RoR: Forum

Christopher Hitchens and others have observed that these radical, anti-American Saddamites are not against the war. They're very much for it -- just on the other side.

And though we have the benefit in libertarian and Objectivist circles to hear sane and reasoned arguments against the war, we should not forget that insane and irrational arguments like this exist. And in these instances, we should not hesitate to call its proponents by what they actually are.

An anthology of Lindsay's many colorful vituperations might come in handy.

Garin

Post 1

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:09am

I was unable to find wherever this quote was taken from on antiwar.com...though I really didn't look that hard because I hate the internet and I'm lazy. Or something. Any chance of getting a link to it that works?

Anyways...having had quite a few friends currently serving in the US Army, and having personally known some of the men that have died fighting in Iraq, and reasonably expecting the quote cited by Barbara Branden to be true and attributable to this Sapienza guy...I must say that never before have I so seriously considered becoming a contract killer.

But I understand it takes hard work and dedication to be successful in that arena, and I'm lazy.

So I'll just pray that Sapienza finds himself locked in a room full of Iraq war veterans. Or perhaps the families of the fallen. Would he stand up proudly and tell them: "Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I cheered when I heard your son died. Yes, Sergeant Jones, I cheered when your men got torn to shreds by that artillery shell." Would his bravery extend that far, in that room, with that audience?

Who the fuck authorized this little prick to have my first name? Why the fuck would he think saying this was anything other than treacherous, traitorous, low, and completely disrespectful to every person that has ever served in the US armed forces? And who the fuck do I have to fuck to get this fucking fuck dropped from a ten-story building onto a dull, rusty, Ebola-laced hypodermic needle?

Seriously. If Uncle Sam decides to call me back, would Sapienza cheer for my death? My defeat? Then shouldn't I cheer for his? Shouldn't I? Isn't that the point of war? Hoping the guy that wants you dead...well...dies first? Which of us is the barbarian war-mongering psychopath, Sapienza? You want me dead, I want you dead. Gee, your moral relativism must be spinning at the thought. Shit...he's not reading this. Oh well. I feel better.

~end rant/profanity-fest. I apologize for the white-trashitude of my prose in this post...but I hope anyone offended would understand that anger on my part is justified--more-so than many others, less than some.

Post 2

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:01am

BROKEN LINK:
I found Barbara's link to the quote (actually the blog) did not work, so with a great deal of repugnance, I went to "antiwar.com." I don't like that site and frankly have better things to do with my time.

But here is the proper link to the quote.
(Date: Sunday, March 27, 2005. Title: Herbert Spencer Was Right.)

ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Actually, the original place that Jeremy Sapienza stated that pearl of wisdom was here, on a site called "anti-state.com."

His pseudonym over there (deduced from Raimondo's defense of him on "antiwar.com") is Terrorista Chiita (ASC member). In English, his moniker means Xiite Terrorist.

FULL CONTEXT:
He was posting at "anti-state.com" under a poll question: Do you think those fighting against U.S. forces in Iraq are the good guys?

In Terrorista Chiita's (Jeremy Sapienza's) post to this question, he quoted one King Golbez, who asked: "I know I've seen some ASCers cheering on the forces fighting the U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't anyone want to stand up for that? Can anyone else point me to examples of such cheering?"

Terrorista Chiita's (Jeremy Sapienza's) answer to that bears repeating: "I will stand up proudly for it. I have cheered on men attacking US troops. I will continue to cheer any defeat US troops meet."

(Also, you all ought to see some of the bizarre and disgusting characters who post on "anti-state.com," i.e. here! Scroll on down and look at that mess if you want a good laugh.)

TREASON:
I don't know if Jeremy Sapienza is an American citizen or not. Apparently he has written many articles for "Lewrockwell.com," so I presume he is. And if he is, then I have to call his statement treason. At the very least - incitement to treason.

What is interesting is that on Raimondo's blog, this quote - which Barbara posted here - was clearly credited to Jeremy Sapienza, who was also identified as an employee of "anitwar.com," and the quote itself was not refuted or disagreed with.

On the contrary, Raimondo defended it with a quote from Herbert Spencer: "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don�t care if they are shot themselves."

What this makes Justin Raimondo - each can judge for himself.

BITCHING:
Just for the record, in case there are others who share my repugnance and don't want to go to "antiwar.com" themselves (and I certainly don't blame anyone for that), Raimondo was basically bitching about Tom Palmer's "smear" of Sapienza and his treasonous declaration.

Michael

Post 3

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:22am

MSK, thanks for all those links.

My controversial, previous-employed term of insult on this site clearly wouldn't begin to do justice to these traitors.

Post 4

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:51am

Robert,

I will quote the incomparable, enchanting and ever-captivating Hong in a post to me in another thread:

"If you like my answer,...uh...ahem...you know, you can click on that check sign above my post!"

Shit, cleaning out stables is not a pleasant task, it is hard work and you don't smell good at all afterwards...

Michael

btw - Do you refer to the highest philosophical level of assholeness? Sorry - nothing like that around in the stables after dark. There's other stuff though...

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/28, 8:55am)

Post 5

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 11:16am

To cheer on the killing of American soldiers in this tragic non-defensive war is somewhat more repugnant than cheering on the killing of Iraqi "insurgents" who resist the American occupation. However, both the American military and the violent irrational Iraqi bomb throwers are responsible for many wrongful deaths and great destruction. The American kids who join the military to fight these misguided adventures bear responsibility for wrong doing; however they are young and misled by a culture that esteems the supposed "spiritual cleansing" of war and sacrifice. The bomb throwers bear responsibility for intentionally murdering innocent Iraqi's and the invading US soldiers; however they are young and warped by a tragic culture that upholds death as virtue. And no, I'm not attempting to smuggle moral relativism. The situation is a colossal tragedy that will benefit no one.

I'm curious if this site's war enthusiasts can envision any military engagement by American troops that they would consider ethically repugnant and in which they would thereby cheer for the deaths of those troops?

Post 6

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:41pm

Mark: "I'm curious if this site's war enthusiasts can envision any military engagement by American troops that they would consider ethically repugnant and in which they would thereby cheer for the deaths of those troops?"

Yes, I can envision one scenario. If one of those 'young misguided soldiers fighting misguided non-defensive wars' were to invade your home and beat the fuck out of your treasonous ass - I *would* consider it morally repugnant.

That said, if I were chosen for jury duty in the subsequent trial - I would also find him: not guilty.

As for envisioning a scenario were I might cheer for the death of an American soldier, I suggest that *you* join the US Army.

Love, George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/28, 12:42pm)

Post 7

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:00pm

George, how can it be treason if Matthew is not a U.S citizen?

Post 8

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:23pm

He is one of the beneficiaries of a Western world that allows him to pour out that drivel. One need not be an American, to betray the values that are embodied in that word.

George

Post 9

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:30pm

Who's "Matthew"?

If you're referring to Mark, he's from Montana.

I'm confused...

Post 10

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:42pm

My fault, I confused him with Matthew Humphries. It did seem an out of character post from him. Apologies all round from me! Didn't understand the bit about "spiritual cleansing" either?
(Edited by david baker on 3/28, 1:46pm)

Post 11

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:49pm

George - Er... ahem... may I suggest adding the word saddamite to treasoness? Also, save a spot on that jury for me.

Mark - you wrote:
"The American kids who join the military to fight these misguided adventures bear responsibility for wrong doing; however they are young and misled by a culture that esteems the supposed "spiritual cleansing" of war and sacrifice."

(holding onto my temper with extreme difficulty)

There was a machine that was built in Iraq under Saddam Hussein for disposing of his enemies. He sanctioned its use as often as he felt like it, which was pretty often. This was a human shredder, not unlike a paper shredder, only much bigger. If a condemned prisoner was lucky, he/she would go in head first and die quickly. If not, if the feet went in first... you do the imagining of the rest. Then a cleanup crew would go underneath and slop up the mess in buckets - and use it for fish food.

That is just one documented case of his sadistic insanity.

A "leader" who engages in that kind of shit so completely renounces any possibility for moral sanction of his rule that right and wrong lose their meaning altogether. A bully only understands a bigger club - that is when he is not so insane that he doesn't even understand that, like Saddam Hussein.

Some have said that his brutality and insanity were nobody else's problem, since he was not in their own backyard. Others decided to take him out. In either case, the issue of right and wrong did not apply to his own treatment of others, so using it to defend his dictatorship is a hideous double-standard.

Now, about the above quote from your post. What "wrong-doing" is the military youth of America engaging in when they go to Iraq? There was no right or wrong over there when this thing started. There was just brute force. Happily, some moral considerations are starting to exist, but they must be defended with guns for the time being. Those who would prefer brute force (with themselves in power, of course) are not done trying and they mean business.

Also, that culture of "spiritual cleansing" here in the USA you spoke about, I haven't seen it at all. I just got in a few months ago after over 30 year abroad, so I am still pretty sensitive to this kind of "feel." The climate I perceive over here is that we kicked the shit out of a despicable dictator. It felt good. Maybe we should do it some more...

If that is the "responsibility for wrong-doing" you complained that American kids in the military bear, then I bear it too - proudly.

And fuck scum like "antiwar.com." And you too if you think Saddam Hussein's supporters should get a fair shake.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/28, 1:58pm)

Post 12

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 2:00pm

MSK says: George - Er... ahem... may I suggest substituting the word treasoness with saddamite?

You can suggest it, but I won't use it.

Treasonous is *the* perfect word in this particular case.

Post 13

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 2:11pm

I had to edit, George, and I think we crossed. Sorry. I was one who also confused Mathew with Mark in the heat of getting really pissed off - and the posts crossed after I had written to poor Mathew that I liked him, but that his post was really fucked up. (Sorry, Mathew, ahem...)

The correct version is as follows:

George - Er... ahem... may I suggest adding the word saddamite to treasoness? Also, save a spot on that jury for me.

That is how it now stands. Please read my previous post again as there were a couple of other changes.

Michael

Post 14

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:27pm

I am "treasonous" because I contend that the Iraq War is non-defensive from the standpoint of the citizens of the United States.Or I am treasonous for asking if it's possible, in principle, for American troops to engage in wrongful, rights-violating activity that ought to be opposed by force. Which is it? Either, or both?

I'm certainly not guilty of treason or disloyalty as concerns the cultural values that made America a great and free country: reason, individual rights, capitalism. It's really unfortunate that some associate opposition to state programs--including this example of wrongful war--as treasonous disloyalty. How those who embrace this view imagine that it accords with individualism, as opposed to statist collectivism, escapes me.

I appreciate the moral revulsion with which Mr. Kelly regards Saddam Hussein, who is surely a bad man. But clearly, to oppose this war on the grounds that non-defensive military engagements inevitably violate individual rights on a massive scale is not to "support" Hussein's dictatorship which exists to violate individual rights!

Iraq posed no military threat the the USA, and was not a sponsor of the 9/11 murderers. As such, the US invasion of Iraq is not legitimate. Why? Government exists solely to defend and uphold the rights of its citizens against domestic or foreign thugs. Whitewash or blur this distinction, and one supports the assault of the rights that government ought to protect.

Saddam Hussein hasno rights: he is a murderous thug. However, individuals who suffered the bad luck to have been born under his regime do have rights, as do American citizens who are forced to support--with blood and money--wars unrelated to their own defense.
When our military invaded Iraq, it caused the deaths of many innocent people, and vast destruction of their property. Estimates of wrongful deaths due to the US invasion run anywhere from 15,000 to 100,000. Estimates of wrongful deaths due to the US enforcement of sanctions run from 300,000 to 500,000 helpless people.

If you're chomping at the bit to rescue helpless Iraqi's, or Vietnamese, or Venezualians, or Cubans oppressed by dictators usingyour own energy and money, more power to you! However, I think we have a daunting challenge right here in the United States persuading Americans that their true interests are served by preserving and expanding individual liberty.

Post 15

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:55pm

MSK wrote:

There was a machine that was built in Iraq under Saddam Hussein for disposing of his enemies. He sanctioned its use as often as he felt like it, which was pretty often. This was a human shredder

According to this journalist, you are recounting a myth. Can you or anyone else point to where there is proof of a human shredder?

Gerald

Post 16

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:29pm

Mark,

"When our military invaded Iraq, it caused the deaths of many innocent people, and vast destruction of their property. Estimates of wrongful deaths due to the US invasion run anywhere from 15,000 to 100,000. Estimates of wrongful deaths due to the US enforcement of sanctions run from 300,000 to 500,000 helpless people."

US enforcement of sanctions?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm
"The United Nations Security Council has maintained compre-hensive economic sanctions on Iraq since August 6, 1990."

I am curious, now that you know the sanctions were enforced by the UN, and not the US, are you going to denounce them instead? Or is your criticism reserved only for the US? I ask because I am really curious, I see people denouncing the US for things that other countries do in spades and get away with with nary a peep. Is the UN (not the US) a murderous organization, responsible for the deaths of nearly 1/2 a million in Iraq?

Also, is there any room in your calculus for the deaths in Iraq (and elsewhere) that the US managed to prevent by removing Saddam Hussein?

I frankly don't think that the above really matters, I am of the opinion that removing dictators and replacing them with democracies improves US security for the simple reason that democracies just do not tend to wage war on one another. And this is justification enough for me. But the root of knee-jerk anti-americanism is sort of a hobby of mine.

Post 17

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 11:05pm

GEWH,

Thank you for your link to Brendan O'Neill's article in The Guardian of Feb 25, 2004 on doubts about the existence of the people shredder. Since my own source was the mainstream media, which reported the existence of this being documented, I stand corrected on that claim - based on this article.

There is a need for proper corroboration. On the other hand, according to the article, to flat out assert that this is purely a myth is also incorrect. The article only accuses extremely flimsy evidence. I did a quick google search just to make a cursory check.

I have to agree with the article. The evidence is extremely flimsy and if documentation is out there, it is being kept under wraps. I found no source for it. But as I said, my search was superficial. I found it curious to see that this was not picked up by the same mainstream media that reported it.

One point needs to be mentioned here to make it clear that this oversight is not an endorsement. Saddam Hussein's lack of moral fitness for office (which is what I tried to illustrate with the shredder example), is commented on by this same journalist, Brendan O'Neill, in the following quote from his article:

Nobody doubts that Saddam was a cruel and ruthless tyrant who murdered many thousands of his own people and that most Iraqis are glad he's gone.

However right this is - and it most emphatically is - that is no excuse for either making up a myth or withholding the proof of it. Kind of ticked me off, to tell the truth.

Michael

Post 18

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 9:32am

I am aware that the sanctions were formally enforced through the United Nations, which is an organization from which the USA ought to withhold support. However, the purpose of the sanctions was to punish Saddam Hussein (by inflicting grievous suffering on his helpless subjects) in the wake of the ill-advised non-defensive Gulf War. Without the illegitimate war making of the US government, the sanctions would never have happened.

You think democracy is a cure all for wars and the violation of individual rights? Democracy is useful only in selecting government officials to carry out the severely restricted, narrowly defined functions of government. In the context of a night watchman government, democracy can prevent bloodshed in the changing of the guard. In the context of oppressive rights-trampling states, democracy enables political scapegoating and theft. In this latter context, the exercise of democracy is not a public virtue; it's a public vice.

Democracy insures peaceful conduct between states? Hitler's Germany was a democracy, and Hitler the "legitimate" standard bearer of the "will of the people". If you think democracy is a sort of anti-dote to wrongful war making and blood spilling, please read Ayn Rand's essay "The Roots of War".

With further investigation--which I don't have time for--I could present a rough tally of the dead and maimed caused by the United States government's military adventuring over the last 100 years. I think the numbers would sober anyone who understands and wants to defend individual rights. But of course, that would be anti-American, and anti-democractic.

The function of government is not to engage in altruisitic bloodshed for some greater good--however defined. Its only legitimate function is the defense of the individual rights of its clients. Ayn Rand was not a "non-interventionist" in foreign policy because she was ill-informed or quirky about the issue. Her non-interventionism flows logically and inexorably from the logic of individual rights, just as did her opposition to taxation and the draft.

Post 19

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 10:34am