Darleen's Place: Peace at any price

« If I seem a little distracted ... | Main | Not just a cute orphan in glasses with a wand anymore ... »

January 28, 2007

Peace at any price

I took this picture Friday as I was leaving work (sorry for the quality, I was in my car and it was dusk).

(click for larger image)

Leave aside for the moment the retro-60's gal at the left and the insincerity of the sign on the right, the sheer irony of the sign about the cost of war is lost on these small minds.

They find no cause, no morality, no values worth defending. They are for Peace [cue the violins] -- Or, as Robert Heinlein said about such "parlor pacifists"

They want to put a stop to war; they say so. Their purpose is to save the human race from killing itself off; they say that too. Anyone who disagrees with them must be a bloodthirsty scoundrel -- and they'll tell you that to your face.

I won't waste time trying to judge their motives; my criticism is of their mental processes: Their heads aren't screwed on tight. They live in a world of fantasy.

Let me stipulate that, if the human race managed its affairs sensibly, we could do without war.

Yes -- and if pigs had wings, they could fly.

I don't know what planet those pious pacifists are talking about but it can't be the third one out from the Sun.

Their opprobrium is not for America's enemies, but for its own citizens. From the unseemliness of Jane Fonda, recipient of such opportunities that only this country has had to offer her to the spittle-flecked rants of others who just want to be accepted by the in-crowd du jour, one is confronted with people who substitute feelings for thought.

Their feeling is America is not perfect so it must be remade into their image of what it should be. Their image is flawless and anything less than that image is an afront to them and so are the people who support such a flawed creation. It is a strange kind of absolutism that would not be accepted in any other situation.

Consider, what would you think of a husband who constantly, and publicly, criticized, belittled, humiliated and embarrassed his wife? What if he actually seems to get a kick out of his behavior and rarely says anything good about her? Would you accept as sincere his protest that he really does love his wife, he only points out her flaws because he wants her to improve?

No, I didn't think so. So why should we accept as sincere the statements from the Blame America First mob that they really do "love America", they just want her to improve?

Technorati: Iraq, Anti-war, peace

Posted by Darleen at January 28, 2007 08:26 AM

Comments

Excellent post on this Darlene. The comparison is perfect!

Posted by: Wild Thing at January 28, 2007 09:57 AM

The comparison IS perfect! Very good post :)

Posted by: beth at January 28, 2007 10:13 AM

idiots, they are idiots!

Posted by: Jane at January 28, 2007 10:45 AM

What 'cause, morality or values' exactly, are we defending by getting involved in a sectarian civil war in Iraq? I can't think of any. Certainly none that justifies the current casualty count.

What bothers me now, is that the US is bearing the brunt of combat operations in Iraq, and the Iraqis, who US troops are supposed to be 'partnered' with, are not doing their fair share, according to the NY Times.

Worse, it looks as if current members of the Iraq government were involved in the latest kidnapping and killing of US soldiers by Iraqis dressed as US soldiers.

Any way you look at it, this war is a disaster; it's time to withdraw.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 28, 2007 10:57 AM

people who substitute feelings for thought.

I would say that is more applicable to war supporters who advocate continuing the occupation simply because they don't want to be thought of as cowards. No level-headed cost-benefit assessment, just mindless invocations of Neville Chamberlain and unfounded hysteria about sharia coming to America.

Posted by: Josh at January 28, 2007 11:00 AM

according to the NY Times.

That tells you all you need to know about that.

Posted by: beth at January 28, 2007 12:24 PM

Worse, it looks as if current members of the Iraq government were involved in the latest kidnapping and killing of US soldiers by Iraqis dressed as US soldiers.

All the more reason to kick their asses.

Posted by: beth at January 28, 2007 12:26 PM

That was a great post Darleen.

Posted by: Hugh at January 28, 2007 01:25 PM

All the more reason to kick their asses.

So now we're supposed to kick the asses of the Iraqi government? Isn't that the same government that was ushered in by the vaunted purple fingers?

Posted by: Auguste at January 29, 2007 04:15 AM

it looks as if current members of the Iraq government were involved in the latest kidnapping and killing of US soldiers by Iraqis dressed as US soldiers.

Actually, there are reports that the attack and kidnapping may have been done by the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard.

And before you dismiss this as some kind of neocon propaganda, remember that it was Iranian Qods Force agents who were captured in a Jan 11th raid on the Iranian diplomatic mission in Irbil by US and Iraqi forces. There's little doubt that official agents of the Iranian government are operating inside Iraq, and with this latest attack they may be going beyond simply arming local insurgents and are now starting direct attacks on US forces.

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 29, 2007 08:23 AM

Sorry, that should have been 'Iranian "diplomatic mission" in Irbil', since the only ones calling it that are Iranian government officials. It was never recognized as a diplomatic mission by the Iraqi government

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 29, 2007 08:27 AM

Consider, what would you think of a husband who constantly, and publicly, criticized, belittled, humiliated and embarrassed his wife? What if he actually seems to get a kick out of his behavior and rarely says anything good about her? Would you accept as sincere his protest that he really does love his wife, he only points out her flaws because he wants her to improve?

The analogy is one-sided & incomplete. Consider a wife who has a drug addiction problem, and has broken into the homes of neighbors and stolen from them, even at gunpoint. Consider a wife who praises and lends money to the neighbors down the street who beat their children and keep them under lock and key. Consider a wife who has spent her and her husbands' savings, leaving nothing for their kids and future generations.

Does the husband now have cause for criticism? For action?

Heinlein was a Libertarian and I would like to think he would have opposed the reckless spending of our Fed on military endeavors that do nothing to secure us from attack; that, indeed, breed terror as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan bred the 9/11 terrorists.
Wake up, Darleen.

Posted by: Brad at January 29, 2007 10:47 AM

Brad, your analogy can easily be picked apart as well.

has broken into the homes of neighbors and stolen from them, even at gunpoint.

So you're saying we have "broken" into countries like Iraq and "stolen from them at gunpoint"? What exactly have we stolen? Seems more like we broke into Iraq's "house" to disarm their crazy father before he could kill any more of his family, and rather than steal from them, we're instead giving them money, trying to help rebuild their dilapidated home and trying to keep the various family members from killing each other.

Kindly tell us the last few times the US has "broken" into a country in order to steal from the inhabitants, and then describe what exactly it was that we stole in each case.

Consider a wife who has spent her and her husbands' savings, leaving nothing for their kids and future generations.

A country is not a family. If a wife is spending the family savings, she need only answer to her husband. The kids and any "future generations" have no claim or entitlement to any money belonging to the parents. If the parents decide to spend every last penny on themselves, that is their right.

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 29, 2007 11:59 AM

The analogy is good as-is. Brad's bias is obvious.

Even if one were to want to make the point that the wife needed to make some improvement, it would be more than crappy for the husband to constantly belittle her in public. Those kind of conversations should be held in private.

JUST LIKE WITH OUR COUNTRY. Debate within the government is fine. But, as a wise man once encouraged us, politics (should) end at the water's edge. These public displays of childish anti-war sentiment only weaken the resolve of our nation while strengthening that of our enemies.

Good one, Darleen.

Posted by: reverse_vampyr at January 29, 2007 02:44 PM

Kindly tell us the last few times the US has "broken" into a country in order to steal from the inhabitants, and then describe what exactly it was that we stole in each case.

Just about any good U.S. history text will reveal a few insights to you, if you have the time. Start with Hawaii in 1893, or Nicaragua in 1909. Gee, would you believe this great nation of ours has deposed foreign governments that weren't friendly enough to our business interests? Iran, 1953? Chile, 1973? Military interventions are not stealing, eh? Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama. What, you don't think we stole anything from them? I've got a book for you: "Overthrow" by Stephen Kinzer. ISBN 085078614. It's on Amazon.com. Some insightful history there, if you've got the time.

Saddam is the "crazy father" we disarmed alright -- AFTER we armed him and looked the other way while he shot his own people. Read up on it.

I guess you're just taking my analogy too literally...but then "A country is not a family." Yeah, tell that to Darleen. It's her stupid analogy, shit for brains.

Posted by: Brad at January 29, 2007 07:40 PM

It's her stupid analogy, shit for brains.

Gee, what's the matter, Brad... someone shit in your Wheaties?

Or are you getting a little sensitive that the motives and values of the "peace at any cost" crowd are being questioned? Based on your obvious disdain for this country in your last post, maybe you should join your brother-in-arms Sen. Kerry in proudly telling the world what an "international pariah" the U.S. is.

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 30, 2007 06:53 AM

Or are you getting a little sensitive that the motives and values of the "peace at any cost" crowd are being questioned?

I don't see any real questions, just some tortured analogies designed to make Bushist dead-enders feel better about themselves.

Posted by: Josh at January 30, 2007 08:45 AM

Nothing good is going to come out of the Iraq war/occupation.

Except perhaps the total discredting of the Neocons. Which is something. I guess.

Perhaps with the Neocons gone, we'll see no more of this military adventurism the GOP is so enamoured with.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 30, 2007 10:40 AM

Just as an aside, you have to wonder sometimes if these people ever stop to think about the words on their signs.

The COST of Peace: priceless???

Really?

Let's think about that one. At the risk of being pedantic for the sake of parallelism the first part of that sign attempted to place a dollar cost on War. So the second sentence should place a dollar cost on Peace, right?

So let's apply the definition of "priceless" to peace. Using the first (and most commonly-used definition):

1 a : having a value beyond any price : INVALUABLE. Wow. This implies that peace is either more costly than war or extremely difficult to place a dollar value on, doesn't it? Which makes the point of the sign exactly... what?

2. b : costly because of rarity or quality : PRECIOUS

So peace is a precious commodity (more so than war?) So if the laws of supply and demand apply, it will cost society far more?

*There's* a compelling argument.

2 : having worth in terms of other than market value You can't place a dollar value on it at all...

And then her head exploded.

3 : delightfully amusing, odd, or absurd

And there you have it folks. The searing logic of the anti-war Left: another Child tragically left behind.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 31, 2007 04:03 AM

True that. The validity of a political position can be determined by the relative stupidity of the signs held by demonstrators in support of said position.

Posted by: Josh at January 31, 2007 02:54 PM

Josh
If your comment/link was meant as a rebuke to Cassandra then it failed for the shallowness of your response and at once served you up for the "spell check test troll" for this blog.

Posted by: Hugh at January 31, 2007 05:50 PM

Hugh,

Perhaps you're not following. I'll try to explain it to you. Cassandra apparently thinks that the "anti-War left" is devoid of logic because the "priceless" sign doesn't make much sense. By that logic, then, we can infer that the pro-War Right is composed of mulleted idiots who can't even spell their insults correctly (I'd also submit that misspelling "moron" on a sign one has gone to the trouble to create and haul to a pro-war rally is a bit different than a typo on a blog comment). Thus, the point is that just as it would be idiotic to attribute the silliness of one mulletted fool to all those who support the same position as said fool, Cassandra's attempt to expand one sign at one rally into an indictment of the anti-war left as a whole is pretty stupid.

It may be that the trouble for pro-war dead-enders is that, in the main, they have difficulty arguing the merits and are thereby forced to mocking one sign held by one person satisfy their emotional insecurity about the shortcomings of their ideology, but that's just a theory.

Hope that cleared things up for you.

Posted by: Josh at January 31, 2007 08:19 PM

Josh, would you care to enlighten us as to the meaning of "mulleted idiot"? I can't find anything like that in the dictionary. Perhaps you are merely being "creative", and we should accept that possibility for those on the Left. Of course, anyone on the Right who might be using creative spelling is a "mulleted idiot" and cannot possibly be using a creative streak or a sense of irony. I have no emotional insecurity about my ideology, but it is fair game, for both sides, to use a calm appraisal of logical and spelling errors. I realize that I can't at all times measure up to the high standards of your buddy, with his brilliant and insightful "shit for brains". Having been asked to join groups with higher entrance requirements than Mensa, to which I sometimes belong, I'm in a good position to evaluation such exhibitions of intellectual prowess.

Posted by: Mark F. at February 1, 2007 02:53 AM

Brad, I've been reading Robert Heinlein's science fiction since I was a kid. Now my family and his are connected by marriage. My assessment is that Darleen is closer to the truth than you are.

Posted by: Mark F. at February 1, 2007 02:57 AM

Josh

I think I follow the point well.

You're correct; it's just a theory...just as imputing emotional insecurity into the motives of your critics with your trademark pedantic style works only in theoretical discussions. It makes me question the depth and level of your real life experiences.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Posted by: Hugh at February 1, 2007 04:42 AM

Click on the link in my earlier comment, Mark F., and you will see what appears to be a mulletted idiot. If you care to make the case that the gentleman in question was ironically and intentionally misspelling his insult, have at it. But be aware that such an exercise, while potentially amusing, would be beside the point I am making, which is that a sign at a protests is a poor basis for broad categorizations of a political position.

Also, Mensa membership may not be quite as impressive as you seem to think it is.

Hugh,

I'm glad we're on the same page. My emotional insecurity thesis seems promising, though there is certainly some contradicting data, namely that some of the same people were making similarly stupid arguments even before it became obvious that their policy choices had resulted in disaster. I'm not sure why you think the "depth and level of [my] real life experiences" is at all relevant to such a thesis, except to hypothesize that cliched ad hominem, rather than sign extrapolation, is your preferred rhetorical terrain. Another data point for me to consider.

Posted by: Josh at February 1, 2007 08:28 AM

Josh, you did not provide a definition to your term. You merely provided what you think a working definition was. As far as the Mensa membership is concerned, no, it is not all that impressive. As I pointed out, I was lobbied to join other groups with higher bars, including one where the criterion was scoring in the upper tenth of a percentile, rather than Mensa's 98th percentile. The only reason I mentioned it is because I'm continually frustrated by all the moonbats trying to answer my comments with tactics like those of your one friend, using the phrase "shit for brains", or other terminology equally exquisite.

Posted by: Mark F. at February 1, 2007 09:50 AM

You're half right - I didn't provide a definition, but nor did I suggest a working definition. Rather, I provided an example. I would have thought that "mulletted idiot" was self-explanatory. If you could kindly explain what about the term is causing you confusion, I'd be happy to clear it up.

Also, I have several friends, not just one. And while I don't have any problems with Brad, I don't really know him either, so I wouldn't really say we're "friends" in the sense that the term is typically used.

Do you have any relevant or interesting points to make? Because, to be honest, while mullets and my friendship with blog commenters may be endlessly fascinating to those in the illustrious "groups" so eager to gain your membership, I find that discussion of them grows tedious rather quickly.

Posted by: Josh at February 1, 2007 10:26 AM

Brad, I've been reading Robert Heinlein's science fiction since I was a kid. Now my family and his are connected by marriage. My assessment is that Darleen is closer to the truth than you are.

Mark,
First, let me ask you if you are also VRWC Drone, the person whom I responded to a few days ago. I ask because you most recent comment ("I'm continually frustrated") seems to suggest that you took personal offense to my ad hominem.
Whatever.

Second, what the hell are you talking about? "closer to the truth"? I can only assume you believe that Heinlein would have concurred with Darleen's smug dismissal of the antiwar protesters she photographed. I don't disagree with your conclusion. I merely suggested (after pointing out the shallowness of her analogy) that Heinlein MIGHT, were he alive, also consider the financial costs of the war to date (over a trillion $) versus the benefits of removing a dictator who was no threat to the United States. But what do I know -- since you are connected to Heinlein, and a member of Mensa, you must be better qualified than I to discern the political stance of a dead author.

By the way, have you considered this country's historical record of supporting brutal regimes when we had business interests at risk -- a history which is recounted in books like the one I recommended to Drone before I labled him shit for brains? Have you also considered the following interpretation of the antiwar protestor's sign above, which Cassandra-- another who has shit for brains-- seemed to consider in section "1a" of her argument but then abandoned:

The interpretation of Darleen and other Wingers on this blog is a literal interpretation. You all assume that the holder of the sign literally believes that peace is free.

But the language of the sign is borrowed from an advertising campaign which does not per se mean to suggest that certain "objects" attainable by holders of the Mastercard are either at zero cost or at an incomprehensible dollar value. The "objects" which Mastercard states as "priceless" are BEYOND $ value ("invaluable," as Cassandra posits in 1a.)
Which makes the point of the sign exactly... what?

Well, I don't have a Mensa membership but allow me to tell you. It means that we have spent much more on this war than any logical argument would justify-- especially considering that after all the money spent, and lives lost or ruined--we still do not have peace. In fact, we have fomented a war that is now destablizing the entire region and will have consequences for decades to come. We have contributed to the unleasing of a downward spiral of anarchy and violence, first by supporting a dictator who brutalized his people, and then by bombing his people into submission and then not providing enough security and disbanding the only remaining providor of security. In short, we have lost an entire generation of hearts and minds in the very land which the architects of the war claimed would be the blossoming of peace and democracy.

You should know all this, and you can even read up on it, but for some reason you would rather dismiss anyone who believes that we spent too money on this campaign as somehow using flawed logic...that's what I call shit for brains.

Posted by: Brad at February 1, 2007 10:49 AM

Josh, Brad, well, it appears that I stirred up the hornets' nest. Please consider me less than impressed by your impassioned pleas for your versions of reality. I don't have the time right now to fight it out, tooth and nail, with the two of you. I notice that Brad came up with the usual leftie troll delusion that there can be only one person in the world crazy or stupid enough to disagree with them, and that all conservative posters must be really one person with a myriad of user names. Is this because this masquerading technique is a leftie troll tactic, and you are projecting? I don't fly false colors. My name really is Mark and my last name does indeed start with "F". I choose not to identify myself any further to you because I have friends who have been devastated by reprisals from leftists through e-mail avalanches and anonymous phone calls. Perhaps the two of you are really decent types who would never stoop so low, but I choose not to take the risk. The only reason I mentioned Mensa, and alluded to the other groups, is that I am sick and tired of being savaged by you folks as being an idiot with "shit for brains". Normally, I'm very quiet about that. Oh, and I really loved the snarky comment about my having only one friend. I enjoy civil discourse, but I see so little of it.

Posted by: Mark F. at February 1, 2007 11:48 AM

I notice that Brad came up with the usual leftie troll delusion ... that all conservative posters must be really one person with a myriad of user names.

And then...

The only reason I mentioned Mensa, and alluded to the other groups, is that I am sick and tired of being savaged by you folks as being an idiot with "shit for brains".

Good stuff, considering I never said anything like "shit for brains." But all us leftie troll posters are alike, so carry on.

And Mark? It was you who said I had one friend, consisting of Brad. That was what I was responding to. I didn't say that you had one friend. Though if you thought that was snarky, perhaps you shouldn't have said it about me in the first place. I'd like a little more civility as well, in addition to fewer dumb arguments along the lines of "look at those signs!!1! OMG lefties r so dumb!!1!!"

Posted by: Josh at February 1, 2007 12:56 PM

Josh,
You really did say this..." I'm not sure why you think the "depth and level of [my] real life experiences" is at all relevant to such a thesis, except to hypothesize that cliched ad hominem, rather than sign extrapolation, is your preferred rhetorical terrain."

Josh, to borrow your word, that's a tortured sentence. You need to read more Hemmingway.

As to the "depth and level of your life experiences" Josh, it's relevant to everything you say, do and think. But that comes with time. It is not, however, a "data point"

Posted by: Hugh at February 1, 2007 03:56 PM

Sorry if you can't follow a sentence with three dependent clauses, but I don't think it's really tortured. I think Hemingway would agree. I also think he'd realize that expository writing lends itself to different stylistic choices than fiction does.

As for my life experiences, I could note that you have no idea what my life experiences are. But that would be irrelevant, since propositions and arguments stand and fall on their merits, not on the life experiences of those who propound them.

Rather than flaming me personally, you could discuss the relative costs and benefits of the different policy choices presented by the situation in Iraq, but if ad hominem is all you got left, keep on keepin' on, brother.

Posted by: Josh at February 1, 2007 05:30 PM

Josh
Hemmingway would choke on that sentence. He toiled as a cable writer in his pre publication years. Three dependent clauses were not his style...perhaps you are reminded of Joyce or Faulkner. But not Hemmingway.

As to your life experiences, I asked you about that in a previous thread.

Last, “But that would be irrelevant, since propositions and arguments stand and fall on their merits, not on the life experiences of those who propound them." Well, that's why I think you are somewhat shallow: propositions and arguments are worth nothing without the experience of those who preceded them.

Posted by: Hugh at February 1, 2007 05:44 PM

If you're going to hold him up as the exemplar of crisp writings, you may want to take the care to spell his name properly. Not a flame, just a suggestion.

propositions and arguments are worth nothing without the experience of those who preceded them.

Uh huh. You may want to rethink this. If A is true, it is true no matter who says it, whether an old man or a young child.

Posted by: Josh at February 2, 2007 07:24 AM

Darleen's Place

Politics, parenting and other prattlings.

January 28, 2007

Peace at any price

Comments