Tom, the '67 borders has been official U.S. policy for as long as I can remember. It's true, that's not often shouted to the world, but I'm quite sure Israel knew it, even if they didn't know he was planning on telling everybody on television.
Except, Blaise, that his stated reason for leaving the party was the purge of the Jewish doctors. It's true that it happened after Stalin's death, his leaving that is, but that's because information from the Soviet Union came slowly, and they only learned of the purge and its ruse after his death. That's actually in Eribon's book (which is excellent). If you'd read it instead of quoting a review of it you might know that! You may say that he was a Stalin denialist, but leaving the party because of Stalin's actions pretty much makes that bullshit, or worse.
By the way, he was never a particularly active member, nor was he a Stalinist.
that a.) doesn't point to denialism, and b.) contradicts Foucault's own stated reason for leaving the party when he did: the purge of Jewish doctors, by some guy of whose actions you claim Foucault was in denial. And I say this as someone who thinks Eribon's biography is a great read (your text, by the way, is from the review, not from Eribon's book). One could argue that Eribon understood the reasons for Foucault's leaving of the party in '53 that Foucault himself would likely be reluctant to talk about, at least in '53, but the very fact that he was quite clear that the purge was the last straw for him contradicts your assertion about his denialism.
And recall that a.) Foucault was not a very active member, and b.) he was never a Stalinist.
Dude, I hate to be the one to point this out, but you just continue to make stuff up, and on topics that I actually care about.
Foucault made much of differences between things, but pressed to take sides against the culture of denial and repression in Stalin’s USSR, he remained in the camp of deniers.
Foucault left the PCF in 1953 precisely because of what was happening under Stalism. I don't see any evidence in his actions or his writings to suggest he was a denialist. He was young, and only in the party for 3 years. After that, he was pretty objectively anti-Stalism and largely anti-Soviet socialism.
Bob, if Obama ordered an illegal execution, then I am all for impeachment. I'm not sure whether what happened was illegal (again, I'm not even sure what happened, and neither are you). From what I can tell, legal experts mostly feel it was legal, but are divided, and most if not all of them don't really know what happened either.
But for me, it's not just a legal issue, and the more important thing is the principle, and the idea of killing people without trial, whatever they've done, when they're not in a war zone, is just wrong (even in a war zone, there have to be rules about these things, but that's the simplest formulation).
By the way, your racism, or if you prefer, your bigotry towards Islam (sorry Tom, but that's real bigotry) doesn't help your case. And if you think Islam is gnostic, you don't know what that word means.
I can't imagine that many other presidents would have acted differently, to be honest. The fact is, a trial of bin Laden would have been a political nightmare, as would have not trying him but detaining him anyway. That doesn't excuse an execution, if that's what it was, but it's a political calculus that would likely have determined the actions anyone in either of the two political parties. That, I suppose, says all I need to know about our political system.
I don't know if I'm agreeing with Bob here, but it pains me to be even this close to doing so, but here goes.
For me, it isn't about the legality of it. I'm not sure whether it was legal, not only because I'm ignorant of the relevant law, but because I, and I imagine most of us, don't know exactly what went down either in the lead up to the raid of in the actual raid itself. I am pretty damn sure that nothing would ever come of it if it were illegal. There are plenty of members of the last administration who did legally questionable things, and last I checked, none of them have been tried, or even investigated.
However, for me the legal question is secondary at best. The more important question is the principle, or the morality, however you want to think about it, of the actions and the orders that instigated them. If a person who was hundreds of miles from any fighting, and unarmed, was gunned down in cold blood, under orders to do just that, then that's wrong, to me, whether it was legal or not. And it doesn't seem like the sort of thing a government, any government, much less one that represents me, should be doing.
To me, bin Laden was a criminal, one whose crimes were, of course, historically heinous, but a criminal none the less, and I don't know of any civilized nation that authorizes the killing of unarmed criminals, without trial, in the process of apprehending them, simply because of the nature of their crimes, however horrific those crimes might have been. That's pretty much what being civilized means.
By the way, the 328th Infantry Division headquarters were not, in case you're wondering, headed by Eisenhower.
And if you read the book from which that order is quoted, you'll find that the order was generally not followed, or at least that there's no evidence that it was.
Anyway, if you find evidence that Eisenhower issued that order, or that it was followed by anyone, I'll chime back in. Until then, have fun attacking me personally. I'm sure it will make you feel better.
What evidence? You said he gave an order that no SS prisoners were to be taken alive. That's a bold statement, one with implications about the American armed forces in World War II and about Eisenhower specifically. You've provided no evidence for such an order. You've merely repeated what I said in my first couple posts on the subject: that American troops murdered SS prisoners, and that Eisenhower used inflammatory language that probably exacerbated the problem. That's not issuing an order. But if you don't see that, it's not my problem. I've put it out there. You've flailed away with personal attacks and repeating more of what I've already admitted.
By the way, have you noticed that you can't respond to me without attacking me personally? It's true, I've responded to you a lot, because you say a lot of blatantly false things with some frequency. It's a bit of a pathology with me. I've done the same to others when I think they're full of shit (ask Tom or Bob, who are at least principled and honest; I don't know what you are). And with the exception of making a jab at you about your personal stories (have you looked up General Ivolgin yet? He's a character in The Idiot, though lest you get offended by the title alone, he's not the Idiot himself), I haven't said a thing about you personally until just now.
Oh, and my spelling is atrotious (OK, that one was on purpose; I'm on Firefox now so I have automatic spell check). You and every teacher I had from the first grade on have noticed it. Good on ya. And I'm not a clinical psychologist, by the way. There are other kinds.
Spotsylvania has never been the symbol of that wars horror for me in the same way that some later battles have, or even the Wilderness that preceded it, largely because unlike those bloody battles, it served a real and important strategic purpose. If Grant gets behind Lee, the war is all but over for Lee's army, and therefore for the South.
I think of the pointless slaughter at Franklin because of Hood's wounded ego -- a thousand casualties an hour for five hellish hours. No strategic purpose, no purpose whatsoever. Just charge after charge at Union breastworks, destroying an army, because a general was angry.
yup, but saying he ordered it is not only wrong, it's libelous. Eisenhower had his faults, but bloodlust wasn't one of them. I am not being a naysayer; I am pointing out a blatant and character-damaging untruth. Why you uttered it? I'm no psychologist... Well, OK, I am a psychologist, but why you say the stuff you do is beyond me.
Inciting repraisals and making them the official policy of the supreme commander are two very different things. I can't imagine someone as smart as you can't see the difference, or why I might feel compelled to point it out.
But you keep attacking me personally if you want. I've made and overmade my point.
I would ask for reputable sources to back your claim, but as I know no such sources exist, I won't bother. Thousands of Waffen SS soldiers were taken prisoner, and no order was ever given to kill then, not by Eisenhower or any other general at least (some Second Lieutenant, maybe). No evidence exists for such an order. You made it up, and pointing to Eisenhower's incendiary rhetoric is just ass-covering, as are the insults.
Yeah, no such order existed, and orders were even issued to take them alive, because they tended to provide the best intelligence, which was being lost through repraisal killings.
Anyway, I know you were there and all, fighting for both the French and Dutch Resistance (with a stint among the Ukrainian partisans), but no such order was issued. Pulling it out of your butt doesn't make it true.
In the case of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, the causal chain is pretty direct and unbroken (and one often noted by historians). I think one could probably argue that the causal chain from the 30 Years War to World War I is a bit... tangled.
I can't speak for anyone else, but if that's the way it went down, particularly if it was an execution ordered from above, then yes, I'm very disturbed.
What I don't understand, Jason, is why you focus on the more loopy elements in the dominant religion in our country (and by focus, I mean post something about it once every few blue moons), but never, ever say anything about the craziness of religions that, while they might have small to nonexistent footprints in our country, are dominant in some other country halfway accross the world! It's almost as if you're biased towards writing about stuff that might actually affect you or your readers, which would be disappointing. I am looking forward to your posts on the silliness of fundamentalist New Guinea animism to rectify this.
You know, that's not entirely unreasonable. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the 30 Years War, except what was happening in the Commonwealth ('cause I really dig Sienkiewicz' trilogy), but I do know that Lothringen (Lorraine) was one of the focuses of early German nationalism, and German nationalism was an impetus for the Franco-Prussian War.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant. So, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II, 1982 World Cup semifinals! It all makes sense, now.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant.
Oh, I was mostly being facetious, but it's a mistake to treat 1871 and 1914 as "qualitatively different" (not sure what that means, in this case). First, Germany took French territory, and as a result, the two were essentially in a state of "cold war" from 1872 until 1914. Remember the charges in the Dreyfus Affair? The entire French military culture was built up around an inevitable war with Germany (they wanted another war -- taking back Alsace-Lorraine was an obsession in the military, and in the government). World War I, or at least a second Franco-Prussian war, was pretty much a foregone conclusion after the Treaty of Frankfurt, and that's to say nothing of the power balance issues that the unified German state created.
So, since World War I was in many ways a result of the Franco-Prussian War, and since World War II was in many ways a result of World War I, the Franco-Prussian War is the start of a 75 year war between France, Germany, and their allies at various points.
On “Only Nixon Could Go to China”
Tom, the '67 borders has been official U.S. policy for as long as I can remember. It's true, that's not often shouted to the world, but I'm quite sure Israel knew it, even if they didn't know he was planning on telling everybody on television.
On “Demoktesis”
Except, Blaise, that his stated reason for leaving the party was the purge of the Jewish doctors. It's true that it happened after Stalin's death, his leaving that is, but that's because information from the Soviet Union came slowly, and they only learned of the purge and its ruse after his death. That's actually in Eribon's book (which is excellent). If you'd read it instead of quoting a review of it you might know that! You may say that he was a Stalin denialist, but leaving the party because of Stalin's actions pretty much makes that bullshit, or worse.
By the way, he was never a particularly active member, nor was he a Stalinist.
that a.) doesn't point to denialism, and b.) contradicts Foucault's own stated reason for leaving the party when he did: the purge of Jewish doctors, by some guy of whose actions you claim Foucault was in denial. And I say this as someone who thinks Eribon's biography is a great read (your text, by the way, is from the review, not from Eribon's book). One could argue that Eribon understood the reasons for Foucault's leaving of the party in '53 that Foucault himself would likely be reluctant to talk about, at least in '53, but the very fact that he was quite clear that the purge was the last straw for him contradicts your assertion about his denialism.
And recall that a.) Foucault was not a very active member, and b.) he was never a Stalinist.
"
Dude, I hate to be the one to point this out, but you just continue to make stuff up, and on topics that I actually care about.
Foucault made much of differences between things, but pressed to take sides against the culture of denial and repression in Stalin’s USSR, he remained in the camp of deniers.
Foucault left the PCF in 1953 precisely because of what was happening under Stalism. I don't see any evidence in his actions or his writings to suggest he was a denialist. He was young, and only in the party for 3 years. After that, he was pretty objectively anti-Stalism and largely anti-Soviet socialism.
On “Foote’s Civil War: Spotsylvania and the Death of Jeb Stuart”
I was thinking of Cold Harbor as well.
On “Demoktesis”
For some reason, the word "futile" keeps popping into my head.
"
You could escape from Auschwitz! See?
OK, I'm just being facetious. That is, however, one of the most impressive, inspiring, and ultimately tragic stories I've ever heard.
On “America, Forever At War”
Bob, if Obama ordered an illegal execution, then I am all for impeachment. I'm not sure whether what happened was illegal (again, I'm not even sure what happened, and neither are you). From what I can tell, legal experts mostly feel it was legal, but are divided, and most if not all of them don't really know what happened either.
But for me, it's not just a legal issue, and the more important thing is the principle, and the idea of killing people without trial, whatever they've done, when they're not in a war zone, is just wrong (even in a war zone, there have to be rules about these things, but that's the simplest formulation).
By the way, your racism, or if you prefer, your bigotry towards Islam (sorry Tom, but that's real bigotry) doesn't help your case. And if you think Islam is gnostic, you don't know what that word means.
"
I can't imagine that many other presidents would have acted differently, to be honest. The fact is, a trial of bin Laden would have been a political nightmare, as would have not trying him but detaining him anyway. That doesn't excuse an execution, if that's what it was, but it's a political calculus that would likely have determined the actions anyone in either of the two political parties. That, I suppose, says all I need to know about our political system.
"
I don't know if I'm agreeing with Bob here, but it pains me to be even this close to doing so, but here goes.
For me, it isn't about the legality of it. I'm not sure whether it was legal, not only because I'm ignorant of the relevant law, but because I, and I imagine most of us, don't know exactly what went down either in the lead up to the raid of in the actual raid itself. I am pretty damn sure that nothing would ever come of it if it were illegal. There are plenty of members of the last administration who did legally questionable things, and last I checked, none of them have been tried, or even investigated.
However, for me the legal question is secondary at best. The more important question is the principle, or the morality, however you want to think about it, of the actions and the orders that instigated them. If a person who was hundreds of miles from any fighting, and unarmed, was gunned down in cold blood, under orders to do just that, then that's wrong, to me, whether it was legal or not. And it doesn't seem like the sort of thing a government, any government, much less one that represents me, should be doing.
To me, bin Laden was a criminal, one whose crimes were, of course, historically heinous, but a criminal none the less, and I don't know of any civilized nation that authorizes the killing of unarmed criminals, without trial, in the process of apprehending them, simply because of the nature of their crimes, however horrific those crimes might have been. That's pretty much what being civilized means.
"
By the way, the 328th Infantry Division headquarters were not, in case you're wondering, headed by Eisenhower.
And if you read the book from which that order is quoted, you'll find that the order was generally not followed, or at least that there's no evidence that it was.
Anyway, if you find evidence that Eisenhower issued that order, or that it was followed by anyone, I'll chime back in. Until then, have fun attacking me personally. I'm sure it will make you feel better.
"
What evidence? You said he gave an order that no SS prisoners were to be taken alive. That's a bold statement, one with implications about the American armed forces in World War II and about Eisenhower specifically. You've provided no evidence for such an order. You've merely repeated what I said in my first couple posts on the subject: that American troops murdered SS prisoners, and that Eisenhower used inflammatory language that probably exacerbated the problem. That's not issuing an order. But if you don't see that, it's not my problem. I've put it out there. You've flailed away with personal attacks and repeating more of what I've already admitted.
By the way, have you noticed that you can't respond to me without attacking me personally? It's true, I've responded to you a lot, because you say a lot of blatantly false things with some frequency. It's a bit of a pathology with me. I've done the same to others when I think they're full of shit (ask Tom or Bob, who are at least principled and honest; I don't know what you are). And with the exception of making a jab at you about your personal stories (have you looked up General Ivolgin yet? He's a character in The Idiot, though lest you get offended by the title alone, he's not the Idiot himself), I haven't said a thing about you personally until just now.
Oh, and my spelling is atrotious (OK, that one was on purpose; I'm on Firefox now so I have automatic spell check). You and every teacher I had from the first grade on have noticed it. Good on ya. And I'm not a clinical psychologist, by the way. There are other kinds.
On “Foote’s Civil War: Spotsylvania and the Death of Jeb Stuart”
Spotsylvania has never been the symbol of that wars horror for me in the same way that some later battles have, or even the Wilderness that preceded it, largely because unlike those bloody battles, it served a real and important strategic purpose. If Grant gets behind Lee, the war is all but over for Lee's army, and therefore for the South.
I think of the pointless slaughter at Franklin because of Hood's wounded ego -- a thousand casualties an hour for five hellish hours. No strategic purpose, no purpose whatsoever. Just charge after charge at Union breastworks, destroying an army, because a general was angry.
On “America, Forever At War”
yup, but saying he ordered it is not only wrong, it's libelous. Eisenhower had his faults, but bloodlust wasn't one of them. I am not being a naysayer; I am pointing out a blatant and character-damaging untruth. Why you uttered it? I'm no psychologist... Well, OK, I am a psychologist, but why you say the stuff you do is beyond me.
Inciting repraisals and making them the official policy of the supreme commander are two very different things. I can't imagine someone as smart as you can't see the difference, or why I might feel compelled to point it out.
But you keep attacking me personally if you want. I've made and overmade my point.
"
Dude, I mentioned repraisal killings already. Keep up.
"
I would ask for reputable sources to back your claim, but as I know no such sources exist, I won't bother. Thousands of Waffen SS soldiers were taken prisoner, and no order was ever given to kill then, not by Eisenhower or any other general at least (some Second Lieutenant, maybe). No evidence exists for such an order. You made it up, and pointing to Eisenhower's incendiary rhetoric is just ass-covering, as are the insults.
"
Oh yeah, well they taught me something completely different in interrogator training!
"
Yeah, no such order existed, and orders were even issued to take them alive, because they tended to provide the best intelligence, which was being lost through repraisal killings.
Anyway, I know you were there and all, fighting for both the French and Dutch Resistance (with a stint among the Ukrainian partisans), but no such order was issued. Pulling it out of your butt doesn't make it true.
"
Eisenhower issued an order no SS prisoners were to be taken alive after the massacre of American soldiers at Malmedy.
That's not true, of course.
"
In the case of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, the causal chain is pretty direct and unbroken (and one often noted by historians). I think one could probably argue that the causal chain from the 30 Years War to World War I is a bit... tangled.
"
I can't speak for anyone else, but if that's the way it went down, particularly if it was an execution ordered from above, then yes, I'm very disturbed.
On “The Rapture in Stereo”
What I don't understand, Jason, is why you focus on the more loopy elements in the dominant religion in our country (and by focus, I mean post something about it once every few blue moons), but never, ever say anything about the craziness of religions that, while they might have small to nonexistent footprints in our country, are dominant in some other country halfway accross the world! It's almost as if you're biased towards writing about stuff that might actually affect you or your readers, which would be disappointing. I am looking forward to your posts on the silliness of fundamentalist New Guinea animism to rectify this.
On “America, Forever At War”
Somehow, that sentence ended up there twice. Stupid smart phone.
"
You know, that's not entirely unreasonable. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the 30 Years War, except what was happening in the Commonwealth ('cause I really dig Sienkiewicz' trilogy), but I do know that Lothringen (Lorraine) was one of the focuses of early German nationalism, and German nationalism was an impetus for the Franco-Prussian War.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant. So, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II, 1982 World Cup semifinals! It all makes sense, now.
Plus, we've already talked about Blucher and his baby elephant.
"
Oh, I was mostly being facetious, but it's a mistake to treat 1871 and 1914 as "qualitatively different" (not sure what that means, in this case). First, Germany took French territory, and as a result, the two were essentially in a state of "cold war" from 1872 until 1914. Remember the charges in the Dreyfus Affair? The entire French military culture was built up around an inevitable war with Germany (they wanted another war -- taking back Alsace-Lorraine was an obsession in the military, and in the government). World War I, or at least a second Franco-Prussian war, was pretty much a foregone conclusion after the Treaty of Frankfurt, and that's to say nothing of the power balance issues that the unified German state created.
So, since World War I was in many ways a result of the Franco-Prussian War, and since World War II was in many ways a result of World War I, the Franco-Prussian War is the start of a 75 year war between France, Germany, and their allies at various points.
"
It was all just a continuation of the Franco-Prussian War.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.