I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Oppose, Support, Neutrality

I've been quite busy at work.  A little busy with Frih, a new forum to rant on.

HoboPelican, a moderator, disagrees with my logic:

Opposing US action to take out Saddam is supporting Saddam. 

So I look closely at his reply and also another commenter Montressor.

HoboPelican logic:
I was opposed to US intervention, but don't feel like I was accepting of Saddam.

Let’s see if this works, Hobo -- you are opposed to US intervention in Darfur, but don’t feel like you are accepting of genocide -- is this true? How nice for your feelings, but how many have to die or be murdered in Darfur before you start feeling bad about accepting that many murders? 100,000? 200,000? In practical politics over the last 3 years, those against US action in Iraq are, implicitly, also against US led regime change in Sudan.

Here’s my logic: because I, TomGrey (my real name, btw), am not willing to go to Sudan and fight and kill to stop genocide, I feel I am accepting genocide. I oppose genocide, but I am accepting it. Now. In Darfur. I feel bad about this, really bad. (Time for Strangelove? “Maybe not as bad as you, Dmitri, but I feel bad too…”) Feel-good rationalizations like yours only make me angry. The real world is full of real murderers, committing real injustices. If there isn’t action to stop the killers, they keep killing.

Positive, negative, neutral. Those are the three possible opinions about different states, or about different actions. If there is a situation which is “unacceptable”, and an action to improve that situation, objection to the action is acceptance of the situation. Try giving me some examples if you disagree.


I was opposed to the US acting alone and with poor excuses (WMDs), but I would have supported UN intervention.

Hobo, are you really ignorant of the fact that there are UK troops in Iraq? That Spain acted with America, and then took its troops home after a bomb attack and an election loss for the American ally Aznar? That Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and many other countries, including my new home in Slovakia, have soldiers in Iraq? “US acting alone” is a false statement. If you don’t know it is false, your ignorance should consign your opinion to being utterly ignored, despite 2000+ postings here as moderator.

If you do know it is false, you are a liar. (One who makes false statements when he knows they are false). Biker, Montressor, I’ll try to continue pointing out lies when I read them, but I’ll quote the words of the poster making the false statement of fact, state the true facts, and claim that if the person knew the true facts yet still made the false statement, that’s what make you, or me, or him, a liar. Perhaps you might try it. (I know it’s more work this way.)

“With poor excuses (WMDs)” -- again, go back to Bush’s 2003 reasons for the invasion. WMDs was certainly the biggest, but not the only. Do you really believe the other reasons are poor excuses to liberate people?

On WMDs, perhaps you believe Bush knew he would NOT find WMDs. The Downing Street Memo makes it clear that Bush was certain he would find them; the Wolfowitz interview notes that WMDs was emphasized because it was the one reason all the politicians & bureaucrats could agree on. Read Dems Clinton and Kennedy about the Iraq threat before the invasion, or in 1998 when the official policy of the USA became regime change in Iraq.

Whether the UN would have done anything in a reasonable time frame is irrelevant and impossible to … gauge

Why is the prior and expected failure of the UN irrelevant? If your primary realistic alternative to the real US-led Coalition is a UN-led Coalition, then anybody and everybody who doesn’t think the “UN would [do] anything in a reasonable time frame” must eliminate the UN as a realistic action option. Much like one must eliminate Harry Potter. Only if you believe the UN, or Harry Potter, would have successfully taken action to depose Saddam can you use that other alternative to prove your non-support for Saddam.

Much like: “I oppose the US invasion because I support Harry Potter taking out Saddam.” It’s silly -- because nobody serious would argue the reality of Harry Potter action.

When I compare what the UN has done in Darfur, or not done, I find your faith in a UN based solution for Iraq irresponsible. I note that UNSC resolution 1441 in 2002 followed some 16 other UNSC resolutions that Saddam had been violating.

But of course, Hobo, were you to think about the 16 UNSC resolutions since 1991 that Saddam had been continuously violating, you might not have spouted out your anti-American propaganda:

since the US seems to ignore them instead of working with it.

Personally, I only wish this were true, and that Bush had asked for Congressional authority to invade and institute regime change in Sudan in 2004, when he called it genocide. Anti-Americans seem to think the UNSC should be superior to the US Constitution, the US Congress (who voted before the 2002 elections to give Bush the power to invade), and the US President. Despite the fact that China, previously called Red China, is not a democracy but has a veto on the UNSC. In Iraq, both France and Russia were being bribed thru the Oil-For-Food scandal to protect Saddam. More trust in the UN over the US is actually more trust in China, Russia, and France over the US President, Congress, and Supreme Court. Thus, you oppose intervention by fully democratic America, yet “would have supported China, Russia, and France in intervention.”

My point is that I can oppose a method of dealing with Saddam without supporting him.

If you refuse to support that method, “neutrality”, than I’d agree this neutrality means you don’t support continued acceptance of Saddam. But refuse to support is less definite than oppose. If there is an action towards deposing Saddam, opposing that action is accepting Saddam.

If you oppose the death penalty justice action, you support his continued living.

I think Montressor wants to believe he can oppose action against Saddam and yet not support Saddam, but by the end of his last post he comes round:

My priro quote:
Similarly, to protest against the Iraq war before the invasion was to favor accepting Saddam.

Montressor:
Correct! But only in the sense that we support Saddam's continued reign or already mentioned alternative means to depose it over an invasion that would (arguably and predictably) end in chaos.

Montressor, I’d really appreciate a quick repeat of the main alternative means that you believe (not others) should have been tried instead. (I promise to smile if you mention Harry Potter.)

Finally, we’re at a point where we can look at positives and negatives of invading and not invading. Perhaps comparing Pinochet and Castro, Generals Chung and Park of S. Korea with Kim il Sung in N. Korea, a split N & S. Vietnam (1956-1975) vs. a unified (Soviet) commie “at peace” Vietnam and (Chinese) commie Cambodia …

Of course, M, your idea on the current status of Iraq is that it “would (arguably and predictably) end in chaos” implies thinking that the Arabs now murdering other Arabs in Iraq will continue at the same, or worse, rate. This is not an end state, it’s still an omelet after egg-breaking but before its fully cooked. Nation building is long and slow.

Those who think Iraq is already over are like those who thought the US “could never win” in Vietnam. In fact, all that was needed in S. E. Asia after 1972 was 18 more years of support for the S. Vietnamese -- but Rep Nixon ran away (Kissinger gets the Nobel Peace prize, remember that? Along with the N. Viet lying commie) in 73, and the S. Viet forces were wiped out after the Dems cut funding in 1975.

Iraq is a limited war. The choices are: 1) continue to fight, or 2) stop fighting and lose. I’d be interested in other alternatives. One either supports or opposes either of these alternatives; opposing one supports the other. Or one is neutral.

It might be nice to discuss how best to move forward towards democracy and human rights in Iraq. I fully agree that human rights is the goal, not democracy per se, but don’t know of any post WW II examples where non-democracy took over from democracy and gave better human rights immediately. In Chile with Pinochet, it took a few years.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/24/07 17:00 | link | comments
iraq

Arabs responsible for murdering Arabs

It is long past time for Bush to honestly speak about who is responsible for murdering the Arabs in Iraq -- other Arabs in Iraq.

Arabs murdering Arabs, just like Hamas vs Fatah in Gaza.

Arabs murdering Arabs -- with the killers who pull the triggers being responsible, not the Freedom-bringing Americans who allowed the killers to live without the fear of Saddam.

Charles Krauthammer:
"We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse.

It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war." (my bold)

I, too think we have made a few mistakes -- not starting with an Oil Fund, pushing national elections instead of local elections, accepting proportional representation rather than districts -- but actually not so many.

The biggest mistake has been Pres. Bush's failure to speak truthfully about responsibility.
When Arabs murder Arabs -- it must be blamed on the Arabs. 
The proof is in Kurdish Iraq: the US brought the same freedom to Kurdhish Iraq and the more peace accepting Kurds are not murdering other Kurds the way the Arabs are murdering Arabs.
It's not America, nor freedom, it is an Arab problem.

Normblog (Eve) had a fine post awhile ago on responsibility.

There's only 100% of it -- and the Arab killers are around 90% responsible.

Posted by: TomGrey at 02/04/07 05:05 | link | comments
iraq, responsibility