Wednesday, August 03, 2005

They Hate Us. They Hate Us. They Really, Really Hate Us

Well, maybe not them: U.S. soldier's aid to Iraqis earns him title of sheik

But I get a funny feeling he does: "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is,"

Hat Tip: Salt, Captain's Quarters, Glenn Reynolds

Update: As I thought the comments for this post were particularly interesting, I have decided to post them.

Justin Gohn said...
I wonder if that story about the soldier getting the title of sheik will make the NY Times?
1:40 PM

Dan Trabue said...
I'm curious, do you agree with the eminent domain decision? That seems like one conservatives should be opposed to, right?So it's just Dean's tone you dislike in his screed, but not the particular point you have quoted above?
2:00 PM

Mwalimu Daudi said...
As the article you linked to pointed out, it was the liberal wing of the Supreme Court (Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy) that were the majority on the Kelo vs. New London case. Funny how conservatives get blamed for everything liberals screw up.
7:08 PM

shipwrecked said...
Nice one Mwalimu!The thing with Dean, is that he walks and talks, but little commonsense comes out of him. To think this oaf was almost the Democrat's Presidential Candidate!
10:30 AM

Dan Trabue said...
I agree that Dean has presentation problems. However, I'd take his policy stances over Bush's or Kerry's any day. My real pick was a Kucinich/Moseley Brauner ticket, though. Carol/Kooch! Carol/Kooch! Carol/Kooch!
11:09 AM

NYgirl said...
Hi Justin & welcome. LOL, the truth has never been a paramount concern for the NYT. If you're interested, Micheal Yon, in his online journal, has wonderful converage of Iraq.I'm glad to see you've found your ideal ticket Dan :) I'm for Condi for Pres, but still open on the veep. But do you think that presentation is the only problem Dean has, the quote I posted is clearly incorrect. He is the chairmen on the DNC, shouldn't he be a little more resposible?
2:32 PM

Dan Trabue said...
I have no great opinion on Dean except that he's too conservative and not especially voter-friendly, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm tired of voter-friendly candidates.Responsible? If you think the leader of your country is a war criminal and ought to be stopped and slightly more than half the country isn't concerned about it, then I think a bit of yelling is in order.Wake up! He's a war criminal! that kind of thing...Anything less would be irresponsible if that's what you think, right?
2:52 PM

NYgirl said...
Dan Darling, we are a democracy, & in a democracy the will of a majority of the people is the most important consideration.
3:31 PM

Dan Trabue said...
Actually, we are a republic, but that's nitpicking. But that's the problem with democracy, isn't it? They tyranny of the majority?That's why, while there were doubtless some Germans opposed to Hitler, Germany as a whole fell behind him...because the majority supported his notions or were too weak-willed to actively oppose them.And, as a person of faith and, aside from that, a person concerned about justice, the will of the majority is certainly not the most important consideration. What is righteous and just is the most important thing and we must fight for that, even in the face of the tyranny of the majority, right?
7:04 PM

Mwalimu Daudi said...
Howard Dean is too conservative? It's a pity that Stalin is dead, and Fidel is not in great health these days.
7:28 PM

NYgirl said...
Acctualy Dan, Hitler was appointed to his post, his party won 37% of the vote, hardley a majority of voters. One of the first things he did after ascending to power was eliminating democracy.I don't know if you've noticed, but Hitler came to power in 1933 & was in power until 1945, & there weren't too many democratic elections in Germany during that period.Glad you decided not to nickpick on the democracy v republic thing. That topic can get so tiersome :)If you don't like democracy, what would you prefer?Mwalimu, LOL. You have the most amazing sence of humor.
8:05 PM

Dan Trabue said...
This is exactly what I'm getting at (Mwalimu's joke). Yes, of course it's funny but it's also misleading. The joke is associating "More liberal" with more evil. As a joke, that's fine. I laughed.But that's the tone of so many of these more conservative blogs, which suggests you're not listening to the facts, not listening to people like me who are engaging you in conversation. It's often as if you believe the joke.My point on Hitler was not that he was freely elected. My point is that a people, any people, can overthrow or at least work to overthrow any tyrant, and they can succeed IF the numbers are great enough. AND they can do it peacefully.For instance, if the 50-ish million people who voted against Bush were as convinced as I am that Bush is a war criminal and therefore must be stopped, we 50 million could stop him. All we'd have to do is some united act like stop paying taxes or stop driving. Actions like that would bring the government to its knees - drastic actions to be sure. But if you are dealing with a war criminal that ought to be stopped, then drastic actions are needed.So you see, I DO believe in democracy - the people in action - not the corporate-controlled plutocracy we have here in this country.Now, if you believe in the theory of redemptive violence and think drastic actions are needed, you'd have assassinations and civil wars, things of that nature. Fortunately, those of us opposed drastically to Bush are by and large peacful in our approach.My point, though, is that the Germans could have stopped Hitler if sufficiently opposed to him. They weren't, they didn't.
5:51 AM

NYgirl said...
Dan, from what you're saying it sounds to me like you oppose democracy. What about the fact that the MAJORITY of voters did vote for George W Bush? It means that a majority of Americans do think that he acted properly & is not a criminal.Yes, democracy is the tyranny of the majority.If a minority were to attempt to subvert the will of the majority, that would be a dictatorship.As for the Gremans overthrowing Hitler, as the examples of so many dictatorships, where they don't hold democratic elections show, it's not that easy. And as for tone, though I did not comment, I did read the July 29th post in your blog.
11:28 AM

Mwalimu Daudi said...
Dan, it seems rather easy to be an armchair revolutionary and say, "Germans could have stopped Hitler if sufficiently opposed to him." The bad news is that the revolutions you talk about are seldom benign or peaceful. Often they replace one evil with another even worse evil. I hold up the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, and Iran are Exhibits A, B, C & D.And in the cases of Nazi Germany and Iraq, it was outside military forces that brought down Hitler and Saddam - not refusing to drive cars or pay taxes.By the way - are the 60 million or so who voted for Bush entited to "stop" Democrats the way you feel entitled to "stop" Bush? Just want to know the ground rules here.
1:12 PM

Dan Trabue said...
If a TINY minority attempts to subvert the will of the majority it's a dictatorship. If a huge minority does it, it's civil revolution. It's a scary concept and I'd only push it in case of an out-of-control dangerously criminal leader such as a Hitler or a Bush.And I'll concede calling conservatives "nuts" (as I did in the July 29 post you mention) is name-calling, it was directed at friends of mine in a amiable sense. Not that an innocent bystander could tell.I'll plea Satire, as well.
1:13 PM

Dan Trabue said...
Sorry, I posted that last one before Mwalimu asked me if it's okay for a group to try to overthrow another group in a democracy. As I said above, it's a dangerous, scary concept, but called for in the case of a criminal presidency. Don't you wish that Germans had broken the law and overthrown Hitler before he got out of control?[Necessary caveat: I'm not saying Bush is comparable to Hitler (I think of Bush as more of a compassionate fascist). I'm saying that Bush committed war crimes for which he should stand trial. I'm saying US citizens are in a similar position as WWII Germans in that they're allowing a criminal president to continue.]
1:17 PM

Mwalimu Daudi said...
And what about a self-appointed minority elite? Are we allowed to resist them? Supposed the 60 million who voted for Bush decided that your 50 million should stand trial for "crimes against humanity" or some other such nonsense. Dan, do you not see what a can of worms you have opened when you falsely accuse Bush of war crimes and then make yourselves judge, trial, and jury to boot? What happens if you end up on the short end of the stick one day?False accusations are not just, and "people power" will never make it so.
1:34 PM

NYgirl said...
Who decides if the leader is an out-of-control dangerously criminal one?I am sorry Dan, but I do not agree that a huge majority makes it a civil revolution. A minority is a minority, & a subversion of the will of the majority is a dictatorship. I find it impossible to defend a dictatorship.
1:37 PM

NYgirl said...
Mwalimu, we seem to have crossed each other. You read my mind & wrote it much better than I ever could. Sure you don't have ESP :)
1:40 PM

Dan Trabue said...
If we had a history of listening to World Courts and abiding their decisions, that's one thing. We don't. And so the world is leary of trying to try the US. I'm saying there ought to be clear international laws, a strong international court and we ought to abide by them. As I'm sure you know (oh wait. Maybe you wouldn't know since it's hardly been covered in the liberal MSM), Bush and those in power have been opposed to joining the International Criminal Court. We've even passed legislation giving us the "right" to invade a country if the ICC were to arrest our soldiers!We're a superpower that's out of control.Tell me: Do you support the ICC? International law? Then why are you supporting this international scofflaw?
1:40 PM

Dan Trabue said...
NYgirl: so you would have been opposed to Germans opposed to Hitler trying to subvert the dominant paradigm (for argument's sake, let's say back before he dissolved the democracy)?
1:43 PM

Mwalimu Daudi said...
I know that the question was not directed at me, but I do not support the International Criminal Court, or any other self-declared World Court, nor international law (as it is presently understood). Where does the legal and moral authority for a World Court come from? Who decides what is international law, and how can they be held accountable? Why should such a system be imposed upon us against our will if we do not want it? Dan, when the European powers did the same thing in Africa, it was called colonialism and imperialism. What is so different now?And what kind of justice could we expect from a World Court composed of judges from such redoubts of democracy and freedom such as North Korea, China, Iran, and Zimbabwe?NY Girl: Love your web site!
8:36 PM

Dan Trabue said...
OK. So if there are no international laws, on what authority do we prosecute a Saddam Hussein? If you don't believe in international law, then world order is based purely on Might makes Right. Whichever countries the reigning superpower deems worthy of "saving" is the one that gets intervened upon.You're promoting a form of anarchy that doesn't make much sense to me.

Mwalimu Daudi said...
Dan, what we have is worse than anarchy! Anarchy would actually be an improvement over what we have now. At least with anarchy, someone might actually do something useful. With current international law, it is the criminals who run the show for their own own amusement.There was genocide in Rwanda and "international law" did nothing to help the Rwandan people. Saddam gassed the Kurds and thumbed his nose at one UN resolution after another, and the world turned its back. There is genocide in Sudan, and does international law come riding to the rescue? What about tyrants in Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and many other places who are crushing the life out of millions of people? Has international law done anything for the oppressed - beyond empowering their oppressors?By the way: Saddam is being prosecuted by the people of Iraq for what he did to them. Thank the Almighty that international law can't get its claws on this case!It is long overdue for the world to say "No!" to letting real criminals such as Libya and Zimbabwe run the UN Humans Rights Commission. A Coalition of Democracies - now that is moral international law!I think that you and I are the only ones left talking on this thread. I don't think we are going to convince each other of our respective positions, Dan.
9:55 AM

Dan Trabue said...
Sure we will. You and I just agreed that there should be a moral international law ("say "No!" to real criminals...") That's all I'm saying. We need international law AND we (the US) ought to lead the way by abiding by international law.
1:25 PM

NYgirl said...
Dan, what I belive Mwalimu & I are both saying is that international law, as it is today is not democratic. It gives an undue place to dictators & in the process legitamizes them.The UN & internation law, as they exist now, should not be followed by us as it is not legitamate. When there is a legitamate international law, certainly, we should abide by it.
4:47 PM

Comments:
I wonder if that story about the soldier getting the title of sheik will make the NY Times?
 
I'm curious, do you agree with the eminent domain decision? That seems like one conservatives should be opposed to, right?

So it's just Dean's tone you dislike in his screed, but not the particular point you have quoted above?
 
As the article you linked to pointed out, it was the liberal wing of the Supreme Court (Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy) that were the majority on the Kelo vs. New London case.

Funny how conservatives get blamed for everything liberals screw up.
 
Nice one Mwalimu!

The thing with Dean, is that he walks and talks, but little commonsense comes out of him. To think this oaf was almost the Democrat's Presidential Candidate!
 
I agree that Dean has presentation problems. However, I'd take his policy stances over Bush's or Kerry's any day.

My real pick was a Kucinich/Moseley Brauner ticket, though. Carol/Kooch! Carol/Kooch! Carol/Kooch!
 
Hi Justin & welcome. LOL, the truth has never been a paramount concern for the NYT. If you're interested, Micheal Yon, in his online journal, has wonderful converage of Iraq.

I'm glad to see you've found your ideal ticket Dan :) I'm for Condi for Pres, but still open on the veep. But do you think that presentation is the only problem Dean has, the quote I posted is clearly incorrect. He is the chairmen on the DNC, shouldn't he be a little more resposible?
 
I have no great opinion on Dean except that he's too conservative and not especially voter-friendly, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm tired of voter-friendly candidates.

Responsible? If you think the leader of your country is a war criminal and ought to be stopped and slightly more than half the country isn't concerned about it, then I think a bit of yelling is in order.

Wake up! He's a war criminal! that kind of thing...Anything less would be irresponsible if that's what you think, right?
 
Dan Darling, we are a democracy, & in a democracy the will of a majority of the people is the most important consideration.
 
Actually, we are a republic, but that's nitpicking. But that's the problem with democracy, isn't it? They tyranny of the majority?

That's why, while there were doubtless some Germans opposed to Hitler, Germany as a whole fell behind him...because the majority supported his notions or were too weak-willed to actively oppose them.

And, as a person of faith and, aside from that, a person concerned about justice, the will of the majority is certainly not the most important consideration. What is righteous and just is the most important thing and we must fight for that, even in the face of the tyranny of the majority, right?
 
Howard Dean is too conservative? It's a pity that Stalin is dead, and Fidel is not in great health these days.
 
Acctualy Dan, Hitler was appointed to his post, his party won 37% of the vote, hardley a majority of voters. One of the first things he did after ascending to power was eliminating democracy.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Hitler came to power in 1933 & was in power until 1945, & there weren't too many democratic elections in Germany during that period.

Glad you decided not to nickpick on the democracy v republic thing. That topic can get so tiersome :)

If you don't like democracy, what would you prefer?

Mwalimu, LOL. You have the most amazing sence of humor.
 
This is exactly what I'm getting at (Mwalimu's joke). Yes, of course it's funny but it's also misleading. The joke is associating "More liberal" with more evil. As a joke, that's fine. I laughed.

But that's the tone of so many of these more conservative blogs, which suggests you're not listening to the facts, not listening to people like me who are engaging you in conversation. It's often as if you believe the joke.

My point on Hitler was not that he was freely elected. My point is that a people, any people, can overthrow or at least work to overthrow any tyrant, and they can succeed IF the numbers are great enough. AND they can do it peacefully.

For instance, if the 50-ish million people who voted against Bush were as convinced as I am that Bush is a war criminal and therefore must be stopped, we 50 million could stop him.

All we'd have to do is some united act like stop paying taxes or stop driving. Actions like that would bring the government to its knees - drastic actions to be sure. But if you are dealing with a war criminal that ought to be stopped, then drastic actions are needed.

So you see, I DO believe in democracy - the people in action - not the corporate-controlled plutocracy we have here in this country.

Now, if you believe in the theory of redemptive violence and think drastic actions are needed, you'd have assassinations and civil wars, things of that nature. Fortunately, those of us opposed drastically to Bush are by and large peacful in our approach.

My point, though, is that the Germans could have stopped Hitler if sufficiently opposed to him. They weren't, they didn't.
 
Dan, from what you're saying it sounds to me like you oppose democracy. What about the fact that the MAJORITY of voters did vote for George W Bush? It means that a majority of Americans do think that he acted properly & is not a criminal.

Yes, democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

If a minority were to attempt to subvert the will of the majority, that would be a dictatorship.

As for the Gremans overthrowing Hitler, as the examples of so many dictatorships, where they don't hold democratic elections show, it's not that easy.

And as for tone, though I did not comment, I did read the July 29th post in your blog.
 
Dan, it seems rather easy to be an armchair revolutionary and say, "Germans could have stopped Hitler if sufficiently opposed to him." The bad news is that the revolutions you talk about are seldom benign or peaceful. Often they replace one evil with another even worse evil. I hold up the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, and Iran are Exhibits A, B, C & D.

And in the cases of Nazi Germany and Iraq, it was outside military forces that brought down Hitler and Saddam - not refusing to drive cars or pay taxes.

By the way - are the 60 million or so who voted for Bush entited to "stop" Democrats the way you feel entitled to "stop" Bush? Just want to know the ground rules here.
 
If a TINY minority attempts to subvert the will of the majority it's a dictatorship. If a huge minority does it, it's civil revolution. It's a scary concept and I'd only push it in case of an out-of-control dangerously criminal leader such as a Hitler or a Bush.

And I'll concede calling conservatives "nuts" (as I did in the July 29 post you mention) is name-calling, it was directed at friends of mine in a amiable sense. Not that an innocent bystander could tell.

I'll plea Satire, as well.
 
Sorry, I posted that last one before Mwalimu asked me if it's okay for a group to try to overthrow another group in a democracy. As I said above, it's a dangerous, scary concept, but called for in the case of a criminal presidency. Don't you wish that Germans had broken the law and overthrown Hitler before he got out of control?

[Necessary caveat: I'm not saying Bush is comparable to Hitler (I think of Bush as more of a compassionate fascist). I'm saying that Bush committed war crimes for which he should stand trial. I'm saying US citizens are in a similar position as WWII Germans in that they're allowing a criminal president to continue.]
 
And what about a self-appointed minority elite? Are we allowed to resist them? Supposed the 60 million who voted for Bush decided that your 50 million should stand trial for "crimes against humanity" or some other such nonsense. Dan, do you not see what a can of worms you have opened when you falsely accuse Bush of war crimes and then make yourselves judge, trial, and jury to boot? What happens if you end up on the short end of the stick one day?

False accusations are not just, and "people power" will never make it so.
 
Who decides if the leader is an out-of-control dangerously criminal one?

I am sorry Dan, but I do not agree that a huge majority makes it a civil revolution. A minority is a minority, & a subversion of the will of the majority is a dictatorship. I find it impossible to defend a dictatorship.
 
Mwalimu, we seem to have crossed each other. You read my mind & wrote it much better than I ever could. Sure you don't have ESP :)
 
If we had a history of listening to World Courts and abiding their decisions, that's one thing. We don't. And so the world is leary of trying to try the US.

I'm saying there ought to be clear international laws, a strong international court and we ought to abide by them.

As I'm sure you know (oh wait. Maybe you wouldn't know since it's hardly been covered in the liberal MSM), Bush and those in power have been opposed to joining the International Criminal Court. We've even passed legislation giving us the "right" to invade a country if the ICC were to arrest our soldiers!

We're a superpower that's out of control.

Tell me: Do you support the ICC? International law? Then why are you supporting this international scofflaw?
 
NYgirl: so you would have been opposed to Germans opposed to Hitler trying to subvert the dominant paradigm (for argument's sake, let's say back before he dissolved the democracy)?
 
I know that the question was not directed at me, but I do not support the International Criminal Court, or any other self-declared World Court, nor international law (as it is presently understood).

Where does the legal and moral authority for a World Court come from? Who decides what is international law, and how can they be held accountable? Why should such a system be imposed upon us against our will if we do not want it? Dan, when the European powers did the same thing in Africa, it was called colonialism and imperialism. What is so different now?

And what kind of justice could we expect from a World Court composed of judges from such redoubts of democracy and freedom such as North Korea, China, Iran, and Zimbabwe?

NY Girl: Love your web site!
 
OK. So if there are no international laws, on what authority do we prosecute a Saddam Hussein? If you don't believe in international law, then world order is based purely on Might makes Right. Whichever countries the reigning superpower deems worthy of "saving" is the one that gets intervened upon.

You're promoting a form of anarchy that doesn't make much sense to me.
 
Dan, what we have is worse than anarchy! Anarchy would actually be an improvement over what we have now. At least with anarchy, someone might actually do something useful. With current international law, it is the criminals who run the show for their own own amusement.

There was genocide in Rwanda and "international law" did nothing to help the Rwandan people. Saddam gassed the Kurds and thumbed his nose at one UN resolution after another, and the world turned its back. There is genocide in Sudan, and does international law come riding to the rescue? What about tyrants in Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and many other places who are crushing the life out of millions of people? Has international law done anything for the oppressed - beyond empowering their oppressors?

By the way: Saddam is being prosecuted by the people of Iraq for what he did to them. Thank the Almighty that international law can't get its claws on this case!

It is long overdue for the world to say "No!" to letting real criminals such as Libya and Zimbabwe run the UN Humans Rights Commission. A Coalition of Democracies - now that is moral international law!

I think that you and I are the only ones left talking on this thread. I don't think we are going to convince each other of our respective positions, Dan.
 
Sure we will. You and I just agreed that there should be a moral international law ("say "No!" to real criminals...") That's all I'm saying. We need international law AND we (the US) ought to lead the way by abiding by international law.
 
Dan, what I belive Mwalimu & I are both saying is that international law, as it is today is not democratic. It gives an undue place to dictators & in the process legitamizes them.

The UN & internation law, as they exist now, should not be followed by us as it is not legitamate. When there is a legitamate international law, certainly, we should abide by it.
 
What, then?
 
What, then?
 
I am sorry, I don't understand your question.
Do you mean would we abide by the laws of such an organization? Yes.
 
Enjoyed a lot! » » »
 
This is very interesting site... » »
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?