For those on the left

[jaxmike]

http://www.thompsonatlarge.com/work22.htm

This is a very well written article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle recently.

How would you respond to his reasons for leaving??

[bdk3clash]

"Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out."

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
"Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out."

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is why your party is dying. RIP.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of September 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.

Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.

[/ QUOTE ]

in a war of good vs evil, it's the PEOPLE that suffer.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of September 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.

Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.

[/ QUOTE ]

in a war of good vs evil, it's the PEOPLE that suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

And?? I understand your point, but at what point does the suffering of the people justify conceeding victory to evil? Gauranteeing suffering for an infinite, at least indeterminate, amount of time... Is perpetual suffering of a slightly lesser degree better than an extended period of higher suffering that leads, hopefully in the end, to a far lower level of suffering? How do you justify giving up on a war against oppressive regimes? How do you justify giving up on a war that has the goal of bringing freedom?

Just because the people suffer does not make war WRONG. It's the courage to endure the suffering that leads to freedom; and it is noble. Some might have forgotten that in the US (and the west in general), and it's sad if some have.

[thatpfunk]

I breezed through the article because I don't have a lot of time right not, but a question came into my mind:

What good points do you think he makes?

For me, his thinking is very scattered and not in line of what I view as "leftist" thinking.

For instance, his "stongest" point was the Afghani situation he spoke about. But that isn't an attitude that I have ever agreed with, or encountered, in rational people.

I think there is a big difference in the "political left" and left thinking individuals.

Hope we can maintain a civil discourse here guys...

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
And?? I understand your point, but at what point does the suffering of the people justify conceeding victory to evil?... Is perpetual suffering of a slightly lesser degree better than an extended period of higher suffering that leads, hopefully in the end, to a far lower level of suffering?

[/ QUOTE ]
that's really the meat of the debate, though 'conceding victory to evil' is not necessarily the only option to war, and such dualistic thinking on the part of conservatives will, i believe, lead to an overall higher ammount of suffering when all is said and done. many liberals are not anti-war in general (i am not, i felt and still feel that the war in afganistan was a political, moral, and pragmatic necessity, in fact, i thought our response was far too slow, that we should have shoved a couple hundred tomahawks up the taliban's ass on september 12th) but, rather, they feel that there are better and more effective means to attain the same ends, with less suffuring to be incurred both in the execution of those means and in the long term by persuing more peaceful, diplomatic, and international solutions.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you justify giving up on a war against oppressive regimes? How do you justify giving up on a war that has the goal of bringing freedom?


[/ QUOTE ]
by admitting that replacing one form of oppression (military dictatorship) with another (democratic[ish] theocracy + widespread terror) doesn't solve anything, especially if we run the risk of becoming the oppressors ourselves (such as is the case with the myriad of prisoner abuse scandals, civilian deaths and recent revelations about tacit state support for torture- these things JUST HAPPEN in war, and there is nothing we can do about it. we have to be prepared to accept responsibility for such transgressions since we chose war insttead of diplomacy). additionally, ONE goal of the iraq war was to spread freedom, others included demostrating american military might, securing a foward base in the middle east, gaining more control over the world's oil supplies, and revenge. i think if you removed these other goals, the war would not have been undertaken, just as without such goals we haven't invaded rwanda, the congo, sudan, and so on and so forth.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because the people suffer does not make war WRONG. It's the courage to endure the suffering that leads to freedom; and it is noble.

[/ QUOTE ]

the endurance of such suffering, necessary or not, is noble, but also tragic. suffering is not the only route to freedom, and war for the sake of war is anything but noble.

and noble or not, death is still death, and our leaders are, IMO anyway, obligated to avoid as much suffering and death as humanly possible when trying to accomplish nescessary goals. Bush and the Neo-cons did not make an honest attempt to avoid that suffering and death, and thus have become opressors in the eyes of the oppressed in the same manner as those they sought to depose.

War is and always has been the failure of political imagination...

[ QUOTE ]
at what point does the suffering of the people justify conceeding victory to evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

when, to achieve our ends, we are forced to use means no less evil than those used by the evil we are fighting against- when we become the evil that we once opposed, not by design or willfully, but by degrees over time, comoflauged by out self-reighousness and our willingness to let the ends justify the means. we are treading that line right now, and there's a big black pit of tyranny and fear waiting for the U.S. when we cross it.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.thompsonatlarge.com/work22.htm

This is a very well written article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle recently.

How would you respond to his reasons for leaving??

[/ QUOTE ]

There are goofballs on the American left that are pom pom wavers and cheerleaders for all sorts of supposedly liberal causes. Even though I am classified as a "lefty", I don't have to agree with all of them. I don't have to see Iraqis suffer to prove to myself that the US was wrong to have invaded Iraq. I don't have to smoke weed to know that there is something wrong with the "war on drugs". I don't have to listen to Rush limbaugh to agree that Social Security needs to be reformed. I can form my own opinions on matters without resorting to mindless sloganeering or cheerleading.

Maybe that is more an accurate description of what the guy is trying to do, rather than "leave the left behind".

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the courage to endure the suffering that leads to freedom; and it is noble

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone under the false impression that anyone other than the rule-makers, are "free", is simply delusional. "Democracy" is just a clever little way to fool people into thinking they are making their own dicisions.

[Cyrus]

What a confused person that author is! If he truly feels that way and this is not a stunt, I, for one, am glad he walks over to the dark side!

By the way, Thompson is practically an unknown among "liberal pinko" people. His claims about being active in the "movement" are been examined. Stay tuned, it could turn out to be more fun than expected.

[ QUOTE ]
"Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots."

[/ QUOTE ]
He misunderstood. Recently departed Sontag, who possessed, if anything, an incisive analytical mind, simply made the (important) refutation of the term "cowards" which was routinely used in the U.S. to describe the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities. They were a lot of things, but "cowards" was not one of them! It never is, when you sacrifice your own life. (Other writers, some of them from the Right, as well, made the same distinction.)

It is highly important to (try to) be as accurate as possible, when analysing things. Which is the exact opposite of the rushed language-in-limbo model of the thinking process of the likes of Rush Limbaugh.


[ QUOTE ]
"Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics."

[/ QUOTE ]
He misunderstood, again. Norman Mailer, as prone to scandalous overstatement as he is, and as fond of media attention, did not disparage the dead, as the article's author insinuates. Mailer's true sentiments can be found, among other texts, in the interview he gave to the magazine American Conservative. Sample:


When 9/11 occurred, there was an immense guilt mixed in with the rage. I was here in Provincetown, 300 miles away at the time, and the reality of it didn’t hit me directly, but after a while I began to perceive part of the key element in it. The terror of that act involved the TV audience all over America. It was as if our TV sets had come alive. For years we’ve been seeing scenes just like that on the tube and enjoyed them because we were so insulated. A hundredth of our psychic receptivity could enter the box and share the fear while 99% of ourselves felt absolutely safe. Now, suddenly, it was real. Gods and demons were invading the U.S., coming in right off the TV screen. That may account in part for the odd guilt so many felt after 9/11 as if untold divine forces were erupting in fury.
A lucid analysis, unlike Thompson's.


[ QUOTE ]
"Events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated."

[/ QUOTE ]
He misunderstood. Vidal did not mean that the 9/11 atrocities were somehow planned by Washington. He was critiquing American foreign policy's gross injustices, which brought "the chickens home to roost", a critique not unlike the infamous one by Ward Churchill - albeit in a more moderate take!


[ QUOTE ]
"Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day."

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this one, in sheer numbers, is, unfortunately, correct. Al Qaeda, "at its most atrocious" i.e. on 9/11, killed some 4,000 people. The United States, in its standard military campaign mode kills ten times that -- easily.

Chomsky did not condone or support the 9/11 atrocities, as his enemies (or stupid people) tried to claim. He was doing the tough part, he was trying to analyse the situation and its background.

You may disagree with him (as I do, partly) but, unless you enjoy being a mindless yahoo, you cannot dismiss the need for critical analysis in favour of the macho, unthinking belligerent stance of "shoot now, ask questions later". That's precisely how the mess that is Iraq was created.

__________________________________________________

The above has already been posted on a BJ website.