Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Kill Yr Idols
The Guardian has your slice of Iraq glumness for the day: The Iraqi who took a sledgehammer to the base of Saddam's statue in Baghdad now regrets ever doing so.
I regret tearing down the statue. The Americans are worse than Saddam, and we are in the fifth year of their occupation. Every day is worse than the previous day.
And so on. What's needed: A surge of 21,000 (or 30,000) sculptors to build some new tear-downable statues and help Iraqi bodybuilders get their grooves back.
VM|3.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#
"Every day is worse than the previous day.... That means that
every day you see me it's on the worst day of my life"
"What about today? Is today the worst day of your life?"
"It sure is"
"Man. That's fucked up."
transcript between Petr al Gibbons and Dr. alhambra Swanson
Dan T.|3.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Iraq sounds like a small-government paradise to me. I bet you can smoke in the bars there and I doubt anybody cares about trans fats.
thoreau|3.21.07 @ 10:37AM|#
What's really messed up is that we won't even let the Iraqis keep their staplers.
|3.21.07 @ 10:47AM|#
I think he'd probably like to go down the road to his favorite cafe and have a cup of mud and a few pulls on the hookah without worrying about being blown up or snatched off the street for some impromptu brain surgery. At least when Saddam was on the job, the chaos and carnage were predictable.
ed|3.21.07 @ 10:48AM|#
The Americans are worse than Saddam
This guy just might make a fine Reason intern. Snap him up!
|3.21.07 @ 10:51AM|#
"Iraq sounds like a small-government paradise to me. I bet you
can smoke in the bars there and I doubt anybody cares about trans
fats."
Yeah. Because the last time you heard libertarians saying that the
government shouldn't be responsible for preventing road side bombs
was when?
|3.21.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Yeah. Because the last time you heard libertarians saying
that the government shouldn't be responsible for preventing road
side bombs was when?
Well, gee, when did David Friedman write his last book? Gotta love
those anarcho-capitalists.
Duh|3.21.07 @ 11:00AM|#
I think he'd probably like to go down the road to his
favorite cafe and have a cup of mud
I agree that he'd rather do that that, oh, I don't know, fight for
his freedom.
Dave W.|3.21.07 @ 11:11AM|#
It seems to me like taking a sledgehammer to that statue was an
illegal act -- unless he had permission from the US military
command I suppose.
Are locals allowed to commit spontaneous property crimes during
wartime?
I hope d00dski knows what the statute of limitations is for serious
vandalism (terrorism?) under Iraq's criminal law.
|3.21.07 @ 11:14AM|#
The Americans are worse than Saddam
Well, we could always try rape rooms, mass killing of our political
opponents, censoring the press, tightly controlling all membership
in any organizations whatsoever, instituting a secret police force
to root out opposition, and see if that gets things running as
swimmingly as it was under Saddam. Thanks for the ideas,
sledgehammer guy!
Dan T.|3.21.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Yeah. Because the last time you heard libertarians saying
that the government shouldn't be responsible for preventing road
side bombs was when?
Just pointing out that a little too much government is probably
better than not quite enough.
Dan T.|3.21.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Well, we could always try rape rooms, mass killing of our
political opponents, censoring the press, tightly controlling all
membership in any organizations whatsoever, instituting a secret
police force to root out opposition, and see if that gets things
running as swimmingly as it was under Saddam. Thanks for the ideas,
sledgehammer guy!
I think that's the point. As nasty as Saddam was, it appears that
he was better than civil war.
|3.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Not even I thought we'd manage to make Iraq worse than
Saddam.
And think about it - this guy is saying that he was better off
under Saddam, even when the sanctions were on. Yikes!
|3.21.07 @ 11:44AM|#
As nasty as Saddam was, it appears that he was better than
civil war.
My point was that no one would stand for us imposing Saddam-like
controls to avoid civil war, would they? This guy complains about
"occupation" but a real military dictatorship wouldn't put up with
complaining, would it? The Kurds have managed a prospersous self
government. Maybe it's not all the occupier's fault. Maybe the
occupied should take some responsibility.
|3.21.07 @ 11:48AM|#
So -- is the consensus that we should've just gunned them down in the streets back in '03 when the first rumblings of dissent occurred? Would that have produced a more optimal outcome?
Bramblyspam|3.21.07 @ 11:48AM|#
"When smashing monuments, save the pedestals - they always come in handy." -- Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
|3.21.07 @ 12:00PM|#
The consensus, JKP, is that we never should have set this
disaster in motion in the first place.
You're right, neither of those options is acceptable, and no better
options are presenting themselves. This is just occurring to you in
March 2007?
Jim Henley|3.21.07 @ 12:46PM|#
My point was that no one would stand for us imposing Saddam-like controls to avoid civil war, would they? This guy complains about "occupation" but a real military dictatorship wouldn't put up with complaining, would it? The Kurds have managed a prospersous self government. Maybe it's not all the occupier's fault. Maybe the occupied should take some responsibility.
The Kurdish enclave is a hothouse flower that requires a
combination of American patronage and an American willingness to
overlook ethnic cleansing by the ruling majority. It's a Kosovo
with less annual rainfall. Those conditions are not going to obtain
in the rest of Iraq.
|3.21.07 @ 1:27PM|#
this guy is saying that he was better off under Saddam, even
when the sanctions were on.
That settles it for me!
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Abdul, R.C. Dean, etc.,
Whatever the merits of the man's arguments, maybe you ought to go
live in Iraq for a while to see exactly why he is saying these
things?
Grotius|3.21.07 @ 1:35PM|#
At the very least one should be able to empathize with the man's situation even if one doesn't agree with his assessment, especially if one actually gave a shit about the plight of Iraqis. After all, this an individual who is having to live with the consequences of our nation's actions.
Jeremy|3.21.07 @ 1:58PM|#
You know, I could just sit here and post a snarky (yet observant
and perhaps surprisingly funny) comment, but instead of that I've
chosen to applaud the Sonic Youth reference.
Bravo, sir, BRAVO!
|3.21.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Joe said-
"Not even I thought we'd manage to make Iraq worse than
Saddam.
And think about it - this guy is saying that he was better off
under Saddam, even when the sanctions were on. Yikes!"
Ok Joe, when I brought up this line of thinking the other day , you
told me that it was a straw man argument and people weren't saying
that. The new call of the Liberal "We should support dictators to
promote stability! Saddam made the trains run on time!"
|3.21.07 @ 2:10PM|#
brotherben,
You get an unsolicited
Amen!
for that.
(Is "can I get a..." now just meant to be understood at the end of
your comments?)
(Is "Amen" not really appropriate for a comment that isn't any sort
of righteous, but just very clever?)
(How many parenthetical questions are too many?)
(Is this too many now?)
(How about now?)
|3.21.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Grotius, I'm not denying that things are not good in Iraq, and
that for some folks (especially Sunnis profiting from the Saddamite
state) things are worse than under Saddam.
Still, the notion that one guy's opinion on all this, taken totally
out of context, has the least information or persuasive power, is
ludicrous.
Gene Berkman|3.21.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Perhaps if Saddam were still in power, this guy would still be
dreaming about pulling the statue down. Or perhaps he would be
fighting for his freedom.
And maybe when he says the American occupation is worse than
Saddam, he is not expressing nostalgia for the Ba'ath Party regime.
He probably thinks it is the strongest possible way to reject what
the American occupation is doing to his country.
Not so long ago, most Libertarians were quite unhappy with
Clinton's Democrat Party regime, and were glad to see Republicans
win the 2000 election. Now some of those same people, and some
conservative Republicans are saying "bring Clinton back."
|3.21.07 @ 7:29PM|#
Dave,
The reason your comparison, argument, and accusation fall apart is
because "support" does not mean the same thing as "oppose through
means short of invasion and occupation."
It is a straw man to say that liberals want us to support
dictators. If I say that Germany was better off under the Kaiser
than under Hitler, does that make me a monarchist?
|3.21.07 @ 7:32PM|#
Gene Berkman rules.
"Perhaps if Saddam were still in power, this guy would still be
dreaming about pulling the statue down. Or perhaps he would be
fighting for his freedom."
The damage this war has done to the noble, important cause of
Middle East democracy - a goal that liberals and neocons agree on,
even if we differ on tactics, strategy, and the definition of
democracy - cannot be understated.
Remember when war supporters told us that post-war Iraq was going
to serve as a model of democracy for the entire Muslim world? I'm
afraid they're right.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245