Quote Originally Posted by ProfessorB View Post
Speaking of the twisted logic department, what is the logical -- that is, mathematical -- basis for IF you didn't condemn Saddam, THEN you have no moral foundation for criticizing Bush? Presumably, then, since Reagan didn't condemn Pol Pot, he had no moral foundation for condemning Soviet Communism.

Are we now at the point in the discussion that a governing body for anthropologists is given sufficient political gravitas that one needs to take seriously an admonition against anthropologists serving with the military? The Association rejects the war -- that's not foolish Vietnam-era namby-pambyism, it's a political position to which they are entitled as citizens of the United States.
Well, perhaps the word "hypocritical" would have been more appropriate.

The bigger point is this old, stale idea that all of the evil in the world comes from Western repression. The AAA's decision to portray the war in Iraq today as against human rights and democracy shows that they believe that is what the other side seeks. Of course, I don't know whether they are simply naive or truly so mired in ideology that they believe that.

And, I never questioned their right to be nitwits. I just also feel that I have a right to point it out.

And I don't think the AAA "rejects" the war. I haven't seen one whit of criticism from them of AQI or other insurgent movements. I think they reject American involvement in trying to preserve one of the most democratic regimes in that part of the world.