The Cellar - View Single Post - Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates, by Arundhati Roy

Undertoad · 04-04-2003, 10:57 PM

(I really hate quoting text in this particular way so I'm just going to not quote what you said. I think it'll flow better that way. People remember what you wrote.)

A good summary of why DU is not the hazard the progressives make it out to be (scroll way down):
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/20...ustrated.shtml

Okay, so you don't like using war on Saddam, and you didn't like sanctions at all... again, what would have been your approach to the guy?

Kissinger and Pinochet: hey, mistakes were made. But that was the 70s! Does this mean some sort of "original sin" applies where it's impossible to do anything right from here on out? Is there no time limit on this stuff?

Private AJ thinks that Saddam was responsible for 9/11: that's okay, because you see, in this country the military acts as a representative of the people, and it truly does not matter what Private AJ thinks. His role in casting judgement on the matter ended on the day he became a soldier.

He understands that, too; it's part of the soldier's burden. And, in fact, not looking too deeply at the big picture may well be part of Private AJ's reasoning. Nobody will ask him if it's a good idea; they'll just order him to fire, and fire he must.

To write about Private AJ without understanding that dilemma is truly to not understand, and that is part of Roy's problem.

NY Times says 42% of US thinks Hussein was responsible for 9/11: Sparky, if you review the record I think you'll find that I've often said I don't trust the NY Times on anything. Often.

(Which is one of the really amazingly stupid things about this conversation: your rabid insistence that I as an American blindly follow and swallow the mass media, cast against my fierce dislike of how the Times frames issues.)

I don't trust the Times and you do. Enough said! I've seen the Times use polls in exactly this way. The tiniest of indiscretions makes a huge difference. You can introduce bias in a poll very easily. Cast one poll against another taken six months apart. In this case you introduce the numbers as if they had anything to do with each other. It just doesn't work that way; you'll have to call each of that supposedly dim 42% and ask whether they want to go to war or not. Otherwise you're making an assumption, simply indulging in a fantasy about how the numbers are connected, creating a dopey American pro-war stereotype.

"55 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida" is similar. The correct answer for most of us would be "Don't Know" -- which means you can't expect any reason from poll answers, especially if "Don't Know" wasn't one of the choices.

Well, until this morning, anyway. Here's MSNBC's story today of how shoes from a terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq tested positive tests for Botulinum and Ricin, and considered linked to al-Qaida.

http://msnbc.com/news/895185.asp

See I don't have to write a big long message here to prove Roy wrong. History will do that for us -- and look, it's already started.

04-04-2003, 10:57 PM	#37
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	(I really hate quoting text in this particular way so I'm just going to not quote what you said. I think it'll flow better that way. People remember what you wrote.) A good summary of why DU is not the hazard the progressives make it out to be (scroll way down): http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/20...ustrated.shtml Okay, so you don't like using war on Saddam, and you didn't like sanctions at all... again, what would have been your approach to the guy? Kissinger and Pinochet: hey, mistakes were made. But that was the 70s! Does this mean some sort of "original sin" applies where it's impossible to do anything right from here on out? Is there no time limit on this stuff? Private AJ thinks that Saddam was responsible for 9/11: that's okay, because you see, in this country the military acts as a representative of the people, and it truly does not matter what Private AJ thinks. His role in casting judgement on the matter ended on the day he became a soldier. He understands that, too; it's part of the soldier's burden. And, in fact, not looking too deeply at the big picture may well be part of Private AJ's reasoning. Nobody will ask him if it's a good idea; they'll just order him to fire, and fire he must. To write about Private AJ without understanding that dilemma is truly to not understand, and that is part of Roy's problem. NY Times says 42% of US thinks Hussein was responsible for 9/11: Sparky, if you review the record I think you'll find that I've often said I don't trust the NY Times on anything. Often. (Which is one of the really amazingly stupid things about this conversation: your rabid insistence that I as an American blindly follow and swallow the mass media, cast against my fierce dislike of how the Times frames issues.) I don't trust the Times and you do. Enough said! I've seen the Times use polls in exactly this way. The tiniest of indiscretions makes a huge difference. You can introduce bias in a poll very easily. Cast one poll against another taken six months apart. In this case you introduce the numbers as if they had anything to do with each other. It just doesn't work that way; you'll have to call each of that supposedly dim 42% and ask whether they want to go to war or not. Otherwise you're making an assumption, simply indulging in a fantasy about how the numbers are connected, creating a dopey American pro-war stereotype. "55 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida" is similar. The correct answer for most of us would be "Don't Know" -- which means you can't expect any reason from poll answers, especially if "Don't Know" wasn't one of the choices. Well, until this morning, anyway. Here's MSNBC's story today of how shoes from a terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq tested positive tests for Botulinum and Ricin, and considered linked to al-Qaida. http://msnbc.com/news/895185.asp See I don't have to write a big long message here to prove Roy wrong. History will do that for us -- and look, it's already started.