7 Responses to “Dumbfounded”

1. #1 |  Barry |  March 20th, 2003 at 9:36 am

   No, he pointed out that the oft-cited examples (German, Japan) involved a literal crushing of the civilian populations, and that this probably helped in the post-war reshaping of their societies.

2. #2 |  markp |  March 20th, 2003 at 10:24 am

   he also observes that Weimar Germany was a “deeply authoritarian and militaristic political culture”. hm. learn somethin’ new every day…

3. #3 |  Aimee Kollar |  March 20th, 2003 at 10:25 am

   How are you speechless if you just wrote that paragraph?

   ;) j/k. rotfl. %} apgj,r?

   #!)

4. #4 |  Kate |  March 20th, 2003 at 10:52 am

   “But part of that importance was the contrast between how much these populations had suffered during the war and how much better things got for them after we took over.”
   What would he suggest we do to make the suffering of the Iraqi people worse during the war than it was before? Just giving him his scary little argument–dont we have in Iraq a suffering, ‘mauled’ society w/out having to render them this way ourselves?

5. #5 |  Radley Balko |  March 20th, 2003 at 11:35 am

   Barry,

   Yes, because the Germans and Japanese largely supported their governments.

   Hawks have (correctly) told us that the Iraqis aren’t supportive of Hussein, that they’re effectively hostages. We hear they’re surrendering already, and might even turn on Hussein.

   Why, then, is it necessary to kill as many of them as possible?

6. #6 |  Andrew |  March 20th, 2003 at 5:15 pm

   Radley it got you to blog him…I bet that was the point. It strikes me as a bit of link-whoring to me.

   Foolish thing to say no doubt.

7. #7 |  nikita demosthenes |  March 20th, 2003 at 5:25 pm

   There’s a good – and polite and clean – debate on the war over at Beltway Bloggers.

   It’s a good, serious debate . . . . despite the fact that I’m a part of it. I recommend reading it (and commenting at the debaters’ blogs if you have ideas or input). Thanks.

   -nikita

---