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.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.’”
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.
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.
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)
[Berman refers to Paul Berman, a professor of Journalism and an editor of Dissent Magazine]
How so? Because they're anti-totalitarian?
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.
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?
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 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.
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.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’.
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.
"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."