I’ve seen The Hurt Locker and Green Zone within a few days of one another. Purely as a piece of cinema, The Hurt Locker is probably the better film, but politically it is nowhere, and indeed it suffers from the same syndrome as many Hollywood Vietnam pictures – they are all about Americans and how they feel, and the poor natives appear as mere ciphers. Not so Green Zone, where the Iraqis appear as persons in their own right, with interests, feelings, grudges, agendas. Green Zone is, in some ways, a pretty crude film, and there’s a striking disconnect between the late-Bourneish style and the anti-war substance. Still, if that gets a broader audience remembering and thinking about what happened, and what went wrong, and why, that’s no bad thing. In the credits at the end, I was surprised to see “Based on _Imperial Life in the Emerald City_ by Rajiv Chandrasekaran”. I’m not sure what the necessary and sufficient conditions for the “based on” relation are, but this is not that distant from saying that the latest Bond movie is “based on” the official history of MI5 (although to be fair, the account of the pathologies of the CPA is recognizably, though distortedly from _Emerald City_). One thing that both book and movie reminded me of is this: that the cheerleaders for the war (be they neocon or “decent left”) didn’t just applaud the invasion. The awfulness of Saddam was such that being pro-war in 2003 was wrong but perhaps forgiveable and — as some of the barely repentant cheerleaders keep reminding us — was sometimes motivated by moral motives. They also applauded or excused the really bad post-invasion fuck-ups: the failure to control looting, deBaathification, the dissolution of the Iraqi army, etc. So thanks to Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon for keeping a light shining on that.
{ 99 comments }
ajay 03.24.10 at 3:22 pm
I’m not sure what the necessary and sufficient conditions for the “based on†relation are, but this is not that distant from saying that the latest Bond movie is “based on†the official history of MI5
See also “The Men Who Stare At Goats” – an entirely fictional film based on the entirely non-fiction book of the same name.
soullite 03.24.10 at 3:30 pm
You may believe the self-serving justifications folks offered up after the fact, but I’m not going to. Maybe you need to spend less time thinking of ethics and more time studying psychology, particularly rationalization.
Don’t bother listening to the reasons people give for why they’ve done something. Most often, those reasons were created after the fact to cover up for an emotional act.
Greg 03.24.10 at 4:02 pm
Just a minor quibble, but being that MI5 is charged with domestic matters; oughtn’t “the the latest Bond movie is ‘based on’ the official history of MI6” rather than 5?
Chris Bertram 03.24.10 at 4:12 pm
#3 Correct.
Darius Jedburgh 03.24.10 at 4:53 pm
Soullite #2: You may think that the reason you’re not going to believe their self-serving justifications is that their “reasons were created after the fact to cover up for an emotional act.” But what do you know? If you take your own advice, you won’t bother listening to the reasons you give for why you’ve done something. Maybe you need to spend less time thinking of psychology and more time studying logic, particularly self-refutation.
Guano 03.24.10 at 5:03 pm
The invasion of Iraq created a failed state. There are two reasons:-
1. There is a big risk that wars create a failed state: the difficulties of Afghanistan today are partly due to the social institutions of the country being carved out by the 1979-89 war (especially the western-backed intervention)
2. The people in charge of the Iraq invasion know nothing about the states and institutions, their importance and how to support them.
What we saw in Iraq all follows on from the invasion creating a failed state. Failed states are supposed to be bad because they are breeding grounds for terrorists, which indeed they are: but the US/UK response to 9/11 was to create a new failed state in Iraq, where terrorists could come and practice car-bombing and improvised explosive devices.
Jonathan M 03.24.10 at 5:21 pm
You may be interested in checking out the remake of The Crazies : http://www.zone-sf.com/screenscene/crazies10.html
Though I have to say, I think that The Green Zone really brought home the fact that there is nothing more to say cinematically about the invasion of Iraq. The Green Zone is essentially accurate so we’re done now : Neocons are fantasists who cooked the books on intelligence yeah yeah tell me something I don’t know.
Now, if film-makers want to engage with Iraq, they should move on to the occupation, a far more complex time frame whose politics continue to be relevant.
Brownie 03.24.10 at 5:33 pm
Purely as a piece of cinema, The Hurt Locker is probably the better film
“Probably”? I’d go further: only one is a film; the other is a 2-hour sermon.
but politically it is nowhere, and indeed it suffers from the same syndrome as many Hollywood Vietnam pictures – they are all about Americans and how they feel
I find it odd that you would think an absence of political content and the mere fact that there is a single perspective axiomatically detracts from inherent worthiness. Was ‘Annie Hall’ a bit lightweight for you? I’m not meaning to be facetious, but not everything has to be about Iraq, even films shot there.
Still, if that gets a broader audience remembering and thinking about what happened, and what went wrong, and why, that’s no bad thing.
Do you think there’s a danger that implacable opponents of the war might forget why they opposed it? I haven’t seen a ‘political’ film that didn’t benefit from an attempt to give both sides of the story. Greengrass doesn’t even make the pretence. All you’re really saying is ‘here’s a film that reflects my thoughts about the politics of X, therefore it gets a thumbs up from me’. Nothing much wrong in that, so long as you don’t pretend you’ve conducted some form of forensic, objective analysis.
If you can show how Green Zone might actually change minds, then you might be onto something. Personally, I think youv’e got your work cut out.
mpowell 03.24.10 at 5:50 pm
The de-Baathification issue is an interesting one to me. I remember at the time hearing different accounts of whether that was good or bad policy. To put it simply, there were pros and cons and I don’t remember it being obvious which outweighed the others. I also don’t remember war supporters and opponents lining up on opposite sides of the issue. (well, the Bush admin supporters were, of course, quick to fall in line with any decisions that were made.) Was there a fairly unified opposition to this decision among war opponents that I am forgetting?
b9n10nt 03.24.10 at 6:27 pm
I haven’t seen Green Zone. But damn, The Hurt Locker was bad. No interesting characters and no character development (we learn immediately that the main protagonist is a renegade bad ass with a chip on his shoulder; never seen that before in a war flick), the same imperialist plot structure (well meaning invaders doin’ good for the children, distraught by the natives’ cruelty and misunderstood by folks at home).
What possible redeeming quality was this movie supposed to have? Yeah, the suit thing was cool.
bert 03.24.10 at 6:31 pm
Heckuva job with comment #8.
If you ask me (which you didn’t) The Hurt Locker was unwatchable.
Two hours in the company of a total cliche – the cocksure macho prick. For more of the exact same from the same stock character, see ex-hubby’s The Abyss, or the Marines-in-Vietnam bits of his sequel to Alien. Very little to suggest the drawbacks of cocksure macho prickhood. Or the slim chances of such a character lasting more than five minutes defusing bombs in occupied Iraq.
I gather that the Green Zone, like every other Iraq movie other than the Hurt Locker, has vanished without trace at the box office.
bert 03.24.10 at 6:33 pm
I see while I was typing b9n10nt was telling you much the same.
Made me think fondly of Downhill Racer, which I caught on TV rerun the following day.
A Robert Redford skiing movie.
The main character is an unpleasant shit.
And acknowledged as such.
Barry 03.24.10 at 6:33 pm
Brownie: “I haven’t seen a ‘political’ film that didn’t benefit from an attempt to give both sides of the story. ”
Yeah, right.
mpowell :
“The de-Baathification issue is an interesting one to me. I remember at the time hearing different accounts of whether that was good or bad policy. ”
True, the administration would have put out an account that it was good policy.
‘Hearing different accounts ‘ doesn’t mean that both sides’ stories are worth a sh*t.
‘ To put it simply, there were pros and cons and I don’t remember it being obvious which outweighed the others.’ Well, since the plan was to destroy the Iraqi state apparatus, including all of the good parts, and huge chunks of the economy, with jack sh*t-all to replace it, there’s a massive con right then and there.
Brownie 03.24.10 at 7:23 pm
I think #9 has it right on the debaathification thing. The coalition was on something of a hiding to nothing there; one of the more popular narratives at the time was that once Saddam had gone, he’d be replaced with ‘our bastard’. The ‘clean slate’ approach was very attractive to those who wished to avoid any claims they were flaky on plans to bring real democracy to the region.
But this still doesn’t excuse the most egregious excesses of debaathification. To have a job teaching in Saddam’s Iraq you had to be a member of the Ba’ath party. So in the weeks after his overthrow, 28,000 teachers were thrown out of a job for no other reason than they were, nominally, supporters of the party. It’s difficult to imagine a more misguided policy. One suspects more than few ex-teachers sought gainful employment in the ranks of the glorious resistance.
Dan Hardie 03.24.10 at 7:54 pm
Yes, Brownie, one remembers a great many posts from you and your co-bloggers on ‘Harry’s Place’ in 2003-4 attacking the excesses of de-Baathification and similar Iraqi occupation disasters.
Ooops, that’s wrong. ‘Harry’s Place’ actually spent an awfully long time arguing with, or just abusing, anyone who suggested that the occupation might be somewhat mismanaged and that people might be dying as a result.
Granted, this was preferable to your 2008 frolic of justifying some sociopathic commenter’s hilarious jokes about Conor Foley getting beaten by a gang of Afghans a few days before he actually went to risk his neck in Afghanistan.
That was really dreadful behaviour, albeit not too surprising from people who cheerlead for a great many wars but never quite find the guts to go anywhere near them.
bert 03.24.10 at 7:55 pm
You put it simply, and inaccurately, as though this were the outcome of some deliberative process.
It was done by decree, without prior warning. Jay Garner, for one, was very anti, but was quickly made to understand that Bremer had political cover in Washington – specifically from Rumsfeld – and that nothing else mattered. The response of regional experts was generally anti, with the exception of the ignoramuses at the AEI. Details for this and much else can be found in Chandrasekaran’s book, and in many other sources.
AcademicLurker 03.24.10 at 7:57 pm
11:
“see ex-hubby’s The Abyss, or the Marines-in-Vietnam bits of his sequel to Alien. Very little to suggest the drawbacks of cocksure macho prickhood.”
Didn’t the cocksure macho pricks in Aliens all end up dead?
leederick 03.24.10 at 8:09 pm
The Hurt Locker’s the real political film. The protagonists make absolutely no progress towards any meaningful goal during the course of the movie, and just get chewed up either psychologically or physically for no legitimate reason. The Green Zone’s bludgeoning you over the head with its ‘Republican’s lied and made stupid decisions’ message and Bourneish glorification of the effectiveness of running about trying to solve problems with guns is just partisan posturing.
bert 03.24.10 at 8:19 pm
No, very little in The Hurt Locker.
In Aliens, of course, the cocksure macho pricks are picked off one by one in preparation for the gender-politics bitchfight mudwrestling finale.
There is a sequence in The Hurt Locker where he goes back to the States and fails to fit in. But that’s not as a consequence of his being a cocksure macho prick. And indeed the whole film is utterly oblivious to his glaringly obvious shortcomings as regards cocksure macho prickhood.
Again, the contrast with Downhill Racer is a good one. There, the main character’s triumph in the end doesn’t undercut the film’s impartial acknowledgement that being a winner and being a success as a human being are separate things.
Barry 03.24.10 at 9:20 pm
bert: “The response of regional experts was generally anti, with the exception of the ignoramuses at the AEI. ”
Since AEI has no experts in anything except lying, it’s more accurate to say ‘The response of regional experts was *totally* anti’.
novakant 03.24.10 at 9:28 pm
No, supporting the invasion of Iraq was not “perhaps forgiveable”. You cannot support the invasion of a country not giving a shit about what happens afterwards or blindly hoping for the best despite all evidence to the contrary and a couple of hundred thousand dead people say “Oopsy daisy, my bad” and expect to be forgiven. The same goes for Afghanistan.
novakant 03.24.10 at 9:29 pm
a couple of hundred thousand dead people later
Dan Hardie 03.24.10 at 9:42 pm
Well, if we’re talking about Afghanistan:
I didn’t and don’t ‘not give a shit’ about what happened to the country after it was invaded. Rather, I cared very deeply about what happened there even before I saw Afghan casualties for myself.
I didn’t and don’t ‘blindly hope for the best’ to happen there.
There haven’t been ‘a couple of hundred thousand’ Afghans killed since 2001, nor twenty thousand, nor anything close to that figure. You might want to read up on mortality rates in Afghanistan under the Taliban or during the civil war or the Soviet invasion, when annual death rates were indeed measured in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Actually, you might not want to, because that reading might not support the conclusion you’ve already reached.
But what’s the point of arguing? ‘Afghanistan’ is becoming a mere slogan for too many people. Just say ‘bombing’, ‘Afghanistan’, ‘Imperialism’, or any combination thereof, and no more need be said.
Stuart 03.24.10 at 10:17 pm
Didn’t the cocksure macho pricks in Aliens all end up dead?
Yes, although that generally isn’t what gets them killed – an inexperienced commander putting them in a situation where they can’t use their weapons without likely killing themselves accounts for half of them, and betrayal by a private sector employee kills most of the rest. Hudson being the one exception where he gets himself killed by his attitude.
Brownie 03.24.10 at 10:32 pm
Ooops, that’s wrong. ‘Harry’s Place’ actually spent an awfully long time arguing with, or just abusing, anyone who suggested that the occupation might be somewhat mismanaged and that people might be dying as a result.
One day it will be possible to comment on this blog and have my words addressed on their (de)merits. I don’t speak for HP, a blog with over a dozen contributing authors, of which I am probably the least active, but for what it’s worth your characterisation is pure fantasy. Insofar as there is a HP line on the post-invasion project, it’s that it was more or less an unmitigated clusterfuck. Specifically on debaathification, I remember posting about the sacking of 28,000 teachers in the days after this happened. You’re just making stuff up, Dan.
Granted, this was preferable to your 2008 frolic of justifying some sociopathic commenter’s hilarious jokes about Conor Foley getting beaten by a gang of Afghans a few days before he actually went to risk his neck in Afghanistan.
More piffle. Firstly, it wasn’t “justified” by me or anybody else. I did point out that a Goth living in France actually didn’t hold too much sway with many Pashtuns and therefore his fantasy about Conor getting a slap from them shouldn’t be taken too seriously, but that’s about it.
That was really dreadful behaviour, albeit not too surprising from people who cheerlead for a great many wars but never quite find the guts to go anywhere near them.
I’m not surprised you opposed a war to overthrow a megalomaniacal tyrant given your predilection for military dictatorship, the inescapable conclusion of logic that insists the only people justified in agitating for conflict X are those destined to fight in it.
Still, let’s not highjack the thread, eh?
bert 03.24.10 at 10:52 pm
Thought you were a mug punter with a poorly chosen screenname.
Harry’s Place? It won’t be the first time someone’s said heckuva job to you, then, will it?
And there’s me thinking I’m witty.
John Edmond 03.24.10 at 11:12 pm
Can I point out that the problem of treating poor natives as ciphers is key* to Hurt Locker‘s plot. This is a film in which Sergeant James goes off on his personal mission because he can’t even distinguish between two Iraqi boys, one of whom is an acquaintance.
*ok at least reasonably important
Nick Caldwell 03.24.10 at 11:16 pm
Bert’s analysis of The Abyss is entirely wrong also, of course. The macho cocksure prick in that film is the frickin’ villain.
yabonn_fr 03.24.10 at 11:21 pm
I’m not meaning to be facetious, but not everything has to be about Iraq, even films shot there.
Facetious wasn’t the word that came to my mind.
I can see the writers in Hollywood thinking about this. “Just need to find something unIraqesque, and put it in Iraq. To leverage the incredible evocative powers of the Iraqi background. Ponies?”
Brownie 03.24.10 at 11:24 pm
Thought you were a mug punter with a poorly chosen screenname…
…said *bert*.
I can see where this thread is headed, so in a rare display of blogging courtesy I’ll do my bit to save the discussion and leave.
I hope you and Dan will be very happy together.
bert 03.24.10 at 11:26 pm
Your tolerance for Ed Harris smirking, higher than mine.
Substance McGravitas 03.24.10 at 11:27 pm
Where’s geo for a reprise of ideal vs. interest in art?
bert 03.24.10 at 11:29 pm
What’s wrong with bert, in your view?
sg 03.24.10 at 11:32 pm
I’m with the others – Hurt Locker was a shit movie, and failed to have any political purpose except to say “even cocksure macho prick Americans who love war still care about Iraqis,” which it’s safe to say the results of the war pretty compellingly disprove.
Also, the movie completely lacked anything resembling a plot or a (non-political) purpose. Why were we watching it? I know why I was – I was on a plane and it was on the tv. But why would I have watched it otherwise? At least when you watch the cocksure macho pricks in Aliens you get some fine dialogue and cool shootin’ and a plot involving corporate perfidy, with face-huggers. Even the shooting scene in the Hurt Locker was crap.
But Aliens was great. For a more cogent analysis of the cocksure macho prick with equally good dialogue, I recommend Dog Soldiers.
bert 03.24.10 at 11:34 pm
Oh, he’s gone. I guess we’ll never know.
FlyingRodent 03.24.10 at 11:41 pm
@Brownie, if I can ask a favour… Can you provide a link to your “Iraq was a hideous fuckup but those who supported the war bear very little responsibility and should not feel guilty about that hideous fuckup” post from HP, about two years ago? Google seems to only return recent hits, but I imagine you could track it down easily with your admin permissions.
I’d like to read that again, out of nostalgia.
bert 03.24.10 at 11:43 pm
Dog Soldiers is fun. And British and not shit, which is always pleasant on the occasions it happens.
The greatest War on Terror movie of them all is Starship Troopers.
A near-documentary of the Bush administration, made in 1997.
John Quiggin 03.25.10 at 12:47 am
A minor correction “Failure to control looting” should read “Active encouragement of looting”
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/02/retrieved-from-the-memory-hole/
jdw 03.25.10 at 1:01 am
Chris Bertram: “The awfulness of *** was/is such that being pro-war in 20** is/was wrong but perhaps forgiveable and…sometimes motivated by moral motives.”
Put that together with the philosophy behind Bertram’s 2001 defense of the Afghanistan war, namely that sufficient American violence would likely intimidate jihadis all over the world and put an end to the movement (thus satisfying the “reasonable chances of success” criterion for a “just war”). And you have a template for a simple right-wing philosophy: Those designated to be on the receiving end of the violence will surely be intimidated and desist, no matter what their ideology. This is because they are thought of primarily as physical objects. And those designated to be on the delivering end of the violence will be judged primarily on their good intentions, quite apart from the actual effects of what they do. They are thought of as people with spiritual nobility. Two kinds of people. That’s the philosophy, in a nutshell. Banal, in itself, but it seems pretty striking coming from a progressive philosophy professor.
geo 03.25.10 at 4:55 am
@32: Where’s geo for a reprise of ideal vs. interest in art?
Yes, that’s the burning question here. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen either movie yet, so I haven’t a clue.
Chris Bertram 03.25.10 at 7:45 am
jdw (#39). It seemed to me in 2001 and in 2003 that the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan were rather different. My very first ever blog post (before the Iraq war) argued against invading Iraq. My 2002 paper argued that the criteria for a just war were met in Afghanistan. I still think that’s true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that war in Afghanistan was the right policy and now there are clearly some difficult questions to address about what to do next and whether US and British troops should be there at all. With the benefit of hindsight I’d have written a rather different paper, one with more awareness of the human reality of war and less of the sub-Hitchensian rhetoric. Having looked back at my paper, I don’t think that your summary is a fair one. I’m sure you disagree. Still, this isn’t a thread about Afghanistan (on which see Dan Hardie at #23 above) but about movies on Iraq and the politics of the Iraq war.
novakant 03.25.10 at 11:40 am
My 2002 paper argued that the criteria for a just war were met in Afghanistan. I still think that’s true (…).
So the invasion of Afghanistan was a last resort? Really? As opposed to what totally intolerable alternative?
Chris Bertram 03.25.10 at 11:52 am
novakant: if you want to start a thread on some other blog about that, perhaps one where you post under your real name, then we can have that discussion.
dsquared 03.25.10 at 12:42 pm
Zizek basically agrees with Chris.
ajay 03.25.10 at 2:25 pm
44: Zizek also hasn’t seen the film.
“This choice is deeply symptomatic: although soldiers, they do not kill, but risk their lives dismantling terrorist bombs destined to kill civilians – can there be anything more sympathetic to our liberal eyes?”
The lead characters in “The Hurt Locker” do, of course, kill. But hey.
novakant 03.25.10 at 7:14 pm
#43
Yeah, well, it’s not as if it was a rare occurrence that the topics discussed in comments are not wholly confined to that of the original post; and in this case they are very much related, since at a fundamental level the apologetics for supporting either war are structured quite similarly. But I can understand your defensiveness …
daelm 03.25.10 at 7:37 pm
ajay, it’s key to zizek’s method to not actually know any facts about the subject of his essays. facts constrain the natural intellect.
d
Dave Weeden 03.25.10 at 8:13 pm
What ajay said. But Zizek is also wrong about “[t]his choice”. Mark Boal, the scriptwriter, was a journalist in Iraq, “embedded with troops and bomb squads in 2004 .” I think those eight words – especially “embedded” say a lot. He didn’t choose where to go in Iraq or what to see. He was with soldiers, and saw what they saw. In that sense, the story came to him. (I also think that the script says something about how journalists react to being embedded – and it’s fairly negatively. But the army isn’t bothered about what they say after the war, so much.)
Why focus on a bomb squad? As others have noted, Jeremy Renner’s character isn’t particularly sympathetic. He isn’t good with fellow soldiers, can’t deal with, or understand, his wife, etc. I think the answer is: because the insurgency’s weapon of choice was the IED. Bomb squads were where the action was.
The lack of attention given to Iraqis also isn’t a fault of the movie, IMO; again, it’s a product of the writer having been embedded, and that the troops didn’t fraternise with Iraqis (because it was dangerous, as illustrated in the film by the death of the doctor). That’s how it is. I’m sorry that ‘THL’ didn’t tell the story that some of you wanted it to; but complaining that the soldiers were macho is like complaining that so many young ladies in Jane Austen are looking for a husband. Still, if you think someone will make a script about the Proust appreciation unit of the SBS, go right ahead. “I don’t want to defuse any bombs today, I have a headache.” It’ll be riveting – and certainly original.
Dave Weeden 03.25.10 at 8:15 pm
[Preview suggested that I went over a word count, so this is the continuation. But it doesn’t seem to be that, it may be a problem with the link.]
Nor do I really understand the ‘chip on his shoulder’ comment. I assume that’s referring to the scene with the colonel, but that’s supposed to serve not altogether compatible purposes. It’s there to give Renner’s character’s backstory, such as it is. But the insolence or chippiness is something else. Staff Sergeant William James is simply aware of his value. He could earn six figures in the private sector (see here). When there’s a truck bomb outside a school, who do they call for – the guy in the suit who cuts wires or a middle-aged officer? Staff Sergeant James is the star, and he knows it. He’s arrogant, sure, but he knows his worth. That’s not having a chip on one’s shoulder.
Dan Hardie 03.25.10 at 9:14 pm
Chris, sorry to have dragged Afghanistan into a thread about Iraq.
Brownie has apparently packed his school satchel and walked off in a huff. But can I just say that not it is a * lie* to state that Harry’s Place did not abuse people who criticised the occupation of Iraq. Can I add it is utterly disgraceful to make light of an idiot commenter who calls for an NGO worker heading off to Afghanistan to be beaten by Pashtuns? And can I thank Brownie for the splendid lie that I have a ‘predilection for military dictatorship’? No, little man, serving in the Army doesn’t give one the belief that the military should run the country- rather the opposite, in my case; and opposing the Iraq War is actually not the same as liking military dictatorships. But good effort, all the same: if you’ve insulted Conor Foley for being an NGO worker willing to risk his neck in Afghanistan, you might as well express your feelings of inferiority to me for having served as a soldier there.
No doubt there are members of the ‘Decent Left’ who do actually respect the service personnel who fight the wars that Decents advocate. Brownie, alas, isn’t one of them. It’s a pity he can’t cope with being reminded that he doesn’t have the guts to go to war himself. Perhaps, as George Orwell said of the rear-echelon propagandists of the Spanish Civil War, these people actually think that shouting propaganda *is* the same as fighting.
b9n10nt 03.25.10 at 11:23 pm
Dave Weeden:
The decision to make this movie, the decision to use this script, this account. These are all choices. Bomb squads may have been where the action was, but THL wasn’t an action movie; or if it was, it was the equivalent of Friday the 13th: the only dramitic conflict occurs around when/whether something is going to blow up. Finally, machismo isn’t bad per se. I recall the protagonist of No Country for Old Men. He’s a renegade, a badass, macho. But also an effectively tragic figure. I cared about him. This bomb squad guy, not so much.
Staff Sergeant William James is simply aware of his value. He could earn six figures in the private sector (see here). When there’s a truck bomb outside a school, who do they call for – the guy in the suit who cuts wires or a middle-aged officer? Staff Sergeant James is the star, and he knows it. He’s arrogant, sure, but he knows his worth. That’s not having a chip on one’s shoulder.
That would’ve been an angle. Dramatic conflict: how to deal with the oppressive sense that you’re mistakenly placed into hell. What resources are put to use when you are isolated from your destiny. Odysseus. Jesus (why have You forsaken me). Hell, George Clooney’s character from Up in the Air. But from my viewing, THL never went there. I think you’re adding salt to a supposedly gourmet meal.
Brownie 03.26.10 at 9:51 am
No doubt there are members of the ‘Decent Left’ who do actually respect the service personnel who fight the wars that Decents advocate. Brownie, alas, isn’t one of them.
Promise not ot tell my brother, ex-Royal Engineer, or my father, 38 years in the Royal Air Force with with Falklands, Gulf I and Balkans service medals to go with his veteran medal that arrived in the post only last week.
Poor Dan, thinks he’s the only one who’s ever put on a uniform.
if you’ve insulted Conor Foley for being an NGO worker willing to risk his neck in Afghanistan
I’ve disagreed with Conor from time to time and will do so again, no doubt, but I’ve only ever expressed admiration for the work he does. Just for the record, Conor and I have corresponded privately many times, including when he’s been providing my daughter with valuable career advice. I’ve got no desire to drag Conor into this, but you might want to ask him whether he regards me as ever having “insulted [him] for being an NGO worker”.
Then agian, you might not. Narrowminded bigots prefer the comfort of their prejudices and aren’t the least bit interested in having them exploded.
ajay 03.26.10 at 2:16 pm
47: I will go one better by not actually reading Zizek.
chris 03.26.10 at 3:14 pm
@50: If you believe that a particular war doesn’t actually serve your country, why would you sign up to fight it? Clearly, in that case, it would be your patriotic duty to convince your country to get out, rather than to help it shoot itself in the foot (so to speak).
Enlisting in a war that is bad for your country isn’t patriotic, it’s enabling.
(In this particular case, as often happens, the majority of the enlisted personnel have probably believed the lies told them by their superiors. They can’t really be blamed for this, IMO, except for actions so vile that no circumstances could justify them. The exact boundaries of the latter category are, of course, disputed.)
ejh 03.26.10 at 6:09 pm
People are quite entitled to say that Iraq and Afghanistan are different sorts of wars, and to some extent that may be true, but if they’re going to argue that the people who opposed Iraq have been shown to be right and the people who supported it were wrong – and that the latter should say so – then I reckon we’re a good way past the point where the same is true about Afghanistan.
Dan Hardie 03.26.10 at 6:20 pm
No, little Brownie, I’m not the only person to have put on a uniform. I’m merely the person who you said ‘had a predilection for military dictatorships’ on the basis that I had served in the Army. You can respect military personnel so long as they are a) your brother or b) your father or c) don’t express disgust for your lengthy history as a cowardly braggart who reproaches others for their lack of warlike spirit whilst yourself studiously avoiding the battlefield.
And Brownie tells us: ‘I’ve only ever expressed admiration for the work he (Conor Foley) does.’
What a moving thing to say. Is it true?
Let’s just quote some of Brownie’s expressions of admiration for Conor and his work, from this Harry’s Place thread:
‘Conor Foley has only ever written one article. The one where he proclaims his support for humanitarian intervention in principle, but then opposes all acts of humanitarian intervention – past, present and future – on practical grounds.
Conor Foley supports humanitarian intervention led by Nelson Mandela and the armed wing of Amnesty where the post-conflict scenario is nothing other than perfectly predictable and the death toll negligible.
Conor Foley quotes coroners who have not a single hour of military experience and wouldn’t know one end of an APC from another but who confidently pronounce on hardware.
Conor Foley doesn’t mention the inactivity of other NATO states whose reticence is the single biggest contributory factor in the inability of coalition troops to put down the Taliban permanently and expedite the post-conflict reconstruction effort. He doesn’t mention the advances and tangible benefits realized by the Afghan population since 2001.
Conor Foley claims the Taliban haven’t been “beaten on the battlefield†when the Taliban themselves concede this and begin a guerrilla war of suicide bombings and road-side IEDs. But Conor Foley has been to Afghanistan and Kosovo several times* and I have not, so what could I know?
I do know, however, that if Blair didn’t exist, Conor Foley would have to invent him. But he does exist and Conor Foley has written a book about why Blair is wrong. It’s published by Verso, but you can save yourself the tenner because you’ve read it a dozen times already in Conor Foley’s CiF columns.
Not that Conor Foley is a stopper, you understand.
*I know this because he mentions it every time he writes an article on CiF or comments on a blog.’
Brownie: a braggart and a liar.
Brownie 03.26.10 at 9:07 pm
I’m merely the person who you said ‘had a predilection for military dictatorships’ on the basis that I had served in the Army.
You said:
That was really dreadful behaviour, albeit not too surprising from people who cheerlead for a great many wars but never quite find the guts to go anywhere near them.
What does this mean if it’s not a clear indication that you think my right to support the war is diminished by dint of my never having served? You’re implying that unless you do “go near” wars, you’re morally precluded from supporting them. The inescapable logic is that the only people who can justifiably send troops to war are those who will be fighting in them. Given governments in democracies tend to be civilian, you’re implicitly indicating a preference for military dictatorships.
Except, obviously, I don’t believe that at all. I’m simply using a literary device to highlight your fatuous reasoning. My lack of military service is relevant the day I start writing comments that give the impression I think war is just jolly japes; something that isn’t very likely given my family background. To use it as a stick to beat me with because I happened to support a war you didn’t is just risible.
Both my father and brother supported the war in Iraq. Do their combined 40-odd years service trump your part-time exploits and therefore undermine your position on Iraq? Isn’t this how bullshit arguments from authority work?
Re Conor, the extract you cite is part of a thread commenting on an article by Conor that I found particularly objectionable and following a spat about things written by Conor in the comments at CiF. It’s why you chose it and not one of countless other threads where Conor and I have exchanged views in a much more respectful manner. Although this is all pretty irrelevant; so far as my admiration for Conor’s work is concerned, it’s not remotely important to me whether this is acknowledged by you. Conor knows I respect what he does.
Brownie: a braggart and a liar.
…and most importantly of all, he’s got no combat fatigues in his loft.
It’s been a blast, Dan.
Dave Weeden 03.26.10 at 9:08 pm
b9n10nt: fair enough. I did think about writing about Bigelow’s choice of script, but chose not to go there for reasons of length. Boal is a published journalist and has a degree in philosophy (and this is a blog mostly for philosophers). I think ‘THL’ has a very good script, and I consider it quite likely that it was one of the best scripts on offer. Anyway, Bigelow is known for making films about men being macho and doing men-stuff. ‘THL’ was excellent on male relationships. (I think it’s pretty neutral on Iraq, and neither pro-war nor anti-; it’s about how men are, and it’s good at that.)
Here we don’t understand each other. I don’t believe that James is in hell, mistakenly or otherwise. He’s a risk taker, a more realistic version of Kirk in the ‘Star Trek’ reboot, who’d otherwise be climbing public buildings if lucky, and joy-riding if not. No, he enjoys it. The bit I don’t find realistic is that he goes back as a soldier and not as a contractor (for better money; he doesn’t need health care, if he screws up, he’s dead). I don’t see how he’s isolated from his destiny. He’s found it. Obviously the job has downsides, but so has being a film actor (you’re out of work some/most/all of the time, when you’re filming you’re in a trailer, often in some godforsaken backwater, living on coffee and pizza) – people go on dreaming. I didn’t see ‘No country…’ not keen on McCarthy, myself. But I did care about James, not hugely, he’s not someone I wish I could meet, but a lot more than you.
I think you’re wrong about ‘dramatic conflict’ too. I think there’s tension in ‘THL’ (will this bomb blow up? no, because there’s at least an hour to go), but it’s not about ‘conflict’ between James and the IEDs. The ‘conflict’ is elsewhere, but again it’s not the point of the story. Will Hamlet defeat Claudius is dramatic conflict, but ‘THL’ isn’t like that; it’s more character study.
Rohin Rameswarapu 03.26.10 at 9:10 pm
I watched Green Zone today,was impressed by the movie.All said and done about the photography,nail biting scenes and the high tension chases.I really find that the motive of the movie was to remind people that indeed war with Iraq was mistake by the Bush administration and the whole world came to know that there were no WMD.It is sad that this movie could not make money at the box office,just because it reflects the truth about the lapses in American administration and people in America have negative remarks for the movie,which is the only reason its not drawing people to theater.
Finally to end,I think its one of those movies in recent times which really makes you think about an issue which made headline day after day and real truth is still not known,Green Zone may be is just an effort to make people think right at least now .
ejh 03.27.10 at 8:23 am
What does this mean if it’s not a clear indication that you think my right to support the war is diminished by dint of my never having served? You’re implying that unless you do “go near†wars, you’re morally precluded from supporting them. The inescapable logic is that the only people who can justifiably send troops to war are those who will be fighting in them. Given governments in democracies tend to be civilian, you’re implicitly indicating a preference for military dictatorships.
This is an absolutely fantastic example of the Internet Implied: the use of “implicitly”, “implying” and “inescapable logic” to totally make up something somebody else is supposed to be saying.
It’d be serious if it wasn’t so funny.
Dave Weeden 03.27.10 at 11:13 am
@ ejh & Brownie Who’s been reading Starship Troopers then?
Back on ‘THL’, this is a much better critique than Zizek’s.
ejh 03.27.10 at 11:30 am
Me, I never got beyond the end of the first chapter, just as the person who lent me a copy predicted that I wouldn’t.
sg 03.27.10 at 2:38 pm
ejh, that means you’ve been saved 100 pages of “how I would run the army if I was in charge,” possibly the most boring 100 pages of sci-fi history.
It’s a rare occasion you get to say “the movie was much better than the book,” but when one does get the chance, it’s a moment to relish.
FlyingRodent 03.27.10 at 3:19 pm
It’s a rare occasion you get to say “the movie was much better than the book,†but when one does get the chance, it’s a moment to relish.
I offer American Psycho as another example.
b9n10nt 03.27.10 at 8:53 pm
Thanks for the insights and link Dave
Dave Weeden 03.28.10 at 12:23 pm
b9n10nt, you’re welcome. Justin, I was thinking more of Brownie than you. For the record, I don’t believe in a military government; however, I do believe that the military is a perfectly respectable employer, and a representative democracy should have representatives from all professions. There was a time when many Labour MPs held military ranks from WWII. I don’t think the US President *has* to be a former serviceman like G H W Bush or Jimmy Carter, but I do think it makes a difference that G W Bush was a spoiled rich kid with a token service record while Dick Cheney was essentially a draft dodger. I think it’s right to wonder if such people are suitably qualified to send others to kill and die in their interests. (Not that I’m any more of an admirer of JFK or Nixon who both saw action.) Lack of respect for those who demand that others do what they won’t themselves is the least of it.
I know that Rumsfeld had served honourably, but he also sold weapons to Saddam when the latter was already notorious as a nutter and human-rights abuser. This disqualified Rumsfeld from any role in the Iraq invasion – any moral role, anyway.
clod Levi-Strauss 03.28.10 at 2:48 pm
In Vietnam they call it the “American war” And of course they same the same thing in Iraq. The Hurt Locker is a movie about Americans at war and about warriors . It is not about the relations of warriors to civilians in a country that’s been invaded. Since the actual war is still going on it’s appropriate to call that a moral failure if only because the authors of the movie used a real world crisis to tell a fundamentally personal concerning members of the stronger party. An American filmmaker used the ongoing Iraq war and the Iraqi people as a backdrop. Though as far as backdrops go, she’s being sued by the soldier the lead character is based on.
Imagine a movie about firefighters, based on a true story of one horrendous fire, that bypassed stories of the victims. That would seem odd to the survivors. This seems less odd only because we aren’t Iraqis. The act of making an apolitical film about people on one side in an ongoing political situation in which your country is an actor is morally suspect. But 100 years from now The Hurt Locker may be considered the best film of the century. Art and artmakers are not the same thing.
Artists from dominant cultures have made great art by using outsiders as fodder. Over the past 150 years that’s grown harder and harder as outsiders have come closer and closer.
Women aren’t outsiders anymore and look how confused our images of women are even now. And how confused their images of themselves.
A good film can still be sexist. If a good film can’t be overtly racist it’s because there aren’t many intelligent racists left. Being stupid about that would imply you’re stupid about everything else. The question about Bigelow is whether or not she was able as an intelligent human being to ignore one side of an ongoing crisis and make something of lasting moral value. We’ll see in 100 years.
And maybe by them I’ll have seen it.
ajay 03.29.10 at 4:14 pm
Imagine a movie about firefighters, based on a true story of one horrendous fire, that bypassed stories of the victims. That would seem odd to the survivors.
Not really, no. Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center pretty much fits this description.
Dan Hardie 03.29.10 at 5:20 pm
Brownie: ‘I’m simply using a literary device’:
This is correct. The literary device is called ‘lying’. I have never expressed any preference for military dictatorships, nor any support for the (frankly mad) idea that only soldiers should vote on whether countries go to war, and you know it.
What I did and do say is that you are a man who – and don’t bother lying again on this- has expressed warlike sentiment after warlike sentiment in the thuggish tones of a man who believes himself to be ‘hard’, whilst demanding that the rest of the world share your conviction that we are all at war with an implacable foe and sneering at the cowardice of all who disagree with you.
And yet where is the evidence of your own moral courage? You have done nothing in person, nothing that would dignifies your scorn for the cowardice of others. You act like a man who believes that sitting safe in England posting bellicose nonsense is an act of moral courage.
It is entirely predictable that when you are actually disagreed with men who have risked their lives in the wars you shout about, you hurl childish abuse to cover your sense of shame.
Take this little masterpiece: ‘Conor Foley quotes coroners who have not a single hour of military experience and wouldn’t know one end of an APC from another but who confidently pronounce on hardware.’
Check out the military expert Brownie, as he gives a lecture on the military to a guy who has spent years in war zones!
As it happens, I nearly lost my life, or at least my legs, due to deficiencies in vehicle armour- but you don’t like hearing from the people who have been to war zones, do you, Brownie? You posture as a tough guy who is serious about fighting, and when people who have seen war try to put you right on its realities, you retreat behind a smokescreen of hysterical rhetoric.
Brownie 03.29.10 at 7:02 pm
Oh look, it’s mad Dan, the Facebook stalker.
It’s just as well this descent into hate-filled, irrational fantasising about the lives of people unknown to you but for their comments on blogs is a one off, Dan, or people would start think you’re a bit mental.
Oh wait
Let’s face it – being lied about by Dan Hardie hardly puts me in a club of one, does it?
See you on Facebook. Probably.
Dan Hardie 03.29.10 at 7:07 pm
A superlatively meaningless comment, Brownie. Are there any qualified translators who can put this man’s ravings into English?
Brownie 03.29.10 at 7:15 pm
Let’s take it off CT, Dan. I’m sure other people aren’t as interested in my personal life as you are. You’ve got my personal email address, or if you haven’t, it’s david_michael_brown@hotmail.com.
ejh 03.29.10 at 7:18 pm
The link in #70 doesn’t work. I assume it’s just as well?
Brownie 03.29.10 at 7:20 pm
For whom, Justin? You might even remember the occasion. But I said I’d take this off CT, and I will. Whether Dan does is up to him.
Dan Hardie 03.29.10 at 7:23 pm
You’re welcome to email me at danhardie.blog@gmail.com . You can explain why it is that you post a link which apparently proves that I am a liar, which doesn’t link to anything, and when challenged you suddenly decide that you would rather take it offline.
You can also explain why you decided to dishonestly accuse me of supporting military dictatorships, or prove that I do actually do so.
You can finally tell me why you are proud of sitting in safety screaming that others share your bellicose views while insulting people who disagree with you but have actually seen war.
Or you can do this in public, if you wish, since your unpleasant little lies were first aired in public. Your choice, you heroic fellow.
Brownie 03.29.10 at 7:29 pm
Chris Bertram, are you happy for us to continue on this thread? I’ll try to keep it civil.
Dan, if Chris is happy, so am I. In the meantime, I’m picking up on email.
The link is here, by the way. It doesn’t prove you’re a liar…but it does show that you are given to shouting abuse at people who disagree with you.
Dan Hardie 03.29.10 at 7:35 pm
Ha ha, good old Brownie.
‘Let’s face it – being lied about by Dan Hardie hardly puts me in a club of one, does it?’
Then, on reflection:
‘The link is here, by the way. It doesn’t prove you’re a liar…’
And I’ve nothing to add about the Chicken Yoghurt thread that I haven’t said publicly before: that Terry Jones’s article defending the Iranian regime for its treatment of the British sailors was filthy, but that my personal abuse of Justin McKeating was entirely wrong. Furthermore, I greatly admire Justin because, when I emailed him three months later to see if he would help with the Iraqi employees’ campaign, he did so unhesitatingly and with great ability. The man’s admirable and I doubt I would have been as generous had I been in his place.
David Toube and other Harry’s Place bloggers also helped a lot on the campaign. Brownie, alas- but why pretend to be surprised that this silly little man trotted out a silly little rationale defending the British Government’s original policy of denying asylum rights to Local Employees threatened with death? And don’t tell yet more lies about this, Brownie, I’ll just quote your words.
oilier than thou 03.29.10 at 7:37 pm
How about those of us who’d be more interested in Dan Hardie refused to serve altogether?
That’s the only honorable choice at this point I think.
Brownie 03.29.10 at 7:51 pm
but that my personal abuse of Justin McKeating was entirely wrong.
But your personal abuse of the others was okay?
Henri Vieuxtemps 03.29.10 at 7:54 pm
The Hurt Locker is crap. Green Zone is crap too. There’s nothing remarkable about that; 95% of everything is crap.
b9n10nt 03.29.10 at 8:01 pm
Henri
True enough, I just thought THL was low-grade crap for all its praise and awards..
Dan Hardie 03.29.10 at 8:10 pm
The defences of Terry Jones were feeble and in some cases pretty disgusting, which I don’t regret pointing out, but it wouldn’t have turned into such a row had I not kicked things off with Justin as rudely as I did- which I’ve publicly said I regret, several times.
So that’s me talking about things I have done and in one case regret doing. Who else could undertake the same kind of exercise? Oh, I know.
Brownie, which of the following things are you proud to own up to? The following is not even an exhaustive list of the rubbish you’ve trotted out or attempted to justify on this single thread, but it’s a start.
1) Calling me a liar, posting a non-functional link that you say proves I am a liar, when challenged saying that you don’t want to discuss these matters in public, then finally admitting without apology that the link doesn’t prove I am a liar?
2) Accusing me with complete dishonesty of having a ‘predilection for military dictatorship’? And then refusing to apologise when called on your lie?
3) Uttering this disgusting sneer at a man who risks his life for the cause of bringing human rights to Afghanistan, while you stay safe in England: ‘But Conor Foley has been to Afghanistan and Kosovo several times*…*I know this because he mentions it every time he writes an article on CiF or comments on a blog.’
Or this insult: ‘Conor Foley quotes coroners who have not a single hour of military experience and wouldn’t know one end of an APC from another but who confidently pronounce on hardware.’
Or this sneer: ‘Conor Foley supports humanitarian intervention led by Nelson Mandela and the armed wing of Amnesty where the post-conflict scenario is nothing other than perfectly predictable and the death toll negligible.’
Can you really see nothing to regret here? That you – who have never seen a battlefield except on a TV screen- are giving lectures on war and bloodshed to a man who has risked his neck in conflicts? Or sneering at me that I think I am the only person to have served in uniform (oddly enough, when you are a soldier you tend to notice rather large numbers of other soldiers on your base) or that I am ‘half a coward becasue you’re a reservist? ‘ Again, do you have no sense of shame?
Chris Williams 03.29.10 at 8:30 pm
Brownie, just because it’s Dan pointing out that you’ve written something idiotic, it doesn’t mean that you’ve not written something idiotic. The evidence is right here on this thread. Would that Mr Thouless were still alive to note your truly inspired attempt to prove that Dan supports military dictatorship. Perhaps someone ought to update _Straight and Crooked Thinking_ and dedicate it to you.
Brownie 03.29.10 at 8:30 pm
Dan,
1) Calling me a liar, posting a non-functional link that you say proves I am a liar, when challenged saying that you don’t want to discuss these matters in public, then finally admitting without apology that the link doesn’t prove I am a liar?
The most egregious lies you’ve written about me over the years include that I’m a supporter of the PIRA and that I have no respect for men of uniform. They are both lies, you repeat them everywhere you go, so that makes you a liar.
Oh, the link I (eventually) provided was immediately following this comment of mine:
It’s just as well this descent into hate-filled, irrational fantasising about the lives of people unknown to you but for their comments on blogs is a one off, Dan, or people would start think you’re a bit mental.
In other words, the link was to demonstrate that this is your standard MO. Smear and then hurl abuse like a macho prick when your interlocutors object. It was not offered in evidence that you’re a liar, for which see above.
2) Accusing me with complete dishonesty of having a ‘predilection for military dictatorship’? And then refusing to apologise when called on your lie?
Good grief! Me at #57 on the subject of your predilections:
<i.Except, obviously, I don’t believe that at all.
If you are going to contend that a lack of military service precludes you from supporting a war on a blog, I’m going to show you where this illogic leads. Am I supposed to think you are okay with non-serving politicians starting and prosecuting wars they’ll never fight in if you think a blogger is proscribed from voicing his/her support for war in print? Isn’t there a logical conclusion to this rationale of yours?
You can take issue with my extrapolation if you like, but to pretend that you really think I’m accusing you of being a military dictatorship fetishist is beyond infantile. Grow the feck up, Dan.
3) – Conor…blah…blah…
I asked you several times to run your theory about how I feel about Conor past the man himself. You obviously haven’t done so or he’d have corroborated what I said earlier regarding our relationship and mutual respect.
I’m sure I’ve said things about lots of people I regret, Conor included, but the only person who is confused about my opinions of the man is you, Dan.
Now, can we avoid all this and just get to the part where you challenge me to a fight like you did a few years back? It’s where we’re headed, isn’t it?
Brownie 03.29.10 at 8:38 pm
Christ, you’ve done made me mess up my italics. Should be:
If you are going to contend that a lack of military service precludes you from supporting a war on a blog, I’m going to show you where this illogic leads. Am I supposed to think you are okay with non-serving politicians starting and prosecuting wars they’ll never fight in if you think a blogger is proscribed from voicing his/her support for war in print? Isn’t there a logical conclusion to this rationale of yours?
You can take issue with my extrapolation if you like, but to pretend that you really think I’m accusing you of being a military dictatorship fetishist is beyond infantile. Grow the feck up, Dan.
3) – Conor…blah…blah…
I asked you several times to run your theory about how I feel about Conor past the man himself. You obviously haven’t done so or he’d have corroborated what I said earlier regarding our relationship and mutual respect.
I’m sure I’ve said things about lots of people I regret, Conor included, but the only person who is confused about my opinions of the man is you, Dan.
Now, can we avoid all this and just get to the part where you challenge me to a fight like you did a few years back? It’s where we’re headed, isn’t it?
Brownie 03.29.10 at 8:39 pm
Aww, look, a tag team. Cute.
Dan Hardie 03.29.10 at 8:44 pm
He’s snapped. No he won’t apologise for telling lies on this thread, no he won’t apologise for his disgraceful habit of screaming for war whilst insulting people who have been to war but disagree with him on some things, yes he imagines that a remark like ‘you’re only half a coward becasue you’re a reservist’ shows ‘respect for men of uniform’, yes it’s fine if he says someone has ‘not a single hour of military experience’ but appalling if someone else says it to him…All that and a lot of hard, hard swearing.
If you want to make threats of violence, email me and do so, you sad little man: I will laugh at you. In the meantime, your habit of staying safe while screaming bellicose propaganda and lecturing others on their cowardice is a disgrace.
You can carry on doing that if you want- but it’s quite clear that you feel deeply ashamed at yourself for doing so. Unless, of course, you normally communicate at this level of ranting incoherence.
Brownie 03.29.10 at 8:45 pm
Chris, I don’t know if Dan is playing or not but you most certainly are playing dumb. If Dan wants to declare my opinions invalid by dint of my not having served, I’m entitled to point out the logical conclusion of such, er, thinking.
The correct assessment to make is not the Dan supports military dictatorship, but that his reasoning is suspect.
Now, can I get back to my feud?
Brownie 03.29.10 at 8:50 pm
If you want to make threats of violence, email me and do so, you sad little man
Are we reading the same thread? Did you or did you not challenge me to a fight a few years back because I objected to you calling me an IRA supporter? I’m not an obsessional freak so I don’t keep a dossier on you in the same way you clearly do on me, but I’m certain I could find a link if pushed.
Unless, of course, you normally communicate at this level of ranting incoherence.
Two words: Chicken Yoghurt.
ejh 03.29.10 at 8:52 pm
Couldn’t this be settled by a pillow fight or something?
Dan Hardie 03.29.10 at 8:54 pm
No, people who stay out of uniform and have views for or against wars are fine by me- I call them ‘citizens’.
I call people ‘cowards’ because they are if they write stuff like you do about people who do go to war zones whilst you yourself stay safely away from the IEDs and bullets:
‘But Conor Foley has been to Afghanistan and Kosovo several times*…*I know this because he mentions it every time he writes an article on CiF or comments on a blog.’
‘Conor Foley quotes coroners who have not a single hour of military experience and wouldn’t know one end of an APC from another but who confidently pronounce on hardware’.
Why does Brownie think it is a) entirely acceptable to attack people for having ‘not a single hour of military experience’ and b) an attack on democracy when someone says the same to him? Why does he say to me ‘does that mean you’re only half a coward becasue you’re a reservist?’ Why does he start blethering about a fight?
Because he’d rather whip himself into a state of hysteria rather than admit that some of what he has said was wrong.
Never apologise, big man- it’s a sign of weakness.
Brownie 03.29.10 at 9:02 pm
Dan, who do you think you are, exactly, to demand apologies on behalf of Conor?
Have you spoken to Conor yet? Are you going to? Or are you going to keep on insisting that I disrespect him and his work when he knows I don’t?
If Conor ever gets wind of this thread and gives his consent, I’d be more than happy to release our private correspondence. Do you have any idea how much of a dickhead you’re going to look when/if that happens? If you don’t, take a look at the Chicken Yoghurt thread. It’s about that much.
Dan Hardie 03.29.10 at 9:08 pm
Brownie, what I am doing is a) quoting your words about Conor and b) quoting your words about war, and why people who haven’t an hour’s military experience should damn well not disagree with you and c) quoting your words about me (including this beauty: does that mean you’re only half a coward becasue you’re a reservist’).
Now you asked me what I thought about being rude to Justin McKeating, though you haven’t actually been appointed to act on behalf of Justin or anyone else who posted in that thread. My response: I was wrong.
So come on, try to act like an adult. I’m saying you’ve made repeated, disgustingly bellicose remarks about war, and that you are happy to utter pathetic sneers at people who take the risks that you duck if they disagree with you. I’ve quoted you. Now tell me which of those remarks you aren’t proud of making-
the slur about the magic link that would prove I was lying? The non-apology when it didn’t? The insults like these?
‘Conor Foley has been to Afghanistan and Kosovo several times*…*I know this because he mentions it every time he writes an article on CiF or comments on a blog.’
Or this insult: ‘Conor Foley quotes coroners who have not a single hour of military experience and wouldn’t know one end of an APC from another but who confidently pronounce on hardware.’
Or this sneer: ‘Conor Foley supports humanitarian intervention led by Nelson Mandela and the armed wing of Amnesty where the post-conflict scenario is nothing other than perfectly predictable and the death toll negligible.’
Or as you aren’t going to say you’re ashamed of any of this, maybe this will work. Which of these remarks are you most proud of, and why?
Brownie 03.29.10 at 9:24 pm
Dan, if you think I’m going to answer to a sociopath like you for remarks I made to a third-party nearly two years ago, especially now the third-party and I are on very good terms and share a mutual respet, then you must be even stupider than I imagined.
I refer you to my comment earlier where I noted that I’ve said plenty of things I shouldn’t have to plenty of people…although I doubt my tally comes close to yours. You only need to be blogging for about 2 weeks before you say something you shouldn’t, and I’ve been doing this since 2002.
Now, stop acting like the Internet Stasi and find yourself a new hobby. Please. You’re reminding me of that Alan Partridge episode and the obsessional fan who had a tattoo of Alan’s face on his chest.
Dan Hardie 03.30.10 at 11:24 am
The hysterical guy says he is not going to account for remarks he made to a third party two years ago, having demanded that I account for remarks I made to a third party three years ago. One of us did so and one is frothing at the mouth at the mere idea.
The same nutter sneers at people who don’t have ‘a single hour of military experience’, and then screams with outrage if it’s pointed out that the same is true of him. He’ll froth if he’s asked, say, whether he should apologise for leading the online bullying of a 23 year-old woman who had the temerity to suggest that the ‘Harry’s Place’ comments contained an unusual level of abuse. Or if he’s asked whether he’s proud of eulogising a racist who baited black waitresses in front of a baying white crowd, or of lecturing people who go to war on ‘courage’, or- but the list is endless.
‘Harry’s Place’ may have started with high ideals but Brownie’s posts have never been anything but a man screaming abuse in the belief that it’s a demonstration of his high ideals.
You’ve hated this, Brownie, because you’re not man enough to stand by some of the vicious dreck that you’ve written and because you don’t have sufficient courage to apologise for even some of it. Like too many of the HP gang, you have spent years bullying and screaming at others, but you blub like a child if someone asks you to account for your actions. What was that word? ‘Coward’.
Brownie 03.30.10 at 11:53 am
The hysterical guy
I think the chances of an objective reader seeing our exchange and concluding that I’m the “hysterical” party are pretty slim, Dan.
Dan Hardie 03.30.10 at 12:02 pm
No, the oddballs who populate the HP comments threads would probably see nothing wrong in anything you’ve said, although alas the rest of us tend not to define ‘objective’ as ‘agrees with me’.
Brownie 03.30.10 at 12:11 pm
No Dan, you’re missing the point. A truly objective reader might very well disagree with every word I’ve said on this thread. But as to the question of which of us is “hysterical”, there’s only one winner.
Please feel free to have the last word. I’m done here.
Dan Hardie 03.30.10 at 12:20 pm
Since you have the courage to neither defend nor apologise for your more vicious attacks on others, since you sneer at others for not having an hour’s military experience but screech when the same point is made about you, you should stop posting such rubbish.
It would be a first start in cleaning up Harry’s Place, which is a proverbially disgraceful website, and it would do wonders for your self-respect.
You won’t, though.
Comments on this entry are closed.