Send an Email!

[Brimshack]

Unlabeled, Point a) No, qualifying a position with one post does not resolve anything when other posts contradict it.

Unlabeled Point b) I haven't been arguing semantics, nor have I deliberately obscured any position. If my initial comments seemde like dry pointless exercises in logic, it is becuase I was trying to restrain myself. But if it helps, the next time instead of saying that you misrepresent a position, oversimplify it, etc. I will simply accuse you of lying. It is easy enough to dismiss my criticisms because you do not like the tone, but sloppy reasoning doesn't help anything, and labeling a point of logic pointless 'semantics' is just one more way of avoiding the issue.

Labeled point 1) Note thatI have already indicated, my goal is to get people to think baout these more carefully. I have already conceded in other links that there may indeed be links between Al Qaida and S. H. Whether or not those links merit this war is another matter, but my principle concern here lies in the fact that a substantial number of conservatives do not appreciate that there is a difference at all. You dismiss that point as a surface truth, but recognizing that 'surface' truth is a precondition to addressing the matter as you just did. Do some lefties drive you nuts with their views? Well those who can't tell the difference between Iraq and Al Qaida scare the Hell outta me. Blasting the left without promiting real arguments is just one more way of helping the people who do not know the difference to avoid thinking about this or any other questions about this war.

Labeled point 2) You are clearly capable of making good arguments in support of the war and otehr matters, but that is not the same as bashing. I do not object to the one, but I do object to the other. Why does the left object to this war, or the cold war? Because there are legitimate questions about what the war will accomplish, and the actual motives of those behind it. If Russia itself was indeed a malevolent force, does that really mean that all the American interventions to oppose her were legitimate, wise, or even, well intentioned. The Cold War doesn't strike me as that much different than the colonial era, two super-powers traveling the world to bring alternative visions universal truth, and in the end taking everyone's stuff. Was Chile a legitimate move? Guatamala? The McCarthy movement? It is easy enough to brand people traitors for opposing these things (or describe this as undermining the war effort), but the left was right to oppose them. Frankly, I think many on the right could as easily be accused of acting as traitor themselves, using the Cold War to undermine basic American freedoms.

As to Iraq, it wasn't that long ago that Bush Sr. actively lied to the American public about the first Iraqi war. Do you remember the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador telling stories to congress? Do you remember the Patriot missiles "sucesses"? Do you remember our message to Saddam, telling him it was an arab conflict? In another post, you asked somewhere why those of us on the left keep bringing up the past relationship with S.H. For me the reason is that I simply cannot swallow the overnight change of heart. Pointing to attrocities or is pure rhetoric coming from officials that have actively supported human rights violations and ignore them in other countries. Ending the attrocities is a good thing, assuming they do in fact end, but if anyone believes that has anything to do with this war, then I have a bridge to sell them. Whatever the reasons for both wars, they have not been made public. Bush could be looking after American interests. He could also be looking after his own family interests.

Unlabled point c) Perhaps, but we aren't married, so don't ask me to read your mind.

The final Qulification is encouraging. It doesn't sqaure with sweeping generalizations cush as:

"The Left has chosen to undermine this struggle, just as they did in the latter half of the Cold War."

See, as stated, the qualification directly contradicts this statement. It looks like your understanding is better than that, but until you mke an effort to qualify your position AS YOU GO, you will continue to add to a jingoistic fervor, unfairly condemn many who do not deserve it, and generate pointless debate over remarks you don't really stand behind.

Take care,

Dan

 

[SemperReformanda]

Dan-

I've humored you with this discussion of my posting style, but we're done with that rabbit trail now. I've allowed you the final word on it because I frankly don't feel like wasting more time on it. You'll either deal with it and move on, or you won't.

As for your answer to Labeled point #1, I'd like further information before responding entirely. I also have no problem with helping people better understand the situation in the Middle East, and want people to make an informed decision on whether or not to support the war on terrorism. My belief is that given the facts as they stand, most people will fall on my side of the issue. So I don't see a great deal of debate material in our respective positions on point 1.

Point 2-

"Why does the left object to this war, or the cold war? Because there are legitimate questions about what the war will accomplish, and the actual motives of those behind it.

You're about to accuse me later in your post of broadbrushing the Left. But here you make a blanket statement that they objected to the Cold War.

"The Cold War doesn't strike me as that much different than the colonial era, two super-powers traveling the world to bring alternative visions universal truth, and in the end taking everyone's stuff."

Considering you think I overgeneralize, you seem to do a good job of living up to the stereotype. The Communists were responsible directly for tens of millions of deaths by active persecution. If you really believe that the long struggle to defeat them was nothing more than a reprise of colonialism, then you're a perfect example of the moral myopia I despise in the Left. Come visit me in Ukraine sometime and see the after-effects of Communism up close.

It was this same moral myopia which marginalized the Left to begin with. Look at the McGovern race where they won exactly 1 state and the District of Columbia. Americans don't trust the Left with political power because of statements like the one above. And thank God for it. The only exceptions SINCE McGovern have been when Dems tacked rightward with an Evangelical and a centrist southern Governor (Carter I and Clinton.) Every try with a real liberal (Carter II, Dukakis and Mondale) has been an unmitigated disaster.

I accept your point about mistakes being made during the Cold War. But mistakes don't invalidate or make ignoble the entire struggle. Except in the feverswamps of the Left.

"For me the reason is that I simply cannot swallow the overnight change of heart.

America has been foremost in the effort to disarm Saddam and protect minorities from being attacked. Our constant patrols of the northern and southern no-fly zones are an example. We have maintained pressure through the UN on the regime consistently for 12 years. That isn't considered "overnight" by anything younger than Methuselah. And in the fast changing world of post-Soviet geopolitics, it's an eternity.

 

[SemperReformanda]

" Pointing to attrocities or is pure rhetoric coming from officials that have actively supported human rights violations and ignore them in other countries. Ending the attrocities is a good thing, assuming they do in fact end, but if anyone believes that has anything to do with this war, then I have a bridge to sell them."

Cynicism makes for nice posturing, but it's generally simplistic. Things are rarely so clear-cut as the cynic or the idealist would like. While certainly not the SOLE reason, Human rights was a very strong factor in our decision. If you really can't see that Buh is hoping to change the very paradigm of the Middle Eastern system, then I think you've missed a step. It's ironic that the Right has bought into much of what the Left has said for years about "root causes" and terrorism, and reflexive opposition is going to cause the Left to miss it.

"The final Qulification is encouraging. It doesn't sqaure with sweeping generalizations cush as: The Left has chosen to undermine this struggle, just as they did in the latter half of the Cold War."

Certainly it does. If we played by your arbitrary rules, political discourse would be impossible. People are able to use collective nouns such as the Left, Liberals, Conservatives, etc. without it NECESSARILY meaning "each and every person in this group without exception." It can just as validly mean "the mainstream of this group" or "the main thrust of this group", etc. I have taken the extra step of making these qualifications explicit in a follow-up post, which wasn't necessary but which I thought was a fair thing to do.

And I stand by this statement entirely. While overt support of Communism was rare outside of the hard Left, anti-anti-Communism was extremely fashionable. And a moral equivalency argument such as you were stating earlier with your colonialism point was very en vogue. The Left as a whole did a great deal to undermine anti-Communism in the latter half of the Cold War. Does this mean without exception? Certainly not. But it DID characterize the movement.

A good example is the yearly pilgrimages made by Dodd and hundreds and even thousands of young Lefties down to Nicarague each year to show support for Ortega. The locals noticed their Birkenstocks and actually gave these people a name--sandalistas.

 

[Brimshack]

It was you that chose to comment on your own style, by way of telling me not to take you literally. If you have now grown tired of your own ruse, then I will be happy to move on.

As for my statements about colonialism, note that I do not make any assertions about the moral characteristics of members in either group, as you have been doing. My own statement refers to large-scale economic activities, just as your own defense of the cold war did. Note that I did not apply my criticism that you over-generalize to either of your statements about the cold war or the current war. Neither raises the same kinds of problems as the gross-overgeneralizations that you have been promoting regarding liberals. Each is a statement about the larger trends of history; they stand or fall on their own, but they do not involve gross over-simplifications of ones' opposition. Do you actually think that the U.S. and Russia have not exploited their client-states? Do you honestly think that either nation has brought substantial benefits to the people's that we used as our battleground? Do you honestly think that the terms of our conflict really made any sense in majority of countries that we forced to choose sides? Just as there were sincere proponents in the colonial conflicst over religion, there were sincere proponents in the Cold War, but the long term effects of both periods are nearly identical; in the end each lead to massive exploitation and impoverishment of non-super-powers by those claiming to help them.

You may call me cynical, myopic, etc. (all ad hominems, delivered like a gentlemen, but simple ad hominems, nonetheless, and hence they make poor substitutes for actual arguments). Note also that I did not defend Soviet Russia, and while you are at it please note that no information about the problems in Russia will suffice to defend America's own conduct during the Cold War. Note also that I have not asserted that any of the interventions I brought up were "mistakes"; several accomplished exactly what they were intended to accomplish. And the human cost was negligible as far as the Cold Warriors were concerned.

On the overnight change of heart, you are referring to events that happened after the overnight change of heart. first we invite him into Kuwait, then we attack him for it. Everything since then has been a mystery. Have we tried to protect minorities from S.H.? Only after this change of heart, and only to the degree that it has been convenient. Having encouraged rebellion, we sat by while S.H. crushed rebellion's in the south. Hardly a stellar effort on our part.

As to attrocties being a reason, but not the sole, reason, this is convenient. There is no reason to believe these have played ANY role in our government's decision-making. Or have you forgotten the active support for S.H. when he was gassing people to begin with? The right has bought into left wing views? Root casues? Do you actually think, we are going to revise the colonial patterns? Do you actually think we are going to stop propping up puppet-governments in exchange for better deals on our oil? If we were changing any paradigms, then we'd be re-evaluating our relationship with Saudia Arabia, a nation with far more concrete ties to the 9-11 terrorists than Iraq. But no, it's regular practice, we have Saudi royalty in all the major oil companies over there. A nice tight relationship, and it won't be changed. Nor will the human rights exploitation of that country or any other that isn't convenient.

My arbitrary rules? I thought it was Aristotle that first articulted the principle of non-contradiction. When you combine nouns such as "left" "liberal", "conservative", ect. with verbs indicating point of view, moral characteristics, decisions, etc., yes, the implication is that you are talking about the mental life of a class of people, not merely the overal effects of a larger movement. One counter-acts this by qualifying the assertion in its immediate context.

Moral equivalence, is by the way, a vague term. Are Communism and Capitalism equivalent? (Is that even the right frame of contrast? You tell me.) In what context? To a peasant with no capital, hearing vague promises of gains to come in exchange for a lifetime of hard labor at below-living wages, I sncerely doubt that there is a difference.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Dan-

It was you that chose to comment on your own style, by way of telling me not to take you literally.

This is simply not the case. Your posts dating back to our first thread have largely been a form of dignified complaining about my posting style. And last time I checked, sarcasm didn't come under the rubric of "ruse", particularly when done in a quite blatant manner. "Ruse" to me always seems to come with connotations of, I don't know, trying to deceive someone. That's difficult to accomplish if one is being deliberately overt.

"As for my statements about colonialism, note that I do not make any assertions about the moral characteristics of members in either group, as you have been doing."

Precisely. Which is quite typical of the Left during much of the Cold War. They quite generally seemed incapable of seeing moral distinctions between the two groups.

"Neither raises the same kinds of problems as the gross-overgeneralizations that you have been promoting regarding liberals."

Do me a favor. Please find me a major, consistently Left-wing, journal of opinion or magazine that has been strongly pro-war. The Nation, Tom Paine, something like that. And no, Slate doesn't rise to either of those qualifications.

Once you show me Mother Jones' editorial calling for liberation, I'll be happy to admit to "gross-overgeneralizations." Until then, the Left seems pretty monolithical about the whole thing.

"Do you honestly think that either nation has brought substantial benefits to the people's that we used as our battleground? Just as there were sincere proponents in the colonial conflicst over religion, there were sincere proponents in the Cold War, but the long term effects of both periods are nearly identical; in the end each lead to massive exploitation and impoverishment of non-super-powers by those claiming to help them."

Now who wants carte blanche to engage in sweeping generalization? Forgive me if I don't extend the courtesy.

Am I to pretend that thr 2/3rds world wasn't impoverished BEFORE the Cold War took place? That WE impoverished them? You're too smart to expect me to accept that. Or to believe it yourself.

"Do you honestly think that the terms of our conflict really made any sense in majority of countries that we forced to choose sides?"

WE forced? I don't accept your premise here. With a handful of exceptions, we were the passive ones in the Cold War. "Rollback" ddn't become an operative word until Reagan. The pattern was one in which the USSR would begin destabilizing a country by arming insurgents or by use of a neighboring proxy state, and we would offer help to the country under attack. The Soviet Union was ideologically dedicated to the export of Revolution, rather what made it International Socialism as opposed to National Socialism. They were going to export whether we chose to resist or not. Thank God we did. And small thanks to the Left.

 

[SemperReformanda]

"Do you honestly think that either nation has brought substantial benefits to the people's that we used as our battleground?"

We didn't USE them as a battleground, again. We merely made sure they didn't face armed ideology unarmed themselves. And yes, in many cases we did. Anytime you'd like to argue the relative merits of South and North Korea I'm itching to do so. An even clearer example is the results of what happend when we lost. Cambodia, Mao's China, North Korea, Laos, Ethiopia, and many others spring to mind.

And yes, I'm sure you'll bring up El Salvador and other countries where things are less than peachy now. But I'd be happy to see any indication you have that they would be less terrible today if Communism had won. Not everyone got 10 billion dollar subsidies like Cuba. And they only got those in return for exporting as many as 200,000 troops to Africa to work as Soviet proxies. No doubt we "forced" them to make those African countries into battlefields.

US AID money did some wonderful things during the Cold War. As did our Peace Corps. As did the massive percentage of the money given out by UNICEF which ultimately came from us. We did many good things during the Cold War. We also did some pragmatic and expedient ones which were wrong but seemed right at the time. We aren't lilly white, and you won't catch me arguing that we are.

"that no information about the problems in Russia will suffice to defend America's own conduct during the Cold War. "

The justification isn't found in what the USSR did within their country, but what they did outside of it. We were in an essentially defensive war. It doesn't justify everything we did, but the great majority of it.

I don't expect you to see or understand that though. Few on the Left ever do. Which is why they're out in the political boondocks.

"On the overnight change of heart, you are referring to events that happened after the overnight change of heart."

You will never find me defeding much of America's relations up until the change of heart. Though I do understand why we tacitly supported Saddam in the early-to-mid 80's vis-a-vis Iran. That said, much of our earlier conduct was disgraceful. You seem to have some conspiracy popping around in your head to explain the change of heart. If it wasn't just that Bush '41 realized the nature of the threat for the first time after Gulf I, then what was it?

Having encouraged rebellion, we sat by while S.H. crushed rebellion's in the south. Hardly a stellar effort on our part.

I agree. We SHOULD have ignored that UN mandate and bumped off Saddam entirely. But the Foggy Bottom types are heavily tilted to the Left, and addicted to a notion called stability. Bush listened to the boys at State and worried about leaving a vacuum that Iran could fill. Further, Bush '41 actually cared what the UN said, and the mandate extended only to Kuwait. The rebellion should NEVER have been encouraged unless we meant to support it. It was disgusting. I like the son infinitely more than the father.

 

[SemperReformanda]

There is no reason to believe these have played ANY role in our government's decision-making.

You fail in any way to substantiate this statement. The government repeatedly stated that the suffering of the Iraqi people was a major factor. Other than cynicism, do you have anything to contribute as evidence that this isn't the case?

Do you actually think, we are going to revise the colonial patterns? Do you actually think we are going to stop propping up puppet-governments in exchange for better deals on our oil?

Over the long-term, yes, I do. Much of your argumentation seems to be taking place in ignorance of the profound shift that's taken place on the Right over the past several years. And some of the enormous changes taking place in the oil industry.

First of all, we get less than a 1/4 of our oil from this region now. This percentage will continue to fall over the next several years. We have been very active in promoting new development in areas as widely separate as Southeast Asia, Alaska and Latin America. West Africa and Russia stand out most prominently among these. Your understanding of oil seems to be rooted in data that's 15 years out of date. The days when this region was the goliath of the oil industry is way past.

I'm curious, with the exception of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which of the major oil players we're "propping up"? Libya? Iran? Iraq? Sudan? All of these countries, last time I checked, were on our major "bad guy" list and the targets of sanctions. STrange behavior if our only concern was for oil contracts. If we really were such harlots, we would act like the French and actively befriend all of these countries. Your paradigm seems in need of realignment.

As for the Saudis, I agree we need to re-evaluate our relationship with the House of Saud. And this is gradually taking place. We are putting strong pressure on them to curb their support for radical madrassahs and the money flowing out of their kingdom to supoort terrorism. But while very authoritaran, Saudi Arabia doesn't rise to the level of Saddam and I think you know that.

Nevertheless, if you read the major conservative publications, you'll see that there has been a surge in new thinking about our relationship with the Saudis. There is increasing pressure from the right to review and change the basis of our "friendship" with the Saudis. As new non-regional sources develop (and as Iraq comes to full production) the Saudis hold on the American foreign policy mind will loosen. And as their citizens see a reasonably free Iraq next door, the pressure from within to reform should be very strong.

"the implication is that you are talking about the mental life of a class of people, not merely the overal effects of a larger movement."

Absolutely. It means that I'm talking about what typifies the life of a class of people. Much like I can say "Americans are overweight." This means that, as a class, Americans suffer from obesity. It doesn't mean every American without exception. Just so I can freely say, "The Left has established speech codes on American campuses" without being compelled to say, "Oh, except for Nat Hentoff over there in the third row."

Moral equivalence, is by the way, a vague term.

Only to someone unfamiliar with the political discourse of the last 40 years or so. It's been used with quite general understanding at least that long. As I've said before, I give you credit for brains, I'm sure you know exactly what the term signifies.

 

[Brimshack]

Post 1:

Point 1 - Our explicit discussion of your style in THIS thread began with your own decision to front the issue as I described. My earlier comments were not directed at the elements of style (ironic usge, etc.); they were directed at the content of your assertions.. You didn't deal with my comments then (other thanreferring to my posts rather ironicaly as a vaudeville performance), and you haven't now. You refront the issue in this thread, and then dismiss it, saying that you have been humoring me. Yep, that strikes me as a ruse.

Point 2 - Non-responsive.

Point 3 - Your generalizations have gone to the issue of liberal motives for opposing the war. I call these generalizations, so you tell me I have to find a left wing organization that supports the war. Once again you exclude alternative motives for opposing the war, though you will no doubt claim you are aware of them in occassional qualifying posts. In any event, this one remains a red herring.

Point 4 - Shift. The point I was responding to did refer to internal politics in communist nations, now you wish to look at their foreign policy. Fair enough, but not as an answer to my last criticism. But what do you have to say about that foreign policy? Nothing. A bald assertion that we were on the defensive, no evidence to bac it up, an easy dismissal of American excesses, and finally a condescending ad hominem. The left never understands… Not much of an argument.

Point 5 - The public presentation of our policy toward Iraq is full of enough holes to merit skepticism. If you choose to believe we changed our stance that quickly for reasons generaly made public, then so be it.

Point 6 - The rebellion should not have been encouraged, but saying we should have gone in reads the current situation back into the original. The fact is that wasn't an option. Bush Sr. did an amazing job of putting together the coalition in the first place, but it's goal was not to replcace S.H., and many of the key members would not have supported it. Easy to say we should have gone in, but the coalition would never have happened had it not been for Bush's reassurances that that would never have happened.

Post 2:

Point 1 - When the same officials have a record os supporting the very attrocities they now claim to be reasons for our war, my cynicism is justified. Add to this a conservative record of opposing that as a justification for sending American troops abroad. I may be a cynic, but in this instance my cynicism is justified.

Point 2 - Interesting, but not a prima facia argument. You present no evidence that we will be cutting down our attempts to secure favorable contracts in those countries which we do command. Placing pressure on S.A. to revise it's pro-terrorist policies hardly amounts to changing the economic relationships at stake.

Point 3 - But of course in saying that Americans are overweight, you are not effectively redefining an American argument for eating more. You are merely describing a statistical fact (rather eliptically, but then again, that's the point of the illustration). In making such statements about the left you are effectively using the generalization to pre-empt left wing perspectives by sticking us with a stance many of us do not advocate. Having thus poisoned the well, you make concessions where necessary. Two very different language games.

Point 4 - You tell me the term has been used for 40 years. If this is supposed to demonstrate that the term is not vague, then I'm unimpressed. And BTW, terms that get bandied around for long periods of time are frequently vague. That's what makes it possible for so many people to read so much into them.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Dan-

"Our explicit discussion of your style in THIS thread began with your own decision to front the issue as I described...yada...yada...yada..."

My response: yada... yada... yada.

A bald assertion that we were on the defensive, no evidence to bac it up, an easy dismissal of American excesses, and finally a condescending ad hominem.

Speaking of "bald assertions", that would be a fair description of 90% of what you have posted here. Anyone reading this thread will see a long list of historical examples in my posts. You seem comfortable only dealing in abstractions and unsupported assertions.

The public presentation of our policy toward Iraq is full of enough holes to merit skepticism.

Sweeping, unsupported assertion.

The rebellion should not have been encouraged, but saying we should have gone in reads the current situation back into the original.

Here we're in agreement. Given 20/20 hindsight we should have said d*** the resolution. But at the time Bush made the best decision he could. He was just wrong. And he was doubly wrong to have called them to rebel with no intention of backing them up.

Add to this a conservative record of opposing that as a justification for sending American troops abroad. I may be a cynic, but in this instance my cynicism is justified.

Your data here is as dated as it's been on other points. As I stated earlier, you seem to be in ignorance of much that's taken place within the Right. The most interesting debates going on these days are within the Right, much as could be said of the Left in the 40's and early 50's. And most on the Left seem to be in ignorance of the substance of these debates.

"You present no evidence that we will be cutting down our attempts to secure favorable contracts in those countries which we do command."

International law requires us to hold open bidding on natural resource contracts. If you really think the international community won't be watching this like a hawk, then we must simply disagree. I'm not entirely clear on your point here though. If I haven't answered to your objection please restate it for me.

Point 3-

I'll use a clearer example, and then after this we'll just go with yada yadas for a response. This is becoming incredibly tedious.

I can, without fault, state that "The Left supports abortion rights." Clearly there have been those like Tip O'Neil or Gov. Casey who fall outside of this. But that doesn't prevent me from using a generalization in the context of a political discussion. Much like here.

I WILL, however, say that it's amusing watching someone on the Left carp about unfair debate technique. We are, after all, talking about the people who INVENTED invective as a means of stifling debate. The definition of a racist, bigot, sexist or homophobe is someone winning an argument with a Lefty. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't get TOO misty eyed.

Point 4 -

Moral equivalence was the way the Right viewed the Left's understanding of the stuggle of the Fre World vs. Communism. The gist was that there was no moral superiority in the Western system, and that both were equally oppressive and corrupt. This strain of thought extends from the early days with John Reed "seeing the future and it works" up to the little hippies running around whining about "Amerika."

Again, for all of your complaint about my style, there is precious little meat in your writing. If you're going to accuse others of lacking substance, you might stuff in a few more historical examples, bits of data, or even amusing anecdotes to rescue your posts from nearly pure unsubstantiated abstraction.

 

[Brimshack]

Unlabeled Point 1) Childish babble masquerading as a response.

Unlabeled Point 2) I have mentioned historical examples as well, which you have not responded to in detail either. But responding to a specific evidence press with a generic tu quoque isn't very helpful.

Unlabeled Point 3) Support was offered in this post:

"As to Iraq, it wasn't that long ago that Bush Sr. actively lied to the American public about the first Iraqi war. Do you remember the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador telling stories to congress? Do you remember the Patriot missiles "sucesses"? Do you remember our message to Saddam, telling him it was an arab conflict? In another post, you asked somewhere why those of us on the left keep bringing up the past relationship with S.H. For me the reason is that I simply cannot swallow the overnight change of heart."

Since you have neither challenged any of the specific assertions, nor pressed for clarification and elaboration, I moved on. But the specifics have been on the table for several posts now. Either deal with them or grant the point, but stop pretending I haven't offered anything on the matter.

Unlabeled Point 4) Conclusionary remarks, a circular argument mixed with an ad hominem, and a few mystic allusions to details not forthcoming. This is rapidly becoming a waste of time.

Unlabeled Point 5) You assert that Bush is trying to accomplish a massive paradigm shift in the middle-east. Your grounds for asserting this are the balance of oil elsewhere, absence of U.S. control over many oil-producing nations in the region, and changes in our perspective on allies such as Saudia Arabia. None of this adds up to a cessation of client-state economics. Public scrutiny of such contracts may help, but it hasn't prevented exploitation in the past. In any event, you have yet to demonstrate what you even mean by this great paradigm shift.

Labeled point 3) Irrelevant example, followed by an ad hominem; "You're a lefty and lefties have done it too…" Are you proud of that argument? I do agree that it's getting tedious.

Labeled point 4) The rights's view of the left …i.e. a straw man. The point of such abstractions is preciely to be able to answer an opponent without dealing with the rationale.

As to the final point; fruit of the spoiled bough. Your stated goal in this thread is the mockery of the left. If any of the discussion here strikes you as lacking substance it is precisely because of the footing upon which you began this discussion. When your reasoning improves we will perhaps have more to talk about, but one textbook fallacy after another doesn't become substantive simply because you sprinkle it with a few "historical" anecdotes.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Brimshack-

Either deal with them or grant the point, but stop pretending I haven't offered anything on the matter.

I will freely grant that your historical perspective seems to have cemented somewhere around 1991, and that I am arguing Current Events, which means that a meaningful discusission is difficult for us.

It WOULD be diverting, however, just for history's sake, for you to explain what sinister ulterior motive led Bush '41 to have his change of heart. If you don't buy into his ostensible motives, undoubtedly you know what lurks behind the scenes.

This is rapidly becoming a waste of time.

No, it became a waste of time roughly when I decided to dailogue with you. While very bright, you seem capable of little more than rhetorical parlor tricks, and your knowledge base on the subject seems to extend little beyond a few well-chosen facts. I'm ready to forgo more self-punishment whenever you're ready to drop the convo.

Unlabeled Point 5) You assert that Bush is trying to accomplish a massive paradigm shift in the middle-east. Your grounds for asserting this are the balance of oil elsewhere, absence of U.S. control over many oil-producing nations in the region, and changes in our perspective on allies such as Saudia Arabia. None of this adds up to a cessation of client-state economics.

You asked for details on the paradigm shift. I've decided to quote from American Prospect, which while from an EXTREMELY biased view, still takes seriously the fact that a shift has occured:

"This grand design was laid out in writings of neo-conservative theorists like Wolfowitz over the past decade. Iraq is just the first step in a grand project, one part the idealism of Woodrow Wilson and one part the imperialism of Teddy Roosevelt, to remake the map of the Mideast... In this project, two heroic premises are taken for granted. First, democracy will flower in these nations that have never had Western-style civil societies. Second, the shift to more-democratic rule will coincide with greater friendship for the United States."

The Right is taking democratization and nation-building seriously. The Left seems so reflexively contrarian that it can't escape either its long-ingrained habits, or the cut-n-paste categorical thinking which labels every assertion of American will as imperialism.

"Are you proud of that argument?"

I'm amused by that argument. I am not, however, amused by you. I'd had hope when I first saw your avatar that you might be fun to read. Instead you seem a great nag more than anything. Block me whenever you feel like it.

" The rights's view of the left …i.e. a straw man. "

Not a straw man. A point of view. And a defined point of view which has a term to describe it. Which is "moral equivalence." Which people who know foreign policy and history are familiar with.

" but one textbook fallacy after another doesn't become substantive simply because you sprinkle it with a few "historical" anecdotes."

Nor does a few unconjoined sentiments and suspicions sprinkled with strained attempts at invalidating every contrary point with an EZ Reader Logic Handbook.

 

[Brimshack]

Point 1) Once agan you do not challenge the assertions I've made. Instead you throw in two diversions. The assertion I was backing related to past history, you complained that I didn't back it, and when I show you the arguments I made, you complain because the information relates to the remote past. here's a tip; when the assertion realtes to 91, the evidence to back it will relate to 91. And since I have already conceded that I don not know why Bush changed his mind your current question is another ruse.

Point 2) Pointing out the deliberate distortions in your own arguments may be "rhetorical parlor tricks" as far as your concerned, but thats probably projection.

Unlabeled point 5) Does that really sound new to you? We will bring democracy and they will love us. That theme is as old as the Monroe Doctrine. It describes goals not means of attaining them, and the goals are old hat. And if you think they are new, then obviously you have missed decades of promising democracy while backing one dictator after another. Wow! And you call my posts rhetoric! That is truly amazing.

BTW: It is customary to indicate the source when quoting a text.

Proud of the argument: Following one ad hominem with another. If you don't like my nagging, then perhaps you should try dispensing with your own cheap shots.

Straw Man: yes, yes, yes, you've told me the exaulted history of this term already. I guess that's the closest you will get to actually addressing the problem.

Textbook fallacy: When you produce something other than cheap shots, I'll stop citing the fallacies you are committing. But its been no strain whatsoever, I assure you. Seldom have I seen so many obvious fallacies posted in one thread; it;s been a real breaze actually. The only strain has come in some cases where the same argument appeared to violate 2 or 3 principles of logic at the same time. It can be tough to choose, really, but as they say; the field is target rich.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Brimshack-

"here's a tip; when the assertion realtes to 91, the evidence to back it will relate to 91."

Actually, no. Your pre-1991 evidence is useful for documenting the suddeness of the change. It WAS sudden.

However, the last 12 years of history would be what is relevant for proving or disproving the genuiness and nature of the change. I'm waiting for you to demonstrate some familiarity with the period.

"Does that really sound new to you? We will bring democracy and they will love us. That theme is as old as the Monroe Doctrine."

Like I said, it seems those on the Left are incapable of thinking outside of well-worn and comfortable boxes. You demonstrate exactly the tendency I described, of reflexively falling back on shopworn categories of thought. The focus of the Monroe Doctrine was keeping the European powers out, not the ending of authoritarian repression.

"And if you think they are new, then obviously you have missed decades of promising democracy while backing one dictator after another. Wow! And you call my posts rhetoric! That is truly amazing."

Riiiiggghhhttt... Which perfectly explains why we're actively considering sanctions against the regime in Syria and why influential administration officials are discussing making regime change our policy for Syria. Because we're secretly BACKING the dicator there. Makes sense. Or why we took down Saddam. And the Taleban. Or why we're actively trying to tip Iran's government. Or why we've isolated Libya all these years. Or why we're pressuring the corrupt Arafat to cede his hold on power.

If your version of events were true, why haven't we just BOUGHT the existing dictators' friendship, as the French have consciously done? We have deeper pockets than they. Why have we acted so consistently contrary to the very aim which you state is central to our thinking?

Here's a tip: you won't find the answer in "Logic For Dummies."


"I guess that's the closest you will get to actually addressing the problem."

There is no problem. Much like "imperialism" can be used by the Left to describe certain mindsets and behavior on the Right without you crying in your cornflakes, the Right has terms which it uses to describe behavior and beliefs of the Left.

Your application of these "fallacies" has been amusing to watch. You seem very adept (in your own mind) at stuffing anything you disagree with into whichever fallacy you think it most resembles. Your ability to fit square pegs into round holes is to be commended. It shows a great native cleverness.

On the whole though, your posts tend toward a dry abstraction that really is dull to read. I begin to understand why so many here simply refuse to talk with you. I will continue, however, to carry the weight of the conversation for both of us.

 

[Brimshack]

"Actually, no. Your pre-1991 evidence is useful for documenting the suddeness of the change. It WAS sudden.

However, the last 12 years of history would be what is relevant for proving or disproving the genuiness and nature of the change. I'm waiting for you to demonstrate some familiarity with the period."

The original assertion was about the suddenness of the change. Were you hoping I would forget my own point? And if you believe the events occuring afterward prove something about the sincerity of the issue, feel free to float your argument. As it stands your deliberate attempt at misdirection does not impress me.

"Like I said, it seems those on the Left are incapable of thinking outside of well-worn and comfortable boxes. You demonstrate exactly the tendency I described, of reflexively falling back on shopworn categories of thought. The focus of the Monroe Doctrine was keeping the European powers out, not the ending of authoritarian repression."

False dichotomy, the Monroe Doctrine associated the one with the other, and was easily translated into a defense of "democracy" over the last 200 years. But for someone rattling on about thinking outside the box (speaking of worn-out clichés), the source you quoted does a remarkable job of rehashing an old theme. Claining that an old yarn is new doesn't make one a bold and innovative thinker.

Riiiiight: Another misdirection, my point relates to a history backing peopl like the Shaw of Iran, Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos, etc. all of which were defended in the name of "democracy" Yet you attempt to refute this by asserting that our new plans to put pressure on Syria somehow refute my claim. Your attempt to elide the problem altogether is to be expected, however. But I said we had backed dictators before. Your current argument seems to assume that I said we back all dictators. A straw man, but of course you will think it a parlor trick for me to expect you to respond to what I ACTUALLY said. Syria has been a pain in the U.S. for decades, our decision to take any action against them is hardly solid evidence of a campaign to promote democracy.

Why haven't we bought the dictators? Hadn't you noticed we have bought many a dictator? Some prefer to sell to others. And some work both ends against the middle. Others have a legacy of selling to our enemies. But the fact that we have supported some dictators hardly entails that we must have bought them all, but I forget, you don't like to hear about points of logic so I won't mention what an incredible reach that is.

Logic for dummies? I like this tactic of yours, you flagrantly violate all the rules of logic, even the most basic, and when confronted with this, you respond by mocking my us of it. You don't deny that you are committing these fallacies (you can't). You just add insults about my use of logic to your insults about everything else. Quite amusing actually, very dishonest, but quite amusing.

Imperialism does not refer to a mindset; it refers to a political/economic process. And I have never described anyone as having an imperialist mindset. If others from the left have, then I'm terribly sorry, but I suspect you corrected them and got on with your life just fine. In the meantime, the analogy doesn't work.

On fallacies, note once again that you prefer general commentary to demonstrating that any particular charge of a fallacy was off base. You haven't done that once, so when you declare all my applications to be fitting square pegs into round holes you accomplish nothing. And, no, I haven't dismissed everythign in terms of fallacies (once again you are misrepresenting my position, i.e. lying), I have conceded over the course of this that some of your arguments are plausible, and that some of your judgements are reasonable. What I object to is the numerous cases in which you have used cheap shots to shore up your position rather than argue it reasonably.

Carrying the weight of the conversation for both of us? How very kind of you.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Brimshack-

"The original assertion was about the suddenness of the change. Were you hoping I would forget my own point?"

Here is what you said originally:

"For me the reason is that I simply cannot swallow the overnight change of heart."

As I said, your history does a good job of documenting that the change WAS overnight. So why don't you buy that it was overnight? Please clarify.

Or if you mean that it wasn't GENUINE, then please explain what in the last 12 years gives you grounds to state so. Because otherwise, a statement that the change is false would be a *swoon* unsupported assertion. But again, you'd have to read something newer than 12 years in age.

"Riiiiight: Another misdirection, my point relates to a history backing peopl (sic) like the Shaw (sic) of Iran, Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos, etc."

None of which have been supported in over a decade. Two of which we actively pushed out of power and the "Shaw" was undermined by tremendous pressure from Carter's State Department. Which is the time period in which the shift has taken place. Which, you'll note, is also stated in the Prospect article I cited. But again, to demonstrate that this is an ongoing phenomenon, you'd need to read something newer than 12 years in age.

Your thinking seems not to take it into account, but a profound change took pace in geopolitics over the past 10-15 years. It's called the end of the Cold War. A lot's changed, you should take a look.

But I said we had backed dictators before. Your current argument seems to assume that I said we back all dictators.

No, but you do hold it up as a key element of our foreign policy. And the best test subject for whether you're dealing in reality is the Middle East, since this is the single least democratic region in the world. We should find ample evidence here that you're living in the same reality as the rest of us. Instead what we find is that the preponderance of the evidence is completely contrary to what you say our foreign policy modus operandi is. I've given examples citing most of the powers in the region. Still waiting for a response.

"the source you quoted does a remarkable job of rehashing an old theme."

The source I quoted is one of the flagship journals of opinion for the Left. It is one of a spate of breathless articles written by leftists in recent months which document the very changes we're speaking about. Apparently they just didn't memo you.

"Imperialism does not refer to a mindset"

Imperialistic is the adjectival form of Imperialism. And it can certainly be used as a modifier for the word "mindset." I correct people when it is improperly used. However, when used in an appropriate format I see no reason to correct its use. You may wish to arbitrarily assert that Imperialism cannot refer to a way of thought or a philosophy, but wishing doesn't make it so.

As for my refusing to be deterred by the ink screens you squirt into the debate with your repeated attempts to invalidate me by mis-applying "logical fallacies", I simply refuse to allow the conversation to be diverted to the contentless realm of abstraction--the only area in which you seem to feel any firm footing at all, given your repeated inability to discuss the actual concrete situation under consideration.

You seem to be adept at attacking other people's theories. I've yet to see the same skill exercised in advancing your own. Do you have any thoughts of your own? If so, please explain what is actually happening in the Middle East, if it isn't a process of undermining vicious dictatorships, attempting to quell terrorism, and the first fitful steps toward democritization.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Dan-

I'd also be interested to hear how our interventions in Kosovo and Somalia fit into your paradigm. Thanks!

 

[Brimshack]

Point 1) When the U.S. President gives Saddam the green light to invade, then immediately turns around and uses that invasion as a pretext to invade iraq, I find the public account of our motives implausible. When the rationale for that invasion is further butressed by deliberate attempts to mislead congress, as was the case, I find the rationale still more implausible. Nothing that has happened since then makes that switch any more intelligible, it is simple Machiavellianism, never leave a wounded enemy; crush them completely. Since you seem to thinksomething about the last 12 years makes Bush Sr.'s initial switch of public posture credible, you can explain it if you wish. But I am not the least bit interested in following your shell games back and forth between issues. When the claim is about a past event, the relevant evidence will relate to that past event. I'm not interested in providing you with an account of the Franco-Prussian war either if that was the next topic you were going to demand of me.

As to dictators, note that if you had granted the initial claim, we could certainly have gone on to discuss the possibility of a change. But you elide the topic, and you pretend that claims we are going to bring democracy to other regions of the world amounts to something new. As to the end of the cold war, this eliminates one utility for propping up dictators, but it does not eliminate all of them. It is still easier to buy off an elite within a client-state than it is to handle a democratic population. Do you actually think democracy in the middle east is going to go hand in hand with better U.S. relations? Perhaps you haven't noticed the amount of resentment that many of these people show us. No, to foster good relations we will most likely need a dictator that will be willing to reign in the anti-American sentiments of his own people …sort of like Pakistan. But of course we can always claim that support for us is support for democracy, etc. and make empty promises which we will then pretend amount to some new paradigm.

On the next paragraph, you say that you have given examples? Of actual democratic governments that we are fostering in the middle east? Funny, I just remember an article, cited without a reference, which said we were going to foster more democracy. Did you mean the governments that we are opposing, the Taliban, Iran, Syria? If you actually think our opposition to those is based on their paradigms of government, I have a bridge to sell you. In fact, our public criticisms of leadership in Iran is quite likely to empower the anti-democractic forces there. Nothing like the great American Satan to give the clerics something to around. Wow, if that was your argument; I'm sorry I missed it. I would have thought you'd have had more to go on. But of course even if you wanted to move the discussion in that direction, it would pay to aknowledge the past dictatorships that we have backed. Instead you deny the one by means of the other. Quite the shell game.

On the source, no I didn't get the memo. Are you enjoying your little guessing game? Anyway, plaguarism is still plaguarism, and since you've had an opportunity to correct the matter and refuse to do so, we must assume you are doing it on purpose.

As to imperialism, first you change the word itself to an adjective, assert that the adjectival form can be applied to a mindset, and then tell me that I am somehow committed to saying that it "cannot" be used in reference to a mindset. Of course I didn't say that, in fact I explicitly conceded that it can. So, once again you are misrepresenting my position. Oh, I'm sorry, is that too dry? You are lying. How's that?

Not one logical fallacy has been misapplied here, and you well aware of that. Hence, your preference for dismissing the matter with general commentary while leaving every single specific claim unanswered. You contempt for logic is simply a contempt for basic decency and honesty, since you are essentially reserving the right to use character assassination, deliberate misrepresentation, and misdirection as your principle tactics throughout this discussion.

As for your attempt to give me a writing assignment, I should remind you that this is your thread, and we are discussing your position. I am not the one mocking those I disagree with, and pretending to know all about what is happening in the middle east. That would be you. We are furthermore discussing - not your views on the middle-east, but your views on anti-war folk. So, a dirct commentary on the war itself would actually be off your own chosen topic. Unlike you, I haven't forgotten the general purpose of the thread itself.

 

[SemperReformanda]

Dan-

Good to hear form you.

Point 1) When the U.S. President gives Saddam the green light to invade, then immediately turns around and uses that invasion as a pretext to invade iraq, I find the public account of our motives implausible.

Please document that Bush "gave the green light" to the invasion. I've seen it stated that his answer was ambiguous, but "green light" is one I'll need to see. Not saying it doesn't exist, merely that you need to supply it.

Nothing that has happened since then makes that switch any more intelligible, it is simple Machiavellianism, never leave a wounded enemy; crush them completely.

An interesting theory. I'm curious, how did Bush '41 manage to enlist Bill Clinton into an 8-year stint supporting this conspiracy?

Nothing that has happened since then makes that switch any more intelligible,

So to clarify your position, you have no clue why Bush just went crazy and decided to attack Saddam. And you further have no clue why Clinton went along with this plan to destroy Saddam, or why Bush '43 went along as well. You have absolutely no alternative theory as to why these things happend. The single most important and perennial issue in American foreign policy in 12 years, and you haven't a thought. Deep.

It is still easier to buy off an elite within a client-state than it is to handle a democratic population.

This is where I feel you lose sight of the changes.

American foreign policy throughout the Cold War generally differentiated between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. This was brought out best in a seminal essay by Jeanne Kirkpatrick (the essay which brought her into national prominence.) The US was consciously willing to deal with authoritarian regimes in order to prevent the spread of totalitarian ones. Most of the things we get dinged for in our Cold War foreign policy stemmed from this very rationale.

This is still in effect to an extent today. Musharraff is still preferable to a nuclear Pakistan in chaos. Egypt would be another Iran if we went to democracy immediately. Etc.

But I can't tell you the number of essays and papers coming out of conservative think tanks and journals calling for a shift away from this and toward an effort to replace the regimes of the Middle East with more open ones. Because while in the short run it's good to have a dictator to keep the radicals at bay, the very repression is what is CREATING the radicals. With legitimate means of protest unavailable, they turn to violence.

It is this shift, from looking to dictators as a shield from the terrorists to a view of the dictators as a SOURCE of them that is new. Democracy was a luxury that we talked about in the past. It is now a matter of national security. Note that the people writing aren't idiots. They aren't envisioning a Wilsonian democracy in Syria tomorrow, but rather a gradual shift toward more open institutions.

 

[SemperReformanda]

If you actually think our opposition to those is based on their paradigms of government, I have a bridge to sell you.

And you have WHAT to back this up? Or am I the only one required to provide evidence?

Of actual democratic governments that we are fostering in the middle east?

"Several Gulf countries, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, have taken tentative steps toward introducing representative elements in their political systems," according to Hussain Hindawi, a native Iraqi historian, humanitarian, and journalist who currently serves as editor of United Press International's Arabic News Service. Here's the link: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hindawi-thomson041603a.asp

The government in Afghanistan is still struggling, but it is certainly more representative and less repressive than the Taliban. Or are you willing to argue the opposite?

The Iraqis are now beginning to sort out a new form of government. It will not exactly be up to the standards of the Federalist Papers. But what is taking shape is still virtually unprecedencted in the history of the Arab world. Are you going to argue that the new government will likely be no more open or democratic than Saddam?

You'll note that I haven't said that we're going to have democracy in the region next week. Democratic institutions take a long time to grow, as I see daily here in Ukraine. But there are at least those now who are committed to seeing it happen. No thanks to those who prefer to sit on the sidelines and snipe without proposing the slightest solution of their own.

In fact, our public criticisms of leadership in Iran is quite likely to empower the anti-democractic forces there.

Actually, Iran's "Farsi street" is the most pro-American in the region. The regime is tottering badly. Reformists recently boycotted Tehrani elections and voter turnout dropped to 12%. The Reformists are beginning to split as many get fed up with the slow pace of reform and start to call for more direct action.

And if you read your paper today, you might have seen that Rafsanjani is considering calling for a referendum to re-open negotiations with us. Strange how that never happend during all that time we played nice with them.

I'm curious what YOUR solution is to the problem of Iran's repression of its people and constant support of terrorism. Oh, and its fast-developing nuclear program.

But of course even if you wanted to move the discussion in that direction, it would pay to aknowledge the past dictatorships that we have backed.

I freely admit that we've backed dictators in the past. That's why our shift away from it is a SHIFT. That doesn't seem like that complicated of a concept to me.

Again, if this characterizes our foreign policy, why do we see so few examples of it in the Middle East. And so many utterly contradictory examples. ... An unsurprising silence from Brimshack.

Anyway, plaguarism is still plaguarism

I'm sorry, this word is new to me. Does it mean to spread a plague? Or does it refer to a political/economic process? I noticed the "ism" on the end of the word and guessed it might.

since you are essentially reserving the right to use character assassination, deliberate misrepresentation, and misdirection as your principle tactics throughout this discussion.

I also reserve the right to say you cry like a girl when you go on like this.

As for your attempt to give me a writing assignment, I should remind you that this is your thread, and we are discussing your position.

Me- Actually, we are discussing my position by default. Mainly because you have a seemingly complete inability to articulate one of your own. If you were, we would be having a conversation in which we compared and contrasted our respective views. I look forward to that bright, shining day.

So, a dirct commentary on the war itself would actually be off your own chosen topic.

Me- Actually, you've cheerily meandered all over the place in this thread. So quit trying to act pious about OPs. It's only now that I've asked you to actually defend a position of your own rather than just snipe at minutiae in mine that you have a born-again experience about the need to "stay on topic." Talk about a shell game. Though I prefer the term cop-out.

 

[Brimshack]

Post 58:

Point 1) In context, with Saddam poised to invade, the completely novel suggestion that the matter was an inter-arab conlict could only be understood as a signal that we would not interfere.

Point 2) The answer is already contained above. S.H. was already an enemy when Clinto took office. Note also that Clinton did not attempt to destroy Saddam, he merely kept up the sanctions, and occassionally launched surgical strikes.

Point 3) Didn't say he was crazy. And if it bothers you that I propose no counter-theory, then so be it. This does not mean that your theory is validated.

Point 4) The distinctyion between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes has never been anything but a smokescreen. Kirkpatrick was responding to the charge that we actively supported brutal regimes, including the attrocities they committed while pretending to oppose dictatorships when she produced this distinction. It is, however, a distinction without a difference. conservatives have always spoken loosely of democracy, and if think tanks are now talking about introducing it to the middle east, there is no actual indication that this is actually the goal behind our foreign policy.

Post 59:

Point 5) Note that I am challenging a claim you made. Back your own claim. As it is, my initial response to your initial list of claims is actually in the post (the rest of the partagraph that you left out). So, you leave out my argument, and then demand I produce one? Yet another example of the honesty and integrity that I have come to expect from your posts.

Point 6) Conclusionary remarks are a start anyway. As evidence backing a complete paradigm shift toward democracy, lip service and vague movements toward representative government are a little light. But it's at least the beginnings of an argument.

Point 7) I didn't say that democracy in Iran was going well. I said that our criticism has not helped, but note that your own post indicates that democracy is not doing well there, then you present an overture to the U.S. as a positive indication. The matter is either irrelevant (as indicating something other than the strength of democracy) or it is cuts against the first aprt of this argument.

Point 8) First time you admitted it. And no, that wasn't complicated. As to counte-examples in the middle east, you yourself have admitted in your own source that none of the couintries you claim are moving towards democracy actually arehave substantive democratic institutions at present. So, you think I need counter-examples to counter that?

Point 9) OK, so I can't spell; you can't cite a source, and I can't spell. I'll take my defect here over yours any day of the week.

Point 10) I'll bet that felt good didn't it. Enjoy.

Point 11) You want me to engage in an open an honest comparison of voews while you insult and misrepresent my views and those of other lefties. No, I think I'll content myself with pointing out the dishonesty of your basic approach. You've poisoned the well, now don't act surprised that I refuse to drink from it.,

Point 12) Yet another generality offered in place of specifics. You are projecting again.