> Let's cut to the chase Luke...
>
>
> Nitpicking about Galloway is really an aimless pastime, like blowing
> dandelion petals into the wind but not as much fun.
Perhaps it is an aimless pastime, but you're one of the folks who requested that I continue onward with it:
> But I long to see a reference the way a stripper longs to kick off those
> damn heels after a long night.
>
> Can you provide?
>
> Mind you, I'm not saying these words weren't uttered, or written, or
> faxed or transmitted via tachyon burst or otherwise issued.
>
> But a source (and some context) would be nice to know.
But really, my initial point was simple, and it pains me that it has been met with such resistance. Let's suppose (contra reality) that Galloway's politics aren't "transparently contempible." Nonetheless, the anti-Baath credentials of someone who once praised Saddam and (I believe) claims Tariq Aziz as a "dear friend" aren't spotless. So when random wingnut x says "don't listen to Galloway, he's a Saddamite," the only sensible response is to properly point out that ad hominem argumentation is fallacious--and not to defend Galloway's often dubious politics.
> We are very well past the time when discussions of supporting or not
supporting armed resistance in Iraq makes even a
> nanometer of sense
Why? It's still a pressing question. I believe anti-war arguments would generally meet with a warmer reception if they weren't conjoined with defenses of the insurgents' "right" to blow up American troops and/or Iraqi civilians.
> You've also stated your belief that if it weren't for violent resistance,
reconstruction would be moving forward. This shows your > faith in firms
like Haliburton to do a good job if only given a chance. Another factor
shaping your interpretation of events in
> Iraq.
This is my belief: in the absence of a robust and violent insurgency, Iraq would be better off today than it was under Saddam. But of course that doesn't get supporters of the war off the hook.
> This also leads, I think, to your persistent (and quite striking) tendency
to ignore the cause and effect relationship between the
> way Iraqis are actually treated by their military-corporate liberators and
the violence that has erupted in response.
Because I don't think there is any simple cause-effect relationship to be drawn. It should be pretty clear by now that any US-led occupation would've been met with fair deal of violent resistance no matter how well the "military-corporate" occupiers treated the occupied.
> There's an ephemeral, disconnected quality to your comments on this
matter -- more like a debating team exercise than a
> discussion of life and death issues.
Probably because my uncertainty as to how the issues should be addressed generally precludes righteous indignation. However, some responses do strike me as obvious non-starters--say, embracing the violent anti-occupation forces in Iraq.
-- Luke