-man if you feel like to need to. My argument is Saddam's dictatorship was only an issue in regards to his control over a large enough percentage of the worlds oil to concern us. The use of "those poor Iraqis" is a ruse to try and make the invasion palatable for the general public. Continuing to use that as the main reason is transparent, ridiculous and dishonest.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 10:49 AM

What kind of anti-American traitor would apologize for America? I mean really

So if you're at the grocery store and your child knocks a jar of olives off the shelf, if you apologize to the employee who has to clean up the broken glass, that means you hate your child.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 10:50 AM

@truthspeaker:

"We" includes every US citizen. Ultimately we're responsible for what our government does.

I don’t know about you, but I was doing my damnest to protect innocents, help repair the infrastructure, train Iraqi soldiers, and just basically make things better; all the while being reminded of my own mortality. Thanks for your support!

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 10:52 AM

Posted by: Ray Moscow | August 26, 2009 10:49 AM

@#54, zeroangel:

I think one of the greatest crimes politicians can commit is to send servicepeople, who are sworn to protect the country and its constitution, into harm's way on false pretenses.

And the second-greatest crime is trying to convince the servicepeople that criticisms of the politicians are an attack on the servicepeople.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 10:56 AM

Does the mind boggle scott?

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 10:57 AM

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 10:50 AM

@truthspeaker:

"We" includes every US citizen. Ultimately we're responsible for what our government does.
I don’t know about you, but I was doing my damnest to protect innocents, help repair the infrastructure, train Iraqi soldiers, and just basically make things better; all the while being reminded of my own mortality.

This is completely irrelevant to the topic.

We are talking about the decision to invade Iraq. This decision was made by our elected government. Regardless of the actions of individuals, our country did something wrong. You are responding to criticism that nobody is making.

Posted by: CortxVortx | August 26, 2009 11:00 AM

Re: #19

The greatest Mad Magazine cover ever: Alfred E. Neuman asking, "What, My Lai?"

Did I just give away my age?

It was on The National Lampoon, actually. I still have that issue. (Talk about giving away one's age!)

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 11:02 AM

As far as "lawful orders" to be honest, the laws of the US are really the only ones applicable from the point of view of a US soldier.

US Army Field Manual 27-10, chapter 1, states: "treaties relating to the law of war have a force equal to that of laws enacted by the Congress. Their provisions must be observed by both military and civilian personnel with the same strict regard for both the letter and spirit of the law which is required with respect to the Constitution and statutes enacted in pursuance thereof."

Posted by: Marc Abian | August 26, 2009 11:04 AM

I thought, when it started, that the (secret) rationale was that if Iraq were democratized, the people of the neighbouring Islamic states would quickly come to realize how good things are under secular governance

Turkey currently.
Iran in 1953

The US has rarely played the role of good guy. I'm thankful its role as unchecked global hegemon is rapidly coming to a close.

I'm not.
I don't think any Imperial power has ever played the role of a good guy, and at least this one was democratic.

Posted by: AlanWCan | August 26, 2009 11:06 AM

MattH == Facepalm

Posted by: Zen Druid | August 26, 2009 11:08 AM

Conspiracy theory: Bush the First stopped the first Gulf war when he did, so the US could maintain a military foothold in the area, and also so he could sell billions worth of military toys in the area to counter the continuing possibility of a revitalized Saddam.

One of the al-Queda's rationales for 9-11 was the anger toward the army of 'infidels' continuing to occupy Saudi Arabia.

By invading Iraq, Bush II simply migrated the military presence north from Saudi Arabia. Curiously, since then I have not heard or read anything at all concerning the US presence in SA. It would seem that the US conceded that point to al-Queda.

L Paul Bremer fucked up big time by disbanding the Iraqi National Police. They had the resources and intelligence necessary to keep tabs on the 'troublemakers'. All that was needed was a small adjustment in INP methodology, and I'm sure its leaders would have been pragmatic enough to accept this.

Having ignored the fact that the borders are porous, Evil Dick and Rumsfeld deliberately turned Iraq into a killing field, hoping to attract 'terrorists' from the region into their gunsights.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 11:09 AM

Just to be clear, in no way am I disparaging the soldiers for doing their job.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 11:13 AM

Conspiracy theory: Bush the First stopped the first Gulf war when he did, so the US could maintain a military foothold in the area, and also so he could sell billions worth of military toys in the area to counter the continuing possibility of a revitalized Saddam.

I'm inclined to believe Daddy Bush's own explanation of events.

Posted by: JJR | August 26, 2009 11:14 AM

I'm reminded of George H.W. Bush, smugly triumphant at the end of Gulf War I, declaring that we had buried the 'Vietnam Syndrome' in the sands of the Arabian Desert.

To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, the Return of the Repressed is a bitch, ain't it?

Calley, like McNamara = too little, too late.

In other news, the brave helicopter pilot who intervened at My Lai and put his gunship between Calley's men and the villagers also recently passed away.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 11:24 AM

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 11:07 AM

@thruthspeaker:

You are responding to criticism that nobody is making.
Please see my previous post. Criticisms against soldiers often go hand in hand with blanket statements about "good guys" and "bad guys."

If it happens often, it must be places I never go or read, because I have very rarely seen it.

What I have seen is some soldiers treating criticism of the government as if it were criticism of them, and politicians exploiting this feeling to suppress criticism of the government.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 11:28 AM

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 11:14 AM

@thruthspeaker:

Too bad. I'm not going to refrain from telling the truth just because someone's sensitivities might get offended.
Yes, spoken like someone who has the luxury of living in a state that makes civilized life possible via division of labor.

So, what, because we have a professional volunteer military we have to pretend servicepeople and their families are delicate little flowers who can't handle the truth?

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 11:30 AM

@thruthspeaker:

If it happens often, it must be places I never go or read,

Must be, because if you think only one side of the political aisle is guilty of outrageous rhetoric you must not be reading or going to all places.

Posted by: Paul | August 26, 2009 11:32 AM

Yes, spoken like someone who has the luxury of living in a state that makes civilized life possible via division of labor. So, been to any soldier’s funerals lately? I imagine you read the eulogy and talked about how that person died in vain.

Yes, invading Iraq makes it possible for us to properly divide labor and have a functioning economy.

I mean, I was with you until you started talking about how you could admire Germany's rank and file during WWII and about how international treaties don't matter to a member of the armed services (see #71). Now you're not making any sense.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 11:34 AM

@thruthspeaker:

we have to pretend servicepeople and their families are delicate little flowers who can't handle the truth?

Of course not! You have every right to act and talk like an a$$hole to servicemembers and their families about concepts (upholding the relatively just system which he/she swore to serve) you clearly don't have the slightest clue about.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 11:38 AM

@Paul:

Yes, invading Iraq makes it possible for us to properly divide labor and have a functioning economy.

Not what I meant. The division of labor (having a standing army) makes it possible for others to enjoy civilized society. That standing army must uphold the civilian leadership or the system breaks down

could admire Germany's rank and file during WWII

Honestly, there were more than enough atrocities to go around in WWII on both sides. Furthermore, you really can’t imagine an individual German soldier that didn’t kill anyone other than armed combatants?

Anyhow, I already responded to #71, see #82.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 26, 2009 11:41 AM

I wouldn't support a war where the only justification was that a country controlled a lot of oil. - sethv

Oh, nor would the neocons, the oil majors or the mercenary companies; they'd be sure to find another justification to wave in front of useful idiots like you.

Posted by: Asclepias | August 26, 2009 11:46 AM

Ray @21-couldn't agree more. I remember standing in my kitchen and hearing Bush talking about Iraq and thinking, "What the hell does Iraq have to do with this?" I was totally amazed and disheartened that there were so many weak-minded people willing to believe that.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 11:50 AM

Of course not! You have every right to act and talk like an a$$hole to servicemembers and their families about concepts (upholding the relatively just system which he/she swore to serve) you clearly don't have the slightest clue about.

What I have seen is some soldiers treating criticism of the government as if it were criticism of them, and politicians exploiting this feeling to suppress criticism of the government.

zeroangel, how can I say this diplomatically? I appreciate your willingness to die for me, but you are acting like a tool today.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 26, 2009 11:54 AM

My point was, that without financing, it wouldn't have been possible for Germany to build an army or equip it. Without the means to make war, it would have been difficult to wage war. It may be a simplistic argument, granted. - KI

Yes, it certainly is. Moreover, it in no way affects the point that WWII was justified, but you presented it as an answer to that point. Of course it would have been better if Hitler could have been stopped by non-military means; the fact is, he wasn't, and people (Europeans, as it happens) had to decide whether to resort to retaliatory violence. Moreover, in advance of that, they had to carry out their own military buildup in order to be in a position to do so. Are you saying they were wrong either to fight, or to prepare to do so?

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 26, 2009 11:57 AM

Zeroangel, the vast majority of German soldiers in WWII did not commit atrocities or other war crimes. The country of German was still doing something wrong and evil.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 12:00 PM

I can see this is going to get out of hand fast. The best way is to probably just repsond to points and not so much individuals, that said, hopefully addressing this singular point will clear this up:

zeroangel, how can I say this diplomatically? I appreciate your willingness to die for me, but you are acting like a tool today.

Well, you just have to be diplomatic especially around the families of dead soldiers or soldiers that lost comrades. As I said earlier, most folks can take criticism of the war itself and they should have to. However, I will always stop short of saying someone died for no reason. Their service in itself (regardless of the war) was admirable. The reason they died was because they had to do their duty. That is "reason" enough so much as anything in warfare can be said to be reasonable.

Basically, it's just wise to steer clear of the "died in vain" thing.

Posted by: Funkopolis | August 26, 2009 12:03 PM

I think a lot of this argument comes down to differing definitions of 'dying in vain'.

Posted by: Marc Abian | August 26, 2009 12:05 PM

We can oppose dictators by diplomatic and economic means, and I think in many cases we should. But there is no justification for removing them by force if they are not a threat to our security.

Yes there is. To remove the dictator. This especially applies to cases where military coups haves destroyed functioning democracies.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 12:06 PM

I don't see how you can make such a clean separation between the fact that Saddam was dictator and the fact the we might want to keep him from gaining too much power.

I think you miss the fact that his power means virtually nothing to us without the Iraqi oil. I'm not disputing the fact that we didn't want him to gain power. It's that what he did to his countrymen and woman wasn't important beyond use as a foil to the real motivations.

The motivation wasn't to save the lives of the Iraqis, it was to keep him from controlling oil along with other tactical considerations. It wasn't a war about bringing freedom to the Iraqis it was about bringing freedom to Iraqi oil and giving us a larger presence in an area that is vastly important for tactical reasons.

The common refrain is that we were there to liberate the Iraqis from their dictator. No we weren't. Was that a side effect? Well that's to be seen if we traded one dictator for something else not so great. But the claim continues to be "WE'RE BRINGING FREEDOM TO THE IRAQIS" is just being dishonest and obfuscatory.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 12:08 PM

@Funkopolis:

I think a lot of this argument comes down to differing definitions of 'dying in vain'.

I think you are right and I am hoping we can all leave it at that.

Posted by: KI | August 26, 2009 12:12 PM

I am also terrible redundant.

Posted by: KI | August 26, 2009 12:16 PM

And can't spell.

Posted by: Rowan | August 26, 2009 12:24 PM

With regard to My Lai, Capt. Ernest Medina should be the one apologising for having issued the order to Calley which was carried out.

The sooner the US is out of Iraq, the happier I will be. A friend has been told she is going to be receiving orders for a fifth tour of duty. A promotion to Colonel is tied to it. She is of a mind to tell the government "Thanks, but no thanks," then retiring.

Posted by: Funkopolis | August 26, 2009 12:35 PM

@zeroangel - Military-themed threads are pretty rare here. It's mostly learning cool stuff about biology and making fun of creationists. I hope you won't vanish completely. I, at least, gained some insight from your posts.

Posted by: Gary Farber | August 26, 2009 12:56 PM

Setting aside the arguments about Vietnam, and war in general, and Iraq, all of which I've blogged about plenty over the years on my blog, I'd like to note that there's indeed a difference between a wrong war, an evil war, a war in which soldiers die because it's the wrong war, and whether or not the soldiers personally, for their own reasons, by their own standards and goals, "died in vain."

My friend, Andrew Olmsted, died in a bad war, a war we should never have fought, in Iraq, but he did not die in vain according to his own standards.

(I write this hesitatingly, pointing out that Andrew did not wish to be used, post-death, for anyone to make political points in any direction, and I'd request that out of respect for him, that people leave him out of the arguments about Iraq, and keep such arguments about Iraq separate from any comment on Andrew's words and death, if you would be so kind, thoughtful, and courteous. Thank you.)

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 1:08 PM

@Thunderbird5:

anticipate a gush of unconditional arse-licking.

Actually, I anticipated a variety of replies, to include one's like yours.

The antics of the US in Iraq have seriously fucked up many many lives all over the globe.

Yes, and I considered my own personal antics (and those that I knew that died) as contributing to the overall "good" in a "bad" situation.

US service personnel and their families are not a special case in the global scheme of things

No doubt, I remember one instance when I personally faced and spoke with an Iraqi man who had lost his son. His son was serving in the Iraqi army whose particular unit I was assigned to advise, train, and stand with.

I hope the discussion here has served your perspective a bit better than your military experience did.

There's likely precious little you or any other folks here could say that would give me any more perspective on warfare. Thank you for trying though.

Posted by: sethv | August 26, 2009 1:16 PM

I think you miss the fact that his power means virtually nothing to us without the Iraqi oil. I'm not disputing the fact that we didn't want him to gain power. It's that what he did to his countrymen and woman wasn't important beyond use as a foil to the real motivations.

If Saddam had been a rational and sane individual who had the best interests of Iraqis in mind there would have been no reason to remove him regardless of how much oil Iraq controlled. Diplomacy and sanctions are perfectly useful for governments that have their citizen's interests in mind (even if they're not democratic).

The problem with a Saddam or a Kim Jong-il is that there's always enough money in a country to support their lifestyle. Economic sanctions for countries like these is applying pressure to all citizens to control the few at the top. War is ugly but mass starvation via the sanctions that would be required to actually control these dictators is also a very ugly thing.

I agree with you completely that nobody should pretend we only went there to free Iraqis, but the way Saddam treated his people is precisely why his having too much power would be dangerous to us.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 1:17 PM

I hope the discussion here has served your perspective a bit better than your military experience did.

wow

Posted by: Jordan | August 26, 2009 1:18 PM

I wanted to go see the Baghdad Zoo so bad before the US invaded and destroyed everything :(

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 1:23 PM

@Thunderbird5:

Oh? So you are a war-veteran too? If so (and for anyone else that is) simply ignore the offending sentence.

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 1:30 PM

Funny how the lives of Kurds or Iranians never figure into the "anti-war" argument. You people act like it was a land of milk and honey under the Baathist party. The only real arguments that can be made against the war are (1) that to many American lives will be lost, or(2)it physically can't be done.

Opposing this war was politically opportunistic and liberals lost their credibility by doing so. How are they going to argue for any intervention against genocide in the future?

So, thanks a lot: Republicans are still the "Daddy" party.

Posted by: KI | August 26, 2009 1:33 PM

@137
Genocide was never given as a reason for the war.
"Daddy" as in "Warbucks"?

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 1:38 PM

@Knockgoats:

I get it; only other war-veterans are fit to argue with you. Well fuck you, you self-righteous, self-important wally, and the tank you rode in on.

That's not what I said, heck I even admitted your point earlier that I was being emotional rather than logical about certain types of rhetoric.

I simply said what I said, that there is little perspective on warfare that folks that have never been in the situation can give me. Do you honestly think I didn't mourn the loss of innocent life?

We can resort to F bombs if you want. here we go, I'll try:

Fuck you you pathetic pussy.

See, wasn't that fun?

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 26, 2009 1:41 PM

zeroangel,

Thank you for serving.

General post thoughts: seems to me there are some complex emotional issues for both soldier serving in a war and citizen of a democracy that invaded a nation under false pretenses (full disclosure: I think the war in Iraq was a bad move; I support the efforts in Afghanistan, though they give me pause, and I wonder about the action there, not knowing enough about it. The falsehoods surrounding Iraq are not unique to this war, nor the history of The United States. They remain a bitter pill regardless).

A soldier might feel that, regardless of whether the expedition was a good idea, or carefully planned, or developed with a long-term regional strategy in mind, or executed under the aegis of liberation and humanitarian justice, there is a duty (as part of the contract when signing up to do the job of soldier) to perform to the best of their ability, upholding the issued orders necessary for the successful operation of a large-scale military. Sometimes doing one's best means patrolling streets to discourage belligerence. Sometimes doing one's duty means distributing food or blankets or other aid from a resource station. Sometimes serving one's country means reconnaissance. Sometimes being a soldier means cutting dogs throats to maintain anonymity of position. Sometimes the job of war means conflict that destroys property and lives of those who wield a weapon in aggression as well as those who are themselves civilians with no more drive than to see their children live through another day.

As an emotional experience, in a job that can be very rewarding for those who take it, it must be significantly impactful to try one's best, especially when encouraged to do so and in service to the idea of life, liberty, defense of the U.S. Constitution, and find that, despite those efforts to try one's best, bombs continue to end the lives of children, dogs throats continue to need cutting, and those for whom aid is dispensed often feel a conflict of simultaneous gratitude and a desire that the distributors of aid would just simply go away. Further, when those efforts to do the job of soldier to the best of ability do meet with success (mission success, human connection success, emotional success), it might be very frustrating to learn that not everyone sees those successes as successes, and in fact feels that those achievements do not, overall, serve a larger, better purpose.

All of which is complicated even further when, as in any given population, some jackass (of rank-and-file or in the highest corridors of power) does do something out of simple human pettiness, or worse, cruel human sociopathy, that paints fellow soldiers with an awful brush by association.

On the side of the citizen at home, there is an intense emotional feeling as well, and that grounded in the idea that, if that individual is a responsible participant in a representative democratic republic, then the decision of that republic's leaders to initiate an action under false pretenses, while simultaneously cloaking the reason in the rhetoric of liberty and justice, rings resoundingly hollow and bitter in the citizen's ears. From the perspective of those not in the conflict, the conflict itself is not an opportunity to do a job well and to do it in a manner befitting honorable action, the conflict itself is the anathema of honor, and a source of deeply abiding concern. The citizen may feel, especially since the action's presentation lacked integrity, the action reflects ill on the nation that perpetrated it, all the more painful because that nation takes pride in the idea that all it's eligible citizenry comprise the very nation itself. Further, when the action results in great calamity, large scale destruction, and further instability, it can become hard for the citizen to see the value of the action at all. Meanwhile, among the depredations of the battlefield itself, the soldier might see on a given day a soccer (football) field made safe for children to kick the ball around, and feel what a tremendous triumph that is since days before it was the stalking ground for armed men seeking to kill.

In both cases, the emotional content can get in the way of scrutiny of the situation, at the microcosmic level of the day-to-day soldier's operation (which may as likely be distribution of vaccines as kicking in doors of families in search of wanted opposition), and at the macrocosmic level of policy in the region and the sweeping decisions of governments.

The soldier on the ground knows that back home, the citizen is unlikely to know what really happened on that last patrol. The citizen in the belligerent nation knows that in the measure of worthy military endeavor, the current conflict fails to live up to the ideals that, rightly or wrongly, blurred or sharp-focused, the citizen's history lessons have espoused as the highest form of honorable sacrifice in service to international good. The soldier may feel the very same, but the job remains, and to do the job well holds significant value and weight. At home, the citizen feels a job of significant value and weight, too, hoping to do well the job of ending the idiocy they see perpetrated in their name, hoping to do well the job of restoring in their own eyes and the eyes of the world some measure of integrity.

The two perspectives need not be at cross-purposes, though it is certainly of the highest human emotional complexity that they can find themselves in conflict, and frustrated all the more that, in trying to get the other to see their perspective, the overall situation remains unchanged.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 26, 2009 1:43 PM

zeroangel...

I really think you are too emotionally invested in this discussion to continue commenting on it rationally... you seem to be vacillating between angry, misplaced retort and (somewhat) rational response.

It is the right and responsability of US citizens to openly criticize unjust acts committed by the government... doing so does not by definition insult or dishonor the individual soldiers carrying out the orders tied to those acts. If you can accept that, I think we can all move on...

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 1:49 PM

@139

Try thinking for yourself for a change. You don't need permission to support people under attack from theocratic tyrants.

Posted by: paradoctor | August 26, 2009 1:51 PM

Part of the inherent evil of war is that those most guilty suffer least for their crimes. Indeed that's the whole point of war. War is Hell because it perverts right and wrong. It is designed to ensure that the guilty are rewarded for the virtue of the innocent, and the innocent are punished for the crimes of the guilty.

So yes, Nixon did not go to jail. And yes, I too doubt Bush Jr. or Cheney will either. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll hear the whole story; and we've already heard plenty.

Zeroangel's position is ambiguous. Zeroangel patriotically volunteered in good faith; but was lied to and mis-led, and in consequence was part of a war itself a crime. I argue complicity with extenuating circumstances; a verdict applicable to most of America.

As for dying in vain; that is a normal result of war. The consequential deaths are the exceptions. Mere survival, as zeroangel can testify, is accomplishment enough.

As Voltaire noted: if you can make me believe absurdities, then you can make me commit atrocities.

I still hold hope that truth will out, and peace prevail. War, lies and evil always have the tactical advantage; peace, truth and good always have the strategic advantage; so the issue is decided by logistics - that is, reason.

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 1:59 PM

@140

Simmer down pal. Actually may logic is fine, and I even provided the arguments against my position.

I just want liberals to stop respecting the sovereignty of psychopathic dictators.

BTW, if you can manage to leave "Bush is a Nazi" out of your next post I'll concede the argument.

Posted by: Gilian | August 26, 2009 2:00 PM

@149

I still hold hope that truth will out, and peace prevail. War, lies and evil always have the tactical advantage; peace, truth and good always have the strategic advantage; so the issue is decided by logistics - that is, reason.

That is just beautiful, thank you :)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 2:06 PM

I just want liberals to stop respecting the sovereignty of psychopathic dictators.

All right then. Why didn't bush go into N. Korea, Myanmar, etc.. ?

BTW, if you can manage to leave "Bush is a Nazi" out of your next post I'll concede the argument.

Ahh yes, very typical. No where, at any time have I made the Bush / Nazi comparison. It's telling you have to resort to that.

Telling indeed.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 2:08 PM

Fuck you you pathetic pussy.

zeroangel, what you just said there -- using a woman's genitalia as an insult -- was objectively a sexist remark.

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 2:13 PM

@154

On Kurds, Iran, Kuwait. Oh wait, Hussein didn't hurt any New Yorkers therefore he must be innocent.

"BushCo"?! You fucking drone....

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 26, 2009 2:21 PM

On Kurds, Iran, Kuwait. Oh wait, Hussein didn't hurt any New Yorkers therefore he must be innocent.

Irrelevant. Is Kim Jong-Il innocent, by your own definition? Why didn't we, or haven't we, gone after N. Korea in the same way? You've been asked this several times but continue to dodge the question.

You fucking drone....

Ahhh... delicious irony.

Posted by: Jojo | August 26, 2009 2:24 PM

Robert - Desert Son- You just earned my nomination for a Molly. Very well stated.

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 2:25 PM

@156

Right. And Hitler was an Atheist.

Go ask some Kurds if they preferred Hussein. And who gives a fuck what the polls say anyway?

Posted by: Paul | August 26, 2009 2:28 PM

@165

You forgot the obligatory "USA! USA! USA!" chant.

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 2:35 PM

@161

I'm not dodging anything. If the President had "invaded" N. Korea I'd have supported that too (even if he did it just to capture their oil).

Great show of humanism, BTW. I guess those A-rabs are beneath all consideration.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 2:38 PM

I'm not dodging anything. If the President had "invaded" N. Korea I'd have supported that too (even if he did it just to capture their oil).

Strange he didn't then huh? Nice show of "humanism" by Bush.

Great show of humanism, BTW. I guess those A-rabs are beneath all consideration.

Once again, as is to be expected, you trot out the bullshit line that the invasion was about freeing the Iraqis. It was not, is not and never will be.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 26, 2009 2:39 PM

Right. And Hitler was an Atheist. - Kyle

My, that's some impressive stupid. You called Saddam a theocrat, I noted that he wasn't. There isn't any doubt about this: his power base was his clan, the military and the entirely secularist Ba'ath party. Oh and by the way "atheist" doesn't need an initial upper-case letter.

And who gives a fuck what the polls say anyway?,/I>

Bang goes any pretence of concern for democracy in Iraq.

Let's see, how can I twist your little post into a far-reaching claim that you hate women or some other group. Hmmm...

Actually, I think I'll just pass. - zeroangel

If you think that using a slang name for a vagina as an insult is OK, it's really not far-reaching to deduce that you're a misogynist, particularly given the swaggering "I've been in combat" crap you've been coming out with.

Posted by: Walton | August 26, 2009 2:41 PM

Zeroangel,

Thank you for your posts. While I have never been in combat, I have done some military training with the British Army OTC (Officer Training Corps), my late uncle was an RAF veteran of the Falklands War, and I have numerous friends who are or were in the military; so I want you to know that I respect and admire your service, and I do appreciate the experience you're bring to the discussion.

I also think the hostile responses you've received from some posters here - particularly Knockgoats - are disgraceful. In the end, regardless of what one thinks of a particular war from a political perspective, I do believe that we should show basic respect and decency towards the men and women who - without having any say in the war itself - voluntarily risk their lives to fight for us. In a democracy, the military takes orders from elected political leaders; and it is those political leaders, not the troops, who should be held accountable for the decision to go to war.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 26, 2009 2:44 PM

If the President had "invaded" N. Korea I'd have supported that too (even if he did it just to capture their oil).

How does that make you any different from the psychopathic dictator, asshole?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 2:48 PM

@156

Right. And Hitler was an Atheist.

The hits just keep coming. Saddam was anything but a theocrat. Your insistence that he was exposes you for the historically ignorant boob you are.

Please do some research on the Ba'ath party.

Saddam was a egotistical maniac first, nationalist and Arabist second and Muslim by convenience.

Posted by: not a gator | August 26, 2009 2:51 PM

@22

To stop a genocide?

Clinton was vilified for getting involved in Somalia and (esp.) Yugoslavia. He ended up backing off...

Empathy for the victims of an atrocity is a reason for war. Such propaganda was circulated during WWI to whip up anti-German sentiment.

I guess if all you see is power that's all you'll ever care about. What amazes me is that so many power-hungry people call themselves Christians. As if.

Posted by: Lynna | August 26, 2009 2:52 PM

It's interesting to discuss what constitutes a "secular" leader and what puts a leader in the category of "religious." We've done so often with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and North Korea.

To my mind the bend-the-knee-to-any-absolute sounds just like religion. It's a matter of semantics if the absolute dogma is Catholicism, Stalinism or whatever. Someone (or ones) decides what is absolutely right and makes a sincere effort to force that dogma down the throat of everyone.

I'm not posting the following because I completely agree with Christopher Hitchens, but because he brings up some interesting points in a discussion of secular nature of Saddam Hussein. Hitchens doesn't mention it here, but the virgin-testing room associated with Iraqi courts certainly sounded religious to me:

It is customary to dismiss evidence of this kind with a brisk and pseudo-knowing sneer about the "secular" nature of Saddam's regime and thus its presumed incompatibility with theocratic fanatics. Quite how this CIA-sponsored "analysis" has survived this long is beyond me. At least from the time of its conclusion of hostilities with Iran, Baghdad became a center of jihadist propaganda and sponsorship. Saddam himself started to be painted and photographed wearing the robes of an imam. He began a gigantic mosque-building program. He financed the suicide-murderers who worked against the more secular PLO. He sent money to the Muslim separatists in the Philippines. His closest regional ally was the theocracy in Sudan, which had been the host of Osama Bin Laden. (You can see a similar process at work with the other "secular" Baathist regime in Syria: It has long had very warm ties to the mullahs in Iran and to Hezbollah, and in its current and one hopes terminal phase, is forbidding all non-regime propaganda except the Islamist type.) http://www.slate.com/id/2143611/

In any case, the Saddam regime was not as "secular" as all that. The campaign of extermination waged in northern Iraq by Saddam's army was titled "Anfal" after a verse in the Quran that supposedly licenses total war. The words "Allahu Akbar" were placed on the Iraqi flag after the defeat in Kuwait. The Baath Party became the open patron of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine. The rhetoric of the Saddamist leadership was exclusively jihadist for the last decade, with special mosques built all over the country in honor of the regime. Now comes a document from the files of the Iraqi secret police, or Mukhabarat, dated March 28, 1992, and headed routinely, "In the Name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate." It is a straightforward listing of contacts and "assets," quite unsensational until it comes to the "Saudi front," where we find the name "Osama bin Ladin/he is well-known Saudi businessman, founder of Saudi opposition in Afghanistan, had connection with Syrian division." Of course, this is not a smoking gun. http://slate.msn.com/id/2099664/

What is the difference between a megalomaniac who uses religion of his/her advantage, and the head of the Vatican? Is it just the size of the "state" they control? Do we look into their brains and assess the percentage devoted to traditions that fail to map onto reality?

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 2:53 PM

@174

(I hope that was just a mistake and you're not stealing my lines or something).

What makes you think I wouldn't support military intervention on behalf of blacks or native Americans? I have never made the case that the US government was morally correct on those points.

Posted by: amphiox | August 26, 2009 2:56 PM

Well, undeniably, the fact that Saddam is no longer with us is a good thing, grossly.

And I'll admit that for this reason alone I was initially in favor of the war. I thought that pretty much any compromise was worth the removal of dictators like Saddam, and the fact that other dictators equally deserving of the big exit were protected by convenience, opportunity, and circumstance did not mean that the chance should not be taken to get rid of at least one of them, even if the ones doing the actual removal were motivated entirely by self-interested and spurious reasons.

Naively, I never expected the aftermath to be so badly screwed up.

It is questionable, in terms of net benefit, whether Iraq is better off trading Saddam for the current fubar of the U.S. occupation. Maybe just a little bit, maybe.

But take all the right wing justification for this war, from the history of WMD use against civilians, the documented tendency for invading neighbours on false pretenses, the putative sponsoring and funding of paramilitary terrorist organizations operating on foreign soil (Blackwater, anyone?), the subversion of civil rights domestically, the illegimate seizure of power by force and deceit, the quelling of dissent with intimidation and blackmail, and the utilization of torture, and reflect them back on America, and what do we get?

We get Bush and Cheney hanged for war crimes, the U.S. military disbanded, and the Republican Party banned.

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 2:57 PM

@177

Because N. Koreans would have to live in a Orwellian nightmare, dickwad.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 3:00 PM

Pussy is also defined as a cat esp. a kitten. It would seem your immediate interpretation of the word as female genitalia indicates more sexism on your part than on zeroangels.

PhilB, you're a liar and an apologist for sexism.

Also, "you mentioned sexism, so you're the real sexist!" is trolling at a third grade level. You might as well just drop out now and get a job in morning talk radio.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 26, 2009 3:03 PM

Because N. Koreans would have to live in a Orwellian nightmare, dickwad.

And that answers my question how, Gomer?

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 3:05 PM

@190

Honestly, what do you think would happen to the secular democrats in Iraq if we left now (or had never intervened in the first place)?...

Posted by: Slaughter | August 26, 2009 3:07 PM

I'm a little late to this, but as for whether or not Calley fired upon the civilians, that doesn't matter. He was in charge. And that massacre went on ALL DAY. How does raping women and slaughtering infants make anyone safer?

Here's a BBC quote on the massacre:
"Soldiers went berserk, gunning down unarmed men, women, children and babies. Families which huddled together for safety in huts or bunkers were shown no mercy. Those who emerged with hands held high were murdered. ... Elsewhere in the village, other atrocities were in progress. Women were gang raped; Vietnamese who had bowed to greet the Americans were beaten with fists and tortured, clubbed with rifle butts and stabbed with bayonets. Some victims were mutilated with the signature "C Company" carved into the chest. By late morning word had got back to higher authorities and a cease-fire was ordered. My Lai was in a state of carnage. Bodies were strewn through the village."

Makes one proud to be an American -- or a human -- doesn't it?
I do wish that someone would prosecute Kissinger for his crime of continuing the war until the U.S. could withdraw and "save face." So the country saves face while he lets an additional 25,000 Americans lose their lives, let alone all of those Vietnamese.

Posted by: zeroang3l@hotmail.com | August 26, 2009 3:10 PM

@strange gods before me :

zeroangel, what you just said there -- using a woman's genitalia as an insult -- was objectively a sexist remark.

You are a penis.

@Knockgoats:

OK, it's really not far-reaching to deduce that you're a misogynist, particularly given the swaggering "I've been in combat" crap you've been coming out with.

Right… because only mysogynist males are are swaggering combat vets (your words not mine). Fact is, you want a flame war now, and this stupid far-reaching claim that I hate women is your method. You are a limp penis. The claim that I am a mysogynist based on a singualar remark, (admitedly probably not the best form) which was a response to being told to go fuck myself is stupid.

@Walton:

You are the best! Definitely you are not any kind of genitalia at all.

ALCON:

Warfare by it’s very nature is an extremely emotional thing. It’s really hard to be completely logical on this topic.

Posted by: CJO | August 26, 2009 3:14 PM

Naively, I never expected the aftermath to be so badly screwed up.

What makes you think the present situation isn't basically what they wanted? To me, it looks like everything has gone pretty much according to (the real, not the stated) plan, minus the inconvenient revelations of sancioned torture; granted, they would have liked to keep that quiet. The only thing they mishandled was the PR. When malice is so thouroughly evidenced, it really is preferable to incompetence as an explanation.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 3:19 PM

zeroangel, what you just said there -- using a woman's genitalia as an insult -- was objectively a sexist remark.

You are a penis.

I was very careful to criticize your behavior, not your personality, without implying that only a misogynist could make an objectively sexist remark.

You have the opportunity to reevaluate, and stop saying sexist things in the future.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 26, 2009 3:19 PM

Honestly, what do you think would happen to the secular democrats in Iraq if we left now (or had never intervened in the first place)?...

What would have happened to the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians who died from the war? Or the 3 million who were displaced because of it?

If you really care about the Iraqis why do you brush aside their wishes to have the US leave?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 3:22 PM

@Walton:

You are the best! Definitely you are not any kind of genitalia at all.

Walton, in the past, has taken a very critical stance against sexist insults. It will be interesting to see his response.

Posted by: Lynna | August 26, 2009 3:25 PM

Someone up-thread asked about how many Kurds Saddam had killed. I'll look for another source, but in the meantime, here is an eye-witness account from Christopher Hitchens, who visited the area in 1991. He says "200,000 slaughtered" and notes that millions more were displaced:

That took place in 1991, in the closing stages of the Gulf War. With a guerrilla escort, I crossed illegally into Iraq from Turkey and toured the shattered and burned and poisoned landscape on which Saddam Hussein had imprinted himself. In the town of Halabja, which has now earned its gruesome place in history, I met people whose hideous wounds from chemical bombardment were still suppurating. The city of Qala Diza had been thoroughly dynamited and bulldozed, and looked like an irretrievable wreck. Much of the area's lavish tree cover had been deforested: the bare plains were dotted with forbidding concrete barracks into which Kurds had been forcibly "relocated" or (a more accurate word) "concentrated." Nearly 200,000 people had been slaughtered, and millions more deported: huddling in ruins or packed into fetid camps on the Turkish and Iranian frontiers. To turn a spade was to risk uncovering a mass grave. All of Iraq suffered terribly during those years, but its Kurdish provinces were among the worst places in the entire world—a howling emptiness of misery where I could catch, for the first time in my life, the actual scent of evil as a real force on earth. [excerpt is from the following link] http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/04/hitchens200704

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 3:25 PM

@strange gods before me: #205

Fair enough, I have acknowledged my comment was a poor comment to make. Now are you going to take Knockgoats to task for telling me to go fuck myself, calling me a wally, and claiming I am a misogynist do you passively support bile as long as it's not sexist?

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 3:26 PM

@207

Because I care first about enforcing the genocide convention and preventing our allies from getting slaughtered (e.g. the PUK)

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 3:32 PM

Kockgoats:

No, but there's certainly a close association between swaggering and misogyny.

...and there's a close association between dropping F-Bombs, looking for a flame war, and being an a$$hole.

Do you want the last word or shall I?

Posted by: CJO | August 26, 2009 3:39 PM

Because I care first about enforcing the genocide convention

And surely the best way to do that is to thumb your nose at the UN while telling brazen lies, engage in unilateral miltary adventurism in the face of overwhelming international objection, with professional torturers and renegade mercenary forces in tow.

Tell me again: why are Iraquis so damn ungrateful for our selfless intervention on their behalf?

Posted by: captainnemo | August 26, 2009 3:45 PM

What would the world look like if the US wasn't a "global power"? What would the world look like if the US just stayed within its own borders and let everyone else do their own thing?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 26, 2009 3:49 PM

What would the world look like if the US wasn't a "global power"? What would the world look like if the US just stayed within its own borders and let everyone else do their own thing?

Are those the only two options you can think of?

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 3:58 PM

@210

MG! 'v jst rlzd th rrr f my wys, frm nw n wll wthld ll jdgmnt rgrdng psychpths.

nd y knw wht, fck th N Krns t. Ths chnks r prbbly lvng n sclst prds vr thr nywy.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 26, 2009 4:00 PM

Lynna@214,
Actually I'd disagree with that - Saddam's bloodiest atrocity was his attack on Iran, leading to upwards of a million deaths, including at least 100,000 Iranians killed by his chemical weapons. At this time of course, he was "our son of a bitch", armed and supported by the US and UK among others, despite the latter knowing full well he was using chemical weapons. (The wonderful PUK, incidentally, stopped fighting Saddam in 1984, but of course Saddam betrayed them in 1988.)

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 26, 2009 4:03 PM

There is so much madness in this thread that I will probably have to resort to largely unrelated bullet points.

--Vastly more Iraqi civilians have been killed due to the US invasion and occupation than American or allied soldiers and contractors.

--Perhaps this is the largest reason why most Iraqis want us to get the heck out of their country on the double?

--I was one of those people protesting the invasion before it happened, and I never heard anyone claim that Saddam was a decent, moral leader who only tried to do what was best for his people. We knew he was a cruel dictator, but life for nearly all Iraqis sucked far less under his regime than in the chaos that the invasion has created. Women's rights, in particular, are going straight down the tubes now that there's no one to hold the friendly neighborhood theocrats in check.

--There are a lot of countries currently living under the thumb of horrible dictators who abhor freedom, but the resources to invade and occupy all of those countries do not exist.

--It's been said already, but democracy doesn't mean anything if it's forcibly imposed from the outside. If the Iraqis want us to get the heck out, the most democratic thing to do is get the heck out.

Posted by: Kyle | August 26, 2009 4:06 PM

@217

LOL. The genocide convention was held by the UN in 1951.

Like I said earlier, deposing SH was mandatory for the safety of Kurds, Iranians, Kuwait etc. Some Iraqis can say they want they want us to leave but that negate the protection given to these groups.

Posted by: Paul | August 26, 2009 4:07 PM

OMG! I've just realized the error of my ways, from now on I will withold all judgement regarding psychopaths.

Making judgements is one thing. Being factually incorrect is quite another.

Posted by: windy | August 26, 2009 4:11 PM

Furthermore, you really can’t imagine an individual German soldier that didn’t kill anyone other than armed combatants?

Of course most of the individual German soldiers were like that. Does that mean that they can pat themselves on the back for contributing to the overall "good" in a "bad" situation?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 4:15 PM

Isn't this the origin of the word "pussy"? Not vaginas, not cats. I believe you can use the word without intending misogyny.

Don't be disingenuous. It's never used to mean anything but a comparison to women. And since you know that's how people use it and hear it, using it with any bullshit excuse nevertheless demonstrates a deliberate disregard for women.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 4:15 PM

@windy:

Of course most of the individual German soldiers were like that. Does that mean that they can pat themselves on the back for contributing to the overall "good" in a "bad" situation?

Maybe? I imagine there was quite a few Germans that showed a measure of compassion to civilians in a war zone. Perhaps, once upon a time, a German soldier or two shared part of their rations with a starving non-combatant. It's really not hard to imagine.

Posted by: windy | August 26, 2009 4:20 PM

Of course most of the individual German soldiers were like that. Does that mean that they can pat themselves on the back for contributing to the overall "good" in a "bad" situation?

Maybe? I imagine there was quite a few Germans that showed a measure of compassion to civilians in a war zone. Perhaps, once upon a time, a German soldier or two shared part of their rations with a starving non-combatant. It's really not hard to imagine.

And did that make their participation in an illegal occupation an "overall good"?

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 4:23 PM

@windy:

And did that make their participation in an illegal occupation an "overall good"?

...that comes back to the idea that had they refused to be involved it's rather likely that they and their family may not have ended up so well. As I said, the whole good vs. bad thing gets awfully messy.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 4:28 PM

PhilB, Don't pretend to be so fucking stupid. Why are you so happy to be an apologist for sexism?

Posted by: PhilB | August 26, 2009 4:38 PM

Strange gods, Why are you so happy to be a farking a**hole?

Posted by: daveau | August 26, 2009 4:39 PM

strange gods before me@235:

Don't be disingenuous. It's never used to mean anything but a comparison to women.

First, I am not being deliberately obtuse or disingenuous; "cowardly" has always been my understanding of the word. It certainly is pejorative.

Second, the word "never" is an unsupportable generalization. If people only use it to refer to vaginas, that is not always clear. Some people intend it that way, some don't.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 26, 2009 4:40 PM

OMG! I've just realized the error of my ways...-Kyle

And you know what, fuck the N Koreans too... -Kyle

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 26, 2009 4:44 PM

Surely you don't subscribe to the 'they did it for oil' conspiracy?

Yeah, the truth is just a conspiracy theory.

there's no doubt that removing a genocidal maniac like Saddam Hussein was a good thing

Yeah, there's no doubt that self-serving vigilanteism, an illegal invasion, and utterly botched implementation with disastrous results are good things.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 4:47 PM

First, I am not being deliberately obtuse or disingenuous; "cowardly" has always been my understanding of the word. It certainly is pejorative.

Fine. Look. It's not related to pusillanimous at all.

pussy (1) "cat," 1726, dim. of puss (1), also used of a rabbit (1715). As a term of endearment for a girl or woman, from 1583 (also used of effeminate men). Pussy willow is from 1869, on notion of "soft and furry;" pussyfoot (v.) is from 1903, originally the nickname of stealthy Oklahoma prohibition agent W.E. Johnson (1862-1945).

pussy (2)
slang for "cunt," 1879, but probably older; perhaps from O.N. puss "pocket, pouch" (cf. Low Ger. puse "vulva"), but perhaps instead from the cat word (see pussy (1)) on notion of "soft, warm, furry thing;" cf. Fr. le chat, which also has a double meaning, feline and genital. Earlier uses are difficult to distinguish from pussy (1), e.g.:

"The word pussie is now used of a woman" [Philip Stubbes, "The Anatomie of Abuses," 1583]

But the use of pussy as a term of endearment argues against the vaginal sense being generally known before late 19c., e.g.:

" 'What do you think, pussy?' said her father to Eva." [Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," 1852]

Pussy-whipped first attested 1956.

It's a word referring to women (and effeminate men, because being like a woman is itself an insult in this culture) since the 1500s.

When it's used against a man, that's in the sense of an effeminate man, who is like a woman in his cowardice.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 4:48 PM

First, I am not being deliberately obtuse or disingenuous; "cowardly" has always been my understanding of the word. It certainly is pejorative.

So no connection with women for you? You've really, truly always simply thought of it not as a pejorative term meaning "man who is cowardly like a woman" but as a completely ungendered synonym for coward? (Ever called a woman that?) No gender-related connotations at all? Really?

Posted by: Spiro Keat | August 26, 2009 4:56 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but is the Saddam Hussein the same guy that the USA was funding and backing in the '60s and '70s as a bulwark against communism in the region?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 4:57 PM

Just so this doesn't turn into yet another thread about this, someone (Carlie?) linked to this a while back, and I thought it was good:

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/feminism-friday-on-bitch-and-other-misogynist-language/

And I agree with her - not the thread for that discussion.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 26, 2009 4:58 PM

Isn't this the origin of the word "pussy"?

No.

Not vaginas, not cats.

Not those either, for this meaning; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy

The meaning "weak or cowardly person" has a separate etymology. Websters 1913 Revised Unabridged Dictionary lists this version of pussy as an alternate spelling of "pursy," an otherwise obsolete English word meaning "fat and short-breathed; fat, short, and thick; swelled with pampering ..."[1] The interpretation is often misconstrued, as it contains multiple meanings which some consider derogatory.[2] In fact, when pussy appears in the earlier 1828 edition of the dictionary, this definition is presented for the word, while the older pursy is simply offered as a "corrupt orthography."

Pursy (pronounced with a short u, and with the r slurred or silent) was in turn derived from an Old French word variously spelled pourcif, poulsif, poussif, meaning "to push, thrust, or heave." In this sense, it is cognate with the modern French verb pousser, also meaning "to push."

The word pussy can also be used in a derogatory sense to refer to a male who is not considered sufficiently masculine (see Gender role). When used in this sense, it carries the implication of being easily fatigued, weak or cowardly.

Men dominated by women (particularly their partners or spouses and at one time referred to as 'Hen-pecked') can be referred to as pussy-whipped (or simply whipped in slightly more polite society or media).

I believe you can use the word without intending misogyny.

It's possible, I suppose, even in a culture where it is so frequently used with that connotation.

Posted by: Lynna | August 26, 2009 5:03 PM

I've never taken that word to mean anything other than an insult when spoken by one man to another. Although why the model of the species that endures childbirth is viewed as cowardly escapes me.

Patricia, at the high school I attended in Alaska it was considered an insult to call another male "woman" (said with sneering tone and much emphasis).

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 26, 2009 5:06 PM

It's a word referring to women

Indeed it is, of course. But it's not only that.

(and effeminate men, because being like a woman is itself an insult in this culture) since the 1500s.

As the Wikipedia article points out, with reference to Webster, the "cowardly" meaning has a separate etymology. But it seems clear to me that the two have merged, fueled by mysogyny, into the current meaning of "weak (like a woman)".

Posted by: CJO | August 26, 2009 5:07 PM

The thought had crossed my mind, but it seems to require a level of competence that said administration never really demonstrated in domestic spheres of activity.

But, again, that would presume that they had any intentions toward governing responsibly in the domestic sphere in the first place. They did not. They acheived practically everything they set out to do: they oversaw the world's largest ever transfer of resources from the public coffers to the wealthiest private segments, they established conditions of permanent military presence in the Middle East and Central Asia while securing the Iraqi oil supply, and they saddled us with two more reactionary Supreme Court justices who will occupy their seats for decades. A job well done.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 26, 2009 5:09 PM

zeroangel

As far as "lawful orders" to be honest, the laws of the US are really the only ones applicable from the point of view of a US soldier.

Nuremberg Principles:

Principle II: "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."

Posted by: natural cynic | August 26, 2009 5:13 PM

@ CJ 201

What makes you think the present situation isn't basically what they wanted? To me, it looks like everything has gone pretty much according to (the real, not the stated) plan, minus the inconvenient revelations of sancioned torture; granted, they would have liked to keep that quiet. The only thing they mishandled was the PR. When malice is so thouroughly evidenced, it really is preferable to incompetence as an explanation.

This Iraqi FUBAR was not what the neocons wanted. What they wanted was to destroy essentially everything about Iraqi society, infrastructure and patrimony [the one thing they accomplish]. Everything after that was fucked up. The destruction was to be followed by the institution of a free-market paradise with the gentle guiding hand of multinational corporations behind the scenes. Why do you think that the US Embassy was staffed with Bremer and a bunch of Young Republican hacks who knew jackshit about the Middle East and worshipped at the feet of Uncle Miltie Friedman and Ayn Rand. The fact that most of Iraq has been taken over by theocrats was dismissed as left-wing propaganda put out by those who already knew something about Iraq.

Gee, who could have predicted that the Shi'ite majority might have wanted stronger ties to Iran and would also refuse to make any kind of accord with Israel. Not the neocons, just the people who knew anything about Iraq.

And @ 45 truthspeaker
Yep. The whole idea was to start a domino effect in the Middle East. That's why Iran and Syria are such good friends with us now.

And for those who have forgotten something about the Iran-Iraq War. Remember: Contra, Ollie North, Israel, covert arms shipments of Hawk missiles to Iran, Poindexter, a clueless president, ... We were supplying both sides.

It was malice and incompetence.

And I would like to second Desert Son 143 as Mollyworthy.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 26, 2009 5:16 PM

5. (vulgar, slang, pejorative) A coward, someone unable to stand up for himself. You could've taken him, you pussy.

Not "always".

If I wish to compare someone to a vagina, I will call them a twat.

Perhaps you could explain why the usage is marked as "vulgar". Can you think of any other term that doesn't refer to bodily parts or functions that have that designation?

It isn't really possible to disentangle the different meanings.

Posted by: daveau | August 26, 2009 5:23 PM

SC,OM@255

So no connection with women for you? You've really, truly always simply thought of it not as a pejorative term meaning "man who is cowardly like a woman" but as a completely ungendered synonym for coward? (Ever called a woman that?) No gender-related connotations at all? Really?

I'm saying that I don't jump to the conclusion that a person who uses the word pussy as an insult is also a misogynist, consciously or subconsciously. And I think that is an unfair reaction, particularly in a blog where actual communication may or may not be taking place. Of course I'm aware that it is mostly used to insultingly compare a man to a woman. (you know, the weaker sex and everything... /jk)

I don't call people of any gender pussies, myself. I usually try to find something a little less trite and a little more amusing.

Posted by: CJO | August 26, 2009 5:29 PM

The destruction was to be followed by the institution of a free-market paradise with the gentle guiding hand of multinational corporations behind the scenes.

Perhaps so (at least we agree that the complete demolition of Iraqi society was no accident). But I don't think they had any more than an aesthetic preference for a free-market paradise with the gentle guiding hand of multinational corporations over a dog-eat-dog dystopia with the iron fist of multinational corporations. We went there with the intention of staying. And the constant threat of utter collapse via sectarian violence ensures that.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 5:32 PM

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/14/hundreds_of_veterans_of_iraq_and

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v6259853seqR7TGa

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 26, 2009 5:34 PM

Lynna - Same thing at my school, but most of them have out grown it.

Posted by: Peter Kemp (Aussie Lawyer) | August 26, 2009 5:41 PM

Re Vietnam: A new maxim in International Property law was born:

When an American helps a French whore and her Vietnamese pimp forge the title deeds, altering them from joint tenants to tenants in common, it's better that the American does not become the mortgagee of that property. :-)

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 26, 2009 5:42 PM

While the invasion was certainly much more dificult than the neocons thought it would be - and to that extent, they were incompetent - the final outcome looks like being very much what they wanted (and also suits Obama very well): effective control of Iraq's economy, particularly the oil industry; and a permanent military presence (as "trainers" no doubt).

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 5:47 PM

@Knockgoats:

If so, then yes, it would have been more moral to desert, as some troops have indeed done in this war; all honour to them.

I think you are wrong. I think another option would be to serve as required upholding your oath to support a relatively just system and to try and bring as much good as possible to a bad situation as opposed to rotting in jail where you can do nothing (including not being able to feed your family).

I keep forgetting that because I've never been in combat I'm not entitled to an opinion.

Of course you are entitled to an opinion. However, to me, your opinion on something so incredibly serious that you have never been faced with is a bit like a virgin trying to me about sex (for lack of a better analogy). Your points may very well be valid; however, they lack experience, authority, and a unique perspective on the matter.

OK I gtg. Maybe I'll come back later to be further educated by all of Thucydides' scholars.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 6:00 PM

@Feynmaniac :

Well, first of all I never had to find myself in that situation because I'm not naïve enough to join

Yes, there's absolutely no valid reason to think that one might join the standing army of one's democratic nation thinking that they would be defending said nation even if that defense just amounted to serving out one's duty in a post-cold war pre 9-11 environment where one really doesn't expect to get deployed anywhere except perhaps to chase around Korean girls in Itaewon. Certainly, every 18 year old that ever signed up was naive and worthy of your informed derision.

If I had been in WWII on the Allies side I would have fought to bring down the Nazis.

Of course you would. You certainly wouldn’t have been one of those arguing that it was a European conflict (had you been an American) and urging to stay out of war because war is wrong. I'm sure you are a brave gallant man that would readily pick up a weapon anytime anywhere to fight injustice. As long as there is something horrible akin to Nazis running around somewhere, we can count on you to be there, past, present, or future.

OK going for real... I think...

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 26, 2009 6:04 PM

Perhaps you could explain why the usage is marked as "vulgar".

Dog fucking dammit!

I'm still looking for an explanation, and an answer to my question that you ignored.

Synonym: common

Utter fail. It is clearly the 5th definition, "offensive in language", that the dictionary intends when it marks a usage as "vulgar". Why, exactly, is "pussy" labeled "offensive in language"? Hmmm?

Not goddamn vaginas! Sometimes a banana is just a banana. Not everyone has an agenda to push, or preconceptions distorting everything they read or hear.

Careful, your intellectual dishonesty is showing.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 6:06 PM

Re difficult choices:

I've told this story before here, but will again:

I was in New York for one of the earliest marches against the invasion of Iraq. After the city government had denied a proper permit (fear of corporate interference), we marched along in the bitter cold chanting "Not in our name!" and "Whose streets? Our streets!" But when we arrived at a point where the police were telling us to stop - that we couldn't get to the central rally - even though they hadn't yet set up blockades and we could easily as a crowd of thousands have breached the desultory line of police, we stopped. I was at the front of the march at that point (not an indication of leadership by any means - I'm demo/claustrophobic and will rush ahead of any crowd of people :/), and could have charged ahead. My friend was a foreign student and that was a big concern, but many of my reasons for not doing it were personal considerations. I believe I could in some small way have changed history on that day if I had run across that street. I didn't. If I could go back, I would; but I can't. I'm ashamed, and nothing I've done since has relieved me of that shame. I don't think we do ourselves or anyone any good when we try to justify our moral failures.

Posted by: daveau | August 26, 2009 6:18 PM

TruthMachine

No, I can't off the top of my head think of a word like that. I felt my response rendered your query irrelevant. How do you know what definition of vulgar they are using? Vulgar easily means common or low and not necessarily anything anatomical. In my defense, here is the definition of the word vulgar from the same source:

Adjective

1. Rude, uncouth, distasteful, obscene.
2. (classical sense) Having to do with ordinary, common people.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | August 26, 2009 6:25 PM

Of course you would. You certainly wouldn’t have been one of those arguing that it was a European conflict (had you been an American) and urging to stay out of war because war is wrong. I'm sure you are a brave gallant man that would readily pick up a weapon anytime anywhere to fight injustice. As long as there is something horrible akin to Nazis running around somewhere, we can count on you to be there, past, present, or future.

If this is your argument, you've already lost.
Not only does it consist of nothing but a passive-agressive attack, it can so very easily be turned and used against you ("of course you wouldn't be one of those people who later claimed they were just following orders...").

Likewise:

Yes, there's absolutely no valid reason to think that one might join the standing army of one's democratic nation thinking that they would be defending said nation

Certainly, every 18 year old that ever signed up was naive and worthy of your informed derision.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 26, 2009 6:29 PM

join the standing army of one's democratic nation thinking that they would be defending said nation even if that defense just amounted to serving out one's duty in a post-cold war pre 9-11 environment where one really doesn't expect to get deployed anywhere except perhaps to chase around Korean girls in Itaewon.

You mean stationed in one of the over 700 US military bases on foreign soil? You keep using that word "defense". I don't think it means what you think it means.

You certainly wouldn’t have been one of those arguing that it was a European conflict (had you been an American) and urging to stay out of war because war is wrong.

I just told you I don't think all wars are wrong.

I'm sure you are a brave gallant man that would readily pick up a weapon anytime anywhere to fight injustice.

Fuck you, you condescending ass.

As long as there is something horrible akin to Nazis running around somewhere, we can count on you to be there, past, present, or future.

And if there's an illegal occupation of country occurring against the wishes of said country's people we can count on you to be there.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 6:38 PM

I'm sure you are a brave gallant man that would readily pick up a weapon anytime anywhere to fight injustice. As long as there is something horrible akin to Nazis running around somewhere, we can count on you to be there, past, present, or future.

Look, you historical ignoramus. Corporations and elites in Europe and the US supported fascists in Italy, Germany, and Spain, just as they've supported authoritarians around the world before and since. It's good for business. If you want the true history of antifascism in Europe, study the anarchists, some Communists, and republicans - men and women on the ground. They were tortured, killed, exiled, had their children kidnapped and turned against them,... You apparently know nothing of this history (or that of the British and US in Iraq for that matter), and should stop being such a fucking naïf.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 6:54 PM

one of the definitions of the word pussy (and pusillanimous) being "coward", which is the definition I use,

Again, this is a sexist term.

To use a word that has meant "woman" for over 400 years to mean "coward" is objectively, undeniably a sexist thing to say.

Posted by: CatBallou | August 26, 2009 7:07 PM

Regarding "pussy." See "etymological fallacy" in the reference work of your choice (inc. Wikipedia).

It's possible that the word has become so commonly used to mean coward or weakling that some people, especially younger ones, are not aware that it developed that meaning because of the association of those traits with women. Attributing "feminine" traits to a man is almost always a grave insult.

And I know I'm coming very late to this discussion, but this "sacred cow" attitude toward the military is completely unjustified. Some people enlist because they want the associated benefits, some because there are few employment alternatives, and some because they genuinely believe they are serving their country.

But it's indisputable that their indoctrination includes a huge helping of "brainwashing" about how necessary they are to the defense of our country. How many soldiers would fight and die if they weren't fed this fairy tale?

Almost all of our wars are begun to satisfy the personal ambitions of our leaders, but we tell the soldiers that they're defending our American values. Not one of the servicemembers who have died in Iraq has actually secured or increased my freedom or my civil rights (including the right to protest the war). But if we say that too loudly, they might quit volunteering!

And then we're told to censor ourselves about whether they've "died in vain." Clearly, the argument is based on whether one's intention is an element of the definition.
If I throw myself into a raging river in order to save a drowning child, but instead die myself, my sacrifice will have been useless, but will others say that I died in vain? Does my heroic intention change the reaction?
What if, in fact, there was no child, and I was mistaken? Surely then my death will be considered useless (vain), but my intentions were still honorable.
Add to that the notion that I was lied to about the child in the first place---does that render my death "in vain"?
Finally, if we say that none of these scenarios leads to the conclusion that my death was in vain, what does that term really mean?

Finally, regarding the dilemma between following one's principles (not killing, the golden rule, etc.) and avoiding prison, the notion that principles are only followed when there are no repercussions completely undermines the concept. It's like saying "I only steal when I need something." Mind you, I'm not a complete pacifist and I believe that killing can be a morally acceptable act, but I try not to claim principles that I'm not actually willing to follow. This, perhaps, is what most concerns me about military service: individuals give up their status as moral decision makers, and instead substitute the decisions of others.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 7:22 PM

It's possible that the word has become so commonly used to mean coward or weakling that some people, especially younger ones, are not aware that it developed that meaning because of the association of those traits with women. Attributing "feminine" traits to a man is almost always a grave insult.

It is not possible, because no one is unaware of the word's reference to female genitalia. This isn't like how most people don't know "moron" was once a eugenicist term. The female-insult usage of "pussy" is current and ubiquitous.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 26, 2009 7:25 PM

@Forbidden Snowflake:

of course you wouldn't be one of those people who later claimed they were just following orders...

I do make that claim, with the caveat that I was never ordered to kill any civilians and did not do so.

or that the naivete was justified, but not both.

I claim the naivete was justified, I just don’t appreciate the negative connotation associted with the word, which brings me to…

@Feynmaniac:

You mean stationed in one of the over 700 US military bases on foreign soil?

Yup, one of which I expected to be at, chasing around local girls as opposed to shooting them in the back of the head, which is of course what I did in Iraq.

Fuck you, you condescending ass.

Pot, Kettle. There’s nothing condescending at all about quoting treaties and rules concerning warfare to a veteran that is well aquinted with them. In any case, since it seems F-bombs are the flavor of the day:

Fuck you you pontificating, moralizing coward. I have seen young men whom you are not fit to sexually service in a demeaning fashion, and I am not talking about US soldiers. I am talking about their enemies because at least those fuckers have the balls to followup their rhetoric with actual action. The day you point a weapon at a US soldier to either kill him/her or drag him/her off to the jail you think they belong in is the day I take your opinion seriously.

And if there's an illegal occupation of country occurring against the wishes of said country's people we can count on you to be there.

Yup, because I would being doing my best to uphold the rules of the democracy I serve and trying to bring some good to a bad situation.

@SC, OM

They were tortured, killed, exiled, had their children kidnapped and turned against them,...

See my replies to Feynmaniac above. It’s one thing to talk about action, it’s another thing to do it. I’m sure you felt like a big bad man facing those nasty police who would have (at most) cuffed you and brought you to a judge who would have make you do some community service.

Anyhow, looks like Thucydides was right, I am a stupid, naïve person. Glad I am not a coward.

Posted by: CJO | August 26, 2009 7:34 PM

*glances at SC* Uhhh, buddy...

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 7:37 PM

It’s one thing to talk about action, it’s another thing to do it.

You're a clueless idiot.

I’m sure you felt like a big bad man

I'm a woman, shithead.

facing those nasty police who would have (at most) cuffed you and brought you to a judge who would have make you do some community service.

The "personal considerations" I mentioned had nothing to do with immediate consequences, including injury, douchewad.

Glad I am not a coward.

You're a coward in every possible sense of the term.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 7:43 PM

*glances at SC* Uhhh, buddy...

?

Posted by: Marc Abian | August 26, 2009 7:54 PM

It is not possible, because no one is unaware of the word's reference to female genitalia.

Actually I found out that pussy could mean vagina when I was about 17. Before that I always thought it meant cat, which made sense with reference to coward because cats tend to be cautious.

And if you think that's bad I'm not even saying what I thought the word cunt meant.

The day you point a weapon at a US soldier to either kill him/her or drag him/her off to the jail you think they belong in is the day I take your opinion seriously.

Seriously? That's a crazy thing to say.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 26, 2009 7:56 PM

zeroangel the violent nut,

Yup, one of which I expected to be at, chasing around local girls as opposed to shooting them in the back of the head, which is of course what I did in Iraq.

Oh, so you planned on merely being on a foreign base to help intimidate countries with the use of force?

BTW, were you trying to say that you were shooting local Iraqi girls in the head?

There’s nothing condescending at all about quoting treaties and rules concerning warfare to a veteran that is well aquinted with them

Well either you aren't acquainted with them or chose to ignore them while participating in an illegal invasion/occupation. I was being charitable in assuming by assuming the former.

BTW, the "I'm veteran" card isn't going to work here.

Fuck you you pontificating, moralizing coward.

A true moral coward hides behind the "I was only following orders" defense.

I have seen young men whom you are not fit to sexually service in a demeaning fashion

Well I guess they will have to get their kicks at Abu Ghraib then.

I am talking about their enemies because at least those fuckers have the balls to followup their rhetoric with actual action. The day you point a weapon at a US soldier to either kill him/her or drag him/her off to the jail you think they belong in is the day I take your opinion seriously.

You are truly showing you colors by thinking the only opinion that matters are those who pick up a gun and kill people. Firing at random soldiers isn't the only way to get the US out of Iraq (in fact, it's probably would do nothing to help).

Yup, because I would being doing my best to uphold the rules of the democracy I serve and trying to bring some good to a bad situation.

OK going for real.

Liar.

Posted by: Katkinkate | August 26, 2009 8:01 PM

Something I heard about at the time as a potential trigger for the Iraq invasion is that, Saddam was intending to stop selling Iraq's oil in American dollars but would accept Euro's instead. An action which, if allowed, could have spread to other OPEC nations and result in the destruction of America's economic world dominance.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 8:08 PM

You'll note that the majority of those foreign interventions were in North, Latin and South [?!] America, which I already indicated to be the exception.

Um, WTFUH? What is the basis for exclusion?

There was some imperialistic adventures in the Pacific and Africa in the 1800s as well, but nothing comparable to the scale that the European powers were engaged in.

Who cares? Your statement was crap.

Posted by: Marc Abian | August 26, 2009 8:18 PM

Something I heard about at the time as a potential trigger for the Iraq invasion is that, Saddam was intending to stop selling Iraq's oil in American dollars but would accept Euro's instead. An action which, if allowed, could have spread to other OPEC nations and result in the destruction of America's economic world dominance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

Comedy on it here (well worth watching)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o-G_s_uKlo&feature=related

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 8:33 PM

So clearly Marc Abian and I are on the same wavelength...

:)

Posted by: ChrisH | August 26, 2009 8:36 PM

Tis Himself, 290

Yes, Schacht did a great job of organising Germany's post WWI economy.

Jumping ahead a few years, I always find it ironic that Germany ended up receiving less resources from occupied Russia then it did from the trade deals it had with the USSR before Barbarossa.

I'm sure that there's a lesson there somewhere.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 8:54 PM

Wayyy up above, Desert Son's great comment made me twitch. It wasn't incorrect, but there was something in there:

As an emotional experience, in a job that can be very rewarding for those who take it, it must be significantly impactful to try one's best, especially when encouraged to do so and in service to the idea of life, liberty, defense of the U.S. Constitution, and find that, despite those efforts to try one's best, bombs continue

No soldier has died in defense of the US Constitution in the last 140 years.

Of course, Desert Son didn't say otherwise. He said "the idea of defense of the US Constitution." And that's a very different thing: propaganda, to put it charitably.

Occasionally a soldier tells me, always belligerently, that he fought for my freedom of speech. If I can remember, next time, I'll have to ask "are you a vampire?"

Posted by: Jake | August 26, 2009 9:01 PM

Speaking as someone with three trips to the sandbox, calm down, zeroangel. You're on the internet. You're not going to get free respect from posters that happen to share a few of you interests (biology, rank stupidity, you know, the stuff PZ writes about). You've got mine, though.

Robert, (#143) that was beautiful.

Huh. Long time lurker, first time poster. First time I felt I could add anything to the discussions here.

Posted by: Josh | August 26, 2009 9:09 PM

And what?

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 26, 2009 9:10 PM

Marcus B. at #324,

Thanks for that outstanding post.

Marc Abian and SC, OM, watching Newman's History of Oil now after a long day - it's terrific! Thanks for pointing in that direction. He's got a great, almost Tom-Waits-growl in his delivery, and the content is illuminating.

Non-sequitur weather news: Austin is on-schedule to match it's record of 66 days in summertime reaching or exceeding 100F/38C tomorrow, and there's every good chance that the record will be broken. Drought's got the water table way down as the heat approaches ludicrous speed. If anyone has any rain to spare, please send.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Jake | August 26, 2009 9:21 PM

*your* First post and I can't spell.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 26, 2009 9:31 PM

Josh, strange gods before me, and SC,OM,

I think he was making an oblique reference to the oath.

I was, and I apologize for those elements in my earlier post that were shoddy; looking back I see an "it's" that should have been "its," and some dichotomies where I did not want to imply dichotomy yet found it expedient to illustrate the point. Further faults in my post are solely those of the author, as well! I was typing hurriedly just ahead of rushing out the door to a long day.

strange gods before me and SC, OM make a good point about the oath, though, if I read your posts correctly: the oath itself is a good one in the structure of its idea (defense of the U.S. Constitution, by which I've always interpreted it to mean defense of the rule of law and the liberties ascribed therein as developed by the people), but the current war in Iraq shows little evidence of being a conflict requiring defense of the U.S. Constitution and attendant ideals. I agree with the esteemed Rev. BDC at #94 about the impetus for the war in Iraq.

If I've misinterpreted what SC, OM and strange gods before me are saying, I apologize. I'm a slow typist, and no doubt may find some conversation already advanced of this post once I submit. As an aside, I still find it goofy fun that I don't get the Submission Failed! alert anymore.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 26, 2009 9:34 PM

zeroangel,

Seriously? That's a crazy thing to say.

Well, I kind of thought it was a bit crazy to suggest I am basically equivalent to a Nazi, but you know… whatever.

Where the hell did I compare you to a Nazi? All I said was some wars are justifiable like in WWII where we fought the Nazis. Or are you referring to where I quoted Nuremberg principles? I just quoted it to show what the International Law Commission of the UN thinks about soldiers obeying internal laws but breaking international laws. There was no attempt to associate you with with Nazis. If that's how you took it you misunderstood.

Or I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Or you're making things more complicated than they actually are to rationalize your decisions.

There are now several in this forum who are saying just that, it's not so rare here apparently

Way to miss the point. BTW, I never said all US soldiers should go to prison, I just said I'd rather go to jail than participate in the invasion. I have no desire whatsoever to shoot US soldiers or carry them off to jail. If that means you don't take my opinion seriously, well I won't lose any sleep over it.

I only want those soldiers (and mercenaries) who killed innocent Iraqis and the top leadership (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) to go to prison.

Posted by: badger3k | August 26, 2009 9:39 PM

I served in the Army in the first gulf war, and at no time did I feel I was defending the US or the Constitution. I was doing my duty as a soldier. I was serving the interests of my country. That's all. I try to do more now to defend the principles embodied in the Constitution by fighting for good education, transparency in government, and all the other fun stuff like that.

As I told my kids, war isn't pretty, and when you start to talk about morality, you get all screwed up with duty and other things. It's never clear cut, and the situation changes as the scope changes (from one soldier's actions, to a units, to the entire military, to the political actions, etc). It's not black and white. A soldier dies jumping on a grenade to save his buddies - did he die in vain? They'd say no. But his country lost the war? Well, was it in vain? It's all about perspective. I've lost friends in this war, and in one sense, yeah, I think they did die in vain, when looked at the overall "good" (as I define it) of the situation, but not when I look at them doing their duty - I hold that as something worthy of respect - they died for their fellow soldiers. Of course, all death sucks, and an untimely death especially so, but...ahh, frak - I'm at school now and lost my train of thought. Hopefully you get the idea.

The other thing I wanted to say is if I was in the situation (as a guy I know was) of having to kill a kid with a grenade (in Nam) to save his and others life, I'd do it too. It wasn't a good thing, but war (up close) is about survival, not good. You try to make the best of a bad situation. Doesn't make it all good, but the point is to survive with as little "bad" as possible - at least that's how I look at it. I tell my kids that if I was attacked personally, and I ended up killing the guy, well, ok - that's survival. But it doesn't make it good or right. I've never found morality to be easy.

Anyway, just a few points I wanted to say. Hope they are understandable (it's been a long, long day - two fights today, matching the total I've had in the last two years).

Posted by: Cazfans | August 26, 2009 9:44 PM

"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in that future are imaginary." --Aral Vorkosigan

Posted by: Josh | August 26, 2009 9:45 PM

Um, I think my post was a request for clarification.

Oh, okay. Sorry...it seemed like you were trying to pick a fight and I couldn't fathom why.

And don't tell me what to do, liar.

I'm sorry, where did I tell you what to do? I asked you to fight with someone else. And how would doing that make me a liar?

Posted by: Cazfans | August 26, 2009 9:47 PM

"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in that future are imaginary." --Aral Vorkosigan

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 10:04 PM

...make me a liar?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/oooooooffffeennnnssiiiiiiivvve.php#comment-1824007

***

Q: I'm sorry, where did I tell you what to do?

A: FFS, go pick a fight with someone else, okay?

Posted by: Josh | August 26, 2009 10:13 PM

Wow...sorry. I didn't realize that you were holding a stopwatch, or that some temporal line had passed that only you were aware of. But fine.

A: FFS, go pick a fight with someone else, okay?

Didn't read #349 all that close, eh?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 26, 2009 10:26 PM

No soldier has died in defense of the US Constitution in the last 140 years. Of course, Desert Son didn't say otherwise. He said "the idea of defense of the US Constitution." And that's a very different thing: propaganda, to put it charitably. Occasionally a soldier tells me, always belligerently, that he fought for my freedom of speech. If I can remember, next time, I'll have to ask "are you a vampire?"

Yeah, that always bugs me too. whenever I hear/see the condescending "our soldiers fight for our freedoms, therefore they deserve automatic respect" thing, the first thing that comes to mind is "the last time anyone fought for my freedoms was in WWII; against my country."

But then, I completely cannot wrap my head around volunteering for the military anyway. to surrender your right to decide what sort of thing is worth killing people for... that's totally incomprehensible to me.

Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 26, 2009 10:36 PM

John Morales wrote:
>In defense of zeroangel and other upright soldiers who prosecuted the Iraq war, I consider that they did their duty; just as I don't blame a police officer for enforcing unjust laws, I don't blame a soldier for doing their duty in an unjust war — I blame the political administration.

Hmmmm….. do you blame a Mafia hit man for murdering someone when he was only carrying out orders from the Top Man?

I know that lots of people claim a huge moral difference between these two cases because the cases you raise are ordered by a “legitimate government” and mine by a “criminal organization.”

But, let’s face it, a “legitimate government” is simply the government that won the last war.

If Washington et al. had lost the War of Independence, they would be reviled today in the way we actually revile Benedict Arnold (and Arnold himself would be a hero).

Dave

Posted by: Josh | August 26, 2009 10:48 PM

You didn't need to lie, but you did.

I didn't send the email as fast as you wanted. How is that lying?

Strike as nonresponsive.

Yeah, it would be totally out of line for me to try and lighten things up a little. Fine, call me an asshole. I'm done fighting with you about this tonight, especially since you seem to want to have it in a comment thread.

Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 26, 2009 10:58 PM

Zeroangel,

I do not think anyone here has really fully responded to these two points from you:

>The division of labor (having a standing army) makes it possible for others to enjoy civilized society. That standing army must uphold the civilian leadership or the system breaks down

>They died following orders, which is what they have to do to uphold the system. If soldiers decided to break orders whenever they please the system would break down and that would be bad.

Yes, the disobedience to orders that many here are advocating really would result in the system breaking down, and most people here do not want that to really happen.

I do want it to happen, not because I hate America or the Constitution or whatever, but simply because I find any system morally abhorrent that can only be preserved by people doing things they know (or should know) are morally wrong.

If you were a Roman magistrate and you concluded that, under well-established Roman law, you were obligated to put a Christian to death, would you do so?

Similarly, in the Middle Ages, if the law of the realm required you to order a heretic burned at the stake, would you give that order?

I give these two examples because they are distant enough in time that they do not hold the historical immediacy of, say, examples involving Nazis and the Jews, and, yet, at least one of my two cases should strike home with anyone.

I know myself well enough that I am pretty certain that in both cases I would refuse to order the executions, even if I knew I would suffer severely as a result.

I have in fact suffered quite seriously career-wise on several occasions because I refused to do the wrong thing.

Yes, if you and your fellow soldiers did the right thing, the “system” would indeed, as you say, break down.

And, in my judgment, it is morally imperative to break down any system that would force people to make that choice.

Fortunately, I also think that the American “system” has not too many more years left to it, regardless of what you do.

I know that many Americans think that the disappearance of the American republic will be the end of the world, but in fact the human race will survive that event quite nicely, just as it survived the fall of the British empire, the Soviet empire, and all the other regimes that have been tossed into the ashbin of history.

Oh, and I’m not a radical leftist. I like capitalism, I support the Second Amendment, and I voted for GWB in 2000 because he explicitly promised a “more humble” foreign policy than “Slick Willie.” Obviously, Dubya lied.

Dave

Posted by: John Morales | August 26, 2009 11:10 PM

Dave,

If Washington et al. had lost the War of Independence, they would be reviled today in the way we actually revile Benedict Arnold (and Arnold himself would be a hero).

Hm. Alternate-history hypotheticals are rather speculative, don't you think?

It's true (in general) that history is written by the winners who declare themselves as the ethical party and justified, but offhand, I can think of counter-examples: Spartacus. The Hungarian revolution of 1956. Third Punic war.

Posted by: Liz A | August 26, 2009 11:19 PM

Let us not forget Panama in 1989, which in reality had very little to do with drugs. Watch the documentary "The Panama Deception" if you are unfamiliar.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 27, 2009 12:21 AM

Did the 250,000+ Iraqis who died during 'Shock & Awe' and the subsequent invasion* die in vain too?
If Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, why did the US help install him** and then supply him with weapons (including nerve agents) and other assistance?
Is the German soldier who 'guards the KZ's perimeter' less culpable than the soldier 'who drops the ZyklonB'?
What about the advertising executive who writes the copy for recruiting posters, more or less culpable?
How about the clerk in the Reich Ministry of Finance or the man (or woman) on the street?
Where does blame truly lie?
Perhaps it's true that liberals are 'bleeding hearts' who worry and fret over things like 'legality', 'morality' and 'culpability', after the fact. Liberals usually have to; as they're the ones who have to deal with the mess the 'chickenhawks' have stormed in and created.
Zeroangel - The point of this thread was to highlight the fundamental disconnect between the front (the bit you've seen) and 'at home' (the bit I've seen), how the war (any war) looks from these positions and why this is so.
Allow me to tell you my favorite Tom Stoppard story (the relevance will become clear).
Tom Stoppard is an English playwright with a satirical/parody style. When he was a young man (and still groping for his style) he went to see a musical in London's West-end. He was running a little late so arrived in darkness, struggled to a seat and watched the show.
It was called 'Oh What A Lovely War!'. The play was about the (then) current Vietnam War, but as seen through the lens of the First World War. Using the popular songs, slogans, speeches of the time is showed how the war was 'sold' at home, and then using the words of soldiers, photographs, and statistics it showed the reality in the trenches.
When the interval came and the house-lights went up, Stoppard noticed that most of the audience were very elderly gentlemen. He couldn't understand why. Then he turned to his left, in the seat next to him was an ancient men, weeping like a baby. The old man grabbed Stoppard's hand, looked him in the eye and whispered earnestly:
"It was just like that you know."
That's the whole point, everyone has to hold those who make war responsible, not just those who wage it. And I guess the first step is to "not tell with such high zest/ To children ardent for some desperate glory,/ The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." - DJ
____________________________________________________________
*Ironically about the same (estimated) number who died under the regime of 'The Butcher of Baghdad' [1979-2003], but only in much shorter time-frame.
**Not to mention US assistance to the dictators of Chile, The Philippines, Indonesia, Greece, Iran and others.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 12:58 AM

Dave, are you seriously contending there is no such thing as a legitimate government?

Yes, that's Dave.

He's a feudalist, because what happens when governments dissolve is that rich people become warlords and slaveholders. That is the world he imagines would be better than this one.

Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 27, 2009 1:28 AM

The pathological liar who hides behind the name “strange gods before me” wrote:
>Yes, that's Dave.
>He's a feudalist, because what happens when governments dissolve is that rich people become warlords and slaveholders. That is the world he imagines would be better than this one.

That really is a blatant, intentional, libelous lie.

*You* may "imagine" that the view I hold, i.e., my lack of faith in any "legitimate" government, would result in such a world.

But I have stated quite clearly that this is not what *I* “imagine” will result.

For you therefore to say “That is the world he imagines would be better than this one” is a lie, for you know that that is indeed *not* what *I* imagine.

It is what *you* imagine. Do not claim that I share your views.

Go play your silly games trying to establish “real” democracy all you want: those games will never succeed. And in any case, I and many others like me, will do whatever we can to ruin your wonderful Grand Plan for humanity.

But when you attribute to me a view that I have made quite clear I do not hold, I will call you what you are.

A thuggish, pathological liar.

You’re really no different from the “liars for Jesus”: you both hold to a faith that makes you feel you are entitled to lie.

Fortunately, both faiths are dying.

Dave

Posted by: Kangaete | August 27, 2009 1:55 AM

PZ, please stick to your "biology", politics just won't make sense to you. By the way, what is wrong with war, isn't it just another form of "natural selection" according to you?

Posted by: Mad House | August 27, 2009 2:10 AM

By the way, what is wrong with war, isn't it just another form of "natural selection" according to you?

No. Evolution is the way things are. Social Darwinism is an epic fail concerning the way things "should" be.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 27, 2009 2:23 AM

PZ, please stick to your "biology", politics just won't make sense to you.

Kangaete, stop criticizing the topics bloggers choose to write about and only write about Babylonian literature (that's just as arbitrary).

By the way, what is wrong with war, isn't it just another form of "natural selection" according to you?

No. You are just plain ignorant.

Posted by: Gilian | August 27, 2009 5:07 AM

* "The pen is mightier than the sword" — Edward Bulwer-Lytton.*

"Only if it's a really sharp pen and a really small sword" - Terry Pratchett

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 27, 2009 5:38 AM

If there are any Brits or Aussies that are still reading this thread, be proud of your soldiers. - Jake

Why the fuck do you think you have the right to tell me how I should feel about British troops in Iraq? Exactly the same arrogance as zeroangel.

Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 27, 2009 6:16 AM

Kanegate wrote:
>PZ, please stick to your "biology", politics just won't make sense to you. By the way, what is wrong with war, isn't it just another form of "natural selection" according to you?

You know, I disagree with many (not all) of PZ’s political views.

But, aside from the fact that he is our host here, that is an incredibly condescending, rude, and ill-informed comment.

If you think he is wrong about something, why not say what it is and why you think he is wrong? From your nasty little comment, none of us can even tell where you disagree with him.

Maybe some of us would agree with your point if you had actually bothered to post any point.

Dave

Posted by: XD | August 27, 2009 6:58 AM

Jake #372

The insurgents (or whatever you want to call them) use children and pregnant women as walking bombs. Yes, I realize that it's not black and white, perspective is everything and all that, but still. That says something.

Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 27, 2009 7:06 AM

Knockgoats wrote to me:
> You may not have seen this on "Morality does not equal God", since that thread seems to have wound down.
[snip]
>Suppose someone wants to produce a new, highly deadly and infectious human virus in their home lab - not with the intention of releasing it, necessarily, but just for the buzz, or out of scientific curiosity. Since you think it wrong for the majority to tell a minority what to do, would you consider it legitimate for this person to be prevented from carrying out their plan?

No, I didn’t see it – activities in the real world had occupied me, and the thread seemed to have wound down, as you say.

The short answer is that I am not sure how to deal with that kind of situation by some general rule, and, indeed, I don’t think anyone is. I do not think that any sane system of morality can be like classical physics and give a determinate answer to all problems. All the proposed moral systems that I have seen that pretend to do so either do not (the vast majority) or are quite nuts by almost any standard of appraisal.

To take a real historical example, you know the “atomic scientists” (the Manhattan Project) secretly built themselves a nuclear reactor in a squash (or racquets or handball) court under Stagg Field at the U. of Chicago in 1942 on the university campus! By our own contemporary standards, this is absolutely insane.

So, would anyone who knew about this secret nuclear reactor have been entitled to try to stop them?

One point I am trying to make with my example is that this issue is independent of private vs. government action: the Manhattan Project of course was a US government activity, and I think a good case can be made that it was obviously morally wrong to build the reactor in U. of Chicago’s squash court on campus.

(If anyone thinks the Manhattan Project scientists were ignorant of the risks, no, quite the contrary. They were worried that the risks might be much higher than we now believe.)

To give a slightly more responsive answer to your question, I think anyone considering such a project would be well-advised to think long and hard about safety procedures and whether he should do it at all. One pragmatic reason for thinking long and hard is that scaring your neighbors out of their wits is a good way to produce very trigger-happy neighbors!

Conversely, I think anyone thinking about forcibly intervening to stop such dangerous activities should also think long and hard about whether this is really wise – maybe the crazy Enrico Fermi next door really knows what he is doing and it is truly quite safe.

I actually think that, pragmatically, such prudential thinking will resolve most such situations.

But not all.

As I say, I have no general solutions to the problems of human life. However, as my Manhattan Project example shows, I think, neither does government of any type, whether a democratic government or not.

Incidentally, by the same token, if everyone took a naturalistic view of government and freed themselves form the ineffable concept of legitimacy that now beclouds so many minds, that would not necessarily end wars, either. Dick Cheney could still have tried to get a bunch of psychotics together to invade Iraq, for example.

But, absent the mind-clouding belief in the government’s legitimacy on the part of the rest of us, he would have found it a bit harder to get the rest of us to fund his little adventure, much less to get reasonably sane guys like zeroangel to actually go along and be part of it.

I have no magic solution to rid the world of guys like Dick Cheney.

But what does disturb me is that most of the country knew this guy was nuts (including many conservative Republicans I know) and yet went along with his and Dubya’s madness because “you have to respect the office,” “they were legally elected,” "we have to preserve the system," etc.

Something is very wrong there.

Dave

Posted by: John Morales | August 27, 2009 7:19 AM

Walton,

The words are so ingrained in our language that people use them without thinking.

Therefore, in the interest of addressing this unconscious facilitation of pejorative stereotyping, attention should be drawn to it so that people can't use them without thinking.

But I suppose some of the emotional reactions on this thread may prove the truth of Dr Johnson's maxim: "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or been at sea."

I don't, hence not every man does so.
I don't need such reassurance about my masculinity.

That said, I would've (still would) fight to defend my community, but not to enforce my community's political/economic agenda. The armed forces currently do not offer such a choice.

(As an aside, I recommend Bill, the Galactic Hero by Harry Harrison).

Posted by: John Morales | August 27, 2009 7:48 AM

Dave @390, I appreciate your response.

I do agree that the imprimatur of legitimacy* for government is not objectively justifiable other than via pragmatism, but I'm too cynical to consider that my quality of life would be better without rule of law, and I see no way other than Government that can sustain that, and further I consider social contract theory to be the best basis for establishing Government.

It seems to me that atheism and anarchism have an obvious, natural affinity.

Hm. It is not obvious to me.
Are you equating freedom from religious belief with freedom from Government? Because, if so, I would say that the former provides me with nothing useful, but the latter provides me with physical security.

The only examples of anarchy with which I'm familiar are from failed states, and none of those are pretty.

--
* I assume you know its etymology.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 8:35 AM

A lot to read…

OK, I’ll do my best to hit what I can.

whenever I hear/see the condescending "our soldiers fight for our freedoms, therefore they deserve automatic respect" thing, the first thing that comes to mind is "the last time anyone fought for my freedoms was in WWII; against my country."

I think the key point to remember here is that one of the reasons the US military has not had to fight for your freedoms in the way in which you are implying is that the US has such a massive standing all-volunteer army. Some of the same people that would deride the choices and service of servicemembers would likely stand behind (way behind) those same men and women were a truly defensive situation to come about.

to surrender your right to decide what sort of thing is worth killing people for... that's totally incomprehensible to me.

I understand, there’s a lot of reasons folks join, I could relate my own, but I don’t think too many people here care, so I won’t bother. It ties in with the above though, and my aforementioned "naivete."

If you were a Roman magistrate and you concluded that, under well-established Roman law, you were obligated to put a Christian to death, would you do so?

Similarly, in the Middle Ages, if the law of the realm required you to order a heretic burned at the stake, would you give that order?

Well, of course not. However, I was never ordered to kill any innocents in Iraq nor would I. The folks we were fighting were often of the “blow myself up and kill innocents” variety. The warfare was asymmetric and we didn't always see the face of the enemy as it was mostly bombs and mortars.

Is the German soldier who 'guards the KZ's perimeter' less culpable than the soldier 'who drops the ZyklonB'?

I’d say no. But the German dive bomber pilot in North Africa who has never even seen a concentration camp is probably less culpable.

And I guess the first step is to "not tell with such high zest/ To children ardent for some desperate glory,/ The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." – DJ

Somewhere I must have been misunderstood because I like to think to myself that I served in the military so my son will never have to. I’d respect his choice if he did, but I’d rather he not have some of the same experiences I’ve have.

The vast majority of dead Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis.

Tell it like it is brother.

Though I understand arguments concerning the moral relativism of this whole situation I always come back to the following idea: those that paint US soldiers as “bad” people for not deserting not only (to borrow a phrase from another poster on another forum) “see things in shades of grey, they take all the color out of the argument.” From where I was standing I saw vicious 7th century maniacs that had absolutely no regard for the life of innocents (indeed they would target them) fighting against folks (US soldiers and their Iraqi allies) that often times knowingly put themselves in harms way to protect innocents. Maybe things aren’t so cut and dry, but I am pretty sure I knew who the “good guys” and “bad guys” were.

I think it says that they don't have tanks and aircraft.

Yes, it also says they have absolutely no concern for innocent life especially since they will send those same walking bombs to kill other women and children if only to make a point.

"Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or been at sea."

Indeed. I think this is at the root of some folks hostility. I am not talking about anyone in particular, and not just people on this board mind you.

if we had a time machine and could bring a younger me into this debate, he would not have agreed with the present me, either.

Heh. Yah no doubt, me too.

Anyhow, the last thing I wanted to touch on are these ideas about anarchy. I just can’t wrap my head around it. How many cases are there in the history of the world that tells us anarchy is unsustainable and leads to very bad things. Maybe I missed something here but it sounds like some kind of idealism.

Posted by: windy | August 27, 2009 8:54 AM

But I suppose some of the emotional reactions on this thread may prove the truth of Dr Johnson's maxim: "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or been at sea."

Jesus fuck, Walton. The subject of this thread was war crimes, and you give us some homily about how some people are just jealous of those mighty soldiers?

Posted by: aratina cage | August 27, 2009 9:03 AM

@Mad House

Evolution is the way things are. Social Darwinism is an epic fail concerning the way things "should" be.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 27, 2009 10:44 AM

PhysicistDave@389,
Thanks for this. I'll respond when I've had time to consider what you say.

Posted by: Walton | August 27, 2009 11:57 AM

I think the key point to remember here is that one of the reasons the US military has not had to fight for your freedoms in the way in which you are implying is that the US has such a massive standing all-volunteer army. Some of the same people that would deride the choices and service of servicemembers would likely stand behind (way behind) those same men and women were a truly defensive situation to come about.

Yes, I agree. Ultimately, one of the major goals of a successful military is to serve as a deterrent against aggression. At the moment, the combined NATO forces are sufficiently powerful that no country would seriously consider launching an attack against the US or Western Europe. All too often, we forget how fortunate we are - and we easily forget, too, that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If we were to cut down our military power, we would be running a serious risk. There are plenty of people in the world who want to destroy Anglo-American democracy and the principles for which it stands.

(On a related note, I often hear people arguing that, since current NATO ops are focused on Afghanistan, and there is no real current naval threat since the demise of the Soviet Union, there is no need for major spending on new aircraft carriers and the like. But we need to remember that China has the potential to be a very real threat; while the "People's Liberation Army Navy" is currently puny, it is not impossible that they will acquire the capacity, years down the line, to deploy carrier battle groups. When that happens - giving China serious force-projection capability - we have a second Cold War, and NATO naval power will become immensely important to the safety of the US and Western Europe. Hence why I'm pleased that my own country, the UK, is currently building three new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.)

Posted by: Walton | August 27, 2009 12:11 PM

John Morales,

Are you equating freedom from religious belief with freedom from Government? Because, if so, I would say that the former provides me with nothing useful, but the latter provides me with physical security.

The only examples of anarchy with which I'm familiar are from failed states, and none of those are pretty.

I absolutely agree; hence why I am not an anarchocapitalist. For me, all the evidence suggests that a stable, functioning, secure society requires a government of some description - including police and armed forces - in order to maintain order and security.

I sympathise, in philosophical principle, with PhysicistDave's conclusions about the illegitimacy of the state. But moving away from moral philosophy and into practical reality: the existence of a government, despite its lack of abstract "legitimacy", demonstrably enhances the life of the average person. I don't think anyone can deny that the average US resident enjoys a better quality of life than that of the average Somalia resident - because the American, unlike the Somalian, can live his life secure in the knowledge that his person and property are protected by law, and that this law has "teeth" in the form of the police and courts. This, in turn, allows the existence of capitalism and a free market; because free trade and commerce cannot operate without a system of property rights and legal adjudication. Without police and courts, the inevitable result is wholesale theft and looting.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone can accuse me - as an outspoken libertarian - of having an idealised view of state power. The purpose of constitutional government, individual rights, and democracy is to keep government within its proper limits, and to ensure that the political process is not hijacked by a gang of thugs as it has been in so many countries throughout history. But fundamentally, I am not an anarchocapitalist because the empirical evidence clearly shows that, in countries with no functioning state infrastructure, human suffering and violence are inevitably rampant. Hence why I argue for a minimal state, providing a basic range of services such as military forces, police, courts, education, and welfare provision for the very poor.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 12:26 PM

But we need to remember that China has the potential to be a very real threat;

I have been saying this for years.

I am glad you are here Walton, excellent posts!

Posted by: Tim Helble | August 27, 2009 12:37 PM

The sentence:

"Why was he convicted of a war crime, while Nixon and Kissinger were given a free pass?" should have been written:

"Why was he convicted of a war crime, while Johnson, Nixon and Kissinger were given a free pass?"

Johnson was just as guilty as Nixon. I'd list Kennedy also, but he was the victim of an assassin's bullet.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 2:15 PM

But there's a world of difference between posting a misogynistic rant, and casually using a profane term which is very, very widespread in our language.

Yes, I avoid using words like "bitch", "c**t" and "pussy", since I recognise their gender connotations. But that doesn't mean that everyone who ever uses any of these words is a misogynist; that is manifestly not the case. The words are so ingrained in our language that people use them without thinking. Some people on this thread have overreacted massively to the use of a single word. Zeroangel has made clear that he had no misogynistic intention, and I believe we ought to trust him on this.

Since I was very clearly not judging zeroangel's intentions to be anything misogynistic, I don't see what your point is in bringing this up in response to me, Walton.

Do you think people should never be criticized for casual use of such slurs?

Posted by: Rahul | August 27, 2009 2:20 PM

Re: the 'pussy' fracas although it seems long dead , it IS possible to be ignorant about it's misogynistic connotations,
I myself was until I read this thread ! I thought it derived from 'pusillanimous' as someone else did , and just meant "coward" without any gender overtones.(Might be because I live in a country where English is not the first language
, and have never heard or interpreted it being used as a misogynistic term) . I just thought it a bit unfair to accuse Daveau of being disingenuous,some(how do you italicize?) people do assume incorrect etymology and think the word has two unrelated meanings!

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 2:33 PM

FeudalistDave,

>Yes, that's Dave. >He's a feudalist, because what happens when governments dissolve is that rich people become warlords and slaveholders. That is the world he imagines would be better than this one.

That really is a blatant, intentional, libelous lie.

*You* may "imagine" that the view I hold, i.e., my lack of faith in any "legitimate" government, would result in such a world.

But I have stated quite clearly that this is not what *I* “imagine” will result.

For you therefore to say “That is the world he imagines would be better than this one” is a lie, for you know that that is indeed *not* what *I* imagine.

No, I'm presenting facts. See, you refuse to explain what you kind of world would result when you dissolve. And you refuse to argue against the likelihood that rich people would become warlords and slaveholders, ruling the rest of us in a new feudalism. And we have historical evidence that that's exactly the sort of system that results in the absence of representative governments.

So since you refuse to engage reality, it is entirely reasonable to label you a feudalist. You refuse to argue otherwise, you simply complain that it's unfair to tar you with historical facts. No, it's not unfair.

Since you feel entitled to tell me what I really want, I’ll return the favor and tell you what you really want.

Turnabout is fair.

I sincerely think that what you really, truly want is the kind of “democracy” that previled under that wonderful democrat and tribune of the people, Joseph Stalin. And Stalin really did think he was representing the people, you know, but all those nasty kulaks, Ukrainians, etc. just kept getting in the way of the needs of the people. After all, Stalin set up all those “democratic” republics in Eastern Europe after WW II.

I refrained from publicly attributing such views to you, although I did sincerely believe those were your real views, until you chose to lie about my views.

You can call me whatever you want. But all you have, for your evidence, is my stated belief the representative republic set up by the US Constitution is preferable to a complete lack of government.

So if that makes me a Stalinist, that's cool. It also makes Comrade Walton a Stalinist. I'm always amused when I meet someone so extremist that they make grand, sweeping proclamations that would lump the two of us together as dangerous animals.

Comrade Walton, I'm raising a shot of vodka in your honor.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 2:50 PM

zeroangel, since you're still around, a shot of vodka in your honor too. I also have some Kentucky bourbon, if you'd prefer. Whatever our differences, I do recognize that you're willing to put your life at risk for me, and I thank you for that.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 3:07 PM

@strange gods before me:

Hey it's kewl man. Actually, my favorite poison lately has been port wine. I don't really like the strong stuff and I'm generally more of a beer or wine drinker depending on the occasion and the menu.

As far as thanks, to be perfectly honest I always felt kind of awkward when people thanked me.

I remember coming home from Iraq on mid-tour leave and being in an airport. I was in an American city on the last leg of the trip home. All I could think about was "thank goodness it’s halfway done" and getting to my plane, OK that and having sex with my wife *argh*. I was in uniform (desert uniform) and totally didn't realize the attention I was getting until a lady stopped me in my tracks and thanked me and shook my hand. I was kind of dumbfounded. I didn’t really do much of anything other than my job and what I considered to be my duty. Sure I am proud of that, but I really didn’t consider myself anymore than average at the whole business. I wasn’t the type to volunteer for dangerous missions; I was just content to wait my turn to get picked for the dangerous stuff; and I always thought that those that did were a little too eager to earn medals and awards (as if they were trying to compensate).

All that said, no thanks necessary, but it’s still really nice to hear.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 3:40 PM

@Jadehawk, OM:

Yes, well, I'll be forced to object to your Nazi analogy. That is what you are talking about right? In any case, things are never so black and white, as I have said several times now.

And the major and possibly only reason anyone feels enough animosity towards the west to want to go and militarily destroy it is because we've been meddling and making their lives a living hell

I really do think this is an over-simplification of the topic. I honestly think that the motivations of some of the enemies of the West have a lot to do with their particularly evil religious views.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 3:49 PM

If Iranian spies had overthrown the US government in 1953, do you think we would hate them today mostly because of that coup, or mostly because of our Christian fundamentalists' opposition to Islam?

Posted by: Paul | August 27, 2009 3:58 PM

I really do think this is an over-simplification of the topic. I honestly think that the motivations of some of the enemies of the West have a lot to do with their particularly evil religious views.

Then you're ignorant. Al Qaeda has offered truces previously based on us leaving the region the hell alone*. How that translates into "they hate us for their freedom", or "they attack us because of their religious views" I'll never understand. I will take this opportunity to note that the Muslims didn't express "down with America" sentiments before America had a presence in the Gulf region. So how do you blame the animosity on their "particularly evil religious views"? Do you even think before you advocate a position?

*I'm not saying such overtures should be accepted. Negotiating with terrorists would set bad precedent, etc. But from the beginning one of Bin Laden's big issues with the US was us having female servicepeople showing immodesty in the region. Let alone the use of a "Crusade" against Muslims being used to recruit terrorists, or telling them how Americans torture Muslims. Yeah, it must just be the evil Islamic beliefs.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 4:09 PM

@Paul:

Then you're ignorant.

Yes... I am the one ignorant of the barbarism and motivations of suicide bombers and jihadists. Honestly, can anyone here carry on a conversation about a serious political topic which has a variety of views without acting like a total fuck?

Anyhow,

*I'm not saying such overtures should be accepted.

No, they shouldn't and the world would probably be a better place if there were less Islamic terrorists and less appeasement monkeys that would happily go so far as to install sharia courts in their own western nations to placate the lunatics.

I'm sure if we left them completely alone they would only murder and enslave people in their own nations.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 4:26 PM

@strange gods before me:

Well, ok, first do you really think I was unaware of George Tiller, I frequent atheist websites, come on dude. Second, as a whole, if you were to compare their lunatics with ours, pound for pound I think our lunatics come out on top by a wide margin.

Anyhow, I am not dismissing these issues, I am just saying they are more complex then years and years of history on both sides (the west, Europe and US, vs. the mid east)fucking one another over. I mean honestly, how far back do we have to go? Didn’t the Iranians get pissed off about the movie 300? I understand why, but Jesus, how far back are we going to recount our collective grievances? At some point I really think you have to take a stand. If I had to choose, I am throwing in with GWB (god help me), or Obama rather than Ahmadinejad. Follow me?

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 4:31 PM

If I had to choose, I am throwing in with GWB (god help me), or Obama rather than Ahmadinejad. Follow me?

...and I have had to make a similiar choice, and did.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 27, 2009 4:42 PM

Yes, well, I'll be forced to object to your Nazi analogy. That is what you are talking about right? In any case, things are never so black and white, as I have said several times now.

"black and white"?! what part of what i wrote makes you think i see issues as "black-and-white"?! are out of your fucking* mind?
my entire contribution to this thread was to say that just because someone is a soldier and on "my side", doesn't mean I must automatically see them as the good guys (even if they're individually nice guys, and/or their grievances are real), or that they deserve any particular respect for it, or that I should be grateful to them for anything, since they haven't done anything for which I could be grateful.

I'm sorry dude, but all members of the military are, to various degrees, accomplices to all actions performed by the military, the same way a populace is an accomplice to the actions of their government (also to varying degrees). This is a fact. It is also not your ridiculous notion of us seeing soldiers as evil. it's more along the lines of "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good to do nothing"; or to put it differently: the "villains" are those actively and knowingly supporting, pushing for, and committing horrible things; the "heroes" are those actively standing against those things; "normal" is to just go along with the system. that's were most of us are in most of the problems facing our world, be in wars of aggression, religion, environmental damage, exploitation of the developing world, et cetera. that doesn' make "normal" a good thing, nor does it absolve the lot of us from responsibility for letting the world go to the dogs. this conformity might well be the biggest tragedy about all these problems, as a matter of fact.
However what bothers me right now, and what is the main difference between most dilemmas and the dilemma of military action, is that I'm not expected to show deference to and respect for those who are part of environmental degradation FOR their part in environmental degradation, while it's expected to show automatic respect and support to soldiers for being soldiers.

*yes swearing is that common here. get used to it.

Posted by: Paul | August 27, 2009 4:54 PM

I didn't say that you were such an appeasement monkey, but really it's pointless to discuss anything with you because based on your tone you really just want a flame war.

I have no interest in a flame war. I'm more interested in you sticking to factually supported statements as opposed to stark nationalism and talking about how you don't respect people who think Iraq is pointless and possibly criminal unless they're willing to ambush soldiers with guns.

Not to mention while some people may have cursed at you (it's not my style, but OHNOES BAD WORDS), you're the only one wishing disease and death on anyone. Are you off your meds?

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 5:01 PM

@Jadehawk, OM
Suffice it to say, I don’t think we will agree but I am curious, where do you see yourself here:

the "heroes" are those actively standing against those things; "normal" is to just go along with the system.

Why is this website so goddamn slow? Is it just me or is this some crappy blog client?

Paul

talking about how you don't respect people who think Iraq is pointless and possibly criminal unless they're willing to ambush soldiers with guns.

*yawn* I guess you missed the part where I later indicated that I really didn’t mean that and it was just me amping up the rhetoric. My honest feeling is that I wonder why some of the people that feel so strongly about these things aren’t in Iraq right now providing some kind of humanitarian aid. I guess it’s just easier to pass judgment from the safety of home.

you're the only one wishing disease and death on anyone. Are you off your meds?

Just responding the only way I know how, amping up the intensity of the conflict.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 5:11 PM

Why is this website so goddamn slow? Is it just me or is this some crappy blog client?

It's a server-side problem at scienceblogs. It's not you.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 5:22 PM

All right, take care.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 27, 2009 8:43 PM

You are probably the weirdest "libertarian" I've ever met.

I think Walton is very young. Time will tell if, when he's 40, he's still 19.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: zeroangel | August 27, 2009 10:17 PM

Desert Son:

Hmmm... I think we may have gotten off track. My point was in reply to the measure of religious fundamentalism that motivates Jihadists vs. the measure of Christian fundamentalism that motivates the West in the current conflict. Not so much a general measuring of varying types of lunacy to include racism in either society.

As far as getting rattled over nasty words and general impoliteness, I would say just because I have been in nasty situations doesn't mean I like them. I am a family man and I don't usually resort to dropping F-bombs in polite conversation because once upon a time I had folks try to kill me. I have been reading this blog for awhile, but never got into reading the comments. I guess I really just expected more on such an erudite blog. I'm not rattled so much as frustrated and annoyed that I can't ever seem to find any place on the internet where posters aren't interested in a flame war. I really just thought my retorts were playful, obviously I don’t want anyone to die, get a disease, or prove their worth by pointing weapons at people.

It's a fair point about atheists, foul language, and being an accommadationist and I must admit I am sometimes guilty of similar language with respect to theists and I often support similar invective against the worst kind of theist. However, I certainly am not going to go into the church I grew up with in my home town and drop a series of F-bombs at the poor pastor for lying to me. I suspect the poor old guy doesn't believe most of it himself. Point is, I try to measure my responses with what I am given.

I'm sure in person things would be much better. The internet seems to bring out the worst in folks and it kind of occurred to me that my reception here shortly after announcing I was a veteran of Iraq was not unlike the reception I receive when strolling into a more conservative blog and announcing my atheism. It goes downhill fast there too.

I am sure we would get along just fine over beer. OK, see ya!

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 28, 2009 1:14 AM

zeroangel,

My eldest brother was in Desert Shield/Storm, now a Lt. Col. in recruiting. When he retires, I'm hoping he'll open the carpentry business I suspect he's secretly dreamed about all these years.

A good friend of mine, a Major in army aviation, flies Apaches, though he finally got the gig he's always wanted: test pilot, though that mostly means fiddling around with new computer equipment and telling instrument designers not to set as default the blue half of an attitude indicator on the bottom of the readout/the brown half on the top. ;) He's done tours in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

My grandfather was a World War I vet, very late to the war (luckily) and lived a long, good life and died at age 94.

A great uncle of mine was a naval aviator, killed in service during World War II, though not in combat. His aircraft crashed in bad weather.

I've never served. I've done some reading on military history, from Foote's 3-volume series on The U.S. Civil War to some of Ambrose's work on World War II to John Keegan's The First World War. I'm no scholar on the subject.

Walton's quote of Lee estimating Johnson didn't ring true to my ears: I've never felt jealous of the soldiers I know (or knew, in my grandfather's case) for their career choice, certainly never that they'd seen battle. Hell, I got nervous palpitations just listening to my aviation friend describing some water crash evacuation training exercises he did (I nearly drowned during a white water canoe trip age 12, and to this day I have a . . . tense . . . relationship with water in excess of, say, a bathtub's size, so it didn't help to hear what he was describing), to say nothing of my anxiety when he and my brother were in country.

Nor did I feel antagonism for their choice to serve. The military has been a great, rewarding, and fulfilling career for my brother and my friend, as it has for many (and, as with any line of work, it's been a lousy career for some people, too). At one time I considered the military, but in the end, didn't feel that was what I wanted to do.

I do like to thank active duty personnel and veterans for their service, but I also like to thank teachers, doctors, waitstaff, sewer maintenance personnel, artists, store clerks, bus drivers, firefighters, nurses, administrative staff, coaches, and the list goes on. You remarked on feeling taken aback, yet gratified, when someone approached you unbidden in an airport and thanked you for your service. Taken aback that someone would thank you for just doing your job, yet also grateful for kind words genuinely proffered. My hope is that more people will do the same, not just for military personnel, but also for a host of others deserving thanks. Sometimes, though, it's easier to identify the ones wearing uniforms. ;)

As a final aside, my thanks to badger3k and 'Tis Himself, as well, for their service, and other vets who post here whom I may have missed. As ever, my thanks goes out to our host and so many posters on this board for their edifying remarks on so many subjects, for their efforts in service of education and science and creativity and humor and sometimes just good old viscous, shuddering, cyclopean, Cthulhoid madness.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 28, 2009 5:17 AM

I didn't say that you were such an appeasement monkey, but really it's pointless to discuss anything with you because based on your tone you really just want a flame war.

That said, FUCK YOU. After all, it's the interwebs and we can all be as uncivil, condescending, and obnoxious as we want without fear of someone getting punched in the face (or pistol whipped) for being a douchebag.

Fuck you, fuck your family, I hope you eat shit, contract some nasty disease, and die.

...and have a nice day. *smile*

I do believe you're mentally ill.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 28, 2009 8:08 AM

@Desert Son:

The folks that Walton’s quote will ring true for will never admit it. I have always admired humility though and yours is refreshing. Personally, I don’t see myself as a mean man at all. I’ll admit I was scared everytime we left the wire. Furthermore, much to my shame, my first thought after folks got killed was usually something like, “Damn, I am glad I wasn’t in that HMMWV.” I was kind of surprised that I was accused of being “swaggering” I think in the same way an atheist can be accused of being strident just for saying they are an atheist; a veteran can be accused of being swaggering just for saying they are a vet.

I also like to thank teachers, doctors, waitstaff, sewer maintenance personnel,

Yes, me too. It’s just nice to be nice to people.

@truth machine, OM:

I guess you can't help but engage in these ad hominem fallacies.

No, actually I really do wonder. Some time ago, I joined the military because I honestly thought the right thing to do would be to protect the tribe with my life if necessary. I felt strongly enough about it to give up several years of my life and the first year of my marriage in Iraq. However, I am the type of person that (though I have my own opinions of course) tries to see both sides of an issue and often I don’t get too wrapped up in politics. By that I mean, I am not the type of person that calls Bush Hitler or Obama a Marxist or shouts down politicians at Town Hall meetings. Had I never been in the military, I might imagine that if I were watching the news about the war, instead of thinking, “Oh geez, things still are pretty shitty over there, glad I did my part,” I might say, “Honey, where are the Cheetos?” and change the channel to Sponge Bob Square Pants. Actually, I often do that anyhow.

I seriously do wonder about people who make some incredible comparisons and decry how terribly foul the war is yet, can get up from the TV, grab a bag of Cheetos and go on with their lives. I’m not sure why (or how) they do that.

I do believe you're mentally ill.

Yah, I’ll have to have a chat with those Veterans Affairs people the next time they call or send me that stupid questionnaire to screen me for PTSD. ”Do you have bad dreams? ”Would you say you are more or less happy since coming home? ”Do you cry? …and so on.

Posted by: Kendo | August 28, 2009 8:17 AM

Posted by: Kangaete | August 27, 2009 1:55 AM

PZ, please stick to your "biology", politics just won't make sense to you. By the way, what is wrong with war, isn't it just another form of "natural selection" according to you?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 8:30 AM

# 455

Yawn.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 28, 2009 9:12 AM

@John Morales:

Heya! Yes, I did read most of the comments and I went back and checked and now remember yours. At the time of my previous post though I had forgotten that you were one of the folks to respond to Walton’s quote.

It’s enough for a person to say just once, “Hey that’s not me.” Repeated statements of “hey that’s not me” and I start to wonder why someone seems to protest too much. Of course, it’s entirely possible my suspicions are unfounded. It’s also possible that they are so insistent because they just despise violence in all forms (even when it’s justified). Well, me too.

PS. Thanks for the welcome! Honestly I am not sure how much more commenting I will do. Not because I don’t want to, but because this freaking blog server is so goddamn slow and it gets worse the more comments appear. It’s really annoying.

PPS. I’m sure he will turn up. He might have just gotten bored, busy or both.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 28, 2009 11:16 AM

zeroangel,

It’s just nice to be nice to people.

For me, it's more than just being nice to people for the sake of the niceness of it. I'm not saying it's not more than that for you. I feel that the thanks is important as an expression of genuine gratitude for the efforts of those who impact, directly or indirectly, my life and the lives of those I love and care about, and even the lives of those I don't even know. It does make me feel good, but it also contributes to the lives of those doing whatever work I'm grateful for, and helps reinforce the efforts of those people to continue to try and do good work.

I had a boss one time for whom the concept of "thank you" was lost. He just never said it. He had it in mind that when it was time to thank employees they got a paycheck every two weeks, every month, whatever. The money was nice, to be sure, and no one turned it down, as we all had rent to pay and food to buy, but it's amazing how, in the course of a given week, approaching a project team in an office and saying, "Thanks, you all did a really terrific job, and it pleased the client, and was ahead of schedule and under-budget," (crazy, I know) "so, thanks. I'm really grateful," can make a difference in how those people work in the future.

Because people who don't hear that, but know they do good work, will eventually find someplace that does know how to say "thank you." And I don't know anyone who works for that asshole now.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Walton | August 28, 2009 5:32 PM

Feynmaniac

You are probably the weirdest "libertarian" I've ever met. You don't trust government to provide health care, but are perfectly confident in its ability to wage war. You see taxes as a form of "coercion", but fail to see the coercion in being invaded and occupied by a foreign power. You don't trust government to carry out popular internal programs but do trust it with armed forces on foreign soil. At least other libertarians are consistently distrustful of government.

I am consistently distrustful of government. While our servicemen and women do a great job, and deserve our respect, the government bureaucracy which supports them is often hopelessly ineffective. As anyone who's examined the wonderful world of defence procurement will attest, military bureaucracies are no more efficient than any other government bureaucracy. (Hence the well-known stories of the Pentagon spending thousands of dollars on a toilet seat.)

But as regards the military, I don't see that there's any realistic alternative to government provision. Yes, you could in theory outsource military functions to private defence contractors (a la Blackwater), but this wouldn't really improve efficiency; you'd still need a vast administrative wing to deal with the contracts, and standards would probably decline (along with the esprit-de-corps that is at the heart of any effective military force).

In general, there are two reasons why the private sector is usually more efficient than government: businesses must (1) compete in a free market, and (2) live within their means. Neither of these factors, however, applies in the defence business. So privatising the military would be a fundamentally bad idea. And for the reasons I've already outlined, we urgently need to maintain and consolidate our military strength.

Re the "coercion" in being "invaded and occupied by a foreign power": I fundamentally believe that the sovereignty of individuals outweighs the sovereignty of nations. In principle, if people are being oppressed by an authoritarian regime, liberating them from its control is a perfectly morally legitimate thing to do. Of course, in the real world it isn't as simple as that, and, as we've seen in Iraq, it can go badly wrong. But I do not believe that we have a moral obligation to stay within our own borders. Quite the opposite: those who possess overwhelming power have an obligation to use it, where possible, for the cause of good. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Our military men and women deserve our admiration. Yes, they have been let down by our political leadership (on both sides of the Atlantic), and we can and should condemn the Bush administration for its foolishly short-sighted approach to war planning. But that isn't an argument for adopting a selfish isolationist policy, nor for starving the military of resources, as you seem to advocate.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 28, 2009 6:02 PM

this freaking blog server is so goddamn slow and it gets worse the more comments appear.

Do you have the problem that when you post a comment, it takes forever for the page to reload?

What I do to get around that is I press post, then I wait just a couple seconds (the message gets sent by your browser, even if it isn't obvious to you). Then I press the Refresh button on my browser. This seems to be a lot faster. I'm using Firefox, if that matters.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 28, 2009 7:13 PM

Walton,

While our servicemen and women do a great job, and deserve our respect,

For Christ's sakes Walton, stop treating the service men and women like they're a bunch of children who can't handle criticism. If a police officer showed up here and said that police brutality and racial profiling weren't a serious issue I'd disagree with them. If a teacher wrote that students' liberties weren't frequently infringed upon or that schools aren't run like robot factories I'd disagree. Both serve their community (joining the military isn't the only way to do this), but that doesn't make their opinions infallible. Similarly, if someone served in Iraq that doesn't make their opinions on the war automatically correct. And the criticism isn't about them but about certain trends in their profession. As Desert Son also mentioned one of the Molly winners here is BrokenSoldier who is a veteran and also served in Iraq (IIRC). So stop implying that we don't respect the servicemen and women here.

Hence the well-known stories of the Pentagon spending thousands of dollars on a toilet seat.

I'm not sure if that's an inefficiency more than a ploy to allocate funds for secret operations.

Yes, you could in theory outsource military functions to private defence contractors (a la Blackwater), but this wouldn't really improve efficiency; you'd still need a vast administrative wing to deal with the contracts, and standards would probably decline

Got it. Government is efficient enough to handle the military operations, but not enough to handle health care.

But I do not believe that we have a moral obligation to stay within our own borders. Quite the opposite: those who possess overwhelming power have an obligation to use it, where possible, for the cause of good.

FFS, you've been told numerous times and have an abundance of evidence that it's not being used for "good" but to consolidate power for the elite in the US. Any "good" that comes out is accidental, practical or is a small part meant for propaganda purposes.

I alluded to your country's history earlier. Racism wasn't the biggest problem with the concept of the "white man's burden". The problem was that is was a blatant lie to rationalize imperialism. European powers, and Britain in particular, weren't taking over the entire continents for the benefit of the natives that lived there. They were doing it because it was extremely lucrative. They got very rich and powerful doing it. It only came to an end after their enthusiasm to kill one another brought them down.

Posted by: John Morales | August 28, 2009 7:35 PM

From Jerry Pournelle's blog:

The $500 toilet seat for the B-52 happened this way: when USAF ordered the B-52 force we -- I was at Boeing at the time, in human factors -- told them to order spare parts, particularly stuff that would be used a lot. The toilet station was one of those: in order to fit it into the system it had to be a fairly unusual shape. USAF didn't get enough money to order very many of those. Of course they wore out, but not before the production line had been dismantled. To get another thousand toilet seats required about $450,000 in setup costs, which was still cheaper than machining them one at a time. The marginal cost of the seats was about ten bucks. The average cost had to include the setup costs. They still use that as an example of defense spending waste, but the waste came from not ordering another thousand of the darned things when they were cheap.

This happens a lot in defense work. If some speculator had ordered a bunch of those seats, warehoused them, and waited for USAF to need them, he could have made a decent profit, but of course he'd have been accused of profiteering and gouging and some excess profit tax would have been imposed unless he had the good sense to have been engaged in proper lobbying.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 28, 2009 8:19 PM

...and forgive me my trespasses, like typos and stupid stuff like your vs. you're.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 28, 2009 8:33 PM

hastily = hesitantly.

Really sorry, this thing is so slow now I am getting frustrated and not proof-reading.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 28, 2009 8:57 PM

...and forgive me my trespasses, like typos and stupid stuff like your vs. you're.

The only time you'll find someone pointing out typos (other than their own) is when someone else is playing grammar nazi and needs to be taken down a notch. Or else when the typo is particularly laughable.

Posted by: Walton | August 29, 2009 5:53 AM

Feynmaniac,

Got it. Government is efficient enough to handle the military operations, but not enough to handle health care.

Yes - for the reasons which I have already outlined.

Simply put, there are two factors which, in general, make the private sector more efficient than government: (1) businesses, unlike governments, must compete for customers in a free market; and (2) businesses, unlike governments, must live within their means, as they cannot sustain unlimited deficit spending. Both of these factors apply, at least to some extent, in the private healthcare industry (though they don't really operate in US healthcare, since the regulatory environment ensures that health insurance is monopolised by a handful of the largest corporations). In the end, where consumers have a genuine choice of health providers, those health providers are forced to compete for customers and improve standards.

By contrast, these factors do not, and cannot, apply to defence spending. Since the legitimate use of force is the sole prerogative of government (and has to be, since the alternative would be total anarchy), any military force - whether operated by government or the private sector - must always be funded and authorised by government. Accordingly, it is not possible to have a "free market" in military protection; and since the money always comes ultimately from the government, there's just as much inefficient bureaucracy and wasteful spending. Accordingly, privatising military forces would not do anything to improve efficiency.

(It annoys me when people point to the incompetence and waste often generated by the outsourcing of government functions to private contractors, and label this a "failure of the free market". It isn't. Contracting out government functions to the private sector does not create a "free market", because the private companies are selected and paid by government, and, accordingly, enjoy a monopoly. Outsourcing is sometimes a good idea, and sometimes a bad idea; but it has nothing to do with the free market.)

Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 6:21 AM

Walton,

Since the legitimate use of force is the sole prerogative of government (and has to be, since the alternative would be total anarchy), any military force - whether operated by government or the private sector - must always be funded and authorised by government.

This is a contradictory statement, which destroys your argument.

A military force cannot both be operated by the private sector and be the sole prerogative of government.

PS any comment to my #450?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 6:55 AM

Despite temptation, I will not be drawn into a discussion of looneytarianism.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 29, 2009 7:03 AM

looneytarnianism

Etymological history in "looneytoonianism", in which the ACME company conquers the free market.

Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 8:25 AM

Walton,

Yes, it can. You've missed the point of what I was saying entirely.

If the US government decided to abolish its armed forces, and instead paid Blackwater to provide defence services, then Blackwater would be a force operating under the authority of government. Although it would remain a privately owned corporation, its orders and its money would be coming from the government.

Leaving aside the reputation of Blackwater, I still fail to see how if (a) the private armed force X operates under the authority of Government and (b) its orders and money come from Government, it differs functionally from a Government armed force, other than due to (c*) X is a profit-driven enterprise.

You're merely stating that private enterprise is necessarily more efficient than Government enterprise, in that for the same money Government gets the same service whilst still providing a profit for X.

All you're doing is dissing Government enterprises by assuming they're necessarily less efficient — it's not like X has access to better people, processes or technology than Government does.

Since the economic argument is spurious (the same outcomes for the same or less money, but with a profit for X's shareholders/owners), your argument would make sense only if X provided plausible deniability for Government actions, but given you've stated it operates under orders from Government this cannot be the case.

--
* (c) is implicit here, there'd hardly be a point for X to be privately-owned if it weren't profitable unless it were deniability, which you've disallowed above.

Posted by: Walton | August 29, 2009 8:47 AM

I still fail to see how if (a) the private armed force X operates under the authority of Government and (b) its orders and money come from Government, it differs functionally from a Government armed force, other than due to (c*) X is a profit-driven enterprise.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't differ functionally from a Government armed force. Try reading my post again, as I am saying the exact opposite of what you think I am saying.

The private sector is NOT inherently more efficient than government. It is only more efficient if there is a competitive market. Contracting out a government function to a private company does NOT necessarily make that function more efficient. Accordingly, outsourcing defence functions to Blackwater would NOT improve efficiency, and is a bad idea for a variety of other reasons. How much clearer do I have to be?

The question I was asked is why I support a strong government-run military, but am wary of government-run healthcare. The answer is that military services cannot be provided by a free market, whereas healthcare (in theory at least) can. I am against privatising the military, and have said so clearly and repeatedly - because, as you correctly point out, a private military enterprise which received its orders and funding from government would not be any more efficient or effective than a government military enterprise. (And would probably be less so, as it would have to cream off some money as shareholder profit.)

Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 9:08 AM

Walton, Well, my comment #478 addressed a different issue to my #484, where I apparently misunderstood your point.

(note #478 is semantic pedantry, but I still think it valid.)

The question I was asked is why I support a strong government-run military, but am wary of government-run healthcare. The answer is that military services cannot be provided by a free market, whereas healthcare (in theory at least) can.

Ah well, it's late here, I'm mentally tired, so I desist for now, and will revisit tomorrow after squash practice.
Thanks for the responses, though.

PS I would be interested in a response to my #450.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 29, 2009 9:43 AM

@strange gods before me

Ahh… I think we are reading this quote slightly different!

I read it to mean that every man thinks himself a strong, tough or masculine; a “mean” man for never having been a soldier. That is, he has subconsciously thinks poorly of himself and therefore has reasoned to himself that he is in fact a brave and honorable man for refusing to take part in warfare. It seems to me your way is the correct way to read it, that a man thinks poorly of himself for not having been a soldier. In any case, either way one reads it we are talking about either a conscious or unconscious failure one perceives in oneself.

That said, it just seems plainly apparent to me that such men exist, perhaps on this thread, and certainly elsewhere. I certainly think I have met more than one in college. I can’t be sure, because I cannot read their mind. However, based on the actions and words of some people I have met in the course of my life I think I could say that it is completely possible they reasoned to themselves they were brave for not being a part of warfare and even went so far as to protest and perhaps challenge authority (their way of proving themselves). Of course, (despite their claims of the US as being a "police state") the most these authorities would do is give them some community service or something, as opposed to killing them (the truly brave protesters are in Iran). Is this an elaborate tale I am telling myself? I really don’t think so in the grand scheme of things and apparently whoever Walton quoted had similar feelings on the matter.

You honestly and truly are insisting that there is no set of men like this? BTW, I don't think you are such a person.

As far as you owning a weapon, I would have to point out the willingness to use deadly force is only a fraction of what it means to be a soldier in today’s world. Sometimes it involves knowing when not to use deadly force. The real nerve comes in when, for example, one knowingly and willfully leaves the safety of the base to travel down a road where just the day before the life of a comrade was snuffed out. To me, you telling me that you bought a weapon means very little at all. It’s a tool, you might need to use, but it’s wholly unlikely. Now, if you were to become a police officer and take a similar weapon into a violent and dangerous neighborhood, that would be a different story.

Does this make sense? Nice talking to you again.

@Everyone else:

I do want to read this exchange between Walton and others and perhaps comment, but I don’t have the time now. Perhaps later.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 29, 2009 12:38 PM

Walton,

I do nothing of the sort. I have never claimed, nor will you ever see me claim, that we have any sort of "right to free speech" on Professor Myers' private blog . . . So please don't accuse me of "crying oppression". I have never claimed to be oppressed.

I presume you'll be pleased to note, then, that in my post at #458 I was responding to a post by someone using the handle Welcome to LGF or DailyKos - a post that now seems to be gone - and not to you, though I see how, since I invoked the term libertarian, one might take offense by association.

Let me be quick to state, then, that my post was not directed to you, and I should have been clearer. I will endeavor to be more so in the future.

Regardless, I feel this ship steering dangerously close to a discussion of libertarianism, a political philosophy I loathe, so I'm done with that part of it.

Feynmaniac, excellent posts herein, and thank you for those. Also, it was John Morales who brought up brokenSoldier - credit where credit is due.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 30, 2009 5:55 AM

Desert Son,

Also, it was John Morales who brought up brokenSoldier - credit where credit is due.

Apologies to John.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 30, 2009 6:22 AM

But if it acquired such capacity, then - bearing in mind the immense size of the People's Liberation Army - it would certainly have a realistic prospect of successfully occupying Taiwan; and depending on its political leadership, the will might be there. In such a circumstance, I believe that the US and UK would be honour-bound to intervene on Taiwan's behalf. Assuming that such a conflict would not go nuclear - if it did, we'd all be screwed, and the entire world with us - Walton

Walton, you are insane: you are saying you are willing to risk destroying the world for "honour".

In fact, it is quite clear the PRC will not invade Taiwan except in the unlikely event of Taiwan declaring formal independence. Such an invasion would be an appalling crime, but is also quite clear that the USA and UK have no treaty obligation to defend Taiwan, which both recognise as an integral part of China - as does the government of Taiwan itself; and that they would not do so unless a lunatic such as yourself was in charge. Legally, an invasion would be a resumption of the civil war. US-Taiwan relations are governed by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which you can look up.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 30, 2009 12:17 PM

@windy:

Ah, so Walton's perspective on warfare is valuable, although he has never been near a battle...

Neither was Desert Son but his posts were valuable. Neither one of them tried to tell me I am a war criminal, suggest that I should have deserted or otherwise moralize, pontificate, etc.

In any case, this thread has grown long in the tooth. I see there are less and less posts despite me checking less and less. You guys have fun. I doubt any of you are policy makers and it's too bad. You seem to have a great deal to say.

Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 31, 2009 7:45 AM

protocol wrote:
>Those more interested might want to read "War Making and State Making as Organized Crime," by Charles Tilly (google it, its available online;the late Tilly was a prof. of Sociology and Political Science at Columbia). His argument is similar to some of the points that physicistDave made above.

Thanks.

Tilly’s work has had a significant influence on me during the last several years.

Dave