2,4,6,8! This Beheading is Really Great!

posted by Katha Pollitt on 07/13/2007 @ 3:30pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (180)

Subscribe Now

Why is the anti-war movement so lacklustre when 70% of Americans want to bring the troops home by spring and George W. Bush is the least popular president in history?

Some reasons are obvious: lack of a draft, low casualties, not much TV coverage, perceived futility of big rallies and marches. My fellow columnist Alexander Cockburn has a different idea. In his current Nation column, Alex argues that the anti-war movement is weak because it fails to show "international political solidarity" with "Iraqi resistance fighters."

Where's the love that US leftists felt for the Sandinistas and the Salvadoran FMLN--the sister cities, the links between unions, the love affairs between the "demure sisters in the struggle from Vermont or the Pacific Northwest" and "some valiant son of Sandino or downtrodden Nica sister, liberated by North American inversion from the oppressions of Latin patriarchy"?

True, he acknowledges, the "the contours of the Iraqi resistance are murky and in some aspects unappetizing to secular progressives in the West, or so they virtuously proclaim." ( Note the sarcasm --because nobody who disagrees with Alex could possibly have honorable motives.) But by cutting ourselves off from the Iraqis killling US soldiers, the US left is failing to learn "its internationalist ABCs."

Where to begin? Let's start with those murky contours and secular objections. With whom, exactly, are we supposed to be showing solidarity? Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia? Shiites massacring their Sunni neighbors? Sunnis killing Shiites? Religious reactionaries who have murdered doctors, professors, working women, Christians, students, hand-holding couples? "Ignorance about the Iraqi resistance is somewhat forgivable," Alex concedes, given the lack of first-hand sympathetic reporting--not that he deigns to enlighten the reader.

So, okay, call me ignorant: The Iraqi resistance isn't dominated by theocrats, ethnic nationalists, die-hard Baathists, jihadis, kidnappers, beheaders and thugs? Who haven't tortured and killed trade union leaders, feminists, aid workers, schoolteachers and such? We would like to live--Iraqis would like to live -- in the society they want to create?

The Sandinistas and the FMLN were far from perfect, but they were leftists. They stood for health care, education, land distribution, modernization--not burning down liquor stores and music shops, beating up unveiled women, suicide-bombing ordinary civilians, bringing back sharia law. They had support from all over the left end of the spectrum--labor,churches, feminists, socialists, human rights activists, peace activists--not just because they opposed US imperialism, but because they shared the goals of the American, and global, left.

If the Central American revolutionaries had resisted American intervention in the name of the Spanish Inquisition and spent a lot of time ethnically cleansing their neighborhoods, American leftists probably wouldn't have been so eager to hold potluck suppers for them.

Why Alex thinks embracing the Iraqi resistance would strengthen the US antiwar movement is beyond me. On the contrary, the nature of the resistance is a major reason why the antiwar movement is so weak. No matter how intensely you oppose the war, it is hard to feel good about an Iraq in which the resistance calls the shots. That was not how anti-war Americans saw Central America, or even Vietnam. It's not just that the iraqi insurgents are killing our soldiers--which, let's remember, was not an issue in Central America. It's that they're killing each other.

UPDATE: Alexander Cockburn's column is posted in full at Counterpunch.

Comments (180)

The fact that Bush and the GOP gave terrorists two new places to operate out of and increased their numbers and strength have made this war quite different than any other.They have created a dangerous situation in Iraq that did not exist under Saddam and while the Saddams of the world need to go one must pick the right time and manner to get rid of them.As long as a Saddam has your true enemy(Islamic terrorists)under control then you leave him alone until you defeat your real enemy that really is a threat.Now, no one really knows what to do with Iraq.All options have an equal chance of ending in disaster.Getting out of Viet Nam was a win situation since Viet Nam was heating up the cold war,but we have no idea what staying or leaving will mean for Iraq.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/13/2007 @ 4:01pm
great piece, katha. nail on the head!

the war is a stupid outrage (iraq) but the resistance is damned near diametrically opposed to my sensibilities, at least.

i dont think any outside force can bring real change, and there's no way in heaven, hell, or gods green earth i can cozen up to...THAT.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 4:06pm
I think the Left may have a "mole" (might want to check and see if Karl Rove is sending checks to Ireland)....

either that or Cockburn is one heavy-duty wackadoodle. Seriously, you'd have to be a nut or a right-winger to advise the anti-war Left to EMBRACE either the Sunni insurgents or the Shiia militias or of course Al Queda. That's the kind of stuff Fox News, Limbaugh, and any of the remaining 28% Club would LOVE to see happen.

Oddly, this isn't Cockburn's only break with the Unorthodox Orthodoxy. He's also a "human-caused" global warming "denier".

Both of which brings up an important question...

Why does Alexander Cockburn get so much space at...."The Nation"!!?!?!

(Search "Alexander Cockburn" on the Nation archives and see how many hits you get!)

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2007 @ 4:18pm
With all of these people after each other and us, the best strategy is to duck. But that won't fill the coffers of the MI complex.

Posted by sdslaw at 07/13/2007 @ 4:21pm
Posted by MASK

Have you ever bothered to read what the man writes?

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/13/2007 @ 4:27pm
Alexander Cockburn is also the columnists that hurled the 'tinfoil hat' moniker at those who don't cotton to the govt's explanation for 9/11 events. His credibility with the left was shot long ago.

Posted by jlsolley at 07/13/2007 @ 4:32pm
Empty, you mean like this???

beat the devil | posted April 26, 2007 (May 14, 2007 issue) Is Global Warming a Sin? by Alexander Cockburn

"The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend."

"anthropogenic" by the way means "man-made".

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2007 @ 4:46pm
"anthropogenic" by the way means "man-made".

Posted by MASK

Did you finally get a dictionary, false face? Good. Look up progressive.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/13/2007 @ 4:48pm
Alex argues that the anti-war movement is weak because it fails to show "international political solidarity" with "Iraqi resistance fighters."

Our solidarity is not with the resistence fighters, per se, but with the entire international community of peace loving folks that think it is morally wrong to invade and occupy a country simply because you want their natural resources, want to enrich defense contractor businesses of a particular country, and make Israel the superpower of the Middle East.

We don't believe in the concept of a superpower, and believe nations need to learn to respect and cooperate with each other and respect the rights of all nations, including Palestine, to self-determination.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2007 @ 4:48pm
BTW, Empty Spence, I know this kind of thread puts you in a dreadful situation...

How do you attack me for attacking Cockburn....without supporting his view on global warming, making friends with the insurgency, opposing the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (like JLSOLLEY)... AND contradicting the view of Katha Pollitt a writer for "The Nation"?!?!!?

Quite a dilemma.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2007 @ 4:50pm
Alexander Cockburn is still one of the best journalists on the left, even if he isn't as good as he was 10 and 20 years ago. CounterPunch is a must read, both in hard copy and on-line.

He is absolutely right to call out the conspiracy theorists about 9/11 as a distraction to the anti-war movement. However, not having read his column yet, I can nonetheless agree with Pollitt that defending Iraq against imperialist oppression does not mean that we have to embrace the Iraqi resistance politically.

As for global warming, Cockburn has a long history as a committed environmentalist AND as a critic of the establishment green organizations that have become way too close to the Washington political establishment and corporate America. I therefore take his criticism of the human theory of global warming much more seriously than that of the bought and paid for lapdogs of the oil companies. Free speech and dissent within the left is a good thing, after all.

Posted by cka2nd at 07/13/2007 @ 4:50pm
Did you finally get a dictionary, false face? Good. Look up progressive.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/13/2007 @ 4:48pm

There ya go....since you won't have anything more substantive to say (without risking opposing JLSOLLEY or Ms Pollitt)....

go straight for the personal insults....heheh

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2007 @ 4:51pm
I "attacked" you? I asked you a simple question, false face. I know it's difficult, but try not to be such a puss.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/13/2007 @ 4:52pm
Posted by CKA2ND

I like the guy's straight forward voice. His columns were always my favorite.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/13/2007 @ 4:57pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/13/2007 @ 4:52pm

And I answered your question, even helped out with some of the big words...

But let's start making it about ME, Empty....and not Cockburn.

It'll be much easier on you than trying to offer some thought and insight (as even CKA2ND tried), than to set yourself out there as either a Cockburn supporter (putting you at odds with Ms Pollitt and those who believe in man-created global warming)...or a Cockburn critic (making your view and mine uncomfortably close for your Anti-MASK mind-set).

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2007 @ 4:59pm
His columns were always my favorite.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/13/2007 @ 4:57pm

I apologize, Empty. Seriously. Glad to see you step up.

Now, you are firmly in that camp....of man-made global warming deniers and those who feel we need to embrace the insurgency in Iraq in order to gain credibility for the anti-war movement.

(going to stick with Cockburn...or start back-pedalling?...I'll apologize again if you don't!)

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2007 @ 5:00pm
Our solidarity is not with the resistence fighters, per se, but with the entire international community of peace loving folks that think it is morally wrong to invade and occupy a country simply because you want their natural resources, want to enrich defense contractor businesses of a particular country, and make Israel the superpower of the Middle East.

Posted by METTEYYA 07/13/2007 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person

Mett, please be careful with the imperial "Our" or "We" :). Not everyone on the left is a pacifist. Depending on the war, some of us are in fact IN solidarity with the resistance fighters (El Salvador) or the government (Nicaragua) in question, to a greater or lesser degree. This can range from merely support for military action against the imperialist invaders (The "God-Emporer" Haile Selasie - givemeabreak! - and Ethopia over Italy in the 30's) all the way up to full-fledged political support (the Bolsheviks against both the Central and Allied powers in WW I) with various gradations in between (the Sandanistas, the NLF and North Vietnamese Stalinists, the Soviets and the left-nationist government in Afghanistan, the bourgeois government of Republican Spain).

Posted by cka2nd at 07/13/2007 @ 5:06pm
I like the guy's straight forward voice. His columns were always my favorite.

Does that mean I agree with everything he writes?

Last night it suddenly came to me why I find you so repugnant, false face. You remind me of a girl I used to know. She was a lying, sorry sack of shit. I really don't think she could help herself; it was just her nature.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/13/2007 @ 5:07pm
"Not everyone on the left is a pacifist."

Posted by CKA2ND

You've got that right.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/13/2007 @ 5:08pm
"It'll be much easier on you than trying to offer some thought and insight (as even CKA2ND tried)."

Posted by MASK 07/13/2007 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person

I beg your pardon?

Posted by cka2nd at 07/13/2007 @ 5:09pm
"Anti-Mask"?

Don't flatter yourself. Dog shit is dog shit; I know no one that enjoys the smell of it.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/13/2007 @ 5:12pm
I read Cockburn's article before this one. my answer to him is the reason we don't have the same antiwar movement today, is that we were attacked here at home.

do I think Bin Laden should be punished for this attack? yes.

do I know that he had a political motive, american troops out of Saudi? yes.

do I agree with this political motive? yes.

did I agree with kicking Saddam out of Kuwait? yes.

do I think that leaving the troops in Saudi was imperialist hubris, a blunder of major proportions, only topped by the Iraq invasion? yes

do I wish american troops to die in Iraq? no

do I have some understanding, if not sympathy, with Iraqis fighting the american invasion? yes

do I think these are good people, who prefer negotiation to murder and warfare? no

do I think Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld etc, are good people, who prefer negotiations to murder and warfare? no

do I think Stalin and the russians were good people during WW2? no

am I glad they prevailed over Hitler? yes

was I glad that many germans died in that war and after? no

you will pardon this litany, we were talking about catholic educations.

my point? that thinking feeling people have many sometime irreconcilable thoughts and challenges.

I think Ms Pollitt doesn't do the subject justice, pun intended. somewhere between those two columns there is a truth.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/13/2007 @ 5:48pm
Ms. Katha,

I am confused! I looked everywhere and I don't know who "This Beheading..." is all about? I looked for a video link to "This Beheading..." (expecting a slicker version of the pioneering Nocholas Berg beheading) to see who this article might've referred to.....No luck!

Posted by Happy at 07/13/2007 @ 5:50pm
incidentally, the stuff with the beheadings is absurd. murder is murder, whether it comes from a bomber 30,00 feet up, from an IED, a tank, a missile or a sword

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/13/2007 @ 5:51pm
of course US troops did a little beheading too, remember Saddam's sons? a shameful episode, in my opinion.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/13/2007 @ 5:53pm
Did false face take his ball and go home?

Everybody, have a good weekend.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/13/2007 @ 6:06pm
Not everyone on the left is a pacifist

I am certainly aware of this fact if you have been following my posts on Rahm Emmanuel, the Israeli war hawk who thinks he can buy the Democrats in Congress.

The "internationalist" issue, which is the theme of Pollitt's article, is a different matter.

While we did eventually confront the Nazis in WWII, the current times require much greater international cooperation and legitimacy when considering the prospect of checking a rouge nation that is undermining world stability. This does not make one a "pacifist", but it does ensure that "other less legitimate objectives" of a "particular" nation (e.g., profits of particular companies, Israeli desires to dominate the region) do not become reasons to invade.

Supporting insurgent forces against an invader and occupier thus depend on the "legitimacy" of the invasion and occupation. When you have "extremely broad" international support for the invasion, you don't run into that problem.

If you can only convince the US, Britain, and Israel that an invasion is a good idea, then it probably isn't!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2007 @ 6:30pm
If you can only convince the US, Britain, and Israel that an invasion is a good idea, then it probably isn't!

Posted by METTEYYA 07/13/2007 @ 6:30pm | ignore this person

Israel did not participate in the Iraq war. I don't know if "Israel" thought it was a good idea.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/13/2007 @ 6:47pm
The flip side of this is if you can find solidarity with that great majority of nations that did not think it was a good idea to invade, then solidarity with the particular insurgents does not "define" the resistance, and "international solidarity" is how the resistance is defined.

Never let your opponent define your resistance. They will always seek to define it in the most narrow terms to make you look like you have less support than you actually do!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2007 @ 6:47pm
Israel did not participate in the Iraq war. I don't know if "Israel" thought it was a good idea.

Despite AIPAC's effort to remove from its website all of the resolutions and other Congressional action they sponsored in support of the invasion of Iraq (and now Iran), they are the "chief" reason we invaded, along with lobbying efforts of defense contractors and oil companies.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2007 @ 6:50pm
But don't take my word for it, ask your Congressperson (off the record, of course) was Israel - via Aipac- pushing us to invade Iraq?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2007 @ 6:53pm
they are the "chief" reason we invaded, along with lobbying efforts of defense contractors and oil companies.

Posted by METTEYYA 07/13/2007 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person

no way. you are conflating aipac with Israel. they are not the same.

the war was started , in my opinion, for domestic purposes, to get Bush elected in 2004, and to show american toughness after 9/11.

Israel was and is more than capable to meet any threat from Iraq, or any and all mideast nations, as they have proved repeatedly.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/13/2007 @ 6:54pm
well, our iraqi police "allies" opened up fire on our brave human shield today. we gave 'em the martyrdom the adore (al sadr moles it seems), and thank god our guys were alright...but isn't this nice?

maybe there was a reason that sad country was ruled by a brutal man for so long...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 6:56pm
CounterPunch February 15, 2003

Lessons from Israel

A War Without Legitimacy

By LEV GRINBERG

Despite the fact that the war against Iraq is presented also as aimed to protect Israel from Sadam's aggressive intentions, Israeli public opinion is not convinced that the war is needed. A new poll shows that only 46% support waging the war without international legitimacy, and 43% oppose it.

compare these numbers with american numbers from that time. 70% approval in the US.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/13/2007 @ 6:59pm
Israel was and is more than capable to meet any threat from Iraq, or any and all mideast nations, as they have proved repeatedly.

It is not about "meeting any threat" from Iraq; if you talk to AIPAC leaders, they make it clear that they want to weaken "all" of their neighbors, expand Israeli territory and put off indefinitely the UN mandated state of Palestine that is supposed to be right next to Israel.

It is about Israeli power.

Sure, there are many in Israel that don't agree with AIPAC, but they are not driving the bus, so to speak!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/13/2007 @ 7:10pm
"we're the neocons! hey! we're so smart. smarter than you! we've figgered out all the secrets of the universe, like inside every crzy heathan towelhead or third world deluded socialist, lies a neocon begging for us to invade his country and and pave the streets with macdonalds, walmarts and blood! we, the neocons, have figgered out the secrets of all economic thought! our economic ideas are flawless sterling examples of our massive brilliance and our unbending perfect ideology. send your sons and daughters to fight our well thought out, all american wars. YOUR sons and daughters..."

evil and stupid.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 7:10pm
MASK!!!

I believe I heard your FRYS ARE READY!! SHITTY SERVICE, THO

Posted by john maasch at 07/13/2007 @ 7:16pm
"we're the neocos. hey! we have perfected a slick version of laid back paternal, corporate fascism. we are benevolent. we are looking out for you, so send us your money, loved ones, and buy our stuff! because we love the money so much, that we have sent your kids, parents, spouses, etc., into a meat grinder. wave those flags, beloved purchasing units! stare at the pretty colors and have champagne dreams and caviar orgasms! because we are certainly enjoying the same, with your money and blood! so TRUST US. WE NEVER LIE! we do our darndest to validate all the most radical far left accusations about the evil nature of unrestrained capitalism because we behave exactly like the worst far left charicatures of right wing evil capitalists! we are soooo great! don't you see? thats right - you serfs owe us EVERYTHING while we owe you what we have alread given - sterling leadership, a good old fashioned anal raping, propaganda and NOTHING."

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 7:23pm
Getting out of Viet Nam was a win situation since Viet Nam was heating up the cold war,but we have no idea what staying or leaving will mean for Iraq.

Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/13/2007 @ 4:01pm

Really! I realize you are a bitter vet but to suggest that it was a win for our buddies to die there so that millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians would be murdered and tortured seems a little bizarre to me.

Posted by antiliberal at 07/13/2007 @ 7:33pm
Posted by CKA2ND 07/13/2007 @ 5:06pm

I may have missed your response awhile back, but am I wrong or did you not say you are a communist? RCP, Workers International League,CPUSA? Or perhaps better worded, Maoist or Trotskyite?

Posted by antiliberal at 07/13/2007 @ 7:39pm
hey! we're the fundyvangelist! we dont believe in modern science. it ant in our bible! we are the voting muscle that enables our friends the neocons to destroy a wicked secular government and entrone the kingdom of mammon on earth! we have confused old mammon with god and could not be happier! cause the neocons will share their bling with us, and if not, we're going to heaven anyway because god loves our hateful, ignorant, obnoxious, cromwellian posteriors more than anyone else! we screech luv and god and dream of a christian version of the taliban! we know the neocons plan to enjoy te good life of abortion on demand and all the other things we scream about because they have the money and power to ignore the law, but thats ok. they promised us we would get to tell all you poor and middle class sinners how to live and impose our religion on you through the state and we keep telling you - its what the founding fathers wanted - a fundyvangelist theocracy! oh we may behave more like satanists, but WE LOVE JESUS THE ONLY WAY THERE IS so that makes it all holy!"

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 7:40pm
Posted by CKA2ND 07/13/2007 @ 4:50pm

Your support of Cockburn raises another interesting question and a real dilemma for serious socialists/marxists/maoists/trotskyites.

Cockburn comes from a family of Stalinist supporters so how does that square with all the leftists/socialists here including Katrina who bemoan how Stalin ruined a good thing in Mother Russia?

Posted by antiliberal at 07/13/2007 @ 7:42pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/13/2007 @ 7:40pm

It seems you are already seriously into your weekend consumption of either adult beverages or serious mind-altering chemicals.

Posted by antiliberal at 07/13/2007 @ 7:44pm
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/13/2007 @ 7:44pm | i

no - quitting smoking cold turkey apologist for evil...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 7:57pm
no - quitting smoking cold turkey apologist for evil...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/13/2007 @ 7:57pm

Ah, withdrawal hallucinations. Good luck on your effort. You will be glad you did it.

Posted by antiliberal at 07/13/2007 @ 8:00pm
Sure, there are many in Israel that don't agree with AIPAC, but they are not driving the bus, so to speak!

Posted by METTEYYA 07/13/2007 @ 7:10pm | ignore this person

same as here. you are still acting as if aipac is Israel. it is not.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/13/2007 @ 8:05pm
one more time, Israel did not join in the Iraq war.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/13/2007 @ 8:07pm
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/13/2007 @ 8:00pm

thanks...eff off! lol

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 10:08pm
luvvy, you don't get withdraw hallucinations from quitting smoking

Posted by Will C. at 07/13/2007 @ 11:30pm
Posted by WILL C. 07/13/2007 @ 11:30pm |

sup will?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 11:38pm
not much ibble, how's life out there in the vast red wasteland

Posted by Will C. at 07/13/2007 @ 11:52pm
Israel did not participate in the Iraq war. I don't know if "Israel" thought it was a good idea.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/13/2007 @ 6:47pm

Not defending (nor have I bothered to research) the veracity of these articles, but a simple googling started with these three articles;

"11/03/2002 - Updated 09:41 PM ET

RELATED STORIES Latest news Sharon to use 'targeted killings' as last resort

Israel reportedly helping with U.S. war preparation By John Diamond, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Israel is secretly playing a key role in U.S. preparations for possible war with Iraq, helping to train soldiers and Marines for urban warfare, conducting clandestine surveillance missions in the western Iraqi desert and allowing the United States to place combat supplies in Israel, according to U.S. Defense and intelligence officialss."

----------------------------------------

"Published on Monday, March 29, 2004 by Inter Press Service Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser by Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003."

--------------------------------

"CounterPunch

January 25, 2003 Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq

by BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON former CIA political analysts

Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in the Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war against Iraq (and later perhaps against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee Israel's security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel's favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite the neo-cons' own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose going to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the Bush administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel is pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S., or even hopes to benefit by such a war. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word "domination" anywhere in the vicinity of the word "Israel," as in "U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East" or "the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel," and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination."

-----------------------------------------

"Despite the fact that the war against Iraq is presented also as aimed to protect Israel from Sadam's aggressive intentions, Israeli public opinion is not convinced that the war is needed. A new poll shows that only 46% support waging the war without international legitimacy, and 43% oppose it.

compare these numbers with american numbers from that time. 70% approval in the US."

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/13/2007 @ 6:59pm

I know many here wonder where Metteya, is really coming from, but you seem to have a knee-jerk response to anything the could possibly be construed as anti-semitism.

How many Americans were actually for the war (percentage wise), if you include the term "without international legitimacy"?

(For the record, I am not a racist. While I have no problem with people of "jewish" descent, I find actual believers to be as bat-shit insane as our x-tian "leaders" or the backward ass peoples who county we have illegally invaded. This is all scary stuff to us athiests. These guys (all sides) are a danger to humanity. How can sane intellegent people believe the mythology, when the results of those beliefs, cause so much suffering, to each other and those who aren't superstitious?)

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 07/13/2007 @ 11:52pm
Posted by WILL C. 07/13/2007 @ 11:52pm

you know, hot and oppressive...

got myself locked in a back room. nic withdrawels... feel like a werewolf on full moon night..."whatever you hear, whatever i say...DONT OPEN THE DOOR!"

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2007 @ 11:55pm
just remember bro. the average nicotine craving lasts around 6 to 7 minutes.

the next time you get one, tell yourself that you can hang tough for 7 minutes.... then put it out of your head.

by the time seven minutes rolls around, you'll have forgotten about it

Posted by Will C. at 07/13/2007 @ 11:59pm
have you passed day three yet?

Posted by Will C. at 07/13/2007 @ 11:59pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/13/2007 @ 11:55pm

Quit myself, about a year ago. Part of you will always want one, but it is definately worth it. Like Will said, one cigarette at a time and soon you too, can be an obnoxious ex-smoker. (It's fun!)

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 07/14/2007 @ 12:02am
will, thanks - no...day 2 hell...

working out some, sleepin lots, avoiding anyone i either like or really dislike...

that rem song, "end of the world as we know it" was written by stipe while quitting...makes so much sense...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2007 @ 12:38am
shit, eric...i'm pretty obnoxious already...no right now i'm barely contained maniacal....time for a walk...or pushups...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2007 @ 12:40am
so day three is tomorrow

:)

yes there is nothing like the feeling as if your brain is wrapped in saran wrap. I envy you.

on the bright side however. Once day three is over, it only gets easier.

Posted by Will C. at 07/14/2007 @ 12:42am
First, as Zero says, Cockburn's done too much good work over too many years to be summarily dismissed or villified, I believe. Second, I could not agree more with Ms. Pollit regarding the ideologies at work in Iraq as opposed to the ideology behind Central American resistance (though are we to call violence by different names?). Nevertheless, our sit stillment could move a bit more if it were to insist that we do not oppose a war but an occupation, a bungled kidnapping and burglary. In stealing Iraq's oil (and angling for other national assets--as Naomi Klein spelled out for us in Harper's a few years ago), and in murdering and terrorizing the country's citizenry, we create millions of victims who do not cut off people's heads, build IEDs or spew religious sociopathy. Let's bring these ordinary folks to the American people, (find and) tell their stories, make contact with them. This solidarity is necessary, not only as a peace movement strategy but as a small step beyond an American isolationism that comes in a style even for the consumerist 'left.'

Posted by ednahall at 07/14/2007 @ 12:46am
There are progressive movements in Iraq. For example, our press never mentions it but there is a labor movement which has at its heart the oil workers' union. Hundreds of leaders of this movement have been murdered, but it remains a player. There are also two communist parties that the press never mentions, both of which are involved with that labor movement.

The big issue in Iraq today, which our press never mentions, is the attempt of the US, under the guise of "oil sharing legislation", to legalize the takeover of the Iraqi oil fields, worth $6 trillion at today's prices ($6,000,000,000,000!), by the US and British oil companies. The terms would be terrible for Iraq, leaving little to share. This is a key "benchmark" that the Iraqi government is being strongarmed to pass. Our press does not report that nearly all Iraqis are opposed to this, and that the oil workers union has promised to shut down the oil industry if this law passes, or that when they hold demonstrations they are buzzed by US warplanes.

The relationship of the progressives to the "resistance" is unclear, although it is clear that there is more than one resistance. If we want an opposition we can support we can't wait for the New York Times to reveal it to us; we need to look for it ourselves.

Posted by Chris Horton at 07/14/2007 @ 01:09am
I know many here wonder where Metteya, is really coming from, but you seem to have a knee-jerk response to anything the could possibly be construed as anti-semitism.

what are you talking about, Mal? I have not called anyone an antisemite. I just came up with the articles I posted. the fact is that Israel did not send troops to Iraq, unlike england, and many others. I also don't believe that the US entered into that war on behalf of Israel. I don't mind if folks criticize Israel, I do so myself. I'm surprised you accuse me of knee jerk reactions.the quote I used, and yours are both from the same source.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/14/2007 @ 01:39am
Posted by MADLIB 07/14/2007 @ 01:48am

wasnt that a southpark song? oh no...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2007 @ 01:56am
Posted by MADLIB 07/14/2007 @ 01:48am | ignore this person

how is this any different from "fuck all arabs"? Surely you are capable of a more nuanced stance.

Israel is just like the US. a right wing gov't, put in place by a fearful populace.when your neighbor blows up your busses and discos, that fear is no surprise.

I object to efforts to simplify that which is complex.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/14/2007 @ 01:56am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/14/2007 @ 01:56am

israel's rightiness lends some credence to some of mett's asertions, i think. i dont know...i've baited him before but didn't get more than a nibble...

but coming from the south, perhaps i'm a bit numbed to casual bigotry or racism...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2007 @ 02:35am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/14/2007 @ 01:39am

Not a personal attack, JR. Just seemed you were implying that Israel had no interest in our invasion. This seems not to be the case.

I agree Israel was not the primary reason, just an additional one, among mant voices, that helped drown out any rational discussion of why this "war" to steal their resources was a horrible idea.

Eric

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 07/14/2007 @ 07:33am
Mal, aside from the kneejerk comment and the anti semitism remark, I don't feel so attacked. you also have a lot of cred with me. my point was that Israel, the state and gov't, did not participate the way that England did and does. my other point is, that unlike the US and Britain, Israel was well aware of the fact that Saddam was not much of a threat. I don't read the Israeli press much, but I don't think they engaged in the same outrageous lies about Iraq, that our press did. England's press too was a lot more truthful.

I realize that Israel doesn't have many defenders in these pages, and that my defense, I don't have much defense of Sharon, puts me in a company that I usually shun. as I said you have a lot of credibility with me, and I am always ready to discuss, and I am glad when a fallacy is pointed out to me. as always, research and quotes carry the day.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/14/2007 @ 08:39am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/14/2007 @ 01:39am

JR, to determine METTEYA's level of anti-Semitism, simply...

ask him why Arsenio Hall was fired?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2007 @ 09:46am
JR,

AIPAC may not represent the views of most Israelis, just like it doesn't represent the views of most American Jews or Jews around the world, but AIPAC does represent the Israeli government in its efforts to lobby (control) Congress to support the Sharon, and now Olmert, government. Otherwise, why are AIPAC operatives pleading guilty to passing secret American intelligence to the Israeli government if there is no connection between AIPAC and Israel as you suggest?

And please ignore Mask's "everyone is a anti-Semite who criticizes AIPAC and Jews 'in the Industry' for abusing their power". Mask is a closet AIPACer, who supports Rahm Emmanuel's effort to buy Congress with AIPAC money so they (1) don't impeach Cheney over lies to get us into Iraq, (2) don't begin immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and (3) support an invasion of Iran. Emmanuel is clearly a crazy war zealot, but his AIPAC money seems to have mesmerized a lot of Democrats in Congress!

For a story on the AIPAC guilty pleas in passing secrets to Israel, read this:

Pentagon Analyst Pleads Guilty in AIPAC-Israeli Spy Case

Larry Franklin, a top Pentagon analyst, plead guilty to handing over highly classified intelligence to members of the pro-Israeli lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. Franklin also admitted for the first time that he handed over top-secret information on Iran directly to an Israeli government official in Washington. We speak with investigative reporter, Robert Dreyfuss. [includes rush transcript] Earlier this week, a top Pentagon analyst plead guilty to handing over highly classified intelligence to members of the pro-Israeli lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. The official, Larry Franklin, also admitted for the first time that he handed over top-secret information on Iran directly to an Israeli government official in Washington. Franklin said he personally met with an official from the Israeli Embassy in Washington eight times. As part of a plea agreement, Franklin pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and a third charge of possessing classified documents. He faces up to 25 years in prison. Franklin has agreed to testify against Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, the two former AIPAC officials, who are facing trial.

The FBI has been investigating AIPAC for more than 2 years, looking into whether members of the organization helped to illegally pass on highly classified intelligence to the Israeli government. And as Robert Dreyfuss wrote in his article "Bigger than AIPAC" published in August on ZNET, "It is clear by probing the details of the case, the FBI has got hold of a dangerous loose end of a much larger story. By pulling the string hard enough, the FBI and the Justice Department might just unravel the larger story, which is beginning to look more and more like it involves the same nexus of Pentagon civilians, White House functionaries and American Enterprise Institute officials who thumped the drums of war in Iraq in 2001-2003 and who are trying to whip up an anti-Iranian frenzy as well."

Posted by Metteyya at 07/14/2007 @ 10:57am
if there is no connection between AIPAC and Israel as you suggest?

I did not suggest that: what I suggested was that they are not identical.

I have Mask more or less on permanent ignore. it's not that he's not a nice fellow, or that he isn't somewhat intelligent. it's just that life is short.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/14/2007 @ 11:07am
Finally got back to this thread. For those of you who think that continue to call demanders of 9/11 truth 'conspiracy theorists' without having first examined the evidence, and those that feel that exposing the truth about the government's conspiracy theory (that Arabs who couldn't fly small aircraft adequately in flight schools somehow managed to perform maneuvers with Boeing passenger jets that seasoned Air Force veterans couldn't imagine pulling off in order to crash into the protected nerve center of our armed forces in D.C. and evade our airspace protections in NYC)somehow distracts from the anti-war effort: How long do you think the war would continue if our government's complicity in the attacks was proven?

Posted by jlsolley at 07/14/2007 @ 1:49pm
I have Mask more or less on permanent ignore. it's not that he's not a nice fellow, or that he isn't somewhat intelligent. it's just that life is short.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/14/2007 @ 11:07am

Hey, I never Ignore JR. His "free-lance political science professor educating us ignorant peons" character is among my favorites!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2007 @ 1:53pm
Posted by JLSOLLEY 07/14/2007 @ 1:49pm |

JLSOLL, I know it'll do know good...like explaining transitional fossils to a creationist, but....

YOU could fly a 757 with a hour or two of flying lessons under your belt and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004.

LANDING and TAKING OFF are the tricky parts. But my 3 year old son could fly the dang thing.

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2007 @ 1:55pm
I think people are trying to change history. The antiwar movement has always been largely ignored and villified. Nixon beat antiwar candidate McGovern by a landslide at the height of the antiwar movement, when it was quite obvious the war was lost. Reagan was easily reelected and most Americans knew little or nothing about Central America or cared. The Iraq antiwar movement (which I was a part of) was mocked and ignored and is still ignored. Most Americans hate the antiwar demonstrations and, if anything, they only reinforce their pro-war positions.

Posted by steveEVfuture at 07/14/2007 @ 2:16pm
steve, the antiwar movement changes the parameters of the debate. I was a part of the antiwar movement in the 60s. the tone in the country changed. Nixon had to lie and cheat in order to continue the war. the Pentagon papers is what ended the war. the same is true today. Cindy Sheehan changed the nature of the debate. the script has changed. Bush is reduced to pathetic lies to continue the war. Rumsfeld is gone. this would not have happened without Sheehan and those like her.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/14/2007 @ 2:22pm
How long do you think the war would continue if our government's complicity in the attacks was proven?

Posted by JLSOLLEY 07/14/2007 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person

the entire state and the entire society would collapse. I think a civil war would ensue.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/14/2007 @ 2:24pm
Posted by JLSOLLEY 07/14/2007 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person

i've looked into the 9/11 conspiracy thing...here's the general possibilities...

1. evil conspiracy by labrynthine covert types who engineered the whole thing for nefarious reasons...i doubt this strongly - too complex, too labrythine, too difficult. but not impossible. but almost impossible.

2. high placed neocon ideologues, probably with help of elements of mossad, uncovered the plot and allowed it to happen, fullfilling a PNAC prophecy that it would take "another pearl harbor" to get the american people behind a war of aggression in the middle east to...well...do what they have done. i find this, given the self percieved omniscience of the neocon brain trust, very plausible. i think fdr did something like this to get us into ww2, and cheney figured he was at least as smart and wise as fdr...this would not have required the massive planning and allocation of resources a number 1 style possibility would, and as nefarious as it is, actually dovetails nicely with the observable massive foolishness, arrogance, and incompetance exibited by the neocon elite. it would have required nothing more than a few easily concealable, seemingly anonymously flung monkey wrenches into the machinery of defensve intelligence...i cant see how a reasonable mind can so easily poo poo this possibility outright. its quite plausible...

3. it was pretty much the way "they" say it was. which still implicates oh so many in gross incompetnce, compounded by criminal incompetance in the response. i mean, there is pnac, online for all the world to see...al qaeda pulls it up, sees the neocon plot to dominate the world spelled out in detail, starts pushing buttons to goad the morons into trying to make it happen. morons think they are smart, commence to bumble into bloody, half self made traps. that sounds very plausible and does not involve proving something that may well be unprovable, if it even exists or ever existed at all.

regardless, i DO want another commision to re-investigate the whole thing, if for no other reason than to settle the issue in the minds of most people and make double triple sure there is no reason to execute cheney and company for treason. at least in this regard.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2007 @ 2:25pm
Count me with Chris Horton. It does matter in terms of mobilizing people's participation that they feel a sense of connectedness in some way with those who they stand up to defend. White America in the 60s began to turn in favor of the civil rights movement less because of the March on Washington or the moral appeals of civil rights leaders, than because of the Birmingham church bombing where four little girls died, because of seeing on TV the dogs and firehoses of Selma. The human connection is where the soul lives, where hearts and minds can most readily be changed, and people brought to act against injustice.

It makes no sense for American leftists to sympathize with religious extremists in Iraq when they are among our most powerful and dangerous foes here in the States. (Though I would point out that we do need to keep in mind that many who joined "insurgent" groups or "militias" did so less out of extreme religious convictions than out of a felt need to defend their families and communities by any available means.) But we can , should, MUST sympathize with that overwhelming majority of Iraqis who are not participants in religious extremist groups, who are suffering from a war, occupation, and civil strife they did nothing to bring on. Moreover, as Chris pointed out, there are in fact significant organized forces, such as the oil workers union, with whom we can readily identify, and to whom we can offer our unmixed support, the same way we once offered it to Salvadoran peasant, labor and student groups.

Posted by Lauritz at 07/14/2007 @ 2:29pm
i get my fix of the nefarious conspiracy stuff by watching "jericho" on cbs. there's a villanous high level cia type who was apparantly behind the mass terrorist nuking of the usa in it who looks suspiciously like dick cheney ("the old man"). lol great series, by the way. all episodes are available online and anyone with midgrade dsl can view the entire first season for free. the rese/plungr stuff is great fiction, and the show is a++ quality in terms of production, acting, etc...

jericho [cbs.com]

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2007 @ 2:35pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/13/2007 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person

Well said. The attention of the common man will be grabbed with the reinstitution of the Draft, a War Tax and Gasoline Taxes bringing the price to 7 dollars a gallon at the pump on the residents. Should that happen, talk about REBELLION AGAINST IMPERIAL POWER!!

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/14/2007 @ 2:50pm
Posted by LAURITZ 07/14/2007 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person

Iraq has been a mostly secular society, the most secular in the region, for nigh 50 years. the Sunnites have been more secular than the Shiites. the conflict is about revenge and power, not about religion, though it does enter into it.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/14/2007 @ 2:51pm
One starting place might be the General Union of OilWorkers in Basra http://www.basraoilunion.org/. I understand that UK trade Unionists have partnered with their Iraqi counterparts to launch and maintain their website.

Posted by poyma at 07/14/2007 @ 3:07pm
Katha you couldn't be more correct. The idea of showing solidarity with the "insurgents" in Iraq is offensive to my sensibilities. Although I am fervently opposed to our involvement in Iraq, I certainly don't want those committing atrocities against other Iraqis to "win." I think it is however debatable to say many people felt solidarity with the Sandinistas, considering they weren't exactly angels themselves. This will all go down as proving G.W. Bush is possibly one of the worst leaders of any country EVER. I sincerely see no answer to this question for the next century at least, save for another Saddam type strong man taking control, which at this point is blatantly obviously required for Iraq to remain a relatively stable country where there isn't a daily report on the finding of scores of remains of tourtured corpses and deadly suicide bombings.

Posted by dankester at 07/14/2007 @ 3:21pm
Why does Alexander Cockburn get so much space at...."The Nation"!!?!?!

(Search "Alexander Cockburn" on the Nation archives and see how many hits you get!)

Posted by MASK 07/13/2007 @ 4:18pm |

A-A-A...

Cockburn is a leftist's leftist. He's the type who in the fifties would've been a hard-core party member (CP USA, that is) taking the hard line from Moscow. The thrust of this type is "ideological purity" and reality be damned. Pollitt is absolutely right to call him on this and I think her objections to his view are right on target.

I know and have known plenty of these ideological purists of the left. I used to hang out with them till I got tired of the rhetoric for the same reason I find conservative ideologues so tiresome. The only difference is that MOST conservatives are ideologues. Since the basic position itself is so blinkered against reality, they have to be. I'd argue that, with some exceptions like Cockburn (who gives us all a bad name) the same thing is, by and large, NOT true of the left -- certainly less true, anyway, than it used to be when dogmatic socialism held sway.

My guess is that "The Nation" publishes him a lot to establish its leftist bona fides. (Hey, ya gotta have SOME ideological purity around here -- just don't let him burn MY cock!)

Posted by w_m_bear at 07/14/2007 @ 3:26pm
Katha is right to dump on Cockburn, but then again, look at what Katrina is embracing: publishing a book and an "article" slandering American soldiers, by an accomplished propagandist for Islamic Jihad, who is the daughter of a convicted terrorist supporter. Laila Al-Arian is NO journalist - and not only does Katrina hide her background, she provides a more effective platform for lies and half-truths than Isvestia ever provided for Stalin.

Doubt it? Go look up Sami Al-Arian's writings, and view his speeches at fundraisers: nothing but "Death to the Jews" and "Destroy Israel" from beginning to end.

What The Nation has done in hiring Al-Arian's daughter (and in obscuring her real agenda) is tantamount to the London Times publishing opinion pieces by Joseph Goebbels during the run-up to WWII. Couldn't happen? It just has, right on these web pages. Come to think of it, Al-Arian and Goebbels come from the same end of the political spectrum - which the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum I expect from The Nation. Why the Nation has chosen to throw its lot in with the Islamic Totalitarians, I just can't fathom...

Thanks, Katha! I hope they let you keep writing here.

Posted by sjduskin at 07/14/2007 @ 3:44pm
I agree with I'm Nobody. And to add to it, the DUTY of the President/CIC is to NOT enter into a war that is unwinnable. IOW a war that is, and was made known beforehand, to be an insurrectional low-grade, unwinnable conflict, with more-than-dubious national security implications, and most importanly a war that once we are in, has almost universal downsides for getting out.

I enjoy reading AC here, but in terms of supporting the insurgents, he is dead wrong. It is a no win to say to someone's mother that he/she died in vain. Cindy Sheehan aside as an exception, the anti war movement suffers from a lack of shared sacrifice. Opinions that support the people that are killing of our soldiers/marines are non-serious, non-contributory, non-starters.

I just had a conversation with a friend whose fiance is going back to Iraq for his second tour. She said words like "they say" it will only be for 15 months this time, and that we should "hand over the keys" to the Iraqis. She did not say that a year ago.

Yet she supports her guy's involvement (and I was wearing my HRW hat at the time), to the extent that she is very resistant to outsiders (and that's how they/we who want withdrawal are perceived) notions of sacrifice and duty. There are so few that are paying the price for this war that closing ranks is a reflex. As I was talking to her (a banker) she started to well up, but was still supportive.

The problem with the all-to-often posed intellectual arguments for protesting this war is that it misses the pain and point of the people that are acutally bearing the burden of it. When we on the left figure that out, we will be successful. Til then, it's just so much BS to the people that matter. And to be clear, they are the ones that matter.

The war is a loser is a losing argument. I'm not smart nor expansive enough to know what might be a winner "soundbite" argument, but I suspect it is contained within what I just wrote.

Posted by irtzl at 07/14/2007 @ 4:37pm
The only way to get the anti-war movement back on track is to reclaim the Democratic party from Rahm Emmanuel and his war hawkish AIPAC sponsors.

Right now, we only have "half a party", which is liberal on domestic issues, but conservative on defense, thanks to AIPAC corruption.

And what good is it to have a Democratic party that is liberal on domestic issues if they don't have the resources to pursue a progressive domestic agenda because all the money is going to pursue wars in the Middle East at the request of AIPAC?

The anti-war movement should target every congressional race that Emmanuel bought with AIPAC money in '06 (22 seats) and run a viable anti-war candidate who is also a Democrat. This includes targeting Emmanuel's own district in Illinois in which the voters there "overwhelmingly" oppose this war and want our troops brought home.

Taking out the Emmanuel Democrats should be priority number one for any Democrat that opposes this war and the other war AIPAC has planned for us in Iran. If we are able to defeat all of these AIPAC Democrats, including Emmanuel, in '08, AIPAC will have to consider joining the Republicans, which is really where there conservative and extreme pro-Israel hawkish values belong!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/14/2007 @ 6:20pm
matter. And to be clear, they are the ones that matter.

The war is a loser is a losing argument. I'm not smart nor expansive enough to know what might be a winner "soundbite" argument, but I suspect it is contained within what I just wrote.

Posted by IRTZL 07/14/2007 @ 4:37pm

good piece, but they are not the only ones that matter.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2007 @ 6:21pm
Absolutely right, Katha. Cockburn (and until all too recently Hitchens) disgrace(s/d) the pages of the Nation. Where is it written that the position of Resident Nation Brit Blowhard is a lifetime sinecure?

Posted by misserma at 07/14/2007 @ 9:00pm
The beautiful thing about war is that it is self correcting. When waged competently it ends quickly. When waged incompetently it also ends, though it takes a little longer. But that's to be expected.

The incompetents can't believe that they are incompetent. And they cling like a spurned lover to the leg of their beloved. They hold on for dear life. Dragged� begging�

Until the moment they are shaken free.

Posted by Will C. at 07/15/2007 @ 12:59am
Posted by WILL C. 07/15/2007 @ 12:59am

but for...

the incompetance and sociopathy of the current administration...

ms. al-arians article on iraqi civilian deaths would never have been written.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/15/2007 @ 01:25am
"The incompetents can't believe that they are incompetent. And they cling like a spurned lover to the leg of their beloved. They hold on for dear life. Dragged� begging�

Until the moment they are shaken free.

Posted by WILL C. 07/15/2007 @ 12:59am

Classic "Hammer Blow Back" syndrom example here..clinical..

The resulting symptom in the post above is the perfect description of what many see as truth when looking at genius economic, political and philosophical blatherings of WILL, EMPTY POCKETS WITH SPACE BETWEEN HIS EARS SPENCE,HILLARYS BALL WASHER VIA HIS TONGUE FRANK, AND CONSHAMED HIMSELF AS USUAL...to name but a few, resident genius at large here(hehe)for sure, for sure...and for under $12/hr to boot!!! A deal!!!

Except these guys will never be free, for they believe it is the rest of us who are in the cage...when in truth we are on the outside looking in at them....propellars spining wildly on their heads(red ones) dispensing, ah, what to know and how the world works.

Posted by john maasch at 07/15/2007 @ 11:05am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/15/2007 @ 11:05am |

hey JM. how u doin?

600,000 iraqi civilian deaths in 4 years as result of violence. how many if saddam had been left in power? no one can say.

if my wife or kid or whatever had been killed by a foriegn soldier occupying my country, regardless of stated reasons for being there...i would start making ied's and blowin them up. even if they had removed a hated leader.

but saddam was an implacable enemy of the islamic fundamentalists. islamic fundys = our enemy. enemy of our enemy = our enemy?

and its really starting to look like perhaps that sad, bloody piece of oil rich real estate may have required a certain amount of brutality to hols it together, because there is simply not much feeling of shared nationhood holding the place together, at least not as much as the interethnic hatred that has all along been pulling it apart.

sometimes in international affairs idealism must be swallowed and cold hard logic resorted to. although he suffered from neuroses and was a psychological basket case at home, i look to nixon on the foriegn policy front, where he was a genius, and say "what would tricky dicky have done?

i think tricky dicky would have gone to saddam and said something like "you hate al qaeda. we haate al qaeda. want to get some sanctions removed? want to stop squabbling with each other long enough to take down a common enemy? your going to have to settle down and at least start pretending to not be evil...and the wmd inspectors will have to continue their work without being effed with...but..."

who knows? we would have been able to concentrate our full military might where we knew al qaeda was, and if after destroying them, saddam posed a massive threat, then we could have dealt with that, later.

sometimes in international affairs one must dance with one devil in order to take down another.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/15/2007 @ 1:16pm
...saddam was an implacable enemy of the islamic fundamentalists...

....bloody piece of oil rich real estate may have required a certain amount of brutality to hols it together,....

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/15/2007 @ 1:16pm

Saddam, by most accounts, was no friend of the Islamic fanatics. However, your limited grasp of the Big Picture is simply dead wrong by declaring Saddam "an implacable enemy" of said fanatics.

The most feared and detested `weapons' of Islamic Fundies are the suicide bombers......probably the hardest-ever `weapon' to be deterred or defused prior to detonation. Saddam was a huge fan of this weapon, to the tune of $25k `Performance Bonus'! While Saddam's motive was undoubtedly against Israel, his early support, IMO, gave the Jihadist a huge boost, and indirectly, their fundamentalist causes beyond Israel/Palestine. While you could mount an argument that AQ was Saddam's enemy, there is no question that Saddam viewed the US as a much, much bigger enemy--both directly via Desert Storm in 1991, and indirectly via Israel/Palestine--and would view AQ favorably in upstaging the US.

On your so-often repeated by the Far Left: "bloody piece of oil rich real estate", go take ten minutes and study the stock price patterns of the major integrated oil cos. and the offshore drillers. All of them are hitting record highs and as far as I know, Iraq's puny sub-2 million barrels of oil production, has NOT been a factor; particularly on the part of the service sector like the deep-water drillers. Get your head out of the know-nothing, anti-Big Oil quicksand of Liberal idiocy, and smell the roses!

As perhaps the best oil industry investor you will ever chance upon, my view is that, all else staying the same, as Iraqi oil production begins to actually grow significantly, certainly good for Iraqis, the Energy industry as a whole will have lower margins and lesser stock appreciations. This hardly bolster loonies' view of invading Iraq for its oil!

Control of oil in the ground means something but it is NOT the whole enchilada! World-wide, Exxon controls less than 20 billion barrels of Reserve but it IS the world's most valuable co. at half-TRILLION! Think, and think hard, use that gray matter in your skull! Would you, if a stockholder or insider executive, rather have Exxon gain another 5 billion barrels (25% gain) of Reserves or a 25% gain in its stock price? Exxon's stock has more than tripled in ~5/6 years and its Reserves are just marginally greater today!

A huge reason the Far Left has little credibility is exemplified by its self-imagined views on Big Oil! and Big Pharma...and on and on and on....You ought to stay with the human social stuffs like healthcare principles or income inequalities and stay out of global economic/financial/industry issues your your DNAs can't comprehend!

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2007 @ 3:25pm
All of them are hitting record highs and as far as I know, Iraq's puny sub-2 million barrels of oil production, has NOT been a factor

The record highs are based on oil futures speculation that was predicted "before" we invaded Iraq. Instability in the region, which is what invading Iraq, and now Iran, cause, is what makes futures traders to bid up the price of oil.

If you don't think the Iraq invasion (and speculation of an invasion of Iran) is the "chief" cause of the high oil prices and high profits of oil companies, you should sit down and talk to an oil futures trader. Ask him does he buy or sell when there is instability in the Middle East?

Even though the high oil prices have very little to do with supply or demand, "intentional" failure on the part of oil companies to build refining capacity has a lot to do with high "gasoline" prices.

And, yes, the Bush Administration is pressuring the al-Maliki government to let US and British oil companies take over Iraqi oil, which is the fourth largest oil reserve in the world. Let's hope they don't succeed!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/15/2007 @ 3:55pm
Classic "Hammer Blow Back" syndrom example here..clinical..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/15/2007 @ 11:05am

Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha

oh my god, maasch thinks the term he made up is really used by ..... doctors.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

no wonder you hamsters are getting your ass handed to you

Posted by Will C. at 07/15/2007 @ 4:48pm
Posted by HAPPY 07/15/2007 @ 3:25pm

The most feared and detested `weapons' of Islamic Fundies are the suicide bombers......probably the hardest-ever `weapon' to be deterred or defused prior to detonation. Saddam was a huge fan of this weapon, to the tune of $25k `Performance Bonus'! While Saddam's motive was undoubtedly against Israel, his early support, IMO, gave the Jihadist a huge boost, and indirectly, their fundamentalist causes beyond Israel/Palestine. While you could mount an argument that AQ was Saddam's enemy, there is no question that Saddam viewed the US as a much, much bigger enemy--both directly via Desert Storm in 1991, and indirectly via Israel/Palestine--and would view AQ favorably in upstaging the US

look, he was evil, and may well have slid money to some islamic extremists for any number of reasons, HAP, like WE ARE FUNDING SUICIDAL ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS FIGHTING IRAN. the only known islamic terror group operating in iraq prior to our invasion was a group called "ansar al islam", in THE KURDISH ZONE WHERE SADDAM COULD NOT GO.

On your so-often repeated by the Far Left: "bloody piece of oil rich real estate", go take ten minutes and study the stock price patterns of the major integrated oil cos. and the offshore drillers. All of them are hitting record highs and as far as I know, Iraq's puny sub-2 million barrels of oil production, has NOT been a factor; particularly on the part of the service sector like the deep-water drillers. Get your head out of the know-nothing, anti-Big Oil quicksand of Liberal idiocy, and smell the roses!

you speak of idiocy like a true master of the concept. the iraqi oil fields are some of the richest in the world. perhaps the reason we arent getting the big payoff has something to do with, um, well...THE MASSIVE INSURGENCY AND ANTI-AMERICAN VIOLENCE? which your stupid, evil ideological heroes were too stupid to foresee?

guess circle jerk ignorant logic is the last refuge of a vain ideologue.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/15/2007 @ 4:56pm
Man, you can't win for losing. Saddam gives the families of kids who just blew themselves up $ 25,000 to cover things like the Israelis bulldozing their houses, destroying all their stuff and putting them out on the streets like paupers and the hamsters say he's funding terrorists.

it's probably the only meaningful thing saddam has ever done in his life, a wonderful act of charity to people that had know idea tragedy was about to enter their lives and the hamsters shit all over it.

Posted by Will C. at 07/15/2007 @ 5:18pm
"As perhaps the best oil industry investor you will ever chance upon, my view is that, all else staying the same, as Iraqi oil production begins to actually grow significantly, certainly good for Iraqis, the Energy industry as a whole will have lower margins and lesser stock appreciations. This hardly bolster loonies' view of invading Iraq for its oil!"

Maybe, you are not the "oil industry investor", you think you are. Maybe you are missing the long term strategy. Your "big View" isn't big enough. The best investment might be a war, which temporarily tightens suppy (hence short term profit) and eventually lands you control of the forth largest reserve,(for long term profitability). And then get the consumer to pay for it via taxes.

Now that would be strategy, if you were really thinking long term. My guess is your resume to buschco, was not responded to.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 07/15/2007 @ 6:05pm
...ignorant logic is the last refuge of a vain ideologue.

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/15/2007 @ 4:56pm

You folks are truly lost & hopeless! I have played the oil cycles for over 20 years, long, long before 9/11! Mark my words, China & India will drive world oil consumption to 100 million barrels within ~10yrs! Temporary drops per barrel price drops of $10 to $30 will always occur due to economic cycles or geo-shivers! Buy when it does! I was last in `Buy mode' when oil dropped to $60 late last year & switch to `Sell mode' a month ago when it hit ~$70--still got quite a bit, back down from 30% of my total portfolio! You judge me "ignorant" but my stock gains say otherwise!

Rhetorics are worthless if NOT backed up by real world performance! I got it, you don't! Like your out-of-Iraq rhetorics, so far, you still ain't got it! Like I said earlier, you folks have NO CREDIBILITY on so many real-world dollar & cents stuff.....which is why America is still a great capitalist country!

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2007 @ 7:29pm
Posted by HAPPY 07/15/2007 @ 7:29pm |

oh my!! i'm such a moron and you are a genius. making an ass of money in oil stocks makes you a genius and expert on middle eastern politics!

i bow to your self percieved omniscience great champion of capitalism!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/15/2007 @ 8:06pm
This happy guy is a joke. He repeatedly butchers the English language in a fashion that would make his commander in chimp glow with paternal pride, and his grandiose megalomania is the stuff of self parody. Happy, my cognitively encumbered comrade, no one here gives a rats ass about your proclivity for playing the market with daddy's surely dwindling stack of money. The fact that Malcontent had to explain the fairly simple strategy of these imperialists to you is embarrassing. It is not about stealing oil necessarily, but about ensuring control over a vital resource. Short term prices go up- oil companies benefit. Long term, if their ploy works, they will control a vast oil reserve in an ultra strategic region. What is so hard to comprehend about this?

Posted by entropy at 07/15/2007 @ 8:18pm
Rhetorics are worthless if NOT backed up by real world performance! I got it, you don't!

Posted by HAPPY 07/15/2007 @ 7:29pm

yet you say Temporary drops per barrel price drops of $10 to $30 will always occur due to economic cycles or geo-shivers!

but Mark my words, China & India will drive world oil consumption to 100 million barrels within ~10yrs!

Both actions occurring simultaneously as our crude oil reserves shrink goes against simple supply and demand fluctuations of a market price.

Perhaps you would like to rethink your rhetoric?

Posted by Will C. at 07/15/2007 @ 8:19pm
"Temporary drops per barrel price drops of $10 to $30 will always occur due to economic cycles or geo-shivers! Buy when it does! I was last in `Buy mode' when oil dropped to $60 late last year & switch to `Sell mode' a month ago when it hit ~$70--" HAPPY

NO SHIT- you are supposed to buy low and sell high? Jesus, no wonder I'm not a hyper rich, uber capitalist genius like you! Will someone please give Warren Buffet here a fucking Nobel prize in Economics for this nugget of wisdom. Douchebag.

Posted by entropy at 07/15/2007 @ 8:22pm
Hehehehe.....Slow night, huh?

I love being the HAPPY CAPITALIST here at TN!!! If you can't stand my `heat', please stay out of my kitchen with just one click! LOL!

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2007 @ 10:35pm
If you can't stand my `heat', please stay out of my kitchen with just one click! LOL!

Posted by HAPPY 07/15/2007 @ 10:35pm

interesting, you put 'heat' in apostrophes. It's almost like your heat isn't really heat but more of a lukewarm, maybe even a tepid

And you know it

:)

Posted by Will C. at 07/15/2007 @ 10:43pm
Saddam gives the families of kids who just blew themselves up $ 25,000 to cover things like the Israelis bulldozing their houses, destroying all their stuff and putting them out on the streets like paupers and the hamsters say he's funding terrorists.

it's probably the only meaningful thing saddam has ever done in his life, a wonderful act of charity to people that had know idea tragedy was about to enter their lives and the hamsters shit all over it.

Posted by WILL C. 07/15/2007 @ 5:18pm

Now here's something you don't see every day. Someone is actually defending Saddam's decision to give money to the families of suicide bombers.

Far be it from me to question the...kindness and...charity of Saddam Hussein, but honestly, this defense is awful. Insofar as the families of suicide bombers tended to be poor, what Saddam was actually doing was giving people an incentive to blow themselves up because maybe their families would be a little better off. That's horrible, and utterly indefensible.

Saddam didn't give money to the families of sucicide bombers out of compassion for their families. The far more rational explanation, far more consistent with who we know Saddam to have been, was that he was aiming to foster terrorism against Israel.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/15/2007 @ 10:56pm
Far be it from me to question the...kindness and...charity of Saddam Hussein, but honestly, this defense is awful. Insofar as the families of suicide bombers tended to be poor, what Saddam was actually doing was giving people an incentive to blow themselves up because maybe their families would be a little better off. That's horrible, and utterly indefensible.

Posted by THRAWN 07/15/2007 @ 10:56pm

Whew, I'm glad you cleared that up for me. And here I mistakenly believed that the suicide bombers were blowing themselves up to fight the Israeli occupation. But it turns out that instead the motivation was as a one time cash flow investment strategy.

Pretty slick huh?

Posted by Will C. at 07/15/2007 @ 11:08pm
i bow to your self percieved omniscience great champion of capitalism!

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/15/2007 @ 8:06pm

Actually, YES!! But, but, but....not only just that, just like China, I, too, can command the weather to help out in my evil capitalist $cheme$! Oh, don't tell anyone, I've got global warming all planned out....to profit of course! Shhhhh..., I'm in it w/your "Inconvenient" hero!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Massive flooding lifts gasoline prices

Lundberg survey finds that massive flooding in the Midwest and oil costs sent prices higher reversing a predicted decline in gasoline prices.

July 15 2007: 7:40 PM EDT

ATLANTA (CNN) -- Flooding in Midwest refineries and bloated oil costs reversed a predicted downdrift in gas prices -- instead pushing average prices to $3.0577, 6 cents higher than the average price three weeks ago, according to survey findings released Sunday.

The Lundberg Survey, conducted by a California oil market research firm, said gas prices began rising after June 22....

Survey publisher Trilby Lundberg said the rise was the result of massive flooding in the Midwest, where heavy rains shut down two major refineries in Whiting, Ind., and Coffeyville, Kan.

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2007 @ 11:11pm
Whew, I'm glad you cleared that up for me. And here I mistakenly believed that the suicide bombers were blowing themselves up to fight the Israeli occupation. But it turns out that instead the motivation was as a one time cash flow investment strategy.

Pretty slick huh?

Posted by WILL C. 07/15/2007 @ 11:08pm

I mean, look. It's not as though these suicide bombers weren't taking their families into consideration. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest that concern for their families might just have been an inhibitor to people blowing themselves up. Having that no longer exist removes that incentive, at the very least. Even more, it likely magnifies any existing incentive by actually providing their families with an opportunity to be better off.

I know you don't seem terribly pleased with this explanation, but answer me honestly. Tell me, which of these makes more sense? That Saddam, contrary to everything he had ever done, was actually acting out of the goodness of his heart, or that he was making a strategic effort to destabilize Israel as he did when he could finally get away with launching a missile right at them?

Posted by Thrawn at 07/15/2007 @ 11:17pm
.....perhaps the reason we arent getting the big payoff has something to do with, um, well...THE MASSIVE INSURGENCY AND ANTI-AMERICAN VIOLENCE? which your stupid, evil ideological heroes were too stupid to foresee?

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/15/2007 @ 4:56pm

Lordy, re-reading your post at a more leisurely pace just reveals the cheesy (full of holes?) nature of your brain!

Contrary to your belief, the big payoffs have been going on for several years! Recall Exxon's last Chairman (Lee Raymond) walked off into the sunset with about $200 million? Didn't I tell to spend just 10 minutes and study oil sector stock prices? To make it easy for you, just look up the performance of the ETF symbol "XLE" for the energy sector, it constitute about 10% of the S&P 500! I've been heavy in energy my entire adult life....sometimes up to 30% of my portfolio! Am I HAPPY? Not as HAPPY as if I had been 100% in energy! but LOL anyhow!

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2007 @ 11:27pm
Posted by THRAWN 07/15/2007 @ 11:17pm

I mean, look. It's not as though these suicide bombers weren't taking their families into consideration. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest that concern for their families might just have been an inhibitor to people blowing themselves up. Having that no longer exist removes that incentive, at the very least. Even more, it likely magnifies any existing incentive by actually providing their families with an opportunity to be better off.

No, they weren't taking there families into consideration. One: they don't tell their families before they blow themselves up. Two: they leave their families to the mercy (Bwah ha ha) of Israeli bulldozers. Three: They were blowing themselves up before saddam stepped in

I know you don't seem terribly pleased with this explanation, but answer me honestly. Tell me, which of these makes more sense? That Saddam, contrary to everything he had ever done, was actually acting out of the goodness of his heart, or that he was making a strategic effort to destabilize Israel as he did when he could finally get away with launching a missile right at them?

I can't speak to the heart of saddam hussein and I have serious doubts that saddam thought a few suicide bombers would destabilize Israel. His scud missiles didn't destabilize Israel. The combined armies of Israel's neighbors didn't destabilize Israel

Posted by Will C. at 07/15/2007 @ 11:31pm
No, they weren't taking there families into consideration. One: they don't tell their families before they blow themselves up. Two: they leave their families to the mercy (Bwah ha ha) of Israeli bulldozers. Three: They were blowing themselves up before saddam stepped in

To start with, response three is really bad; the logic employed could be used against any claim that X contributed to Y, since after all, Y did exist to some extent even before X intervened. In other words...the fact that suicide bombing existed doesn't mean that Saddam didn't make it worse.

One and two are better. The problem with one is that it's not sufficient; not telling their families doesn't mean they weren't taking them into consideration (that's taking for granted, of course, your assumption that they never did in fact tell their families). I believe (and, admittedly, this is just me asserting this with very limited evidence) that many of their families weren't completely unaware that this person they'd interacted with for years in the midst of poverty was about take drastic action.

The second argument may actually help my point. You may be right that those who were willing to blow themselves up previously didn't tend to care about their families, since all that would happen is Israeli reprisal and more suffering. However, a meaningful payment to the family changes everything by making it possible for the family to live even better than they did before. That alters the calculus entirely and could make (or at the very least was intended to make) people willing to engage in suicide bombings who weren't willing to before.

I can't speak to the heart of saddam hussein and I have serious doubts that saddam thought a few suicide bombers would destabilize Israel. His scud missiles didn't destabilize Israel. The combined armies of Israel's neighbors didn't destabilize Israel

One, we can speak to the heart of Saddam Hussein; see...his entire history in power.

Two, if anything, you just helped my point. Saddam's firing of scud missiles illustrates that he was willing to take some level of action against Israel even if that action fell far short of guaranteeing Israel's destruction. It's also a little silly to suggest that someone would only take an action that would fulfill their goals to the maximum extent possible. Most don't tend to refuse what they see as an improvement merely because it falls short of perfect success. His aim to worsen terrorism in Israel is far and away more credible than the claim of compassion which flies in the face of everything we know about Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2007 @ 01:32am
terrorism in Israel

Terrorism in Israel?

Why don't we give the Palestinians the same level of financial aid we give Israel and see if they resort to "terrorism" (suicide bombers) or expensive attack helicopters like Israel.

The plain fact is that suicide bombers is a poor country's way of responding to the state-terrorism of Israel. Calling everyone that fights with unsophisticated weapons a "terrorist" is the same as calling "any" poor people terrorist if they fight back!

And I think this is the real issue: Israel wants the Palestinians to just lie down and take their state-sponsored terrorism without fighting back.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 09:38am
If Pollitt wonders why the anti war movement is so lacklustre, perhaps its because her facts that drive the question are themselves inaccurate. Caution must always be exercised when deriving information from polls. An' thats a fact!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/16/2007 @ 09:57am
While the point raised by this post may be valid, I think it will be political suicide for the left to ally itself with the insurgents, portion of which is AlQaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The anti-war movement is weak for the reasons cited in this post...right wing corporate media and lack of draft.

Posted by kevin99999 at 07/16/2007 @ 10:13am
Terrorism in Israel?

Why don't we give the Palestinians the same level of financial aid we give Israel and see if they resort to "terrorism" (suicide bombers) or expensive attack helicopters like Israel.

The plain fact is that suicide bombers is a poor country's way of responding to the state-terrorism of Israel. Calling everyone that fights with unsophisticated weapons a "terrorist" is the same as calling "any" poor people terrorist if they fight back!

And I think this is the real issue: Israel wants the Palestinians to just lie down and take their state-sponsored terrorism without fighting back.

Posted by METTEYYA 07/16/2007 @ 09:38am

So...I think there needs to be a word about the definition of terrorism. I'm not considering "fighting back with less sophisticated weaponry" terrorism per se, at least not the kind that's automatically morally problematic. What I'm calling terrorism is when a guy strolls up to a mall and blows himself up. No matter how poor a country is, they have no right to specifically and exclusively target civilians for attacks. It's one thing to say that you're going for a military target for which some civilian deaths are inevitable. It's entirely another to just take out a shopping mall. I'm sorry, but "they're poor" doesn't even come close to an excuse.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2007 @ 11:29am
Anti,

Sorry for the delayed response. I am a Trotskyist. Alexander Cockburn is the son of a Stalinist journalist and shares some of his father's politics, including his disdain for Trotskyists and ex-Trots like Chrisotpher Hitchens, deservedly so in the latter case. However, just like his politically somewhat more conservative siblings, Alex is a very talented journalist. That makes him worth reading. Doesn't mean I agree with him on everything, especially as he's gotten older and become more of a pundit than a working journo.

For instance, Cockburn is one of those leftists who argue that Left and Right are now meaningless concepts and that populists on both sides should come together on an at least semi-permanent basis. I read The American Conservative, so I certainly could see myself working with Bob Barr to defend civil liberties, and I think conservative (Andrew Bacevich) and libertarian (Justin Raimondo) opponents of the war should be invited to speak at anti-war rallies along with all of the hack Democrats and their syncophants, but that doesn't mean I think the differences are so slight or secondary that I could be in the same political party as Pat Buchanan!

Posted by cka2nd at 07/16/2007 @ 12:49pm
Cockburn is a leftist's leftist. He's the type who in the fifties would've been a hard-core party member (CP USA, that is) taking the hard line from Moscow. The thrust of this type is "ideological purity" and reality be damned. Pollitt is absolutely right to call him on this and I think her objections to his view are right on target.

Posted by W_M_BEAR 07/14/2007 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person

I don't think this is a fair characterization of Cockburn at all, even with his occasional neo-Stalinist impulses.

Posted by cka2nd at 07/16/2007 @ 12:55pm
For those of you who think that continue to call demanders of 9/11 truth 'conspiracy theorists' without having first examined the evidence, and those that feel that exposing the truth about the government's conspiracy theory...somehow distracts from the anti-war effort: How long do you think the war would continue if our government's complicity in the attacks was proven?

Posted by JLSOLLEY 07/14/2007 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person

Not long at all, but you are presuming that there was complicity in the attack to be found. I, on the other hand, am satisfied with the idea that the Bush Admin. realy didn't give a rat's ass about bin Laden and was instead obsessed about other issues, foreign and domestic. This, combined with some amazing luck for the hijackers and incompetence in the planning and preparation of U.S. air defenses, among other things, not to mention wretched U.S. foreign policy under Dems and Repubs alike, was responsible for 9/11. Congressional investigations should have been held years ago, and might still be useful at just bringing the light of day to all of the secrecy of the Bushites.

Posted by cka2nd at 07/16/2007 @ 1:04pm
It's one thing to say that you're going for a military target for which some civilian deaths are inevitable. It's entirely another to just take out a shopping mall.

War ain't pretty, and I just wish Israel would stick to the original UN deal that created the state of Israel which also provides for a state of Palestine right next to Israel.

The UN deal did not give Israel the right to take over the process of creating the state of Palestine. With Israel in control of the process, the creation of the Palestinian state has been put off indefinitely (70 years, and counting...).

The 'reality' is that no one of Arab descent could get anywhere close to an Israeli military target, so without a military, suicide bombers is the 'only' thing they are left with to fight with.

I don't like civilian targets anymore than you, but what are the 'realistic' alternatives?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 2:43pm
Mett,

Who says the UN had the right to divide up Palestine into Jewish and non-Jewish states? One of the many reasons I am no fan of the UN.

Keeping in mind that I am not a pacifist, just because military targets are not available doesn't mean that civilians should be targeted. Rather than fall into the traps of, guerilla warfare, hijackings, terrorism and then suicide bombings, the last three aimed primarily at civilians, I would argue that the Palestinian movement should have been organizing a labor movement (Palestinians from the Occupied Territory at one time being central to Israel's economy) and conducting non-violent (mostly) civil disobediance. The ANC's organizing of militant, political unions did a lot more to bring down the Apartied regime in South Africa than did their guerilla wing, and organizing on the basis of a revolutionary, non-sectarian and non-nationalist basis in Israel and the Occupied Territories would have involved more people in productive - short-term and long-term - activity than does small-group terrorism.

However, please take the above with a grain of salt because I am by no means a full-blown expert on oppositional politics in Israel, the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian Diaspora. The PLO was founded in the 1950's, and I don't really know if the Stalinists attempted such activity as described above before or after the PLO's founding, or how much of a Trotskyist movement existed at all in Israel.

Posted by cka2nd at 07/16/2007 @ 4:03pm
I am afraid that the reason the peace movement is not more vital, despite record opposition to the war, is that fundamentally the American people want peace on the same terms that they previously wanted the war, with as little personal inconvenience as possible. I think that Pollit has trivialized Cockburn's points, and in doing so proves one of them. The American left has historically embraced the targets of American foreign policy, regardless of the human rights records enjoyed by those regimes. In numbering the many crimes of the so called insurgency, Pollit begs the question about the human rights records of all the Nation's darlings going back to the Bolsheviks. It has become the habit of Obama and Clinton to place the blame for this conflict on the Maliki government and in doing so they undercut their own stated opposition to the war. It is not enough to say this war was a noble cause waged by an inferior President. Or that it was a noble cause but now we weary of these violent Arabs and their inscrutable Oriental ways. The Peace movement that is truly the Peace movement will remain un popular because it will require Americans to acknowledge that indeed our nation is the aggressor.

Posted by blairza at 07/16/2007 @ 5:55pm
War ain't pretty, and I just wish Israel would stick to the original UN deal that created the state of Israel which also provides for a state of Palestine right next to Israel.

The UN deal did not give Israel the right to take over the process of creating the state of Palestine. With Israel in control of the process, the creation of the Palestinian state has been put off indefinitely (70 years, and counting...).

The 'reality' is that no one of Arab descent could get anywhere close to an Israeli military target, so without a military, suicide bombers is the 'only' thing they are left with to fight with.

I don't like civilian targets anymore than you, but what are the 'realistic' alternatives?

Posted by METTEYYA 07/16/2007 @ 2:43pm

One problem with this analysis, of course, is the fact that when Israel actually attempted to negotiate with the Palestinian government, they out-and-out refused to do so.

Beyond that, though, your defense of Palestinian terrorism makes no sense. One, I'm pretty sure that would justify terrorism against any state whatsoever that engaged in profiling (assuming of course that Israel does to the extent you suggest), which is an obviously problematic implication in itself. Two, echoing CKA2ND, the unavailability of military targets doesn't justify attacking civilians, especially since doing so prompts nothing but backlash.

Also, maybe the Palestinian government should get its act together; it seems like they have some pretty serious internal issues to resolve before they can simply point the finger at Israel and complain about not being given an independent state. Unless you're going to contend that their inability to maintain a government is also Israel's fault, I think there are other issues that need to be given attention.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2007 @ 6:38pm
I just reread Cockburn's column, and I think Katha Pollitt did a disservice to him. Cockburn says that anti-war movements are how the left has learned its internationalist ABCs, and regrets the absence of one today. What part of this statement does she disagree with? Who besides anti-war movements (and, okay, some conservative oddballs, who, anyway, are not internationalists) has ever offered a serious alternative to the prevalent view in the US that US power is fundamentally virtuous, if occasionally misdirected? Cockburn also says that the antiwar movement should regard Iraqi resistance fighters as victims of the US invasion, rather than silently glossing over them. Does Pollitt dispute this? Katha Pollitt says the loathsome qualities of the Iraqi resistance are the reason why the antiwar movement is in such dismal shape. Perhaps. But it is also the case that it is the Iraqi resistance that accounts for the growing domestic sentiment for the US to leave Iraq. If they weren't killing American soldiers, we would hear less and less about Iraq, and the occupation would be consolidated, and the US military would be moving on to Venezuela, Cuba, or Iran. There isn't much evidence of a vital anti-imperialist movement in this country, acting in solidarity with the many people worldwide who haven't taken to beheadings while articulating their desire to be free of US domination--or have I missed the big marches against continued US intervention in Columbia, Venezuela, Palestine, the Balkans, etc?

I personally think that since it is neither desirable nor feasible to directly support the Iraqi resistance (in good part for reasons mentioned by Pollitt), it shouldn't be invoked much as a slogan. But I think there needs to be some clarity that bringing down the US empire is a central goal of the global left, and that along with allowing some very good movements to flourish, this would also expand the space for some movements progressives in the US do not like so much. Indeed, some of the strongest resistance to the US is taking form through quite ugly movements. But going on and on about their ugliness (an increasingly central theme in Pollitt's writing) will do more to demoralize those forces working domestically to stop US power than it will demoralize the ugly forcees themselves; furthermore, it is likely to revitalize US power which can invoke specious claims to being pro-women, gay, secular, etc.

Posted by threehegemons at 07/16/2007 @ 7:50pm
Posted by THRAWN 07/16/2007 @ 01:32am | ignore this person

To start with, response three is really bad; the logic employed could be used against any claim that X contributed to Y, since after all, Y did exist to some extent even before X intervened.

Dude you gotta use your brain and maybe take a math class. Saying that Palestinians were blowing themselves up before saddam injected himself into the thing doesn't make a claim that he contributed to it. It makes a claim that it was happening regardless of him

In other words...the fact that suicide bombing existed doesn't mean that Saddam didn't make it worse.

That may be true but that's not the logic I employed. That's just you making shit up. My comment was supporting my assertion that the kids who blow themselves up weren't thinking about their parents when they did it. And the fact that they were willing to blow themselves up before saddam entered as well as after means saddam really didn't matter

One and two are better. The problem with one is that it's not sufficient; not telling their families doesn't mean they weren't taking them into consideration (that's taking for granted, of course, your assumption that they never did in fact tell their families).

You didn't tell me anything with that.

I believe (and, admittedly, this is just me asserting this with very limited evidence) that many of their families weren't completely unaware that this person they'd interacted with for years in the midst of poverty was about take drastic action.

Of course you believe, you're a hamster. Evidence isn't a requirement. On the flip side every time I see a family member interviewed about their kid blowing themselves up they say he never told us. If he told us we would have tried to stop him. Oh, and emotionally they are all torn up.

The second argument may actually help my point. You may be right that those who were willing to blow themselves up previously didn't tend to care about their families, since all that would happen is Israeli reprisal and more suffering. However, a meaningful payment to the family changes everything by making it possible for the family to live even better than they did before.

Yup , I one time cash flow investment strategy that gets my house torn down and my family put out on the street. Considering that Israel has a standard of living that mirrors ours, is more expensive to live within because Israel lacks nature resources and must import, that the economies of the occupied territories are tied to Israel's, exactly how much of that twenty five grand do you think is left after the family of exploding boy buys another house�. with that whopping 25 g's they got in compensation from saddam

That alters the calculus entirely and could make (or at the very least was intended to make) people willing to engage in suicide bombings who weren't willing to before.

There is no calculus involved here. This is basic math

One, we can speak to the heart of Saddam Hussein; see...his entire history in power.

Sure, he's been charitable to Sunni Muslims as a group for his entire history. They love the guy. And the Palestinians are Sunni

Two, if anything, you just helped my point. Saddam's firing of scud missiles illustrates that he was willing to take some level of action against Israel even if that action fell far short of guaranteeing Israel's destruction.

But you didn't make that point. Until now.

It's also a little silly to suggest that someone would only take an action that would fulfill their goals to the maximum extent possible.

I didn't suggest that. You did silly boy.

Most don't tend to refuse what they see as an improvement merely because it falls short of perfect success.

So then you're saying that saddam is just like the rest of us.

His aim to worsen terrorism in Israel is far and away more credible than the claim of compassion which flies in the face of everything we know about Saddam Hussein.

ok, make your case

Posted by Will C. at 07/16/2007 @ 8:44pm
Who cares about the latest dust-up between two Nation magazine relics? Is it not obvious that they are motivated by one thing only and that is vanity?

Cockburn, ever the preening provocateur to the self-regardingly sensible Pollitt puts no tactical coalition out of bounds. Pollitt is unable to make common cause with anyone but murderously imperialist Democrats presumably because their bombs and sanctions don't discriminate based on gender. They'll be having these silly little arguments 20 years from now.

Left politics are far too important to be left to effete, privileged petty creeps like the Nation tea party. Ignore these idiots.

Posted by brooklynexpat at 07/16/2007 @ 9:09pm
The fundamental issue to be recognized is that the war in Iraq is a WAR OF NATIONAL LIBERATION. The forces fighting to liberate Iraq from American domination are called the Iraqi resistance, but they are in reality different groups, with different political agendas. Some of these groups that make up the Iraqi resistance are probably quite reactionary in their views towards women, towards gays, etc. But their efforts and achievements in fighting against American imperialism have been impressive. These poorly equipped armies of Iraqi resistance fighters have delivered a devastating blow to the world's mightiest army: the American military.

If the Iraqi resistance wins it's war of national liberation, it will have dealt a major defeat to American imperialism, and many people in the third world will be spared the horrors of an American military invasion of their country thanks to the comeuppance that the American military received in Iraq.

It is from this point of view that the Iraqi resistance should be judged. The Iraqi resistance should not be judged according to their views about women, about gays, or any other idiotic liberal concern. Liberal idiots like Pollit will never understand this. The title of Pollit's article seems to imply that the Iraqi resistance is about cutting innocent people's heads. How absurd!

The Iraqi resistance is concerned about winning the national liberation of Iraq. Their views on women's liberation, or gay rights, or animal rights are totally irrelevant to what is going on in Iraq right now. Only American liberal idiots are stupid enough to be unable to appreciate that if American imperialism is dealt a death blow in Iraq by the efforts of the Iraq resistance, the world will be a better place for all of us.

Posted by Bluto at 07/16/2007 @ 10:02pm
....if American imperialism is dealt a death blow in Iraq by the efforts of the Iraq resistance, the world will be a better place for all of us.

Posted by BLUTO 07/16/2007 @ 10:02pm

I'm curious, BLUTO, does your "all of us" include women, gays, liberals, Christians, prostitutes, adulterers, X-rated film producers & performers, cartoonists that insults Allah (as he probably deserves), authors who shows the Koran to be Satanic Verses (probably spot on),....you know, everybody in the West that Islam considers `bad'?

Posted by Happy at 07/16/2007 @ 10:49pm
It would be nice if all serious opposition to American imperialism had read and taken to heart all of impressively enlightened Happy's bumper stickers. It would be equally nice if folks like Pollit and Happy felt compelled to understand the Iraqi resistance as complex and diverse -- in the same way resistance to an occupation would certainly be here -- rather than in the nakedly racist way they do. Look at silly Happy, living in a country that has sponsored the murder of over 600,000 people, torture, gang rape of Iraqi teens scolding Iraqis for being insufficiently indulgent of racist cartoons and pornography. And trust Happy will be only too happy to throw in with war mongers like Clinton and Obama who pledge to pull us out of Iraq and into Iran.

I'm a gay, feminist kind of person and I'm with Bluto. For the world to win, American imperialism must lose and lose big. I'm for anyone that will kick its ass. I don't care about their politics, at least, not at the moment.

Posted by brooklynexpat at 07/16/2007 @ 11:19pm
Do we really know who is behind what in this current chaotic miasma that is Iraq? With private contractors, the CIA, the Pentagon psyops, the Mossad, the PKK, etc. all running the theater of slaughter in a deadly free-for-all, the ones we should empathize with are the Iraqis who simply want to get on with their lives and who must fight these black merchants of death. I am convinced that the bombing of the Shiite mosques, the universities, etc. are not the work of Iraqis, but the chaos is created by agents of far more nefarious goals. We will not know the full story until the CIA unveils more "family jewels" in the distant future.

Posted by Qwertyuiop at 07/16/2007 @ 11:23pm
So..I put a post on here and it seems to have vanished somehow. Given that, I'll try and just write a shorter version.

Posted by WILL C. 07/16/2007 @ 8:44pm

My argument is simply that Saddam's "donation" was designed for the specific purpose of increasing terrorism in Israel. Even though you may be right that this doesn't give an incentive for people to blow themselves up, it certainly (by your own admission) means that they no longer have to worry about screwing over their families in doing so. This is the most likely purpose for Saddam's action, given that all of his action in the past, even when he helped someone out, was based on oppressing everyone else; the only way he helped out the Sunnis was by viciously oppressing all of the other cultural groups, including gassing the Kurds. In no world is that justifiable.

Posted by BLUTO 07/16/2007 @ 10:02pm

Ohhhh dear; I hardly know where to start.

How in the world does the Iraqi resistance deserve sympathy? Your claim that they're not directly connected to stuff like beheadings is factually untrue. Also, I'm curious as to what precisely their goal is. They're certainly doing everything they can to undercut whatever government is and has been in place, and if anything, seem to have a very clear to desire to establish a theocratic (real theocratic, not the "theocratic" government that the US is comically alleged to have).

Also...God forbid that American imperialism try to unseat an oppressive dictator! You're right in that our invasion has not really made the Iraqi people significantly better off, but I would argue that this is largely because we screwed up the reconstruction big-time. The idea, though, that any action is nothing more than the imperialist efforts of an evil empire is nothing short of absurd.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/16/2007 @ 11:25pm
I'm a gay, feminist kind of person and I'm with Bluto.

Posted by BROOKLYNEXPAT 07/16/2007 @ 11:19pm

This is hilarious! I'm falling backward in my chair! Bluto would behead your gay, feminist, infidel head and video tape it! Go read "While Europe Slept" authored by a gay New York PhD who spent several years living in Europe! Troubling trends of Muslims advancing their version of `tolerance'.....perfectly lovely for you gays....like extinction!

Well, if Islam is to dominate the world, at least the Evangelical Christians won't have a gay issue anymore......!

Posted by Happy at 07/17/2007 @ 12:06am
Back in the supposed glory days (opposing Reagan's wars in Central America) when Cockburn seems to think we had a powerful anti-war movement, I remember lots of despairing talk about not being able to stop the war. I don't recall having 2/3s of the public against those wars or Republicans falling all over themselves to distance themselves from one of the most unpopular presidents in history or majorities of Congress voting to stop. The historical analogy rings false to me.

Posted by Slade at 07/17/2007 @ 12:46am
Did QWERTYUIOP ever work for the Sweetheart Cup Corp.?

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/17/2007 @ 07:39am
Thrawn, you again have it all backwards. Israel is in the wrong punishing the families of suicide bombers. the women and children of those families did not commit any crime.

Saddam's payment to these families were acts of charity and political statements. they were not downpayments for future suicide bombers. it defies credulity to say that the suicide bomber kills himself to get a new house for his family. suicide bombers, often educated professionals, have a strong political agenda, one for which they are ready to die.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 08:32am
How in the world does the Iraqi resistance deserve sympathy?

they're fighting a foreign invader?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 08:39am
JR, While it is always admirable to find people willing to die for their convictions, lets not confuse patriots with murderers. These people are the scum of the earth. Just once I would like to see one of them linger long enough to see the results of their "efforts", a woman wailing over her dead child, or an innocent boy screaming over his own severed arm, all because he thinks he's right. Its never right to attack others in the quest for your own goals, especially innocents. That their culture is different, that their incorporation of religion into their daily lives is more intense and encompassing than a westerner would understand is no excuse. Somewhere there has to be a bottom line, a base value system that dictates that murder is wrong. These people do not have these values, or they have suspended their belief in them for the sake of the "cause". They are the New Barbarians, little better than 21st century Ismaili. While Bushes' incursion into Iraq and the reasons for it, his belief that he could turn Iraq into a democracy, was folly, the idea of ridding the world of these primitives who, educated or not are slaves to their emotions, is a good one. The sooner we are rid of people like this, the better we will all be.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/17/2007 @ 09:02am
These people do not have these values, or they have suspended their belief in them for the sake of the "cause". They are the New Barbarians, little better than 21st century Ismaili.

Pure, rancid racism. As religion was the cudgel with which the Spaniards beat the indigenous people of South America; as civilization and culture were the 'moral' underpinnings of English subjugation of the 'wogs', 'democracy' and the most idiotic brand of identity politics now sell the subjugation of Arabs in oil rich countries.

As I said before, Pollitt's and Cockburn's exchange was an exercise in vanity, not serious political discourse. And it has attracted a swarm of equally unserious, deluded, vain people. Look at what your enlightened culture has wrought, fools.

Posted by brooklynexpat at 07/17/2007 @ 10:18am
I don't understand how this is racism. Those who have chosen to become suicide bombers have done precisely what Chip articulated: they have suspended any concern for the murder of innocents, and have chosen to specifically target them for the sake of their larger cause. Precisely what in this analysis are you disputing?

It's not as though moderate liberals or conservatives are really just trying to "go subjugate those Arabs." Even if you believe that the current government is aiming to do so (for which the evidence is suspect at best), that's certainly not something that the overwhelming majority of people would value at all. What they do value is stopping a particular group of people with an ideology defined so as to explicitly target innocent people, including innocent Americans. Reacting against that ideology, and against dictators that oppress their own population, is absolutely justified.

In case it wasn't clear (in preemption of another post), we have absolutely done some really bad stuff in Iraq. We seriously screwed up the reconstruction, and some of our troops have done horrible things to native Iraqis. I don't deny any of that; those troops should be punished harshly and condemned for what they've done. That doesn't make the Iraq war imperialist, nor does it justify those who prey on the innocent.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2007 @ 11:34am
TO: BROOKLYNNEXPAT: No one claimed what the Spanish did in Latin America was a good thing. You're creating an arguement I never made so you can then dispute it, for what purpose I do not know. And as for racism, if you think my getting indignant over such things as fanatics flying airplanes into buildings and burning up/pulverizing 3000 innocent people constitutes racism, then you need to rethink the concept.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/17/2007 @ 11:36am
Bluto and Brooklyn,

While I agree that the defeat of American Imperialism in Iraq is a good thing, that doesn't mean that we have to ignore or gloss over unsavory aspects of the insurgency. I have no problem with demanding of the insurgents that queers not be murdered or women forced back into the 13th century at the same time that I am working to get the U.S. the hell out of Iraq. It is patronizing to foreign oppositionists to say that we have nothing to say regarding their actions. In my time, I've heard of Sandanistas and ANC'ers welcome honest and constructive criticism from foregin anti-war activists even as other activists tried to shut such criticism down.

It does no one any good to NOT clarify who is fighting whom and on what basis that fight is being carried on. I have no problem saying a plague on both your houses to Al Queida in Iraq and the U.S., but that doesn't mean I have to quietly and uncritically embrace the Mahdi Army, the Baathists or other sectarian militias. Frankly, I'd rather see a non-sectarian, revolutionary left alternative develop in Iraq. There are signs of a resurgence of the left across the Arab world in response to funamentalist oppression and sectarian slaughter. I want to keep my eyes clear in case such a happy development comes to Iraq, rather than pretend that all insurectionists are the same.

Posted by cka2nd at 07/17/2007 @ 11:40am
Thrawn, you again have it all backwards. Israel is in the wrong punishing the families of suicide bombers. the women and children of those families did not commit any crime.

Saddam's payment to these families were acts of charity and political statements. they were not downpayments for future suicide bombers. it defies credulity to say that the suicide bomber kills himself to get a new house for his family. suicide bombers, often educated professionals, have a strong political agenda, one for which they are ready to die.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 08:32am

You're right about the families; if Will's premise about lack of knowledge is right, they absolutely didn't commit any crime, and thus don't deserve to be punish. That, of course, suggests that the reason Israel does so is to deter future suicide bombers. If they do, I think it's a harder issue than it would otherwise be, though I would still lean on the side of that retribution against the families being unjustified.

And so, we get to the idea that Saddam was just trying to make a political statement, not trying to create more suicide bombers. Bull. It's not that people will be enticed into suicide bombers because their families get a cool house; it's that they don't have to make the same kind of choice between suicide bombing and their families because their families have enough money not to be worse off like they would have been.

Additionally, like I've said before, the idea that Saddam wanted to simply mount some kind of peaceful protest against an oppressive government is laughable at best. When a country refused to lower its price of oil for him, he invaded them. When the Kurds protested him, he gassed them. This is no man of compassion; he's a murderer plain and simple, trying to sponsor more murder of innocents in the West Bank.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2007 @ 11:43am
Unless you're going to contend that their inability to maintain a government is also Israel's fault, I think there are other issues that need to be given attention.

Of course the destabilization of the Palestinian government is Israel's fault. They refuse to recognize the duly elected Hamas government which doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist in its current form, in which it continues to hold onto land it took by force and continues to terrorize the Palestinians with US made helicopter gunships on an essentially defenseless people.

Divide and conquer by pitting Fatah against Hamas with US money is a recipe for disaster. In "every" country where divide and conquer has been pursued, the resulting animosity between the divided groups has lasted for decades, if not centuries.

Do you really want a Rwanda situation in Palestine? I'm sure this would be convenient cover for Israel to point the finger at "them" and say "look, it's their fault if they can't get along," when we all know that this was a set up with the current divide and conquer strategy.

When will we learn?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2007 @ 1:58pm
Met, I would think that the palestinians bear some responsibility for their fate. not that i would expect you to feature that in your arguments.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 2:31pm
Thrawn, the problem with your argument is that the suicide bombers exist whether or not Saddam built their family a new house, after Israel used what is called collective punishment.

another is the fact that many other arabs support the suicide bombers and their political institutions.Saudi being one of them.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 2:34pm
CK, "or women forced back into the 13th century"

Iraq was the most secular of all arab nations. Women went to schools, were practicing physicians and civil servants. their status in that country now is a direct result of the US invasion, and the US decision to support the Shia over the sunni in Iraq.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 2:37pm
.God forbid that American imperialism try to unseat an oppressive dictator!

Thrawn, let's not make it look like getting him to give up his seat on the bus.

we smashed and destroyed the country of Iraq, worse than Saddam ever did, causing more deaths and refugees than he ever did.and we ain't done yet.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 2:40pm
I have one possible solution for Bush, who claims to get his orders from god: crucify him.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 2:44pm
"No matter how poor a country is, they have no right to specifically and exclusively target civilians for attacks. "

right you are. what Britain and the US did with saturation bombings of civilian target cities in germany and japan was genocide. crimes for which they have never been held responsible. the moral high ground in this does not belong to the US. they are still bombing civilians.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 2:49pm
Posted by BROOKLYNEXPAT 07/17/2007 @ 10:18am | ignore this person

insulting everyone here, does not garner you an audience, fool.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 2:54pm
Look, this is a war YOUR government and YOUR army are fighting. You can't just sit back, keep your hands clean and say you don't like any of the options. Either you want the US to win or you support the resistance. Anything else is just irrelevant hypocrisy and cowardice. If it were Satan himself fighting the US in Iraq I'd support him. If you're waiting for a bunch of saintly, secular, left-liberal vegetarian types to take up arms against the US before you say you want the resistance to win, you'll be waiting a long time (and isn't that convenient!)

Posted by rakhia at 07/17/2007 @ 4:18pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/17/2007 @ 1:58pm

Of course the destabilization of the Palestinian government is Israel's fault. They refuse to recognize the duly elected Hamas government which doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist in its current form, in which it continues to hold onto land it took by force and continues to terrorize the Palestinians with US made helicopter gunships on an essentially defenseless people.

You're right...minus the caveat. Hamas actually denies Israel's right to exist...period. That's kind of a problem for negotiation.

Thrawn, the problem with your argument is that the suicide bombers exist whether or not Saddam built their family a new house, after Israel used what is called collective punishment.

another is the fact that many other arabs support the suicide bombers and their political institutions.Saudi being one of them.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 2:34pm

One, the fact that many people choose to become suicide bombers regardless isn't responsive. I'm saying that there are people who wouldn't become suicide bombers otherwise, but choose to because their family are no longer made worse off in the way that they would have been. That point has never been responded to. People would be more willing to act when they no longer feel that their action will devastate their family's ability to survive.

Thrawn, let's not make it look like getting him to give up his seat on the bus.

we smashed and destroyed the country of Iraq, worse than Saddam ever did, causing more deaths and refugees than he ever did.and we ain't done yet.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 2:40pm

Here's the problem, though, because you're right that we've seriously screwed up Iraq. The argument I was responding to was the notion that merely entering Iraq, apart from the shape of the country afterwards, was evil and imperialist. Had the reconstruction effort actually been intelligently-managed, I think attacks against it would be far less justified.

No matter how poor a country is, they have no right to specifically and exclusively target civilians for attacks. "

right you are. what Britain and the US did with saturation bombings of civilian target cities in germany and japan was genocide. crimes for which they have never been held responsible. the moral high ground in this does not belong to the US. they are still bombing civilians.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 2:49pm

gen�o�cide �noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Clearly, our action doesn't fit that standard, and to some extent making the claim that it does trivializes the notion of genocide. In no way were our actions intended to wipe out any national or racial group.

There are a couple of problems with your analogy, though I'm glad you've conceded that Palestinian terrorism is morally unjustified.

There was reason to believe that the Japanese cities were actively involved in the war effort. The distinction between civilian and military was not pronounced in WWII Japan the way it tends to be now. I would agree, though, that though our actions were motivated by a sincere belief in their necessity, there are some serious moral questions raised.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2007 @ 7:59pm
Look, this is a war YOUR government and YOUR army are fighting. You can't just sit back, keep your hands clean and say you don't like any of the options. Either you want the US to win or you support the resistance. Anything else is just irrelevant hypocrisy and cowardice. If it were Satan himself fighting the US in Iraq I'd support him. If you're waiting for a bunch of saintly, secular, left-liberal vegetarian types to take up arms against the US before you say you want the resistance to win, you'll be waiting a long time (and isn't that convenient!)

Posted by RAKHIA 07/17/2007 @ 4:18pm

Hmm, now that's a difficult dilemma...who do I want to win, the US...or the resistance? I feel fairly comfortable in preferring the former.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2007 @ 8:01pm
" I'm saying that there are people who wouldn't become suicide bombers otherwise, but choose to because their family are no longer made worse off in the way that they would have been."

how would you know that? mindreader of dead people? this is an assertion without a shred of evidence.

"the notion that merely entering Iraq, apart from the shape of the country afterwards, was evil and imperialist."

that is exactly what I'm saying. it was and is an illegal war of aggression.

ok, mass murder and not genocide. your suggestion of targeting civilian populations because there were somehow military targets there is nonsense. firbombing Tokio and Dresden? no military targets there. Truman lied publicly about Hiroshima being a military base and target. that big lie should give anyone pause.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 8:49pm
The distinction between civilian and military was not pronounced in WWII Japan the way it tends to be now.

and this is based on what? I have read numerous histories of WW2 and I have never come across this assertion.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 9:04pm
Hamas actually denies Israel's right to exist...period. That's kind of a problem for negotiation.

a minor problem to be sure. Egypt and Jordan spouted the same kind of rhetoric, all arabs do from time to time, and Iranians too. yet egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 9:07pm
who do I want to win, the US...or the resistance?

perhaps you can explain what you mean by win? by the US.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 9:12pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 8:49pm

" I'm saying that there are people who wouldn't become suicide bombers otherwise, but choose to because their family are no longer made worse off in the way that they would have been."

how would you know that? mindreader of dead people? this is an assertion without a shred of evidence.

I don't think it's that much of a stretch. The only assumption it requires is that there are people who both are inclined towards suicide bombing, and also have some degree of concern about the welfare of their family. I don't think it's that much of a stretch. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this is why Israel targets their families to begin with; they don't have any other reason for doing so, and please don't try to argue that "they just do it 'cause they're evil."

"the notion that merely entering Iraq, apart from the shape of the country afterwards, was evil and imperialist."

that is exactly what I'm saying. it was and is an illegal war of aggression.

ok, mass murder and not genocide. your suggestion of targeting civilian populations because there were somehow military targets there is nonsense. firbombing Tokio and Dresden? no military targets there. Truman lied publicly about Hiroshima being a military base and target. that big lie should give anyone pause.

Did he actually? I honestly didn't know that, though I'll have to check up on sources to confirm it. What I do know, though, is that Truman was not a person willing to bomb targets for no reason, nor was he someone who didn't care at all about human life.

Under the regime of the emperor as it existed, if I've read my history correctly, there was the expectation that any attack on Japan would be resisted by all elements of society, and result in overwhelming quantities of casualties on all sides. That was the grounds on which Truman made his decision.

On Iraq, we obviously disagree, but I think there is legitimate reason to believe that the initial decision to invade (independent of questions of how we did it) was justified. Quite simply: what is the alternative course of action? Continue sanctions and starve the Iraqi population? Lift sanctions and watch as WMD programs are reconstituted? Outside of an effort to remove Saddam from power, I don't see any third option, and it should be apparent that neither of the other two are anywhere near acceptable. In fact, the unacceptability of continuing sanctions has been nicely supported by your own previous arguments.

Back to the Palestinians:

Hamas actually denies Israel's right to exist...period. That's kind of a problem for negotiation.

a minor problem to be sure. Egypt and Jordan spouted the same kind of rhetoric, all arabs do from time to time, and Iranians too. yet egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 9:07pm

A couple of problems with this. One, I'm pretty sure that neither Egypt nor Jordan spouts that kind of rhetoric now, and Iran (the one that does still do it) is a huge security concern for Israel right now (with the nuclear weapon that they're almost certainly building). Two, a major difference between Hamas and these countries is that Hamas is actively fighting Israel. They're not just shouting slogans and throwing nasty looks at Israelis. Ongoing violence makes peace slightly difficult, and that violence certainly didn't end when Sharon ordered withdrawals from previously-occupied territory.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/18/2007 @ 12:50am
who do I want to win, the US...or the resistance?

perhaps you can explain what you mean by win? by the US.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 9:12pm

I guess the best way would just be "winning=being successful and meeting goals." Winning for the US would probably entail a stable Iraq, winning for the insurgents would mean...not so much. I'm not assuming that it is possible for the US to win in Iraq (it's becoming less and less likely, that's for sure), but given the choice between the US winning and insurgents winning, I pick the former without hesitation.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/18/2007 @ 12:51am
"winning=being successful

a completely bankrupt argument. go ahead read it again. being successful at what?

don't feel too bad. we have a huge gov't apparatus and they can't do it either.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 08:32am
A couple of problems with this. One, I'm pretty sure that neither Egypt nor Jordan spouts that kind of rhetoric now, and Iran (the one that does still do it) is a huge security concern for Israel right now (with the nuclear weapon that they're almost certainly building). Two, a major difference between Hamas and these countries is that Hamas is actively fighting Israel. They're not just shouting slogans and throwing nasty looks at Israelis. Ongoing violence makes peace slightly difficult, and that violence certainly didn't end when Sharon ordered withdrawals from previously-occupied territory.

Posted by THRAWN 07/18/2007 @ 12:50am | ignore this person

this is nonsense. Egypt and Jordan fought numerous wars against Israel. Iran was never involved. you have a very selective memory of history.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 08:34am
Iran has never attacked anyone. don't believe the hype that they are this huge threat to us or Israel. by all reports Iran is years away from a nuke. what if they had one? you think they would use it? this flies in the face of history. there have been no nuclear exchanges, even when the two countries having nukes are at war. see India and Pakistan.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 08:39am
One, I'm pretty sure that neither Egypt nor Jordan spouts that kind of rhetoric now,

a non sequitur. they used that rhetoric before they made peace, obviously. and that was my point. the rhetoric did not stop them from making peace.get it?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 09:05am
Hamas is not exactly a great threat to Israel's survival.they are a relatively small guerilla group, that Israel can deal with.

"Ongoing violence makes peace slightly difficult,"

yes, but negotiations are the way forward. it worked with Egypt and Jordan, and Saudi. Israel will have to give up something, the settlers in the west bank, and the palestinians will have to give up the right of return and east jerusalem. a negotiated settlement means both sides are equally unhappy.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 09:10am
You're right...minus the caveat. Hamas actually denies Israel's right to exist...period. That's kind of a problem for negotiation.

I keep hearing this over and over again in the mainstream press that Hamas does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, but could not find such a statement in the Hamas charter.

Could any of you pro-Israeli types please enlighten me as to where I can find this statement in the charter of Hamas?

I think what has happened is that statements regarding the "triumph of Islam" over other religions have been misconstrued to mean that Islam intends to "force" others to except Islam.

The Quran contradicts such claims when it says "let there be no compulsion in religion because truth will clearly stand out from falsehood"(2:256). This would imply that other religions can co-exist with Islam, and not be 'obliterated by force,/i>', but by exposure to the truth.

The Hamas charter appears to be a war charter against those who have wronged the Palestinians. Rectifying these wrongs would make the charter and the group unnecessary. I honestly believe if the dialog with Hamas was about rectifying the wrongs (taking Palestinian land by force), they would negotiate in good faith.

And, no, I am not a Muslim, I am a Buddhist - but I have studied most of the leading religions in great detail.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/18/2007 @ 6:58pm
You're right...minus the caveat. Hamas actually denies Israel's right to exist...period. That's kind of a problem for negotiation.

I keep hearing this over and over again in the mainstream press that Hamas does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, but could not find such a statement in the Hamas charter.

Could any of you pro-Israeli types please enlighten me as to where I can find this statement in the charter of Hamas?

I think what has happened is that statements regarding the "triumph of Islam" over other religions have been misconstrued to mean that Islam intends to "force" others to except Islam.

The Quran contradicts such claims when it says "let there be no compulsion in religion because truth will clearly stand out from falsehood"(2:256). This would imply that other religions can co-exist with Islam, and not be 'obliterated by force,', but by exposure to the truth.

The Hamas charter appears to be a war charter against those who have wronged the Palestinians. Rectifying these wrongs would make the charter and the group unnecessary. I honestly believe if the dialog with Hamas was about rectifying the wrongs (taking Palestinian land by force), they would negotiate in good faith.

And, no, I am not a Muslim, I am a Buddhist - but I have studied most of the leading religions in great detail.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/18/2007 @ 6:58pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/18/2007 @ 6:58pm | ignore this person

you're not Fromredbird, are you?

it is true that until the enlightenment Islam was more tolerant of other's religions than the west. alas, though, the enlightenment has passed Islam by, leaving a medieval attitude in many muslims.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 8:21pm
met, you surely have noticed that I refuse to demonize muslims AND Israelis.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 8:22pm
Well, you could probably ask Rolf where the specific citation for "Hamas denies Israel's right to exist" is, but it's definitely accurate, and has been for some time. This has nothing directly to do with what the Quran itself mandates.

The bottom line is that Palestine refuses to negotiate with the Israelis. Every time that negotiations have been tried, as best I can recall, the Palestinians have been unwilling to compromise (though not recognizing your negotiating partner's right to exist probably helps with that). When that refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist is coupled with constant arming and constant suicide-bombing (rather than, say, one offensive and no more attacks afterwards), trust also becomes difficult. That Sharon's retreat from prior Israel-held territory generated no return concessions or even recognition of any kind should also be an indicator.

As for Iran, there does exist good evidence that they either have or are working on a nuclear weapons, otherwise Israel wouldn't be terrible concerned in the first place (and, say, threatening to take action). Given Iran's ongoing mutual understanding (though perhaps not friendship) with many terrorist groups (ranging from Hezbollah to al-Qaeda), they have legitimate reason for concern.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/18/2007 @ 8:26pm
The bottom line is that Palestine refuses to negotiate with the Israelis.

this is, I believe, far too simplistic, Thrawn.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 8:38pm
they have legitimate reason for concern.

I'll tell you who had a legitimate reason for concern. the US when it had thousands of nuclear missiles targeted on its cities, and the soviets too. yet both sides survived, and negotiated. Bush is busy undoing these advances by dissing the russians at every turn, to the extent that they have pulled out of arms control agreements.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 8:41pm
I have seen no suggestion that Iran backed or is backing AL Qaeda.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 8:41pm
Iran has, in the past and to a lesser extent still, allowed al-Qaeda members to pass through their territory unmolested, so while they may not be feeding them arms, their relationship is hardly a hostile one. When Iran definitively acquires nuclear weapons, it's entirely possible that their security might just...slip a bit. "Far-fetched" will undoubtedly be your response, but I doubt that Israel's concern comes solely from manufacturing phantoms, nor does ours.

Moreover, there are (shockingly) parties whose willingness to negotiate or trustworthiness in doing so are questionable at best. Palestine and Russia are perfect examples of this. Russia has almost never kept to its arms control agreements, and I highly doubt that Putin is doing so. I guess, though, that we shouldn't be impugning Russia's sterling committment to democracy and human rights, things which were mistakenly glossed over during parts of the Cold War. The Palestinian "authorities," at least, are up-front about negotiation; they've refused to do it at all. Far from simplistic, it's the clear conclusion from their unwillingness to ever accept anything that Israel offers, even when they do so without explicit strings attached. That hardly speaks of a desire for peace, or at least a peace in which Israel continues to exist.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/19/2007 @ 12:30am
Thrawn you are concerned with what might happen in the case of Iran, while ignoring what has happened in Pakistan. they have nukes, have spread nukes and have a far cozier relationship with Al Qaeda.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 08:43am
You're right. Pakistan, in that regard, is definitely a greater concern than Iran, especially since al Qaeda has been able to use Pakistan as a steady base of operations from which to coordinate attacks (like the failed London plane attack). I would submit, though, that Iran still gives us cause for concern.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/19/2007 @ 09:31am
a rare moment of agreement. the situation with Pakistan was the case before we invaded Iraq. I share your concern for this, our country. perhaps we can both continue our efforts to prevent concern from becoming hysteria. Even a large threat must be kept in perspective.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 09:35am
To add a bit of spice here.....

2, 4, 6 & 8! This Stock Market is Really Great!

At this very moment, Apple, IBM & Exxon, the most lasting icons of American capitalism, are all setting Record Highs!

Posted by Happy at 07/19/2007 @ 12:37pm
I would submit, though, that Iran still gives us cause for concern.

Thrawn,

Who is 'us'?

What is NOT reported on sufficiently in the mainstream press is that there is a gas 'shortage' in Iran because of a lack of refining capacity. They are actually rationing gas at the pump. This fact would be supportive of Iran's intention to use nuclear technology for 'peaceful' purposes.

But even if Iran has ulterior motives in developing nuclear technology, how can you blame them when Israel refuses to subject itself to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and has actually developed nuclear weapons in violation of this treaty?

If Israel wants the United States to police other nations in the region who 'may' be developing nuclear weapons, they need to start acting like a responsible country themselves by signing on to NPT, destroying their own nukes, and start to be a real force for non-proliferation throughout the Middle East.

Until Israel does this, they lack credibility when complaining about nuclear programs of others in its neighborhood, and the US should be smart enough to recognize that this is simply a power-ploy by Israel and their AIPAC sponsors to make Israel the 'superpower' of the Middle East.

The right-wing Christian evangelical supporters of AIPAC want a much larger Israel as described in the Christian Bible, because 'their' interpretation (which is also pretty questionable) of the crazy utterings of John in the book of Revelations require a much larger Israel to be in place before Christ returns again. This can only occur if Israel is successful in weakening all of its neighbors so they can take more territory by force.

Forcing a right wing Christian ideology on the rest of the world and on Israel's neighbors is wrong. It is completely disrespectful of the rights of these non-Judeao-Christian nations, and attempts to elevate 'by force' Christian ideas over those of other religious traditions. This is precisely what occurred during the Crusades, which was one of the lowest points in world history.

Should the US really be sponsoring this re-constituted effort to force Christian ideas on the rest of the world with a 'New Crusade'? How would we feel if some other religion forced their ideology on us? If we would not like that prospect, then I suggest that these right-wing evangelical Christians that comprise a large percentage of AIPAC's support take heed of the words of their beloved Christ and 'not do unto others what they would not want done to themselves'!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/19/2007 @ 4:34pm
First, on the Christianity, you're absolutely correct. The desire of some to impose a dangerous millenialism absolutely deserves a great deal of criticism, as does the unfortunate tendency of Christians to sometimes act in ways contrary to those Jesus advocated.

As I alluded to before, there is good reason to suspect that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, both based on our own intelligence and Israel's great degree of concern. With that in mind, I've already made clear that there are a number of reasons to be concerned, one of the most important of which is the possibility that terrorists might...mysteriously get ahold of one. As Rolf pointed out, though, I think it's reasonable to suggest that Pakistan poses an even greater concern.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/19/2007 @ 11:33pm

Katha Pollitt

Strongly held opinions on politics, feminism, culture, books and daily life.

2,4,6,8! This Beheading is Really Great!

posted by Katha Pollitt on 07/13/2007 @ 3:30pm

Katha Pollitt

Archives

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» The Beat

» Act Now!

» Editor's Cut

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

2,4,6,8! This Beheading is Really Great!

posted by Katha Pollitt on 07/13/2007 @ 3:30pm

Share this article

Katha Pollitt

Archives

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» The Beat

» Act Now!

» Editor's Cut

» And Another Thing

» Altercation