bleeding heart

Argus The argument that Reagan was so colossally ignorant about reality that he was an incompetent President and a stupid, drooling moron--your argument, in other words--is an interesting one, but I don't quite buy it. But ok, let's say for the sake of argument that you're right about the Contras and Nicaragua; what about our other example, Indonesia? The idea then is that not only Reagan, but Ford (who explicitly greenlighted the invasion), Carter, Bush Sr., and Clinton were also totally in the dark about the atrocities, thanks to their handlers and Cabinets (who are, by your estimation here, criminals)....but so were their counterparts in the UK, France, Australia, et al. And for twenty-five years. The notion is preposterous. they knew every bit as much of what was going on as did their more principled opposites: the activists and courageous East Timorese who struggled for so long to bring the matter to public awareness. (Something that Ford and Kissinger, as we know from declassified records, were at pains to avoid....so much for their naivete.)

I think that's a fascinating hypothetical, not least because the answer would be an unequivocal "yes," in my opinion, at least for a lot of people.. Which begs a question or two, obviously. It seems that "terrorism" is a politicized term, generally reserved for "them," and which does not belong to "us."

Oh, I agree, Soviet monstrosity is not in question. Worse, in fact, I'd argue. But of course, no one is arguing otherwise. Western bad behavior, on the other hand, is eternally justified. And it's justified through the same mentality as by the Soviet Commissars, who spoke passionately about Soviet righteousness. But really, that's unfair to the Russians....after all, they could face dire consequences for dissenting from the myths of the Party line. Our home-grown commissars have no such excuse.

Exactly what Ford Nation has repeatedly said. I don't find this notion especially comforting. And I also have problems with the way the opposite, as criticism, has been applied to Harper. I'm no fan of Harper, but the idea that he's ":too cold" and "not likeable enough"...and that, horror of horrors, shook his son's hand!....I've always hated this approach to determining how good or bad a leader is. Ford is "down to earth"? Who gives a rat's behind? He's also an elitist, tantrum-throwing, screeching jokester of a little criminal. Harper is "too cold"? Again, who cares? He has many flaws, and that isn't one of them. And so it goes with Trudeau. I don't care if he's "likeable on a personal level." And if that can get him elected...well then, perfect. Awesome. Just what Canada deserves.

Interesting choice of program to mention, given the topic.

My definition of "targeting" is no doubt the same as yours....I've specifically said that, in cases we count as "collateral damage," the civilians are not the intended target. As for "deliberate"...as I said, in cases where you know that your specific action at a specific time is likely to cause civilian deaths...yes, that is unequivocally "deliberate," by connotation and denotation. That's not even a controversial assertion. We can argue about justification (and people from "man on the street" to policy intellectuals have been arguing about exactly this point for a long time); but if we're going to argue to alter the very definition of "deliberate," especially for purposes of defending the myths of Western Noble Behaviour...well, I can't see any point....beyond the obvious propaganda purposes. Sometimes, without question.. Each case is no doubt unique. In the case you mention, the Contras, their ability to do what they did at such a scale was clearly dependent upon US material help (not to mention training at Fort Benning, in Honduras, and I imagine elsewhere). In the previous case we've discussed, Indonesia, the atrocities stopped precisely because Western powers closed the spigot. that's all it took...and all it would have taken over the previous 25 years. And it was a bloodless cessation of hostilities....which tells us just where the West's adherence to human rights and "international law" resided: nowhere. As to the ignorance of Reagan and other leaders; that's of course impossible, and reflects upon your faith. The atrocities committed by the Contras, and by the Indonesian military and militias, were well-known to a lot of people, and was being roundly condemned (in the face of a mostly silent and compliant press, exposing the myth of a "left-wing activist" media) for a long time. It's literally impossible that the leaders were unaware. they simply didn't give a good goddamn, until matters became politically uncomfortable. And since we're talking material aid, without which the murderousness is substantially decreased...they are literally directly accountable.

That's silly; and we've had this discussion before, in which I've demonstrated plenty of cases in which the Western powers do exactly that. So why the pretence? Perhaps you could take a page from the book of those posters who accept the truth of what "Western powers" have routinely done, up to and including mass murder on a large scale...but defend it anyway. It might be the sniveling stance of moral cretins and political commissars (and it certainly is that) but at least it's not a denial of the truth itself.

In an academic sense--"conceptually" as you say, perhaps--but this is more often than not a moot point, as very little of what we blithely pass off as "collateral damage" actually fits this description. If--as is usually the case--an attack against a "valid target" includes the likelihood that innocent civilians will be killed....then those killings are not "unintentional." They're wholly intentional. So in the legal sense that you summon, we actually are talking about first degree murder, not negligence. For example, if I blow up a building, in order to destroy a specific target within...even though the others killed were not my target, not the purpose for the attack, the uncontroversial fact that I knew I was likely to kill other people makes me guilty of intentionally murdering them; and a lot (probably most) of what we self-servingly deem "collateral damage" certainly fits this analogy to some degree. That it is first-degree murder is certainly the case in the legal sense that you cite.

For some reason, when I hit the "quote" button, I am only offered a blank box in which to write...the quoted material is absent. I tried to remedy this by using cut/paste....but that won't work, at all. It won't copy and paste. (It still works in other documents...but not here on MLW.) I have no doubt that the glitch is my own...but any suggestions?

Yes it is. And it's interesting, if not too pleasurable, to watch all the sycophantic excitement over the prospect of another disastrous and counterproductive war. Some people are actively opposed to learning anything, even from the very recent past..

Well, a grammatically-sensible sentence that has never been uttered before by anyone! It appears that Chomsky's linguistic theories are correct.

And it's Scientology for the win!

It's precisely as on or off topic as was your post, to which mine was a reply. It's bad form to hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

Looks like Black Dog is the only one the three who isn't a fanboy of a certain Nazi officer. Just for clarification's sake.

Playing the part of the "ridicule-attack troll" has its consequences, as everyone should know by now. Anyone who's gonna dish it out...should grow some body armour and man up.

BD is simply making an observation about you....which you do to others on a continual basis. That's the whole point which escapes your narrow view and perspective, as always.

...

If only the discussion really were about a pre-emptive strike, it might at least enter into the realm of reason. We're actually talking about a PREVENTIVE strike....which is far worse....and which leaves action open to whims and wild interpretations.

Well, then sure. That underscores my point further.

It's insane--I mean almost literally insane--to trust these people. Hell, democratic principles themselves are generated from the truism that Power is not trustworthy.

I agree, and nothing sends this message harder than...the last Federal election. I remember well the discussions on MLW during the run-up...and first of all, hardly anyone, including Conservatives, predicted a Majority; status quo (that is, minority gov't) remained the overwhelming consensus. Further, I remember ONE single poster predicting the "Orange Wave"...EVERYONE else considered the idea of 100 seats to be a preposterous idea. Totally Out There, man! Further, virtually no one (and maybe literally no one) here predicted the size of the Liberal defeat. And in the current scenario, we're talking years, rather than weeks. Election predictions are fun, but completely useless. And the confidence of so many on the subject is something I find strange.

Wow. Ok, so "bird deaths" are yet ANOTHER in a long line of issues in which those professing concern actually have none, none whatsoever....another political football.

A really good review, I agree. Kimmy's right about the importance of creatively delivering on a promise. Her examples are spot on, too: Something About Mary is a good film, because it does exactly what it's supposed to do, and it does it well. Of course that doesn't mean that others have to enjoy it, as I did; it only means that it should be appreciated for what it is meant to be, rather than because it isn't The Godfather. (When Stephen King was somewhat rudely informed that his work did not reach the profound heights of the respected American literary canon, he said that he agreed...and could scarcely think of a more irrelevant comparison.) I also agree about Transformers...it fails by its own standards, not by unreasonably lofty ones. I LIKE crazy, violent action movies, sometimes even ones that are quite conventional. And my dislike (to put it mildly) of Transformers is based on THAT criteria.

That's pretty far from my impression of their numerous discussions--close to the opposite--but to each her own!

I genuinely have no idea to what you're referring here.