Sunday, November 06, 2005

American Conservative Article on Israel, the US, and Iraq

For those who can handle nuance.

The New Yorker interview with Feith referenced in the AmCon article.

5 Thoughts:

Blogger Demotiki said...

Doug,

Snide remarks such as this only show your unfaltering bias against nuance of any kind when it comes to I/P. If anyone suggests for a moment that Jews in the Administration have altered our national policy towards non-jews in the Middle East, in a way that is heavily motivated by their Jewishness, you scream bloody murder. You can't seem to accept that nuance. Don't even pretend that you are unbiased and that those who don't agree with your bias are somehow "incapable of accepting nuance." Saying that a person's identity has no impact on their choices is about the least nuanced idea I have ever heard.

Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Of course, I never said that a person's self-understood identity has no impact on their identity; nor did I argue that what you call neocon "JAZ"ers's identity of what they considered Israeli and American security didn't exist and played no role in the Iraq invasion.

What I argued was: "JAZzy riffs on Israel is ONE reason for the Iraq war. It's not THE ONLY reason, or, in my opinion, even the THE MOST IMPORTANT reason. That's my position." See here.

For the fun of it, I shall reproduce your comment and bold all the extreme, un-nuanced statements therein:

Snide remarks such as this only show your unfaltering bias against nuance of any kind when it comes to I/P. If anyone suggests for a moment that Jews in the Administration have altered our national policy towards non-jews in the Middle East, in a way that is heavily motivated by their Jewishness, you scream bloody murder. You can't seem to accept that nuance. Don't even pretend that you are unbiased and that those who don't agree with your bias are somehow "incapable of accepting nuance." Saying that a person's identity has no impact on their choices is about the least nuanced idea I have ever heard.

Quite nuanced! About as nuanced as your dealing with the facts of our debate, writing that "all Republicans are immoral," or any number of other things you apparently find as nuanced as your comment above.

Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:48:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Essentially, your writings indicate that you have preconceived notions that must be defended by hyperbole to the "death."

If you're for that kind of discourse, then surely you have no right to critique (or criticize) those on the Right who engage in exactly the same style of discourse.

You guys might be playing different records, but the record player is the same.

It doesn't matter all that much to me that we're "on the same side" most of the time when it comes to political stances. I think it's more important how one comes to adopt political stances -- it's a question of epistemology, and that's just the right label, not ivory-tower highfalutin' talk.

Certainly, it's self-refuting to argue against "the other side's" supposed irrationality (of which there is plenty) while trafficking in the same style of discourse. That's my point, I/P, Jews, Republicans, morality, and all else aside.

You've got a nice out by saying that appealing to whatever portion rationality people have is itself irrational (or at least "stupid") -- in that, you might actually be achieving a consistency of a self-serving and frankly Orwellian nature.

But I'm sticking with maximizing whatever rationality people have. Not that that will work -- to the extent that the twelve people who read this blog are at all affected by anything any of us say -- but I do think that history shows that when all notion of rationality is thrown aside, the whirlwind follows. Thus, I have to stick with what might have a shot at working. IMHO.

You are free, of course, to continue in your current vein...at least unless or until you switch the record without affecting the record player. Which, interestingly, is one near-commonality the neocons you decry share: they are nearly all of them former extreme leftists who suddenly shifted to the extreme right, bypassing anything like "conservatism" altogether. The changed the record, but their Trotskyist record player still exists.

Hitchens is a good example of this.

Anyway, back to work.

Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:58:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Doug,

Although it appear easier to argue against the arguments you would have prefered I HAD made, it's not very honest.

Please don't lie to make your argument seem less absurd. It's really pointless to try to drown out your shrill protests with logic. Israel is obviously a major factor in American policy in the Middle East. Jews in America are also an obvious factor in determining our policy towards Israel in its enemies. Anyone who fails to recognize these rather basic factors of the current real-politique is a fool or worse.

Sunday, November 06, 2005 2:11:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Yep, that's exactly what's going on. And I'm the enemy, now, too. A big, bad, scary, unfair, immoral enemy -- with questionable aspen-ish motivations to boot!

Be sure to continue to ignore the following quote, which I'll post again, and which is a pretty fair summary of all of my posts on I/P, neocons, and Iraq:

"JAZzy riffs on Israel is ONE reason for the Iraq war. It's not THE ONLY reason, or, in my opinion, even the THE MOST IMPORTANT reason. That's my position."

Now, for God's sake, whatever you do, don't allow this historical fact to affect your argument at all! That'd be giving in to evil -- to someone who's a fool or worse -- someone whom you recently accused of not finding the anal rape of a child in front of its parents as immoral.

Source: "All Republicans are immoral. I find it hard to believe that you actually think raping small boys in front of their parents is 'moral,' or that supporting this sort of behavior is somehow 'moral.'" See here.

By all means, pay no attention to that statement you wrote. I clearly made it up; you didn't write that...no...it's just that Doug's blinded by...well, whatever's blinding Doug today.

They're all around you, Andrew... closing in...attack them all...they're all evil, evil monsters -- especially the ones who mostly or partly agree with you...that means they slightly or partly disagree with you...and since you're the paragon of perfect knowledge and morality, well...they are thus not of pure heart or mind...at best, deluded; at worst "worse," as in "...or worse" in your comment above.

Whatever to do with them? I mean, they are trying to limit your free speech by calling you on your excesses...on a supposedly free-speech-loving blog...on which (let me see if I've followed this roller coaster aright) free speech is limited if anyone (or is it just me?) disagrees with, critiques, satirizes, or otherwise questions any of your opinions no matter how outrageous or outrageously written; your thought-processes as revealed by your postings; or does anything else other than remain silent (the usual strategy) or submit to your superior Guardian-like intellect and Olympian ethical standards (self-supposed and obviously implied by your moralistic pronouncements on "Republicans," me, or whatever else you feel deserves your ire at any given moment).

Furthermore, you lack the courage of backing up your convictions. You simply retreat with loud claims of "woe is me" and paranoid claims of oppression, or flail about with "attacks" usually as unfounded as the original statement that engendered the all-too-scary phenomenon of someone holding you accountable for your writings.

As usual, the person least sensitive to others is the most sensitive about himself.

I'm fairly certain the term "projection" applies pretty well to your retorts. (Yes, I expect the "nuh-uh -- you are" retort to my last sentence at some point in the near future.)

Anyway, I keep writing that I won't respond to you any longer, but it's simply so interesting -- and so easy -- to uncover the wending of your thought processes, at least insofar as your (or anyone's) writing can serve to demonstrate.

But it doesn't really serve any useful purpose: 1. you're beyond listening or responding in any kind of constructive manner; 2. I assume the rest of the blog community is amply bored by this; 3. and I can't learn much more from your example. The lesson is already abundantly clear.

Believe it or not, I'm not actually angry. I oscillate between finding you funny and scary -- funny in your hypocrisy in this little powerless blog community; scary if anyone ever gives you any real power. For now, you're just a blogger like me.

I hope your rhetoric is more the result of the diffusion of responsibility that writing on the Internet can engender (it's easy to be tough and strident when there are no consequences other than getting into a written argument) than a harbinger of your actions should you ever ascend to some position of actual power over others, law degree in hand.

Most likely, you just have learned to "argue" like this, and I'd look not to the trees for an explanation but to where all of us find our true roots: our families.

I said, "I'd look..." because you won't.

And with that -- I have done with this issue. Don't assume silence in response to your future posts or comments equals acquiescence or agreement. When you post something interesting and thoughtful, I'll respond in like fashion. Otherwise, silence is all you'll get from me, with which you'll make whatever propagandistic hash you will, no doubt.

Sunday, November 06, 2005 4:25:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home