the enemy of my enemy is my friend or the most persuasive pro-war argument I've seen yet

It is criminal to put our servicemen and women in harm's way and to put the lives of so many civilians on the line for the misguided frustrations of the Bush administration.

...to be as succinct a summation of my own thoughts on the matter as anything.

yeah, there's hardly much (if anything) I disagree with here, though I do fear 'Blood in the Water' reprisals.

I don't necessarily see what great culture survives today in Iraq - some kind of tradition of palace architecture perhaps? - that wouldn't still exist after we blew up a bunch of military and government infrasturcture.

I also don't see exactly how Saddam would become a hero to islamic fundamentalists - he's not exactly anybody's idea of a devout muslim.

Until someone comes up with a solution other than isolationism I'll remain unswayed. I refuse to give credence to the idea that Saddam can simply be left alone to do as he pleases. Even if he wasn't a mass murderer in his own right with a fetish for prohibited weaponry, he still gives shelter and aid to some of the most vile scum the world has to offer.

For those of the peace persuasion who still believe this is really about OIL, consider the fact that in that case we could just drill in ANWR and solve the problem. Or not really.

and the most persuasive pro-war argument I've seen yet has been in the New Yorker, either Remnick's thing or the Jeffrey Goldberg articles which have been alot more convincing in painting Iraq as a threat than anything the White House has put out.

great culture that'll be lost to American invasion: those nifty bizarro murals of Saddam at work, at play, at rest, etc. (although they weren't half as nifty as the Assad murals, nevermind Soviet fooforaw).

urrr, maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else.

I'm not sure what that last sentence means, but my understanding is that there really isn't that much oil in ANWR -- enough for the US for six months, if I remember correctly -- and I'm pretty sure Iraq is sitting on more oil than that.

(This is not to say that I think this is really about oil, necessarily; I don't know what it's really about and probably don't have enough information to make that call. I do wonder why we go after Iraq and not [insert any of a number of other countries here].)

AL-QAEDA
IRAQ

Duh.

I'll wholeheartedly agree with these assertions and suggest you seek theses out if you haven't read them. When Goldberg talks to the heads of NSA, CIA and the SECDEF, they seem a little more forthcoming than when on the podium. Good stuff.

No - in fact I sometimes think the orthodoxy round here is the reaction to the perceived orthodoxy. A counter-orthodoxy if you like. The line "I know dissent isn't tolerated on the left (unless it's dissent against the right)" seems particulary daft and strikes me as trying on that Christopher Hitchens I-am-a-martyr-of-the-intolerant-left kind of pose. I suppose if you are at a particularly PC college, a puritanical leftism might constitute the doxa, but in the wider world that's hardly the case. And sometimes it seems to smack of hipsterism - which is fine in the realm of arguing about pop music etc, but...

(Come to think of it, isn't this Richard Rorty's argument in 'Contingency, Irony and Solidarity'?)

if you actually plan to speak to those outside yr peer group (= real as opposed to fake politics) then you have to learn to treat them as human

ie ppl who actually genuinely like shania twain; or ppl who distrust "big govt" etc etc

who exactly is it gets most jumped on ile? keythkeyth's or stuart's or kiwi's posts are read a *lot* less carefully and fairly by eg momus than vice versa

Who isn't treating people as human? 'The Left'?

jerry how is the position you are taking not essentially the one you are saying it's irresponsible to take in politics?

(i don't think it is irresponsible btw: i think for example that there's a difference between good slogans and stupid ones, and thinking about good ones is part of good politics — bcz, among other things, you have to think how it reads to someone who doesn't yet agree with you => if your banner basically just says "anyone who disagrees with me is an evil brainless tool" then you are not seriously enggaged in politics)

i'm sorry jerry, i seem to have been being yelled several time b4 now for objecting to a persistent line being taken that "bush was going to war bcz it wd distract the american voter from the economy and besides those yahoos love to see ayrabs being bombed"

this presents all but the converted as easily duped, bloodthirsty racist idiots

now i'm being told that i object to this assumption bcz i'm being trendy

The point I'm making is really very boring and may not apply to anyone on ILx, but nevertheless: I think there is a tendency these days for people like us to apply a kind of hipster attitude that they practise culturally, in the political arena. And spending their time scoring points off -say- simple indie kids and leftists, rather than using their time and energy more fruitfully (afflicting the comfortable, comfort the afflicted - thank kind of thing). Anyway, my lunch awaits!

----

Cross-posting: Don't worry Mark, I don't think you're trendy! :) What I would say is - a certain kind of sophisticated argument simply 'shifts the dupe' for condecension - instead of the culture of mass distraction read the oppositon of widespread delusion. The shape of the position remains the same (I have a related argument that popist defence of the "the teenage girl consumer" very easily spills over into a condescending attitue to "teenage boy NME reader" who is duped into liking all kinds of pseud-punk stuff he shouldn't. FWIW - I don't believe anyone is a dupe!)

(who is of course a strong proponent of STRONG WRITING but only in a fairly limited and larkinesque mode of same: the point where i pretty much totally lost trust in him wz not his assault on chomsky, which i in fact have complicated sympathy with, but his review of g.marcus's double trouble, which wz tremendously condescending and i think dishonest...)

kerry once posted a v.terrific point abt politics not merely being an argument between readers of difft stripes of political columnists (or something: sorry kerry, i can't remember it exactly)

did you read the LRB piece on Byron-as-philistine?

The odd thing is that the Nipper has been saying all this to me in THE LAST FORTNIGHT, but this thread is MORE THAN A YEAR OLD.

I disagree with all the bastards who disagree with me.