TheAgitator.com
Sensible Anti-War Reactions to Saddam’s Capture
Monday, December 15th, 2003Because the pro-war blogosphere can’t seem to get beyond BBC call-in opiners, extremist bulletin boards, and the isolated academic left in mining the anti-war camp for reaction to Saddam’s capture, I’ll help them out.
Here, some anti-war reactions I found useful:
Jonathan Wilde
Jesse Walker
Gene Healy
Jim Henley
Max Sawicky
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Josh Marshall
Jon Mandle
It took about five minutes to find the above posts on my lunch hour. All make nuanced, important, thoughtful points on yesterday’s events that aren’t easily dismissed with ridicule, sarcasm, and grandstanding.
Perhaps that’s why the warbloggers have had so much trouble finding them. Or at least addressing them.
Why is this bothering you so much? Is that what you want, balence? I am sorry I as I thought your original post was calling to sweep the more vile posts under the rug. Yes balance is needed, but keep in mind there is a good chance that the sensible anti-war posters are a tiny minority and not relevent to the larger context of the discussion.
I don’t see why this is taken personal. The point is to show just how foolish some people are, by trying to explain how somehow this is bad for the U.S. or the world. The posts you’ve listed are just a few of the many people (politics aside) across the world that are not stupid enough (as opposed to ’smart enough’ :P) to realize that this is GOOD.
Well, yes, if you concentrate on the libertarian anti-war sites, you might find mostly nuanced, “important”, etc opinions. (Although I doubt you’ll find much of either over at Antiwar or the loathesome slavery-admirin’ LewRockwell site.)
The point of going to Indymedia and Democratic Underground is to see what the Deaniacs and the rest of the liberal swine are thinking. See, those people are Dean’s bulwark of support- a minor fact that libertarian boosters of the Andres Nin Project might keep in mind. (Why “libertarians for Dean” feel obliged, generally, to ignore Dean’s open threats to censor Fox News if he gets elected is a question for students of self-destructive idiocy.)
Finally, Radley, if you hop on over to http://www.no-treason.com right now, you can see Pupshaw saving John T. Kennedy from…uh…you.
Come on guys, even Hesiod said this was a good thing.
Your clue that sensible anti-war views are not a tiny minority is that they are expressed by all the most popular bloggers who were against the war.
Nobody is listing Balko among the idiots. So why does he care? Unless he is trying to cover for the more vile elements by sweeping them under the rug (”no enemies on the anti-war side…”) — I don’t think that is what he is doing, which why I am asking.
Why can’t he just condemn the more idiotic comments (or simply not comment on them) and then give his own take on the news?
(Note: John Kennedy deplores my actions)
The fate of “libertarians for dean”:
http://www.empire-of-the-claw.com/Eeriepubs_html/hm6.htm
screech! warrgh! that fool balko! he must have only wounded the monster! and the serum is still working!
run! run!
(all hail the empire of the claw for their Eerie Publications/Myron Fass/Dick Ayers reprints. And now, on to LewRockwell.com!)
“if you pull off their heads, their hearts and minds will follow” - lung
“Sensible” to whom? Isn’t that subjective?
John Sabotta cracks me up!
John Sabotta cracks me up!
You mean “tears you apart”, don’t you?
lung, lung will tear us apart,
Again…
-Joy Division, innit?
” . . . if you concentrate on the libertarian anti-war sites . . . ”
Don’t forget the black helicopter sites! We deserve representation too. Like Roman Hruska said, many moons ago.
Liberal Pigpen Central
I get the impression that some people think they can validate their own position by finding the worst possible representatives of the opposing stance.
To be sure, it isn’t just pro-war pundits who do this. But they’ve provided the most egregious examples of the last couple of days.
“I get the impression that some people think they can validate their own position by finding the worst possible representatives of the opposing stance.”
You have to prove that their intention was to validate and not just to enlighten the more disgusting positions out there on this subject. In fact, if you truly treasure your position, it ought to be YOU exposing and condemning these idiots (and yes, the other position should do the same).
typo: enlighten us on
The overall issue here is that their are two sects in the “anti-war” and the “pro-war” camps. Radley and others are in the “we shouldn’t be there because it’s not in the American interest” anti-war sect, whereas the idiots that are being pointed out are in the “we shouldn’t be there because I hate George Bush” sect. On the other hand, some so-called “pro-war” bloggers go by the “we should be there because it’s in America’s interest”, and there are those who are in the “we should be there because George Bush told me so”. Both camps have their mindless sheep, and both have their smart pundits. I seriously doubt anyone would try to put Radley or the other bloggers here in the sheeply anti-war camp. Radley was able to recognize that, whatever you may think about the costs, the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. The sheep refuse to recognize this, that’s why they’re being criticized.
In fact, if you truly treasure your position, it ought to be YOU exposing and condemning these idiots (and yes, the other position should do the same).
I’ve always hated the idea that it’s my job to constantly distance myself from any fools who happen to agree with me about something. You have to do that some of the time, of course. But in general, I think the issue on the table should be more important than the people standing around the table.
What were Healy’s nuanced, important, thoughtful points?
“(Note: John Kennedy deplores my actions)”
Let’s just say I have sought to discourage decapitations in most cases, real and symbolic.
Actually, being able to find some sensible anti-war responses, particularly libertarian ones, to Hussein’s capture was nice. Reading things like Atrios and commentors bemoaning that a dictator’s arrest will help their political competitors isn’t gratifying, it’s sickening and disheartening.
It gives a guy like me hope to still have some commonality with people who putatively share his political outlook, but disagree so viciously on this issue.
Pro-war? How about pro-America? Anti-war, anti-America?
–Quote–
In fact, if you truly treasure your position, it ought to be YOU exposing and condemning these idiots (and yes, the other position should do the same).
–Quote–
It would seem far less efficient to try and convince people who agree with you about something than spending time arguing with those who don’t.
I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out how extreme the extreme can be. After all, BBC callers and the Democratic Underground probably have the finger on the pulse of anti-war sentiment to a far greater degree than do Radley, Gene, Max, et al.
In any case, no group — not Cato, not Reason, no pro- or anti-war folks — always seeks only to rebut the most cogent arguments all the time. I don’t see the harm in taking on the idiots, too, especially when those idiots are more mainstream than the thoughtful critics.
What I find most interesting is that there was nothing wrong, whatsoever about Radley’s post here.
Radley was simply pointing out that the more vile (and the ones with the widest audiences, certainly) were using some very discrminating means in mining for anti-war quotes following the capture of Saddam. Isn’t that disengenuousness on the part of those (often times) loud mouthed blow hards?
But that is their modus operandi, is it not?
ENOUGH!!!!
Radley, PLEASE, oh PLEASE make a new post. This and the post below are getting out of control. A Moxie or Brooke Oberwetter post would be nice as well.
Anything to get on a new line of discussion.
There are several excellent left-wing sites from in the UK who have made thoughful posts about Saddam’s capture.
Cool blog!
Iran is next says Mofaz:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=746
In fact according to people from Iran on Israeli talk radio with Mofaz tthey are asking for it.
Now what exactly does the anti-war side have to say about a country in the area that wants to be invaded?
Did I mention that they (Iranians) are willing to accept an American or Israeli invasion?
Anybody up for another liberation? Or should we just let the Israelis do it?
Saddam Found
Radley Balko, whose reaction to this news can be found here, has pointed out that many of the pro-war bloggers have been
Viagra
In your free time, take a look at the sites about prescription … Thanks!!!