Truth telling and attorney ethics
Don Quixote on Jul 05 2008 at 11:27 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
One of the things that surprised me when I became an attorney is the extent to which clients do not care about their attorneys’ ethics. Each client is unique, of course, but most clients that I’ve worked with have absolutely no interest in the truth or in ethical behavior of their attorneys. They just want their attorneys to win their cases for them, and they don’t much care what they do to win. I’ve also been startled by the number of clients and potential witnesses who have asked me what they should say on the stand, making it clear that they will say anything, whether its the truth or not. When I suggest they tell the truth, and work with them on how to use the truth to their advantage, they almost seem disappointed.
America used to be a land in which the truth mattered deeply. We viewed the social graces of the polite lie of, for example, the Japanese, as an odd, if not dishonest, affectation. This no longer seems to be the case. Political correctness has replaced truth. “False but accurate” is perfectly acceptable. History is rewritten to make certain groups feel their ancestors had a more significant place in history than they actually did. Issues like global warming become so politicized that it becomes nearly impossible to sort out the underlying facts. Rightly or wrongly, the media is routinely accused of presented a highly biased view of the truth. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we now try to protect our children from the results of their own failures, often denying they are failures at all.
I have no real insights to offer here, just an abiding feeling that the growing disregard for truth in America is a sign of an unhealthy society. Tell me the truth. What do you think?
Email This Post To A Friend
When you strip from individuals their ability to solve problems on their own, and invest that power in the state and in the courts, you create what is known as a cult. A cult is an extremely rigid hierarchy from which certain basic fundamental needs in Maslow’s pyramids are corrupted for the benefit or interest of those at the top.
Extremely rigid hierarchies do not change and they do not react peaceably to change, either.
When individuals, and this is the same in feudal systems as well, find that the power to change things comes from the top, they will use their individual creativity and initiative to acquire the favors of those at the top.
So, if the courts have the power to decide, then one must learn how to manipulate the courts, and if one does not, one hires those that can, like lawyers.
And since the opposition, the prosecution or defense, is going to cheat and try to make the dice favor them in court, why shouldn’t we do it as well? After all, it is not in our power to decide one way or another, but the court and the government’s. We are just lowly petitioners that must get by.
Individual ethics, self-discipline, and various other virtues come from individuals having, exercising, and maintaining their own individual power. Strip that power and give it to the top of a hierarchy, rigid or not, and you’re going to have a bunch of people, bottom, middle, and top, that thinks winning the favor of those in power is everything.
In feudal days, this meant winning the favor of the king. In cults, this means winning the favor of the cult leaders. In America, this means winning the favor of those with Real Power, as opposed to that nasty lie in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution in which it said power came from the people.
We are just lowly petitioners that must get by.
This should remind you of the morals of an animal or a Palestinian. Either says “anything I do to survive is right”.
Strip free will and accountability from a human being, and what do you get except an animal?
A perfect example I found a week or so ago was this lawyer cum politician cum moral midget.
-Link
The Left and socialist liars want to make a big deal about how Abu Ghraib was bad for Democrats because it demonstrated that the Democrat’s political enemies believed in might makes right. Ditto for GitMo, rendition, and waterboarding. Might makes right, oh the inhumanity of it all.
But… the reality, underneath the Demoncrat lies, is that they are the first ones to exercise might makes right.
The truth doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. What matters is whether you can get away with murder, not that the truth said you killed or raped a child or what not. What matters is whether a lawyer can get his client free or the opposition in jail, at any costs. Victory justifies anything. And if victory justifies anything, and if America is guaranteed to win, doesn’t that mean America should be merciful and give perks to rapists and Islamic Jihadists by not sentencing them to death? After all, if we’re going to win and given that might makes us right, shouldn’t we go easy on these people in case blowback might occur and more negative consequences might crap out from the woodworks if we pursue terrorists or the death penalty for child rapists.
However, for those people like the classical liberals that believe might makes right only because right makes might, the Democrat argument falls apart. If only the right course of action leads to might, not just the politically expedient ones of greed and hate, then this means that you can’t win against terrorists automatically. That means only morally correct actions on the part of terrorists will create greater backlash against us, and only morally incorrect actions on the part of America, like say abandoning the South Vietnamese, will help the enemies of America triumph. Then it becomes even more important to sentence terrorists and rapists to death, because that is the right thing to do. And if you don’t do the right thing, bad things, like Mass. trial lawyers, will happen more and more as the balance of power breaks down.
I don’t want to forget Book’s comments about how it is the duty of the judge to slap down prosecution and defense lawyers. I’m sure everyone has seen some fictionalized court room in which the judge gets to decide whether a lawyer’s objection is overruled or what not.
But that just means this cult has a bunch of different types of leaders. Lawyers, judges, politicians, “House Ethics Committee”.
The funny part of it is that the aristocracy in Europe, after the Roman Empire withdrew their legions, arose because some peasant or pirate patriarch decided to set up an armed force in order to provide protection to those that can’t protect themselves.
Thus led to kings and knights.
In human history, there has always been a majority of people that demanded that others protect them, others shoulder the brunt of responsibility and cost for their prosperity and safety. This is true whether it is the peasants giving loyalty and fealty in return for food, usage of the land, and protection or the aristocracy when they exploit the weak serfs.
Even in the American Revolution, you had a large amount of British loyalists that wanted to stick with Daddy King for protection and what not.
What’s special about America is not that those who created it and sustained it were inhumane or perfect. What’s special about America is that they found a way to get rid of the majority of human beings that refused to take responsibility for themselves in a rather large geographic area.
That’s very special in human history.
Book,
The lie is the oldest weapon against the Good–it will always be with us this side of heaven. Yet, as you suggest, it does seem as if the truth is having the worst of it lately. I think the largest factor for us is the constellation of postmodernist theoretical incursions stemming from the proclamation of the end of metaphysics begun by Nietzsche and institutionalized by Martin Heideggar. The attempt to undermine all structures and institutions as of mere social construction–even things like gender, for example, to show the extent of their reach–is shown textually in the habitual use of scare quotes around terms the meanings of which had been settled and agreed upon as foundational to our civilization. “Truth” is just one of many to get the cynical, nihilistic, and ironic treatment of our sneering betters.
But I think it still boils down to the original lie–”you shall be as gods”–ie, able to define reality itself, according to your own desires, throwing off the oppressive, misogynist, racist, homophobic, classist, imperialist patriarchialist frame that imprisons us all. What else is postmodernism about?
PS…sorry DQ–just noticed that this post is yours.
What an oddity around the office you must be!
I’ll start granting that lawyers worry about their clients ethics the day after John O’Quinn gives the money back.
Tiresias,
I had to laugh out loud! My boss’s one complaint about me is that I’m “too ethical,” which is funny, because within his frame of reference (very zealous advocacy for his clients) he’s one of the most ethical people I know. I think he just means that I’m too rigid, for example in making arguments that I do not believe have merit, in circumstances in which he honestly convinces himself they have merit.
In all seriousness, much of your cynicism is justified, but lawyers are really like pretty much any other profession. Some of the most upright, honest, moral people I’ve met have been laywers and some of the most dishonest, immoral people I’ve met have been lawyers, too.
How do people not become demoralized when the top court of the land decides cases, such as the recent Heller decision, by such slim majorities? Anyone with a modicum of common sense can read the Constitution for themselves and understand what God given rights are protected by it.
To come within a single vote of “losing” this right is truly astounding to the “common folk” I know.
The only option, that I am aware of, to kowtowing to these unelected rulers would be to become a revolutionist.
This is a course that most people would fear. In that vein, it is no wonder that morals collapse. People adapt as best they can to live within that which their consciences will allow.
Lawyers are only justified in being biased if the system is working. And the system only works when there is a balance of power. When the Supreme Court of the US can make law, change the US Constitution, make new Amendments to the Constitution, and negate Executive power, that is what we call an imbalance of power. That kind of thing trickles down into the justice system, producing a situation where lawyer’s biases or self-delusions about being committed to justice or defending their client’s rights, are creating extremely bad cases.
DQ, you got any comments on Fagan?
Sure, he’s an idiot. But criminal defense attorneys are a breed unto themselves. I could not do their job, I’m afraid.
Truth is essential.
One of the best essays I’ve ever read re: Truth was written by the late Oscar-winning writer Steve Tesich.
A brief tidbit:
Either because the Watergate revelations were so wrenching and followed on the heels of the war in Vietnam replete with crimes and revelations of its own, or because Richard Nixon was so quickly pardoned and so quickly rehabilitated, we as a people, began to shy away from the truth. We came to equate truth with bad news and we didn’t want bad news anymore no matter how true nor vital to our health as a nation.
We looked to our government to protect us from the truth.
The high crimes and impeachable offenses committed by Ronald Reagan and his administration, which included our current President, in the Iran-Contra scandal were far more serious and un-American than the crimes for which Richard Nixon was kicked out of office. These crimes attacked the very heart and soul of our republic. A private little government was created to pursue a private foreign policy agenda and thereby circumvent the law of the land, the Congress, the Constitution itself. This hidden layer of government which diminishes democratic institutions to a series of front organizations is a well known feature of all totalitarian regimes. In all of them there is the so called “front” government line which means nothing and then there is the “party line” which goes on behind the scenes. The line in this case was the Republican Party line but it was no different in its implementations and in its implications from the Communist Party line of the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union.
And yet, nothing happened. Nothing really happened. The Iran-Contra scandal became the Iran-Contra farce. President Reagan perceived and perceived correctly that the public really didn’t want to know the truth. So he lied to us, but he didn’t really have to work hard at it. He sensed that we would gladly accept his loss of memory as an alibi. It had slipped his mind what form of government we had in our country and we didn’t really want to prod him and find out.
In the short period of time since Watergate, the wimping of America picked up steam.
The problems confronting us now are no longer seen as problems. Truth is perceived as the problem, as the real enemy, and more and more we look to our government to protect us from it.. .
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/authors/Tesich/wimping.htm
Thanks for the link, Ozzie. I can’t remember when I’ve seen so much garbage heaped in a single article.
Consider: “The current levels of misery and decomposition of our cities and the economic Gulags of our ghettos are acceptable. There is, since there is only so much hope to go around, a freeze on hope. The have-nots have been reclassified as never-will-haves.”
Calling our “ghettos” “economic Gulags” (or even ghettos) is dishonest on its face, and insults both the true misery of the Gulag and the intelligence of the reader. And note the lovely grammatical inversion of the last sentence. As we’ve been discussing, the have-nots in this country are perfectly capable of becoming haves, but they’ll have to work to do it. We now have generations of “never-will-haves” because we have provided them with a safety net so they don’t have to work hard. Worse, we’ve told them their failure to “have” isn’t the fault of their lack of hard work but of the society at large. Tesich’s theory that it’s all the fault of Watergate and Iran-Contra is so far away from the truth it’s scary, but, gee, it’s better than putting the blame where it actually lies, isn’t it? The truth, of course, is that the “have-nots” have reclassified themselves as “never-will-haves.”
Or consider: “We can train them [our kids] to do the job but we lack moral stature to inspire them to do it with brilliance. We have tampered with and crippled the genius of our youth. When the only reason we advocate for education is as a source of inoculation against unemployment, they just will not flower. Not the threat of unemployment nor even the promise of personal gain can replace that loss of human spirit for which there is no longer any function in our society.”
Wonderfully written, and complete and utter nonsense. Education has always been about “inoculation against unemployment” and “the promise of personal gain.” The idea that a third generation welfare recipient doesn’t “flower” because he is not “inspired to brilliance” because Reagan lied about Iran-Contra could only exist in the complete fantasyland that is American liberalism.
Come on. Does anyone really believe that Mexican illegal aliens come here, work hard and succeed because they are inspired to brilliance by the Mexican educational system or because they are untainted by Iran-Contra? If the folks in Tesich’s “ghettos” worked half as hard as the immigrants do, they would succeed as well. They choose not to do so, and it has nothing to do with Watergate or Iran-Contra. Tesich’s whole theory is absurd on its face and the really scary thing is I’ll bet he honestly believes every word of it.
Wonderfully written, and complete and utter nonsense. Education has always been about “inoculation against unemployment” and “the promise of personal gain.” The idea that a third generation welfare recipient doesn’t “flower” because he is not “inspired to brilliance” because Reagan lied about Iran-Contra could only exist in the complete fantasyland that is American liberalism. - D.Q.
Actually, he’s saying that people don’t flower because of “the wimping of America,” of which disregard for the truth is but one ingredient.
He says this picked up speed after Vietnam and Watergate, and that Iran-Contra was far worse than Watergate. (Disregard for the Constitution has really accelerated since Tesich’s death, so he’d probably have another heart attack if he saw what was happening today).
But back to education…
Have you known anyone who was raised to find and follow his or her passion? Versus one who was raised to “do well in school, so they could get into a good college and get a decent job”?
The one who follows his or her passion is much more likely to thrive, vs the one whose ultimate goal is to become a worker bee.
Failing schools and failing people aside, many people can work hard and do well financially and socially, but the spark comes from something greater than social constructs, and has to do with the spirit.
(There’s a reason some people have a gleam in their eye at 90, while the suicide rate for young people has quadrupled in recent decades).
Which brings me back to Truth.. .Can anyone can be a liar, to either themselves or to others, and have a healthy spirit?
I dont think so.
“The current levels of misery and decomposition of our cities and the economic Gulags of our ghettos are acceptable. There is, since there is only so much hope to go around, a freeze on hope. The have-nots have been reclassified as never-will-haves.”– D.Q.
Tesich wrote this during Bush 41’s term and I’m thinking he was pretty prescient.
“As we’ve been discussing, the have-nots in this country are perfectly capable of becoming haves, but they’ll have to work to do it. — D.Q.
If they only knew that, no? All our problems would be solved.
Except that more and more people are being raised in a world where the systems meant to serve them — like the public school system– are failing.
(For a riveting fictional account, see the Wire, Season Four).
Or, even better, read Eisenhower’s “Cross of Iron” speech.
Here’s the best part:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
What a weak-kneed lefty!! Sheesh…
Have we deteriorated as a society since Eisenhower gave this speech? I’d say so. Your mileage may vary.
Can’t help but jump in, Ozzie. As DQ put it, “utter nonsense”. You should research the Iran-Contra affair more carefully. The premier issue was the “Boland Amendment”, passed by Congress to prevent Pres. Reagan from supporting the Nicaraguan Contras against the Communists. The Boland Amendment was an illegal infringement of the Executive Branch’s power to wage foreign policy (read your Constitution) and was within weeks of expiring when Iran-Contra was launched. The Reagan Administration made a decision to ignore it rather than fight it in court, which may have been their only bad decision in the matter.
As far as your commentary regarding Nixon, it is so over the top I wouldn’t know where to begin. However, it does confirm for me that 25 years from now, current BDS sufferers will still be dribbling spit down their chin any time that somebody mentions G.W. Bush, their minds instantly teleported back to that sad, bitter, and frankly weird alternate universe in which they currently reside.
The Reagan Administration made a decision to ignore it rather than fight it in court, which may have been their only bad decision in the matter. - Danny L
The only bad decision? You’ve got to be kidding.
From Cheney’s closing statement:
“President Reagan has enjoyed many successes during his more than six years in office. Clearly, this was not one of them. As the President himself has said, mistakes were made.
Mistakes in selling arms to Iran, allowing the transaction to become focused on releasing American hostages, diverting funds from the arms sale to support for the contras, misleading the Congress about the extent of N.S.C. staff involvement with the contras, delaying notification of anyone in Congress of the transactions until after the story broke in Lebanese newspapers, and tolerating the decisionmaking process within the upper reaches of the Administration that lacked integrity and accountability for key elements of the process.”
Even Cheney used the word “Misleading” and said that the Adminstration “lacked integrity.”
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
But you people don’t give a damn for how many modern brick schools are built in Iraq or Afghanistan as opposed to modern military bombers.
So why is there all of a sudden a need to pretend it’s somehow important here, just cause it’s America.
Mistakes in selling arms to Iran
You do not truly care whether arms were sold to Iran or not. You only care that those arms didn’t get you what you wanted.
Here are the facts, Iran decided to release the hostages when Reagan was elected. You can try to rewrite or re-interpret history in order to cover up Carter’s crimes against the Iranian people all you wish, but it won’t change what actually happened.
You had no way or intention of releasing those hostages from Iranian control. Reagan did, that’s the difference. You have no right and no capablity, let alone the decency, to try to criticize and tear down Reagan’s administration just because you couldn’t get things done with Iran the way you personally wanted to.
Truth is perceived as the problem, as the real enemy, and more and more we look to our government to protect us from it.. .
Here’s the real truth. Because Nixon was stopped from preventing the mass murder abetting actions of the Democrat Congress and voters, Vietnam was started by Democrats to be a boondock in terms of arms and perpetual war and it was ended on those same terms. Nothing good was ever accomplished because nothing good was ever intended to be accomplished by the Democrats that started the war, prolonged it, and ensured that it never ended in favor of human liberty.
In order to cover up these people’s actions, truth had to be discarded from the public conscience, through the media and college institutions. Then there’s the gap between Nixon and Reagan, which had to be explained away using Iran Contra. Suddenly it is now not Carter’s crimes against humanity in toppling the Shah of Iran and providing Iran with the next best thing to religious totalitarian government on Earth, suddenly it is Reagan tearing the Constitution apart by selling arms to Iran! As if that was a bad thing given Democrat actions under Carter, now that Khomeini had gained ultimate power in Iran.
After decades of constantly attempting to justify and excuse such actions, it became much easier just to attack and rip apart the Republicans like Reagan, Nixon, and Bush. We all know it is far easier to attack a weak opponent that isn’t expecting it, than to try and defend yourself against charges that are just.
The human spirit was effectively crushed by Leftist utopian ideals in Iran and Vietnam. People should not allow the same to occur here in America.
But you people don’t give a damn for how many modern brick schools are built in Iraq or Afghanistan as opposed to modern military bombers - Ymar
You people? Yes, Ike and I think alike. Too bad he’d be considreed a commie these days. That “cross of Iron” speech makes me long for the good old days.
“You do not truly care whether arms were sold to Iran or not. You only care that those arms didn’t get you what you wanted.” - Ymar
I dont care if arms were sold to Iran? Since you must be in my head, Ymar, what would I like to eat for lunch today?
“Here are the facts, Iran decided to release the hostages when Reagan was elected. You can try to rewrite or re-interpret history in order to cover up Carter’s crimes against the Iranian people all you wish, but it won’t change what actually happened.”
Actually, Y-Mar, much has been written about what really happened, beginning with Reagan’s decision to backpeddle on George Bush EVER having a position in his cabinet, to the miraculous realse of the Iranian hostages on inauguration day.
It’s referred to as “the October Surprise” and the so-called facts are muddier than you might think.
Oh, and, FYI, you can go to the library and research the events that led to the hostage crisis and, from what I’ve read, “Carter’s crimes,” aren’t the root cause.
I recommend “All the Shah’s Men,” but if you dont want to read, this 22-minute segment might help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sstDwKTCpM
Hi Ozzie,
Well, of course, someone who is inspired to follow his/her passion is more likely to have a gleam in the eye at 90. Three rather obvious problems, though:
First, a lack of inspiration shouldn’t deter one from taking on the responsibility of preparing oneself to be a productive citizen. Programs that reward sloth and excuse failure do far more to deter people from being productive citizens than anything a lack of inspiration could do.
Second, the two are not mutually exclusive. One can both prepare to be a productive member of society and also follow one’s passion.
Third, whether one develops a passion for anything is not dependent on Vietnam or Watergate or Iran-Contra (or even Carter’s evils). True, people in America’s “ghettos” as Tesich called them, do not live in a stimulating environment filled with good books, good music, and good mentors. But nearly every American has access to a television, and the stimulation to every passion imaginable can be found even there. Passions are not based on the government’s attitude toward the truth. They are far more whimsical and unpredictable than that.
To read Tesich, you would think that Western civilization began to fail when Nixon was only kicked out of office and utterly humiliated, but not drawn and quartered. Nonsense. And of all the excuses for failure in America I’ve heard, this has to be the weakest and most untrue.
By the way, Ike way right. But he also knew that a free society, to remain free, must often pay that price. He bemoaned the truth, but he understood the truth. Quoting Ike without understanding that context is like quoting King’s “I have a dream” speech without an understanding of the corruption of that dream that destroyed the civil rights movement and turned it into the hate-filled evil of Wright and his ilk. The biggest liars are those who use the truth selectively and out of context to distort and destroy the truth.
First, a lack of inspiration shouldn’t deter one from taking on the responsibility of preparing oneself to be a productive citizen. Programs that reward sloth and excuse failure do far more to deter people from being productive citizens than anything a lack of inspiration could do.
Second, the two are not mutually exclusive. One can both prepare to be a productive member of society and also follow one’s passion. ” - D.Q.
I’m not discussing the difference between becoming a CEO or a welfare queen. Nor was Tesich.
I’m saying that, for the most part, public schools are designed to train kids to become worker bees. How many teachers actually inspire children? Or value critical thinking?
This is what Tesich wrote:
“We keep asking ourselves why the level of our children’s intelligence and competence, as measured by all our tests, keeps dropping. The reason is very simple. The reason our children are becoming less and less educated is that we don’t want them to be well educated. The last thing we want now is for an intellectually and spiritually vigorous generation to confront us with the question of what we have done to our country.. . .
It’s not that our education system has failed. It’s that it has succeeded beyond our wildest expectations.
And having taught our kids to tuck in their wings, to narrow their range of vision and concerns, to jettison moral encumbrances and seek self-fulfillment in some narrow sphere of self-interest — to become, in short, wimps — we then want them to be inspired members of our work force and make that better and smaller computer chip.”
If one only views education as a means to an end, (i.e. only as a path to a career), chances are, they’re not going to embrace “intellectually and spiritually vigoruous”anything..And yes, they will jettison truth and other “moral encumbrances” when putting food on the table is their primary concern.
They will do what is required, and become productive members of society, but qualites like Truth wont be as high on the list as paying a mortgage.
That’s how and why principles are seen as a luxury.
Though, I’d argue that “intellectually and spritually vigorous” souls abide by principles as a way of life. Hence the gleem in the eye at age 90.
It can be done. But it’s not really valued as much as people SAY it is.
“America used to be a land in which the truth mattered deeply,” you say. So how do you account for so many all white all juries that used to find blacks guilty? Then come, OJ. And what do you say of him? The jury acquitted him, but do you call him guilty? Doesn’t “the truth” you speak of sound suspiciously like “the luxury of principle” only dependent on race rather than money? Until OJ, of course, when black money looked as green as white money.
The truth isn’t dependent on race or truth; the truth depends on knowing and saying what actually happened. If we want truth, we’d better get the principles right. We can’t build truth on a lie. No lawyer can build a case where truth matters on a lie. Honestly.
Ike may have been right for his time, but the reality of today is quite different. When Ike led the allies we were spending 40% of our GDP, and close to 90% of federal government outlays, to fight that war. During his presidency we spent 15% of GDP, 65% of federal government outlays, on defense. So yes military spending dominated the budget, and was a big chunk of GDP, so his comments made sense.
Today it is a much different story. We spend a little over 3% of GDP and it accounts for about 18% of federal outlays on defense. When you include state and local government it’s only 10% of total government spending. It borders on the preposterous that 10% of the total spending makes the difference in domestic issues.
“And having taught our kids to tuck in their wings, to narrow their range of vision and concerns, to jettison moral encumbrances and seek self-fulfillment in some narrow sphere of self-interest — to become, in short, wimps — we then want them to be inspired members of our work force and make that better and smaller computer chip.”
I would have changed the above to say: “…to become, in short “employed”.
Sorry, Ozzie, this sounds so much like the effete ramblings of the perpetually pampered. You know…the sort who like to pontificate endlessly and uselessly in the pissoirs of bien-pensant Parisian cafe society.
First of all, it isn’t the role of our education system to define moral encumbrances (it’s that “church and state” thing, you see). Secondly, our education system gives kids choices - they can learn as narrowly and broadly as they wish. More importantly, our education, for all its failings, gives our kids an opportunity to be employed. Tricky term that…”employed”. That means working to provide value for your fellow citizen, whether it is pushing a broom or designing the latest computer chip. In other words, it teaches them to be value- creaters - i.e., “makers”, not “takers” (and “takers” includes tenured philosopher wannabees living off the public teat).
I don’t know about you, but I can look around our local school systems and give them more-than a passing grade for fostering independent thinking kids who have the tools to make-it or break-it in society on their own merits. No guarantees, of course.
However, I will concede you this: unless you are independently wealthy (by dint of some else’s labor) or perfectly happy to live a life of poverty, there really aren’t that too many job postings out there for “philosopher on the mountain - all expenses paid” positions, right now. Sigh!
Oh, and, FYI, you can go to the library and research the events that led to the hostage crisis and, from what I’ve read, “Carter’s crimes,” aren’t the root cause.
Iran’s Islamic fanaticism wasn’t the cause of the taking of America’s embassy in Iran as hostages. It must have been because the Shah of Iran was too busy with Western reformations to take Americans hostage.
I dont care if arms were sold to Iran?
So, you care about Reagan selling “arms” to Iran, but you say that Carter’s crimes weren’t the root cause of the arms used against Americans in Iran.
And this is somehow a reason why people should believe you care about Iran being armed or not? You don’t care, let’s not pretend here.
Sorry, Ozzie, this sounds so much like the effete ramblings of the perpetually pampered. You know…the sort who like to pontificate endlessly and uselessly in the pissoirs of bien-pensant Parisian cafe society. — DannyL
Actually, Tesich was an immigrant from Yugoslavia and an Oscar-winning screenwriter. He’s most known for his movie “Breaking Away” which was listed by the IFC as one of the most inspirational movies of all time.
It’s quite endearing.
He also wrote a movie called “Four Friends,” which was a love letter to America.
He came to this country as a preteen and followed his dream.
To him, this was the land of opportunity (until he began to see the underbelly, which he also wrote about).
The first Gulf War served as a wake up call, and changed his perspective.
I’m saying that, for the most part, public schools are designed to train kids to become worker bees.
Public schools are designed to prepare children for college, rather than to introduce them into the work force. Technical and realschules are the ones that specialize in actually teaching individuals the skills and knowledge they will need to find high paying jobs in the world.
The fact that you have been convinced that this isn’t true, is a rather weak justification for your position.
If one only views education as a means to an end, (i.e. only as a path to a career), chances are, they’re not going to embrace “intellectually and spiritually vigoruous”anything..
I suppose a true “intellectual” must harbor traitorous impulses and revolutionary zeal, in that they prefer to destroy than to create with their hands.
Given those standards, that kind of intellectual and spiritual progress is rather ungood.
They will do what is required, and become productive members of society, but qualites like Truth wont be as high on the list as paying a mortgage.
It’s too bad you were brainwashed to believe that productive economics, jobs, and what not don’t require truth as an underlying basis for success.
I’m sure people working in factories and engineering don’t care about “qualities like Truth”. They just design and get their limbs crushed under the machinery based upon fantasy, in your world. Fortunately for you, O, engineers are beholden to the truth far more than lawyers or those operating in fantasy land like you. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t be alive right now, very likely.
Though, I’d argue that “intellectually and spritually vigorous” souls abide by principles as a way of life. Hence the gleem in the eye at age 90.
America or the world doesn’t need revolutionaries to kill, maim, and slaughter the status quo and the people living right now, simply so people like you can justify their intellectual and spiritual “vigor”.
So how do you account for so many all white all juries that used to find blacks guilty?
How do you account for so many whites that convict other whites based upon their skin color if the victim is ostensibly black and downtroden? Duke Rape Case? That was whites and blacks calling for an execution by lynching, there.
The jury acquitted him, but do you call him guilty? Doesn’t “the truth”
The system isn’t designed to find the truth, and it doesn’t mean guilt or innocence means that the “truth” is one way or another. The justice system is there simply to render a judgment on whether a person should be punished or not. The fact that innocents will be punished along with acquitting the guilty, is part of the system.
The truth is ground out via adversarial competition, just like what the First Amendment was intended for, and exactly what Leftist agitators hope to extinguish.
When a jury or a court decides something, that’s not the “Truth”, no matter what you may wish, helen.
The tendency of people to think that the basic fabric of reality changes on the whims of those in black robes or those wielding power, is the essence of totalitarian tendencies.
2+2=5 when the leaders and courts decide it does, eh.
Until OJ, of course, when black money looked as green as white money.
Just cause you think white people are racists and are exploiting black people by keeping them in cages, doesn’t justify you keeping blacks and whites in cages as well to get back at those whites, helen. Being proud of OJ using the white system of money, which you see as corrupt, is not something good people are proud of.
The truth isn’t dependent on race or truth
I see, truth isn’t dependent on truth. Or rather, your “the truth” definitely doesn’t depend upon the Truth. I can certainly agree with that, it is independent of the Truth of basic underlying reality.
an Oscar-winning screenwriter
So he was just a guy paid to manipulate the masses and provide them entertainment.
Par for the course, I suppose.
He also wrote a movie called “Four Friends,” which was a love letter to America.
Similar to the love letters you’ve written for Tesich, I suppose.
And regardless of your defense of what Tesich is or is not, it is you, Ozzie, who are presenting a position here and it is thus, you, who people see as effete and pampered enough to ignore employment for “spiritual vigor”.
Be sure to tell me how the Islamic Jihad and suicide kiddies are doing on the “spiritual vigor” route when the have no jobs, wives, or paths for self-employment.
Iran’s Islamic fanaticism wasn’t the cause of the taking of America’s embassy in Iran as hostages. It must have been because the Shah of Iran was too busy with Western reformations to take Americans hostage. — Ymar
From the book, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup And The Roots of Terror In The Middle East, Stephen Kinzer, page ix:
“One day I attended a book party for an older Iranian woman who had written her memoirs. . . After she finished speaking, I couldn’t resist the temptation to ask a question. ‘You mentioned Mossadegh,’ I said. ‘What do you remember, or what can you tell us, about the coup against him?’ She immediately became agitated and animated.
‘Why did you Americans do that terrible thing?’ she cried out. ‘We always loved America. To us, America was the great country, the perfect country, the country that helped us while others were exploiting us. But after that moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again. I can tell you for sure that if you had not done that thing, you would never have had that problem of hostages being taken in your embassy in Tehran. All your trouble started in 1953. Why, why did you do it?’”
——————————————
Also, if you dont feel like watching the link I provided previously, you can just read this part about how 1953’s U.S.-led coup in Iran led directly to the hostage crisis in 1979
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/bill-moyers/
You people? Yes, Ike and I think alike.
Unless Ike was against the Marshall Plan, you should have more guts than to try to use a dead man to shield yourself against people’s criticisms in this century.
Helen. I can’t believe even you believe this.
“No lawyer can build a case where truth matters on a lie.”
Tell it to the erstwhile stockholders of Dow-Corning.
I can tell you for sure that if you had not done that thing, you would never have had that problem of hostages being taken in your embassy in Tehran. All your trouble started in 1953. Why, why did you do it?’”
Why do you expect people here to be so retarded, Ozzie? They really aren’t.
If the problems started in 1953 with the rise of the Shah, due to your notorious CIA and State Department Democrat chaps, then the hostage incident would have occurred during the reign of the Shah of Iran, before Khomeini took power, given Carter’s refusal to support the Shah of Iran.
But the hostage incident happened to American families that had just supported Kheomeini’s revolution against the Shah of Iran.
In 1978 opponents of the shah had several bloody encounters with his security troops. The most notorious of these clashes was on September 8, when soldiers fired on 20,000 demonstrators in Tehrān. Several hundred people were killed and thousands more were wounded in what became known as Black Friday. Two months later, young people took to the streets of Tehrān, burning shops, banks, liquor stores, and other symbols of Western “corruption.” Tensions escalated in December with the coming of Muharram, the sacred month marking the martyrdom of Husayn, an early Shia leader. Emboldened by the strength of the opposition, Khomeini called on Iranians to “begin the month of epic heroism … the month in which the leader of the Muslims taught us to struggle against all tyrants.” On December 10 and 11, the two holiest days of the Shia calendar, a group of soldiers rebelled and attacked the officer’s mess of the shah’s Imperial Guard. With that, his regime collapsed, and the shah fled Iran in January 1979. He died two years later in Cairo, Egypt.
Khomeini returned to Iran on February 1, 1979, and began to establish control over the government. He forced the shah’s prime minister out of office and appointed a new prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan. Bazargan was known as a liberal who favored democracy, so many observers believed the new government would represent a wide range of opinion. In a late March referendum Iranians voted on a new form of government, and in April, with overwhelming public approval, Khomeini declared the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In November 1979, after the shah had been allowed entry to the United States for medical care, hundreds of Iranians overran the U.S. embassy in Tehrān and took the staff hostage. Khomeini refused to release them until the United States apologized for its support of the shah and met other demands. (The hostages were eventually released in January 1981 after Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter as president). Khomeini used the fervor of the hostage taking to mobilize radical Islamic students against Bazargan. After Bazargan resigned, Khomeini held a December referendum in which more than 99 percent of voters supported a new constitution. Khomeini became faqih, or ultimate leader, and used his unlimited powers to eliminate opponents. First he attacked liberals and leftists, including President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, who fled Iran in February 1981; later, he repressed his clerical opponents. By 1981 some 1600 people had been executed under Khomeini. -encarta
You people interested in covering up for mass murderers and sadists and the betrayal of a rare and progressive American ally in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, may prefer to talk about how all these “student protests” began in 1953, but the truth is a little bit different than from your dogma.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588431/islamic_revolution_of_iran.html
Maybe in you world, Ozzie, a difference of 26 years is a direct causal relationship, but in my world, when event A happens and then event B happens because of the person that instigated event A, that’s causality. Causality isn’t Incident A happens, some new leader arises in power to take advantage of it 26 years later, kills off a bunch of people that blamed America when they betrayed America and their own country, and now suddenly Incident A caused Khomeini to directly order the unlawful confinement and torture of American embassy staff.
“And regardless of your defense of what Tesich is or is not, it is you, Ozzie, who are presenting a position here and it is thus, you, who people see as effete and pampered enough to ignore employment for “spiritual vigor. _ Ymar
You can have spitirtual vigor and be employed, Y-Mar. In fact, i’d venture to guess that those who follow their hearts tend to be enthusiastic and, therefore, more successful. (Joseph Campbell calls it “Following one’s bliss, ” and Maslow refers to it as “Self-Actualization)
It can be done. But it usually involves inspiration and following a passion and/or ideal, rather than a career path that’s only reward is a paycheck.
——————————–
Be sure to tell me how the Islamic Jihad and suicide kiddies are doing on the “spiritual vigor” route when the have no jobs, wives, or paths for self-employment. - Ymar
I would say that suicide bombers are spiritually sick, wouldn’t you?
Just forget it. Don’t even bother.
n the mid-1940s Mohammad Mosaddeq, an Iranian statesman and a member of the Majlis, emerged as the leader of the oil nationalization movement. This movement sought to transfer control over the oil industry from foreign-run companies to the Iranian government. Throughout his political career, Mosaddeq consistently advocated three goals: to free Iran of foreign intervention, to ensure that the shah remained a democratic monarch and not a dictator, and to implement social reforms. He believed ending foreign interference was a prerequisite for success in other areas, and he was convinced that as long as the AIOC controlled Iran’s most important natural resource, foreign influence was inevitable. Beginning in 1945 he led a successful campaign to deny the Soviet Union an oil concession in northern Iran. Although he resisted joining political parties, Mosaddeq agreed in 1949 to head the National Front, a coalition of several parties that supported oil nationalization. Within a year the National Front had members in cities and towns throughout the country and had become adept at organizing mass political rallies.
In the end, it was all about oil. The Shah of Iran used the profits from the oil refineries to built up Iran’s military to defend against foreign communist influence, but didn’t give it out to enough tribal families in the form of bribes. Thus the Shah of Iran and his immediate coterie of an inner circle appeared to be the only one prospering under Iran’s oil. Which is also the same why why Mosa was popular, in that Mosa nationalized Iran’s oil refineries, that the West had built and maintained, creating the current situation where foreign nations with a lot of military and economic power are intensely and extremely interested in the Middle East solely to secure the source of crude oil.
The Shah of Iran was overthrown because people believed in the lies of Khomeini’s supporters, one of them who was Carter. Mosa wanted to decrease foreign influence in his government yet increased it to an amazing level given the consequences of his actions.
Mosa was popular because once nationalized, the Iranian government could perhaps give oil profits to the people, as they were expecting, along with various other things they wanted as perks. When the US was against a weak and unstable nation like Iran stealing the West’s strategic resources, naturally there was going to be some hurt feelings over this exchange. The West had started learning that when you trust an Arab or Persia, to expect a dagger in the back, if you aren’t bribing them or they aren’t bribing you. (The State Department surely understood that bribing Arabs to protect their diplomats made more sense than supporting America’s own military in freeing the average Arab or Persian)
Shah of Iran had different priorities that focused on modernizing his nation to compete with the US on equal terms, which meant accepting the West’s help to such an extent he became Carter’s puppet and once Carter cut the strings, the Shah of Iran never did exercise his so called “dictatorial” powers to use the army to suppress the revolution. The Shah of Iran instead chose self-exile rather than to give orders to the military that he had built up to slaughter his own civilians, and in return, the people of Iran sentenced him to death with the taking of American hostages, which gave Carter an excuse to deny the Shah medical treatment in the US.
Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution is the best and most ideal representation of your spiritual and intellectual vigor, Ozzie, which is a sad thing in the end of it all.
Maybe in you world, Ozzie, a difference of 26 years is a direct causal relationship, but in my world, when event A happens and then event B happens because of the person that instigated event A, that’s causality - Ymar
Root Causes run deep. Historians also link the Treaty of Versailles to World War II.
It’s a rather ironic fate the so called “liberal revolutionaries” that supported Khomeini were the first ones to be persecuted, exiled, and executed once Khomeini run. Khomeini, who was safely outside Iran in France, and who was the one encouraging instability and chaos in Iran, suddenly was a better leader than the Shah of Iran. Until, of course, the useful idiots discovered when they were no longer useful.
I can’t quite say I feel all that sad about the blowback experienced by the fools and ideologies that thought they were doing a good thing when they overthrew the Shah of Iran.
At best, America’s CIA intervention with Mosa was caused by Mosa’s own actions, which only ever led to a moderate reformer like the Shah of Iran. Whatever the flaws inherent in such a decision, it was at least a decision made by adults designed for the real world. The decision to overthrow the Shah of Iran and replace him not only with a new leader, Khomeini, but with a new government, the Islamic Government of Iran, was a decision made by moral infants. Moral infants that were easy to slurp up by people like Khomeini, who definitely wasn’t an infant.
Root Causes run deep.
Root causes run deep cause they are a convenient excuse for getting people to do what you want them to do, Ozzie, when the facts don’t support the case. If you can’t convince somebody based upon the facts and based upon the benefits they could derive consequentially, you go back to these so called “root causes” as a convenient way to bypass people’s self-interest. Given that they occurred so long ago, it’s rather convenient that you no longer have anybody around that actually lived in those times to refute your narration of events.
It’s like various justifications for clan wars. Your great great great grandfather did so and so, and that’s why my great great great grand father did so and so as backlash. The current generation don’t even know what caused the war in the first place, but they’ll fight nonetheless because of “root causes”.
In the end, it was all about oil. — Ymar
Would the U.S have led a coup in 1953 to kill and replace Iran’s democratically-elected leader if oil hadn’t been involved?
Other countries wanted to nationalize other resources and more U.S-led coups followed.
The Dulles Brothers were very busy boys.
But it usually involves inspiration and following a passion and/or ideal, rather than a career path that’s only reward is a paycheck.
The ideological path that says the current status quo is about a paycheck and a career path, thus it is inferior to your inspiration and passionate ideals, is all too convenient an excuse for revolutionary zeal and foolishness.
You have no evidence or even logic that demonstrates that you are really against career paths that reward in only paychecks. After all, isn’t a revolution a career that rewards itself only in death? It takes a career, someone willing to lay down foundations and maintain them, to turn a revolution into a true government.
Inspiration doesn’t lead to goodness and careers don’t lead to badness, just because that’s the ideological system you have constructed here. I tend to think inspiration is morally neutral, and one can be inspired to mass murder as well as one can be inspired to writing and signing the Declaration of Independence.
What this has to do with America’s education and why this means America has some underlying morally decadent or wrong things, as you attest to, is not very clear so far.
Given that they occurred so long ago, it’s rather convenient that you no longer have anybody around that actually lived in those times to refute your narration of events. — Ymar
Wow. What’s the point of all these pesky history books, then?
They tend to address root causes, too. Maybe authors of history books should simply attack other historians and then rant on and on about jihadists.
Would the U.S have led a coup in 1953 to kill and replace Iran’s democratically-elected leader if oil hadn’t been involved?
If communism wasn’t involved, that would be a definite “no, they wouldn’t have been involved”. Oil was a nice reason, especially since it was hitting America badly (due to the fact that demand was rising and Arab incompetence could not expand or even maintain the oil refineries and drill equipment).
All of these incidents were excuses and shields to prevent the US from launching thermo nukes and for Russia to return the favor.
Oil was important to us for our armies and strategy, but it was important to the Arabs because it represented the wealth they could steal from the ground for their families. Different issue, but the same resource.
Wow. What’s the point of all these pesky history books, then?
History books don’t decide to back Khomeini, a mass murderer and charismatic con artist that convinced the decadent West that he was a “reformer” and that the Shan of Iran was a “tyrant”. Boy, Khomeini showed them what true tyranny was, didn’t he. And he did it in a way that demonstrated that having an army and terror goon squads really did nullify any “people’s revolution” at the grass roots.
History don’t decide such things, Ozzie. Humans do. Meaning authors. You’re a human, last time I checked. Your intentions are very different qualitatively from just words printed on a page.
Other countries wanted to nationalize other resources and more U.S-led coups followed.
If Mosa was smart, he would have welcomed foreign involvement as a way to negate other foreign involvement. When you close your doors, you can only maintain that policy via military strength. There’s no way you can maintain it in a world where the US was pointing nukes at Russia and vice a versa, and you wanted to remain neutral with a strategyc resource such as oil, by stealing the oil and shutting both Russia and America out of Iran.
Not going to work. Somebody’s going to off you.
But, I guess these issues of national and international significant are beneath your notice, Ozzie. Just as the assassination of Diem and the coup de tat in South Vietnam is beneath your notice.
Oil was important to us for our armies and strategy, but it was important to the Arabs because it represented the wealth they could steal from the ground for their families. Different issue, but the same resource. — Ymar
Well. at least you’re not arguing that the U.S. overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected leader because we wanted to export democracy.
But, I guess these issues of national and international significant are beneath your notice, Ozzie. Just as the assassination of Diem and the coup de tat in South Vietnam is beneath your notice.
No. The list of coups and leaders offed is pretty long, Ymar.
I noticed.
From what I read, the U.S. didnt get int the assassination/coup business until 1953.
I still know people who either dont know, or dont want to know, this bit of History, however.
I wonder of that has anything to do with the overall disregard for Truth?
Hi Helen,
“The truth isn’t dependent on race or truth; the truth depends on knowing and saying what actually happened.”
For once we agree completely. What matters is what actually happened, not race. For example, you said, “So how do you account for so many all white all juries that used to find blacks guilty?” It doesn’t matter that the jurys were white or that the defendant was black. What actually happened is the only thing that matters! If a guilty defendant was convicted, justice was done and truth was served. If an innocent defendant was convicted, justice was denied and truth was not served. As for OJ, if he was guilty, justice was not done and truth was not served. If he was innocent, justice was done and truth was served. Race doesn’t matter. All that matters is what actually happened to Ron and Nicole. Do you think he was innocent? Was justice served?
Hi Ozzie,
Let’s assume you are right and the truth is that our government did terrible things for terrible reasons. What would you suggest we do about it now?
Y-man, you’ve made many good points but let me just pick out one, “Inspiration doesn’t lead to goodness and careers don’t lead to badness.” Amen. Suicide bombers are inspired, Colin Powell just had a career. I’ll take my chances with a system that raises more Colin Powells and fewer suicide bombers.
Let’s assume you are right and the truth is that our government did terrible things for terrible reasons. What would you suggest we do about it now? -D.Q
Accept some uncomfortable truths and then learn from them.
Was the blowback from the coups worth it, in the end?
And what would the world be like if the U.S had decided, way back in 1953, to focus - with headlong determination — on the development of alternative resources of energy instaed of meddling in Iran and Iraq?
What-ifs aside, if we had learned from history, we would have NEVER invaded Iraq.
Well. at least you’re not arguing that the U.S. overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected leader because we wanted to export democracy.
Democracy wasn’t the foreign policy of Carter’s advisers nor the opposition party, back during the Cold War.
Liberty as an extension of policy only ever became feasible once America became the only sole superpower in existence.
I wonder of that has anything to do with the overall disregard for Truth?
At the base, there’s a thing as causality, which says Event A leads to Event B because of Event A’s existence.
This is all relevant because if you think certain events lead to certain consequences, it will dramatically affect your views on education and America’s past, present, and future.
If your chains of causality is different or modified, then your “truth” will be different as well. Thus it is pointless to talk about truth, one way or another, without also first speaking of causality.
Accept some uncomfortable truths and then learn from them.
That’s where, if your causality and logic is wrong, bad things start happening.
I would say that suicide bombers are spiritually sick, wouldn’t you?
They thought that the careers working for the West and what not was a bad thing, so perhaps religion could provide them the inspiration for stuff that didn’t require being a “worker bee” for Western decadent civilizations and companies.
If you recognize that this produced spiritual sickness, you might then want to look over your disdain of worker bees or your beliefs that inspiration and spiritual “stuff” can replace or create career employments.
What-ifs aside, if we had learned from history, we would have NEVER invaded Iraq.
One would think a classical liberal would look at Vietnam and Iran and believe that the only way to get things done is with an invasion and full scale occupation. Otherwise, people just don’t pay attention or get the resources in to do what needs to be done.
Hi Ozzie,
As it happens, I opposed the invasion of Iraq. I often quote my father, an 80 year old arch-conservative, who said, on the day of the invasion, “This will be remembered as Bush’s Folly.” It was, at best, premature, and at worse, unnecessary. Still, let’s assume for the sake of argument, that somewhere, some mad dictator develops real weapons of mass destruction and is determined to destroy, uh, us. What should we do about it?
Still, let’s assume for the sake of argument, that somewhere, some mad dictator develops real weapons of mass destruction and is determined to destroy, uh, us. What should we do about it? - D.Q.
Self defense is a legitimate reason to go to war. Maybe we could even have Congress declare war for a change?
You asked what we should do about our history of post-WWII blowback-inducing coups and assassinations, which were certainly not launched for self-defense.
The war in Iraq and the first Gulf War weren’t, either, mind you, and the Truth was certainly sidestepped when it came to promoting both.
Maybe we could even have Congress declare war for a change?
So you are saying Bush’s attempts to limit the power given to the President with a Congressional Declaration of War, given that the war on Terrorism will last longer than FDR’s Four terms, to be a bad thing? You would want Bush to go all out, if he believed terrorism was a threat, even that meant electing in a future PResident that will abuse such war powers?
You asked what we should do about our history of post-WWII blowback-inducing coups and assassinations, which were certainly not launched for self-defense.
Creating buffer zones and justifications in order to prevent a full out nuclear exchange with the USSR sounds like self-defense to me, even if it doesn’t to you.
The war in Iraq and the first Gulf War weren’t, either, mind you, and the Truth was certainly sidestepped when it came to promoting both.
Given such standards, FDR’s actions in WWII weren’t self-defense either.
Hi Ozzie, Okay, so what was the reason for our “post-WWII blowback-inducing coups and assassinations” if not self-defense? I sort of remember a little think called the Cold War. Granted, in the lovely light of 20-20 hindsight much of what was done to fight Communism was ill-advised. But I do believe that most of what was done was done out of the best of motives. I hope we learn from our mistakes, but I see no purpose in impugning the motives of the leaders of that time, including, of course, Eisenhower, the President you quoted earlier. You think maybe he authorized some covert actions in an effort to avoid the “blowback” of the military expenditures that would have been necessary to act at all times overtly? I don’t know; I’m just asking.
I sort of remember a little think called the Cold War. Granted, in the lovely light of 20-20 hindsight much of what was done to fight Communism was ill-advised. But I do believe that most of what was done was done out of the best of motives. I hope we learn from our mistakes, but I see no purpose in impunging the motives of the leaders of that time, including, of course, Eisenhower, the President you quoted earlier.” - D/Q/
And I think we should always examine the motives/ulteriror motives for war and the rationale given to the America people.
Was Communism or oil was the real reason for the coup in Iran, in 1953? I’ve read that Brittain had been pushing for the coup in 1952, because of the nationalization of the British oil concession by Mossedegh. Truman rejected the idea, but Eisenhower approved.
The British agent who flew to Washington to convince Eisenhower, actually wrote: “If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mossadegh in order to rescue a British oil company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that’s going to cut much mustard in Washington. I’ve got to have a different argument. ”
And he came up with the argument: “I’m going to tell the Americans that Mossadegh is leading Iran towards Communism.”
Sound familiar? Do Chalibi and Curveball ring a bell?
Then, too, was Communism or United Fruit behind the coup in Guatemala? If you dont think that there were monetary considerations or that natural resources were reasons behind these coups, I’ve got some Iraqi WMD to sell you.
I also think that all presidents, regardless which party, have approved covert operations for a variety of reasons and that national security is not always at the fore.
But we’re not supposed to question their motivations?
I think we ALWAYS are.
As Truman once said, “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know”.
There is a difference between questioning and impugning. We should always question. But you seem to impugn without proof, almost assuming the worst possible motives. Look at your own quote, stating that Americans will not respond to a plea to save a British oil company. What mattered to Americans, according to your own quote, was fighting Communism. As I said, many of the things we did in the Cold War turn out, in 20-20 hindsight, to be bad ideas, but fighting Communism, in the worldwide battle we were in at the time, was a perfectly legitimate motive for acting.
But you seem to impugn without proof, almost assuming the worst possible motives. Look at your own quote, stating that Americans will not respond to a plea to save a British oil company. What mattered to Americans, according to your own quote, was fighting Communism.” — D.Q.
Name the coup and in most cases, business interests weighed heavily..
Oil companies had concerns, and Chaquita and Pepsi had concerns.
In 1953, we had Brittain to thank and today, we have Curveball, Chilabi and the Office of Special Plans to thank.
There are all sorts of agendas behind the stated purposes for war.
When you actually never have seen what a real mega corporation is that acts independent of national limitations, then obviously you’re going to mistake various business interests as being equivalent to national policy and military strategy.
In our world, however, business does not drive American national politics and it never has on a national level. Although if you define business as the business of making the world a worse place, you might be able to fit Carter and some people like Andrew Johnson into it.
Somehow, Ozzie, I suspect that 20 years from now you will be lamenting how we overthrew the “legitimate” Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and it was all about oil. Yet, today, Iraq is firmly in charge of its oil and rape rooms and killing fields are a thing of the past.
The fact is, the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran occurred with a lot of support by the Iranian population (it did not occur solely because of American and British influences). Khomeini had nothing to do with “blowback” from the Mossadegh coup and everything to do with Islamic Revivalism and a revolt against Westernization. As YM pointed out, one of the first thing he did when he took power was to liquidate his leftwing “allies” who were motivated by the Mossadegh coup.
“Name the coup and in most cases, business interests weighed heavily..”
Really? How heavily? I would replace “business interests” with “communism” and that phrase would certainly hold true. By your rationalization, Castro’s takeover of Cuba should not have been resisted because American business interests would have benefited by his failure to assume power. Lucky Cubans!
As far as Iraq is concerned, you certainly seemed to have drunk deeply from the Kool-Aid. The invasion to remove Saddam was supported by Democrats (the Clinton Administration, which made regime removal the objective of the U.S.) and Republicans both. Bush went to war with the approval of Congress AND the UN.
If Saddam did not have stockpiles in place, he did have the factories to mass produce WMDs within weeks, together with stockpiles of concentrated uranium. And, even if he was bluffing, too bad! A bank robber comes into a bank claiming to have a bomb, you shoot him first, you don’t ask whether he is bluffing.
DQ, you may have opposed the Iraq invasion at first. Given the results today, can you think of any positive outcome at all from this operation (now almost concluded)?
To DQ’s 61, it is an interesting use of doublethink that Ozzie uses the example of a British oil company being unable to convince the US to intervene for purely business/profit reasons, but did, presumably, help convince the US to intervene for other reasons, as an example of US policies being directed by the big bad corporations and big businesses.
You lose either way. If the Brits convinced America to do a coup because it would save oil, that’d be listening to business interests rather than strategy or national self-interest. If the Brits convince Americans via another reason, then that’s still listening to big business because it is the British oil company doing the lobbying.
That’s the kind of 100% hermetically sealed “truth” that does much to dispel any credibility in the statement that “we must question the ulterior motives” that are unseen behind wars.
Danny, the trick with these propagandized slogans about root causes is that it almost doesn’t matter what Saddam had or did not have. When it all goes WAYYY back in the wayback machine, what matters is what happened wayyyyback when Saddam was fighting Iran or some such.
This supports my contention that “root causes” is often used by anti-Iraq Americans to mean “causes that are more conveniently justified by us”.
If you can’t use recent events to justify your cause, like say the Surge or whatever, then go wayyback until you can.
Not mentioning Ozzie’s convenient ability to ignore arguments that he can’t handle, there is one absolutely solid reason why root causes don’t work for the Left.
Cause it’s a political device to them. If they can’t find a cause that directly resulted in our present situation, they’ll keep digging and digging until they find an event that is somehow connected to the present, a long long time ago.
But what does this actually mean, you think? It means that the solution to “who caused the Holocaust” to be answered by “the Birth of Hitler’s GGGGGGG Grand Father”. Kill or eliminate that guy, and you wouldn’t have the Holocaust.
Now is that technically true? Maybe and maybe not. But is it convenient? Heck, yeah. Is it all that accurate in terms of causality? No. The human ability to tell what event impacts what other events becomes severely limited past the first few generations.
After a dozen or so layers, nobody can tell what the heck will happen in history if you changejust one single moment in time.
Certain people interested in blame America first as a solution to the world’s ills, which includes Leftists but aren’t made totally up out of Leftists, find the level of inaccuracy in determining causality for events in time far removed from ours to be a great boon.
If I take a knife and cut my self, that’s Action A leading to Event B. That’s pretty simple causality. If I invade a country, kill its dictator, causing the dictator to fight back, causing X, causing Y, causing Z, causing B which causes the Surge which causes Al Anbar Awakening which causes Iraqi A to do Action B to report to Intelligence unit X, to modify COIN, to ALL OF IT, ending up with a win for Iraq and America… then it is safe to say that we wouldn’t have won in Iraq had it not been invaded. But would it be safe to say that X variable caused by the invasion would not have happened anyways without the invasion?
The amount of inaccuracy for determining causality chains after a couple of generations is too extreme for non-omniscient beings to handle. Yet blame America first people think they can acquire the ability with a snap just by talking about ulterior motives and American involved coups.
The entire attitude present is too blase for good work to be done in the field.
********
Iraq is America’s chance to grow up and become an adult, given the childish actions of the many in Vietnam and other times and places.
Iraq is a huge responsibility, that people who doubt their nation’s toughness and will, would have refused to undertake.
It was, at best, premature, and at worse, unnecessary.
If you want a World War where cities are devastated and entire races wiped out, then yeah, it was unnecessary. But if you want to maintain the world more or less as it is, while adding to the spread of prosperity, security, and liberty, then Iraq was more than necessary.
Actually, Y-man, your comment might better apply to Iran in the not too distant future. It certainly did not apply to Iraq, or at least not with so much imminent urgency that we had any justification for acting when we did.
Danny, I can think of lots of potential positives, but let’s see how things turn out before we declare victory. Let’s see what Iraq looks like 5 years after we leave. And, of course, let’s see how, when and under what circumstances we leave.
On that point, DQ, I am 100% with you.
Somehow, Ozzie, I suspect that 20 years from now you will be lamenting how we overthrew the “legitimate” Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and it was all about oil. Yet, today, Iraq is firmly in charge of its oil and rape rooms and killing fields are a thing of the past. - DannyL
I was against the war from the start, for several reasons, many of which are playing out now.
In keeping with the blowback theme, however, I lament the fact that Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset for 40 years and that America’s coup in Iraq, in which we put the Baathists in power, came its own set of unforseen consequences.
(That coup was brought to you by the Kennedy adminstration
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505EFDB103EF937A25750C0A9659C8B63)
Do I think this war is “all about oil?” No. Do I think oil plays a starrring role? You betcha.
In case you missed last month’s headlines:
BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
“As far as Iraq is concerned, you certainly seemed to have drunk deeply from the Kool-Aid. The invasion to remove Saddam was supported by Democrats (the Clinton Administration, which made regime removal the objective of the U.S.) and Republicans both. Bush went to war with the approval of Congress AND the UN.”- DannyL
The regime change campaign began immediately after the first Gulf War ended, back when the Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to the New York Times. The drive for war began long before Congress passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998.
Just as with the coup/assassination business, whether a president has a “D” or an “R” behind his name matters not
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/
“If Saddam did not have stockpiles in place, he did have the factories to mass produce WMDs within weeks, together with stockpiles of concentrated uranium. And, even if he was bluffing, too bad! A bank robber comes into a bank claiming to have a bomb, you shoot him first, you don’t ask whether he is bluffing.”
Actually, some people were refuting these claims before the PR campain for war began in ernest.
This is what Denis Halliday told Salon, in March, 2002, a year before the war began:
“The experts say that Saddam doesn’t have the capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — and even if he could somehow acquire that capacity, he certainly doesn’t have the capacity to deliver them. This has been confirmed by [former Defense Secretary William S.] Cohen when he left the Department of Defense last year, it’s been confirmed by Mr. Powell, the current secretary of state, it’s been confirmed by people like Scott Ritter. Iraq is no military threat to its neighbors.
Dont trust a U.N. official? Here’s Colin Powell, in Feb. 2001:
“[Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”
Condi Rice made a similar claim.
“you certainly seemed to have drunk deeply from the Kool-Aid.” - Danny L.
Since you mentioned Kool-Aid, Scott Ritter was accussed of drinking Saddam Hussein’s Kool-Aid, for doubting the Adminstration’s WMD claims.
The invasion to remove Saddam was supported by Democrats (the Clinton Administration, which made regime removal the objective of the U.S.) and Republicans both. Bush went to war with the approval of Congress AND the UN. — Danny L
As I said, you have to go back to 1992 to see how this developed.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html
After the first Gulf War, the realists in Bush 41’s cabinet split with the neoconservatives who wanted regime change.
This is what a couple of the realists had to say:
“From the brief time that we did spend occupying Iraqi territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit — we would still be there, and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of the occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on.”– Norman Schwarzkopf, from his 1993 autobiography, It Doesn’t Take a Hero
“We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability.” - George H.W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998
Oh, and here’s Dick Cheney:
“If we’d gone to Baghdad,” says former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, “we’d probably still be in Iraq, responsible for the people and politics, owning the place like we now own Haiti.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981679,00.html
It certainly did not apply to Iraq, or at least not with so much imminent urgency that we had any justification for acting when we did.
The justification of the principle of first strike and taking the initiative with the attack, rather than allowing your enemy time to create an overwhelming offense that you will never be able to successfully negate, is all the justification any nation needs in terms of protecting its citizens from external enemies.
Iraq is only ever an example that when you don’t follow the principle of mobility and attacking first, you are going to create undue problems for yourself later on. Whether this is because people hesitated after the Gulf War or because people wanted to give the UN and America’s enemies time to craft up counter-attack strategies.
It doesn’t matter how much of a threat, potentially, a nation is. What matters is only what you are going to do about it in terms of either limiting that threat or simply allowing it to grow, as Chamberlain allowed the Axis to grow. War is not the only means of striking first, but it is the one that has the most chances of success compared to other methods that are slower and tend to be undecisive. Undecisive engagements mean that more battles will occur, giving the enemy more time to mobilize their resources and manpower, requiring that you kill more people in the end. That is why Total War favors ultimate offense strategically, even if it allows for tactical defense to make use of the benefits of the defender.
You’ve seen Ozzie’s complaints of the “realist” strategy in the Cold War, even though he seems to be siding with them now against Iraq and liberty. Such resulted precisely because the Cold War could not be resolved through active means. That left anti-war means, like say spycraft and subversion and social disharmony and proxy wars that got other people to fight the battles and wars that America and the USSR were afraid to fight. Caution is all nice and good in the face of nuclear winter, but after a few decades, both nations had slipped into the fallacy of cowardice, where caution is an end in itself. The end was supposed to be victory, not getting other people to do the two superpower’s dirty work. And when people forgot that, tragedies were made existent.
When Reagan did not forget that the ultimate end in the Cold War was victory against the USSR, which meant attacking the USSR on all fronts if it is reasonable to do so and if the chances of success are greater than even, the USSR was pushed back given their overly cautious treatment of enemies and allies.
Danny, I can think of lots of potential positives, but let’s see how things turn out before we declare victory. Let’s see what Iraq looks like 5 years after we leave. And, of course, let’s see how, when and under what circumstances we leave.
But we are not in the passive historian’s chair of observation here, DQ. The history is being made as we speak. When that happens, there is always the chance that people’s actions now, even if it is just an observation of the facts, will be able to change the events of history in one direction or another. Then what will people say, that what they predicted will occur did occur, when they caused it to occur? It’s non-conclusive, the only thing that matters now is causing the change people desire, whether it is pro-Iraq or anti-Iraq or pro-UN/pro-Eu.
The passive historian’s observation from out of time, is not available to us, no matter how pleasing the view may be.
If you cannot visualize or imagine the potential positives, how will you know when they have been achieved and how will you know whether to back certain policy changes or initiations, such as Iraq or the Surge? If you cannot imagine what you will win, why would you ever start a war in Iraq in the first place. The answer is obvious, if you don’t know what you will win, you won’t fight, and if you won’t fight, you can only say that you were against Iraq because you could not see far enough into the future on a vision basis.
That is not just a one time handicap. That will affect every action and view you take in relation to Iraq, DQ. It is that kind of passivity, the willingness to allow history to pass on by on the whims of others, that is a fundamental cause of America’s inability to maintain confidence in themselves. If you don’t know what can be won, why would be confident enough to defend America when she is criticized for doing things to change the world? So most people, because of a lack of confidence, abandon America and thus we see this reversion into childhood, where nobody has to take responsibility and every child can watch the adults make the real decisions as time passes on by.
unwinnable urban guerilla war
These are all justifications for why things can’t be done. If America cannot win in Fallujah given the power imbalance between America and her enemies, then that’s a very sorry Ozzie result given America’s sacrifices against Britain in the Revolutionary War, Britain who was a real superpower when America was not.
If people fear winning that bad, then they might as well accept defeat and the yoke of those with more spirit than they. There are no other choices in this world on an international basis. Either you are on top, or you are at the bottom getting screwed by either your own countryman’s dictators or nations like France and the UN Peacekeepers.
Dont trust a U.N. official? Here’s Colin Powell, in Feb. 2001:
Actually, it’s more like we don’t trust your use of the Un and State Department propaganda, not that we think the UN or Powell said something they thought was untrue.
Those two are different issues.
In keeping with the blowback theme, however, I lament the fact that Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset for 40 years and that America’s coup in Iraq, in which we put the Baathists in power, came its own set of unforseen consequences.
This is still another excuse for why you don’t hold individual war criminals and mass murderers responsible for their own actions, Ozzie. Is it so much better for your conscience to fight to protect such individuals from the righteous wrath of their victims, based solely on the excuse that fighting dictators was wrong because those fighting dictators were helping those dictators in your propaganda line, Ozzie?
What does any of this have to do with reality, national self-interest, and the inborn limitations on national power? Situations change, and yet Ozzie is still defending dictators and tyrants regardless of whether they are Khomeini’s “we did evil cause of America” or whether it is Saddam “we did evil cause of America” or whether it is the jihadists “we blew stuff up cause of America being in our land”.
You are so enamored of the past and so guilt ridden, that you would people to stomp down women and children underfoot, in today’s world, simply to assuage your conscience of what happened in somebody else’s previous generation. If you are so enamored of taking responsibility for such things and individuals, you might as well committ hara kiri and allow the rest of America, like say the US Marine Corps, to actually make the world a better place for human beings.
Ozzie, your links are something to behold - the NYT? The same NYT that actively covered up Stalin’s genocide of the Ukranians, made apologies for Hitler, enthusiastically championed Castro as a liberator and cheered that the Khmer Rouge would bring peace to Cambodia? CNN- the very same CNN whose news chief, Eason Jordan, admitted openly that he slanted stories to cover for Saddam Hussein in order to gain access? Please!
OK - some facts to jolt you from your alternate universe:
1) Saddam a CIA asset? Saddam and his Baathist buddies were Nazi wannabees and clients of the Soviet Union (and France). Quite a double agent he must have been to fool so many people.
2) The first Gulf War never ended - there was a cease fire and Saddam Hussein violated the cease fire. Just one more reason to depose him.
3) Western oil companies are always negotiating for oil contracts. That’s why we call them “oil” companies. France’s Total/Fina was in bed with Saddam Hussein, even during the so-called UN embargo. Now there’s a somewhat more open market. So?
4)”he experts say that Saddam doesn’t have the capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”. Yup, tell that to the Kurds. The 500 tons of uranium yellowcake about to be removed from Iraq was no doubt there for landscaping purposes. Yeah, boy! Hmmm-hmm!
5) “After the first Gulf War, the realists in Bush 41’s cabinet split with the neoconservatives who wanted regime change.” They really thought that they could keep Saddam Hussein “in a box”. As events AFTER the first Gulf War demonstrated (the campaign against the Shiites and the Kurds, the Oil for Food program, the shooting at America planes, the violation of the arms embargo by the French and Russians), it was clear that the “realist’s” good intentions were wrong. Nothing in world politics is certain. But, good news! The situation has now been rectified. No more Saddam.
What is truly sad, Ozzie, is how you need to twist your own facts and logic into self-enclosed pretzel loops to support your inner need to find fault for the world’s ills in the United States. I feel sorry for someone who needs to believe that the U.S. must somehow be to blame for the ravages that the Saddam Husseins and Khomeinis inflict on their own peoples rather than blaming the perps themselves. What a strange, sad, miserable world view. For some, it appears, the glass must always be more-than half empty.