He lost me at the word 'evil.'

[Are_grits_groceries]

When I heard President Obama use that word in his speech, I just put my head down on my desk. I was too tired to bang it up against a wall.

First of all it conjures up Bush using the word 'evildoers.' That was enough right there to give me agita.

However in using the word evil, President Obama took the context of war up to a metaphysical level of good and evil. In this use, we are no longer fighting a specific group with specific aims, but an amorphous characteristic that is ill-defined. Who is evil is defined differently for each person.

When a war is cast in this context it makes a case against that action harder to make. If evil is the cause, then who can seriously doubt the fight against it in the name of the good. It is an immoral catchall that hides the specific actions that make something evil from view. One might be able to denounce those actions with reason, but denouncing evil is a whole other ball of wax in the court of public opinion.

The other problem with using evil as the enemy is the danger that poses. I'm sure I'm considered evil by some because I support choice and marriage equality. If it is okay to use evil to send our military to fight, then why isn't it okay for someone else to use force against what they consider evil? Then you will get backtracking and people have to say government defines evil and encode it in the laws.

We are nation of laws. We should go to war for specific and proveable reasons. The government cannot define evil and legislate against it. It is too relative a concept. Once we enter that realm, we are in the evangelicals wheelhouse. They have the list of those that are evil enshrined in their beliefs.

[dysfunctional press]

1. yep.

it just BAFFLES me how so many people here were falling all over themselves to give praise to "the speech".

[Unvanguard]

2. If you are unwilling to engage in moral discourse, Obama's speech was not for you.

But, then, most Americans do believe that moral norms matter, and it's not entirely clear how anyone could be committed to politics and not so believe. So I'm not sure this is really much of a problem with his speech.

[Echo In Light]

11. Perpetuating a phony "war" is akin to promoting "moral discourse" in which universe?

[Unvanguard]

26. Don't change the subject. Obama could have promoted his war in non-moral terms

and by the standard of the OP, that would apparently have been better.

[Echo In Light]

54. How am I changing the subject?

[Unvanguard]

59. Being for or against the war in Afghanistan is an entirely different subject

from being for or against the use of words like "evil" in political discourse.

[Echo In Light]

63. Not coming from someone who plays a direct role in escalating war, it's not

[Duende azul]

200. Can't have it both ways. Be in the same boat with those who ridicule the antiwar movement

for moral views ("it's all chessplaying of a higher dimension that these loony "pacifists" don't get", "didn't get your pony?") AND at the same time invoke "evil" as your cause to go to war.

I have to give you that:
It was a good move by Obama to promote the war. looking at all the puzzled minds around here he had some success.

But if the president can invoke "evil", I can too: This fucking war is a manifestation of "evil" in the world.
It's the epitome of "evil".

[Unvanguard]

205. Who's made any attempt to have it both ways?

I'm perfectly fine with moral critiques of wars. I think "realism" in international relations--"realism" of the sort that sees moral considerations as irrelevant--is dangerous and objectionable. Obama, for his part, has by all appearances made a serious attempt to grapple with the moral issues here.

[d3m0l1sh3r]

136. not a phony war

it's not

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

206. interesting profile - Hacking is a Crime

[pokercat999]

242. Ask the innocent women, children and men of Afghanistan

if it's a phony war. I think they'll tell you it's as real as it gets......those that are still alive.

Thinking about it, I wouldn't be suprised to find that poor Americans have more in common with Afghans than they have in common with ultra rich Americans.

[Echo In Light]

247. The stated reasons that the US is involved there are lies, based on lies, period.

[Autonomy]

226. The topic is the speech

and the discourse is between the participants on this website. Keep the focus.

[Are_grits_groceries]

12. I am not against engaging in moral discourse.

I found his speech on the whole to be a nuanced discussion of why people can't just avoid war completely. If those that consider me evil come to get me, I will defend myself.

However, when you engage in moral discourse alone, you step into broad categories that avoid that very nuance. If someone runs around my town declaring that certain people must go because they are evil, then that is a real problem. I count on the law to make sure that someone will have to prove a specific offense before I am hanged.

The Patriot Act is a piece of work that tries to encode evil. It amounts to whoever is in charge being able to pick up anybody and do anything with them. This is without benefit of counsel or any other laws that we have counted on. People are 'enemies of the state.' What if that law is broadened by a President to include groups that have nothing to do with security? People are just lawfully protesting.

It happened at the RNC Convention. People were picked up, and they weren't charged with the local laws or state laws that might have applied. They were charged as 'terrorists' which is now that moral catchall that means what someone wants it to mean. That charge carries serious jailtime.

[Unvanguard]

36. Yes, it is possible to engage in moral discourse in a way that does not admit of nuance.

And that does indeed lead to the problems you note.

But as you grant, Obama's speech was not in fact an example of this phenomenon: it was, as you say, "a nuanced discussion of why people can't just avoid war completely." So why do you object to it? Is it just the word "evil"? I've never been quite sure why people have such a problem with that word: it is nothing more than a stronger version of words like "unethical" or "immoral" that people seem to object to less, and when discussing cases like people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers with the intent of slaughtering innocent people, it is perhaps more appropriate than a word we might use to describe comparative trivialities.

He did refer specifically to the fact that the US had been attacked, and justified the war in Afghanistan on those terms. He did not seem to me to suggest an unlimited discretionary right to attack any country doing anything deemed "evil."

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

29. So a moral discussion justifies such language? A lot of what he did...

...and said was to placate the right. He pretty much touched all the bases with them.

*pro-war
*pro-America
*the enemy is evil (evildoers, part of the axis of evil)
*awarding me this prize was silly
*showed too much respect to Japan so best to insult the Euros

Tool

[Unvanguard]

53. Language like "evil" when discussing groups like al Qaeda? Yes.

Like I said in my second reply to the OP above, I'm not sure what people's problem is with that word.

I see no reason to construct being "pro-war" in a case like Afghanistan as a matter of ideology--or, if it is, it is only for those on the left and right who have reflexive rather than considered views of questions of war and peace, and Obama does not seem to be among those. What he said in his speech was broadly reasonable and quite mainstream, right-wing only in the (nonsensical) sense that anything not absolutely pacifistic is right-wing.

As for "pro-America", this was somewhat disappointing for me, but, really, what else should we expect from American presidents? They are accountable to the American public: the American public is not interested in the truth about US foreign policy and will punish anyone who references it.

And the enemy plainly is evil: you can say their threat is exaggerated, you can say Obama's policy will not work, but it's hard for me to see how they are anything but evil. Their means are evil: they are willing to intentionally kill large numbers of innocent people. Their ends are evil: they wish to bring about fanatically repressive fundamentalist regimes, and to destroy anyone who stands in their way. I don't think telling the truth amounts to placating the Right. Same with pointing out that there are people more deserving than Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

I highly doubt whatever "insult" was supposedly given to the Norwegians was intentional. Knowingly disregarded, perhaps, but that's fair, considering how utterly inconsequential that entire non-issue is.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

71. Hmm... why is evil a loaded term?

Firstly, we've already explain to you that he has intentionally lifted it from Bushspeak.

Evil is Adam v Eve, Bible v Qur’an, everything that's wrong with a Holy War.

Demagogues substitute evil for immoral because it's loaded like that.

What's wrong with you?

[Unvanguard]

74. Yes, clearly nobody used "evil" before George W. Bush.

Or is it that only demagogues did? Demagogues like pretty much every major political leader ever--including, say, Martin Luther King and Franklin D. Roosevelt?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

76. Not what you expected, eh?

You ask, but you don't listen. All you're interested in is presenting a counter argument. For that reason, you'll remain baffled the rest of your life when people cringe at the word "evil."

[Unvanguard]

83. If you have no problem with that logical consequence of your statement

go right ahead and embrace it.

I, on the other hand, am inclined to believe that there are evil people and evil movements, and sometimes it is perfectly right and proper to call them what they are. Indeed, in some cases--say, the US Christian Right--the failure of liberals to do so loudly and clearly enough is seriously problematic.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

98. "I'm not sure what people's problem is with that word (evil)." -- you

I've coddled and spoonfed you at this point. Now you want to lash out at me, calling my statement illogical.
:crazy:

You're beginning to remind me of some of my ex-girlfriends.

Sorry, there's nothing more I can do for you. Maybe someone else can help you.

[Vattel]

163. How is that a response?

You're making me very sympathetic to your ex-girlfriends.

[paulk]

177. LOL!

[shirlden]

236. I have a sister

who is very much into the Christian Right. She is a dittohead, teabagger, and fanatic. Is she evil? She is one of the kindest people I know. She is just stupid. Really stupid.

:shrug:

[Unvanguard]

248. I didn't mean to tar absolutely everyone in the Christian Right.

And likewise I wouldn't accuse absolutely everyone who buys into Islamic fundamentalism of being evil (which is not to say that the two are exactly equivalent movements either).

When it comes to people who wrongly believe they are in the right (as opposed to those who just don't care), my tendency is to think that moral fault lies in those who SHOULD know better, but don't--those who willfully resist reason to continue adhering to their abhorrent ideology. So if someone is just really ignorant or stupid, they've just made an error, they're not necessarily bad people.

I think moral judgment of this sort is actually better to do in terms of organizations (like al Qaeda) or political movements (like Islamic fundamentalism or the Christian Right) than in terms of individuals, because then you're really talking about evil conduct, like flying planes into buildings or oppressing women and gays, rather than evil people, which introduces complicated issues of motive and responsibility.

[varelse]

182. Doesn't the Evil vs Good theme go back to Ronald Reagan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire

The phrase evil empire was applied especially to the Soviet Union by U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who took an aggressive, hard-line stance that favored matching and exceeding the Soviet Union's strategic and global military capabilities.

[tomg]

227. And Reagan, in turn, got it from

He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, although I found the foreign policy followed by
King Randor a bit more nuanced than Reagan's.

[varelse]

252. What else could we expect from a B-movie actor? (nt)

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. I refer you to the links below:

http://www.alternet.org/world/70886/?page=entire

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/446

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7211414

5 million orphans in Iraq, 'created' by the US - never mind the 4.2 million displaced persons, 1.5 million abroad. As for the toll of the dead Iraqis since the day of the flower-throwing, I don't even care to look it up again.

And how about the seemingly ongoing role of the US in Latin America? And you have the brass neck to talk about Al Qaeda being evil! Do you expect to murder and tyrannize people for control of their oil fields and economic wealth, and not expect them to react in evil ways. People see war against an occupier as a fight for survival - which, in the event, doesn't seem to have been too successful for the Iraqis. Even Bush's counter-terrorist chief asserted the war in Iraq was a massive incubator of terrorists throughout the Moslem world.

The evil of Al-Qaeda in seeking to drive out the Western invaders from the Middle East is in the nature of formal sin. However, since
Al-Quaeda is fighting in self-defence, it is not an 'actual sin', meaning that God would not condemn the people concerned - at least on that basis.

Invading and occupying foreign countries for strategic and economic gain is an actual sin (not on the part of the soldiers, but on the part of those 'who load the gun'), and thus it is an offence against God incurring his condemnation.

And, incidentally, I'm with the Swiss in their choice to ban minarets in their country. Just as I am aggrieved for those poor countries whose leaders choose to allow McDonalds, etc to deface the visual aspects of their own culture.

Oh, and by the way. YOU ARE INSANE.

[Unvanguard]

142. What does this post have to do with anything I said?

I'm not entirely sure. I mean, if I actually were insane, that part would be relevant, but I'm not.

Do you mean to suggest that intentionally killing non-combatants is all right as long as you do it against a brutal occupying power? I don't think this view has much merit. Even if you accept that the "ends justify the means"--a view I reject--you would still have to evaluate whether or not it makes sense as a means, and the very evidence you point to fairly clearly suggests that if al Qaeda's aim was to stop the US from killing people in Muslim countries, they failed miserably. Your God may well turn a blind eye to al Qaeda's atrocities; I, however, do not, and see no reason to.

As far as your post merely amounts to generic complaints about US foreign policy--"look at what we've done to Latin America"--you would only have a point if I had made any claim about the general goodness of US foreign policy, which I have not.

[Joe Chi Minh]

167. No! You turn BOTH blind eyes to your country's demonic role as a superpower -

and indeed previously. A Double-Nelson, I believe they call it. America has been a byword for violence in its CIVIL society as early as the 19th century. Yet, no, you choose to vehemently condemn a materially, fairly underdeveloped peoples, who just want you to get the hell out of their countries and stop bombing them and/or torturing them; not least the depleted uranium shells, which so overstay their welcome. Do you really think those Al-Qaida freedom-fighters are as demonic as the people responsible for inventing and deploying those shells? Shells, which I believe have been causing terrible sicknesses to our and/or your own troops.

Well the scale of the atrocities of the US dwarf those Al-Qaida would be capable of ever. Yet you still have the bare-faced gall to condemn peoples who are so weak that, in order to defend themeselves, they only have the one choice: asymmetric warfare. And so pompous and self-righteous about it. If the US were occupied by an invader, would you refrain from sabotaging their installations in case civilians belonging to the invaders were hurt. You wouldn't have fought with the maquis in France? That's why I call you mad.

Don't you realise that every imperial aggressor has blamed their victims? In recent centuries, at least, without exception. Certainly, we British always did. Hitler staged a sham terrorist incident near the Polish border. Cheney and the neocons mused enthusiastically at the possibilty of staging another kind of Pearl Harbour. Indeed there was a false-flag incident off the Vietnamese coast engineered by the US for that very purpose, years before.

How about the bombing in WWII? Do you repudiate that? More to the point, before you knew the war was won, would you have repudiated it at that time? At least one of the crew of the Allied bombers did repudiate it, though not a conscientious objector. But I do not, because the consequences of losing that total war would have been immeasurably worse for the losers than the eventual Allied victory, in the opposite case.

I wouldn't want to be unrealistically 'holier than thou' in a situation concerning so many of my compatriots. But if we started a war of aggression, as we indeed were complicit in at the start of this, then I'll not support that war effort, if I can help it, verbally or in any other way.

That 'high horse' doesn't suit you. You need a moral compass more than your alumni, Al-Qaeda do.

[Unvanguard]

184. I don't think you have any substantive idea about what I think regarding US foreign policy.

So since you so dogmatically insist that you do, I see little point in giving your post a serious reply.

[digidigido]

228. Stupid is as Stupid does to quote Forrest

We don't go to war against soverign Nations because they are evil.
we go to war because we have been attacked by them. We don't bomb
a country because 20 guys crashed a plane into a building. Stupid
is as Stupid does, Evil is as evil does.

[eridani]

116. Dominating the world by military force is evil

Assuming as a right the freedom to to anything to anybody anywhere in the name of fighting evil, is evil.

[Unvanguard]

143. Yes and yes.

I'm pretty sure Obama hasn't claimed the right to do either of those things.

[eridani]

262. 800 military bases around the globe are for what, then?

40% of the world's entire military budget is for what? (China is runner-up at 6%.)

[northernlights]

129. by your description, we too are evil

From its inception, America has intentionally killed millions of innocent people. And we have sought to impose fanatically oppressive regimes other countries, choosing their leaders for them, inciting and arming our chosen "good faction" against the "bad factions."

[Unvanguard]

145. By my description, yes, particular instances of US conduct have been evil.

I'm not sure "America" is a coherent enough institution to be labeled "good" or "evil", though. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has adhered from its start to a view that killing non-combatants is morally acceptable, and has at its aim a horrifically evil goal of putting fanatical, extremist religious fundamentalism into political power across the Muslim world; these are not incidental views or actions by some of its members, but are at the core of what it constitutes and stands for as an institution. The same simply cannot be said for the US.

[northernlights]

260. we're better than they are because

they state their intentions overtly, whereas we cover ours in pretention? Or because it's only our chosen leaders who have as their aim the horrifically evil goal of genocide, enslavement, putting fanatical extremist dictators in charge of other countries so we can lay claim to their resources...:shrug:

This country was founded on the collective corpses of millions of lives deliberately destroyed...genocide under the religious fanaticism of "Manifest Destiny."

Just because we don't see the damage we've done around the world on the news every night doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

And I'm not sure what you mean by a "coherent enough institution."

[AlbertCat]

197. I'm not sure what people's problem is with that word.

It's shallow religious-speak.

[SharksBreath]

237. The people in Afghanistan may disagree with you.

And the enemy plainly is evil: you can say their threat is exaggerated, you can say Obama's policy will not work, but it's hard for me to see how they are anything but evil.


If I shined a mirror on America you could say the same thing.

[Unvanguard]

249. By all appearances, the people of Afghanistan don't

considering that poll results consistently show that they prefer the US, and even the corrupt Karzai government, to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

[Toasterlad]

32. If Obama Cared About "Morality", We'd Be Intervening In Hundreds Of Other Areas Around the Globe.

This war has NOTHING to do with "morality".

[Unvanguard]

40. Both of those statements are not true.

The notion that "morality" demands we intervene anywhere where "evil" things are going on leads to precisely the kind of dangerous, unilateral logic to which the OP rightly objects, and is in any case founded on a distorted notion of moral duty. We have no right and no obligation to transform the world by force.

But as Obama has indicated, it is perfectly possible to construct a justification for the war in Afghanistan in terms of long-established moral theories of just war--and national leaders are rarely as utterly cynical as their critics appear to believe they are.

[Are_grits_groceries]

61. We are now winging our justification for war in Afghanistan IMHO.

Once you have to start switching around the justifications, there is a problem. It is done under that moral cloud of fighting evil.

Al Qaeda isn't there in any number according to the intelligence. There is no guarantee that the majority of the Taliban is greatly interested in mucking about with them again.

In addition, there are plenty of other terrorists that need to be taken into account. They didn't fly planes into buildings and scare the bejesus out of people, but they are just as threatening to our national security.

We are an irritant in that region. The bases that we have built and left are not symbols of democracy to a lot of the people in those regions. They may be symbols of a prolonged intervention in that area. Why did we leave such a heavy military footprint after the first Gulf War? I would think the Saudi rulers and oil had a lot to do with it. We certainly weren't there trying to stop the very terror that was heading our way.

[Unvanguard]

69. That's a fair point, that the "evil" discourse distracts from the real policy issues.

I guess what I would say is that Obama doesn't to me seem to be muddling the two. He responded to his policy critics in his earlier Afghan speech: we might argue about how well he did so, but he made the attempt. In this speech, though, his focus was less on responding to policy critics and more on articulating a philosophical framework in which it is possible to consistently be both a "war president" and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. And it seems to me that issues of evil are perfectly relevant to that.

[Are_grits_groceries]

75. I did think it was a very good speech.

He didn't do what a lot of people do and throw up their hands trying to define what they are doing because it is hard to even try. It is so much easier to make blanket statements, and leave it at that.

The term 'evil' is so closely tied to Bush and his justifications I fear it triggers responses from other people like it did for me. However, they hear it and believe he is completely aligned with Bush and has used his simplistic view of the world. I doubt if they got past evil to read the entire speech. I did, and it was worth it.

However, saying the word 'evil' can be like shouting fire in a crowded theater. People panic and don't hear anything else.

[Unvanguard]

81. I think we need to stop looking at Obama through the lens of Bush.

And perhaps this is more our responsibility than his. He made clear in his inauguration speech, if he hadn't already throughout the campaign, that he meant to do things differently: in a more multilateral way more respectful of other countries and of international norms, and more closely tied to considerations of national and collective security rather than neoconservative ideological delusions of transforming the Middle East through military force. And whatever arguments can be made about the possible lack of wisdom in the Afghanistan "surge", it's still importantly different from the Bush approach that abandoned an actual national security concern (at the time if not now) for a highly speculative one.

So we ought to do what you actually did do, and look beyond whatever superficial similarity might exist to examine the substance of what he is actually saying. Obama can't stop people from responding to what he says in a simple-minded way. Only we people can stop ourselves from doing that.

[Toasterlad]

87. So...We Can't Intervene Just "Anywhere" It Would Be Moral To Do So...

...but our justification for being in Afghanistan is due to it being the moral thing to do.

Obama should tap you to write his next speech. You display exactly the kind of twisted logic and contradictory phrasing that made his last one such a hit.

[Unvanguard]

89. Did you read either of Obama's speeches?

Did you pay any attention to what he actually said? (Merely reading them is not a sufficient condition of that.)

[Joe Chi Minh]

121. Simply opinion. Indeed it seems more like conjecture.

[SharksBreath]

239. it is perfectly possible to construct a justification

for anything. See the GOP.

[HuckleB]

72. It seems like many fail to understand anything other than simplistic bumper sticker discussions.

It's very frustrating, and one wonders if it's not a symptom of the age of Twitter.

Maybe I'm just an old fogey, but I'm tired of the meaningless cliches spewing forth to bash Obama at every turn.

[eridani]

113. My moral norms include--

"Dropping bombs on wedding parties is EVIL!"

[Unvanguard]

165. So do mine. US conduct in Afghanistan (as in Iraq) has not always been in accordance

with the standards of decency that it should be, and that Obama advanced in his speech. This is a serious problem, and deserves far more action and media attention than it has so far gotten.

(But that is a separate point from Obama's use of the word "evil.")

[JackRiddler]

149. If you're are unwilling to engage in reason, you shouldn't abuse the language like this.

[Vattel]

157. best post of the week, maybe the month n/t

[jobycom]

158. Oh, i'm damn well willing to discourse morality, but using subjective terms

that can be applied to anyone, rather than definitions that clearly lay out specific moral objections and specific morally based solutions is not a moral discourse. It is name calling. It offers no solution but to annihilate. It's idea of peace is to create a desolation of the other side.

Most Americans are good people and want to do the right thing, and it is the job of a leader to help them understand the complex moral issues involved in their decisions, so that we can vote accordingly on how our nation should be run. Labeling enemies as "EVIL" (The Axis of Evil, The Evil Empire, etc)isn't moral leadership, it's rhetoric meant to tickle the emotions rather than inform and convince. It's the tactic of a Republican, and it leads to the results of a Republican.

That's why Obama's speech wasn't for me, nor for anyone willing to engage in genuine moral discourse. It was for those easily swayed by clever word games, not people interested in real solutions. It was rhetoric, not an honest discussion.

[Unvanguard]

164. Did you read his speech? (Either of his speeches?)

Because to me they seem good examples of exactly how using "evil" need not amount to "offer no solution but to annihilate." That seems a grievous leap of logic right there. Describing the enemy in certain terms is not the same as arguing for any particular means of dealing with that enemy. Indeed, Obama mentioned King and Gandhi explicitly as people who fought evil in other ways...

[jobycom]

180. Yeah, and I typed a really long response, and it failed to post.

It was a beauty, too, with quotes and all.

The gist is that yes, I read it, and yes, he made nice statements about how we had to be careful and only use force right, but through it all was the same old "America has almost always fought for good, and we are facing a "vicious adversary who does not follow the rules," and it would be really nice if everyone agreed with us (except, presumably, the evildoers we are fighting), but if they don't we will fight unilaterally because, gosh darn it, we are just usually very careful and are right and the enemy is just not right.

It was a pretty version of the same speech Bush gave, and Reagan gave, and the other Bush gave. You don't create change by restating in prettier language the status quo. You create change by making hard decisions to find new solutions even when maybe it's just not as easy as war is.

"Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war."

That quote is from the speech, well after the line about evil, but still tied to it. We are right, they are wrong. We are good, they are vicious adversaries that do not abide by rules. They are evil, which makes us good. I've heard this speech before. As an historian, I read that speech over millenia. Both sides use it, every time. That's not change I believe in.

[Unvanguard]

183. But in that very quote he's distinguishing himself from Bush.

Bush: "We are right (necessarily), therefore everything we do is right." Thus we can torture and detain however we want. Thus we can ignore international norms and multilateral cooperation. Thus we can invade sovereign countries on speculative bases and try to restructure their societies via military force.

Obama: "We are right, but only because, only insofar, as we actually abide by standards of decency in choosing when and how to prosecute war." Thus we can respond to a vicious attack on our country and our people with military force--but we must do so without torture and without Guantanamo. That's standard just war theory. That's a liberal internationalist foreign policy--not an isolationist or pacifist one, but not a neoconservative one either--that I can get behind.

[jobycom]

217. Only in linguistic skill

The rest is lipstick on a war pig. However, whatever, they say, war is still the final word.

[Unvanguard]

246. Yes, "war is still the final word"

but that is only the relevant point if you are an absolute pacifist.

The rest of us are inclined to care about things like how and why the war is fought.

[varelse]

185. Good points

Labeling enemies as "EVIL" (The Axis of Evil, The Evil Empire, etc)isn't moral leadership, it's rhetoric meant to tickle the emotions rather than inform and convince. It's the tactic of a Republican, and it leads to the results of a Republican.

More broadly defined, it is the tactic of an authoritarian, it leads us away from both democracy and the rule of law, and it appeals to authoritarians. These may range from totalitarians to conservatives to fascists. Republican is just one label that applies.

[patrice]

207. Please click on my journal link below and read a compilation of the main points of the speech.

Though I disagree with the President's conclusion (even though I guess pretty much what he might do when I voted for him) I can't see how you can have actually listened carefully and say this is not moral discourse, nor call it a clever word game. It can only be that you heard what you wanted to hear, "proof that he is a liar".

[Lerkfish]

171. the problem comes in when moral certitude is falsely applied to a morally ambiguous situation

just a for instance:

Blackwater, on behalf of the military, has been using the Taliban to smuggle in supplies to use against the Taliban. In this instance, who is evil?

another for instance:

The U.S. still has Gitmo running, and is still performing extraordinary renditions for the purpose of torture. In this instance, who is evil?


another:

The bush administration could be tried for war crimes, of which they are undoubtedly guilty -- we know because they have publicly admitted to such. The Obama administration does not want to prosecute them. In this instance, who is evil?

The real question is, since you don't see a problem with the speech, whether you are willing to engage in a moral discourse. I've brought up three examples for discussion.... what are your thoughts? Are you willing to discuss them?

[Unvanguard]

188. Sure. I'll do it right now if you like.

First, though, I don't think Obama is applying "moral certitude" to a "morally ambiguous situation." I think his whole speech was an acknowledgement of the moral ambiguity of the situation that actually is morally ambiguous: the question of how we are to wield the horrific tool of war in a world where the reality is it is sometimes necessary. He did not say that US conduct was always clearly and unambiguously right: he said only that al Qaeda was evil, which, as far as I am concerned, is pretty unambiguously true.

Now for your examples. The Taliban is not monolithic, and I have no objection to the US (or US proxies like Blackwater) cooperating with more amenable parts of it in the interest of securing the country.

I object stridently to Guantanamo and to the policies behind it, but I appreciate the political difficulty of finding a good solution to the issues it presents: I'm content, if not morally at least realistically, with it being incrementally on the way out, if only because I don't have much hope for anything better. I oppose torture in all cases and think it is evil, but Obama has opposed the Bush policy on it clearly and repeatedly, and immediately after entering office took substantive steps to stop it. (The renditions policy is not the same as torture: it may be used effectively as such, but it need not be.)

Governments have always had some discretion over whom to charge and whom not to charge with crimes. When it comes to political leaders, there is particular reason for caution, because if a new government coming to power carries the risk of people from the old government going to prison, the capacity for a smooth transition is weakened. There is nothing particularly fair about this arrangement, but it has strong practical arguments on its side; whether they outweigh all the reasons to prosecute the Bush Administration, I do not know, but they are significant enough that Obama's decision to go one way rather than the other has the character of a judgment call rather than an act of evil.

[lostnfound]

235. "The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every man."

I consider that to be moral discourse.

Declaring some other persons to be "evil" -- and then using that as a reason to bomb them and their entire neighborhood -- strikes me as inherently immoral discourse.

I still adore Obama. Think he's the best that would have been tolerated within the corporate framework of our nation. The problem isn't Obama or his speech. It's our nation's financial addiction to the war machine.

[enlightenment]

3. Well said.

Very thoughtful. Thank you.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Totally agree.

I had a deep visceral reaction when I heard that.
Then the whole "War is peace" cognitive dissonance theme kept my stomach in a roil.

In my gut, I know he's wrong.
Had to add this:

[Junkdrawer]

5. Oh, there's evil alright. And right now, Obama is the lesser of two....

Must feel great.

[blindpig]

6. k&r n/t

[NJmaverick]

7. Your idea that evil doesn't exist is just wishful thinking. I think you need to learn about ethnic

cleansing before you talk about a lack of evil


20th century
The Armenian Genocide during WWI.
The Bolshevik regime killed or deported an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Don Cossacks during the Russian Civil War, in 1919-1920.<35>
The German government's persecutions and expulsions of Jews in Germany, Austria and other Nazi-controlled areas prior to the initiation of mass genocide. Estimated number of those who died in the process is approximately 6 million Jews.<36>


Ustaše guard in a mass grave at Jasenovac concentration camp.
At least 330,000 Serbs, 30,000 Jews and 30,000 Roma were killed during the NDH (see Jasenovac) (today Croatia and Bosna and Herzegovina) <37><38> and the same number of Serbs were forced out of the NDH , in may 1941 - may 1945. Estimates of the total numbers of men, women and children killed there goes up to 700,000.<39>
During WWII, in Kosovo & Metohija, some 10,000 Serbs lost their lives<40><41>, and about 80<40> to 100,000<40><42> or more<41> were ethnically cleansed.<42>After WWII new communist authorities banned to Serbian and Montenegrin, who had been expelled during the war, from returning to their abandoned estates.<43>
Deportation of Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachays and Meskhetian Turks by Soviet Union to Central Asia and Siberia, 1943-1944.<44>
The Population exchange between Greece and Turkey has been described as an ethnic cleansing.<45>
During the four years of occupation 1941 - 1944, the Axis (German, Hungarian and Croatian) forces committed numerous war crimes against civilian population (Serbs, Roma and Jews): about 50,000 people in Vojvodina (north Serbia) (see Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1944) were murdered and about 280,000 were arrested, raped or tortured.<46> The total number of the killed people in Bačka was 19,573 (under Hungarian occupation), in Banat 7,513 (under German occupation) and in Syrmia 28,199 (under Croatian occupation).<47>
The ethnic cleansing of Hungarians, or the massacres in Bačka by Titoist partisans during the winter of 1944-45, about 40.000 massacred.<48>
During Axis occupation in Albania (1943-1944), Albanian collaborationist organization Balli Kombëtar with Nazi German support mounted a major offensive in southern Albania (Northern Epirus) with devastating results: over 200 Greek populated towns and villages were burned or destroyed, 2,000 ethnic Greeks were killed, 5,000 imprisoned and 2,000 taken hostages to concentration camps. Moreover, 30,000 people had to find refuge in nearby Greece during and after that period.<49><50>
At the end of World War II many Germans were expelled from eastern Europe, it is described as ethic cleansing by Thomas Kamusella, which he links to the development of ethnic nationalism in central and eastern Europe. Piotr Pikle describes the expulsion of Germans at the end of World War II from Czechoslovakia as ethnic cleansing, and Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees describe the simultaneous expulsion of Germans from Poland as ethnic cleansing.<51>
At the end of World War II most of Italians (about 250,000-300,000) had to leave eastern territories taken by Yugoslavia (today Slovenia and Croatia) (R. Pupo, Il lungo esodo, Milano, Rizzoli, 2005; L. Tomaz, Il confine d'Italia in Istria e Dalmazia, Conselve, Think ADV, 2008).
During the Partition of India 5 million Hindus and Sikhs fled from what became Pakistan into India and more than 6 million Muslims fled from what became India into Pakistan. The events which occurred during this time period have been described as ethnic cleansing.<52><53>
The 1948 Palestinian exodus that accompanied the establishment of the State of Israel has been described as an "ethnic cleansing."<54><55><56><57><58>
Between the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Six Day War in 1967, there was a Jewish exodus from Arab lands, that has been described as an "ethnic cleansing".<59><60><61><62>
After the Republic of Indonesia achieved independence from the Netherlands in 1949, around 300.000 people, predominantly Indos or Dutch Indonesians (people of mixed Indonesian and European descent), fled or were expelled.<63>
In the aftermath of the 1949 Durban Riots (an inter-racial conflict between Zulus and Asians in South Africa), hundreds of Indians fled Cato Manor.<64>
On 5 and 6 September 1955 the Istanbul Pogrom or "Septembrianá"/"Σεπτεμβριανά", secretly backed by the Turkish government, was launched against the Greek population of Constantinople. The mob also attacked some Jews and Armenians of the city. The event contributed greatly to the gradual extinction of the Greek minority in the city and country, which numbered 100,000 in 1924 after the Turko-Greek population exchange treaty. By 2007 there were only 5000 Greeks. The Turkish government further forced expulsion of the Greek minority in the Imbros and Tenedos islands in the period 1923-1993.
Between 1957-1962 President Nasser of Egypt carried out an Anti-European policy, which resulted in the expulsion of 100-200,000 Greeks from Alexandria and the rest of Egypt. Many other Europeans were expelled, such as Italians and French.
On 5 July 1960, five days after the Congo gained independence from Belgium, the Force Publique garrison near Léopoldville mutinied against its white officers and attacked numerous European targets. This caused the fear amongst the approximately 100,000 whites still resident in the Congo and led to their mass exodus from the country.<65>
Ne Win's rise to power in 1962 and his relentless persecution of "resident aliens" (immigrant groups not recognised as citizens of the Union of Burma) led to an exodus of some 300,000 Burmese Indians. They migrated to escape racial discrimination and wholesale nationalisation of private enterprise a few years later in 1964.<66><67>
The creation of the apartheid system in South Africa, which began in 1948 but reached full flower in the 1960s and 1970s, involved some ethnic cleansing, including the separation of blacks, Coloureds, and whites into separate residential areas and private spheres. The government created Bantustans, which involved forced removals of non-white populations to reserved lands.<68><69> The governing minority forced relocation of the majority to different areas, as well as restricting their movement, education and social activities.
As Algeria fought for independence, it expelled the pied-noir population of European descent and Jews; most fled to France, where they had citizenship. In just a few months in 1962, 900,000 of these European descendants and native Jewish people left the country.<70><71>
Zanzibar forced ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Indians from the nation in 1964.<72><73>
Some 150,000 Italians settled in Libya, constituting about 18% of the total population.<74> In 1970, the government expelled all of Libya's ethnic Italians, a year after Muammar al-Gaddafi seized power (a "day of vengeance" on 7 October 1970).<75>
Between 1967 and 1973, the British government expelled the entire population of Diego Garcia, a small island in the Indian Ocean.<76> There are ongoing court cases as regards the rights of the population to return to the island.<77>
By 1969, more than 350,000 Salvadorans were living in Honduras. In 1969, Honduras enacted a new land reform law. This law took land away from Salvadoran immigrants and redistributed this land to native-born Honduran peoples. Thousands of Salvadorans were displaced by this law (see Football War).
During the Bangladesh War of Independence of 1971 around 10 million Bengalis, mainly Hindus, fled the country to escape the killings and atrocities committed by the Pakistan Army. Furthermore, many intellectuals and other religious minorities were targeted by death squads and razakars(see1971 Bangladesh atrocities)
Idi Amin's regime forced the expulsion in 1972 of Uganda's entire ethnic Asian population, mostly of Indian descent.<78>
The ethnic cleansing in 1974-76 of the Greek population of the areas under Turkish military occupation in Cyprus during and after the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus.<79>
Following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975, the Lao kingdom was overthrown by the communists and the Hmong people became targets of retaliation and persecution. Thousands made the trek to and across the Mekong River into Thailand, often under attack. This marked the beginning of a mass exodus of Hmong people from Laos.
The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia disproportionately targeted ethnic minority groups. These included ethnic Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai. In the late 1960s, an estimated 425,000 ethnic Chinese lived in Cambodia, but by 1984, as a result of Khmer Rouge genocide and emigration, only about 61,400 Chinese remained in the country. The Cham Muslims suffered serious purges with as much as half of their population exterminated. A Khmer Rouge order stated that henceforth “The Cham nation no longer exists on Kampuchean soil belonging to the Khmers” (U.N. Doc. A.34/569 at 9).<80><81><82>
Subsequent waves of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fled Burma and many refugees inundated neighbouring Bangladesh including 250,000 in 1978 as a result of the King Dragon operation in Arakan.
The Sino-Vietnamese War resulted in the discrimination and consequent migration of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese. Many of these people fled as "boat people". In 1978-79, some 450,000 ethnic Chinese left Vietnam by boat as refugees (many officially encouraged and assisted) or were expelled across the land border with China.
Aftermath of Indira Gandhi assassination in 1984, the ruling party Indian National Congress supporters formed large mobs and killed around 3000 Sikhs around Delhi which is known as the Anti Sikh Riots during the next four days. The mobs using the support of ruling party leaders used the Election voting list to identify Sikhs and kill them.


Aftermath of the Halabja poison gas attack.
The forced assimilation campaign of the late 80s directed against ethnic Turks resulted in the emigration of some 300,000 Bulgarian Turks to Turkey.
The Nagorno Karabakh conflict has resulted in the displacement of population from both sides. 528,000 Azerbaijanis from Nagorno Karabakh Armenian controlled territories including Nagorno-Karabakh, and 185,000<83> to 220,000 Azeris, 18,000 Kurds and 3,500 Russians fled from Armenia to Azerbaijan from 1988 to 1989.<84> 280,000 to 304,000<83> persons—virtually all ethnic Armenians—fled Azerbaijan during the 1988–1993 war over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh.<85>
Since April 1989, some 70,000 black Mauritanians—members of the Peul, Wolof, Soninke and Bambara ethnic groups—have been expelled from Mauritania by the Mauritanian government.<86>
In 1989, after bloody pogroms against the Meskhetian Turks by Uzbeks in Central Asia's Ferghana Valley, nearly 90,000 Meskhetian Turks left Uzbekistan.<87><88>
In 1991, following a crackdown on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, 250,000 refugees took shelter in the Cox's Bazar district of neighbouring Bangladesh.<89>
In 1991, in retribution for supporting Saddam Hussein against Kuwait during the 1990 Invasion of Kuwait, Kuwait carried out the expulsion of 400,000 Palestinians.<90>
As a result of 1991–1992 South Ossetia War, about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled South Ossetia and Georgia proper, most across the border into North Ossetia. A further 23,000 ethnic Georgians fled South Ossetia and settled in other parts of Georgia.<91> According to Helsinki Watch, the campaign of ethnic-cleansing was orchestrated by the Ossetian militants, during the events of Ossetian–Ingush conflict, which resulted in expulsion of approximately 60,000 Ingush inhabitants from Prigorodny District.<92>
The widespread ethnic cleansing accompanying the Croatian War of Independence that was committed by rebel Serbs and Serb-led JNA on the occupied areas of Croatia (self-proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina) (1991-1995). Large number of Croats and non-Serbs were removed, either by murder, deportation or being forced to flee. The majority of Croatia's Serb population was ethnically cleansed by the Croatian army at the end of the war in Operation Storm.<93> In few last days of august 1995, more than 250.000 Serb refugees<94> fled out of Croatia.
The widespread ethnic cleansing accompanying the Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995), Large numbers of Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks were forced to flee their homes and expelled.<95> Beginning in 1991, political upheavals in the Balkans displaced about 2,700,000 people by mid-1992, of which over 700,000 of them sought asylum in Europe.<96><97>
The widespread ethnic cleansing committed against Albanians on the Albanian-dominated breakaway Kosovo province (of Serbia) (1999). Large numbers of Albanians were forced to flee their homes and expelled.<95>
The forced displacement and ethnic-cleansing of more than 250,000 people, mostly Georgians but some others too, from Abkhazia during the conflict and after in 1993 and 1998.<98>
The 1994 massacres of nearly 1,000,000 Tutsis by Hutus, known as the Rwandan Genocide<99>
The mass expulsion of southern Lhotshampas (Bhutanese of Nepalese origin) by the northern Druk majority of Bhutan in 1990.<100> The number of refugees is approximately 103,000.<101>
An estimated 1,000 Tamil people were killed, tens of thousands of houses were destroyed by the Sinhalese-dominated government of Sri Lanka in what is commonly known as Black July.The murder, looting and general destruction of property was well organized. Mobs armed with petrol were seen stopping passing motorists at critical street junctions and, after ascertaining the ethnic identity of the driver and passengers, setting alight the vehicle with the driver and passengers trapped within it. Mobs were also seen stopping buses to identify Tamil passengers and subsequently these passengers were knifed, clubbed to death or burned alive.
In October 1990, the militant Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), forcibly expelled the entire ethnic Muslim population (approx 75,000) from the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. The Muslims were given 48 hours to vacate the premises of their homes while their properties were subsequently looted by LTTE. Those who refused to leave were killed. This act of ethnic cleansing was carried out so the LTTE could facilitate their goal of creating a mono-ethnic Tamil state in Northern Sri Lanka.
Displacement of more than 500,000 Chechen and ethnic Russian civilians living in Chechnya during the First Chechen War in 1994-1996.<102><103><104>
The Jakarta riots of May 1998 targeted many Chinese Indonesians. Suffering from looting and arson many Chinese Indonesians fled from Indonesia.<105><106>
More than 800,000 Kosovar Albanians fled their homes in Kosovo during the Kosovo War in 1998-9, after being expelled. Although on the contrary over 200,000 Serbs and other non-Albanian minorities were forced out of Kosovo during and after the war while most Albanians returned.<107><108>
There have been serious outbreaks of inter-ethnic violence on the island of Kalimantan since 1997, involving the indigenous Dayak peoples and immigrants from the island of Madura. In 2001 in the Central Kalimantan town of Sampit, at least 500 Madurese were killed and up to 100,000 Madurese were forced to flee. Some Madurese bodies were decapitated in a ritual reminiscent of the headhunting tradition of the Dayaks of old.<109>
21st century
In Jammu and Kashmir, India, the violent Islamic insurgency has specifically targeted the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit minority and 400,000 have either been murdered or displaced.<110> This has been condemned and labeled as ethnic cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by the United States Congress.<111> Also in 2009 Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to recognize September 14, 2007, as Martyrs Day to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted on non-Muslim minorities of Jammu and Kashmir by militants seeking to establish an Islamic state.<112>
In 2003, Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti Pygmies, told the UN's Indigenous People's Forum that during the Congo Civil War, his people were hunted down and eaten as though they were game animals. Both sides of the war regarded them as "subhuman" and some say their flesh can confer magical powers. Makelo asked the UN Security Council to recognise cannibalism as a crime against humanity and an act of genocide.<113><114>
In the late-1990s and early 2000s, paramilitaries organized and armed by the Indonesian military and police forces murdered large numbers of civilians in East Timor.<115><116><117><118><119><120><121>
Since the mid-1990s the central government of Botswana has been trying to move Bushmen out of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. As of October 2005, the government has resumed its policy of forcing all Bushmen off their lands in the Game Reserve, using armed police and threats of violence or death.<122> Many of the involuntarily displaced Bushmen live in squalid resettlement camps and some have resorted to prostitution and alcoholism, while about 250 others remain or have surreptitiously returned to the Kalahari to resume their independent lifestyle.<123> “How can we continue to have Stone Age creatures in an age of computers?“ asked Botswana’s president Festus Mogae.<124><125>
Attacks by the Janjaweed, militias of Sudan on the African population of Darfur, a region of western Sudan.<126><127> A 14 July 2007 article notes that in the past two months up to 75,000 Arabs from Chad and Niger crossed the border into Darfur. Most have been relocated by the Sudanese government to former villages of displaced non-Arab people. Some 2.5 million have now been forced to flee their homes after attacks by Sudanese troops and Janjaweed militia.<128>
Currently in the Iraq Civil War (2003 to present), entire neighborhoods in Baghdad are being ethnically cleansed by Shia and Sunni militias.<129><130> Some areas are being evacuated by every member of a particular group due to lack of security, moving into new areas because of fear of reprisal killings. As of 21 June 2007, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.<131><132><133>
The removal of around 8,500 Jews (including the forced removal of about half of them)<134> from the Gaza Strip, and around 660 from four small settlements in the West Bank,<135> in 2005 through the implementation of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan.<136><137><138><139> This was the first instance in history of Jews forcibly resettling other Jews.
Although Iraqi Christians represent less than 5% of the total Iraqi population, they make up 40% of the refugees now living in nearby countries, according to UNHCR.<140><141> In the 16th century, Christians constituted half of Iraq's population.<142> In 1987, the last Iraqi census counted 1.4 million Christians.<143> But as the 2003 invasion has allowed the growth of militant Islamism, Christians' total numbers slumped to about 500,000, of whom 250,000 live in Baghdad.<144> Furthermore, the Mandaean and Yazidi communities are at the risk of elimination due to the ongoing atrocities by Islamic extremists.<145><146> A 25 May 2007 article notes that in the past 7 months only 69 people from Iraq have been granted refugee status in the United States.<147>
The ethnic cleansing of African American population of some racially mixed Los Angeles neighborhoods by Mexican street gangs. According to gang experts and law enforcement agents the Mexican Mafia leaders, or shot callers, have issued a "green light" on all blacks.<148><149><150><151><152>
In October 2006, Niger announced that it would deport the Arabs living in the Diffa region of eastern Niger to Chad.<153> This population numbered about 150,000.<154> While the government was rounding Arabs in preparation for the deportation, two girls died, reportedly after fleeing government forces, and three women suffered miscarriages. Niger's government had eventually suspended a controversial decision to deport Arabs.<155><156>
In 1950, the Karen had become the largest of 20 minority groups participating in an insurgency against the military dictatorship in Burma. The conflict continues as of 2008. In 2004, the BBC, citing aid agencies, estimates that up to 200,000 Karen have been driven from their homes during decades of war, with 120,000 more refugees from Burma, mostly Karen, living in refugee camps on the Thai side of the border. Many accuse the military government of Burma of ethnic cleansing.<157> As a result of the ongoing war in minority group areas more than two million people have fled Burma to Thailand.<158>
Civil unrest in Kenya erupted in December 2007.<159> By 28 January 2008, the death toll from the violence was at around 800.<160> The United Nations estimated that as many as 600,000 people have been displaced.<161><162> A government spokesman claimed that Odinga's supporters were "engaging in ethnic cleansing".<163>
The 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra began on 3 February 2008. Incidences of violence against North Indians and their property were reported in Bombay, Pune, Aurangabad, Beed, Nashik, Amravati, Jalna and Latur. Nearly 25,000 North Indian workers fled Pune,<164><165> and another 15,000 fled Nashik in the wake of the attacks.<166><167>
South Africa Ethnic Cleansing erupted on 11 May 2008 within three weeks 80 000 were displaced the death toll was 62, with 670 injured by the violence when South Africans ejected non-nationals in a nationwide ethnic cleansing/xenophobic outburst. The most affected foreigners have been Somalis, Ethiopians, Indians, Pakistanis, Zimbabweans and Mozambiqueans. Local South Africans have also been caught up in the violence. Refugee camps a mistake Arvin Gupta, a senior UNHCR protection officer, said the UNHCR did not agree with the City of Cape Town that those displaced by the violence should be held at camps across the city.

[Oregone]

23. Evidence of asshole humans is not evidence of "evil"

It just means people suck. Yes, the same flesh and blood you are cut from sucks. "Evil", something you cannot define or prove exists, has nothing to do with it.


Even the Bible describes "evil" acts. Just in righteous, justified ways. Its a tool to help you cope with your fucked up species.

[NJmaverick]

24. "asshole" would be the person letting their dog poop on the lawn. Murding hundreds or thousands or

millions of people is EVIL.

[Oregone]

28. So are you defining "Evil" as "Really Bad"?

Cause there is another more direct, less complicated way to describe that behavior: "really bad".


"bad" as in malevolent to other humans BTW. :)


Highly Malevolent.


It just seems that invoking a supernatural and religious word to describe malevolent actions is a bit loaded and easily confusable. Also, to do such in public discourse to defend a policy, well, that seems outrageous

[CAG]

31. could we get any more semantic here? Perhaps you could start your

next post arguing over whether the 85 Bears were a GREAT super bowl team or an AWESOME super bowl team

[Oregone]

38. Invoking a spiritual/religious /supernatural term to describe being really bad to other humans....

Well, thats kind of asking for it.

You hear "evil", you might rationally think of highly motivate extremist bringing harm to the world

A Christian fundie hears "evil" and it triggers images of invisible spiritual warfare and a specific supernatural force at play in the world. Bush often used a lot of the trigger words to manipulate people, this word included

[CAG]

42. "highly motivate extremist bringing harm to the world" ....umm, such as

Osama Bin Laden.

I don't think Obama was talking about a flying spaghetti monster in the sky, I think he was talking about highly motivated extremists bringing harm to the world.

[Oregone]

46. Yes, as I said, a rational person might interpret the spiritual terminology that way

And a fundie will have dancing images in their head of spiritual warfare, angels & demons.


Really lame term to use in describing government policy


Its odd an educated person would use such a loaded term and leave it open to interpretation.

[CAG]

50. Let me know if you have any other problems with another single

word out of a speech of 32,000 words, and I'll see if I have more time to waste in a semantic keyboard argument. I limit each my semantic arguments to 2 posts

[Oregone]

56. Its a pretty important word. Weaving in spiritual & religious trigger words and leaving it open to..

interpretation isn't a minor little semantic boo boo.

[NJmaverick]

78. No it wasn't a boo boo, in your case it was a deliberate manipulation of the meaning

to suit your agenda, rather than getting to the truth.

[Oregone]

93. Its a word that can be manipulated in many ways, including spiritual and religiously

Its a word that triggers primal shamanistic ponderings in the extremists right.

Funny he chose such a careless, loaded word. Don't be angry with me. I'm merely pointing out his folly.

Next time, if he doesn't want his words to be manipulated, or to manipulate certain listeners so much, he should choose them more carefully. Unfortunately, they may of been carefully chosen for this effect in the first place. That is an unknown.

[seeinfweggos]

174. what doesn't?

trigger primal shamanistic ponderings in the extremists right, that is.

and you are the one manipulating his words, any thinking person knows exactly what he was talking about.

[Oregone]

189. Well, the word "brick" most certainly is less loaded than "evil"

It is well known this is a word that has spiritual and religious origins.

[seeinfweggos]

so does the term "act of god" but i assume my home owner's insurance policy isn't being spiritual

look, anyone with half a brain knows what the president meant - as someone else said here - a classification of things, not some spooky paranormal force floating around out there making bad things happen.

those religious right people you are so afraid of working up come pre-worked up in case you haven't noticed. if you aren't twisting the president's words around and truly misunderstood him, i apologize.

[Oregone]

220. "anyone with half a brain knows"

Yeah, and that common sense falls to deaf ears in the idiocracy of America. Take into consideration, if you will, the American people...what a reckless use of words

[Are_grits_groceries]

233. Why must you resort to name calling?

half a brain?

I am not trying to twist his words around. I am trying to work through his use of that word. It is 'nit picking' to some and a valid issue for others. Did I misunderstand him or did you? It is also no small matter about how people receive and and understand the words he uses.

As far as being afraid of the religious right, please. I grew up in SC and have seen it in all its many forms and permutations. I haven't spent my time holed up in a cave avoiding them. I have been out trying to counter their propaganda for years.

The rest of the US is getting a nose full of what progressives have long faced down here. You see them as ineffective clowns. While I will snark about them with the best, I don't dismiss them. Just because they can't spell or make arguments that agree with their original meaning doesn't mean they are a group you can overcome by waving a dictionary or history books at them.

They are the worst kind of people to deal with. Close-minded, self-righteous, and implacable enemies of what they consider counter to their beliefs. They are also willing to literally fight if it comes to that. I don't waste my time being afraid of them. I regard them warily and don't underestimate them as a lot of people here do.

[seeinfweggos]

254. i grew up in the south too, gay and non-white as a matter of fact

so the fundie definition of evil includes ME. and houston is littered with mega churches. i know who they are. i went to school with those people. luckily i grew up in a big city with very accepting, liberal parents and lots of friends. i watched the president's speech and thought it was a very good one. never in a million years would I suspect, and think its ridiculous to imply, that president obama is dog whistling to the crazies.

i still disagree with you but your explanation of where you are from gives me a little more perspective as to your position, being from jesusland myself

[Are_grits_groceries]

255. I don't think he was dogwhistling.

If he was, somebody put the term in there with some intent possibly. Whether it was done on purpose or not, the fundies will hear that word and off their twee little minds go.

I also thought his speech was a good one in many respects. I did pick up my head and listen.

My attitude toward the loons around here is to rhetorically smack them in the mouth to keep them from getting a head of steam up. I'll throw down too. And that's just family.
:hi:

[seeinfweggos]

212. dupe

self delete

[patrice]

213. point

[NJmaverick]

52. You need a dictionary because you don't know the definitions of the word evil

and you don't have a right to assign the meaning that President Obama used.

here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Evil

[Oregone]

58. Evil means A LOT of things, some definable by little black books people read on Sunday

Its a loaded term, no matter how black and white you try and make it by using a web link to a dictionary. Different people think of different things when they hear such a word.

[NJmaverick]

64. So who are you to say declare that was the definition that was used by President Obama?

seems like you are more interested in an agenda than getting to the truth.

[Oregone]

70. I'm just another person interpreting a word with MANY different meanings, some religious and spiritu...

So, while even if he meant it one way, he invoked a sloppy, loaded, and manipulative term that has deep roots in religion and the supernatural. Of course it will be perceived in many other ways besides how a rational person will see it. Id be amazed if that was a mere accident. Do you not understand the Christian Fundamentalist view of spiritual warfare? Seriously...do you understand what it means? That the crazy shit the word "evil" makes those nuts think about




"seems like you are more interested in an agenda than getting to the truth."

Ive consistently had disdain for this term. No need to attack the messenger.

"I think the word "evil" should be restricted to churches and former Pres Bush's speeches"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5344050#5344425

[NJmaverick]

77. Bull, you are manipulating the truth for your own purposes. The FACT

is there was no evidence to suggest he meant the term in the spiritual sense, but you decided to go with that definition because it suited your purposes (truth be damned)

[Oregone]

91. Egg on his face. He used a word that got all the fundie girls wet.

It was his choice, not mine. If not on purpose to manipulate, it was plain irresponsible and embarrassing for his constituents.

[CLANG]

172. Number one meaning in Websters

1 a : morally reprehensible.

And don't tell me you have to be religious to have a moral compass. What the President said was perfectly fine in the context of his speech.

[Oregone]

190. Ah...the dictionary...not quite as circulated as the Bible

For fuck's sake. Now you are being ridiculous to assume that most people, or even some people, are rational enough to hear such a terms and only think of a secular dictionary meaning. Its a trigger word that acts as fodder for the opiated masses, who are by in large, indoctrinated with that bullshit.

[CLANG]

209. You are the person doing the assuming...

I think his usage of the word was totally appropriate. There is evil in the world.

[Oregone]

221. There are most certainly unprovable beliefs in the world

Your belief that there is "evil" is perhaps one of them. Unless of course you have some simple definition equating "evil" to "bad" human behavior, which, well, just illustrates such a concept could be talked about without loaded words that trigger the half-brained religious idiots who dominate this world

[bejamin wood]

122. Was Obama's speech about Star Wars?

Every time I hear the word evil, I think of an emperor in a far off galaxy... Yep, this was a small blunder, but should not be compared to Bush blunders. However, I would also say that the progressive agenda is off the table and that, is evil.

[snagglepuss]

80. His and Bush's use of the word evil simply obfuscate the

financial interests which are in play. War is rational when one's goal is to protect these interests. That Obama uses "evil" to justify war speaks volumes.

[NJmaverick]

85. If only the FACT that Al-Qaeda attacked the United States didn't get in the way of your claims

[snagglepuss]

90. AQ is a smokescreen. Nothing the US is doing is eliminating AQ, in fact

Obama is just continuing policies that increases its numbers worldwide. Is Obama going to start bombing London, Jakarta, Toronto, Chicago because those cities are producing AQ sympathizers?

[JoeyT]

166. Agreed.

At what point does "really bad" become "evil"?
Was that guy ok on brutal murder number 99, but when he killed that hundredth guy he crossed a line?
Will we have to quantify the number of other crimes it takes to equal one murder? Is murder worse if it's done en masse or on a personal level?
You're not engaging in semantics, you're asking for a concrete definition of a word.

Surely if it isn't just a useless buzzword we can define the exact point someone crosses over into evil, right?

[Fumesucker]

49. How many humans died in Iraq for a LIE?

If murdering humans is evil then we are evil..

[NJmaverick]

51. I did everything I could to stop the Iraq war, so speak for yourself

although I will acknowledge that Bush and his goons could labeled as evil

[Fumesucker]

65. So citizens in a Democracy bear no responsibility for what their government does in their name?

Is that your position?

[snagglepuss]

73. Using that logic the American health care system is evil and Obama

is giving them a pass.

[Joe Chi Minh]

124. Wrong. It's just that oppressive evil beyond a threshold of tolerance

causes evil in reaction. If oppressed peoples had never fought against the tyranny of the geopolitical hegemons, mankind would have died out long ago.

[varelse]

191. The removal of Jewish settlers from Gaza by their own government

Is worthy in your mind of the term "ethnic cleansing" but the whole sad history of the Nakba doesn't even get a mention? Hmm.

[clear eye]

225. Straw man argument. OPer didn't say evil doesn't exist.

Very loooong straw man argument, since it doesn't actually address the OP.

What she said was that justifying a war by saying that it is about fighting "evil" is alienating b/c war is a drastically destructive action that needs specific imperatives for a moral person to promote it. Identifying the enemy as "evil" doesn't meet the moral burden since, depending on orientation, the term could and is used against just about every ideology, nation or group of nations in the world.

Besides, soldiers don't shoot at or bomb "evil". They bomb and shoot at persons. It would be nice to know exactly what it is about these particular persons that makes killing them an unavoidable necessity. Especially when the idea of reintegrating rank and file Taliban who are willing to stop fighting is being advanced. (They were the embodiment of "evil", but once they stop shooting our military in their country, they're not?) Seems to me that goal could be advanced a lot more cheaply and easily by us not being in their country in the first place.

We know the kind of destruction and blowback the previous war against "evil" in Iraq has been causing. It is understandable to feel put off again hearing our adversary identified in this next war w/ the same amorphous term.

[Echo In Light]

8. There was an interesting thread on 'evil yesterday that was disappeared

Anyone know who jumped in to get it locked?

[valerief]

9. Evil means demonic and that's religious. The right must love him more and more each day. Sigh. nt

[berni_mccoy]

13. Many here believe that religion *is* evil.

[valerief]

20. Oh, it is. For sure. nt

[slackmaster]

10. Do you actually believe that evil is only relative to good?

I am an Agnostic, and I believe that absolute evil exists.

[Silent3]

60. Evil "exists" in what sense?

As far as I'm concerned, "evil" is a classification, it is not a thing in-and-of-itself. It's a label applied to actions and behaviors that are opposed to other human mental constructs like "goodness" and "justice".

Evil exists, but only in the sense that a winning an election exists, or that interior design exists.

If you're talking about "evil" as some kind of primal force, some disembodied essence that floats around and gets into things to make bad things happen, I certainly don't think any such thing exists at all.

[Vattel]

162. why on earth

would you think that he or she was "talking about 'evil' as some kind of primal force"?

[Silent3]

208. I didn't say that I thought he/she thought that.

I asked the question if he/she might be thinking that, or something like that, because some people do think that way about evil.

The use of the word "exists" is a curious choice to describe evil, especially when the phrase "absolute evil" is used.

[varelse]

135. There is no universal definition of evil, and that is one problem with using it to justify war

A couple of examples of the flexibility of the concept:

Is it evil to run your own daughter over in a parking lot, and kill her? I'd say absolutely yes, but there exists a whole different set of moral values which would indicate that it is not only NOT an evil act, but an honorable and necessary one.

Is it evil to have a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a person of the same sex? I would say no, but the man our President invited to say a two-minute prayer at his own inauguration believes that it is an evil act.

Is it evil for the state to execute criminals? For some, this is always an evil act, regardless of the crime being punished. For others, it's evil if the crime being punished is not severe enough to meet the standards, or isn't a crime at all in their eyes (homosexuality or adultery, for example, carry the death penalty in some countries).

To many religious fundamentalists, a secular society is the ultimate evil, to be brought down at all costs.

War should be declared and fought only where there is a clear and compelling case that it is necessary to maintain national security or to honor alliance agreements - the question of what is good and what is evil may be debated at the philosophical level, but it should not be used to make a case for war. That's the OP's point, and it was well made.

[barbtries]

14. thank you

you have elucidated my thoughts concisely. agreed, kicked and recommended.

[bigtree]

15. right

. . . the use of the word 'evil' by the president is designed to conflate every 'target' of our military into the role of an 'enemy'.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Evil, Terror, Homeland.... Bush used these words in ways that make us wretch when we hear them.

For me it's "homeland", it's creepy in it's use because it hadn't been used this way very much in the past.

Evil is real, evil is Manson and evil is Cheney.

And evil is what our parents and friends protect us from.

And our police departments and prosecutors and judges.

And our president.

I don't have a problem with it's use in this context, as much as I agree with the points in your OP.

:donut:

[Echo In Light]

18. Evil also rests within the black heart of a populace in stark denial, choosing inaction

... when confronting evil deeds carried out in their names, with their tax $

[NYC_SKP]

22. "Black heart" or just ignorant and susceptible to propaganda.

No doubt much propaganda appeals to the baser, one could say evil or black, fear-based instincts in all of us.

I think about the code words McCain and especially Palin used during the campaign.

But that a word like "evil" can be used to subvert minds of the populace does not mean that it always is used that way.

[Echo In Light]

25. No, many people know what's what by now. Laziness is easier than responsibility.

[NYC_SKP]

67. Agree with the second part, many but not most people are informed.

Most, by far, suffer from low information coupled with willful ignorance.

"Don't tell me about corruption, war, I'm watching American Idol!"

Of course, MSM and corporate consolidation of the media are not helping.

It's up to us, really, to do what we can to go beyond discussion amongst ourselves and to challenge others to open their eyes.

[Paladin]

45. Well Said. Since When Do We Let Evil Cretins Like Bush Control The Vocabulary?

I mean, we're talking about a pinhead who couldn't emit a coherent sentence, and we're supposed to care about his word usage? Bullshit......

[malaise]

17. I'm with you on this

It's more BS

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. I believe in evil.

I don't ignore the heinous actions that are committed such as genocide, torture, and other things boil down to anything but a very crime against humanity.

However, I don't want people tried on the basis that they are evil. I want them tried on the laws that have been set down to deal with such acts.

I want it that way because as I said, evil is relative. You can point to one end of the scale that seems obvious to all. Then you slide down further, and you find a less black and white case.

You start trying people on their being evil, and someone will try you for some evil act you did. That way lies the Inquisition.

[woo me with science]

27. good post. nt

[NJmaverick]

88. President Obama never said people should be tried as evil

he said there is evil in the world and sometimes war is the only way to stop them.

[dgibby]

103. Exactly!

What's going on in Uganda right now is a perfect example of this.

The homophobic Christian fundies (the Family) in the US have whipped up the homophobic Christian fundies in Uganda into a frothing, seething, murderous rage against GLBT, who they describe as "evil". If they are successful, being GLBT will be punishable by death.

This is why using the term "evil" is so dangerous. It's a dog whistle to a large segment of the population in the US. Bush knew it. That's why it was so successful.

Whether or not Obama was using it for the same reasons is debatable, only he knows, and I will not make a judgment about it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

21. I had the same reaction

Standing at the podium in front of the West Point Cadets, speaking of righting the wrongs of the evil doers, conjured too many bad memories for me as well.

[Toasterlad]

30. Like Everything Else Obama Is, It Was Just Rhetoric.

If you don't listen to him, and just watch what he DOES, it's very easy to see how inconsequential he is.

[CAG]

33. wow. Ignore his accomplishments and its easy to just paint the

broadbrush of uninsightful rhetoric, isn't it?

[Toasterlad]

35. Please List His Accomplishments.

[CAG]

47. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7046712

[Toasterlad]

84. Oh, Please.

The majority of that list is full of things that Obama is "looking into". The rest is piddly-squat shit that won't change things for 99% of Americans.

The only thing Obama has actually DONE (for the better) since being elected is lifted the ban on stem-cell research. Otherwise, he's been a colossal failure.

[CAG]

105. The liberal saint Dennis Kucinich wouldn't have gotten any more accomplished

, their not freakin czars or dictators, their freakin presidents, have you read the constitution with regards to what they can and cannot do and tell me what presidents haven't been a "collosal failure" in 11 months in office according to your grandiose, imaginative, and unreal standards.

[salguine]

138. If I may quote Toasterlad,

"The majority of that list is full of things that Obama is "looking into". The rest is piddly-squat shit that won't change things for 99% of Americans.

The only thing Obama has actually DONE (for the better) since being elected is lifted the ban on stem-cell research. Otherwise, he's been a colossal failure."

A-fucking-MEN.

[CAG]

147. Boy, I wish I could live in this fantasyland where I can just ignore reality

and assume that some Lancelot riding on white horse could actually solve all of our problems in 11 months. Continuing to bitch and moan about everything 24/7 must be so cathartic!

[salguine]

155. The whole "it takes time" meme needs to be taken out behind the barn and shot, too. It's

not how fast or slow things are moving, it's the fucking direction. Why is it that we're supposed to have endless patience for Obama to stroll across the nearest body of water to help us drowning folk, but the entire government did a wrenching 180-degree turn on a fucking dime when Wall Street asked for a trillion dollars?

And knock off the "fantasyland" horseshit, too, will you? You obviously can't distinguish the point at which counseling endless patience becomes obsessive denial. Three more years from now, when absolutely everything is even worse than it is now, you'll be whimpering about how no one could be expected to fix EVERYTHING in four years.

[CAG]

175. and when everything is better, you'll be whimpering about why

didn't he fix everything in four years.

[SammyWinstonJack]

179. WOOHOO!!!

:woohoo: :applause:
:thumbsup:

[CLANG]

173. Agree absolutely. This is LUNACY!!

[Lorien]

131. Lol! You actually list "announced his INTENTION to _____" several times

as "an accomplishment". Sorry, but that's pretty desperate.

[CAG]

148. I'm sorry he hasn't solved the worlds ills in 11 months. I guess you could name

all of the previous presidents that have???

[salguine]

156. Do you actually pay attention to anything that's going on, or do you just spend

all your time tearing pictures of Obama out of Tiger Beat and plastering your room with them?

[CAG]

176. all I've said is he hasn't solved everything in 11 months. How radical

of me....

[CAG]

210. and I guess you too could help debbie downer try to name

all of the previous presidents that have saved the world in 11 months?

[salguine]

215. "Debbie Downer"? You debate/argue like a fucking six-year-old. No one is saying

anyone is expected to "save the world" in eleven months. That's just what you hear, because you are quite insane.

[CAG]

240. You're the one who can't form a sentence without cussing up a storm, and then

calling someone who disagrees with you insane. And my facetious reply of saving the world (I assumed from your posts you would understand purposely overstated rhetoric) is in response to people claiming that he has done NOTHING, and that things are heading in a WORSE direction than *. And you're calling me insane??

[salguine]

256. I didn't say you were insane because you disagreed with me. I said you were insane because

you say insane, ridiculous things.

[CAG]

241. ...and still waiting to have a president named who did more than Obama

in the first 11 months.... tick tock tick tock

[salguine]

250. :

[CAG]

258. Thank you! Now, any others, or might I assume you think Obama is the

SECOND most productive president in the first 11 months?

[salguine]

261. :

[salguine]

263. So I guess we're all done, then? You asked for one, I gave you two, you've been quiet...

[patrice]

34. In most cases, Evil is an emergent property of otherwise "acceptable" behaviors

a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Le Taz Hot]

37. K & R

Another good 'un. :thumbsup: It's posts like this one that keeps me coming back to DU.

[stray cat]

39. Is criminal behavior moral and just a different choice? Is anything amoral?

If there is not evil and everyone is good and does good thing - or if there is no such thing as moral or amoral why do we have laws, police or courts?

[Oregone]

55. Why do we have laws?

To stop an undesirable endless cycle of death, such that humans can actually propagate and continue to live.

You should read "The Eumenides" by Aeschylus (or the whole trilogy and background info) that tries to illustrate the advent of law. In such a play, there is no universal origins for Law, as described, and all parties participating in atrocious behavior had reasoning and motive that they were not even solely responsible for. But at the end of the day, there was generation upon generation of death, and revenge, which would go on forever if there was simply not Law and courts to stop it. If that was allowed to continue, the world would not be fun to live in, nor would there be as many humans living in it (both seems to contradict a mostly inherent desire to propagate and enjoy life).

So anyway, its interesting...people were tackling these questions thousands of years ago

[stray cat]

41. Was what was done on 9-11 evil? Was it wrong? Or was it just a different moral value

Personally I think it was an evil act but I know some would disagree.

[Echo In Light]

62. A govt slaughtering its own civilians to green light their pre-arranged plans is evil

PNAC

[Rosa Luxemburg]

170. neocon strategy

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Invoking morality to justify killing is as old and distasteful as Cain and Abel. K&R

[Joe Chi Minh]

169. Exactly. It's already too late for that. But would always have been for the aggressor,

who doesn't care about it anyway.

[Are_grits_groceries]

44. Did we fight Germany because they were evil?

We didn't know or ignored the very essence of evil in the Holocaust. Once the war ended and what happened was made manifest, the truly evil part of the people that we were fighting against made it seem in hindsight that this was a very just war to fight.

Even then, the Nuremburg Trials were held. They didn't drag those immoral jackasses straight to execution. They showed to all the world the heinous deeds that were done and left a record. It is much harder to deny the specific acts that were recorded.

Evil is often a hindsight word.

[NJmaverick]

79. I appreciate that you are starting to see that President Obama was right

there is evil in the world.

[Are_grits_groceries]

86. Please see post #19.

I haven't seen any grand light during this thread and changed anything. I am not objecting to the concept of evil in the world. I am objecting to the way it is used, and what using it does.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. You'll get aruments at the edges about this, but you are so very right.

[earth mom]

57. You can't win against an invisible evil bogeyman. Obama ampted up the terra terra terra

and it blows my mind that people around DU can't even see that it's the same shit * pulled. :wtf:

The only difference is that Obama was far more eloquent when he played the fear card.

[branders seine]

66. For starters, "evil" is an utterly subjective rationale for war.

In other words, it is completely devoid of actual meaning. This makes it the perfect rationale for war-mongering, war-profiteering capitalists and their never-ending war hardon.

[elocs]

68. Just remember: "evil" spelled backwards is "live". Well in English anyways.

Once the term "evil" is invoked that is pretty much going nuclear. I mean if you call a person "evil" what are you going to add after that? That they are ugly, don't dress well, or have bad manners? No, "evil" pretty much opens the door for whatever comes next. (That is not to say there is not "evil" or that battling evil is not justified, at least in the eyes of the evil battler.)

[StarfarerBill]

82. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Evil is as evil does."

The United States has committed and is committing demonstrably evil acts, against its own citizens and the citizens of other nations. By our own lights and those of international law, that makes us evil.

While I think that we have a duty to help others having atrocities perpetrated against them, we should look first to our own behavior and end bestial acts done in the name of freedom, God, profit, etc. After that, I believe we'll discover that there are other, more humane and effective means to counter others' brutality.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

94. Evil = Blowback

[StarfarerBill]

101. In most cases, that's true.

[GreenArrow]

193. Get the beam out of our own eye

before we try to take the speck out of our neighbor's.

[StarfarerBill]

203. My point exactly.

[Individualist]

92. K&R

[seeinfweggos]

95. so we are giving bush the word evil?

i can't call hitler evil anymore because somehow bush owns the word? i don't think so. he can have "misunderestimate" but i think i'll keep "evil" in the old lexicon.

[Are_grits_groceries]

96. That's silly.

I'm am just saying that when using that word in the context to fight or start a war, it is a very amorphous justification. I don't think anybody owns words.

I will give the Rethugs stupid though.

[seeinfweggos]

99. well i think calling hitler evil falls in the context of fighting wars, no?

[Are_grits_groceries]

100. What are you talking about?

See post #44.

Calling Hitler evil is stating something that we came to fully believe after the war.

[seeinfweggos]

102. well, if i hear someone say "that hitler sure was was evil"

i assume they are not refering to his earlier work as an artist in Vienna, but rather the various unpleastries he engaged in that made fighting a war against him necessary. yes, a necessary war against an EVIL fuckhead.

[Are_grits_groceries]

120. I guess you didn't read post #44.

His worst actions by far weren't known until after the war.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Politicians are usually full of shit, get used to it

They frame military conflicts in moral terms because those kind of arguments will appeal to the masses.

[seeinfweggos]

104. evil quotes

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal

"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done."
Leonardo da Vinci


"When I heard President Obama use that word in his speech, I just put my head down on my desk. I was too tired to bang it up against a wall...It is too relative a concept."
Are Grits Groceries

[shadowknows69]

106. +10000

[Odin2005]

107. So believing there is evil in the world makes me a Fundy? WTF are you smoking?

unrec.

[Are_grits_groceries]

118. If that is what you got out of the OP,

then you need to read it again. I also mde clear that I believe in evil in a post downthread.

[Vidar]

108. K&R.

[Pirate Smile]

109. "It's weak to look two presidents, see them both use the word "evil," and then conclude that they're

the same."

On Obama's Speech
11 Dec 2009 04:00 pm
By Ta-Nehisi Coates

Listened to it this morning, and as always, I was impressed. So was Sarah Palin:

"Wow, that really sounded familiar," said Palin, a frequent Obama critic. "I talked, too, in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times."

I'd like to pair this with something I'm hearing a lot these day. After an entire campaign season where Obama was dismissed as a far-left radical, the new meme became that he was actually firmly entrenched in the "right wing of the Democratic party." Now I'm hearing people say that Obama's speech could have been made by Bush, or some such.

There are people who think presidential politics--from a voter's perspective--is about electing someone who will do exactly what you say and enact every single one of your priorities in exactly the same manner as you would.

And then there are people who think presidential politics--from a voter's perspective--is about electing someone who shares many of your priorities, but not all of them, who may not enact them as you would, and yet whose wisdom you trust. That, for me, is the point. Barack Obama is wise. Sarah Palin is not.

In that vein, I didn't object to George Bush because he claimed that there was "evil" in the world. I objected to George Bush because there was so much evil that he didn't see, and he was awful at prosecuting the evil he did see. I objected to George Bush's foreign policy because it married a freshman's view of idealism (Big talk on human rights) with a profane, dishonest take one realism (We don't torture.) It's weak to look two presidents, see them both use the word "evil," and then conclude that they're the same.

I expect Obama to be who he campaigned as. But more than that, I expect him to actually think about the world. I expect him to be curious, deliberative, and cool-headed. That's who he is. I often disagree with him. But I don't regret a thing. I don't understand these people. It's like they thought he'd go to Oslo, hand over the launch codes, and offer twenty Texas virgins in exchange for a pledge from Al'Qaeda to stop being mean to us.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/on_obamas_speech.php

[RagAss]

110. Amen....hence my sig line.

[grahamhgreen]

127. I like it!

[Fearless]

111. Agreed 100%! K&R!

Peace through war is bullshit!

[Mithreal]

112. Enables ends justifies the means type of thinking

Very manipulative choice of word for a President.

And another nod to the religious and rightwing worldview.

When America can admits its own evil, then maybe we can talk.

[treestar]

114. Of course there is evil

Why is there a word for it?

Wasn't Al Qaeda evil in what they did on 911? You don't have to agree with the war to agree on that.

[Andronex]

219. Wasn't Al Qaeda evil in what they did on 911?

Making nearly impossible manoeuvres with large commercial aircrafts at top speed when from public accounts of their flight instructors these Al Qaeda terrorists could not control a one engine Cessna... that's not evil it's supernatural.

[Lautremont]

117. "Evil" is a child's word, or a simpleton's.

He may as well be warning us of the coming of the boogeymen. He was elected to wrestle with these complexities, and to explain in adult terms why he's doing what he's doing, not to tell campfire tales.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonn1997]

123. K N R. Outstanding post.

[HughMoran]

125. Really dishonest post based on a hangup of yours

What a waste this place has become of late.

[bluestateguy]

126. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are evil

How we deal with that is up for a reasonable debate, but I have little patience for people who make excuses, overly intellectualized explanations, and relativistic nonsense for what is really a very simple fact.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vattel]

160. exactly

[Fire1]

128. Talk about "NIT PICKIN" bullshit! This is it! n/t

[salguine]

139. Not to anyone capable of thinking and perceiving with any depth, it isn't.

[Fire1]

146. Oh pleeeze! Depth?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[salguine]

159. The fiery logic of your response rocks me back on my heels. Uncle! Uncle!

[apocalypsehow]

202. See #194. It applies to you, too. n/t.

[JDPriestly]

130. I suspect that we, again, are not being told the real reasons for

our troop build-up in Afghanistan. It may be the right thing to do, but the grounds given for the build-up don't make much sense. If drones are effective against specific target such as the 100 individual Al Qaeda members said to be in Afghanistan, why do we need to send in so many troops? That does not make sense.

[varelse]

132. Well said

Although I think we have already crossed this threshold, sadly:

The government cannot define evil and legislate against it. It is too relative a concept. Once we enter that realm, we are in the evangelicals wheelhouse.

[Syntheto]

133. I agree... "Evil" makes me cringe, but...

... bottom line, in this context, it doesn't mean much more than "Those who are actively seeking to do bad things to us, wherever they can find us".

Contrast that with the unspoken "good", here meaning, at the very least "Those that are cooperating with us, and not seeking to do bad things to us at this moment in time." At least with those provisos, you could get the concept over that, hey, things change, not only between people, but between cultures and sovereign states.

The worst that I can say about it is that it seems a bit cynical to throw that word out there to perhaps gain a point or two in public opinion polls from the crowd who comfortably believe in the concept of Universal Good and Universal Evil.

I dunno, what alternative way could 'Those who actively seek to harm us' be put?

[dcsmart]

134. "Who is evil is defined differently for each person"=you have a lot

more thinking to do....moral relativism is the simple-person's analysis of the world....although i agree with other parts of your argument: We are nation of laws. We should go to war for specific and provable reasons. However, the specific and "provable" reasons for going to war can be to combat evil. Granted that evil is somewhat ambiguous as a metaphysical idea, i argue that there are more than enough examples of evil acts throughout world history that serve as empirical references.

[d3m0l1sh3r]

137. i mean, come on

who doesn't consider the taliban evil, besides the taliban?
He used it as an adjective, not changing it to "The War on Evil"

[upi402]

141. I understand where he was going...

but Afghanistan was over when the Republicans let Al Qaeda escape to Pakistan initially. Obama says pretty things, then kicks you the instant he can. I'm not surprised, but very sad. The very elements he caters to will sink him in every way. He must know this.

[Hosnon]

144. Invoking evil is a cop-out, in my opinion.

It glosses over the true causes of pain and suffering.

[impik]

150. Rrrrright. Because there's no evil in the world

Hitler was just misunderstood, and Bin Laden only wants attention. Sometimes i really wonder if there are any reasonable "progressives" left. Probably not.

Just because Bush and his gang abused and pimped some words, doesn't mean that these words can't be used anymore.

[BlueJac]

151. Good post...why do people think......

when Obama uses similar language as Bush did it is ok now. I am totally confused about so called democrats, I guess I am not one.

[farmbo]

152. So crashing fuel-laden 737s into the WTC was what?... Annoying?

No better word describes the willingness of psychopaths to slaughter civilians for their own personal, political, or religious purposes. It is unvarnished evil.

See also: Buchenwald...Theodore Bundy...Jim Jones ...Pol Pot.

BO, like Lincoln, is right on this frame. There is evil in the world and I for one am glad we have someone in the WH who understands the concept and can deal with it rationally.

[quaker bill]

153. A specific and proveable reason:

"They have lots of oil, we need lots of oil, and with our vast military superiority we can kill them all and take it."

Sorry, but a specific and proveable reason is insufficient cause for war.

Evil actually is a rather concrete concept to most minds other than Bush. There are copious examples.

Hitler's "final solution" was evil.

The acts that filled the Cambodian Killing Fields were evil.

Our overthrow of the Chilean government and support for Pinochet was evil.

Our mining of Nicaraguan harbors to blockade and starve the Nicaraguan people for voting incorrectly, was evil.

Our training and support of Central American Death Squads was evil.

The attacks on 9/11 were evil.

Fill in your own examples, there are thousands, and they are easy to come by.

Evil is not an amorphous concept to minds more advanced than G.W. Bush, and this is the very good reason to avoid putting idiots in such an office.

Remember that the idiot prince, G. W. Bush, carried the nuclear "football" for every day and night of eight horribly long years and be eternally grateful to the diety or non-deity of your choosing every day that we still live and breathe.

[truedelphi]

154. Have you caught Richard Haas the head of the Council of Foreign Relations yet?

He is clearly of the "You are either with us or against us" mindset.

Even scarier is that he is one of those who advises Obama.


Those on this board who support Social Justice, who support Truth, who support Civil Rights, and support these expanding wars are in for a real shock when they find out who the real enemy is.

It is the "Other" not just the "Other" in foreign lands like Pakistan (which we have been illegally bombing over the summer) but also and more importantly the "Other" within.

It is too much work for Americans to work on their own inner fears and neurosis.

Thus we project our fears and our weaknesses outward, into a non-ending cataclysm of death decreed by the fact that since Evil lurks in all our hearts, (but that particular and personal Evil can never be undone), we must therefore perpetually wage war on those in foreign lands, and those who are different or "progressive" here.

[Honeycombe8]

161. "Evil" is too relative a concept? Like some people think killing innocent children to make a point

is evil. But you think that, relatively speaking, some people think that would NOT be evil?

Oh, yeah. Right.

Wake up. There are universal evils in the world. All mankind can agree as to certain evils, such as killing innocents for unrelated "causes" having nothing to do with the children...just to get others' attention. That is evil. Universal evil.

[Are_grits_groceries]

181. I said that I believe in evil.

I also said I wasn't thrilled with using that concept to call people to arms. They're evil. Well okay, who are they?
Al Qaeda. So now we go to Afghanistan to fight an 'evil' that might number 100, and we are fighting mostly the Taliban.

Are the Taliban evil? They are fighting us so ergo, they must be evil. There are too many tribes and gangs to sort it out. There are people who have studied the region who don't believe the Taliban is much up to wanting to share the leadership and gains with Al Qaeda.

When speeches are made to rally people to a cause, nuance is useless in most cases. The reasons and goals have to be cited in broad terms. Obama cited 'change' for his rallying cry. McCain cited 'experience' for his. Those 2 terms covered a multitude of possible meanings. When it's down to brass tacks, you will get what you rallied behind. It may not be your definition of the word though.

It's the same thing with evil. It means what someone wants it to mean. When Bush said evildoers, he probably meant to include those that shut off the oil flow in that definition. I don't think President Obama includes those people, but who are the evil this time.

[varelse]

187. For thousands of years, baby girls were killed deliberately

because they could not be fed and cared for without jeapordizing the health and welfare of their brothers.

I hope that does not happen now, but it definitely was an accepted practice for hundreds of thousands of people.

[Honeycombe8]

245. No, it wasn't. In China that was a practice for a while, in secret, and was

considered evil, but necessary.

There are universal wrongs and rights. Some people need religion to spell them out for them; others need nothing, since it is universal and exists within the conscience of the human being. Except for those people who are "evil," or something is wrong in the brain. Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind.

[varelse]

251. This wasn't just happening in China

Nor was it all that secret - nor, in fact, has it necessarily stopped happening in this world.

There are no universally accepted "wrongs and rights". There are, however, several different definitions of "universal" wrongs and rights. In some areas of the world, it is not only right to kill your female relatives if they stray from the path of honor, it is required that you do this.

[theHandpuppet]

168. Great post.

Heartily recommended and kicked! I always enjoy your posts. Whether or not I agree with you, you always offer interesting and thoughtful arguments.

:thumbsup:

[shadesofgray]

178. K&R.

[Are_grits_groceries]

186. Those of you that are listing specific people and acts as evil

are choosing from a very readily recognized group. You have put them there because of real and heinous acts that were performed. They deserve to be categorized as evil.

However, as I said, what do you do with that amorphous term when someone applies it differently than you. People who are pro-choice are said to be evil by Randall Terry. Gays are said to be evil by certain Ugandan leaders and lord knows who else.

When that is the term used as a label to punish somebody, then there is no justice. If I am put in jail because somebody says I'm evil, I know there is a law that better explain what I did in a more concrete form. If we don't hew to that, we are all toast and subject to the whims of of those that are in charge.

[Peregrine Took]

192. Me, too. George W. Obama.

I'm through with him.

[apocalypsehow]

194. People who quibble over the use and definition of words are special pleaders of the worst sort.

They are often Wikipedia Warriors, poorly educated when it comes to formal things like pieces of paper that say "Diploma" somewhere on them, but the quickest kid on the block when it comes to Googling obscure historical incidents or vague philosophical objections to terms & definitions.

Your OP reeks of it.

:thumbsdown:

[Are_grits_groceries]

232. Let's see what you have manged to do in your post:

Called me a:
1-special pleader of the worst sort.
2-Wikipedia Warrior
3-poorly educated ie diploma
4-quickest to cite obscure historical incidents and vague philosophical objections to terms and defs

And I reek of the above.

I could spend my time refuting your claims point by point. That would be a waste because it won't convince you of anything I don't think. It will simply start a flaming back and forth over each item.

However, I will point out that this is what is wrong with trying to broach topics on DU. People resort to personally calling out the poster instead of addressing the post. You have no idea how I came by my conclusions, but you don't hesitate to attack how I arrived at them. You question my knowledge of 'diploma' which assumes I don't have one of any sort.

The total of my experiences have lead to my argument. Attack the argument with reasoning and not me or my journey. You insult me needlessly and avoid dealing with the heart of the matter which is the ideas in the OP. Having a diploma is no guarantee of wisdom of any sort. It's easier to call someone names and dismiss a whole post rather than spend time debating the points.

[apocalypsehow]

259. Physician, heal thyself. You have predicated the thesis of an ENTIRE OP over the use of ONE word.

The word itself was used in said speech not in a theological or even an ethical/moral dilemma sense, but in the sense of "there are bad guys in the world." This a common usage in modern American parlance, and has about as much theological import as "Happy Holidays."

And what did you choose to do? You chose to ignore the content of the speech in favor of focusing on ONE WORD. And why? Because you don't care for the actions the speech endorses in the foreign policy realm. That is worse than "nit-picking": it is juvenile.

My larger point was that mighty internet warriors often indulge in such parsimonious nonsense because they really have no larger - or more intelligent - grounds upon which to oppose any given policy they dislike.

You fit this description to a "T". Now, quick, don't accuse me of trying to slip a bit of Christianizing in on you and write a ten-thousand word post about it because the "T" symbol was once an early Christian depiction of the crucifix....

:eyes:

[maryf]

195. Good point

thanks, K&R

[Upton]

196. They sure sound alike don't they?

They sure sound alike don't they?


Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight" | Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"
Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak" | Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"
Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering" | Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition Determined"
Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat" | Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"
Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country" | Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"


http://www.michaelmoore.com/

[mls]

218. they sound alike

They sure do sound alike.


He lost me at "For make no mistake"...Bush used to preface many of his lines with "Make no mistake about it". It immediately sets my bullshit detector off every time I hear it.

[Goldstein1984]

198. "Evil" and "moral" are too fuzzy--just tactics

As an atheist, I live in a country were the majority of the population believes I have no moral foundation. Many think I am evil. The labels are applied without regard to how I live my life or what I have accomplished. The words are tossed about at the practical convenience of those trying to influence others.

Saul Alinsky, activist and author of "Rules for Radicals," advised those trying to influence others to put every argument in moral terms. People don't worry much about being impractical, but few want to be put in a position of being "immoral."

Given that remaining in Afghanistan and escalating our involvement there cannot be readily sold as practical, Obama had no choice but to default to the tactic of making a a moral argument. It was the "practical" thing to do.

[Duende azul]

211. Your last line nails it. +100

[midnight]

199. Repeat this.......

We are nation of laws. We should go to war for specific and proveable reasons.

[BeHereNow]

201. "Evil" has replaced "Rule of law"

There in lies our collective problem.

Evil is an abstract.

Rule of law is based in concrete reality.

When our leaders begin waging wars based on abstractions
rather than absolutes, we have lost all credibility as a nation.

BHN

[leftstreet]

214. +!0000000000000000

[Are_grits_groceries]

234. What you said! nt

[anonymous171]

204. Evil exists. Capitalism and American foreign policy prove this. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

216. Saying there is "evil" in the world is one thing-

Saying that you have as your goal to end all "evil" in the world like Bush did is something QUITE different. There is no way that what Al-Queda did to us on 9/11 and to other people they've killed in their attacks could be considered anything other than "evil" IMHO. And yes, I will submit that our country, or more precisely our leaders, have done some "evil" things in the past.

[parasearchers]

222. He is now just a disapointment to me.

I will not be voting in the next election, if ever.

[natrat]

223. whadayaknow, dude got the same speach writers

half of the rest of the people are the same so i guess it's not so surprising

[Andronex]

224. I think bears are evil...

they attack people and hide in the woods... something has to be done, we can't tolerate this much longer.

[Stand and Fight]

229. Kicked and recommended because the truth hurts. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

230. 'If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Make It Illegal'

"If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Make It Illegal"

--Emma Goldman

[Major Hogwash]

231. Yeah, it sucked. Out of the many other words he could have used, he sounded like the shadow.

Except this time, it wasn't funny to hear it.

Worst speech he has given in 14 months.

Whatever happened to "the hope and change" speeches he used to give?

[DeeDeeNY]

238. Pefectly stated.

What is evil? We have plenty of evil people in this country. Evil has existed since the beginning of time. You are so right.

[DuaneBidoux]

243. I don't know if there is "evil" in the larger metaphorical sense. But there are evil actions.

Cutting girls clits off so they can't have sexual pleasure, or mowing down and burning a group of girls on their way to school, or cutting off hands and stoning people who have affairs or listen to rock music: this is evil and this is what the Taliban does.

I agree that the rhetoric can be dangerous but there are things that are evil enough to fight. I do indeed place the actions of the Taliban beside those of Hitler. That is a fair comparison. The only difference between the Nazis and the Taliban is the means to do damage. I have no doubt that if the Taliban ever did possess nuclear weapons they would use them in a heartbeat.

[Are_grits_groceries]

244. And yet the plan now is to pay some of the Taliban

and Afghanis to keep them from fighting against us. Have we sorted out who the evil ones are??

[Andronex]

253. Well you can't justify long term military presence...

and the building of permanent military bases without an insurgency, so you fund it, and control the intensity of the conflict... war is a racket, it's not about ideology, or human rights, it's about expansion of power and wealth of a minority over the rest of the population.

[kenny blankenship]

257. Relax! Once all the Evil in the world is destroyed we will be at peace.

Our armies will come home, and we'll have brotherly love and democracy and freedom and prosperity everywhere forever. Or is that a bad thing on DU now?