"Kiss it up to God"? Christ! I hope he gets the message and responds appropriately.
Again, what is with all of the craven ninnies who think they can say 'This is a war unlike any other' as if that excuses everything? We're supposed to think Al Qaeda is legitimately scarier than, oh, Hitler? We managed not to torture Nazis and still win. I think we can do the same thing with Al Qaeda.
I'm fascinated by the way her language dodges agency. The shoulders go up, we act without wisdom, blindly, hoping for God's intervention...it's kind of chilling.
Indeed. A combination of craven ninnihood, and religious not-my-problem-ism.
We managed not to torture Nazis and still win.
And yet they tell us we can't not-torture terrorists and still win. Ergo, it is a war like any other.
Shorter Anchoress:
"Torture them all. Let God sort it out."
She reminds me of my aunt's New Agily "spiritual" friend who decided it was okay that she didn't vote even though she lived in Florida in 2000 because the angels must have meant everything to turn out as it did.
'It's not like anyone I know is going to be tortured! Let's go to the mall!'
I'm prety sure we did torture nazis. I know there were a lot of allied war crimes, big and small, that people don't like to talk about. After all, that war where we sided with Stalin against Hitler, that was our great moment of moral clarity.
I'm prety sure we did torture nazis.
I'm sure we mistreated prisoners on the battlefield, in ways up to and including murder. I'm not aware of any program of condoned torture of prisoners in controlled non-battlefield conditions.
Rob, Stalin was already fighting Hitler by the time you chaps got involved. Given you were going to be anti-Hitler, you more or less had to be on the same side as Stalin. Hardly a great moral dilemma.
Honestly, this Anchoress person sounds like Torture Barbie. And I mean that to be every bit as demeaning as it sounds.
"Moral judgement is hard! I'm in two minds! Maybe everything will turn out for the best! Let's go shopping!"
Math is hard! But moral calculus is easy! Go America!
"Torture Barbie" s/b "Guantanamo Stacey"
Given you were going to be anti-Hitler, you more or less had to be on the same side as Stalin.
That argument doesn't work. Can't I as easily say: Given that I wouldd have been anti-stalin, I am going to be on the same side as Hitler?
I know Hitler is the stock example of evil, but was he really worse than Stalin? Depending on how you count, Stalin killed more people.
16: Not so much given Pearl Harbor plus close ties with England.
Still, it doesn't make it a happy alliance or a great moment of moral clarity; but the point is that post 9/11 tactics don't involve anywhere near that sort of choice.
What I mean is that, historically, Germany declared war on the US. At that point, the US became officially anti-German, and thus on the same side as other anti-German nations, which included the USSR. There wasn't really a point at which the US had the choice of declaring war on the USSR or on Germany, at which point the moral judgement would have come into play. But I don't want to turn this into a WW2 re-enactment thread.
Another example might be when the US decided to ally itself with France (an absolutist intolerant monarchy) against Britain (a developing tolerant democracy). Morally, did they make the right choice? Probably not, but they didn't really have a choice...
Let's play Boticelli, guys.
I don’t want to make this a WWII reenactment thread either, largely because I don't have the knowledge to do it right.
As an avowed pacifist, I am frequently called on to say something about WWII, and really all I can say is "WWII was not fought to prevent the holocaust, nor did it succeed in doing so."
The whole pacifism stance often makes me seem like a hindrance to the anti-war on terror movement, since the movement’s tactics are generally about distinguishing this “war” from past ones. Sorry about that.
Godwin's law should be expanded to ban all WWII analogies from discussion. WWII was unique in a way that perverts the discourse; it is cited to support things that can't be supported by any other historical example.
Let's play Boticelli, guys.
I don't have time for it but if someone is willing to host, let me know and I'll put up a thread. I think some people could use the boost.
Interesting point about this bill's number. First, we're all familiar with the number "666," the mark of the beast. In some manuscripts, however, the number is "616," which was the number of the Emperor Nero's name under a different numbering system (can't remember the details at the moment). 6166 combines the two in a nice, economical fashion, alerting everyone to the fact that John McCain is, unambiguously, the Beast.
God help me, I'm reading Adam's comment and thinking "that makes a lot of sense, McCain has to be stopped." Maybe I need to calm the fuck down.
Maybe I need to calm the fuck down.
CharleyCarp's post might be helpful in that regard.
Also: I appreciate Adam's "unambiguously" -- it really makes 23 sing.
"Life goes on" posts are just making me more angry today.
The moral vacuity of the right-wing blogosphere really is breathtaking.
Rob, does it really matter? Russia was going to beat Germany whether or not the US joined in. So in a way you can think of US entry into the european war as against Stalin, but not with Hitler, if that helps.
Irenaeus of Lyons gives the first extant discussion of the mark of the beast. He doesn't mention Nero in specific, but he's pretty clear that it has to refer to Rome in some capacity.
The Anchoress. I'll give her agenbite of inwit.
It was by no means obvious to anyone in December 1941 that Russia was going to beat Germany. By the following summer, the Germans had torn a huge hole in Russia's southern defenses and were on their way to the Caspian oilfields. The British were losing everywhere, in North AFrica, in Burma and Malaysia, there empire was collapsing.
The U.S. was at war with Germany well before Pearl Harbor, mostly in the North Atlantic. The Atlantic Charter was in 1940. Russia was a co-belligerent, if you like, in the war against Germany. I believe the decisions made by the U.S. Government in that period have mostly held up. It was Germany's aggression and danger to the U.S., not any country's human rights record, that dictated American policy.
Noooo. I just finished this road trip about 36 hours ago. Do I have to rejoin the world now and deal with this shit?
Also, it's true: McCain does have to be stopped, b/c he'll win if he runs.
...what we get wrong, in good faith, He will make right.
So this is like, what? We try waterboarding some guy, but the water miraculously parts an inch above his face? That I gotta see.
It was Germany's aggression and danger to the U.S., not any country's human rights record, that dictated American policy.
See very quickly the whole thing starts to look more like a geopolitical power struggle than any kind of moral issue. The pacific theatre is even worse. As far as I can tell, that looks like another damn oil war.
All of these reasons for war are outside of the realm of moral discourse. I feel no obligation to send my children off to die for such nonesense.
For fuck's sake, why drag god into it? Does she really think he thinks torture's ok as long as it's done for good reason (and by Americans)? Fucking moron. I'd have more respect for someone who was resolutely in favour, not a fucking fence-sitter.
God provides. I needed a laugh, and through his agent FL He gave me the faux-pious, morally blind pseudo-christian stylings of the wankeress, who likens herself to Julian of Norwich and includes this lovely morsel of pretend humility in her self-description:
Whether I am wise or holy (prolly not) is for The One to decide
Fuck. I feel like smiting something.
look over there, Jesus! an anchoress in a fig tree!
Huh. Guess my vision's not what it used to be -- I thought that was the jawbone of an ass.
I used to read the Anchoress frequently, until I realized she was completely full of shit. It didn't actually take very long. I can't at all recall how I stumbled upon her site, or what prompted me to continue reading once there, but this is the first time I've read anything by her in at least a year, maybe more. Sounds like she's still completely full of shit.
I think you are misreading the Anchoress. She knows that this soon to be law is wrong, and probably unconstitutional. But she wants to win the war, and when told that this will help, well then hold your nose and take your medicine. I can tell you, from my standpoint as a supporter of the war, this bill scares the shit out of me. And I am about as white as they come.
Yeah, but you know something about the law.
I think you're being too charitable to A., though. She knows it's wrong, but she is hoping maybe it's not, so she's shrugging her shoulders and saying that it's all too difficult for her little head and refusing to listen to her gut. Which is contemptible, in this case.
You are probably right Bitch. I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, up to and including GWB. I have worked in the Gov, and I never put down to venality what can be explained by incompetence or indifference. Which is why this bill really worries me, because most people won't be bothered, as Saheri said. And mistakes will happen, and innocent people will be caught up in a shitstorm not of their making.
The inimitable Roy Edroso gives us a round-up of "conservative" reaction to the bill.