Mark, I have to say this is the funniest thing I’ve seen on the war. And, yes, I’ve had Al-Qaeda-type girlfriends, too. I’m pretty sure I’m living with one now.
Hopefully the FBI won’t read this and misunderstand the meaning, come busting into our apartment, and arrest her. Patriot Act, eh? Yeah…
— Michael 
Brilliant! And it reminded me that I can sign-up for daily Doonesbury. Double-whammy.
— Shawn
Hell, I’m French and have an Al-Queda-type g/f, now what does that says about me ? =)
— Xavier
Xavier, you are obviously the spawn of Satan. :)
— Mark
Offtopic (we should be arguing about the war, dammit — yeah, I know this isn’t really the place) … does anyone know of an easy “graphical smilies” plug-in that would automatically change the emoticon in my previous comment to the appropriate image?
— Mark
I think love, in general, can be more accurately compared to terrorism than to war.
Love has no problem at all with massive civilian casualties. :-) / :-(
— David
1) Mark, you obviously found the answer to your smiley question: congrats ! =)
2) Promise, I’ve never eaten any fried frogs’ legs (it’s not like it’s anything more than a silly stereotype anyway…). Or snail, to that effect. I don’t even like cheese. Nor wine.
You don’t really _know me_, now, do you ? ;)
— Xavier
Since Mark doesn’t want the war traffic, I’ll take some of it. *GRIN*
I just started blogging and have my own MT site up. Almost everything there is about the war, and my personal views on it. Additionally, if you decide you don’t like my view, I also host a site for a friend doing the “Alternate Voice”.
My site is http://www.emjay.net/
The “Other Side” is http://www.alternatevoice.com/
I’d like to thank Mark for being such an incredibly great instructor and pointing me in the right direction to get the answers instead of just telling me.
— Michael
There seemed to be quite a lot of opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom in the tech world, so I took a close look at some of the tech blogs that have taken a position on it. What I found was that most of the techies opposing the war are from the softer side of the business - marketing types, “social implications of technology” people, writers, dot commmers, etc. Most actual engineers support the war, as far as I can tell, presumably because we deal in reality-based thinking, aren’t creatures of the trend, and understand oppressive dictators from first-hand experience.
Opposing this war is more or less the same as supporting the minority regimes that used to rule South Africa, the American South, etc. It’s odd that people who consider themselves progressive can go along with that posture.
MJ? Front row MJ? Is that you?
— Mark
Richard: I think the reason you see so much anti-war feeling among progressive is that–as with many controversial issues–people’s opinions are formed not by broad principles (which are usually pretty clear), but by how they resolve all the little ambiguities of applying those principles.
Most Americans who oppose the war don’t have any love for Saddam, any more than those who support the war want to kill Iraqi children. But they have doubts: they don’t see sufficient proof of a serious threat from Iraq; they’re reluctant to ignore the doubts of so many of our traditional allies; they distrust the Bush administration’s motives; many doubt that military force can ever bring about positive change. They see the reasons for war, but, at least in the current circumstances, they judge them less convincing than the reasons to avoid war.
This is not to say that you personally should start opposing the war; just that neither side has a monopoly on idealism or practicality. We’re all trying to make sense of legitimately complex questions, and it’s no great surprise if we don’t all come to the same answers.
(What makes it uglier is that, since people on both sides see how important the questions are, they’ll usually try to make everything seem simpler than it is, to portray their side as Unambiguously Right. Not only is this dishonest, it destroys the very possibility of serious discussion.)
— Moss
Thanks, Moss, that’s pretty much exactly what I wanted to say, but your version was much more polite and lucid. I value diplomacy highly, but it’s not a personal strong point. ;)
— Mark
I bet you all $10 that any post explaining how the smileys are handled will harbor the phrase “MT-Macros, baby. MT-Macros.” :)
— Jesper
Your post supports my point, Moss - opposition to the liberation of Iraq by American and British forces (also Australian and Polish) is driven by emotional factors, while support is driven by objective analysis of the facts. Where do you find anti-war sentiment? Hollywood actors, who make their living emoting, are notoriously opposed, but the stage hands and technical people are pro-liberation; in the tech world, the para-technicals in marketing and writing are anti-war, but engineers are pro-liberation. In politics, the far left of the Democratic Party is anti-war, but the moderate DLC wing is pro-liberation, as are the vast majority of Republicans. I’ve got C-Span on, and Patrick Kennedy just reiterated his support of the liberation.
You cited one great example of how this breaks, the case of the killing of Iraqi children. Saddam’s been killing 5,000 a month for a decade, and the Allied invasion has killed, what, maybe a half-dozen? At this rate, the Evil Bush has a lot of catching-up to do.
Of course, most of the opposition to the war is really just thinly-veiled hatred (or at least suspicion) of President Bush. We all portray the devil in our terms, but to suggest that Bush has more heinous motives than Saddam is clearly not to deal with the facts. All of this underscores to me the danger of letting your emotions dictate the expression of your values.
We all want peace, right? So at this point, is peace more likely to come to Iraq by withdrawing our forces and leaving Saddam in charge, or by a swift and convincing victory? Is it really peace when the government routinely tortures, rapes, and murders its citizens?
http://diveintomark.org/inc/macros2
MT-Macros, baby. MT-macros.
— Mark
Zeldman points to two resources today that are worth your time (certainly time better spent than sitting around here yapping):
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/23GURU.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/
— Mark
;) Nice Macro format you got there, Mark.
— Jesper
Aaaah, even on this peacefull site, people are arguing and bitching about war, and giving links to one-sided opinions (just go to Instapundit, guys, all you need is there), and in general just starting to hate each other. Sweet.
Hard times bring out the best in folks, indeed.
— Xavier
Richard, your talk of “liberals” vs. “non-liberals”, “left” vs. “right”, “good” vs. “evil”, “right” vs. “wrong” doesn’t help your case. They are all false dichotomies. People who already agree with you will continue to, but your opponents will dismiss you, as you do not appear to be making an attempt to understand them, as much as putting words in their mouth so that they fall neatly into one of your categories.
— James
Indeed. Richard’s arguments are a great example of multiple logical fallacies (as are many war-related arguments I’ve seen recently, on all sides of the issues). If I thought it would change any minds, I would deconstruct them, but it wouldn’t, so I won’t.
Suffice to say, Richard, that whatever the opposite of “preaching to the choir” is, you’re doing it. My father is a Quaker, and I have strong Quaker influences. War is not the right answer to any question. Acts of violence elsewhere (even against one’s friends, allies, or own people) are no excuse for further acts of violence. Choosing to resolve bad situations non-violently is just that: a choice. Sometimes a difficult choice, because it generally takes longer, and it’s always difficult to see people suffering right here, right now. But “resolving” a situation violently causes much more suffering in the long run.
See also: “The Faces of Collateral Damage”, an in-depth analysis of the damage caused by our first Gulf War.
http://www.friendsjournal.org/contents/2003/04april/feature.html
Respond if you like, but do it on your own blog. This is my site, and I get the last word.
— Mark