The Hater of the Month for November 2009 is DeoVindice, who took issue with my characterization of antiwar folk as being on the spectrum:
Talk about setting up a strawman.
So you must be one of those neocon autists who think that our foreign policy has NOTHING to do with attacks on us, cry me a fucking river.
That’s the second worst paraphrasing of a sentence of mine I’ve ever seen. (Here’s the worst.)
The US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal war based on lies (found those WMDs yet?)
Illegal according to what? International law? A law without armed force behind it is just a guideline, and guidelines can be ignored with impunity if you know how to play the game. Until the U.N. can enforce its own dictates across the board, appealing to “international law” is a losing argument.
and part of the blame goes to US citizens who celebrated the death & destruction of Iraqis, helped the warmachine through their taxes,
It’s normal to cheer the deaths of the people whom you are fighting. If you can’t understand this, it’s because you were born without a few chromosomes.
justified torture,
People these days are pussies. What you call “torture” – pansy-ass crap like waterboarding and sleep deprivation – is nothing compared to what our forefathers did for kicks. The modern American empire is, by historical standards, the most benevolent empire in human existence, and you fuckers are STILL complaining?
reelected the neocon retard Bush for a second term even after his lies about Iraq became clear.
So you agree with me that people are too stupid for democracy?
Everytime an American murderer (oops i mean the “patriotic†soldier)
And this is why nobody takes the antiwar movement seriously – because its loudest voices spout idiotic claims like this. Equating soldiers in combat with murderers takes a retard of the highest order. To paraphrase C. Van Carter, “pacifism is applied autism.”
kills an Iraqi he is creating 10 more enemies because unlike our pathetic society where family means nothing the Arabs still retain the concepts of blood, honor & venegeance which were also strongly followed in Southern Italy, Corsica & the rest of the Mediterranean.
There’s a solution to that – go Genghis Khan on their asses! In the past, insurgent uprisings resulted in the mass slaughter of whatever city the rebels were running around in. You’ll see how fast the enemies evaporate when you put a bullet in the head of every single one of their family and friends. The American empire is losing because its leaders and citizens lack the cold, imperial will to make this happen. Not that a libertarian/leftist/whatever you are would get this.
Runner up for Hater of the Month is The_King, who went for broke in condemning me for my opinions on female beauty:
Really Audrey Hepburn a 7? Have you seen the cover of “Breakfast at Tiffanies� That poster is iconic for her feminine curves which adds to her sexy figure.
You’re a key board jock faggot. You’re blog should be shut down, since your perspective and opinions are moot. The other commentators who agree with you are moronic and should be put down for the benefit of society.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see fools driven to frothing-at-the-mouth rage at my writings.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
>The American empire is losing because its leaders and citizens lack the cold, imperial will to make this happen.
Exactly, but the American regime can’t simply go the sensible route and admit that they administer an empire, because neither they nor the American people can handle that much brutally honest, truthful reflection and self-analysis (since America is ostensibly dedicated to the proposition of freedom, since its inception as a nation). That’s why even undemocratic puppet regimes and dictatorships propped up by the U.S. government have to be held out as shining examples of freedom and democracy, laughable as such a notion is, and all wars have to be framed as wars of liberation, even when the countries conquered end up merely exchanging an anti-American dictator for a pro-American one.
“You can’t handle the truth!”, as a Jack Nicholson character once said.
The modern American empire is, by historical standards, the most benevolent empire in human existence, and you fuckers are STILL complaining?
Yes, man, it’s an empire. The lesser of two (three, four, whatever) evils is still evil.
Illegal according to what? International law? A law without armed force behind it is just a guideline, and guidelines can be ignored with impunity if you know how to play the game.
I’ll probably need to be corrected here, but as far as I can tell this reply is right from an is perspective, but not an ought perspective.
Imagine it on a smaller scale: we’re on a shitty island with like 100 people and an impotent police force. Murder is illegal, but nobody has the physical power to enforce it. I murder you and steal your car. This is surely objectionable.
Again, I don’t really know what I’m talking about, but at first blush – at least – I think this seems like a reasonable argument.
love the new format. Fantastic. Keep the great articles coming, Ferdinand.
Like Space Pope said – I like the new site and format.
FB said:
FB said:
I’m pretty sure mass slaughter and burning of cities counts as murder. Just saying.
Imagine it on a smaller scale: we’re on a shitty island with like 100 people and an impotent police force. Murder is illegal, but nobody has the physical power to enforce it. I murder you and steal your car. This is surely objectionable.
Except, for it to be an accurate comparison, it would have to be a law passed by a group of kleptocrats and child-rapists that said, “No, you may not knock cold the gibbering hoodlum that continues to chuck spears in your direction–his protection is paid up.”
the American regime can’t simply go the sensible route and admit that they administer an empire, because neither they nor the American people can handle that much brutally honest, truthful reflection and self-analysis
The “American regime” can’t admit that because they are not an empire. Who are our colonies, again? “Empire” is just the term the idiot Left uses to describe the US because it is pejorative, i.e. any really powerful and evil state is an “empire”.
even when the countries conquered end up merely exchanging an anti-American dictator for a pro-American one.
Good Lord, that’s exactly what we SHOULD have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, but didn’t. Any competent empire would have installed a pro-American puppet dictator, but of course that’s just what we did NOT do.
You’re really undermining your own case for America as “evil empire” with that example.
Yes, man, it’s an empire. The lesser of two (three, four, whatever) evils is still evil.
The case that “empires” are inherently evil is a poor one.
Of course, America is neither evil nor an empire except in the deranged minds of the Left.
When the Chinks take over, you’ll see what an evil empire really is. Think they give a shit about civilian casualties and torture? Just more fodder for the organ banks as far as they’re concerned.
Hunter:
Of course it’s “evil” – an “evil” that has always been with us. There’s always a top dog grinding his boot into everyone else’s face. The point is that you should get some historical context before you mouth off about how terrible America is.
The “ought” is irrelevant. Things have always been this way. You think the Romans or the British gave two shits about the opinions of their weaker neighbors?
Except that murder can and has been policed and punished, and people have a vested interest in doing so. International law has no historical precedent, and nobody with any power or relevance has any interest in upholding it.
Ironic:
Slaughter, yes. Genocide, yes. Ethnic cleansing, yes. Murder, no. It’s a word with a specific meaning, and when you use it improperly, you dilute the meaning.
Tarl:
Yes, we are.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Poland, etc. Just because we don’t rule those countries directly doesn’t mean we don’t exert great control over their governments.
I don’t regard “empire” as a dirty word. Who DOESN’T want to be a part of the apex civilization of the world? Granted, it’s crumbling fast, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t benefits to living here.
Tarl, I never said America was an ‘evil’ empire; I was refraining from making moral judgments in this case, just calling it as I see it; telling it like it is, whether or not you like it. I’m a relatively disinterested foreigner, from one of the countries FB has correctly identified as being one of America’s colonies (Canada); we’ve benefited in many ways, suffered in others, and on balance I’m inclined to just shrug and accept things are as they are – but my point, which you indeed yourself made quite neatly for me, was merely that most Americans lack the ability to step outside of themselves, and engage in thoughtful introspection and honest self-reflection, and admit, as FB does, that they live in an empire, under an imperial regime. And it isn’t just self-loathing America-haters like the American Left who recognize and admit: FB does, and the paleoconservatives do (Chronicles Magazine, the American Conservative, the New American (i.e the John Birch Society), and the paleolibertarians do (LewRockwell.com, Ron Paul, The Last Ditch). The paleos are patriots, who love their country, and despair of the way it is going.
As for failing to install pro-American dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will note that the regime did so in nearby Pakistan with Musharraf (and in many other places throughout the 20th century; Marcos in the Phillipines, Pinochet in Chile, and, surprise, surprise, Saddam Hussein in Iraq when Iran was the enemy – talk about blowback, eh? – and Noriega in Panama – also one who went rogue and Washington had to remove; there’s that pesky blowback again – and many many more throughout the Cold War period); as for their failure to do so in the other two countries, again, it’s because America engaged in wars of liberation waged in the name of freedom and democracy, and so are committed to at least keeping up the appearance of supporting democracy in such places (whereas Pakistan wasn’t invaded by U.S. forces), so they have to make do with what they have available – not that there haven’t been irregularities in voting in recent elections in Afghanistan; Hamid Karzai’s government is highly corrupt. Anyway, I never argued that America is a competent empire; on the contrary, America is an increasingly incompetent, crumbling, declining / falling empire; tis the way of all empires, to overreach and rot from within, and to eventually fall. If America could be, say, as brutal as the late 19th / early 20th century German Empire, they could stave this off, for a while longer. But having to keep up appearances ties the regime’s hands, and thus accelerates the process of decline and fall.
Cheers!
@ Hunter: International law is a contradiction in terms. Law is administered by governing bodies. The UN (whatever it thinks) is not a governing body. It is only a bunch of delegates and ambassadors who make treaties and guidelines in the great big circle jerk necessary to keep the fraud going.
It is not the lack of enforcement that makes a law not legally binding, from a theoretical standpoint. It is that the international community has no power, jurisdiction or authority over a sovereign state. American is answerable to no one but itself. Its government is answerable only to its people in the form of democracy, but in other sovereign states the government may be answerable to no one (i.e North Korea).
The UN has the same authority over the nation state of America as the hippy-tree hugging vegan league of Nimbin, NSW has over America. Shit all. If the hippy-tree hugging vegan league of Nimbin, NSW declare that it is illegal for a country to go to war without their permission then that declaration is as binding on the American nation-state as the UN proclamation about going to war. In other words, its not binding at all.
Everyone who claims that the war is illegal because it is without UN sanction needs to study some international law or STFU.
Secondly, most people declare the war to be illegal because Bush never sought the go ahead from Congress. Well, from a legal stand point he never had to. It is just a mere formality, the same as getting the go ahead from the UN. So Bush is an arrogant prick who didn’t go through the hollow formalities in going to war. That doesn’t make the war illegal, though it may make it impolite.
Seriously, I am not even an American and I know the American law better than most Americans, especially those who spout of shit about it being an illegal war.
Forgot to add. I happen to think Bardamu made an error in judgment in only giving Audrey a 7. But her appeal is more her grace, charm and femininity than overwhelming physical beauty.
Ferdinand et al:
Your whole reply commits the naturalistic fallacy.
Yes it is the case, I do not disagree; but this does not mean it OUGHT to be the case.
The “ought†is irrelevant. Things have always been this way. You think the Romans or the British gave two shits about the opinions of their weaker neighbors?
No I do not. But they SHOULD have. Like, ethically speaking. You could have said the same thing about slavery at one time, “things have always been this way.”
Here is a remark of yours, slightly modified. Imagine it was said like 150 years ago:
Of course it’s “evil†– an “evil†that has always been with us. There’s always a [slave holder] grinding his boot into [the slaves'] face[s']. The point is that you should get some historical context before you mouth off about how terrible America['s slave holding] is.
@ Hunter: I assume you are saying the US OUGHT to have sought the sanction of the United Nations to go to war?
Please enlighten me at what date the US citizenry voted to become subsidiaries of the United Nations?
Anyway, you hold that the US in all its actions ought to run them past the UN, effectively rendering it subservient to an unelected and unanswerable world government.
I maintain that democratic state sovereignty is paramount and preferable to a dictatorship (the UN). Seriously, you are suggesting that the UN ought to rule the world, so make a case for it?
They have no constitution, only an unofficial declaration that is not legally binding. They are not answerable to any rule of law but their own. And you want them to control the entire world. Nice to know you support tyrannical dictatorships.
The hostility!
I’m talking about the ethics of an empire; the one Ferdinand, at least, admits is evil. (Of course it’s “evil†– an “evil†that has always been with us.) I’m not so concerned about the UN.
To add to that, when I say “ought” I’m just talking about an objective ethical standard people seem to all agree to; nothing official.
(Please please please nobody appeal to moral relativism to make your point. Please.)
Iraq, Afghanistan, Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Poland, etc. Just because we don’t rule those countries directly doesn’t mean we don’t exert great control over their governments.
Nah. Do those countries have the same political relationship to us now that Egypt and India had with Britain in 1900? Do we appoint a governor and provide a civil service to these countries? Do we have total control over their military and their economy? No, of course not. There is a clear difference between a colony and a client state or ally.
If Britain told us to remove all our military bases from Britain today, we would do so. (And I think they will ask us to do so very soon.) If Egypt in 1900 told Britain to remove its military bases from Egypt, the Maxim Guns would fire. And of course, Egypt in 1900 would not ask Britain to do anything Britain didn’t like, since Britain appointed Egypt’s “Consul-General” who effectively ruled the country. Gordon Brown is many things but he is not America’s “Consul-General” in Britain.
from one of the countries FB has correctly identified as being one of America’s colonies (Canada);,/i>
A country that used to be a British colony ought to be able to recognize that it is not an American colony. The Canadian government is not appointed in Washington, and can defy Washington to its heart’s content. What are we gonna do, send our sepoy armies to crush you?
most Americans lack the ability to step outside of themselves, and engage in thoughtful introspection and honest self-reflection, and admit, as FB does, that they live in an empire, under an imperial regime.
I think most people have only the vaguest idea what an empire is. The mere fact of being a powerful country that meddles around the world does not make one an empire. Our government and our foreign policy is defective, but not because it is “imperial”.
I will note that the regime did so in nearby Pakistan with Musharraf (and in many other places throughout the 20th century; Marcos in the Phillipines, Pinochet in Chile, and, surprise, surprise, Saddam Hussein in Iraq when Iran was the enemy – talk about blowback, eh? – and Noriega in Panama – also one who went rogue and Washington had to remove; there’s that pesky blowback again – and many many more throughout the Cold War period)
Um, the US did not install Musharraf or Saddam or Marcos, sorry. The best case is for Pinochet but even that is overstated.
Puppet dictators simply do not “go rogue”. Someone who defies us, like Saddam, is not our man. Saddam was always Moscow’s man, not Washington’s.
as for their failure to do so in the other two countries, again, it’s because America engaged in wars of liberation waged in the name of freedom and democracy, and so are committed to at least keeping up the appearance of supporting democracy in such places
This stands in obvious contradiction to your previous point. If we had no problem installing dictators in Panama and the Philippines (which we didn’t do) then why would we have a problem doing so in Iraq and Afghanistan? If we installed Saddam as dictator, as you wrongly claim, why would we have a problem installing another dictator in his place?
Anyway, I never argued that America is a competent empire; on the contrary, America is an increasingly incompetent, crumbling, declining / falling empire; tis the way of all empires, to overreach and rot from within, and to eventually fall
It is definitely incompetent but that does not mean it is an empire.
There is nothing inevitable about the decline and fall of empires. Such an argument is intellectually lazy and avoids examination of the specific bad choices made in each case.
In essence, this is true. Niall Ferguson makes the case in one of his books.
The reality is that the U.S. is “de facto” a non-territorial imperial power, one which expresses that non-territorial empire by having a global military reach, a global cultural reach, and a global economic reach. It isn’t a territorial empire like Rome or the British were. It’s a non-territorial Empire which exercises its influence not mainly through territorial occupation, but through a combination of soft and hard power, which it can project globally.
The problem, however, is that the U.S. does not like to think of itself as an Empire, and therefore has “issues” with taking the kind of rational steps that a more self-confident Empire would take. In part, that involves being ruthless at times. And for everyone who thinks that the U.S. is a ruthless imperial power, guess again. The exercise of direct military power by the U.S. has generally been a shadow of what it could have been if more ruthless strategies were pursued. And therein lies the problem. The U.S. lacks that certain ruthlessness which all Empires need to succeed (due largely to its own self-perception as a non-Empire), but the acts that it undertakes, because it is a de facto Empire, end up being loathed globally anyway, because most of the world will always loathe the hegemonic empire-du-jour, and the idea that “well. we’re not nearly as bad as other empires have been in the past” really falls on deaf ears. Fact: no-one likes the big boy. No-one. It’s human nature to hate the big boy and want to see him cut down.
So instead of having a more ruthless, and more effective, hegemonic non-territorial Empire, the world is stuck with a dysfunctional, un-confident and self-doubt filled de facto Empire which, when it acts, is prone to act ineptly precisely because it lacks the confidence, cohesion, and unified vision that are critical to the long-term success of any Empire. Ferguson argues that it is better for the world to have a confident Empire than to have a conflicted and half-assed one like the US is, because at least the former breeds stability.
Hunter:
Maybe I missed the train on this subject, but I never understood the point of arguing about unattainable “oughts”. You’re holding world-conquering empires to a standard that’s never been achieved in the real world. From an ethical standpoint, it’s not right or good what they do – the point is that kvetching about it is a waste of breath, as productive as complaining about the rotation of the earth.
I put “evil” in quotes because I don’t view empires as evil, but amoral – they do what they gotta do to stay in power. They’re evil when they need to be, and nice when it suits their purposes. All that matters is their interests, first and foremost.
Novaseeker:
You have the uncanny ability to inject rationality and common sense into any debate. Well done.
Novaseeker has better articulated what I was getting at; spot on. As for sometimes installing dictators, and sometimes supporting popular uprisings, there isn’t a need for empires to be 100% consistent; if they are strong enough, or the world is polarized enough, as during the Cold War, they can get away with the inconsistency. But when an regime’s will to rule begins to weaken, is precisely when it begins to make sloppy mistakes, and the empire begins to crumble.
@ Novaseeker: I wonder if the reason the US cannot act like a true Empire is due to its origins. It began as a country based around individualism, freedom etc and ended up becoming the most powerful and influential country in the world but still retains in some ways its old mentality.
Sort of like the kid who has a massive growth spurt and is not used to being the biggest in the playground and spends his time half apologetic for being bigger than anyone else though no decision of his own.
{ 1 trackback }