Falluja operation underway

[Arrian]

Originally posted by GePap
Hitchens is an imbecile.

Having read his most recent article over on Slate, I'm inclined to agree.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pax
I don't want to put words in your mouth.
I would like to know who do you think is most likely to help the Iraqi's have a stable government. The U.S. or other Iraqi's?

I dont think this was a question of getting the support of the US or of the Iraqi Islamic Party. Retaking Fallujah was NOT something Allawi did to please the US. It was something he did to weaken an insurgency that is attacking the government he heads everyday, with guns, bombs and kidnappings - an insurgency that has put a price on his head. Clearly there are costs to be weighed in taking specific actions against that insurgency, and Im quite sure he has weighed them. How it will turn out is not for me to see, history, and especially war, being unpredictable by their nature.

[lord of the mark]

to add yet more complexity to the political situation

'The party’s one Cabinet representative, Industry and Minerals Minister Hajem al-Hassani, says he will leave the party but not resign.

“I believe the fate of Iraq is more important than that of a political party and I will stay with the Government,” Mr Hassani said.

“I will withdraw from the Iraqi Islamic Party"'

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian


Having read his most recent article over on Slate, I'm inclined to agree.

-Arrian

Why is it that whenever someone from the left has the temerity to question the underlying themes they are branded as an imbecile? His points regarding excuse making for the islamofascist movements and tendency to self blame the US from the hard left are in my estimation spot on. His other points regarding secularization vs fundamentalist movements of the US are snoozers IMO as I don't accept that as THE big issue wrt voter decisions.

Too much has been made of these values issues. IMO the exit polling was far too vague. Values can be ascribed to fundamentalist dogma but just as likely could be used to describe Kerry the weak kneed "terrorist" negotiator. (He apparently described himself as such i.e. negotiating with terrorists in his diaries wrt his meetings with the NV)

[Arrian]

Ok, I'll explain myself.

Hitchens starts off by asserting a bunch of stuff about "the Left" which is always dangerous (just like saying "The Right says this!"). Lots of people left-of-center do *not* support radical Islam. But Hitchens glosses over that, because that would get in the way of his article.

However, even if that's true of the "hard left" - and I do not argue that some hardcore lefties are all about blaming the US for everything and letter the Islamists off the hook - he then proceeds to claim that Bush is the defender of secularism simply because he confronts radical Islamic fundamentalism.

This is where he goes off the deep end, IMO, and why I think he's a fool. One fundy confronts another and suddenly he's a hero of secularism? No, he's not. And it's a mistake to paint him as such. He's a fundy fighting another fundy. He's our fundy, and I do grant Hitchens that rather have Bush than Osama, but the rest just doesn't compute.

It's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff. Bush is the enemy of radical Islam, which is opposed to secularism, so therefore Bush is our friend. I reject that. The first mistake is to assume that there is only one way to confront radical islam - Bush's way. The second is to assume that Bush's confrontation w/radical islam will advance secularism.

-Arrian

[Pax]

Arrian is right!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, I'll explain myself.

Hitchens starts off by asserting a bunch of stuff about "the Left" which is always dangerous (just like saying "The Right says this!"). Lots of people left-of-center do *not* support radical Islam. But Hitchens glosses over that, because that would get in the way of his article.

However, even if that's true of the "hard left" - and I do not argue that some hardcore lefties are all about blaming the US for everything and letter the Islamists off the hook - he then proceeds to claim that Bush is the defender of secularism simply because he confronts radical Islamic fundamentalism.

This is where he goes off the deep end, IMO, and why I think he's a fool. One fundy confronts another and suddenly he's a hero of secularism? No, he's not. And it's a mistake to paint him as such. He's a fundy fighting another fundy. He's our fundy, and I do grant Hitchens that rather have Bush than Osama, but the rest just doesn't compute.

It's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff. Bush is the enemy of radical Islam, which is opposed to secularism, so therefore Bush is our friend. I reject that. The first mistake is to assume that there is only one way to confront radical islam - Bush's way. The second is to assume that Bush's confrontation w/radical islam will advance secularism.

-Arrian

To say that bushes way is is the right way, and that it will advance secularism "George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled" is certainly arguable, and Hitch likes nothing better than provoking argument, but its not imbecile. What he is taking issue with is the assumption that ANYONE who supported Bush must be fundie, that one COULDNT have supported Bush out of secularism. As for why Hitch favors Bushs approach, he has argued for that in detail elsewhere.

[Arrian]

What he is taking issue with is the assumption that ANYONE who supported Bush must be fundie, that one COULDNT have supported Bush out of secularism.

Clearly more than just the fundies supported Bush. There are a scary number of them, but not 59 million. There is, however, a category between "fundie" and "secularist" (is secularist a good term? meh). There are lots of "moderate" Christians who voted for Bush, and did so in whole or in part due to his faith (or rather their faith in his faith).

That being said, clearly a secularist could choose Bush. However, getting back to this:

"George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled"

I think that is imbecile. Why? Let's assume for a minute that he's right and Bush *has* done more than the "American agnostic community" (whatever that is), and I certainly think it's argueable that he's done anything for secularism at all (much hinges on the eventual outcome of Iraq). Bush has been President of the USofA for four years and counting - the leader of the most powerful country in the world. The "American agnostic community" consists of what? 5% of the US population or something like that? We have how much power & influence? Perhaps an Agnostic, if given the Presidency, could have done a ****load more good for secularism (or good, period) if he/she had been President instead of Bush? But of course that hasn't happened. So let's look at what we've got... Bush, fundy Christian. He's, um, yeah, better than Osama.

That's what Hitchens is saying, and I find it silly.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Hitchens has always been shrill and obnoxious, even when he wrote "from the left". I have never gived a damn what he says, cause he has always been an idiot. He is still an idiot.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Arrian


Clearly more than just the fundies supported Bush. There are a scary number of them, but not 59 million. There is, however, a category between "fundie" and "secularist" (is secularist a good term? meh). There are lots of "moderate" Christians who voted for Bush, and did so in whole or in part due to his faith (or rather their faith in his faith).

That being said, clearly a secularist could choose Bush. However, getting back to this:

"George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled"

I think that is imbecile. Why? Let's assume for a minute that he's right and Bush *has* done more than the "American agnostic community" (whatever that is), and I certainly think it's argueable that he's done anything for secularism at all (much hinges on the eventual outcome of Iraq). Bush has been President of the USofA for four years and counting - the leader of the most powerful country in the world. The "American agnostic community" consists of what? 5% of the US population or something like that? We have how much power & influence? Perhaps an Agnostic, if given the Presidency, could have done a ****load more good for secularism (or good, period) if he/she had been President instead of Bush? But of course that hasn't happened. So let's look at what we've got... Bush, fundy Christian. He's, um, yeah, better than Osama.

That's what Hitchens is saying, and I find it silly.

-Arrian

To add to what Arrian said. More laws are getting introduced with a christian/religous slant to them. Soemtimes laws are introduced to reinforce religion.
1. Marriage defined as between a man and a woman.
2. faith based iniatives.
3. The law that a county in tennessee tried to passing that would make it illegal for gays to live there.
I for one do not want to change peoples personal values. I just want to foster a community that will let people practice their personal beliefs without interference.

On the subject, of terrorism/insurgency. People who say "You can't reason with them because they are blood-maddened thugs" are unreasonable. Not saying that you can reason with the"thugs" but you can't just dismiss them either. Let me give you two examples of how you can end a war short of genocide. 1. Take away the will to fight. 2. Take away the reason. I submit to you that killing the "blood-maddened thugs" does not take away the reason or will. It only nurtures an environment that will sprout more "blood-maddened thugs"

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You'll pardon me but I could give a rats ass regarding fundie vs. secular arguements. I don't buy them and I certainly don't buy them as THE largest contributor to a Bush victory.

The point where Hitch is spot on is the hard left self blame game. And if he overreaches his stereotyping it is no different than the overstereotyping done here and in the MSM depicting anyone voting for Bush as a right wing cracker low IQ Fundie loonies.

The so called moderates who placed their faith in Bush are no different than any other voter in any given year. Those who cast a vote place their faith in the candidates ability to lead. The decision to go with Bush was simply that. The whole values topic that was broguht to the forefront simply reflects the feeling that Bush will be consistant and principaled at least in contrast to the less than stellar alternative.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Hitchens has always been shrill and obnoxious, even when he wrote "from the left". I have never gived a damn what he says, cause he has always been an idiot. He is still an idiot.

He is shrill and obnoxious. Hes still one of the most interesting reads around, when taken with the proper amount of salt.

[Arrian]

You'll pardon me but I could give a rats ass regarding fundie vs. secular arguements.

Which is the centerpiece of Hitchens' dumbass opinion piece.

The point where Hitch is spot on is the hard left self blame game. And if he overreaches his stereotyping it is no different than the overstereotyping done here and in the MSM depicting anyone voting for Bush as a right wing cracker low IQ Fundie loonies.

Meh. Where is the dividing line between intelligent self criticism (i.e. attempting to honestly evaluate one's policies to see if one could, maybe, just maybe, have erred) and self-hating commie traitors? That line is different for all. I think many do take the self blame too far. I think that just as many take USA! USA! USA! too far. I'll call bs on both.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Hmm? Hard lefts "its all our fault"
or we have the Hard Rights "Its never our fault"

Perhaps we should aim for a correct analysis of the problem?

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
You'll pardon me but I could give a rats ass regarding fundie vs. secular arguements. I don't buy them and I certainly don't buy them as THE largest contributor to a Bush victory.

The point where Hitch is spot on is the hard left self blame game. And if he overreaches his stereotyping it is no different than the overstereotyping done here and in the MSM depicting anyone voting for Bush as a right wing cracker low IQ Fundie loonies.

The so called moderates who placed their faith in Bush are no different than any other voter in any given year. Those who cast a vote place their faith in the candidates ability to lead. The decision to go with Bush was simply that. The whole values topic that was broguht to the forefront simply reflects the feeling that Bush will be consistant and principaled at least in contrast to the less than stellar alternative.

1. I agree with your first point. Still even if they are not the largest block of voters, they could still be most responsible for Bush's victory. I believe that they are. Think about it. When attacked, he reverts back to his good ol christian values. You attack him. He's just doing the work god chose him for. Why do you hate god so much?

2. Why is it self blame. I think it's a look at the facts. America is here. Iraq is overthere. America army is overthere. Should it be here? The left wants the country to go in a different direction. Apart of democracy is allowing for that freedom of speech. Why does the right try so hard to muzzle it. Also, many people on the left, like me believe that the war in Iraq goes against basic american principles. How could we not speak out?

3. People who voted for Bush may not be fundies. They may not be neocons. They may not be low IQ rednecks. Most of them are not any of those. I believe that whatever else they maybe, most of them are misled.

4. Going back to the issues of values and morals. People on the left(me) would argue that kerry has more/better values than Bush. For example, Bush supports what I see as murder.