# Bill Buckley on the war in Iraq



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Anybody heard or read his thoughts on the matter?

Veddy, veddy interesting!


----------



## MichaelB (Dec 17, 2004)

Yes--interesting indeed. Likewise, George Will's latest column on Iraq, equally pessimistic. And at The National Review, John Derbyshire declares himself of their mind. Finally, a recent editorial by Francis Fukayama declaring the tragic hubris of the neocons' Iraq adventure.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

Rats have been known to abandon unseaworthy vessels.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> Anybody heard or read his thoughts on the matter?
> 
> Veddy, veddy interesting!


Harris,
Did you read or see? Where.
Did read Geo Will in WPO this week.
Cheers


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

In other words, Buckley has finally figured out what paleoconservatives knew from the beginning. Veddy, veddy interesting indeed.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dan the Man_
> 
> In other words, Buckley has finally figured out what paleoconservatives knew from the beginning.


Not to mention every semi-sentient person in all the great wide world. That is one silver lining to this unspeakable fiasco: when the inevitable, inglorious withdrawal occurs, it will be difficult for the propagandists and apologists to whitewash _this_ debacle as a high-minded "mistake," a failure brought about by our exalted principles and "innocence." Yes, it shall be very difficult to "spin" this as anything but was it was and is: A criminal attack on another nation, planned and executed by a cabal of cowardly savages, supported by a coopted news media, and cheered by an enervated electorate. Difficult, but not impossible.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

How was it a criminal attack?

Patrick


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by patbrady2005_
> 
> How was it a criminal attack?
> 
> Patrick


Any number of ways. I've been down this road several times on this forum, and, rather than repeat those arguments, I'll simply refer you to a compilation of articles that address the matter:

https://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I seem to recall that a number of Nazi leaders who had no specific complicity in the enormities of that regime were condemned and hanged by the Nuremburg tribunal on the grounds that planning and waging an aggressive war constituted ipso facto a "crime against humanity." 

As far as this palaeoconservative is concerned, the implications are quite clear!


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Are you referring to Von Ribbentrop, whose only real crime was being such a sycophant?


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by AMVanquish_
> 
> Are you referring to Von Ribbentrop, whose only real crime was being such a sycophant?


Julius Streicher was hanged merely for being a propagandist for the regime; which, in a just world, would give all those noisy No Spin A-holes cause for concern.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

I am very hesitant to criminalize political controversies. Sets a bad president. But it is unconstitutional because Congress didn't do that little Constitutional nicety called actually DECLARING WAR. Therefore the President is guilty of violating his oath of office and could/should be impeached.

It also violates the longstanding Christian understanding of Just War because we were not attacked.

Yckmwia, you are right that many people the world over opposed the war, but they did so for very many reasons. They feared US power. They feared America acting alone. There was still room for diplomacy. It was about oil. There were no WMDs. The UN should act. etc. etc. etc. Most of the international and domestic opposition was from the left. The paleocons and paleolibertarians were somewhat unique in their insight that you can't just plop down democracy anywhere in the world and expect it to work. In fact, our criticism is that globetrotting around the world to bring democracy to all the unwashed masses is actually a brand of Utopian liberalism a la Wilson.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dan the Man_
> 
> Yckmwia, you are right that many people the world over opposed the war, but they did so for very many reasons. They feared US power. They feared America acting alone. There was still room for diplomacy. It was about oil. There were no WMDs. The UN should act. etc. etc. etc. Most of the international and domestic opposition was from the left. The paleocons and paleolibertarians were somewhat unique in their insight that you can't just plop down democracy anywhere in the world and expect it to work. In fact, our criticism is that globetrotting around the world to bring democracy to all the unwashed masses is actually a brand of Utopian liberalism a la Wilson.


Fine by me; purity of motive is always admirable. Give yourselves a pat on the back. However, as neither the paleocons, nor the "left," nor anyone else, was evenly remotely successful in stopping the war from being launched, I believe we can keep the congratulations to a minimum. And none of us are responsible for the current disintegration of the whole sorry mess, nor will we be responsible for its ultimate ignoble collapse. That is our shame.

P.S. What is a paleolibertarian?

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## KCMan (Nov 11, 2005)

Yckmwia

Do you really loathe the US that much? I can't imagine that you live here. I hope not. Reading this topic and others you've posted in, it is clear that you have utter contempt for almost everything the US has to offer. If you are here taking advantage of our capitalist system, I would suggest you move as soon as possible to a better place; say Switzerland maybe?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote: In fact, our criticism is that globetrotting around the world to bring democracy to all the unwashed masses is actually a brand of Utopian liberalism a la Wilson.


Yes shame of us for believing that those silly and violent brown people prefer the ballot box to the torture chamber. Surely those brown folk aren't worth our hard earned capital and manpower. Lets nuke them and call it a day, better yet we could build a wall and forget that region of the world even exists. Not our problem...

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Then we've got a lot more work ahead of us to cleanse the world of despots.

Would have been nice to help them help themselves by destabilising Iraq from within, without an actual war, using spooks. Just like we've done rather effectively (if not always with the high moral ground) in Latin America, e.g.

There didn't need to be an all-out war. The Bush Team willed it and made it so.

Keep writing those checks and sending in your pennies; we'll be paying for this for a long time, in one way or another.



> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by KCMan_
> 
> Yckmwia
> 
> Do you really loathe the US that much? I can't imagine that you live here. I hope not. Reading this topic and others you've posted in, it is clear that you have utter contempt for almost everything the US has to offer. If you are here taking advantage of our capitalist system, I would suggest you move as soon as possible to a better place; say Switzerland maybe?


Please. Explain how this is not one infantile step removed from "if you love it so much, why don't you marry it?"

I have no tolerance for liars who try and pass themselves off as patriots by equating dissent with treason. May posterity forget you were my countryman.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by KCMan_
> 
> Yckmwia
> 
> Do you really loathe the US that much? I can't imagine that you live here. I hope not. Reading this topic and others you've posted in, it is clear that you have utter contempt for almost everything the US has to offer. If you are here taking advantage of our capitalist system, I would suggest you move as soon as possible to a better place; say Switzerland maybe?


The converse that must be asked, KCMan, is why do you have such low expectations of what the United States might be?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you get this one straight off of the talking points?

I think that he raises a fair question. Yckmwia does not seem interested as much in dissent as he seems to loathe the United States. That is fine with me, and I do not care if he lives here or not. The suggestion to move to Switzerland is reasonable. He is not attempting to banish him or to scold him for his comments about the US, he just questions why he would want to be here if he truly believes that it is a "terrorist nation". Personally, I would not want to live in a terrorist nation. I would not live in Iran, Syria or North Korea.

You also should understand (and I know that it is hard at your age) that people are rightfully upset at some of the more rabid anti-Americanism that has been displayed by Yckmwia. Should he be jailed? Of course not. Should he be banished? No. Would I want to have him at my dinner table? No way! I am a private citizen and am free to assemble with whomever I choose. I would not want to spend time with him any more than I would want to spend time with Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. This is my right as an American, just as it is his right to say whatever he pleases.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

Murrow and Jefferson equated with Fox propaganda? That is the first time I have ever seen that.

I disagree with Yckmwia on likely at least a few things. What I can't stand is the increasingly common sentiment that only those who love America blindly are welcome in its borders, and I absolutely reject the foolish belief that America is capitalist before it is a republic. And I hardly got the impression that he was suggesting Yckmwia leave because he is concerned he may be unhappy.

I have no problem with your right to choose not to associate with Yckmwia, although I do advocate a certain (human and civic; not legal) responsibility to hear him out. What I reject is a belief that because his views are extreme and extremely critical, he is no longer welcome in this country.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by KCMan_
> 
> Yckmwia
> 
> Do you really loathe the US that much? I can't imagine that you live here. I hope not. Reading this topic and others you've posted in, it is clear that you have utter contempt for almost everything the US has to offer. If you are here taking advantage of our capitalist system, I would suggest you move as soon as possible to a better place; say Switzerland maybe?


Feeble, terribly feeble. Having been around for the first chorus of "America: love it or leave it," I think I'll stick around through the second. Your fathers were much more formidable, by the way.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> Murrow and Jefferson equated with Fox propaganda? That is the first time I have ever seen that.
> 
> ...


Does that responsibility cut both ways? Must I also listen to David Duke and Louis Farrakhan simply because they move their lips? I hope not.

Yckmwia is perfectly welcome here as far as I am concerned. The left portraying the right as "love it or leave it" is getting a bit tired. It is almost as if the left hopes that if they say it enough, it will come true. It is not true for me.

I believe that liberalism in the classical sense is the foundation of our republic. It is as much a Capitalistic philosophy as it is anything else. I would argue that without the right to make choices about your own economic situation, you are on the way to losing all of your other rights as well. At this point we may be more a republic than a capitalistic society, but for me that is a departure from our origins not the natural outgrow=th of what we were founded on.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Back to original post: when the patron saint of conservatism suggests in no uncertain terms that a policy (that was initiated by a conservative president and desperately needs the support of conservatives in order to succeed) is flawed and, alas, without hope...

...well, not a good situation for conservatives.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

*"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."*

--William F. Buckley Jr.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Not a good situation at all and if the Democrats had any sense, which at this point is unlikely, they'd jump at the opportunity. Lets not forget that WFB was opposed to the interaction in Iraq in the first place and while he has since "got on board" this reaction shortly after the Mosque bombing is not necessarily shocking, given his history over the last 25 years its quite predictible.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:
> I have no problem with your right to choose not to associate with Yckmwia, although I do advocate a certain (human and civic; not legal) responsibility to hear him out. What I reject is a belief that because his views are extreme and extremely critical, he is no longer welcome in this country.


All points well taken, however, I just find it odd that you'd come to the defense of someone without even pointing out that he casually suggests in this thread that his idealogical opponets, in a just society, would be hanged. Of course I have no problem with him saying such bitter filled rhetoric, it lets me know who my enemies are but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the other side of the aisle that has even come close to the viciousness of his posts on this thread and in others.

Let me just say, that in no certain terms if his posts are any indication, I'd think he'd jump at the chance to be the executioner, he'd probably enjoy it.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by MichaelB_
> 
> Yes--interesting indeed. Likewise, George Will's latest column on Iraq, equally pessimistic. And at The National Review, John Derbyshire declares himself of their mind. Finally, a recent editorial by Francis Fukayama declaring the tragic hubris of the neocons' Iraq adventure.


I'm not in the mood to participate in the discussion surrounding the beginning of the war, but I do recommend that opinions about the current state and likely outcome of the war be based on some first rather than third person reporting and analysis.

Tom


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

I don't know about Bush, but Blair's covered:


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dan the Man_
> 
> In other words, Buckley has finally figured out what paleoconservatives knew from the beginning. Veddy, veddy interesting indeed.


Yes. Finally.  Sad to say, but Buckley lost it years ago, handing over the mag he founded to the 'Invade-the-World-Invite-the-World' Neocons. Still, it's good to see an occasional flash of sanity, such as this one. Buckley's brand of conservatism is dying. He should apologize, give NR back to the Paleos, and immediately retire from public view.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> Yes shame of us for believing that those silly and violent brown people prefer the ballot box to the torture chamber.


No, _shame_ on the American imperialists for believing that humans are the same everywhere, completely equal, in every way, at all times.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

What happens when the godfathers of the conservative movement turn against the (once upon a time left-leaning) "neoconservatives"?

A key moment.

This is when the paleocons and libertarians split off and say to the "noecons": You were wrong. You still are wrong. You're not true-to-life, authentic conservatives. You're pests. Go away.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> ...the (once upon a time left-leaning) "neoconservatives"?


I would argue the Neocons (or as I prefer to call them, the 'Neo-Jacobins'), are _still_ 'left-leaning.' In fact the Neocons lean so far to the left they're practically horizontal. Look at the Neocon program: foreign wars, 'Big Government,' mass immigration, multiculturalism--these IMHO are all part of a radical, revolutionary, nation-transforming agenda.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> All points well taken, however, I just find it odd that you'd come to the defense of someone without even pointing out that he casually suggests in this thread that his idealogical opponets, in a just society, would be hanged. Of course I have no problem with him saying such bitter filled rhetoric, it lets me know who my enemies are but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the other side of the aisle that has even come close to the viciousness of his posts on this thread and in others.
> 
> ...


The problem with dealing with the likes of you, is that one has to constantly deal with first principles, constantly restate the obvious. Such, apparently, is life. Please, reread my post about Julius Streicher and the hangman. Now that you've done that, let me explain it to you, as you are obviously incapable of discerning its meaning from the mere words I wrote - my failing, I know, and one that I will now attempt to correct. First, some background: JLib wrote:



> quote:I seem to recall that a number of Nazi leaders who had no specific complicity in the enormities of that regime were condemned and hanged by the Nuremberg tribunal on the grounds that planning and waging an aggressive war constituted ipso facto a "crime against humanity."


Meaning of course, that those responsible for a war of aggression might face prosecution and judgement, even if they do not personally participate in the greatest crimes of the war; for, as the Nuremberg tribunal noted, a war of aggression subsumed all the other related crimes. That is step "A". Now let us move to step "B."

AMVanquish


> quote: Are you referring to Von Ribbentrop, whose only real crime was being such a sycophant?


And this leads us to step "C," in which I responded thus:



> quote:Julius Streicher was hanged merely for being a propagandist for the regime; which, in a just world, would give all those noisy No Spin A-holes cause for concern.


Are you with me? Good. Now let me walk you through this. Herr Streicher was charged with crimes against humanity and hanged at Nuremberg solely because he was an influential, sycophantic journalist who championed "murder and extermination." He used his newspaper, _Der Stuermer_ to inflame race hatred and war, and, although there is little evidence that his work was directly responsible for anyone's death, in the wisdom of the tribunal he was guilty of a crime against humanity for creating a climate of hatred and loathing for the Reich's imagined enemies. And he was hanged. This set a precedent in international law: those journalists and propagandists who create a climate conducive to crimes against peace and crimes against humanity are in danger of prosecution if they are ever called to account for their conduct before an international tribunal. Of course, for the precedent to apply, the conduct would have to be pretty egregious, pretty ugly. Not simply arguing in favor of war as one of several options, but fervently advocating wars of aggression, or enslavement of the conquered populace, or torture of prisoners, or similar atrocities.

Still with me? Right. Now here is the point: the men and women I have identified as the "noisy No Spin A-holes" have engaged in conduct that, at least arguably, falls within the scope of the Streicher precedent. Their rhetoric has not been as lurid and bestial as Striecherâ€™s, but they clearly undertook the task of whipping up war fever against Iraq, and cultivated the climate necessary for the Administration to launch an illegal war of aggression; Coulterâ€™s famous "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianityâ€ being only one of the better known examples.

So: here we are. In a just world the US would be held responsible for its crimes against Iraq. There is no real dispute that the Iraq war was, and is, a war of aggression, illegal under international law - even Richard Perle has admitted as much. In a just world, those responsible for this atrocity would be called to account for this crime before an international tribunal; if that were to happen, the prosecuting authorities could, as did the Nuremberg tribunal, take an expansive view of "responsibility." They might find that those responsible for, say, the prewar belief of sixty percent or so of the American people that Iraq was behind 9/11, or was developing nuclear weapons, should also answer for their conduct. Thus, an egregious propagandist or two might find him- or herself in the dock, alongside more illustrious co-defendants. The precedent exists. In a just world this would give such people cause for concern - but the world isn't just, is it? The US will never be called to account for its crimes of aggression. Thus, no one in this country who is responsible for the illegal war against Iraq need have any concern at all about his conduct. It will be whitewashed and forgotten; there will volumes of memoirs detailing the noble intentions that led to the "mistake" of the invasion; the learned journals will regret the cost - to us - of the invasion and occupation; and the think tanks will churn out new war plans - for Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and many other nations around the world. One of these will be chosen for attack; a casus belli will be found; the drumbeats for war will begin, the successors to the noisy No Spin A-holes will begin their hysterical shrieking . . . and by now you should know the rest.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very astute observations. I had always assumed that some of the bedrock principles of American conservatism, to which I have subscribed most of my adult life, were economy in government, limited government and respect for individual privacy and liberty and respect for American tradition, which included such notions as that we didn't attack nations that hadn't attacked us, respect for the Law of Nations and the "decent opinions of mankind." A concern for the last-named, especially, in our current climate of witless jingoism, seems to brand one immediately as some sort of effete, Francophile quiche-eater!

As to this Iraq business, leaving aside the question of the morality of attacking and invading a sovereign nation that had given no immediate provocation, I think most informed people always knew the alleged Al-Quaeda ties were specious. As to the WMDs--well, had Saddam unleashed a hellstorm of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons and killed tens of thousands of the invading Americans--I might have agreed that this was indeed a very dangerous regime and that the administration was wise in taking him out. Again, had the American occupation been met with with nothing but strewn flowers and accolades and had the happy Iraqis gone about building a stable multiculural democracy based on the very Western principles of tolerance and loyal opposion, I might have conceded the administration knew what they were doing after all.

This leaves us with the humanitarian argument that it was somehow our moral duty to liberate the poor, suffering Iraqis from the clutches of a cruel despot. Well, I am not nearly as antipathetic to Arabs and other Muslims as a great many of my compatriots. However, my compassion for the Iraqis does not extend so far as to wish to expend hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars (some long-term estimates rising into the trillions) and an ever-growing tally of American lives (to say nothing of the wounded and maimed) to bestow upon them this boon...especially when so many of them seem profoundly lacking in gratitude! If this is short-sighted and mean-spirited of me, so be it!


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Is there anything worse than a man that shares with us his principals but backs away from them when he is confronted with the logical conclusions that spawn from his vile posts? Your entire response was one of squabbling and lawyeristic backtracking. So you admit in no certain terms that if history is our guide they should be held responsible but because this is not a just world your suggestion is invalid and thus not open to interpretation or debate.

You know what, I'd rather you just be upfront and admit that you'd probably enjoy the prosecution and hanging of your idealogical enemies, maybe you'd throw a party with all of your friends so you could watch it on TV, the wine would flow, the self-righteousness would be boiling over in a frenzy, hell it'd give you a reason to wear your new Lobbs.







___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Yckmwia, to save band width, I won't quote your post immediately previous to mine. I have said it before, but I'll say it again: Even though we come at things from different perspectives, I don't know if there is a more clear-headed social thinker on this forum...at least in yours analysis of things. I only wish you were wrong, but I don't think you are!

At one time I joked that you are a flag-waving super-patriot compared to me. I suspect that you would LIKE, however remote the possibility, to see an America governed by principles of rational humanitarianism and social justice. My own perspective is far darker--black pessimism, nihilism and toward America (and humanity in general)naught but malediction.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hear where you fellows are coming from. Yet coming from an opposite political orientation, I can't quite see the split between neo- and paleocons as cleanly as you do. At least if you think of Nixon and Reagan as "conservative." (Maybe you don't, but then we're really saying that there's nothing all that neo about neoconservatism.)

1. All the recent Republican (conservative?) administrations have been about projecting American power in a big way around the globe. Now you could say Kissenger et al. were "realists"--bent on stopping communist expansion--in contrast to the Never-Never Land/Starbright Park view of the world espoused by the current neocons. But still, the old Republican guard were about global power, largely to protect and expand Amercian economic interests, i.e. American big business/multinationals. Which leads me to...

2. I can't remember Reagan or Nixon shutting down the border either. Maybe they made comments about it, but did they do it? Migrant labor from Mexico also helps big business. Cheap labor is what business likes. And the the reason the current Bush doesn't stop it is because he's in the great Republican tradition of placing business interests (his and most Republican AND Democratic campaign-financiers) ahead of practically everything else. (See Dubai ports scandal, too.)

3. As for big spending and multiculturalism, I don't know. Of course Reagan ran huge deficits and neither he nor Nixon had the guts or inclination (or maybe just the votes in Congress) to attack government entitlements or school lunches for poor kids or what paltry medical help we do give for the poor. And they just loved increasing the military budget. And multiculturalism? It's often said that Nixon did a lot to promote the idea of Affirmative Action, though there are a lot of opinions as to why. And multiculturalism is such vague and baggy concept I really can't imagine anybody really being against most of its (really quite benign) expressions.

I didn't mean this to go on so long.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Before the invasion, Colin Powell warned that once Iraq was broken, we would have to fix it.

I just hope this does not end up twice as bad as it was before the war.

Yckwmia is far to the left of me on a lot of things, but he has the right to express his opinion.

Bush, if he genuinely has any core beliefs, was easily led into a big mistake. Maybe, next time, left or right, we will take a hard look at the qualifications of the person we put into this hugely important office. 

Now, we have to try to make the best of it. I have no clue how this will happen. It was one thing to win a war against Iraq. It is totally another thing to bring a lasting, stable form of government that is not totally hostile to us to this country that is really a hodgepodge of peoples who could very possibly really be 3 or 4 countries.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> Anybody heard or read his thoughts on the matter?


 I've read his thoughts on Edgar Smith, the man he saved from the electric chair for the 1957 rape/murder of 15 year old girl, having fallen for Smith's lies of innocence. Later Buckley's tireless help won Smith's stupifying release from prison.

After re-entering society, Smith savagely attacked a woman, and later - again in police custody - confessed that he was in fact guilty of the 1957 crime, and had duped Buckley over the course of their seven-year correspondence.

Here is the Amazon link to _Brief Against Death_, the 1968 book that Buckley helped Smith write and publish to persuade the world of his innocence:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...104-3700107-6371107?s=books&v=glance&n=283155


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

"P.S. What is a paleolibertarian?"

Good question. It's one of those things where you sort of know it when you see it. Could also call it right libertarian. Like the guys at Lew Rockwell. Many Libertarians are from the left. Basically rejecting all authority. Government, Church, culture, convention, etc. Paleolibertarians do not necessarily reject Church, culture, etc. In fact, many are Christians. They recognize the importance of tradition in organizing a society, they just reject government authority. (On a basic philosophical level you could argue that all libertarians are really from the left, but the paleolibertarians are generally a part of the right-wing spectrum here in the US.)

"Yes shame of us for believing that those silly and violent brown people prefer the ballot box to the torture chamber. Surely those brown folk aren't worth our hard earned capital and manpower. Lets nuke them and call it a day, better yet we could build a wall and forget that region of the world even exists. Not our problem..."

Governments do not make cultures. Cultures make governments. It is extremely naive to deny this even if it does go contra to the tabula rasa theory of human nature that has driven revolutionary Enlightenment liberalism from the beginning. "Prefer the ballot box to the torture chamber." That would be what we call a false dilemma. Nobody wants to be tortured, but not everybody wants democracy. "Better yet we could build a wall and forget that region of the world even exists." That would be what we call a straw man. Who said anything about building a wall? Non-intervention, you know that foreign policy espoused by Washington, doesn't pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. In fact, we want to sell them stuff. We just believe in minding our own international business.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Buckley pulled a Mailer? Really? By god, one does learn something new every day. Is _Brief Against Death_ as good as _In the Belly of the Beast_?

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## KCMan (Nov 11, 2005)

Sorry to get off the topic, but I just wanted to say a couple things in response. I have been working all day and haven't had a chance. Iammatt, I couldn't have said it better myself. I am not suggesting that Y be banished; I just think that if you really hate where you live that much, then you should move. Long way, I hope you are not calling me a liar. I am a veteran and a patriot and I don't consider dissent to be treason. I just think that if you think the place where you live is the worst place on earth, then gdammit-move!!!! And bost, I do not have low expectations of my government. I don't agree with almost everything that they do. And no, I was not a war supporter. I think it is a horrible idea to force a different form of government on a people that are not willing to rise up and make it happen themselves, among other reasons. Yck: By the way, my father is an immigrant from Indonesia, so he and I are truly living the American dream. I still think Switzerland has everything you would want: Neutral country, govt. mandated health ins. and vacation, the hague (sp?). As you can tell by my language, I am not some doctorate degree holding person. I am just a blue collar guy living a great life ini a great country. So go ahead; hit me with your venomous post-graduate educated tongues!


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I disagreed strenuously with the Iraq War, particularly given the deceptive way it was sold to the American people. The fruits of that botched and zealous plan are apparent today, and, alas, likely to remain so for a long while. And believe me when I say I have nothing against "brown people" (as someone above put it). I do have issues when our leaders flip-flop on their rationale for going to war based on whether the facts force them to alter their stories as they go along. We may, most of us, think it nice that Bush finally settled on a mission of sowing democracy in Iraq, but that's not the way the job was peddled to American citizens straightaway. Then there's the mishandling of the affair itself (e.g. insufficient troops, inadequate armour, etc.).

Like many, I've been disappointed in the current administration on a number of levels. I happen to believe America deserves better from its leadership--regardless of political affiliation. Frankly, I don't much care about elephants or jackasses so long as good sense prevails in D.C. and as long as most Americans are doing better instead of worse.

This is a fantastic country and, at its best, can be a true beacon of social justice and economic freedom. I believe what troubles people like me is when we fail, sometimes by miles, to live up to our ideals. I don't believe you build a viable democracy on crony capitalism or secrecy or spying on your own citizens, though I know this has worked well for other so-called leaders we now find contemptible.

The "love it or leave it" nonsense ignores the very real reality of citizens who love their country so much that they want to see it live up to its ideals.

I know that I'm no Maoist!

Cheers.



> quote:_Originally posted by KCMan_
> 
> Sorry to get off the topic, but I just wanted to say a couple things in response. I have been working all day and haven't had a chance. Iammatt, I couldn't have said it better myself. I am not suggesting that Y be banished; I just think that if you really hate where you live that much, then you should move. Long way, I hope you are not calling me a liar. I am a veteran and a patriot and I don't consider dissent to be treason. I just think that if you think the place where you live is the worst place on earth, then gdammit-move!!!! And bost, I do not have low expectations of my government. I don't agree with almost everything that they do. And no, I was not a war supporter. I think it is a horrible idea to force a different form of government on a people that are not willing to rise up and make it happen themselves, among other reasons. Yck: By the way, my father is an immigrant from Indonesia, so he and I are truly living the American dream. I still think Switzerland has everything you would want: Neutral country, govt. mandated health ins. and vacation, the hague (sp?). As you can tell by my language, I am not some doctorate degree holding person. I am just a blue collar guy living a great life ini a great country. So go ahead; hit me with your venomous post-graduate educated tongues!


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## KCMan (Nov 11, 2005)

I don't see where you get this "love it or leave it" nonsense from. I agree with a lot of what you said up until that. Like I said before, I disagree with almost everything our government does and I happen to believe that most politicians in DC have only their re-election in mind and not the country's best interests. The comment about leaving was directed at Yck; not because of what he said in this post, but because of the sum total of a majority of his posts. Dissenting and being disappointed in the government makes you want to make things better; having that much vile hatred toward the US could only lead to one viable option, move to a better place.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by BertieW_
> This is a fantastic country and, at its best, can be a true beacon of social justice and economic freedom. I believe what troubles people like me is when we fail, sometimes by miles, to live up to our ideals.


I don't get it. Why in the world do we need to be a 'beacon of social justice and economic freedom'? This sort of talk makes it seem as if the US is on a special ideological crusade, like the Soviet Union or Communist China. Why can't the US be a normal country, with a particular people, a particular history, a particular culture, particular traditions, etc., minding its own business? As it is, it sometimes feels as if the US has been hijacked by messianic lunatics (dare I say traitors?) on both the Left _and_ Right who are setting the country on a course for disaster. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

In part, because doing so benefits us when others emulate our social and economic model. I'm not necessarily peddling altruism here, though that's an added benefit for those inclined that way.

If more of the world is not run by dictators or Marxists or psychopaths or all of the above, but is instead organised in a way that facilitates global trade, good things follow, if done right.

Then again, others might say America does have a *moral* obligation, similar to that felt by religious missionaries, to show others the way. Personally, I have little conviction along these lines, but to each his own.



> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

KCMan,

I'm not familiar with the bulk of Yck's posts, so I may well be missing some data regarding his true motives and attitude about the U.S. If he is, in reality, not looking for viable solutions but instead heaping only venom, I part company from that line.

Cheers.



> quote:_Originally posted by KCMan_
> 
> I don't see where you get this "love it or leave it" nonsense from. I agree with a lot of what you said up until that. Like I said before, I disagree with almost everything our government does and I happen to believe that most politicians in DC have only their re-election in mind and not the country's best interests. The comment about leaving was directed at Yck; not because of what he said in this post, but because of the sum total of a majority of his posts. Dissenting and being disappointed in the government makes you want to make things better; having that much vile hatred toward the US could only lead to one viable option, move to a better place.


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Ha, yes. I think Abbott took a cue from Smith when he initially wrote to Mailer - I suppose it would be more accurate to say that Mailer pulled a Buckley! [^]


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


two good reasons

1. because it was the founders intent - we have all enjoyed the efforts of the founding fathers to give us liberty and the right to pursue happiness, and we should extend the curtosy to others.

2. more pragmatically - the american economic system is such that the more people around the world who partake in it, the better off america is.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I don't agree with much of what Y says, and he annoys me sometimes, but he is a clear thinker and communicator. the very nature of American life is to dissent when you see it nessasary.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> two good reasons
> 
> 1. because it was the founders intent - we have all enjoyed the efforts of the founding fathers to give us liberty and the right to pursue happiness, and we should extend the curtosy to others.
> ...


1. It was _not_ the Founders' intent for the US to launch global crusades in fanciful pursuit of 'democracy,' 'human rights,' consumerism, feminism, etc.

2. Americans arguably were better off _before_ globalism.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. I think that it is very probable that the founders didn't expect the US to ever launch into a war outside of the continent of north america.

2. we can see, from the founders reaction to the french revolution, that the founders did see that the idea of being a beacon, and an exporter of democracy and human rights was important

3. there is a huge difference between launching wars and being a "beacon".

4. hard to say where America is better off. India didnt do very well with a closed economy. it is hard to say that if America hadn't brought the american 20th century style of globilization to the world if soembody else would have, and the US would have been out in the cold. hard to go back in time.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whose torture chamber, ours or theirs?

Esse Quam Videre


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

> quote: There is no real dispute that the Iraq war was, and is, a war of aggression, illegal under international law - even Richard Perle has admitted as much.


The U.S. signed a "cease-fire" with Iraq (not a peace treaty)after the first Gulf war; A cease fire which was violated in many ways and may times by Iraq, including, for instance, firing at U.S. aircraft in the no-fly zones. If the cease-fire was breached, resumption of hostilities by the U.S. was not illegal.


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It absolutely was not the Founder's intent. Read Washington's farewell address. Please tell me what Founder advocated using American power to democratize the world? Many of the Founders didn't even want a standing army. There was an element of American exceptionalism in the Puritans' "Shining City on a Hill" concept, but that applied more to spreading the Gospel than spreading democracy. Unfortunately the Puritans lapsed into the Unitarian social gospel, and that is very closely related to the current neo"con" (They sure are neo, but they ain't con.) fixation on the impossible task of democratizing the world. The founders had a healthy respect for the Christian concept of the imperfectability of man and thus recognized the limits of government power to bring about change.

The American military should be the protector of our freedom and no one else's.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

"They sure are neo, but they ain't con."--Dan the Man.

I don't know about that. It seems to me they did an excellent job of conning the whole country for a good long while. Let's remember that most of the craven Democrats went right along with Bushie's war agenda, even abjured their consitutional prerogative to vote on going to war by handing that over to the Bushman. A plague on both their houses!


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you a link to any source that quotes a member of the Administration citing alleged Iraqi violations of the ceasefire agreement as a justification for the 2003 "resumption of hostilities"?

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dan the Man_
> Unfortunately the Puritans lapsed into the Unitarian social gospel, and that is very closely related to the current neo"con" (They sure are neo, but they ain't con.) fixation on the impossible task of democratizing the world.


That is a complete misreading of Unitarianism.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't really matter - does it? Whether they mentioned it or not, it's simply a fact and the legal effect is the same - it's not an illegal war (whatever the hell that is, anyway). A failure to honor a cease-fire negates the cease fire and hostilities may resume.

Your use of the the term "alleged Iraqi violations" pretty cleary demonstrates that you will not deal with this issue rationally or objectively. There is no doubt that Iraqis fired at both UK and U.S. aircraft (hundreds if not thousands of times over the years)following the cease fire. Your unwillingness to concede even this basic fact by describing them as "alleged" violations (hint: when you ask for a case fire and then shoot at the opponent again, you've abrogated the cease fire) combined with your snide and sarcastic manner to earlier posts indicate that you have more intererest in sophistry, vitriol, and spouting cliches than in disussing the issue. You may not like what's happening in Iraq (I'm not sure I know someone who does), but the war was not illegal and these arguments that it was are tiresome and silly. The law is an ass - and a person can argue anything under the guise of law. The facts remain - Iraq breached their cease-fire agreement.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Yeah, I've heard this yarn about their shooting at American and British planes. And supposedly they did this "thousands of times"? Must've been very ineffectual anti-aircraft fire. I follow the news fairly closely, and I never heard of their so much as hitting anything, much less downing an American plane...and I'm sure there would have been hell to pay if they had! More'n likely the "anti-aircraft fire" was just wedding celebrants firing their AK's in the air.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I use the word alleged because I believe absolutely nothing that the United States government has said, is saying, or will say about its conduct towards Iraq. Why should I, why should anyone? Virtually every statement made by United States government about Iraq is a demonstrable lie. Why should I believe allegations of Iraqi "aggression" in the no-fly zones? By what authority were these "no-fly" zones created? UN resolution 688 doesn't authorize them. And, as you may recall, the U.S. was also undertaking a more than decade long bombing campaign inside Iraq during this time. So which party violated the cease-fire first? When did hostilities end? They didn't. And how many American planes were downed as the result of these hundreds of Iraqi attacks? None, I believe, although I recall reading that Iraq managed to shoot down several unmanned drones. Yet in your mind this Iraqi 'violation' of the cease-fire, the fire of which never ceased, is a sound legal justification for our current invasion and occupation of Iraq? Congratulations, you have managed to posit a legal basis for our attack that even the Administration thought no one would buy. I guess they underestimated ol' Rocker, didn't they?

But, as you note, it doesn't matter, does it? It doesn't matter who we kill or why, at least not to the hard rockin', battle-hardened posters on this board. International law is of no matter, unless we want to kill a nation for its alleged violations of international law; and here I use "alleged" because Iraq did not violate international law as claimed by the US: Iraq did disarm, and it did cooperate with the weapons inspectors. But it doesn't matter does it? We can do whatever we damn please, because we can, right? It's the Melian dialogue, right? Well, rock on mate; it's regrettable that you dismiss as sophistry and cliched vitriol any inconvenient fact or contention that disturbs the stars and stripes cartoon going on inside your rock-hard head; but it is hardly surprising.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is not the only fruit of the Puritan to Unitarian morph but it is one fruit.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dan the Man_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unitarianism has nothing to do with democratizing the world. I'd be really interested in hearing your logic as to how Unitarian social gospel is related to neo-conservative beliefs.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> But, as you note, it doesn't matter, does it? It doesn't matter who we kill or why, at least not to the hard rockin', battle-hardened posters on this board. International law is of no matter, unless we want to kill a nation for its alleged violations of international law; and here I use "alleged" because Iraq did not violate international law as claimed by the US: Iraq did disarm, and it did cooperate with the weapons inspectors. But it doesn't matter does it? We can do whatever we damn please, because we can, right? It's the Melian dialogue, right? Well, rock on mate; it's regrettable that you dismiss as sophistry and cliched vitriol any inconvenient fact or contention that disturbs the stars and stripes cartoon going on inside your rock-hard head; but it is hardly surprising.


I'm not sure if you meant this as a direct insult to the several veterans who participate on this board or not, but it certainly does come off that way and destroys the moral grounding in your otherwise cogent (if overstated) analysis.

Tom


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tom:

I think you are bringing more to this post than it contains. "...at least not to the hard rockin', battle-hardened posters on this board." reads more sarcastic than anything else, at least to me. That being said, one's status as a veteran in no way affects the moral grounding of Yickmwia's "anlysis". If you fall into his target group the fact of being a vet does not entitle you to a free pass.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Michael


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> Tom:
> 
> I think you are bringing more to this post than it contains. "...at least not to the hard rockin', battle-hardened posters on this board." reads more sarcastic than anything else, at least to me. That being said, one's status as a veteran in no way affects the moral grounding of Yickmwia's "anlysis". If you fall into his target group the fact of being a vet does not entitle you to a free pass.
> ...


No one asked for a free pass. Knowing Y's general dislike of everything related to current American foreign policy, I took his statement [hard rockin battled hardened posters on AAAC who don't care about who we kill] to be sarcastically insulting, which is why I asked the question. I'm sure he'll be happy to clear up his meaning. As for it's impact on his argument, personal attacks leave one incapable of claiming the moral high ground.

Tom


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Tom,

I'm not going to attempt to speak for Y, however, I also share his contempt for the United States current foreign policy and his frustration at the widesread lack of a moral compass that appears to have gripped both the body politic and the electorate.

My view is that the United States started a war. The support for this venture is no different from any excuses given by any aggressor nation at any other time in history. What the United States did is no different than what Germany, Russia, Iraq or any other boogyman that you care to mention has done. My feeling is that to the extent servicemen are stuck in the quandry of either prosecuting a war of aggression or doing time they are "off the hook", so to speak; to the extent that they support the concept of a preemptive invasion (talk about pre 9/11 mentalities) they are in no position to claim a higher moral ground. the whole removing the beam from thine own eye deal.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Michael


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> Tom,
> 
> ...


As you can imagine, I'm not really free to discuss my opinions publicly, in this case. Take it how you will that I have not disagreed with the substance of what you or Y have said, only with Y's choice of phrasing.

I'm not too good with the moral high ground anyway, not enough to drink up there [}]

Tom


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know much less the typically well-read person in US history -- but I'd love to see how NeoCon and Unitarianism are related.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

Let me add that any support I have for the administration's foreign policy or the War is waning in light of two things: first, what seems to me the craven cronyism of the admin. in awarding contracts and two, the realization (which might've been evident to everyone but me) that democracy isn't a natural state of affairs and may be impossible to instill as a civic religion in the Middle East (save Israel). It's probably not even needed for some places -- as long as you can have a somewhat secular family running the thing. As for the paleoconservatives -- and I include Buckley in a generalization (though I sort of admire the man) -- I take the view that Christopher Hitchens has that these people are appeasers of tyranny.


----------



## AndreMcGrath (Feb 1, 2006)

Three cheers to Old Brompton. As a proud, 18 year old, I cast my first ballot for candidate Reagan in 1980, and have been a fairly staunch Republican ever since.

That being said, I have a visceral dislike for the neocons currently running things. The notion that America has some divine mission to spread democracy around the world is misguided, and potentially cataclysmic. It really is the stuff one would expect to see from a quasi-religious political dogma akin to sm or Communism, not American democracy?

Has everyone forgotten Washington's admonishment against foreign entanglements?

But then again, I am not sure we are dealing with a President who has a command of history.

Mark


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was referring to the numerous warmongers with whom I have had exchanges on this board. I should have thought that clear; apparently not. Another illusion shattered. In any event, none of these fellows have identified themselves as veterans, must less combat veterans, which they would certainly do if they were; sanctimonious piety towards the armed forces is an essential element of their world-view. Of course, I don't care if any them _are_ veterans: a warmonger is a warmonger. It is a matter of complete indifference to me if one of these hardy fellows single-handedly routed the Asiatic hordes in the heat of the Assyrian sands: If Coulter and her like can sneer at anti-war veterans, I'm more than happy to return the compliment to pro-war veterans. Having recently seen a particularly abysmal example of the breed crash and burn here in America's Finest City, my reserves of empathy, never very large, have emptied entirely.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> I was referring to the numerous warmongers with whom I have had exchanges on this board. I should have thought that clear; apparently not. Another illusion shattered. In any event, none of these fellows have identified themselves as veterans, must less combat veterans, which they would certainly do if they were; sanctimonious piety towards the armed forces is an essential element of their world-view. Of course, I don't care if any them _are_ veterans: a warmonger is a warmonger. It is a matter of complete indifference to me if one of these hardy fellows single-handedly routed the Asiatic hordes in the heat of the Assyrian sands: If Coulter and her like can sneer at anti-war veterans, I'm more than happy to return the compliment to pro-war veterans. Having recently seen a particularly abysmal example of the breed crash and burn here in America's Finest City, my reserves of empathy, never very large, have emptied entirely.
> 
> "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


Thank you for clarifying. Forgive my ignorance of every conversation you've had with warmongers on this board, I'm a SF castaway. In your mind, is it possible for a peace-loving war vet to exist?

I would postulate that no one hates war more than a soldier who has been through it.

edit--conflating anyone who holds a pro-war view with Coulter is more than a tad disingenuous.

Tom


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are forgiven. Is it possible for a peace-loving combat veteran to exist? Absolutely. I know several. My father was one. I would go so far as to say that they are the rule, rather than the exception; although I may be wrong about that. I suspect that your postulate is sound.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Dan the Man (Sep 21, 2002)

"Unitarianism has nothing to do with democratizing the world. I'd be really interested in hearing your logic as to how Unitarian social gospel is related to neo-conservative beliefs."

"I know much less the typically well-read person in US history -- but I'd love to see how NeoCon and Unitarianism are related."

I'm not saying that all neocons are Unitarians, they clearly are not. But they represent a common strain in American politics. The distinguishing feature of the Yankee brand of Unitarianism (and liberal Protestantism) is an inability to leave well enough alone. And a condescension towards others who are not willing to go along with their self-evidently superior program. They are always about the business of trying to improve and perfect the human race. Traditional American conservatism which is heavily informed by Christianity has a healthy respect for the limits that man's fallen nature places on our ability to improve on man. The Yankee Unitarian model is essentially Jacobin. Believing that the way things are can simply be cast aside in the name of progress and revolution. The Confederates would have no trouble seeing the similarity between the revolutionary Yankee invaders and the neocons. The neocons without regard for the history of the area, the religion, the competing sects, the tribalism etc. dreamed we could sweep in there and would be welcomed with open arms and right away there would be a thriving American style democracy. Because countries are not a very complicated mixture of religion, race, history, geography, etc. etc. etc. but are all made up of interchangeable people any of whom are interchangeable with the next, all anxiously awaiting instruction in the right way to do things by their American betters. Get it?

I suggest you read "The Yankee Problem in America" by Dr. Clyde Wilson. Here is the link.



Here is an excerpt.

"...Yankees. I am using the term historically to designate that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around. Puritans long ago abandoned anything that might be good in their religion but have never given up the notion that they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image."


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Dan the Man_
> I'm not saying that all neocons are Unitarians, they clearly are not. But they represent a common strain in American politics. The distinguishing feature of the Yankee brand of Unitarianism (and liberal Protestantism) is an inability to leave well enough alone. And a condescension towards others who are not willing to go along with their self-evidently superior program. They are always about the business of trying to improve and perfect the human race. Traditional American conservatism which is heavily informed by Christianity has a healthy respect for the limits that man's fallen nature places on our ability to improve on man. The Yankee Unitarian model is essentially Jacobin. Believing that the way things are can simply be cast aside in the name of progress and revolution. The Confederates would have no trouble seeing the similarity between the revolutionary Yankee invaders and the neocons. The neocons without regard for the history of the area, the religion, the competing sects, the tribalism etc. dreamed we could sweep in there and would be welcomed with open arms and right away there would be a thriving American style democracy. Because countries are not a very complicated mixture of religion, race, history, geography, etc. etc. etc. but are all made up of interchangeable people any of whom are interchangeable with the next, all anxiously awaiting instruction in the right way to do things by their American betters. Get it?
> 
> I suggest you read "The Yankee Problem in America" by Dr. Clyde Wilson. Here is the link.


Yes, I "get it". What a waste of time. I'm sorry I asked. I thought we were going to be able to have a serious discussion. Have you ever read a book about the history of Unitarianism or of the history of social reform in New England in the 19th century? If so, I'm not sure how you can seriously make the claim that "The distinguishing feature of the Yankee brand of Unitarianism (and liberal Protestantism) is an inability to leave well enough alone. And a condescension towards others who are not willing to go along with their self-evidently superior program." Since one of the very few national issues in the 19th century your statement might actually might apply to is the question of slavery, let me ask you this: which is superior, the abolition of slavery or slave owning?

I also wouldn't suggest Clyde Wilson as required reading. Anyone who can claim that the statue (it isn't actually a statue, but that is beside the point) of Robert Gould Shaw and the Massachusetts 54th represents "happy blacks adoring the feet of Col. Robert Gould Shaw" is so clearly biased that he can't be trusted in anything he says. I've been by that memorial many times and they are all pretty damn grim, staring straight ahead as they march off to their unhappy end.

Wilson misleads and lies about so many small things that any validity his argument might have completely evaporates. He claims "When Jeffersonians took power, the New Englanders fought them with all their diminishing strength. Their poet William Cullen Bryant regarded the Louisiana Purchase as nothing but a large swamp for Jefferson to pursue his atheistic penchant for science." Why, you'd think William Cullen Bryant was a contemporary critic of Jefferson and the Louisiana purchase from reading that wouldn't you? *But Bryant was nine years old when the Louisiana Purchase treaty was signed.* Not to mention that towns in western Massachusetts actively supported Jefferson, with one town going so far as to create a 1000 pound cheese to deliver to Jefferson at the White House, a gift praised highly by Jefferson himself as representing the true agrarian ideals of the United States.

You would also think, since he sees fit to say in his second paragraph "As indicated by these books (listed at the end), scholars are at last starting to pay some attention to one of the most important and most neglected subjects in United States history â€" the Yankee problem," that the books at the end of his essay are either reviewed in his essay or support his contentions. The books listed don't support his argument, which is why they are never cited in his text (except, bizarrely enough, when he writes "Do not be put off by Professor Sheidleyâ€™s use of "Conservative Leaders" in his title." despite the title of Sheidley's book being listed as "Sectional Nationalism: Massachusetts Conservatives and the Transformation of America, 1815â€"1834") and I don't think he is equipped to seriously review them. Talk about an intellectual bait and switch.

Wilson's closing paragraph is a classic as well, including the sentence "In the 1960s the Yankee had one of his periodic eruptions of mania such as he had in the 1850s." Yeah, the South would have gotten away with separate drinking fountains forever if it hadn't been for those damn meddling Yankees and their civil rights legislation. But wait, didn't a Southern president sign that legislation?

I'd recommend a few books for you to read but, as Clyde Wilson claims, you're probably one of the "generations of Americans [who] have been cured of reading forever by being forced to digest dreary third-string New England poets as 'American literature.'"


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

Can't hope to do better than Bosthist, but my reading of Emerson and some of the Unitarian preachers collected in an older Harvard anthology leads me to believe that any reasonable person wouldn't confute Unitarians with Neo-Cons. I mean, the Uni's have such a diluted idea of Christianity. That much seems obvious. Am I correct?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> I mean, the Uni's have such a diluted idea of Christianity. That much seems obvious. Am I correct?


Well, um, yes. After all, they reject the notion of the Trinity. So did Gibbon, but he didn't make a new religion out of it.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't call it a diluted view of Christianity. I don't want to get into the Arian heresy and the Council of Nicea, but I would say that Unitarians certainly have an alternate view of the mechanics of the practice of Christianity, but not the substance of Christ's message.


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> I wouldn't call it a diluted view of Christianity. I don't want to get into the Arian heresy and the Council of Nicea, but I would say that Unitarians certainly have an alternate view of the mechanics of the practice of Christianity, but not the substance of Christ's message.


But doesn't Unitarianism eliminate the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation? I thought a central tenet of the faith was that salvation was universal, irrespective of sin.

__________

Fair and softly goes far.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

[sorry, double post.]


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> All points well taken, however, I just find it odd that you'd come to the defense of someone without even pointing out that he casually suggests in this thread that his idealogical opponets, in a just society, would be hanged.


I don't want to speak for the other gentleman, and at any rate I am mostly against the death penalty, but you are forgetting that there is _actual criminality_ involved here. I'm not talking about petty thuggery like exposing Valerie Plame, spying on countless Americans without oversight or justification, engendering the most corrupt Congress in modern memory, or even as Bush seems to want to do with India unilaterally ignore the settled international law that is the NPT, but the action of killing tens of thousands of people in a war that was explicitly illegal under international law. Not only that, but in the act of prosecuting this illegal war, numerous other illegal activities ensued, such as the use of military tactics such as torture and collective punishment (e.g. destroying a whole village's crops in response to a mine in the road, acts that have been documented in the world press but not America's because they're so cowed) that are in flagrant contravention of the Geneva Conventions. Approval of conduct that violates the Geneva Conventions is *a war crime.*

So it is not a matter of "ideological opponents" or as you later wrote "ideological enemies" for taking actions about which, as then-Rep. Lindsey Graham said repeatedly whilst serving as an impeachment manager, reasonable people can disagree. It is a matter of either believing in the rule of law or (as in the case of these feckless thugs) not. If you believe in the rule of law, that means criminals should be apprehended, given a fair trial based on the facts, and punished appropriately if found guilty. _If you believe in the rule of law_, that includes criminals with grandiose titles like SecDef, POTUS, VPOTUS, and CinC CENTCOM.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by KCMan_ Neutral country, govt. mandated health ins. and vacation, the hague (sp?). As you can tell by my language, I am not some doctorate degree holding person. I am just a blue collar guy living a great life ini a great country.


That is made abundantly clear by your command of European geography. The Hague is in the Netherlands, not Switzerland.

Perhaps a little bit less overt hostility to education and intellectual progress would do you some good.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:Not only that, but in the act of prosecuting this illegal war, numerous other illegal activities ensued, such as the use of military tactics such as torture and collective punishment (e.g. destroying a whole village's crops in response to a mine in the road, acts that have been documented in the world press but not America's because they're so cowed) that are in flagrant contravention of the Geneva Conventions. Approval of conduct that violates the Geneva Conventions is a war crime.


 I'm not really part of this discussion ... but I need a bit of time-line assistance. Is this a reference to the conduct of POTUS Johnson and SecDef MacNamara in the Viet Nam action? I seem to remember reports of quite a few of those incidents at that time. Mayhap the onset of 'seniors'.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mr. Gladwell appears perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but I suspect he is referring to the destruction of crops - primarily date orchards - that Patrick Cockburn reported in the UK Independent during the first year of the war. A search of that website will no doubt retrieve the relevant articles. Our crimes in this respect don't yet measure up to those of Viet Nam, but, given time, I'm sure we can make our forefathers proud.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> but I need a bit of time-line assistance. Is this a reference to the conduct of POTUS Johnson and SecDef MacNamara in the Viet Nam action? I seem to remember reports of quite a few of those incidents at that time. Mayhap the onset of 'seniors'.


I wish these incidents were that far in the past. Unfortunately, I'm talking about Iraq from 2003-2006, where war crimes such as torture and the use of Israeli-style collective punishments (bricking up families' homes, destruction of a village's crops because somebody planted a mine - IED, in the current parlance - in the road, and so on). And not just Iraq. Gitmo, Diego Garcia, and other American torture facilities in Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, and likely other places that have not yet been introduced to the public by heroic journalists. (As far as I'm concerned, the _only_ heroes of this Iraq fiasco are journalists such as Sy Hersh et al. who shine sunlight on slime.)

Ignoring the fact that one of my undergraduate mentors was Robert S. McNamara's son in law, my feelings about him and LBJ are the same as they are about the current crop of war criminals running our country.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by SGladwell_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, interesting. You actually believe in intellectual progress?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> Ah, interesting. You actually believe in intellectual progress?


It would not be hard to progress beyond this:



> quote:I don't want to speak for the other gentleman, and at any rate I am mostly against the death penalty, but you are forgetting that there is actual criminality involved here. I'm not talking about petty thuggery like exposing Valerie Plame, spying on countless Americans without oversight or justification, engendering the most corrupt Congress in modern memory, or even as Bush seems to want to do with India unilaterally ignore the settled international law that is the NPT, but the action of killing tens of thousands of people in a war that was explicitly illegal under international law. Not only that, but in the act of prosecuting this illegal war, numerous other illegal activities ensued, such as the use of military tactics such as torture and collective punishment (e.g. destroying a whole village's crops in response to a mine in the road, acts that have been documented in the world press but not America's because they're so cowed) that are in flagrant contravention of the Geneva Conventions. Approval of conduct that violates the Geneva Conventions is a war crime.


All it would take is the realization that:

1) It is not clear that Valerie Plame was "exposed" in any meaningful or unlawful way, and the prosecuter assigned to investigate has indicated that he does not care and may not even know.

2) Whatever one thinks of the NSA issue, it was not done without oversight or justification.

3) Phrases like "the most corrupt Congress in modern memory" are basically meaningless, and once one begins to compare this or that Congress to any other, one finds most of them to be, on the one hand, about equal to each other in terms of corruptoin, and on the other hand, relatively incorrupt by the standards of most worldwide and historical legislative bodies.

4) Bush's deal with India does not violate the terms of the NPT in the least. Again, whatever else one may think of it.

5) The Iraq war was not explicitly illegal under international law. If anything, it was explicitly legal. You actually have to do a pretty heavy intellectual lift to make a half-way plausible case that it was illegal. Again, whatever one thinks of its prudence or imprudence, morality or immorality.

6) Torture by US forces has been sporadically alleged, but hardly proved on a mass scale or as matter of policy. Nearly all of the provable actions claimed as "torture" are in fact not defined as such under international law. Again, whatever one might think of their prudence or imprudence, morality or immorality.

7) The Geneva Convention has not been violated, as any reading of its plain language makes clear.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Tyto_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is why I said an alternate view of the _mechanics_ of the practice of Christianity, but not the _substance_ of Christ's message. Is Christianity what Christ preached or the later dogma and practice which sprang up in repsonse to spread and enforce that message? Unitarians don't believe that Christ didn't exist, in any case, so I assume that you mean baptism in Christ's name is necessary for salvation. Unitarians don't necessarily believe that is necessary but then again Unitarians don't set out central tenets that every Unitarian must subscribe to. Some Unitarians question the entire idea of salvation.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> Some Unitarians question the entire idea of salvation.


Um. That would be a departure from the substance of Christ's message. Wouldn't it?

Aside from this, the whole divinity-of-Jesus question is pretty important to the nature of Christianity, no?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, the divinity-of-Jesus question is important. But again, I'm talking about the substance of Christ's message as being the important part of Christianity.

In any case, the 19th Century Unitarians Dan the Man was comparing to the neo-cons had a strong belief in salvation and would have called themselves Christian and very few people batted an eye at this--you also wouldn't have heard many of them say that Jesus wasn't divine. As to the mechanics of Christianity, Unitarians have a hard time finding the justification for drawing that conclusion.

Calling Unitarianism a diluted view of Christianity implies that Christianity has always been a uniform entity from which Unitarians have deviated, which isn't the case. Christianity evolved out of interpretations and debates among men and women, with dominant groups beating back heresies on a regular basis. The Council of Nicea concerned themselves with declaring Jesus and the Holy Ghost of "one being with the father". This was not merely a religious decision, but a political one as well. The Nicene Creed helped establish a fairly stable intepretation of what Christianity means.

As I'm sure you know, the practice of Unitarianism has changed. Some Unitarians do question the idea of salvation. But that doesn't mean that all Unitarians do. I'm sure you'll find Catholics who question the idea of transubstantiation which doesn't mean that all Catholics do, but the Catholic church will tell you that a belief in transubstantiation is necessary to be a Christian (I haven't checked recently though, so this may have changed?). Unitarianism is a different form of Christianity, not a diluted one.


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> Yes, the divinity-of-Jesus question is important. But again, I'm talking about the substance of Christ's message as being the important part of Christianity.
> 
> ...
> ...


Bosthist, I think the friction here is that I (and presumably Manton) view belief in the divinity of Christ and the necessity of this belief for salvation as substantial, rather than mechanical. I'm admittedly rusty on my biblical literature, but isn't a major part of Christ's message that belief in his divity is required for salvation, and although Christianity has not been practiced uniformly, isn't this belief central to every major Christian demonination or, in a sense, what defines Christianity? This is not, of course, to trivialize the message of the importance of good works, charity, and kindness.

__________

Fair and softly goes far.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Tyto_
> Bosthist, I think the friction here is that I (and presumably Manton) view belief in the divinity of Christ and the necessity of this belief for salvation as substantial, rather than mechanical. I'm admittedly rusty on my biblical literature, but isn't a major part of Christ's message that belief in his divity is required for salvation, and although Christianity has not been practiced uniformly, isn't this belief central to every major Christian demonination or, in a sense, what defines Christianity? This is not, of course, to trivialize the message of the importance of good works, charity, and kindness.


Tyto:

I'm guilty of conflating two different time periods--I initially thought Dan the Man was talking about present day Unitarians and then he posted his link to the polemic condemning 19th century New England Unitarians so I tried to answer in a way that would satisfy both.

To be clear:

19th Century Unitarians generally believed in the possiblity of salvation for all and acknowledged baptism in Christ's name. They also believed Christ to be of divine origin but subordinate to God, not of "one being with the Father" since time immemorial. It isn't the rejection of the divinity of Christ that marks Unitarians of that era, rather it is their belief in a difference in the nature of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I would not call this a "diluted" Christianity, but rather a different interpretation of Christianity.

The problem with trying to talk categorically about Unitarians today is that with no doctrinal creed and a governing structure which gives churches a great deal of latitude, churches are free to worship as they choose. You will find "Christian Unitarians" who worship very much in the 19th Century manner, agnostics, and everything in between in the various Unitarian churches.

That being said, I don't believe Christ ever made a belief in his divinity a requirement for one to be a Christian and the very idea of one joining the "Christian" church would likely have puzzled him. On this key point I may be wrong--I'm not a biblical scholar or expert on the Bible--so if someone wants to correct me with chapter and verse I will happily admit my error. I'm also not particularly interested in the later litmus tests invented by the various Christian denominations to prove whether one is a Christian or not.

Addendum: Universalists would have believed in salvation for all regardless of behavior, Unitarians believed in the possibility of salvation for all.

Sorry for all the posts on this subject. I'm in the middle of writing a sermon on the changeover from Congregationalist to Unitarian practice in my own church, which is coming up on its 376th anniversary in ten days.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 4) Bush's deal with India does not violate the terms of the NPT in the least. Again, whatever else one may think of it.


I won't comment on your other points, except to say that they're basically wrong. However, this one deserves some more commentary as it demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of the NPT. As has been noted by the NYT, the Economist, and any other reputable publication that has addressed the issue, the proposals Bush made in India put him at odds with America's signed commitments under the NPT. Basically, the regime set up by the NPT is as follows, albeit a bit oversimplified: countries (beyond the 5 "accepted" nuclear powers) that agree to forswear nuclear arms are entitled to assistance in developing civilian nuclear technology, subject to certain restrictions. Such technology transfers to states outside the framework of the NPT (for the longest time there were only three: India, Pakistan, and Israel. Though I believe the DPRK has formally renounced the treaty as well, I'm not 100% certain of their official position wrt the NPT right now.) are forbidden under international law from receiving such technology transfers. To engage in the same technology transfer with a state that is not an NPT signatory is *a direct violation of the treaty*!

Not to say that an India nuclear deal doesn't make geopolitical sense* or sense on any number of other levels. I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue, because it puts my pragmatic side against my moral side. But only someone who cannot read (or worse, has written without having bothered to read) can fail to understand that is a wholesale violation of the NPT. That the NPT should probably be rewritten to reflect new realities (with, one would hope, the disarmament provisions strengthened) is IMO a fair criticism, but until you get the law you want you have to live within the law you have. The idiot, in his trademark matter, simply deals with the issues of law by assuming that actual laws are for other people.

*it's scary that I find myself close to agreeing with the idiot twice in the same number of weeks, once on the Dubai Ports World management deal that has all the racists' panties in a wad and almost again (beyond the whole international law issue) mostly on this India nuclear thing. And those are real things, not BS promises to commit money to fighting HIV-AIDS in Africa that somehow are forgotten the day after the SOTU.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by SGladwell_
> 
> I won't comment on your other points, except to say that they're basically wrong.


Illuminating.

It is hard unto impossible to say that this deal violates the strict letter of the NPT. It is easier to say that it violates the spirit of the treaty by exploiting various loopholes. But then supporters of the deal would counter that many signatories (not least Iran and NK, which by the way has not renounced) violate its spirit all the time, and that it is safer, and more conducive to US interests, to work with India outside the NPT framework than it is to work with Iran inside that framework.

It is nice to see you concede that the President might have been right in this case, or at least might not have been acting from a Satanic motive. It is disappointing, but wholly expected, to see you otherwise pack in the usual insults and tone of bullying, sneering certitude.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> That being said, I don't believe Christ ever made a belief in his divinity a requirement for one to be a Christian and the very idea of one joining the "Christian" church would likely have puzzled him.


This is true, but isn't it also part of the problem? I mean, a cynical anti-Christian like Gibbon would say that the historical Christ could not have founded Christianity. Even the Gospels were not enough. It took the later layers of interpretation and proselytization -- especially that of St. Paul -- to found the religion. Machiavelli mischiviously suggests that Constantine was the true founder of Christianity.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Manton:

I'm admittedly a little foggy on my Constantine and the Council of Nicea (we're reaching way back--something like 19 years ago to an 8:30 A.M. class on the Hellenistic World and Rome taught by a Professor/Rabbi who was a specialist on the book of Maccabees) but I think that Machiavelli may well be right. The Council of Nicea was certainly feeling some pressure from Constantine to straighten out Christian practices and I can't help but think that the Council's conclusion of God/Son/Holy Ghost being one and indivisible has something to do with the desire of Constantine to be seen in a similar light in keeping the Roman Empire united

So again, we're left with the substance of Christ's message and then the later litmus tests for proving oneself to be a Christian. The question is can one be a Christian by practicing the substance of Christ's message?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

As to Constantine's intervention at the Council of Nicea and insisting on the "homoousion" (being of one substance) being included in the Creed, I believe a lot of more recent scholarship believes that Constantine was acting on the suggestion of his spirtual advisor Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, and didn't have any deeper implications or agenda than that. The notion that Constantine embraced Christianity and later imposed his notions of orthodoxy on it at the Council of Nicea as a means of solidifying his rule and unifying the Empire goes back, I believe, to Jakob Burkhard (whom I will confess I have never read) and is regarded by more recent scholarship as an effort to attribute 19th century values and cynical notions of statecraft to Constantine, who seems to have been a rather simple, credulous and superstitious individual. In point of fact, Constantine's first position about the Arian controversy at the Council was that of most laymen on abstruse theological controversies, "Don't try to split hairs, and can't we just agree to differ?" Moreover, within a few years after the Council, Constantine swung around to favoring the Arian point of view and was baptized on his deathbed by the pro-Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. His son Constantius II was very pro-Arian and favored different Arian factions at various times. The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus remarks that he seemed to like to stir up doctrinal controversies among the Christians for the merry hell of it. (Not Ammianus' exact words, obviously.)

It's been quite a while since I studied these matters, and I'm about 17 miles from my library as I type this, so if there are any minor errors in this, my apologies.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I don't remember that many details, but when I was at school (hebrew university of jerusalem) a great deal of importance was put on the council of Nicea as being where the seperation of christianity and judeism was really thoughly cemented. Remember, though, this is the jewish perspective on it.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> As to Constantine's intervention at the Council of Nicea and insisting on the "homoousion" (being of one substance) being included in the Creed, I believe a lot of more recent scholarship believes that Constantine was acting on the suggestion of his spirtual advisor Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, and didn't have any deeper implications or agenda than that. The notion that Constantine embraced Christianity and later imposed his notions of orthodoxy on it at the Council of Nicea as a means of solidifying his rule and unifying the Empire goes back, I believe, to Jakob Burkhard (whom I will confess I have never read) and is regarded by more recent scholarship as an effort to attribute 19th century values and cynical notions of statecraft to Constantine, who seems to have been a rather simple, credulous and superstitious individual. In point of fact, Constantine's first position about the Arian controversy at the Council was that of most laymen on abstruse theological controversies, "Don't try to split hairs, and can't we just agree to differ?" Moreover, within a few years after the Council, Constantine swung around to favoring the Arian point of view and was baptized on his deathbed by the pro-Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. His son Constantius II was very pro-Arian and favored different Arian factions at various times. The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus remarks that he seemed to like to stir up doctrinal controversies among the Christians for the merry hell of it. (Not Ammianus' exact words, obviously.)
> 
> It's been quite a while since I studied these matters, and I'm about 17 miles from my library as I type this, so if there are any minor errors in this, my apologies.


Thanks Jan. The wealth of knowledge on this board consistently impresses me. I guess what I can't get past is that all of these decisions seem essentially political in nature.

Perhaps we can start a thread to discuss the dressing habits of Roman emperors, beginning with Egalabalus.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I don't remember that many details, but when I was at school (hebrew university of jerusalem) a great deal of importance was put on the council of Nicea as being where the seperation of christianity and judeism was really thoughly cemented. Remember, though, this is the jewish perspective on it.


The separation of Christianity and Judaism was a done deal long before then, certainly by the early decades of the second century of the Christian ("Common," if you prefer) Era. I am really surprised that any Jewish scholar could have thought that the Council of Nicaea could have affected matters one way or the other at that late date.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I am not going to start looking this up right now, but if I remember correctly it was the council of nicea that cemented the christian sabath as sunday, put a final end to circomsision and the laws of kashruth. not to say that most christians didn't follow those jewish laws by then, but this codified the end. 

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that this is what I was tought in school.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I am not going to start looking this up right now, but if I remember correctly it was the council of nicea that cemented the christian sabath as sunday, put a final end to circomsision and the laws of kashruth. not to say that most christians didn't follow those jewish laws by then, but this codified the end.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that this is what I was tought in school.


The first Canon issued by the Council of Nicaea forbade self-castration, in the manner of Origen, but I don't believe that the Council issued any canon regarding circumcision. (Pagans had always found the practice distasteful, if not barbaric.) The Synodal letter indicated that an agreement had been reached about the celebration of Easter; thus, those Christians in the East who had formerly followed the "custom of the Jews" (Passover) were instructed to henceforth celebrate Easter along with their Roman brethren. That's about it. I don't believe Jewish dietary practices are mentioned in any of the Canons or the Synodal letter. As Jan notes: the decisive fissure between Christians and Jews had occurred long before. After all, the Jews had twice been in open revolt against Roman suzerainty, in both the First and Second Centuries, and few Christians near that time would have had any desire to be associated with these events. This is perhaps revealed in the first Christian canon, compiled by the fascinating Marcion in the mid-Second Century. It excluded the entire Old Testament, and redacted all favorable mention of Jews and Judaism from the texts accepted as canonical: The Gospel of Luke and some of the Pauline letters.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Yckmwia covered a number of the points I was going to make. Fundamentally, the Council dealt with the Arian heresy, the calculation of Easter and a number of points of church discipline, and that was about it.

There is a great deal of mythology circulated about the Council--that they fundamentally created the Christian religion as we know it, suppressed the true teachings of Jesus and whatnot--all of it malarkey. Since Jewish scholars as a general rule are nothing if not meticulous, I suspect, Globetrotter, that your memory may be playing tricks on you.

One interesting fact I did learn tonight about the Council was that one of the attendees was none other than "Santa Claus" himself (St. Nicholas of Myra).


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A lot of Ums and Ers Mant.

Bosthist: by dilution, I meant to suggest something like, having read Emerson and that anthology of Uni preachers by, um, er..the old Harvard Prof..um...Mathiesson or was it Perry Miller, I think -- it appeared to me that they were vague, pantheistic, Romantic sorts. The idea of God in Emerson, for instance, is so wide open, so self-referential and yet so dim, that I thought to compare it to the Born Again belief of Bush and Co. was not apt. That was the idea (albeit, er, vague) behind my post anyway.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus remarks that he seemed to like to stir up doctrinal controversies among the Christians for the merry hell of it.


Ah, sort of like Horace's role on these forums.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> A lot of Ums and Ers Mant.


Look again, Hor. I count one "um" and no "er"s.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> A lot of Ums and Ers Mant.
> 
> Bosthist: by dilution, I meant to suggest something like, having read Emerson and that anthology of Uni preachers by, um, er..the old Harvard Prof..um...Mathiesson or was it Perry Miller, I think -- it appeared to me that they were vague, pantheistic, Romantic sorts. The idea of God in Emerson, for instance, is so wide open, so self-referential and yet so dim, that I thought to compare it to the Born Again belief of Bush and Co. was not apt. That was the idea (albeit, er, vague) behind my post anyway.


Emerson was a Unitarian minister for a time, but left the ministry soon after ordination. Emerson's writings should be seen as those of a Universalist, which is a different set of beliefs altogether. Unitarians of the time would have accepted the existence of miracles, for example, something Emerson rejected completely. I've been reading Unitarian sermons preached at new minister ordinations in the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s, and you wouldn't see them as anything but Christian, and fairly strident at that. Emerson isn't a particularly good starting point for Unitarian thought, although he did write some good hymns which are still sung.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Brilliant the way you went back and edited. My dear boy, such a literalist.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> Brilliant the way you went back and edited. My dear boy, such a literalist.


One need not be a "literalist" (whatever that means in this context) to be concerned with facts and truth.

So I've sorted out my apparent disagreement with Harris and made peace with the trad. Care to join the truce?


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the correction, often needed when one is a dabbler and dilettante. Would you say that the NE transcendentalists might be reasonably characterized as being far removed from any deep-seated belief in Christianity? Probably not, eh? I have a dim recollection of reading some sermons by Channing among others. They always struck me as very uninspired, as it were.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't know that we were at war. And I haven't taken any of this seriously (save my comments on Bush further back in the thread). I admire you. A grudging admiration for your thought even. Though you have a peculiar reaction to irony or banality that every other Straussian I've known has.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> Though you have a peculiar reaction to irony or banality that every other Straussian I've known has.


I love irony. Machiavelli -- my literary hero -- never wrote an unironic sentence in his life. Maybe I'm just too thick to get your jokes, which admittedly 75% of the time come of more as insults than jokes.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, but of the other twenty-five percent? Those are quite witty, I think.

As for Machiavelli (to my mind an odd choice for a literary hero), are you reading it in the Italian? If not, a particular translation? I don't read Italian, at least not without difficulty and certainly without finesse or a full-sense of work, but flipping through a translation I have now, I don't know that it is true that he <<never wrote an unironic sentence in his life>>. In fact, I'm sure that it's not. As cavalier as I appear to be with the truth, one would hope that at least you wouldn't be. So, we can do a side-by-side debate of lines from the Prince and Discources and maybe some of his poems if I can find them and we'll see the degree to which he is ironic. I assume you're using the Italian, as your new book purports to be a parody of M.; therefore let me know the edition, and if available, I'll get it and we'll have go. I have nothing to do for the next two years anyway.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

I use an out of print edition published by Mondadori (edited by Flora & Cordie). Without that edition, wending one's way through _Thoughs on Machiavelli_'s maze of footnotes is basically impossible.

As for translations:

_Prince_: Alvarez (most accurate), Mansfield (the best read and best in terms of style), or Codevilla (decent word usage notes). If you want a public domain translation, get the Edward Dacres (1660) online. It is more accurate than anything published until Alvarez in 1979.

_Discourses_: Mansfield & Tarcov (only good one there is)

_Florentine Histories_: Mansfield & Banfield (ditto; if the translation gives the title as "History of Florence," then it begins with an error)

_Art of War_: Lynch. The Henry Neville translation, which was the only one in print for something like 200 years, is horrible.

For the other works, get the Alan Gilbert three volume edition. For the letters, get the Atkinson one volume. The translations are very loose, but at least he includes them all. For the legations (the official correspondence) you have to read Italian.

Unfortunately, I do have other things to do over the next two years. But if you come across any sentences that you wish to discuss, post them here, and if I have time and anything to say, I will make a few comments.

Too bad about the truce, eh? In the meantime, you'll have to troll somebody else. With 5,000-plus members here, I'm sure you can find someone.

--Signing off


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed. To argue with zealots who make up their own minds based on the actions of a pseudo-prophet figure rather than with due regard to reality is a fruitless endeavor, so except on the point where I think your position is driven by misunderstanding rather than willful neglect of reality, I declined to make anything beyond the most brief comment.



> quote:_Originally posted by manton_It is hard unto impossible to say that this deal violates the strict letter of the NPT.


Funny, but that's what anyone who's read the treaty and commented accordingly is doing precisely that, using the word *illegal* without hedge. Here's one example from the right-leaning popular press: https://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5603449

Nothing about "exploiting loopholes" and more about saying, in that wonderfully, inimitably oblique Economist manner, "I'm George Bush, I am the law, so f whatever's written on paper."



> quote:_Originally posted by manton_It is nice to see you concede that the President might have been right in this case, or at least might not have been acting from a Satanic motive.


I have done nothing of the sort. If he wants to change international law to do something that may not be as completely retarded as all of his other foreign policy initiatives (botching North Korea, invading Iraq, killing Kyoto, unilaterally abrogating the ABM, and so on) have been, then he should work to change international law. He is wrong for pretending that the only law that exists is the one in his sparsely-occupied head and in Rummy's rape rooms. Let's face it, the man put more thought into how to get Cubans playing in that dumb little baseball tourney than he did into this new Indian policy and Katrina relief combined.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

I don't always trust the _Economist_, or any elite media organ, or any media organ, for that matter. They are often right, but not always. The elite media basically shares your view of the NPT and the Bush administration, so it's no wonder they get this stuff wrong so often. Though there are exceptions. The notion that this is a clear violation of the _letter_ of the NPT has about the same claim to validity as the notion that the Iraq war was illegal despite of 17 UN Resolutions and a host of other legal justifications.

Given your hysterical and hysterically rude tone, there is clearly no point in our discussing this any further. You have proved yourself, once again, to be one of the very nastiest people on these forums. Your tone is not only poisonous, it is unwarranted by anything I have written, and ought to embarrass a decent person no matter his view of the issue at hand or his political leanings.


----------

