Shame on you all
January 30, 2005 7:58 AM Subscribe
(joins the undamned)
posted by hackly_fracture at 8:05 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by hackly_fracture at 8:05 AM on January 30, 2005
(gathers his thoughts, realizes that this is a thread celebrating the Iraqi elections by attacking people in a community weblog, hastily rejoins damned)
posted by hackly_fracture at 8:10 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by hackly_fracture at 8:10 AM on January 30, 2005
Good post Mick. I was really having trouble finding news on the topic until you posted your links. You really saved the day! And got to feel self-righteous at the same time! Yay!
Oh, and way to spell "hypocrisy"....
posted by chrisgrau at 8:28 AM on January 30, 2005
Oh, and way to spell "hypocrisy"....
posted by chrisgrau at 8:28 AM on January 30, 2005
Re: hackly_fracture.
Is that your point Mick?
I don't know that anyone wished the elections to fail or there to be a fiasco where our guys get killed or anything.
Questioning the legitimacy of the elections, whether those elected will just be puppets of the U.S. government (or some other interest) is something we do even here.
I'm not seeing how not commenting on what is not a settled issue is somehow damning.
Anyone who would comment in a negative way would be arguing that perhaps more chaos should have ensued, which, again, is ridiculous.
I see no problem with mentioning the costs involved in getting this done, asking if it was worth it, asking if indeed these will be puppets or whether they will determine their own future. A big "What Now?" would not be out of line in questioning strategy. Is it our job to do this, even if successful? - sort of thing.
But if hackly_fracture is right, your insinuation is that opposition to the politics involved is somehow anti-democratic, pro-chaos and death to american troops, and that's just full of ass.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:33 AM on January 30, 2005
Is that your point Mick?
I don't know that anyone wished the elections to fail or there to be a fiasco where our guys get killed or anything.
Questioning the legitimacy of the elections, whether those elected will just be puppets of the U.S. government (or some other interest) is something we do even here.
I'm not seeing how not commenting on what is not a settled issue is somehow damning.
Anyone who would comment in a negative way would be arguing that perhaps more chaos should have ensued, which, again, is ridiculous.
I see no problem with mentioning the costs involved in getting this done, asking if it was worth it, asking if indeed these will be puppets or whether they will determine their own future. A big "What Now?" would not be out of line in questioning strategy. Is it our job to do this, even if successful? - sort of thing.
But if hackly_fracture is right, your insinuation is that opposition to the politics involved is somehow anti-democratic, pro-chaos and death to american troops, and that's just full of ass.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:33 AM on January 30, 2005
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
posted by NickDouglas at 8:35 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by NickDouglas at 8:35 AM on January 30, 2005
Nothing is more damning than silence.
WTF does that even mean? I do like the "Hypocracy" tag, however. That's definitely a form of governance I had never heard of before: Rule of Hype?
What Smedleyman said.
posted by psmealey at 8:40 AM on January 30, 2005
WTF does that even mean? I do like the "Hypocracy" tag, however. That's definitely a form of governance I had never heard of before: Rule of Hype?
What Smedleyman said.
posted by psmealey at 8:40 AM on January 30, 2005
What a load of axe-grinding, hectoring, self-righteous, illiterate drivel.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:47 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:47 AM on January 30, 2005
I do feel this is a wonderful, hope inspiring event, while, at the same time, harbouring serious doubts as to ... well ... as Smedleyman has just said ... yes, the legitimacy of the government which will arise and the question as to whether the ends justified the means throughout this situation. This doesn't make me any less opposed to the US's handling of Iraq. This doesn't make me any less opposed to Bush's foreign policy.
This does upset me for reasons that Iraqi elections will be flaunted as a great accomplishment for Bush and further criticism of him could only possibly be made by those who, obviously, hate democracy. But that's petty of me ... Or it's petty of anyone who would make that argument ...
Either way, something's petty ... somewhere ...
I need coffee.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:47 AM on January 30, 2005
This does upset me for reasons that Iraqi elections will be flaunted as a great accomplishment for Bush and further criticism of him could only possibly be made by those who, obviously, hate democracy. But that's petty of me ... Or it's petty of anyone who would make that argument ...
Either way, something's petty ... somewhere ...
I need coffee.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:47 AM on January 30, 2005
Mick -- you can be sure that the thousands of US and Iraqi dead, and the tens of thousands of wounded on both sides, are not rising up in a single chorus to say "shame on you all" this morning to those who wanted peace.
posted by digaman at 8:48 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by digaman at 8:48 AM on January 30, 2005
What a load of axe-grinding, hectoring, self-righteous, illiterate drivel.
Definitely an anomaly here at MetaFilter.
posted by dhoyt at 8:55 AM on January 30, 2005
Definitely an anomaly here at MetaFilter.
posted by dhoyt at 8:55 AM on January 30, 2005
Definitely an anomaly here at MetaFilter.
Give him credit. It still takes a special kind of smugness to title a post "Shame on you all".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:58 AM on January 30, 2005
Give him credit. It still takes a special kind of smugness to title a post "Shame on you all".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:58 AM on January 30, 2005
People in many if not most cases didn't even know who they were voting for - there were plenty of names left off ballots, with only a party listing. And the polls taken before this election say most Iraqis still want us gone, and the violence is far from over, etc. , etc.
posted by raysmj at 9:07 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by raysmj at 9:07 AM on January 30, 2005
Nothing is more damning than silence.
I figure that if the sky went all cloudy and the light turned blood-red and then the clouds split and Angry Jesus (or, worse, MECHA-SHIVA!) with fifty arms, each holding a board with a nail in it, rode down from the heavens on a giant snarling equid with shark's teeth and a laser attached to its head and started grabbing people and throwing them into a glowing transdimensional portal to Hell while screaming I CONDEMN YOU TO ETERNAL DAMNATION, that would be more damning than silence.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:17 AM on January 30, 2005 [1 favorite]
I figure that if the sky went all cloudy and the light turned blood-red and then the clouds split and Angry Jesus (or, worse, MECHA-SHIVA!) with fifty arms, each holding a board with a nail in it, rode down from the heavens on a giant snarling equid with shark's teeth and a laser attached to its head and started grabbing people and throwing them into a glowing transdimensional portal to Hell while screaming I CONDEMN YOU TO ETERNAL DAMNATION, that would be more damning than silence.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:17 AM on January 30, 2005 [1 favorite]
'shame on you all'
what an ignorant ass. good thing you're the only one, because if there were a lot of people who thought like you... well.
posted by n9 at 9:24 AM on January 30, 2005
what an ignorant ass. good thing you're the only one, because if there were a lot of people who thought like you... well.
posted by n9 at 9:24 AM on January 30, 2005
I mean to clarify. If you think that invading a country on false pretenses, killing more than 100,000 people who live there, installing a government and then holding an election is a 100% American-Pride-Burger, then fucking eat it. I'll pass.
posted by n9 at 9:26 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by n9 at 9:26 AM on January 30, 2005
good thing you're the only one, because if there were a lot of people who thought like you... well.
You'd bitch them out as well?
I figure that if the sky went all cloudy and the light turned blood-red and then the clouds split and Angry Jesus (or, worse, MECHA-SHIVA!) with fifty arms, each holding a board with a nail in it, rode down from the heavens on a giant snarling equid with shark's teeth and a laser attached to its head and started grabbing people and throwing them into a glowing transdimensional portal to Hell while screaming I CONDEMN YOU TO ETERNAL DAMNATION, that would be more damning than silence.
I just want to thank you - my day is now better.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:53 AM on January 30, 2005
You'd bitch them out as well?
I figure that if the sky went all cloudy and the light turned blood-red and then the clouds split and Angry Jesus (or, worse, MECHA-SHIVA!) with fifty arms, each holding a board with a nail in it, rode down from the heavens on a giant snarling equid with shark's teeth and a laser attached to its head and started grabbing people and throwing them into a glowing transdimensional portal to Hell while screaming I CONDEMN YOU TO ETERNAL DAMNATION, that would be more damning than silence.
I just want to thank you - my day is now better.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:53 AM on January 30, 2005
I think Mick is declaring this "Mission Accomplished" day. Well we all know how that went last time. How about this time we just wait and see how things go before we start getting all triumphalist.
posted by dodgygeezer at 9:54 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by dodgygeezer at 9:54 AM on January 30, 2005
i expected to find at least one thread on the election when i loaded the site thismorning, and i was surprised to find none. then i read a reuters report and was pleased and surprised to find that the predicted and threatened large scale bloodbaths have not materialized. this gives me a lot of hope! shame on me? [shrugs]
posted by quonsar at 9:56 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by quonsar at 9:56 AM on January 30, 2005
the real proof of democracy will be if the elected government demands the u s get out
posted by pyramid termite at 10:06 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 10:06 AM on January 30, 2005
Osama bin Who?
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:13 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:13 AM on January 30, 2005
the real proof of democracy will be if we can fix our broken one here in the US.
posted by digaman at 10:14 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by digaman at 10:14 AM on January 30, 2005
Seems like a normal day in Iraq, violence wise, despite all the attention on the elections.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:25 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:25 AM on January 30, 2005
“Nothing is more damning than silence.” Dude, obviously you never meet my friend’s mom, Betty. When we were about 15 she found his dirty magazines. Silence has never been like that. I KNEW we were going to HELL!
posted by arse_hat at 10:30 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by arse_hat at 10:30 AM on January 30, 2005
Nothing is more damning than silence.
Except for half-assed, passive-aggressive, semi-accusations in a post that doesn't really say a damn thing. I think that's more damning.
posted by ChrisTN at 10:47 AM on January 30, 2005
Except for half-assed, passive-aggressive, semi-accusations in a post that doesn't really say a damn thing. I think that's more damning.
posted by ChrisTN at 10:47 AM on January 30, 2005
Large scale attacks on polling places don't make much sense--precisely because they're expected. I know I certainly wouldn't try anything during one the most heavily guarded elections ever. The entire point is not to let them see you coming. I expected the elections to go off without a hitch, and a high turnout, but I doubt this will do much good with respect to stability and it may even complicate matters as demand for US withdrawl grows.
And Mick, the only person who should feel ashamed is you. Such a pathetic and cowardly post I'd be hardpressed to put to even PP.
posted by nixerman at 10:56 AM on January 30, 2005
And Mick, the only person who should feel ashamed is you. Such a pathetic and cowardly post I'd be hardpressed to put to even PP.
posted by nixerman at 10:56 AM on January 30, 2005
That's awful Metafilter-centric, don't you think? It is possible that people who post here post elsewhere, and wrote about this.
Silence may be damning, but so is arrogance.
posted by nathanrudy at 10:56 AM on January 30, 2005
Silence may be damning, but so is arrogance.
posted by nathanrudy at 10:56 AM on January 30, 2005
Excellent Post Mick
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:57 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:57 AM on January 30, 2005
Silence may be damning, but so is Steve's approval.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:06 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:06 AM on January 30, 2005
The best part is that all of the explanations, no matter how thorough and careful, of exactly why this poster is wrong will, in his mind, only solidify his idea of the conspiracy against him.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:07 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by Space Coyote at 11:07 AM on January 30, 2005
And of course dodging the ethical dilemma's of whether it's ok to invade to destabilize a dictator, the fact that we have not really installed any democracies anywhere else and in fact have a history of supporting brutal thugs when they serve our interests, etc. etc. etc.
That aside I'd be willing to celebrate more completely this if it were not sold to me predicated on a lie. It's not the job of my government to lie to me (WMDs, et. al. - whether you blame Bush or the CIA, they're still the government) or to hire pundits to espouse a position to convince me of something.
What irritates me about this is many Republicans I know oppose such things as illegal immigrants receiving state driver's licenses even though it would lubricate the wheels of business because it's wrong to condone implicitly or otherwise illegal behavior. It's a point of principle for many people who are so pro-business they make Calvin Coolidge look like Ralph Nader.
In the same way, some idiots (to distinguish them from the aforementioned Republicans and others who hold certain political positions based on their ethic) who chastised Clinton for doing what he did to Slobodon praised Bush for invading Iraq.
I don't see why the same argument structure doesn't apply. The same questions - apart from the "Wag the Dog" comments - hold for Bush as well as Clinton. (As mentioned before - Was it worth it? Etc.)
(Hmm...perhaps the blowjob was to distract from the war... yes, I'm kidding.)
But in this case no matter how good it turns out it in Iraq it will always be tainted by the fact that it rests on a lie to the American people.
I supported Bush (in putting pressure on Iraq) right up until the thinking turned to there being an absolute necessity to put boots on the ground right now preventing any questions or even illustrating any details - other than our guys would be greeted by flowers (I'm still unclear how a guy with his credentials would let that concept slide unless it was a lie, whether he sucks on combs or not. Rumsfeld I expect less from so...)
Are things better off? Maybe.
Should we have waited? Probably.
Is it worth subverting the will of the people by flourishing the spectre of NBC terror (nuk-y-ler, biological, chemical) and milking a tragedy to convince them of a war which may or may not be necessary?
I wouldn't call that Democracy.
And if we sabotage our own principles here for the sake of expediency, how then are we supposed to impart it to the Iraqis.
...that's for starters.
On the other hand, folks called Lincoln a tyrant and the future during U.S. Civil War looked pretty bleak at the time.
But everything turned out ok eventually with that situation, right?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:10 AM on January 30, 2005
That aside I'd be willing to celebrate more completely this if it were not sold to me predicated on a lie. It's not the job of my government to lie to me (WMDs, et. al. - whether you blame Bush or the CIA, they're still the government) or to hire pundits to espouse a position to convince me of something.
What irritates me about this is many Republicans I know oppose such things as illegal immigrants receiving state driver's licenses even though it would lubricate the wheels of business because it's wrong to condone implicitly or otherwise illegal behavior. It's a point of principle for many people who are so pro-business they make Calvin Coolidge look like Ralph Nader.
In the same way, some idiots (to distinguish them from the aforementioned Republicans and others who hold certain political positions based on their ethic) who chastised Clinton for doing what he did to Slobodon praised Bush for invading Iraq.
I don't see why the same argument structure doesn't apply. The same questions - apart from the "Wag the Dog" comments - hold for Bush as well as Clinton. (As mentioned before - Was it worth it? Etc.)
(Hmm...perhaps the blowjob was to distract from the war... yes, I'm kidding.)
But in this case no matter how good it turns out it in Iraq it will always be tainted by the fact that it rests on a lie to the American people.
I supported Bush (in putting pressure on Iraq) right up until the thinking turned to there being an absolute necessity to put boots on the ground right now preventing any questions or even illustrating any details - other than our guys would be greeted by flowers (I'm still unclear how a guy with his credentials would let that concept slide unless it was a lie, whether he sucks on combs or not. Rumsfeld I expect less from so...)
Are things better off? Maybe.
Should we have waited? Probably.
Is it worth subverting the will of the people by flourishing the spectre of NBC terror (nuk-y-ler, biological, chemical) and milking a tragedy to convince them of a war which may or may not be necessary?
I wouldn't call that Democracy.
And if we sabotage our own principles here for the sake of expediency, how then are we supposed to impart it to the Iraqis.
...that's for starters.
On the other hand, folks called Lincoln a tyrant and the future during U.S. Civil War looked pretty bleak at the time.
But everything turned out ok eventually with that situation, right?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:10 AM on January 30, 2005
Ahem: with at least 44 dead, polling has finished (and Bush declares the election a success). It would also be a "success" by the same yardstick if, during an American election, terrorists killed 500-odd voters. (Still, it could have been worse: looks like the complete ban on vehicle traffic kept the worst of the suicide bombers down.)
Turnout was good, at roughly 57%, but as Juan Cole points out, in some mostly Sunni areas the turnout was down around 30%, implying that the Sunni boycott was solid -- that's about the Shiite proportion of the population who voted.
Now we shall see what the resulting parliament looks like. But if it turns out to be Shiite dominated (check -- almost a certainty) and wants to set up a theocratic constitution (much less certain), and demands a US withdrawl from Iraq (also uncertain) ... what's Rice gonna say?
You ran the elections, now you get to live with the results -- which might not exactly be what you wanted.
posted by cstross at 11:13 AM on January 30, 2005
Turnout was good, at roughly 57%, but as Juan Cole points out, in some mostly Sunni areas the turnout was down around 30%, implying that the Sunni boycott was solid -- that's about the Shiite proportion of the population who voted.
Now we shall see what the resulting parliament looks like. But if it turns out to be Shiite dominated (check -- almost a certainty) and wants to set up a theocratic constitution (much less certain), and demands a US withdrawl from Iraq (also uncertain) ... what's Rice gonna say?
You ran the elections, now you get to live with the results -- which might not exactly be what you wanted.
posted by cstross at 11:13 AM on January 30, 2005
Irony: post damning folks for their silence but not rebutting any arguement posted afterward.
No personal offense meant though Mick, your probably busy or something. And MeFi isn't the #1 priority in anyones life....I would think....
...I'll just stop writing now.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:14 AM on January 30, 2005
No personal offense meant though Mick, your probably busy or something. And MeFi isn't the #1 priority in anyones life....I would think....
...I'll just stop writing now.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:14 AM on January 30, 2005
I too will pass on the glistening, undercooked American Pride Burger. You enjoy that.
posted by newton at 11:21 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by newton at 11:21 AM on January 30, 2005
It seems unlikely that any Iraqi government will put its authority to the test by asking the Coalition to leave. What if the Coalition refuses? The only course of action left open to the powerless government would be to resign en masse, and there are many reasons they will not wish to do so. The leaders may be too ambitious to want to relinquish their office, they may rationalise to themselves that they can still make a difference, and so on. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, of course.
Also, in the race between Mick and Tullius, Mick leads 35 comments to 30. This represents a user turnout of %0.003. Get out there and comment for your man, people!
(I kid)
posted by Ritchie at 11:23 AM on January 30, 2005
Also, in the race between Mick and Tullius, Mick leads 35 comments to 30. This represents a user turnout of %0.003. Get out there and comment for your man, people!
(I kid)
posted by Ritchie at 11:23 AM on January 30, 2005
Nice of Mick to join in the conversation.
And when are we going to stop with the crappy, multi-link, no explanation FPPs?
posted by tommasz at 11:27 AM on January 30, 2005
And when are we going to stop with the crappy, multi-link, no explanation FPPs?
posted by tommasz at 11:27 AM on January 30, 2005
Ritchie, you underestimate the clout that the legitimacy conferred by an election gives the elected politicians. Recent example: the Ukraine. If they ask the Coalition to leave, and have the backing of Ayatollah Sistani, and the Coalition fails to at least go through the motions of complying or negotiating, then we could be facing a February 1979 scenario.
(Hint: the Coalition forces are having enough trouble hunting guerillas who are estimated to number less than 200,000, without also having to deal with a general strike, demonstrations in the multiple millions, and the nascent Iraqi army going over to the demonstrators ...)
posted by cstross at 11:33 AM on January 30, 2005
(Hint: the Coalition forces are having enough trouble hunting guerillas who are estimated to number less than 200,000, without also having to deal with a general strike, demonstrations in the multiple millions, and the nascent Iraqi army going over to the demonstrators ...)
posted by cstross at 11:33 AM on January 30, 2005
"Shame"?...
"Shame"?! For what? Because nobody ran out to post the latest Yahoo News headlines here?
Get a grip. Get some perspective. There's plenty of shame to go around in this war, and Metafilter's nowhere near the front of the line for it.
On second thought though...
Metafilter: Shame on you all
posted by PlusDistance at 11:46 AM on January 30, 2005
"Shame"?! For what? Because nobody ran out to post the latest Yahoo News headlines here?
Get a grip. Get some perspective. There's plenty of shame to go around in this war, and Metafilter's nowhere near the front of the line for it.
On second thought though...
Metafilter: Shame on you all
posted by PlusDistance at 11:46 AM on January 30, 2005
Oh, sure...
NOW they douse us with flowers and dance in the streets...
(**Pow! Pow!!** "I said DANCE" **Pow! Pow! Pow!!**)
Mission Accomplished!!
Heh...
posted by Balisong at 12:09 PM on January 30, 2005
NOW they douse us with flowers and dance in the streets...
(**Pow! Pow!!** "I said DANCE" **Pow! Pow! Pow!!**)
Mission Accomplished!!
Heh...
posted by Balisong at 12:09 PM on January 30, 2005
Applaud all the successes, refuse to discuss all the failures, and ANYone can feel proud.
Months from now, even if the new government collapses in civil war, slaughtering millions, cons will look back on this day as a great, amazing event that could have only resulted from every unethical step along the way.
This hasn't even been a case of the ends justifying the means, it's been a case of standing up once a month and saying "Hey! Hey, THIS is the ends! You detractors were all wrong!" and then sitting back down before the next report of dead soldiers and bombed buildings comes in.
Claim each victory and look busy during every loss.
Whatever.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 12:44 PM on January 30, 2005
Months from now, even if the new government collapses in civil war, slaughtering millions, cons will look back on this day as a great, amazing event that could have only resulted from every unethical step along the way.
This hasn't even been a case of the ends justifying the means, it's been a case of standing up once a month and saying "Hey! Hey, THIS is the ends! You detractors were all wrong!" and then sitting back down before the next report of dead soldiers and bombed buildings comes in.
Claim each victory and look busy during every loss.
Whatever.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 12:44 PM on January 30, 2005
And by the way, what exactly do you mean by "Shame on you all"?
posted by Dean Keaton at 1:14 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by Dean Keaton at 1:14 PM on January 30, 2005
I am SO ashamed that a government that supposedly represents ME in world affairs could be so corrupt and evil.
Is that the shame on us all you meant?
Tell me about all the PERMANENT military bases currently being built in Iraq?
What are those all about?
Establishing an independent democracy in Iraq? Bwahahaha!!!
Intentions so pure and innocent with concern for the poor Iraqis topmost on our list.
And if they don't like it, we'll just kill another 100k of the damn diaper heads, or better yet, turn the place into glass, correct?
Whatssa matter, can't have it both ways?
What's it gonna be?
Love 'em to death or just nuke the ungrateful bastards?
Such shallow justifications for an illegal invasion.
It ain't the silence that's damning, its the usual Defenders Of All Things Dubya double standard and duplicity.
posted by nofundy at 1:46 PM on January 30, 2005
Is that the shame on us all you meant?
Tell me about all the PERMANENT military bases currently being built in Iraq?
What are those all about?
Establishing an independent democracy in Iraq? Bwahahaha!!!
Intentions so pure and innocent with concern for the poor Iraqis topmost on our list.
And if they don't like it, we'll just kill another 100k of the damn diaper heads, or better yet, turn the place into glass, correct?
Whatssa matter, can't have it both ways?
What's it gonna be?
Love 'em to death or just nuke the ungrateful bastards?
Such shallow justifications for an illegal invasion.
It ain't the silence that's damning, its the usual Defenders Of All Things Dubya double standard and duplicity.
posted by nofundy at 1:46 PM on January 30, 2005
Applaud all the successes, refuse to discuss all the failures, and ANYone can feel proud.
Play down all the successes, cry foul at the slightest setback, and anyone can feel morally superior. What's your point?
posted by Krrrlson at 1:47 PM on January 30, 2005
Play down all the successes, cry foul at the slightest setback, and anyone can feel morally superior. What's your point?
posted by Krrrlson at 1:47 PM on January 30, 2005
Sorry. I was trying to indicate that THAT was what THIS post was doing.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 1:48 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 1:48 PM on January 30, 2005
Nothing wrong with "Hooray for Iraq voting!" I agree.
But the theme of this post, a "told-you-so," absurdly misses the point.
LEFT: "This war is immoral, unethical, has created terrorists and destroyed our image throughout the world."
RIGHT: "They voted! So I guess you're wrong, huh??"
I'll agree that some liberals have taken negativity a touch far ("Well, NOW let's see if xxxxx happens..."), but after losing the Al Qaeda connection, losing the WMD connection, sustaining far more losses and difficulties than predicted, and after playing down the importance of the election itself, is "JUSTIFIED, MUTHAFUCKAS!" really the tone to strike here?
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 1:54 PM on January 30, 2005
But the theme of this post, a "told-you-so," absurdly misses the point.
LEFT: "This war is immoral, unethical, has created terrorists and destroyed our image throughout the world."
RIGHT: "They voted! So I guess you're wrong, huh??"
I'll agree that some liberals have taken negativity a touch far ("Well, NOW let's see if xxxxx happens..."), but after losing the Al Qaeda connection, losing the WMD connection, sustaining far more losses and difficulties than predicted, and after playing down the importance of the election itself, is "JUSTIFIED, MUTHAFUCKAS!" really the tone to strike here?
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 1:54 PM on January 30, 2005
Juan Cole on the cheerleading tone of many U.S. news articles about this election.
And why is this post still up? I can see room for debate about the worthiness of elections, and fears about metafilter turning into an echo chamber (which it is too often, although it's not as bad as so many political blog comment sections). But this is pretty damned ignorant.
posted by raysmj at 2:00 PM on January 30, 2005
And why is this post still up? I can see room for debate about the worthiness of elections, and fears about metafilter turning into an echo chamber (which it is too often, although it's not as bad as so many political blog comment sections). But this is pretty damned ignorant.
posted by raysmj at 2:00 PM on January 30, 2005
From the Cole piece - which also posits that a 1997 election in Iran was more successful, by contrast.
Moreover . . . the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.
posted by raysmj at 2:02 PM on January 30, 2005
Moreover . . . the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.
posted by raysmj at 2:02 PM on January 30, 2005
i'll just repost the IHT article from the other day: Iraq: This election is a sham
And--while they're cheerleading on CNN, they're also saying that we (the US) will ensure the participation of groups that will end up with non-proportionate representation, nullifying the whole point of this election, and voting at all, if we're going to fiddle as usual: First, of course security concerns and also the voter turnout, particularly among the Sunni population. Very interesting Rice in kind of a preemptive move of her own saying that there are already mechanisms they believe that will be in place to bring about Sunni participation and writing up the constitution, participating in the national assembly. That of course in case they look at those numbers, those figures and see it very low for Sunni turnout and they'd still want to make sure that people believe that this is a legitimate election.
So shame on anyone who's blindly cheering this "election"--we're still in charge and will ensure what we want to happen, happens.
posted by amberglow at 2:06 PM on January 30, 2005
And--while they're cheerleading on CNN, they're also saying that we (the US) will ensure the participation of groups that will end up with non-proportionate representation, nullifying the whole point of this election, and voting at all, if we're going to fiddle as usual: First, of course security concerns and also the voter turnout, particularly among the Sunni population. Very interesting Rice in kind of a preemptive move of her own saying that there are already mechanisms they believe that will be in place to bring about Sunni participation and writing up the constitution, participating in the national assembly. That of course in case they look at those numbers, those figures and see it very low for Sunni turnout and they'd still want to make sure that people believe that this is a legitimate election.
So shame on anyone who's blindly cheering this "election"--we're still in charge and will ensure what we want to happen, happens.
posted by amberglow at 2:06 PM on January 30, 2005
Amen, Mack, Amen. And good job. It's hilarious to witness liberal indignance when you catch them with their own prejudices showing.
posted by Local Hero at 2:07 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by Local Hero at 2:07 PM on January 30, 2005
Some of us read from as wide a variety of credible publications as possible, and form our own opinions, thanks. And seeing the elections as questionable is not, then, prejudice but informed opinion.
posted by raysmj at 2:15 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by raysmj at 2:15 PM on January 30, 2005
Geez. Remember when Baghded "fell"? Remember when the Hussein sons were killed? Remember when Saddam was captured? Remember the "turnover"? Remember "breaking the back of the insurgency?"
I guess you don't, Mick, because if you did you wouldn't be crowing about this either.
The silence is deafening because there is no way to tell how this latest necocon cheering point will fall out. If recent events are any guide, could be very badly.
posted by telstar at 2:17 PM on January 30, 2005
I guess you don't, Mick, because if you did you wouldn't be crowing about this either.
The silence is deafening because there is no way to tell how this latest necocon cheering point will fall out. If recent events are any guide, could be very badly.
posted by telstar at 2:17 PM on January 30, 2005
It would also be a "success" by the same yardstick if, during an American election, terrorists killed 500-odd voters.
If we had 60-70% turnout despite terrorists killing 500-odd voters, hell yes I'd call that a success.
posted by kindall at 2:29 PM on January 30, 2005
If we had 60-70% turnout despite terrorists killing 500-odd voters, hell yes I'd call that a success.
posted by kindall at 2:29 PM on January 30, 2005
Play down all the successes, cry foul at the slightest setback, and anyone can feel morally superior. What's your point?
I would dearly love for Iraq to become a successful democratic state with as little further bloodshed as possible. At the same time, I object to the way this war was justified, I'm disgusted by many aspects of the way it was conducted, and I'm genuinely concerned that the Bush administration is sufficiently arrogant that cheerleading will encourage them to continue on the same path elsewhere until there really is some awful blowback.
So I guess the point is that the extremes on both sides have made it really hard to hope for a rational middle ground. And that makes it depressingly similar to a thousand other political issues, only with more bodies.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:37 PM on January 30, 2005
I would dearly love for Iraq to become a successful democratic state with as little further bloodshed as possible. At the same time, I object to the way this war was justified, I'm disgusted by many aspects of the way it was conducted, and I'm genuinely concerned that the Bush administration is sufficiently arrogant that cheerleading will encourage them to continue on the same path elsewhere until there really is some awful blowback.
So I guess the point is that the extremes on both sides have made it really hard to hope for a rational middle ground. And that makes it depressingly similar to a thousand other political issues, only with more bodies.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:37 PM on January 30, 2005
Mick is right!
Shame on you!
I remember, as if it were yesterday, when President Bush went before Congress and the American people, and told us that
We were told all along that the whole point of George W's Excellent Adventure was to give the gift of Democracy to Iraq!
Shame on you liberals! You have no right to question the costs or complain you were misled as to the rationale for war!
Shame on you conservatives who pretend that conservatism isn't about nation-building and exporting American lives and treasure in the name of Democratizing the world!
George W. Bush told us honestly and from the very first that the war in Iraq was all about securing Democracy for the Iraqis!
Shame on us all!
posted by orthogonality at 2:48 PM on January 30, 2005
Shame on you!
I remember, as if it were yesterday, when President Bush went before Congress and the American people, and told us that
- Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction;
- and no ties to Al Quada;
- and no plans to attack the United States;
- but that we should
- forget about Osama bin Laden;
- and bill our grandchildren 200 billion dollars because the Iraq War couldn't be won on the cheap or paid for with Iraqi oil;
- and sacrifice 1430 of our fighting men and woman, and condemn another 20,000 to lifetimes of paralysis and amputation and post-traumatic stress disorder;
- and prepare for an indefinite occupation with the natives throwing, not roses and candy but IEDs and mortars;
- while we threw out the Geneva Conventions that had served to safeguard our own soldiers and our country's humanity;
- and dragged our country's integrity and honor by a leash through the mud in the dungeons of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib;
- to make Iraq into a giant recruiting booth for Al Quada while at the same time destroying our own Army and its readiness to fight any other wars;
- so that we could altruistically give Iraqis the gift of Freedom and Democracy!
We were told all along that the whole point of George W's Excellent Adventure was to give the gift of Democracy to Iraq!
Shame on you liberals! You have no right to question the costs or complain you were misled as to the rationale for war!
Shame on you conservatives who pretend that conservatism isn't about nation-building and exporting American lives and treasure in the name of Democratizing the world!
George W. Bush told us honestly and from the very first that the war in Iraq was all about securing Democracy for the Iraqis!
Shame on us all!
posted by orthogonality at 2:48 PM on January 30, 2005
I would dearly love for Iraq to become a successful democratic state with as little further bloodshed as possible. At the same time, I object to the way this war was justified, I'm disgusted by many aspects of the way it was conducted, and I'm genuinely concerned that the Bush administration is sufficiently arrogant that cheerleading will encourage them to continue on the same path elsewhere until there really is some awful blowback.
Precisely. I cannot think of a single liberal who would disagree with this. The efforts of some people on this thread to make cheap points by implying something else is flat out Coulteresque, and just plain lame. No decent person of any stripe would wish (even if wishing could make it so) for the disintegration of Iraq into all out civil war just to childishly say I told you so.
posted by psmealey at 2:53 PM on January 30, 2005
Precisely. I cannot think of a single liberal who would disagree with this. The efforts of some people on this thread to make cheap points by implying something else is flat out Coulteresque, and just plain lame. No decent person of any stripe would wish (even if wishing could make it so) for the disintegration of Iraq into all out civil war just to childishly say I told you so.
posted by psmealey at 2:53 PM on January 30, 2005
Shame on you all for feeding the fucking troll. We could have had some interesting discussion about the links.
Anyway, the bbc has some good video coverage.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:54 PM on January 30, 2005
Anyway, the bbc has some good video coverage.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:54 PM on January 30, 2005
Aw, f*ck, orthogonality's on a killin' spree! Testify, son!
posted by Tullius at 3:17 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by Tullius at 3:17 PM on January 30, 2005
I cannot think of a single liberal who would disagree with this.
Some folks over at "Democratic" Underground might take exception. Let's hope they stay underground. Far, far underground.
posted by jenleigh at 3:37 PM on January 30, 2005
Some folks over at "Democratic" Underground might take exception. Let's hope they stay underground. Far, far underground.
posted by jenleigh at 3:37 PM on January 30, 2005
“This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed … were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees.”
—Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at Auschwitz
or
--Defenders of All Things Dubya
If only he were far, far underground.
posted by nofundy at 3:45 PM on January 30, 2005
—Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at Auschwitz
or
--Defenders of All Things Dubya
If only he were far, far underground.
posted by nofundy at 3:45 PM on January 30, 2005
Some folks over at "Democratic" Underground might take exception
Well, I did mean liberal and not disgruntled former spartacus youth league member. I know that our friends on the right would like people to believe that there are Maoists and Stalinists in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, but it just ain't so.
posted by psmealey at 3:52 PM on January 30, 2005
Well, I did mean liberal and not disgruntled former spartacus youth league member. I know that our friends on the right would like people to believe that there are Maoists and Stalinists in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, but it just ain't so.
posted by psmealey at 3:52 PM on January 30, 2005
the second you force democracy on someone, it ceases to be democracy. i think that's when it becomes "hypocracy."
posted by blendor at 6:15 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by blendor at 6:15 PM on January 30, 2005
It's "hypocrisy". It is not spelled as though it were a form of government.
posted by beth at 6:42 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by beth at 6:42 PM on January 30, 2005
Amen, Mack, Amen. And good job.
I'm not a liberal, but thanks for reading...well, anything in the thread Local Hero, good job.
I like the part where "Mack" (It must be Mack, not Mick, right) defended um....stuff. About things.
The best was when Smidelyman pointed out that knee jerk reaction to complex issues was pure idiocy no matter which wing nut was....
Ah, what's the point. I'm with Armitage Shanks.
And orthogonality - I'm not a conservative, but conservativism isn't about nation building. It's been co-opted by folks who worry about Spongebob Squarepant's sexuality apparently.
I suspect both liberals and conservatives (of the reasonable variety) will have to come up with new terms for themselves.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:59 PM on January 30, 2005
I'm not a liberal, but thanks for reading...well, anything in the thread Local Hero, good job.
I like the part where "Mack" (It must be Mack, not Mick, right) defended um....stuff. About things.
The best was when Smidelyman pointed out that knee jerk reaction to complex issues was pure idiocy no matter which wing nut was....
Ah, what's the point. I'm with Armitage Shanks.
And orthogonality - I'm not a conservative, but conservativism isn't about nation building. It's been co-opted by folks who worry about Spongebob Squarepant's sexuality apparently.
I suspect both liberals and conservatives (of the reasonable variety) will have to come up with new terms for themselves.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:59 PM on January 30, 2005
Smedley, good point at the end.
Conservativism has nothing to do with global reach, foreign-policy-grandstanding, or a all-behind-the-president tremendous government. It's always, at heart, been about having as little government as possible and as much freedom as possible, and the past four years have utterly failed it.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 10:13 PM on January 30, 2005
Conservativism has nothing to do with global reach, foreign-policy-grandstanding, or a all-behind-the-president tremendous government. It's always, at heart, been about having as little government as possible and as much freedom as possible, and the past four years have utterly failed it.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 10:13 PM on January 30, 2005
This war / occupation has never been about freedom or democracy. It's about oil and establishing an american puppet republic in the persian gulf. These elections were even more shamtastic than our own, and if you think any meaningful reprasentive democracy is going to be established, think again. Im guessing what the Iraquis really want is for the Americans to leave. But as we all know, that isnt going to happen any time soon.
posted by sophist at 11:36 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by sophist at 11:36 PM on January 30, 2005
Amen, Mack, Amen. And good job. It's hilarious to witness liberal indignance when you catch them with their own prejudices showing.
What prejudices are you referring to? Who has prejudged whom, and how? (given that Mick's post was about the absence of posts here, I'm not sure you can deduce prejudice from that).
And this isn't a good post. It's AgendaFilter and trying to make a point about MeFi. And the purpose of MeFi is surely not to talk about MeFi. If Mick wanted to post something about the elections, why didn't he post something about the elections, rather than damning everyone else for not already doing so?
posted by Infinite Jest at 12:03 AM on January 31, 2005
What prejudices are you referring to? Who has prejudged whom, and how? (given that Mick's post was about the absence of posts here, I'm not sure you can deduce prejudice from that).
And this isn't a good post. It's AgendaFilter and trying to make a point about MeFi. And the purpose of MeFi is surely not to talk about MeFi. If Mick wanted to post something about the elections, why didn't he post something about the elections, rather than damning everyone else for not already doing so?
posted by Infinite Jest at 12:03 AM on January 31, 2005
Conservativism ... It's always, at heart, been about having as little government as possible and as much freedom as possible
Not really. It was more like the first point here:
posted by pracowity at 12:22 AM on January 31, 2005
Not really. It was more like the first point here:
Classical conservatism or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes means (slow change) over ends (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation.You can be very conservative and still be in favor of a large (and slow-to-change) government. If you want as much "freedom" (as little regulation) as possible, I suppose you want to be a libertarian. Or an anarchist.
posted by pracowity at 12:22 AM on January 31, 2005
This war has never been about bringing a democratic self-government to Iraq, but if it does --- and it looks like they might be able to carry it off; this election is a hopeful sign --- then that's a very good thing, and I'm happy to chalk it up as a good result of GWB's otherwise regrettable presidency.
posted by hattifattener at 12:27 AM on January 31, 2005
posted by hattifattener at 12:27 AM on January 31, 2005
Smedleyman writes, "And orthogonality - I'm not a conservative, but conservativism isn't about nation building.
I quite agree; conservatives have traditionally been very suspicious of, and adverse to, nation building. That makes it all the more peculiar when some soi disant "conservatives" finally discover that they can embrace nation-building, so long as it's done with bayonets in an oil-rich country.
When I wrote "Shame on you conservatives who pretend that conservatism isn't about nation-building", I was sarcastically disparaging those conservatives (like Pat Buchanan or Paul Craig Roberts) who haven't jettisoned their principles just because a Republican administration is doing the "nation-building".
Indeed my entire post was sarcastic. Except possibly the final line, "Shame on us all!"
posted by orthogonality at 3:33 AM on January 31, 2005
I quite agree; conservatives have traditionally been very suspicious of, and adverse to, nation building. That makes it all the more peculiar when some soi disant "conservatives" finally discover that they can embrace nation-building, so long as it's done with bayonets in an oil-rich country.
When I wrote "Shame on you conservatives who pretend that conservatism isn't about nation-building", I was sarcastically disparaging those conservatives (like Pat Buchanan or Paul Craig Roberts) who haven't jettisoned their principles just because a Republican administration is doing the "nation-building".
Indeed my entire post was sarcastic. Except possibly the final line, "Shame on us all!"
posted by orthogonality at 3:33 AM on January 31, 2005
Just a note, orthogonality: The bill for the war is going to be over $300 billion, not $200 billion.
You know, $100 billion here, and a $100 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money (or at least enough to pay for health care for each and every US citizen).
posted by bashos_frog at 4:43 AM on January 31, 2005
You know, $100 billion here, and a $100 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money (or at least enough to pay for health care for each and every US citizen).
posted by bashos_frog at 4:43 AM on January 31, 2005
You do not own their courage.
They did not stand in line to provide American dilettantes with easy rhetorical weapons, so you don't own their courage, Glenn Reynolds, with your cornpone McCarran act out of the bowels of a great university that deserves a helluva lot better than your sorry hide. They did not stand in line to be the instruments of tawdry vilification and triumphal hooting from bloghound commandos. They did not stand in line to become useful cudgels for cheap American political thuggery, so you don't own their courage, Freeper Nation.
posted by amberglow at 4:04 PM on February 1, 2005
They did not stand in line to provide American dilettantes with easy rhetorical weapons, so you don't own their courage, Glenn Reynolds, with your cornpone McCarran act out of the bowels of a great university that deserves a helluva lot better than your sorry hide. They did not stand in line to be the instruments of tawdry vilification and triumphal hooting from bloghound commandos. They did not stand in line to become useful cudgels for cheap American political thuggery, so you don't own their courage, Freeper Nation.
posted by amberglow at 4:04 PM on February 1, 2005
orthogonality - I was sarcastically adding to the disparagement of those conservatives you sarcastically disparaged....
Phew!
Sarcasm & recursion doesn't mix kids.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:02 PM on February 3, 2005
Phew!
Sarcasm & recursion doesn't mix kids.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:02 PM on February 3, 2005
« Older Blackface | Iraq Votes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mick at 7:59 AM on January 30, 2005