A friend writes: Isn't Yglesias supposedly one of bold new generation of young american jewish bloggers who speaks truth to power on Israel? This is pathetic:
Weiss response: I agree with Yglesias that every war has atrocities. World War II: Charles Lindbergh condemned the atrocities done to the Japanese by pilots he flew with in New Guinea; they pushed them out of planes, and worse. And the Japanese did hateful massacres and waterboarding in New Guinea. Abu Ghraib never grabbed me, because it was inevitable. It's easy for us to armchair war atrocities, never having gotten in there. That's why I'm against these wars, because they brutalize people.
My tipster is po'd. He responds: "yglesias is throwing his hands up in the air and saying, ah well, war is hell. it's just what war is. You reach the same conclusion. all he would have had to do is read that NYT quote to understand that even by its own standards, Israel's war conduct is dramatically worsening. it needs to be held to account for that, not greeted w/a "war is hell" shrug."
OK, man, but I think this is why I'm just about a pacifist. The first atrocity was sieging, blockading Gaza. The murder of the old lady only followed from that. The Good War was filled with atrocities. You valorize Israel's own standards. I don't care about their standards, I think occupation is hell and war is hell and you should do all you can to avoid it. That said, I agree, Israel is on a specially-degraded path right now...
Did you notice that Lobby and neo-cons are apparently trying to get Murdoch to block promotion and distribution of Mark Rudd's autobiography, "Underground," as indicated in the following link:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/will-murdoch-publish-book-by-anti-american-anti-semitic-terrorist/
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean to say, Phil? War is Hell is like Sh-t Happens. I guess you mean to say we shouldn't jump into any war therefore, especially those preemptive? Yep. Abu Ghraib? Inevitable?
Perhaps the confusion here is due to the rhetoric of "war on terror"? It goes towards is this a war in the sense covered by Geneva, or just a criminal action? Seems to me we have to look more into exactly
what is the difference between terror under color of state law, and terror under non-state action. In short, we have to address the state as a bad actor as the Civil Rights movement did in the USA–those principles
have evolved, or spread to world affairs. Those who label only non-state actors as terrorists, the current power status quo, versus those who look deeper, essentially saying, "You say we have a war on terrorism, so let's look to both state actors, or those acting under color of state law, and those who
have not that official status, but employ terror also to get their way. Where do we arrive?
Up through WWII, Vietnam, and Korea, war truly was hell. Then we took much (not all) of the hell out of war through employing containment strategies in the Reagan era Cold War.
The Zionists, Neocons and Neolibs' primary "contribution" to contemporary war has been to subversively undermine and then shatter the Reagan era containment strategy principles. We got the first taste of this with Bush I in Gulf War I. The erosion continued with the Neolib Balkans war, and then was finally completely shattered with the Neocon/Zionist Iraq war, the War on Terror, and whatever Obama and his Zionist brain trust are calling the wars in the Middle East today.
Its ironic, isn’t it? The Reagan era may well have been the apex of modern civilization. (Remember his wisdom of de-escalating in the Middle East after the Lebanon attack on the Marines, instead of listening to the Neocons and escalating?) But now the warmongering lowlife’s have succeeded in dragging us all back down into the swamps, where they subsist and thrive.
"the Reagan era containment strategy principles. The Reagan era may well have been the apex of modern civilization."
Ed, stop it! Now I have to go get the Windex and the paper towels and clean off the screen and keyboard.
Anyway, if laughter is good medicine, I am gonna be a very healthy guy.
Hey Ed, let's run Ronald Reagan again in 2012! That's the ticket! Who do you like for the Vice P slot?
C'mon Ed, tell us how Bush and the neocons are "leftists"
@ Mooser,
As I've patiently explained before, Bush and the Neocons and the Clintons and the Neolibs and Obama and the Neolibs are all the result of the convergence of Left-wing, internationalist "humanitarian interventionism", and Right-wing internationalist greed. They are all a "mean" between the predominating corrupt left-liberal and Right-greed American establishments.
Reagan transcended these warped establishment forces, which is why he enjoyed the support of so many blue collar "Reagan Democrats," as well as conservatives. And his (authentic, as opposed to Bush-charlatan) Christian faith immunized him against the cynical, opportunistic counsel of the ear-whispering court Jewish Zionists.
@Ed – ask blue collar El Salvadorians or Nicaraguans what they think of Reagan's Christianity (supported BTW with Israeli arms – I wonder who paid for those)
@ this entire post : WAR? what war? Do we call the gassing and bombing of an imprisoned population, as what happened in Poland in the spring of 1943, "war" ?
You're not a pacifist if you even engage in "the first atrocity", implying then that the second was nothing.
A pacifist says, "stop now".
I know that I personally confronted you on your DECISION to not comment on Hamas resumption of shelling of civilians after the cease-fire ended. And, I know that you heard.
Please don't name yourself as on the "high road".
Even on the facts "the first atrocity". A prior atrocity was shelling of civilians in Sderot and elsewhere. A prior atrocity was constructing the wall. A prior atrocity was suicide bombings staged in West Bank.
Lots of "first atrocities".
Yeah, Ed, apart from your usual anti-semitic fantasizing and your imagining of some golden age when Christians ruled justly in the US, you're sorta forgetting something–the Reagan Administration and Israel both supported mass murderers all over the world. Someone above mentioned Central America, for instance. When Rios Montt's men were massacring Mayan Indians by the tens of thousands in Guatemala in 1982, they used Israeli Galil rifles. Israelis trained Guatemalan security forces. Israel was involved in Iran/Contra, though iirc the investigating Congressmembers did their best to keep that part of the scandal secret.
The test of virtue is power. It's a relative thing. You can knock Ed all you want, but look at who has had the power the last century or so, and look at what they have done; compare it to the other nations, that is, what they have done with the power they've obtained. What religion exceeds Christianity in terms of giving
individuals power over the state? Just asking. I am an agnostic myself.
Along with everything else, Reagan was juggling the Cold War in defense of the West against psychotic Communists and Leftists who had murdered millions over the course of decades. I know the numbers killed by American backed anti-Communists under Reagan are debatable, but regardless they were millions less than those killed by the Communists and tens of thousands less, probably hundreds of thousands less, than those killed by the post-Christian, Middle East-pro-Jewish Zionist-fixated regimes of Clinton/Bush. And Obama is picking right up where those regimes left off.
Leftists and left-liberals have absolutely no moral authority to pass judgment on Reagan, or anybody else.
again with the right wing rants. Get a grip, Ed : this blog is not about that.
My point was not a right wing rant, Rowan, but that war is hell, but made less so by containment strategies as opposed to Neocon/Neolib/Zionist "preemptive" war strategies.
The reason Reagan understood this and dimwitted leftists, left-liberals, Neocons, Neolibs and Zionists don't is because Reagan was an authentic conservative, and the others are intellectual children suffering from arrested development.
If one concludes war is hell and wants to prevent it, then one must take practical measures to limit it towards the goal of preventing it instead of merely throwing tantrums. Reagan did that. The others are incapable of doing that.
Oh, please — Reagan was a global imperialist schizo, with hokey homespun acting skills.