Feels like a slow day on the blogosphere…all the big news items sort of up in the air…I did manage to get myself banned from my first blog today though…
well, not really banned as much as politely asked to never return…
It was sort of anti-climatic, actually….not that I was trying to get banned, just that I was hoping for a bit more engagement…
Well continue here then. Your statement was: “If a traitor is someone who is helping the enemy…would the fact that Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is helping al Qaida flourish make Bush a “traitor”?
Calling that a fact is a bit surprising, though the fact that you have to source it to Kadhafi is not.
I think it confuses visibility with flourish. Al Qaeda was flourishing in the 1990s but we didn’t know much about it. Their people are getting killed by the dozen, often without doing any damage whatsoever to us, but are much more visible. I’m not sure if we can tell one way or another if they are doing well overall. It would be like saying that we were losing the war against the Japanese based on the early Philippine battles.
It is a typical confusion on the left. Take for instance North Korea. We find that contra to their agreement which secured vast amounts of oil at our expense, they were still building nukes. As a result Bush ceases the shipments of oil. Left response–Bush is CAUSING a crisis. No, he is publically REVEALING a crisis caused by North Korea.
Her restatement of your comment was “Punishing criminals for their crimes, or tracking them down, makes more criminals. So if we really want to do something about crime we should stop punishing criminals or trying to find them. Anyone who goes after criminals should be punished for making it worse.”
She is keying off your idea that going into the Middle East in response to terrorism and killing terrorists by the dozen has caused Al Qaeda to ‘flourish’.
Doesn’t seem like a huge stretch from your comment. Perhaps you didn’t MEAN that, but that is the impression that you gave.
I wouldn’t have asked you to leave for your condescending authoritative tone. But as she said, it is her site.
I once mistook a Livejournalist’s posting and opening of comments as an opportunity to comment on his/her opinion. My offering a differing opinion was “boring” and I left.
I’m surprised you ended up at Kim’s Mrs.’s site. Did you follow the link from Kim’s site or somewhere else?
Edward, I don’t do that kind of thing. I usually try to judge the tone or leanings of a board, and determine whether I comment, or how I comment based on that. I lurk at Small Victory, but don’t comment because much of my anti-Bush rhetoric would not be welcome. A waste of everyone’s time.
I have not yet been banned anywhere, but I get ignored at some places. I comment there anyway, until I am told why I am ignored (“you pretentious, pedantic auto-didact, we don’t want your self-congratulatory babblings”) or until I get banned.
Mmmm… Some people literally cannot bear a contrary expression of opinion – though such people are better served in livejournal. (Yes, I have a livejournal: I picked it over a blog because a livejournal looked much easier to run. Now I’m kind of wishing I’d gone for a blog, and maybe oneofthesedays I will…)
It’s her blog: it’s her rules: if she only wants people to comment who agree with her opinions, that’s her problem. 😉
As you can see in Sebastian’s response, pro-war Bush supporters are pretty much locked in to the concept that invading Iraq was the same thing as attacking al-Qaida – because if they were to acknowledge that invading Iraq was a major diversion from attacking al-Qaida, they would have to admit that Bush made a really, fundamentally stupid mistake. Not merely that he lied about WMD to get the US into war, nor that invading Iraq hasn’t accomplished everything that was hoped for: but that invading Iraq was so much the wrong thing to do that it’s going to go down in the annals of history as Worst Mistake a US President Ever Made.
No bannings, yet. I’ll keep you posted.
Crionna, I followed from the Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller site.
Sebastian, I think your analysis is astute (as usual…although your charge of “condescending authoritative tone” calls to mind a line about glass houses), but there’s an unanswered question lurking there: Is one a traitor for criticizing a flawed plan?
I’d argue no more so than one is a traitor for implementing a flawed plan and (despite abundant evidence of its flaws) refusing to correct it for what look like political concerns. (Which was the point I’d hope to get Mrs. du Toit to see…i.e., that there’s a debate here, and no one on either side of it should be assumed to be a “traitor.”)
She (and you) also ignore the central charge at the end of my second comment there: we know who’s resonsible for 9/11 ultimately…he’s not in Iraq…so any nonsense about going into the Middle East to kill the terrorists (when the only reason we’re able to kill them in Iraq is because we let them in…I’d be highly pissed about that if I were Iraqi) must also account for the resources that effort’s taking away from the one terrorist we know has attacked us.
“[K]illing terrorists by the dozen” is as huge a leap into “fact”dom as you accuse my statement of being, too, by the way. For all we know every “terrorist” we’ve killed in Iraq was motivated to fight US forces directly because of our invasion and may have had no ties to al Qaida or terrorism whatsoever (if still) before we invaded. For all we know, our actions ARE encouraging enrollment and Khadafi is right.
I’ve been banned from Canada. Long story, but I’ll never look at Quebec separatists, a 55-gallon drum of maple syrup, and the Biodome the same way again.
I understand Mrs du Whatsit’s point about the whole someone bursting into one’s home, etc, and putting stuff on her website she doesn’t want there, but isn’t the Web public domain? It’s NOT private.
If you don’t want people putting stuff on your site which you might not want there, don’t enable comments.
must also account for the resources that effort’s taking away from the one terrorist we know has attacked us.
Should read
“must also account for the resources that effort’s taking away from killing the one terrorist we know has attacked us.”
isn’t the Web public domain? It’s NOT private
Had I not been requested to not post again, I was going to point that out.
I visited the Biodome last year. Great maple syrup. Loved the ducks.
Never pick an arguement with Kos and then note why he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Edward, I pointed it out for you. Expect to be termed a coward shortly.
My site has posting rules. Still, I allow shrieking moonbats like Edward* to post as long as they behave themselves. In this case, “behave” means remaining civil. My blog; my rules. Mrs du Toit evidently has her own rules. I don’t agree with them, but I understand that I can disagree all I want from my soapbox. Which is what Edward’s doing, I guess.
*Just kidding. Really.
Saw that Harley…many thanks…to you as well Jes…but I do agree with Mrs. du Toit, that it’s her site and if she asks someone not to post there, there’s nothing short of antagonism to be concluded from their continuing to do so.
Should she attempt to come here and call me a “coward” however, I’ll endeavor to correct her misunderstandings about cowardice and bravery. (Hint: “bravery” is not found among the sphincter-twitching sheep willing to support any plan that includes killing some ill-defined enemy and the civilians unfortunate enough to be standing near them just so they can sleep better at night.)
Won’t be going back to DuToit. Ever. Utterly offensive and unbearable.
Is that chartreuse? Some blend of pink and purple?
With that font for the banner? I have my limits, beyond which I will not stoop. I nearly expected background music.
Edward, agreed.
Tho’ I wouldn’t use the word ‘sphincter’ anywhere near the Toit, as I fear it may act as an derangement accelerant of some kind.
BTW, deleted in five minutes flat. Glad you had a chance to see it before the Toit consigned me to purgatory. Coward. 🙂
Hmmm…It’s all becoming a bit clearer…
We are at war. Nothing you say or do is going to change that. If you are not committed to a U.S. (and allied) victory, then you are not welcome here.
The fact that she calls it an “allied victory” may reveal a bit about which conflict she thinks we’re fighting…perhaps she’s simply stuck in a loop of memories of yesteryears…
OK…that seems a bit mean…guess I’m still stinging from her calling me a “coward”…I actually did expect a vigorous debate on her site…my loss.
Well, who knows if *Al Qaeda* is stronger now, but I think it was inevitable that the invasion of Afghanistan would precipitate a further diaspora of the Afghan Arabs.
The trouble with the timing of Iraq is that we invaded before we had sufficiently followed up on this diaspora and broken the new groups open. So we inflamed sentiment and most likely improved recruiting efforts while the terrorist infrastructure and expertise was still in place.
And am I the only one who thinks that it’s odd that the “two-thirds of Al Qaeda’s leadership” number is the same number they’ve been using since September? Just curious.
Why are you even bothering? She makes crazy comments like every adult’s burden of the US budget is $100,000. That’s off by an order of magnitude, as a 30 second caluculation will demonstrate to the average 9th grader.
Even the total debt per capita is $20K-$30K. Although the Bushies are doing their level best to make this worse.
“isn’t the Web public domain? It’s NOT private
Had I not been requested to not post again, I was going to point that out”
Anyone’s domain, that they pay for, maintain, update, dedicate hours to is indeed PRIVATE. That is Mrs. du Toit’s living room. This is yours. TPD is mine.
Everyone is invited to act in accordance with their host’s guidelines, or leave. I’ve been tossed from The Agonist because they tired of me. Read the Democratic Underground FAQ, “If you’re a Bushie, don’t bother us. You’ll just get banned.” Far from disagreeing with those folks, I agree with their property rights 100%.
For example, if you don’t like THIS comment, you’re free to delete it and ban me. (I doubt that’s the case, but it IS your right.)
As Donald Sensing put it, “Insult me on your own bandwidth.”
And am I the only one who thinks that it’s odd that the “two-thirds of Al Qaeda’s leadership” number is the same number they’ve been using since September? Just curious.
Searching caves for the last remains is dangerous in winter.
Anyone’s domain, that they pay for, maintain, update, dedicate hours to is indeed PRIVATE. That is Mrs. du Toit’s living room.
I agree with the practical implications of your statement Commissar…once someone is asked to leave they should (I simply didn’t understand that Mrs. du Toit was serious the first time)…but I don’t agree that it’s metaphorically accurate.
It would be like hosting a party for the neighborhood in your backyard (posting signs that say all are welcome to visit) and then throwing out someone who asked you why you bricked up a bay window. It certainly seems to be a fair question, no intrusion or offense intended, and while it may be taken by some to imply an odd sense of interior decorating, it’s easy enough to tell the neighbor “It’s my opinion that it’s better…” or explain that you didn’t brick it up…that they’re seeing a reflection from another building…whatever…
But if your response is going to be to simply show them to the fence door…why host the block party in the first place?
Blogs are about opinions…comments are an invitation to those opinions.
Perhaps Mrs. du Toit was insulted by my comments. I haven’t read there long enough to get a good sense of who she is (and that right there—yes–should have told me to read more before I posted, but as I had come via another blog, I projected my opinion of how tough they were onto her).
Still, if you’re enabling comments on your blog, you are posting signs in the neighborhood inviting everyone to come to your party.
Ah, du Toit. The name takes me back to this abosolute classic takedown.
oops…Jes has been banned now…
If I may…as much as I appreciate folks speaking up on her site, I think it’s best to let it drop.
I made a mistake posting there. Lesson learned.
I actually did expect a vigorous debate on her site…my loss.
The tone of her original post made it pretty clear to me that that would not be the case. Then again, I tend to err on the side of caution in terms of acceptableness of posts. I’ve never been banned (hardly surprising given how infrequently I comment), though I did have a post deleted without comment from the Panda’s Thumb. Since they didn’t say anything to me, and my post was admittedly somewhat silly (though OT), I’m assuming I’m not actually banned there.
A while back I was asked to leave a frothingly extremist right-wing blog that I read for entertainment value (the author’s style is so similar to Ignatius J. Reilly in “Confederacy of Dunces” that I frequently think that the whole site is a parody). I respect such requests, but I have to wonder what these people think that a publicly available comment section is for? Pretty much a self-congratulating echo-chamber, I suppose. Any dissenting opinion strikes a harsh note in the “my stupid opinions are universally loved and admired” dream that so many extremist bloggers seem to entertain.
Oh, and the post that initiated the demand that I leave was mildly critical of some obvious logic errors by the blogger, wasn’t overly insulting or threatening, and contained no foul language. Similar to your black mark on DuToit’s blog, Edward.
We should have an alliance of the banned. A ban on one is a ban on all!
Edward,
You’re a F*ing As*hole for thinking that!!!!!
(No, you’re not. Just making a point.)
Eventually, open-invite or not, you would tire of such comments, and ban me or invite me to leave.
Mrs. du Toit has that same right. If she grants her guests a ‘shorter leash’ than you feel is reasonable, then you are free to go back to your blog (as you have done) and say “Sheesh, that Mrs. du Toit throws a lousy party. I’m not going back there.”
The determination as to whether one “president is a traitor” comment or multiple obscenities constitute reasonable grounds for ejecting a guest, is entirely up to the host.
“…you pretentious, pedantic auto-didact….”
Jeez, Bob, let’s form a club.
Aside from that whole “social,” “community” thing, of course.
😉
(Gary now drums fingers, waiting for that delaying-posts thing to click in and past; man, that is annoying, given that I run into it with every other post.)
“Yes, I have a livejournal: I picked it over a blog because a livejournal looked much easier to run.”
Prolly is. I think LJ is cool for someone who wants to hang out with a bunch of friends. I like to do that it’s comfortable, and its own reward; but I’m uninterested, these days, in being primarily inward-looking, incestuous, and self-oriented.
I’d rather be a braggart, waving items of interest at the world, listening to whomever comes by. Just saying, in semi-keeping with that.
I do regard, in general, journaling and blogging as separate, though entirely overlapping, interests and nouns. I don’t require anyone to agree with this distinction.
Not only banned, but deleted! *sob*
Oh well – the deleted comment was in fact just trying to explain that you weren’t calling her a traitor. Evidently this attempt to defend you put me beyond the pale!
Actually, being banned is small loss, because I agree with bob – her color scheme is atrocious. Not that I’d say so on her blog – that really would be rude.
I have to wonder what these people think that a publicly available comment section is for? Pretty much a self-congratulating echo-chamber, I suppose.
It would seem so.
I see that the person there believes “liberals” are “leftists.”
In similar fashion, they are also “communists,” and “conservatives” are “rightists” and “fascists.”
Because distinctions make no matter, nuance does not exist, and lumping matters more than separating.
It all makes for the best possible thinking and analysis.
I guess it was “leftists” who led us in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Okay. Man, they sure were defeatist wimps, weren’t they?
Sidereal…
that is truly, handsdown, the best thing I have ever read on the web…astounding…
many thanks!
e
But who would ever want to miss a chance to see someone declaring someone else a “traitor”?
Because, you know, disagreeing with someone fits that description so well.
Thanks Gary;
There can be a fine artform of trolling. Obviously you guys did not fare well, getting immediately banned over at killer-frock.com. The LGF crowd know that quantity can nbecome quality, but boards that ban are invulnerqable to that tactic.
The idea is to be so *subtly* snarky, dismissive, contemptuous and contrarian that your opponents can find no handle on which to call you out on it.
Of course, integrity requires maintaining honesty, although small levels of irony are allowed. Even better is when your opponents don’t even realize you are a troll, but simply feel inexplicably depressed when they leave their computers. But that is for professionals only.
Best is when you despise your host, express it and yet get invited to be a guest-poster. Manage that and you are on your way to a job at Fox.
Even better is when your opponents don’t even realize you are a troll, but simply feel inexplicably depressed when they leave their computers. But that is for professionals only.
How many such professionals are there out there? I generally feel that way three times a week.
Someone posted “I like kittens” there as their entire message. It didn’t last a minute. I wonder what would?
“The idea is to be so *subtly* snarky, dismissive, contemptuous and contrarian that your opponents can find no handle on which to call you out on it.”
I’m not clear what anyone could mean by this.
😉
Anyone’s domain, that they pay for, maintain, update, dedicate hours to is indeed PRIVATE. That is Mrs. du Toit’s living room. This is yours. TPD is mine.
Far be it for me to dispute an issue of property rights with The Commissar, but the living room analogy ain’t exactly correct. Slightly better would be a bulletin board placed on land owned by a private college, but visible to people on public property. In other words, Ms. du Toit does indeed have a right to post/delete/prohibit whatever she wishes to — but, at the same time, must live with what she does post/delete/not prohibit being broadcast (commented upon, discussed, disputed, etc.) to the rest of the world. There are no real privacy rights on a blog for what you say, and bloggers have the opportunity to get into all sorts of legal troubles that just can’t occur in a living room.
It’s quite a bit more complicated than that, actaully, and the legal ramifications ain’t complete thought out. I’m hoping to write something on blog law* with Mithras — if he’s still interested.
Bottom line on bannings: I only “bother” places that openly invite discussion-disagreement. You tell me to go, I do. (But you may have to tell me — I can be a bit obtuse.)
von
*Under the real name — unfortunately, there ain’t many law journals that are willing to publish a piece from “von of Obsidian Wings”.
The determination as to whether one “president is a traitor” comment or multiple obscenities constitute reasonable grounds for ejecting a guest, is entirely up to the host.
Agreed. My bad…if only I had used that emoticon…
Oh, dear:
Because I’ve been inundated by a bunch of childish pricks, I’ve turned on “Registration Required to Comment.”
I’ll figure out how to make it work, but in the interim, you may not be able to comment.
Ahem. Anyone care to go heap coals of fire on her head by showing her how to make “Registration Required to Comment” work?
I object to her designation, though: I am not “a childish prick”.
I’m much bigger than that.
Sidereal, that response to KDT was brilliant. Oh, my sides. Thanks for posting it.
My God Sidereal. That was a world-class takedown.
OK, everyone, stop trolling Ms. du Toit.
I emailed Mrs. du Toit apologizing for the commotion I started and asked her to restore her site to the settings she wants it to have.
As Von has asked, please stop posting on that thread…at least on my behalf.
(thanks for the support though!)
Edward, Von, I posted on Mrs du Toit’s blog twice. (The second time, she deleted my comment, and, I presume, banned me: I haven’t attempted to comment to test this, and don’t plan to go back.) I went over again to find out if “Mrs du Toit” was any relation to “Kim du Toit” … and saw that she’d changed the posting rules. I apologise if my comment caused any further trouble.
don’t give it a second thought Jes…you’ve been a champ!
Yeah, don’t worry about it Jes. I just don’t want to be directing tons of unwanted traffic over to Ms. du Toit’s website.
No, really, Von: I can see exactly why you wouldn’t want to get the reputation of being the Voice of Moderation’s lgf.
(If that’s possible. *brain hurts*)
Considering how people like kos and LGF have been held responsible for their commenters’ idiocy, I can’t really blame Mrs. du Toit for not wanting anything in her comments section that she can’t stand behind — and her original post indicates that she has a pretty narrow view of what kinds of comments she could stand behind.
Well, this is a timely topic. I just got booted from Dean Esmay’s blog:
And then he went on to call me a Canuck peice of garbage, which he’s since edited out. My offense? This post:
Well, not anymore, I guess. Wow, I have to say that more and more of right wing blogville is in a pretty bad mood these days, and cannot seem to muster much reasonable debate. I can understand booting foul-mouthed trolls, or people who threaten others, or really obnoxious commenters, but for simple disagreements? Sad.
“although your charge of “condescending authoritative tone” calls to mind a line about glass houses”
How did you think I was so able to recognize it? 🙂
“we know who’s resonsible for 9/11 ultimately…he’s not in Iraq…so any nonsense about going into the Middle East to kill the terrorists (when the only reason we’re able to kill them in Iraq is because we let them in…I’d be highly pissed about that if I were Iraqi) must also account for the resources that effort’s taking away from the one terrorist we know has attacked us.
This falls right into her point about people who aren’t serious about being at war. If you treat this like a crime, only a very few members of Al Qaeda are responsible (at least of those left among the living). To use an overused analogy, we didn’t fight the pilots of Pearl Harbor attack. They were all dead. But the system that targeted us lived on for a few years until we killed it. Al Qaeda is merely a squadron of soldiers in a larger war against the West which is supported by a disturbingly large number of people (certainly in the hundreds of thousands) in a larger than Afghanistan piece of that area in the world. Iraq has often been in the center of that, and especially so since we left Saddam in power in 1991 despite going to war against him (an enormous ‘sign’ of weakness according to much of Arab psychology).
Tacitus, one of the few Right Wing Blogs I can read and not feel a violent urge to take a long hot shower immediatly therafter.
I would not post any comments on LGF or many other RW blogs as I feel that it’s a complete waste of time & effort.
Sebastian: “To use an overused analogy, we didn’t fight the pilots of Pearl Harbor attack. They were all dead.”
Say what? No they weren’t, most of them flew back to their carriers.
Stu, that’s an incredible thread. I’m really awed at Dean’s self-delusion about his abilities. (FWIW, I agree with your assessment of the thread on Canadian health services: Dean’s shot about you being a bigot seemed to come out of nowhere, unless you were posting pro-Canadian anti-American bigotries on earlier threads.)
“…unless you were posting pro-Canadian anti-American bigotries on earlier threads.)”
That was my first day posting on Dean’s site, and there was an excellent discussion going on about Healthcare at Tacitus at the same time. He just suddenly blew up. Like I said, I was surprised, and then though “Hey, what the heck. Maybe its his style.”
I just carefully re-read it to see if I said something that was offensive, but I can’t spot it.
Oops. Dean blew up at Dean’s site, not Tacitus.
Well, not anymore, I guess.
Stu, I’m procrastinating something horrible, so I actually followed your link. I’d disagree with parts of your argument; however, there was only one asshole in the involved threads, and it wasn’t you.
Maybe Dean was having a bad day — or days.
“But the system that targeted us lived on for a few years until we killed it.”
I’m sorry, but you’re really stretching things to compare the war in the Pacific to anything going on now. The Japanese fighter pilots were under the command of the Japanese military, through which you could follow a chain of authority to the Emperor of Japan, who used his authority to declare war on the United States.
The correct analogy is to Osama bin Laden, who used his authority to orchestrate and command the 9/11 attacks. His relation to Iraq is, frankly, incredibly tenuous and based almost entirely in geography and ethnicity. Even defenders of the war now recognize that and have abandoned the hard link for swamp-draining analogies.
It’s like bombing England after Pearl Harbor because the ‘system’ that lead to the attack was rapid military industrialization and global imperialism.
I’d disagree with parts of your argument;
Viva la debate! Viva!
however, there was only one asshole in the involved threads, and it wasn’t you.
Thanks.
Maybe Dean was having a bad day — or days.
Could be, he’s been nice to me on occasion. But it sounds like the discussion points I bring up are really killing his happiness with his blog, so I won’t comment over there anymore. I’ll still read it, though. He’s wrong about everything, but I like the place.
If you treat this like a crime, only a very few members of Al Qaeda are responsible (at least of those left among the living).
What, the crime of conspiracy doesn’t work for you? Al-Qaeda is responsible for September 11: I know of no one who seriously denies that. Therefore get al-Qaeda – don’t thrash around vaguely invading countries at random and bombing cities just for the hell of it. If Rumsfeld was correctly quoted as saying that the US should attack Iraq after 9/11 because there were more targets in Iraq, he’s not taking terrorism seriously: he’s treating the worst terrorist attack in the US as an excuse to bomb the hell out of whatever “targets” he had in mind, no connection with al-Qaeda necessary.
Once again, I understand that you believe Al Qaeda to be all or nearly all of the problem. I am fairly certain that if every member of Al Qaeda had died on September 12, 2001, we would still have a serious terrorism/Middle East problem.
And that is why we think to prosecute the war differently.
“I am fairly certain that if every member of Al Qaeda had died on September 12, 2001, we would still have a serious terrorism/Middle East problem.”
Duh. And by invading Iraq we have made it worse not better. A Clue, buy one.
Haven’t been banned that I know of, but have banned. Reason is the person posted daily trackbacks that sent a slew of folks to my site who ended up sending me vile and repugnant email. As I’m pretty new at this, it gave me the heebee-jeebees.
Sebastian: I am fairly certain that if every member of Al Qaeda had died on September 12, 2001, we would still have a serious terrorism/Middle East problem.
And this is an adequate reason, in your view, for ignoring al-Qaeda to invade Iraq?
Mario: And by invading Iraq we have made it worse not better.
Indeed, and not just in the Middle East: by diverting resources from Afghanistan to the invasion of Iraq, Bush made the situation worse there too.
I’ve been banned from Conservatism and Grammar_Whores on livejournal…
“Once again, I understand that you believe Al Qaeda to be all or nearly all of the problem.”
Straw man. I believe nothing of the sort.
I believe Iraq had almost nothing to do with the problem.
I believe investing massive resources and manpower in Iraq was a bizarre fit of liberal utopianism among conservatives and has seriously hampered our ability to deal with the problem.
I believe it is an outrageous example of not taking the war on terrorism seriously by a coalition that spends a majority of its face time accusing other people of not being serious enough.
“And that is why we think to prosecute the war differently.”
Certainly is.
“I believe Iraq had almost nothing to do with the problem.”
Whatever. Iraq is at the geographic and ideological center of the problem. It makes a good *platform* for the expanding attack on terrorism many reasons. One of which, to be callous, is that the Iraqis are tough, and will be able to endure a lot of stuff Qatarians, Qatarites, Qatars…..would not. Reasonably secular, majority Shia, educated…soon Iraqis will make useful spies, assassins, saboteurs sent over neighboring borders in the dark of night.
Folks, this is going to be the hottest “cold war” you have ever seen.
“soon Iraqis will make useful spies, assassins, saboteurs”
We agree on that much at least.
And now the more elaborate response:
Terrorism is not a state. It never has been and never will be a state. Terrorism cannot and does not surrender or sign treaties. Interstate warfare analogies are not only useless, they are counterproductive.
The US Military has utility in two regards. One, in the event that the terrorists have such hubris that they setup elaborate remote camps that are easily manageable as military targets. They have been disabused of that notion and somehow I doubt we’ll see much of that again.
Two, in the pressuring and assault of states that we feel contribute to the problem. This in no way eliminates the problem. It (so the theory goes) prevents states from supporting the problem. Except it’s such an incredibly disproportionate unleveraged position that it’s an abysmal strategy. Mobilize the entire US military, with all the attendant costs, risks, and bloodshed, in order to tear down an entire national intrastructure so as to prevent the theoretical distribution of WMD to sympathetic terrorists? Horrible cost/benefit ratio. And who are the targets? Any nation that has the capability to produce WMD and the willingness to harm America. Since any nation has the resources to produce WMD, that means any nation opposed to American interest. That’s a lot of invasion. And Iraq was the easiest of the lot.
Terrorism is a cultural problem. Many don’t want to hear about it because it doesn’t sound like ‘clarity’. Never mind that they’re confusing clarity for simplicity.
Rant off.
Looking forward to the weekend.
“A Clue, buy one.”
Posting Rules. Read them.
Moe
PS: Mrs. du Toit overreacted.
hey, I’m a little late to this pary, and I’ve never been banned, mainly because when I feel like commenting on a right wing post, I find that subtle comments work much better then confrontation. Besides, the best rebut against Kim has and will always be Sadly, No!s post
Slightly OT: Is it just me or does Mrs. du Toit have a highly unfortunate name? Who would use a name like that? Are we being hoodwinked?
Roxanne,
I think you just have to take great pains to make sure you pronounce it very French and keep the second “t” silent. Otherwise, you’re just asking for trouble. . .
On the other hand if you wrote an essay inspired by his gassy diatribe and called it “The du Toitification of the American Male,” I think you’d have to pronounce the second “t.’ Curiously, if he had named his essay “The du Toitification of the American Male,” it would still have the same meaning. . .
Moe, read your posting rules: entirely reasonable and respectful to both sides. I don’t always agree with you but you guys are good people.
“Since any nation has the resources to produce WMD, that means any nation opposed to American interest. That’s a lot of invasion. And Iraq was the easiest of the lot.”
Nobody ever promised it would be easy. My choice was total mobilization, ten years that looked and felt like 1942-45. Didn’t happen, may yet. But the terrorists who attacked in Spain, whoever they were, wherever they came from, how they were financed, how they were organized…these things are mere battles. The war is to remove their motivation. And it may not be won in your lifetime.
Bob,
I don’t think I would agree with the notion that Iraq was at the ideological center of the problem. After all, you go on to describe Iraqis as “Reasonably secular, majority Shia, educated…” To me, the “ideological center” is militant Islam. Saddam was about as islamic as his hero, Stalin.
I also think it’s way too optimistic at this point to think that we are winning hearts and minds to the extent that they would become willing pawns in any war (hot or cold) against other Arab nations. If that had been the long term strategy at the time of the Kuwait invasion, we would have done better (strategically) to endorse the invasion and coddle the dictator. He was one evil, secular mofo that would have been more than happy to accommodate us or anyone else for the right price. (But, of course, that statement puts this comment into the alternate history thread of a few days ago. And, I would have been outraged had things somehow gone that way against all reason and world political opinion.)
And regarding a later comment, “The war is to remove their motivation.” I agree. But, I think bombs, saboteurs, assassins, etc., especially if used without the utmost discretion, only strengthen that motivation. Unless we can come up with something more subtle and clever… Well, I would call your estimate of “ten years” off the mark by several centuries.
By the way, great thread, everybody. Viva debate, indeed. I would also like to mention that I am banned from a couple of bars in Ichinomiya, Japan for being a big, goofy foreigner.
Cheers
Bob, you wrote: Iraq is at the geographic and ideological center of the problem. [Well, it’s right next door to Saudi Arabia, yes.] It makes a good *platform* for the expanding attack on terrorism many reasons.
Then you wrote: The war is to remove their motivation. And it may not be won in your lifetime.
Well, it certainly won’t be if the US government keeps thinking it can “remove their motivation” by invading one Islamic country after another, leaving each in chaos, and moving on to the next.
As a conservative, the Du toit’s of the world make me wince. They serve a purpose and have their own audience, but just because they hold conservative viewpoints doesn’t immediately make them kindred spirits.
However, I blame Edward for not choosing a forum where reasoned debate occurs. If you find yourself in a forum where the level of intellect is not up to the task of countering your arguments (or sometimes even understanding them) then it’s best to move on and engage debate elsewhere. It should be pretty obvious that each blog and their guests create a fundamental frequency – an average level where their intellectual capacity/curiousity will always return to. It doesn’t take long to realize that most folks are only comfortable in this “zone” and when someone takes it out of this spectra the regulars become agitated.
“Default” conservatives are the foot soldiers of the conservative army, much as angry, rebellious teenagers are the foot soldiers of the liberal army. Don’t expect either group to define their positions with alacrity or debate and defend the nuances of their philosophical and political positions.
I don’t engage folks who I feel won’t be able to keep up. It’s not fair to them – but more importantly – it’s not fair to ME either. I don’t spend time to put together thoughtful comments to have them brushed aside due to a lack of wits – and neither should you. That you seem to have learned the lesson is good.
Like a child who realizes adults don’t really know everything, a commentor must wander around for awhile and find the one’s who do know a good deal and can further their intellectual growth.
Otherwise, when you pursue such a choice of blogs to engage, the conservatives that really can respond to your queries will look at you strangely as if you are shouting at a first grader.
😉
SDAI-Tech1
I’ve been banned by Billmon. I didn’t think my remarks were banworthy (though I won’t defend them, either; I put the needle in too hard in an unnecessarily personal way). But they weren’t deleted, and other commentors expressed some surprise.
I agree very much with the ‘bulletin board / living room’ view of comments on blogs. Billmon can be touchy, but his willingness to bounce (and delete at times) has helped keep the comments at the Whiskey Bar enjoyable.
It comes at a price — the blogger’s involvement. Right now B’s taking a break after an intense couple of weeks, and, as it happens, the last comment thread before the hiatus included a controversial heave-ho. (topic: Israel-Palestine. Surprise! Moths, flames.)
However, I blame Edward for not choosing a forum where reasoned debate occurs. If you find yourself in a forum where the level of intellect is not up to the task of countering your arguments (or sometimes even understanding them) then it’s best to move on and engage debate elsewhere. It should be pretty obvious that each blog and their guests create a fundamental frequency – an average level where their intellectual capacity/curiousity will always return to.
I can’t imagine Mrs. du Toit would not be about 100 times more offended by that than anything I wrote SDAI-Tech1.
We exchanged emails and she was not only pleasant, but very clearheaded, literate, and intelligent. Her online personna is a bit put on, in other words…something I had suspected by reading there. We agreed that my presence on her blog was not helpful (or interesting to her), so I’m not going back, but the level of intellect there is much higher than you give it credit for.
It seems I’m always offending people, usually unintentionally. However, I manage to do so without resorting to emotional outbursts or discussing forks and human wasteproducts to make a point.
You may be right. I haven’t spent enough time on any of the du toit blogs to see if they are really concealing conservative brilliance.
The answer to your query is that Bush’s actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq have reduced the Al Qaida threat numerically. While the media may wish to play up the attacks on Americans in Iraq – these are not Al Qaida. Most are Sadr’s rebel-roused foot soldier receiving smuggled armament (grenade launchers primarily) from Iran and surrounding fundamentalist nations. The rest are the remnants of Saddam’s powerbase. Turning the spotlight on Middle Eastern terror networks brings a few recruits, even more sympathizers but lots of condemnation from average Iraqis who are waking up to who is really trying to make things work and who is not. So your view that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has somehow supported terrorists is quite convoluted at best and unfortunately such logic is the same sort the Spaniards buy into when electing their leaders.
The Middle East can’t be left to it’s own devices any more. India and Pakistan were left to their own devices and now those devices are nuclear.
Iraq is the eighth least literate nation in the world. Only seven nations are more illiterate and most of them are in Africa. Violence and illiteracy go hand in hand. Clans, tribal conflicts and bands of marauders are also linked to illiteracy. It’s truly a miracle the US has accomplished what it has with the region. Turning the 15th century into the 21st century requires time and patience. Afghanistan and Iraq are our charity development projects. Russia has Iran, Europe has the former soviet satellites.
I,m going to leave it at that. Any more verbiage will likely get me into trouble.