Comments on: Sensible Anti-War Reactions to Saddam’s Capture

By: phatmacy

phatmacy — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:11:18 +0000

In your free time, take a look at the sites about prescription ... Thanks!!!

By: Piero

Piero — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:06:17 +0000

By: University Blog

University Blog — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:16:20 +0000

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

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:02:43 +0000

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?

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:59:19 +0000

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?

By: Mister X

Mister X — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:47:24 +0000

Cool blog!

By: Andrew Ian Dodge

Andrew Ian Dodge — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:17:55 +0000

There are several excellent left-wing sites from in the UK who have made thoughful posts about Saddam’s capture.

By: the bomb dot com

the bomb dot com — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:08:16 +0000

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.

By: chad

chad — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:42:47 +0000

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?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:16:04 +0000

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.

By: DougB

DougB — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:27:26 +0000

–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.

By: Ventura

Ventura — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:50:41 +0000

Pro-war? How about pro-America? Anti-war, anti-America?

By: Eric the .5b

Eric the .5b — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:43:38 +0000

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.

By: John T. Kennedy

John T. Kennedy — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:07:41 +0000

“(Note: John Kennedy deplores my actions)”

Let’s just say I have sought to discourage decapitations in most cases, real and symbolic.

By: John T. Kennedy

John T. Kennedy — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:58:38 +0000

What were Healy’s nuanced, important, thoughtful points?

By: Jesse Walker

Jesse Walker — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:59:02 +0000

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.

By: Jeb

Jeb — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:31:16 +0000

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.

By: A1

A1 — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:16:49 +0000

typo: enlighten us on

By: A1

A1 — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:14:02 +0000

“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).

By: Jesse Walker

Jesse Walker — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:48:28 +0000

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.