ybnormal

Thank you Mark, for your calm in the midst of my storm. Your post contains at least 2 good surprises... one, the above-mentioned overall civil response to this hard-nosed, impatient old man, and two, a more specific one, which I'll address later. And I apologize for anywhere that I went way over the line.
Sorry Friend, I'm afraid there IS a direct correlation... a correlation that was the basis of that entire particular point. I could not have made the point, which you have now termed a good argument without this direct correlation. I'll admit that it may have appeared that I was just going off on your pro-war position as reason in itself for my remarks, but I was trying to make a point... I don't claim any special gift in translating my mind into understandable posts.

The correlation between my point and yours came from your first response to my chiding you about Free Speech.
That is what I really responded to... in that single sentence, you deny any responsibility for support of the people who directly began killing people, yet imply that folks who do not support it, are responsible for some additional future deaths.

In short, and for the most part, you want to have it both ways... it was the obvious hypocrisy of that statement which I answered.

If you look at my second post as a whole, starting from the first line, you should find that my entire purpose was to draw this simple correlation-

While you are accusing Arnett and his supporters (me) of causing additional deaths in Iraq, thus holding Arnett and me responsible for additional deaths, you deny your own responsibility, being a war supporter, for all of the other deaths.

You said as much here...
Do you still deny that You are an advocate of behavior that's leading to more death as well?

That is what I was attempting to elicit from you when I said...

I suggest that folks like yourself, who support this travesty of justice, not only will get people killed, but you/they have already had people killed.

Bush, as Commander in Chief, could/would never have started this war had there been NO supporters, if for no other reason than there would be NO reelection.

You can't possibly argue that my support of the minority position causes additional deaths, and simultaneously argue that your support of the majority position causes NO deaths.

If you want to argue that Bush would have made this war with NO American support, then you have some serious questions regarding the sanity of the man whose actions you avidly support.

So, once again, just to be clear, it was ONLY your denial of shared responsibility, while holding others responsible for the same thing, which I actually went off on.

Then this, the second surprise...
Yeah, I know. After years of chiding folks on the Net, whose reason for living seems to be to silence others, you are only the second person who has called my bluff on that... cool. (The other guy is an archeologist friend who at the time was working, sleeping and connecting to the Net from inside an Egyptian mummy vault. I should try to contact him again.)

Anyway, most people don't question it or see any hypocrisy, mainly I think, because they know I'm more right. Altho yours here was not a clear-cut case of that by any means, I will most always be more right and claim the high moral ground. You may want to try, but I don't think you can make a solid argument that trying to silence someone is equal to trying to silence a silencer. One is clearly on the side of open dialogue while the other is quite the opposite. One is an action and the other is a reaction. While I was growing up, my Mother was more right in telling me to stop telling others to "shut up".

Thanks for your response. I'll get to your other points later.

Toad

themistocles

What Pomp said.

It's not an issue of "the truth" or opinion, free speech or anything else. Arnett, perhaps unwittingly, risked aid and comfort to the enemy by potentially giving an impression which would result in an increase of confidence which otherwise may not have existed to continue hostilities. Therefore, Arnett potentially well could be contributing to increased and unnescessary deaths.

As for saying that if Bush had no support, there'd be no war, and therefore no deaths is ludicrous. What in the world had Saddam been doing to his people previously? Certainly some level of unnescessary deaths were caused by deprivations which Saddam did not attempt to alleviate (if not cause himself). Plus, it forgets the original argument that while Saddam may be weak now, he had ignored his agreements and could well pose a threat in the future. Therefore, the original argument assumes no one really dies unnescessarily in the Middle East from a status quo situation, the most presumptious guess-work of all.

One of the last sane

Is Peter Arnett a US citizen? I know he was born and raised in New Zealand; has he taken out US citizenship? Newspapers at www.stuff.co.nz are referring to him as a New Zealander. If he is not a US citizen, he cannot be accused of treason towards the US or of being unpatriotic. It is my understanding that the Prime Minister of his birth country has expressed exactly the same views as he has, so perhaps he is being very patriotic - only not to the US.

themistocles

Has the prime minister of New Zealand given an interview with Iraqi state television since the start of the war, encouraging their efforts?

enrious

AFAIK, he is a US citizen and said something to the effect of "...and I've been a US citizen for 24 years and am deeply sorry..." in his Today Show interview the following morning.

Soyin Milka

Hm.

Guns don't kill people. Freedom of expression kills people.

Soyin

P.S. I claim the right to disagree with myself.

markstake

Oh, man... I wrote up a post hours ago, and when I checked back, it's gone. Damn. Anyway, I'll see if I can at least produce an abbreviated version.

First, a quote from an article about Arnett: This answers earlier questions about whether Arnett is a U.S. citizen, although I can't say whether he has dual citizenship with New Zealand or not.

This also let's me know that I'm not alone in the world in thinking Arnett's remarks will cause more deaths, although there's no support for the statement in the article. The article doesn't mention that there will also be more Iraqi military and civilian casualties, which is an important omission (and probably tells you a little something about the author). While I am pro-war, I really sincerely want as few casualties, both military and civilian, both Iraqi and coalition, as we can manage while achieving our goal. This is what upsets me so much about Arnett.

Now, on to ybnormal. You write:Well, I wasn't entirely calm, but thanks for overlooking my rudeness and bringing our conversation back to civility. I think we can find some common ground to understand one another better. From your message I think we're not speaking entirely in the same context, and this is a gap we can close.

I'm pretty good at saying what I mean, not saying what I don't mean, and not getting confused about the difference. I typically omit things that aren't relevant as a courtesy to readers who have as little time as I do, but there are occassions when it's appropriate to explain why something isn't relevant. This appears to be one of those occassions.
First, regardless of whether you, I, Arnett, or anybody else is pro- or anti- war, the war is on. Although it would be pretty far-fetched to believe that my individual opinion on the matter would have made a difference one way or the other, that doesn't relieve me from at least moral culpability for the current situation. The only point that I am trying to make here is that the current situation exists, regardless of how it came to be, and who is responsible for it.

For purpose of the current discussion, namely whether or not Peter Arnett's interview will cause additional death, how that situation came to be, and my opinion about it, is not relevant.
You're right. I said you were an advocate of behavior that causes additional death, not that you personally are impacting the death toll. (By the way, your earlier argument that Arnett's interview may reduce total death by encouraging the U.S. to take a more peaceful path in the future makes a good case that you are not an advocate of behavior that increases the body count. I disagree, but it's still a valid argument.)

I also never said that my position does not cause death. However, even if my position does cause death, even if I took up arms and went and shot Iraqi civilians myself (a truly repulsive thought), that doesn't mean that Peter's interview does not cause additional deaths. These two things are independent of each other.

For the record, to the extent that I am still pro-war, and not an advocate of packing up and pulling out, I'm still culpable. However, I would deny that my opinion will get more people killed than if I had a different opinion.

On to the whole freedom of speech thing: I don't know if I can buy the more right thing.

Free speech has consequences. It can cause things to happen that wouldn't otherwise happen. I can disagree with the speech, and I can dislike the consequences. That doesn't mean it should be restricted, and opinions should be silenced.

I had more to say, but I don't have any more time. I'll check in later.

Blixy Sticks

I was listening to NPR on the way home from work tonight and Daniel Shore was commenting on the Arnett issue. He asserted that Arnett did the journalistic profession a disservice by allowing himself to be used by Saddam as a pawn for propaganda purposes. Whereas, I agree that Arnett was used as a pawn, he certainly hasn't done the profession any more of a disservice than the major networks and newspapers in the U. S. If these supposed sources of objective reporting aren't pawns of the conservative right's propaganda campaign, then there is no such thing as a pawn in this propaganda volley.

Happy Wonderer

One of the conservative radio commentators (Mike Savage of "Savage Nation") was ranting that Peter should be arrested by the FBI, brought back to the USA, tried for treason, and hung or electrocuted. So much for free speech.

(I had to listen to this while a new neighbor was unpacking his van.)

I find it to be somewhat odd logic that anything that gives comfort to Iraq ends up killing people for no reason because they are going to lose the war anyway. It is similar to the argument that a woman who resists rape in the face of overwheliming force brings her injuries upon herself.

It is the US causing the injuries. Resistance by the Iraqis -- although perhaps ultimately futile -- does have a chance of shaping their future capitulation. (There is really no such thing as unconditional surrender, even if Rummy now thinks that he is U.S. Grant and Iraq the US South.) Iraq will end up with a much different government based upon the resistance we have faced than if we had walked in with no shots fired. It is quite clear that any future government arrangement will have to take account of the fact that many in Iraq do not like the US. It should have been clear to begin with, but anyway...

I also find it somewhat odd logic that Peter's statements are different than any other pundit's because they were shown in Iraqi T.V. Do we think that Iraq has no other sources of information? Daniel Schorr's peice used Walter Cronkite's peices on Vietnam as an example of "good critical reporting" because it was in the U.S. press. What Daniel failed to mention was that Walter's commentaries also made it to the vietnamese press.

I think that where Peter Arnett erred was in assuming that we in the USA would realize that he was reporting from Baghdad, in circumstances that were not entirely voluntary. He overestimated our intelligence. Like I said earlier, what kind of interview do we expect him to give on Iraqi T.V. when three journalists are missing?


hw

PopeInTheWoods

Germany and Italy for sure have mining, timber, much arable land, rivers, harbors, etc. Japan maybe not so much, but with some mining, and great ports and fisheries. None of them are particularly inhospitable, like deserts or jungles.

But even leaving the resource part out, the US history of "nation-building" isn't completely dismal, especially if a major military effort was involved.

But this is getting pretty far off-topic, maybe I'll find another thread that gets into the US track record.

Andy