Cut the bravado!

February 21, 2003 7:10 AM

The Bush Administration could do with a little more cooperation and a little less unilateralism Well, no duh. This article by my favorite love/hate columnist hits the nail on the head describing my anxiety about the current administration's attitude and foolishness in confronting Iraq. I think that like many, I fall into the "we need to deal with Saddam" category. Yet the article has a good subtext that I'd like to highlight: If we're in this war to increase international stability and lessen Al-Qaida's influence, why not frame the argument thus?
posted by tgrundke (18 comments total)

Please don't post editorials about Iraq, unless they're something more interesting than "I'm against the war because..." and "I support the war because..."

In particular, please don't post editorials from major newspapers that already have millions of readers. There's really no need.

Sorry to editorialize, but I'm getting annoyed by the political signal-to-noise ratio on MeFi, and I'm going to start crusading to steer it back into high-signal territory. I encourage others to join me.

Thanks.
posted by oissubke at 7:26 AM on February 21, 2003

Oh joy. Another editorial about the war in Iraq that we can argue over. Thanks.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:32 AM on February 21, 2003

Here's another, in which William Pfaff calls the administration "devoted to macho posturing".

And another, in which Camille Paglia compares the Bush administration to the young honor-obsessed confederate fools at the beginning of Gone with the Wind.
posted by goethean at 7:46 AM on February 21, 2003

y6y6y6, I hope you'll join me in my quest to discourage (and, if necessary, derail) these kinds of posts, regardless of whether we agree with their sentiment or not.

To all Iraq posters: It's non-violent resistance time, and I'm 'bout to go Ghandi on yo ass. May I recommend that you get yourself a blogger site to post these things instead....
posted by oissubke at 7:48 AM on February 21, 2003

fine. agreed. but i swear, i'd best not see any pro-administration claptrap posted by YOU, oissubke and y6y6y6, or i'm gonna go all quonsar on YOUR asses.
posted by quonsar at 7:53 AM on February 21, 2003

but i swear, i'd best not see any pro-administration claptrap posted by YOU, oissubke and y6y6y6, or i'm gonna go all quonsar on YOUR asses.

It's a deal. In fact, quonsar, I'd like to appoint you to an official position in this campaign -- you're now the official "keep oissubke in check" guy.
posted by oissubke at 7:55 AM on February 21, 2003

And so the 'high-signal territory' posse was born.
posted by sebas at 7:59 AM on February 21, 2003

"y6y6y6, I hope you'll join me in my quest"

No. It never works. And you'll just get beaten up over it. I've done it before and it gets really depressing when you try and take the high ground only to have Matt ask you to cool it.

Every day I bite my lip over this crap. We've heard it all. Everyone says says the same things over and over, day after day. It's not productive and makes the whole place smell bad.

Maybe for one day I'll put the MeFi police badge back on. But it's thankless and never works.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:09 AM on February 21, 2003

I've done it before and it gets really depressing when you try and take the high ground only to have Matt ask you to cool it.

I know. I've seen that coming since I snapped this morning. But what the heck -- it's only MeFi. It's not like I'm going to ruin my life by trying. :-)
posted by oissubke at 8:15 AM on February 21, 2003

Thanks for the extra links gothean.

To those opposed to Iraq posts and supportive of all things Duhbya, might I suggest you boycott posting to the threads you find offensive? I would ask you continue educating yourselves on the issues by reading the associated links (it being a critically important issue and all, unlike The Bachelor) but there is no need in joining in the discussion if topic tires you. Personally I'm very concerned about the results of this war and the tragic consequences we may face.
posted by nofundy at 8:36 AM on February 21, 2003

actually, y6y6y6is correct. the folly around here is trying to define the site and then trying to force people into behaving within that definition. in reality, even the 'benevolent dictator' theory of mefi management won't hold much water. a site like this is like a child. you bring it into being, nurse it, thrill to it's first steps, even correct it's direction if you see it stumbling toward the fireplace. but eventually, like all children, the site becomes what it wants. it goes where it goes. and i suspect mathowie understands that better than anyone, and that is the reason behind him saying 'cool it' now and then. and now i'm off to see if anyone is castigating us yet in meta.

and just to get first dibs - MetaFilter: it goes where it goes.
posted by quonsar at 8:46 AM on February 21, 2003

a site like this is like a child. you bring it into being, nurse it, thrill to it's first steps, even correct it's direction if you see it stumbling toward the fireplace.

I agree with you. But right now, I'm seeing it stumbling toward the fireplace, so I'm trying to nudge it in a more positive direction. :-)
posted by oissubke at 8:49 AM on February 21, 2003

problem is, it's not a child anymore and you aren't big enough to deflect it. mounting a deliberate campaign to shit in peoples threads isn't going to be perceived as the action of a benevolent parent.
posted by quonsar at 8:52 AM on February 21, 2003

"Except with close friends, most Americans used to avoid political subjects in conversation. But now that our country operates on an endless war footing, it's less likely to be true. You may not be able to avoid the subject.

"... These conversations need to be genuinely helpful, not exercises in mutual misunderstanding. And since they are most likely to occur without much prior arrangement, you need to get ready."

posted by sheauga at 8:55 AM on February 21, 2003

"a deliberate campaign to shit in peoples threads....."

.....is, unfortunately, the only tool we have.

We've discussed this exact political topic over and over and over and over. If people wanted to educated themselves they've already had the chance.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:05 AM on February 21, 2003

Maybe we should just do one big roll call thread and get it over with. Everyone just chime in with a "yay" or "nay" on the war and a few thousand posts later we can get it out of our systems.

Nofundy, I don't think anyone is saying the war isn't important. I don't think anyone is trying to ignore it. And it's pretty damn insulting to insinuate that someone needs some link learnin' just because they're sick of Iraqfilter posts. But, c'mon.... Oh, someone's against the war? We know. They found someone who writes for a paper/site somewhere who agrees with them? We figured. But by this point I think the rhetorical battle lines are pretty clear and post after editorial damn post aren't really anything new.

If anyone finds something new or interesting or thought provoking about the war, then for God's sake post the link. But right now we're just dressing up the same pig.

Oh, and just so I don't get labeled a supporter of all things Dubya, "nay."
posted by Cyrano at 9:06 AM on February 21, 2003

Classics scholar warns: We're repeating the mistakes of 53 B.C.

"Ain't got no politics" - Col. David Hackworth on apolitical, hawkish containment
posted by sheauga at 9:07 AM on February 21, 2003

problem is, it's not a child anymore and you aren't big enough to deflect it.

Watch me.

mounting a deliberate campaign to shit in peoples threads isn't going to be perceived as the action of a benevolent parent.

It's not an attempt to "shit" in people's threads. It's an attempt to remind and encourage people to follow the already-established "don't keep posting pointless editorials" guideline.
posted by oissubke at 9:13 AM on February 21, 2003