Guybrush

Dittohead
Here's an account of life in Abu Grhaib under Saddam:

“‘They called all the prisoners out to the courtyard for what they called a ‘celebration.’ We all knew what they meant by ‘celebration.’ All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn’t tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen.'’This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us.’ ‘Amer’s wife didn’t lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer’s throat.’ There is a moment of silence. Then Idrissi says: ‘What we have seen about the recent abuse at Abu Ghraib is a joke to us.’”
Ugh, that is the most horrible thing I have read in a long while, the exact moment when human nature hits rock-bottom. Thanks for taking your time arguing against the hair-raising delusions put forth here; I agree with most everything you write.
 

vimothy

yurp
If you need more horror - consider this evidence of Saddam's "bravery", from an interview with the execrable Scott Ritter, an American weapons inspector:

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
There are still plenty of decent lefties (Berman, Kamm, Cohen, Hitchens, Aaronovitch, etc) who aren't pro-totalitarian (I would probably use the phrase "the pro-tyrant left"), just as there were during the Communist era. I don't think "Trots" is appropriate, as I would see Trotsky as having more in common with pro-intervention leftists, or even Neo-cons.

i don't wish to derail the thread- i agree with nearly all you say, but you need to replace the word 'decent' with 'pro-war' for the first sentance above to make sense.
 

tht

akstavrh
There are still plenty of decent lefties (Berman, Kamm, Cohen, Hitchens, Aaronovitch, etc) who aren't pro-totalitarian

these are cunts and by any worthwhile measure not left wing (not sure who the first one is, several people with that surname afaik)
 

vimothy

yurp
these are cunts and by any worthwhile measure not left wing (not sure who the first one is, several people with that surname afaik)

[Berman refers to Paul Berman, a professor of Journalism and an editor of Dissent Magazine]

How so? Because they're anti-totalitarian?
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
[Berman refers to Paul Berman, a professor of Journalism and an editor of Dissent Magazine]

How so? Because they're anti-totalitarian?

as they were pro-war, there is an argument to make that they are pro-totalitarianism
 

vimothy

yurp
Hi Matt

i don't wish to derail the thread- i agree with nearly all you say, but you need to replace the word 'decent' with 'pro-war' for the first sentance above to make sense.

To be honest I'm not sure that I do.

"There are still plenty of pro-war lefties who aren't pro-totalitarian, just as there were during the Communist era."

This doesn't seem appropriate to me. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning, and I'll do the same...

There are no decent lefties who are pro-totalitarian, necessarily (because that's included in my definition of a decent lefty). However, there are decent, anti-totalitarian lefties - I just wouldn't want to describe them as "pro-war".

To say that one is "pro-war" without qualification, IMO, is as nonsensical as saying that one is anti-war. Consider a blog I've just discovered (thanks to a link at Dissensus): Lenin's Tomb (http://leninology.blogspot.com/). If you visit the site, you will see that on the right hand side of the page there is a banner linking to stopwar.org directly above a banner for Hezb'allah. If "anti-war" is meant absolutely, the two banners are mutually exclusive (the Hezb are a non-state "resistance" army at best, foreign funded terrorists at worst) - whatever your beliefs about Hezb'allah, they fight wars. So Lenin's Tomb is pro- and anti-war at the same time time. I noticed also that "lenin" (very anti-war; why not go the whole hog and call yourself Stalin, eh?) reads Zizeck - is this then an example of the Freudian dream logic with which Zizeck characterises the US Administration?

Although I'm perhaps using an unfair example, clearly it is possible (and likely, to say nothing of sensible) that one would be anti-war in one instance and pro-war in another. Hitchens, to use another example, was pro-war re US intervention, and anti-war re Jihadist attacks on New York.

So why describe yourself as the "pro-war left"? It's misleading: no rational actor can or should be pro-war in every context.

And within the context of this thread, is it possible anyway to be "anti-war" and anti-totalitarian? Or perhps it would be better to say, what does it mean to be both anti-war and anti-totalitarian? What are the anti-war policies? What is the response? What if they are less effective or more harmful than an armed response? There are many now defending dictatorships against Western intervention. But war is already being waged in many of the regimes, by the state (or by terror groups like Hezb'allah and al Qaeda) against civilians. How can one claim to be anti-totalitarian, yet be unprepared to place your money (or troops, or own flesh) where your mouth is, to try to use violence to aid those who are already its victims? "People are being abused, but God forbid we should go to war, then it would be our responsibility." I guess to some, war is a greater evil than totalitarianism, even though totalitarianism metes out violence to its own people and war to its neighbours.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
as they were pro-war, there is an argument to make that they are pro-totalitarianism

Seems like a strange argument to make, if you ask me, though I confess that it is unfamiliar. Because they support positive action against totalitarianism, they are totalitarian?
 

vimothy

yurp
Seems like a strange argument to make, if you ask me, though I confess that it is unfamiliar. Because they support positive action against totalitarianism, they are totalitarian?

And by the same logic, wouldn't, for example, Orwell be totalitarian as well?
 

tht

akstavrh
amazed that this sophomoric shit gets aired 4 years after a transparently sociopathic landgrab by thieves and likudniks is now transparently a disaster for america in every respect, save for a few who had their hand in the till at the right time

all of those fat decrepit extrotkyist hack cunts like hitchens/aaronovitch et al should surely be more marginalised now than the few people in the same profession who weren't sucking off wolfowitz/.cheney/murdoch circa 03 (to be obvious someone like krugman in the nyt, notably not a de facto journalist)
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I think this is a bit confused. The last poll of Iraqi public opinion I saw (December 2005, by Oxford Research International) had roughly a roughly 50/50 split of opinion in the interview population - just under half saying that the country is better off and just over saying that it is worse. (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...rld&id=3717385)
But opinion polls change (the previous poll in 2004 was much more supportive of the intervention), and it is not that hard to imagine, surely, that if the security situation were to improve (leading to social and economic stability - let's face it, Iraq could be a wealthy country if this were to occur), then the Iraqi public would feel that the intervention had been worthwhile.
So the poll in 2004 was supportive and the one in 2005 was less so, that seems to be trend away from supporting the war to me. Considering that the situation in Iraq has worsened over the last year I think it's pretty hard to use this change (decrease) in support to argue that it may now have increased.
I agree with you that if the security situation was to improve and it did indeed lead to social and economic stability then the public would feel that the intervention had been worthwhile (apart from all of them who were dead and their families of course) but at the moment there is no sign whatsoever of that happening, that's the problem.
 

vimothy

yurp
"Success is your proof"

So the poll in 2004 was supportive and the one in 2005 was less so, that seems to be trend away from supporting the war to me. Considering that the situation in Iraq has worsened over the last year I think it's pretty hard to use this change (decrease) in support to argue that it may now have increased.

You misunderstand me - I was trying to demonstrate that the Iraqis don't "pity [Saddam's] days", which I take to mean that Iraqis miss Saddam's rule, not that support inside Iraq for the war has increased. (Obviously it has decreased). My point is that this is hard to prove: even the most recent poll has an almost 50/50 split between support and opposition to the intervention. Nobody is asking "do you miss Saddam?" because that would be pointless and insensitive. Of course they don't, even if they don't now feel that the intervention has been a success. But in any case the poll reflects the dire security situation in places like Baghdad - and that is subject to change, hence the decrease in support. So that even were pollsters to ask after Saddam, the response would be conditional, i.e. tied to the time of asking and the state of the Iraqi state.

So, if we are using this measure (Iraqi support for intervention) to justify or attack US policy, the war would have been justifiable in 2004, unjustifiable in 2005, and who knows, possibly justifiable again in 2010.

I agree with you that if the security situation was to improve and it did indeed lead to social and economic stability then the public would feel that the intervention had been worthwhile (apart from all of them who were dead and their families of course) but at the moment there is no sign whatsoever of that happening, that's the problem.

Indeed...
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Matt B: If you by ‘as they were pro-war, there is an argument to make that they are pro-totalitarianism’ allude to the Bush administration, you are using the word ‘totalitarian’ awry. There is some contention over when to use the words ‘totalitarian’ and ‘authoritarian’ to describe a regime or a country, but no serious debater would ever call the U.S. of today ‘totalitarian’.

Vimothy: The word ‘decent’ is a value-word so I would suggest refraining from using it rashly. I think your summary (‘there are still plenty of pro-war lefties who aren't pro-totalitarian, just as there were during the Communist era’) is a bit shaky, by the way: there are several perfectly legitimate reasons for opposing the war and demanding a swift withdrawal, to articulate them is by no means to be ‘pro-totalitarianism’.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Matt B: If you by ‘as they were pro-war, there is an argument to make that they are pro-totalitarianism’ allude to the Bush administration, you are using the word ‘totalitarian’ awry. There is some contention over when to use the words ‘totalitarian’ and ‘authoritarian’ to describe a regime or a country, but no serious debater would ever call the U.S. of today ‘totalitarian’.

Vimothy: The word ‘decent’ is a value-word so I would suggest refraining from using it rashly. I think your summary (‘there are still plenty of pro-war lefties who aren't pro-totalitarian, just as there were during the Communist era’) is a bit shaky, by the way: there are several perfectly legitimate reasons for opposing the war and demanding a swift withdrawal, to articulate them is by no means to be ‘pro-totalitarianism’.
Yep - you don't have to have been a fan of Saddam's regime to have opposed the sort of military intervention that was attempted. It's also not impossible to have opposed the intervention but to believe that given that it has happened and Iraq's in a shocking mess because of it, the best way to sort that mess out is to keep troops there.
 

vimothy

yurp
Vimothy: The word ‘decent’ is a value-word so I would suggest refraining from using it rashly. I think your summary (‘there are still plenty of pro-war lefties who aren't pro-totalitarian, just as there were during the Communist era’) is a bit shaky, by the way: there are several perfectly legitimate reasons for opposing the war and demanding a swift withdrawal, to articulate them is by no means to be ‘pro-totalitarianism’.

Ha - you're right of course, I'm trying to be controversial. (Though people do talk about the "decent left"). I accept that you can be both "anti-war" and anti-totalitarian, just not very effectively. (Again though, what does this mean in its context? Of course you could oppose US forces in Vietnam on reasonable grounds - such as the sanctity of human life - but could you not also use the same principle to agitate for US intervention to rescue the Cambodians from Pol Pot)?
 

vimothy

yurp
Yep - you don't have to have been a fan of Saddam's regime to have opposed the sort of military intervention that was attempted. It's also not impossible to have opposed the intervention but to believe that given that it has happened and Iraq's in a shocking mess because of it, the best way to sort that mess out is to keep troops there.

Well, no but: can you be both anti-totalitarian and anti-a-solution, or anti-a-reponse? Surely we can't rule out the use of force, or the threat of the use of force (I'm not necessarily thinking about Iraq here), in every instance?

[Not saying that it's impossible, but I'm interested to hear where others stand on this].
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
But by ‘anti-war’ most people in here mean the Iraq war, not war as a means of self-defence in general.

Here’s what Andrew Sullivan (an initial supporter of the war and a self-proclaimed conservative, as I’m sure you know) wrote after the President’s speech last night:

If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to grapple with this new situation - a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a game-changer - then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose. The only leverage this president really has left is the looming regional war that withdrawal would bring. Yes, if we leave, the civil war will take off. And if we stay, with this level of troops, the civil war will also take off. One way, we get enmeshed in the brutal civil war in the region. One way, we get to face them another day, and perhaps benefit by setting them against each other, and destabilizing Iran. That's the awful choice this president has brought us to. Under these circumstances, I favor withdrawal, while of course, hoping that a miracle could take place. But make no mistake: a miracle is what this president needs. And a miracle is what we will now have to pray for.

Thus, he now supports immediate withdrawal, on reasonable (if bleak) grounds, I would say.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"You misunderstand me - I was trying to demonstrate that the Iraqis don't "pity [Saddam's] days", which I take to mean that Iraqis miss Saddam's rule, not that support inside Iraq for the war has increased. (Obviously it has decreased). My point is that this is hard to prove: even the most recent poll has an almost 50/50 split between support and opposition to the intervention. Nobody is asking "do you miss Saddam?" because that would be pointless and insensitive. Of course they don't, even if they don't now feel that the intervention has been a success. But in any case the poll reflects the dire security situation in places like Baghdad - and that is subject to change, hence the decrease in support. So that even were pollsters to ask after Saddam, the response would be conditional, i.e. tied to the time of asking and the state of the Iraqi state."

It's an either or situation, presumably a lack of support for the war means that they would rather it was as it was before ie when Saddam was in charge. I take it to be Lebanies' point that in other words they consider the war sufficiently bad to mean that Saddam's rule was preferable.
I agree with you that all other things being equal most Iraqis would not want Saddam (if Lebanies is indeed claiming this then I would beg to differ) but all other things aren't equal and I don't think that you can separate them out that easily.
 
Top