Comments on: It Didn’t Start with Iraq http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:14:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Chris Crass http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5994 Chris Crass Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:51:18 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5994 "I don’t see the point in blaming this on precision weapons in a civil war." Indeed, you are missing the point. Namely, that "precision weapons" are nothing but propaganda. He's not blaming precision weapons, he's saying they are just a pillow for people to lay their conciousnesses to rest upon. They don't decrease civilian casualties appreciably. Especially not when combined with cluster bombs and land mines. “I don’t see the point in blaming this on precision weapons in a civil war.”
Indeed, you are missing the point. Namely, that “precision weapons” are nothing but propaganda. He’s not blaming precision weapons, he’s saying they are just a pillow for people to lay their conciousnesses to rest upon. They don’t decrease civilian casualties appreciably. Especially not when combined with cluster bombs and land mines.

]]> By: John Wilkinson http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5970 John Wilkinson Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:55:33 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5970 OK, my bad, I misread WW II for WW I, in which, counting the 1.5 million dead in Armenian massacres, the ratio was 20% civilians. This was a special case, a war with trench warfare, of course the civilian causalties were low. (And, by the way, the "military" casualties were the forcibly recruited conscripts, i.e., civilians). How about going back in history, e.g., the Roman siege of Carthage, (or many of the others), in which all the civilians were killed, for a ratio much greater than 50%, possibly closer to 90%? The point is, civilians have sufferred greatly in all wars, and I don't see the point in blaming this on precision weapons in a civil war. OK, my bad, I misread WW II for WW I, in which, counting the 1.5 million dead in Armenian massacres, the ratio was 20% civilians. This was a special case, a war with trench warfare, of course the civilian causalties were low. (And, by the way, the “military” casualties were the forcibly recruited conscripts, i.e., civilians). How about going back in history, e.g., the Roman siege of Carthage, (or many of the others), in which all the civilians were killed, for a ratio much greater than 50%, possibly closer to 90%? The point is, civilians have sufferred greatly in all wars, and I don’t see the point in blaming this on precision weapons in a civil war.

]]> By: John Wilkinson http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5968 John Wilkinson Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:24:09 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5968 The author brings up some good points, though nothing new. I just want to quibble with the math -- why is math such a challenge for the contributors here -- social types like our good professor? Especially journalists (or journalism professors) seem totally averse to anything resembling numbers (i.e., the facts), maybe that's why they become journalists, since rarely do Americans bother with the facts. The claim is made that in WWII, "only" 10% of the victims were civilians. The true numbers are that out of 50 million killed in WWII, 26 million were civilians -- that is 10%, by what new math? Or maybe the victims of concentration camps, carpet bombing, fire bombing, massacres, collective punishment, etc., and the like were not civilians. As for the 90% Iraqi figure, that may be true, I don't know, but it's surely specious to attribute this wholy to the precision weapons, when most of it was inter-sect murders, Marines going berserk and the like. How about checking some basic facts first, professor, before rushing to publish a half-baked piece? You're doing exactly what you accuse these reporters of doing (and they are doing it, alright, no quarrel there). This way, your credibility on other things (where you might be right) is shot to smithereens, too. The author brings up some good points, though nothing new. I just want to quibble with the math — why is math such a challenge for the contributors here — social types like our good professor? Especially journalists (or journalism professors) seem totally averse to anything resembling numbers (i.e., the facts), maybe that’s why they become journalists, since rarely do Americans bother with the facts.

The claim is made that in WWII, “only” 10% of the victims were civilians. The true numbers are that out of 50 million killed in WWII, 26 million were civilians — that is 10%, by what new math? Or maybe the victims of concentration camps, carpet bombing, fire bombing, massacres, collective punishment, etc., and the like were not civilians.

As for the 90% Iraqi figure, that may be true, I don’t know, but it’s surely specious to attribute this wholy to the precision weapons, when most of it was inter-sect murders, Marines going berserk and the like.

How about checking some basic facts first, professor, before rushing to publish a half-baked piece? You’re doing exactly what you accuse these reporters of doing (and they are doing it, alright, no quarrel there). This way, your credibility on other things (where you might be right) is shot to smithereens, too.

]]> By: Robert B. Livingston http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5938 Robert B. Livingston Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:11:42 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5938 "Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.” While they gird themselves (and us) for more years of nebulous grass-roots organizing and consciousness-raising with a victory as ill-defined as Bush's regarding his permanent war on terror-- I wonder if during their recent tete-a-tete Jensen and Solomon asked to what extent they themselves have contributed to making war easy. Required reading: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070913_anti_war.htm “Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”

While they gird themselves (and us) for more years of nebulous grass-roots organizing and consciousness-raising with a victory as ill-defined as Bush’s regarding his permanent war on terror– I wonder if during their recent tete-a-tete Jensen and Solomon asked to what extent they themselves have contributed to making war easy.

Required reading: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070913_anti_war.htm

]]> By: Michael Kenny http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5928 Michael Kenny Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:17:23 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5928 My theory is that all this flows from the very extreme form of fundamentalist Protestantism on which America was founded. There is first the idea of “God’s anointed”. Those who have been seen His light and who are therefore automatically right in all things. God cannot be wrong. By definition. And if He has allowed them to see His light, they can do no wrong! The corollary of that, of course, is that those who disagree with them are automatically wrong, flying in the face of God, so to speak, and therefore, by definition, evil. Then you have the siege mentality. Driven out of England for their intolerance and bigotry, they fled to North America. Since they are, by definition, right, those who attack them must be agents of Satan. Satan is all around, and he will nail them if they don’t nail him first. Hence, the fondness for pre-emptive strikes against perceived enemies, who may or may not really be enemies. Or worse yet, only become enemies when they are attacked out of the blue by people to whom they bore no ill! Then you have evangelisation. Convinced that they have God’s light, they feel themselves obliged to “spread the good word”, which all good people will, of course, recognise as the word of the Lord. Once again, those who oppose are agents of Satan who must be extirpated at all costs to prevent them from contaminating good people. Put all that together, and add some cynical interest groups to manipulate the God-fearing folks, and you’ve got the neocon “constituency”! My theory is that all this flows from the very extreme form of fundamentalist Protestantism on which America was founded. There is first the idea of “God’s anointed”. Those who have been seen His light and who are therefore automatically right in all things. God cannot be wrong. By definition. And if He has allowed them to see His light, they can do no wrong! The corollary of that, of course, is that those who disagree with them are automatically wrong, flying in the face of God, so to speak, and therefore, by definition, evil.

Then you have the siege mentality. Driven out of England for their intolerance and bigotry, they fled to North America. Since they are, by definition, right, those who attack them must be agents of Satan. Satan is all around, and he will nail them if they don’t nail him first. Hence, the fondness for pre-emptive strikes against perceived enemies, who may or may not really be enemies. Or worse yet, only become enemies when they are attacked out of the blue by people to whom they bore no ill!

Then you have evangelisation. Convinced that they have God’s light, they feel themselves obliged to “spread the good word”, which all good people will, of course, recognise as the word of the Lord. Once again, those who oppose are agents of Satan who must be extirpated at all costs to prevent them from contaminating good people.

Put all that together, and add some cynical interest groups to manipulate the God-fearing folks, and you’ve got the neocon “constituency”!

]]> By: Richard W. Posner http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5924 Richard W. Posner Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:10:00 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/it-didn%e2%80%99t-start-with-iraq/#comment-5924 America has become the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on Earth. It is the number one threat to the future of humanity. Perhaps this could be the catalyst needed to unite the rest of the nations of the world. We are facing nothing less than the rise of the Fourth Reich. http://www.watch.pair.com/reich.html The world stopped the last attempt at global domination by fascism. Can it stop this one? We won’t know unless we try. http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/unsanam2 When there are enough signatures I will hand deliver it to the UN myself if I’m not disappeared by DHS first. PLEASE HELP! America has become the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on Earth. It is the number one threat to the future of humanity. Perhaps this could be the catalyst needed to unite the rest of the nations of the world. We are facing nothing less than the rise of the Fourth Reich. http://www.watch.pair.com/reich.html
The world stopped the last attempt at global domination by fascism. Can it stop this one? We won’t know unless we try.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/unsanam2
When there are enough signatures I will hand deliver it to the UN myself if I’m not disappeared by DHS first.
PLEASE HELP!

]]>