Dubya Has Lost Me

[Bill Murphy]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091666/

Wonder if Dizzy Dean can come up w/a snappy "Iraqinam" type catchphrase.

If Diz keeps the Napoleon complex and patrician background in check; if he pounds away on "Iraq war based on lies & lets AQ off the hook" and "Economy still sux for working families", and nothing but; if he can finesse the Mass. gay marriage ruling like Slick woulda; and if he can keep the Nader crowd energized, he can win.

Don't get me wrong, I ain't exactly wild about Dean(or any other pol FTM), but the Rove-Cheney crew has had their chance, and they fvcked it all up.

Every bullet in Iraq shoulda gone into the mountain range on the Afg-Pak border, then we shoulda lifted all sanctions/forgiven all debt on Pakistan. Gotta get their economy & education systems up and running; get them madrassas shut down.

Sacrificing US textile industry no great loss. Creative destruction and all. Cost of retraining all the workers a fraction of a WMD cleanup, and-never mind.

Of course, I live in UT so my vote won't matter, but still. "Democrats trying to stop the war on terror", SHEEEIITTTT. Guess ol' Jeb wouldn't mind a terrorist attack on Frisco, tho, would he, George??

Plus he's anti-online poker(as is Dean too, of course). /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Chris Alger]

So the opponents agree that the war against Iraq was based on lying. Saletan: "Our national security wasn't in jeopardy. Our pre-emptive attack turned out not to be warranted self-defense. The regime Bush ousted wasn't particularly supportive of the terrorists who struck us...." Weisberg: The RNC ad is "ugly" and "dishonest," and example of "red-baiting" showing that "the Bush administration recognizes a deep vulnerability on Iraq and is getting panicky."

Therefore, the U.S. should acknowledge the war as unprovoked aggression, agree to a public accounting of the damage and death it caused, agree to pay reparations and surrender political control over Iraq either to elected leaders or an international body charged with the rapid development of an elected government. It should acknowledge that the only legitimate use of U.S. force in Iraq is to guarantee the security of the Iraqi people while the process of democratization and self-sufficiency continues. It should expressly renounce any geopolitical, strategic or economic benefits from U.S. domination over internal Iraqi politics.

Of course not. Slate's critics offer not a peep of criticsim over the policy of creating the government first, then asking for popular support later. Or of U.S. dictates concerning Iraqi economic policy geared toward the interests of international capital and bereft of any public input. Or of the undenied intention to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq to safeguard "our" interests. Or of our express policy of refusing to consider any territorial breakup of Iraq according to religious and national lines, instead regarding as sacred the borders drawn by the British Empire when its interests ruled the day.

Instead, Saletan suggests we merely regard the war as "badly waged." The Democrats are right to demand that we remain and "win" the fight against the "terrorists," presumably meaning not just those that blow up Mosques and police stations but anyone who takes up arms against occupiers who persist in refusing elections or tolerating local power. Weisberg agrees that any Democratic opposition to "funding for the occupation" is "irresponsible," regardless of "whether or not the invasion was a good idea" because we need to turn the conquest of Iraq into a "success."

So despite the absence of any legitimate reason for starting the war, we shouldn't speak of righting a wrong but should rather pursue our continuing goals with greater energy and efficiency. This is about the harshest crticism of Bush's war that one can find in the mainstream press.

[Utah]

Therefore, the U.S. should acknowledge the war as unprovoked aggression, agree to a public accounting of the damage and death it caused, agree to pay reparations and surrender political control over Iraq either to elected leaders or an international body charged with the rapid development of an elected government. It should acknowledge that the only legitimate use of U.S. force in Iraq is to guarantee the security of the Iraqi people while the process of democratization and self-sufficiency continues. It should expressly renounce any geopolitical, strategic or economic benefits from U.S. domination over internal Iraqi politics

Jesus!!! I know you are an anti-war zealot and that is all fine and dandy - in the name of allowing dissent and all.

But - who the hell's side on you on? Are you an American? Because it sure doesn't sound like it. This isn't some kindergarten fight where people are forced to apologize.

Dissent is on thing. And maybe the war was not justified (although I don't neccessarily agree). But why in the heck would you advocate a policy that would clearly be disasterous to US interests? Ah....maybe it is simply because you don't care about US interests.

Your comment is way out of line

[nicky g]

"This isn't some kindergarten fight where people are forced to apologize."

No, it's a little more serious than that.

"maybe the war was not justified (although I don't neccessarily agree). But why in the heck would you advocate a policy that would clearly be disasterous to US interests? Ah....maybe it is simply because you don't care about US interests. "

If the war was unjustified (which i do think), it was a crime that killed tens of thousands of people and caused billions of dollars of damgage; theoretically crimes which countries are supposed to pay for. Some poeple can see further than "my country right or wrong."

[CORed]

I don't think the war on Iraq was baed on lies. I think it was based on incorrect information that the administration sincerely believed, and that they were unwilling to give serious consideration to any evidence that might contradict their preconceptions.

What scares me about the Bush administration is that I think they believe their own propaganda, and that there is a strong "We've made up our minds. Don't try to confuse us with any facts." mindset. This administration has a combination of fanatacism and incompetence that scares the hell out of me. I don't care much for any of the Democratic candidates, but the country can survive 4 or 8 years of any of them, and I'm not sure it can survive 4 more years of Bush.

Bill Clinton may have been ethically challenged, and if he told me the sun was rising in the east, I would look out the window to check before I believed him, but he was competent and rational. George Bush would tell me that the sun was rising in the west, and believe it, and fire anyone on his staff who tried to convince him otherwise, and wouldn't bother to look out the window to confirm it. I can only thank God that we didn't have a president like Bush during the Cold war, because I don't think the world would have survived.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the war on Iraq was baed on lies. I think it was based on incorrect information that the administration sincerely believed, and that they were unwilling to give serious consideration to any evidence that might contradict their preconceptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you're saying here. I believe that Bush was much more willing/wanting to go to war with Iraq than with other countries. I thought that it was very telling when Bush made the comment "he tried to kill my dad" (or something very similar).

The tough question for me personally is whether I would have supported the war if a Democrat were in power. I would like to think that I wouldn't, but I'll admit that it is a tougher decision. It is easier for me to believe a non-hawk who makes the decision to go to war because it goes against their nature. In other words, I tend to be more likely to believe a more liberal President who decides to go to war because there would have to be fairly compelling reasons for them to go against their nature and decide to go to war. When I watch Bush, I get the feeling that he wanted to go to war with Iraq and then built the evidence around the conclusion. I really hope that I'm wrong about this.

[CORed]

I don't believe that the war in Iraq was necessarily unjust. I do think it was extremely unwise. I think it was not necessary to protect our interests, and that it has put us in the ultimately untenable position of trying to occupy a nation with a hostile population. I can't believe that ousting Sadam Hussein was a bad thing. However, I don't think it was our job to do it. I think it was incredibly reckless to do it unilaterally. I also believe that this administration was completely unprepared for the aftermath of Sadam's fall.

They went into the war with the most optimistic assumptions about how the population of Iraq would react to the fall of Sadam, and were completely unprepared for the course of events that happened here in the real world. The notion that we can impose democracy on Iraq by force is doomed to failure.

[Chris Alger]

"This isn't some kindergarten fight where people are forced to apologize"

Of course it isn't. Nobody except Americans can force the U.S. to do anything.

"who the hell's side on you on? Are you an American?"

Now that's more like the kindergarten fight mentality. Or a high school pep rally: "how dare you not care if we cream those bastards from Bridgeborough High at homecoming?"

"But why in the heck would you advocate a policy that would clearly be disasterous to US interests? Ah....maybe it is simply because you don't care about US interests."

And just what "US interests" are these? Privitized oil? A steady flow of petrodollars for arms? An expanded line of Empire? Perhaps, if you think these are "American" interests as well as those of the U.S. state and its private transnational patrons, you could explain how you ran numbers or did whatever other analysis to come up with the cost-benefit analysis for yourself, or other "average" Americans, adjusting for blowback and the loss of Iraqi sovereignty and lives caused by the invasion and continued U.S. rule. Of course, you haven't done anything of the sort because you think the Great Father in Washington has done it for you. What a fish.

[ACPlayer]

I really hope that I'm wrong about this.

What will convince you one way or the other? Assuming you want to face the question ofcourse (which it appears you do)

[ACPlayer]

I completely disagree with you.

Being honest with the world will reap more benefits in terms of our security and self interest than continuing the lunacy presently underway in Iraq. Unfortunately, it means that Bush (and cheney/wolfowitz who are the real culprits) will be enjoying their retirement and board positions in corporate america). Handing over power is not in their blood.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the war on Iraq was based on lies. I think it was based on incorrect information that the administration sincerely believed, and that they were unwilling to give serious consideration to any evidence that might contradict their preconceptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

One can make the same dubious claim about the Nazis and Communists. The problem is that the second sentence doesn't support the first.

How did you discern what "the administration sincerely believed?" The absence of public contmplation of the contrary, the well-practiced professional demeanor of the officials, or a crystal ball?

How can beliving a "preconception" be "sincere" if one is "unwilling to give serious consideration to any evidence that might contradict" it? When officials normally act that way, we properly judge them both dishonest and foolish. When they act that way to further a policy that means certain death for thousands of innocents and incalculable future risks, it's a form of criminal insanity.

Do you think the following statements were sincere, especially the parts about the absence of any doubt and what "we know?": <ul type="square"> Dick Cheney 8/26/2 (VFW Speech): “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

George Bush, 9/12/2 (UN Speech): “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. . . . . United Nations inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.”

Donald Rumsfeld (testimony before House Armed Services Comm.), 9/18/02: “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. . . . His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons – including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

Donald Rumsfeld, 12/6/2 (quoted in Wall Street Journal editorial): “The United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The U.K. knows that they have weapons of mass destruction. Any country on the face of the Earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.”

Ari Fleischer, 1/9/3: “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”

Colin Powell, 2/5/3: “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction....”

George Bush, 3/17/3 (final speech before ordering the invasion): “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Tommy Franks 3/22/3 (Press Briefing in Iraq): “There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.”

Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/3: “we know where they [the weapons] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” [/list]
[ QUOTE ]
What scares me about the Bush administration is that I think they believe their own propaganda ....

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean they believed that the American collosus was truly threatened by a country so weak that it couldn't use whatever tools it had to even conquer its own territory, its air space largely consisting of "no-fly" zones for the last decade? Or the part about anti-occupation terrorism proving all along that the occupation is necessary to "prevent" terrorism? Which do you think is more likely: that Bush administration officials really believe these things or that they can be sold to a public that, by and large, believes in "the devil," lucky numbers, a scientific basis for astrology and whatever the President tells them about national threats?

[elwoodblues]

Great question...it's one to which I don't know if there is a good answer (and certainly not an easy one).

Here are some things that would probably help me:
1.) view the evidence available at the time the decision was made (I think that it's a safe assumption that the President has/had more information than me, so I don't know if this is truly possible)
2.) take a critical look at the personal views/biases of the decision-makers (this, too, is difficult because I have my own personal biases that will make this "critical" look difficult)
3.) view the alternative options that were available at the time, including: going to war, working with/through the UN, imposing economic sanctions, negotiating using US weapons inspectors instead of UN ones, etc.

After looking at all of this stuff (some of which I have been doing all along as part of my duty of being an informed citizen) I'll have to make a judgment. The problem is that my judgment might be clouded in that my gut tells me that Bush was biased in favor of war...it's quite the quandry: my bias tells me that Bush was biased.

[ripdog]

My wife just got word that as a civilian employee of the federal government, they can tell her that she either goes to Iraq for 4 months or she's fired, should it come to that. This is America, right? She has the right to be forced into going to some sandy, dusty, shithole of a country and catch some mystery disease that her government won't acknowledge until 20,000 lives have been destroyed? That's if she's not blown up by a roadside bomb first. You patriots keep kidding yourselves about how great this country is. America is a joke.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
How can beliving a "preconception" be "sincere" if one is "unwilling to give serious consideration to any evidence that might contradict" it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it can be a "sincere" belief. Suppose that Bush truly believes that Sadam is evil and should be removed. The evidence that he looks at that supports that conclusion will inherently make more sense to him. He will tend to surround himself by people who tend to think like him and they will become his trusted advisors. He will create a sub-conscious burden-shifting where the burden is placed on those arguing against the war, not on those arguing for it. After he weighs the evidence, he will truly/sincerely believe that he has weighed the options and come to an unbiased conclusion.

I think we all do this sort of thing on a sub-conscious level all the time (though, when most of it do it there is much less at stake.)

[Chris Alger]

Here's another approach. Imagine you were a Russian citizen approached to support the pending invasion of Afghanistan, or an Arab approached to support the pending 9/11 attacks. Would you come up with the same list?

How about: killing mass numbers of people is presumptively wrong and can only be justified by the most compelling and persuasive evidence of dire circumstances. If the promoters of violence fail to provide this, they should be resisted. When the evidence given to you is proven false or dubious, the act should be presumed criminal and resisted all the more.

If demanding solid proof to justify mass killing is too much of a left-wing, whacko view, then how can we justify applying it to others, like al Qaeda and the Soviets (to name but a few)?

[elwoodblues]

Sorry to hear about your wife's situation. It sounds like she has a very difficult decision to make. However, she isn't being "forced" to do anything. She is being offered a choice: choose to go to Iraq or choose to lose your job. My employer isn't forcing me to sit at a computer doing legal research all day long - I can choose not to do it, but I have to accept the consequences (maybe I shouldn't be spending countless hours each day on twoplustwo...oh well, I'll accept the consequences /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[elwoodblues]

I think we probably agree more than your post suggests...

[ QUOTE ]
When the evidence given to you is proven false or dubious, the act should be presumed criminal and resisted all the more.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're close, but not quite where I am on this. False does not (necessarily) equal a Lie. I think the evidence would have to be proven false and that the person providing the information knew of its falsity or intentionally shielded himself/herself from contrary information.

[ QUOTE ]
If demanding solid proof to justify mass killing is too much of a left-wing, whacko view, then how can we justify applying it to others, like al Qaeda and the Soviets (to name but a few)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely agree with this.

[brad]

r perle puclicly admitted wmd a lie and a known lie which was used 2 justify/sell war.


he also said war 'illegal' but 'necessary'

[Wake up CALL]

"She has the right to be forced into going to some sandy, dusty, shithole of a country and catch some mystery disease that her government won't acknowledge until 20,000 lives have been destroyed? "

Has she received orders to report to Iraq? If not what does it matter? If she is directed to do so she is not being forced to do anything. After all her employement is "at will". It is evident that this possibility concerns you deeply and rightly so but until it is a reality does it really help to agonize over the possiblilty?

I hope for both your sakes (and your family) she is not asked to unwillingly spend time in the middle east. In case she is told that she must either go or quit I suppose you will have a difficult decision. I wish you the best but remember it is an honor to serve your country not an obligation.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Which do you think is more likely: that Bush administration officials really believe these things or that they can be sold to a public that, by and large, believes in "the devil," lucky numbers, a scientific basis for astrology...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Bush, and many in his administration are among the people that believe in the devil, lucky numbers, and a scientific basis for astrology. I believe that this administration has a fundamental inability to evaluate evidence in an objective nad rational manner. I would be much less frightened of an administration consisting of rational crooks and liars (e.g. the Clinton administration) than one which consists of deluded but sincere fanatics. The former can be relied on to be controlled to some degree by self interest. The latter is completely unpredictable.

And yes, I think Bush and company believed that there was a threat that Sadam would transfer wmd to terrorists.

Also, I find it interesting that few people questioned the premise that Sadam had wmd before the war. He certainly had vigorous nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs before the first gulf war, and went to a lot of trouble to frustrate the efforts of weapons inspectors after it. We know that Sadam used nerve gas and mustard gas against the Kurds and against Iran. Why he went to so much trouble to interfere with UN inpectors and ultimately kicked them out if he no longer had the weapons is, and probably will remain, one of the great mysteries of whole affair. I think that the Bush administration grossly overestimated, or if you are correct, exaggerated the threat that wmd posed to the U. S. I felt from the beginning that containment and deterrence were better ways to deal with that threat than invading. The problems we are now having with occupation were exactly what I expected.

I guess the difference is that you see the Bush administration as evil, devious people who embarked on this war for ulterior motives. I see them as sincere, but irrational and misguided fanatics. I would be less frightened if your view were correct.

[brad]

dont u read the [censored] news? richard perle admitted in newspaper interview that administration knew there were no wmd before war started but

a) they believed war was necessary

b) they figured wmd best way to justify it (even though it was a lie) -- similiar to M's arguments

[adios]

Pardon the interruption in this discussion but you guys really crack me up with your hand wringing.

[ QUOTE ]
The tough question for me personally is whether I would have supported the war if a Democrat were in power. I would like to think that I wouldn't, but I'll admit that it is a tougher decision. It is easier for me to believe a non-hawk who makes the decision to go to war because it goes against their nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Senate approves Iraq war resolution (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/)

The Senate vote authorizing an attack on Iraq was 77 authorizing and 23 for not authorizing. In the House it was 296 authorizing and 133 for not authorizing. Didn't know the Republicans had that big of a majority /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Gephardt, Lieberman, and Kerry all voted for the resolution.

Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., Presidential Candidate (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102712,00.html)

An excerpt from the interview:

CAVUTO: Well, Howard Dean seems to give the impression he'd pull all our troops out.

GEPHARDT: I think that is a big mistake. I mean, you can disagree on why we went there and what the information was and all of that. I understand all that.I still believe it was the right thing to do because I’m worried about weapons of mass destruction in the United States. And I didn’t just listen to George Bush. I went to the CIA myself, listened to all of their information. I talked to former Clinton officials, and they all felt there was a real danger, that either he had weapons or the components of weapons.

CAVUTO: Where do you think those weapons are now?

GEPHARDT: I don’t know. Hopefully, we’ll find what was there and what wasn't there. I also think we need a blue ribbon commission from the outside, not just Congress, looking at the intelligence.

CAVUTO: But some of your colleagues, sir, have said that the president misled the people. Do you think that this president misled either you or your colleagues about the presence of weapons of mass destruction, or the threat of Iraq, period?

GEPHARDT: I didn't just take his word for it. It may be that, in the end, we find out that the intelligence was not what the CIA thought it was, or even former Clinton administration officials thought it was. That is why we need an outside commission. You are getting into partisan fights now in the intelligence committee. You are never going to solve this that way. We need outside sources.

But let me go further. Put all of that aside. Once we’re there, we cannot fail. We cannot just cut and run and leave the place, as we did Afghanistan in 1989, in chaos. It will be the mother of all terrorist training camps. It will be a continuing source of turmoil and problems not only for the region, but for the United States as well. So we've got to see this through but we need help. The president is failing us by not getting the help we need.

Hussein being in possession of WMD's has been US policy ever since the Gulf War. I guess Gephardt is a hawk too believing that the Iraqi action was in his words, "the right thing to do."

[elwoodblues]

Are you suggesting that the driving force behind the war wasn't the Bush administration??? Our decision to go to war was made by the administration. They got Congressional approval, but they made the decision to go to war.

[Utah]

And just what "US interests" are these?

How about national security to start. How about family, children, and friends? How many planes need to fly into buildings or how many attacks need to be unleashed before you say, "dang, maybe we should do something". Opps - I forgot, you don't care about that. Rather, I am guessing you are your other Hemp wearing friends down at the coffee shop are secretly wishing the U.S. loses in Iraq so you can give a big, "I told you so!". Can we dispense with the "this was for oil" crap. That myth has already been debunked.

Surrender control, Pay reperations, and renounce strategic and economic benefits,

Damn, I just can't see how any of these things are in the US interest. Where did you these points, from the Enemies of the U.S. Talking Points Memo? I am really suprised that you didn't call for a Jihad against the Evil Imperialists of the U.S. as well.

Of course, you haven't done anything of the sort because you think the Great Father in Washington has done it for you. What a fish

I am neither a Republican nor a Bush supporter. Nor am I a big supporter of the war. However, I am a supporter of the US and I dislike it when people like you would rather harm the US than help it.

adjusting for blowback and the loss of Iraqi sovereignty and lives caused by the invasion
I am guessing that you get your news from Al Jezeera or some similar source. So let me enlighten you a little. A majority of the Iraqi population support the war and feel they are now better off than before. Or did you realize that and you are just upset that Sadaam and the Baathists are no longer in power?

[brad]

well, if, as reported in newspapers,etc., we really dont know what happened on 911 (assumed names, aliases, etc., no paper trail)

how can u be so sure u know who was to blame?

seriously.

other than o.b.l. tape which was almost certainly a fake (others were proven to be fakes)

what other evidence is there that this 'al kida' was to blame for 911?

of course tv has said al kida -&gt; 911 like 100000 times, started on 911 itself, so i can see whyh u think that.

'Can we dispense with the "this was for oil" crap. That myth has already been debunked.'

i didnt know that. i do know that the oil facilities were the only thing the US troops protected in iraq when looting was going on.

[Gamblor]

i do know that the oil facilities were the only thing the US troops protected in iraq when looting was going on.

I didn't know you were there. What was it like driving those vans up to the Red Cross buildings?

[brad]

ok obviously you have a dossier on me since u r 3/3 with one intensely personal data item.

just remember, i have guns. dont try anything.

if you poison me or something, please make it a painless one. thank you

[Chris Alger]

"How about national security to start."

There is no "national security" interest that warranted the Iraq war, which is why the public in every country outside the US (and maybe Israel, but I'm not sure) rejected this claim. There is no proof that Saddam Hussein had ever supported terrorism against the U.S. (including trying to kill Bush I), much less 9/11, and no reason to believe he ever would. (Unless, of course, his regime depended on it, but even that has been proven empirically false).

If Saddam's regime was a threat to the national security of the U.S., why couldn't it even threaten all of Iraq?

Flying planes into buildings? Not even Bush makes that claim. It's no different that asking how many planes have to be flown into buildings before we bomb Canada or Japan.

If you think the oil myth has been "debunked," you might want to read some of the many planning documents concerning the nature of US interests in the Middle East, especially the Persian Gulf region.

"Damn, I just can't see how any of these things are in the US interest."

Again with the vague "US interest." Other than the ridiculous one about Iraq being a military threat to the US, what is this thing? Anyway, you will when the victims and their sympathizers get their hands on fissile uranium.

But even if they don't, what kind of terrorist/pirate/gangster justifies a war and military conquest merely because it furthers the "interests" of the conqueror? If by interest you mean material benefits to the U.S. alone, and that these justify the use of military force and continued occupation, then we have to admit that the US is a rapacious power. It follows that the rest of the world is better off by thwarting US imperial efforts, and by almost any means necessary. You seem to think that Americans who welcome this dismal prospect are "patriots."

"A majority of the Iraqi population support the war and feel they are now better off than before."

Better read that poll again. The second part is right, but it's like saying that Eastern Europe was "better off" after its occupation by the Red Army than it was just before. True, but hardly relevant. As for the majority of Iraqis "supporting" the war, you'll find that the question related to whether the post-war situation, including the lifting of tortorous sanctions, was "worth" the war, or something to that effect. Polls show that a majority of Iraqis trust the UN more than the US, that the US will hurt Iraq in coming years, and what the whole world outside the brainwashed US understands intuitively: it's the oil, stupid. Not the supply and not just the flow of petrodollars, but the strategic power that comes from controlling it, as planners have recognized for nearly a century, "one of the great material prizes in history," according to a State Dept. memo of the Truman era.

[MMMMMM]

Utah to Chris Alger:"...A majority of the Iraqi population support the war and feel they are now better off than before. Or did you realize that and you are just upset that Sadaam and the Baathists are no longer in power?"

I would guess that Chris' position is probably that the Iraqis are and will be better off without Saddam and the Baathists, but that it somewhow galls him insufferably that the US freed the Iraqis and that the US had self-interests in so doing. Chris' hatred of US policy seems to eclipse all else; never mind that the average Iraqi is glad to be freed from Saddam--we're the big bad selfish guys so we shouldn't have freed them. Also Chris fears that our self-interested policies will result in nothing better for the Iraqis than their past (though it's hard to see how they could be worse off than under Saddam. I suppose we could always install Count Dracula as their new leader which might arguably be worse).

[MMMMMM]

"If the war was unjustified (which i do think), it was a crime that killed tens of thousands of people and caused billions of dollars of damgage; theoretically crimes which countries are supposed to pay for. Some poeple can see further than "my country right or wrong.""

Always nice to look at only one side of the equation. How about the hundreds of thousands that Saddam killed (and would have kept killing, too, had he remained in power)? Is 10K or 20K lives too many to lose for freedom and to save hundreds of thousands from torture and Stalinis-style murder? WHERE is your sympathy for the Iraqis suffering under Saddam??? I can't see how you can object to 10-20K dying in liberation versus hundreds of thousands dying under a Stalinist regime with correspondent (if not worse) atrocities. Jeez the "sympathetic" attitude of those opposed to the Iraq war sometimes seems to me to be anything but. Hey better to let Saddam kill another 800,000 than sacrifice 10K or so to free them from his grip. WTF.

[ACPlayer]

I think there is enough evidence that has come out since end of combat hostilities to show that either a) the administration was totally incompetent in evaluating the information available in the decision making process - or - b) the decision was made regardless of the information that was available and was based on personal biases (as you put it).

So either we have incompetence or people (American, Italian, British and Iraqi) have been killed for an unknown, unstated agenda. Both of these are dangerous.

It is clear to me that the words used by the administration in selling the war were entirely deceptive -- and that they knew they were deceptive.

It is equally clear that as a result, you and I are more at risk than before the start of the war from a major terrorist incident.

Of course, you get to make up your mind.

[MMMMMM]

What's quite clear is that many things which seem clear to you seem far from clear to me. That's not such a bad thing however.

[ACPlayer]

True, you are clearly entitled to keep your head in your ass.

[MMMMMM]

What seems clear is sometimes a mirage, or due to limited perspective.

I would suggest that the more limited one's perspective, the more likely his view is circumscribed as you describe.

[Chris Alger]

So if Iran had invaded Iraq, the other side of that equation would be the same -- hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam -- and anyone objecting to Iran invading and occupying Iraq, killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process, would be showing no "sympathy for the Iraqis suffering under Saddam?"

Or are Saddam's victims just a cynical excuse for mass murder when the US does it and ultimately irrlevant to the pro-war argument? Note that if you say that a U.S. invasion was comparatively justified because Iraq under Iranian rule would be worse than Iraq under U.S. rule, the answer to this second question has to be yes.

BTW, just how many thousands of people, approximately, did Saddam kill since his campaign to regain control after the Gulf War? That is, how many in the last eight years or so? And on what basis to you project hundreds of thousands killed by him in the future in the absence of a U.S. invasion?

And, for the umpteenth time, given that the U.S. supported Saddam while he was on some of the worst of his murder sprees, how do you know that the conquest of Iraq will prevent another Iraq government with U.S. support from doing it again?

Note that if you don't have a good basis for answering these questions, you're argument is so much dishonest empty rhetoric. You keep making the same tired arguments, unable to advance the ball past the one yard line. You're actually more effective at illustrating the stupidty of the pro-war arguments than I am.

[Chris Alger]

"it somewhow galls him insufferably that the US freed the Iraqis"

Right, we "freed" them by military occupation, forcing them to obey U.S. orders at gunpoint, appointing all members of the Iraqi Governing Council, which is powerless in any event given the veto power of the Coalition Provisional Authority headed by Paul Bremer as effective Viceroy. So we "freed" them in the same sense that the Soviet Union "freed" Eastern Europe, or the European colonial powers freed their target countries throughout Asia and Africa by invading, occupying, writing their laws, killing those who resisted, etc.

If we fought this war to "free" Iraq, why do you suppose the original plan was to force a Constitution approved only by referendum prior to letting Iraqis elect their own lawmakers?

How can Iraq possibly be "free" from U.S. domination if the U.S. won't allow the free Iraqis to elect their "sovereign" government scheduled to take power next June, and won't allow any national elections prior to 2005, three years after they've become "free"?

[MMMMMM]

Chris, all those arguments are obvious. Also obvious are that projecting Saddam's future murders to be more than the cost in lives of the Iraq war is not hard, given his terrible history; nor is it likely that a replacement government condoned by the US will be as bad or worse than Saddam's, given his monstrousness. You're raising objections in which the scenarios are rather far-fetched, IMO.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make with your Iran comparison, but I somehow suspect it's not entirely apropos, or even truly parallel.

[MMMMMM]

"Right, we "freed" them by military occupation, forcing them to obey U.S. orders at gunpoint, appointing all members of the Iraqi Governing Council, which is powerless in any event given the veto power of the Coalition Provisional Authority headed by Paul Bremer as effective Viceroy. So we "freed" them in the same sense that the Soviet Union "freed" Eastern Europe, or the European colonial powers freed their target countries throughout Asia and Africa by invading, occupying, writing their laws, killing those who resisted, etc."

Somehow I think we are a bit less like the USSR in this case and a bit more like the USA in postwar Japan or Germany. It's also absurd to say that freeing the Iraqis from Saddam's true tyranny is equivalent to the Soviets taking over Eastern Europe and calling it freedom. Shame on that comparison, Chris.

If we fought this war to "free" Iraq, why do you suppose the original plan was to force a Constitution approved only by referendum prior to letting Iraqis elect their own lawmakers?

How can Iraq possibly be "free" from U.S. domination if the U.S. won't allow the free Iraqis to elect their "sovereign" government scheduled to take power next June, and won't allow any national elections prior to 2005, three years after they've become "free"?"

Because a Constitution is necesary before their democracy unfoldsdemocracy, and because if they were to have an election prior to a Constitution and vote for Islamic law (Shar'ia), there would never be another election because under Shar'ia all power rests eternally with the clergy who interpret the laws of Allah as written in the scriptures, and this is the law of the land. In other words there has to be a secular Constitution in place first or in coming years there very well might not be any democracy, or any Constitution other than the Koran. Also a reasonable degree of security must first be established; a country in civil war or under constant attack by insurgents is not in much of a position to draft a Constitution or grow a nascent democracy.

[Chris Alger]

"Somehow I think we are a bit less like the USSR in this case and a bit more like the USA in postwar Japan or Germany."

So insted of being "free" in any objective, rational sense of that word, such as having a right to demonnstrate and dissent, to elect ther own officials and make their own laws, they are free if the tyranny is "a bit less" than what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe, or any worse occupier elsewhere. Anything short of the worst occupations means "freedom" for the occupied. Once again, your arguments amount to nonsensical doublespeak.

Your advocacy of a "secular" Constitution regardless of whether it reflects the democratic aspirations of Iraqis is also consistent with your definition of "democracy:" Iraq can be "democratic" as long as it does what the U.S. wants it to do (just like in Eastern Europe under the Russians).

Do have any evidence for your theory that the U.S. has refused to allow elections until 2005 because of the threat of Shar'ia (such as why they can't hold elections and disallow dead-end "this is the last election you'll ever see" candidates), or is the just some excuse you made up to justify U.S. tyranny?

[nicky g]

"and ultimately kicked them out"

He didn't. The inspectors left because they claimed they couldn't get their jobs done properly because of Iraqi intransigience. That's not the same as being expelled.

As to why he was uncooperative - I don't know. But the primary dispute that led to the inspectors' withdrawal was over access to Saddam's palaces. Apart from the clear pride and sovereignty issues, given that the UN had already admitted that the weapons inspector teams had been infiltrated by US intelligence, it's not a huge surpirse that Iraq would not want them to have carte blanche to go wherever they wanted.

[nicky g]

I wasn't arguing about the justification of the war here. Utah's point was that, even if the war was unjustified, it would be wrong to support the US having to pay in any way for its actions; that US "interests" overrode any notion of right or wrong. You think the war is justified; fine. But you'll at least agree that if the US carried out an unjustified war. there would be a case for reperations etc; no? That's what I was disputing.

As for the cost:benefit ratio: estimates are that the war killed between 20 and 50000 people. The upper end is 1/6 of the upper end of the estimates of the number of people Saddam killed in 20 years. That's quite a kill rate. A massive chunk of the death toll caused by Saddam were Kurds killed in the Anfal campaign. Given that Saddam no longer had control over most of Kurdish Iraq, and that his state was weak to the point of being completely unable to defend itself, I don't think there's any question Saddam could or would have in the future caused anything like the destruction he carried out in the late 80s. That destruction in itself was only possible because of Western support and aquiescence, in the case of both the Anfal campaign and the suppression of the Southern uprising following the Gulf War.

Of course all this ignores the numbers killed by sanctions, the first Gulf war and so on, which in total far surpasses Saddam's death toll. The people responsible for such carnage should not be the people running Iraq any more than Saddam Hussein should.

My other reason for objecting to the war is that there is now no semblance of international law or set out conditions for intervention. The previous arrangement was badly flawed and was long overdue for reform, but the new situation whereby the powerful can openly wage war in defiance of any sort of rules at will is much worse.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Plus he's anti-online poker

Find me a politician other than Barney Frank (and likely Ron Paul) who isn't.

[ACPlayer]

I will offer one US condoned govt for you to consider- Iran and the Shah. Not just condoned BTW, the Shah was actively supported by the CIA.

Now, have you heard of the SAVAK?

I know you rarely let history get in the way of your thinking but perhaps, just perhaps, this thought will open your eyes.

[Gamblor]

There is no "national security" interest that warranted the Iraq war, which is why the public in every country outside the US (and maybe Israel, but I'm not sure) rejected this claim.

What intelligence does the public have to fairly assess the security threat posed by Hussein?

Furthermore, which governments with significant intelligence presences and no vested interest (read: not France/Russia) in the perpetuation of Hussein's regime have admitted no security threat?

[Utah]

follows that the rest of the world is better off by thwarting US imperial efforts, and by almost any means necessary.

Simple question - is that what you hope the world does?

[MMMMMM]

"So insted of being "free" in any objective, rational sense of that word, such as having a right to demonnstrate and dissent, to elect ther own officials and make their own laws, they are free if the tyranny is "a bit less" than what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe, or any worse occupier elsewhere. Anything short of the worst occupations means "freedom" for the occupied. Once again, your arguments amount to nonsensical doublespeak."

The Japanese under McArthur weren't free at first either but they got there finally after reconstruction efforts succeeded, and ended up far better off than they had under Imperial Japanese rule. And saying Iraqis are only "a bit less" free than those under Soviet bloc rule is very misleading because degree does matter a lot, and because it is only a temporary condition until things are stabilized.

"Your advocacy of a "secular" Constitution regardless of whether it reflects the democratic aspirations of Iraqis is also consistent with your definition of "democracy:" Iraq can be "democratic" as long as it does what the U.S. wants it to do (just like in Eastern Europe under the Russians)."

No, I'm just recognizing the fact that Shar'ia is incompatible with democracy. Turkey is secular and that's why they are able to blend Islam with democracy. If they were non-secular and totally under Islamic law (Shar'ia) they would not be a democracy because Shar'ia is a religious absolutist system of law and governance. And again I'll say that comparing temporary US governance of Iraq is more akin to what occurred in postwar Japan than to Soviet bloc domination. You truly have a warped view of history and the world.

"Do have any evidence for your theory that the U.S. has refused to allow elections until 2005 because of the threat of Shar'ia (such as why they can't hold elections and disallow dead-end "this is the last election you'll ever see" candidates), or is the just some excuse you made up to justify U.S. tyranny?"

It's one of many reasons I recall reading.

I think you should really reconsider your hatred of the US, Chris. Others are far more deserving of such, and the US has done a lot of good too (although imperfect). And as a matter of fact we recently did, and are doing, a lot of good in Iraq (although the Saddam holdouts and jihad lunatics are making things hard on everyone. Why don't you launch into a tirade about what these bastards are doing now: attacking innocent Iraqis and tearing down the country and infrastrucuture).

[MMMMMM]

"...but the new situation whereby the powerful can openly wage war in defiance of any sort of rules at will is much worse."

Sorry if this bursts your bubble, nicky, but there's nothing new about this. That's the way it always has been and probably always will be. The U.N. didn't succeed in stopping any wars that I can think of offhand. Didn't stop the Soviets from going into Afghanistan, didn't stop...etc...you get the picture. Rules mean little or nothing when the powerful or aggressive decide to do something...that's history. And putting your faith in rules is foolish for that very reason.

[ACPlayer]

So, suggesting that the "aggressive" tactics of the insurgents should not be treated as war crimes as some have called for. Rules clearly mean little or nothing.

[MMMMMM]

Of course I've heard of SAVAK and the Shah. But that was then, this is now. And we're talking about Iraq today, not Iran 30 years ago. Our goal today is to have a democratic Iraq, not a strongman-ruled Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

"So, suggesting that the "aggressive" tactics of the insurgents should not be treated as war crimes as some have called for. Rules clearly mean little or nothing."

Another brilliancy, ACPlayer!/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Anyway, the insurgents should not be charged with war crimes, they should be shot.

[ACPlayer]

The goal then was the same as now, to protect our oil interests and other interests.

[MMMMMM]

"The goal then was the same as now, to protect our oil interests and other interests."

And getting the Middle East to convert to democracy will do more to ensure that goal than would having strongmen in place as leaders. See why we want democracy there now instead of dictators?

[nicky g]

Why don't you want democracies in Egypt or Uzbekistan or Jordan or Saudi Arabia - all countries that enormous pressure could be put on to democratise without going to war?

[Chris Alger]

[Chris Alger]

So I take it you agree that the Iraqis are in the same situatino as the Japanese "at first," meaning that you are admitting that your use of the term "free" to describe Iraqis now, a condition that you contend I despise, was in fact a misnomer, at best premature conjecture. Now you're suggesting that Iraq has not been "freed" in any meaningful sense of the term, and that it depends on future U.S. actions. Right?

So, looking into your crystal ball, how do you know that the U.S. will act like the liberators of Japan or the tyrant-maintainers of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Congo and Central America?

"No, I'm just recognizing the fact that Shar'ia is incompatible with democracy."

You're changing it from your insistence on "secular" to limiting it to a Shar'ia dictatorship, which of course raises the obvious question I asked but you can't answer: why does the threat of an elected dictatorship mean the U.S. can't structure elections right now in a fashion that eliminates or minimizes the "threat," and how will waiting until 2005 accomplish it?

All you are doing is making up "nice" reasons that might explain U.S. motives and actions and ignoring more obvious realities. The U.S. has material and strategic interests in Iraq, as you have admitted many times before. It is committed to maintaining and furthering them and has devoted substantial resources to this endeavor. These intersts not only do not coincide but to some extent, many argue a great extent, conflict with those of the Iraqi people. Among them are US and private control over the Iraqi government and public resources. These postulates amount to the most elementary terms of any discussion on this topic.

But you have again shown that you can't even get through the door of Iraq 101. When I say U.S. and Iraqi interests are not aligned, you go berserk, and can only respond with the pointless accusation that I must "hate" the U.S. That's an fairly amazing example of successful and debilitating brainwashing.

[Utah]

"Not neccessarily" is certainly not the same thing as "no" now is it.

Therefore, one is to assume from your comment that there are situations when you want the world to fight the U.S., kill our soldiers and citizens, inflict economic harm, damage our national security, etc.

Since you added the "by any means neccessary" clause, I am very curious - give me the criteria under which you want the world to attack us.

Even the nuttiest Democrats don't espouse you goal of purposely hurting the U.S.

If advocating a policy of hurting the U.S. is not unamerican, I don't know what is.

[Gamblor]

[Chris Alger]

This is absolutely correct. The NY Times recently had to print a retraction of a claim that Saddam "expelled" the inspectors. You see it all the time anyway.

There's more. Saddam restricted access of American but not other UN inspectors after the NY Times, W. Post and Boston Globe published detailed accounts about how the US was using the inspections process for espionage. He allowed the inspectors to remain as long as they weren't Americans.

The US response was Operation Desert Fox, a 100-hour bombing campaign. It was preceded by a submission of a draft report by Richard Butler, UNSCOM's head, intended for the UN Security Council but apparently given to the White House first, and then rewritten at Clinton's request to make it harsher on Iraq. Butler's final report was delivered to the UN 9 hours before the bombing began.

On the day prior to the bombing, the US Ambassador to the UN asked Richard Butler, head of UNSCOM, to withdraw his inspectors. Butler complied without even informing the Security Council for whom he ostensibly worked.

[Chris Alger]

"one is to assume from your comment that there are situations when you want the world to fight the U.S., kill our soldiers and citizens, inflict economic harm, damage our national security, etc."

Name one.

[ACPlayer]

We have no interest in democracy in the middle east. Take our friendships with Saudi, Egypt etc. We have interest in having governments that do what we want them to do, even if they supress and repress.

We sow the seeds of terrorism with these idiotic actions and are sowing seeds in Iraq that will be biting us for years to come. Ask the parents of those who died since major combat is over.

[MMMMMM]

"So I take it you agree that the Iraqis are in the same situatino as the Japanese "at first," meaning that you are admitting that your use of the term "free" to describe Iraqis now, a condition that you contend I despise, was in fact a misnomer, at best premature conjecture. Now you're suggesting that Iraq has not been "freed" in any meaningful sense of the term, and that it depends on future U.S. actions. Right?"

LOL, no, I was just taking issue with your comparing it to Soviet domiation of Eastern Europe and saying if you had to use an analogy, the reconstruction of Japan might be more appropriate (even though that is not a very good analogy overall either). The Iraqis have however been freed from Saddam (mostly...still need to crush the remaining Saddamite holdouts/insurgents to truly finish that task). The US is not "dominating" the Iraqis like the Soviets did Eastern Europe; it's not even close. We are striving to buld their country and bring them freedom whereas the Soviets were striving to imprison whole damn countries.

"So, looking into your crystal ball, how do you know that the U.S. will act like the liberators of Japan or the tyrant-maintainers of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Congo and Central America?"

The chances are excellent that the US will because we now see that a democratic revolution in the Middle East (provided it is secular) is the best chance for long-term stability and is in our best interests. Also we no longer have the USSR to fight a Cold War with.

"You're changing it from your insistence on "secular" to limiting it to a Shar'ia dictatorship, which of course raises the obvious question I asked but you can't answer: why does the threat of an elected dictatorship mean the U.S. can't structure elections right now in a fashion that eliminates or minimizes the "threat," and how will waiting until 2005 accomplish it?

All you are doing is making up "nice" reasons that might explain U.S. motives and actions and ignoring more obvious realities. The U.S. has material and strategic interests in Iraq, as you have admitted many times before. It is committed to maintaining and furthering them and has devoted substantial resources to this endeavor. These intersts not only do not coincide but to some extent, many argue a great extent, conflict with those of the Iraqi people. Among them are US and private control over the Iraqi government and public resources. These postulates amount to the most elementary terms of any discussion on this topic.

But you have again shown that you can't even get through the door of Iraq 101. When I say U.S. and Iraqi interests are not aligned, you go berserk, and can only respond with the pointless accusation that I must "hate" the U.S. That's an fairly amazing example of successful and debilitating brainwashing."

Iraq isn't ready for elections until a Constitution is drafted, and the country needs further stabilization.

A free secular democratic Iraq would be good for us, the Iraqis, and the Middle East. In this our interests converge very nicely.

[MMMMMM]

I do...whatever made you think I don't?

[MMMMMM]

"We have no interest in democracy in the middle east.
"

I believe this statement is quite erroneous.

[MMMMMM]

I suspect Alger is an anti-American revolutionary leftist, not unlikely a communist.

I am confident, based on his past postings, that he is a strong sympathizer of Palestinian terrorists.

Fortunately he and his ilk are losing ideological ground to grassroots America--the people are waking up to the nonsense of Leftism and realizing it is one big pile of bullcrap. They can keep indoctrinating our youth in the universities, but as most graduates get out in the real world it doesn't take them very long to realize what works and what doesn't. The ones who persist in Leftist beliefs are generally the ones insulated in positions as politicians, bureaucrats or professors. I guess it's easy to be a Leftist when you only have to worry about allocating resources instead of producing them. Note that I am not talking about the development of human beings as resources (professors cobtribute to this) but rather the allocation of material goods and services versus the production of the same. Professors have an insular environment of a different sort but I suspect it is very easy for economics professors and political science professors to focus on alocation rather than production. Note too that allocation produces nothing and has implementation costs whereas production actually creates increase.

[Gamblor]

While he has yet to answer many of my questions regarding the debunking of the national security myth, I suppose I ought to throw something else out there.

Anti-American Revolutionary Leftist is all well and good but what does that mean? Does that explain all that is Chris Alger?

I'm more curious to figure out why he thinks what he thinks (perhaps he was bullied in high school and identifies with who he perceives to be the weak), and what he'd like to see.

Often times, people impose their values and motives on others, which often clouds their interpretations of others' actions. Perhaps it's that.

I'd personally like know how Chris Alger thinks the world would be if he were in charge. Rainbows and fairies and leprechauns dancing on Lollipop Lane, if I read him correctly.

Ultimately we do know this: he's nuts. How's that for a label?

[Chris Alger]

"What intelligence does the public have to fairly assess the security threat posed by Hussein?"

The intelligence provided by the public's intelligence agencies through their elected officials.

"Furthermore, which governments with significant intelligence presences and no vested interest (read: not France/Russia) in the perpetuation of Hussein's regime have admitted no security threat?"

Most of them. If you want to tally it up, read the General Assembly debates. And how does the U.S. have no "vested interest" in Iraq?

[brad]

'Therefore, one is to assume from your comment that there are situations when you want the world to fight the U.S., kill our soldiers and citizens, inflict economic harm, damage our national security, etc.

...

Even the nuttiest Democrats don't espouse you goal of purposely hurting the U.S.

If advocating a policy of hurting the U.S. is not unamerican, I don't know what is.
'

i guess you dont realize this is official US policy. look up p2og.

---------------------------------

'P2OG would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction, meaning it would prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to "quick-response" attacks by US forces. The means by which it would do this is the far greater use of special operations forces. '

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/P2OG.html

[ACPlayer]

Actually you have demonstrated a very clear liberal, leftist bias in your postings. Your foreign policy views are hardly those of a classical conservative.

[MMMMMM]

I've long said that my views are too liberal for most liberals, and that most liberals today don't even know what liberal really means. They also might frequently confuse my views with conservatism. I definitely am not a leftist, and I'm definitely not a consefvative. I don't think leftists are really liberals either.

By the way, I view most liberals today as being interested in controlling others, rather than in allowing everyone to do what they wish provided they are not hurting anyone else. To me the true meaning of liberal is closer to "to allow" rather than to "to control." But most liberals today seem to get it backwards, I think: they want to control the rights of others to defend themselves, they want to control the money of others, to control others' speech, to legislate "hate crimes" (thought crimes), etc. What a sad perversion of liberal thought. Liberals who want to control others are in some ways worse than conservatives who want to control others because they are also deluded into thinking that they are liberals.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not so much throwing those terms out as labels or pejoratives but rather as observations or likely conclusions drawn from many postings. Also I don't mean them in a limiting sense, and I'll still wish Chris a happy Thanksgiving. Just hope he someday realizes the extent of his leftist delusions; that is, the generally warped nature of most conclusions drawn by the left, and the generally impossible prescriptions they concoct as purported remedies for all manner of financial and social ills;-)

[ACPlayer]

hey want to control the rights of others to defend themselves, they want to control the money of others, to control others' speech, to legislate "hate crimes" (thought crimes), etc.

But this is exactly what you talk about.

You want to defend Iraqi's rather than letting them sort out their own mess.

You want to have the US interests (read oil, hence money) as one of the reasons to invade iraq.

You are opposed to Iraqi's establishing Sharia rules if that is what they want to do. That is you want to control their speech.

This is why I said you were left leaning liberal on foreign policy. You want your way on others -- that is not conservative thinking. That is the elitist thinking, not that of professors living in ivory towers but that of an american living in a protected tower.

[MMMMMM]

"You want to defend Iraqi's rather than letting them sort out their own mess."

They CAN'T sort out their own mess when they are under the heel of a tyrant who employs Stalinist tactics on a grand scale...why isn't this obvious? And were they any closer to "sorting out their mess" one year ago than they were 30 years ago? No, the secret police and Baathist thugs still wielded control by terror and murder.

"You want to have the US interests (read oil, hence money) as one of the reasons to invade iraq."

What are you talking about? Oil is part of the world economy. Ensuring oil can reach the market is good for everyone, including the sellers of that oil. If we can't buy the oil and they can't sell it that is good for nobody. What are they going to do, bathe in their surplus oil? Take showers in it? No...they are going to sell i for hard currency to buy other things they need. Trade benefits all parties, and ensuring free access to world trade benefits both buyer and seller. Also, allowing a tyrant to develop the means threaten the world's oil supplies is foolish. Saddam tried to ruin the oil before and if he had the means he might well hold it up for destruction as blackmail.

You are opposed to Iraqi's establishing Sharia rules if that is what they want to do."

Because first of all, you cannot have a tyranny of the majority--do you understand what that means? If all the right-handed people in the USA voted to take all the money away from all left-handed people, and steal their houses, and enslave them and maybe even kill them, should that be done just because it is voted upon and the vote was yes? This is why a Constitution protecting everyone's rights is necessary--to protect every individual. Under Shar'ia, women are virtually enslaved, non-Muslims have far fewer rights than Muslims, and the rule of the clergy in courts is the highest authority. Shar'ia is not a system that protects individuals' rights, and once implemented, it doesn't then say "hey let's have an election every 4 years to determine if we still want to keep Shar'ia." Nope, once implementeed you can toss all hopes of equality before the law or religious freedom straight out the window. The next generation doesn't get to vote on it either. So beware when you say "what the Iraqis want to do" if by that you refer to allowing one group of Iraqis to control and subjugate all the other Iraqis.

"That is you want to control their speech."

Huh? Shar'ia wants to control their speech (and dress, and times of prayer, and what religion is legal, and whether women's testimony in court counts for less than a man's, etc...)...not me.

"This is why I said you were left leaning liberal on foreign policy. You want your way on others -- that is not conservative thinking. That is the elitist thinking, not that of professors living in ivory towers but that of an american living in a protected tower."

I don't "want my way on others." I just want everyone to have their rights as individuals protected.

Wow I cannot believe that anyone can manage to interpret what I write as you do, or to offer the sort of arguments that you do.

Resisting tyranny is not itself tyranny, and standing up for the rights of all people is not seeking to "control them." Anyone with an IQ over 80 should be able to realize this.

[andyfox]

And you thought landing on the aircraft carrier was a cheap, er, expensive, stunt.

I'd like to see him land in L.A. and have turkey with the troops at the Midnight Mission. Now that would be an act of bravery.

[ACPlayer]

Yes and Teddy Kennedy has all sorts of "rational" explanations for why midnight basketball programs are good. As does Hilary for her favorite lets help those who cant help themselves. As does Barney and Daschle and MMMMMM.

Bottom line- you want to implement do-gooder, bleeding heart programs around the world, they want to implement them in this country.

Left leaning commie all of you. Not to omention pinko liberals.

These things dont work here, they wont work abroad. And the evidence is in, they are not working in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Chris Alger]

"They CAN'T sort out their own mess when they are under the heel of a tyrant who employs Stalinist tactics on a grand scale...why isn't this obvious?"

Because most tyrants are replaced or overthrown peacefully or with minimal violence. Why isn't that obvious? This would especially be the case if the process is furthered along or the hamrs mitigated by a superpower motivated by real concerns for human rights and democracy, rather than one like the U.S.

[adios]

Hi Bill,

Dubya does have a winning issue here I believe. When push comes to shove so to speak and the voting public is faced with putting their security in the hands of Dean or Dubya I think Dubya wins on that issue very easily. All the Republicans have to do is point out that Clinton's weak responses to overt terrorist actions against the US during his administration lead to 9/11. The liar, liar pants on fire refrain that many Bush opponents espouse won't get the Democrats very far since so many of them in Congress voted to authorize Bush's actions in Iraq. Democratic members of Congress had a lot of access to intelligence data and such. They can hardly say they were duped. Also as stated before, the Clinton administration basically stated and held that Iraq had WMDs. I've already posted the Gephardt interview as an example of where Democratic leaders in Congress stand. When the primary season ends, the Dean exit strategy for Iraq will get a lot of scrutiny.

The Democrats might have a chance to win in November if the economy is poor but that seems to be an issue that is becoming moot. No doubt the job growth issue will come up but there's several mitigating factors there. First of all, the people that are out of work probably wouldn't vote for Bush anyway. Second of all I think it's called something like the individual household survey shows that there actually not nearly as many jobs lost in the economy as is commonly stated. Third of all employment is a lagging economic indicator. In order to create jobs there has to be rising business investment and we're seeing an increase there in 2003. The Bush administration accelerated depreciation inititiaves passed over the strenuous objections of Democrats in Congress is helping immensly there. The biggest reason why the Democrats will lose is that Dean will run on raising taxes and that's political suicide. In fact name me a leading Democratic candidate that won't run on raising taxes. Dean portrays himself as a fiscal conservative but his raise taxes policies will allow him to be portrayed as a tax and spend liberal. The other Democratic hopeful nominees make no bones about being tax and spend liberals. When the Republicans have a target to shoot at so to speak I think they'll get into high gear and it will be an easy campaign really.

adios

[adios]

Out of curiosity where did Howard Dean spend his time during Thanksgiving dinner? How about Gephardt? How about Kerry? How about Lieberman? If they didn't spend their Thanksgiving time with the homeless is that equally as bad?

[nicky g]

"I do...whatever made you think I don't? "

In the post I was responding to, you wrote:

"See why we want democracy there now instead of dictators?"

By "we" I assume you meant "the US"; when I wrote "you" I didn't mean you personally, I was responding to your "we". As far as I can see, while starting a war to impose "democracy" on Iraq, the US has done precious little to persuade its Middle Eastern and Central Asian allies and beneficiaries to democratise. Rather, it's been quietly doing things such as removing Uzbekistan from its freedom of religion abusers list in return for its material support in the "war on terror". If Bush was serious about spreading democracy he might start by pressurising Egypt for example, rather than launching a massively costly and dangerous war in Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

We should and probably will try to get the whole Middle East to democratize, but one thing at a time, I guess. Iraq is central anbd strategic in many ways.

[MMMMMM]

We also have strategic interests in the region, and Iraq can serve as a central vantage point from which to launch raids against the terror masters. So we are acting in our own best interests as well as in the Iraqis' best interests. I agree it may be hard to implement and perhaps impossible to maintain but that will remain to be seen. You seem to be suggesting that the Middle Easterners can't handle democracy and constitutional protection of the rights of individuals, and that working toward such ends is bleeding heart pinkoism. I don't quite see the connection but I'm sure you do.

[Gamblor]

And how does the U.S. have no "vested interest" in Iraq?

I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

I asked which countries that have no vested interest in the perpetuation of Mr. Hussein's regime

Reading Comprehension grade: F.

[MMMMMM]

"Because most tyrants are replaced or overthrown peacefully or with minimal violence. Why isn't that obvious?"

Yeah right, just like the people rose up and deposed Stalin, and Mao, and Castro, and Saddam, ....

Once a dictator establishes firm control and employs Stalinist tactics on a widespread scale, they often last a long, long time. Why isn't this obvious?

Dream us another one.

[Gamblor]

You are opposed to Iraqi's establishing Sharia rules if that is what they want to do

This is the one that got me.

If the majority wants to establish Shari'a law, then by all means, establish Shari'a law.

When the Romans destroyed the second temple in 77 AD, they happened upon a school for Torah run by the Rabbi Hillel. They, attempting to humiliate him, asked him to repeat the whole Torah while standing on one foot, and if he couldn't do it, he would be killed.

He simply replied "Love thy neighbour as thyself. The rest is just details."

The gist (outside the obvious) is that I have all the rights in the world. However, my rights end where yours begin. Therefore, you want Sharia law in your land, that's fine. But I'm entitled to a land where Jewish law reigns as well, and I don't tell you how to run your land, and you don't tell me how to run mine.

[MMMMMM]

"If the majority wants to establish Shari'a law, then by all means, establish Shari'a law."

I can't agree, and here's an example why: if the majority of people in the USA want to reinstate black slavery, should it be done?

Shar'ia oppresses women terribly. Should men by law have far more rights than women, just because the majority might vote that way?

Have you actually read much about what Shar'ia entails? It is an extremely unbalanced and oppressive system which does not respect human rights, and it has no provision built into it for future alterations (such as we in the USA can amend the Constitution if needed). The purpose of Shar'ia is to enforce the Koran as the ultimate law of the land and the clergy have the highest political power in interpreting what the Koran means. So why should a majority be able to legally horribly oppress any minority or another group (oppressed groups under Shar'ia include women and all non-Muslims). This is why a secular Constitution is necessary else we're living in the Dark Ages. Equal protection under the law is vital under any political system or else huge groups end up being oppressed. I would guess even in Israel if a non-Jewish person is in court facing criminal charges, that equal protection under the law still applies. Likewise if a woman in Israel clsaims rape she does not need 4 male witnesses to the act to vouch for her, else she will be open to adultery charges. And surely in Israel a woman's testimony in court counts as much as a man's, whereas under Shar'ia it doesn't.

If Jews in Germany had equal protection under the law the holocaust would not have happened. See what happens when you let a majority take equal protection under the law away from any group of citizens or from individuals.

[ACPlayer]

It depends on whether you want the people of Iraq to determine their future or have it determined for them.

MMMMMM clearly is a do-gooder type who thinks his way is the best and that we should all follow it.

The Bush administration wants to protect its oil interests and friends in big corporations so it will do everything possible (including installing a Shah of Iraq if needed) to ensure that happens.

[MMMMMM]

LOL. You completely ignore the argument that a Constitution is necessary to prevent a majority from oppressing a minority. Try applying your argument and see where it leads. According to your thinking, if the South wanted slavery, the North shouldn't have interfered, because after all, that's what the people of the South voted for and wanted. Never mind that the minority (Negroes) couldn't vote against it or, if they could, would have been badly outvoted)). And according to your logic, if the people of Germany wanted to strip the Jews of their rights (and after that their lives), they should have been able to do so, because that's where the votes led. And according to your thinking, "the people of Iraq" apparently constitutes only the majority--I guess the minorities aren't people too, eh, ACPlayer? So if the majority of Iraqis were to vote for Shar'ia which oppresses women and non-Muslims, they should be free to install Shar'ia and oppress women and non-Muslims, because only the majority counts. Non-majorities shouldn't have inalienable rights if the majority decides to strip them of those rights, eh, ACPlayer?

Any more pro-tyranny arguments?

[ACPlayer]

Come on.

The mess we have landed in will be one that we will be paying for for years to come. Dont you get it, the heavy handed tactics and the caring only for self-interest, but is actually a form of exploitation, is what has got us into this mess and we are continuing it.

People dont want outsiders coming to fix their problems. This is even more true in societies that go back thousands of years and have a strong independent streak.

[MMMMMM]

They want us there and they don't want us there. But they couldn't fix their own problems living under tyranny. And of course we have interests there: that's one reason we could afford to do something expensive there which helps the Iraqi people as well as ourselves.

[ACPlayer]

Yes, and to this day the South resents the north for what it did. And they are a part of the US. How much resentment would there be amongst a people thousands of miles away for the thousands of people there that we have killed.

The people of Iraq are strong, independent and intelligent. They will establish a society and way of life for themselves. It would be nice if it was a constitutional democracy, but we must not impose that on them.

Remember that the US evolved from an elitist democracy where landowners were the ones who could vote to where we are now. We did this without outside interference. Others can do the same.

Further examples: India rescued itself from the British. South Africans rescued themselves from Apartheid. China has evolved and continues to evolve to include more freedoms. Iran is slowly moving from a US sponsored dictatorship to a freer society - it will get there over time.

Self determination by a society is a good thing and is the only way to make it work. Zealots bringing an idealogy however good, in the context of their home society, are usually despised.

If we want to do ourselves some good, instead of killing people in Iraq, work with our "good friends" in Saudi, Egypt etc to hold real, fair elections and transform those societies. Establish good relations with Iran (rather than axis of evil rhetoric) as they become trading partners, their societies will open up (we have done something like this with China and it has helped).

[andyfox]

Howard Dean dressed up his turkey in a condederate flag and told it he wanted its vote. Gephardt didn't know it was Thanksgiving. Lieberman moved his turkey to the right of all the other turkeys (pun intended). And Kerry fired his.

[MMMMMM]

You make some good points but I am not sure if you realize the extent of legal discrimination that exists under Shar'ia. Things like non-Muslims not being allowed to vote, women not being allowed to vote (or their vote count less), unequal protection in courts of law, non-Muslim poll tax, etc. Shar'ia is very, very backwards and a big step back in time for any secular society. Worse, there is no mechanism within Shar'ia for re-evaluation it once it is imposed. The clerics become the highest legal authority in the land and their judgments cannot be overturned in courts of law: they ARE the highest court.

Also, I think you put too much faith in the ability of a people to throw off severe tyranny. It didn't happen under any Stalinist dictators that I can think of, and it wasn't anywhere near happening under Saddam. True Stalinist systems are incredibly hard to crack, and absent an outside force, it just doesn't seem to happen--at least not for many many decades of slow change. But we can't wait many more decades or the lunatics in the Middle East will get the Bomb.

[nicky g]

"But we can't wait many more decades or the lunatics in the Middle East will get the Bomb. "

Too late! Sharon's got about 200.

[ACPlayer]

I despise the excesses of Sharia as a form of government. In fact, I despise any form of religious govt.

However, I uphold the dignity of self determination as extremely important and in the long run the only way to go.

The west has collectively mistreated the islamic countries, either by supporting the tyrants who run them or by supporting countries who terrorize them. The muslim countries have equally well mismanaged their handling of world affairs -- they mishandled the Palestinian debates in the UN for example. As a group the muslim countries are the most backward in the world (I know you blame them for their inability to prosper, but that is a separate question).

Now, as a defense mechanism the Muslims turn back to their faith for support. THat is a human reaction. However, the urge to be free is also a human reation.

Look at Iran, it went from a Stalinist govt (overthrown from inside incidentally) the pendulum swung wildly back to the fundamentalist religious end and now we can see it swinging back to the middle a little. We in the west do nothing to help this swing back to the middle, on the contrary, talk of invading Iran will only make it go back towards more fundamentalist roots. The awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to the Iranian activist -- now that was a good thing for the progress of Iran.

[MMMMMM]

Well there is a fundamental conflict between "the dignity of self-determination" as regards the majority or as regards all individuals. I don't think allowing the majority to strip rights and dignity from the minority is a very good definition of "self-determination." Unless of course you don't view the minorities as being equally entitled to "self-determination."

[MMMMMM]

But he's not a full lunatic.

[ACPlayer]

No, it is self determination by the society as a whole.

It is a mistake to think that minority populations dont influence society. Look at the US -- minority slaves took on and overcame their masters. Women got the right to vote, blacks got the right to vote. Now we have Spanish as almost an official language in the country.

I grant you that it takes time and that during that time there are excesses. But, IMO, the process is far more likely to achieve a truly stable society and member of the world community than an imposed ideal that has not come from within.

[nicky g]

I disagree. I'll give you that he's not a full deck.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and to this day the South resents the north for what it did. And they are a part of the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are certainly creative lately AC, I live in the south and the only northerner I resent is you. This hardly qualifies as the south resents the north.

[Vehn]

Out of mild curiousity, how exactly did Israel get nukes?

Why were they allowed to have them?

[MMMMMM]

Maybe, maybe not. Japan and Germany certainy adapted to and flourished far better under "an imposed ideal that has not come from within."

[ACPlayer]

LOL. I am not even a northerner, tho i live here now.

[Chris Alger]

Because Saddam had already lasted "a long time," thanks in part to the U.S., and most dictators and tyrants, especially in modern times, are overthrown without the need of war.

[Wake up CALL]

".....most dictators and tyrants, especially in modern times, are overthrown without the need of war. "

What do they do Chris? Throw them a surprise birthday party and then spike their punch, then overthrow their government whilst they are sleeping?

Of course the majority these involve wars, perhaps not with smart bombs but wars indeed!

[ACPlayer]

Lets see: Uganda, Iran, Poland, Serbia(this could be argued, i suppose), Russia, Zia of Pakistan, South Africa, come to mind where to a lesser or greater extent iron fisted rulers were overcome from inside.

A number of countries got their liberation from the colonizers (britain, portugal, etc) examples include India, Mozambique, many others without the big uncle sam(or any other uncle) benevolently riding to the rescue.

You guys underestimate the will of the people in getting things to work they want them to. It does however take some time.

[hetron]

Why exactly is this disastrous for US interests? On the contrary, it might persuade some people in the international community that the US actually does have the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart.
And again WHY does anyone who disagree with US policy anti-American? That is so ridiculous. I have many Chinese friends. I don't like the policies of China. Does that mean I am anti-Chinese?

[hetron]

And just what "US interests" are these?

How about national security to start. How about family, children, and friends? How many planes need to fly into buildings or how many attacks need to be unleashed before you say, "dang, maybe we should do something". Opps - I forgot, you don't care about that. Rather, I am guessing you are your other Hemp wearing friends down at the coffee shop are secretly wishing the U.S. loses in Iraq so you can give a big, "I told you so!". Can we dispense with the "this was for oil" crap. That myth has already been debunked.

So again, anyone who opposes US policy has no interest in our national security? LOL this is laughable. All these years of giving money and arms on the sneak to people like Bin Laden, you think THAT was a good idea? All these years of supporting dictatorships in the middle east, THAT was sound? Or are you really naive enough to believe that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked us because they were jealous "of the freedom" we have in the US?

I don't appreciate the way you talk about people who criticize US government either. Scott Ritter is an ex-marine. He has been more critical of the US government than almost anyone posting on here. Do you think he is a treasonous pinko commie bleeding heart too?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect Alger is an anti-American revolutionary leftist, not unlikely a communist.

I am confident, based on his past postings, that he is a strong sympathizer of Palestinian terrorists.

Fortunately he and his ilk are losing ideological ground to grassroots America--the people are waking up to the nonsense of Leftism and realizing it is one big pile of bullcrap. They can keep indoctrinating our youth in the universities, but as most graduates get out in the real world it doesn't take them very long to realize what works and what doesn't. The ones who persist in Leftist beliefs are generally the ones insulated in positions as politicians, bureaucrats or professors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I have yet to see a single Alger post espouse anything that comes close to Communism, whether in the form put forth by Marx or Lenin or the form it took in the USSR Eastern Europe China or Cuba. All his posts seem to suggest is that the US pursue a morally upright foreign policy. You seem to object to a lot of what he says because in most of his views he holds the US to higher moral standards than people like Saddam Hussein.
If one believes his nation should strive to have a moral foreign policy, instead of one merely driven by "interests" (which most often are in fact, the interests of large multinational corporations and the people who own rather large shares of them), one is neither a leftist, nor a communist. One is a patriot.

[MMMMMM]

Iran traded one iron-fisted ruler for a group of iron-fisted mullahs.

Russia didn't overcome their iron-fisted rulers. The succession of leaders in Russia gradually became more liberal, and when macro economics coicided with change in leaders and popular sentiment, a greater change took place. But nobody overthrew Stalin, Khruschev, Brezhnev or Andropov.

If you're suggesting all the Iraqis had to do is wait for more liberal leaders to replace Saddam, they'd also have to wait until his half-human sons died off too. We're talking generations yet to come. No problem if you don't mind the spectre of Saddam and his ogreish sons torturing another 800,000 Iraqis to death, or of Saddam finally getting the Bomb, or of Saddam providing lethal toxins to terrorists, or of Saddam holding the world's oilfields for ransom at some point. Hey let's just let nature take its course even if it takes another 50 or 100 years. Who's in a hurry anyway?

[MMMMMM]

Chris Alger: "Therefore, the U.S. should acknowledge the war as unprovoked aggression, agree to a public accounting of the damage and death it caused, agree to pay reparations and surrender political control over Iraq either to elected leaders or an international body charged with the rapid development of an elected government. It should acknowledge that the only legitimate use of U.S. force in Iraq is to guarantee the security of the Iraqi people while the process of democratization and self-sufficiency continues. It should expressly renounce any geopolitical, strategic or economic benefits from U.S. domination over internal Iraqi politics.
"

Why stop there, we might as well invite Saddam back to his throne and say we're sorry and it was all a big mistake. He can go right on back to torturing Iraqis and murdering Kurds as much as his little heart desires. If we're going to rectify our "errors" why not go all the way, Chris?

[Chris Alger]

Because re-installing our former client would be insane, the opposite of the minimum fairness and decency for Iraqis that I advocate.

I appreciate your confusion, given that minimum fairness and decency always looks insane from your racist/imperialist perspective.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry if you mistook my being facetious for being confused /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Obviously we have different ideas of what constitutes minimum fairness and decency in international affairs.

Also: I think we did the Iraqi people a favor in removing Saddam; you think we did them an injury.

Also: I suspect you confuse helping others get on the track to progress and liberty and self-determination, with "imperialism." Pray tell, do you think Germany and Japan today are the victims of our "imperialism"?

Also: you have a faulty notion of what constitutes racism, since none of my views are racist in the least. You confusedly equate criticism of cultural customs and backwards practices, with criticism of race.

[adios]

"Also: you have a faulty notion of what constitutes racism, since none of my views are racist in the least. You confusedly equate criticism of cultural customs and backwards practices, with criticism of race. "

Yes I agree. A favorite tactic of the politically correct thought police is to accuse one of racism when discussing such matters.

[ACPlayer]

A defintion of race from Houghton Mifflin:
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution
A definition of racism from same source:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others

So: Arabs are culturally backwards. Muslims follow a vicious and repressive religion. American ways of doing things are better than the Muslim ways.

All of the above could be taken as racist viewpoints. Perhaps because they are.

They may be opinions based on interpretation of facts, but they are racist.

[ACPlayer]

Sorry if you mistook my being facetious for being confused

Back pedalling is the favorite tactic of the confused and the ignorant person who views the world through his "perfect" lenses.

[Cyrus]

The kind of "free choice" you envision is similar to the "choice" a mugger offers you : You are of course free to choose between parting with your money or your life.

Ah, decisions, decisions!..

[Chris Alger]

I have never said that the U.S. did Iraq and "injury" by "removing Saddam." The injury is that we have replaced one form of tyranny, and extremely bad one, with another, a somewhat less bad one that might ultimately prove to be worst of all, depending solely on how the U.S. decides to prosecute its interests in the context of unpredictable future events. Your claim that the U.S. can only provide better things for Iraq is based on nothing more than a naive assumption about U.S. intentions uninformed by the history of U.S. intervention. Further, he's not exactly "removed," now, is he?

Your presumption that Germany and Japan should be considered paradigms for the reconstruction of Iraq has no basis in fact. Both countries had large, highly educated middle classes, skilled workforces, homogenous cultures and huge, diverse economies. Our interests were to get these countries bomming again so they could buy our stuff. Iraq has one product that we want to buy, the paradigm for which is the usual third world one: a small corrupt elite ruling by the iron fist and dedicated to preserving U.S. and private sector control over the country and its resources. Apples and oranges. (BTW, why do you suppose that everyone who thinks the WWII paradigms apply to everything never talk about the reconstruction of Italy, where the CIA succeeded in subverting democratic reforms?).

Your views are profoundly racist. You do not merely "criticize" "cultural customs and backwards practices." You use your uninformed beliefs about these things to both slight huge groups of people and minimize their entitlement to fundamental rights. That's racist.

[MMMMMM]

LOL. You don't even see it's obvious I was being facetious even after it's been mentioned.

[MMMMMM]

That's an overbroad definition of race, even if it comes from a modern dictionary. Perhaps an older dictionary would have a more accurate definition. Race refers to: White(Caucasian), Asian(Oriental), Black(Negroid), Semitic(Arab or Jewish), etc... NOT common history, geographic location and all that crap. It should be obvious that the latter parts of the definition are faulty because anyone can live in any area and that doesn't make them a member of that race. Furthermore, a third-generation black person born and raised in England may indeed be an Englishman but he doesn't thereby become a Caucasian. He's still a Negro and as such will be at greater risk for high blood pressure and sickle-cell anemia. Not that I think such things matter much but I'm just illustrating a point that geographic location and common history do not make up race; genetics do.

[MMMMMM]

"Your views are profoundly racist. You do not merely "criticize" "cultural customs and backwards practices." You use your uninformed beliefs about these things to both slight huge groups of people and minimize their entitlement to fundamental rights. That's racist."

No, I don't minimize anyone's entitlement to fundamental rights. Also, I only slight those who are actually practicing backwards or pernicious customs--not everyone in certain races.

However, I certainly don't hesitate to condemn backwards or pernicious practices or customs. I do that with American and European practices and customs too--or haven't you noticed?

[MMMMMM]

"The kind of "free choice" you envision is similar to the "choice" a mugger offers you : You are of course free to choose between parting with your money or your life."

Or shooting him.

[John Cole]

Or, to quote Jack Benny: (long pause) "I'm thinking."

[John Cole]

M,

You might want to read this month's Scientific American, which has a good article on the genetics of race.

John

[ACPlayer]

OK. You dont like the definition of Race and hence Racism. Therefore you clearly want to find a definition under which you are not a racist.

So, how do you define Racism? What kinds of statements would a Racist make?

[MMMMMM]

First, the definition of race given becomes even more inaccurate when extended to defining racism.

"So, how do you define Racism? What kinds of statements would a Racist make?"

That's a good question.

Racism is the belief that certain races--using the classic definitions of races (Caucasian, Negroid, Oriental, Semitic, etc.)--are inherently inferior or superior overall due to their genetics.

The sort of statement a racist might make, and believe, would be: "Blacks are always stupider than whites."

Remarking on actual racial differences, such as saying "whites sunburn more easily than blacks" or "blacks are at higher risk for sickle-cell anemia", are not examples of racist statements.

If I were to say all Arabs are backwards, or that they are inherently more violent due to their race, than are whites: that would be a racist statement. If however I say that Arab culture is backwards in certain key aspects (even though not all Arabs are backwards), that is not a racist statement: it's merely an observation of fact. Since I'm neither attributing the backwardness to genetic causes, nor am I holding that all Arabs are backwards, it's not a racist statement. If I held that it was either due to genetics, OR that all members of the group fit the generalization, I think it could be considered a racist statement. But I don't and it's not.

[ACPlayer]

Could you let us know where you got these definitions? Or are these something you made up?

You have clearly narrowed the definition as it is being used in today's parlance to suit your needs to not be defined as a racist. The fact is that you frequently make statements about groups of people based on your own prejudices.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you let us know where you got these definitions? Or are these something you made up?

You have clearly narrowed the definition as it is being used in today's parlance to suit your needs to not be defined as a racist. The fact is that you frequently make statements about groups of people based on your own prejudices.

[/ QUOTE ]

People in glass houses should not throw stones ACPlayer.

Here is the balance of your definition:

Race....

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics &lt;the English race&gt;

3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type


I finf it interesting but not surprising that you culled the definition of race in order to chastize MMMMMM yet have the chutzpah to ask him where he got his definition. You have zero credibility outside of your own mind.

[MMMMMM]

"Could you let us know where you got these definitions? Or are these something you made up?"

I got my definition of racism from many years of reading on many subjects and from living. It seems to me that racism must be related to race, right? And as I always understood it, "race" generally referred to the terms Caucasian, Negroid, Oriental, etc. Just because the editors of that dictionary give far broader definition doesn't mean they are right or that their definition has always been the classical and commonly accepted meaning.

"You have clearly narrowed the definition as it is being used in today's parlance to suit your needs to not be defined as a racist. The fact is that you frequently make statements about groups of people based on your own prejudices."

No, I suspect the editors of that dictionary broadened it to fit theirs, or to make it as inclusive as possible, just so they didn't leave some uncommon usages out. As old as you are, ACPlayer, I can't believe you didn't live most of your life thinking "race" referred to the classical terms Caucasian, Negoid, Oriental, etc.

Furthermore there is a huge difference between criticizing someone's ancestry and criticizing someone's customs. To lump both without distinction under "racism" is a bit unfair at least, wouldn't you say? Not to mention undiscerning. But being undiscerning is apparently what today's political correctness trend is all about. Being undiscerning, too, apparently comes naturally to some people.

[ACPlayer]

I offered a definition of racism based on the dictionary definitions. To date all MMMMM has said is that my definition is too modern for his taste. He then offered a very narrow definition for which I would like to see at least the mention of a reference.

As usual you have little clue, except you that you dislike my views and get off on these litle interjections (you are equal opportunity in that you do that to others you disagree with too). But I already knew that.

[ACPlayer]

Thanks for the candor.

You made it up.

[Wake up CALL]

"I offered a definition of racism based on the dictionary definitions. "

You did nothing of the sort, you edited a definition to suit your needs while accusing MMMMMM of doing the same. The problem I have with your views are that you twist facts and outright lie in order to try to make a point.

If I played poker at your table I would guard my chips very carefully and prefer you played with short sleeves.

Even if you had done the same thing to Cyrus whose views I disagrre with as well I still would have pointed out your deception.

Just because you disagree with MMMMMM does not make him a racist, anywhere outside of your own little world.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer I would like to know just what you thought "race" was before you pulled up that dictionary definition. That is, what did you think "race" was, for most of your life?

[ACPlayer]

I offered A definition of racism based on the dictionary. In the context of the discussion it was and is a reasonable starting point for a discussion on this subject.

MMMMM can defend himself. I enjoy reading what he is writing, even tho i disagree with a lot, at least he sometimes makes good points worth considering and does not take things personally. You on the other hand only say things in elliptical terms with a point usually deeply buried, if there is a point. Most of your remarks are these little interjections that you seem to enjoy and mistake for witticisms.

[ACPlayer]

I am learning as I go along reading these posts. In general I am happy to turn to my online encyclopedia (as offered by gurunet.com -- a service worth looking into btw) for current definitions.

Racism and bigotry are often used interchangably and perhaps they should not.

I have always considered lumping people into categories as d and attributing comparative attributes to be racist/bigotted. So, yes I considered Brad and your arguments about Gays being more likely to get AIDS to be a form of bigotry, instead of saying the same thing by pointing out that it is risky sexual activity that increases the chance of getting AIDS and not being gay. It is this way of putting things that, consciously or not, ends up belittling gays indirectly that makes it bigotry to my way of thinking.

Similarly, I find your characterizations of Islam as a form of bigotry and, if you accept my extract from the dictionary, racism. Similar statements in the past about the cultures of the people in that part of the world are, to me, not worthy. In travelling the world, I prefer to adopt a different viewpoint of people's practices. They are what the are and have been for thousands of generations. I would much rather criticize our cultural practices than their as I dont understand how those practices evolved and what role they have in making their society work. As Americans who do not have a real cultural history we see things thru a very different lens.

My favorite racist suffix is: "I am not a racist but...."
THe next one is "I like xxxx group, some of them are my best friends, but...."

[MMMMMM]

Here is the dictionary definition of racism that you offered, ACPlayer:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others

Even if you take the broad definition of race this dictionary provides, note that the definition of racism is holding that differences of character or ability (not customs or practices, ACPlayer) are due to race. Well, I don't hold that differences of character or ability are due to race. I hold that some differences of custom or practice are due to culture, (or, if you insist, for purposes of this argument, due to race--since I can't convince you that the narrow definition of race makes more sense in this context).

Further, even if I did hold that differences of character and ability were due to race, note that little word 'AND', ACPlayer. It makes a big difference. That little word 'AND' is not an 'OR'. In order to qualify for racism, one must not only meet the first but also the second part of the definition"...and that a particular race is superior to others[/b]."

Since I do not believe or hold that any particular race is superior to others, I do not hold racist views, as per the second part of your definition. And since the definition requires that both parts be met (that's what the AND means, ACPlayer--it is not an OR), I do not hold racist views-- according to the dictionary definition you provided. Q.E.D.

As someone mentioned before, all you have to do is be a good reader;-)

[ACPlayer]

Before a proper discussion of this half of the definition can be had, i think we need to understand how best to define race.

If the definition is strictly by color of the skin, that is one domain. If we add religion, geography etc, then the discussion changes.

I certainly cant recall anything you have said that would denigrate blacks or chinese or whites or anyother skin color group.

[MMMMMM]

"...So, yes I considered Brad and your arguments about Gays being more likely to get AIDS to be a form of bigotry,..."

Well the CDC statistics clearly show that this is so. I don't see what's bigoted about stating facts. I take it you really think the facts must be bigoted;-)

Rest of post interesting and I see your view and I like a tolerant and respectful approach to others as well. However I believe that facts should not be dismissed or ignored merely because they don't fit with what one feels most comfortable with.

[MMMMMM]

Fine, but even using the broadest definitions of race in the dictionary which you provided, and then using the definition of racism provided in the same dictionary, it can be clearly seen that my views are not racist. Just follow the reasoning in the post above and I'm sure you'll agree;-)

[ACPlayer]

As I opined in the earlier note, relating HIV to risky behaviours (no condoms for any form of sex resulting in exchange of body fluids) puts people at risk, not their gayness/straightness. Stating that Gays are more at risk while technically correct, presents the same information in a different light. IMO.

Facts dont have to dismissed, but judgemental thinking about cultural practices can and, I suggest should be, dismissed.

[ACPlayer]

If you took the definition I offered then saying that the middle east is still in the dark ages and west has come out by way of age of reason is comparing two geographic groups and stating that one is superior to the other.

There are plenty of other examples where you have offered comparisons you have compared groups and offered a comparative judgement.

[ACPlayer]

BTW, I love the apparently detached way you are willing to argue about something so personal and a subject so difficult.

[MMMMMM]

"BTW, I love the apparently detached way you are willing to argue about something so personal and a subject so difficult."

Thanks ACPlayer, but the detachment it's just a technique I've been forced to make into a habit after taking so many bad beats over the years. Without a fairly high detachment rating I would never have made it.

[MMMMMM]

"If you took the definition I offered then saying that the middle east is still in the dark ages and west has come out by way of age of reason is comparing two geographic groups and stating that one is superior to the other."

Not quite. I'm saying that our beliefs and culture are (on average) more advanced than theirs--not that we are inherently superior as a group.

"There are plenty of other examples where you have offered comparisons you have compared groups and offered a comparative judgement."

Quite so, and my intention is to compare customs, practices or ideologies. I make judgments on such acoutrements, not on the ultimate worth or nature of the groups themselves.


Thomas Sowell had something to say recently about being judgmental:

"How anyone can argue in favor of being non-judgmental is beyond me. To say that being non-judgmental is better than being judgmental is itself a judgment, and therefore a violation of the principle."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20031127.shtml

[Cyrus]

The issue was about Ripdog's wife having a "free choice" between following orders (and thus putting her life at risk, moreover for a purpose that Ripdog finds immoral and senseless) --or-- quitting her job. Since some posters here felt that, yes, that's a free choice alright, I compared that kind of "free choice" to a mugger offering his victims the "free choice" between parting with their money or parting with their life.

Your (non sequitur) reply was to sugget a "third option" which is to shoot the mugger!

Why oh why do you post in such haste? Try and explain to me how does your "third option" apply to the predicament of Ripdog's wife and her troubles with the U.S. government? Be specific, please, as to what exactly you suggest Ripdog's does to the U.S. government.

[Chris Alger]

Your attempt to distance yourself from racism is transparently silly and merely insults everyone’s intelligence. Obviously, there was a time when the concept of “race” and “racism” were considered scientific and racists tried to use a crude understanding of genetics to put a scientific imprimatur on group hatred and oppression. Anyone taking such a position these days would be dismissed as a racist nut.

You, on the other hand, are simply substituting “culture” for “race” in the equation to try to get away with what old-fashioned "genetic" racists can't. Here’s your defense, in your own words:

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to say all Arabs are backwards, or that they are inherently more violent due to their race, than are whites: that would be a racist statement. If however I say that Arab culture is backwards in certain key aspects (even though not all Arabs are backwards), that is not a racist statement: it's merely an observation of fact. Since I'm neither attributing the backwardness to genetic causes, nor am I holding that all Arabs are backwards, it's not a racist statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are merely switching the label from “race” to “culture” to justify racist statements. Since this problem has evidently occurred to you, you try to camouflage it a bit by pretending that “racism” criticizes every member of a group, whereas you criticize some smaller portion. This is fallacious. If you say not merely “all” but "most" Arabs are backwards or violent “due to their race,” you’ve made a racist comment, and not just because "race" doesn't determine behavior. In fact, racists often try to mask their bigotry by asserting that their attitudes don’t apply to the entire group, and often heap all sorts of praise upon the “good ones.” So we are left with your claim that scorn and oppression directed toward a group is acceptable if the grounds are “culture” instead of genetics, apparently because you concede that genetic-based criticism of group behavior is unsound while disparaging groups based on the "culture" is "observation of fact."

Bad science, however, was not what was wrong about racism. What makes racism bad is the process of (1) defining large groups of people according to common traits to the point of erasing variation within the group, effectively obliterating individuality; then (2) attributing to all or nearly all members of the group characteristics, sometimes positive but usually negative, that arise more from fear, contempt, mythology and ignorance rather than careful study and evidence; then (3) treating all or most group members badly, or advocating as much.

You can't exonerate yourself of racism by switching labels. One can, of course, discuss the cultural issues without being a bigot. If one wants to avoid sounding racist, however, one should invoke specific facts and evidence with the appropriate caveats and qualifications. In this respect you have failed utterly.

You are a racist because you constantly attribute the most negative attributes, whether you attribute them to “culture” or not, to every member of large groups. You issue sweeping indictments of entire groups that you obviously (and, at times, admittedly) know little about.

An example:

[ QUOTE ]
“There is something horribly wrong with Palestinian, Arab and Islamic traditions . . . They NEVER compromise and they see religiously-inspired violence as the ANSWER rather than the PROBLEM. And 99% of what they believe is patently untrue.”

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is racist because it ignorantly groups a billion people in dozens of cultural and ethnic groups under the same cultural “tradition” and then argues that all such people are defective as a result. And not just defective, but extremely so: unlike real humans, these objects of your contempt are incapable of simple everyday acts like accepting obvious reality and compromising claims. Except for the substitution of culture for race, this is identical to your claim that racist disparage the “character and ability” of people simply because they are members of a group. In this same post, you again try to mask your plain bigotry by pretending you are opining on “Palestinian, Arab and Islamic traditions,” rather than their physical attributes or genetic makeup. “There isn't anything wrong with their race, IMO. But their culture is barbaric, uncompromising, anachronistic, deluded . . . .” This is a virtually perfect illustration of what I’m referring to.

Another example:

[ QUOTE ]
"Paslestinians [sic] routinely practice such barbaric customs as "honor killings" wherein the female family member is killed by other family members often on mere rumor of infidelity or premarital sex, as this is thought to bring irreparable harm to the family name (this is also a significant practice in Jordan and some other Arab lands, and Human Rights Watch has strongly condemned this custom). There are other barbaric customs too, practiced by many Arabs and Muslims...so just WHY would the Jews want to live in intimate proximity with a people who practice barbaric customs and who also wish to see the them exterminated?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of utterly ignorant, wholesale castigation of groups is the racist's trademark. I doubt very much that murder, much less murder for “honor,” is "routine" in any country. Honor killings and rampant sexism are indeed a problem among the Palestinians, but the State Department's 2002 Human Rights Report notes only "anecdotal evidence," citing no numbers: "According to women's groups, there was no reliable data on the incidence of violence against women." It seems foregone that there is no evidence suggesting that the practice is "rountine." A survey of HRW documents on “honor killings” yields no report about their incidence among Palestinians at all.

There is also problem of honor killings in Jordan, where Arab women have mobilized to demonstrate against the practice – despite the infirmities of their “culture” – but even there it’s hardly “routine.” (It is also a problem in Brazil, according to an HRW report, citing court acceptance of such killings under the same rules that applied, until recently, in Texas, namely the defense of the cuckholded husband.) According to you, however, such killings are so “routine” among Palestinians that Israel is justified in refusing to acknowledge any of the rights that Israel itself consider to be inalienable. Another racist tactic: find some flaw that applies only to a few and then damn the whole group severely, a standard that you would never consider applying to those cultures you define as “superior.”

Further, your comment that Palestinian as "a people" "want to see [Israelis] exterminated" is the sort of incendiary overstatement that so characterizes the most odious of racist comments. Your casual equation of Palestinian objections to an ethnocentric state that displaced them to ubiquitous advocacy of genocide (which, if true, implies only one solution) is exactly the sort of overgeneralization and paranoia makes your claim of merely "observing facts" a ridiculous lie.

To summarize, your persistent attacks on Muslims, Arabs and especially Palestinians have all the hallmarks of racism: individuals defined solely by group membership, sweeping ignorant critiques of large groups without any evident awareness of differences within them, and advocacy of extremely disparate treatment and oppression, even when it comes to elementary rights. And these are just a couple of statements. I know of others where you've said much worse.

You might have actually deluded yourself into thinking that your attitudes aren't technically "racist" because they purportedly arise from cultural inferiority rather than genetic inferiority. Whether you call it racism, cultural prejudice or “banana” your attitudes are still just as mean, stupid and dangerous as those of your scientifically deluded predecessors.

Finally, I'll add that your defense is ridiculous on it's face because contemporary definitions of racism also include cultural prejudice. Here's one from a study of the Metropolitan Police Service in London: "the concept of institutional racism which we apply consists of ... the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin." Indeed, this definition is so old that "multiculturalism" has been invoked as a standard antidote to racism for decades.

[MMMMMM]

Confused, heh, Cyrus?;-)

Just as the choices in the mugger scenario aren't necessarily what they appear--you might have other choices such as shooting the mugger or running away, and even if you fork over your money you might get injured or killed anyway--so too the choices Ripdog's wife may have to faces might not be her only alternatives. Or then again they might be, just as in the mugger scenario you might really be limited to those two options.

In other words perhaps Ripdog's wife might do well to explore any conceivable alternatives, even those which may not be immediately apparent.

Also, if you ever are mugged, I would suggest you do the same /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Besides taking my remarks out of context, you assert that I impute characteristics to every member of a group--but I do not.

If you believe in multiculturalism, that all cultures are equal, you are deluded. All cultures have pluses and minuses, and all cultures may be criticized--some more so than others in certain regards. Criticism where criticism is warranted is not prejudice or bigotry, it's just acknowledging reality.

You seem to think there is something wrong with criticizing cultures or cultural customs, and you seem to think that this equates to racism. Well if you insist on pulling the wool over your own eyes nobody can stop you. However everyone who thinks all cultures are equal, or are equally advanced, is either very ignorant or very deluded.

When honor killings no longer occur with any significant frequency in Muslim lands; when converting out of Islam (apostasy) is no longer a crime which can result in capital charges; when Arab countries give equal political rights to non-Muslims; when significant percentages of religious schools (madrassas) no longer indoctrinate their youth for violent jihad; when a woman's vote or testimony in court is equal to a man's; when women are allowed to drive in all Arab lands; when many leading imams do not refer to Jews as "sons of pigs and monkeys" and call for violent jihad; when it is not a crime to proselytize for other religions; when religious leaders no longer issue religious decrees (fatwas) calling for the murder of individuals they claim have slandered Islam: THEN I'll agree that Arab culture is no longer backwards. Until then, if you deny that it is backward you are being deceitful. Now that doesn't mean that all Arab or Muslim individuals are backward; it just means the culture overall is backwards in many ways. If I did not often enough make it clear that I do not impute the group characteristics or flaws to every member of the group, let me make very clear now that I do not and that has always been my belief and position. But to deny that the culture has some severe problems overall is to deny reality. And criticizing the culture, but not every member of the group, is not racism at all, but realism.

[Chris Alger]

1. Which remarks were taken "out of context" and how? Would you like me to find more quotes that say similar things? (As you know, there are a lot).

2. "you assert that I impute characteristics to every member of a group--but I do not."

As I pointed out, this is irrelevant: imputing negative characteristics to "almost all" members of the groups is no better. Besides, in your constant rhetoric castigating "the" Arabs, Palestinians, etc. you are indeed describing the group as a whole rather than distinguishing those that are guilty of the negative traits you've denounced, often traits that apply to only a handful among millions, such as terrorism.

3. "If you believe in multiculturalism, that all cultures are equal..."

This is just stupid. To say that people should never receive disparate treatment or rights because of their cultural identity is not even close to saying that "all cultures are equal."

3. "You seem to think there is something wrong with criticizing cultures or cultural customs...."

No, I explicitly stated that this was not the case, that cultural criticism wasn't the same as racist raving. When you are deliberately refusing to address is the problem of masking racist commments as "cultural criticism." You are stuck on the notion that as long as racists say "culture" instead of "race" they can't reasonably be accused of racism.

4. "If I did not often enough make it clear that I do not impute the group characteristics or flaws to every member of the group, let me make very clear now that I do not and that has always been my belief and position."

Untrue in your rhetoric and irrelevant given your advocacy political repression against every member of the group. Your castigation of "Arab culture" above, for example, applies to every single Arab. It isn't tailored to the "bad ones" and doesn't exclude the "good ones." Your defense of Israel's oppression in the occupied territories applies to every resident there, not just the ones that you specifically complain about. Further, you are also guilty of a flagantly racist double standard in your treatment of groups. Americans and Israelis include people with all sorts of negative characteristics similar to the ones you describe, such as a tendency toward prejudice and violence. Yet you would never consider judging these "culturally superior" groups by the same standard that who apply to the ones you disparage. Your suggestion that you tend to distinguish among individuals is therefore pure bullshit.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The mess we have landed in will be one that we will be paying for for years to come. Dont you get it, the heavy handed tactics and the caring only for self-interest, but is actually a form of exploitation, is what has got us into this mess and we are continuing it.


[/ QUOTE ]

AC

If MMMMM is a do-gooder then you are a person who sees everyone with an evil ulterior motive. You lost a lot of credibility(in my mind) with many of your reponses in this thread.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

Your entire post is BS. I do not impute characteristics to all members or even almost all members of any group. However any significant percentage can cause immense and widespread problems. I do not call for political repression of Arabs.

I'm criticizing some pretty widespread problems and your assertion that these problems only exist among a tiny handful of Arabs or Muslims is false. It would also be wrong to assert that these problems affect all but a tiny handful. The fact is, while limited, these problems are still far too widespread and even some Muslims acknowledge that these are real and very significant problems in their culture.

As for your witchhunt and threats to find more of my remarks--taken out of context of course--go right ahead if you wish--because unlike Dan Hansen who was driven off this board by false accusations, I really don't care. It also shows you for what you are: vindictive, mean-spirited, and intolerant. Play your lawyer-like games and sling all the mud you want but everyone here knows who is being honest and genuine in this discussion and who is stooping. And thanks for showing your true colors, Chris.

[ACPlayer]

What did you not like about my opinion that you quoted?

[Cyrus]

"Just as the choices in the mugger scenario aren't necessarily what they appear--..."

Just how did you manage in Math at school? When the teacher gave you a problem, did you switch around the "choices" or provide your own "conditions", as well?

I gave you a scenario whereby the mugger offers to his victim two and only two alternatives : his money or his life. Now I'm sure this scenario doesn't appear exactly like that in everyday life (or in your gun-toting daydreams) but you are asked to work forward on that perfectly valid assumption : your money or your life.

Seeing, however, how your way out of arguments, such as the one you are now losing to Chris Alger, is to switch assumptions and change the subject, I do not expect that you will address the issue any time soon. And the issue is that freedom of choice in a situation such as the Government offers ripdog's wife is no freedom of choice at all.

So, even though, Ripdog's wife might indeed find (and I hope she does) other solutions to her predicament, you have posted an irrelevancy -- once again. It started out as a hasty and unfortunate "witticism" on your part ("shoot the mugger!") and then has gone out of hand because you are so keen to follow it up as if it was some "wise and sage" advice or something.

Perhaps you have lost some sense of proportion after all the good time you're putting in to defend the White House criminal gang.

[Cyrus]

You're truly, truly a funny guy, Gamblor.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry to say this (...well, not really!) but you have nor provided any credible or logical retort to Alger's quotations of your own words and their meaning as he interprets them. You claim the quotes are "out of context", yet you fail to back up that claim or to respond in any way, even to clarify your "misquoted text".

The reason I'm sorry is because I enjoy a good fight and this is just too easy. I will try to avoid threads involving so lopsided a competition.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

I like your attempts to inteject some novelty in your arguments, admittedly an impossible task. The new titles that you introduce into evey thread would be refreshing ---if the text would be in any way relevant.

For your information (...another impossible task!), the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein was for all practical purposes secular. A quick examination of women's role in Iraqi society would explain a lot to you (...another, etc!). Hussein started cosying up to the mullahs when the threat of the American invasion became real.

There was no Qaeda operating out of Iraq, there was no assistance to Muslim fundamentalists coming out of Iraq and the threat of terrorism I put it to you has NOT diminished one iota after the invasion of Iraq. (I will not argue that it has actually increased as American politicians, journalists and common folk are saying -- and not just "the liberals". I will put it to you that the threat of terrorism has not diminished.)

Now try and argue that it has diminished! Then turn on your TV.

(Or is that also an impossible task?) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, you are really losing it;-)

I made a spur-of-the-moment remark about shooting the mugger which I though was perhaps mildly funny and gave pause for thought. You took it entirely too seriously and nearly attacked me for doing it. Why, pray tell, why? If it didn't seem entirely apropos perhaps it wasn't meant to be. Just a little apropos maybe. I thought it had a bit of meaning, and even John Cole may have had to pause for thought--not easily accomplished, that.

If you think I am losing an argument to Chris Alger then maybe you and he should go live in--say--Jordan for a year or two then come back and tell us how they are not any more backwards than New Yorkers or Montanans, on average. Not every Jordanian, mind you--just on average, that's all I am talking about. I am sure we can rely on you, if not n Chris, to report honestly and accurately.

Why you and Alger think criticizing culture or customs or ideologies is equivalent to criticizing race or criticizing the essence of that race is beyond me--totally, totally beyond me. Why, if I had some backwards notions I'd sure as hell want people to tell me--wouldn't you?--provided they are right, of course. And before you jump on that one, the provision is key.

Backwards beliefs are far more prevalent in the Middle East--wouldn't you agree? Not everyone in the Middle East holds backwards beliefs though--right? So WHY is talking about averages a racist thing, in some minds? Hey...let's rewrite Statistics!--I'm sure you could do that! But you'd have to have your Revised Edition pass Alger's review for Political Perfectness first of course--and I doubt even you woul pass muster there.

Here's my new maxim, just dreamed up on the spur of the moment:

M's MAXIM OF POLITICALLY RATIONAL CORRECTNESS:

The less discerning you are, the more likely you are to be politically correct

Corollary: The more discerning you are, the less likely you are to be politically correct.

Reflexive Reaction: The more an advocate of political correctness dislikes what you say, the more likely he is to react by painting you with terms such as bigot or racist

Ancillary: The less discerning someone is, the more likely they are to confuse discernment with prejudice, bigotry or racism

Corollary to Ancillary: The more discerning someone is, the less likely they are to confuse discernment with prejudice, bigotry or racism

Further Ancillary: Those with very low powers of discernment frequently consider things of similar type as equivalent without considering degree[/i] (a common failing, I mention no names, in numerous threads and debates).

WELL...I think there is one thing I AM prejudiced against after all, Cyrus! I'm prejudiced against the undiscerning!!! I am heartily bigoted against those who are incapable of making fine (or even modest) distinctions, because whether well-intentioned or no, they generally slow the wheels of discourse, progress and rationality, and create confusion where none need exist. So God save me. I don't like to even be around them except at the poker table (and even then I don't like it but do tolerate it rather well). Here's wishing I could play poker with a select few posters--good night!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus I've posted thousands of posts here and I'm not going back to sort through it all now. Anyone can be made to look ridiculous with words taken out of context. I'll even bet that I clarified what I meant in those threads somewhere--if not in those posts themselves--but of course Chris didn't include that or the overall context. Not that I would trust him to do that accurately either.

Alger and you are wrong and Alger is particularly spiteful. It's too bad that lawyers who do things like that in court can't be disbarred for it. But I'll give him (and you) the credit of actually believing what he says, wrong though you both are.

I always differentiate mentally between group attributes and individual attributes. It's a sad commentary that one should have to say so every time, though, in order to be not misunderstood.

Here's a tip: the more discerning you are, the more accurate you are: in everything. The converse also holds.

[MMMMMM]

I think the threat of terrorism has increased overseas and decreased in the US. Plainly we need to kill even more terrorists. Good job today nailing those 46 bushwhackers who tried a kill-fire on our convoys. 46 of theirs dead and none of ours, and THEY set up the blockade and ambush. "Too stupid to live" is perhaps more than just a saying.

[Stu Pidasso]

I agree with MMMMM that you completely ignore the argument of the need a constitution to protect the rights of the minority. Thats where you lost credibility with me. Imagine what the United States would be like today if we did not have a constitution to protect the minority. It would cater only to the interest of the elitest land owners.

The passage I quoted was in reference to statement that we only act in our own self interest. While its true our foreign policy is mostly driven by our own self-interest, Its obivious to me we are taking great pains to look out for the interest of the everyday Iraqi for no other purpose than it is the right thing to do. If our tatics were truely heavy handed we would be suffering considerably less casulties. It is precisely our lack of heavy handed tactics that is being exploited by a very small minority of Iraqis.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

Fox News reported that Syria turned over 22 indviduals suspected of invlovment in the the recent bombings in Turkey. I wonder if Syria turned them over because it was in her own self interest to do so, or just out of the goodness of her heart.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

"I agree with MMMMM that you completely ignore the argument of the need a constitution to protect the rights of the minority."

This might seem like splitting hairs, but I'd like to add that actually I consider a constitution necessary in order to protect the rights of all individuals (which thus also protects the rights of all minorities). I mention this because in another thread someone suggested that the First Amendment was only necessary to protect minorities--but it's actually necessary to protect the rights of every individual, whether minority or majority. I'm not disagreeing with you, just elaborating (haha, lest my position be later misconstrued by Alger, who seems so expert at misinterpreting statements or lifting them out of context for future misinformation).

"While its true our foreign policy is mostly driven by our own self-interest, Its obivious to me we are taking great pains to look out for the interest of the everyday Iraqi for no other purpose than it is the right thing to do. If our tatics were truely heavy handed we would be suffering considerably less casulties. It is precisely our lack of heavy handed tactics that is being exploited by a very small minority of Iraqis."

This is, I believe, correct. Also I think it is also somewhat analogous to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, in that Israeli restraint is being exploited by the Palestinian terrorist organizations. If the tables were turned in Iraq or Israel, wouldn't we see far more slaughter?

By the way, many thanks to you, WakeUpCALL and Tom Haley for your support (against Alger's unfounded and scurrilous charges. Knavery is apparently live and well in the legal profession and on the 2+2 forums).

[daryn]

the string of characters LOL should be banned from all 2+2 posts.

[John Cole]

Hey, how did I get dragged into this? I think I've been insulted. Well, let me think about it for a few minutes.

[MMMMMM]

I just realized that the Maxim and its Corollary are transposed; their positions ought to be reversed. No matter: it will be corrected in the Preface to Cyrus' Revised Statistics First Edition--before you vet it.

[elwoodblues]

Don't you think the definition of race has changed over time? Your list of races earlier in this post would have been different had the list been written 50 years ago (in that "caucasian" wouldn't have been used, you would have listed Italian, Irish, Polish, German, etc. as races).

[elwoodblues]

Having your job conditions change isn't the same (nor analogous) to being mugged. In the first, you have a pre-existing relationship, the changes in condition were foreseeable based on that relationship and the parties thereto, the relationship is mutually beneficial, and the relationship was freely entered in to.

[ACPlayer]

I respect your opinion but believe that you are wrong on this.

I do believe that the Iraqi's should have a freedom based constitution. I also believe that this should be done from inside and that it is not in their (or our long term interest) for us to be there "managing" them towards freedom. My point is that this could have and should have come from inside. I pointed out numerous contries that have overcome dictators and moved to freedom.

We are primarily there for financial self interest and the Iraqis recognize that this is our primary reason. They are aware that our interest to free them is secondary.

I further pointed out the parallel between Iraq and Iran where we established a friendly but brutal regime in the Shah of Iran.

The history of other colonizers (Brits, Portugal, France etc) bear out my opinions.

You may want to reflect on how you would feel if a foreign super power invaded us, ostensibly to "free" us but really to exploit our lands. How you would feel about a govt established by such an invader?

Lastly, I am not as sanguine as yourself or others on this board who claim that we are safer here as a result of our Iraq adventurism.We may be safer (and this debatable) in the short run, but are not safer in the long run.

[elwoodblues]

Cheap/expensive stunt, probably. I was pretty glad that he did it, though. I think it probably made many of our troups happy.

[MMMMMM]

Just to clarify, John, when I wrote: "I thought it had a bit of meaning, and even John Cole may have had to pause for thought--not easily accomplished, that."--by this I meant that it was a thing not easily accompished to force you to pause for thought--I didn't mean that pausing for thought was difficult for you. I should have been more specific, but I was tired, and writing conversationally.

Just thought I'd better clarify because I once said that math requires more thinking than language--or something like that--and that statement, along with my recent remark, could easily be used to demonstrate my clear prejudice against Professors of the English language.

[ACPlayer]

I remember your remark about language from before. Your first paragraph demonsrates that the second paragraph's hypothesis is, at a minimum, flawed.

Language requires a lot of thinking as it requires you to communicate exactly what your are thinking and to ensure that the other person understands what it is that you are thinking.

Speech and writing once heard by others also carries nuances that may be misinterpreted, to for example be racist or bigotted.

Wars are started (see Saddam's misunderstanding of the US position in 91) by misinterpreting language because it is so difficult to communicate. It is easy to say things hard to get them heard.

[Cyrus]

"I should have been more specific, but I was tired, and writing conversationally."

Substitute "nonsensically" for "conversationally" and we can call it a night.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

"I think the threat of terrorism has increased overseas and decreased in the US."

How can you say that it has decreased in the US with any trace of seriousness when security measures throughout the United States are at an all-time high?? And when civil liberties in America are at a perilous low, in the name of the "war against terrorism"? Do you believe that Americans are being stripped-searched because of the threat in Timbuktu?

The United States military has relaxed its alert against the threat from the Soviet Union. Not totally abandoned the watch, mind you, but just relaxed it, to a significant extent. This was done for a reason. The reason is that the threat from the Soviet Union has decreased (hell, there ain't no more Soviet Union!)..

On the other hand, the United States intelligence and domestic security apparatus are at an all-out alert against terrorists practically 24/7 -- again for a reason. And the reason is that the threat of terror domestically is at least as high as it was right before 9/11. You will be able to say that the threat has decreased when you see the measures relaxing, with your own eyes. (Don't hold yer breath.)

--Cyrus

PS : Meantime, back at the ranch... The wise and sage American policy in Iraq keeps recruiting new candidate terrorists into the ranks of the fanatics.

[MMMMMM]

So your position is that because US internal security measures are at an all-time high, the threat of terrorism in the US has not decreased and may have even increased. What do you think this is...the stock market?