PhotoDude.com

Using purple crayons, right? Isn't that the most appropriate color for most of the "prose"?

PD, Let me try to contribute to your comment from an outside perspective. If you wish to delete this message, please do, I would not be offended a bit (this is your space after all). I sympathize with Joel’s commentary to your post. I wished that was the mainstream view of foreign politics in the US. Call it isolationist, egocentric, cold-blooded, etc, but when the non-aligned movement asked the US to stay away from Iraq, the message was clear: the third world (that includes Iraq) does not appreciate the US’s cluster-bombing altruism. The stuff that we read today in the US media sounds like 19th century colonialism to me: bring civilization (now it’s called “democracy”) to those poor yet good intentioned savages. I take personal offense on that view, because it happens that I am one of those poor yet good intentioned savages, working, sweating blood and somehow surviving at the heart of the Empire. And many of us savages really appreciate a lot of things about the US (I wouldn’t be in the middle of Long Island otherwise!), but wished that the US did as so many other nations, industrialized or not, and tried as hard as possible to keep their politics to themselves. Neither Germans nor French are fully successful at that, and let’s not even talk about Russia, but other nation’s flaws are no excuse for the kind of things that are happening now. The use of Iraq to solve what should be a domestic issue, the election of the US president, is simply despicable. If you want to have a sort of feeling of what it is to be an Iraqi today, one good exercise might be to imagine how would you feel if it was the US that was occupied by a foreign nation. How humilliating do you think it would be that your future and the future of your family depended on, say, Chinese domestic politics? The only adequate use of Iraq for domestic politics, as far as I can see, is on the debate on how (not whether), to transfer its control to a multinational organization. This is not simply a matter of “partisan” politics. In my case, I am not interested in US domestic issues (that’s for you guys to figure out), but I am afraid that if this pre-emptive national security doctrine is successful, the next cluster bomb is going to fall on my backyard. And I kind of not like that. You invited your readers to “put our politics aside long enough to spend some time focused on the views of Iraqis on the capture of Saddam, and what it might mean to them.” I would like to invite them to just the opposite: bring politics to the front, and set aside the colonialist pretention of looking at things from the colonized point of view. Such game is deceiving, as it is implied in your first post. You suggest to your readers that “we should study the reactions of Iraqis that we can never fully understand, no matter how hard we try”. I’m sure you are aware that the West have had plenty of experience with long-lasting dictators (e.g., Spain, Paraguay), egomaniacal dictators (e.g., Italy), insanely cruel dictators (e.g., Argentina), and genocidal leaders (e.g., Germany). The experience is not completely foreign, and is not rare –regardless of how much we would like it to be. That does not mean that we shouldn’t listen to the Iraqi reactions to these events, they are certainly very interesting and informative. As far as we can understand anything, we can understand what is going on in Iraq. Or Palestine. Or Chechnya. Or East Timor. Or what happened in Nicaragua. Or in Panama. But always with Western eyes, because those are the only ones that, for better or worse, we have. I invite you to embrace politics and elevate it to a level you find appropriate. Furthermore, I invite you and your readers to focus more on your issues, while the rest of us focus on ours. This is nothing against showing solidarity and cooperation with good causes abroad: it is against making decisions for other people.

Frederico: So - we should have left Iraq to Saddam? Lots of people don't think so. Including Iraqis. http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ For what it's worth - Saddam was killing about 10,000 of his own people a month. That's been pretty well documented. Strictly speaking - after our invasion, after a month we were on the plus side - there were more people alive than if we'd left Saddam in power. Saddam ignored the UN for 12 years and 17 resolutions, and used the money for food program under the sanctions to build palaces. You might find this restraint and lack of action by the UN laudible, but I find it dismaying. We are at the point, worldwide, where we can no longer turn a blind eye toward dictatorships. We can no longer ignore them, as we have in the past - we can no longer hang a 'It's not our problem' sign on their borders, because the problems leak out and threaten us all. We can't pretend they don't exist. The question remains, though, what should be done. I don't think the UN has a clue, but even if it does it is normally inclined to NOT do anything until the situation becomes intolerable - and even then, if it doesn't get worldwide attention they will likely ignore it. (Rwanda comes to mind.) And even when they do - it's questionable what'll happen after the UN moves in. After all, there were some pretty good reports on UN personnel selling women into prostitution in Bosnia. So we're feeling our way to new answers. That's going to cause a lot of uncertainty and also a lot of discontent. But I can pretty well guarantee that if we try to make the old answers that DID NOT do the job serve without modification - then we will see more 9/11s all over the world. Or so I think. J.

I've been thinking about this question a lot-- how much attention should be paid to outright political crazy talk, and how much effort should be spent on trying to elevate the debate. Right now there's a popular school of thought insisting that "civility" and "elevating the debate" are really weakness, and that Democrats have lost so much ground in elections from the national down to the local level because of the party's domination by DLC-type centrists such as Bill Clinton, who spent much time reaching across the aisle and playing to the national middle. Republicans responded by sticking the knife in in dozens of ways: attempting to hound Clinton out of office, excluding Democrats from debate in Congress, and constructing a well-funded, organized media machine devoted to accusing Democrats of tyrant-appeasement, degeneracy and treason. The ultimate in this regard was what happened post-Sept. 11: going after al Qaeda had immense bipartisan support and even going after Iraq got Democratic support in Congress (for better or for worse), yet the "Democrats=terrorist-appeasers" line lives on. Bush parlayed his bipartisan support into enacting a radical political agenda without great public support, something that many of his supporters openly crowed about. By this reasoning, nobody to the left of center should be trying to elevate the debate, because elevating the debate evidently doesn't work. Instead they should assume that the American people are stupid; scream loudly, fight dirty, air unashamed party propaganda in the guise of news and play to the basest possible instincts, because this is evidently what gets you power. I don't want to believe that this is what is necessary. But as Josh Marshall recently said, conservatives have a paper-thin plurality of national mindshare and are successfully acting as if they have a gigantic supermajority. Maybe people who bend over backwards to be reasonable have been doing it all wrong. Maybe blind opposition and some batshit lunacy are the only way to get ahead. In conclusion, Bush is Hitler and eats fried babies in crude-oil sauce.

And before you ask, yes, the abyss has been staring back pretty hard.

"the Democrats are an “insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party,” This is a self-evident truth... ever more so every day. And before anyone scoffs themselves to death let me aver that I was a Clinton voter. Once.

“So - we should have left Iraq to Saddam?” Some people outside the US debate US foreign policy under the moronic and offensive assumption that Americans are idiots. These people ask “should we leave the US to Bush?”. I hope you see the ridiculousness of this question. And I hope you see it in your question too. My post is not arguing against the war. I’ve made the argument several times here. If you are interested in what I think, you can look for my comments on this website (if they are still there). I think I’ve used up enough space on that already. But if you pass on the source reporting the systematic anhilation of 10.000 civilians (aprox) per month by the Hussein regime, it would be appreciated. “We are at the point, worldwide, where we can no longer turn a blind eye toward dictatorships” Where have I heard this before? Maybe when the US invaded Panama and devastated the country… or maybe when the US was financing the Contras in Nicaragua… or maybe when Granada was invaded by US troops… Interesting how the US comes to this point whenever a christian fundamentalist president is governing. But at least we should come up with new mottos! “I don’t think the UN has a clue, but even if it does it is normally inclined to NOT do anything until the situation becomes intolerable - and even then, if it doesn’t get worldwide attention they will likely ignore it.” Well, I guess that is how the UN was able to manage peace negotiations in El Salvador, one of the few successful peace talks the world has ever seen (I didn’t notice that worldwide attention was focused on a small Central American country during the 80s). And maybe that is how the UN has been able to put pressure on the Colombian government to respond for human rights violations. In both cases we could only hope that the US government turned a blind eye. But it didn’t. It rather made things much worse. “So we’re feeling our way to new answers. That’s going to cause a lot of uncertainty and also a lot of discontent. But I can pretty well guarantee that if we try to make the old answers that DID NOT do the job serve without modification - then we will see more 9/11s all over the world.” Change “9/11s” for “attacks on sovereign nations”. Add a couple of adjectives, and some references to Islam. Doesn’t it sound like good ol’ Bin Laden? The interesting aspect of at least some of the pro-war arguments is that they are pretty much the same that islamic fundamentalists use, including the feeling of self-righteousness.

Responding to "So - we should have left Iraq to Saddam?", you say "These people ask 'should we leave the US to Bush?'. I hope you see the ridiculousness of this question. And I hope you see it in your question too." There's one big reason these two questions cannot quite be equated, unless you can point me to the time the Iraqi people had a legitimate chance to vote to elect their President of 25 years, or re-elect him after that. It's one thing to ask if you should leave a country to its long brutal dictator who has already executed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and another to ask if you should leave a democracy to correct what you see as an electoral mistake. In one case the people have power, in the other they had none. I couldn't let that point pass unanswered, but you and I both know this is otherwise a waste of time. We've been doing this for over a year at this site. You give every impression you've seen nothing to convince you America has ever really done anything right, not when balanced with Her Massive Misdeeds, judging by your words here (other than create some fine universities). And there are so many other countries on this planet with a virgin white record of bringing peace, happiness, and prosperity to the world. Meanwhile, the US is "the biggest terrorist in the world," according to many with this world view, and has always perpetrated evil, even before Bush was old enough to run for office. First country on the planet to ever do it, too. It is my opinion there is nothing that America can ever do to change that world view. Not if we elected Ralph Nader, signed Kyoto (and then harangued the rest of the industrialized world to follow ... you have noticed we not the only un-signatories?), cut the Armed Forces in half, and based them all in America only for homeland defense. Not if we promised never to give another dollar to another bad leader on this planet (of course, that would mean cutting off everyone). Even if America went totally flaccid and isolationist and completely went away fromt he international scene, the attacks would continue. And then the world would say, "my, why do they still hate you? It's shameful all those people died BUT, you did bring it on yourselves, what with oppressing the Native Americans, Japanese, and the blacks, and the Koreans and Vietnamese, Central Americans, and all those years of chasing Muslims." "You're lucky to be alive, so just be thankful it's not worse, given what you've done, and pipe down." Of course, this is all entirely off the topic of this entry, which was the harshly partisan political climate within America, the ugly mud pit in which the next President will be chosen. However, both do have one thing in common. They currently leave me feeling completely hopeless, near certain there will be no solution not torn from flesh and blood (political or literal). Because in both cases, the two sides are so set, certain, and blindered ... only an earthquake might knock them off the track towards a head-on collision. No one will back down until they realize they are on the verge of losing a limb. Only then *may* sense return. Until then, there are no rules. There is no level of debate to be maintained, only mud throw-weight to be increased. And thus I'm seriously considering what I contribute to this or get out of it. Lately, certainly not peace of mind. And what person thinks they are so big they believe they can sway the partisan debate today? Al Sharpton or Ralph Nader? Sarcastic answers to my own question. At some level, it begins to feel pretty pointless. Each discussion such as the one on this page, or many other recent pages, merely reinforces that. Most people talk past each other. No progress is ever made. You might as well be talking in your shower. So in today's charged political environment, one where I am in the minority (meaning, I'm not a proponent of either party), I'm really tempted to just shut up. Let the bi-partisan blundering pass without comment, and keep my counsel to myself. Talk about Christmas, and pictures, and butterflies, if it wasn't too cold for them. Happy Pollyanna talk. Coming soon to PhotoDude.com. Because elsewhere lies madness.

I’m going to try to stick to the original topic here. Mine was an invitation to encourage and develop a political discussion that is at a level you find appropriate. If that is giving you headaches, toss it away, it’s not worth it. I agree with you that such discussion requires engaging other viewpoints (that has always been my intention here), rather than spewing monologues. But that doesn’t mean we need to convince one another, or else drop it. We can only hope that our own position becomes more sophisticated as we engage others into discussion. I made a suggestion. Instead of trying to figure out what those Iraqi folks would like the US to do (by how happy, sad, angry, etc. they supposedly get when the US does this or that), try focusing on what the parts in the discussion would like the US to do, and why. Instead of debating what the US should do in Iraq, focus on what should be done in the US to make things better. There’s an anecdote of some American activists that went to South Africa during the apartheid to protest it. They went to the ANC and asked how they could help, and ANC officials answered “Go back home and do the fight there, we are alright doing the fight here by ourselves”. Trying to see apartheid through the eyes of destituted South Africans doesn’t produce anything other than the formulation of wrong questions, like “should we leave South Africa to have an overtly racist legislation?”. The question implies that this is your decision, not the South African’s. Furthermore, disenfranchising South Africans (or Iraqis, or Panamanians under Noriega, pick your dictatorship) from making this decision is, I believe, derived from the implicit assumption that citizens of those countries are “less citizens” than yourself, like children. I have argued about this before, so I won’t repeat myself here, but, if you are interested, do a “Find…” of “children” on this site, and check the analogies used by pro-war arguments. Once you eliminate the pseudo-questions from the domestic political discussion (and apparently there are advocates of this, both on the right and on the left), you may find yourself with the appropriate space to judge arguments and enrich your position on issues, an example against the “harshly partisan political climate within America, the ugly mud pit”. This is the core of my invitation. “You give every impression you’ve seen nothing to convince you America has ever really done anything right.” Then I am giving the wrong impression. Because your statement implies the wrong assumption: that you can judge countries as wholes. What does the the statement “Andorra is a great nation” could mean? Or “Surinam is a bad country”? These are completely empty sentences one uses to either a) make an aesthetic appraisal of a nation (which is not the topic of discussion here), or b) befriend a foreign visitor. Yes, I believe that US foreign policy (particularly under the Bush regime) is terrible, just as I believe that it’s scientific research programs are by far the best, TV is particularly bad, NYC is beautiful, some Americans are the brightest people I’ve ever met, others are not so bright… I could go on with this for a while. But, let’s face it, US foreign policy was awful during Reagan, despicable during Bush 1, and criminal during Bush 2. It wasn’t all that rosy with Clinton either, just as it wasn’t all that rosy with so many other countries during the same period and it isn’t today. But, to certain extent, it was tolerable. The situation that Bush has created isn’t. “It is my opinion there is nothing that America can ever do to change that world view.” I strongly disagree. That assumes (yes, the assumptions again) that at least a significant portion of the rest of the world has an irrational hatred towards the US, and that is simply unfounded. Few nations were as hated as the colonial powers of the early 20th century. Once colonial practices were abolished (or at least diminished and concealed), a sense of admiration has grown in the rest of the world. I don’t see why the US can’t follow a similar path. I think it is in the best interest of the Americans, and it is in the best interest of the rest of us. “So in today’s charged political environment, one where I am in the minority (meaning, I’m not a proponent of either party), I’m really tempted to just shut up. Let the bi-partisan blundering pass without comment, and keep my counsel to myself.” And it goes without saying that you are completely entitled to go that way. But it would be a sad loss for those of us, pollyannas maybe, who believe that knowledge is only acquired from debate.

Well, Frederico, when you're willing to debate it might be nice if you'd drop the lecture mode and condense the verbiage. We poor, ignorant Americans get real confused when you use words of more than one syllable, sentences longer than two words, and paragraphs longer than two sentences. And if you feel that knowledge is only acquired from debate, I think you're missing a very valid point. Which is ... that is sometimes you have to shut up and observe what's going on around you, instead of attempting to make what's going on around you conform to what you think it should be. That seems to be a major failing of the anti-war folks - they're stuck in their memes and they WILL NOT compare them with outside information to determine if they should change them based on what's going on worldwide. I'm constantly re-evaluating what I think I know based on what I'm learning. I've had to change a number of political stances I've taken, when I learned that I was in error about information I used to make that decision - and the Internet's about the best fact-checker you can find. You might have to wade through a few gallons of mud before you find a pearl, but it's surprising what you can find when you look. And I have learned far more from watching what's gone on than by arguing with people about what I think is going on. Now, to touch on a few minor points in your post... 1. South Africa Aparthid is over. The US didn't start it, so don't blame the US for it. We've made immeasureable strides in race relations in the last 60 years. We're not perfect - but we're a hell of a lot further along that I ever thought we'd be. (Now Brazil, THEY have the right ideas there...) 2. The people arguing for disenfranchising the Iraqi people always seem to be the ones who didn't want us to go to war in the first place. "They're not READY for self-government! We need the UN in to help!" Uh, huh. WE are building up their government to a self-sustaining and self-governing point, after taking down the dictator that held his foot to their neck for three decades. What did the anti-war community accomplish that rivals that? They are not children - they ARE inexperienced in running their own government but we're teaching them what to do and they're learning like their future depends on it. Plus, they've got plenty of examples of various political systems that they can draw ideas from, literally centuries of examples both good and bad. I doubt seriously when they see the raging successes that Communism and Socialism have produced that they'll want to try those memes. I can't see why they'd want the UN to come in and run their government - they're perfectly capable of learning how to run it themselves. 3. (The foriegn policy situation) ... that Bush has created isn’t (tolerable) I kind of feel bad for you on this - because that one is laughable until you look at it from a certain point of view, where I can see it WOULD be intolerable for those who's political egos are dependent on the US failing and asking for assistance from the UN (which, I might add, cut and ran at the first opportunity.) Saddam's in custody. Afghanistan is out from under the rule of the Taliban, and having a constitutional convention. Now Libya is giving up it's weapons of mass destruction. They're coming clean. Confessing all their sins. Showing us their chemical, bio and nuke programs. And somehow, I don't think it's because they've suddenly decided to play nice with the rest of the world for fear of sanctions from the UN. They're not AFRAID of the UN. The UN is a warm, fuzzy teddy bear who would let you do what you wanted to without telling you "no", and they'll even sell you women. ..."Colonel Gaddafi's's commitment, once fulfilled, will make our country more safe and our world more peaceful," President Bush said. "Leaders who abandon the pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will find an open path to better relations with the US and other nations."... Under Clinton, it was pretty clear that countries could do whatever they wanted without fear of reprisal by the US. That changed on 9/11. I presume you're familiar with the joke about how to get the attention of a donkey when you want it to do something, correct? We've applied that process to our international relations. We're not turning a blind eye to dicatorships and hoping they'll go away. We're working to actively change things. Iraq and Afghanistan were wake-up calls to the dictators of the world. Ah, but why should the US decide who the dicators are? It's simple. The UN wouldn't. Multilateralism failed out the gate... However, US foriegn policy - and the unilateralism (which 63 non-dictatorship led countries have signed on to, hardly 'uniliateral', is it?) works. We have hit the stubborn donkey with a 2x4 to get it's attention. We tried carrots, we tried speaking nicely, we tried letting the donkey do what it wanted. That didn't work. Whapping it hard to get it's attention has. And it's working. Which is something I can understand you'd find... intolerable. Photodude - I apologize for the long rant. didn't mean to take so long with it. J.

“Well, Frederico, when you’re willing to debate it might be nice if you’d drop the lecture mode and condense the verbiage.” I thought it was more important to focus on content, rather than a tone that is completely invisible to me. Beyond the ad hominem and hyperbole that PD mentioned, I think JLawson provides an example of the things I’ve been arguing don’t contribute to an enriching debate: a) Assuming that the other is an idiot (e.g., “South Africa Aparthid [sic] is over”, no kidding) b) Assuming that the other thinks you are an idiot (e.g. “We poor, ignorant Americans get real confused…”) c) Quoting the other for things s/he didn’t say (e.g. “The US didn’t start it [Apartheid], so don’t blame the US for it”). d) Stating baseless generalizations (e.g. “The people arguing for disenfranchising the Iraqi people…”, could you be more precise about who this arguing people are?; “they’re [the anti-war folks] stuck in their memes and they WILL NOT compare them with outside information to determine if they should change them based on what’s going on worldwide”, could you quote at least one example from a recognizable opinion on the anti-war side?) If this is your strategy for re-evaluating what you think, good luck, my bet is that it’s going to take you a while. What happened to the source of those 10000 deaths per month, anyway? Nah, don’t waste your valuable time answering any of my questions, because when I say debate I don’t mean fact-based debate, that would be absurd, but rather faith/mythology/supersition-based debate. I guess I’ll have to sharpen my crayons if I want to continue this debate. A couple of (rather off topic) points I just couldn’t leave unanswered: “Iraq and Afghanistan were wake-up calls to the dictators of the world” Not only to dictators, but to everyone. And the message was loud and clear: “build up your defense budget, because you don’t know who is next” Very nice job, that's exactly the kind of world where I want my kids to grow up. “WE are building up their government to a self-sustaining and self-governing point, after taking down the dictator that held his foot to their neck for three decades.” Just like Panama, right? Nevermind that now, after more than a decade, it is even more politically and economically dependent on the US (who knows, maybe the Panamanians wanted it that way). “I doubt seriously when they see the raging successes that Communism and Socialism have produced that they’ll want to try those memes.” Of course they won’t! I’m sure they’ll find by themselves that economic deregulation is the way to go, based on the raging success of that model in Russia, Thailand and Latin America. “We have hit the stubborn donkey with a 2x4 to get it’s attention. We tried carrots, we tried speaking nicely, we tried letting the donkey do what it wanted. That didn’t work. Whapping it hard to get it’s attention has. And it’s working. Which is something I can understand you’d find... intolerable.” Ah, the Al-Qaeda style of argumentation in its most beautiful metaphor.

My apologies, Frederico, I simply figured that since you argued in that mode, you wouldn't mind being addressed in it. Why, looking over your screed it certainly seemed like you were implying that the Iraqi people were being cheated out of their franchise, but obviously you weren't saying that, were you? No, in an overblown way you were saying... Well, I can't really make out WHAT you were saying, to be honest. I THOUGHT you were implying we were going to cheat the Iraqis out of the vote. But you add in so much, it's difficult to tell. And since there's so many other folks who attempt to make your points, in a clearer and more concise manner, I'll take no more of your time. Happy holidays to you! J.