TheAgitator.com
My Take
Sunday, December 14th, 2003First and foremost, it’s a great day for liberty. Lots of Iraqis will sleep with peace tonight. The bogeyman who tormented their thoughts and dreams for a quarter century will haunt them no more.
The circumstances of his capture couldn’t have been more optimal. This man who some believed to be the next caliph, who has called for Muslims to offer themselves for martyrdom, who appropriated Islam only when it convenienced him — he proved himself to be a spineless, shuddering, shameful coward. He emerged from an eight-foot hole in the ground with those bound-for-Bartlett’s, jihad-inspiring words, “Don’t shoot!”
We took him alive, so there will be no charred remains to leave doubts in the minds of aspiring militants. There will be no murky video or audio tapes emerging in the months ahead to challenge the truth that we nabbed him. He’ll be tried in Iraq, presumably by Iraqis, leaving little question about the sincerity of the justice that will be delivered to him.
For Iraqis, a long bad dream is over.
Now comes the “but.”
I find it curious that the most prominent reaction on the pro-war Internet is to find the most asinine, foolish anti-war reactions and post and quote them as if they’re the reaction of the majority of people who opposed this war. Andrew Sullivan is hosting a contest for the most “mealy-mouthed” responses from the anti-war camp. Others are mining those eternal springs of pacifist eloquence — Democratic Underground and IndyMedia — for particularly galling and disturbing responses. I wonder, is this the first thing that popped into the pro-war camp’s mind upon seeing the images of Saddam’s capture? Not, “thank God that damned butcher is gone,” but, “this’ll show those damned anti-war people.” It’s almost as if some people believe we’re in Iraq not to defend the security of the United States, but to piss off the BBC, Michael Moore and Howard Dean.
Well, perhaps I can fuel their fervor a bit.
Wonderful as Saddam’s capture is, great as it is for the Iraqi people, deserving of admiration and respect as it is for the American military, it is a very, very small step in the war on terrorism, if it’s a step at all. To borrow a phrase from the pro-war camp, the people of Baghdad will sleep sounder tonight, but the people of Brooklyn are no safer upon Saddam’s capture than they were before it. In fact, if Saddam did indeed have the WMDs we thought he did, and now they’re floating about on the international black market, we’re all quite a bit less safe than we were a year ago. That’s not to diminish how important today was to Iraqis, but it simply isn’t the responsibility of the U.S. military to slay the world’s demons. Only our own.
We spent billions of dollars, seven months, and precious military intelligence and resources to capture a man who is an absolute bastard, yes, but a man for whom the available evidence suggests hasn’t a single drop of blood of a single American civilian on his hands. Meanwhile, a man we know for certain is implicated in the deaths of thousands of Americans still roams the Pakistani hinterland. We’ve expended the few U.S. military personnel fluent in Arabic (that is, those who weren’t kicked out for their sexual orientation) chasing down a false or at worst nebulous threat, while an all-too-proven threat continues to elude us.
Capturing Saddam Hussein was vital to the Iraq mission. If we hadn’t found him, it would have been a failure. And we should revel for a bit in the fact that we got him. But while getting him was essential to avoiding faiure, capturing him certainly doesn’t mean success. Nor does it mean the reasoning behind this war was sound. It means that we have a military we should be proud of. It doesn’t mean we should stop questioning the decisions of the political figures directing that military.
I wrote at the onset of the war that I hope I’m wrong about everything. There’s still ample opportunity for that to happen. I hope Saddam cracks, and reveals to us where the WMDs are hidden, that he had intended to use them, or to sell them to people who would, and I hope we discover conclusive evidence of his ties to people who want to hurt us. I hope our nation-building endeavors defy history and human experience and prove successful (actually, I hope we give Iraq over to the Iraqis, and stop trying to rebuild their country for them — but as long as we insist on remaining there, I hope we’re successful). And I hope, twenty years from now, it’s unfailingly clear to us that this foray into Iraq was indeed the best use of our terror-fighting resources.
But yes, I still have my doubts. In spite of the goosebumps I got seeing Iraqis celebrate in the streets today, despite the lump in my throat I swallowed down upon seeing Iraqi journalists break into cheers when Paul Bremer announced, “We got him,” I still have lots of doubt.
If there were WMDs, I wonder how our military can could zero in on one man in a cubby hole on a rural farm, but hasn’t yet been able to locate the vast quantities of chemical and biological agents Colin Powell warned the world of last year. If the WMDs were there then, but aren’t now, I wonder where they are, and why, if we were so certain they were there, their absence now isn’t of more concern to us than it seems to be.
Make no mistake, the world is much better off now that Saddam Hussein is locked away in a place that’s dark, lonely, and uncomfortable. But that point was never in question. The question was whether or not we could have better spent the time, lives and treasure it took to get him in that place on endeavors more directly related to our safety and security.
It probably won’t surprise you, but I’m a long, long way from conceding that the answer to that question is “no.”
But I still hope at some point that I’m able to.
How are the mighty fallen . . .
The immediate reaction is to rejoice at the capture of Saddam. Certainly there is cause for joy. There is a greater chance for peace. A wicked man will be brought to justice. The Iraqi people will live in less fear….
Hussein Caught
This is really good news. It presents two opportunities. First, since the Iraqis will try him themselves, it gives the new government a chance to demonstrate how the rule of law can work, even as applied to a tyrant.
“Meanwhile, a man we know for certain is implicated in the deaths of thousands of Americans still roams the Pakistani hinterland.”
And may well be behind yesterday’s assassination attempt on Pervez Musharraf.
Which took place in an area primarily inhabited by active and retired military personnel, near a military city.
So, again, we’re reminded that the military of a nuclear power includes extreme Islamists who would like to topple Musharraf and replace him with someone more to their liking - for example, one who supports the Taliban, and opposes the US.
Well said, Radley.
I was angry and annoyed with John J. Miller when he said Saddam was “the more desirable target” than Osama. It’s shocking to see how some people’s priorities have gotten skewed over these last few years.
>>but it simply isn’t the responsibility of the U.S. military to slay the world’s demons
Great post.
I’m in agreement that it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to slay the world’s demons. There is, however, a story out of Britain this weekend making the claim that Mohammed Atta trained in Baghdad under Abu Nidal. If this is the case wouldn’t Saddam be our demon too? After all there is no way that this could have gone on without his knowledge and endorcement. The evidence of a Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection is trickling in but I believe when all is said and done the case will be compelling. Of course it would have been more appropriate to have the case laid out before going to war.
Not a single drop? Come on Radley, I respect you immensely but such broad strokes?
We DO know that Saddam paid the families of any Palestinian suicide bomber. American civilians have been killed in the middle east. While we don’t know exactly which “bomb-belts are the new black” suicidal maniac’s family got paid by Hussein, I think that statement is presumptious.
There is also the telegraph story about the Hussein memo about Atta…I doubt we will get any information out of that asshat but what if the 9-11 connection is made?
Pardon my spelling and grammar above…it’s late and I haven’t slept much since the capture news broke.
Very good post, Radley.
I was happy to see that Saddam had been caught, but mainly because that should (I hope) get some of the soldiers home earlier than they otherwise would have.
As far as the difference it is going to make in the scheme of things in the Middle East, I just don’t see that it will be terribly much.
Not all are happy
Andrew Sullivan has posted the most ridiculous responses to the capture of Saddam. Many of the usual suspects can be
You obviously put a lot of thought and time into this post, but I am truly surprised at the number of people who agree with you. There have already been reports of Saddam’s file of information about terrorist cells. It’s only the tip of the iceberg. This is huge. I know you’ll never concede that Bush does anything right, but it may come to the point where people stop listening to you because you’re simply being contrary.
I was strongly opposed to the war, but believe that there’s something great that came out of this. In particular, I think it’s important for the Iraqis and other oppressed people to see that the person who had cowed and tortured them ultimately was a gutless, cowardly rat paying off thugs to protect him. Others who despise tyranny should remember the incident well.
Now here’s a HUGE diplomatic opportunity for Bush that may be at odds with his political opportunities. Let’s see how he plays it.
MA, for once we agree.
the bomb dot com, “I know you’ll never concede that Bush does anything right…” this is so true. There are some people who are never going to concede. Even if we captured OBL today, those people would find something else to be contrary about when it comes to the Bush.
Would it be a good idea for Bush to move these troops to Pakistan/Afghanistan in order to put the blitz on OBL?
Radley you have obvious missed the little revelation about Atta and Saddam then. There is proof that Saddam had relations with Al Queda and with the 9/11 terrorists, and more will be forthcoming. Ignore now if you wish…but don’t expect any sympathy when you look like a total arse on the subject.
An anti-Bushie writes
Re: Judge ye not, lest ye be judged Date: 15 December 2003 Sir - The capture of Saddam Hussein marks the true moment of “Mission Accomplished” for the Bush-Blair war on Iraq. After all, the real purpose of that mission…
Just for future reference Andrew, when someone says “Could it be?” that means they are speculating.
Why would we believe that Bush isn’t already doing everything within his power to catch OBL? My gut feeling tells me that OBL is dead and buried under rubble from last year’s bombs. His followers know that he’s just as valuable as a spectre as a living person. I’ve also considered that OBL is already in US custody and his capture may be announced at a politically convenient date.
In any event, nabbing Saddam is a good thing. The real work begins now.
I find Andrew Sullivan’s little collection of quotes particularly funny.
I really love the fact that the 4 current Iraqi leaders were able to meet Hussein face to face. That was awesome.
I also admire Bremmer and Sanchez for allowing the Iraqi leaders to do all the talking. That was wise and it speaks volumes, to me.
Did anybody notice the group of Iraqi Communists waving the red flag, complete w/ hammer-and-sickle in the upper left hand corner, among the video clips shown all day yesterday?
Irony on so many levels.
An anti-Bushie writes
Re: Judge ye not, lest ye be judged Date: 15 December 2003 Sir - The capture of Saddam Hussein marks the true moment of “Mission Accomplished” for the Bush-Blair war on Iraq. After all, the real purpose of that mission…
Interesting how the uncovered memo links Saddam to al-Queda, substantiates the Niger claims, and implicates Syria, all in one document.
I actually thought both, in order…
“thank God that damned butcher is gone,”
AND
“this’ll show those damned anti-war people.”
Sorry, but you are judged by the company you keep. I understand that you are not a pro-Baathist and have very valid reasons for your position. But you are a fool if you think that the Chomskys and Moores and InternationalANSWERs of the world are not vile cheerleaders of thugs and should be exposed for totalitarians they are.
If you share their positions on the war, then I am afraid it is YOU resonsibilty to explain why you are different. We who value Reason will listen and evaluate.
Death to tryants,
A1
Also Balko — if we found Bin Laden tommorow, would you admit you were wrong about your assement?
I hope so.
Good post Radley. Although Saddam’s links to terrorism might be tenuous, if any, (at least, clearly anti-American terrorism as opposed to anti-Israel), there is one benefit from the capture of Saddam: other leaders who want to tangle with the US (directly or by supporting terrorists) might not be so brave any more.
With regards to WMD, well, if you were a military leader, wouldn’t you keep them within easy reach just prior to war? i.e. deployed and waiting almost at the front lines?
If there was so much of the stuff, did every last drop get stolen? With hundreds or perhaps thousands of personnel working on their development / production / storage / transportation to army units, is there no one willing to blab about it now and get paid well in the process? Not even one ex-Saddam employee with a grudge, an empty wallet, and a vial of poison (with a valid ‘Best Before Date:…’) to show as proof?
Funny questions, all.
Note: a beaker of pre-1991 bacteria in some guy’s freezer doesn’t count
i.e. you could have bought that from him for under $87 billion and avoided a costly war
I’m a little confused about what, exactly, the actual capture of Saddam “shows those damned anti-war people.”
“The question was whether or not we could have better spent the time, lives and treasure it took to get him in that place on endeavors more directly related to our safety and security.”
The more fundamental question is whether it is for the individual to decide how his time, life and treasure is to be spent or whether we as a group may justly decide for him.
Your formulation fails to challenge the collectivist premise.
We get it, JTK. You’re still paying your taxes. It all sucks.
“Death to Tyrants”
A1, are you a soldier or a cheerleader? How are you taking part in this other than blogging?
I am giving my consent to those acting on my behalf.
When my wife told me Sunday morning that ‘they had caught Saddam’ My first question was “Dead or alive?”
“Alive.” she said.
“Shit …. he’s my #3 pick in the 2003 Dead Pool.”
It would have put me in the lead to win $150 this year.
thook,
He’s a sure thing for a 2004 death pool though.
thook is a classic example of whats wrong with all the pro-Iraq war people out there. War is fun and games as long as they can sit on their asses at home and watch it on tv. Soldiers get killed in wars. American soldiers have been killed in this war, but hey at least they are keeping you entertained.
I wouldn’t rule out the 2003 Dead Pool yet. You’ve got 16 days and this is the Mid-East.
My thought process was a little more centric. First, cool! Saddam is captured, second the Dow futures are taking off like a rocket, this all means one thing. One hell of a swanky, get it all out post-Agity Awards party this year!
Andrew Sullivan is the worst of the Big Bloggers, by far. Not due to his opinions, since I agree with him about half the time; it’s his tendency to attack straw men and the weakest points of view, leaving intelligent, nuanced questions unanswered.
I suspect this comes from his writing 1,000 words a day — you just can’t write that much and have it be worth reading.
“I am giving my consent to those acting on my behalf.”
In other words, you can’t/won’t go to fight, but are content to sit back and let others do it. This begs a question about WHY you can’t/won’t fight, but it’s your right to NOT explain yourself.
“… you are judged by the company you keep.”
The company you keep seems to be chickenhawks. But you maintain the right to NOT explain yourself.
“If you share their positions on the war, then I am afraid it is YOUR resonsibilty to explain why you are different.”
Err …. um ….
Come on Moxie — we’re talking terrorism against Americans here, not against Israelis.
If you can prove the Saddam-9/11 connection, go ahead. No one else has been able to.
MA: I don’t because I choose not to. It is my life. If others volunteer to fight, I grant them permission to do so under my name.
And the “chickenhawk” meme is flawed at its premise. Civilian control (i.e. “chickenhawk” control) of the military keeps it a guardian of liberty.
Military rule (which premise of the meme) is invitation to tyranny.
MA, what’s with the name-calling? Is it possible to debate different points of view without it? And btw, how are you taking part in this war?
MattG, goto nationalreview.com, there is an article there with a link to the memo. The memo obviously does not yet prove anything, but it sounds like they’re getting pretty close.
A1, chickenhawk != civilian. Suggesting that those that decry the chickhawks are proposing military rule is dishonest.
Let’s break it down, shall we?
Chicken -> coward
Hawk -> one likely to be in favor of military action
So, a chickenhawk is a pro war fellow (or, a “hawk”) who is a coward (or, a “chicken”).
Naturally the word is more nuanced than that, referring specifically to hawks that managed to evade military service during wartime, esp. during an active draft.
Seems pretty easy to understand, right?
I might also add that
“against the Iraq war” != “in favor of Saddam Hussain”,
and that
“against armed revolution in the U.S.” != “in favor of Bush administration policies”
Honest debate is fine, but don’t deliberately mischaracterize the viewpoints of those that disagree with you.
Excellent post, Radley. Agree with much. However,
â⦠it simply isnât the responsibility of the U.S. military to slay the worldâs demons. Only our own.â
My question is, given the vast quantities of weapons, chemicals and equipment the U.S. sold Saddam, back when we considered Iran the worse threat, to what degree was he, in fact, our demon?
Many anti-war arguments seem persuasive to me. The U.S. cannot be the worldâs policeman. Unilateral âpre-emptiveâ invasion sets a dangerous international precedent. The Bush administration was, in key ways, not prepared for the job, as evidenced by the lack of post-war planning, the diplomatic mishandling of Turkey, etc. etc. And many pro-war arguments seem shallow, self-serving and willfully ignorant. The very phrase âweapons of mass destructionâ sounds like a calculated PR blurring of the distinction between chemical weapons (very bad, and for which there was ample evidence) and nuclear weapons (very, very, very, very bad, yet for which there is still not such evidence).
Despite all of that, seems to me that Saddam was, at least to some degree, our rabid dog. Putting him down and helping to repair the damage he wrought was â again, at least to some degree - our responsibility.
MattG, you should be aware that a number of Americans have been killed by Middle Eastern terrorists in Israel, many of them tourists.
Saddam was also, for years, the protector of Abu Nidal.
To claim he has no connections to attacks on US civilians (as opposed to, say, ex-Presidents) at all, as Radley did, is at best reckless exaggeration.
“Suggesting that those that decry the chickhawks are proposing military rule is dishonest.”
It isn’t dishonest. It is logical based on their premises. Let me break it down for you….
Chickhawk meme disected: To not be in the military is cowardly (which includes our civilian leadership) and cowards and should not have an opinion on the war or make decisions about war.
Therefor only those serving should have an opinions on the war or MORE IMPORTANTLY make decisions about war - which is a governments job, which means those that espouse the chickenhawk meme are espousing military rule.
If you are against miltary rule, I suppose you will have to come up with something more clever in order to insult me or call me a coward.
“if he had WMD” ??????
WTF???? He used them, so I’m pretty sure he had them. Even Bill Clinton acknowledged that he felt pretty certain Saddam was hiding WMD, so it wasn’t some made up fantasy of the Bush Administration.
I was originally drawn to the Libertarian party because it is the only one left that truly believe in limited government. However, the cowardice so obvious in the “peace at any cost” Democrats appears to have infected the Libertarians as well. It is ignorant and cowardly to sit back and say ‘everyone just keep your hands to yourself’. The world is not so simple. We have enemies. Ruthless, murderous, sadist enemies. You may want us to sit on our butts and wait for them to bring the fight to us. When they have brought the fight to us, you may still want us to sit on our butts until they bring the fight to us again. Well, I disagree.
W. may borrow and spend like my ex-wife. At least he has backbone. I’m going back to the Republicans to see if I can try to return them to respect for limited government and respect for civil liberties. I’m sure that will be an easier conversion than trying to convince libertarians that ‘peace at any cost’ is a flawed ideology.
I’m turning in my Libertarian card. You people are fucking idiots.
Craig,
Really? How many Americans have been killed by “Middle Eastern Terrorists” in Israel? You’re fudging two things on purpose here. Saddam Hussein never threatened the U.S. with terrorism. Israel, yes, but not the U.S.. Let’s keep that line clearly drawn, since as Peter Beinart pointed out in the New Republic, America’s war on terror and Israel’s are two totally different things. So quit conflating.
You are free to do as you want as long as you don’t infringe on other peoples’ freedoms.
Does that statement have meaning beyond our borders?
Diego –
Here, here!
I’ve considered myself a Libertarian for quite a while now, but the more of my co-libs I get to know, the more I believe they all live in little thinking-bubbles. It’s all theory; all talk. And none of it ever matters.
I’m with G-Dub.
A1, I’m not calling you a coward, I’m calling you dishonest or, failing that, woefully ignorant.
Nobody is saying that just not being in the military is cowardly. The meme says that if you’re a hawk, you better not have evaded possible military service in wartime, or your opinion is suspect. That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
You’re analysis of the meme fails if we ask “what light does the meme paint doves who did not serve in?” The meme says nothing, as it applies only to HAWKS.
Now, we can have a discussion as to whether or not it’s a fair criticism (I would say it is only if we’re talking about pretty deliberate draft evasion), but it certainly has nothing to do with military rule.
I’m anti-war and didn’t enlist (when I was of eligible age) because I don’t trust the people who run the government whether they’re chickenhawks or guerillas. My father is a retired Army major and I have respect for military people and military life.
As an anti-war activist, I work actively and directly with my elected officials to do what we can to help the soldiers in harm’s way and to bring them home as soon as is reasonably possible.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face and play dumb games with freshman logic, but none of that will change my opinion of pro-war people who refuse to put on a uniform or get their panties in a twist when we call them “chickenhawks.”
Your pet “chickenhawk” meme applies to both hawks and doves, despite the fact that “hawk” is part of the word.
The decision to go to war is not the opposite of deciding to stay at peace. Both decisions are at root about the role of the military. The “chickenhawk” slur is based on the premise that only the military should make a decision about that role. That is advocating military rule.
PS: The draft is slavery. If you are using “chickenhawk” as a slur toward draft-dodgers then you are justifying the draft and therefor justifying slavery.
MA: Just admit you have no rational basis for calling anyone a “chickenhawk” other than to stoop to childish insults, probably because you know your whole cause is irrational and immoral anyway.
May I suggest you call me a “doody head” instead? At least then we would all understand your playground mentality and the futility of your argument.
Good Grief! I used to find this blog interesting and thought provoking….this name calling and basic “hate all those that have an alternate view point” has become rather routine. What ever happened to reasoned debate of the issues without resorting to badgering the other side by casting aspersions on their character, calling each other names and vitriolic hateful comments. I am so outahere…
A1-
The term chickenhawk, once again, has nothing to do with military rule. It’s an indictment of those that are careful to not put themselves in harms way but are cavalier to do so to others, and often do so while painting themselves as great patriots and friends of the military. Period.
The term deals with a very specific situation. Does it deal with war opponents? No. Does it deal with anything other than military policy w/r/t war commencement? No. Those that use the term never seem to be saying that those that haven’t served are not qualified to oppose war. Why would that be?
Now, you can argue that the mindset evidenced in the chickenhawk meme could LEAD to military rule, or any number of other things, but saying that the chickenhawk meme actually ADVOCATES military rule is DISHONEST.
Maybe you should actually talk to some people that are actually using the term, usually a war opponent. If one is a war opponent, why would they want military rule? It just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Your rhetoric makes you sound similar to the likes of Coulter, living in a world where anybody that doesn’t agree with you is some sort of totalitarian.
Why is the draft slavery? Due to its compulsory nature? Don’t we have a collective covenant for national defense? Dare I say, a contract? Is there any action that you can be compelled to undertake that you would not consider to be slavery? Can we assume that you would take a stand against any war that involved a draft?
“Chickenhawk” is a term that is unmistakable in its connotation and vividly descriptive.
No doubt a well thought-out post from a mind I respect (and agree with the majority of the time). However, my beefs:
1. Minor technicality, but the connotations surrounding the word “bogeyman” are that of an imagined, fantastical monster that is, in reality, fairly harmless. Therefore it is incorrect to describe Saddam as a bogeyman to the Iraqi people. Clearly you didn’t intend these implied connotations, but just thought I’d point it out.
2. I would have to classify your take as fairly “mealy-mouthed” if ever there was a candidate for a mealy-mouthed take on this topic. Your entire post can be summed up: “I only support our actions, if those actions turn out to be good in hindsight.” Seriously, that’s your take. (Disclaimer: I’m not a war-monger. I actually disagree with our actions in Iraq for many of the same reasons you kinda sorta do). But if you want to convince folks that your stand is the correct one, you have to take one to begin with. Should we be over there? Yes or no and why? Not: “No, unless it turns out this way, and I hope it does, in which case my answer is ‘yes.’”
How can you question that the arrest of Saddam Hussein to be a step toward the eradication of terrorism? Even should the mounting circumstanstancial and other alleged connections to American-targeted terrorism eventually proves to be unfounded, this man bankrolled - publicly - the very same brand of Islamo-fascist terrorism perpetrated against Israel.
The days and months ahead can finally begin to unravel the truth - but one thing is certain: Saddam Hussein can no longer terrorize “Zionists” of any nationality, nor the nascently free Iraqi people.
“We get it, JTK. You’re still paying your taxes. It all sucks.”
Brooke,
How do you expect to make headway arguing against collectivism if you don’t reject the premise? Can’t Ralph Nader right say that the argument between him and Radley is not whether to coerce individuals via the state but rather how much to so coerce them?
Way to go, Radley. Well put..
Anvil,
Maybe you should switch to decaf. Thook was referring to a death pool that most likely has nothing to do with the war. I would assume by your scathing reprimand of thook that you have no idea what a death pool is. You choose names of high profile people who you think will die in that year (the scoring I’m not familiar with as I have never played one). I can see attacking death pools on other grounds but I doubt it was meant specifically to make entertainment out of the war. John Ritter would have been a good pick for a death pool for instance and if I’m not mistaken he has nothing to do with the war. Besides maybe it was a joke (gasp, how could you joke about the death of an evil tyrant who committed mass murder on his own people?).
CALM DOWN!!!
Without dissecting the word chickenhawk adnauseam I have a problem with the premise of the previous spat between A1 and MA. It would be convenient for the anti-war argument if the pro-war people who have not served in the military could be shut up, while anyone who opposes military action can speak up loud and clear regarless of their military status. Unfortunately that is not the way this nation works. We all get a vote and we all have the right to speak up and support or oppose any policy as we see fit. Isn’t freedom grand.
There are many reasons why someone might not have served in the military. The military turns away alot of people for a variety of reasons. If someone tried to join and is turned away do they have to shut up if they support a policy of military action? I don’t think so.
Even if someone never attempted to join the military, or even thought of it, should they be forced to keep their opinions to themselves if they have a particular point of view regarding military action? Of course not, we have a voluntary force.
For the record I have tried to join the military (turned away twice) and I did not support going to war since the case was not made in my mind.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and has the right to express that opinion.
Love the post…and I love the site, but I can’t forget the hundreds of thousands of Saddam’s own people that were killed by his order. Wasn’t it Chemical Ali under the order of Saddam that used biological weapons on citites to the north because they were anti Saddam and possibly growing in enough power to threaten his regime?
The link between Saddam and Iraq has been blown open by the supposed memo found in which Mohammed Atta was in an Iraqi training class for terrorism. If this document is true, then Saddam’s hands have American blood on them, not including the over 400 American soldiers and civilians killed since the war started.
I think we need to celebrate the capture of Saddam before pointing and blaming Bush for not nabbing Osama. The situations are completely different. In Iraq, Saddam was hated by a majority of the people. Sooner or later he would be found. There was never a doubt in my mind. With Osama, this man is BELOVED by his people, supported by almost everyone because he does not attack his own. Most of the country see him as a spiritual hero. Everyone will hide him, where in Iraq, everyone wanted to find him.
Osama may never be found simply because he has the will of the people behind him. It will take a lot larger of an effort to bring Osama to justice. Lets be patient, as Osama stays hidden longer his own ego will drive him into the open. He will make a mistake, and the hunt will get closer. Until then, lets just be happy and pleased we got one madman out of the way.
Bernard
http://www.bluecanine.com
Anvil,
How do you know if I am pro or anti war? My comment was on the capture of Saddam. My personal preference was him to be found …. shall we say …. metaphysically challenged. I would have advanced to the lead of the 2003 Dead Pool and likely to win $150. I did not speak about entertainment through war.
The Dead Pool, as explained above, is about trying to guess the famous and not-so who will die in a given year. Not entertainment through war but mild interest in death.
And where did I get this ugly/indifferent attitude on death? Why, while flying E-2C Hawkeyes, off of carriers (circa 1991 …. if that date has any significance to you.) I’ve seen plenty of my friends die. It gives you a different attitude about death.
So, get off my ass sonny. I’ve done my time.
Diego, I’m with you 100%! Libertarian foreign policy is for a world in which there is no aggression between nations, and no terrorism. In short it is not a foreign policy for this world. George W. Bush spends like crazy, but at least he is defending us from terrorists. Imagine if the libertarian candidate for president in 2000, Harry Browne, got elected? Sure, our spending would be lower but we would be completely at the mercy of aggressors (look at his web-site if you don’t believe me). GW wins my vote, hands down.
I’m with the GW group. No, we cannot be imperialistic with the world and yes we need spending wisdom, but there has to be a balance, not one without the other.
Right now, I don’t see anyone coming close to having America’s best interest in mind as GW does. That is one patriotic man, and so is the rest of his cabinet, I think, one of the best cabinets so far.
I am trying to decide if A1 doesn’t understand what the term “Chickenhawk” means, or if he is purposefully ignoring the meaning.
Occam’s Razor becons.
Brooke Oberwetter: I’m a little confused about what, exactly, the actual capture of Saddam “shows those damned anti-war people.”
That despite the best efforts of Liberals, Atheists, and Secularists worldwide, there are still consequences for action?
John Kennedy: The more fundamental question is whether it is for the individual to decide how his time, life and treasure is to be spent or whether we as a group may justly decide for him.
The more fundamental question is whether it is for the Rapist/Murderer to decide how his time, life and treasure are to be spent or whether we as a Society may justly decide for him.
John Kennedy: Your formulation fails to challenge the collectivist premise.
Subjective morality and Absolute morality appear to be at opposite ends of the spectrum ⦠until you connect the ray to form a circle.
Brooke Oberwetter: We get it, JTK. You’re still paying your taxes. It all sucks.
Obviously (if you are JTK) the only way to âstopâ crime is by banning all guns.
Similarly the only way to âstopâ coercion is by banning all government.
John Kennedy: How do you expect to make headway arguing against collectivism if you don’t reject the premise?
What gives you the right to self-defense?
Does Society have the right to incarcerate or otherwise punish Individuals who commit criminal acts against members of that society?
What gives you the right to kill an animal and eat it?
John Kennedy: Can’t Ralph Nader right say that the argument between him and Radley is not whether to coerce individuals via the state but rather how much to so coerce them?
Sure, why not?
Bob: Diego, I’m with you 100%! Libertarian foreign policy is for a world in which there is no aggression between nations, and no terrorism. In short it is not a foreign policy for this world.
Yes ⦠I couldnât agree more. In fact, I would say it was a foreign policy for Fantasyland which is the exact same place where Anarchy is a workable system.
Keep in mind, Mr. Balko is more of a Liberal in Libertarianâs clothing. Iâm not sure that all âtrueâ Libertarians are so isolationist or naïve.
“I am trying to decide if A1 doesn’t understand what the term “Chickenhawk” means, or if he is purposefully ignoring the meaning.”
The meaning of this meme is not self-evident and its premise has disturbing consequences.
I would suggest making an honest argument clearly stating your case instead of relying on slurs based on crypto-fascist premises and designed to shut down honest discussion.
MA,
Are ALL women “Chickenhawks” (historically) according to your point of view?
MA: ⦠are you a soldier [a Man] or a cheerleader [a Woman]?
MA: In other words, you can’t/won’t go to fight, but are content to sit back and let others do it.
Like a women?
MA: none of that will change my opinion of pro-war people who refuse to put on a uniform or get their panties in a twist when we call them “chickenhawks.”
âpantiesâ???
HA HA! Good stuff.
And of course this begs the question, are those panties an theagitator.com g-string?
Very amusing that you anti-war lot can’t see the link between Saddam and terrorism that kills Americans. It is so pathetic that its funny. It is as if you believe that terrorists operate in total isolation from one another. There is a link between Saddam’s regime and Atta…
Frank N.: are those panties an theagitator.com g-string?
Thanks for the reminder. I need to get a half dozen or so of those for stocking stuffers.
—-
Andrew Ian Dodge: It is as if you believe that terrorists operate in total isolation from one another.
Does it really matter if Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? Arenât we sending an unambiguous message in either event? Do you think that terrorist and anti-American forces (anti-democratic, anti-liberty) are happy about the prospects of a democracy in Iraq?
This war achieves our purpose and thwarts the purpose of those who oppose us.
Good Post. Big respect for a well thought out response. You may make a libratarian out of me yet.
Bluntly, the ‘chickenhawk’ slur is an attempt to say that only those directly affected by the consequences of a policy can have a say in whether those consequences are worthwhile.
It also is argument-by-slander, which merely serves to make your cause look bankrupt. The same applies equally to the ‘guilt-by-association’ attacks on wingnuts generalized to a larger group they aren’t fully representative of. If you cannot and will not address the factual arguments of your opponents, and instead resort to just taking cheap shots against their character instead, you make yourself look pathetic.