(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)
The Most Asinine Post-Liberation Comment, Thus Far
04/10/2003
By way of a comment in a well-put post by Victor Lams (the one that starts with "Like most folks who don't work..."), I came across the provisional winner of the Most Asinine Reaction to the Liberation of Baghdad award:
At this point an American armoured personnel carrier drove up and tied a steel cord to the rope. The rope fell off (rubbish knot) and so they moved in closer and used (you guessed it) the APC;s built in crane - THE ARNOURED PERSONEL CARRIER HAS A CRANE??? Anyway they hitched a chain around saddams neck and, popped an American flag on his head.
Wankers. I know this is a Catholic blog and all and that many members of St Blog's Parish who are American might be offended but come on! When wil you people stop masturbating over the fact that you come from America? It was an awesome scene - ordinary Iraqui's pulling down a statue (with, admittely a litte technical assistance) and some dumb assed marine had to pull out the stars and stripes. Great way to not look like an occupying force!
Wow am I miffed about the whole flag thing! The marines were asked to help knock down the statue, thats all. Given time the Iraqui's could have found a chain and a 4x4 of their own. But they had to go one step too far and pull out their own flag. AAARRRRGGGHHH! Damn was that our of order. I wonder if George Bush will do the same thing over the technical assistance he gave in toppling the real saddam?
Anyway, eventually they pulled down the statue, the iraqui's managed, once it was at floor level, to smash the shit out of it. They pulled off the head and dragged it away to parade around the streets of baghdad.
Funny how the blogger, James Preece, fails to note that the Marine thereafter removed the American flag and put the old Iraqi flag up and that the Iraqis cheered the entire procedure. Apparently spelling isn't the only thing they're failing to teach at Exeter University. James Lileks explains the symbolism of the moment well, for those in need of educational supplements. I suppose we must prepare to be inundated with the perplexed reactions and displays of ugly envy, condescension, and insecurity of those who insist on watching the world reflected in a funhouse mirror, but when it reaches this level, I, for one, find myself unable to simply laugh about it.
The Iraqis cheered. The Marine switched the flags. And you can bet that if he'd had a British flag handy, that would have been there, too, as would the flags of Australia and other coalition nations. Throughout the march to Baghdad, we continued to hear about Iraqis not wanting to be too outspoken in their excitement at the approach of the coalition because they wanted to be sure that the United States and its allies were going to follow through. Nonetheless, we heard such comments as, "You're late. What took you so long?" The Iraqis understood that the flag over the statue's head was a clear reply of, "We're here now."
Apparently, for all their pretensions to subtlety and intricate comprehension, many in the West can't understand anything that isn't spelled out for them. Well, then, here you go: We spent billions of dollars, dozens of lives, and not a little anxiety about diplomatic risks to topple a regime that cut off children's ears to intimidate their parents. No, I don't think we'll be inclined to apologize for having the audacity to show our flag! "Technical assistance" my Yankee arse!
Posted by Justin Katz @ 02:08 PM EST
24 comments
Hello. I am friend and housemate to the offending article, one James Preece.
I don't really want to defend James, but I did wish to raise the following points:
1. Laugh? Who's laughing? He's _complaining_. You can tell by the way it says "Wow am I miffed about the whole flag thing!"
2. The event in question, is not "the Liberation of Baghdad". Yes, symbols are important, but your inference that James is poking fun at the liberation of Iraq is pretty asinine itself.
3. Your badmouthing of Exeter University, based on the ill-formed opinions of a dyslexic physics student, is a bit much. Apparently, restraint, within the context of insulting rhetoric, isn't the only thing they failed to teach at wherever the hell you were educated.
Mark Dobson @ 04/10/2003 06:24 PM EST
Sorry, me again. While I was here, I just wanted to point out that the fact that James Lileks' symbolic interpretation of the flag exchange is laudable does not mean that it neccesarily reflects the reasons why it happened. I rather expect that the soldier concerned did not have Lileks' metonymical conception in mind. Just a point for those in need of educational supplements.
Mark Dobson @ 04/10/2003 06:38 PM EST
Mr. Dobson.
1. I am unable to laugh at such people as Mr. Preece. Such folks as this, yes. Mr. Preece, no. At any rate, his tone is surely mockingly jocular.
2. How so? With such an event to which to react, your pal chooses to (1) call an Iraqi reveler an idiot and (2) insult America. That was his reaction to the liberation. It wasn't an insulting reaction among several. In fact, the quoted text shared a post with discussion of a videogame.
3. I referred to Exeter only as a means of attributing to Preece an age range. Although my opinion of the world of higher education is pretty low, I have no basis to place Exeter even lower than other universities except through the lens of Mr. Preece. As for his apparent dyslexia, I recommend that, if he intends to reference that as the reason for calling an APC an "Arnourd Personel Carrier," then he'd best put a disclaimer on his blog.
Justin Katz @ 04/10/2003 07:09 PM EST
"the soldier put the flag over Saddam’s iron face, then removed it and replaced it with the old Iraqi flag. It’s a potent message. A show of power, then a show of respect. Our flag first; your flag for ever after. Don’t forget how the latter was made possible by the former."Let me get this straight, a marine, plucked at random from out of the group that happened to be around the square at the time, thought about that "our flag first then you're flag forever" thing. Or was that symbolism tacked on afterwards?
I'm sorry but the most simple explanation is the true one in this case - an american marine suddenly found himself thrust in front of a crowd of Iraqi civilians and the worlds media, and he couldnt help himself. He only took that flag down again when a brave iraqi jumped on to his APC and waved his own flag in defiance.
I'd have been just as angry to see a british flag there, but no british soldier would have had the audacity to put one up.
To place a flag on something is a symbol of ownership, they get put on space shuttles, castles, and newly claimed lands.
So if you want the world to know that its you whose doing the liberating - keep the flag stuck on your tanks and we'll say "look, see how those tanks doing the liberating are american".
Go putting on anything else, and the world will see it as a symbol of claiming ownership, as they have always seen it when someone places a flag on something.
Finally, I wonder what it is I am supposed to be envious of? Is it the way America is hated across the middle east for its inability to get simple things like this right and keep ordinary people happy? What am I insecure about? My inability to claim glory whenever I help another human being?
Do you really think the rest of the world is watching and thinking "gosh - I wish that was my flag up there!"?
The only thing of mine you will be inundated with is my pity.
James Preece @ 04/10/2003 07:11 PM EST
your pal chooses to (1) call an Iraqi reveler an idiot and (2) insult America. That was his reaction to the liberation.(1) The iraqi reveler took 30 minutes to fail to tie a knot in a piece of rope. You give it a go sometime. The benchmark I use: times of over 5 mins to tie a not and you're entering the realms of idiocy.
(2) I didnt "insult america", I said that something one marine did was stupid. One marine - One act. You're the one whose blown that up to a big insult on a whole country.
My reaction to the liberation was not blogged, I was too busy ranting about our marine friends stupid act.
I'll give my reaction to the liberation of Iraq when it happens. We havent even got an interim government yet.
James Preece @ 04/10/2003 07:31 PM EST
"not" was a typo, knot a misspelling.
And that was a joke by the way.
James Preece @ 04/10/2003 07:32 PM EST
Preece,
I didn't say that that particular Marine — Cpl. Edward Chin, by the way — had worked out the symbolism. He told CNN the following:
But Cpl. Edward Chin told CNN's Paula Zahn that the display of the American stars and stripes, and the subsequent removal of that flag and hanging of a pre-Gulf War Iraqi flag, were "more like a symbol that we were here to give (Iraqis) their country back."
"They wanted a flag on his head, the American flag," Chin said. "They brought it up to me and I put it on there for a brief moment.
"The Iraqi crowd, they were egging us on," he said. "They were happy to see us do it. We took it down after a brief moment and put their flag up."
From that, at least, it looks like he had the first part in mind. As for ownership, I suppose you could say that the U.S. claimed ownership of Saddam Hussein. The Marine threw a flag over his head, he didn't hoist it in the center of the square.
The only thing of mine you will be inundated with is my pity.
Now that I can laugh at! You may pity me to your heart's content if you like. I'd make a few in-kind quips about your country, but frankly, I don't have an irrational hatred of it. I don't have to: I'm an American. ;o)
Justin Katz @ 04/10/2003 07:43 PM EST
(2) I didnt "insult america", I said that something one marine did was stupid. One marine - One act. You're the one whose blown that up to a big insult on a whole country.
— Oh, I didn't realize that "Wankers" was singular. I'm also at a loss as to how you reconcile this statement with this previous one: "When wil you people stop masturbating over the fact that you come from America?"My reaction to the liberation was not blogged, I was too busy ranting about our marine friends stupid act.
— Umm. That's the point.
Justin Katz @ 04/10/2003 07:47 PM EST
1. >his tone is surely mockingly jocular.
1a. No it isn't, says this student of English literature, who is at least _supposed_ to know about such things.
2. >In fact, the quoted text shared a post with discussion of a videogame.
2a. Oh my sainted aunt! I didn't realise! Let's kill him!
3. >I referred to Exeter only as a means of attributing to Preece an age range.
3a. Not so. You insulted it. It's no use pretending.
Mark Dobson @ 04/10/2003 07:52 PM EST
No it isn't, says this student of English literature, who is at least _supposed_ to know about such things.
— Take it from a graduate with an English degree and a professional editor who does know about such things that it does.Not so. You insulted it. It's no use pretending.
— Not pretending. I went on.Well, this has been fun, but y'all ain't throwin' arguments at me no more; yer jest lookin' fer things to pick at.
Justin Katz @ 04/10/2003 08:01 PM EST
Let me begin by explaining that "wankers" applied to the group of marines alone. Not to all americans.
You're whole point seems to be that my little rant was based on limited knowledge of the marines intentions. Clearly it was, but that doesnt make it asinine as you asserted - mearly misinformed.
James Preece @ 04/10/2003 08:08 PM EST
I am intrigued by this notion of yours that you can pull rank on me whilst simultaneously saying that your "opinion of the world of higher education is pretty low".
It's very interesting. It is also interesting that you think the two following statements do not contradict one another.
>I referred to Exeter only as a
>means of attributing to Preece an
>age range.>Apparently spelling isn't the
>only thing they're failing to
>teach at Exeter University.
Mark Dobson @ 04/10/2003 08:18 PM EST
James,
Thank you for returning to actual discussion. The "asinine" characterization was in response to:
1) Your assumption of stupidity mixed with vapid, bumbling American patriotism on the part of the Marine, in conjunction with
2) Your removal of the remainder of the incident and subsequent
3) Extrapolation of the entire incident to all Americans ("When wil you people stop...") and
4) Attempted application of the entire malicious endeavor to possible future activities of America via its leader.
Justin Katz @ 04/10/2003 09:00 PM EST
Master Dobson,
In response to your reliance on your studies as the sole qualification for judging tone, I thought it not inappropriate to mention that I do, indeed, "outrank" you by your measure. In short, inasmuch as your statement was based on the educational system in which I hold so little faith, the most efficient way for me to address it was recourse to my own experience with the system.
As for denying a contradiction, I did no such thing. In response to you, I wrote, "Not pretending. I went on." In other words, you cut my sentiment short. Here's the whole thing:
I referred to Exeter only as a means of attributing to Preece an age range. Although my opinion of the world of higher education is pretty low, I have no basis to place Exeter even lower than other universities except through the lens of Mr. Preece.
If the two of you attended a different school, I would have simply used that name.
;o) :^D 8^*
Justin Katz @ 04/10/2003 09:09 PM EST
an werop th whol Exete thing? Marks right nd anyone eadg ths with hl a brain knows it. You said "Apparently spelling isn't the only thing they're failing to teach at Exeter University" and clearly the "they're" applies to representatives of the university.
I'm much more interested in getting rid of this charge of asininity (is that a word) and exposing you for the patriotism junky that you are :)
James Preece @ 04/10/2003 09:15 PM EST
1) Your assumption of stupidity mixed with vapid, bumbling American patriotism on the part of the Marine
Remember this is a charge of asininity. Is it asinine to assume that someone is stupid when they have just done something you (with limited information I accept) consider a stupid thing to do?
As for the bumbling patriotism. He's a man thats willing to kill and be killed for his country. I reckon I can safely assume bumbling patriotism.
2) Your removal of the remainder of the incident
I didnt tell you how many times I went to the toilet that day either. Faliure to blog non-essensial events is not asinine. That fact that someone pulled out a US flag is bloggable. The presense of an Iraqi one can be seen in my picture of the day. Besides, the way you put it, its like I should be saying "well done marine for allowing them to put their own flag up in their own country!"
3) Extrapolation of the entire incident to all Americans ("When wil you people stop...")
Lets just say you havent done anything to prove me wrong. Almost every American I have ever seen on the news or in the real world (yourself included) has backed me up on this. You are of the opinion, against all the evidence, that Americans are "a good people". Thats asinine. Theres no such thing as "a good people". You're no better than any other bunch of people. Lets not mention the 40 million unborn babies shall we?
4) Attempted application of the entire malicious endeavor to possible future activities of America via its leader.
I'm a physics student. We're taught to extrapolate. You said yourself:
We spent billions of dollars, dozens of lives, and not a little anxiety about diplomatic risks to topple a regime that cut off children's ears to intimidate their parents. No, I don't think we'll be inclined to apologize for having the audacity to show our flag!
I dont think its asinine to guess that some in the american government might take that quote and replace the end with "having the audacity to expect a say in the future of iraq"
James Preece @ 04/10/2003 09:32 PM EST
Shoot, James. Just as I was beginning to think that maybe the charge of asininity applied to that one post only, you go and exacerbate things.
Is it asinine to assume that someone is stupid when they have just done something you (with limited information I accept) consider a stupid thing to do?
— Well, considering that "asinine" means "marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment" (M-W.com), I'd say your underlying judgment is fair game. But beyond that is the extrapolation.He's a man thats willing to kill and be killed for his country. I reckon I can safely assume bumbling patriotism.
— I'll give you that you can assume patriotism, but not "bumbling."Faliure to blog non-essensial events is not asinine. That fact that someone pulled out a US flag is bloggable. The presense of an Iraqi one can be seen in my picture of the day.
— That's pretty good spin. You sure you're not studying politics? So which "non-essensial events" are you referring to specifically? That the American flag came down at all? The speed with which the flags were switched? You left both of those out.Besides, the way you put it, its like I should be saying "well done marine for allowing them to put their own flag up in their own country!"
— Let's clarify that we aren't talking about anybody "putting up" any flag. In all interpretations of motivation, we're talking about a symbolic moment before the statue was torn down.Almost every American I have ever seen on the news or in the real world (yourself included) has backed me up on this.
— So I gather we've dispensed with this baloney: "You're the one whose blown that up to a big insult on a whole country."You are of the opinion, against all the evidence, that Americans are "a good people". Thats asinine. Theres no such thing as "a good people". You're no better than any other bunch of people.
— Can't all people be "good people"? As far as I can tell, in my dealings with you, my point has primarily been that we aren't "bad people." You're going to have to choose which of your accusatory strategies you prefer: (1) that all Americans are [insert stereotypical slur here] or (2) one cannot make claims about the general goodness (and, therefore, badness) of an entire people.Lets not mention the 40 million unborn babies shall we?
— Well, you're not going to get me to defend this; you'd be hard pressed to out pro-life me. But since you're not going to mention your statistic, I won't mention the 5.65 million tally in the United Kingdom. Nor will I point out that in the period from 1980 to 2000, the percentage of conceived children who were aborted dropped from 30.1 to 24.4 (down 5.7) in the U.S., while the corresponding trend in the United Kingdom was from 15.4 to 22.7 (up 7.3). I'd be surprised if the abortion rate in the U.K. hasn't surpassed that in the U.S. given other trends. By "other trends," I mean that, in the U.K., conceptions have fallen by 1.4%, live births have fallen by 9.9%, while abortions have risen (in raw number) 31.2%. Meanwhile, in the U.S., conceptions have risen 3.8%, live births have risen 11.0%, and abortions have fallen 15.5%. But I'll forgive you for throwing this tangent into a conversation on which it has almost no relevance because it isn't going to be one that works in your favor (as a U.K. nationalist) for much longe, so you might as well get as much use out of it as you can.I dont think its asinine to guess that some in the american government might take that quote and replace the end with "having the audacity to expect a say in the future of iraq"
— I would hope they would do that — in part because a huge portion of the rebuilding will be done with our resources, and in part because we toppled Hussein. That's how it works. Nations (or, ahem, United Nations) can't be rewarded for so drastic a struggle by reaping the rewards of that which they would have disallowed.
Justin Katz @ 04/10/2003 11:24 PM EST
I'm back to apologise. Obviously I disagree with you, but there was no need for me to do so whilst sneering at you. It was perfectly idiotic of me, and I'm very sorry.
Mark Dobson @ 04/11/2003 03:36 AM EST
I'd make a few in-kind quips about your country, but frankly, I don't have an irrational hatred of it. I don't have to: I'm an American. ;o)
Are you saying that no American has an irrational hatred of anyone. I don't hate Americans, they just wind me up on occasion. However, I do know a number of people who hate Americans, doesn't that tell you anything. There must be a reason for it. Possibly the reason is a lot of misinformation but there will be one. Most of the international students I've met in Lancaster have a vociferous hate of all Americans. In fact the most prolific anti-American I've met is an American herself.
Is this right? Is it justified? I don't know. I haven't met enough Americans to be able to form an opinion of the country as a whole, rather than just the government
Philip Younger @ 04/11/2003 05:18 AM EST
Mark,
Thanks for the apology. I'm presuming you mean things written on James Preece's site because, looking back, I wouldn't consider anything here unduly sneering. At any rate, I wasn't wounded by your comments.
For my part, I've tried to sneer only at arguments and statements, not people (fine line, I know). If I've overshot in that, I apologize as well.
Justin Katz @ 04/11/2003 06:43 AM EST
Mr. Younger,
Are you saying that no American has an irrational hatred of anyone
— Actually, that was mostly just a bit of poking at my British adversaries. But addressing it as a serious comment, I'd suggest that, if being an American absolves one of some sort of national inclination toward irrational hatred, that doesn't mean that people won't still indulge in it.However, I do know a number of people who hate Americans, doesn't that tell you anything. There must be a reason for it.
— Well, I've known people who've had irrational hatred of blacks. Of Jews. Of women. And so on. What should that tell me about blacks and Jews and women? To my experience, hatred often tells one more about the hater than the hated.Most of the international students I've met in Lancaster have a vociferous hate of all Americans. In fact the most prolific anti-American I've met is an American herself.
— Peculiar disease, no? American self-hate. I imagine those who are inclined to study abroad are particularly prone to it. Frankly, I find the "reasons" to be plain lies, peculiar spin, and twisted ideology.I haven't met enough Americans to be able to form an opinion of the country as a whole, rather than just the government.
— Personally, I've a pretty high opinion of our government. Of course, since it's easier and more anonymous, the lies, spin, and twisted ideology generally begin by addressing it rather than a whole people.
Justin Katz @ 04/11/2003 06:54 AM EST
asinine adjective stupid, silly, idiotic, foolish, brainless, nonsensical, senseless, halfwitted, fatuous, inane, imbecilic, moronic; inf. daft, dopey, balmy, batty, nutty, dumb, gormless.
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Oxford Dictionary
Copyright © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
James Preece @ 04/11/2003 07:14 PM EST
Nothing in there about underlying judgement. The fact that I used any kind of judgement at all seems to remove any claim of asininity.
James Preece @ 04/11/2003 07:16 PM EST
Are you really misunderstanding what I wrote in the context of the definition, or are you just ignoring it? Well, assuming the best of you, I'll explain:
Because "asinine" involves the lack of intelligence or "sound judgment," the underlying assumption from which you drew your conclusions is fair game for the accusation of asininity. The fact that your logic was internally consistent does not make the logic immune to such criticism.
Justin Katz @ 04/11/2003 07:22 PM EST