In Which I Ramble
Once again I engage in the blogging equivalent of thinking out loud. It seems to me that we might state the problem we face in Iraq, and the problem that Israel has, in the following way:
There exists a certain number of Arabs who would rather live in under an Arab despot than under the tutelage of non-Arab Republics. Furthermore, said Arabs are willing to visit violence upon just about anybody, even themselves, to avoid living under said tutelage.
Now, having brilliantly posed the problem in these terms, and assuming my formulation is more-or-less congruent with reality, I still have no idea how to solve it. I can’t even explain it. Certainly I don’t think ALL members of this group desire to live under despots, although some may (thinking they can work their way up the hierarchy of enforcers that a despotism inevitably brings). Perhaps they just can’t stand the idea of their nations being subordinated to infidel nations.
Also, I certainly don’t think this formulation describes all, or even a majority, of Arabs. In fact, just thinking about it, it’s not unique to Arabs; you could apply it to other situations—say, for example, the terrorism in Northern Ireland. I mean, is the government of the UK really that much worse for Northern Ireland than the government of the Republic of Ireland would be? Yes, in the past, I’m sure His/Her Majesty’s government was pretty brutal to the Irish, but I think things have gotten a little better; surely it’s not so bad that car bombs and such are called for.
Of course, as a red-white-and-blue-blooded American Patriot, I recognize that there DOES come a time when “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,” and that this can require bloodshed.
So maybe the ultimate question here is: when is it not too early to shoot the bastards?
UPDATE: Phelps has a much deeper analysis of the roots of Arab suicide terrorism, as well as a modest proposal for a solution.
May 5th, 2004 at 4:54 pm
Who in Iraq are you asserting hold this preference, and what evidence are you using to defend it?
Who is “the bastards”? Who are you talking about? al-Sadr? Sistani? the Shiites? the Sunnis? al-qaeda? The Iraqi people? What are you talking about?
May 5th, 2004 at 4:55 pm
Addendum: rambling is all fine and well, but when you start talking about “shooting the bastards” you might want to, you know, be a little more specific.
May 5th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
Chris, no offense, but…Oh, never mind.
I’d really rather you not give me suggestions on how to blog. You do things your way, I’ll do them mine.
May 5th, 2004 at 6:56 pm
Whoa, flag on the play!
Thib,
If you ask questions, you should be prepared to clarify. I myself couldn’t tell which bastards you meant (do you mean like the mullahs or the people; in case of the former, i say shoot the bastards – the latter, absolutely not)
May 5th, 2004 at 8:09 pm
I’ll gladly clarify, but as I’ve said before, I don’t like Chris’s attitude. I’m sure in real life he’s a great guy, and I know you and he have a good relationship and I don’t want to spoil that.
I just don’t think he’s really interested in clarification; he seems to me more interested in playing “Gotcha!” and, frankly, I don’t care to participate. I blog to amuse me, not him, if you catch my drift.
I’ll try to write a followup post, maybe later, but really I wonder if there’s any point.
May 5th, 2004 at 11:26 pm
There exists a certain number of Arabs who would rather live in under an Arab despot than under the tutelage of non-Arab Republics
me thinks that’s a touch inaccurate. rather than living under a despot, perhaps living in an islamic theocracy might be a touch closer to the truth. granted, saddam’s Iraq was a secular dictatorship, but my guess is arabs would rather have a theocracy than despotism, thus their obvious violent tendancies to avoid said tutelage. if you were in there place, and that’s what you wanted, would you not turn to violence as well? would americans not take up arms against an outside invader who tried to impose a form of government we were religously and philosophicaly(sp?) opposed to?
that said, The Troubles are somewhat different, yet somewhat the same. there are religous overtones, but oppression/taxation w/out representation ain’t just an american belief.
I,too, am at a loss to xplain the suicide solution, particularly visiting violence on innocents.
May 5th, 2004 at 11:40 pm
Yes, that’s what I’m getting at. I shall try to clarify with another post.
May 6th, 2004 at 4:21 am
I think that many of the people in Iraq didn’t like living under Saddam, but aren’t much happier living under American rule either. There are shades of gray and other alternative than living under either of the two noted. To them, America isn’t a democracy (they never elected any of the leaders), isn’t interested in justice (witness Gitmo and the prison pictures scandal) or a lot of other things that we take for granted. Heck, even women’s rights were better under Saddam than now.
Thib..if you’re that thin-skinned about things, its really simple..turn the comments off. But if your going to express an opinion, be prepared to back it up and clarify. There’s nothing worse than a blogger who acts like a suck.
May 6th, 2004 at 8:50 am
Look here: I’m not inclined to play verbal grab-ass with people who only want to nit-pick, but I’m even LESS inclined to hear people tell me how I’m supposed to blog. The former is annoying, but the latter is offensive.
I’m willing to clarify, expound, retract, qualify, and once in a blue moon post a follow-up. I think having comments and feedback is a good thing, and most people leave good, thoughtful ones.
But, and I’m getting tired of explaining this, I do not have the time or inclination to have a verbal duel with people just for the sake of dueling.
May 6th, 2004 at 11:15 am
I wrote my comment last night after celebrating cinco de mayo and I think I was a little more blunt than I had intended. If I wrote anything that you may have been offended by, then I appologize.
However, my sentiments do stand. People may suggest to you how to blog..you can choose to listen to their advice or ignore them..you have that right. But as long as you have a comment thread open, people will write what they want to write. You then have the right to read, not read, delete, whatever to the comment.
Not having the time or inclination to debate someone is fine. But the solution to that, IMHO, is to simply ignore the post. I’ve seen many bloggers do exactly that. Your solution tends to be to mock the poster (as has been noted on another thread) and that too is offensive to the poster. Now of course you could take the above as unsolicited blogging advice and perhaps it is, thats your right.
I can remember reading SayUncle when it had 50 readers and I had about the same for my own blog. I can tell you that getting people to post comments is a tough thing to do and I personally cherish everyone who does so on my own blog. IMHO commenters are generally people that you want to encourage as they liven up the debate and I’ve found that feedback has made me a much better writer, which was one of the goals of starting my blog. But again, that’s my own humble opinion.
May 6th, 2004 at 1:35 pm
Sorry, Thib, but you’re the one with the bad attitude here. You write a borderline inciteful piece, then get all huffy when anyone dares to call you on it. That’s just silly. People come here (and to other blogs) to engage in debate, and they’re not always going to agree with you. Get used to it.
And just because some of us often (usually) disagree with you doesn’t mean that we make it a personal mission to come here and try to make you look bad. Get over yourself, already.
If you can’t handle a little dissent, then get out of the blogging game.
May 6th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
Again, that is not true. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and I have pointed out instances where it happens. I don’t mind at all when people disagree.
What I do mind is the way Chris does it. Maybe he doesn’t think it’s his personal mission to be pedantic and nitpicky, but it sure seems like that’s what happens, especially whenever the topic of the post involves Iraq. That’s not debate; that’s just annoying. It’s not dissent, either; it’s playing “Gotcha!”
You do it, too, but you’re not quite so bad as Chris. You actually do post comments that don’t get under my skin. Not so with Chris.
And let me repeat: I’m sure in real life you’re nice guys, and I know you get along good with Uncle and I don’t want to get in the way of that. But the fact is, to me you come across as jerks, and I’m not interested in dealing with jerks on this blog. I’ve got enough jerkitude to handle in real life. This is just blogging, and it’s not worth it. No, I’m not going to quit, just because of a couple of jerks, but I’m also not going to put up with it, either.
May 6th, 2004 at 2:27 pm
Thib:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess, but using the elusive “reasonable person” standard, I submit that a reasonable person will conclude that YOU are the one coming across as a jerk here, and not Chris. I’ve read Chris’ initial post every which way from Sunday, and all I can see is that he’s asking for clarification. Perhaps your personal biases against Chris are coloring your reading of his post. I dunno.
Anyway, even if somebody (myself included) is trying to be a jerk, you might find it gratifying to respond with civility — that tends to piss jerks off more than any angry rant ever could. 😉
May 6th, 2004 at 2:55 pm
You keep forgetting one thing: I am the blogger, and I am doing this for ME. I don’t care about the jerks one way or another.
Oh, and just for the record, I handle disagreement just fine.
May 6th, 2004 at 4:16 pm
Well, I might as well chime in.
You have a bizarre conception of what being “pedantic and nitpicky” means. I asked for a simple clarification.
Now, was my question heavily loaded so as to highlight what I think is a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq? Absolutely. Was it an attack on the premise of your argument? Absolutely.
But you know what? That’s not pedantry. That is debate, whether you like it or not.
But you needn’t take it so personally. Your clarification post contained what would have sufficed as a partial explanation (that it was a quote), relieving my fear that you were really advocating some form of genocide as a solution or something. That would have been a good starting point for a discussion.
If you don’t like that sort of debate, if the exchange of ideas really turns you off, and if anyone that questions something you say (even if you litter it with “in my opinion”) really bothers you, then the world of blogging may not be for you.
But if you’re going to go with the whole “i’m blogging for me, not you” thing, that’s fine, but you might want to take Manish’s suggestion and turn off comments, or ignore them.
Also, relax.
–Chris
May 6th, 2004 at 4:50 pm
You know, you COULD have said, “I didn’t mean to come across as a jerk, although I don’t really think I was being one.” You could have said, “It appears that you have a different style of discussion in mind for your comments, and if I want to engage you in discussion, maybe I could try to use that style.” You could have said, “Looks like we had a communication problem, could you please explain what you’re getting at?”
But no: It’s obviously all my fault. I have bizarre opinions, I make oversimplifactions, my premises need to be attacked.
If you don’t like that sort of debate, if the exchange of ideas really turns you off, and if anyone that questions something you say (even if you litter it with “in my opinion”) really bothers you
Exchange of ideas or questioning what I say doesn’t bother me, as I have repeatedly SAID and DEMONSTRATED. YOU bother me.
the world of blogging may not be for you.
Again and again and again, I don’t care to hear blog advice, especially from someone who comes across as a jerk.
you might want to take Manish’s suggestion and turn off comments, or ignore them
Consider yourself ignored.