"Tyranny truly is a horror: an immense, endlessly bloody, endlessly painful, endlessly varied, endless crime against not humanity in the abstract but a lot of humans in the flesh. It is, as Orwell wrote, a jackboot forever stomping on a human face. "I understand why some dislike the idea, and fear the ramifications, of America as a liberator. But I do not understand why they do not see that anything is better than life with your face under the boot. And that any rescue of a people under the boot (be they Afghan, Kuwaiti, or Iraqi) is something to be desired. Even if the rescue is less than perfectly realized. Even if the rescuer is a great, overmuscled, bossy, selfish oaf. Or would you, for yourself, choose the boot?"
Michael Kelly, the Atlantic Monthly editor-at-large and Washington Post columnist who abandoned the safety of editorial offices to cover the war in Iraq, was killed while traveling with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division
The rest of the story
21 comments:
I read the article and a few others of his as well. There are hundreds, thousands of reasons to dethrone Sadaam, that is not news Rhino. Its the way we went about it. The way we refused to follow the majority of the U.N members by doing it "their" way that put us out there all alone to slay the dragon known as Sadaam. We did not use the crimes described by the article to enter Iraq. So now you want to include them? Toss them in the mix now? Play that guilt card Rhino..you pulled it out and laid it on the table after the fact.Perhaps if the Shrub's administration had attempted to include Sadaam's human rights violations and crimes against women more members of the U.N. would of been willing to follow us into war. But he didnt. He strong-armed them and bullied them by whining that they were after the United States.
Bush didn't give two shakes about the plight of woman in Iraq. To allude to that being a good reason NOW to enter Iraq is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has run out. Woman all over the Arab world are second class citizens..including our beloved Saudi friends, they have made great strides in equality, but the Saudi's still consider their woman a step below males in their country.
Dusty,
1. we did go through the U.N. we passed 19 resolutions before we took action. The U.N. is a joke who would never have moved because as we now know, they were still doing business with saddam and getting rich off of it. That is not disputed by anyone.
2. I didn't say it was a reason why we went in, i am thinking though that it is one more positive affect of us being there.
3. there is no guilt card coming from me, in fact if i wanted to guilt someone i would guilt the U.N. for their lack of action in the Sudan right now, where we have had over 200,000 people killed in the last few years and the great and powerful U.N. hasn't done shit! Where is your precious U.N. in that situation????
4. We are the ONLY country EVER to get U.N. approval before taking action. Why do you hate us so much? Why not use your venom on some other country, one that doesn't stand for freedom, or justice?
5. and finally, wouldn't you agree "that any rescue of a people under the boot (be they Afghan, Kuwaiti, or Iraqi) is something to be desired. Even if the rescue is less than perfectly realized. Even if the rescuer is a great, overmuscled, bossy, selfish oaf. Or would you, for yourself, choose the boot?"
As I said in an earlier post on this blog....don't matter "why" any more...for some reason you keep trying to rationalize the "why" Rhino. How about addressing the here and now..We are there, its a friggin mess, there isn't an Iraqi government that can meet and deceide their own fate, and the Iraqi military and/or police is non-existant. The money paid to Halliburton to restore their infrastructure isn't doing anything but lining the pockets of corporate america. They dont have a safe water supply..maybe two hours of electricity a day if their lucky.Of course worrying about the insurgents kidnapping you would put a damper on the US contractors, not to mention the hundreds of Iraqi's being killed mafia-style every week makes it hard to put a workforce together.
I go back to what the editor of that rightwing rag The National Review said last weekend:Its a mess and the Shrub screwed up big time.
Dusty, I think you and getlive need to take a look at the actual post. or maybe even my comments, like point number
(2. I didn't say it was a reason why we went in, i am thinking though that it is one more positive affect of us being there)
And once again i'll ask the question that you and your friends seem afraid to answer.
wouldn't you agree "that any rescue of a people under the boot (be they Afghan, Kuwaiti, or Iraqi) is something to be desired. Even if the rescue is less than perfectly realized. Even if the rescuer is a great, overmuscled, bossy, selfish oaf. Or would you, for yourself, choose the boot?"
well of course, who wouldn't? but what if it was homer simpson?
Rhino, I really appreciate this post actually and it is a question as you know that I have concerns with- the relevance of the UN and their ability to actually enforce resolutions. Now some say its because the UN has been castrated, some say it was never given authority to begin with. Some say that the UN is crooked and no better than a corrupt government. And this quote is a good point, because I myself often mention the fact that there are so MANY screwed up dictators to show the motive was oil:
"The United States may not be able to stop every homicidal fascist on the planet, but that is hardly an argument for stopping none of them."
Further, your points on the UN in the Sudan are true. But why do we not go there?
Who is going to liberate us? We are so busy cleaning other peoples houses-what about my dishes?
Lily, won't you answer my question first? Will you ever take a position on anything? Even if the ONLY reason for going into Iraq was oil,
wouldn't you agree "that any rescue of a people under the boot (be they Afghan, Kuwaiti, or Iraqi) is something to be desired. Even if the rescue is less than perfectly realized. Even if the rescuer is a great, overmuscled, bossy, selfish oaf. Or would you, for yourself, choose the boot?"
I agree with the Know-itall on this one...I think the positives gained from our actions outweigh any negatives. Don't even mention our casualties because I think 99% of them would die again to give freedom any day of the week. As for all of Africa, we have tried. But where are the Russians, Dutch, French & British? They are the ones who caused the majority of the problems in Africa...We all saw what the UN did in Rawanda...and in the end the French went over to bury the bodies. It is a shame that we become the last result. But it isn't our shame. The shame is on the Europeons who created the mess that we are trying to correct. The shame isn't on the United States in Africa, not in Israel, not in Iraq. If everyone else is so magnanimous and perfect why don't you run for president, or local government? Have you ever spoken to Bush or heard one reporter ask him how he feels about women's rights? No, because when the media gets a chance, they ask him if he saw Brokeback Mountain? They waste time...and promote negativity. And so you hate the "shrub"? Hate is what got us in this mess. When you are president, I'll be sure to feel the same way about you when I really only know what the last movie that you saw was...that seems fair.
The MSM is hardly a gauge of anything. When any of them actually try to have a dialogue or ask a relevant question it gets shot down or side-stepped by the Shrub. How many of Helen Thomas' questions get a legitimate answer? She has been grilling Presidents for over twenty years.
Hate got us into this mess? How the hell do you figure that? I thought it was WMD's and hiding Al Queda members? You need to make up your mind and quit wavering to whatever suits you at any given moment.
We haven't rescued anyone in Iraq. They are still suffering at the hands of extremists and our troops. How exactly do you tell the difference between a terrorist Iraqi and a freedom-loving one? The same problem existed in Vietnam.
Gadfly- who are you addressing?
*******
As an aside quickly- if you love Ann Coulter the genius so much, and agree that we should permit a Christian aspect to American life (do away with the first amendment) consider the fact that almost all religions have a criteria for "just war". All of the major religions have condemned these actions. In the America she envisions, this war would be immoral. Now I cannot assume your religion,if any, but I can tell you that MY religion condemns it and in a Coulter world, I guess we would not have this question at all.
******
Now I think society in general should have standards for war- circumstances such as self defense, etc. I also cannot PERSONALLY agree with a war that violates my religious beliefs. I think there is a distinct difference between ASKING ME WHAT OUR COUNTRY SHOULD DO AND WHAT I PERSONALLY THINK SHOULD BE. Hence, the hesitation.I will not personally PERSONALLY say war is justified unless it is a last resort. Just like I will say I support choice as a NATION but if I became pregnant tonight I would not have an abortion. Do you see the difference?
*****
Moving on....
Last I checked Rhino, I'm not your bitch and maybe you've been shitting with your "big dogs' for so long that you've gotten a bit big for your underoos! Don't bark at me and tell me to roll over for your fucking biscuits. I am not going to let you bait me with insults about my 'positions'. Now step the hell back a second. I had this dicussion with you already last week so THAT is why I hesitated to get into it again. You and I could argue until the damn rooster crows and in the end all we'll be is tired and pissed. Reagaphilic bastard. And it remains to be seen how women fare. We of course hope and anticipate better conditions but they are pretty shitty right now.
And yes Rhino I do take positions but I don't think-and I've said this- that we always agree on the questions. The X and the Y...I have gone over this point with you, are you asking me to do it again? I think that war is a last resort, and pre-emptive war should be considered under specific circumstances. While on one hand I understand that there were multiple resolutions, I still say that there was a potential however slight to do more diplomatically and I do not think every option was exhausted. Why does this mean I have not answered your question? The answer is that there is more than one way to conduct foreign policy, and what people are doing is post-rationalizing. There was no rush, nothing INCLUDING the violence against women was anything they did not know BEFORE the resolutions- the rush to war is therefore hard to buy into.
The threat was not imminent and urgent, there was some time to work on solutions and so that is why despite the fact that yes, there may be some positive results of this invasion I think the positive results MIGHT have been achieved without three years of killing. Perhaps not, PERHAPS WAR MIGHT HAVE BEEN INEVITABLE, but I don't think every remedy was exhausted first. The way it went down was disorganized, rushed, and they went from UN to bombs with WHAT in between? So we have two options, UN resolutions or Pre-emptive strike? Your question presupposes only that path. If Congress had been approached with the real facts, would they have rushed? They believed the threat was immediate when it was not. YES it is possible that we would have gone to war inevitably and that the immediacy could have shifted but where it stood then, they had some time. It did not fail if it was not tried!! That is the difference between where you see it and where I see it. But you are right and I am wrong and no amount of looooong paragraph slinging will change that.
So when you say ANSWER THE QUESTION keep in mind that you are framing the question the way you view things. Then like a kid you demand,then insult me, then call me sensitive and defensive if I react- and so it goes.
Given your respect for the troops and their families, and civilians- do you not think war is to be reserved for when it is absolutely necessary?
Instead of realizing that THIS is where we disagree you insist on debating whether or not human rights violations matter. Of course they matter, and we knew about them before. And we know about them elsewhere. And our leaders have dinner with leaders that permit the same bullshit in their countries. Horrible violence occurs all over the world, and it is terrible and it should be universally condemned, and by condemned I mean NOT colluding with them or supporting them or arming their supporters against rivals and all the other bullshit that goes on.
There should be something more solid than cherry picking on human rights. If the UN cannot enforce security council matters or human rights matters then they should address that failure.
Lily, The "rush to war" was after 19 U.N. resolutions and a bombing campaign by the clinton administration. I don't bring up clinton because i think he did the wrong thing, in fact that was one of the few things he did right. I wish he had done more. His rationale then was imminent threat of WMD from saddam. He half assed it, and so the real work was left to be done by the next administration. BUT....
It is YOU who is post-rationalizing, not me. the pre war intelligence said the threat was imminent, it's post war that we found out that wasn't the case. Do you deny that EVERYONE agreed that saddam had WMD? Even the democrats on the senate intelligence committee who saw the EXACT SAME INFO as the president. So after the fact, we know we could have waited, worked more, but if that wasn't the case, then what? Then maybe we have WMD in NYC. Who knows? certainly not you or me.
Personally, i think we did the right thing.
And no, you're not my bitch....YET
I'm not angry getlive and if you ever say that shit again i'm gonna kick the shit out of you asshole!!!!!!
I thought the President had access to the most "intelligence" and the White House- if they do their jobs- should have a little more evidence than other people but perhaps expecting competence is absurd.
Yeah, many Democrats went along with the war as well because they are no different, they just wear different colored ties. I hear you Rhino that you think it was too risky to wait. But I think the US directly could have tried to do more.
You are pretty angry- and you project it onto other people by calling them sensitive or wimpy when your belligerence is not appreciated. Its like you feel superior if somebody has mixed feelings or cannot follow your rules.
I suspect that you have an exaggerated intolerance for indecisive or under-substantiated opinions that goes a bit beyond a desire to 'hear the other side' as revealed by your unwillingness to listen. You need more concrete validation of your intelligence, and some anger management. I might be a flake but I am a friendly peaceful flake. Whats your damned problem? Always wanting to kick asses...
I feel superior to everyone all the time no matter what. Do you have a point?
The Senate intelligence committee has to have access to the same intelligence as the president. That's the rules. That's the checks and balances thing.
It's not a matter of me thinking we could have done more. Now i think we could have done more, Now i know saddam wasn't a imminent threat. But then again, Now i know that Gonzaga won't be in the elite 8. If i could go back in time i would change my pick, but i'm not complaining that the president could have done more had he used the crystal ball. That's the point. You are judging the past with present knowledge.
I am not angry, i'm passionate. There's a difference. I enjoy it, it's not violent. Well, except for getlive, but he needs a good ass kicking.
Hey Rhino, who has the better Madden online record...that should finish this argument!
no question i kick his ass every time.
You don't play fantasy football too, do you? My brother cannot even email me back a simple damned answer to a simple damned question but he can read nine hundred emails about ESPN baseball line ups that aren't even REAL.
Actually, you sound like my brother, beyond just the hating me part. Not only does he want to kick everyone's ass but he thinks that 'tapping underage tail' is heroic...that we should nuke Mecca and "shut them muthafuckers up". On Christmas Eve he tells me that liberals hate religion because its competition for the tax money they want to take from the working man. "Hippies have a case of TITHE ENVY".
See Rhino whatever you dish out, its just more of what I have been hearing for years. You both probably had the same Samantha Fox poster back in the eighties...
I do play fantasy football, and i'm great at it.
I don't hate you.(plus you want me)
I don't tap underage tail, but if it's barely legal i brag about it.
I wouldn't choose to nuke mecca, but i'm open to his argument. i'd have to hear more.
He's probably right about the tithe envy, i hadn't thought of it.
I didn't have samantha fox, and i didn't have the cowboys cheerleaders, i did have farah faucett(sp) for about ten years.
That chick was hot and she was wearing that orange one piece.
Too bad about Mr. Kelley. I am a faithful Atlantic reader.
I am always amazed at how people from all sides will quote Orwell out of context. i am not implying this quote is, it just got me thinking. It is almost like he is Christ or something. I have had so many people throw Orwell quotes in my face and my only reaction is that he is on my side buddy. he was a socialist for goodness sake. read "Homage to Catalonia" uhhh it makes me mad.
I would totally make Graeme my mascot of the week but he seems like the type to object. Maybe Ben is open minded since I won his contest...
And enough with the damned Orwell is right. Orwell is like the new black or something (fashion term, lest you read into that incorrectly)
And see all these bloggers act like THEY thought of the Orwellian parallels. The next time I have to read "shrub" or "Orwell" I am going to go hippie slappin.
A bonafide sport, for all you midwesterners.
Post a Comment