« Alive in Baghdad | Main | Two Foreign Policies! I Shudder... » Cry "Munich!" And Let Slip the Dogs of Punditry09 Apr 2007 01:19 pm Via Andrew Sullivan, Francis Fukuyama's take on the pundit's jihad against Tony Blair's successful resolution of the captive British soliders situation: "when has Krauthammer ever not cried 'Munich!' in response to an act of diplomacy?" Indeed. Here's a small sample of Krauthammer seeing Hitlers everywhere. Comments (55)
Id love to hear your opinion of the right honourable president of Iran. 
It's 1938!
Genius.
And what's with this "Demand the Vote" ad? DO you actually believe that the government is actively preventing a specifically targeted group from voting?
What's with all the trolls here the past few months?
Try reading the ad, Ben Hur. Like Matthew, I am a resident of the District, and yes, we are prevented from voting for a representative in the Congress that spends our taxes.
Yes, what success? We didn't get our stinkin' war. We had a perfectly acceptable pretext and Blair blew it. It reminds me that England is only 22 miles from Fance!
I don't understand, DCers don't vote?
"What's with all the trolls here the past few months?" Not sure about the last few months, but the post titled "Stay Classy, LGF" might bring some around.
And I'm no troll.
Have you ever *seen* Ben Hur, buddy? Didya notice how the entire bloody point of the movie is to show that nonviolent resistance is more powerful than violence? But these are self-answering questions, aren't they? And yes, the war-porn crowd's bitter disappointment with the safe, casualty-free return of the British sailors is palpable, isn't it?
If you're curious, Ben Hur, why don't you try clicking on the ad?
LaFollette Progressive "And yes, the war-porn crowd's bitter disappointment with the safe, casualty-free return of the British sailors is palpable, isn't it?" Until they decide to do it again. Try to stay on point, though. Rhetorical gymnastics won't masque your ignorance.
William Burns: I did. Admittedly I confused it with another "movement" on your side of the aisle. There's not so background on ad's site. Whatever happened to no taxation without representation? Does has NO federal representation?
That should read: There's not so much background....
Damn! I need to read before I click! I meant to ask, Does DC have any federal representation?
Ah yes. The strong, decisive Israeli response to the kidnapping of their soldiers has assuredly taught Hezbollah a lesson. And also effected the safe return of the soldiers. In related news, Iraq is safe and free and the citizens of Washington, DC have federal representation.
If you really think that Hizballah didn't learn a lesson, you need new sources of info. They've admitted as much. If you think that the average non-Shia Lebanese blame Israel for the war, you REALLY need to find new sources of info.
Ben Hur, the 23rd Amendment gave D.C. residents as many electoral votes as their population entitles them to unless that amount would be more than the number any state has, in which case they have that number. They also have a non-voting delegate to the House, though under some proposal that I don't understand that delegate would be able to have a vote on any bill where their vote is not decisive.
Oh, and try to have a normal debate. Sarcasm is a another mask!
washerdreyer Thanks. I've never lived in DC so I didn't know. And Google is no way to get an education.
It is funny when a troll makes a thread about them instead of about the issue at hand. Take Ben Hur, for example. Do you really need that much attention?
Home sick today, so maybe. I'm not a troll. I won't pretend to be someone else and then swith on you. First time visiting the site today. I noticed that anyone can comment, which I like. I gathered from some of the comments that people here comment on I level that one wouldn't find on other sites with your political views- like Kos. I like good political debates as long as I gather that my adversary actually has some knowledge of the subject and not just a wise ass.
I don't see where I was commenting about myself. Let's try to be welcoming.
Welcome to rat fucking, Yglesias. I guess you've made the not-quite-big time.
I hope you weren't referring to me, Tim. I'm a HUGE monty python fan.
Yet again our perpetually salivating slob of a blogger wastes a post with a pitiful attack on someone whose class and career, though obviously not gut, dwarf his own. Is it really surprising that you can search through the work of someone with a long and prolific career and find repeated uses of the same points/quotes/rhetorical tricks ect? If anyone cared enough about you to wade through your risible body of hackery I am sure they could do the same.
I guess now we won't need Matt to post to remind us that LGF is staying classy.
Ben Hur: On the off chance you're actually here to discuss: Free debate is awesome, of course. But it's a lot more productive when you can reduce the invective. For instance, per your first comment, I think Matt was quite serious. Fukayama certainly is. There isn't anyone, anywhere who doesn't think he's a serious thinker, even if they totally disagree with him. If you think the Iran/British situation was a failure, define why. Define what would have been a better outcome than the peacful return of the hostages, alive and uninjured. That would get a better response than being diminutive and combative without giving a reason. Or, per your 2:04pm comment, tossing about accusations of ignorance rarely produces productive discussion of substantive issues. Again, especially without giving reasons. Or, per your 1:46pm comment, assuming the stupidist possible interpretation ("they must mean that the government is trying to stop people from voting!") of a piece of content for which the site's proprieter is pretty clearly not directly responsible. All in all, the more you try to phrase your arguments as Popperian falsifiable assertions, the better things are going to go.
Glenn Greenwald had a good riff on related comments by Newt Gingrich last week about how we needed to show Iran we're tough. On the Munich analogy, it seems like if comparing people/events to Hitler/Nazi Germany is generally out of bounds, comparing people/events that are widely criticized as bringing about Hitler/Nazi Germany should usually be out of bounds too. Could this be a corollary to Godwin's Law?
Here's vintage Krauthammer from March 18, 1988: "Americans like to think that talking is still better than nothing. This summer marks the 50th anniversary of the definitive refutation of that proposition. Munich, after all, was one of the most successful talks of this century. It solved the Czech problem." And of course there's the classic titles: "Munich on the Tigris" of November 19, 1997 and Aug 3, 1990's "A Festival of Appeasement".
Andrew Edwards "If you think the Iran/British situation was a failure, define why" Because it ended without any consequences for the Iranians. What's stopping them from using the same tactic again? "Define what would have been a better outcome than the peacful return of the hostages, alive and uninjured" They should have proper training of how to act in captivity. But a better outcome would've been the sinking of the Iranian navy. Reagan, who obviously isn't liked here, but anyway, hit their navy when they were mining the gulf. They haven't since. I'm sorry, but sarcasm is not an arguement. NEither is wise ass humor. So yes, I see them as the defense of ignorance. About the voting thing: You are 100% correct. I totally jumped the gun. It was one of the first things I saw when the window opened and I mistakenly assumed that it was the Florida, or Ohio election issues popping up. My bad, and I thought I made that clear earlier. Popperian? Sorry, I don't know enough about him to comment.
Ben Hur: For Heaven's sake, brush up on your elementary knowledge of US politics. DC has been allowed to vote for President only since the 23rd Amendment passed in 1961 -- and it has no voting Congressional representation at all. Congress actually sent to the states a Constitutional amendment in Carter's last few years (I believe 1978) to change this by giving it two Senators and House representation -- but only about half a dozen states ever ratified it before the deadline. Since then, nada. The main block seems to be the fight over what kind of representation DC should have in our psuychotically misapportioned Senate. I personally think it should just be considered part of Maryland for purposes of Senate elections -- that would mean that its residents would be responsible for electing 2/9 of a US Senator, which is almost the same as the average House district in the country (which elects 20/87 of a Senator). Indeed, the 23rd Amendment gives it almost 3 times more clout in presidential elections than the average House district -- but then, the same thing is true of all pissant little low-population states like Alaska, Wryoming and Delaware. A useful reminder that American democracy has always had a severely deformed limb from the very start (having gotten rid of its other deformed limb -- slavery -- only at tremendous cost). At any rate, at a goddamn minimum it should have House representation -- immediately. (By contrast, America's "commonwealths" and territories -- Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Marianas -- lack representation but also don't have to pay any federal taxes.)
As for a British military response to the Iraq sailorgrabbing, see Geoffrey Wheatcroft in "Slate" ( http://www.slate.com/id/2163586/ ). Britain COULDN'T retaliate against the Iranian action -- largely because most of its current military strength is tied up in, you guessed it, Iraq. Which, of course, is also pretty much the case for us -- although I doubt that a little fact like that would stop our two ruling delusionals from TRYING to carry out military actions against Iran in such a situation, and bungling them completely in the process.
But a better outcome would've been the sinking of the Iranian navy. Killing people is worse than not killing people. So you are wrong. To express this differently: you are saying that it would have been better to certainly kill a large number of innocent people right now, because you believe this will deter Iranians from the hypothetical temptation to take a small number of innocent people captive in the future. This contention involves a failure of logic. Note that I also disagree very strongly that the Iranian hostage-taking was a "success" for them, or that they will be tempted to take more hostages in the future; people take hostages to serve policy goals, not for the sheer fun of it, and this hostage-taking failed to achieve any Iranian (or Revolutionary Guard) goals. And now I feel I have done my arduous duty of engaging with children for the day.
Bruce Moomaw Thanks. Sounds a little more than elementary, though!
Mr. Hur, the Israeli response to Hizbullah demonstrably increased Hizbullah's popularity in Lebanon, undermined the popularity of the established Lebanese government, and made Israel less popular in that country. All without getting their hostages returned. It also killed, wounded, and made homeless numerous innocent Lebanese civilians, which I wonder if you even care about. I don't have much to add to what Mr. Steinglass said on the Iranian hostage-taking. War is in general a bad thing, as we are currently learning again, to our sorrow, in Iraq. Conflicts should be solved peacefully if possible. Iran has done nothing to us for decades...the non-stop, desparate attempts by the right to find an important Iranian connection to anti-U.S. terrorist actions have produced only highly doubtful and unproven conspiracy theories. Iran helped us in our invasion of Afghanistan, and could actually be something of a regional ally if we stopped our constant warmongering against them.
I'm sorry but regarding Lebanon, you are misinformed.
"I'm sorry, but sarcasm is not an arguement. NEither is wise ass humor. So yes, I see them as the defense of ignorance." No, sarcasm is a response to the level of argument produced by someone whose first post on the thread was to quote a line from the blog entry and respond "Are you serious?" "Because it ended without any consequences for the Iranians. What's stopping them from using the same tactic again?" First of all, we're comparing several non-ideal potential outcomes. On the one hand, you have an option in which the safe return of the hostages is negotiated over the course of two weeks, no one gets hurt, and Ahmadinejad gets to score a bit of a PR coup over the release. On the other hand, we have an option in which the US and UK "sink the Iranian navy." In all likelihood, the sailors are executed, a temporary oil crisis wreaks havoc on our economy, several hundred British and Americans are killed in fighting, and the Shiite militias in Iraq go nuts, causing ramped up violence in Baghdad and Southern Iraq and the complete destabilization of the Shiite regime our troops are propping up in Iraq. Additionally, the rest of the world is outraged, Russia and China refuse to cooperate in sanctions to block nuclear proliferation, and the Mullahs become even more desperate to acquire the bomb. Now, I freely admit, I can see the downside to Option A. Ahmadinejad might become more popular in Iran. They might try for a repeat performance down the road. And the Royal Navy will need to consider changing their ROE to make sure that this never happens again. But for the life of me, I can't imagine how anyone on earth would consider Option B to be superior, unless their foreign policy philosophy was drawn up on a school playground.
If you think the 3rd largest military in world is using MOST of it's force in Iraq, you are really misinformed.
Killing is worse than not killing? That's you're answer? Than there's nothing to debate. That's not how the real world works, only philosphical arguements. Stop the hordes in Darfur with rhetoric.
"But for the life of me, I can't imagine how anyone on earth would consider Option B to be superior, unless their foreign policy philosophy was drawn up on a school playground." You know, I was interested in your response until that last part. I mistakenly thought this site was another mud-slinging site, therefore I thought I'd get into the fray with my earlier comments. So on that, you are correct. But why continue with the insults?
A summary of Lebanese public opinion "You are misinformed" -- now THAT is a high-quality debate tactic. I apologize for feeding the trolls. It's a slow day.
Stop the hordes in Darfur with rhetoric. I'm sorry, were we talking about Darfur? I was under the impression that we were talking about the release of the British captives in Iran, and that you said you would have preferred that the Iranian Navy be sunk, rather than that the British captives be released peacefully. Your argument, in other words, is that it is best to resolve situations with violence and death, rather than to achieve the same outcome peacefully. You'd make a really shitty hostage negotiator.
I don't think the release of the hostages was a PR coup for Ahmadinejad at all. I think Steve Clemons gets it exactly right: Iran lost because 1) the dispute between factions of the Iranian government regarding the hostage situation makes them look like they don't have their house in order; and 2) regardless of whether this made Iran look more macho vis-a-vis the UK, this was an example of unstable and irrational behavior that can only serve to alienate countries like Russia and China who will have a big, big say over whether Iran gets to continue with its nuclear program.
Do you have anything more recent?
YOU were talking about killing vs not killing.
Right. And I was saying all things being equal, I'm against killing, while you come down on the pro-killing side of things. Or are you trying to say you were just advocating sinking the Iranian Navy -- you didn't actually want to kill anybody? You wanted the ships sunk by fairy elves, the sailors gently spirited to shore on a gossamer breeze?
Ok See you tomorrow!
The real point is the impact in Iraq that violence against Iran would have. the Shiite militias in Iraq go nuts, causing ramped up violence in Baghdad and Southern Iraq and the complete destabilization of the Shiite regime our troops are propping up in Iraq. is the least of it. We have to assume that the Iranians have the same logic as we do. Something along the lines of "the US sinking our navy cannot be allowed to go unpunished, or else they'll have no incentive not to do it again." Unlike in the past, US and UK forces are within the reach of the Iranian military. There's nothing stopping retributive airstrikes against US targets in Iraq that just happen to be getting in the way of Iranian-backed militias. At the end of the day, the US & UK are losing a war in Iraq. It's hard to believe that they could win one if the theatre extended to include Iranian military assets as well. In other words, Iran is in the stronger hard-power position. An open conflict with Iran could benefit Iran. It could not possibly benefit the US and UK. So the US and UK could not get involved in a broader regional war. Any threats of force from this side of the ocean are talking loudly and carrying a small stick, and the Iranians know it. Better to defuse early in the process with diplomacy than back down from a bigger fight later on. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
What's stopping them from using the same tactic again? The original incentive no longer exists. The kidnapped Iranian diplomat was released, and the British sailors were released the next day.
"I'm sorry but regarding Lebanon, you are misinformed. What a brilliant, well-thought argument. It reminds me of that fictional pre-war debate in The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34144 "This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism" vs. "No It Won't" It looks like Ben Hur is going to be another troll who has trouble staying on topic and understanding his opponents' arguments, as shown by his misunderstanding of the phrase "all things being equal."
ben hur didn't even know that DC didn't have Congressional Representation. why argue with clue less troll like him? he must have come here from LGF, those cowards love giving themselves names like ben hur.
And who cares what Andrew "Bareback" Sullivan thinks? This guy has as many brain cells as a parakeet. He's a typical homosexual activist who is trying to use "conservatism" as a Trojan horse for his radical homosexual ideas.
Comments closed April 23, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"Tony Blair's successful resolution of the captive British soliders"
Are you serious?
Posted by Ben Hur | April 9, 2007 1:33 PM