For people who live in a bipolar world, things that are neither black nor white need to be shifted to one side or the other before they can make sense. The areas in between confuse and disturb them. There are, they believe, only two essences in the world, the essence of good and the essence of evil, right or wrong, us or them, black or white, and something that appears to have both is a paradox, it shouldn't, can't exist. So it must be realigned with one of the two poles, the one it is least incompatible with.

Right now this is happening with the Duelfer report on Saddam's WMD intentions. The report reaches two clearly stated conclusions: Bush was wrong about Iraq having an active WMD program, and Bush was probably right about Saddam posing a WMD threat. Saddam's primary strategy during the 90's, it claims, was to lift the UN sanctions, after which he would revive his nuclear and chemical weapons programs. See for yourself. There's no way to read this report and not receive that message. You can disagree with either or both of the conclusions, (there's no hard proof that Saddam planned this), but you can't deny that the authors of the report reach both of them.

This poses a problem. CIA report: Bush was wrong .. and right? Brain can't parse. Must rewrite.

One way Norwegian media have chosen to rewrite this is by making "Bush was wrong" an important fact, proven by the report, and "Saddam planned to revive the WMD program" a less important claim, hidden away in a short paragraph.

Anders Malm in Aftenposten chooses a moderate version of this strategy:

The CIA concludes in a report that Saddam Hussein had no illegal weapons, and that his opportunity to create such weapons in Iraq were small. ..

There have been great expectations for the report, which concludes that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed in the Gulf war in 1991, and that Saddam's ended the country's nuclear program after this war.

According to CNN, however, the report concludes that Iraq, despite the UN sanctions, planned to resume production of wmd's some time in the future.

"According to CNN"? But at least he mentions it.

NTB buries that part of the conclusion even better. After four paragraphs of "Bush was wrong and Democrats are angry", we're told:

Charles Duelfer, who headed the intelligence group Iraq Survey Group (ISG) maintained on Wednesday that the Iraqi weapons programs could have been rebuilt. But Democratic critics pointed out that there in no way was an "imminent threat", as the White House claimed.

Some White House officials used or accepted the words "imminent threat" about Iraq, but George W. Bush was not one of them, and in fact said the opposite, no matter what "Democratic critics pointed out". And Duelfer did not say only that Iraqi wmd programs "could have been rebuilt", but that Saddam probably intended to rebuild them. Important difference.

Halvor Elvik takes a similar approach in a Dagbladet opinion piece: Duelfer's conclusion is not an important finding but a "straw" which "the president will grasp for".

But at least these articles bother to mention that the report reach this conclusion. They're unfair about it, but not totally dishonest.

Others are. Espen Tjersland at NTB doesn't mention that part of the conclusion all. Tore Meek at NRK puts the conclusion in the mouth of George W. Bush, as if it was his defense against the report, and not an important part of it. This Aftenposten editorial lists a distorted version of the conclusion without revealing where it came from, and only in order to shoot it down as clever and unethical.

The prize for the most dishonest distortion of the report goes to this NTB article published in Dagbladet:

The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, believes that Saddam Hussein planned to acquire wmd's, despite an American report which shows the opposite.

- I am glad for this report because I believe it shows that the situation was more complex than people thought, said Blair when he was asked about his views on the report from the American Iraq Survey Group.

The report, which was presented on Wednesday, concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when the country was invaded in the spring of 2003.

NTB takes one of the main conclusions of the report, places it in the mouth of Tony Blair, and then uses the report itself to contradict him. How do these people live with themselves?

"Saddam did not have wmd's" and "Saddam planned to make wmd's once the sanctions ended" are two inseparable parts of the same conclusion, reached by one group of people looking at the most comprehensive body of evidence available to us about what Saddam was up to in the 1990's. Tony Blair is absolutely right - this does show that the situation "was more complex than people thought", including him and George W. Bush, but also their critics. I've only found one article which doesn't deny or bury this, by Per Gunnar Sværen in Nettavisen.

And then there's the whole Oil For Food scandal, which the report seems to confirm. NTB has one article about this, but there's still an amazing lack of interest in any aspect of Iraq that doesn't reflectly badly on the Americans. Did Iraq successfully bribe France, Russia and China? How much of the UN buraucracy was involved? Did Norwegian officials know, and what they did do about it? No interest. Norway's media is barely willing to summarize the disturbing findings of foreign reporters, let alone do any original reporting of its own. UN corrupt? Brain can't parse. Must rewrite.

The actual report doesn't fit the spin that the media wants to present. So the media alters the report and pretends that it is merely presenting the facts, which inevitably reflect badly on Bush and the US.

This is not a new phenomenon, Bjorn, but thank you for pointing it out.

Given both the fact and the nature of John Howards stellar victory down under (will that get reported at ALL in Euro-media?), I must say I am looking forward to Europe's coverage on Nov. 3rd of Bush's similar victory.

I wonder about the potential reaction of a populace force-fed a relentless and rabid agenda suddenly forced to confront the sheer number of people apparently living in an entirely different world, one where, for example, the Duelfer Report tells of much more than "Bush Was Wrong!"

With New York Times, BBC, and CBS, we see the media wall cracking. November 3rd, could be that big chunk of the dam falling that leads to the flood. I can only hope.

Well, Andrew, as I noted on my blog, Norwegian Dagbladet leads with the statement "Australia elects dark blue." A rather odd description of a center-right coalition, I think.

The designation "dark blue" is typically used to describe far right parties like those run by Haider and Le Pen.

Must one be dishonest to be a journalist? So it seems. What good are they, then?

So old Saddam didn't have any WMD but was planning on getting some somewhere. Over 1,000 of our soliders dead, 7,000 wounded, heads cut off, dead Iraq's, billions of dollars, hired thugs, the military, industrial, congressional complex ascendant, economic shock therapy (in Iraq and the US), did I mention that we would be greeted as liberators?

Was it worth it?

Yup, Lynne. It was.

Sandy:
If it really was worth it, then I would suggest that it could have been done in a better way.
And that is the legal way, by going through UN. The responsibility would have been more evenly spread and US would not be accused of being rogue.
There would not have been a dangerous precedence for other states to follow, and US and Europe would still be friends.
Its as easy as that.

Allan, Europe and America have never really been "friends" so it's not as easy as you think.

Do not mistake the Anglosphere w/Europe. Most who came to the US didn't want to go back. They preferred to face Indians, coyote, bear, cougar, rattlers, the great unknown and unpredictable weather. There's a reason we left and didn't go back to our betters.

For the first 125 years or so, thorn in the side, for the rest, a hot poker in the eye. Why do you think frogistan wanted to help the South during the Civil War? They and Britain ran blockades, but Britain held frogistan back. But if they got involved, and w/the War of 1812 only 50 years previous, do you think we'd continue to fight ourselves? There's a new book out about how frogistan has never been our "ally," see No Pasaran.

The UN is a 20th century construct oriented to a 20th century political landscape. We are in the 21st, time to change or it's gone.

And let me tell you, after the last 3 years and w/UNSCAM, the peasants might be sharpening their pitchforks and making their torches. There's a new plan being developed, an organization ---whether it's the new-and-improved UN or another parallel org -- which will take the world into the future instead of wallowing in the past. We'll see how far it gets. Even Kofi knows the UN has to change or bye-bye. You didn't listen to W's 2002 speech to the UN.

The UN is nothing more than a thuggocracy.

And considering we are the original rogue nation, thank you for the compliment.

As a reader at Instapundit put it:

UPDATE: Reader Terry Gain emails: "So how do you pass the Global Test when those marking the test have been bribed to give you a failing mark?"

And from National Review 10/04:

...Let's sum up the rules of the U.N. game as set out by its most ardent fans from France to Cuba over September's festivities:
(1) Democracy is the governing principle between countries (read outvoting the United States), regardless of the rights of actual inhabitants.
(2) International measures to insist on democracy within states constitute unacceptable interference in a state's internal affairs.
(3) Nuclear non-proliferation is O.K. in theory provided it won't be put into practice until Israel and the United States are weapons-free, and any pressure in the meantime is oppression of developing countries.
(4) The only acceptable contributions of developed countries to the affairs of developing countries are cash donations.
(5) Terrorism is defined as harming one's friends, so Israelis are fair game.
(6) Israel is the greatest threat to world peace.
(7) Sudan should be commended for its role in reducing the spontaneous humanitarian crisis within its borders and anything but minute numbers of friendly neighboring forces would be an illegitimate interference in Sudanese sovereignty.
(8) The U.N. is the centerpiece of all legitimate international action concerning peace, security, self-defense, and the war against terrorism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bayefsky200410042053.asp

The US Constitution reigns supreme here, Allan. I didn't vote for that body and neither did you.

To get along I would have to give up my inalienable and enumerated rights. I and most other Americans know that price is too high. Our countries were here long before the UN. We confer legitimacy upon it. It does not confer legitimacy on us.

We (and you) are not equivalent to Dear Leader or the black turbans. That is like me telling you because you are a man, you are equivalent to John Wayne Gacy and/or Ted Bundy.

And if they are equivalent, they'd better start forking over their fair share to run the thing.

There could be 4 possible options, Allan. Pax Americana, Chicom, Islamofascism or armed camps.

Maybe you should start lurking at Rantburg.

The UN does not bestow legality. The UN itself is one of the most corrupt organizations in human history. It has no moral authority to bestow upon anyone.

You must grow beyond this foolish idea that there exists an arbiter of human action which will be accepted by everyone, or even by most. There is no reliable guide for navigating the current international waters. The world's population has never been so high, the weapons have never been so destructive or so easily made.

Falling back on the wrong answers of the last few centuries is the major failing of today's leaders and intellectuals.

"statement "Australia elects dark blue." A rather odd description of a center-right coalition, I think. The designation "dark blue" is typically used to describe far right parties like those run by Haider and Le Pen."

I don't think a party's who's main emphasis is on the economic freedom of the individual (with a free old school conservative values thrown in for good measure), is a far right party!

O_o

Sandy P:
"The US Constitution reigns supreme here, Allan. I didn't vote for that body and neither did you"
I've heard the voting for UN argument so many times now, I'm starting to wonder whether you guys are just in some kind of reflexive mode where you get all you answers from a set of guidelines instead of using reasoning as a method by itself. Like I said to Kevin and yourself a while ago: UN was created by the world community with USA as a strong driving force behind it, so in order to try to 'civilize' the world. Just go to the UN.org site and you see who was the creators of UN. So in that regards, then your fathers or grandfathers, actually voted for the president that indeed helped the creation of UN. Its like saying, 'I did not vote for the homeland security bill, so its not legal'. No you did not vote for that, but you DID vote for the president that enacted it, correct?

"(1) Democracy is the governing principle between countries (read outvoting the United States), regardless of the rights of actual inhabitants"
Of course, because you'd rather have the United States controlling UN by itself. Quite democratic dont you think? India by itself would have 3 times more power in the UN than US, if the inhabitants were to be counted. Oh, and Europe was reasonable democratic last time I was there, so in a new kind of body, Europe would still be counted.

"(2) International measures to insist on democracy within states constitute unacceptable interference in a state's internal affairs"
Yes? You think it should be fair that when Soviet did not like the way another country was run, they should be able to invade them? Of course you will say no.. well, exchange Soviet with US, and what is your answer then? 'Yes'? Well, let me explain; thats just an old human defect called 'power hunger'

"(3) Nuclear non-proliferation is O.K. in theory provided it won't be put into practice until Israel and the United States are weapons-free, and any pressure in the meantime is oppression of developing countries"
LOL.. so the UN is actually a body MADE BY the US, to remove nuclear weapons FROM the US?

"(4) The only acceptable contributions of developed countries to the affairs of developing countries are cash donations"
UH.. I dont know how true this is, (I suspect its a lie), but I can not remember UN objecting when so many countries (see US, UK, France, etc) removed claims to lots of state dept from third world countries during the year 2000 celebrations?

"(5) Terrorism is defined as harming one's friends, so Israelis are fair game"
OK. From your own page:
Anne Bayefsky draws this conclusion from:
"[T]errorism...excludes the legitimate struggle of peoples against foreign occupation."
" National liberation is legitimate, terrorism is reprehensible."
How can one draw the conclusion that terrorism is defined as harming ones friends, and Israel is fair game from these statements?

"(6) Israel is the greatest threat to world peace"
AH! Who did Anne Bayefski take this from?
Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Kharrazi: " Israel...[is] the single greatest threat to regional and global peace and security."
HEHE, so she lets the foreign minister of IRAN dictate what the threat is?

"(7) Sudan should be commended for its role in reducing the spontaneous humanitarian crisis within its borders and anything but minute numbers of friendly neighboring forces would be an illegitimate interference in Sudanese sovereignty"
Oh, again.. she lets Minister of Foreign Affairs of Syria, Farouk Al-Shara and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yemen, Abubakr Al-Qirbi dictate what UN is saying... Well, thats normally called parsing, where a person cuts out various bits of a big event so as to back up their view on the world. Not unusual for a journalist and there are many blogs out there (this?) that loves to take parsing like this appart and show how wrong the journalist, in this case Anne Bayefsky, is.

"(8) The U.N. is the centerpiece of all legitimate international action concerning peace, security, self-defense, and the war against terrorism"
YES! She finally understood it.. The only valid result she has gotten from her unvalid and despicable parsing in which she calls 'journalism'.

"Do not mistake the Anglosphere w/Europe. Most who came to the US didn't want to go back. They preferred to face Indians, coyote, bear, cougar, rattlers, the great unknown and unpredictable weather. There's a reason we left and didn't go back to our betters"
LOL.. :) Did YOU go to America, or was it your ancestors? And before you use their reasons for leaving, then start considering what your ancestors did to the native americans and the blacks. They were obviously not perfect.. And neither were or is Europe. What I'm saying is that you should not use the 'greatness' of a country as a reason for why you are right, so how about we discuss the topic on logical reasons instead of mental nationalistic masturbation? (hehe, inspired from Kevin)

"To get along I would have to give up my inalienable and enumerated rights. I and most other Americans know that price is too high. Our countries were here long before the UN. We confer legitimacy upon it. It does not confer legitimacy on us"
UH... yes? and YOU confer legitimacy on Iraq? Alone? Because you are right, because you are great, because you left Europe 400 years ago? Does that summarise your arguments, Sandy?
Well, when they are stated as simply as this, the 'logic' in them really comes forwards doesnt it?
And using 'its old' as an argument for validity - "The UN is a 20th century construct oriented to a 20th century political landscape" thats just not thought through properly... If its really a good argument, then I'll say that US is 400 years old, its just to old to cope with todays environment, and so only EU is modern enough then. You have to see that its not the body itself that is wrong, but if something is wrong, then its the rules in which it is being run, and they can be changed through peaceful and democratic manner which will be as fair as possible to everyone.

"There could be 4 possible options, Allan. Pax Americana, Chicom, Islamofascism or armed camps"
I'm sorry, but I dont really know what these are about. How about some description or a link or two?
Anyway, I _think_ I understand what you mean.. Either its the americans who run the show, or we will all succumd to communism or islamofascism.. ha ha ha! well, not that funny, but still quite laughable.

Oh, and Sandy, I dont lurk. I leave that up to fighting people.. I'm merely discussing something in which I have some interrest.

Heinrich:
"The UN does not bestow legality. The UN itself is one of the most corrupt organizations in human history. It has no moral authority to bestow upon anyone"
First of all.. UN was created with US as one of the main driving forces and US is still one of the main driving forces behind UN.

Secondly, please prove this statement which you presented as a fact.

Document UN corruption? Why? Does not electromagnetism work down under? Something about the reversed magnetic fields? Grow up and access the resources available. Do not remain a leftist ignoramus your entire life.

Heinrich:
"Document UN corruption? Why? Does not electromagnetism work down under? Something about the reversed magnetic fields? Grow up and access the resources available. Do not remain a leftist ignoramus your entire life."

LOL :) I doubt I am a 'leftist ignoramus' as such. I quite believe in the strenght of free markets you know, whether I am ignoramus, well, you just got me: I dont know what ignoramus means, though I suspect it has something to do with being 'ignorant', and as such I guess I am, but no-one knows everything, right? Besides, I am from Norway, and thats waay up above :p

Oh, well, I guess your statement was just that, then. A statement concealed as a fact.. I'll give you a 'fact' as well then, which I wont prove, because you can find the evidence yourself, otherwise you'll remain a nationalistic ignoramus the rest of your life: US is the home of the Antichrist, oh oh, even better: Bush himself is Antichrist and wants to take over and ruin the world, his starting point is the home of ancient babylon, that way he can regain his old domain. Therefore we all need to start boycotting US power by not buying any goods from there, limiting the power of antichrist. That way we wont team with the devil.

Ok. Joke aside..That WAS not seriously intented, I have quite other views about the US :)

So you see.. without proving, or at least have a good argument for what you're saying, what you say doesnt really matter because no-one will believe you anyway.

The point that the situation was complex sounds a great deal like what Kerry has been saying all along, at least in broad outline -- he argued that we needed to contain Saddam and ultimately push him out of power because he was almost certainly going to make more trouble down the road. He also argued that the threat wasn't so urgent that we needed to do it by rushing into a war with insufficient allies and no plan to win the peace. In short, Kerry wasn't for ignoring Saddam and he wasn't for hauling us into this mess of a war; he argued that the situation was complex and required a more intelligent plan to handle it than what President Bush ended up doing. But when Kerry says things are complex, he gets attacked for not being black-and-white; it'll be interesting to see if the Right actually attempts to claim that this was a complex situation, after smearing Kerry up one side and down the other for refusing to oversimplify.

@alan
The US created the UN, the US hosts the UN, the US pays a far greater share of the UN's expenses than any country today. The US can and will kick the UN the hell out of this country the first chance we have.
The current UN members do NOT reflect the democracies envisioned for membership by the founders of the UN. In short- if your people do not vote in an election in your country and do NOT possess a democratic govt, why in the hell should you be able to cast YOUR vote on the world stage, yet deny that to your own people?
To hell with the UN.
Sudan charing the UN human Rights Commitee. HA!
All Sept 11th proved in regard to "eu" US relations is thus- We found out who are true friends were, and they were NOT (and never again will be) germany or the failed french. Some say the US squandered some type of "love" or generousity. BS.
If the US HAD left saddam in power and ignored ALL the 17 UN resolutions AND continued to let the welfare whores of france prop up their dead economy with OIl for Food bribes- ONLY THEN would I think the US had lost it's mind.
The security blanket provided by the US to europe over the last 60 yrs has created a dependancy as well as a sense of a false utopia that is truly insane in a modern world. Welfare kills and the victims (self inflicted) are now all on display in the "eu".
Historians reflecting on this period in the near future will shame the "eu" for it's duplicity and it's impotence.

By the way- what in the heck makes people think this war "is a mess".
What makes people think that a bunch of bearded freaks amped up on heroin and driving car bombs into school kids will defeat the US?
These same people keep asking "where is bin laden"? That awipe freak is dead, long dead.
Those same people need to asked the euros "where is Radovan Karadzic or Ratko Mladic?"
The US pulled saddam from a hole within 6 months in a country 20 times the size of serbia. whats happening over there?
The Iraq and afghani campaigns have Tehran surrounded. 12 months of "eu" talk with the mullahs has brought forth NOTHING. The "eu" contribution to either Kosovo (on it's own soil!) or with the UN sanctioned afhgan campaign is a true disgrace.

Until 9-ll, I thought the EU was one of those enlightened institutions that was helping to make the world a better place.

My eyes were opened! Now I hope that Europeans will give a very serious look at the EU monster being created before it takes over their lives and liberties.

As far as I'm concerned, the EU is no better than the UN. They are both terror enablers, bribed bureaucrats, and generally people of ill-will who want to destroy freedom. The EU is not quite an enemy of the United States, but it is certainly not a friend.

I hope the United States will somehow be able to develop decent and useful relationships with China and India. The EU can then become permanently irrelevant. Europe will always be a great vacation spot--kind of like Disneyland, but without the giant mice.

No one in my family is upset that Saddam is ousted and in prison. We still have relatives in the region, who were unable to get out.

I must say, I think some of the above posters may be overzealous in referring to the UN as "corrupt."

Many people in the UN, as well as France, Russia, China, and the Palestinian terrorist organizations, miss Saddam and his philanthropic tendencies. Some people may mistakenly refer to bribery as corruption, but sophisticated people understand when to make distinctions, even when no difference exists.

pato:
"The US created the UN, the US hosts the UN, the US pays a far greater share of the UN's expenses than any country today. The US can and will kick the UN the hell out of this country the first chance we have"
Yes, its quite paralell with the old 'use and throw' attitude. In the long run though, you'll end up with no friends at all, because no-one wants to be friends with disloyal, bullyish, 'my way-or the highway', type of countries. Just look at south america. They were very happy when Bush took office, because he promised a new 'American century'.. well havent really worked out that way, and now they hate your guts even more than ever.

"In short- if your people do not vote in an election in your country and do NOT possess a democratic govt, why in the hell should you be able to cast YOUR vote on the world stage, yet deny that to your own people?"
One of the main pillars of UN is that of not involving in another countries internal affairs. It's as simple as that.
Lemme just restate what I said earlier:
"(2) International measures to insist on democracy within states constitute unacceptable interference in a state's internal affairs"
Yes? You think it should be fair that when Soviet did not like the way another country was run, they should be able to invade them? Of course you will say no.. well, exchange Soviet with US, and what is your answer then? 'Yes'? Well, let me explain; thats just an old human defect called 'power hunger'

Pato:
I voted NO to EU in last election, but next time around, I will vote a solid YES!, and so has many of my friends said. I guess EU will only become stronger the more you guys in the "us" attack it. You're actually driving us in Europe together by your unfair attacks.

Totoro:
"I hope the United States will somehow be able to develop decent and useful relationships with China and India"
LOOL!, there shows your REAL love for democracy, 'liberty' and 'freedom for all to pursuit happiness'.. China is your prime-example of democracy? I thought that's why you invaded Iraq? Wasn't it to promote democracy? Why not invade China as well? Get that commie bastard out of the office, and reinstate a more 'friendly' (read: lapdog) leader. Oh, well I dont think that would work quite as planned, because you would need to use your nukes to take them..

Dar:
"Many people in the UN, as well as France, Russia, China, and the Palestinian terrorist organizations, miss Saddam and his philanthropic tendencies. Some people may mistakenly refer to bribery as corruption, but sophisticated people understand when to make distinctions, even when no difference exists"

I dont know where you get this from, because it seems to me that most people are glad he is gone. Are you _really_ from Iraq? :P I strongly doubt that just because of a change of regime in Iraq, the normal people would change their stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict? I'm referring to your inclusion of Palestinian terrorist organisations in the last statement, it shows your true colour quite easily..
Did you notice something weird about the duelfer report by the way? US actually had excluded the names of US business men that were bribed by Saddam, because of 'privacy laws'.. HEHE, I think it is just another way from Bush to tell his country men: 'Look how great we are! No-One from USA was bribed!', well, atleast not that we tell you about, you see: we cant, because of 'privacy laws'.. Did the duelfer report take into account the other countries privacy laws?

Karen:
Kerry sounds like an intelligent man :)
My hope is for old relationships between US and EU to continue to flourish in the future, even when we sometimes disagree on certain cases. I cant see why many Americans hate Europeans so much these days, just because we did not participate in this war. Yes sadly, there are stupid ignorant Europeans that hate US 'just because its USA' as well. Oh well, I just hope normal people wont listen to much to this type of hate-mongers. That way we can continue one of the most closely related, most succesful cooperations the world has ever seen, namely the cooperation and friendship between US and Europe.

Allan, what was the forerunner to the UN?
And what happened to that?

This is wayyy to easy, you just don't get US. You never did.

Remember that nuance argument awhile back? First of all.. UN was created with US as one of the main driving forces and US is still one of the main driving forces behind UN. (As long as the American public - the people who get up in the morning, go to work and have taxes taken out of their checks - think the UN is useful. UNSCAM is beginning to hit the MSM. Most won't pay attention to the details, but "France" and $10 Billion" will be filed away for future reference.)

Secondly, please prove this statement which you presented as a fact.--

Allan, do you know what we excel at???? Building things up and then tearing them down.

We are hardwired not to trust our government, we left the rest of you and didn't return, what makes you think we'll trust "the world" more? Especially when more can use this wonderful invention of Al Gore's to explore the world from our homes? They'll visit sites like David's Medienkritik and Samizdata and wonder what in the world is going on over there and boy am I glad I'm here.

As to fact, here you go:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world....

That's the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution - in the form of the 2nd Amendment -- allows us to keep our elected officials in check. We can dissolve this grand experiment any time we wish. Rights given by a ruler/state/man can be taken away at whim -- monarchy -- unelected ruler of 1 or many - brusselsprouts - UN - still the same. The Senate scene in SWI reminds me of the UN - that was my first thought.
-----

What is it w/this statist thinking? Once something is created it must remain the same?

Australia would still be a penal colony.

---
... They were very happy when Bush took office, because he promised a new 'American century'.. well havent really worked out that way, and now they hate your guts even more than ever.

Or they thought he'd open the borders. But 9/11 kind of changed a few things around here. Of course, once they finally decide to throw off their European legacy and get their act together, they wouldn't need to rely on US. Ahh, so they liked us too, eh? Could have fooled me.

And what is this obsession w/being liked? I thought we all learned that lesson in the sandbox. I mean, "the world" keeps telling us we're children and we need to grow up, and yet when we do, you try and keep dragging us back into the high school Homecoming competition.
--
--
I cant see why many Americans hate Europeans so much these days, just because we did not participate in this war.--

You can't?? Believe it or not, the answer is buried in Bjorn's archives. And it's from women. Maybe it goes back longer than just this war. Europeans have failed to realize the "ties that bind" become looser every year. Europe is our past, our future is South and West. I am not surprised at the Europeans citizenry's underwhelming response and helpfulness. I had hoped that enlightened self-interest would be a motivator, but, alas, I was wrong. Some of us were hoping with such vast direct and bloody experience Europeans would recognize the darkness is falling again. But no, SOSO. Cut the JOOOOS loose, let your paleo-proxies finish the job you started and renounce that 18th century document which has no place in the 21st century for the sake of "peace." Oh, yes, and let our enlightened betters -- always benevolently, of course, guide us in the proper path, so we can be embraced--respected-- and most importantly liked-- in the family of nations and live happily in their version of EUtopia and have me pay for it.

And guess what's even better? Europeans have told me this.

Now I'm going to repeat myself:

Most who came to the US didn't want to go back. They preferred to face Indians, coyote, bear, cougar, rattlers, the great unknown and unpredictable weather. There's a reason we left and didn't go back to our betters.

Dar, your comment is priceless. I'm posting that in some American sites I visit.

Totoro, India's moving along and I really don't think anyone has noticed they're playing nice w/Pakland.

But, gee, that would mean Bush might have actually done something.

And Allan, here's something from No Pasaran:

I remember a Le Monde movie review for the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" claiming that the film was a story of what happens to American unemployed who are reduced to an animal-like state. Typical Fwench condescending paternalistic intellectualism. Derrida indeed.

---

Oh, boy, FoxNews reported that Blixie even thought he had nukes when he read the British report.

Sandy:

"This is wayyy to easy, you just don't get US. You never did"
What is it with your 'you never understand us!' whining? You should not care whether I understand you or not, you should care about the _issue at hand_ .. Even though, I might know more about America than you think, alas, that does not really matter, because you can judge a tree by its fruits..

"Remember that nuance argument awhile back?"
Yes I kicked your and Kevin's ass, why?

"Some of us were hoping with such vast direct and bloody experience Europeans would recognize the darkness is falling again"
uh? What do you mean? Was I right in Bush being Antichrist? :p This is just a damn clichè, its like those "THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END.. REPENT YOUR SINS!!" type of hysterical screaming.
you should get your mind out of this conspiratory
paraniod mode it has somehow entered and start to smell the flowers, because the world is still here, and actually, there are people who care about whats happening in the world. Many of them are in Europe, its just that we dont think going to war on a country without even trying other solutions will solve anything...

"Totoro, India's moving along and I really don't think anyone has noticed they're playing nice w/Pakland.
But, gee, that would mean Bush might have actually done something"
LOL. so Bush has made India democratic, is it?

"Allan, do you know what we excel at???? Building things up and then tearing them down"
Lol, so you intend to tear down Europe is it?
BUT lemme say something on that: Sometimes you dont even build it before you tear it down..

I dont know why you put the start of the US constitution in here, but let me ask you Sandy, do you think the people in USA are entitled to determine how the people in other countries should live their lives?

"Oh, yes, and let our enlightened betters -- always benevolently, of course, guide us in the proper path, so we can be embraced--respected-- and most importantly liked-- in the family of nations and live happily in their version of EUtopia and have me pay for it"
You must be DAMN rich, if you intend to make Utopia for the rest of the world., nah sarcasm aside: Are you thinking that the US is actually funding the rest of the world? How about the opposite? Because thats where the truth is. Try doing a search on petro dollar on google and see what you find"

"And what is this obsession w/being liked? I thought we all learned that lesson in the sandbox. I mean, "the world" keeps telling us we're children and we need to grow up, and yet when we do, you try and keep dragging us back into the high school Homecoming competition"
The difference is that the consequences of being hated are a bit more serious than in high school.
Thats why we have diplomats you know..

"Most who came to the US didn't want to go back. They preferred to face Indians, coyote, bear, cougar, rattlers, the great unknown and unpredictable weather. There's a reason we left and didn't go back to our betters"
Yepps, and see how happy the Indians are today..
And most of the people went to America because of the free land, because Europe was scarce for land back then.. You know, those grab-a-land races?
Besides, US was also very rich on natural resources, like gold.. of course people went over, they wanted to be rich!
Anyways, you're saying that americans are refugees from Europe and thats why you still hate us today? So let me as you, how about UK? MANY people from the UK went to US, you know..
You should have even more hatred towards the UK than towards France, otherwise all of you would be speaking French today.. (the logic behind my argument is: Since what you're saying is that people fled from Europe to America, and you still hate us for that, and since you hate France so much, then most of you must be French!)

If you believe in the UN - how can you not enforce Chapter 7 resolutions? 12 years, what's the time frame?? Obviously not long enough.

-- Lol, so you intend to tear down Europe is it?--

We don't need to, they're doing a fine job on their own. The current squabble as to whose vision, Atlanticist or francophile is interesting. (EURSOC)

--
Only by working longer and moving towards the US social model can Europe hope to attain its Lisbon goals, according to Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, Dutch Minister of Economy, speaking at an event in Brussels on 7 October.

Modernising the European social model is a matter of urgency if Europe wants to maintain its model of choice in the long term and close the productivity gap with the US, believes the minister. . .

The current European model is not performing adequately said Mr Brinkhorst pointing out how far the EU had slipped behind the US. 'Since the early 1990s, the US has largely outpaced the EU in terms of economic growth. From 1991 to 2003, the US economy grew by no less than 47 per cent in total, whereas the EU economy achieved only 28 per cent growth.' Mr Brinkhorst also drew attention to the fact that in 2003, the US GDP per capita was 55 per cent higher than the EU's.

---As pointed out at Instapundit, one must remember the former Eastern Bloc countries are a drag at this point in time.--

--

I must agree that Europe is destroying itself quite nicely without help from the USA. But I really must insist that it is most generous for the USA to provide billions of dollars a year in defense services to Europe, while the EU is trying so hard to attack the USA on many fronts, especially economically and diplomatically.

This defense "umbrella" allows European nations to spend much more on social services, which always keeps the sheep more happy!

OOPS, how did that happen?? ($%*$(*%($ laptop.

--Even though, I might know more about America than you think, alas, that does not really matter, because you can judge a tree by its fruits.. You might know more, but you still don't get US.

Oh, boy, we're back to top-down v bottom-up discussion again. But you hadn't been visiting at that time.

Hmmm, let me think, do I think France would be better off if their candidates had to work their way up the ladder by going door-to-door collecting signatures to get on the ballot from the great unwashed, starting out by running for and serving on library, school, park district, local boards and working their way up the food chain instead of going to the 2-3 right schools, knowing the right people, going to the right parties and gathering signatures from other politicians to get on the ballot?

Now that's a toughie. What do you think? What they do after they get to that point is their business. Some I have posted with consider if a country holds elections, it is a democracy. That would qualify the former USSR, Iran, the former Iraq and Cuba as democracies. But we both know it's more nuanced than that. And that's the rub. Look at Venezuela, the peanut notwithstanding. Never met a dictator he didn't like, either. What's a people to do when they can't get rid of them? We, like the world, do not interfere, but when it gets really bad, we were supposed to interfere because the world blames US that if we didn't ignore it the first place, it wouldn't have happened, even tho we are constantly told not to interfere. Ok, you clean it up. You can start w/Darfur. Ozland interfered in East Timor, you got Bali. Was it the right thing to do?

The last couple of threads here coalesced my belief. It all comes down to the same thing: The world monarchy history v. our vision. We're back to the beginning.

---

India V. Pakland - I didn't state democracy - you did, I said they were playing nice. Strengthening trade ties, stuff like that. You can google their countries' announcements.

--BUT lemme say something on that: Sometimes you dont even build it before you tear it down.. ---

Too true, but it does seem quite cruel to let the rotting building fall down on you and kill you. But if we did that, your survivors would be screaming at us that we didn't DO ANYTHING when we could have (oh, geez, late again!). Sometimes we point out that there is a problem (Iran/darfur) and recommend you take care of it. Europe has been doing a magnificent job w/Iran, BTW. Things don't change. I can only hope w/the more coordinated attacks on the black turbans, the opposition will be a little less conservative than the current administration.

--Try doing a search on petro dollar on google and see what you find"--

I can't help it that the Saudis lost $200 billion on their Euro bet, declared the Euro not ready for prime time and the US $ still king, can I??? Which is what they did earlier this year. It was in one of the Brit periodicals.

--The difference is that the consequences of being hated are a bit more serious than in high school.
Thats why we have diplomats you know..--

Tell you what, why don't we start reviewing textbooks used by the world? We can start w/the French. Dissident Frogman posted 2 paragraphs out of his history book which was used in the 80s and 90s. Did you know that the USSR was benevolent, didn't have plans of empire while the US does? How about school tests in South Korea? Kind of makes me wonder what's been taught about US for the past couple of hundred years. Oh, wait, I guess all we really have to do is review what has been said and written about US for the past couple hundred years in papers and speeches for starters. And once again, we're back to the monarchy v. vision debate. It always comes back to that.

--You must be DAMN rich, if you intend to make Utopia for the rest of the world., nah sarcasm aside:---

This isn't sarcastic, just goes to show we're too nuanced for you or while you know US, you still don't get US. Also goes to show we have different visions of utopia. Problem is, the world has built its' varying visions of utopia and the process from start to finish has caused massive death. But the visions are valid, they sound wonderful and look good on paper, it's just that the "right" people haven't come along, been put in place to "guide" these visions, to "explain" these visions to the great unwashed, to bring these versions of utopia to fruition. But you're going to keep trying. While a feature on your side, but a bug on our side, some of these visions contain getting rid of the JOOOOS and at minimum, renounce our archaic 18th century document and finally admit our betters were right all along. So we can be liked, and the world can be at peace under the UN or some other government our betters deem we should live under, but we don't get to vote for. These are such little things, (ICC and the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments, the UN and the 2nd Amendment and control of the net) and the world still can't understand why we don't see it your way?

(Ask an American should we join the ICC? Yes. OK, we have to give up our 4th (search and seizure), 5th and 6th Amendment rights to join. They will look at you like you've gone batty. What's even better, in either Afghanistan or Iraq, if our guys captured the terrorists, they demanded their rights.)

Again, we're back to the beginning.

--Yepps, and see how happy the Indians are today....---

I'm happy, so's my mom and my grandmother. The tribes that have casinos might not be happy, but they might be content, seeing as some of them sit back and if one's an adult, collects $50g a year to do nothing, ave. net worth was around $400K a couple of years ago. I'm not going to deny what we did, what you did, or what they did to each other. But somehow I don't think if they were in control for as long as they could keep it against you or the other tribes, ( pay attention who was coming from the South) they would be as successful as we are today. And coming from someone who resides in Ozland.....;)

--You should have even more hatred towards the UK than towards France,--- Yes, we all recognize what a supporter of democracy Louis was. Of course, if the frogs actually acted on their plans to invade Britain while Britain was occupied w/US...but they were late, too, something about skirmishing w/the Brits in the Caribbean????

After I had posted last night - and "hate" was your post, I realized I should have said exasperated - except where the frogs are concerned, I'm looking forward to reading that new book which documents how they were always our enemy. You might also want to check up on diseased vineyards around the 1860s and where they got their cuttings from.

--and since you hate France so much, then most of you must be French!)--Or we've lived next door to them for 400 years. Well, above us, and they and Spain were/are below US. Which explains why their economies rely on ours.

Which once again, brings us back to the beginning.

--"Remember that nuance argument awhile back?"
Yes I kicked your and Kevin's ass, why?--

Like I wrote on the other thread, maybe we're just too nuanced for you. We keep coming full circle, and the world just cannot comprehend "why." Yet it's there in black and white, we've been living it for 225 years and it works. But it can't be because of our beliefs and economic basis, it must be nefarious. And even Brinkhorst just admitted it.

Correction:

And even Brinkhorst just admitted you gotta be more like US. And that's the real kicker, isn't it?

It all goes back to the beginning and ties into why we left and didn't want to return.

You seem to be rather slow, Alan. I never said my family was from Iraq. That was your assumption, and an unfounded one. The middle east contains several countries, most of which have oppressive governments. As I said, some of my relatives were not able to get out. Put more simply, some of my relatives are still subject to dictatorial whim.

But Saddam's removal is still viewed favorably by my family, because Saddam was a regional bully.

As for the Palestinians, no one really cares about them. Not their fellow arabs, and certainly no one I am related to. I understand that many witless individuals who lack understanding try to make Palestinians into a "cause." This is absurd. When the Palestinians are prepared to change their behaviour they will do so. At that point, their neighbors will treat them differently.

Dar:
"No one in my family is upset that Saddam is ousted and in prison. We still have relatives in the region, who were unable to get out"

"As for the Palestinians, no one really cares about them. Not their fellow arabs, and certainly no one I am related to"
hah!, thats a blatant lie. No-one in their right mind will actually believe this.
You clearly do give the impression that you are from Iraq and have escaped with that statement. Even I can say 'no-one in my family is sad that Saddam is gone' .. but sadly it would not have the same impact (or relevance for that sake), unless I give the impression that I am from Iraq.

Sandy:
I wont comment to much on what you're saying here, for the simple reason that I have no time (due dates on papers tomorrow). BUT, you're trying to convey to me that the american way is correct, are you talking economy here or are you talking everything in general? I can't really see what you mean by the american way, because, as far as I understand, there's quite a furious debate on the Iraq war in USA as well, just as in Europe, and perhaps the next US president might have another view on all this.
Oh, and about the nuance.. You yourself said that nuance was crap and that life was too short. How come suddenly you are the more nuanced?

You also say that we are going around in a circle, and yes that is correct, because you are using some kind of flawed historically based logic for your arguments, and therefore I have to counter on the same level you present yourself. Face it, you cant say that you still hate Europe because you fled Europe 400 years ago, rather face Indians, rattlers and all kind of dangers, than stay in Europe, and still have a good relationship with UK.
The ONLY reason you are having a good relationship with the UK right now is because they say and agree to what you do. Nothing more. The day they disagree as well, then throw them away, thats what makes people angry at you, not all that bullshit of how they teach kids that us is the big bad bully in schools. I live in Norway, and believe me, there are a few US-haters in Norway (myself not included), which I actually argued with, nevertheless, there was nothing of the sorts of teaching when I grew up, as you describe in your last post. So obviously the sources for US hate is coming from somewhere else. I kinda think you're really quite paranoid, so take my advice from last time, open your eyes and smell the flowers, because there are still many of us out here who care. You see Sandy, the world is not black and white, hopefully no-one will listen to paranoid ranting about 'its either us or them, the world is coming to an end' type of talk.
Thats actually what scared me with Bush, when he declare that "you're either with us, or against us" ... that's dangerous stuff, you reduce people who dont agree with you to enemies, something similar to your discussions. If some French were ever to agree with _your_ personal point of view, that would actually make him a traitor and hate his own country. You quite reduce the number of potential allies, right?

Oh, by the way, I dont know why you bring EU economy into this, but I agree, Europe should have more liberal policies, we are way to nice to lazy slobs. Does that mean US is perfect?
Not really, its just that some of the things US does is right, while others are wrong :p
And that brings me back to nuance.. the world is not black and white. I can actually agree with US on one thing, and disagree on another, hopefully without being reduced to an enemy.

Oh oh, and your parsing is just plain dishonest, at least try to at least include the whole sentence when you refer to what I said. You take what I said out of context and answer to something else. Is it because you have no proper answer?

Example--->
ME:
You should have even more hatred towards the UK than towards France, otherwise all of you would be speaking French today.. (the logic behind my argument is: Since what you're saying is that people fled from Europe to America, and you still hate us for that, and since you hate France so much, then most of you must be French!)

Your reference:
-You should have even more hatred towards the UK than towards France,---
Yes, we all recognize what a supporter of democracy Louis was. Of course, if the frogs actually acted on their plans to invade Britain while Britain was occupied w/US...but they were late, too, something about skirmishing w/the Brits in the Caribbean????

You see, you actually answer on something totally else than what I said!

Picking up on the bi-polar thing, there's a rather obvious paradox here that seems to slip under the radar time and time again. Vis, that taking a bi-polar attitude is a self fulfilling mindset, not just in theory but also in practice -- you are either bi-polar or you are not, black vs white or nuanced -- that in itself is bi-polar. How does one take a nuanced stance towards individuals who are bi-polar that isn't in itself bi-polar?

This isn't just splitting hairs because it goes to the root of why the bi-polar view currently has a natural tendency towards poltical hegemony. Used intelligently it creates serious confusion in the nuanced mind. This has been self consciously understood by a highly intelligent highly motivated minority in the US and elsewhere.

But really its about keeping your eye on the ball and not going for the man.

Yes the Duelfer report is nuanced and that should be recognised. It does support Karl Rove's position that Saddam had the intention of developing WMD's at some point. But, the point is Saddam's intentions were never the justification for the invasion of Iraq. The alleged threat he posed at the time was -- (remember the 45 mins claim?) The UN weapon inspectors (Blix) recomendations -- we need more time -- was overruled by the "evidence" put forward by Colin Powell and Bliar.

One of the key's to the hegemony of the Poltics of Deceit is that these people have established the principle that their are no consequences for their actions.

Is it indicative of a bi-polar mindset to suggest that this should not be tolerated? Is it bi-polar to suggest Bush, Bliar and their people should resign or better still be indicted for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty?

Scott: But, the point is Saddam's intentions were never the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

There are many points here, not one, depending on what question we're asking. If the question is "should Bush be reelected?" it's very relevant that Bush knowingly deceived people, and less relevant that he was also wrong. (It's worse to be dishonest than to make an honest mistake. Bush did both.)

If the question is "was it right to invade Iraq", then it's not relevant at all how Bush justified the war in 2002, only what we know today about Iraq before and after the war. On one hand, we know that Saddam did not have wmd programs, and that Iraq today is not very stable. On the other hand, it is likely that Saddam intended to revive wmd programs in the near future, and an unstable Iraq is still much better than Saddam's stable tyranny.

So my answer would be "depends" to the first question, and "yes" to the second. The first question is relevant if we're talking about American politics, the second is relevant if we talk about Iraq. Unfortunately everyone keeps mixing them up.

Bjørn:

I broadly agree with what you write.

My main point on the invasion of Iraq is that at the time the decision was made, the weapons inspectors' judgment looks to have been sound. They asked for more time. That is not to say that military action would have been ruled out. Only until the situation was clarified. As it turns out a great deal of the speculation at the time about Saddam obstructing the weapons inspectors was false -- he really didn't have anything to hide although he may have been trying to hid the fact that he didn't have anything to hide. The fact that the decision to invade was taken has to be judged at the very least as incompetent. IMO that in itself should be sufficient reason for Bush, Blair and co to resign.

At the same time there is a very strong case that they were deliberately misleading everyone. Some individuals like Cheney are definitely guilty of lying -- Bush was more carefully scripted and on most issues could technically defend the case that he was not lying. Not telling the truth -- but not directly lying. Either way they should all stand trial for war crimes. A court of law is the right type forum to clear this issue up once and for all -- not propagandist media and blogs on the internet.

A pretty good way of understanding how this situation came about in their minds -- how they justified it -- can be found in the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Strauss is one of the philisophical foundng fathers of neo-conservatism. He's pretty much an un-reconstructed machiavellian who, among other things, says its ok to lie to the people to further the higher good. They don't understand the issues. The leaders are the leaders because they are the superior elite who do. So if you have to do tell lies and propagandise like crazy to get a huge number of people to actually believe that Saddam was behind 9/11 and definitely has WMD that pose an imminent threat then so what. Strauss lets them off the hook morally on that one. I believe this attitude is common currency amongs these people -- they do not trouble themselves with humanist moral issues at all. Instead they are an irritating nuisance to the extent that they have been waging a (largely successful) ideological battle against them for over 30 years.

This brings us to the stability in Iraq issue.

No-one is going to argue that Iraq any the worse for having Saddam in jail. But -- and this is crucial -- the level of instabililty that exists in Iraq today was entirely predictable, as is the extreme unlikelihood of the US led occupation ever resolving the situation. Why was it predictable? Answer; for the self same reason that Bush and co was able to secure support for the war. Namely a significant minority (was it 46%? or was it a majority) actually believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. In the public's eye the invasion then, had more than an element of revenge to it. It follows that probably an even larger percentage of the 150000 or so troops held the same view. They therefore saw their role as avenging the attack on the World Trade Centre which is not a good mind set to have if you intend to "win hearts and minds" in a delicatly unstable post invasion situation. One might also question the sanity of having Rush Limbaugh's hate radio as the only source of political comment available to the troops.

So I would say that the question whether it was right to invade has now become pretty much irrelevant. It was most definitely not right for the US (with the UK in tow) to invade for reasons that wise men should (and would) have anticipated. Many of course did but the bi-polar mind ignores such wisdom.

Anonymous (Scott?): They asked for more time. That is not to say that military action would have been ruled out. Only until the situation was clarified.

And how much time would they have needed? Further inspections would - in retrospect - have been the wrong choice, for several reasons: 1) It would not have uncovered any wmd's, making an invasion unlikely. This would have allowed Saddam to continue his strategy of ending the sanctions and reviving wmd programs. This would have been bad for everyone, especially the Iraqis. 2) Inspections could only continue as long as the US had an army next door. It would have been politically difficult for Bush to maintain that strength for a long period of time, just to ensure that inspections could be carried out.

Either way they should all stand trial for war crimes. A court of law is the right type forum to clear this issue up once and for all -- not propagandist media and blogs on the internet.

Lying or deceiving about a war is not a war crime. A war crime is what you do during the war, not how you justify it.

A pretty good way of understanding how this situation came about in their minds -- how they justified it -- can be found in the philosophy of Leo Strauss.

I don't think you need to look at the writings of a philosopher who might have inspired some members of the Bush administration to figure out why politicias are dishonest. Dishonesty is as inherent to politics as power abuse is to government. All politicians are tempted to be dishonest, and they will be exactly as dishonest as the voters allow them to be. Democrat or Republican, American or European, that is irrelevant.

No-one is going to argue that Iraq any the worse for having Saddam in jail.

Good. And that is why, from the perspective of regular Iraqis, the invasion was a very good thing - possibly the best thing to happen in Iraqi history for a long time.

But -- and this is crucial -- the level of instabililty that exists in Iraq today was entirely predictable,

So was hundreds of thousands of dead, possibly millions, and millions of refugees. The whole region would erupt in flames, and Baghdad would shortly look like Stalingrad. All very predictable, by those who were considered experts on the subject. Some of the predictions came true, most did not.

That does not relieve Bush of his responsibility for the poor planning behind the war. I just find the "we told you so!" from anti-war people hypocritical, because, well, they didn't tell us so.

It follows that probably an even larger percentage of the 150000 or so troops held the same view. They therefore saw their role as avenging the attack on the World Trade Centre which is not a good mind set to have if you intend to "win hearts and minds" in a delicatly unstable post invasion situation

That's ridiculous. Your chain of logic is delicate, to be polite. It seems to go like this: Many Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. (Fact). => Many American troops believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. (Reasonable.) => Many of those American troops hold
Iraqis collectively guilty for 9/11. (Speculation). => Many Americans who hold Iraqis collectively guilty for 9/11 want to take revenge on Iraqis. (Speculation). => Many Americans who want to take revenge on Iraqis for 9/11 actually do so, by being excessively brutal. (Speculation). => This brutality is the cause of the Iraqi insurgency. (Speculation).

I've marked the weak links in the chain with "speculation". Feel free to defend any one of your choice with actual reasoning or evidence that you're right.

So I would say that the question whether it was right to invade has now become pretty much irrelevant.

That depends on the context. See my comment above. It is irrelevant, for instance, in the sense that it is irrelevant whether it was right to fight Hitler, because the choice has been made, and the fight is over. It is .. obviously .. not irrelevant if we're arguing about whether it was right to invade Iraq.

Sorry Bjørn, I forgot to post my name in the previous post.

I don't think you need to look at the writings of a philosopher who might have inspired some members of the Bush administration to figure out why politicias are dishonest.

Philosophers don't just inspire they also have the historical role of codifying and describing mindsets that are in the ascendency as in this case. That is what Strauss is doing but as I say he is pretty much an unreconstructed machiavellian which fits with the current mind set in the US and developing here in Norway.

Sure polticians will always have a tendency to be corrupt -- the temptations of power and all that -- but that is why you have a social contract which basically says political leader ought to act with integrity.

Something like that is built into the American constitution and I believe it has a Norwegian parallel dating back to the late Viking era -- as a recall there was law in northern norway (Forstating?) that actually said it was a criminal offence not to rise up against a corrupt king.

You have a pendulum that swings back and forth between the extremes and of course it is never completely one way or the other at any point in time. But at the moment in the US it is way over towards the dishonest corrupt side and that is when it is important for "the people" to exercise their right to bring the leaders to justice for having broken the social contract.

Some of the predictions came true, most did not.

The smart money was on a quick military victory followed by an unworkable post invasion situation. Chomsky for example.

Many of those American troops hold
Iraqis collectively guilty for 9/11. (Speculation). => Many Americans who hold Iraqis collectively guilty for 9/11 want to take revenge on Iraqis. (Speculation). => Many Americans who want to take revenge on Iraqis for 9/11 actually do so, by being excessively brutal. (Speculation). => This brutality is the cause of the Iraqi insurgency. (Speculation).

It isn't speculation it's well documented by hundreds of accounts and eye witness reports coming out of Iraq. Read Robert Fisk -- read anyone of literally hundreds of reports from Iraq at Truthout or Information Clearing House (links below). Read the Iraq blogs -- they are all saying pretty much the same thing. Then look at the reports from the US military -- one after another of guys who went out there with revenge on their minds -- and now more and more who aren't interested in winning hearts and minds only gettng home alive. Sorry Bjørn but if anybody is ridiculous here it ain't me. I mean are you going to suggest Abu Gharaib hasn't had an impact?

I'm not saying the average Iraqi or even the majority don't want peace -- of course they do. They might well be prepared to bend a long way to the Americans to get that. But the fact is when the US went in they had the people on their side but by their actions have alienated them comprehensively.

Same could be said for 9/11. The day after the US had the sympathy of the world. Now look at the situation -- Anti Americanism has mushroomed -- why is that? Answer: same attitude as has alienated the people of Iraq.

it is irrelevant whether it was right to fight Hitler, because the choice has been made, and the fight is over. It is .. obviously .. not irrelevant if we're arguing about whether it was right to invade Iraq.

But it is over in the sense that the situation in Iraq today is qualitatively different to the one that existed before the US invasion. Its a new reality and we have to deal with that. I don't see how that can have a good outcome absent of a very clear and unambiguous apology to the Iraqi people for the actions of Bush and co. If they were out of power, in jail awaiting trial that would send the right message to moderate influences within Iraq. It would thus tend to disempower the fundamentalists and begin to move things in a more peacful and stable direction.

Links:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html
http://www.truthout.org/
http://electroniciraq.net/news/iraqdiaries.shtml
http://www.occupationwatch.org/
http://www.empirenotes.org/
http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#109602421527384036

Scott: But at the moment in the US it is way over towards the dishonest corrupt side and that is when it is important for "the people" to exercise their right to bring the leaders to justice for having broken the social contract.

Absolutely - and I'm not saying that American politicians are not more dishonest than before. Perhaps they are, perhaps they're not. All I'm saying is that I doubt there's a correlation between dishonesty and Leo Strauss. First, his influence on neo-conservatives is not so big that you can expect his views to be replicated in detail. Second, Bush is not a neo-conservative. Third, if there were such a correlation, it should be easy to prove: Neo-conservatives would be considerably more dishonest than other Republicans, and Republicans would be considerably more dishonest than Democrats. That's absurd.

As Spinsanity writes in All the President's Spin, Bush tells fewer lies than, say, Clinton or Nixon, but he's better at deception through PR, which again is an area pionered by Clinton. You just can't single out any political wing in the US as dishonest - they all are, in different ways, depending on context and individuals.

It isn't speculation it's well documented by hundreds of accounts and eye witness reports coming out of Iraq.

Each and every one of them? To a high enough degree to justify the conclusion, that this is the cause of the insurgency? I disassembled your argument for a reason, so you could explain how you justify each and every link in the chain. If you want me to take you seriously, that's what you should do, not just tell me it's obvious and then beat me over the head with links.

The day after the US had the sympathy of the world. Now look at the situation -- Anti Americanism has mushroomed -- why is that? Answer: same attitude as has alienated the people of Iraq.

Partly - but also a fundamental clash of worldviews, which went much deeper than Iraq. Europe would be anti-American no matter how Bush had dealt with Iraq, and will remain anti-American if Kerry is elected. I don't want to go into which worldview is more correct. It should be enough to point out that Americans and Europeans live in different worlds, and that this naturally causes resentment both ways.

I don't see how that can have a good outcome absent of a very clear and unambiguous apology to the Iraqi people for the actions of Bush and co.

First you say it is irrelevant whether the war was right, because it's all over, then you say Bush should apologize for it. Make up your mind.

It is not relevant to the situation in Iraq today, agreed. Which is why we should all forget past differences and cooperate with what after all is Iraq's best chance of getting out of this on both feet: A peaceful transition from American occupation to independent democracy, a transition the Americans have begun, and the insurgents are fighting against.

It wasn't the job of the U.N. inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq -- this issue has constantly been misrepresented -- the job of the
U.N. inspectors was to go through the motions of looking for weapons of
mass destruction and see how the Iraqi government responded.

If the Iraqis responded with cooperation and the inspectors continued
to search without meeting significant non-cooperation then after a certain
amount of time it would be reasonable to assume that Iraq had in fact
destroyed its weapons of mass destruction, even though that destruction
had not been witnessed and even though no reasonable amount of searching
could ever prove that they did not have them.

On the other hand if they did not cooperate, if for example they mandated
that they be given 24 hours notice before the U.N. weapons inspectors
were allowed to inspect a site or if for example it turned that many of
the Iraqi scientists the inspectors had interviewed years earlier were
now inexplicably dead and the Iraqi government refused to allow the U.N.
to offer sanctuary to those they now wished to interview, then it becames
reasonable, indeed it becomes hardly explicable otherwise, to assume that
Iraq was hiding WMDs.

In fact both these circumstances were true, and many more like them.

It wasn't necessary for Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector to
testify that the Iraqis were not cooperating, though in fact he did. As
soon as an outside observer knows these facts the key question has been
answered. At that point the only point in continuing weapons inspections
is to give the Iraqi government a chance to change its mind: a second,
a third and a fourth chance even. It's not about finding WMDs.

The various UN resolutions authorizing invasion of Iraq were not
conditional on the weapons inspectors finding WMD, an improbable event
even if they existed, but on whether or not Iraq cooperated.

Both Germany and France signed those resolutions. They committed to them
and promised to abide by them. Once they broke their word, what grounds
were there for believing that under any reasonable circumstance they
would approve invasion of Iraq? There were none and even so the U.S.
persisted in trying persuasion for many months.

It seemed self-evident before the invasion that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction -- all the western intelligence agencies agreed
including the german and the french.

Now after months of interrogation of Saddam Hussein and some of his
high level aides we have an alternate explanation. Hussein and his aides
insist that the reason he acted as if he did have WMD was that he feared
that if he made it clear that he didn't that Iran would invade Iraq.

Of course the practical side effect of this subterfuge was making the
making the United States, and the world, believe that he did. Saddam
nevertheless felt the threatened U.N. invasion would never occur
because he believed the U.S. did not have the guts to take the casualties
that invading Iraq would incur and as it turned out he had good reason
to believe the U.N. would never actually authorize invasion because in
addition to allies elsewhere he had on his payroll a number of
influential european politicians and journalists.

Not surprisingly Saddam was ready and able to quickly make chemical
weapons of mass destruction as soon as he was certified WMD free. American
inspectors found extraordinarily large stocks of organophosphate pesticides
at Iraqi weapons depots which with the right equipment can be converted
into nerve gases and other chemical WMD. U.N. weapons inspectors have
testified that Iraq had the installations to make this conversion and
satellite photos show these installations being dismantled soon after the
american invasion began.

Scott said,

"I'm not saying the average Iraqi or even the majority don't want peace -- of
course they do. They might well be prepared to bend a long way to the Americans
to get that. But the fact is when the US went in they had the people on their
side but by their actions have alienated them comprehensively."

It's my speculation that the reason Iraqi approval of the american
presence has dropped from the 80% in the months after the invasion to
whatever it is now has little to do with supposed hostility of american
troops towards the categorical Iraqi -- something that I suspect is actually
quite uncommon -- but rather has a great deal to do with all the car bombings
and murders of the so-called "resistance." Literally tens of thousands
of Iraqis, many of them random children, women and men, have been killed by
by this "resistance" and it's my speculation that the major reason people
are pissed is because the americans have failed to protect them from these
sons-of-a-bitches. Further I would speculate the reason that the majority
of Iraqis tolds pollsters in the first months after invasion that they
wanted american troops to eventually leave but meanwhile stay for more
than a year was precisely because they suspected there would be trouble
and because they thought the americans could protect them.

Meanwhile given all the above it continues to amaze that the european
media continues to refer to the terrorists and baathists as a legitimate
reistance. I find it hard to believe that if Norway was invaded and a group
formed whose primary activity was the killing of random norwegians that
people would refer to such as "the resistance." "The oppressors" seems
a bit more plausible.

Scott also said,

"One might also question the sanity of having Rush Limbaugh's hate radio
as the only source of political comment available to the troops."

I'm not really a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but if that's "hate radio"
then norwegian media is by and large hate media. Actually let's get even
more specific. Implicit in such a statement is the implication that Scott's
speech is not "hate speech." Scott, would you explain is to me,
what it is about Limbaugh's words that you would call "hate speech" that
does not also apply to yourself?

You just can't single out any political wing in the US as dishonest - they all are, in different ways, depending on context and individuals.

Totally agree, this is a trend that has been going on since WW2 and embraced by both right and left. The process seems rather like a ratchet -- the right take the Poltiics of Deceit to a new level -- the left play catch up -- and so on and so on. Along the way the public have become more cynical and more accepting of corrupt polticians.

I know Bush isn't a paid up neo-conservative as such but I recall the speech he made to the American Enterprse Institute immediately before the invasion. This was somebody amongst friends -- this was his club and his ultimate constituency -- no doubt about that.

If you want me to take you seriously, that's what you should do, not just tell me it's obvious and then beat me over the head with links.

It would be possible to put together an article bringing together all these individual reports that would be pretty convincing with numerous eye witness accounts and experiences backing my argument. Maybe its been done already. But I don't have the time for that right now so all I can do is point you in the direction of the evidence and let you (or anyone else) make up their own minds. Every time I've gone to this reports myself I've been shocked the extent to which they confirm the view of the American forces as lethally prejudiced against the Iraqis. Abu Gharaib is the nr 1 example of course but another telling one is the experience of the Brits in Basra. A good number of accounts there of British military very unhappy about the comparitively beligerant approach taken by the Americans. The Brits with their greater experience from Northern Ireland had a more softly softly approach and really were winning hearts and minds at first. But that has gone very much into reverse -- the first majot attack on Falllujah didn't help but again it was Abu Gharaib that did the damage.

> Europe would be anti-American no matter how Bush had dealt with Iraq, and will remain anti-American if Kerry is elected.

The day after 9/11 the French foreign minister at the time, De Villepin, said something like "Today we are all Americans". Bush had an opportunity to address the problem of European anti- Americanism and move things cleverly in the other direction. He didn't do that and instead acted incredibly stupidly to greatly aggravate the situation.

First you say it is irrelevant whether the war was right, because it's all over, then you say Bush should apologize for it. Make up your mind

If that came across as my meanng then I apoligise. I do not think the war is irrelevant. What I do think is that the situation that exists today is qualitatively different from the situation that existed before the invasion, needs to be accepted as such and addressed accordingly -- first by and foremost by recognising the appalling mistake made by Bush and his administration.

Beklager !

Done it again, Bjørn -- yes the last post was mine

Reply to Mark,

It surprises me the level of denial over the direct effects of the US military policy on Iraq. The evidence is pretty much overwhelming -- at least it overwhelmed and sickened me when I first read it. And as I have mentioned several times the effect of Abu Ghraib on the Iraqis attitude seems to have been more or less completely ignored.

If you (or anyone else) wants to get a feel for this yourself go to this site (Information Clearing House) and type Robert Fisk into their search motor. Read a few of his articles follow up on the stories -- most if available at the same site.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html

I agree with your comments regarding the car bombings
and murders of the so-called "resistance." but would you accept that there is a link between recruitment to the so called resistance and the behaviour of the US troops on the ground?

Literally tens of thousands
of Iraqis, many of them random children, women and men, have been killed by
by this "resistance" and it's my speculation that the major reason people
are pissed is because the americans have failed to protect them from these
sons-of-a-bitches.

Tens of thousands? I presume you can document that.

Scott also said, "One might also question the sanity of having Rush Limbaugh's hate radio as the only source of political comment available to the troops."

My point was that at the time Limbaugh was the only source of poltical comment available to the troops. That may have changed but at the time was hardly likely to encourage balanced discussion amongst the people going out on the streets of Baghdad.

what it is about Limbaugh's words that you would call "hate speech" that
does not also apply to yourself?

I wouldn't wish to present myself as a paragon of virtue but I would hope that my humanity and respect for other people is more highly developed than Rush Limbaughs. I don't for example blame individuals for their actions as Limbaugh does. I think they should be held accountable but beyond that they should be treated with compassion. Even the worst serial murderer is a human being and as such is deserving of compassion and respect. I don't think you will find anything that I have written here that implies otherwise. On the other hand I do have an emotional response to what occurs around me and express my reaction emotionally on occasion. IMO it is when you translate such reaction into revenge is when you have a problem.

And btw I would imagine I would actually be more sympathetic towards Limbaugh's drug problem than he himself would be if it was someone else hooked on OxyContin rather than his hypocritical self.

An example of Limbaugh's fundamental lack of respect for other people is this transcript from one of his shows.

CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

The day before, on his May 3 show, Limbaugh observed that the American troops who mistreated Iraqi prisoners of war were "babes" and that the pictures of the alleged abuse were no worse than "anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage."

LIMBAUGH: And these American prisoners of war -- have you people noticed who the torturers are? Women! The babes! The babes are meting out the torture.

LIMBAUGH: You know, if you look at -- if you, really, if you look at these pictures, I mean, I don't know if it's just me, but it looks just like anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I'm -- yeah. And get an NEA grant for something like this. I mean, this is something that you can see on stage at Lincoln Center from an NEA grant, maybe on Sex in the City -- the movie. I mean, I don't -- it's just me.

===============

I hope it isn't necessary to actually post up some of this images -- but the one with the Iraqi cowering in the corner being threatened by a guard with dog springs to mind. As does Seymour Hersh's reports of images he has seen of sodomising of Iraqi boys by American troops.

Like I said above there seems to be pretty much wholesale denial of this as well as a steadfast refusal to see the connection between this kind of brutality and "sons-of- bitches" who go out and commit a suicide bombing mission. Is it possible that the extreme trauma of living in Iraq through this period and experiencing the brutality of the American Invasion could lead people to do these things? Of course it is, and we would do well to remember that the Iraqis did not exactly invite the US army into their lives whereas the soldiers in that army are all volunteers.

Mark,

you wrote:

Now after months of interrogation of Saddam Hussein and some of his high level aides we have an alternate explanation. Hussein and his aides insist that the reason he acted as if he did have WMD was that he feared that if he made it clear that he didn't that Iran would invade Iraq.

And that should have been anticipated as a possible scenario.

It at the very least shows that the Rumsfeld doctrine of "unknown unknowns" is -- or should be -- an integral part of international diplomacy especially when dealing with situations like the one with Saddam Husssein his WMD's

Only this week there have been reports of nuclear material having gone missing in Iraq since the invasion. This has now become a dangerous "known unknown" in the equation and another example (if one was needed) that the US invasion of Iraq was at best misguided at worst an act of culpable folly.

from the Iraqi perspective given what they've been through, given
all the people tortured and executed by Saddam's thugs, the rather
large percentage of the population missing fingers and ears, I can't
help but wonder if your typical iraqi sees this through different
eyes

Scott,

I said,

"Literally tens of thousands of Iraqis, many of them random children,
women and men, have been killed by by this "resistance" and it's
my speculation that the major reason people are pissed is because the
americans have failed to protect them from these sons-of-a-bitches."

And you replied,

"Tens of thousands? I presume you can document that."

You were right to call me on that. I can't document that. It's
obvious to anyone paying attention that it's quite a few people. I go
to this website you give me, the very anti-amerian website
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html, as evidence of
the "direct effects of the US military policy on Iraq," and its
striking that even there several of the articles are about Iraqis
killed by the so-called resistance.

On some Iraqi blog I read the assertion that roughly 100 iraqis
a day were being killed by the "resistance." No evidence was offered
and it might well be an exaggeration but if it's even roughly true,
then we are over 10,000 easy.

It seems absurd to me to have Rush Limbaugh as the only source
of political commentary to american troops in Iraq. I also
doubt it's true. You may not be aware of it, but, remarkably,
most american troops in Iraq have internet access. They are
definitely the least isolated overseas deployment we've ever had.

Scott, you may be a nicer guy than Rush Limbaugh. That isn't
really the point, the point is do you ever express great anger towards
categorical groups of people. Being human, I rather suspect you
do.

I'm sure Limbaugh does also, but interestingly his show doesn't
seem to be about that. Mostly it's more mockery, mockery of the
"left," whatever that means. And to me that's not hate. It seems
positively kind-spirited compared to the show Al Franken (an american
"leftist") did.

It's interesting to me that the example you gave for Limbaugh
wasn't hate speech either. It's more just embarrassing. It's
also unusual, how did you find it?

The picture he was referring to was I suspect the one widely
distributed early on of the naked men stacked up like a circus
act. I doubt he was referring to what you mention.

Anyway enough defense, it's an irritating and dumb argument that
Limbaugh makes. Although, just one more point, this a live, unscripted
show Limbaugh does. There are very few live unscripted leftist shows
around. My suspicion is that most people doing a live, unscripted
show would come up with worse moments than this.

I'm puzzled by the way with your comment, "I don't for example
blame individuals for their actions as Limbaugh does."

Implicit in your mention of Abu Gharaib is an assumption that this
is characteristic of americans, that this is some kind of norm.
Of course the media tried very hard to create that impression.
I understand these images were displayed over and over in europe
and the middle east, as to a lessor extent they were here. People
would have had a hard time avoiding them. I also understand that
false images were mixed in, created images that did not come from
Abu Gharaib.

Now obviously it isn't a norm because, for one thing, the people
involved were being court-martialed before there was any publicity,
which certainly wouldn't have been the case if this were policy.

This can hardly not have had an impact in Iraq. I was
enormously discouraged when it all came out. Still I can't help
but wonder if too much is being made of this, and if people
in Iraq, being rather closer to them, aren't aware that their
are bigger issues to worry about?

Mark,

the point is do you ever express great anger towards
categorical groups of people. Being human, I rather suspect you
do.

Its not the anger or expressing it that is the problem, its what you do with the anger that is important. I feel anger when I read of suicide bombings in Iraq especially towards the people who are behind them. These are the ones who maybe sold the idea of a martyrs place in heaven with so many virgins to some sad traumatised victim of the invasion who has had his life destroyed. What I don’t do is translate that anger into frantic calls to kill, kill and kill again more terrorists until none are left the way Limbaugh and is ilk do. Instead I try to distance myself from such thoughts and think “OK, how can we disempower these people with the minimum loss of life and bloodshed?” My answer would be to genuinely support the local population. Treat them with great respect and value their lives as you do you own. That way you build bridges with them and thereby undermine the support the fanatics need to build their so called insurgency on. IMO Limbaugh and everything he stands for does the exact opposite. It aggravates the problem, alienates people. It feeds hate with hate and produces even more hate as a result.

It seems
positively kind-spirited compared to the show Al Franken (an american
“leftist”) did.

I have no time for any of these people. One is as bad as the other IMO.

how did you find it?

Its a fairly well known incident -- came up on Google pretty much of itself as I thought it would.

I’m puzzled by the way with your comment, “I don’t for example
blame individuals for their actions as Limbaugh does.”

Its a very strong characteristic of the left / right dichotomy. The left tend to blame the other person -- the poor are victims of this or that elite of exploiters whereas the right blame the individual -- if you are poor its your own fault, you didn’t work hard enough. Either position is ugly when taken to the extreme and Limbaugh is most certainly an extreme right winger.

Implicit in your mention of Abu Gharaib is an assumption that this
is characteristic of americans, that this is some kind of norm.

I think it’s a characteristic of Americans to not see the other person very well. I’m sure that for a fair number of the people involved in some of the lighter of the Abu Ghraib stuff it was just a prank. But they had no idea how their actions were seen by the people they were inflicting it on. That kind of sexual humiliation is devastating to them. It really is worse than a physical beating. The total failure to actually empathise and understand other cultures I would most definitely say was a characteristic of Americans.

Still I can’t help
but wonder if too much is being made of this, and if people
in Iraq, being rather closer to them, aren’t aware that their
are bigger issues to worry about?

Not enough is being made of it, Mark for the reason I mentioned above. All this is driving a huge wedge between the Iraqis and the Americans -- we could very easily be suffering the consequences of this for literally hundreds of years. Look at Northern Ireland for example. Wounds opened up there in the 1600’s haven’t healed yet.

Allan,

Um.. you kicked my ass?

I have so very little interest in getting into a pissing contest with you... since it will degrade rapidly into tedium. But if you really thougt that you had kicked my ass, you wouldn't have stated it as though it were a truism... and then moved on quickly. That's human nature my friend. Its a funny old thing... and even you have it.

You kid... not even yourself.

Cheers,

KM

PS As to the posts I just read thorugh above... I don't think I can engage any of them at this time... as disjointed, shifting and bordering on incoherent as they are.

All too much nuance for my blood.

Call me simplisme... but New Jersey... abstains.

Scott,

I am familiar with all of the websites you mentioned, and quite familiar with most of their like. You treat these sources as though they are unimpeachable both factually and ideologically, which they are neither... and you ooze with more than a little self righteousness when you cite them.

You use terms like "overwhelming evidence" or "undeniably true" or "inarguable fact" when it suits you for something to be true, while using "so called" or "patently false" just as dubiously when it doesn't. That sense of certainty you project just a wee bit too eagerly... is unfounded my friend.

Then you make statements like "read any Iraqi Blog and you will see this" which is simply a lie. Sure, if you read Baghdad Burning, Riverbend and the like... you will be fed great clods of what you seem to think is a nutritious intellectual diet. But its interesting to note, that in Riverbends case for example, even many fellow bloggers from Iraq have begun to break protocol and question whether the site is a tool of Al Jazeera or ex Baathists. Salam Pax has become an embarrassment to more than a few of the Iraqis I correspond with... and on it goes in the world that you think represents the only one that can be considered... "informed". (Note... if I deconstruct that word... maybe it becomes "true" in the way that I think it really is.)

You are, in your sad and slightly disconcerting but all too typically progressive, stubborn indignition, in a word... wrong. And you project a tight little world view on the rest of that wide tapestry of reality ... and call it truth. Also typical of the grossly deficient sense of humility all too standard among the "progressive" mindset. (I'm sorry, am I stereotyping? You see its my opinion that one of the only valid uses for stereotyping people... is when it comes to holders of various leftist ideologies... is that hate speechy on my part?)

I note your reference to Abu Ghraib with more than a little interest. Are you aware of how many Iraqis were actually shocked, even among those whose "job" it is to look for and identify the next propaganda coup that the West presents for self immolation to the ruthless. More by far then the unfolding story itself, the storm of self righteous indignation disconcerted many Iraqis, who know well what kind of sadistic insanity existed in that same compound before the Americans ever arrived, and delighted those who would like to see the same regimen return to it.

I also note that your pseudo-Academic postulating on the relevance of Leo Strauss as the end all be all of "neo-conservatism", proves quite delightfully, that you know neither Strauss nor what a neo-Conservative is. In fact, I daresay I know from your ponteficating on the subject, where you have gotten the opinions that you deem so insightful on what makes people like say... me... tick. It would be laughable were it not layed on so thick in this hemisphere that you could cut it with a knife.

You "assume" that the reference to Rush Limbaugh as hate speech is a truism, but I suppose that if I point out that your contention is a bit of hate speech itself... and a far more ominous, tyrannical and dark sort of hate speech... that the irony would be lost on you.

Alas...

Finally (and I realize that I am doing little to forward the thread, but at this moment I think this is a more valid endeavor), you reveal a great deal when you associate Bush with the American Enterprise Institute as being "obviously at home with his people"... and continue on as though it is inarguable, and that if true, this is de facto a bad thing.

Let us, you and I, engage then in a debate about the world, I'll represent the AEI side, and you can be on... the side that you're on. It may be disconcerting for you to contemplate, that not only is there a view there which affirms the universal tenets and deference to human dignity around that which all pretty much claim to "believe in"... but it might even do so so in a way that makes your own "certain" ones--- seem flaccid, malleable... and possibly even meaningless.

Cheers,

KM

(I'm sorry, am I stereotyping?

In a word yes, blatantly and aggressively.

For the vast majority of your rant that is exactly what you are doing. A consistent, unremitting thinly veiled ad - hominem based on few simple propositions summarised in:

You treat these sources as though they are unimpeachable both factually and ideologically,

The sites I linked contain numerous articles and accounts -- literally thousands -- no one of them or even selection of them provides a complete picture. None are unimpeachable none are indifferent, all express an opinion.

The only way to get a picture of what is happening in Iraq (or any other similar situation) is to spend time to read a as many reports as you can over a broad spectrum of opinion and make up your own mind.

I offered the links in that spirit.

Having gone through that process myself it has led me to the conclusion. and assertions I made in my previous post.

That is my opinion and I make no claims to being indifferent to the situation in Iraq, its causes or its likely future.

The intense emotional undercurrent in the rest of your rant rather exposes your "objectivity" for what it is; a partisan, one dimensional defence of your own fears and prejudices. Rather Hitchenesque -- in a limited sort of a way for an off night.

Scott: It would be possible to put together an article bringing together all these individual reports that would be pretty convincing with numerous eye witness accounts and experiences backing my argument. Maybe its been done already. But I don't have the time for that right now

I didn't ask for overwhelmingly detailed proof - only that you attempt to, if only with a few sentences, explain why you believe each of the links in the logical chain follow from the previous one. It's not good enough to restate the overall argument in different words, or provide anecdotal evidence for some of the links. All of them. Not much, just something to show that you've actually thought this through.

The day after 9/11 the French foreign minister at the time, De Villepin, said something like "Today we are all Americans".

Politicians say these things. We've already covered dishonesty among American politicians. The same applies to European politicians. Of course the French cared about the victims. But European anti-Americanism goes much deeper than that. A single burst of sympathy can not compensate for different worldviews.

He didn't do that and instead acted incredibly stupidly to greatly aggravate the situation.

Yes, he could have made friendship with Europe a high priority, but at the cost of not being able to fight terrorism and Saddam as effectively. 9/11 was a wake-up call for Americans, telling them that security is more important than friendship with Europe. If you can't have both, you choose security. Perhaps there was a way to have both, but neither Americans nor Europeans could figure out what it was, (though many claimed otherwise). Based on that, Bush was right to prioritize security. Perhaps now it is time to begin warming up to Europe again.

Bjørn,

"Based on that, Bush was right to prioritize security. Perhaps now it is time to begin warming up to Europe again."

Except that this would represent a comlete discontinuity with reality. 'Warming' up now merely for its own sake, is almost certainly (I hope) NOT on the agenda, since it was neither Bush not America who 'cooled'. That was a direct function of that which we undestatedly call anti-Americanism. The "root causes" of that morass is a poison that Europe will have to either work through or succumb to. In the case of the latter, it will ultimately presage a social, moral and political implosion of one kind or another, because it is unsustainable as is. In the case of the former, it will mark a transformation in European political philosophy towards something more open and free... as in meaningfully free and actually open.

I submit to you a piece that was published yesterday in the WSJ. It is, quite simply, the best article I have seen yet, on this subject. It is comprehensive and detailed, but is neither "deconstructive" nor deliberately
overloaded with faux nuance. It is instead, grounded in all the important ways. It will take a while to read, it is pretty long... but I
highly recommend it. The things the author describes I have been observing
and recording and considering for longer than I care to delve into, but it
touches on the very things that we have been discussing so often in these threads... which are also the things that I sometimes truly despair over.
To wit:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005748

Bush can't and indeed won't make overtures to Europe that go beyond keeping his and America's hand of friendship extended, which he has pretty much been doing throughout. He cannot and will not give over to the multiculturally inspired and cynically illusory... elitist meanderings that make up European policy... as a 'compromise' position, in order to gain "favor" in Europe that would be no more dependable than fair weather forecasts in Bergen, Norway. (Unless one simply predicts rain, and waits for it.)

For THAT to happen (an almost indescribably bad turn of events for Western Civilisation and the world in my opinion), you would have to have a dramatic change in leadership in the US... as in to John Kerry.

If Kerry wins... Europe will indeed get just those sorts of "overtures".

If so, then in the same way that Europe helps to legitimize the mullahcracy in Iran, and empower its tyranny over the Iranian people by embracing its faux "reformism".... so Kerry's America will help to prop up the sagging intellectual fortunes of a STILL unchallenged faux "Progressivism" that utterly dominates the academic, information dissemination, and social disbursement functions across most of European society. This would be an unambiguously bad development for Europe, who live in an almost completely contrived fantasy where they believe that what they "see" of the world, represents a view of that world that is the result of a free and unhindered discourse... and for America, where a man who is about the abrogation of all too many of those things that have bound us as a nation, will be empowered to effect their blurring and fading away.

And it would be unambiguously bad for the world... for the same reasons, but also because it would be good for Islamofascism.

Did all this that stem from that one short sentence Bjørn? Yes, and its at the heart of the crisis and the strife that we face. So you'll kindly forgive my going on.... and on.

I'll stop now,

KM

Bjørn:

why you believe each of the links in the logical chain follow from the previous one.

I don’t believe there is a logical chain there. As I say there’s a huge amount of stuff out there -- people can go look for themselves and make up their own minds. You know as well as I do if I spend a day or two, maybe a month or two to document more or less comprehensively incidents less than flattering to the occupying forces it would be dismissed out of hand, in one sentence, as “left wing” bias.

I don’t have time for that -- maybe someone has done it already.

The links are a resource -- go use them -- make up your own mind.

It’s not good enough to restate the overall argument in different words,

It is if my original argument has been misunderstood.

or provide anecdotal evidence for some of the links.

I didn’t provide anectodal evidence for some links I provided really real links to a large number of eye witness accounts. (Note the difference in normative meaning between “anectdotal” and “eye witness”) I suggested read articles by Robert Fisk. That’s a starting point -- take it from there.

Not much, just something to show that you’ve actually thought this through.

As I say the problem is where to start and the fact that anything is going to be dismissed as biased for the simple reason that we are talking about facts it is impossible to be neutral about. This is a standard reaction of people I would call “rationalists”. There are countless documented instances where US troops have over reacted plus equally numerous examples of troops on a mission to avenge 9/11 not to mention the precision bombing that precisely took out a wedding party or precisely group of people on a street corner. One last week springs to mind -- you must have seen it -- a video from inside an F16 cockpit. Pilot ask for permission to “take out” a bunch of people milling about on a street corner (obviously insurgents do that all the time sic). You see the people in the cross hairs of the bomb site. Next thing *kaboom* 15 - 20 people dead. Pilot says “heh dude” or something like that. And of course there’s Abu Ghraib but no-one wants to talk about that anymore -- stuff like the sodomising of Iraqi kids by US troops is way outside any rational framework we can deal with right?

Politicians say these things. We’ve already covered dishonesty among American politicians. The same applies to European politicians. Of course the French cared about the victims. But European anti-Americanism goes much deeper than that. A single burst of sympathy can not compensate for different worldviews.

At the same time any instant in time presents alternatives -- opportunities to pursue different courses. All I am saying here is that Bush could have used 9/11 to reduce anti-Americanism by building bridges and alliances. He chose the opposite route; to exaggerate differences and ignore alliances.

Yes, he could have made friendship with Europe a high priority, but at the cost of not being able to fight terrorism and Saddam as effectively.

Not necessarily. He could have strengthened alliances with Europe in order to address terrorism more effectively.

9/11 was a wake-up call for Americans, telling them that security is more important than friendship with Europe.

Again I don’t see why you can say one follows from the other. If you look at Bush’s actions you can see how they have become less and less comprehensible not just to a European mind but to any mind that assumes the real issue is dealing with terrorism.

Personally I don’t believe it ever was. Bush, himself may have thought so but the people who were advising him on what to do and what to say -- people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle -- were on an altogether different tack. They were thinking in terms of Rebuilding Americas Defences, Strategic planning for the Middle east, that sort of stuff. The European politicians particularly the French knew what this was about and have been trying to isolate America ever since. In this political ball game “The War on Terrorism” is a tool it isn’t an end in itself. Selling to the public is important of course and to a certain extent we have all been fooled by that.

But at the end of the day I find it very hard to take seriously people who fight terrorism in ways that actually increase the number of terrorists and provide a potential recruiting ground for them for generations into the future. That makes me think that maybe these people aren’t serious about the war on terrorism at all -- that they really rather like the idea of an endless unwinnable war with no precise location and no clearly defined battle field. (Richard Perle does he wrote a whole book on the subject) After all we know that politics has, to all intents and purposes, become the art of deceit -- that is pretty much self evident -- so why in the world should we take them seriously on this? Its literally incredible.

Scott: I don’t believe there is a logical chain there.

I think you misunderstand me. You made a statement about what a main cause of the Iraqi insurgency is: American anger because of the mistaken belief that Saddam was behind 9/11. I disassembled that statement into a chain of logic, each link of which (in my view) needs to be probable for your statement to be true. That chain was the following:

Many Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. (Fact). => Many American troops believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. (Reasonable.) => Many of those American troops hold Iraqis collectively guilty for 9/11. (Speculation). => Many Americans who hold Iraqis collectively guilty for 9/11 want to take revenge on Iraqis. (Speculation). => Many Americans who want to take revenge on Iraqis for 9/11 actually do so, by being excessively brutal. (Speculation). => This brutality is the cause of the Iraqi insurgency. (Speculation).

There are two possibilities. Either this chain does not reflect what you actually meant, or it does. In the first case, I'd like to know how it can be improved. In the second, I'd like to see you explain why you think each link in the chain is reasonable.

That does not mean that you should "spend a day or two, maybe a month or two" to document every claim. Just give me something, anything. Let's start with the first claim I've marked speculation, that many of those American troops who believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 hold all Iraqis collectively guilty for it. But one of the main messages of pro-war Americans was that they went into Iraq to liberate it from the thugs who ruled it. The Americans saw themselves as liberators, and their enemy as the Baath leadership. Doesn't that contradict your assumption that Americans were angry at Iraqis in general?

I suggested read articles by Robert Fisk

In my experience, that is a sign that someone's been convinced by an argument they've heard, but don't understand it well enough to state the same argument themselves. There comes a point in most discussions where there's little left to do for each side but refer to other sources, books and websites. We haven't reached that point. You make statements, and when I criticize those statements you don't bother to defend them, you just refer me to Robert Fisk. Not impressed.

There are countless documented instances where US troops have over reacted plus equally numerous examples of troops on a mission to avenge 9/11

I don't know about all the cases of American abuse in Iraq, but I know that there are many. That's not an issue here. Americans have done bad things in Iraq. That does not mean that Americans are generally brutal, that many Americans take out their anger on civilians, or that this is a cause of the insurgency. There is some brutality. There is an insurgency. Why do you believe the first leads to the second? How important is it compared to other causes?

But at the end of the day I find it very hard to take seriously people who fight terrorism in ways that actually increase the number of terrorists and provide a potential recruiting ground for them for generations into the future.

Your word "actually" here implies that this is a generally acknowledged consequence obvious to any impartial observer. It is not. It is one of the core areas of disagreement between the worldviews the US and Europe represent. Let's leave aside which worldview is correct. My point here is that just because someone disagrees with you about how to fight terrorism, doesn't mean they don't want to fight terrorism. They just want to fight it in a different way. American leaders woke up on 9/11 like everyone else. They've applied the lessons of that day to their foreign policy ever since. You can disagree with those policies, but it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that the reason you disagree is because they don't actually want to fight terrorism. The reason you disagree is that you have different ideas about the nature of the problem. It's as simple as that.

That makes me think that maybe these people aren’t serious about the war on terrorism at all -- that they really rather like the idea of an endless unwinnable war with no precise location and no clearly defined battle field. (Richard Perle does he wrote a whole book on the subject)

An End to Evil? I read that book, and your summary is incorrect. Perhaps you can provide the passages where you believe Richard Perle and David Frum implies that they aren't serious about the war on terrorism, and enjoy the thought of an eternal, unwinnable war.

KM,

Thanks for the link to Rosethals article. Light on substance, heavy (very heavy) on bile and invective but whatever turns you on, I guess.

My comments on the article:

Given the USA’s foreign policy record it is no startling revelation that anti-Americanism predates 9/11.

Ignoring the posturing of deceitful European politicians for the irrelevance it is, it still true to say that 9/11 could have been used as an opportunity to redefine the USA’s foreign policy stance in ways that were less belligerant and less arrogant, less unilateral and more inclusive. Of course that would have met with entrenched opposition but it would also met with sympathy from other quarters. 9/11 momentarily tilted the balance in favour of such a response. But not for long.

Bush more or less immediately headed off this possibility with his infamous “You are either with us or the terrorists” speech. Hence the equally rapid resumption of business as usual post 9/11. "How predictable was that?" being a typical response. Since then the Bush administration has continued in the same vein with the predictable results.

When writers like JOHN ROSENTHAL and posters like Kevin McD take such an aggressive, self pitying posture in the face of criticism of the arrogant self serving and often downright vicious pursuit of US national interest abroad why are they surprised when their actions fuel still further anti-Americanism?

Bjørn,

I don’t know about all the cases of American abuse in Iraq, but I know that there are many.

Fine in that case I don’t have to dredge through Information Clearing house to make that point.

That’s not an issue here. Americans have done bad things in Iraq. That does not mean that Americans are generally brutal, that many Americans take out their anger on civilians, or that this is a cause of the insurgency.

I have never claimed that the majority of US troops are brutal most of the time only that a proportion of them can be expected to have gone to Iraq under the illlusion that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. That will have increased their propensity to brutality and thereby the number of such incidents that actually occurred. That such incidents have taken place does not seem to be controversial. The impression I get from the articles I read is that it is widespread. That among other things there is a shoot first ask questions later mentality in the US army. That is something you again can confirm or refute for yourself. For me to document this in a statistically significant way is something I don ‘t have time for. So I present it as my opinion which on the basis of what I have read is pretty solid. Precisely because the evidence is anecdotal I think its much better for people to do their own researches and make up their own mind.
Another more or less uncontroversial point that I should have made clearer in my original post is that bad news travels fast. It also tends to swamp out good news. We see that every day and pro invasion people constantly complain about it. What this means is that acts of brutality committed by US troops will tend to have an effect in alienating the local population disproportionate to their frequency. This then fuels the insurgency, which illicits a violent response and so on and so on.

Scott: For me to document this in a statistically significant way is something I don ‘t have time for.

Hm. I've said this - explicitly - at least twice before. I'm not asking for comprehensive documentation of your claims. That would be ridiculous. I am asking that you take the time to defend your claims, however. You don't need a statistically significant number of examples to do that, only, say, a short statement explaining why each of the links in the logical chain make sense. That's all. A short explanation. That's all I've asked for ever since you made that claim, (Saddam+9/11 myth => insurgency), and you still haven't even tried.

This is pointless. I want to discuss this, but not until you do more than refer to Robert Fisk every time I press you on a point.

Scott,

Its quite interesting to hear you describe the piece I linked to the way you have. You give a standard refrain when someone doesn't want to address something by calling it "light on substance". Really? That's ironic in that the main thrust of the piece is how light the substance that defines the "legitimacy" of anti-Americanism as it IS in Europes discourse. It is light because it is grounded in mythos, caricature and emotive icons far more than anything that could be reasonably considered a rational difference of opinion. The real tragedy of that, is that ACTUAL policies that could be argued over by reasonable people, and perspectives that the US could have gained from as a matter of course in trying to accomplish its stated goals, are replaced instead by bile and vitriol that distorts degrades and recasts any and ALL of those goals into little more than post Marxist revisionist tripe. Its about Oil, colonialism, neo-imperialism, bloodthirsty ignorant capitalist exploitation etc. Its quite natural that if this is the unbridled "truth", that then the causes of said goals, couldn't possibly be anything of 'virtue'... and so we are stuck with the infinitely fatuous and vile canards where for example- 911 was self inflicted, and George Bush is conducting war for his fellow fat cat cronies etc, etc and so on, right down a checklist that seems to have sprung directly from the Soviet run Pravda's handbook.

Light on substance you say? Rosenthals piece lays out a summary in linear time, of what I often refer to as the contrived "narrative" (appropriate term in the wake of Derrida's passing) that has been playing out on the walls of Plato's Cave. It is a narrative where actual events, are only tangentially related to the "meaning" of the unfolding story. Let me lay out a few "thin" ideas on what could be called, the "root causes" of this state of affairs:

It comes from an approach to the world by those who are entrusted with its conveyance where "tolerance" is the rhetorical enforcement mechanism an intellectually intolerant dogma, and diversity, is the paradigm of an ideologically conformist doctrine.
It is one where Freedom is a meaningless term eclipsed by an endlessly malleable legalistic framing of "democracy".
It is one where the herd is considered to be virtually infinite in its malleability, and can thus be shaped by indoctrination and coercion.
It is itself framed by a belief that "truth" is a "social construct" defined by the projection of imagery, and thus appearances and the power to frame the perception, are defacto, more powerful and thus valid than any deference to objective reality (which is a virtually meaningless term in this ideologically all embracing context anyway).
It creates icons and caricature framed by the "truisms" of mind crushing paradigms such as so called political correctness to diminish debate and suppress dissenting views.
It has been raised to the level of high science by more than a generation of highly focused research and experimentation in areas like behavioural psychology, and a variety of social theorists. It works, and it is powerful.

But it is not about enlightenment, free ideas or freedom itself. It is about opinion management and power projection whose very purpose is to distort and remold what IS, in order to impose conformity on those subject to it. It is quite natural (in the context of human nature, ... ironically) that those who are in the caste of its practiotioners are both innately arrogant, and seemingly cut from the same stone. One does not need to subscribe to conspiracy theories to explain it.

You also say the piece is belligerant and heavy on bile and invective. Can you cite the parts which you felt were particularly so? I have to say that most of the bile in the piece, was there by way of citation of the inarguable, and sometimes outright chilling "bile" that frames the "mainstream" progressive discourse in Europe and the US.

You want a few facts that actually are at the heart of true intentions for the vast majority of Americans who support the war? This includes soldiers who are fighting it as well.

The policy of the Bush administration has resulted in the liberation of over 50 million human beings from two of the most barbarian, vicious and sadistic regimes of modern times. He is the leading force for freedom and democracy against fanatics that beyond being tyrants by definition, have a history of persecution of women, homosexuals and a host of other groups, upon whose rights, the freethinking progressive "peace" activists of the West... "ostensibly" ... defend.

There is little doubt that one can look at the 20th century and find a cornucopia of human rights violations that have been enabled, if not actually encouraged by policies of countries in the West, including the US. Most of these can be traced in one way or another to the odiously cynical concept of realpolitik, whose master practitioner incidentally, has been and remains, the French. But one is either wearing ideological blinders, or outright immersed in a "bile" all their own, if one thinks that these failings outshine and even make meaningless, the core ideals that have done SO much unambiguous good in the same period. It is possible... only if one thinks that Freedom for example... is a meaningless , or even "dangerous and primitive" (Le Monde) concept.

Ironically Scott, you cite all these things, and they are the same things I read as well. I have been reading them for almost three years now, to the point that it can be said that outside of work, domestic obligations and that endeavor... I have no life.

The difference is that I don't stop there. There is more... and there is a reason that correlates with that moreness, which explains why one has to go OUT of the free and open discourse to find in. (Do you get the sense for example, that the exchange of ideas in this venue is incongrous... in fact laughably so, with ANYTHING you might see in a public forum in this country? Why is that SO?)

I say it is ironic because while I have little doubt that you see yourself as informed in the broad sense (as opposed to anyone who might deign to fundamentally disagree with you) the TRUTH is, that it is glaringly apparrent that you are right there... tightly ensconsed... with the only basket of views that you have been told is valid. You have accepted this state from a public forum so tightly myopic, that its pretensions to freedom and openness border on the surreal.

A few final points that I truly hope will lead you to ask questions outside of the small circle I believe you engage from. I have little doubt that if you did so you could have much to contribute.

First, you say "Ignoring the posturing of deceitful European politicians for the irrelevance it is, it still true to say that 9/11 could have been used as an opportunity to redefine the USA’s foreign policy stance in ways that were less belligerant and less arrogant, less unilateral and more inclusive."

This is paragraph that is pregnant with catch phrases and contrivances masking as ideas, that while conveyed as truisms, are HIGHLY arguable. In fact I think that many of them were contrived (under the auspices of 'nuance' for example)... by the same players who were cutting deals with Saddam to drop the sanctions, and taking cash meant to purchase food for Iraqi children, in the form of "contributions"... to 'help them'... in their quest to thwart the plans of the 'imperialist American aggressors' I also note your use of the term "irrelevance" in the way you did... it left me nonplussed... and a bit disheartened.

Then you say: "Bush more or less immediately headed off this possibility with his infamous “You are either with us or the terrorists” speech. Hence the equally rapid resumption of business as usual post 9/11. "How predictable was that?"

Not very Scott. In fact the French and German ministry, right up almost to the eve of hostilities, were reassuring Saddam that the US would be tied up in the UN for at least several more months, and may very well be thwarted completely if "world opinion" could be sufficiently turned against them. There are all sorts of implications both diplomatically... and with regard to the way opinion is viewed by those who would most like to have the power to mold it (because in Europe... they DO you see) in that disturbing aspect of the story.

Finally, you say, "When writers like JOHN ROSENTHAL and posters like Kevin McD take such an aggressive, self pitying posture in the face of criticism of the arrogant self serving and often downright vicious pursuit of US national interest abroad why are they surprised when their actions fuel still further anti-Americanism?"

Wow... thats... quite an interpretation. No pre-canned value statements or bitter little pills in that statement ay? I suppose that America hatred is my fault then. So be it.

Take a look at this piece below... its not really a digression since your last paragraph takes us almost to the core of both the distortions of the Duelfer report, and the agenda behind it... as well as your feelings regarding Rosenthal and me. Have a read.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15464

(Psst... note however that it is from a webisite known to be the domain of right wing haters and former progressive dissidents... like Hitchens who you mentioned with appropriate disdain... so gird yourself.)

Cheers,

KM

Sorry... that was me above.

And I want to add something quickly:

Why... Why!... WHY!!!! Do I Keep Coming To This Site???!!!

Who the hell has time for this?

DAMN YOU STÆRK!!!!!!!!!!

Who the hell has time for this?

Well put, Kevin.

I'll reply to your highly entertaining and wonderful hyperbole and radical histrionics when I can give it the considered attention it deserves.

In the meantime if you really don't have time for this as you say could you not save a lot of that time (and mine) by simply stating your arguments free of the unnecessary anti-left wing invective? Stalin was a bad man, so was Saddam -- that at least we can agree on OK?

Also you aren't going to get me or anyone else with the least bit of wit to defend the positions taken by lying deceitful European Politicians. That kind of straw man is strictly for fools and horses

relax .

Scott,

Fair enough regarding the self evident truth of the lies you acknowledge.

But how is the illumination of that, being that the "policies" that are borne of that deceit are perfectly aligned with the dominant (mainstream) imagery, rationales and justification and thus at the very heart of our disagreement... a "strawman".

Perhaps I need a nuance infusion again, but your reasoning seems astoundingly incongruent here. In any case, it totally eludes me. Disturbs me even.

But perhaps you would consider that a histrionic impression on my part.

Alas...

KM

PS My so called "anti leftism" Scott... does not magically become defacto "invective", "radical", "hyperbolic" or even "entertaining"... merely because you say so.

Except within the bounds of your own perspective of course... which as I said is, in my opinion (which may or may not be more or less aligned with reality)... aligned with a tightly defined and projected paradigm amounting to mass solipsism.

Your opinion may differ... but I think mine offers more hope. Even for you.

PPS I wonder if you have actually READ any of the links I provided. Heck, I wonder if you read through the posts themselves... or instead fly as you parse... discarding any inconvenient points.

I won't lose sleep mind you... but I wonder.

Bjørn,

> That's all I've asked for ever since you made that claim, (Saddam+9/11 myth => insurgency), and you still haven't even tried.

Sorry Bjørn but I thought I did that above thus:

Saddam + 9/11 myth

=> a proportion (almost certainly >50%) of US military believe this myth

=> a proportion of them transfered that onto the Iraqi population (collective responsibilty may be primitive but it is still all too common in western societies) ie. they will be out avenge 9/11. There are specific examples of US soldiers having said precisely that -- that they came to kill Arabs. If I have time I will try to find them again but I'm reluctant to do so because all too often such evidence is dismisssed out of hand as anectdotal left wing propaganda. That is the reason I encourage people to look for themselves. It's not as though the information is exactly difficult to find.

=> These individuals on the street then commit acts of wanton brutality -- shooting people with white flags, injured fighters, women crossing the street, spraying 1000's of rounds over a 180 degrees field of fire when a car backfires three blocks away. They also go in very heavily when searching peoples houses etc, are automatically suspicious of all Iraqis etc etc. Again this is well documented. One telling example which I have mentioned before is how the British soldiers saw it. Reports of them being apalled at the hostility and aggresssion showed by the US troops. This then turned the Basra people against the brits after Fallujah was hammered the first time.

=> These actions then have a brutalising effect on the Iraqi population out of all proportion to the frequency of the incidents. (Its reckoned that in the west each individualhas over 200 contacts in their personal network -- peoplel who know what happens to them. In Iraq that might well be higher but whatever it is pretty unlikely that there is a single Iraqi who does not have people within their network that have not experienced of US brutality.

=> Brutalising of population leads to susceptibility to suggestion from violent Islamic fundamentalists.

+ RPG'S, IED'S, AK47's

+ a bit of organisation

= *INSURGENCY*

Now, as I have already indicated I'm not going to argue that this is the only cause of the insurgency. You have some backlash in every such situation, its inevitable. What I am saying is that it has been made very much worse by the attitude taken by the US military which has been very typical of the attitude often displayed by Americans abroad; arrogant and in your face. But there is a hell of difference between a loud mouthed clown at holiday resort and a not very intelligent young man convinced that Saddam attacked HIS country scared out of his wits on patrol in Sadr City.

If the above hasn't been clear then I'm sorry about that but have made all these points elsewhere in my posts.

Jeebus,

Whats up with all the postmodern Calculus on display today? I've been searching the journals from among the paragons of progressive thought, and I don't see that there is any new memes that have recently been deployed along these lines. Is this just a coincidence? Anders, Øyvind and Scott all seem intent on reducing human behavior to a series of readily interpretable (and easily distorted) componenet widgets.

It is no surprise of course that the Eureka moments of all this "scientism" are pretty much ... the party line. (with an extra helping of Bush sucks and America is savage thrown in.)

Isn't "math" cool?

I'm just wondering ... in this paradigm, do I have any will at all? Does anybody... even the arrogant philosopher king wannabees who author this kind of tripe with the intent of deconstructing the fabric of human consciousness individually and collectively... so they (and they alone) can "grasp" it? Does it matter in the formulas that the yawning sense of meaninglessness that such illusory and soul crushing doctrines by definition... invite nihilism to the party?

KM

PS So... in these formulas... am I a Wave or a Particle?

Just curious.

My so called "anti leftism" Scott... does not magically become defacto "invective", "radical", "hyperbolic" or even "entertaining"... merely because you say so.

No its your choice of words that do that. I found it entertaining.

But how is the illumination of that, being that the "policies" that are borne of that deceit are perfectly aligned with the imagery, rationales and justification and thus at the very heart of our disagreement... a "strawman".

Note: I have deleted "dominant (mainstream)" from your quote above because it is just too absurd to include and I don't want to give the slightest hint that I might agree with it. I don't go along with "Fair and Balanced" as a suitble description of Fox News either -- which is an examples of the same absurd preversion of the truth.

Both are defensive, negative reactions to the same aggressive self serving hostility shown by the USA.
What you seem to have a problem with here is the notion that peoples' reactions may actually be driven by events rather than interpretations of those events. Much as you might like it you cannot expect people to be indifferent to George W Bush mouthing off of his apparant contempt for the rest of the world. And you cannot expect them to be indifferent to events like Abu Ghraib. You might be able to rationalise that away on the basis of having swallowed the critique of moral equivalence but thankfully, as world opinion shows, you remain in a minority.

I wonder if you have actually READ any of the links I provided.

Not yet I haven't had time for that as I said in my previous post.

Well,

I'm glad that we've cleared up where we stand then Scott.

Let me see if I get it:

Assumptions you make are inarguable, and those that I posit are perversions of the truth.

Fallacies of yours revealed are not worthy of a response, but my addressing them is "absurd".

Oh yes... there you are.

Interestingly... you opine that "events" rather than interpretaions of events may drive opinions.

What an interesting rational crisis that reveals Scott! I must have gotten through at least a little bit.

I submit that if you explore that, and can manage to take a long hard honest look at the public discourse in your very own backyard, you will find that this is REALLY, the 'absurd' position to take. Hopefully... it will scare the hell out of you.

In any case, we seem to have exhausted any productive avenues.

Cheers,

KM

btw- I'm betting (and this is a little pet peeve of mine I admit... but while its a bit mischievious, its also grounded in empirical observation)... that you have used the term "freethinker" to describe yourself... more than once.

Kevin,

I just read the article you linked to by Carol Gould and it really shocked me.

The anti-Americanism didn't shock me as such -- not in the same way as the news from Iraq shocks me. I'm familiar with both, thats one reason, but the other is that name calling doesn't quite have the same impact as images of headless children tortured prisoners and the like.

That said it is not good that anti-Americanism has became so prejudiced and it is a real problem that has to be addressed.

What really bothers me here is your attitude. You seek scapegoats in "the left" and imaginary media bias. You simply cannot accept responisibility for what has happened. And that is profoundly ironic coming from a right wing perspective that traditionally emphasises individual responsibility.

According to this logic the poor are poor because they're lazy and don't work hard enough. But when the boot is on the other foot the American bully boys just cannot accept that their attitudes and their behaviour, their leaders and their polices are the cause of this. No it has to be media bias and collective brainwashing. Its all the Guardian's fault.

That is completely absurd and deep down you know it. The reason why world opinion is firmly against America isn't because of propaganda it is becuase of the ABSCENCE of the propaganda that keeps too many Americans in state of delusion far too much of the time.

Scott said,

"...a not very intelligent young man convinced that Saddam attacked
HIS country scared out of his wits on patrol in Sadr City."

Actually the U.S. armed forces give an IQ test to anyone expressing
interest in joining the military and they pretty much exclude the
bottom 25 percent. Two-thirds of american soldiers have above
average IQs.

See http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep98/html/2-afqt.html

And they sure don't look scared. Here's some pictures from a few
days ago of some soldiers in Sadr City:

See http://www.centcom.mil/CentcomNews/Stories/10_04/21.htm

I wish I could remember just where but I think last week I read
a description of the conflict in Sadr City by I believe the Agence
France-Presse and it sounded like an absolute nightmare. According
to this source every road was chock full of "resistance" planted
land minds and every street had at least one child waiting at the
end of a bunch of wires for an american vehicle to come in so that
the child could blow it up.

Those pictures above are from Sadr City and they sure don't show
such a scene, and if the situation is indeed as AFP describes it
then the photographed soldiers have a remarkably non-chalant attitude,
indeed well-nigh suicidal.

Scott,

Thinking about your hypothesis it occurs to me that it should
apply double to afghanistan. After all the invasion of afghanistan
wasn't that long after 9/11, memories and anger would be fresher,
and there was really no question afghanistan hosted some of the people
responsible. If there was some substantial percentage of american
troops that categorically blamed muslims then surely they would have
acted it out.

How then do we explain the striking progress that Afghanistan
has made? The absence of hostility towards americans?

Do you have an explanation?

Now my theory would be that Afghanistan has benefitted from Iraq
because in the absence of Iraq many of the car-bombers and
terrorists now in Iraq would be in Afghanistan, and perhaps even
just as important the hate machine would be directed at american
efforts in Afghanistan instead of being the relatively forgotten
place that it is today.

Wow... I mean WOW!

Where is Anders when you need him.

My kingdom for a Leftist whose meanderings have not seemingly become so dense that nothing, not even light can escape.

Let me make something absolutely clear in case you may have some sort of illusions about how I personally view all this.

I am not "whining" about anti-Americanism or Jew hatred in the least. In fact, I am attempting to reveal not merely for its existence now, which is inarguable, but to describe it for what it IS.

Believe me Scott, that it far more in your interest than it is mine.

I'm a citizen of a country which is at war, in a cause that may very well be the only chance Western civilisation has to preserve its freedom... and in that context it is not merely Islamo-fascism that is being fought. The lines are broad and deep and quite frankly, the risks are high. But there is hope.

Most of the hope comes in the form of clarity that events will "break out" of the "interpretations" imposed on them, if (and only if) the cause upon which they are based is upheld. To that end, I submit that Bush will win back the White House, and on that assumption I further predicate that (among other upcoming events) as Iraq moves beyond deniability (in the real world) as a place where human beings en masse have come up from a hell and are seeing the light of day, and the ruthless are on the run... then the maddeningly nuanced, onerous, cryptic and utlimately insubstantial meanderings that have brought you to your ever so tenuous (and yet immovable) "opinions"... will crumble like chaff.

This will create disillusionment in such great numbers, and the collective cognitive dissonance (which is a function of just how far the disparity between image and substance has progressed) will be so profound... that there will be tectonic reactions accross the fabric of Western Civilisation. In this respect it will be far more disconcerting metaphysically, and inspire the dissolution of far more institutions than for example, the fall of the Soviet Union did.

This is a given, because the bets will then be called ... and the stakes have continued to be raised in this to such an extent, that it is now actually IN THE INTEREST of the elite status quo in Europe, to see the US fail and chaos and/or tyranny to reign in Iraq.

Consider that.

Much... much indeed... is being done to "help along" the process of realizing the total quagmire that we are told already is. These efforts will I hope, fail.

Afghanistan has been cast as something of a sideshow, and thus it can and has been marginalized and redpicted in the perceptions of events. I saw a piece on NRK the other day that perfectly illustrated this. Why... one would think that the UN had liberated, rebuilt and nurtured the country. Almost funny.

But Iraq is the whole enchilada Scott. And as it turns, so goes, not only the tyrannical dream of the region (Iran's "reformist" [according to the EU]... theocracy will fall soon by the way, and it will fall in a BIG way when it does)... but also the illusions surrounding what it all means, along with the ideological institutions that underpin them.

This sums up my take on what you think is the source of my "distress".

By the way... your last paragraph... again it bears re-reading. Disturbing slip of the keyboard there Scott.

Cheers,

KM

Kevin,

I read your post up there again and the article by Carol Gould again.

Time to try to cut through a lot of unnecessary crap:

You write:

Ironically Scott, you cite all these things, and they are the same things I read as well. I have been reading them for almost three years now, to the point that it can be said that outside of work, domestic obligations and that endeavor... I have no life.
The difference is that I don't stop there. There is more...

Give up your search Kevin, reclaim your life, there really isn't any more.

America has been charging around the world breaking things for a very long time, people are pissed off with that and they are expressing their anger. There is nothing more to understand -- it really is that simple.

Yes its tough that people who are in themselves innocent end up taking the heat for this but, think about the countless thousands who have had their lives destroyed one way or another so that America could live out its dream. It didn't seem fair to them either.

I was going to say something more about calling up the Holocaust, anti Semitism and blaming media bias but I'll side step that for now . . . growing up is painful but it doesn't have to any more painful than absolutely necessary. You should be able to figure that particular one out for yourself or at least be given the chance to do so.

Mark,

How then do we explain the striking progress that Afghanistan
has made? The absence of hostility towards americans?

To be honest I simply don't know enough about the invasion of Afghanistan and the aftermath to feel that I can comment on it. I will, however think about your interesting question and hopefully come back to it.

It might have something to do with their only being ca. 10% of the nr of troops in Afghanistan and the war having been conducted more remotely?

Mark,

I'm a professional photographer and although I like to steer clear of war zones on health grounds I would say you could set up those shots just about anywhere. The also don't depict anything of the emotional state of the people in the shots.

The US military have such superior fire power that they can go pretty much where they want when they want. The trouble is they are thin on the ground. As I understand the resistance (I don't like that word) people melt into the background and hit the Americans with the odd ambush, and IED's. They will have learnt to give up territory easily because they know they can take it back another day.

I do agree thought that the it is very likely that the control the insurgents (I don't like that word either) have is much less than some of the wilder claims. From what I can make out the Iraqi terrorists (is that better -- nope even worse) claim to kill loads of US troops every day and suffer no casualties themselves. Pure bullshit -- it was ever thus in war. The best one can hope for IMO is to read a lot and get a general impression -- certain consistencies seem to be there that have continuity through most of what one reads.

Scott,

As a matter of course, I don't use acronyms like LOL in postings, because it seems to be rather pathetic to actually need to type the message that you think someones words are worthy of little more than laughter. I have to admit though, that when I read this line: "Give up your search Kevin, reclaim your life, there really isn't any more."... I truly did laugh out loud. (Though it had a sad edge to it I admit.)

Would you give any thought at all to the possibility I wonder, that perhaps there 'might' even be... something more? That perhaps you confine your own gifts of consciousness and reason to an inherently small little domain of rational discourse, that even if it comes to dominate the WHOLE world... would only make the world a lesser place too.

I suppose not. If my last post above, is in fact grounded in the real world, and my 'prediction' actually (gasp!) comes to pass... then it will be the case that you will find yourself part of that vast cognitive dissonance and collective disillusionment that will be the result. It will be painful... but remember that being disabused of ones illusions though traumatic, is an inherently GOOD act morally... at least for anyone who wants to live a true, and thus meaningful existence.

Note for the record that you tend to "self validate" your own statements, by immeidtely moving on to deep analysis of their implications. Its amusing but it has little validity in itself. You have opinions about "the way it is" in Iraq for example, that at least in some, and I think in most cases... is simply wrong. And if they are worng in most cases Scott...it means they will be wrong in the big picture too. I actually have a pretty good level of connection with events on the ground, and more than a few friends among soldiers there who are busy actually... you know... fighting. There are certain tenets that I accept as rational anchorage for the rest of my positions. Little (if any I think) of my opinions are based on projection or wishful thinking.

Thus I know:

That you kid yourself.

And sooner or later the endless "quagmire" fantasy will pop. I'm not goading you... I'm just telling you. You can take it or leave it.

Finally, I have to make one last point regarding your "fact" (ala Chomsky) that America has been "running around breaking things" for a long time, and has been doing so in order to maintain its "way of life" (ala neo Marxism):

Scott... this is your inarguable foundation isn't it?

Someone does indeed need to grow up.

Best of Luck,

KM

Btw Scott,

Regarding:

"I was going to say something more about calling up the Holocaust, anti Semitism and blaming media bias but I'll side step that for now . . . growing up is painful but it doesn't have to any more painful than absolutely necessary. You should be able to figure that particular one out for yourself or at least be given the chance to do so."

Please... Do tell!

I want to hear your position, and how this is all connected. I am willing to concede that I may indeed grow from the information. Don't deprive me.

KM

Bjørn et al,

Interesting piece that throws either a little light... or a little gasoline on much of this thread. For the record, I actually think it is off in some ways. I think he actually understates both the significance Bush's approach, and the drivers in these events... but reasonable people can disagree.

In any case, for those that want to:

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/kengor200410150826.asp

Cheers and goodnight,

KM

Scott:
"Picking up on the bi-polar thing, there's a rather obvious paradox here that seems to slip under the radar time and time again. Vis, that taking a bi-polar attitude is a self fulfilling mindset, not just in theory but also in practice -- you are either bi-polar or you are not, black vs white or nuanced -- that in itself is bi-polar. How does one take a nuanced stance towards individuals who are bi-polar that isn't in itself bi-polar?"
Oops.. Think you spotted something there, and there is nothing I can say except, 'guilty as charge'. And I'll try to not let it happen again .
But, to my defence, I thought I had to comment on the 'logic' behind Sandy's arguments. Because there is no logic behind them, and thats what I wanted to show.

Kevin, I wont go into pissing contest either. (Although.. isnt that what you and Scott are doing, on a different level, as well?) Anyways, I can easily discuss with you on the logic of your arguments. For instance, to the heart of your logic:
You hate that the free will of the poeple of Iraq is ignored, yet you do the same in the case of Europeans. WE, (how I understand your reasoning) are only brainwashed, opinion less grey masse, and obviously have no right to say anything, because it is based on what is passed on to us from our leaders. Dont you think it is weird that you say that Scott uses 'mathematics' about the Iraqis while you are doing the same about the Europeans?

And Scott started very well, you dont seem to take any responsibiligy of your own actions yourself, yet that is one of the heart cases of being right-wing? Actually, I think I am more right wing than you in this matter.

Kevin,

You manage to use an awful lot of words to say very little. Including a whole paragraph instead of a smiley. No wonder you haven't got a life.

Iraq: From time immemmorial countries have been invading each other. It is pretty much an inviolable law that the invaded people don't like it and regardless of how awful their previous regime resist the invaders. The US has been proving that rule on a more less regular basis since the first settlers committed one of the largest recorded acts of genocide against the aboriginal people of North America.

So the situation in Iraq only comes as a surprise to the small minority who have bought into the End of History myth. That's people who have effectively been lobotomised in terms of their ability to understand social poltical process -- ideologues for US foreign policy.

Now, there are basically two outcomes following an invasion. Either the inevitable insurgency kicks the invaders out or the invaders crush the insurgency with military might and impose their will on the country.

The world awaits to see what will happen in Iraq but the vast majority of the onlookers are under no doubt over what is happening.

Rather like King Canute, Kevin, you have the hopeless task of commanding a reality to do your bidding (or rather your masters bidding).

I hope (one way or another) you're being paid well for sacrificing your life to the noble cause of American democracy?

Do (TRY) to have a nice day.

:-)

I thought I had to comment on the 'logic' behind Sandy's arguments. Because there is no logic behind them, and thats what I wanted to show.

I think you did that pretty effectively Allan.

The bi-polar thing is interesting though:

Insisting on a nuanced, inclusive view leaves one vulnerable to real extremism which is what we are seeing today. The nuanced / inclusive really only works in a framework where which has advanced beyond the primitivity of bi-polar and excluded it totally as an option.

Pædophillia is a good example. It used to be common place in a great many societies and not really challenged very much. (Pitcairn?) Then it became frowned upon and finally as it is today a pretty much unchallanged taboo. (Major clothes manufacturers and media can get away with something pretty close to pædophilia but we can side step that.) And quite right to -- we have evolved to a higher level by recognising the rights of children and taking a pretty much bi-polar stance towards their sexual abuse.

But we haven't done the same thing with regard to poltics. We tolerate rampant deceit from poltiicians which is breaking the fundamental social contract between the leaders and the people, that they should act truthfully and serve the peoples intersts (however that is interpreted by the people themselves). In other words we tolerate what amounts to criminal behaviour from poltical leaders -- we discuss their crimes within a nuanced / inclusive framework.

This then leaves the door open for a poltical movement that tears up the social contract and without reserve embraces the Poltics of Deceit in service to the Economics of Greed. This is what we have today. It began in America in the mid 60's with Barry Goldwater and came to power in Britain with Thatcher. With the Bush administration today we are seeing its culmination.

You can't really argue with these people. They have found the logical flaw in the critique of bi-polar and exploit it mercilessly. At a fundamentall level there is no nuanced response to pædophilia that is respectful towards children. The behaviour is proscribed - period. You can have a nuanced and respectful attitude to the pæedophiliac themselves by treating their behaviour as having orgins outside of themselves but only when they are in jail. When they are free and doing their thing civilisation (and children) demand a bi-polar attitude.

IMO the same logic applies to polticians. When the deliberately lie, deceive and serve vested interests they have broken the Social Contract they signed when they took public service. The are literaly criminals and, fine, lets get nuanced with them -- but only when they are in jail.

A court of law is the right place to discuss Iraq with Bush and Bliar.

Scott,

"From time immemmorial countries have been invading each other. It is pretty much an inviolable law that the invaded people don't like it and regardless of how awful their previous regime resist the invaders. The US has been proving that rule on a more less regular basis since the first settlers committed one of the largest recorded acts of genocide against the aboriginal people of North America."

Ah yes... from time immemorial. This is a good one. I've noticed how odd it is that transnationalist progressivism has of late, become mostly about maintenance of the status quo
even as it stakes its claims to be about human rights and democracy. It takes quite a bit of whateverness to perform that trick... but thenm thats what relativism is all about. Its interesting to note how "multicuturalism" has now been deployed in a particularly odious disconnect between image and substance in these cases. In the name of "respecting cultural differences" and resisting "cultural imperialism", it has embraced what amounts to a vulgar cultural nationalism which by the way, dismisses the idea that people in "places like Iraq" can effectively embrace freedom and democracy.

Good for you Scott! You are so very progressive. I'm wondering what that "progress" will look like mind you... to the vast majority of human beings who fall outside societies that would permit (or in the case of the West, even coddle) people to the extent that you have been, so that they could even hope to engage in that kind of intellectual indulgence and effete self righteousness... but at least in terms of the "feeling" of the word as it is depicted today... you're right there. Congratulations.

The End of History Myth is truly that Scott. A myth. And many of those neo-Conservatives you love to hang that label on thought so even when the book was pulished. It was in fact most eagerly embraced by a number of Clintonites and European globalists its important to note. But in any case, it died an ignominious death (as realpolitik and MANY other "paradigms" SHOULD have also) on September 11th 2001. I think your citing of it is both intellectually flawed and some flavor of wishful thinking. Whatever.

In any case your reference to the "Largest Genocide in History" is emotionlly satisfying I'm quite sure, but also rationally absurd. But then... its natural that the real examples of genocides, which have almost always been a function of ideological mayhem rooted in European intellectual elitism... would slip your mind. Alas...

Finally, I note again your rather cloying "need" to lay out scenarios that stick with the narrative you so despeerately want to be true. Your "dialectic" is limited to your own ideological allowances and this fundamntally flawed. It is flawed for example in accordance with the other alternative I addressed above... which you conveniently discarded.

I don't suppose it bears mentioning that the idea of "imposing our will" on the country, falls somewhere in between mind addled and merely dumb. Nor should it be necessary to point out that most of Europe in toto has been "occupied" by the US, in some cases more than once. How did that turn out Scott who lives in an ostensibly free society? Dis your historical determinism play out there as well?

Your "Rule" seems more than anything else, to be rooted in the self pleasuring fantasy weaving of neo-Marxism et al.

As I've said before.

One last point. Your need to contuinue to smarmily quote my self deprecating comment about having no life, reveals anxiety on your part. Its rather pathetic don't you agree, to consider this as a function of debate/discourse. In any case let me assure you, I do indeed have a life. It just doesn't permit much leisure... because I have come to care about certain things that I think are truly worth caring about. There's no easy way then... no formula that bestows instant moral superiority on you. You don't become a "freethinker" Scott by accepting that you "think a certain way". It is a struggle to see, and you have to be humble in the limits of your seeing. I hope you think about this, but of course I can't make you... or impose my will on you. But then, by definition... I have no desire to do so.

You have a nice day too Scott,

KM

Kevin,

You are not really adding anything new to what you have already said.

Most of what you write I interprete as thinly veiled ad-hominem. An invitation to continue the "pissing match" you started.

The rest is for the most part propagandist rhetoric cloaked in the standard fallacies; appeal to ridicule, straw man and of course the critique of moral equivalence and political stereotyping. So out of respect to Bjørn the owner of this Blog and others contributors I will refrain from replying.

If you want to present your views in a less antagonistic fallacy free way then maybe we can take this up again.

Until then . . .

Scott said,

"It is pretty much an inviolable law that the invaded people don't like it
and regardless of how awful their previous regime resist the invaders. The
US has been proving that rule on a more less regular basis since the first
settlers committed one of the largest recorded acts of genocide against the
aboriginal people of North America."

Actually it's hard to find anyone who lived in Granada at the time who's not
grateful for Ronald Reagan's invasion. We were just talking about Afghanistan
yesterday and given that the great majority seem to be rejoicing in the
change it's hard to understand your word choice: "inviolable." You seem to
be well aware that in multiple polls roughly 80% of iraqi in the months after
the american invasion said they approved of it. You not only raise no objection
but have come up with an elaborate scenario entailing prejudiced american soldiers
abusing iraqis to explain how the U.S. lost that support.

In South Korea the core of the vote for South Korean governments that have been
amongst other things, pro-U.S., has consistently been the people who lived
through the Korean War (which although technically not an invasion was not
far from it). Or in an example from another country, in 1951 China massively
invaded Korea with millions of troops -- I've never read a word to indicate
there was resistance from North Korea. Now this example is fundamentally different
from the others in that I don't think that the great majority of North Koreans
have ever been in a position to safely express their opinion (whatever it
might be), but in so far as we 'know' I guess we should count this as a point
against the "inviolable law."

In Iraq today it seems totally to elude you that the car-bombs, the beheadings,
the murders, the attacks on american soldiers are all part of an attempt to
among other things, invalidate or prevent a rapidly approaching election. If
the people doing this genuinely had the support of the Iraqi population it all
seems rather inexplicable. After all, why not simply win the vote? Instead
the actions are consistent with a violent minority that full well knows it's
a minority that otherwise has no chance of suppressing Iraq.

You reference to "one of the largest recorded acts of genocide" is interesting.
I assume it's part of your rationale for why 9/11 was deserved and why we
will deserve the coming nuclear explosions. I think that rationale warrants
closer examination. The first thing I notice is that these acts of genocide
occurred rather a long time ago. That in fact the only connection between people
living today and the people who did these acts is historic or ethnic.

In other words, you Scott, your justification of your hatred of americans
seems rooted in racism.

it's part of your rationale for why 9/11 was deserved

If you want me to take seriously anything you say you will have to desist from making these kind of near libelous remarks.

Where did I say that 9/11 was deserved?

For you to imply that I did is a gross disrespect as well as being a downright lie.

If you are willing to retract that remark perhaps we can proceed.

Otherwise what would be the point?

Um... right Scott.

Surely... that MUST be what it was.

Ad hominems and err... "Antagonistic fallacies" (I'm gonna look that one up.)

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Best of Luck

KM

What the hell I'll ignore your calculated insults and reply anyway, Mark,

So you can find 3 examples where you can make an (undocumented and disputable) case of popular support for an American invasion?

As well as being disputable, that is also highly selective:

“Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe over 100 times. Indeed the United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the United States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23 countries. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, and Yugoslavia 1999. Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state.”

http://tinyurl.com/47w25

My point was that it is pretty much an inviolable law: 3 dubious examples from the above historical record certainly does not refute my point.

After all, why not simply win the vote?

I totally agree that the violent Islamic fundamenatalist are out to prevent elections by any means possible just as the Americans are determined to make them happen on their terms by any means available to them. Pity the poor Iraqis caught in the middle of this battle between such wannabe tyrants.

It is uncontroversial that America’s greatest fear is that truly democractic elections in Iraq would result in a majority in favour of a Theocracy. Numerous “movers and shakers” in the Bush Administration are on record as saying that isn’t an option. (I believe, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle at least have said so explicitly). I would speculate that Islamic fundamentalist are very well aware of this and have no faith in the elections as a result. They know very well that they are not going to result in the departure of the US forces. They know that voting the Americans out of Iraq is not going to be an option available to them. So they are trying to achieve their aims militarily. It is quite probable if they could be convinced that an American withdrawal was on the table and that a theocracy could be established through the ballot box without military intervention by the US they would lay down their arms and go down the democratic route.

But, as I say, we all know that isn’t going to happen. “Democracy” is going to be of the American sort ie. circumscribe within a range of options that conform to American interests which isn’t really very democratic is it?

The first thing I notice is that these acts of genocide
occurred rather a long time ago. That in fact the only connection between people living today and the people who did these acts is historic or ethnic. In other words, you Scott, your justification of your hatred of americans seems rooted in racism.

Another deliberate, below the belt calculated slander.

So I am a racist because simply because I point out the fact that the American nation is founded on an act genocide. If you stated that Hitler killed 6 million jews would that also make you a racist?

Kevin,

My humble apologies here's a comma to place between antagonistic and fallacies:

*,*

you can, at no extra charge, even have a dash to put between fallacy and free if it helps

*-*

I said,

"Your reference to "one of the largest recorded acts of genocide" is interesting.
I assume it's part of your rationale for why 9/11 was deserved and why we
will deserve the coming nuclear explosions."

Scott responded,

"If you want me to take seriously anything you say you will have to desist
from making these kind of near libelous remarks.

Where did I say that 9/11 was deserved?

For you to imply that I did is a gross disrespect as well as being
a downright lie."

Scott, you cite Chomsky and in my experience it's a rare chmoskyian that doesn't
think that U.S. has "earned" 9/11. Of course it's a rare moment when
such will actually say this directly even if most of their speech implies it.
Chomsky is a modern Goebbels and the fact that you mention Chomsky approvingly
says a lot in my eyes. Goebbels target was jews, Chomsky's americans. They're
both major-league hate-mongers.

But maybe I'm wrong in associating you with all that and maybe their beliefs
aren't your beliefs. But then there are quotes like this:

"America has been charging around the world breaking things for a very long
time, people are pissed off with that and they are expressing their anger.
There is nothing more to understand -- it really is that simple."

"Yes its tough that people who are in themselves innocent end up taking the
heat for this but, think about the countless thousands who have had their
lives destroyed one way or another so that America could live out its dream.
It didn't seem fair to them either."

I read that as a rationale for 9/11 and future events similar. Or if it wasn't that
what was it?

Hitler killed six million jews.

My saying that does not make me a racist.

If I said,

"Hitler killed six million jews, therefore modern
germans deserve to be treated like shit and if
Munich is annihilated, well, they earned it."

then that would be racist.

That was the point I was making. And for a smart
man like you I'm surprised you didn't get it, Scott.

Is it because you're letting your anger dominate?

Or on the other hand did you really understand and
have to twist it into something else because you
could not bear to acknowledge it?

Mark;

Scott, you cite Chomsky and in my experience it's a rare chmoskyian that doesn't think that U.S. has "earned" 9/11.

So if someone cites Chomsky you stereotype them as a “chomskyian”. If I cited Hitler does that make me a Nazi?

Chomsky is a modern Goebbels

Absurd statement. I take it you either don’t read much Chomsky.

I read that as a rationale for 9/11 and future events similar. Or if it wasn't that what was it?

Can you distinguish between an event and its causes without automatically blaming the person that draws your attention to the connection? I think you could reasonably say the 9/11 was something that happened in response to American foreign policy -- it is difficult to imagine anyone going to that effort if they are not pissed off about something. But having made that connection it certainly doesn’t mean that the people who died on 9/11 deserved to die. You seem to think that anyone who makes the connection is automatically saying this which is frankly an incredibly reactionary, and disrespectful thing to suggest.

"Hitler killed six million jews, therefore modern
germans deserve to be treated like shit and if
Munich is annihilated, well, they earned it."

So can you find anywhere where I have suggested that ordinary Americans deserve to be treated like shit?

You won’t because I don’t in any way subscribe to that view.

For you to ascribe that view to me without any evidence is again extremely disrespectful.

As is this equally unpleasant remark:

Or on the other hand did you really understand and
have to twist it into something else because you
could not bear to acknowledge it?

In fact if you spend a little time looking into fascist ideology and methods of intimidation you might be shocked just how close you come to them with this kind of stuff.

Wow. This is so predictable. I start hitting criticism
home and you respond with insults. All the moderation and
reason that was making this an interesting conversation
yesterday disappears and you respond with insult after
insult. I don't know you, the anonymous Scott from Norway,
and I've probably never spoken with you before, but
it seems like I've seen this behavior so many times.

Let's start off with this:

"In fact if you spend a little time looking into fascist
ideology and methods of intimidation you might be shocked
just how close you come to them with this kind of stuff."

I ask you to prove it. Show me what you're talking
about. I'll make a prediction: I'll get no substantive
response.

I'll move on to this:

"I think you could reasonably say the 9/11 was
something that happened in response to American
foreign policy -- it is difficult to imagine
anyone going to that effort if they are not pissed
off about something."

Good lord! Doesn't that amount to an acknowledgement
of what I said that started this whole tiff off?

I'll remind you this is what I said:

"Your reference to "one of the largest recorded acts
of genocide" is interesting. I assume it's part of
your rationale for why 9/11 was deserved and why we
will deserve the coming nuclear explosions."

Now note carefully: I did not say that you wanted
9/11 to occur or that you have participated in the
act; I said that you had a "rationale for why 9/11
was deserved."

You claimed that this was a libelous assertion on
my part, the bit about "rationale" and here you are
just a few posts later, apparently totally
unselfconscious, laying out a rationale for why 9/11
was deserved!

If there's a difference between what I'm saying and
what you think I'm saying it's eluding me.

And then the next item. Quote:

"So can you find anywhere where I have suggested that
ordinary Americans deserve to be treated like shit?"

And that statement was in response to my analogy,

Quote:

If I said:

"Hitler killed six million jews, therefore modern
germans deserve to be treated like shit and if
Munich is annihilated, well, they earned it."

then that would be racist.

end-quote.

But why did I make that analogy? Why did I make
that explanation of what is and is not racism?

Because you had ridiculed the idea that there's
something wrong, something racist, about condemning
modern day americans based on acts of people long
since dead.

Is it really that hard to understand? I don't
know -- maybe I'm a terrible communicator -- but
I do keep trying.

Yet another observation, Scott. I try to respond
to every question, every point you raise with a
good-faith effort to understand what you are saying.
Certainly I make mistakes but I am not trying to
misrepresent your views.

On the other hand you seem to skip many of my questions,
and concerning whether you are trying to accurately
represent my views in your restatements, well, perhaps
the kindest interpretation is that I must be a very poor
communicator.

On the likeness between Chomsky and Goebbels, that's
a worthwhile topic -- I may try to do it later. If
I did it here it'd certainly overwhelm this post.

Finally on the question of whether you suggested that
ordinary americans deserved to be treated like shit,
remember I was making an analogy to demonstrate racism
and not asserting that you'd said that. On the other
hand, just from the context, it does kind of hint that
I think you have that attitude.

And in fact, you did say,

"America has been charging around the world breaking
things for a very long time, people are pissed off with
that and they are expressing their anger. There is nothing
more to understand -- it really is that simple."

"Yes its tough that people who are in themselves innocent
end up taking the heat for this but, think about the
countless thousands who have had their lives destroyed
one way or another so that America could live out its
dream. It didn't seem fair to them either."

Even more revealing was your earlier exchange with
Kevin McDonnell about the article by Carol Gould.
See http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15464

Now I thought the behavior described by Gould was
horrible and indefensible, but you responded with
a defense.

You said that headless children and tortured prisoners
were worse than what the article described and of
course they are.

The problem is what do headless children and tortured
prisoners have to do with the article? Heck on that
reasoning what abuse can not be justified?

Again the problem is that if you can excuse the extraordinary
abuse described in the article on that grounds, then
it's hard to accept indignation about "ordinary Americans
deserve to be treated like shit."

Now in fairness I must quote what you also said to
Kevin:

"That said it is not good that anti-Americanism has became
so prejudiced and it is a real problem that has to be
addressed."

The problem is that this statement is so completely
undermined by your defense of the behavior the paragraph
before.

Wow. This is so predictable. I start hitting criticism
home and you respond with insults

followed by:

I'll make a prediction: I'll get no substantive
response.

Quite right you won't be getting further response for me, having got that far I stopped reading your post.

All I have to say is this:

You accuse me first of being a racist, then a fascist and when I respond by pointing out that I recent being so accused you then say that I am insulting you.

Our conversation is over Mark . . . .

correction: recent = resent

Scott,

It has been clear for quite a while in our discussion, that for you--- it would make total sense to defend Chomsky from any and all criticism. Mark's criticism of Chomsky's acolytes is a valid one, and I have quite a bit of experience(more than I would care to in retrospect) interacting with "Chomskyites" of various flavors (though in any flavor they maddeningly conform to Chomsky's odious and laser focused "vision"... of what 'freethinking' is... which is the point of course).

It is also provable in any open discourse, and I have particiapted in more than a few, that Chomsky's tenets have no rational standing and are instead artful amalgamation of emotive imagery and deliberately mind-numbing and cryptic theories that are cyphers for little more that their own pre-determined ends. Infintely malleable and thus utterly impervious to reason and ultimately, meaningless. This has metaphysical implications when it is raised to the level of "philosophy" or even merely ideology, which I will get to in a moment. The "science" he and his ilk deploy is in truth, the perversion and nullification of science, and is instead the elevation to high "science", the art of institurionalized Sophistry with its obvious end, the power to indoctrinate. Chomsky and others like him have detached themselves from even the idea that there is a meaningful way to anchor their positions in anything other than a desired end. Consequently, even callling it ideological is innapropriate since there is no ideal at all... the goals shift like the wind, based ONLY on the will of those who are most ruthless and artful. This is so because it is innate to such concepts that in conformity, the most ruthless and artful excel in it. The finest practitioners of this uniquely 20th century postmodern Sophistry, are those who, in the vein of Nietzcheian ubermen, have disdained any moral bindings at all.

It is a shame that the obvious, isn't obvious to those ensnared in this odious intellectual tripe. That there is neither truth nor beauty in that world... except as it is defined by those who necessarily define everything. It is also a shame that those ensnared in its intellectual coils fail t realize how the entire thrust of this "philosophy", is an existential invitation... to the abyss.

Nihilism to its penultimate end... is the harvest of this mayhem. Its promise is one of image over substance, and offers no more Truth, than the 1789 promise of Liberty and Equality offerred what became the Reign of Terror and the Guillotine. No more indeed than all that followed, wheich were rooted in the same elitist arrogance, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot. All rooted in the same place that Chomsky toys with his semantics in the interest of weaving. All completely detached from accountability to the truth, or even facts.. so that even when called irrevocably on realities in the world... he merely shifts as though his attemots to influence through artful projection never were. And his acolytes never call his lies a lie... even when they scream in their faces.

You must understand Scott, that when I say that this is provable, I mean it is actually so. It is the rare venue indeed when you will ever see these tenets brought into open discourse. You will NEVER see Chomsky's positions and faux political philosophy defended by its practitioners in a major media venue.. except in a contrived one where its discussion is framed by its own practitioners. This is a fact in plain sight my friend... and there is a reason for it:

Because it doesn't simply end up undermined, it ends up unmasked. To the point that acolytes who are present experience the kind of profound dislocation that I described above as being what is on the horizon en masse, for much of Europe when certain truths become no longer deniable. I have seen this personally... I know it very well.

What you will see instead, is "Chomskyism" et al, deployed beneath the rhetoric of other issues. It and many other Sophistyr based "schools of thought" have become integrated into a broad swath of academic fields, and is their nature, have come to dominate them to the exclusion of all else. Do not imagine that this occurred in any free marketplace of ideas. Fields, including the Political Sciences, "Peace" Studies, Sociologies and of course, Journalism... are virtually dominated by an extended Web of Sophistry to which Chomsky is admittedly, one of the "Greats" (are you proud?).

It IS undeniably effective at weaving that unique contemporary flavor of "nuance" that frame the discourse in Europe for example. The Sophists would have been proud had they lived... though I suspect at the moment they are probably buring in a hell that I hope exists just for their type... and for those like them all throughout history. For there is no other "philosophy" in all its historical flavors that has done more to enable the evils that men do, then all these flavors of ideological Sophistry that have sprung from the mind of mans ruthlessness. From "time immemorial", right to Chomsky and beyond.

And that group by the way does indeed incude Herr Goebbels

... and I do know Chomsky very well Scott.

So, was this all a "thinly veiled ad hominem" then Scott? Have I stated non sequiturs by questioning whether you have internalized a doctrine of questionable ends and means? If that is your interpretaion, than I am done I think... and you are welcome (and have the right as a free man!) to fall back on the collective self immolation and narcissitic self loathing that defines so much of the "Peace" movement... as well as their artful and selective media venues now Scott. I'm pretty frikkin tired now anyway.

Cheers,

KM

Kevin,

I got as far as your first sentence:

It has been clear for quite a while in our discussion, that for you--- it would make total sense to defend Chomsky from any and all criticism.

and stopped reading further.

I don't defend Chomsky from any and all criticsim.

I don't defend anyone from any and all criticism.

Hell, I won't even defend myself from any and all criticism.

The rest of whatever you wrote was wasted time, at least as far as my reading it was concerned.

As I said previously cut out the ad-hominem (veiled and otherwise), stock in trade fallacies and poltical stereotyping and we can discuss *whatever*.

Otherwise;

I'm out . . . .

sorry.

Allow me to rephrase Scott, as an appeal to your faculty of reason within this discourse:

---It has been clear for quite a while in our discussion, that for you--- it would seem reasonable to defend Chomsky as someone who is connected to progress and the advance of human rights in the world.---

I truly hope that this is perceived as less antagonistic to your sensibilities Scott... which I must say seem to have grown rather delicate at the place this discussion has arrived at.

I earnestly implore you to consider that growing sensitivity. It is significant in what you are actually trying to defend... and I hope that you will read the post I wrote that follows the original version of this revised first paragraph. It represents just about the best I can do and all I have to offer, in conveying to you something that I believe is very important. It was not easy to write, because I find it truly wrenching to revisit that domain in a way that can be described as such. Regardless, I don't think what I have written there is actually beneath your contempt and frankly, I am pretty sure you don't think so either.

There are no ad hominems. It is an attempt to call into question something you have come to defend. That is what free discourse should do. The only "risks" in a real discourse is that one learns new things, or is disillusioned. Its the latter even which is actually the greatest thing that open discourse offers... though its often painful "in the moment".

In any case, surely you must be able to see the way your own defensiveness has now become untenable and ungrounded. There is always opportunity when you come to that point.... usually to free yourself from something very heavy.

Thats all.

I wish you well,

KM

Kevin:
Might I ask you, do you think many of the people you discuss with on this forum get irritated because you are on to something, or do you think it is because you attack them personally? Honestly, I felt you attacked me as a person when we had the 'nuance' discussion a while back, and that more or less ruins the discussion, dont you think? I admire your drive in regards to your 'cause', however, try to be less aggressive and you will see that the discussions will be more civilised.

Now, I dont think that the Iraq situation is as simple as "you attack my homeland so I attack you back", for the simple reason that I guess most people in Iraq hated Saddam before the invasion. Besides, it is quite well known that people from the neighbouring countries also interfer in the situation, so it cant be all about the invading forces. On the other hand, isnt the american bases in Saudi Arabia the reason why Al-quaeda got started?

Do I think it was right to invade Iraq on the grounds Bush did? Nope, and even if it proves out to be that Kevin's prophesies (only those in regards to Iraq, mind you) turns out to be true, does that still justify the war in Iraq? Nope.. Because we are not given the right in the west to remove and displace leaders whenever we think they should go.
Honestly.. I would be more than happy if Iraq gets a democracy that works, but I dont think the chances are as good as Kevin says.
For instance, it is recorded for the first time ever that US troops has refused to carry out orders because they considered it to be suicide and has been imprisoned.
http://bringthemhomenow.org/what/campaign_news.html#newsflash041015

Reply to Mark;

Mark,

Is it really that hard to understand? I don’t
know -- maybe I’m a terrible communicator -- but
I do keep trying.

And I respect you for that:

I would like to try to get to the root of our disagreement.

When I draw your attention to the genocide of the aboriginal people of North America and suggest that 9/11 may be a consequence of American foreign policy you automatically assume that I am expressing an emotional reaction; that I am holding Americans personally and collectively responsible for both of these acts. That is not true I am simply trying to get you to look at those connections and consider them for yourself. My opinion is that you cannot hold Americans individually and collectively responsible for either of these acts. That is indeed racist and fascist and I would totally agree with you that there are elements within the left in particular that do precisely this. It is also a worrying trend (anti-Americanism) in modern European society and beyond. I quit supporting the organised left in politics over 30 years ago for this reason.

I would venture to suggest that you are in danger of falling into the same trap and that what you are doing is transferring the guilt you feel when reminded of these connections into negative emotions which you direct at the person who drew these events to your attention; me. You accuse me of being a racist and a fascist -- in colloquial terms what you are dong is “shooting the messenger”.

This is of course something we all do all the time so there is no blame to attach to it. IMO it comes when we confuse experiences in two different aspects of our consciousness; the emotional and the intellectual. We are not indifferent to the facts -- and neither should we be -- but we should not let either aspect dominate the other. The trick is to hold them in balance and also of course to include other aspects of our consciousness as well. But that is another matter.

PS. I happen to believe this is issue is more than important. It is absolutely crucial. At the moment we stand at a point in history where the world seems to be polarising dramatically around essentially the issues we have been discussing. What I see is a situation in which both sides are retreating into absolutism driven by hatred driven in turn by guilt and fear. That goes for those who attack America as much as it does for those who defend her. IMO if we cannot “grow up” (or if you prefer evolve) then this issue is going to provide a gruesome final solution to the problem of human over population.

Mark and Scott:
Regarding why Afghanistan differs from Iraq, read this:
http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=37160

Kevin,

re. The article "An American in London" you posted a link to above.

I asked around and a friend in London told me this:

My wife is a Jewish Americna and denies absolutely that she has ever experienced one, single incident of the kind which makes Ms Gould's life so miserable.

I would like to have some further authentication of this article before I took it in anyway seriously.

Kevin,

another refutation of the Gould article by a Jewish friend of mine living in London:

Carol Gould must be a particularly obnoxious person. I have never come across anything like this in my life. If she has been assauted on buses and in bookstores she must have a serious attitude problem. I've been on busses and in stores with some seriously unpleasant people and I've never seen or heard of these things happen. And I work with loads of Americans in London and am myself Jewish. .

And of course frontpagemag. is a well known neo con , pro israel website. In other words , BIASED.

Scott,

Take any country or any ethnic group in the world and if they were
able to read and write (which cuts out most people in the world)
I can construct a catalog of crimes or horrors that that the ancestors
of these people participated in. Suppose then I took this list and
spent my life telling others about it. What would I accomplish?
Remember I'm only attacking one country or one ethnic group, not the
whole of humanity. Well people would take it different ways, some
would be able to ignore it, but for most this would lower their opinion
of those being attacked. Some would in fact begin to hate my target.
Even more interesting some would find a purpose in the subject and
themselves take upon the task of teaching others how horrible (I'll
just give them an arbitrary name) the betas are. If conditions are
right the whole process will snowball and pretty soon we have very
large numbers of people hating in unison the betas. I say very large
because I think it turns out that the majority have a predisposition
to this sort of thing and once things get above a certain level you
have this kind of instinct to conformity kicking in.

This is more or less what's happened to the United States. It's been
going on for decades. I've met people on the internet who have this
'mission' and have clearly been dedicating themselves to it for many
years. I think this process is well along and was already very advanced
before 9/11. In some parts of the world it's hard to avoid this
message and in most universities they teach it.

In fact I really think it's this message that created 9/11 and not
events unique to the middle east. But what in general to do about it
I have no idea.

I hope it's obvious that the whole process is very destructive and
that no nation or people could defend themselves from it. About the
only defense is total ignorance as in if one is descended from people
who have no remembered past.

I've tried putting the shoe on the other foot and telling 'message'-bearers
of some of the atrocities committed by their own ancestors. Unfortunately
this tends to be counter-productive, as the reaction of a person told
all their lives how wonderful their ancestors were to information to the
contrary is often virulent hatred, and the more persuasive the case,
sometimes it seems the more virulent the reaction. Also I really can't
emulate, being just one person, the massed attack that americans are
experiencing.

I not advocating forgetting the past. Much of human history is in danger
of being forgotten but this is definitely not the case with wrong acts
committed by americans.

When so many people are emotionally invested in hating a group it's
inevitable they come to believe many false things -- after all they
are eager to find facts to justify their hatred and their skeptical
facilities have been near suspended.

I don't think what is happening today is unique and instead has been
a constant thread throughout human history.

I believe in holding people accountable for their individual acts and
in some case collectively accountable for collective acts in the present,
but I think it is always wrong to blame people for acts of their ancestors.
Partly I think it's wrong because I find it logically inconsistent,
blaming another group almost requires a selective blindness or ignorance
on the past of those doing the blaming; partly I think it wrong because
logically such a path will inevitably put collectives in conflict with
each other and produce more tragedy; and partly I think it's wrong because
I think a strong case can be made that it is precisely this attitude
which did indeed produce many of the horrors of human history.

Scott, I'm puzzled by your claim that I called you a fascist. I don't
see where I did that. What I did do was call Noam Chomsky a major-league
hate monger and compared him to Joseph Goebbels. And I expressed irritation
that you had cited Chomsky approvingly.

I stand by my assertion that attempting to hold people accountable for the
acts of their ancestors is racism. It was the act I described as racist
and not you. Maybe a more productive line of argument would be why you
don't believe blaming people for the acts of their ancestors is racist,
if indeed you believe that.

Now I go back to what you wrote and see you have discussed precisely this.
And that we agree on what racism is.

In that case what's the point of bringing up the american indians in this
context? I do not understand this statement:

"That is not true I am simply trying to get you to look at those connections
and consider them for yourself."

What message other than blaming americans for the acts of their ancestors,
do you expect me to see? It may be that your intent here was to say that
what is happening today is part of the same pattern established back then.
If so I think the message mostly is 'blaming for acts of ancestors,' but
beyond then there must be some message that this past carries that explains
the present. I'm missing that message and connection to Iraq beyond the
human condition. The same message that could be drawn from almost any conflict
in the human past whether involving americans or not.

I appreciate your words on the danger of letting one's reactions be dominated
by emotion and agree we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all
if we weren't partly emotionally driven.

Mark,

I don't think I have much to add to my previous posts on this subject.

Anti-americanism does not occur in a vacuum. Neither is it the product of a biased media or dastardly conspiracy originating within Europe. If you look at Rosenthals article "The myth of lost sympathy" you can see very clearly how crazy this position is. Essentially the author traces the origins of anti-Americanism to a very small minority of intelligentsia in France and Germany. He ignores more or less completely the popular and global origins of a the antipathy towards America. You are talking about millions and milliions of people all over the world covering hugely diverse cultures, religions and ethnic groups -- they all "hate" America. If these guys in Le Monde have really achieved this then they are propagandists of truly awesome proportions.

But lets face it the whole notion of an anti-American agenda driven by an elite in Europe is one of the most absurd conspiracy theories to have sprung up in a long time and I rank it right up there with the loony leftists that claim Bush organised 9/11 in a conspiracy with the Saudia Arabians. Paranoid delusion endof.

As I have said earlier the explanation is much more down to earth and much more prosaic. The US has being going around the world breaking things for the whole of the lives of every singly person living on the planet. A large number of these people are aware of what is happening -- all too many have had their lives turned over or know someone who has. They don't like that and they are angry about it. This is where anti-Americanism comes from and the way to address it is for America to look in the mirror check outs its past and learn a bit of respect and humility for other people.

And there may not be so much time for that to happen. We can already see ominous signs that some very nasty people are cashing in on anti-Americanism. They flew a couple of planes into some tall buildings in Manhatten a couple of years back and no doubt would like to something even nastier given the chance.

Since these are people who are hardly likely to hold back on an opportunity to kill in pursuit of their objectives it is reasonable to suppose that they do not have the capability to do anything really nasty right now. But the US are working on the case. They seem to be doing absolutely everything within their power to piss off so many people that they can guarantee a steady flow of recruits to the mad bastards that drive international terrorism.

At some point or another humanity is either going to come to its senses and call a collective stop to this madness or the situation is going to melt down into (probably) nuclear war and a consequent massive reduction in the human population.

Coming to our senses over starts by understanding the difference between accountability and blame.

Go figure.

I response to comments regarding American Indians, I would like to say that I have worked in the American southwest for the better part of 20 years. The greatest killer of American Indians was introduced diseases, not warfare.

The greatest perpetrators of genocide were the Spanish Conquistadores.

What makes these conversations so difficult, and what ultimately causes them to degenerate is a rather glaring lack of accurate or cherry picked information, particulary amoung Europeans.

I see a complete lack of introspection, and an enourmous amount of projectionism on the part of anti-Americans. The conversation is always turned to America's perceived failings. Yet, there is absolutely no analysis of European actions.

The US is at heart, an isolationist nation. Remember, many came here to get away from you. The fact that the religious dissidents, the impoverished, the hated minorites have been quite fine without you is a repudiation of Europe.

For over 200 years the elites of Europe have been waging war on the US. Today, it takes the form of 24/7/365 anti-American propaganda. Which appears to be swallowed, lock-stock-and-barrel by the majority of the willing populace.

The hallmark of Europe is the constant interference in other people's affairs. Global empire building, colonialism, the slave trade, and ethnic genocides are the mark of Europe.

I am tired of it. I am tired of being dragged into other people's wars. I am tired of Europe starting global conflagrations whenever their internal diplomacy breaks down. I am sick and tired of sixty years of doing post-colonial cleanup. I am tired of the constant tirade of misinformation and propaganda, honed to an art form by Europe's elites.

I am sick and tired of the continuous use of scapegoats whenever Europe's economy starts to drag, or the elites need a diversion. I am sick and tired of the anti-semitism. Leave the Jews alone. I have had it with that. The Jews are form Judea, the arabs - whoever they are - are from Arabia. Or Europe. Your problems are your own. Deal with it. You would think the anyone with a half a brain would realize that when the Euroelites dust off anti-semitism, they're hiding something that THEY are doing.

I am tired of the constant, carefully manupulated crap that is passed of "intellectualism". I am sick and tired of the constant stream of vitriol directed at the US, when the history of Europe is so much worse, so foul, that it has to be constantly rewritten by it's perpetrators.

I am seriously tired of the complete inability on the part of many in Europe to actually engage in any kind of introspection or self analysis. It gets old. If the Euroelites are now trying to create an American scapegoat (which they are), you would think that the populations of Europe would see the red herring. Good grief, EVERY time the old Euro elites pull this kind of crap they are up to something.

If the US has decided to declare portions of Europe as de facto enemies this needs to be taken very seriously. Your governments must have done - or are in the process of doing - something very terrible.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

/end of rant/

(sorry to take up all this bandwith, Bjorn. Thank you.)

As an addendum to my comment above, I would like to ask this question.

Why would the Norwegian media distort the Duelfer Report? What vested interest does the Norwegian government have - or media - what agenda that would make this advantageous to them?

Sylvia, Denver . . .

I have to agree with you in your rant above. Something is very rotten in Europe these days. There is serious corruption at the highest levels--the kind that leads to big troubles ahead.

Sylvia, Totoro,

I perceive a darn site more of a judgmental emotional reaction in the anti-Europeanism that is the knee jerk response to criticism of American foreign policy.

Sylvia in Denver, like Mark have completely avoided the point I have made over and over again that to BLAME Americans collectively for their present foreign policy and for their history is indefensible. However to ask the them to look critically at it and accept it is not.

Most of the people I know who are critical of America take this position. They do not discriminate against Americans personally and do not hold them personally responsible. On the basis of the evidence available to me anti-Americanism as a bigoted hate movement is largely a myth. The bigoted hate filled reaction to that myth by some Americans seems to me to at least as prevalent, in fact I encounter many times more hate driven Americans than I ever do hate driven anti-Americans.

One of the reasons for this is that any thinking person knows that, for example, the genocide perpetrated against the aboriginal American people was done so largely by Europeans. America was a European project and to a certain extent still is. The Holaucaust is also still fresh in the memory and puts a kind of block on trying to defend it or minimise its horror by suggesting that, for example, a large number of the Jews that died did so of natural causes. The intent of the Nazis was unambiguous and flowed from a perception of jews as "undermenschen" which equates to the American settlers view of the North American Indians as "savages".

Where the nazi experience differs from the American one is that the racial stereotyping of Jews was achieved through propaganda and a fascist politic. The Settlers perception was one that existed throughout Europe at the time and had grown out of history. It was more or less shared throughout Europe at the time. If both Europeans and Americans were more aware of this then they would be less inclined to blalme each other for these events while at the same time accepting historical responsibility for them. This would then translate into a respectful attitude to other cultures which, especially in the application of American foreign policy, is largely absent today.

If we really want to find a more precise parallel to the Nazi experience then it is to be seen more in the reaction to the largely mythical anti-Americanism in Europe as demonstrated by some posters on this thread. That is poltical and (almost) racial stereotyping driven to a large extent by American propaganda (cheese eating surrender monkeys, french fries, plus many of Bush's anti European allusions etc etc.)

Having said that I do believe there is a real danger of the same phenomenon catching on in Europe -- of the myth of ant-Americanism blossoming into a full blown fascist style movement. All the ingredients for that to happen are in place.

The question is what are we going to do about that? Are we going to fuel the fires by retreating into hate or are we going to grow up, face the unpleasant truths (on both sides of the Atlantic) and challenge it both within ourselves and politically? That is really up to each of us as individuals but a lot depends on it -- possibly even the survival of our species.

Scott: There are specific examples of US soldiers having said precisely that -- that they came to kill Arabs.

I'm sure there are. But I do not think this is widespread, that it influences US strategy, or that it has caused a significant proportion of the civilian suffering. It's just too much at odds with the American self-image of liberators. Your logic falls on its own face. You say that American soldiers are brutal because they believed the official line that Saddam might be connected with 9/11, but according to that same official line the people of Iraq were victims of Saddam, not co-conspirators.

If there is excessive brutality, it is more logical to assume that it is correlated with the amount of resistance American have encountered in an area. The American went into Iraq to liberate it from Saddam. They ended, in some areas, fighting regular Iraqis. If there is a belief that all Iraqis are potential threats, you should trace it back to the fact that in some areas any Iraqi is a threat.

Brutalising of population leads to susceptibility to suggestion from violent Islamic fundamentalists.

Also I don't see why you see brutality as a major cause of the insurgency. Are you saying that if Americans had been more friendly, Fallujah and other cities would today be safe, and al-Sadr would never have challenged their authority? Does everything revolve around the US, or could the sudden fall of a totalitarian regime and the creation of a political vacuum also be a factor? Which do you think regular Iraqis notice more of, the presence of 100 000 Americans, or the absence of the Baath tyranny? Saddam pictures, informers, censorship, random arrests, all gone. The old ways, dead over night, and plenty of new opportunities for the power hungry and power bereft. That is a major factor here. Even at their worst, Americans do not compare to the Baath party, and it is the absence of that old brutality not the presence of new that is tearing Iraq apart.

Bjørn,

I'm sure there are. But I do not think this is widespread,

That is your opinion which is why I pointed you (and anyone else interested) in the direction of a number of sites that have eye witness reports rather than citing individual reports myself that can be dismisssed as you have done my simply stating that they are exist but are not widespread.

We both know that the situation is in Iraq is volatile chaotic and confused which makes it extremely difficult to form opinion on the basis of incontrovertible facts. People lie, in the heat of battle two people can experience the same situation very differently. So we the best we can hope to do is form impressions from a wide variety of sources coming to the problem with as open a mind as possible.

Since this whole thing started I have tried to do that but have been repeatedly brought up short by individual accounts of US military brutality. I have also noted a good number of accounts that have registered precisely this brutality.

On top of this you have a pretty convincing chain of events and circumstances leading to this state of affairs -- the one I have already outlined. And its not as though this is a whacky off the wall thesis -- it is one held by a great many people including an awful large number of those who have actually experienced Iraq first hand.

An example is Moqtada Sadr and Falluja. As I recall the story runs like this:

Moqtada Sadr starts off as a rather isolated figure, an extremist with a limited following. A wanted murderere he has a newsheet with a circualation measured around 10,000 - 15,000 copies in which he is calls (among other things) for violent insurrection against the Americans. Bremer doesn't like this and choses to make an example of him and singles him out for special attention -- his popularity explodes massively as a result. Around the same time in Fallluja an angry mob murder and lynch 4 American Mercenaries who just happened to be among Bremer's personal bodyguard. Bremer goes ballistic and the first attack on Falluja is the result. The climate during that assualt was not good amongst the American troops as is evidenced by numerous instances of targetting unarmed civiilans, wounded fighters and so on.

Following Falluja Sadr's popularity sky rocketed again resultilng in the Mujaaf stand off which was only headed off a hairs breadth from utter catastrophe by Sistani's intervention.

Here you have a classic example of the US military from the top down behaving in a way that is at best undiplomatically at worst with gross brutality.

And of course Sadr and Falluja and Mujaaf are far from isolated. As I say in my opinion these incidents are incdicative of a climate of revenge running through the US military. Crudely put -- the Middle East is really not much more than the Wild West revisited.

On your "Support group for Iraqi resistance formed in Norway" thread I put up a couple of links to recent reports from Iraq that I think give an OK snapshots of what is happening over there. Better at least than the rather naive more or less fact free versions I see elsewhere on your Blog. Or am I missing something here? -- it is kind of difficult to get to the nitty gritty in a lot posts when they are more or less continuous pro American -- anti European rants thinly interspersed with the odd factette and cryptic allusion.

And just to clear something up:

Does everything revolve around the US, or could the sudden fall of a totalitarian regime and the creation of a political vacuum also be a factor?

Of course it doesn't, as you wlll see from my previous posts i am not positing this within a bi-polar framework. If that wasn't clear then I apologise.

What I am saying is that American insenstivity and the propensity of a proportion of theme to see the conflict in terms of revenge has greatly aggravated the situation.

I think the evidence supports that claim.

Which do you think regular Iraqis notice more of, the presence of 100 000 Americans, or the absence of the Baath tyranny? Saddam pictures, informers, censorship, random arrests, all gone.

I refer you to the eye witness reports I posted on your other thread -- maybe we could take this issue up there?

Bjørn,

Here's a couple of reports pointing to US military attitudes fyi:

Virulent Racism, Disregard for Civilian Life Mar US Military Approach: British Commander

http://tinyurl.com/5vswz

and

A BRITISH Army Colonel has branded US Marines in Iraq as "idiots" and "stupid".

http://tinyurl.com/fski

"There are, they believe, only two essences in the world, the essence of good and the essence of evil, right or wrong, us or them, black or white, and something that appears to have both is a paradox, it shouldn't, can't exist. "

Sounds a lot like the Bush administration! Who new they had so much in common with the Norwegian press.

" used or accepted the words "imminent threat" about Iraq, but George W. Bush was not one of them, and in fact said the opposite,"

So nuanced! Imminent threat, gathering threat... if only I had paid closer attention...

The fact is that the Bush administration campaigned to convince the American people that Iraq was an imminent threat and that action had to be taken immediately. It was scary, and it worked. I live in New York, and I should tell you, when the national security advisor warned of a "mushroom cloud over New York" , it was very disturbing.

So the report comes out which says that far from being an imminent or gathering threat (incredibly, Cheney and Rice still say "gathering"), Saddam just intended on resuming his weapons program.

Bjorn, I appreciate the work you do on your site describing the failure of European press and society to grasp the terror threat, but I think that if your government had treated you the way my government has treated me -- used fear tactics, misled you, lied to you, essentially -- all in service of a disasterous, ruinous war -- you would not be bending over backwards to make excuses for them.

An interesting insight into the mind of George W Bush in the form of an interview with John Dean, former council to Richard Nixon. About half way through the interview he refers to work he did taking apart one of Bush's speeches in the run up to the invasion which is rather revealing.

Conversation with a conservative: John Dean

Bjørn,

further evidence of the overly aggressive approach taken by the US in Iraq:

Top Cover for the Humvee stands with his head and shoulders out of the roof, and is mostly a traffic cop as Humvee Man forces his way through the Baghdad traffic, sounding his horn and shouting at other drivers at roundabouts and intersections. "Hey! Get out of the Way! You! Stop!"

Iraqi drivers stop, and swerve, and pull over to the side, and the Humvee rushes on.

This is all justified, they say, because of the acute danger of VBIEDs - Vehicle-Born Improvised Explosive Devices. That is, car bombs.

But I believe this is a vicious circle of their own making, that much of the hatred of the Americans that is now violently expressed was provoked by their ignorant disrespect of decent people.

http://tinyurl.com/65m98

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1455