Mutt and Jeff Press Conference [Archive]

segovius

12-07-2006, 11:41 AM

This will always be a strictly political science question in their minds. 'If only the economic stimulus was just so, if we only had the right politicians in place.....'

People don't learn from experience, segovius, they learn after a change in belief.

Well they haven't changed - that's my point.

Iraq is now what it is and the WOT is what it is regardless of what we think or want to label it.

It wasn't like this before the invasion say so the jury was out on what the result would be....but now the result is apparent - and just mean a result has occurred, not making any partisan point - then everyne who had a certain view before now has to alter and adjust that view.

This applies to the right and the left. Though of course they may adjust in different ways. That's not the point, the pint is that they SHOULD DO SO.

Bush and Blair refuse to even address this - they are totting out the same tired rhetoric they did three years ago - they can't even update in terms of their own views and agenda. Stuck in a time-warp and outdated like the dinosaurs they so closely resemble and whose fate they will soon experience.

This is no leadership - it is willful and myopic refusal to grasp any chance of resolution because of stupidity, blindness and hubris.

We all deserve better....on every side of any conceivable political or religious divide....

Pathetic...

dmz

12-07-2006, 11:50 AM

Well they haven't changed - that's my point.

Iraq is now what it is and the WOT is what it is regardless of what we think or want to label it.

It wasn't like this before the invasion say so the jury was out on what the result would be....but now the result is apparent - and just mean a result has occurred, not making any partisan point - then everyne who had a certain view before now has to alter and adjust that view.

This applies to the right and the left. Though of course they may adjust in different ways. That's not the point, the pint is that they SHOULD DO SO.

Bush and Blair refuse to even address this - they are totting out the same tired rhetoric they did three years ago - they can't even update in terms of their own views and agenda. Stuck in a time-warp and outdated like the dinosaurs they so closely resemble and whose fate they will soon experience.

This is no leadership - it is willful and myopic refusal to grasp any chance of resolution because of stupidity, blindness and hubris.

We all deserve better....on every side of any conceivable political or religious divide....

Pathetic...
You can't escape the age you live in. A secular understanding of human nature is all they understand. I've heard a lot about how Dubbubababa is a 'fundie', but actually at his core, he's just as strictly secular as he can be -- the same goes with Blair. Any religious component to behavior is completely off the reservation for them.

segovius

12-07-2006, 11:56 AM

You can't escape the age you live in. A secular understanding of human nature is all they understand. I've heard a lot about how Dubbubababa is a 'fundie', but actually at his core, he's just as strictly secular as he can be -- the same goes with Blair. Any religious component to behavior is completely off the reservation for them.

Yes, he is merely fundamentally flawed.

Did you know the word 'fundamental' means 'relating to the anus' ?

dmz

12-07-2006, 11:59 AM

Yes, he is merely fundamentally flawed.

Did you know the word 'fundamental' means 'relating to the anus' ?
Ah-Ha!

Main Entry: fun·da·ment Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: fndmnt
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English, foundation, alteration (influenced by Latin fundamentum) of foundement, fundement, from Old French fondement, from Latin fundamentum, from fundare to found (from fundus bottom) + -mentum -ment
1 a obsolete : the base on which a structure (as a building or wall) is erected b : an underlying ground or theory : basic principle <relations between countries based on the fundaments of mutual respect and neighborliness> : FOUNDATION <archaeology and history are giving us a firm fundament of facts -- W.W.Hill>
2 a : the part of the body on which one sits : BUTTOCKS b : ANUS
3 biology : ANLAGE
4 : the part of a land surface that has not been altered by human activities

Citation format for this entry:

"fundament." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (7 Dec. 2006).

groverat

12-08-2006, 03:53 PM

This thread took a very interesting turn.

The attempt to paint Bush as a “secularist” is interesting. I hate to keep using the same word, but it is the only one that seems to truly fit.

1) He calls himself a Christian, and not in the politically-expedient sense. He is a firm believer, a sincere convert due to personal struggle and he openly regards Jesus as his spiritual and personal savior.

2) He has never associated himself with any kind of “secularist” movement, and not only that, but in no way do either of you even try to rationalize the argument that he is “secularist” or what that even means.

groverat

12-08-2006, 04:16 PM

I can understand not wanting Bush to be perceived as a teammate, but shoe-horning into such an ill-fitting category is simply bizarre.

addabox

12-08-2006, 04:25 PM

segovius

12-08-2006, 04:25 PM

2) He has never associated himself with any kind of “secularist” movement, and not only that, but in no way do either of you even try to rationalize the argument that he is “secularist” or what that even means.

I was agreeing with DMZ to the extent Bush is not a fundamentalist - he may well be a Christian but he uses the extreme Christian right for expediency rather than because they are his constituency.

But you are right. The shoe-horning IS bizarre - not only that it is a typical tactic. In fact it is what the tow individuals at the press conference were doing re Iraq: 'disappearing' a problem by re-branding it in.

groverat

12-08-2006, 04:50 PM

For a supposed rape victim, the Christian right-wing sure does like screaming "harder!"

segovius

12-08-2006, 04:52 PM

For a supposed rape victim, the Christian right-wing sure does like screaming "harder!"

I've no sympathy for them. They were asking for it wearing those short skirts and all that make-up.

dmz

12-08-2006, 07:13 PM

Actually, I have a slightly broader question for DMZ:

In another Iraq thread you're arguing that we have failed to take the measure of the situation in Iraq because the Iraqi's, themselves (or, in your parlance, "Jihadis") are not "secularists".

So the problem is that the (secularist) Bush White House can never intuit the true motivations of the (religionist) Iraqi insurgency, um, Jihadis..

However, you appear to be further implying that therefore a "secular" response to Middle Eastern unrest (and the larger problem of terrorism) is doomed to failure.

Meaning, it would seem, that what is required is a religious response (or I suppose by your lights a response informed by a right relationship with God).

Could that be what you're arguing for? "Correct" religion (i.e. your brand of Christianity) as the only coherent and efficacious response to "incorrect" religion (Islam)?

Signed, curious in Oaktown
Yes, Oaktown, there really is a Santa Claus................. oh wait.......

anyway, Bush isn't much different than the rest of us, he can't very well escape his age. I don't doubt he knows the Lord, but we carry this stuff in earthen vessels, and his earthen vessel is still carrying around the notion that politics is salvific, and that people can be controlled by simply giving them the right economic incentives. Nothing different from how LBJ saw the world, maybe with a whole lot more Friedman and less Keynes. You see, when Christianity has been reduced to a general level of niceness, it has lost it's salt, or preserving power -- and is worse than useless (if you haven't already noticed.)

He, like certain people I bust chops with here on AI, don't connect the dots of the march of history, If Bush could look back, form year 0 or so, and watch the progress of law, and culture, etc., he would be able to see that the west is very much wrapped in a crispy coating of the sensibilities about law, authority, etc. that come from Christianity. Things like English common law, why the American rebellion was a no-brainer for guys like Franklin, Washington -- the reasons we don't see authority as totalitarian. All stem from a Christian understanding of man's nature and his 'calling'. Not so for the East, where authority has a bit harsher smack.

Locke and certain other ding dongs have co-opted that message and ran with it with some success -- although recently it always seems to break hard one way of the other. Either to a Friedman hard right, capitalism without enough conscience, or to a hard left, and nationalized healthcare. And in any case Locke and Rousseau certainly don't pass muster in Baghdad.

So in Iraq when religion is seen a simply a matter of choice to shelter the mind from scary science, or thunderbolts from Zeus, then that is not going to be where Rice and the gang place their center of gravity, and they didn't.

And it's cost, and will continue to cost them dearly.

so even in dmz's hypercalvinist utopia, where all gays are machine-gunned in the street after the sodomy police burst in at the dead of night, where air jamming and impure thoughts are punished by scourging, where children are burned with cigarettes for 'unseemly behavior'..... I'd probably have to still go with Pat Bucanon on this one.

addabox

12-08-2006, 07:34 PM

Yes, Oaktown, there really is a Santa Claus................. oh wait.......

anyway, Bush isn't much different than the rest of us, he can't very well escape his age. I don't doubt he knows the Lord, but we carry this stuff in earthen vessels, and his earthen vessel is still carrying around the notion that politics is salvific, and that people can be controlled by simply giving them the right economic incentives. Nothing different from how LBJ saw the world, maybe with a whole lot more Friedman and less Keynes. You see, when Christianity has been reduced to a general level of niceness, it has lost it's salt, or preserving power -- and is worse than useless (if you haven't already noticed.)

He, like certain people I bust chops with here on AI, don't connect the dots of the march of history, If Bush could look back, form year 0 or so, and watch the progress of law, and culture, etc., he would be able to see that the west is very much wrapped in a crispy coating of the sensibilities about law, authority, etc. that come from Christianity. Things like English common law, why the American rebellion was a no-brainer for guys like Franklin, Washington -- the reasons we don't see authority as totalitarian. All stem from a Christian understanding of man's nature and his 'calling'. Not so for the East, where authority has a bit harsher smack.

Locke and certain other ding dongs have co-opted that message and ran with it with some success -- although recently it always seems to break hard one way of the other. Either to a Friedman hard right, capitalism without enough conscience, or to a hard left, and nationalized healthcare. And in any case Locke and Rousseau certainly don't pass muster in Baghdad.

So in Iraq when religion is seen a simply a matter of choice to shelter the mind from scary science, or thunderbolts from Zeus, then that is not going to be where Rice and the gang place their center of gravity, and they didn't.

And it's cost, and will continue to cost them dearly.

so even in dmz's hypercalvinist utopia, where all gays are machine-gunned in the street after the sodomy police burst in at the dead of night, where air jamming and impure thoughts are punished by scourging, where children are burned with cigarettes for 'unseemly behavior'..... I'd probably have to still go with Pat Bucanon on this one.

I honestly can't figure out what you're saying here.

Just to narrow it down, are you saying that we are misunderstanding the Iraqi's, ourselves, or both?

dmz

12-08-2006, 08:05 PM

Just to narrow it down, are you saying that we are misunderstanding the Iraqi's, ourselves, or both?
But how could you separate any of those?

Flounder

12-08-2006, 09:39 PM

You know what I've learned from all these threads recently?

If an argument isn't going your way and there's no rational way to push on (stay the course, if you will), just launch into a few hundred words of pseudo-philosophical gibberish.

midwinter

12-08-2006, 11:56 PM

I honestly can't figure out what you're saying here.

Me neither.

groverat

12-09-2006, 01:16 AM

I think dmz was saying, "I know George says he is Christian, but look over here instead at all of this verbal waffle!"

And, of course, always shore up the "Christian nation" rhetoric.

dmz

12-09-2006, 10:17 AM

Me neither.
dmz was attempting to explain to you knuckleheads that if you flew to Baghdad and start pulling the random citizen aside, and then attempted to lay your version of Lockeanish society on them, they would tell you to stick it in your ear. Toss in a potent minority who clearly see this as a means to a very pious, and mandatory, end -- and Iraq not going anywhere Western, any time soon.

It really doesn't get any clearer than this: imagine LBJ's angst when he attempted to cut a deals with Ho Chi Minh, now project that to Bush and Sadr.

addabox

12-09-2006, 03:37 PM

dmz was attempting to explain to you knuckleheads that if you flew to Baghdad and start pulling the random citizen aside, and then attempted to lay your version of Lockeanish society on them, they would tell you to stick it in your ear. Toss in a potent minority who clearly see this as a means to a very pious, and mandatory, end -- and Iraq not going anywhere Western, any time soon.

It really doesn't get any clearer than this: imagine LBJ's angst when he attempted to cut a deals with Ho Chi Minh, now project that to Bush and Sadr.

OK, I guess (and leaving aside the LBJ non-sequitar), but how does that square with your early support for the war and recent assertion that the original motivation was "noble"?

If what you are saying now is that the Iraqis (and I guess the whole of non-christian middle eastern civilization) are simply incapable of grasping or internalizing or looking favorably upon concepts like democracy and freedom, owing to the last 2000 years of history and who got which emissary from God, then how could invading that country and attempting to install a democracy under force of arms ever be anything but a disaster?

Did it seem to you that this might count as a kind of very vehement missionary undertaking, and that marines might deliver the benighted Iraqi people unto the lord?

midwinter

12-09-2006, 03:40 PM

midwinter

12-09-2006, 03:56 PM

addabox

12-09-2006, 03:57 PM

I seem to remember this being the predicted strategy for withdrawal: blame the Iraqis/Arabs/Muslims for not being ready for Western democracy and pull out, shrugging shoulders and saying "Well, we tried!" Those damned backwards people! They just don't get it!

Whether or not Iraq has ever engaged in a Lockean social contract I don't know. The place has been a wreck since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Yeah. It seems to be firming up as the final excuse. What's interesting is how the supporters and apologists and true believers can shift rationales without apparently being even aware that they are doing it.

The great right wing group mind begins to ponderously turn, jettisoning old talking points and shoveling on new ones, and pretty soon we have always been at war with Oceania.

Although DMZ deserves points for baroquely doodling in the margins.

dmz

12-09-2006, 04:15 PM

Chatted with a poli-sci friend about this and, indeed, a Lockean social contract does not have to be explicit or even democratic. Saddam had a Lockean contract with the Iraqis and we went in and broke it up and now are trying to set up another one.
Are you trying to say that Iraq is an example of Locke's political theories? Checks and balances with death squads?

midwinter

12-09-2006, 04:17 PM

The great right wing group mind begins to ponderously turn, jettisoning old talking points and shoveling on new ones, and pretty soon we have always been at war with Oceania.

The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

midwinter

12-09-2006, 04:19 PM

Are you trying to say that Iraq is an example of Locke's political theories? Checks and balances with death squads?

I'm not. A PhD in Political Science from SUNY Albany is.

dmz

12-09-2006, 04:25 PM

OK, I guess (and leaving aside the LBJ non-sequitar), but how does that square with your early support for the war and recent assertion that the original motivation was "noble"?

If what you are saying now is that the Iraqis (and I guess the whole of non-christian middle eastern civilization) are simply incapable of grasping or internalizing or looking favorably upon concepts like democracy and freedom, owing to the last 2000 years of history and who got which emissary from God, then how could invading that country and attempting to install a democracy under force of arms ever be anything but a disaster?

Did it seem to you that this might count as a kind of very vehement missionary undertaking, and that marines might deliver the benighted Iraqi people unto the lord?
I told you guys from the beginning, that it would be a miracle if the invasion worked -- that moral authority in the East is not conferred with a 51% majority.

However, the concept of grace dictates that we make an effort to go the extra mile for people. There was a lot of talk about "draining the swamps" before the invasion, that we should promote the freedom and economic health in the region in order to stop terrorism. And that is exactly what Bushco tried to do. (Never mind that bin Laden was a millionaire -- or that Zawahiri came from a well-to-do family.)

dmz

12-09-2006, 04:26 PM

I'm not. A PhD in Political Science from SUNY Albany is.
Then it would be better if he was here to make his point.

midwinter

12-09-2006, 04:31 PM

Then it would be better if he was here to make his point.

Yes, it would be. But she has other things to do (Xmas tree and then Mass, I believe), and most of the political ideas expressed here that I tell her about (both left and right) make her head explode. It's understandable, you have to admit. She does politics and political theory all day every day and everywhere she turns, the people who are talking about politics have, generally, little clue about what they're talking (myself included). That's why I tend to stay out of the discussions of fiction (unless beckoned). When people start claiming that Tolkien is generally considered one of the great writers of his day, or that very few would argue that Hemingway was a great writer, I want to smash things.

addabox

12-09-2006, 04:33 PM

I told you guys from the beginning, that it would be a miracle if the invasion worked -- that moral authority in the East is not conferred with a 51% majority.

However, the concept of grace dictates that we make an effort to go the extra mile for people. There was a lot of talk about "draining the swamps" before the invasion, that we should promote the freedom and economic health in the region in order to stop terrorism. And that is exactly what Bushco tried to do. (Never mind that bin Laden was a millionaire -- or that Zawahiri came from a well-to-do family.)

Huh. I wasn't aware the concept of "grace" allowed for "helping" people in ways that are almost guaranteed to make their situation worse, on the off chance that maybe things will work out.

There must be a word for forcing "help" on people according to an arrogant, unilateral notion of what you, in your godly selflessness, have determined they "need", but "grace" isn't it.

Moreover, the idea that any of this had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq is simply bullshit.

dmz

12-09-2006, 04:42 PM

Yes, it would be. But she has other things to do (Xmas tree and then Mass, I believe), and most of the political ideas expressed here that I tell her about (both left and right) make her head explode. It's understandable, you have to admit. She does politics and political theory all day every day and everywhere she turns, the people who are talking about politics have, generally, little clue about what they're talking (myself included). That's why I tend to stay out of the discussions of fiction (unless beckoned). When people start claiming that Tolkien is generally considered one of the great writers of his day, or that very few would argue that Hemingway was a great writer, I want to smash things.
I'm sorry midwinter, but I can look at the Christian Lockeanism that gave America it's reason to be, and that is worlds away from anything going on in the ME today. Almost to the point of being a truism. Yes, Turkey, bla, bla, bla.... but at the bottom of their* understand of authority is, in all cases, either backed up with a strongman or some iron-clad political rule that can't be crossed. And that mentality has nothing to do with Locke.

* generalizing again

dmz

12-09-2006, 04:49 PM

Huh. I wasn't aware the concept of "grace" allowed for "helping" people in ways that are almost guaranteed to make their situation worse, on the off chance that maybe things will work out.

There must be a word for forcing "help" on people according to an arrogant, unilateral notion of what you, in your godly selflessness, have determined they "need", but "grace" isn't it.

Moreover, the idea that any of this had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq is simply bullshit.
Yes, it was a form of selflessness, although if Bushco hadn't been laboring under a religion-as-epiphenomenal-social-froth worldview they may have thought twice.

Bernard Lewis, for all is great scholarship, missed this too.

midwinter

12-09-2006, 04:52 PM

I'm sorry midwinter, but I can look at the Christian Lockeanism that gave America it's reason to be, and that is worlds away from anything going on in the ME today. Almost to the point of being a truism. Yes, Turkey, bla, bla, bla.... but at the bottom of their* understand of authority is, in all cases, either backed up with a strongman or some iron-clad political rule that can't be crossed. And that mentality has nothing to do with Locke.

Well, there's your problem. Locke didn't give America a Christian anything (we are, after all, a "Novum seculorum ordum," an idea that in American history is just as key as "e pluribus unum"). Locke's concept of the social contract is completely agnostic with regard to religion; it simply states that all nations/states/peoples who organize themselves into communities necessarily agree (tacitly or otherwise) to give up their natural "liberty" to do whatever they want in order to secure a general security.

Even if it is a strongman, by accepting the strongman's authority (passively or actively) they and their children are bound by the social contract. And if you want to see what happens when a people try to reject a certain kind of social contract, look at Iraq. The folks blowing shit up in Iraq aren't rejecting the idea of a social contract; they're rejecting this particular version of it.

In fact, I'm not even all that sure Locke was a Christian.

dmz

12-09-2006, 05:04 PM

Well, there's your problem. Locke didn't give America a Christian anything...

In fact, I'm not even all that sure Locke was a Christian.
Stop right there... I don't mean to say that Locke was Christian, just a cog in the Western thought process (although a very big one).

That said, his ideas of human nature, and a lot of what we have as 'liberalism' is the polar opposite of what is in Islamic thought. And while the Christians at that time were willing to syncretize a bit, an Ahmadinejad or a Sadr, for example, aren't philosophically even in the same hemisphere.

Think about this: think about the difference in the way that Locke would have defined "freedom" to how Sadr would define it. (Or even how Bush would.)

addabox

12-09-2006, 05:12 PM

Yes, it was a form of selflessness, although if Bushco hadn't been laboring under a religion-as-epiphenomenal-social-froth worldview they may have thought twice.

Bernard Lewis, for all is great scholarship, missed this too.

So: if I "rescue" children from a burning house by putting them in the care of a brutal, serial child molester who has taken a solemn oath to treat the children kindly , the measure of my "selflessness", my "grace" if you will, lies within the general notion of "helping" and is in no way diminished by the fantastically ill-concieved particulars of that "help"?

After all, I had every hope that the child molester would abide by his oath, and besides, the whole process served other agendas so it looked like it could have been a win-win!

In other words, when the kids get fucked and brutalized and ultimately killed, we can question my judgement regarding the particular means, but my intent to be of service, to act in grace, is unsullied?

midwinter

12-09-2006, 05:14 PM

Stop right there... I don't mean to say that Locke was Christian, just a cog in Western process (although a very big one).

Sure, but you also need to keep in mind that he's arguing, in many ways, against Hobbes in his theories, and that in his alliance with Shaftesbury, he's also contra Mandeville. My point is that Locke emerges in the middle of a furious debate about the nature of man and of a modern conception of "property" and at the high-point of the creation of the "public" as Habermas defines it. That America is founded largely in terms of Lockean principles of governance isn't a surprise; but you have to contextualize America as a kind of experiment in the principles that Locke, Shaftesbury, and Rousseau were advancing.

Additionally, it is worth noting that these Lockean whatevers we were founded upon really only existed in whatever idealized vision we tend to have now for a few decades and then broke down completely into a horrific civil war. The South rejected the social contract and created a new one for itself.

That said, his ideas of human nature, and a lot of what we have as 'liberalism' is the polar opposite of what is in Islamic thought. And while the Christians at that time were willing to syncretize a bit, an Ahmadinejad or a Sadr, for example, aren't philosophically even in the same hemisphere.

I have no idea what is or is not in "Islamic thought," or even if such a thing exists. But I would caution that we not confuse leaders of people with the people themselves.

midwinter

12-09-2006, 05:17 PM

Think about this: think about the difference in the way that Locke would have defined "freedom" to how Sadr would define it. (Or even how Bush would.)

Well, that's unnecessary. I would argue (and have) that the real c18 liberals would be utterly, utterly appalled at the way the West has shaped up. But you have to keep in mind that their ideas got tried in the c18 and for the first half of the c19, and, at least in England, they failed miserably.

And so to say that notions of "freedom" are different between Locke and Sadr seems to ignore the simple fact that time passes and ideas get modified.

Flounder

12-09-2006, 05:42 PM

Goodness gracious.

The idea that invading Iraq was a selfless act is the most bizarre, off the freakin wall thing I have ever heard.

dmz

12-09-2006, 06:02 PM

Sure, but you also need to keep in mind that he's arguing, in many ways, against Hobbes in his theories, and that in his alliance with Shaftesbury, he's also contra Mandeville. My point is that Locke emerges in the middle of a furious debate about the nature of man and of a modern conception of "property" and at the high-point of the creation of the "public" as Habermas defines it. That America is founded largely in terms of Lockean principles of governance isn't a surprise; but you have to contextualize America as a kind of experiment in the principles that Locke, Shaftesbury, and Rousseau were advancing.

Additionally, it is worth noting that these Lockean whatevers we were founded upon really only existed in whatever idealized vision we tend to have now for a few decades and then broke down completely into a horrific civil war. The South rejected the social contract and created a new one for itself.

I have no idea what is or is not in "Islamic thought," or even if such a thing exists. But I would caution that we not confuse leaders of people with the people themselves.
Stay with me -- you can't have the Lockean influence without the Christian adjective in where I'm going with this -- so don't isolate Locke, or even the enlightenment for that matter. And yes, the melding with Christianity was internally incoherent. All of this is formative, and Locke is a great example. But that was our path to the founding of the nation. Locke's influence on Jefferson, for example, can't be set aside. Or Christians using it to buttress revolution.

Regardless, which influenced waned or when -- I think it's fair to say that we are [mostly] the children of the enlightenment, and the ideas of what constitutes "Freedom" run very deep. Maybe even past that if you want to throw Luther into the mix.

So, unless you can tell me that Locke, or Rousseau, are studied in the ME, or have a track record there, or are formative of that ethos, then it's safe to say that the concept of man as free -- as in [I]free from God in the Western sense -- is not going to connect at the level it does with someone from the west and neither are the political philosophies that go hand in glove.

And yes, I feel an Irony attack coming on. Maybe someday, Bush will too.

midwinter

12-09-2006, 06:07 PM

Regardless, which influenced waned or when -- I think it's fair to say that we are [mostly] the children of the enlightenment, and the ideas of what constitutes "Freedom" run very deep. Maybe even past that if you want to throw Luther into the mix.

And again, I point out that you can only hold that extra-super-special-with-a-cherry-on-top-near-and-dear if you ignore the simple fact that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries happened.

it's safe to say that the concept of man as free -- as in free from God in the Western sense

Free from God? Is that how you're interpreting Locke's notion of liberty? That would explain a great deal about this conversation.

dmz

12-09-2006, 06:38 PM

And again, I point out that you can only hold that extra-super-special-with-a-cherry-on-top-near-and-dear if you ignore the simple fact that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries happened.

Free from God? Is that how you're interpreting Locke's notion of liberty? That would explain a great deal about this conversation.
focus midwinter! -- let loose of Locke for one second -- the concept of freedom as free from God is what is current but still the product of the last several centuries of thought.

addabox

12-09-2006, 06:43 PM

focus midwinter! -- let loose of Locke for one second -- the concept of freedom as free from God is what is current but still the product of the last several centuries of thought.

Just to take a wild stab at converging some stuff:

It was noble to invade Iraq because it represented a Christian ideal of grace, although it didn't really because George Bush is actually a creature of the enlightenment, so his notion of "freedom" is fatally compromised, and anyway the peoples of the middle east don't even have that so the idea of "liberating" them actually doesn't make any sense.

I'm not trying to be cute, this seems to be what you are saying.

midwinter

12-09-2006, 06:45 PM

focus midwinter!

:err:

-- let loose of Locke for one second -- the concept of freedom as free from God is what is current but still the product of the last several centuries of thought.

You're going to have to demonstrate that the enlightenment notion of "freedom" means "free from god" and not "free from government" before this train goes any farther.

--

And back on topic, Bush seems to now be claiming that the ISG agrees with him.

midwinter

12-09-2006, 06:47 PM

Just to take a wild stab at converging some stuff:

It was noble to invade Iraq because it represented a Christian ideal of grace, although it didn't really because George Bush is actually a creature of the enlightenment, so his notion of "freedom" is fatally compromised, and anyway the peoples of the middle east don't even have that so the idea of "liberating" them actually doesn't make any sense.

I'm not trying to be cute, this seems to be what you are saying.

That's what I'm getting.

dmz

12-09-2006, 06:59 PM

You're going to have to demonstrate that the enlightenment notion of "freedom" means "free from god" and not "free from government" before this train goes any farther.
[/i].
Oh honestly -- it's a process of thought, a progression, development, upgrowth, evolution, evolvement, growth, progress, unfolding. One philosopher influences another, and so on.

midwinter

12-09-2006, 07:02 PM

Oh honestly -- it's a process of thought, a progression, development, upgrowth, evolution, evolvement, growth, progress, unfolding. One philosopher influences another, and so on.

Oh honestly. I still have no idea where you're getting "freedom from God" out of ANY of this. In fact, I don't' even know what that means.

dmz

12-09-2006, 07:04 PM

It was noble to invade Iraq because it represented a Christian ideal of grace, although it didn't really because George Bush is actually a creature of the enlightenment, so his notion of "freedom" is fatally compromised, and anyway the peoples of the middle east don't even have that so the idea of "liberating" them actually doesn't make any sense.
Unfortunately, people and history are complicated, unless you're viewing Loose Change or Fahrenheit 9/11.

Just ask yourself why LBJ couldn't understand Ho Chi Minh.

dmz

12-09-2006, 07:05 PM

Oh honestly. I still have no idea where you're getting "freedom from God" out of ANY of this. In fact, I don't' even know what that means.
bla, humbug

addabox

12-09-2006, 07:14 PM

Unfortunately, people and history are complicated, unless you're viewing Loose Change or Fahrenheit 9/11.

Just ask yourself why LBJ couldn't understand Ho Chi Minh.

Ok, I'll play.

Because people from broadly divergent cultural and historical backgrounds tend to misapprehend one another's motives owing to our proclivity towards provincialism?

midwinter

12-09-2006, 07:18 PM

bla, humbug

Excellent response! It really does answer whether by "freedom from God," you mean freedom from a state imposed religion, freedom from some notion of Calvinist predestination, freedom to choose not to believe in a God, freedom to experience multiple Gods, or the origins of deism! That explains everything! It also explains precisely how it is that you interpret the enlightenment notion of "freedom" as "freedom from god" as opposed to the more orthodox interpretation of "freedom from government"! All in all, well done, dmz! well done!

dmz

12-09-2006, 07:24 PM

Ok, I'll play.

Because people from broadly divergent cultural and historical backgrounds tend to misapprehend one another's motives owing to our proclivity towards provincialism?
Yes, "misapprehending" for years, and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

addabox

12-09-2006, 07:26 PM

Yes, "misapprehending" for years, and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

OK, so fighting wars to establish "democracies" in lands we can't or won't understand is a bad thing.

midwinter

12-09-2006, 07:33 PM

OK, so fighting wars to establish "democracies" in lands we can't or won't understand is a bad thing.

Waitaminute.... that would mean the war in Iraq can't be noble!!

dmz

12-09-2006, 07:36 PM

Excellent response! It really does answer whether by "freedom from God," you mean freedom from a state imposed religion, freedom from some notion of Calvinist predestination, freedom to choose not to believe in a God, freedom to experience multiple Gods, or the origins of deism! That explains everything! It also explains precisely how it is that you interpret the enlightenment notion of "freedom" as "freedom from god" as opposed to the more orthodox interpretation of "freedom from government"! All in all, well done, dmz! well done!
Look, midwinter, if you can't draw a line of thought from roughly Plato, through Descartes, Locke, Kant, and to on Nietzsche -- then there's nothing I can do. This damnable feigned ignorance, and deliberate coyness is irritating -- enough -- I gotta git, and go sign Christmas cards.

never mind

midwinter

12-09-2006, 07:41 PM

Look, midwinter, if you can't draw a line of thought from roughly Plato, through Descartes, Locke, Kant, and to on Nietzsche -- then there's nothing I can do. This damnable feigned ignorance, and deliberate coyness is irritating -- enough -- I gotta git, and go sign Christmas cards.

never mind

And there it is. Like clockwork.

addabox

12-09-2006, 07:42 PM

And there it is. Like clockwork.

We have a winner!

dmz

12-09-2006, 11:04 PM

And there it is. Like clockwork.
...and like clockwork, I hit the "I don't understand' layer of your defenses. Hardly sporting.

I didn't drag you through half a dozen posts hoping to hang a rhetorical war of attrition on a feigned total non-comprehension of the course of philosophical thought. 'Gosh, was Locke really influenced by Descartes? -- didn't Nietzsche spring fully formed from Susan B. Anthony's womb? -- gee -- you'll have to prove philosophers influence each other...'

Absolutely surreal.

(you're out of ideas, btw)

midwinter

12-09-2006, 11:07 PM

I didn't drag you through half a dozen posts hoping to hang a rhetorical war of attrition on a feigned total non-comprehension of the course of philosophical thought. 'Gosh, was Locke really influenced by Descartes? -- didn't Nietzsche spring fully formed from Susan B. Anthony's womb? -- gee -- you'll have to prove philosophers influence each other...'

Absolutely surreal.

(and you're out of ideas.)

The argument I'm having with you, and the argument you seem to think I'm having with you, are two entirely different things.

I simply asked you to explain what this idea of liberty meaning "freedom from God" means.

dmz

12-09-2006, 11:22 PM

The argument I'm having with you, and the argument you seem to think I'm having with you, are two entirely different things.

I simply asked you to explain what this idea of liberty meaning "freedom from God" means.
Noooo, midwinter...why? How can anybody hope to hold down a dialogue with you when you get like this? What is 'God is dead' philosophy? Where is the mystery of watching God philosophically disappear from relevance over the centuries -- from lawgiver to irrelevant personal crutch?

midwinter

12-09-2006, 11:32 PM

Noooo, midwinter...why? How can anybody hope to hold down a dialogue with you when you get like this? What is 'God is dead' philosophy? Where is the mystery of watching God disappear from relevance over the centuries -- from lawgiver to irrelevant personal crutch?

Please stop insulting my intelligence.

Whatever, man. You are totally welcome to take your ball and go home, since you do it almost every time someone presses you to define terms or really get at what you mean when you say something. I'm not even playing around, although it seems a convenient enough excuse for you to back down and let the thread die.

You have laid out here a stunningly convoluted and wide-ranging argument that neither I nor addabox have been able to follow.

All I have done is ask a simple question: when you say that the enlightenment notion of "freedom" means "freedom from God," what do you mean?

And believe me, buddy, while we butt heads a lot around here, if I decide to insult your intelligence, I won't be subtle about it.

It's an honest question, and one that I ask because you and I approach the history of philosophy from fairly different perspectives. I mean, I think you're wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't have a conversation.

dmz

12-09-2006, 11:48 PM

Whatever, man. You are totally welcome to take your ball and go home, since you do it almost every time someone presses you to define terms or really get at what you mean when you say something. I'm not even playing around, although it seems a convenient enough excuse for you to back down and let the thread die.

You have laid out here a stunningly convoluted and wide-ranging argument that neither I nor addabox have been able to follow.

All I have done is ask a simple question: when you say that the enlightenment notion of "freedom" means "freedom from God," what do you mean?

And believe me, buddy, while we butt heads a lot around here, if I decide to insult your intelligence, I won't be subtle about it.

It's an honest question, and one that I ask because you and I approach the history of philosophy from fairly different perspectives. I mean, I think you're wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't have a conversation.
But if you can't see a world which in 400ish years, 'freedom' went from meaning "free to be morally what God made you" to meaning "freedom of the will". Then you are willfully avoiding my point.

midwinter

12-10-2006, 12:16 AM

But if you can't see a world which in 400ish years, 'freedom' went from meaning "free to be morally what God made you" to meaning "freedom of the will". Then you are willfully avoiding my point.

Please, dmz. Please. What, precisely, IS your point?

If it is that when Locke discusses "freedom" he means "freedom to be morally what God made you," I disagree.

dmz

12-10-2006, 12:43 AM

Please, dmz. Please. What, precisely, IS your point?

If it is that when Locke discusses "freedom" he means "freedom to be morally what God made you," I disagree.
First it's "I don't understand" -- then it's "what do mean by freedom from god" --- now it's "what is your point?"

The point is plain, you just won't countenance it. (!)

midwinter

12-10-2006, 12:49 AM

First it's "I don't understand" -- then it's "what do mean by freedom from god" --- now it's "what is your point?"

The point is plain, you just won't countenance it.

Parsing me now, huh? You should note a common thread in all three questions: I don't understand what you're getting at. Neither did addabox.

Getting mad at me for not understanding what your point is, and then refusing to articulate that point, is kind of bizarre.

I ask again: what is your point, which you said is "plain." Because seriously, man, I ain't getting it.

And on top of this, I ask again, again: what, precisely, do you mean by talking about Locke's notion of "freedom" as meaning "freedom from god"?

dmz

12-10-2006, 01:05 AM

Parsing me now, huh? You should note a common thread in all three questions: I don't understand what you're getting at. Neither did addabox.

Getting mad at me for not understanding what your point is, and then refusing to articulate that point, is kind of bizarre.

I ask again: what is your point, which you said is "plain." Because seriously, man, I ain't getting it.

And on top of this, I ask again, again: what, precisely, do you mean by talking about Locke's notion of "freedom" as meaning "freedom from god"?
no, addabox had it half a thread ago:
Just to narrow it down, are you saying that we are misunderstanding the Iraqi's, ourselves, or both?
And that is point that you won't countenance, because it fundamentally undermines what you stand for.

You know full well that philosophy finally got it's "god is dead' Q.E.D a while back, and good little college-trained monkeys like our M.B.A. president took that latency all the way to the Baghdad poli-sci bank, were his post-modern check bounced.

You're torn between defending what is obviously a failure of current stock philosophy and shooting the messenger. I don't blame you for the obfuscation. (But I'm afraid I'm going to have to take off points for it.)

hardeeharhar

12-10-2006, 01:08 AM

I think dmz is quite mad.

dmz

12-10-2006, 01:11 AM

I think dmz is quite mad.
Mad like a fox, perhaps.

(There are, however, choice points in history when it's pretty clear that Baal is out somewhere relieving himself.)

hardeeharhar

12-10-2006, 01:17 AM

No, really, you might need psychological help...

Let's turn this around:

You have been sounding like Gene Ray (www.timecube.com) for some time now. Granted, your intellectual lines are a bit more 'mainstream' but not by much...

midwinter

12-10-2006, 01:27 AM

no, addabox had it half a thread ago:

I hate to say it, but your response—

But how could you separate any of those?

—didn't help. Nor did it articulate some position.

And that is point that you won't countenance, because it fundamentally undermines what you stand for.

Ooh! Tell me more about what I won't countenance and what I won't stand for! You tried it once before about religion, and I told you that my choir director father and church organist mother would slap you in the face.

You know full well that philosophy finally got it's "god is dead' Q.E.D a while back,

I know that Nietzche tried to put an end of metaphysics and failed, because you can't get past metaphysics. Plato trapped us all. Stupid Republic. Doesn't even have decent character development. I mean, Glaucon starts as an ass and stays an ass throughout. But yes, Nietzche declared that "God is dead" as the arbiter of morality and moral systems and hoped that perhaps an übermensch might transcend that moral structure and define his own moral universe. Sort of like someone being freed from the chains of the Plato's cave and seeing the light....

Keep in mind that you're argung with someone who once made the case that Derrida is a Platonist.

and good little college trained monkeys like our M.B.A. president took that latency all the way to the Baghdad poli-sci bank, were his post-modern check bounced.

Here's where I lose you. Latency? Bank? check? Especially confusing considering that the Bush admin's reading of Plato's Republic is fairly radical and is still the stuff of fist-fights in poli-sci departments.

You're torn between defending what is obviously a failure of current stock philosophy and shooting the messenger. I don't blame you for the obfuscation. (But I'm afraid I'm going to have to take off points for it.)

I have no idea what you're on about here. It would make it easier if you'd stop lapsing into metaphor. What failure? What "stock philosophy"? Post-structuralism? Derrida? Foucault? de Man? Deleuze & Guattari?

And since you're taking points off for obfuscation, I'll ask again:

What did you mean when you said that Enlightenment notion of "freedom" meant "freedom from God"?

dmz

12-10-2006, 01:39 AM

I hate to say it, but your response—

—didn't help. Nor did it articulate some position.

Ooh! Tell me more about what I won't countenance and what I won't stand for! You tried it once before about religion, and I told you that my choir director father and church organist mother would slap you in the face.

I know that Nietzche tried to put an end of metaphysics and failed, because you can't get past metaphysics. Plato trapped us all. Stupid Republic. Doesn't even have decent character development. I mean, Glaucon starts as an ass and stays an ass throughout. But yes, Nietzche declared that "God is dead" as the arbiter of morality and moral systems and hoped that perhaps an übermensch might transcend that moral structure and define his own moral universe. Sort of like someone being freed from the chains of the Plato's cave and seeing the light....

Keep in mind that you're argung with someone who once made the case that Derrida is a Platonist.

Here's where I lose you. Latency? Bank? check? Especially confusing considering that the Bush admin's reading of Plato's Republic is fairly radical and is still the stuff of fist-fights in poli-sci departments.

I have no idea what you're on about here. It would make it easier if you'd stop lapsing into metaphor. What failure? What "stock philosophy"? Post-structuralism? Derrida? Foucault? de Man? Deleuze & Guattari?

And since you're taking points off for obfuscation, I'll ask again:

What did you mean when you said that Enlightenment notion of "freedom" meant "freedom from God"?
Don't misquote me -- I repeatedly stated that freedom as 'freedom from God' was a process that found it's modern feet in the renaissance, and that Locke et. al., were only cogs in that development. And to attempt to back away from the Dawkian state of modern philosophy (see groverat's magnum opus of intellectual pique currently playing here on PO)........really?

No, midwinter, spare me this nonsense. Treating Sadr like an improperly motivated, superstitious child (or fanatic, take your pick), just hasn't gone well, has it? Waving the right levels of Maslow's needs under the right noses didn't have the desired effect, did it?

midwinter

12-10-2006, 01:58 AM

Don't misquote me -- I repeatedly stated that freedom as 'freedom from God' was a process that found it's modern feet in the renaissance, and that Locke et. al., were only cogs in that development.

I apologize. Reading back through, I realize now that I misquoted. Sincerely, apologies.

Yes, you assert that the modern movement is toward a "freedom from God," but again, you never responded to any of my requests for you to define that. If you mean, simply, that the thrust of western philosophy since Descartes has been, inexorably, in the direction of a world-view that does not hold God as the moral center of the universe, then, sure, I agree. At least, I would agree insofar as that is what modern philosophy THINKS it's doing.

But for the love of God, DMZ, if that was all you were saying, why the hell did it take you this long to articulate it clearly?

You may find comfort, however, in my belief that metaphysics is inescapable.

And to attempt to back away from the Dawkian state of modern philosophy (see groverat's magnum opus of intellectual pique currently playing here on PO)........really?

Dawkins is your representative of modern philosophy? You need to get out more.

No, midwinter, spare me this nonsense. Treating Sadr like an improperly motivated, superstitious child (or fanatic, take your pick), just hasn't gone well, has it? Waving the right levels of Maslow's needs under the right noses didn't have the desired effect, did it?

List of things that didn't have the desired effect:

1) Crusades
2) Ottoman Empire
3) British occupation of Iraq
4) Saddam's despotism
5) American occupation of Iraq

I say again: we ought not confuse leaders with the people the lead. Not all Americans support Bush and his policies. Why is it surprising that all Iranians might not support Ahmadinejad? That not all Iraqis are wielding a rocket launcher?

shetline

12-10-2006, 02:01 AM

I like pancakes.

dmz

12-10-2006, 02:20 AM

I apologize. Reading back through, I realize now that I misquoted. Sincerely, apologies.

Yes, you assert that the modern movement is toward a "freedom from God," but again, you never responded to any of my requests for you to define that. If you mean, simply, that the thrust of western philosophy since Descartes has been, inexorably, in the direction of a world-view that does not hold God as the moral center of the universe, then, sure, I agree. At least, I would agree insofar as that is what modern philosophy THINKS it's doing.

But for the love of God, DMZ, if that was all you were saying, why the hell did it take you this long to articulate it clearly?

You may find comfort, however, in my belief that metaphysics is inescapable.

Dawkins is your representative of modern philosophy? You need to get out more.

List of things that didn't have the desired effect:

1) Crusades
2) Ottoman Empire
3) British occupation of Iraq
4) Saddam's despotism
5) American occupation of Iraq

I say again: we ought not confuse leaders with the people the lead. Not all Americans support Bush and his policies. Why is it surprising that all Iranians might not support Ahmadinejad? That not all Iraqis are wielding a rocket launcher?
It's been a long, long time since I've heard anything less than Dawkins' levels of rhetoric coming from the Left on these boards, and not to put too fine a point on it, you Herr Docktor, have not been shy in your belief that the fundies will, in short order, have us back in Calvin's Geneva or the first act of V for Vendetta. And the Dawkins view of religion as a delusion has not escaped the DSM, just as is hasn't escaped the culture at large.

The American foreign service is supposed to be the cream of the intellectual crop, but it couldn't rub two neurons together in order to slap Bush's hand hard enough to either let go of Iraq, or head off a disaster. Nothing has changed in this department since LBJ.

As to confusing leaders with the people, a Saddam is one thing, but a Sadr is a whole different ballgame. In any case, societies are directed by motivated minorities, not majorities. In the last U.S, election, 46% of the people voted for candidates supplied by a machine run by a tiny fraction of that number. In the end the country turned on 25ish% of the populace's will dancing for a tiny functional oligarchy. Imagine a [R]DNC kidnapping and torturing its way from precinct to precinct -- with just enough moral authority to make fighting the crusaders a plausible moral duty. Not good.

addabox

12-10-2006, 02:22 AM

Hi, I'm back, did I miss any......... oh my dear god.

Run! Run for you lives!

dmz

12-10-2006, 02:26 AM

Hi, I'm back, did I miss any......... oh my dear god.

Run! Run for you lives!
I think you meant to type "run for your beds!"

Frank777

12-10-2006, 03:03 AM

I like pancakes.

Maple Syrup. You've got to have them with Maple Syrup.

No amount of philosophical debate will change that.

MarcUK

12-10-2006, 08:38 AM

Maple Syrup. You've got to have them with Maple Syrup.

No amount of philosophical debate will change that.

you need to fry them in calvinist sauce.

SDW2001

12-10-2006, 09:07 AM

Goodness gracious.

The idea that invading Iraq was a selfless act is the most bizarre, off the freakin wall thing I have ever heard.

I'm jumping in late here, I know, but....

You find that idea to be bizzare and off the wall because you cannot fathom the idea that the Bush Administration was sincere in its case for war.

I'm not sure I would call it "selfless" either. That said, those of us that don't believe the administration lied aren't as willing to call the notion of a "selfless act" absurd and/or outrightly dismiss it.

MarcUK

12-10-2006, 12:15 PM

I'm jumping in late here, I know, but....

You find that idea to be bizzare and off the wall because you cannot fathom the idea that the Bush Administration was sincere in its case for war.

I'm not sure I would call it "selfless" either. That said, those of use that don't believe the administration lied aren't as willing to call the notion of a "selfless act" absurd and/or outrightly dismiss it.

I think most of us saw through it correctly from the start and there was nothing sincere about it 5 years ago.

midwinter

12-10-2006, 01:23 PM

not to put too fine a point on it, you Herr Docktor, have not been shy in your belief that the fundies will, in short order, have us back in Calvin's Geneva or the first act of V for Vendetta.

Herr Professor Docktor.

And yes, I believe that Biblical literalists, no less than Koranic literalists, will undo the Enlightenment if allowed to.

Flounder

12-10-2006, 02:09 PM

I just had pancakes this morning.

They were freaking delicious!

Flounder

12-10-2006, 02:12 PM

midwinter

12-10-2006, 02:16 PM

I was going to make pancakes, but we were out of milk. Heated up some biscuits, instead.

addabox

12-10-2006, 03:37 PM

This is good. This is how the healing begins.

Pancakes: good.

Let us revel, for a time, in our mutual understanding. DMZ, you must resist the urge to assure us that Hume's pancake always landed butter side up on Luther's freshly waxed floor, fallen-angel-dancing-on-the-hollow-head-of-not-your-daddy's-Nietzsche wise.

midwinter

12-10-2006, 03:39 PM

I took a shortcut and used a mix. Just needed to add 1 egg and 1 cup of water.

They came out pretty good!

Hrm. My bisquick requires milk....

dmz

12-10-2006, 05:17 PM

Herr Professor Docktor.

And yes, I believe that Biblical literalists, no less than Koranic literalists, will undo the Enlightenment if allowed to.
Yes, it was late. I looked at my posts, and apologize for the curtness.

But your second point is where I believe the trouble lies -- it's dismissive in equating the two separate, very different, religions. When that sort of outlook ripples through academia and then out into foreign policy, the local religious worldview -- as key as it was in Iraq -- was disregarded to a significant degree. If you asked Rice, she'd probably say that giving the bottom-two of Maslow's needs before the third, should have worked. Instead, the pyramid was turned almost on its head.

dmz

12-10-2006, 05:46 PM

So now we're bringing psychology into a foreign policy debate?

You really want to discuss everything but the issue.
'next time you're in the college bookstore, grab any management or conflict resolution text -- or even advertising for that matter.

addabox

12-10-2006, 06:09 PM

SDW2001

12-10-2006, 08:02 PM

I think most of us saw through it correctly from the start and there was nothing sincere about it 5 years ago.

How would you determine that you are "correct?" The lack of WMD or that sectarian violence...or both? Neither?

SDW2001

12-10-2006, 08:04 PM

I said that because the stated reason for the war when we invaded was WMD's and protecting our country from them.

It was billed as an act of defense and self-preservation.

I don't know and don't care if that reason was genuine or not, but helping the people of Iraq wasn't a talking point before the invasion.

Umm, yes it was. The administration provided multiple justifications for the war, the primary reason being WMD. However, there were certainly others. However, when those were highlighted, folks like....well, you..said they were "switching justifications" for the war.

dmz

12-10-2006, 08:14 PM

Well, I'm still in the weeds.

1) In order to have had any chance of success in Iraq we should have had an understanding of their culture, on their terms. That is, we needed to understand the centrality of God in their thinking, even knowing that it was the wrong God.

2) We were unlikely to do this because we have failed to acknowledge the centrality of God in our culture, that being the correct God.

3) But, owing to the Iraqi's fealty to the wrong God, we were unlikely to effect salutary change since the whole wrong God thing makes things like "democracy" and "freedom" essentially meaningless, as far as our definitions of those things go.

4) Which is, um......ironic? because "centrality of God" is actually the only way to go, meaning we have a culture with the right God but the wrong relationship trying to amend a culture with the wrong God but the right relationship.

And I have this disheartening idea that all of this eventually devolves into "nothing of real consequence can be done unless everybody accepts Jesus as their personal savior and subsumes their will to the triune God", which means you have essentially been jerking our chains with a lot of utterly pointless handwaving, because your entire premise proceeds from some kind of international state of grace and you actually don't care about the particulars of any given cluster-fuck, since they all result from the same, fundamental error--an error that cannot be corrected by anything less than mass salvation.

Right?
I think 1) is a rock solid point -- not arguable at all. It's the root of the LBJ thing.

2) is accurate, although whether or not the 'true' god was central, religion -- or a otherworldly moral sense -- has been replaced with the notion that man is a political animal, after you give him food and shelter. A concept that isn't scaling to the ME.

3) & 4) -- you're digressing. At this point in foreign policy, there's practicality to not hitting your thumb with the hammer, again, and again, and again.

And where do we go from here? Or where should we have gone with Iraq when we were "through" with Afghanistan? Looking back maybe it would have been wiser to keep Saddam and play him against Iran.... but then that's hardly a moral panacea, much in the same way sanctions were a nice, sanitized, UN sanctioned, form of genocide.

Truthfully, does anyone have a way forward that doesn't either stink to high heaven, or is pure fantasy?

edit: I think the only wise course of action may be to go with Pat Bucannon, wait till trouble comes knocking and then deal with it. But even that seems naïve.

dmz

12-10-2006, 08:19 PM

So you want to talk about personal style guidelines for

1. management,
2. conflict resolution,
3. and advertising.

You want to talk about:

1. Locke,
2. Calvin,
3. Hobbes,
4. Rosseau,
5. Plato,
6. Descartes,
7. Kant
8. Nietzsche
9. Maslow
10. Dawkins
11. Zeus
12. Bernard Lewis.

But not substantive foreign policy grievances.

You're kinda obviously transparent here.

*and p.s. I graduated from college, so I won't be around a college bookstore anytime soon.
ShawnJ what would posses you to try to separate a country's philosophy and psychological makeup from your foreign policy to that same country?

addabox

12-10-2006, 08:27 PM

Umm, yes it was. The administration provided multiple justifications for the war, the primary reason being WMD. However, there were certainly others. However, when those were highlighted, folks like....well, you..said they were "switching justifications" for the war.

"Highlighted"? "Highlighted"?

Jesus Christ, SDW, you act like this all happened 50 years ago and there's plenty of wiggle room because the historical record is fuzzy.

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

That is not "highlighting", that is balls out "you better get behind this or you're all dead".

SDW2001

12-10-2006, 08:34 PM

"Highlighted"? "Highlighted"?

Jesus Christ, SDW, you act like this all happened 50 years ago and there's plenty of wiggle room because the historical record is fuzzy.

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

That is not "highlighting", that is balls out "you better get behind this or you're all dead".

The administration's primary justification for war was WMD. Correct?

The administration also publicly made the case based on other reasons, correct?

addabox

12-10-2006, 08:39 PM

I think 1) is a rock solid point -- not arguable at all. It's the root of the LBJ thing.

2) is accurate, although whether or not the 'true' god was central, religion -- or a otherworldly moral sense -- has been replaced with the notion that man is a political animal, after you give him food and shelter. A concept that isn't scaling to the ME.

3) & 4) -- you're digressing. At this point in foreign policy, there's practicality to not hitting your thumb with the hammer, again, and again, and again.

And where do we go from here? Or where should we have gone with Iraq when we were "through" with Afghanistan? Looking back maybe it would have been wiser to keep Saddam and play him against Iran.... but then that's hardly a moral panacea, much in the same way sanctions were a nice, sanitized, UN sanctioned, form of genocide.

Truthfully, does anyone have a way forward that doesn't either stink to high heaven, or is pure fantasy?

edit: I think the only wise course of action may be to go with Pat Bucannon, wait till trouble comes knocking and then deal with it. But even that seems naïve.

Huh? I was trying to understand what you've been saying, not forward an analysis of my own.

3) & 4) -- you're digressing. At this point in foreign policy, there's practicality to not hitting your thumb with the hammer, again, and again, and again.

OK, that's not even in English. However, my "digression" was just a reiteration of points you have made-- that the lack of Christian "crispy coating" in the ME means western ideas of freedom and democracy don't mean what we think they do, and that secular politics in the west misses the point, somehow, so our best efforts are for naught.

See, you have this habit of making all kinds of broad assertions, and if someone takes the trouble to collate them and notice that the whole thing really doesn't hang together very well you change the subject.

I agree that there is no obvious good solution for Iraq, but I can't see where alternating between a lot of sighing about the utter futility of godless politics and Buchanan style isolationism makes any sense whatsoever.

addabox

12-10-2006, 08:42 PM

The administration's primary justification for war was WMD. Correct?

The administration also publicly made the case based on other reasons, correct?

If by "publicly made the case" you mean "occasionally tossed into the mix", I suppose.

But to pretend that in the run up to the war the Bush admin was presenting some kind of diversity of rationales is crazy.

It was WMD, 24/7.

dmz

12-10-2006, 08:50 PM

OK, that's not even in English. However, my "digression" was just a reiteration of points you have made-- that the lack of Christian "crispy coating" in the ME means western idea of freedom and democracy don't mean what we think they do, and that secular politics in the west misses the point, somehow, so our best efforts are for naught.
No, we operate nominally under our ideas of "freedom" in the West just fine, comparatively speaking. We have infrastructure. We don't have continually weak and sagging economies. Whatever we believe, it functions.

We gave that "freedom" to the Iraqis and their social structure cumulatively acted in almost the opposite as expected. Freedom here is automatically assumed to be 'freedom' to do X. Freedom there means something that Washington still doesn't understand. Both immediate and long term.

... I can't see where alternating between a lot of sighing about the utter futility of godless politics and Buchanan style isolationism makes any sense whatsoever.
It can be 'godless' all day long, it doesn't excuse its not being able to learn from mistakes.

So, which one do we pick?

addabox

12-10-2006, 09:10 PM

No, we operate nominally under our ideas of "freedom" in the West just fine, comparatively speaking. We have infrastructure. We don't have continually weak and sagging economies. Whatever we believe, it functions.

We gave that "freedom" to the Iraqis and their social structure cumulatively acted in almost the opposite as expected. Freedom here is automatically assumed to be 'freedom' to do X. Freedom there means something that Washington still doesn't understand. Both immediate and long term.

You misunderstood me. I was reminding you of your position that "freedom" doesn't mean what we think it means in terms of deploying it in the middle east. Which you have again reiterated.

So I think we can agree that I understand your point.

Which still leaves unanswered how, given your belief, you could have ever though that this little adventure was anything but wrong-headed and almost certainly disastrous.

I would have thought you would have been posting a lot of things like "oh shit, invading Iraq and trying to install a democracy can never work so it's a dreadful idea we should explore other options."

But all I recall you posting was endless, fatuous comparisons to the suffering engendered by sanctions.

Is it now your contention that embarking on guaranteed-to-fail military intervention against another country somehow constitutes an improvement over a badly implemented status quo?
And why would be limited to those two choices? I would have thought that you would therefore be an advocate for something else altogether. But you weren't.

Moreover, your odd notion that the effort itself, even though by your lights certainly doomed to failure, constitutes some kind of laudable example of generosity of spirit doesn't make very much sense. Aren't "helpers" sort of obliged to do due diligence on the question of whether or not the help they had in mind will make things worse?

It can be 'godless' all day long, it doesn't excuse its not being able to learn from mistakes.

Nor does faith.

Flounder

12-10-2006, 09:25 PM

Umm, yes it was. The administration provided multiple justifications for the war, the primary reason being WMD. However, there were certainly others. However, when those were highlighted, folks like....well, you..said they were "switching justifications" for the war.
Folks like me? Well, I'm glad you've got me all figured out.

The largest reason, by far, was WMDs. A selfless act is something you do without any regard to how it will benefit (or harm) you yourself.

That is why in any way insinuating invading Iraq was in any way "selfless" is completely, and utterly bizarre.

dmz

12-10-2006, 09:44 PM

You misunderstood me. I was reminding you of your position that "freedom" doesn't mean what we think it means in terms of deploying it in the middle east. Which you have again reiterated.

So I think we can agree that I understand your point.

Which still leaves unanswered how, given your belief, you could have ever though that this little adventure was anything but wrong-headed and almost certainly disastrous.

I would have thought you would have been posting a lot of things like "oh shit, invading Iraq and trying to install a democracy can never work so it's a dreadful idea we should explore other options."

But all I recall you posting was endless, fatuous comparisons to the suffering engendered by sanctions.

Is it now your contention that embarking on guaranteed-to-fail military intervention against another country somehow constitutes an improvement over a badly implemented status quo?
And why would be limited to those two choices? I would have thought that you would therefore be an advocate for something else altogether. But you weren't.

Moreover, your odd notion that the effort itself, even though by your lights certainly doomed to failure, constitutes some kind of laudable example of generosity of spirit doesn't make very much sense. Aren't "helpers" sort of obliged to do due diligence on the question of whether or not the help they had in mind will make things worse?

Nor does faith.
It has more to do with shooting for "democracy" and ending up with a Pakistan or Egypt on a bad day, or maybe an Indonesia on a good day. Also, I didn't think that Iran would have been as draconian as it has been. They've been very, very shrewd by coordinating with the terrorists, still keeping thier nuke program, etc., Gravity did the rest.

SDW2001

12-11-2006, 03:48 PM

If by "publicly made the case" you mean "occasionally tossed into the mix", I suppose.

But to pretend that in the run up to the war the Bush admin was presenting some kind of diversity of rationales is crazy.

It was WMD, 24/7.

WMD was the primary reason, I agree. My point is that when other rationale was presented, the left went berserk claiming that the admin was "switching justifications."

Gilsch

12-11-2006, 08:09 PM

Man, those pancakes look f-ing good. What mix was it Shawn?

addabox

12-11-2006, 08:45 PM

WMD was the primary reason, I agree. My point is that when other rationale was presented, the left went berserk claiming that the admin was "switching justifications."

Huh. Cause the way I remember it was that after we invaded Iraq and it turned out they didn't have any WMD, then the White House got to talking about liberating the Iraqis and spreading democracy and transforming the middle east.

Which struck a lot of people, who weren't even berserk or nothin', as blatant ass-covering.

Which it pretty obviously was.

Why are still carrying water for these people, again?

midwinter

12-11-2006, 09:16 PM

Huh. Cause the way I remember it was that after we invaded Iraq and it turned out they didn't have any WMD, then the White House got to talking about liberating the Iraqis and spreading democracy and transforming the middle east.

Which struck a lot of people, who weren't even berserk or nothin', as blatant ass-covering.

Which it pretty obviously was.

As I remember it, the rationale game of 3 card monte went something like this:

0) 9/11.

1) WE HAVE TO GO GET THE TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN!

2) Blah blah blah State of the Union blah blah STEROIDS!!! blah blah OOOGA BOOOOGA SADDAM HUSSEIN "TRIED TO KILL MY DAD!!!"

3) Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad man.

4) Afghaniwhat?

5) Hussein is in violation of millions of UN resolutions!

6) Afghaniwhat?

7) 500,000 dead babies in Iraq because of sanctions!

8) Not contained! Not contained! Shooting at the no fly!

9) 500,000 dead babies in Iraq!

10) Resolution 1441!!! 1441!!!!!!1!1!!one!!

11) Aluminum tubes

12) Nukes

13) All those dead Kurds!

14) Afghaniwho?

15) Arming bad guys in the area! Even those who hate him!

16) NUKES! NUKES!!

17) Smoking gun!

18) Vote Republican OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

19) Afghaniwhat?

20) Inspectors schmectors!

21) THAT INSPECTOR IS A GAY PEDOPHILE!

22) 1441 1441 1441!!!! MUSHROOM CLOUDS!!!!

23) Force authorization!!!

24) WE HAVE TO GO GET HIM!!!

25) We KNOW he hasn't done anything YET. But he MIGHT. So we have to take him out!

26) All you people who say this won't work are pussies who hate America!

27) We will be greeted as liberators!

28) MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

29) Afghaniwhat?

30) STAY THE COURSE!

Why are still carrying water for these people, again?

Now, in all fairness, SDW would never say, specifically, who he carried water for. I asked repeatedly for specifics regarding that utterly appalling talking point but got nothing.

Aurora

12-11-2006, 09:26 PM

You forgot those WMDs, we were told a quadzillion times. My fear is that these draft dodgers are going to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. Neocons dont even care if they are right or wrong because some poor sucker is getting shot at not the NEocon.

dmz

12-11-2006, 09:46 PM

SDW2001

12-12-2006, 08:35 AM

SDW2001

12-12-2006, 08:51 AM

As I remember it, the rationale game of 3 card monte went something like this:

0) 9/11.

1) WE HAVE TO GO GET THE TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN!

2) Blah blah blah State of the Union blah blah STEROIDS!!! blah blah OOOGA BOOOOGA SADDAM HUSSEIN "TRIED TO KILL MY DAD!!!"

3) Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad man.

4) Afghaniwhat?

5) Hussein is in violation of millions of UN resolutions!

18) Vote Republican OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

19) Afghaniwhat?

20) Inspectors schmectors!

21) THAT INSPECTOR IS A GAY PEDOPHILE!

22) 1441 1441 1441!!!! MUSHROOM CLOUDS!!!!

23) Force authorization!!!

24) WE HAVE TO GO GET HIM!!!

25) We KNOW he hasn't done anything YET. But he MIGHT. So we have to take him out!

26) All you people who say this won't work are pussies who hate America!

27) We will be greeted as liberators!

28) MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

29) Afghaniwhat?

30) STAY THE COURSE!

Now, in all fairness, SDW would never say, specifically, who he carried water for. I asked repeatedly for specifics regarding that utterly appalling talking point but got nothing.

Take it easy, champ.

The reasons presented for invading Saddam were:

1. WMD and what having them meant in the wake of 9/11

A. Failure to account for his supposedly destroyed materials as required.
B. The univeral belief that his program was active and he had stockpiles.
C. All above coupled with his open praise of 9/11.

2. Firing on and targeting aircraft in the no-fly

3. Sanctions had not worked, limited military strikes had not worked.

4. Inspectors were never given full access, even after 1441 he did not fully comply.

5. He had violated 16 prior UN resolutions as I recall. Not a million...only 16!

6. The humanitarian situation, torture of his own people.

and finally....

7. Material breach of Res. 1441. He did not give "full and unfettered" access to the inspectors. More time would accomplish nothing. Weapons inspections are supposed to be done cooperatively. They are not, to use the President's words, "a scavenger hunt for weapons."

Have a nice day.

AsLan^

12-12-2006, 09:16 AM

Saddam murders 148* in reprisal for an attempt on his life.

This provides justification for the destruction of his country, the murder of 600,000+ Iraqis, and a death sentence.

Israel destroys Beirut, murders ~1,000 Lebanese, for the capture of 3 Israeli soldiers.

They are entitled to defend themselves.

*This is what he was convicted of, anything else is hearsay**.

**I may not understand hearsay properly but you know what I mean :)

jimmac

12-12-2006, 09:31 AM

The administration's primary justification for war was WMD. Correct?

The administration also publicly made the case based on other reasons, correct?

Yes but the only one that brought support was the WMD. This was based on faulty intel. It made no sense anyway because the images Bush allowed it to conjure ( he made no discalimer but let the public go with it ) mushroom clouds in our backyard. Well no delivery system capable of reaching us. The threat ( and lets be clear this support came from people who were afraid for this country not israel ) didn't exist.

You will get stopped at every turn on this one SDW.

Ps. Oh by the way for the last time ( I just read what you said to midwinter ) 911 had nothing to do with Iraq. I don't care if you think everything was different after that. So different that we americans can give up our values and it gives Bush a blank cheque to do anything? I don't think so and you can see the end result right now of this subterfuge. Another qagmire like Vietnam. We won't even go into that the inspectors right before the war were saying " there's nothing to find ".

AsLan^

12-12-2006, 09:35 AM

This was based on faulty intel.

The intel wasn't faulty, it was a complete fabrication.

It's an important distinction because it shifts the blame from the President to the real intel community which IMHO certainly wasn't at fault with their analysis of the situation.

MacRR

12-12-2006, 09:47 AM

Actually- the thing you don't get is as follows- you are the only one pounding the sanction drum. Everyone else is talking about the Iraq war.

Your confusion stems from talking about an irrelevant topic that has nothing to do with the discussion between everyone else.

C'mon addabox you're this close **holds up two fingers** to admitting that starving kids is your idea of sustainable foreign policy. Sanctions were goooood, invasion was baaaad, 'cause we all know that sanctions would turn Saddam into Dr. Phil if we just gave inspections more time.

Confess!! When do we start starving Iran into submission?! What did Oprah know, and when did she know it!? Look at Iran, that was going to be Iraq in 20 years -- but without all the Wallace interviews.

btw, it's not arguable that -- why they wanted to establish democracy and more importantly why they thought it would it would work -- is immaculate pop-Psychology/conventional wisdom, circa 2001.

What a minute.... we're not back on the blood-for-oil thing, are we?

jimmac

12-12-2006, 09:47 AM

The intel wasn't faulty, it was a complete fabrication.

It's an important distinction because it shifts the blame from the President to the real intel community which IMHO certainly wasn't at fault with their analysis of the situation.

Make yourself clear please. Are you saying the president fabricated this or the intel community? Either way I think Bush was guilty because he saw something that he wanted to see in the intel. There's much more than just the possible manufacture of nuclear materials. There's the absent delievery system. That and the fact the inspectors were saying there wasn't anything to find.

AsLan^

12-12-2006, 09:53 AM

Frank777

12-12-2006, 05:00 PM

I have no problems with the real intel community, I think they're swell.

Cue Sammi-Jo in 5...4...3...2....

SDW2001

12-13-2006, 06:07 PM

Yes but the only one that brought support was the WMD. This was based on faulty intel. It made no sense anyway because the images Bush allowed it to conjure ( he made no discalimer but let the public go with it ) mushroom clouds in our backyard. Well no delivery system capable of reaching us. The threat ( and lets be clear this support came from people who were afraid for this country not israel ) didn't exist.

You will get stopped at every turn on this one SDW.

Ps. Oh by the way for the last time ( I just read what you said to midwinter ) 911 had nothing to do with Iraq. I don't care if you think everything was different after that. So different that we americans can give up our values and it gives Bush a blank cheque to do anything? I don't think so and you can see the end result right now of this subterfuge. Another qagmire like Vietnam. We won't even go into that the inspectors right before the war were saying " there's nothing to find ".

You're really not getting this, are you? The WMD threat that Saddam posed was related to his ability to pass them on to a terrorist organization out of their mutual hatred of the United States.

That said, I fail to see why the other arguments "don't make sense" because of the Bush Administration's focus on the WMD argument. They make perfect sense to me, they just weren't the primary arguments.

As for 9/11, it's false to state it "had nothing to do with Iraq." Now, if you actually mean "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" (as in they did plan or participate in the attack) then I would of course agree. However, can you not agree that after 9/11 there were those that saw Saddam's WMD program much differently? You can't deny the very real possibility that, assuming Saddam had the weapons we thought he did, those weapons could be transferred to a terrorist network either directly or through a third party. That was a risk that we could not take in the wake of the worst terror attack in history. Prior to 9/11, it was fine to contain Saddam with sanctions and airstrikes and what not. But afterwards? You mean to tell me that you didn't start to think about things differently?

SDW2001

12-13-2006, 06:09 PM

The intel wasn't faulty, it was a complete fabrication.

It's an important distinction because it shifts the blame from the President to the real intel community which IMHO certainly wasn't at fault with their analysis of the situation.

And it's important to note that you're argument is bullshit. There is no evidence of anything being "fabricated." If you have some evidence, then go ahead and post it.
I eagerly await it.

SDW2001

12-13-2006, 06:14 PM

Make yourself clear please. Are you saying the president fabricated this or the intel community? Either way I think Bush was guilty because he saw something that he wanted to see in the intel. There's much more than just the possible manufacture of nuclear materials. There's the absent delievery system. That and the fact the inspectors were saying there wasn't anything to find.

Weapons inspectors were supposed to verify the destruction and/or disposal of WMD materials, programs, etc. They can only do that when the nation that agrees to inspections is actively trying to help them. We already know, dar I say even YOU know that Saddam was not giving them full access and that they were being toyed with. Their job wasn't find a hidden stash of weapons and say "Ah ha! We caught you! Time for war!"

Now as for Bush, well you may be right. Perhaps he did see "something he wanted to" in the inteligence. That's a far cry from "he either lied or was incompetent" though. And it doesn't explain why other intelligence agencies thoguht Saddam has WMD. It also doesn't explain Tenet's "slam dunk" comment, does it?

midwinter

12-13-2006, 06:14 PM

And it's important to note that you're argument is bullshit. There is no evidence of anything being "fabricated." If you have some evidence, then go ahead and post it.
I eagerly await it.

If only there were a memo somewhere (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/). . . .

SDW2001

12-13-2006, 06:15 PM

I'm saying that Bush fabricated the evidence.

I have no problems with the real intel community, I think they're swell.

And I'm saying you have no proof of any kind.

AsLan^

12-13-2006, 07:06 PM

If I recall correctly, the evidence for war was something like this: We know they have WMD because Iraqi defectors have told us that they do. Also, they can't prove that they don't.

After tearing up the country for three years, we haven't found any WMD or any reason to suspect that they existed. So, the "evidence" was fabricated. Bush is ultimately responsible whether he personally interviewed the defectors or not.

The fact that his own committee was responsible for collating the intelligence and performing their own magic analysis points to his having direct involvement in the process. Not that it matters because his responsibility extends to the entire public sector, everything they do or fail to do is his responsibility.