I rather resent having to waste time on this crap, but since I rashly promised a response on Friday, here goes. David Yaseen of 'Level Gaze' has replied (9/26, 9:52 AM) to my reply to his 'open letter' on the Shropshire Challenge. Herewith his latest words, interleaved with my latest replies:

Hey everybody! It finally happened! Dr. Weevil has responded to my open letter! He says it was "serious" and "relatively coherent!" I'm legit now, baby!

If you want a quick response to an 'open letter', you might want to try notifying the supposed recipient, particularly if you pretend to be writing to someone who has no reason to know you exist. And "relatively coherent" is not much of a compliment, since it means only that it is more coherent than Pseudo-Hesiod's lame reply. As for "serious", I gave Yaseen too much credit: as his language here shows, and as we will see below in more detail, his reply to my reply shows that he is anything but serious.

I think he missed the point.

Mere assertion, though (again) we will see that 'Level Gaze' is no slouch when it comes to missing points.

In the Shropshire Challenge, he called upon those opposed to the war to go to Iraq as human shields against the US armed forces. If they didn't, they should "shut the hell up about chickenhawks." He did not feel that an equivalent level of commitment to his side was appropriate.

This is exactly backwards. My argument was a reply to months of 'chickenblogger' language from 'Hesiod', Shropshire, and others. All I was doing was turning their argument back on them. Trying to turn it back on me again is dishonest. It is the antiwarbloggers who demand that warbloggers all enlist, but do not seem to feel that an equivalent level of commitment to their side is appropriate. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the pros and cons of war without reference to anyone's military experience or lack thereof.

            I replied that he and the rest of the warbloggers are the ones advocating change, and, if anyone were to "put up," they should. Then I called him a hypocrite. He responds:

This is more than a bit misleading. The status quo is highly unlikely to continue. Everyone knows that a U.S. invasion of Iraq is very likely, and that it will come soon, unless something happens to stop it. Non-invasion may be the status quo, but invasion is the default. That means that I don't have to do anything to bring about an invasion, since it will go ahead with or without me. (Not to mention that I can't do anything but argue, since I'm too old to enlist and, even if I weren't, I wouldn't make it through boot camp and specialized training in time to see action.) But anyone who seriously opposes an invasion of Iraq can and should do something to prevent it while there is still time. 'Level Gaze' has it exactly backwards: I don't have to do anything except argue against objections such as his. He on the other hand needs to do some serious work if he wants to stop the war, and sitting around bitching about it isn't going to suffice.

Got that? It's going to happen anyway, so it magically becomes the "default," which is somehow different from the "status quo." Leaving that to one side, it could make one question the reasoning behind Dr. Weevil's (and the rest of the warbloggers') need to argue in favor of invasion. If it's inevitible, cheering it on won't help. Even the need to "argue against objections such as [mine]" dissolves. It's also nice to know that Dr. Weevil believes that our government cannot be swayed by means short of direct physical intervention. I and others who are against the war are "do[ing] some serious work...to stop the war."

This guy needs to learn to read. Saying that war is "the default" does not imply that it is inevitable (note spelling), just that it is by far the most likely outcome of current trends and conditions. There is nothing magical about it. Status quos don't preserve themselves, and the current status quo (non-invasion of Iraq) is highly unlikely to last more than a few weeks or at most months, unless something unusual happens to dissuade the administration from their plans for war. One more time: the invasion will go forward -- is already going forward -- with or without me. On the other hand, mere words are unlikely to dissuade Bush at this point, so only action can prevent war. Pacifists are being recruited to act as 'human shields' in Iraq. If enough could be found, war could be prevented, but only a few dozen have volunteered so far. (See the Rottweiler's recent post on this: if the address doesn't work, it's dated 9/26 at 9:22 PM.) Why don't the antiwarbloggers sign up? Do they suffer from the same lack of guts they are so quick to attribute to non-veteran 'warbloggers'? It seems a fair question. How hard would it have been to figure out what I meant?

Besides, the last I heard, we're still waiting on United Nations and congressional approval for invasion, which seems to indicate that the question is still up in the air. For all of the administration's bluster, we may yet be deterred. I and a lot of other people throughout the world believe it's possible, otherwise our speaking out against invasion would be equally pointless. He wants an invasion and I don't.

Thinking that Bush is likely to allow himself to be overruled by the U.N., or that Congress will attempt to overrule him is awfully naïve. As for being deterred by world or antiwarblogger opinion, that is possible, but extremely unlikely, not least because arguments against war are going to have to be much better than those we have seen so far to be effective.

But the main point is that those of us against the war, including Phillip Shropshire, aren't obligated to put their lives on the line because of our opinions. Honestly, stopping the war in Iraq isn't worth my life, however many other lives it may wind up costing. If it is your opinion that standing up for what you believe in--or even stating your beliefs--requires putting your life on the line, then it applies to everybody, not just to those with whom you disagree. And them what starts a fight has to go first, as a show of good faith. Shropshire was supposed to put himself in the line of fire, but, sadly, Dr. Weevil is too old to enlist, and shouldn't have to because war is inevitible anyway. That's as far as he got with the argument, and that's why I called him a hypocrite.

Once again, this is backwards. It is not my opinion that "standing up for what you believe in--or even stating your beliefs--requires putting your life on the line": it is the opinion of anyone who uses the term 'chickenblogger'. They think that we, the so-called 'warbloggers', are not entitled to support war on Iraq unless we join the armed forces. Since human shields are desperately needed to prevent war, the same argument applies à fortiori to them: are they willing to lay their lives on the line to prevent war? It seems to me that they have four choices: (a) enlist as a human shield, (b) stop using the term, and apologize for ever having used it, (c) admit that they are contemptible hypocrites, who abuse others for not doing what they are unwilling to do themselves, or (d) try to confuse the issue by pretending not to understand it. It appears that David Yaseen chooses 'd'.

My point can perhaps be sharpened up a bit: if war is a horrible mistake, and will cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, why is averting it not worth the single life of David Yaseen? Apparently he thinks his precious life is worth more than the lives of any number (ten thousand? a hundred thousand?) of Iraqis. Arrogant, gutless, or clueless? You be the judge. (The three are not mutually exclusive.)

Yaseen's next paragraph lazily strings together a dozen hit-and-run answers and pseudo-answers to my various points. I have inserted the red numbers to make reply more convenient:

The rest of the response is taken up with: [1] his belief that invasion will do more good than leaving things as they are (I disagree--what happens when Israel gets into the slog, that'll be good for everybody, right?); [2] his interesting hypothesis that I would have opposed the Normandy invasion (which, I believe, was one of many results of unprovoked aggression, and therefore righteous); [3] about his nephew-who-almost-enlisted-in-the-Marines (whatever); [4] a non-argument to the effect that the armed forces are not only (I had said "mostly") comprised of people from the lower classes and minorities (they are, very disproportionately, especially the infantry); [5] that Iraq poses a threat to us (sure, if Saddam is willing to have his country flattened for him); [6] that Iraq intends harm to its neighbors as can be deduced from its actions toward Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (the war with Iran we actively encouraged and suppported, the war with Kuwait we pretended to green-light (see April Glaspie), and Saudi Arabia is a non-issue); [7] a confusion of Iraq with Afghanistan (which, although in some ways is better off than it had been under the Taliban, has seen a return of the rule of warlords and looks about ripe for a re-descent into civil war); [8] that "war is necessary" because Hussein is a "psychopathic thug" who has "good reason" to hate the US (hmm...a psychopath with good reason...will he use it? Will we be removing the rest of the thugs of the world? Does Musharraf count?); [9] that I "have a seriously exaggerated idea of the importance of the Blogosphere" because I put him in the same sentence with the Bush administration (I'm addressing you, who agree with the administration. I want you both to do the same thing. Why on earth wouldn't I put you in the same sentence? Cheap (and inaccurate) shot); [10] more arguments that I should be willing to die a traitor because I am against a proposed policy of the administration (let's all go stand in the way of a tank to protest the tax hike!); [11] that none of the chickenhawks have threatened to punish any human shields (they have indeed; they're called Iraqi citizens, and Saddam will be using tens of thousands of them); [12] and how many celebrities will fit on the head of a cruise missle (all of them).

1. I openly admitted that it is possible that invasion of Iraq will lead to disaster. It is not my 'belief' but my considered judgment that war is less likely to lead to disaster than temporization and hoping for the best. Calling it a 'belief' cheapens it and makes it sound irrational.
2. Blatant misrepresentation. I specifically said that the same argument he uses to oppose invading Iraq would have compelled him (if he were logically consistent) to oppose the Normandy invasion. After all, if the fact that innocent civilians will be killed in a war is sufficient to show that the war is wrong, then the liberation of France must have been wrong. And he completely ignores what I said about the lives that would (will?) be saved in the future if Iraq is liberated from Saddam Hussein's brutal tyranny, and about the value of freedom, which Americans are supposed to think is worth risking lives for.
3. He suggested that 'warbloggers' have no loved ones in the armed services, and this is simply false. I gave two counter-examples from my own experience, and he ignores one and says "whatever" about the other. How's that for honest argument? He also slips in a little sneer. In fact, I believe that my nephew signed the paperwork and would be in the Marines right now if he had passed the physical, as he thought he would. As I have said before, the armed forces can afford to be picky, and Bush has not had to go on television to beg people to sign up for an invasion of Iraq. It is the 'human shields' who are begging for recruits, so far with little success.
4. Mere evasion. The clear implication of his argument was that 'warbloggers' don't serve in the military and don't know anyone who serves and therefore don't care about military casualties. This is utterly false, as my examples showed.
5. I don't claim to know whether Hussein would use a nuclear weapon if he had one. Maybe, maybe not. I don't want to give him the choice, because I'd just as soon not have to find out which he would choose. Those such as 'Hesiod' who are absolutely certain that Hussein would never use nuclear weapons, either for blackmail or for destruction, are fools. And those such as 'Hesiod' who ignore the fact that Hussein is not a young man and will one day in the not too distant future (if he is not deposed) be succeeded by someone who might turn out to be even less deterrable -- someone like Qusay or Uday -- are worse than fools.
6. That Saddam Hussein has invaded other countries before, more than once and without provocation, is supposed to be unimportant in judging whether he is likely to commit different forms of aggression in the future. I would think Yaseen would be ashamed to make such a silly statement. Note also how he contrives to blame the invasions of Iran and Kuwait on the U.S., as if poor Hussein had no will of his own.
7. Yaseen assumed that Afghanistan is now worse off than before American intervention. I offered a strong reason for believing that he is wrong. If he can't refute my argument, he needs to admit that he was wrong, instead of continuing to waffle.
8. Mere verbal quibbling: the reason Hussein has to hate the U.S. is not the same kind of reason that insane people lack. It would have been clearer if I had written 'motive' rather than 'reason', but I doubt that anyone else misunderstood my point.
9. 'Warbloggers' argue with Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and Richard Cohen, taking on the big dogs and hoping that someone will notice their flea-like attacks. Why do 'antiwarbloggers' confine themselves to sniping at the 'warbloggers', like microbes on fleas, instead of taking on the arguments of (for instance) Charles Krauthammer and Michael Kelly? (Calling the latter a "WHORE", as Yaseen does, doesn't count.) It looks like they're more interested in increasing their hit counts by arguing with those who may possibly link back to them than actually convincing anyone that war on Iraq is a bad idea. One more sign that Yaseen is not serious.
10. This is true only if he thinks that I can't argue for war without putting on a uniform first.
11. Willful misrepresentation: he knows I'm talking about American and other non-Iraqi human shields. I even mentioned that American shields would be more effective than Europeans in deterring war. The fact that Jane Fonda was never seriously threatened with jail time, much less hanging, for her trips to North Vietnam, even when she shot an anti-aircraft gun at an American bomber, shows that human shields have little to fear in the way of prosecution or even persecution. The more recent examples I gave show exactly the same.
12. Sneering at a sound argument does not make it unsound. Groups of human shields would in fact be far more effective in deterring war if they included celebrities, or active bloggers like Philip Shropshire -- or David Yaseen.

So much for numbered points. To continue:

Note the absence of a response to my argument.

Note the bald-faced lie -- not his first. I answered every argument, paragraph by paragraph, and have now done so again, though his own arguments are quite slapdash -- three more hours of my life I'll never get back.

In the process, he describes my post with nice words like "pretentious," "fifth-rate," "absurd," and "bilge." He tells me I need to "shut the fuck up about chickenhawks" because I'm not willing to go stand in the middle of a war zone. Shut the fuck up or die. A beautiful sentiment from one American to another. And I should apologize. To whom? I think I'll do neither, thank you.

The next paragraph is repeated from my comment on his blog:

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "shut the fuck up or die", I said "shut the fuck up about 'chickenhawks'" (note the specific limitation), unless you are willing to risk your life to stop the war. I wouldn't have said that much if it weren't for all the hypocrites like Shropshire and 'Hesiod' who demand that I either join the army or shut up about the war. I'm only turning their argument back on them. Three weeks later, Shropshire still hasn't come up with an answer to the challenge, and 'Hesiod' has carefully ignored all my stronger points while pretending he won the argument, much like Yaseen's false claim that I haven't responded to his.

I have already replied to the rude language charge in the second-to-last entry before this one.

Perhaps the most interesting part of Yaseen's reply is that it entirely ignores my last paragraph.

Notice: If I fail to respond to anything David Yaseen says in the future on any subject, that is not to be taken as agreement with him (unlikely), or inability to answer his arguments (fat chance), but mere unwillingness to waste time arguing with such a dishonest and incompetent debater.