I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
John Le Carre's post-Cold War novels have an interesting progressive bent.
"The Tailor of Panama" publicized the civilian deaths in Operation Just Cause.
"The Constant Gardener" exposed BIG PHARMA abuses which are still hidden from the mass media.
Quite a gamut. Thanks, Tena.
Leave it to the Guardian. Thanks for the link Tena.
Here are my two favorite authors on the list:
Harold Pinter
The invasion of Iraq was simply yet another monstrous assertion of American power and British subservience to that power. Weapons of mass destruction? Rubbish. Liberation of the Iraqi people? Rubbish. The invasion demonstrated utter contempt for the concept of international law and has brought about the death of thousands, anarchy and chaos. The invasion was a gangster act, a further step towards US domination of the world and control of the world's resources. But in this case it's not working.
Studs Terkel
The pre-emptive strike against Iraq was really an assault upon our native intelligence and whatever sense of decency we still possess. It now turns out - as though we didn't know it beforehand - that it was based on an outrageous lie - and will, if anything, encourage "terrorism" and imperil what chances we may have for world peace.
There is only one course for us Americans to take - an old-fashioned one: turn the scoundrel out. This applies to your chieftain, Tony Blair, who has played Jeeves to a doltish Bertie W - our (God help us) appointed chieftain, George W.
My own words pale next to these.
Let me reiterate what Studs said:
"Turn the scoundrel out."
Pick your "favorite" scoundrel. To the barricades. Torches and pitchforks.
These aren't real writers! Where's Tom Clancy, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Dr. Seuss, Charles Murray, Tim LaHaye, Bill Bennett, Michael Savage?!?!?!
They would give objective viewpoints.
I hate Bush than anyone but I really don't want to hear what artistic types have to say on him or the war or any other public matter. lots of preening with the ratio of fatuity to insight depressingly high.
Dr Suess doesn't belong in that company.
May we call you "Twice-post Tena" from here on?
kit, you are right!!!! Why should we listen to someone that has the audacity to not follow the herd!
I can't beleive they give opinions that have no connection to reality, like saying that Bush was lying.
YOU THE MAN, Kit!!!
Dumbass.
Believe me when I tell you, I am spinning in my grave so fucking fast I may reach escape velocity.
cheney-usa,
no, it's just that artistic types tend to think their opinions don't require any anchors -- just freefloating crap that the rest of us are supposed to take seriously because they're well-known novelists (or whatever). what is harold pinter contributing to the debate that's more than just his opinion?
sure, he's allowed to have an opinion and I don't necessarily disagree. but i'd prefer the newspapers supplied me with fresh insights, not celebrities giving opinions not any different from conversations overheard while waiting for the subway.
Ironically, William Shawcross (now Lord Shawcross), the author of "Sideshow" about the secret bombing of Cambodia and the bane of Richard Nixon, supports the Iraq effort, not recognizing the ultimate "sideshow" of all time.
John le Carre nails it once again:
But we should not overlook the damage it has done to us, and to our leaders: the damage to our reputation in the world, and to our self-respect. The lies and falsifications concocted by the two main aggressors and cravenly echoed by the appallingly docile American and British media will reverberate to our disgrace for generations to come. We in the west will of course quickly forget. The victims never will.
This is where that 'well maybe they exagerated the threat, but it was still the right thing to do' argument breaks down. A recent PBS show -- Frontline I think -- went around Iraq talking to people. A guy in Falloujah (sp?) pointed to the WMD lies as proof that all of the worst conspiricy theories about the invasion were correct. Bush didn't lie just to us, he lied to the entire world, and in the process gave credence to the real America-haters out there.
Thanks for the link, Tena. It's going to be shared.
Tena, please add the original Guardian link (or rather replace the tinyurl one).
This is better for a couple of reasons, since tinyurl might fold some day or be out of service like some days ago.
You are not restricted by the quirks of Haloscan re posting URLs while wielding the mighty Eschaton blog.
no, it's just that artistic types tend to think their opinions don't require any anchors
Kit, as an "artistic type" myself, let me share some words that you are actually likely to hear on the subway:
go fuck yourself.
This is where that 'well maybe they exagerated the threat, but it was still the right thing to do' argument breaks down.
Exactly, Beth. You can't toss off "too bad, so sad" in the face of this horror. It doesn't hold any water whatsover. Committing suicide is a more appropriate response.
Does Tom Friedman moonlight as Duncan Fallowell?
Sorry about the double posts all of a sudden, I have no idea why this is happening again, because my manager page shows only the post that I wanted to publish. I deleted the first one because the link wasn't working and I don't know why this is happening - I am not refreshing, I am not hitting re-publish, I am just being bloggered.
I hate Bush than anyone but I really don't want to hear what artistic types have to say on him or the war or any other public matter.
Ever wonder where neo-cons come from? Look no further than this post. This writer may be on the "liberal" side of the fence ("I hate Bush") right now, but his (or her) anti-intellectualism will ultimately lead him to make common cause with reactionaries against the "artistic types" he (or she) so despises.
Note also that the one author in the article (D.M. Thomas) who expresses similar contempt for the views of writers and intellectuals ultimately comes out in favor of the war. No surprise there.
You know, anyone who doesn't care what writers or artists have to say about something doesn't have to read them. The interesting thing about writers and artists, however, is that they are the people who can tell you what is happening in the world with a great deal of clarity and often of prescience - like Orwell.
However, this valentine went out to people like me, who love to read and who admire authors. Feel free to ignore it if you find writers fatuous and self-referential.
What's with all your double posts?
Tena - Do you select the "edit" link for each post when you edit it, or do you edit posts manually then re-post? If you use the link, it should keep it from double-posting.
kit, I'll interpret Gatchaman (I speak subway): an artist breaks the barriers, pisses people off, usually has to be full of themselves to some extent in order to be different in a species and heirarchical society puts alot of pressure on individuals to conform. "I paint because I have to." I do not claim to be an artist, but every now and then I have to do something manically creative and new (for me). It's like your soul gets a boner.
In evolutionary terms, they are mutations, outliers that test the possibilities and extremes of being human. They are experimental humans. That means you get alot of failures for every success, but the success can have an enormous impact on the entirety of humanity. Picasso's Guernica is one such masterpeice. Remember they had to cover a reproduction at the UN because it pissed Powell off to give a new conference in front of it?
That's why their opinions are useful, they might provide a useful insight or they might be full of shit. They enable the human species' longterm evolution and survival.
Kit,
What's with the attitude toward writers? Sounds like anti-intellectualism to me.
Remember what Kurt Vonnegut said about writers being like the canary in the coal mine. That is, being more sensitive, they're quicker to detect lethal gasses.
So they're worth listening to.
The amusing thing is that we went to war to further our self interests and you shmoos seem to have a problem with that. How many of you were up in arms when we "defied the UN" and started bombing Kosovo and Serbia? C'mon, be honest now. I notice the Euroweenies didn't seem to have a problem with us going outside the UN when somebody was goosestepping too near them. So you guys are willing to put our soldiers on the line when their own countries interests AREN'T at stake but bitch when we do have interests (even if they are economic) in the region. And please don't bore me with platitudes about what an awful man Milosovich was, he was a piker compared to Saddam.
I live in Chicago and Studs is on our local PBS station (WTTW) all the time and he really get charged up when he talks about GWB. Also, Studs wrote an editorial against going to war against Iraq last year in the Tribune that was magnificent. If anyone can find it it's worth a read.
Ridnik, I was disapointed with DM Thomas' passage also. The only novel of his I've read is "The White Hotel" which is an excellent artistic interpretation of the horrors of the 20th century.
I basically got out of it that if you are not on guard you will be swept away by the course of history when it goes crazy. That's why I almost shit my pants when I saw Coulter's "Treason". I started hearing the cattle cars rattle down the rails and seeing the eyes staring out.
Who was it that said, "art is speaking clearly about mixed feelings"?
"...defied the UN" and started bombing Kosovo and Serbia"
You've heard of NATO? And who is this "our" you claim has had their self-interests so dazzlingly well served?
The amusing thing is that we went to war to further our self interests and you shmoos seem to have a problem with that.
What do you mean, "our"? We went to war to further George Bush and Dick Cheney's self interests. Maybe you share those interests, but I sure don't.
Attila, this whole US/UN decision making has to be seen as an evolving process of searching for the right way to address these crises.
I know that is hard to believe when you think the US can singly-handed run the world.
Past, Present, Future. Think in time, think about improving things gradually when you have to, radically when you get an opportunity.
Bush went the other way and screwed it all up.
If you spend and extra 50 cents the next time you buy some colors, the box should contain one that is GREY.
Then your artwork takes on a much more rich and mature feel. Feel free to outside the lines.
"You've heard of NATO? And who is this "our" you claim has had their self-interests so dazzlingly well served?"
Nato is an alliance, not a world body. Even invoking it is trying to dodge the point and you know it. C'mon, fess up. We had absolutely no reason of our own to go into Kosovo, not one. And as far as Iraq goes, even if you tin foil hat crowd was right and we did do it over oil, that still is self interest.
Anonymous - I use the link, usually. I suppose that the fact that I was sailing along this morning and thinking "Hey I got this," was just about all it needed to bite me back.
Thanks for your patience, guys, and if you are impatient and tired of it, I am too. I hate making mistakes. And Atrios will be back tomorrow.
self-interest is long interest of our nation, not short-time cash grab by some soulless suits who think JR Ewing is a role model.
"Past, Present, Future. Think in time, think about improving things gradually when you have to, radically when you get an opportunity.
Bush went the other way and screwed it all up."
He went the right way, and ignored a body with pretensions of authority. The UN needed to be reminded of it's station in the world, and that station is NOT a governing body. We do not EVER need permission to go to war.
Rocket Man: Studs Terkel makes me proud to be from Chicago.
Cheney_USA: I haven't read "The White Hotel". I'll have to take a look for it here at the library. I'm as much of a champion of the man in the street as the next lefty, but there are times when I do believe the common man is a little too common (to paraphrase the title of the famous essay).
Kit: I hate Bush than anyone but I really don't want to hear what artistic types have to say on him or the war or any other public matter. lots of preening with the ratio of fatuity to insight depressingly high.
Kit, let me chime in with the other who's posted... "artistic types" is a granfalloon... there is no such thing really... there are only people, smart or not who have opinions about what is happening. Let me say however, that writers, artists, and others of our ilk are very sensitive to what's going on in the world. Your blanket condemnation is not accurate.
And as far as Iraq goes, even if you tin foil hat crowd was right and we did do it over oil, that still is self interest.
But whose self-interest, exactly? Not mine. And why do best interests always have to be measured in economic terms? The damage to our credibility certainly hasn't been in our best interest.
Amazing that there are still right-wingers out there who will defend the fiasco in Iraq.
We had absolutely no reason of our own to go into Kosovo, not one.
Ignorance is not an argument. You might try stratfor's archives from the period, when FOX news was taking its talkingpoints from the people shooting at our planes...
regarding my anti-artistic, anti-intellectual biases, i happen to make my living as a writer. I have a very big shot agent who gets me mid-six figure advances.
which is to say, i am fucking surrounded by writers who love nothing more than giving me opinions and insights on the important issues of the day that do not differ in any meaingful way from what I hear on the subway.
Let's do a little experiment. Is it possible to read those comments without knowing the writer's identity? If you didn't know who said it, would you regard his/her words as insightful?
Didn't think so.
"self-interest is long interest of our nation, not short-time cash grab by some soulless suits who think JR Ewing is a role model."
Self interest is what we define it to be at the given time. As much as you guys like to deny that we have accomplished anything the fact is we are now based in strategic territory on the borders of both Iran and Syria. We gave Libya the additional little boost that they needed to take the opportunity seriously to come out of the cold.
And we now have terrorists fighting soldiers over there, instead of our civilians having to fight them in the skys above our cities. Classic tactics from Mao, I would think you liberals would be familiar with his treatise on secure territory vs contested territory.
We do not EVER need permission to go to war.
Wow, you even lost Wolfowitz on that one.
Kid, picking "neocon" isn't like deciding you like the White Stripes.
Great job on oil, by the way. The invasion's really done the trick.
i happen to make my living as a writer. I have a very big shot agent who gets me mid-six figure advances.
Sounds like an AOL chat room where all the women are tall, blonde, and shapely.
Anyhow, I have to run. My 14 inch penus is getting uncomfortable in my jeans and Beyonce and Brittney are popping by with some sticky bud and a case of Bass.
Enjoy the weekend all.
Self interest is what we define it to be at the given time.
I've decided it's a highly evolved form of bicycle.
It must be true because I can't hear you: 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11
"Nato is an alliance, not a world body. "
It depends on what the meaning of is is.
You freely invoke the UN when it suits your purposes. This concept of "permission" is a childish word game. Little Caesar Bush could do whatever the US Congress let him get away with. But having the power to do something should carry with it the responsibility of having the wisdom to know how to do it right, and when not to do something. If Bush had listened to others, he would not look so thoroughly discredited now.
If you didn't know who said it, would you regard his/her words as insightful?
Compared to your offerings? Yes.
Attila: eyes are rolling and heads are shaking. Don't go Powell on me.
And kit, your point about knowing who it is when they are giving their opinions is valid.
Now let's apply it to George Bush and see how people rate his opinions without knowing he is President.
kit, you also disqualified yourself when you used how much moeny you make to back up your opinion. I don't give a fuck if you are a billionaire or a homeless guy at the public library. Money does not correllate with intelligence or morality. However, it does correlate with wanting to make money.
kit, what kind of books have you written? Fiction, non-, history, porno, kids, ghost writing for Hannity or Limbaugh?
However, what kind of car do you drive?
You freely invoke the UN when it suits your purposes.
==========
LOL!! Look who's talking! You guys didn't give a rats ass about the UN refusal to endorse the Kosovo adventure. And then you have the nerve to toss the word "hypocrit" around so freely?
===============
But having the power to do something should carry with it the responsibility of having the wisdom to know how to do it right, and when not to do something.
==========
Oh, and I suppose he is supposed to take his cues from those learned masters of responsibility of the party of Clinton. HAHAHAHAAAA!!!
==========
If Bush had listened to others, he would not look so thoroughly discredited now.
======
Discredited in whose eyes? Yours? Big deal, he's the enemy to you and never had any credit to begin with. Go ahead and take solace in those poll numbers for now if you are referring to those..the real campaign hasn't even started yet.
regarding my anti-artistic, anti-intellectual biases, i happen to make my living as a writer. I have a very big shot agent who gets me mid-six figure advances.
What do you write, Harlequin Romances? Six figure advances and big shot agents do not an "artist" make, bub.
Attila,
Stability in the Slavic region benefits that region short-term, Europe mid-term, and the US in the long run economically and militarily.
The current action in Iraq is leading to further instability in the region. This benefits Al Qeda and other terrorists groups. I'm waiting to see an upside to it for us, especially as it's likely that we won't be able to maintain a large military presence there, though in anticipation of such, we pulled out of bases in SA.
Thus, Bush took the exact wrong action. He has nearly uniquely defined the limits of American military and political influence. Prior to this, those limits were known to exist (of course), but were not clearly defined.
The Iraqi adventure has directly weakened our military. Since we can now no longer rely on previously established military and political alliances, including the Brits, the Iraqi adventure has also indirectly weakened our military.
Let's do a little experiment. Is it possible to read those comments without knowing the writer's identity? If you didn't know who said it, would you regard his/her words as insightful?
I do not know who Atrios is, yet I find plenty of his words insightful.
What kind of stuff do you write, equally unknown six-figure Kit?
Tena:
The latest issue of Granta has contributions of many writers on the theme of "Over There: How America Sees the World"
One of the articles is a transcript of NYT correspondent Chris Hedges commencement address in May 2003 at Rockford College in Rockford, Illinois, an alleged higher learning institution.
The bravery and honesty of Hedges contrasts sharply with the heckling of people who are supposed to have a capacity to have an open mind and entertain opposing viewpoints.
I'm sure many eschatonians are familiar with this speech, but just in case some missed it...
I highly recommend.
I want to speak to you today about war and empire.
Attila - You're either joking, or you are just ignorant. "Classic Mao" - that holds the same weight as the content of the Supply-Sider's Econ 101 textbook holds against reality. The only strategic position we are holding in Iraq right now is that of hiding inside the Green Zone. It might help if you actually had a clue of the tenuous situation inside Iraq, instead of regurgitating talking points from the Coalition web site.
And Libya had a crumbling economy and was desperate to rejoin the world community.
Nato is an alliance, not a world body.
NATO is an alliance, and the UN charter (we're a member of the UN, whether you like it or not) permits such action by member states, as part of a duly constituted alliance.
The coalition of the bought and bullied operating in Iraq is no such alliance, and does not enjoy the sort of latitude afforded to organizations like NATO.
Ilya, I can hear the airhorns and popping open of beers right now.
The American education system is a shambles at getting kids to open their minds. It is an advanced conformity training system for most so they can get the green.
And our public schools have basically become gulags and education camps with standardized tests.
kit, many of the world's best writers achieved greatness because they accurately described the mores of the people they observed and the influences of events they experienced. As readers, we see their world through their eyes. It is an incredible, educational, very often emotional journey.
Sure there are a lot of hacks out there. Always have been. But the really good ones help us better understand mankind, what makes us good and admirable, evil, and everything in between.
Very often they articulate what many are feeling but can't adequately express. I'll be happy to read what they have to say.
Attila, Iraq is in a state of civil war right now. Two car bombings in as many days, with over 100 casualties. A guerilla attack on a police station in order to free prisoners there. How is this in our self-interest?
Wake up and smell the bullshit, man.
Stability in the Slavic region benefits that region short-term, Europe mid-term, and the US in the long run economically and militarily.
===========
This is pure rationalizing. We gained nothing from Kosovo.
========
The current action in Iraq is leading to further instability in the region. This benefits Al Qeda and other terrorists groups. I'm waiting to see an upside to it for us, especially as it's likely that we won't be able to maintain a large military presence there, though in anticipation of such, we pulled out of bases in SA.
=======
Yeah, if Clinton hadn't of cut our 18 divisions down to 10 we wouldn't have this problem, but that's water under the bridge. We have successfully toppled two of the worlds worst regimes, one of which the USSR couldn't manage in 10 years time.
=========
Thus, Bush took the exact wrong action. He has nearly uniquely defined the limits of American military and political influence. Prior to this, those limits were known to exist (of course), but were not clearly defined.
=====
Those limits are difined by our will, something the left seems determined to undermine for their own partisan advantage. The fact is that you are basing that statement on the concept that we would fight a future conflict in the same manner if confronted with it while still having troops in Iraq.
======
The Iraqi adventure has directly weakened our military. Since we can now no longer rely on previously established military and political alliances, including the Brits, the Iraqi adventure has also indirectly weakened our military.
=======
The Iraqi venture has strengthened our military, giving it invaluable experience on the ground with different systems and tactics. The allies it "cost us" were allies in name only.
When do we get "Plumbers on the Iraq War"? "Truck drivers and Software QA Engineers on the Iraq War"?
Oh, they're not "Predictably leftist ninnies with negligible world experience who say comfortably agreeable things on the Iraq War".
About Bush: Discredited in whose eyes?
Today I went into a European bookstore and saw a book dedicated to dumb statements made by GWB - including the infamous "misunderestimate" - complete with translations. I never saw a thing like that about a statesman before. But then again, Europeans are wimps and do not count (because some of them refused to foot the war bill this time).
Attila, Iraq is in a state of civil war right now. Two car bombings in as many days, with over 100 casualties. A guerilla attack on a police station in order to free prisoners there. How is this in our self-interest?
Wake up and smell the bullshit, man.
-------
Oh nos!! There is still resistance, we might as well lay down and declare the whole thing a failure!!! If the "resistance" continues to target Iraqi's thats going to start to work against them. The only bullshit I smell is what you guys are tossing.
Read Kafka. He wanted his work almost all of it unpublished, he worked in an insurance office, burned when he died of TB. He did not have a big shot (it's bigshot, one word) agent.
His friend saved the work and got it published.
Kafka didn't get any advances from anyone, instead he gave all who read him unbelievable advances in understanding the world and themselves.
Read "The Castle", fucking funny as shit.
Today I went into a European bookstore and saw a book dedicated to dumb statements made by GWB - including the infamous "misunderestimate" - complete with translations. I never saw a thing like that about a statesman before. But then again, Europeans are wimps and do not count (because some of them refused to foot the war bill this time).
------------
LOL! IF you haven't heard Euro's being snide and condescending about America before Iraq (or even Bush) then you just weren't paying attention. They are just outraged that we had the gall to act without their "enlightened", ie useless, approval.
"Discredited in whose eyes?"
Pretty much the whole world's except for sycophantic and ignorant believers like you, Atilla.
Just a couple examples:
"The yankees will believe anything, anything! The media command them to think the way they (media) want them to think and guess what? what? They'll obey like zombies, if you don't believe me, just watch and see, when the media went after Dean, the yankees didn't stop to think, they listened to the corrupt media's command that Dean was not 'electable' so now they have a hypocritical establishment man as their likely pseudo-saviour who is nothing more than a democrat clone of Bush...They'll learn soon enough, these yankees are the worst scum of the earth, Chinese students fight and die in Tiannamen for their freedom, Russian citizens fought for their freedom in front of their presidential palace, they rconfronted tanks, Venezuelan masses fight for their freedom, Africans fight for theirs, South Americans fight for theirs but the yankess who claim to be the free people of planet earth swallow lies, deception, and the outright theft of their freedom and they do nothing...
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Why is this important? It is simply cause these yankees love to preach freedom to the world and yet, they have no clue what freedom looks like talkless of feels like...THEY ARE ALL SLAVES, ALL OF THEM!...peace through compassion "
"American peoples were called swines are not for nothing. Theyre in it together with Bush. Like the pro-american said in this forum, theyre the superpower, what can the whole world do about it. "
of course you don't know who i am -- i'm posting anonymously.
fucking shameful that the editors asked harold pinter his opinion but not britany spears. when it comes to combining ignorance with limitless self-regard, she's just as qualified as he to tell us about iraq.
but then had they asked britany, none of us would have wasted our time reading it. and none of you would have disagreed with my first post that the opinions of celebrities on important public matters are generally fatuous. it would have been obvious from their words.
sorry, but i have yet to read any literary intellectual saying anything on the war that's meaningfully different from what madonna might say in a vanity fair puff piece.
Meanwhile, Bush is busy protecting his cronies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Those friends and allies of Bush have been funding, sponsoring and training terrorists, and proliferating nuclear weapons.
But Georgie boy must carry out his little vendetta on his dad's behalf, even though his dad is sensible enough to have wanted no part of it.
Iraq burns. Our soldiers die. Our enemies proliferate and become strong.
And Zero keeps fundraising in the good old US of A, even as the national interest burns.
"We do not EVER need permission to go to war."
Attila the Neocon
I will pity your family and friends when someone comes up and puts a bullet through your head just because they think it is the right thing to do at the time.
Rule of law runs from the micro to the macro. If you decide to ignore it at the big end what keeps it in operation at the detail level?
Don't be such a fool. Read a book or two. You can improve yourself. It won't be easy, but you can do it.
"Discredited in whose eyes?"
Pretty much the whole world's except for sycophantic and ignorant believers like you, Atilla.
==========
Ah, now you are confusing "credibility" with popularity. Our credibility was actually enhance because we proved we were serious, instead of knuckling under to the sneers of the Euros and those enlightened despotic regimes which make up so much of the UN. On the other hand the very fact that we had that audacity was greeted with horror and indignation, which of course the left confuses with "lack of credibility.
Tell you what,Agitpropre...you list for me the number of countries that went to war with UN permission since Korea.
Attila, since you brought up Yugoslavia and I'm sure you have read Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror", you will recall her description of the last battle of the Crusades. The locals warned the Westerners about the upcoming battle tactics of the Islamics but were ignored. Sure enough, the Westerners almost lost at one point but then they started winning. So guess what? The locals decided to go with the Islamics and they joined the fight and beat the Westerners.
Lesson: They don't listen even though they are strong, so long term, they will screw it up and then they are going to Jerusalem and leaving us here. Safer bet to go with the long term presence.
So, in Iraq if you have to decide to stick with the strong but stubborn Americans who can't wait to leave, or go with the longterm residents who will be here forever, who are you going to go with?
By the way, the descendents of the locals in Yugoslavia are the Bosnians that were being slaughtered.
Payback is a bitch.
Attila, sorry I had to use facts, thinking and deduction. I know you hate them all.
And we now have terrorists fighting soldiers over there, instead of our civilians having to fight them in the skys above our cities.
Attila the Neocon | Email | Homepage | 02.14.04 - 4:48 pm | #
Chuckle.
As if there were a finite number of "terrorists" in the world, and nothing would ever increase that number.
Get a clue. The action in Iraq against our troops is a guerilla war. We in the US are in no way safer because our soldiers are getting picked off one or two at a time.
LOL! IF you haven't heard Euro's being snide and condescending about America before Iraq (or even Bush) then you just weren't paying attention.
I was talking specifically about discrediting 'Bush' and not America.
They are just outraged that we had the gall to act without their "enlightened", ie useless, approval.
Oh, definitely. And you are outraged because some of them do not foot the bill (financially nor materially). Freedom fries anyone?
"Predictably leftist ninnies with negligible world experience who say comfortably agreeable things on the Iraq War".
Hat,
If you had taken the time to READ the article before criticizing it, maybe you wouldn't look like such a fool.
kit, about comparing Madonna's opinion with intellectuals (the fact that you even use that word, implies disdain) proves the point I've been making for a year and a half.
Anybody who can think independently and have a decent brain can see this is a terrible idea. Forget about morality, it's just stupid.
Look at Attila and how he is still saying things that a reasonable person would be embarrassed to say.
I listened to two NPR reports the other night about US pulling out, and they both talked about politics of who will be in charge and the security problem.
What was noticably missing was any mention of the Iraq economy.
The place is a wreck. Just wait until they get internet service and watch the worms turn and the virii spread. It's coming.......
"Tell you what,Agitpropre...you list for me the number of countries that went to war with UN permission since Korea."
Attila the Neocon
Sorry, I don't think I will. Why don't you meditate on the nature of rule of law and why its violation would be bad for you, since self-interest is your sole motivating force.
Get a clue. The action in Iraq against our troops is a guerilla war. We in the US are in no way safer because our soldiers are getting picked off one or two at a time.
=============
The document reads like an annual report. There is little flourish, just a cold assessment of what the writer believes is going well in Iraq and what is not.
It reads: "There is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the mujahedeen has begun to tighten. With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening."
The writer says he is having a difficult time gathering forces. "Iraq has no mountains in which to seek refuge, or forest in which to hide."
And the writer concedes, "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. By God, this is suffocation." - intercepted note from Al Zarqawi (known terrorist) to Al Qaeda
Looks like the "resistance" isn't as all powerful as the partisans in this country want to present them
"Tell you what,Agitpropre...you list for me the number of countries that went to war with UN permission since Korea."
Attila the Neocon
----------
Sorry, I don't think I will. Why don't you meditate on the nature of rule of law and why its violation would be bad for you, since self-interest is your sole motivating force.
------
Ahhh...so maybe the UN ISN'T quite the "body of authority" you were portraying it to be, eh?
"The Iraqi venture has strengthened our military, giving it invaluable experience on the ground with different systems and tactics."
–Attila
And they'll be able to use this experience after the volunteer professional army has been broken by an overdeployment that Clinton couldn't have dreamed up and we don't have enough reservists and national guardsmen to back them up?
Hey cousins, it's not just the artistic cadre watching the US and forming opinions, we all are and not least us Canucks. We have learned from experience that the American mastadon emits stupendous farts from time to time and note that we are inescapably downwind. We watch. We worry. And we sure at hell have opinions.
Canadians are around 70-30 in favour of a Bush defeat in November. We read about 9/11 fallout, Valerie Plame etc, AWOL, the discredited rationale for whacking Iraq, lazy political reporting, mind-blowing fibs and wonder if your governance process is centered entirely upon creating the circumstances for interminable, fractious inquiries and investigations.
Mea culpa, Canada has its own mini-scandal in full rut at the moment but in 5 days of purple-faced rancor over $100 million of government funds swiped by the Administration, we have an inquiry underway and a furious Prime Minister stalking the halls with a baseball bat - and his party did the swiping while he was Minister of Finance.
Cleanup is well underway. There are several reasons for the prompt reaction but the primary one is a national treasure named Sheila Fraser who bears the title Auditor-General. This woman can pick flyshit out of pepper and has never met an obfuscation she couldn't shred. Engage in bad shit and Sheila makes you eat it. In public.
Sheila will retire soon. Remember her name and think about hiring her as special counsel to one of your many ongoing inquiries. Think too about having an independent, well-funded non-partisan investigator/whistle-blower reporting only to your parliament. It works for us.
Hang in, cousins. Texas shrubbery is a passing fad soon departed. We really like you but question your taste in Presidents.
Attila, a recent report on European tv confirmed that Coalition efforts in quashing the resistance were indeed pretty successful. Major problems now seem to be "groups of bandits", potential civil war and anti-coalition sentiments. Now, I do not know about you, but I would hate to be caught in a civil war. Not that it is destined to happen, but you and your enlightened administration better start focussing on these issues.
"Yeah, if Clinton hadn't of cut our 18 divisions down to 10 we wouldn't have this problem, but that's water under the bridge. We have successfully toppled two of the worlds worst regimes, one of which the USSR couldn't manage in 10 years time."
Attila - Since all you're doing is spewing GOP talking points, many of which are demonstrably false, it's obvious that you have no intention of being taken seiously in this debate. Why don't you explain to us all about Clinton's magic power - you know, the power which gave him the ability to wave his hand and make eight army divisions disappear.
On the other hand, it would be easier to stick to the truth, and just tell us about the US military downsizing that began in 1990. You might also want to ask Dick Cheney about his role in that. You might further want to ask Donald Rumsfeld about his recent and ongoing efforts to further downsize the military to pay for nonfeasible missile defense, except when he found out that we were overextended, then he changed his mind. Odd that he actually let facts get in his way. So unlike a neocon.
The Iraqi venture has strengthened our military, giving it invaluable experience on the ground with different systems and tactics."
–Attila
===========
And they'll be able to use this experience after the volunteer professional army has been broken by an overdeployment that Clinton couldn't have dreamed up and we don't have enough reservists and national guardsmen to back them up?
-------
You mean the ability to fight two simultanious wars, something that had been a doctrine of our military for the past 50 years. Oh no, how could Clinton have forseen that!?!?
"Ahhh...so maybe the UN ISN'T quite the "body of authority" you were portraying it to be, eh?
Attila the Neocon"
I knew this was pointless, but I thought I would give it a shot. I never mentioned the UN. If you cannot read than I must conclude your ability to understand what I write is somewhat hampered.
attila, you are a fuck-wit.. Read a book! ANY book!
sheesh!!
Attila, a recent report on European tv confirmed that Coalition efforts in quashing the resistance were indeed pretty successful. Major problems now seem to be "groups of bandits", potential civil war and anti-coalition sentiments. Now, I do not know about you, but I would hate to be caught in a civil war. Not that it is destined to happen, but you and your enlightened administration better start focussing on these issues.
---------
Now think about it in a non political manner. Of course they are focusing on these issues. But they can't wave a magic wand and make it go away over night. But the fact that the "insurgents" are now targeting Iraqi's is a demonstration in and of itself of their desperation. They are attacking what they fear, and those recent car bombs speak volumes.
Attila,
Rumsfeld decided a priori to go in with less than what we could have fielded, and much less than his generals told him to use. That and not the draw-down put us where we are in Iraq.
Since it is impossible for you to not know this, I think you're just trolling, so what's the point of continuing this discussion?
Rumsfeld decided a priori to go in with less than what we could have fielded, and much less than his generals told him to use. That and not the draw-down put us where we are in Iraq.
===========
Since it is impossible for you to not know this, I think you're just trolling, so what's the point of continuing this discussion?
========
Waitaminute, the argument was about our military being "overextended", what does the amount of troops that Rumsfield initially chose (and I agree, to few) to go in with have to do with that?
Attila, once again I agree with you. However, watching your president's SOTU I did not get the impression he was dealing with exactly those specific issues. That is the major problem right now: the way your president presents himself (and therefore, unfortunately, his country) to the rest of the world. I do not care whether you elect a Democrat or a Republican next November, but you desperately need a better communicator at the helm.
Attila, once again I agree with you. However, watching your president's SOTU I did not get the impression he was dealing with exactly those specific issues. That is the major problem right now: the way your president presents himself (and therefore, unfortunately, his country) to the rest of the world. I do not care whether you elect a Democrat or a Republican next November, but you desperately need a better communicator at the helm.
============
I will concede the point that watching Bush speak is an exercise in frustration. Even to his supporters.
Attila, you seem unable to stick to the subject of the thread. Perhaps that's because the threat is oriented towards people who read. Suggestion - find a venue more suited to your capabilities.
Hey, Atilla - look what I found at www.un.org:
Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council may take measures to deal with threats to peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. On several occasions, the Security Council has authorized Member States to use all necessary means-including force-to achieve a stated objective. Consent of the parties is not necessarily required.
With such Security Council authorization, Member States have formed coalitions to take joint military action as in the Korean conflict in 1950, and more recently, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, in Somalia and Rwanda, to restore the legitimate government of Haiti, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Albania and in East Timor. It also authorized deployment of a multinational peacekeeping force in the Central African Republic, which in March 1998 was replaced by a UN peacekeeping operation, the UN Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA).
These actions, although endorsed by the Security Council, were entirely under the control of participating States and not under United Nations command. They are, therefore, distinctly different from United Nations peacekeeping operations.
Attila, sorry, that was too sharp. It's not that you don't have a right to your opinions. It's just that there may be a better place to display them.
In general, I do consider the political opinions of writers and artists to be worth reading. I respect the powes of observation and often the scope of vision that goes with that territory. It doesn't mean that they're infallible.
Now Emily compare that paltry number of actions with the number of actions taken without "UN endorsement". The fact is that countries will act with or without the UN's consent when they percieve it to be in there interests.
Also Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia and Herzegovina were not what I would call the model of success.
Attila, sorry, that was too sharp. It's not that you don't have a right to your opinions. It's just that there may be a better place to display them.
===========
That's okay. I would rather hang out where I'm yelled at than in an echo chamber with everybody telling me I'm right. That would get boring damn fast
On November 28, 1984, U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger spoke to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on "The Uses of Military Power." The Weinberger doctrine, later reiterated by Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, laid out criteria for the use of force, including an insistence upon clearly defined goals, adequate resources to fight, and the moral support to win.
The best of Dick Cheney:
In 1990, Dick Cheney proposed a gradual 25% reduction in the military. He called for withdrawing tens of thousands of troops from Europe, canceling weapons programs and removing 442,000 men and women from the military over five years.
Attila, did you ever see the testimony before the US Senate of those tortured, maimed, and killed under Milosovic(sp?)? I watched every day for weeks. The stories matched and/or exceeded those of Saddam or any other dictator we supported and installed. Where's your outrage over photos of Rummy shaking Saddams' hand while he was committing atrocities? Where's your outrage over our "normalizing" relations with Saddam (under Reagan/Bush) after he committed these horrors? What about our current Bush president agreeing with Pakistan to pardon a nuclear scientist who admitted to selling information to countries Bush declared part of a "axis of evil". Don't let historical fact get in your way.
Yo Kit,
one of those 'artistic types' you dismiss
(due in part, it seems, from a bit of jealousy on your part)
in the article linked was in British intellegence,
a Mr. le Carre.
"What about our current Bush president agreeing with Pakistan to pardon a nuclear scientist who admitted to selling information to countries Bush declared part of a "axis of evil". Don't let historical fact get in your way."
We can go further than that. Bush knew about this for a couple years. The pardon was a dog and pony show.
Khan Job: Bush Spiked Probe of Pakistan’s Dr. Strangelove, BBC reported in 2001
Tiny, the number of Shia, Kurds, Kuwaities, and Iranians killed by Saddam absolutely dwarfs anything Milosovich did.
Sure, I hated seeing the Pakistani scientist get pardoned, but I know why we aren't yelling louder and so do you. We prefer Musharrif remain in power as opposed to the fundamentalist opposition that would practically start a civil war if their national hero got tried. It sucks, but thats geopolitics.
Attila unsurprisingly leaves out one of the main differences between the action in Kosovo and the current action in Iraq:
Bill Clinton didn't lie about why he was taking action. Milosevic's Serbian aggression had been well documented countless times in the previous ten years, and Kosovar Albanians were pouring over the borders after having been evicted by the Serbs. These were the reasons Clinton gave for the intervention. Compare and contrast with what Bush said and what we now know about Iraq.
Attila, What about Rummy? It's just geopolotics? So as long as (Pakistani dictator) is our dictator it's okay? I'm not saying that's not the way it works. You can't villify one dictator for his/her actions and then say well "the other murderous dictator is ok because that country is our "ally". You say on one hand all evil dictators are bad (and must be removed no mattter what)and then start qualifying them by numbers killed?
Bill Clinton didn't lie about why he was taking action.
==========
Sure he did, he didn't mention the impeachment he was trying to keep out of the headlines even once.
Attila - Oh please, even you can't be that stupid. As if anything was going to shake the rightwing off the scent of the Clenis. Clinton, being demonstrably much more intelligent than you, certainly knew as much as well.
One other major difference: Kosovo wasn't used by Clinton as an excuse to shovel dumptruck loads of US taxpayer funds to companies he had ties with or who supported his campaigns.
Attila - Oh please, even you can't be that stupid. As if anything was going to shake the rightwing off the scent of the Clenis. Clinton, being demonstrably much more intelligent than you, certainly knew as much as well.
==========
C'mon, he launches the war on the VERY SAME DAY as the impeachment proceedings begin. He was wagging the dog for all it was worth
=========
One other major difference: Kosovo wasn't used by Clinton as an excuse to shovel dumptruck loads of US taxpayer funds to companies he had ties with or who supported his campaigns.
========
See, we had no interests whatsoever. At least American companies are getting "dumptruck loads of US money" out of Iraq.
Atilla, while I personally disagree with the doctrine of self-interest as an immoral one I concede that it is a practical way of going about these things.
But I have yet to be convinced that the Iraq invasion was in the self-interest of America, not just a handful of corporations and/or politicians.
Would you please explain why Iraq has contributed to our goals economically, politically, and in regards to the fighting terrorism.
Attila,
It's not about Clinton lying, although I agree he probably did lie, nothing new there. What it is about NOW is Bush lying and all that that entails for the situation at hand in Iraq and the world. Since people of good will have no chance to remove someone who is not in office, why all the smoke about Clinton? If a world judicial body accuses Clinton of war crimes I certainly would like to see him defend against the charges. Ain't gonna happen, though.
I apologize, Attila, I was wrong. You really are that stupid. My bad.
Umm... looks like attila's gone. Clearly he got scared off by my entry into the debate.
Why Attilla is a dishonest toad;
1.) He ignores the fact that the population of Europe, as opposed to it's leaders, were highly critical of Kosovo. Remember when Robert Fisk for instance first raised the ire of the US Right? Of course you do... it was when he negatively covered the Kosovo War, and some of it's lovely screw ups (like bombing the Chinese Embassy). You won't hear that from Attilla however, because that prevents him from playing his hypocrisy card, and that's the only one he's got. He has to claim we love Clinton's War, otherwise, how can he berate the Euro Weenies for hating the Iraq one?
2.) At the same time, he has to claim we hate all war, and are pacifist pussies, otherwise, how can we be weenies at all? Recent history of course being only relevant when insulting the Germans; When it's the Germans, French, Russians and everyone in the EU except Britain and Spain, then only French history (Coulter'd history at that) applies apparently. Suddenly Europe, with it's enormously varied culture and history, all boils down to one single caricature... One much easier to accept of course if you are a Neocon than trying to think about why so many different people think it's a foolish idea. The European left is and is not more communist than the US left (which Bill Clinton is assumed to belong too) depending on whether it's doubleplusgood to think so at any particular moment.
3.) Gaining tactical experience; an argument which according to Attilla's views should justify Kosovo more than Iraq, because less US troops have had to die to earn that experience, apparently doesn't. Needless to say, the fact that the US has fucked Iraq up in the process indicates that they aren't learning the lesson's Attilla values very well even at those costs.
And how pulling your comrades from burning humvee's on the roads of Baghdad provides US troops with the essential experiences needed to tackle Al Quaida members trying to board US Internal Flights is a mystery solved only be the wild flights of fantasy Attilla is prone too.
4.) "It sucks, but thats geopolitics."
Except when Europe does it, apparently. Yes folks, even though every dire warning of those opposed to Bush's Excellent Iraqi Adventure has been proven true, from increased terrorist activity, to approaching civil war, to continued US deaths, to... Europe did not think geopolitical calculations meant that removing Saddam, just like challenging Mushareef was a wise move over all; Oh no! When Attilla says something like that, that's sensible geopolitics. But when anyone criticizes something Attilla supports, then it's obviously Weenie-ism at it's worst! It has to be direct and deliberate support for evil, because only the Boy Chimperor is wise, every other leader in the world is a shameless evil opportunist! But they'll all be shown when America makes it to Mars... sorry, I meant when their hero John Kerry is discovered this week to h
Kit, you've given yourself away...
< i>which is to say, i am fucking surrounded by writers who love nothing more than giving me opinions and insights on the important issues of the day that do not differ in any meaingful way from what I hear on the subway.
And you're not going to give us your take on things? You blew it with complaining. Why don't you just write and promote your writing. Why do you need to whine here?
Just for the record, Clinton told the Senate he would have the troops out in six months so that they would back him. That was plainly a false promise not meant to be kept.
Well you get the overall idea... Attilla, you suck.
Thanks Tena, that was a really great link. Some very eloquent passages there.
kit, what kind of books do you write?
Who are your favorite writers?
One more time: the post-Soviet collapse world was in transition. The old rules of two superpowers picking sides in every fight was over. However, the fights were still going on. The US, as the lone superpower, could be world cop or work to establish some flexible framework for handling complex, sometimes unpredictable eruptions of violence between countries and within countries. The UN and NATO were obvious partners to start with. It was evolving and of course the moronic right twisted it to the simple "We don't need no permission to do nothing" as they watched the skies for black helicopters.
Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rawanda, Congo, East Timor, the list goes on and on and each situation is unique. A single solution would not fit the spectrum of possibilities.
So, Clinton was working through it, took the blame for Poppy dropping us in Somalia as he left the White House, Albright pushed on Yugoslavia, NATO mission confusion, totally dropped the ball on Rawanda and Burundi, and was also crippled in working the problem by a bunch of ignorant, vindictive assholes aided by laughing buttmunchers in the media who ignored the President's responsibilities and only cared about his penis.
Now Bush is in charge on 9/11 (still blaming Clinton) and instead of using a historic opportunity to strengthen international cooperation in promoting peace and justice and adding some lumber to the decisionmaking process for handling international conflict, does the exact opposite (and exactly what Osama wanted, what an idiot going for the bait like dumb dog) and destroys any possibility of long term cooperation and response.
A historic fuckup.
Just letting you know what the history books (at least the good ones) will have in them in 25 years.
1) Ah yes, it's time to invoke the mythical masses, who somewhat failed to make much of an appearance on the demonstration front pertaining to Kosovo as opposed to Iraq. What a weasely form of argument to take.
2)Oh yes, lets not forget the widely diversified cultures of europe, for whatever value they have in this argument. Oh wow, they aren't a TOTALLY monolithic mass in regards to the issue of Kosovo or Iraq. Again this is pretty much a retreating weasely argument in the face of the reality that happened.
3)"And how pulling your comrades from burning humvee's on the roads of Baghdad provides US troops with the essential experiences needed to tackle Al Quaida members trying to board US Internal Flights is a mystery solved only be the wild flights of fantasy Attilla is prone too."
Boy, that was a huge strawman argument. I think you know exactly what I meant. Again, just more weaseling around the subject.
4)What increased terrorist activity? I thought it was "resistance". So which is it? And I haven't seen anymore attacks on our homefront or interests from the middle east, have you? Quite a nice change from the 2 WTC attacks, the Cole bombing, the African embassy bombings, etc.
The funny thing here, is your absolute state of denial that there has been a benefit to our interests as a result of this. Yet some of the very things you bitch about "ie Halliburton, etc" goes to show that there were. And thats just in the short economic front, not counting longterm geopolitical advantages from projecting strength into such a strategic part of the ME.
Attila, are you of draft age? Because if so, you get to experience our "self-interest" first hand next year. Or maybe someone in your family.
There are no longterm geopolitical advantages from projecting strength into the Middle East. Just like there were no longterm goepolitical advantages from projecting strength in Vietnam in the Sixties.
Attila, do you stand in front to the mirror and flex your muscles and think you are badass? That's the level of analysis you provide.
The reprecussions of this war will at least include the deficits, the destroyed lives of our servicemen, the disintegration of our military capability unless there is a draft, and then, the social unrest (justifiable, given how cavalierly Bush used our volunteers after his disgraceful service (or lack thereof) during Vietnam, the loss of trust from other countries.
We also have to live with insufferable trolls that cannot admit they were clapping and laughing as Bush sent our servicemen and women into this disaster.
Attila, you essentially bear part of the responsibility for this if you blindly drank the propaganda Kool-aid that was obviously spiked by lies, greed and hubris.
Everytime you watch Fox think about the video that is not allowed to be shot of Dover AFB. Every time you watch Bush speak, think of it as his "stump" speech. Everytime you see a homeless man think about the ones that will be out there in 20 years caring "Bush and Attila sent me to Iraq. Please Help!"
Fuck you.
Trolling for Dummies - brought to you by Attila
Trolling Tip #8 - Use vague terms that sound impressive, but dont have any specific meaning. That way, if someone calls your bluff, you can pretend you really meant something else.
Ex:
"projecting strength"
"benefit to our interests"
"longterm geopolitical advantages"
Throw these terms around liberally (no pun intended) but never offer actual details or facts. Keep it vague, and you can always claim that you meant something else.
Trolling Tip #23 - Accuse others of using "straw men", then follow immediately by using a straw man of your own.
Ex:
"I think you know exactly what I meant."
Expert level - make your straw men vague also.
Have fun, and stay safe while your trolling kids!
We'd read this earlier, and were struck by how the few supporting terrorism are completely unable to defend such lawlessness, hiding instead behind irrelevent yarlping on about how evil the Enemy is. Come on, children: you do not go to war because of some resolution of the Enemy, over whom you have no control, but because of something in your character, because of some decision of yours. The Enemy is evil? Like in the future he'll be potty-trained or something: the Enemy is always evil and usually racially inferior. The evil of the Enemy is not a reason for terrorism. So really the conquest was not properly defended at all, any more than looted stores and museums were in Iraq. Of course the point in asking authors was to get good in-depth thinking, not just a hand count, but this was successful in exposing the lack of reasons for terror.
Attila, how many wars have you fought in? How many terrorist attacks have you dodged? How long have you worked for NATO or the UN? How many foreign countries have you lived in? Have you ever worked in intelligence? Do you know where our US bases are? Do you know how many (approximately) there are? Do you know how policy is formulated? I may have some idea (sarcasm) but I'd like you to tell me.
it's a good thing george doesn't read, eh.
Amen, kit. Pinter is an insufferable blowhard -- I need his moral instruction like a hole in the head.
" the point in asking authors was to get good in-depth thinking"
Yeah, bullshit. The point of asking authors is to indulge your average Guardian reader's insufferable intellectual snobbery and showcase its vulnerability to selective sampling. Ezra Pound is an excelent case study for those confusing literary talent with advanced moral sensibility.
" the point in asking authors was to get good in-depth thinking"
Yeah, bullshit. The point of asking authors is to indulge your average Guardian reader's insufferable intellectual snobbery and showcase its vulnerability to selective sampling. Ezra Pound is an excelent case study for those confusing literary talent with advanced moral sensibility.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
