I slept in this morning, got up, had a bowl of oatmeal and a glass of orange juice, and read about the probability that we’ll go to war with Iran.
I sat down in my easy chair and put my feet up and read that yesterday was the 38th anniversary of My Lai. As long as I’m looking at old atrocities, new atrocities are only a click away.
I sip some coffee while reading about yet more war drums in the distance, and my country’s security plan.
The document [“America’s National Security Strategy”], published yesterday, reasserts the right to pre-emptive strikes as a means of self-defence should the union deem itself liable to devastating attack by weapons of mass destruction. This reflects Washington’s view of Iran as a threat not just to Israel and Iraq, but also to America itself, a perception inadequately understood on this side of the Atlantic.
The skies are clear here and the sun is shining, I think I’ll put the computer away and go for a walk, do a little lab work and tidy up my office. No worries here…it’s just another quiet Saturday. We’re going to watch a play this evening.
Say, do you remember—I think it was only a few years ago—when we watched with horror and fascination as our military bombed Baghdad and our tanks rolled across the Iraq? We were assured our smart bombs would make this a clean war that would only help the Iraqi people, and our pundits crowed about our easy victory. I felt rage and pity, I was on the streets with a sign protesting, I wrote to my representatives and complained and cajoled and threatened. I howled in fury at the futile waste of lives and money, the jingoism, the injustice.
So today I’m going for a pleasant walk.
Does anyone care anymore?
Anyone?
This is how the monsters win, you know. They launch horror after horror, and as long as we have our electricity and orange juice and the quiet comforts of our homes, after a while we stop flinching, we just sit benumbed, we tell ourselves, “I’ll rouse myself for the next really big one,” and we remind ourselves that we couldn’t stop the last war, so how can we be expected to stop the next one? We tell ourselves that the democratic way to stop this ongoing nightmare is to elect better leaders at the next election (always the next, it rarely seems to be this one), and then we vote for soft, rotten representatives who, with rare exceptions, simply surrender to the insanity.
So I’m going for a walk.
I’m a monster, too.
Sounds like just any other peacenick, 1939 vintage.
“Say, do you rememberI think it was only a few years agowhen we watched with horror and fascination as our military bombed Baghdad and our tanks rolled across the Iraq?”
Much better to watch with horror and fascination nuclear mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv?
By that logic, you should be sending me $50 right now, in case I drop a nuke a few years from now on your ass.
The worst of it, for me, is that I think we are likely to use nukes against Iran. I think the neocon cabal have long wanted to do this and have deliberately driven us to a position where:
o we have a policy of pre-emptive attack;
o the enemy is seen as having nukes (so we’re “justified” in using our own);
o we don’t have sufficient troops for a ground war;
o the targets are unreachable by conventional air attacks;
o the hype and urgency are built up to present this as an urgent necessity.
How can we stop it?
Or are the lives of others cheaper than $50?
I’m a broken record, but…………..psychomarketing is “how the monsters win”.
The evidence shows it works quite well. No?
Just something we’ve been saying for a long long time, but no one listens and labels us “tin-foil hat material”.
you’re a poet, PZ.
Every preemptive war can be justified by appealing to WWII.
Unless of course, the comparison is an insane crock of shit.
It’s assholes like you, Mr Werpachowski, who have fueled our country’s slow descent into militarism and oppression–who have harmed our reputation and endorsed criminal actions.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons. We have lost our standing in the community of nations to act with credibility against Iran; we’re the big bully with lots of weapons, and now our only role is to bluster and kneecap other countries.
I hate to trot out an old chestnut, but unfortunately it’s apropos.
“The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.”
Mighty oaks from tiny acorns grow, and the seeds of this problem were sown thirty years ago when the current voting population was “educated”. We’re far past the point of no return, here. It’s still theoretically possible to fix things so that thirty years from now, we don’t be so fundamentally messed up in the head, but no one is willing to take that steps that would require.
I suggest learning to live with it. The only alternative is not living with it.
Since Israel already has nuclear weapons, and Iran does not, I think it’s Tehran which will have the mushroom cloud over it. I say we invade Israel.
Just because the impacts from conventional weapons (biological or other of that style) need to cross two oceans to arrive to Americans doesn’t mean it’s the same with nukes.
Or else why are they so dangerous if they can only do local damage?
Caledonian,
What, exactly, do you mean by all that?
After the Holocaust, we asked how such a thing could have happened in a civilized country that produced a Goethe and a Beethoven?”
Now we know.
Couldn’t be a complete post unless someone said Bush=Hitler.
Thanks, June.
The faux-moral voice of the comfortable upper Midwest isolationist. Where have I heard that before?
And how does that match up with the international angst of the same voice, in a different mode, complaining that money wasted on the Oscars could have been spent on — oh, I don’t know — tube wells in Bangladesh.
Make up your mind.
People “care,” but with a worldview like that expressed by Mr. Werpachowski above, caring can perhaps do more harm than good.
Thanks, PZ, for your real-moral voice here.
Excellent post PZ. As the phrase goes, for fascists to win, all it takes is for the good people to do nothing. And so they share a large part of the responsibility.
Of course, historically, ANY terrorism is justified, always, by appeal to self-defense. I recall Hitler justifying his aggression as “defense against jewish-bolshevick conspiracy”.
And so it goes.
I think, rationally speaking, Iran can now claim, with much more justification, that it is under threat from the greatest military in the world, so it has a right for a preemptive nuclear strike against US. Its insane to think that, but its much more justified than the US case.
This is not “how monsters win:” this is how scientists learn. What you learn (or should have learned…) is that holding signs does not work. Writing to your representatives does not work either. Being a scientist, what would you try next? Anything illegal would probably not work, either (that may have to do with it being illegal, but that is a discussion for another day).
Tell you one thing that you can do, it is still legal and it is the most effective thing a non-politically active, intellectually oriented person can do: EMIGRATE. Vote with your feet. Go and have your economic and intellectual output strengthen some other country.
You are not willing to do that, you are not willing to inconvenience yourself to support your convictions, then accept your apathy and move on. Don’t pretend that you care.
AP,
Do not drag science/ scientists into your inherently anti-democratic escapism. Democracy is dirty work. Skipping out is for libertarian hippies unwilling to grapple with responsibility. Cynicism is as damaging as neoconservatism.
I’m quite pessimistic about this inasmuch as I see war as a natural human behavior that is never going away. Human beings have *always* been doing this– going back as far as we have recorded history. Some of our close human relative primates have similar behaviors. 9/11 for example would be called “raiding” in the chimpanzee world.
I used to think otherwise, but then I watched a couple of religious nutcases fly airplanes into buildings on live TV and a bunch of other religious nutcases start beating the war drums and pounding their chests.
I think that one fallacy of peaceniks like you, PZ, is that you think that the majority of people in the world actually want peace, prosperity, and freedom. If that were the case, we would live in a very different world.
People don’t want to be happy, per se.
What the majority of people want is one or more of the following:
1) To show off (sexual/dominance display?)
2) Power
3) Fulfillment of mystical/religious visions
4) To act out negative emotions
5) Excitement and drama (think about this one)
6) Heroes and good-vs-evil struggles
Watch movies, and think about how often we watch movies about peace and freedom and prosperity. Not often. Usually we watch movies about conflict, war, and other forms of *drama*.
The other thing that I realized as I watched the whole 9/11-War on Terror saga unfold is that they are us and we are them. They want the same thing that we want– power, war, excitement, and fulfillment of delusional fantasies. Witness that nutjob over in Iran talking about the “Twelfth Imam” and other apocalytic lunacy, and then witness this:
http://www.raptureready.com/
The same thing is happening over there, too. They aren’t any different. If they had the nukes and we didn’t, they’d be launching preemptive strikes against us.
There are two things that I can think of to do. One is learn to live, and even prosper, with the world the way it is. The other is to think about, as one poster spoke of, what we can do that is *long term* to lay the foundations for something better.
Frumious B. wrote:
“Since Israel already has nuclear weapons, and Iran does not, I think it’s Tehran which will have the mushroom cloud over it. I say we invade Israel.”
In case you weren’t kidding, there is a slight teensy weensy difference. No Prime Minister of Israel has ever called for the obliteration of a fellow nation. We Israelis have our sare of stupidity and callous disregard for human life, but compared to the current Iranian’s president “Israel should be erased off the map”, what you just wrote is bullshit…
PZ you have nothing to be ashamed of for Iraq becuase you did everything in your civilian power to say NO to it, and really it’s the thought that counts. You spoke out against it, you did your job. Maybe you failed, but you still tried and you can sleep peacefully knowing that.
We can’t quit on Iran so easily, by letting our administration invade another country without knowing our disapproval or really.. The president’s war agenda has won.
I can’t believe in two terms he’s been in office, we’ve alreayd invaded 2 countries and the 3rd may be around the corner. How do we pay for it? We’re already in a blackhole of debt.. our forces are already strained in Iraq.. 3 middle eastern countries, wouldn’t we look good? Imagine if he did, Iran would undoubtely shut of oil supplies to us.. oh man, gasoline prices would double/triple initially.. could our economy support that? I only got one picture that sums up a dozen words from a few years ago..
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4499/howcan59054087peoplebesodumb3q.jpg
Some of our close human relative primates have similar behaviors. 9/11 for example would be called “raiding” in the chimpanzee world.
Yeah, but the bonobos might have solved such a thing with sex instead. Your argument is unconvincing. The majority does want peace, prosperity, and freedom. But the majority does not call the shots. We certainly have the capacity for ill behavior, but we can be benevolent, too. I see no reason to think that the former urge is stronger than the latter.
So where is the inconsitancy between being against war and being for humanitarian aid? Because it seems to me like the two tend to go together.
And where is the connection between anti-war and isolationism, we don’t have to invade other countries at great loss of life all around to help and be involved internationally.
I call false-dichotomy
I agree. I am so tired of hearing the airwaves polluted with one-liners, talking points, cliches, watchwords, slogans and catch-phrases. I’m tired of people seizing on the most trivial things that they can, and I’m really tired of hearing those same talking points issuing from my relatives… I don’t understand how people can, not only regurgitate a bunch of half-assed, simplistic bullshit, but actually look self-satisfied when they do it.
I’ve started calling people on it… my relatives in particular. They’ll puke up a right wing talking point, and the very first thing that leads off my response (which I always give in front of everyone) is, “Alright. You didn’t think before you said that, did you?” And then I get as snyde as I can manage.
The sad part is, people don’t care about how they think, they only care about how they look. That’s why these moronic talking points spread like viruses, and that’s why I’ve gotten more of my friends and relatives to start using their brains through my humiliation tactics than I have by trying to reason with them. They won’t use their heads volunatrily, and the only way to get them to either start using their heads or, failing that, to get them to stop using their mouths is to make them look stupid in front of everyone.
I’m damn tired of it.
Lord! save us from outrage fatigue!
D
From the latest Ivins editorial comes this quote:
djlactin is right
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face, forever.
Max, Professor Myers isn’t against war, he’s just for the other side.
It wasn’t George Bush who launched a surprise attack on a peaceful nation.
You know, Harry, I’ve had about enough of your contemptible slander. Go somewhere else to piss.
PZ, I think of things like this fairly often. Thank you for voicing the point.
Harry Eager, I’m going to assume your post was just a bad joke.
Harry Meager:
And it wasn’t Iraq either, dolt.
Does anyone here have a friend or relative in the medical profession? Often under Ba’athist rule, a doctor would be making his rounds when the police would bring in someone who had insulted the regime or deserted the army. The doctor would be instructed to remove one of the prisoner’s ears. This was a sign in Iraq that someone was despised by the regime and it meant that virtually no one would every hire him, marry him or be caught dealing with him. An internal exile.
Forgetting the torture and murder this regime inflicted on the Iraqi people; forgetting the polls of Iraqi’s that consistently tell us that the majority of Iraqi’s feel the war was worth it and that the country is on the right track (polls which the media ignore or down play with polls of German and Vietnamese opinion on the war), think about those doctors. They stood there knowing that these policemen knew where their families were and where their friends were and they knew what would happen if they did not use their skills and training to mutilate another human being in a manner that would ruin his life.
Totalitarian states (real totalitarian states not the “fascist neo-cons” many here blather on about) make every citizen an accomplice. Bush isn’t having your ears cut off or pouring melted plastic on people’s flesh. You won’t have to go to work tomorrow and choose between your sanity and your life.
Just saying is all.
You don’t understand how people can regurgitate some inane talking points and look smug while they do so?
The answer is simple, but it has multiple segments. First, you’re trying to understand what’s going on as if there is a debate or intellectual exchange taking place. It’s not, and there isn’t. Second, you need to step back for a moment and try to look at what people are doing objectively, without bias or prejudice.
If you do this, I believe you’ll come to the same conclusion I have: it’s actually a kind of social combat. Rather like “debates” on Internet message boards, the point is not to present a logically cohesive collection of statements that lead to a conclusion, the point is to be catchy and exert social dominance. In some cases, the “debate” is really about interpersonal conflict resolution: people will try to defuse the situation by forwarding statements which on a superficial and emotional level reconcile the two positions. It’s splitting the difference. If you’re rude to the other person (no matter how stupid they were being) or dismiss their argument (which is really a peace gesture), onlookers will side with your opponent.
Bush: We’re invading Iraq because they’re hoarding WMD’s.
Media: Iraq is hoarding WMD’s. Liberals want us to fail.
(Time Passes, WMD’s not found)
Media: We invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam’s rule. Liberals want us to fail.
Apesnake: (eyes gloss over) We invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people.
Nope. In fact, I hear Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are top notch vacation spots. And extraordinary rendition isn’t *really* torture. I like to think of it as more of a nice, all expenses paid trip to a scenic Egyptian prison for Arab satirists and writers who lampoon the United States. After all, electrocution isn’t actually torture.
“Harry Meager: It wasn’t George Bush who launched a surprise attack on a peaceful nation.
Steviepinhead: And it wasn’t Iraq either, dolt.”
And it wasn’t Afghanistan/Taliban/Osama/Whatever either.
Surprise attack? Yes. On a peaceful nation? um… well,
People don’t want to think through the evidence and reason their way to a conclusion. Conclusions are reached through a process of emotional association. Then people try to produce reasons to justify those conclusions, even if the “justification” is merely emotional. When they do, that’s satisfying.
You cannot attack the conclusions by negating the reasons. The reasons have nothing to do with the conclusions. They’re Just-So stories.
That isn’t how it usually seems to go. Just the other day, I went over to a friend’s house for dinner. One of the other people who showed up was a preacher from one of those strip mall chapels. For some reason, one of the college students mentioned something about restrictions on commercial atlantic salmon fishing on account of the fish population. Here’s how the conversation went (not an exact quote):
Preacher: Let me tell you something: you’re trying to wreck the lives of fishermen because you want to protect the salmon population. That’s a typical liberal environementalist for you. You want to put animals before people.
Me: Alright. You didn’t think about that before you opened your mouth, did you? If the atlantic salmon population is as bad as he says it is, and they’re overfished, then there aren’t going to be any left, are there? So the choice is, either overfish now, destroy the entire population, and leave all of the people who depend on the atlantic salmon for their livelyhood out of a job, permanently, or enforce restrictions now, allow the population to recover, and then resume fishing later. You’re telling me that it’s better to put people out of a job for the rest of their lives than it is to put them out of a job for one year.
I also put something in there about how absurd it was to think that there’s some kind of leftist environmentalist conspiracy out there which is aiming to wreck lives for giggles. He didn’t have anything to say to that, and just got pissed off. It wasn’t dismissive. I’m not going to act all wishy-washy about these arguments when the general perception of the more sensible position is that it’s for bleeding hearts and tree huggers. THAT would sway more people to the side of the opposition. I’m not going to walk on eggshells with these people, I’m not going to coddle them, and I’m not going to gently rebuke them. If they puke something up without thinking about it, and insult me in the process, I’m going to call them on it.
“But the majority does not call the shots.”
Yes they do. They vote for these guys, they support them, and they construct the intellectual reality that they inhabit. The elite are not some isolated subspecies. This isn’t David Icke’s silly universe and they are not shapeshifting reptiles from Draco. They are real people, and they grow up and are educated in the society that *we* create.
Again, watch movies. Do you see peace? Do you see prosperity? Do you see happiness? No, you see drama, war, superstition, insanity, delusion. We like this because it’s entertaining. I also suspect that we like it for evolutionary-history reasons. I am somewhat skeptical of some of the specific conclusions and reasoning styles of the evo-psych people– I think they are too eager to draw quick and simple conclusions– but I think they’re on the right track more or less.
I spoke of long-term things. Here are some long-term things that I think we can do:
1) Foster international trade. Trade makes aggressive war less likely, since you would now be attacking your customers and/or suppliers. Can China and the U.S. go to war? Not likely… it would *destroy* both countries’ economies to even have a loss of normal relations, let alone a war. We could go to war with Iraq because they are not a big part of the economic food web. We can only beat up on people that we lack a rich trading relationship with, and so we must increase the size of that set.
2) Combat superstitious thinking. There is a strong correlation between superstition and violence. The most superstitious places in the world are also, with very few excceptions, the most violent (either internally or externally).
3) Fight, at a root-philosophical-level, Plato’s “deception model of civilization.” This ties in closely with point #2. There are *no* noble lies, ever. Civilization should be based upon transparency and cooperation, not on nested initiatory hierarchies of deception. This is a *huge* and very long-term philosophical project. The foundations of Platonic-style thought (which also has similar analogs outside the west) must be deconstructed, and superior alternatives proposed, at the base level of epistemology and “cognitive style.”
4) Fight puritainism, sex-phobia, and affection-phobia. This is pretty self-explanatory. I view this as the emotional counterpart to the analytical/philosophical objective listed as #3.
5) Construct new technologies, especially those that are empowering to the individual. Technological growth does two things: 1) it keeps things changing so fast that authoritarians can’t get a handle on anything and 2) it often empowers individuals to learn more, do more, and thus feeds into the next objective…
6) Fight for class mobility: eliminate “glass ceilings” and also fight against the construction of nobilities. Upward class mobility is important to bring new blood and new ideas into the upper class. Downward class mobility is important to filter out bad ideas. Bad ideas have negative productivity-destroying consequences. A fool and his money should be parted.
These are all things that must be done over the scale of generations. Don’t get caught up in silly short-term things like Iraq or Bush. These are transient and are reflections of the current state of our society. We reap what we sow. 30 years ago we sowed the seeds of superstition and irrationalism and… we grew a Bush. :)
to craig:
there must, then, be a gene for well-aimed snark; it seems to run in your family.
“It’s assholes like you, Mr Werpachowski, who have fueled our country’s slow descent into militarism and oppression–who have harmed our reputation and endorsed criminal actions.”
Let’s leave Iraq aside for a moment. Mr Myers, look up the info there is about Iran’s nuclear program. It is very probable they are going to have nukes. WE CAN’T LET IT HAPPEN. Iran rejected even Russian initiative, and they were for years on very good terms with the Russians. Iranian presidents openly said he would like to see Israel destroyed. This man, and his puppet masters, the ayatollahs who really run this poor, enslaved nation — they are dangerous. Once they get hold of nukes, they are untouchable. They must be stopped *before* they get them. Even if it means using military force. The risk is just too big. It’s not now the US alone which sees the risk. It’s Russia, Germany, UK and France too.
“Nope. In fact, I hear Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are top notch vacation spots. And extraordinary rendition isn’t *really* torture. I like to think of it as more of a nice, all expenses paid trip to a scenic Egyptian prison for Arab satirists and writers who lampoon the United States. After all, electrocution isn’t actually torture.”
The US made many errors in the “war on terrors” and in Iraq and should be harshly criticized for them. However, claiming that this makes them equivalent to Iraq, Iran or even Hitler (!) is purely an insult to the victims of those tyrannies. Saying that making some errors (show me ONE country which did not make any such errors when it did have an opportunity to do them!) takes away the US right to defend itself and other countries against murderous regimes (who is financing Palestinian terrorism? Iran. Who is financing Iraq insurgency? Iran…) is pure idiocy. In the times of the Cold War there were such people who, more often than not honestly upset by the American human rights violations, claimed that the US is as bad a tyranny as the USSR and has no right to claim moral superiority. They were called “useful idiots”. Their actions helped the communists to opress my nation and that’s why I have no tolerance for such type of thinking.
Apesnake, Your information about the ears is typical of the propaganda put out by a country trying to rally its people to support an unjustified military action. If true so what?
Yes, Sadam did nasty things to people he did not like. So do Americans. Imprisoning people without limit or recourse to help, or the ability to defend themselves is also dehumanizing, as is what appears to be the fairly regular US use of torture, and then when heavier action is required Americans outsource the torture and call it rendition. In this we are all whores it is just a matter of how many customers we deal with and how nasty we get. Ears cut off is not nice, nor is death and injury from modern weapons.
“The Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal, published an estimate that 98,000 Iraqis have died because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq”
Even if that is a bit of an exaggeration, that is a hell of a lot of harm.
The bottom line is America is not the world’s policeman, and does not try to put things right where it sees harm. It invaded Iraq on the grounds of nuclear capability and threat because of links to terrorism. These turned out to be completely false. And if you do not think the leaders knew it, you may not have noted the recent information that came out that the Gulf of Tonkin, which led to heavy US involvement in Vietnam was also trumped up.
As for Iran, the idea of America invading is a joke. They do not have the capacity at this moment and after the last episode of crying ‘wolf’ I doubt even poodle Blair would back them. Much more likely they will go on a couple of bombing raids using smart bombs which will likely kill quite a lot of civilians and miss their targets.
And if we are really worried about nukes. what about North Vietnam?
That is correct. We should be trying to contain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Of course, what does the world see? The US has a huge supply of nuclear weapons, and a dominating military that can crush any regime, almost at whim. And we’re ready to use that strength to flatten countries like Iraq, and now possibly, like Iran. We don’t seem quite so willing to take on countries like North Korea or China.
What’s the lesson here? The US will invade your country, wreck it, set its populace on one another. We’re the bullies of the world. We back away from countries with nuclear weapons. Reverse the situation…imagine a Russia that hadn’t collapsed, and developed a devastating weapon, and was rattling the saber at any country that defied its will…and what would we do? We already know. We’d do exactly what countries like Iran and who knows who else are trying to do: develop the weapons that would make the bully back off. And in such a situation, you’d be calling anyone who discouraged escalation a “useful idiot.” If you were an Iranian right now, you’d be disparaging anyone who tried to do anything other than build up a bigger weapons program a “useful idiot”.
Iraq is a disaster, a greater breeding ground for terrorism than before. We are overextended as it is, and going into Iran will ruin our country as well as theirs. And what next? Syria? Libya? You think the answer to terrorism is to demolish a few more countries, inspire a lot more hate and fear?
I won’t call you a useful idiot. Your brand of advice isn’t useful.
I am not 100% opposed to the overall concept of war against Iran, since they’re being run by extremely anti-American religious fundamentalists who vocally support terrorists and seek nuclear weapons. However, I’m 110% opposed to going to war with Iran with Bushco in charge. If Kerry was at the helm, we would know that military action was justified and it would be managed well. There’s no way to have either assurance under Bush.
If anything, the Iran situation calls for a Bill Clinton-style war: if they build something bad, blow it up, and otherwise stay the hell away. They’ll learn.
That’s exactly why I’m so upset with the state of things. Nuclear weapons are utterly perverse, and should be contained. But rather than genuinely trying to curtail their proliferation, we’re botching everything. We shouldn’t even be making Iran our top concern — they don’t have nuclear weapons. Pakistan does. If Musharraf is overthrown or assassinated, those nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists or extremists. We need to get Pakistan to disarm, and the only way to do that is to broker a mutual disarmament between India and Pakistan, and to offer them both incentives to disarm. What do we do instead? We GIVE India the rewards we usually reserve for disarming. We are encouraging nuclear proliferation.
As long as one country has nuclear weapons, their adversaries will think their own nuclear program is legitimate. As long as we sit on the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, nobody is going to take our talk of disarmament seriously. As long as we give away freebies to countries like India, nobody else is going to bite when we offer them incentives to disarm.
As far as destabilizing the Middle East goes, I’m starting to think our only goal is to make the Soviets look like amateurs.
My intuition is that the anecdote you gave is an example of a social dominance competition, not a conflict resolution.
You’d rather I gave him a backrub?
No. My point is that rudeness can work as a form of intimidation in social dominance situations. If a third party had intervened and mouthed some platitudes about how humans are the divinely-assigned stewards of nature, being rude to them would probably have caused onlookers to sympathesize with the priest and the third party, because the situation would have changed to a conflict resolution.
Paranoid Marvin: Pretty sure Frumious was being facetious…
You can’t win by planning only for the future. You have to do things now, in order to win support, to build infrastructure. On days like the one PZ’s had, I sometimes think it’s too late – we’ve already given up defending our own freedoms, global warming is going to cause problems for the next fifty years (my entire lifetime, most likely) no matter what we do about it now, and plenty of other things that you all can add. And it might be true, it might be too late, but we have to fight it anyway, right now, with whatever we’ve got.
That wasn’t even a possibility, since he’d already started talking about the impact on people. I would simply have reminded any third party that obliterating someone’s trade because of that kind of irresponsibility is not good stewardship, and I’d probably have reminded them of any of the number of Bible verses which tell them to be good stewards.
I suppose you’re probably right. I’m not out to resolve conflicts in an emotionally mature way that’s satisfying to everyone involved. I’m out to shut down bad arguments. I’m not flagrantly insulting, but some of that social dominance can go a long way. I doubt very much that biology would be as sound as it is today if TH Huxley were more into conflict resolution than squelching creationist canards.
If something happens between India and Pakistan, will China sit back and watch?
Bro. PZ,
I do think it is time for you scientist to herald an upcoming Inquisition. It is time to hold scientists accountable for their “work” when and if that work is a harbinger of weapons of death.
Yes your fight in exposing fuzzy-minded Fundamentalist is needed, but the damage done by the fuzzy minded doesn’t compare to the damage done by scientist who are willing servants to the highest bidder.
Rise up you the community of scientist!
Search your rants and expose those who fall prey to the lure of government money and fully equipped labs, yet they turn a blind eye to the eventual outcome of their labors. Cruise missiles and fighter jets and B2 bombers and nuclear weapons and a thousand other shameful inventions don’t create themselves. The politicians don’t create them. The theologians don’t create them. The science professor doesn’t create them, that is, unless said professor is linked to the military-industrial complex through grants and such.
Yes, we are all guilty. But without you scientist, we would still be flinging sticks and stones.
So I propose that all honorable scientist hammer out a declaration of ethics for all fellow scientists to abide by, and then shame those who ignore your call for accountability.
Your morning stroll is what all humans seek — comfort. Nazi scientists were given labs and funding and this gave them great comfort, enough comfort for them to be blinded to all that their work created — death. Holding picket signs is reserved for the powerless, not for you, you the mighty creators of moderity, the scientists.
Seeking to hold yourself and your fellow scientist accountable for their ‘creations’ is of global importance. The greed of a single scientist is far more dangerous than the greed of a thousand everyday saps, “our” greed is simply self destructive, “your” greed has profound consequences, the lives and deaths of countless.
So again, start your Inquisition before it is too late!
Shalom,
Bro. Bartleby
Sorry, I think I double posted there. I thought the first one did not go through but after posting again I see that my posts are being held for approval.
If so, that’s too bad Roman, because right now–using your preferred technique of written commincations– there’s ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT BY OURSELVES. All we can do is try bombing them and that won’t work. Thanks to your boy George, our military is busted, our budget is busted, and if we piss off the Shia, we lose Iraq and get a bunch of our own people killed. If you really thought Iran was a dire threat, you’d be jumping up and down demanding Cheney and Bush’s head on a platter right now for blowiong half a trillion on Iraq and feeding our armed forces to the meat grinder for nothing.
Hey–go find one of the many activities planned to mark the 3rd Annviersary of this horrible Iraq War:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=28
So again, start your Inquisition before it is too late!
Nukes have been around since the ’40s, a scientific inquisition will hardly stop them now.
And I wouldn’t know what the main motivation of Iranian nuclear physicists is these days, but it’s probably not greed.
Bart, when you take the time to understand why it is that you are unable to stop some religious zealots from strapping homemade bombs to themselves and blowing up crowded busses, or why you can’t stop them from flying airplanes into buildings, you’ll understand why it isn’t possible for scientists to prevent every instance of abuse in our own field.
Until you take the time to understand that, don’t try to pass this off as a failing on the part of scientists.
Umm.. Bullshit. Iran isn’t currently enforcing a no fly zone around America and being shot at or any of the other stuff Iraq was doing. Iran has been a threat for a very long time, but its government has for the most part just blustered, until now. Now they are bragging about running parallel nuke programs, while in the process of negotiating for non-weapon technology and many other insane things, including strengthening ties with Syria, when every damn one of these things are “exactly” what will start a new war.
It would be like if Bush, having invaded Iraq, decided the next morning that Australia was going to be the next target. There actions make no @$@#$# sense, except they have flat out stated that they *expect* to see other Arab nations do the same thing that Iran has been doing in Iraq. The US invades, the Iran government disappears into the wood work, like Saddam “tried” to, lots of Arabs get pissed off, start an external insurgency, which unlike Iraq is more in line with the local ones, eventually the US gets driven out, Iran’s government comes back stronger than before, the UN refuses to touch them because of all the horror, blah, blah, blah… This is *there* plan. They have stated it, bragged about it, etc. The way they figure it, the more of their own people that die in any invasion, the better the result. Worse, *not* doing anything also plays into their hands, because they can then bluster and babble about how powerless the west and all those Jews are. Its win-win for them, and they not only don’t care how many non-ruling party die in the process, they plan for them to die in massive numbers.
Meanwhile, Russia and China are, for some incomprehensible reason, refusing the “safe” attempt to provide non-weapon power to Iran, which the US is actually trying to organize instead, with proper inspections *and* they are ignoring the existence of the recently bragged about second path to nukes that Iran is supposedly working on. So, as usual, even when the US is trying to defuse the situation and find an alternative, our supposed allies are screwing us over for their own political gains. And when it all blows up in everyone’s collective faces, guess who is going to get blaimed for it…
Frankly, I am tired of hearing the one sided, “everything I hear from my side must be 100% true”, nonsense from “both” sides. The world is always more complicated than that, but one side seems to think its 100% black and white, “we did the right thing”, and the other side seems to think its 100% black and white, “its all wrong and we should do nothing.” Both are simplistic, overly selective in what they reject out of hand and both **wrong**. And the worse thing is, all I hear from both sides is complaints about what is being screwed up by the other side, and absolute shit for solutions that are not equally simplistic, short sighted, based on incomplete information and useless, when they give any solutions at all. The only thing worse than trying to run a war by commitee is running one where the commitee consists of millions of people with 10% of the information they need, telling the 10% that have all the facts that they are running things wrong, some alternate solution is necessary, but not **how** to impliment any of them.
Sure, we need to do all the hearts and minds stuff. Two problems – 1) the real enemy is much better at convincing these people to hate us than we are likely to ever be at convincing them otherwise. This is the same situation you get with atheism vs. the ignorant masses that are more confortable with a priest than a lab tech. 2) The ones that are not being “led” to hate us are *not* going to change their minds about us in this generation or maybe even in two, or three, etc., without major changes or a massive reality check about their own governments. This is like the conflict between evangelicals and atheists, only about 500 times worse. So… Knowing what we need to do, “How?”, and more importantly, “How do we stop, prevent or just plain limit, the insanity, mass murder, Jihads, WMD programs, terrorist support, etc. in the mean time, while trying to figure that out?” I see the Right simply pretending it will all work out, and the left screaming that nothing will work, but we need to do “something”, but jack that truely answers “either” of those questions. Well, except for the pie in the sky lunacy that is the mirror image reflection of the Right. I.e. Right – If we do something, it will all somehow work out, Left – If we do nothing, it will all somehow work out.
Yeah… I really think both of those are *briliant* solutions… :p
“Nukes have been around since the ’40s, a scientific inquisition will hardly stop them now. And I wouldn’t know what the main motivation of Iranian nuclear physicists is these days, but it’s probably not greed.”
Let me put Windy in the “So today I’m going for a pleasant walk” column.
I admit, in the monastery I’m a bit of a strange bird, any other brother reading what scientist are talking about? I think not, except for the brothers having fun at the Vatican observatory in Arizona. Nothing like star gazing!
Okay, the past few weeks I’ve been reading blogs penned by scientist, and over and over again when a question arises that begs for discernment of ethics, instead I read of the joy of lab work, and if only that nasty outside world would quit bothering us, and let us have fun discovering stuff, then a happy camper I would be. It seems the labs are inhabited by myopic folks keeping their focus on micro matters of “their interest” … and a happy lot they are. And if one is an atheist to boot, then one is “free” of all that “whatever” … free to do science, free to care, or not to care.
So, nukes been around since the ’40s … alas, too late to do anything now. Well, I say, follow the money! Expose your labs to the light of day! Expose ALL labs to the light of day! The power you folks hold is a power you know not! Seize your power and Washington will quiver in their wingtips!
Let go of your fragile egos and UNITE! Unite the scientist of the world.
Gads, you ridicule Jesus, yet he was ballsier than any of your folks.
Shalom,
Bro. Bartleby
After reading this whole discussion, I have a couple of questions for everyone who has expressed opposition to action against Iran:
First question: why do you oppose action against Iran? Is it because:
a) you trust the Iranian government when it says it only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes?
b) you trust the Iranian government to take a “no first use of nukes” policy, once they have nukes?
c) you think the Iranian government can be deterred from using nukes, or giving nukes to the terrorist groups they support, by the threat of a US nuclear counterstrike?
d) you think the US has no right to attack Iran under any circumstances, even if it’s in answer to an attack on the US using an Iranian-built nuclear weapon?
e) some other reason that doesn’t boil down to one of the above?
Second question: how would you react to documents that indicate (not prove, mind you, just indicate) that the American intelligence agencies fell victim to a well-organized campaign of deception by Saddam Hussein, intended to convince his enemies foreign and domestic that he did have WMDs when in fact he didn’t?
The US might have a slight edge on the UK in the atrocity stakes (as regards declaring wars and torturing prisoners) but the UK seems set to leap ahead in disposing of the tedious inconvenience of democracy and justice (or the vestiges of what passes for them). The corruption already at the top seems to have every intention of spreading further.
Actually, I find it far more likely that Israel will do what needs to be done in Iran. Europe will bitch about it while they secretly breathe a sigh of relief, just as they did when Israel blew up the reactor that France had sold to Saddam Hussein. Americans will be evenly split on the question of whether Israel is entitled to act to prevent their anihilation by a pack of theocratic head-choppers, and war with Israel will be the impetus for the Iranian people to overthrow their fascist rulers.
-jcr
Wolfwalker, there are several distinct answers.
1. I oppose all action on every front by the Bush administration because they can’t do anything well except enrich the coffers of their buddies. Not peace, not war, not justice, not domestic tranquility, not anything. I prefer them to be as inactive as possible, without regard to the issue at hand, because inaction now and addressing later beats also having to repair the Bush administration’s harm to whatever it is.
2. I’m not convinced by any of the claims for immediate threat from Iran. I’ll be willign to consider this when it comes from people who either were correct abotu Iraq or can sensibly and decently explain their errors and what they’ve done to correct the bad methods and logic they used last time.
3. I don’t see that Iran’s government is actually any crazier than several that do for sure have nukes, including not just our own but Russia’s, India’s, and Pakistan’s. Evidence suggests that even crazy people can refrain from using nukes, particularly when a major reason to have them is simply to deter US attack.
Wolfwalker, I oppose action against Iran because I’ve been watching the guys in charge of your country and mine puffing themselves up in a remarkably similar way to the way they did before the action against Iraq. That worked out so badly that I don’t trust them not to be lying to themselves and us again, and I don’t trust them not to make an even bigger cluster-fuck than Iraq.
Wolfwaker: I choose e.
I oppose action in Iran because the outcome I consider far and away the most likely outcome is for any such action to hurt the United States far more than it helps.
Plus, y’know, it’ll kill people – which in and of itself is not an absolute restriction, but argues very clearly that it’s an action that should be avoided if possible.
And I do think that right now, it is possible.
Marvin: If Iran started a war with Israel, do you think Israel would be justified in responding with nuclear weaponry? What if Israel was losing?
I don’t think Israel is likely to attack Iran – but if a mushroom cloud appears over either Tel Aviv or Tehran, I’d be banking on Tehran, simply because right now, Israel can do that and Iran can’t.
Indeed, that very fact argues that Iran is very unlikely TO start anything with Israel – the game-theoretic logic behind MAD holds even if the potential destruction is less than global, and even if only one (or neither!) side has nukes.
As for Harry Eager: You’re so full of shit your eyes are brown, and you know it.
If PZ was “for the other side”, he would, for instance, stop actively supporting the long-term future of the American economy by educating students. As another for-instance, if he were “for the other side”, he would probably take actions to help them.
Can you identify one? Anything at all?
Maybe he’s been kicking puppies? That’s a CERTAIN sign of evil, after all, isn’t it? After all, nobody ever disagrees because they think you’re mistaken about methods – no, they only disagree if they are, in fact, dyed-in-the-wool evil. … right?
Oh, and a second note, in response to wolfwalker again:
I would say c has an element of truth to it. Rulers rarely want to worry about getting destroyed, after all.
As for the documents, I’d first be exceptionally skeptical – If the intelligence community was fooled, why were they telling Bush there WEREN’T WMDs?
Plus, I’d be a bit dubious due to the lack of a REASON for Saddamn to do that. Saddam didn’t want people to know for sure that he didn’t have any WMDs, yeah – that’s obvious. But unless you say he’s rather less politically savvy than he would have had to have been… he had to have known what was coming; it was certainly made sufficiently clear.
I read PZ’s post as an expression of feelings. I didn’t think it was an invitation to debate, and I can’t for the life of me imagine why anyone would think their asinine political POV is needed to counter one man’s feelings.
Roman, Harry, et al, are you so threatened by someone’s emotions that you have to go into full-blown, piss-soaked, Barney Fife Bluster Mode because someone has the audacity to express feelings that are different from yours?
As near as I can tell, some of you are upset that PZ is expressing despair rather than fear. “Don’t feel bad, PZ; feel afraid!” Do you any of you warmongers really think that your profound expressions of cowardice are doing anything to support your cause? “Yah! Boo! Mushroom Clouds! A slightly different religion! Oops — I peed myself.” Seriously, how does crying like a little girl while hiding behind GWB’s petticoats work for you as a rhetorical tool?
ha. ha. you jest.
PZ: i feel exactly as you do. today, i worked on the house, played with the dogs, had a late lunch with my wife, and I honestly wondered about the future of the country.
then i had too much to drink and took a long nap.
on the war with iran:
we certainly have the ability to take control of iranian airspace. we probably could even defeat iran’s army just by pointing the US assets currently in iraq east and getting them rolling.
then what? do we leave, and reoccupy iraq? do we occupy both countries? are we ready for a massive escalation of guerrilla war against US forces?
the easiest way for iran to punish the US is to destroy Saudi oil facilities. a combination of surface-to-surface missile launched against the major oil fields and ports and guerrilla naval warfare against tankers passing through the strait of hormuz should do a lovely job of sending oil prices skyrocketing. Everyone ready for a worldwide recession?
You know, in ten years, when the American dollar is dooing what the Reichsmark was dooing in 1930 and people look around and say “Who got us into this mess?” people like wolfwalker will be eagerly repeating the lie that it’s all because the liberals and the atheists and the gays and whoever else sabotaged us from within.
Jamie & Caledonian & Dustin & Adam
I agree up to a point with Caledonian’s intitial post. Where I stop is the point, “We’re far past the point of no return, here. It’s still theoretically possible to fix things so that thirty years from now…”
Actually it’s not past the point of no return. It just seems like it because everyone to the left of the radical right refuses
to come to grips with the reality of how mass decision making occurs in the U.S. today.Jamie, there was some truth in Anonymous Poster’s comments, he just didn’t follow his own logic.
How about some……research? Doh!
These days I’m feeling like a voice calling out in the wilderness. A scientific approach to this problem seems very logical to me. I posted a long rant about this yesterday on Carl Zimmer’s third dodos post, Hipster Dodos. What don’t I get?
Caledonian, your second post is also correct, but not deep enough. These dynamics are being choreographed very precisely and expertly by the far right using science.
In your third post, you’ve wacked the nail and driven it in with one blow. From my post above…
This seems to be a hard truth for everyone except the upper-echelon right to accept.
And a P.S. for Adam
Some of what you’re talking about is a biological attraction to contrast/conflict at the level of visual- and social-processing in our brains. I’m a writer. Almost all “stories” are based on “dramatic conflict” in some form or another.
Basically I agree with your points, but think you miss something. The U.S. economy, for good and for bad, has become absolutely superb at fulfilling the six “wants” you list [and a 7th — love] through sublimation of these drives into other “wants”. Yes, it’s sublimated them into stuff in our culture. But there’s no rule that says it has to be stuff. The far right has done a great job at doing this with politics.
So, there’s a third option, or a variation on your first. Use our brains — science — to dial back on these negative drives, to sublimate them into positive drives. Think of it as the biomedicine of the epidemiology of f**ked up human instincts. By the way, that poster you mention is the Anonymous Poster I quote above.
I’m absolutely convinced from decades of analysis, that none of your long-term things stand a snowball’s chance in hell as long as everyone left of the radical right insists that the country works the way they want it to. Again, read my post and help me understand — what don’t I get? Also, I don’t disagree with your thoughts on long-range/short-range focus. But, if we don’t master psychomarketing we’ll have no chance at the long-range either. The radical right’s elite fully understand your point and are currently, and very methodically, setting up the U.S. for their 30-year plan.
Meanwhile, our side is standing around with our thumbs up our butts. It ain’t gonna be easy.
And a P.S. for Dustin
You can do better than snide. You can be earnest and honest and mannered and 3 steps ahead of them and lead them right where you want them to go. It’s actually fun! And effective. Dare I compare that to Zimmer’s “Neurosurgeon Wasps”? The key is understanding that it’s much deeper and more sophisticated than “talking points” suggests. But anybody commenting on this blog has the smarts to understand the mechanisms involved. See my post above.
Also, [chuckle], I would have loved to have been at your dinner. I’m an “enviro”, was editorial staff at a commerical fishing trade rag, and then made my living for years crewing commericial salmon boats. That preacher’s brain’s “volitional center” would have been mine! A zombie for science!
On nuclear armaments: You aren’t going to get India to disarm unless you get China to disarm. You aren’t going to get China to disarm, unless perhaps the US and Russia disarm. You aren’t going to get the US to disarm, period.
If you want to change the world, then nations must also be under rule of law, just like people in a country of laws. If legally, Iran should not have nukes, neither should anyone else have nukes. If it is illegal to build settlements on occupied land, that applies to everyone, including Israel. A dictator has to be treated as an outlaw, whether he is your friend in Pakistan or your enemy in Iran. You can’t expect that some countries have permanent membership in the Security Council and a veto and others don’t to be a stable situation. And so on. It is that simple.
I strongly object to treating all countries equally. Some are good players on the international stage (US, EU, Israel, …) some are bad (Iran, North Korea, …). Some are bad but are too strong to tell them so (Russia, China). Pretending it isn’t so and that we should set up a world in which everyone disarms (and who would enforce it? or would you [sneer]TRUST[/sneer] Iran and North Korea to disarm? ha ha ha!) is lunacy. The world needs a strong US which guarantees the security of its allies and stability.
PZ, it’s not that important what the world thinks. Smart people understand that Iran is dangerous. I repeat: the European governments were vary anti-war in 2003. Now they aren’t. It should be an indication for you that the situation IS different. Read the reports about Iranian nuclear facilities. Read also about the numerous abuses of the Iranian government towards its own people. They deserve better. Alas, probably the military action will not be possible which would overthrow the theocratic dictatorship you are somehow defending. Probably only precision strikes (which won’t miss, I assure you — these bombs have 3 m accuracy) will be made. At least the threat to the outside world will be eliminated.
It is also probable that there won’t be any military action at all. With regimes like Iran, you MUST back up your demands with force. This is the only language they understand. Look: Slobodan Milosevic was not as crazy as the Iranian president, right? But nevertheless, only a large-scale NATO campaign made him stop his planned genocide in Kosovo. Would you rather see the world sit on its ass and just *talk* to him: “This is our 234th stern warning! Don’t do any bad things! If you do, we will give you another stern warning!”. We did this in Bosnia, and what did we get? Sarayevo and Srebrenica. Tens of thousands of innocent people dead, killed by Milosevic’s thugs. Is that the vision of the policy towards dictatorships that you advocate, PZ?
Some of you paint Iraq as a totally black thing. I don’t think it is true. A year ago, I was totally against invading Iraq, I though that the US made a huge mistake and it should pull out as soon as possible. Then I read statistical data showing that the situation in Iraq, although very difficult, is already improving: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index20060130.pdf
What I think is: I can’t understand why Bush invaded Iraq. Frankly, I don’t care. What I care is that the Iraqis are free now. They have the chance to be as free as you and me. They didn’t have this chance when Saddam rules. Ignoring this is not just stupid, it’s immoral. I fully agree that the cases of torture and illegal imprisonment are making US look bad, and they *are* bad. But they’re also incomparable, in quality and quantity, to what Saddam’s regime did to *it’s own people*. AFAIR, only 14 CIA officers were authorized to use techniques like “waterboarding”. Compare this to the security apparatus employed by Saddam. See the difference?
(W/r to rendition: Bush did not invent it. CIA did this also in Clinton’s times. But Clinton is holy and Bush is evil. This proves how much of this concern about foreign policy is just a way to attack politicians from another side of the fence.)
Mr Myers, I live in the country which was not free for 50 years, and regained its freedom also thanks to some other US president who was very villified at home and painted as a mindless bully: Ronald Reagan. Thanks to that, I can see that these people which you will call “bullies” are sometimes simply courageous people who do not hesitate to stand for liberty not only at home but also in other places of the globe. I don’t know if this applies to Bush — he looks too stupid for that — but it certainly applied to Reagan. I wonder what people like you think of him.
why do you oppose action against Iran?
Firstly, it’s none of your business. America isn’t the world police.
Secondly, I’m not against ‘action’ completely, it’s the killing people I don’t like. How about starting with a strongly worded letter or something.
It’s a funny little hegemony you have going there, but as long as you enjoy it…
“But the majority does not call the shots.”
Yes they do. They vote for these guys…”
Just one thing, as I am unsure how your system works: a little more than 50% of America’s population voted in the last election; of them, a little more than 50% voted for Messer Bush & associates? So maybe 30% of people voted directly for George? Seems a little odd to me, having a party elected by such a small proportion of the people…
Firstly, it’s none of your business. America isn’t the world police.
I’m sure the people of Darfur would be happy to hear that…
Secondly, I’m not against ‘action’ completely, it’s the killing people I don’t like. How about starting with a strongly worded letter or something.
Yes! That’s what dictators fear the most: strongly worded letters! Only don’t make it too strong, lest they commit suicide after reading it.
There has been a lot of diplomatic talk going on and there will be in the future. The UN Security Council is going to talk to Iran. There has been and will be as much “strongly worded letters” as you can stomach. However, if the military action is excluded by principle, as some here would like it to be, all this correspondence is for nothing, since there is no ultimate big stick backing it.
I have questions: how far will be the distance affected by one succesful nuclear attack to Iran, if we think that no one else will launch their own afterwards? How many missiles will they need to neutralise the iranian threat, if it exists? Will the sandy cloud Europe gets every spring be harmful because of the residue? Statistically, is it possible that only the US will fire? Given the amount of friendly fire and collateral damage during previous wars, is there a possibility that they’ll miss the target and hit elsewhere?
Will the sandy cloud Europe gets every spring be harmful because of the residue?
I’m not an expert, but I doubt it would be a problem. Far more dangerous was post-Chernobyl fallout, and its effects were also much lesser than what they were had been thought to be at the time.
Given the amount of friendly fire and collateral damage during previous wars, is there a possibility that they’ll miss the target and hit elsewhere?
They didn’t miss Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Besides, why the assumption that nuclear weapons will be needed?
and its effects were also much lesser than what they were had been thought to be at the time.
I thought it was about mutations and cancers and the like and that research is not over yet.
But again scientists know better about theses things.
Besides, why the assumption that nuclear weapons will be needed?
That’s what everyone is talking about, reply to nuclear with nuclear. And it’s not only about America’s missiles, if there’s a war because Iran is supposed to be willing to use them, who says it won’t??
Let’s say that the US and allies don’t use nuclear, but biological etc weapons. How safe is Europe (or Israel for that matter)?
I mean someone’s got to be relatively assured that the actual threats won’t override the potential ones.
PZ – congratulations on yet another brilliant post.
It is hard not to show “outrage fatigue” when your very best efforts prove ineffective against the current policies.
I have long since consigned myself to casting a useless vote for candidates that I truly believe in (who are usually third-party), posting in my blog, contributing the little money I have towards opposition to our current leaders, and trying to communicate to my friends the nature of our political quagmire.
Will it have any effect? I seriously doubt it. Nor will it, until something lights a fuse underneath Americans to say “What we have isn’t working!”
What will that be? At this point, if wire-tapping, prison abuse, a national debt expected to hit 9 trillion, global warming, and a possibility of a third invasion aren’t enough to do it, I honestly can’t imagine what will.
Bring on the Christians and lions! Let’s enjoy the spectacle as Rome is going down!
Sorry – I mainly just wanted to thank you, PZ – your blog is always one of the highlights of my daily internet reading.
Jess
Adam Ierymenko
Human beings have *always* been doing this– going back as far as we have recorded history.
I’m going to challenge this. So-called “recorded history” is a very short period in the span of human history. How do you justify conflating the two?
you think that the majority of people in the world actually want peace, prosperity, and freedom. If that were the case, we would live in a very different world.
Humans *do* want peace and prosperity (freedom is tricky). Our physiological reactions to things that disturb this are negative… including less successful reproduction.
People don’t want to be happy, per se.
It depends on what constitutes happiness. Mistaking comfort for happiness is the error.
What the majority of people want is one or more of the following:
1) To show off (sexual/dominance display?)
2) Power
3) Fulfillment of mystical/religious visions
4) To act out negative emotions
5) Excitement and drama (think about this one)
6) Heroes and good-vs-evil struggles
One and two are the same thing (Social structuring). I don’t see three at all. Four and five and six are the same thing (display agonism, which is not the same thing as physical aggression.. if you own a male dog, you’d know that.)
Really, how often in your day-to-day life do you engage in physical conflict? How many of your neighbours do? How are we a “violent species” when violence is so rare?
Prof. Myers,
I feel the frustration and fatigue you do. Three years ago I mached in DC to protest the onset of war. There were about 50-100 of us there as our nation declared a military attack against a nation that had not threatened or attacked us, and had neutered itself in the preceding 10 years as punishment for their invasion of Kuwait. While disarmament was the correct thing to do, it seemed that the weaker Iraq got, the more people felt threatened.
It would probably be more honest to say that the American leaders moved into bully mode somewhere along the way. (Some would say we’ve been there since Truman, but I think things have gotten particularly bad since the USSR collapsed.)
I went to the demonstration yesterday at Westminister (I’ve moved to London in the past year – yes, just in time to see another terrorist attack, my second in 5 years) and felt that the entire effort was futile. You see, we don’t actually live in a democratic system anymore. We’re run by rich preppies from both sides of the aisle who still think that the US/UK have the inherent moral superiority that we had in 1945. Well, we don’t.
If you’re a hammerhead like Mr. Werpachowski, everything that the US does is right and any Arab is part of an Islamofacist conspiracy to “steal our freedom” because they “hate our way of life”. I had thought this kind of cultural narcissism died with McCarthy and Nixon, but it lives on.
The past five years have seen the American military/industrial complex ratchet into high gear, using the same propaganda tactics used against the Communists now against the Muslims. But for those of us who’ve been alive for more than 30 years, and remember the 1980s clear, it is fairly stunning to hear “leaders” claim that the US has never been as threatened as it is today. Christ, the US has never been _less_ threatened than it is today. If the powers that be cannot spend more on than 7 times as much money on the military as any other country in the word and still feel secure, then the people running things need to be fired.
I would personally like it if the US cast aside the militaristic ways, but we’re facing a triumvarite of military interests, media conglomerates, and political machines all of whom feed off each other keeping Americans scared of their own shadows all the time.
cp,
thought it was about mutations and cancers and the like and that research is not over yet.
AFAIR, it’s the statistics from those kinds of sickness which show the effects of Chernobyl were overrated. But I’m not an expert on this. Chernobyl has been used by anti-nuclear organizations like Greenpeace as a “scare tool”.
That’s what everyone is talking about, reply to nuclear with nuclear. And it’s not only about America’s missiles, if there’s a war because Iran is supposed to be willing to use them, who says it won’t??
I think you miss the point. The use of force will, IF it takes place, be *before* Iran obtains nukes. It does not make sense to wait until this happens and the situation gets more complicated.
RickD:
If you’re a hammerhead like Mr. Werpachowski, everything that the US does is right and any Arab is part of an Islamofacist conspiracy to “steal our freedom” because they “hate our way of life”. I had thought this kind of cultural narcissism died with McCarthy and Nixon, but it lives on.
First of all, I’m not American, so accusing me of “cultural narcissism” is silly. Second, I did not express any of the views you ascribe me to. I do not think that everything what the US does is right, in fact I criticized America in this very thread — but I gather that reading posts you aspire to criticize is beyond your mental abilities. Neither do I think that “any Arab is part of an Islamofacist conspiracy to <> because they < >.” On the contrary, I think that the biggest victims of the fundamentalist Islam and Islamic theocracies are the Arabs. Compared to the countless people tortured, stoned to death, burned alive, etc. by Saddam’s secular, Iranian and Taliban religious tyrannies, the victims of terrorism in Europe or America are a minor statistical detail. Much more people die each year in car accidents in Poland than they did on 9/11/2001. I find this particularly amusing that those who criticze Bush and his administration of being blockheads, cannot present a coherent argument themselves, instead resorting to inflamed rhetoric, emotion-venting and straw man argument. Of course, it’s easier that way. But it’s nothing less than intelectual masturbation. Did it work, RickD? Did you get off after pressing the “Post” button?
Roman brings up a good point here, about the suffering of Arabs at the hands of their fundamentalists (not to mention their dictators). If you look at casualties, they’ve done in far more of their fellow muslims than either Americans or Israelis. Fanatics are always far more vicious to the heretic than to the unbeliever.
-jcr
Majority of Americans support the Bush policies? Hardly. At best a plurality of voters thought they did. (Some evidence exists to suggest that even Bush voters were confused about the proposed policies.) However, even if the policies (e.g. the Smash Iran policy) were actually supported by the majority of the US population, that wouldn’t make them suddenly just generally, perhaps only “democratically supportable” on a narrowly domestic viewpoint.
I also note in passing that Iran is, as far as I can tell, in compliance with the NPT, which, of course, the US and US allies Israel, India and Pakistan are not. Should they be watched closely if they develop a civilian nuke program (like the US encouraged them to do prior to the Islamic revolution)? Certainly. I don’t want Tehran to have nuclear weapons. But I don’t want anyone to have them. And, for the moment, the NPT is the best we’ve got to avoid further developments. (Even though the consensus is the US has wrecked the thing.)
I also note in passing that Iran is, as far as I can tell, in compliance with the NPT, which, of course, the US and US allies Israel, India and Pakistan are not.
The US is not required by the NPT to get rid of its nukes. India, Israel and Pakistan are not even part to the NPT.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/
ven though the consensus is the US has wrecked the thing.
Says who?
JCR,
one wonders how easily human rights topic is brought up when it serves to criticize the US, and how rarely otherwise. Today the presidential elections in Byelaruss take place. The last dictator in Europe, Lukashenka, is going to elect himself president one more time. Guess who helps the democratic opposition against him, among others? The immoral, vicious and undemocratic current US administration. But what the isolationists care?
That’s like saying it’s unfair to criticize a police officer for stealing valuable evidence from the locker when there’s so much evidence he never stole.
Or criticizing a doctor for committing murder while never bringing up the people he saved.
One set of actions are expected according to the nature of the profession. The other are gross violations of ethics and the professional code of the individuals.
The U.S. should, as a result of its position and history, support true democracy as a bare minimum. We haven’t even been doing that, as our twisted understanding of “democracy” demonstrates, and we’ve been acting against even that minimum standard by supporting dictators. (Hint: the leader of Pakistan seized power in a coup.)
So you would have left the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam, Uday, and Qusay and you watched with horror as we quickly won the initial round in the war?
I agree. You are a monster.
Pretending it isn’t so and that we should set up a world in which everyone disarms (and who would enforce it? or would you [sneer]TRUST[/sneer] Iran and North Korea to disarm? ha ha ha!) is lunacy.
Making up assumptions like the lack of verification in a disarmament treaty a makes you look foolish. Why wouldn’t there be the same level of verification as the US and USSR used with each other in treaties governing the reduction of nuclear weapons? Who’s said anything like what you mention above here other than you? While you’re claiming that you’re the insulted party whose arguments are based on reason, it’s items like this that show how disingenous you’re being.
(W/r to rendition: Bush did not invent it. CIA did this also in Clinton’s times. But Clinton is holy and Bush is evil. This proves how much of this concern about foreign policy is just a way to attack politicians from another side of the fence.)
Ironically, this paragraph simply shows that you’re doing what you claim that the other side is doing. No one has claimed that Clinton is holy other than you, but there is an obvious reason why people are discusing Bush more than Clinton. Perhaps it’s that one of those two is POTUS and has been for 5 years and thus is directly relevant to questions of foreign policy and recent wars, while the other isn’t. Instead of noticing this obvious fact, you decide to attack and insult your opponents, perhaps for the same reasons you project on your opponents–that you’re unable to construct a coherent argument.
Because, for all your claims that your arguments reasoned and that the other side is making up strawman, this is just another strawman you’ve made up and claimed that the people you’re having a discussion with hold, insulting them by claiming that they’re biased without any evidence. Perhaps this type of insulting, disingeous argumentation, along with your insulting tone (see the sneer tags above) is why people are annoyed with you.
Mr Myers, I live in the country which was not free for 50 years, and regained its freedom also thanks to some other US president who was very villified at home and painted as a mindless bully: Ronald Reagan. Thanks to that, I can see that these people which you will call “bullies” are sometimes simply courageous people who do not hesitate to stand for liberty not only at home but also in other places of the globe. I don’t know if this applies to Bush — he looks too stupid for that — but it certainly applied to Reagan. I wonder what people like you think of him.
Actually, the causes of the fall of the Soviet Union and its release of its client countries have much more to do with Saudi Arabia lowering oil prices than anything Reagan did. The USSR did not significantly increase military expenditures during the 1980’s, but it did suffer a tremendous reduction in its foreign exchange, which was largely produced by oil sales. When the price per barrel of oil was around that of or lower than the cost of Russian production, the USSR simply couldn’t continue spending the way it had in the past, no matter who the POTUS was.
Roman said:
So it seems – though neither is it obligated by the NPT to keep them. And if you answer that by saying that the US has to keep its nuclear missiles because of its deterrent effect, then please tell me why India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran or North Korea should not also be able to have them?
Um, me, and every single person I have spoken to in the UK and here in Oz (both of whom are part of that infamous “coalition of the willing”) – including active members of all three of the largest political parties currently represented in the UK parliament, and both Liberal and Labor supporters here. And the US administration had already done itself some damage before 9/11 with its backing out of chemical and biological weapons treaties, its puzzling insistence on ignoring all the world’s major science bodies’ advice on climate change, and its refusal to sign up to an international criminal court when no-one else had a major problem with it.
Oh, and I’m not wallowing in Schadenfreude here, and thinking “thank goodness the US is bogged down in Iraq and its soldiers are getting killed”. It’s all extremely depressing.
Will that do for starters?
Actually, I think China has done more than any other country to wreck the NPT. The US has contributed, often giving them a free pass.
Presumably the factual part in this excerpt from a piece by an Indian, K. Subrahmanyam, will check out:
Re: the last sentence, why is China building two nuclear power reactors in Pakistan OK, but the US building civilian reactors under IAEA safeguards in India a bad thing? (Sorry, just a rhetorical question).
Afghanistan: justified. They sheltered and nurtured Al Qaeda which led to 9/11. I’m proud that Canadians are still there fighting a shooting war.
Iraq: justified (Hussein was a genocidal maniac that had to be removed), but foolish. There we no guarantees that America could provide post-Hussein stability. I’ve been arguing from the start that the probability of the oil-rich country falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists is high and a very dangerous outcome. Furthermore, it would inflame Muslim feelings around the world and create a breedding ground and focus for Islamic-fundamentalist recruitment. Thus, I was against this war.
Iran: at one time, they had a right to a peaceful nuclear program as members of the IAEA. However, that right was forfeit when it was discovered that they had a clandestine nuclear program. It is absurd to think that the goal of their program does not include weaponization. It is also absurd that Iran can be reasoned with in this matter, even if the U.S. made peaceful overtures in Iran’s direction. You cannot make rational arguments with irrational religious fanatics. They have rejected every reasonable compromise that Russia has approached them with.
Iran CANNOT be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Their leadership has openly declared that Israel should be wiped off of the map. What if a Hamas-led Palestinian government were to acquire nuclear weapons? That in itself is enough reason for the world to take whatever necessary measures.
Before the Iraq war, there were many democratic movements afoot in Iran because the youth, which make a huge proportion of the population thanks to the Iran-Iraq war, wanted far more freedoms. Democratic progress was being made. Then, the invasion in Iraq set this movement back by giving the ruling mullahs an excuse to crack down on western influence. Ironically, had the U.S. not invaded Iraq in the first place, strong and free democracy may have been in place in Iran within 20 years and the nuclear problem probably wouldn’t have been a problem. Now, I can’t see an end to Iran’s ruling theocracy.
What will it take to fix this problem? Externally forced regime change in Iran would not be as easy as in Iraq: the terrain is rugged, much more like mountainous Afghanistan. Democratic reforms will not occur fast enough to keep the religious zealouts from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Economic sanctions are a possibility. However, China needs oil and it’s unlikely that they will entirely cut Iran off.
I’m sad to say it, but it’s probably going to come down to specific strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I think I can be supportive of these strikes. Only because the costs of letting Iran get nukes are far too high.
The U.S. should, as a result of its position and history, support true democracy as a bare minimum. We haven’t even been doing that, as our twisted understanding of “democracy” demonstrates, and we’ve been acting against even that minimum standard by supporting dictators. (Hint: the leader of Pakistan seized power in a coup.)
But the US does support democracy in lots of countries. It let its relations with Russia suffer while supporting democratical movements in Ukraine, now in Byelaruss. It’s just that it’s record is not 100% perfect. Who can claim such? Those which never tried anything.
Making up assumptions like the lack of verification in a disarmament treaty a makes you look foolish. Why wouldn’t there be the same level of verification as the US and USSR used with each other in treaties governing the reduction of nuclear weapons?
Because such verification failed with India, Pakistan and Israel? Since there is a non-zero probability some rogue state will obtain these weapons, I say that there must be some “trusted superpowe” able to respond to such bandits. I think the US is the best — mind you, not perfect — candidate for such. If you think otherwise, can you point out better candidates? UN Security Council is right out, since this is not what it has been made for and could not cope with this task.
Who’s said anything like what you mention above here other than you? While you’re claiming that you’re the insulted party whose arguments are based on reason, it’s items like this that show how disingenous you’re being.
I never claimed I’ve been insulted. I don’t care about people displaying their insecurities on the ‘net.
ctually, the causes of the fall of the Soviet Union and its release of its client countries have much more to do with Saudi Arabia lowering oil prices than anything Reagan did. The USSR did not significantly increase military expenditures during the 1980’s, but it did suffer a tremendous reduction in its foreign exchange, which was largely produced by oil sales. When the price per barrel of oil was around that of or lower than the cost of Russian production, the USSR simply couldn’t continue spending the way it had in the past, no matter who the POTUS was.
I’m not going to argue that oil prices weren’t a factor, but there were two US presidents who are seen in Eastern Europe as having major impact on the fall of communism: Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Anyway, Russia also exports a lot of gas, which wasn’t directly influenced by the oil prices (it was indirectly, since those are complementary products). Documents released from the Warsaw Pact archives indicate that the USSR was ready to go to war with NATO. Reagan’s strong stand against them was probably a factor which made them think twice before deciding to attack. Finally, in 1980 the Russians wanted to invade Poland. They didn’t, because the USA made it clear that it will react very strongly if they do it.
As countless examples show, you can be poor and still act like a ruthless bastard. Discouraging the USSR from that was also Reagan’s achievement (though not only his).
Miguelito: to be even more ironic, had the US and UK not deposed Mossadeq, Iran would probably be a democracy already :(
Thanks to that, I can see that these people which you will call “bullies” are sometimes simply courageous people who do not hesitate to stand for liberty not only at home but also in other places of the globe.
Reagan’s influence in other parts of the globe was perhaps not as positive as in Eastern Europe, at least if you consider Central America, Afghanistan, Cambodia… But I guess one man’s champion of liberty can be another’s bully.
Werpachowski:
Failure of verification was not the problem with India. Apparently, in the 60s India asked to be included within the security of US’s nuclear umbrella, and this was turned down. Then in 1971, East Pakistan revolted against West Pakistan, and ten million people fled into India. Then Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi toured the capitals of the world, and got no help from Washington. Nixon and Kissinger were approaching China through the good offices of Pakistan. Thus India was driven into the Soviet embrace and into nuclearization. In 1974, India exploded its first atomic device.
India would have been satisfied to remain a undeclared nuclear state like Israel, but once Pakistan obtained the bomb it began acting increasingly belligerent, with the benefit of having a deterrent, but also having the world able to pretend that maybe they didn’t (see my previous post). Then-Prime Minister Vajpayee in 1998 made the accurate calculation that a new round of tests would bring Pakistan capability out into the open, and force the world to deal with it and that India would be better equipped to handle the political fallout than Pakistan. There were some brief hours when it looked like Pakistan might not test anyway, and Indian political leaders vented a whole lot of hot air, and breathed a sigh of relief when Pakistan did test.
-Arun
My this has turned into quite the lively discussion.
It seems, Roman (and any others here on his side), you enjoy choosing remarkably inopportune arguments you also choose to take out of context.
“…one wonders how easily human rights topic is brought up when it serves to criticize the US, and how rarely otherwise. Today the presidential elections in Byelaruss take place. The last dictator in Europe, Lukashenka, is going to elect himself president one more time. Guess who helps the democratic opposition against him, among others? The immoral, vicious and undemocratic current US administration. But what the isolationists care?”
For starters, your English needs work.
Secondly, you, like other pro-war kill-the-criticizer types, love coming from the “hey it could be worse” angle. After all, we all have all kinds of things to be happy about in the US right? Why criticize the US when so many things are going great? Am I wrong in gathering this from your posts?
The simple fact is Roman, that mentality wouldn’t last you a lick of time if you used it in the corporate world, and it doesn’t work for America either. You don’t learn, grow, and solve your flaws, either as a company or a country, by talking about how great you are and ignoring those that voice real issues. You come to terms with your problems, admit you have them, and move forward in the best way possible to fix them. Use of the “it could be so much worse” argument is ethically, morally, and economically lazy. Likewise, pointing to people who criticize what are very much America’s flaws and labeling them “isolationists” is willfully choosing ignorance over action. Quite simply, you are arguing for a status quo that gets us nowhere, regardless of whether or not your rhetoric seems or feels like it is.
I for one am happy we have people that find it necessary to criticize our country for its flaws with the intention of making the country moral center of the planet it should be. All the vaunted conservative hype about being moral and supporting “values” is nothing but cheap Monday-morning-quarterback talk if you don’t actually back it up. Bush is utterly content with taking the status quo and lowering it under the curtains where he can, while still claiming all this great stuff is happening in the US.
Meanwhile, they criticize leaders of other countries for their policies, when in fact those leaders were elected by the very democratic means Bush claims to promote abroad (Venezuela is one small example). You dont like Chavez? Well guess what: tough freakin cookies. The Venezuelans picked him, as did the Chileans Michelle in Chile (who by the way was one of the individuals directly oppressed by the right-wing dictator Pinochet). Its not your country, its theirs. As Jesse Ventura once said of Alabamas educational choices: its their bed, let them sleep in it.
Further, your criticism of citizens in the US that critique this country belies a psychological motive to want to do away with such people. Why not just be honest and embrace your inner dictator? At least you’d be openly honest with us. Only the fool takes criticisms of America as a personal attack and seeks for the removal of the assessors. It sounds like you have the makings of a king within you. There are other countries in need of them; Perhaps you’ll want to move to Belarus to solve their problems yourself?
Your assessment of the, and I quote, immoral, vicious and undemocratic current US administration is quite correct, though I suspect you were intending sarcasm. How else can you explain the very visible, anti-democratic actions of the Bush team and those that helped him into office? Gerrymandering districts in several states for their very obvious electoral benefit? Circumventing Congressional rules of conduct and threatening to do away with decades and centuries of house rules merely because Democrats oppose their nominees? Attaching viral, completely irrelevant riders to every bill they pass or attempt to? Criticize the Democratic Party all you want: The Reps control ALL 3 branches, and all 4 houses in which its tenets are kept. This is happening because of your vote sir; You had best be prepared to reap the consequences of it.
Additionally, making war on Iran, while in the past a seemingly intelligent tack on the situation, has been turned quite paradoxically into a very unintelligent one, based solely on the ineptitude (in absolution) of Bushs execution in Iraq. Bushs naïve, black-and-white view of international politics is gallingly poor and simple, where nuance is a necessity. As much as I express to conservative types that I agree with the removal of dictators on any day of the week, after I hear their plans for doing so, I lose interest. Why? Because conservatives dont want to pay for it.
They tell me freedom isnt free, and then cry about all the poor taxes they are asked to pay as a citizen of this country. I have not one tear to shed for you or your political points if you support such stupid tax legislation and the administration that puts it forth, while wanting to run around the planet firing weapons and dropping bombs at the expense of the less fortunate in THIS country. It is again the fool that weakens his position for the cause of improving someone elses, without a plan for positive accomplishment of said goal no less.
What would the WW2 generation have to say about such insipid whining about taxation? Theyd probably tell you to move to another country and theyd be right. They made the sacrifice. They put the time in. And guess what? They got the job done in record freakin time, under Democratic leadership no less.
With all of the technology and capability now available to this country and its current leaders, youd think theyd at least find it expedient to have a plan for winning over Iraqis to our cause, and accomplishing measurable goals in a time frame vaguely like that of WW2s accomplishments, or even Bush the fathers. Is converting the Middle East a huge, visionary goal? Sure it is. In fact none other than myself has considered such a thing in the past. Where things get really ugly is when you, as a privileged American, think your American-ness alone should make others want to change willingly and without question, all while being bombed and their houses raided.
You are basically arguing for, and trying to convert the world in a fashion not unlike the corporate CEO that talks a good game, but when his underlings scratch the surface for his plan, there isnt one to be found. Vision without planning doesnt work on the individual level, it doesnt work for companies, and it most assuredly will not, and has not, worked for this countrys present Iraq effort. No great leader was without a plan to make things work. Only great historical failures have that distinction.
Wanting to wage war in multiple countries with our stretched military, and at the same time having the gall not to want to pay for it, is the height of arrogance. You want this war; PAY FOR IT. I know I am. You want a free and democratic United States? PAY FOR IT. Unlike you, I dont have a problem with paying taxes. Why? Because I know what paying taxes does for my citizenship. Nothing speaks to wanton greed and corruption more than the current, sad and pathetic state that is modern conservatism. You all sound like the uppity European social elites you find solace in criticizing openly.
In closing, if we were not so mired in Iraq because of Bushs open ignorance, Id be all for sticking it to Irans Shahs for their hard-line religious politics. I am actually FOR the CIA stirring up the young democratically-minded youth in Iran. I am however NOT FOR bombing Iran, because it really WILL make the situation worse socially. And since Bush Inc. hasnt considered that Iran actually has a very large Shia-dominated population in it, on top of having three times the population of Iraq, all the positive military effort in the world means nothing when the details arent even considered, let alone given short shrift.
So whats the plan from the liberal or independent side of the country? In my opinion it should be to start where we are at, and use diplomacy and our allies to solve Iran. Oh, but thats not fast enough, violent enough, or righteous-feeling enough for you, right?
For the U.S. to push nuclear nonproliferation is ludicrous. We not only invented the damn things, but are the only nation to ever attack someone with them (civilian targets, at that! If that wasn’t a campaign of terror, I don’t know what was) and have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Furthermore we have an extensive track record of attacking or invading other countries on flimsy and/or fabricated justifications. To sanctimoniously look down our noses at another country and tell them *they* can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons is absurd.
If the Japanese were pushing nuclear nonproliferation, someone might listen (provided they destroyed their own nukes, if they have them now) – they at least have some moral authority on the issue. The U.S. has none (even before blatant hypocrisies like Israel and India).
Nonproliferation is an obviously unworkable idea in the first place. The existing nuclear powers don’t trust each other and therefore won’t disarm, and a split between nuclear haves and have-nots creates resentment and a determination for “upward mobility” – i.e., into the ranks of the nuclear powers. And once someone gets there, they’re not going back without a war – possibly a nuclear war. This is one clock that can’t be turned back.
Accordingly, what we need is a new post-nuclear diplomacy that isn’t based on the fundamentally stupid and absurd ideals of nonproliferation or disarmament. You can’t build a community of nations without recognizing the right of nations to have weapons, because they *will* defend that right, by force if necessary.
Secondly, you, like other pro-war kill-the-criticizer types, love coming from the “hey it could be worse” angle. After all, we all have all kinds of things to be happy about in the US right? Why criticize the US when so many things are going great? Am I wrong in gathering this from your posts?
Completely wrong. I myself criticized America IN THIS VERY THREAD. Sigh.
Further, your criticism of citizens in the US that critique this country belies a psychological motive to want to do away with such people. Why not just be honest and embrace your inner dictator? At least you’d be openly honest with us. Only the fool takes criticisms of America as a personal attack and seeks for the removal of the assessors.
What??? What is your basis for this babble? When did I try to “remove” somebody? Do you really think you can win an argument using such pseudo-psychology like “embrace you inner dictator”???
I only criticized those who refuse to see that this administration also acted correctly and defended democracy in various places of the globe. I’m sorry it infuriates you so much.
Where things get really ugly is when you, as a privileged American, think your American-ness alone should make others want to change willingly and without question, all while being bombed and their houses raided.
I am not American. No cookie this time.
n closing, if we were not so mired in Iraq because of Bush�s open ignorance, I�d be all for sticking it to Iran�s Shahs for their hard-line religious politics.
Your knowledge on Middle East needs brushing up. Iran is not ruled by “Shahs”. If this is any indication of your knowledge of this region, I prefer to hear Rumsfeld’s plan for Iran, not yours. At least he probably knows who rules where.
So what�s the plan from the liberal or independent side of the country? In my opinion it should be to start where we are at, and use diplomacy and our allies to solve Iran. Oh, but that�s not fast enough, violent enough, or righteous-feeling enough for you, right?
Not at all. As long as this strategy guarantees that Iran won’t have nukes, I think we should avoid war as much as possible. But I strongly object to giving up the possibility of military action out of principle, because this would also make the rest of the effort meaningless — such types like Iranian theocrats understand only the language of force.
As I understood the original poster, he frets and whines because there is a possibility the US and its allies might go to war with Iran. Please note, there is no indication of this happening during the next few months (and I’m glad about it, even though some war in the news would be a nice change from what I get on TV these days). Isn’t it a bit early to throw a pacifist fit?
For the U.S. to push nuclear nonproliferation is ludicrous. We not only invented the damn things, but are the only nation to ever attack someone with them (civilian targets, at that! If that wasn’t a campaign of terror, I don’t know what was) and have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
It was a perfectly legitimate tactic according to the laws of war at the time. It was also morally justified, since the alternative — invading Japan mainland with conventional forces — would bring even more civilian casualties. Or do you think the US should just let the Japanese militarists off the hook?
The same applies to the bombing of Dresden cities. The Germans and Japanese could avoid it by not attacking other countries in the first place.
You have no reason to feel bad, Prof. Myers. The world is applying pressure on Iran´s leaders to abandon its evil nuclear program. A credible menace of an Iraq-like military campaign (worked like greased lighting) and a Saddam Hussein-like period of reflexion and contemplation in a sewage pit and subsequent public trial may be what Ahmed.. needs.
Not just Ahmed… his Ayatollah masters too.
P Z Myers wrote:
That was a terrible tragedy and more should have been held to account for what happened.
But if you want anniversaries, tomorrow, 20 March, is the anniversary of the establishment of the first concentration camp in Nazi Germany at Dachau in 1933. How many lives might have been saved by pre-emptive action against that regime?
But if you want anniversaries, tomorrow, 20 March, is the anniversary of the establishment of the first concentration camp in Nazi Germany at Dachau in 1933. How many lives might have been saved by pre-emptive action against that regime?
… which in fact has been proposed by Polish leader Pilsudski in 1934 (or 1935).
HP, t s nt mttr f hrt flngs.
If Dr-l-Islm hs dclrd mrclss wr gnst Dr-l-Hrb ( fct), thn t s nt n ptn t b ‘fr pc.’
Y cn b fr rsstnc r fr sbmssn. Prfssr Myrs hs md t clr h’s fr sbmssn.
Frst by syng h wld d nythng t kp hs chldrn t f th mltry.
Scnd, by bndnng th wstrn prncpl f ndvdl tnmy by thrwng t frdm f thght nd xprssn vr th crtn trgs.
All tht rmns fr ppl lk hm s t ngtt th xct trms f thr srvtd.
Y cn wrp ll tht n hghmnddnss, bt tht’s ll t cms dwn t.
[ Harry: you are no longer welcome here. Find some other site where you can accuse people of treason. ]
Gosh… Why didn’t anyone think of that? Maybe because they have and Iran has come back with, “Kiss my ass!”? But then, you have to be paying attention to figure that out.
BTW, read this interesting piece yesterday:
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/2548-Teflon-Europe.html
Its not like the US is the only screw up when it comes to trying to stabalize situations or bring the right people to justice.
In any case, I can’t help but look at the pure statistics of the situation. You can’t simply assume that because no one but the US ever used nukes that no one else would. Terrorist have no problem with it and would have by now, if they could have gotten their hands on them. The don’t give a shit about human life in general, are willing to throw their own away if they think it will achieve a goal and are not above the scrorched earth policy of, “If we can’t have the holy land, no one will!” Guess who is now running Iran? Oops!
So, under the circumstances, which causes more death, dealing with them now, or dealing with them after they “prove” willing to use such a weapon? Either way people are going to die. Same with Iraq. So, Saddam went to insane lengths to convince potential threats like Iran from thinking he was weaponless and an easy target, but failed to consider what that might produce when the US badly damaged intelligence system (thanks Clinton!) got hold of the false information. Never mind stuff like this (there is a PDF translation of one of the docs):
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/03/saddam-era-documents.html
Apparently, we have something like 20,000-50,000 documents, for which about 1% have become available for public scruttiny and who knows how much has actually been translated or actually been available. The document linked about was sitting some place for most of the last three years, without being looked at and a lot of them are probably tied up in the Saddam Trials, so are effectively unavailable to “anyone” until they become public in the trial. Yet, supposedly we “know” what ties he had, “know” what or if he had WMD, or just pretended to, etc. Yeah, just like SCO “knows” that IBM stoled parts of UNIX… I am reserving judgement until I have facts, not third hand claims about what was or wasn’t true, mostly from people not even living in Iraq or from sources that could have been allied to anyone, including Saddam, with endless speculation added. PZ and such might be right, they might be dead wrong, both sides might be partly right, but at the moment be have professional mis-information brokers feeding the press BS from multiple directions and Saddam’s own where doing this both visibly and invisibly since before we even knew who Baghdad Bob was. What we know now is “less” trust worthy than what we had at the start, because its mixed in with all the crap being fed out by people that “want” us to think the negative version is true. And the documents that prove it one way or the other, are not available to figure it out.
The irony is, we have “more” concrete and valid info dealing with what Iran is doing, and it looks potentially 500 times worse than Iraq, but so far the war monger has tried negotiations for “safe” nuclear techonolgy, which Iran seemed to be going for, but Russia and China have been torpedoing… WTF? For now, diplomacy is being tried, war is unlikely and progress might be made. And in the supreme stupidity of the way the world works, the US and our own borderline allies are probably the ones that are going to screw it all up, then blame the US anyway when things blow up. It frustrates the hell out of me.
Oh, and about Japan:
1. They at the time believed strongly in Bushido, which in some respects is similar to the Jihad suicide bomber view. Likely a land invasion would have resulted in genocide, since probably 80% of the Japanese, including children, would have defended the cause of the Emporer to their deaths.
2. Much of our jet plane program after WWII came “directly” from the Japanese. Its estimated that had the war continued another 2-3 months, their secret manufacturing facilities would have put armed jet aircraft in the air to defend them, which “we” had no means to defend against. This wasn’t known at the time, or even suspected. In fact, our first jet fighter was an almost 100% identical copy of one of the Japanese designs. 2-3 more months would have meant mainland attacks on the US, killing not just troops, but civilians in the US, as well as the virtual genecide of the Japanese people, when/if we managed to land on there with troops, given the difficulty of doing so while jet aircraft straifed everything trying to make land into scrap.
on september the 11th, back in two-thousand-one,
al-qaeda did its heinous deed in a war long since begun.
headquartered in afghanistan, the path was laid quite bare:
to stop bin laden, it was clear the path must lead us there.
in tora bora it was know bin laden was hid’ out
with assistance from the taliban (there wasn’t any doubt),
so after them we sent our troops to stop them at a cost
justified by the human lives we recently had lost.
with bombs and troops we overthrew the bad guys of the land,
but somehow that osama fled (we still don’t understand),
and so we blustered, crowed and cooed that we would have our day —
and then turned us our attention down to ol’ iraqi way.
though no iraqi was aboard the flights that did us so much harm,
everybody knew iraq for us held little charm.
it was easier than apple pie to build a case against
saddam and all his loyalists, in iraq neatly fenced.
tell the media, brothers! tell them that they’ve got
weapons of mass destruction, and uranium’s been sought!
tell the media, sisters! tell them that we must
invade us those iraqis, and say our cause is just.
the talking heads were duty bound to spread the gospel far
to all and each american who drove an oil fueled car,
“iraq is held responsible for crimes and evil deeds —
and if we do not stop them, well, you’ll see just where that leads!”
and so we went on and got down to it, there in ol’ baghdad.
in hardly any time at all “we won!” and we were glad.
but in the weeks that followed it became a very simple fact:
no weapons of mass destruction meant we had to show some tact.
tell the media, sisters! tell them they are free
to exercise their rights to a new democracy!
tell the media, brothers! tell them it was just
to invade us those iraqis — for freedom is a must.
there’s abu ghraib and gitmo, and rendition extraordinaire,
the “insurgency” and i.e.ds and dead troops everywhere,
and what began as simple’s turned to something that is hard,
but still our bumbling dubya’s got another playing card.
he says everything we do is justified by what we’ve done,
and we never would have gone there if there weren’t no smokin’ gun,
and we must see our way to finish whatever we did start —
rememberin’ that in all of it we’ve kept a christian heart.
what would jesus do? he’d kill all the baddies dead!
what would jesus do? he’d cut off the terrorists’ head!
what would jesus do? he’d see every man was free
to practice dubya’s vision of mid-east democracy!
meanwhile, in america — and this is sort of an aside —
the fundies are all riled up, and they will not be denied.
they want us all to take a page from their most favorite book
(the very book that lib’ral dems for satan have forsook):
tell the media, children! tell them god is pissed
at all the liberal evil with which he has been dissed.
tell the media, christians! tell them enough’s enough;
it’s time to take control and on non-christians to get tough.
abortion rights, intelligent design, and judges dressed in black:
alex, what three prongs are foremost in the new fundie attack?
it’s funny how they make a mirror of what we fight against
there in ol’ iraq — where we’re all now sadly fenced.
there’s so much here that isn’t said about g-dubya’s plan;
it may seem a non sequitur that now we’re eyeing ol’ iran;
it may seem to make no sense that nothing’s been seen through;
it may seem quite stupid — but what are we to do?
tell the media, people! tell them what is what!
tell them that our real values to the quick are cut!
tell the media, citizens, and seek what you must learn
before our founding documents are left alone to burn!
this country isn’t made for fundies, or for right-wing ideologues,
and it isn’t made for war presidents and their accompanying fogs;
it isn’t made by governance that stems from “god on high”;
it’s made for folks like you and me whose rights none can deny.
perhaps someday we’ll find a way to do the world proud,
and learn to do what we should do and not what we’ve allowed.
we teach by our example, and it shows us who we are.
if we fight the madness of these times, then maybe we’ll go far.
Much of our jet plane program after WWII came “directly” from the Japanese.
What? Have you got sources for that, or have you been sniffing jet-fuel? Because I had the distinct impression that the USA’s program had a lot to do what they bought off the British, and swiped from the Germans.
The phrase “pre-emptive action” should, in my mind, refer to the execution of a refined strategy which does not necessarily involve a Bush-ian techno-bombing of a whole country. Iran’s percentage of educated and rational people has been increasing for quite some time now even though they have been unable to take control of things. It seems obvious that as the older generations die off in a society which is just now really coming to terms with the modern world and it’s visions, the most important thing to foster is an honest and respectful dialogue. A dialogue of this kind happened between myself and the folks I met in Morrocco, western Sahara, and Mauritania. Today, as an American with a fondness for clearing brush to help me think, I’d feel like a guilty freak-ass cowboy outlaw and wouldn’t really blame someone who tried to kill me if I was travelling in back-country Yemen or somewhere.
The point is that the republican strategy for dealing with fear is counter-productive. Now, if we open any kind of serious dialogue with the evil administration in Iran it will be seen as caving into nuclear physics’ power to get results. At this point in world history, even the worst of governments must be talked with. As a nation, we can afford to be a bit un-reasonably generous with our resources in order to foster democracy in places where it is just getting started. It might help repair some of the damage we (and Europe) has done to the way of life in the middle-east. Think it’s easy being a goat-herder in an oil economy?
I know how dangerous fundamentalism is and I also know that the line between passion and violence can be thin for these sorts who embrace it. Yet I also believe that time and honest good-will would help an “older” society to make fundamental changes. How long did it take to get Christianity to stop killing people?
But now, given our past actions in Iraq, the only choice we and any coalition will probably have is to attack as precisely as possible while aiding the opposition as fully as possible. It is difficult to change the course of a country as bulky as ours.
By the way, the brush is just the invasive multi-flora rose that’s everywhere in the mid-west.
and
Aren’t republicans supposed to be GOOD at war?
‘d feel like a guilty freak-ass cowboy outlaw and wouldn’t really blame someone who tried to kill me if I was travelling in back-country Yemen or somewhere.
Tell me, how did you manage to turn your self-preservation instinct off?
I did not say that I would allow them to kill me.
Roman,
Had the US and UK not deposed Mossadeq, Iran would probably be a democracy already.
or
Had Jimmy Carter not deposed the Shah, Iran would probably be some kind of democracy and an ally of America.
and
If Bush does not depose the Ayatollahs, Iran may invade the Sunni populated, oil rich areas of Saudi Arabia and involve America in a nuclear war.
Roman,
Had the US and UK not deposed Mossadeq, Iran would probably be a democracy already.
or
Had Jimmy Carter not deposed the Shah, Iran would probably be some kind of democracy and an ally of America.
and
If Bush does not depose the Ayatollahs, Iran may invade the Sunni populated, oil rich areas of Saudi Arabia and involve America in a nuclear war.
Moody: wow. Is that poem yours, or…?
If so, permission to quote and a title? ^.^
Huh?
I’m with NelC on Japanese jets. My understanding of Japan’s air power at the end of the war includes —
+ They were felling entire home-island coniferous forests to produce miniscule amounts of an aviation-capable fuel from the pitch.
+ That late kami-kazi planes were outfitted with dual controls and two pilots because there was so little fuel available new pilots could not be adequately trained. Two pilots significantly reduced the chance of pilot error and so increased the chance the plane would actually make it to the combat zone. In other words, by then pilots were easier to come by than fuel was. Jets swallow fuel.
+ Even if true, and I’m highly skeptical, we would have had “our” first jets, captured German jets, by then.
My father, a B-17 pilot in the Army’s 8th Air Force, told me that he personally had come up against jets over Germany on multiple missions at the end of the war.
The Japanese had prepared a “sucidal” homeland defense, but the technology consisted of “human-bomb/torpedo” type approaches. By the end of the war Japan was bereft of resources. Food, fuel, steel, wood — everything.
I think I’m correct about this — Japan never produced a major ship after the war began, while the U.S. cranked them out like automobiles. The Japanese never had plans for, nor combat ships for, protecting their tanker shipping lanes to the Indonesian oil fields. Once the U.S. had constructed a submarine fleet and those subs got into this floating pipeline they just slowly shut off the valve.
Mr. Myers:
While I have developed a great deal of respect for your writing at Panda’s Thumb, with respect to international relations you are an empty headed fool. What’s more, your treatmen of Mr. Eager reveals you to have a Stalinesque appreciation for contrary opinion.
Until you come up with a defendable alternative to apocalyptic mullahs possessing nuclear weapons, you are in absolutetly no position to criticize — in this case, the null hypothesis is simply not an answer.
Additionally, you have roundly criticized the war in Iraq. Okay, fine. Please give a reasonably thorough rundown of the status quo ante, then provide an alternate course of action. Until you do so, your criticisms are empty headed foolishness.
And before your start harping on WMD, read this.
I have put up with Heagar for far too long — a year? two? — and have exhibited far more patience than he has deserved. When he decides to accuse me of treason, it’s time to kick the obnoxious twit out.
As for my position on Iraq: face it. The liberals who opposed it were right, and every excuse for it by the wingnut right has proven false.
Stalinesque, Jeff? Your Stalinesquity detector’s awfully sensitive, but not particularly specific.
PZ’s been extremely patient with that troll for a long time, and I don’t remember hearing any objection from you when Eagar declared that Asians had no respect for life, or to any other of his racist effluvia. Guess that didn’t offend you nearly enough to trot out the S-bomb, huh?
Wow. I’ve never played a role in a disemvowelling before. Maybe I should switch to a screen name with some vowels in it.
One of the truly irritating things about political discussions online is that people are all quite safely separated one from another by miles and miles of cabling. People who would otherwise be afraid to express an idiotic opinion can’t resist the temptation to mouth off. For that reason, I rarely jump into these discussions, but sometimes the odor of stale ammonia coming from some of these cowards is just too much for me.
I agree with PZ’s sentiments on Iraq entirely. All I can add is the observation that the Bushies seem determined to create in the Shi’ites the kind of capable enemy Al Qaida could never be. And of course, once that enemy comes into being, it’ll be clear enough just what sort of leaders are needed to combat it. “We have always been at war with Southwest Asia.”
Minor but over-long comment on the jet fighter diversion: The reason they weren’t a major factor even over Europe, where as someone pointed out the Germans did have them, and couldn’t have been a major factor anywhere at the time is summed up in a short phrase: engine maintenance and replacement cycle. The technology of the time simply couldn’t manage to keep them in the air enough. As well, their speed advantage may have been enough to keep them out of trouble against propeller fighters, but didn’t mean nearly as much when it came to the late-war primary German fighter role of attack against massed bomber formations, and so attrition was still considerable (not even counting the not-insubstantial losses due to engine failure). Producing very large numbers of them might have made a difference, but the Germans were in no position to do so — those things were very expensive compared to a standard fighter. Given the Japanese war production situation near the end of the war, it’s hard to imagine they could have done so either even given an extra year. Finally, waaayyyy back in the depths of memory I seem to recall seeing a picture of a captured Japanese jet fighter prototype, but it was just a copy of the principal German model (the Me 262). There is no reason to imagine that the Japanese had somehow solved the engine problems.
Completely wrong. I myself criticized America IN THIS VERY THREAD. Sigh.
Yes, I realized that by entering my reply to your post. But it just so happens that your criticism matches with the very virulent and frankly vapid comments that come from the right-wing in the US. They cry and they whine, and have done so for decades, because they think all that anti-American stuff comes from a place that is intentionally hostile. But for people like Martin Luther King Jr., and other civil rights leaders and reformers in this country, that most certainly was not the intent.
Likewise, I do not believe it is the intent now. Again, people with honest criticism of moral inconsistencies in US policy should not be the ones shouted at; it should be those that counter with the old status quo you should be thankful argument. Thats not a positive argument, least of all because it doesnt advance anything positive.
What??? What is your basis for this babble? When did I try to “remove” somebody? Do you really think you can win an argument using such pseudo-psychology like “embrace you inner dictator”???
My basis is that what you are typing is the same stuff I hear from the right-wing every day about how much the liberal point of view sucks. They are coming from a viewpoint that is patently intolerant of another. Whether you are as such or not is irrelevant: You seem to be using their language, and so youre likely to get a response in kind.
I wasnt trying to win an argument with that statement. I was calling for you to at least try to look to the logical end to your own arguments. Using force to solve everything solves nothing in the end. The Middle East is a crucible of that fact, and theyve been proving it for ages.
I only criticized those who refuse to see that this administration also acted correctly and defended democracy in various places of the globe. I’m sorry it infuriates you so much.
Perhaps the administration is fostering democracy in other places, which is not something that infuriates me, as you put it. But at the same time they are criticizing those democratic processes in other countries because of who the people in those countries chose. Take Iraq for example: Is it good for the populace of Iraq to be able to vote? Of course it is at the most basic level. But you have to be willing to accept who they pick and deal with that situation should it not be to your liking. If we give them the right to vote and then slam who they choose, well that looks more like us being choosy about other countries futures. In other words, it reads to them as imperialism.
Am I saying Iraqis are incapable or unworthy of understanding democracy? No, but the right-wing would paint me as such, because they are not interested in the nuance of my argument. My point is that the administration must give more than lip service to the idea of democracy. They cant say its great and then do away with inconvenient democratic processes here in the US and elsewhere for the sake of their agenda. Their actions are not consistent with their talk, and that is the problem.
Again, you can assert all the moral certitude you want; Not having a plan will be your undoing, criticisms or otherwise. The right-wing blamed the left for the failure that was Viet Nam, conveniently overlooking the fact that it was a war started on false pretenses (a staged sinking of a ship). They think nothing is their fault, even when theyre in control. They love blaming others and then talking about how righteous they are and how responsible everyone should be.
No one will ever convince me I should follow such gutless, immoral wretches. They way they screw each other over in electoral primaries is a perfect example of how hollow their morality truly is. And to think I voted for some of them… Truth has a way of coming out eventually.
I am not American. No cookie this time.
Then I apologize for that one. I will thus reword my argument by restricting my argument to the privileged Americans in the US that dont like paying taxes, but want their scrawny hides protected. My point still stands regardless.
Your knowledge on Middle East needs brushing up. Iran is not ruled by “Shahs”. If this is any indication of your knowledge of this region, I prefer to hear Rumsfeld’s plan for Iran, not yours. At least he probably knows who rules where.
Maybe it does, but Iran is still a country in theocratic hands. Are you implying they are not? If so, this would belie your own understanding, in which case neither of us is capable of arguing that point. And Rumsfeld had better know. He gets paid far more than I do, and has his hands on far too many important things. He answers questions like a first grader with his hands caught in the cookie jar though, so I dont trust him either.
But I strongly object to giving up the possibility of military action out of principle, because this would also make the rest of the effort meaningless — such types like Iranian theocrats understand only the language of force.
As I understood the original poster, he frets and whines because there is a possibility the US and its allies might go to war with Iran. Please note, there is no indication of this happening during the next few months (and I’m glad about it, even though some war in the news would be a nice change from what I get on TV these days). Isn’t it a bit early to throw a pacifist fit?
OK, so you criticized me for saying (incorrectly) that Iran was run by Shahs, and then you admit they are a relative theocracy HUH? Regardless, considering military action is again VERY difficult, given the completely unsolved Iraq situation. Add on top of that the fact that our national deficit is at absurdly high levels. Its at 8-9 trillion currently, but is projected to be as much as 55 TRILLION. Nobody on the planet, including us, has money to pay for any of this. Getting involved militarily would not only be absolutely crippling to the US monetarily, it would further endanger national interests because of who has those interests on loan.
I will give you the fact that other countries are expressing concern as well, but this is far from a contract to provide military assistance should we give the go ahead and march. Bushs people are already beating war drums (they actually have been for over a decade), so I dont believe my fears are misplaced. Like the theocrats in Iran, there are a lot of neocons that understand nothing but force. The difference is our neocons are more than happy to use it because they have the biggest red button, and feel there is no repercussion for pressing it, us being the US and all.
Final tally: Is Iran a threat? There is a high probability toward yes. Can we do anything about it? If Iraq had better planning, most likely yes. However that is not the situation, and our leaders could care less for details, so my honest answer to you is, no, taking military action against Iran is impossible, unless a draft is put in place. At that point, I think America will finally understand the real problem, and fix it: Bush.
Alex,
No problem. Inspired by PZ’s sentiments. I didn’t think to title it as I just sort of fired it off, but you can call it “Call it Country Simple”. Could use some work and polish… but feel free to use it as you will (just credit me, please).
PZ: Keep up the good fight. I know you know this, but it’s only if we allow ourselves to be cowed, silenced, pushed into disheartened stances of tacit acceptance, that they win. I say “they”, but here I am thinking quite distinctly of our fellow Americans whose opinions and ideas we disagree with. It serves none of us if we shut up.
I hope you enjoyed your walk and came back refreshed.
PZ:
As for my position on Iraq: face it. The liberals who opposed it were right, and every excuse for it by the wingnut right has proven false.
Tell it to the Iraqis who are happy that Saddam is no longer ruling their country. But do you really give a damn about them?
BlueIndependent:
Yes, I realized that by entering my reply to your post.
Thinking before posting helps.
But it just so happens that your criticism matches with the very virulent and frankly vapid comments that come from the right-wing in the US.
So what? Am I guilty by association? I’m so sorry I made virulent comments. I didn’t know only “godless liberals” were allowed to make such. I’ll try to make my comments as toothless as possible in the future. As for them being uninteresting, why do you reply to them, then?
It is amuzing for me to note that for you and some other people saying “what you say matches [in tone? in substance? nobody knows…] something what X say”, when X are people you do not like, implies that it is completely wrong.
Again, people with honest criticism of moral inconsistencies in US policy should not be the ones shouted at
Neither I wouldn’t be so eager to shout at myself, you know. I’ve been criticizing those inconsistencies in foras so wild and radical you’d be afraid to even read them, let alone post there. What I do not support is the notion that because those inconsistencies exist, the US has no right to act decisively when it is needed and that it has lost its moral superiority to countries like Iran and North Korea. You’d have to try a lot harder to achieve that ;-) It’s just an old fallacy “either you are 100% pure or you have no right to criticize anyone else”. Someone put the example of the Democratic WW II US administration, which supposedly handled the job of fighting Nazism so superbly. Too bad the historians don’t share that notion. The number of atrocities committed by the US (and not only US, but that’s irrelevant now) troops during WW II is astronomical compared to Iraq. One thinks that if we were to follow the logic of some liberals around here, Truman should’ve apologized Germans for winning the war, let all Nazis free and withdraw from Germany as soon as possible — since the US was guily of “moral inconsistencies” on a much larger scale than in Iraq (please note that there was not ONE SINGLE INCIDENT of the US troops accused of rape on a civilian woman — not one; compare this to WW II…). I even set aside the opinions that FDR was not that much upset by the news about Holocaust (but he was a Democrat, so we let him off the hook) or the undeniable fact that he sold whole Eastern Europe to Stalin without thinking twice (but he was a Democrat, so we let him off the hook). I don’t say this to defend today’s Republicans — in fact, during 2004 elections I wished that Kerry wins, although now I think top Democratic politicians are so incoherent and lost that it wouldn’t make a big difference — only because I read in this thread how someone praised the FDR administration for handling WW II superbly and underlined the fact they were Democrats (AFAIR there were a lot of Republicans in this administration, too, since it was kind of a “national unity” thing). Such partisanship applied to history annoyed me, so I respond.
My basis is that what you are typing is the same stuff I hear from the right-wing every day about how much the liberal point of view sucks.
Ah, so “saying someone’s POV sucks” == “willing to remove him”. How logical.
Yes, I think that IN THIS REGARD the liberal POV as represented by PZ Myera *does suck*. Note that Ed Brayton’s POV on this is much closer to mine, and he’s also a liberal (or maybe there is a distinction between a liberal and a libertarian, I don’t know… it’s so non-European anyway).
They are coming from a viewpoint that is patently intolerant of another.
Ah, disagreeing with someone = being intolerant. How mature…
Whether you are as such or not is irrelevant: You seem to be using their language, and so you�re likely to get a response in kind.
“If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck”. I heard this saying in “Good night and good luck” recently, said by some McCarthy staffer (or McCarthy himself). Let’s try to make “guilt by association” work for me this time ;-)
Guilty by association, indeed. Didn’t it occur to you that if some POV of yours gets criticized by people of different mindsets, there is a non-zero probability it may be, gasp, WRONG? At least partially? There is an old story by Issac Babel in which an old Jew says that the most dangerous people are those who think they are 100% right. Babel should know, given the time and place of his life.
Using force to solve everything solves nothing in the end.
Of course it solves SOMETHING. Just not in the way we’d prefer. I myself would like to see the world peaceful and people friendly to each other. But we’re not like that, we’re brutal and violent and there will always be some bad guys who need to be held in check. As human history amply shows. I am all for peaceful solutions to problems, but Iran is making this problematic. They keep rejecting every offer of a peaceful arrangement they get. Their president is crazy. He think Holocaust was a hoax made by Jews to gain power. He rejected even the Russian offer, and Russia was helpful to Iran during the last years. I suspect that unless we scare Iran into thinking they really might meet a powerful military reponse, they will not cave in.
The Middle East is a crucible of that fact, and they�ve been proving it for ages.
Just like any other place. Europe was bloody as hell for centuries. It took two world wars to break the neck of German militarism and secure peace in Europe. Caving to Germans would not achieve that. Compare this with Russia, which never suffered a military defeat of the German kind, and still thinks it can bully other nations around.
But at the same time they are criticizing those democratic processes in other countries because of who the people in those countries chose.
(Are you suggesting that the US “fosters democracy” just to install friendly leaders? I hope not. You’d offend many Ukrainians, for example.)
Precisely the same what most of the Europe did when Austrians elected Heider or the criticism which is given to Italy’s Berlusconi. Since when democratic countries cannot criticize other country’s leaders?
Take Iraq for example: Is it good for the populace of Iraq to be able to vote? Of course it is at the most basic level. But you have to be willing to accept who they pick and deal with that situation should it not be to your liking.
And what is the indication that the US will not accept Iraq’s choice? AFAIR, they made it quite clear that they are going to accept any government which will be formed. Of course, they put pressure on the Iraqi politicians so that they don’t exluce Sunnis from the process, that is a good thing IMHO. I’m sure that there won’t be a situation in whic h the US imposes its own government in Iraq.
If we give them the right to vote and then slam who they choose, well that looks more like us being choosy about other countries� futures. In other words, it reads to them as imperialism.
The problem with your argument is that the US did not do that.
Again, you can assert all the moral certitude you want; Not having a plan will be your undoing, criticisms or otherwise.
Of course, and Bush is rightly criticized for not having a plan for Iraq. But still, Iraq is better off now than it would be under Saddam.
Maybe it does, but Iran is still a country in theocratic hands. Are you implying they are not?
No, I am implying that Shah (this is a one-man job) was not a theocrat ;-)
Regardless, considering military action is again VERY difficult, given the completely unsolved Iraq situation.
No, since nobody is trying to achieve a regime change in Iran. Wrecking Iran’s nuclear program can be done with much less effort than a land invasion.
I will give you the fact that other countries are expressing concern as well, but this is far from a contract to provide military assistance should we give the go ahead and march.
So we’ve come from “we’re immoral and cannot do anything” to “we can’t afford it” ;-) Hey — together, EU and US have a helluva lot of money. They can finance a limited military campaign.
Anyway, having Iran with nuclear weapons is going to cost everybody a lot more.
Final tally: Is Iran a threat? There is a high probability toward yes. Can we do anything about it? If Iraq had better planning, most likely yes. However that is not the situation, and our leaders could care less for details, so my honest answer to you is, no.
OK, lie on your back and wait for trouble.
Dr. Myers:
What is your preferred course of action with respect to apocalyptic mullah’s pursuing nuclear weapons?
Given the status quo ante, what would you have done instead of invade Iraq?
I don’t know if you have ever answered the latter, if so, a link will suffice.
But as for the former, until you come up with a defendable alternative, you criticisms are completely empty.
Analysis of the deeply moral and profoundly thoughtful Mr. Werpachowski:
“The US made many errors in the “war on terrors” and in Iraq” (Roman Werpachowski)
“Some comrades have become dizzy with success.” (Comrade Stalin, re the Ukraine famine)
“The methods Mr. Kurtz used were unsound.” (Heart of Darkness, Mr. Kurtz’s boss)
The human ability to forgive oneself is indeed marvelous.
We are never criminal monsters, we’ve just made mistakes.
Mistakes that we’ve prepared for carefully, with a lot of
preparation and much attention to deniability.
But they are mistakes, and only ill-intentioned and dishonest people would claim that this
was what we really meant to do.
And as long as no-one can show a copy of a written and signed Fuehrerbefehl,
David Irving can deny that Hitler even knew of the Holocaust.
Mistakes were made, by rogue individuals acting without orders or authorization…
“They deserve better.”(R.Werpachowski)
And BUSH is going to deliver it? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
“you MUST back up your demands with force. This is the only language they understand.”(RW)
Yes, force is the only language Bush understands and that is why Iran MUST get nukes.
“What I care is that the Iraqis are free now.”(RW)
“Life has become happier, comrades, life has become merrier.” (J.Stalin)
Most of Iraq is a theocracy. Kurdistan is a nationalist dictatorship engaged in ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Turkmen.
Should we start bombing the Kurds, BTW? To stop their Srebrenicas?
“the cases of torture and illegal imprisonment are making US look bad”(RW)
Yes, that’s the really important thing to worry about: torture makes the torturer look bad.
Pity the poor torturer.
If one of your friends turns out to be a cannibal serial killer,
you’ll be worried that it’ll damage his good reputation plus it’s not a really healthy diet,
think of all the cholesterol and calories.
“he [FDR] sold whole Eastern Europe to Stalin without thinking twice” (RW)
I thought there was a little thing called World War Two, and that the SOviet domination of Eastern Europe sprang from that.
But never mind, history has been changed. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Forget Stalingrad – but of course you already did.
“It took two world wars to break the neck of German militarism and secure peace in Europe.
Caving to Germans would not achieve that. Compare this with Russia,
which never suffered a military defeat of the German kind, and still thinks it can bully other nations around.”(RW)
Can you perhaps think of another great power that hasn’t been kicked in the nuts
hard enough and thinks it’s a good idea to bully everyone?
And for a citizen of a country that was in the thick of both World Wars, you’ve a pretty cavalier attitude to them.
“Are you suggesting that the US “fosters democracy” just to install friendly leaders? I hope not. You’d offend many Ukrainians, for example.”(RW)
The truth is sometimes painful and offensive. That’s not a reason to accept lies and self-serving BS.
“I’m sure that there won’t be a situation in which the US imposes its own government in Iraq.”(RW)
It’s been tried and it failed. Now there’s no government at all.
“Bush is rightly criticized for not having a plan for Iraq.”(RW)
WTF? The plan WAS to have viceroy Paul Bremer rule the place as a dictator and to privatize everything in sight.
It just didn’t work too well.
“Wrecking Iran’s nuclear program can be done with much less effort than a land invasion.”(RW)
And of course this will not produce any sort of reaction in Iraq,
where they have just 140 000 moving targets conveniently available.
“EU and US have a helluva lot of money. They can finance a limited military campaign.”(RW)
That’s the point at which I get separatist on Brussels’ ass. No in my name, not with my money.
So we’ve come from “we’re immoral and cannot do anything” to “we can’t afford it” ;-) Hey — together, EU and US have a helluva lot of money. They can finance a limited military campaign.
Um, how limited can it be? Iran is about 3 times bigger than Iraq.
Probably the infrastructure of Iran could be wrecked, so the attack would mean less availability of nukes, but probably more potential terrorists in the region. Are you sure Pakistan won’t pass them some nuclear technology under the counter like it did for Iran a few years back?
Tell it to the Iraqis who are happy that Saddam is no longer ruling their country. But do you really give a damn about them?
You mean the ones that love us so much they are shooting at us because they don’t have jobs, water or electricity? Countless reputable journalists prove you wrong on a daily basis. My limited knowledge, and frankly your own, matters not to what is actually happening.
You can say “they are free now” all you want, it won’t change their situation. You are using the same flawed mentality as Bush that the word ‘freedom’ on its own is self-evident. Bush’s lack of a plan for creating freedom, rather than attempting to impose it, will be the very thing he is remembered for. That can only be summed up by one word: failure.
Go see V for Vengeance. It might make you feel better.
I don’t think the 200,000 dead Iraqi civilians are happy about Saddam’s departure.
I don’t particularly have outrage fatigue. The stuff seems to be available in abundance. I get a new shipment every time I read bleating from wingnut blog commenters.
What I do have, reading the likes of Werpachowski and Guinn and NatureSelectedBadly, is sheep herd fatigue. Doesn’t it hurt to cram Fox News’ Line Of The Week into your head and claim it as an opinion? Especially considering you have to steam-clean your mind of all memory once a month and replace it with the new stuff?
I’m especially amused by NSM, on the one hand, blithely telescoping an allegory about cultural similarities into a dismissive “You’re calling Bush Hitler!” and then saying not one word when Guinn relxeively vomits up the word “Stalinist” – incidentally trivializing the deaths of millions of actual victims of Communism – to describe PZ’s mild and long-overdue eviction of the odious racist troll Eagar.
Hypocrites and sheep, the lot of you. And whiners: such outpouring of outrage when PZ has the temerity to oppose atrocities, regardless of the perpetrator. “But our atrocities are in the cause of freedom!” You guys fucking make me sick.
Ah, there it is again! Delicious outrage.
Chris:
Pouring of outrage? Puhlease.
Answer the questions:
Provide a reasonably complete summary of the status quo ante, and explain what you would have done instead of invade Iraq?
What, and why, is your preferred course of action with respect to the prospect of apocalyptic mullahs obtaining nuclear weapons?
Until you can provide some serious answers to those questions, your Delicious Outrage is nothing more than the temper tantrum of a 10-yr old.
Note, Mr. Werpachowski knows well of which he speaks — until you have seen that kind of dictatorship first hand, mere words are scarcely capable of conveying the pervasive awfulness. Your willingness to adopt an “I’m alright, Jack” position reeks of amorality.
Dr. Myers:
BTW, I’m waiting to hear from you, also, as to how, or if, you would deal with nuclear mullahs.
Until you can provide some serious answers to those questions, your Delicious Outrage is nothing more than the temper tantrum of a 10-yr old.
You’ll understand if we have some doubts about your judgment and sense of perspective, Jeff, seeing as how you can’t distinguish between Stalin’s mass murders and PZ’s banning of an egregious troll.
Just you wait. My goons are going to be hauling Harry off to a Canadian gulag any day now.
I would deal with nuclear mullahs by, well, dealing with nuclear mullahs. Not by invading a country that was not nuclear, was not provoking terrorism, and subsequently destablizing everything to produce chaos that would incite further hatred, tie down my military, and do economic harm to my country.
I know Hussein was an awful tyrant. My country propped him up for years, remember? It’s funny how wingers piously cry about how evil and tyrannical he is now, when it was wingers who were supporting him for so long before. The same wingers who now are grateful for our good friends in Uzbekistan. Say, if you’re so concerned about the oppression of innocent civilians, how come you aren’t deploring our alliance with a sadist who boils people alive?
Here are my plans.
1. If I’d been in charge when the Iraq war started, it wouldn’t have happened. We had complete control of the skies, we had UN and American inspectors going through the country…the man was under our thumbs, and could be squished (as he was) at will. There was no need to invade. He was no threat. He had no WMDs. His every attempt to get them was subject to our prying eyes, and any attempt to accumulate greater military power would be visible to us.
2. If I were in charge now, I’d fire the incompetents who had bungled every step of this war, and in consultation with the military experts, would announce a specific calendar for a phased withdrawal, immediately. If it required some short-term, focused increases in troop investment to achieve specific stabilizing goals, I’d support that…but there would be a timetable locked in. Everyone would know exactly when we’d be out, and what would have to be accomplished to stabilize the situation.
3. About Iran…since I wouldn’t have been flailing about blowing up random things in a country, that while odiously run, hadn’t done me any harm, I think the US would have a little more diplomatic credibility and our allies and foes would have a little more trust in us. We have a pretty good concerted effort right now to reach an accommodation with Iran…the real problem is that the US is sitting there all twitchy and unpredictable, threatening to throw bombs and kill lots of people. I wouldn’t take the US seriously as a rational actor — I’d hate and mistrust them — if I were on the other side. That’s a serious problem, thanks to the Bush administration. We are weaker now in negotiations than we ever were before…all we’ve got is guns.
Until you can provide some serious answers to those questions, your Delicious Outrage is nothing more than the temper tantrum of a 10-yr old.
And here we see stage number one of the thoughtless wingnut response to any criticism: Projection. Assign to the opposition the characteristic you most fear and resent in yourself. This is, of course, the non-outwardly-defensive approach to claiming one’s greatest weakness as one’ greatest strength, which is difficult to actualize effectively without a PR budget. (cf: Chevron’s “People Do!” campaign.)
Without a budget, and in fact in some cases without any linguistic facility whatsoever, the wingnut’s best bet is to mind their misunderstood and superficial understanding of Sun Tzu and go on the attack. Novice opponents will rush to defend themselves, granting a tactical advantage to the wingnut. The drawback to this tactic, of course, is that opponents generally become wise to it after seeing it used several thousand times a month.
NB the pairing, in this instance, with slavish devotion to an assertion, stated as a question, that has been effectively debunked not only in the world outside but in comments above. A fine example of the species.
Have you all read this oldie already (just don’t take it too seriously, now…)
http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html
Chris:
Nice diatribe. What is your preferred course of action?
Raven T:
In as much as the censor prevented me from deciding for myself about this “troll”, and the default approach for many here is ad hominem attack rather than actually formulating a defendable position, you’ll pardon me if I conclude the angry left is all shout and no substance.
Ridiculous. Harry has left his slimy fingerprints all over the site, and I haven’t deleted his posts.
You’ll have to pardon me if I conclude the lackwit right is all whine and no sense.
Conclude anything you like, Jeff; but clearly, checking your conclusions against the evidence before bandying about hyperbolic exaggerations is something you can’t or won’t arse yourself to do.
In that regard, you’re actually behaving very much like the creationists, which is neither particularly interesting nor serious.
Dr. Myers:
1. If I’d been in charge when the Iraq war started, it wouldn’t have happened … and any attempt to accumulate greater military power would be visible to us.
So I take it you would have been perfectly happy for Saddam to continue cynically using the sanctions to starve his own people, particularly children.
And you don’t mind in the least that the French and Russians were busy subverting those sanctions while further corrupting the UN.
Or that Southern Watch required a huge American footprint in Saudi Arabia, which inflamed Islamists as much as anything.
I also take it you didn’t read my link above, which clearly demonstrates that Saddam himself thought he had WMD. Or the weapons inspector’s clear conclusion that Saddam had retained the ability, and desire, to restart WMD programs, including nuclear weapons, as soon as the sanctions went away.
As far as our previous conduct goes, sometimes it requires choosing the least unpalatable of two evils. Perhaps you remember Iran’s goals for the region following the revolution?
So your plan amounts to an amoral preference for the status quo, regardless of its effects, or the very strong likelihood that the status quo had reached a terminus.
2. If I were in charge now, I’d fire the incompetents who had bungled every step of this war, and in consultation with the military experts, would announce a specific calendar for a phased withdrawal, immediately.
Aside from the personnel decisions, your focus on time instead of conditions means completely abandoning everyone there hoping for something other than an Islamist victory.
3. 3. About Iran…all we’ve got is guns.
News flash: unless you are on record as willing to use guns, then that is precisely what you may well end up resorting to. Do you remember our good friends, the French? Before the “negotiations” preceding the invasion of Iraq, the French publicly and explicitly took their approval of force off the table. Even if that was their intent all along, how stupid is it to renounce ahead of time your primary means to get your desired goal?
In any event, your answer is worthless — the question isn’t what you will do in the runup to the mullah’s obtaining nuclear weapons, it is what you would do if that eventuality were to become certain.
If you had gotten these sorts of answers from one of your students, lacking any notion of support or context, and failing to come to terms with the problem at hand, I doubt you would give that student a passing grade.
This world would be a better place if Moammar Kadafi would fly out here and get my gardening started. Yet, I wonder if this would be the best scenario.
Raven T:
What is your preferred course of action should the mullahs be intent on acquiring nuclear weapons?
One conclusion is clear — while most here are incensed over the administration’s position, no one has proposed an alternative.
Huh? I said what I thought.
It’s absurd to insist that we are at fault because George W. Bush has put us in an untenable position where there are no good solutions.
I think Adam Ierymenko’s “top six” reasons (about three miles up in this thread) boil down to this statement:
People would rather be right than be happy.
As children, we live for being happy. We live for making other people happy. Then something happens – some experience – and we conclude that, maybe, being happy is a dumb idea. So we trade being right for being happy. We adopt cynicism as a defense mechanism for any suggestion that we might actually be able to restore that childlike happiness.
And we end up with threads like this, arguing about the inherent rightness (or is that rightiness?) of our argument.
Test it out yourself: What are you being right about?
Dr. Myers:
I know you said what you thought, but what you said did not amount to a defendable policy decision.
With respect to Iraq, it failed to take account of any aspect of the status quo ante.
With respect to Iran, it completely failed to answer the question, in that you said nothing about your contingency plan should all non-military attempts to prevent nuclear armed mullahs fail to produce the desired results.
NB: This has nothing to do with fault, but rather an attempt to determine what you would have done had you been in the driver’s seat. I am not attempting to defend any position here, but rather wondering if anyone can pose plausible alternatives. So far, even faced with the relatively simple question of nucullahs, the answer is a resounding NO.
relatively simple question of nucullahs
I hear Blue Oyster Cult swelling in the background:
With a Pakistan blueprint he bought from AQ
The mad cleric shows he’s gunning for you
He points his dread missile straight into the West
And dreams of dead Jewry embedded in glass
Woo hoo, he’s coming after you,
Go go Nucullah!
Woo hoo, there goes Baghdad too,
Go go Nucullah!
With respect to Iran, it completely failed to answer the question, in that you said nothing about your contingency plan should all non-military attempts to prevent nuclear armed mullahs fail to produce the desired results.
Could you present your master plan that will definitely get rid of nuclear mullahs, as well?
Everyone else: “It was wrong to shoot that toddler in the eye!”
Guinn: “Yeah? Well, how would YOU have killed her?”
When Bush is using chemical warfare on the wasps in the ranch’s outbuildings, I wonder if he sprays a little on a nest and a little more on another nest etc…. Farm life will teach you, W , that when establishing the freedom to move around your “outbuildings” one makes sure that one achieves success in an area before moving on to the next. Otherwise, you’re running around wasting resources and will eventually get stung.
Perhaps if the citizens of Iraq or Iran could look to a brighter situation in Afghanistan as a benchmark of American imposed freedom, they would be more anxious to increase pressure on their own government to comply with whatever ultimatums the world comes up with for them.
I’m no political strategist but perhaps a union of countries that refuse to purchase oil from Iran unless their whole nuclear energy program is strictly supervised would be a start. Since Bush backed out of the non-proliferation treaty and gave a thumbs-up to India’s nuclear projects, it is awkward for him to say no to Iran’s having nuclear energy, per se. It will only fuel the idea that the U.S is against religious Arabs.
The question was asked as to what would be President P.Z’s plan of action if all non-military attempts at preventing nuclear mullahs had failed. Well, it seems that if ALL non-military attempts at something fail then you are left with only one option: a military attempt. However, Rumsfeld is not the only option….shock and awe are not the only options….a crusade is not the only option…..
Pattenowski:
This is from Dr. Myers original post:
This is how the monsters win, you know. They launch horror after horror …
This absolutely begs the question of Dr. Myers’, or anyone else’s alternative.
I’m not utterly convinced that an honest attempt at non-military options is even being made. From this bystander’s point of view, all I’ve seen is an attempt to rally popular opinion against Iran in the same manner that they tried to pump up the threat from Iraq. In just the same way, the diplomatic efforts seem to be employed purely to bring things to a war, and not to find a peaceful solution.
And, Jeff “I am not attempting to defend any position” Guinn — bollocks! That’s as convincing as the creationist trolls who come here claiming that they’re innocent lambs with no agenda, no idea whether creationism or Darwinism is right, they just want some answers to some simple questions. Complete and utter rubbish.
Roman, Jeff, et al,
The lefties here are upset because they can’t figure out how they, and everybody else left-of-the-radical-right, have been excluded from power. I hope they wake up soon because the combo of the radical right’s faith in their own view and control of the U.S. and their willingness to buy votes from the evangelical right is an amoral and volatile combination.
But you guys are the ones who have screwed the pooch, bigtime. You’ve already made your deal with the devil — power through open-ended psychosocial manipulation. You think you know where you’re taking the U.S., but you’re idealouges and ultimately incapable of fully dealing with reality. Premiere example — Iraq.
You will be unpleasantly suprised at some point. Reality bites back. Unfortunately, the rest of us are along for the ride.
An excellent post, Tom.
Fantastic links, btw. Wonderful editorial.
Sometimeas it’s just plain hard to accept what our government is doing. Now, I think, is one of those time. Nut what CAN we do?
Tony B.
This absolutely begs the question of Dr. Myers’, or anyone else’s alternative.
Let’s hear yours?
NelC:
You have missed the point entire, in the most ironical way possible.
Asserting that the US will not renounce the use of force to prevent a nuclear mullacracy is taking a position on available evidence. Clearly you don’t agree.
However, this where you become the creationist troll: you, and Dr. Myers, deride that position without offering any sort of alternative.
Just as with invading Iraq. Vilifying the decision is nothing more than a petulant display absent a willingness to analyze the status quo ante, the options on offer, and present an analytical, defendable, alternative.
Above, Dr. Myers provided a good working example of how to do that inadequately.
BTW: Ridiculous. Harry has left his slimy fingerprints all over the site, and I haven’t deleted his posts.
To determine that for myself, or how his posts differ in quality compared with, say, Chris Clarke, I did a search on “Eagar” and came up goose eggs.
Windy:
Unless you are willing to face nucullahs, there may very well be no alternative. Certainly no one here has offered one.
Unless you are willing to face nucullahs, there may very well be no alternative. Certainly no one here has offered one.
Alternative to what? Perhaps if you present your plan on how to get rid of the nuclear threat first, it will be easier to offer alternatives.
To determine that for myself, or how his posts differ in quality compared with, say, Chris Clarke, I did a search on “Eagar” and came up goose eggs.
Oh, you’ll like his far more than mine, I guarantee. His racism, though odious and blatant, is phrased in ways that will allow it to slide undigested right into your “better than actually thinking for oneself” world view.
I did a search on “Eagar” and came up goose eggs.
I don’t think comments are covered by the search.
Windy:
In the reality based community, US National Security policy must, among other things, concern itself with an Iran that both believes its public statements, and is intent on obtaining nuclear weapons which it does not need for its own national security.
Dr. Myers obviously finds the assertion that the US will rely on military force if required to prevent this outcome the work of monsters.
Fine. With respect to what other alternative?
While getting rid of the nuclear threat entirely would be wonderful, within the reality based community, that option simply isn’t available, because it is hostage to the same defector problem that makes pacifism a similar non-starter.
Chris Clarke:
By failing to provide so much as a link to substantiate your assertion, you have completely failed to advance the discussion. And since searching in the comments is apparently beyond Pharyngula’s technology, then there really is no way for me to verify that Harry has left his slimy fingerprints all over the site … you’ll have to pardon me if I conclude the lackwit right is all whine and no sense.
As further creationist irony, this is precisely the sort of thing I would expect from Uncommondescent.
there really is no way for me to verify that Harry has left his slimy fingerprints all over the site
Like I said, if you can’t arse yourself to, you know, read the site a little and get familiar with the terrain before drawing unfounded conclusions and hurling the adjective “Stalinesque” around, you can’t expect anyone to take you particularly seriously when you do resort to ungrounded hyperbole.
As further creationist irony, this is precisely the sort of thing I would expect from Uncommondescent.
Since you find the site so uncongenial, you could always just leave, never to grace us with your wisdom again–that’d really show us.
RavenT:
Apologies, I should have said no practical way wihtin this site.
However, Google comes to (slightly) the rescue:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/drowning_new_orleans/P50/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/black_white.php
In these, his only sin is disagreement.
What I find most amazing about this site is the utter inability, or unwillingness, of anyone here to address the fundamental question.
America badly needs a viable opposition party — that means actually having an alternative course of action on offer, rather than mere invective.
In these, his only sin is disagreement.
And he was allowed to disagree, wasn’t he? He wasn’t banned until PZ took issue with the specific post that you can still read above, albeit vowel-less. So what?
Translation: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Pre-emptive bombing raids seem to be about the only viable solution if Iran possessing such weapons is actually the problem. I say that because we have little global standing left, after Bush squandered it, to persuade others to join us in any embargo/blockade on Iran.
But THAT decision is part of the current problem.
I for one don’t see Chris, or anyone else calling people traitors.
I’m not scared.
Windy:
So calling people all sorts of names is OK, so long as their position agrees with Dr. Myers’, but call someone a traitor and it is time to get all weepy?
halieetus:
Do you welcome the prospect of mullahs with nuclear weapons? Do you think that, given their stated intentions, that embargoes or blockades are going to be sufficient? Just what do you think should happen should such measures, even including strongly worded letters, not produce the desired result?
If the Angry Left cares to garner people’s votes in winning numbers, then the response to those questions had best be something most American’s will find persuasive.
The null hypothesis is not it.
So calling people all sorts of names is OK, so long as their position agrees with Dr. Myers’, but call someone a traitor and it is time to get all weepy?
You didn’t get banned for Stalinesque, did you? But it seems that Harry pissed off the owner of the blog so bad that he got banned. Do you think people shouldn’t have that right in their own blogs?
Despite demanding detailed action plans from people who oppose going to war, you haven’t presented any plan except that the west shouldn’t renounce the use of force.
How would you solve the situation, if not-renouncing force doesn’t work and you actually have to use the force? Can you give a reasonably complete summary of the situation, and your plan of action?
Do you welcome the prospect of mullahs with nuclear weapons?
The prospect of an Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons should be more pressing at this point (note: he is not on best terms with the mullahs).
Windy:
What got this started is Dr. Myers strong criticism of the stated intent to use force if required to prevent apocalyptic Islamists from getting nuclear weapons.
I’m not asking for a detailed action plan, I’m asking for what he, or you, would do instead — if not force, then what? If you don’t have an instead, then such criticism is an utterly empty exercise.
Since I firmly agree with retaining the threat of force in this situation, my “then what” is already on the table.
As for “Stalinesque,” Dr. Myers censored Mr. Eagar’s entire reply, despite it containing language far more mild than many others have used here. If the term “treason” isn’t suitable, then neither is It’s assholes like you, Mr Werpachowski, aimed at someone with far more experience with totalitarianism than you can even begin to imagine.
Which gives the very strong impression that Dr. Myers had best not throw any stones at Uncommondescent.
And yet here is Jeff Guinn, unbanned and still whining. Funny how that works.
Eagar has been spouting off abusively here since, as near as I can tell, December 2004. I think that means my patience with you might wear out in about June of 2007.
I’m amazed that you can continue to demand that us weak and wicked, treacherous liberals provide a solution to the problem that your darling, GW Bush, has exacerbated. Really, shouldn’t you be asking manly Republicans to provide the answers?
I don’t see how force is going to help. Yeah, we can blow up this nuclear enrichment plant but good. We can swing our might military power around and piss off a lot more people. Get enough of ’em mad, though, and they’ll get their supplies and technology from Pakistan or North Korea, and then what have we gained?
If we were a credible power broker in the region, we’d have some clout in the discussion, but oh, yeah…that got thrown away, didn’t it? If I were president, I think what I’d do right now is apologize for that jerk who was in office before me, cast about for some neutral nation that might be willing to lead the negotiations, and try to work out a compromise that would grant Iran the autonomy it wants, while getting my desire to have a destabilizing weapon out of their hands.
As for “Stalinesque,” Dr. Myers censored Mr. Eagar’s entire reply
I deleted a death threat left on my own blog; guess that act of censorship puts me in Pol Pot territory by Guinn’s metric.
Helluva sense of proportion you’ve got there, Guinn. Reminds me of when I used to work days at Microsoft, and volunteer evenings at the refugee clinic. I’d hear patients talk with sadness and whatever dignity they could muster about how they lost their families in war or under a dictator and were persevering on in their daily lives as best they could. Then I’d go into work the next morning and listen to guys whinging about how having to carry photo IDs in the building or wear shoes in the office “impinged” on their “liberties”. I think I even heard them refer to it as “Stalinesque”.
Hector the “angry Left” about “invective” all you want, Guinn; we’re just laughing at you.
‘It’s assholes like you, Mr Werpachowski’, aimed at someone with far more experience with totalitarianism than you can even begin to imagine.
Well ok, that was slightly misdirected as well as he’s not American. Unfortunately Roman seems to have taken the sensible way and left this thread, but now I’m curious as to how was Poland in the final years before reform?
If Iran should get a nuclear weapon despite whatever actions are taken, it can still be dealt with like North Korea is dealt with now (=carefully). Their leaders are probably even nuttier, but no pre-emptive strike was launched there, why?
Dr. Myers:
I’m amazed that you can continue to demand that us weak and wicked, treacherous liberals provide a solution to the problem that your darling, GW Bush, has exacerbated. Really, shouldn’t you be asking manly Republicans to provide the answers?
That is as empty a reply as I have seen in quite sometime. You strongly criticized a means to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, failed to provide an alternative, and completely ignored Iran’s role, or intent in fomenting what is likely to become a crisis.
You can read as carefully as you might, and never find me demanding you provide a “solution.” I asked you for your alternative course of action in the event, an entirely different thing.
Your inability to even begin to address that question is very telling — the null hypothesis is a non-starter.
If we were a credible power broker … while getting my desire to have a destabilizing weapon out of their hands.
Okay, let’s take that as stipulated. Since you are so critical of using military force as a lever — after all, you have, like the French, given it up a priori — just what will you do if the mullahs really are intent on destroying Tel Aviv?
RavenT:
deleted a death threat left on my own blog; guess that act of censorship puts me in Pol Pot territory by Guinn’s metric.
Please tell me you are capable of distinguishing between a death threat and the word “treason.” Really. I need to know your moral acuity is at least capable of that.
Those are scare quotes, BTW, since, while I am not particularly provicient at disevowellese, I don’t see that word appearing anywhere in Mr. Eagar’s comment.
My “invective” about the Angry Left is directed at its utter vacuity: whether before the Iraq invasion, where our existing policy had reached a dead end, or now, simply slanging the administration, without any plausible alternatives, is simply to abdicate the responsibility of meaningful opposition, never mind attaining the position to actually set policy.
Windy:
I never got a chance to visit Poland, but I was in East Germany and the Soviet Union in the late 80s and early 90s. I don’t mean this as an insult, but you, unavoidably, simply don’t have a clue. Absent firsthand experience, conveying the awfulness of those places is simply beyond words.
If Iran should get a nuclear weapon despite whatever actions are taken, it can still be dealt with like North Korea is dealt with now (=carefully). Their leaders are probably even nuttier, but no pre-emptive strike was launched there, why?
Why? Because the primary motivation of the North Korean regime is self-preservation.
The primary motivation, unless you are willing to completely disbelieve public statements, of the Iranian regime is positively aggressive, with a decidely apocalyptic strain.
I don’t mean this as an insult, but you, unavoidably, simply don’t have a clue. Absent firsthand experience, conveying the awfulness of those places is simply beyond words.
I visited USSR but having not lived there myself, I agree it’s hard to understand what they went through.
Why? Because the primary motivation of the North Korean regime is self-preservation.
Even aggressive regimes get concerned, when surrounding countries are repeatedly invaded, and then have even more incentive to get WMD’s. The mullahs have been in power and accumulating nuclear technology for a long time. If nuclear mullahs are indeed the greatest possible threat to the world, why was getting rid of the mullahs not a higher priority than getting rid of Saddam?
The primary motivation, unless you are willing to completely disbelieve public statements, of the Iranian regime is positively aggressive, with a decidely apocalyptic strain.
I am not in any way equating the two, but unfortunately the US regime seems to have a whiff of the same attitude.
Windy:
It is worth keeping in mind that two of the countries repeatedly invaded are Iran by Iraq and Kuwait by Iraq.
It is also a very good idea to take Iranian public statements at their face value. And while you may feel the Bush administration has that whiff, from Iran it is real stench.
But our policy hadn’t reached a dead end, unless you immediately dismiss any outcome that doesn’t remove Hussein by force. If you do that, of course, you’re just arguing circularly—you’re saying that the war was necessary because any other outcome wasn’t the war.
As I recall the pre-war timeline, things went something like this: Hussein hadn’t allowed UN nuclear inspections for many years, convincing most nations that he had an active and progressing nuclear program. Our intelligence community was in particular determined not to repeat their mistakes of the late ’80s/early ’90s when they drastically underestimated how close Iraq was to atomic weapons before the first Gulf war.
The US, with a great deal of international backing, threatened war if inspections weren’t resumed. Congress, as requrested by the Bush administration, authorized a use of force in Iraq to back up these threats with legal authority. Inspectors returned to Iraq in November 2002.
To most of this on the left, this was essentially a win state—we had contained the (as it turned out later, nonexistent) threat of an Iraq with nuclear weapons, at relatively low cost. Yes, it didn’t remove Hussein from power, but the use of US force to remove dictators from power when they don’t threaten our national interests cannot be the basis of US policy. Such a policy invites the current situtation with Iran, as it provides a strong incentive for dictatorial regimes to acquire WMDs by any means necessary, as the only possible way of avoiding invasion by the United States.
The invasion of Iraq lost the won game. It destabilized the region, demonstated decisively that the only real protection against US invasion is the aquisition of WMDs, tied up a large portion of the army in a long-term occupation for which it was not designed, and is providing a large number of unfriendly regimes an object lession in how to fight the army.
As for Iran, now, it’s not clear to me exactly what it is that we’re threatening to do. Invade Iran by land from Iraq? Resume the draft to provide the forces to do so, or just abandon the DMZ in Korea? The biggest problem with the Iraq war is that it has removed our greatest plausible threats in dealing with regimes threatening to go nuclear–the threat of a US invasion or international trade sanctions. We could threaten an attack with nuclear weapons, but unless Iran actually were to use nuclear weapons to attack another nation, it’s fairly clear that we wouldn’t do so (at least, I certainly hope that’s clear!). We could (and should) threaten airstrikes, but Iran could almost certainly make its program difficult to attack from the air.
Given the impossible position the Iraq war has placed us in, our best bet would probably be to find a friendly power not tainted by the Iraq war (the EU, or a coalition of European powers) to push sanctions at the UN. It’s our best remaining tool, until we can disengage from Iraq. We can’t push it ourselves without fatally weakening the credibility of our own side, thanks to the mismanagement of the pre-Iraq-war situation.
Caledonian:
Your comments about the social dynamics of online discourse are insightful and interesting.
I wonder if you have suggestions about how to change the dynamic to a more sustainable and constructive one?
I am exploring ways of doing that either through technology alone (by changing the architecture of online communication systems), or through a combination of technology and culture (by “seeding” norms into a discussion community that can positively affect the discussion path, and using deliberate technological choices to amplify and reinforce those norms).
I am particularly interested in solutions that scale to accomodate large communities where individual moderation by a host is impractical.
I am doing this because online discussion in diverse, online communities is not going away, and we have to find more constructive and productive ways to communicate, collaborate and create online–otherwise, we will not survive to argue about it.
Whatever we come up with–new technology, ideas, methods, etc.–will be freely and publicly shared, through my non-profit open source organization PIECORP, for the benefit of all.
Any insight you have would be greatly appreciated. You (or anyone else here interested in this) can contact me offline through my organization’s website at piecorp.org, if you would prefer to continue this conversation offblog.
Uelldorin:
Thank you for a very thoughtful reply.
But our policy hadn’t reached a dead end …
For many reasons (some of which I listed above), sanctions and containment were becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. But even ignoring that, Hussein’s cynical manipulation of the sanctions regime was causing serious suffering among ordinary Iraqis. (nevermind astonishing corruption at the UN) Stability, therefore, was coming at extreme human cost, which this — To most of this on the left … at relatively low cost completely elides. Low cost to us maybe, but not to Iraqis.
Therefore, whether in March 2003, or shortly thereafter, the status quo had to change. Realistically, only two options were on offer: drop sanctions, or remove Hussein. And there was much, much, more than WMD at stake here
Unfortunately, the Left never took up this cudgel. It isn’t enough to be against the war — doing so requires developing an alternative that will play in the reality based community.
Just as with this debate.
The invasion of Iraq lost the won game. It destabilized the region, demonstated decisively that the only real protection against US invasion is the aquisition of WMDs, tied up a large portion of the army in a long-term occupation for which it was not designed, and is providing a large number of unfriendly regimes an object lession in how to fight the army.
What was so wonderful about that region’s stability in the first place?
As for WMDs being the only real protection, I believe you have that completely backwards. Hussein’s artfully arranged appearance of possessing WMDs proved to be a gun he aimed at his own head.
The biggest problem with the Iraq war is that it has removed our greatest plausible threats in dealing with regimes threatening to go nuclear–the threat of a US invasion or international trade sanctions.
Debatable, but that really isn’t the point. Dr. Myers, and many posters here, have roundly criticized the over inclusion of military force as an option should the mullahs decide to acquire nuclear weapons.
The means of preventing that outcome are beside the point. Like the opposition to the Iraq war, criticism alone isn’t enough.
Fine — take the military option completely off the table.
Iran, despite all our best efforts, is determined to acquire nuclear weapons.
Now what?
Hey Jeff, here’s an alternative:
1) Get Afghanistan right, till Osama and Omar and Zawahiri are dead. Make that the first model: the legend is a mere mortal after all.
2) Continue the containment of Saddam. Using the threat of force to pursue a thorough inspection was correct, but should not have been aborted. As for the undermining of sanctions by the Russians and Chinese, even Americans were in on that. But the proper course there was to obtain compliance from those countries and end the cheating. Saddam could not survive forever while economically isolated.
Now?
3) Advance a plan to Iraq’s new government to nationalize its oil for a decade. Receipts would be distributed based on population, to the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, with the Arab League providing oversight of the program. That’d end the bickering about fair dispensation of Iraq’s principal resource profits, while permitting re-privatization after tranquillity reigns.
4) The best plan to limit nuclear proliferation is to speed up the disposal process of USSR nuclear materials, which could be done at a fraction of the cost of the Iraq War. Eliminating the raw materials of nuclear weapons reduces the supply that can be blackmarketed to anyone. Then, even if a country like Iran builds one or two nukes, they’ll be limited to a short supply useful to deter aggressors but weak for an offense against superior nuclear powers… such as Israel.
Kevin:
1) Great idea. Easier said than done.
2) Make that active undermining by the French, Russians, and Chinese.
I take it you find Hussein’s cynical manipulation of the sanctions to impose significant suffering among Iraqis, particularly Iraqi children, acceptable? Because that is one of the costs of the sanctions regime. Further, because others were actively undermining the sanctions, he was increasingly avoiding them, while manipulating their appearance.
Just how was the US to obtain compliance from those actively working to undermine that compliance, while profiting handsomely from their subersion?
And please square the circle with #1. The sanctions required a large footprint in Saudi, enraging the Islamists in Afghanistan …
3) Sounds like a great idea, but irrelevant to this discussion.
4) Also an excellent idea, also irrelevant. The Iranians intent on obtaining fissionable materials through their own means, and your “one or two” nukes is both arbitrary and astonishingly optimistic. Why would they stop there.
However, you have actively chosen an alternative to military force: you clearly prefer acquiescing to Iranian determination.
Which means you have proposed a course of action in the event that is defendable on merits against using military force to prevent that event.
As opposed to mere demonization, this means we could conduct a debate about which course is the most promising in a sea of uncertainties. I might very well not convince you, or vice versa, but the outcome might very well be that while you don’t agree with the other option, it is defendable on its merits, and those supporting it need not necessarily be monsters.
Well, as regards military force, my take on that is simple. Modern war always mean innocents die more than combatants, always mean murders and torture and rape will happen, so I mean it when I say war should be the last resort except when directly under attack.
The threat of war had Hussein jumping through hoops to avoid it, but Bush kept changing the terms. He was slicing up missiles ! and Bush demanded that he step down and go live in exile. War was Bush’s aim all along, not a last resort.
I do not oppose all war. I just believed this one was wrong from the start. And when it comes to Iran, the same holds true. Negotiate, intimidate. But war is likely avoidable without risking our security. Consider that China has had nukes for many years, but lacked the missile might to threaten us, Neither does Iran, which makes war there unnecessary.
Kevin:
You have far more faith in apocalyptic mullahs than I.
Do I welcome the prospect? I don’t “welcome” the prospect we have nukes, but I also realize how Iran, surrounded by American forces, might desire them. If my neighbors are in a shooting war with an invader, I guarantee you, I’m going to be locked and loaded.
I would say, the left should expose the fear-mongering neocons for what they are, and go on from there.
So no, I don’t fear nukes in the hands of the Iranians, anymore than I do in the hands of the Chinese.
halieetus:
Then you are supremely dismissive of the motivations, political cultures, religious outlooks and stated intentions between the two.
I have no doubt that so long as Chinese territory remains unthreatened by an outside force, China will never use nuclear weapons.
Unless you utterly discount leadership statements, you simply can’t say the same about Iran.
Which means you have a difficult case to prove if you wish to substantiate why you wouldn’t fear Iranian nukes anymore than you fear Chinese.
And you would also have a just as difficult a problem accounting for European reaction.
Bluster. A trait inherent to the Middle East – the Mother of all Understatements.
Uh, because I’m not afraid of nukes? Just be upfront with Iran. If they pursue and obtain nukes, then allow them to fall into terrorist’s hands and one is detonated in the US, we’ll turn their nation into a radioactive parking lot.
KISS MAD.
haliaeetus:
If they pursue and obtain nukes, then allow them to fall into terrorist’s hands and one is detonated in the US, we’ll turn their nation into a radioactive parking lot.
KISS MAD.
Making the military preemption to prevent that outcome the case study for an ounce of prevention being worth a ton of cure.
Considering how exterminationist Islamism is, I am astonished you are content to write this off to bluster.
But all this is really beside my original point. Dr. Myers, and most posters here, typical of the Left, have roundly criticized both the Iraqi invasion, and now the intent to use military force (if required) to keep the Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
All without providing any coherent alternative.
In contrast, you have provided an alternative — a conscious choice that you would rather run an additional risk of losing an American city in the future, or acquiesce to Islamist demands to avoid that outcome, then resort to military force.
It is coherent, but I don’t expect it will sell particularly well with most people.
If we’re do so, we do it from a morally inferior position.
Because I haven’t jumped on the fear-monger’s bandwagon.
Is that a prerequisite of critisism now? You have to propose an alternative, or shut up?
Last I looked neither Americans, nor American cities were an endangered species.
Of course not. They’ve jumped on the fear-monger’s bandwagon.
If we’re to* do so, we do it from a morally inferior position.