Life in Liberated Iraq

[bholdr]

I aggree.

but better is not good.
the political culture over there is obviously still really Fed up as a result of so many years of saddam's BS. I think the U.S should be dedicating far more resources to the training and education of the iraqi security forces. esp the eduction.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont believe liberal sources because they have consistently and unremorsefully lied about just about everything. that said, i dont believe conservative sources either, though they are much harder to find.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human rights watch was set up by the US government to watch Eastern Europe. By their very nature they may attract liberal employees, but I have no doubt what they say is true. Do I have a problem with it? Not really.

"Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared. ....

It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. Politics have no relation to morals."

"All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. Sometimes they have learned this the hard way. If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation. The enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit."

"Those who seek to achieve things should show no mercy."

Kautilya, Napoleon, Alexander, Niccolo Machiavelli, Ceasar, Cleopatra, Ivan Claulas, and every great leader since the dawn of time understood this most basic principle that the weak find so difficult to either stomach or simply grasp. If we are going to succeed in creating a free, independent, and stable Iraq, it can not be done gently.

-wacki

[bholdr]

wacki, your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the strategies of Napolean, Machiavelli, ceaser, etc apply not only to authoritarian conquest, but to building democracies as well. i think there's a pretty huge difference.

that is, when implementing an authouritarian regime, the 'embers' may rightfully flare up, a natural reaction to oppression. but when a democracy takes hold, the persuasive power of freedonm has the ability to molify it's enemies over time and with the experiences that come with living in a free society. eventually, the recruiting pool of terrorists-to-be will be won over by the freedoms and oppurtunities that democracy inevitably will begin to provide. it is oppression in the name of victory, al la the isreali response to the palestinian terror groups, that fosters the growth of new heads on the hydra of terror and religious fanaticisim.

patience, charity, transperancy in government and an absense of heavy-handed tactics are what is nessesary to defeat the 'insurgency' (i still don't like that label- it's a deliberate miscontextualization of what they really are- rebels- a word that carries too many positive connotations in american english, i geuss.)

[wacki]

I can find countless situations where dictatorships were violently overthrown and replaced with a free replublic. If you can find one instance in history where a dictatorship was overthrown by a foreign power and done so in a peaceful and gentle manner via patience and charity alone, I'd love to hear about it.

[wacki]

Keep in mind I am not saying we have to be ruthless in all areas. I am all for peace and love and all that stuff. But if we are going to successfully and efficiently deal with some of the cruel barbarians, Machiavellian tactics are going to have to be used. And yes he was an expert at building republics. So my arguement still applies. In fact, that is what Machiavelli was best at.

Hell, just look at Fallujah. Do you not see how patience treated us there?

[bholdr]

i wasn't arguing for patience and charity alone. I was pointing out that your post seemed to be advocating a smothering, oppressive approach. to build democratic institutions with authoritarian tools, the likes of which chrisalger posted about and you seem to be supporting is not only counterproductive and inefficient, but costly, and just plain wrong as well.

what's the point of overthrowing a tyrannical dictator if those we leave in his place do the same kinds of things to their opposition? it doesn't build the kind of respect for constitutional democracy that is critical for its long term survival.

it's a cost/benifit thing, IMO, it may do far more damage in the long run to adopt an aggressive/oppressive policy (or let the iraqis do so) than it would to fight the insurgency like a real democracy should, abstaingin from the use of torture, illegal detainment of citizens, coercion, threats, illegal executions and detainment, etc.

when we use and endorse those tactics (even tacitly, like we are doing now by not being outspoken enough in opposition to them) we give the impression that we're all talk about democracy and respect for human rights. Where are the disposessed and disenfranchised to turn? the 'insurgency' appears (to them) to offer a viable option. we need to take that option away by offering a clear alternitive, which we are not doing now. (this is the main reason abu garhib was such a disaster, imo, not because of 'those poor iraqis that were piled in pyramids', but because of the negitive reflection on the american commitment to democracy).

etc, etc...

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
But if we are going to successfully and efficiently deal with some of the cruel barbarians, Machiavellian tactics are going to have to be used. And yes he was an expert at building republics. So my arguement still applies. In fact, that is what Machiavelli was best at.

[/ QUOTE ]

fer crying out loud, wacki! i thought you were above contextually dehumanizing america's enemies! c'mon, man, you're not doing anyone any good by calling people 'barbarians'. geez.

they're all illeterate animals running around in skins eating their meat raw, right? i geuss we've gotta say something to make it easier for our soldiers to abuse and kill their captives...

***

Machevelli was best at giving advice. that advice was NOT conductive to building free societies. I don't have time to dig out my copy of 'the prince' to find the exact quote, but he said something about rule through fear that isn't particularly in tune with trying to build a modern transparent constitutional democracy.

he was an inferior commentator on the subject as well, IMO. I far prefer Lao Tzu for theroies on the best way to run a manipulative, oppressive authouritarian regime.

'fill their bellies and empty their minds...'
his theroies united aincient china in just over a decade. i highly reccomend his work for any student of government.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
i wasn't arguing for patience and charity alone. I was pointing out that your post seemed to be advocating a smothering, oppressive approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am, but only selectively.

[ QUOTE ]
(this is the main reason abu garhib was such a disaster, imo, not because of 'those poor iraqis that were piled in pyramids', but because of the negitive reflection on the american commitment to democracy).

[/ QUOTE ]

Abu garhib did cross the line. Abu garhib creates hate for Americans. Machiavelli specifically talks about the dangers of hate.

[ QUOTE ]
i thought you were above contextually dehumanizing america's enemies! c'mon, man, you're not doing anyone any good by calling people 'barbarians'. geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of them are barbarians. Many of them cloak themselves in religion, even though they are not religious, and take advantage of every chance to oppress others and even their own people. I am not dehumanizing all of america's enemies, just some.

[ QUOTE ]
they're all illeterate animals running around in skins eating their meat raw, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No many of them are well educated people that chop peoples heads of with machette's for what almost seems like sport.

[ QUOTE ]
Machevelli was best at giving advice. that advice was NOT conductive to building free societies. I don't have time to dig out my copy of 'the prince' to find the exact quote, but he said something about rule through fear that isn't particularly in tune with trying to build a modern transparent constitutional democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must of missed that. I remember Machiavelli as someone who was very good at building and running republics. It's been a few years since I've read that book though.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
fer crying out loud, wacki! i thought you were above contextually dehumanizing america's enemies! c'mon, man, you're not doing anyone any good by calling people 'barbarians'. geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with calling vicious, ruthless terrorists "barbarians". Everyone should know the term is directed at that specific bunch and not at all Middle Easterners.

And yes, they are BARBARIANS. Sick barbarian cutthroat thugs, who have no excuse for taking their own humanity and turning it into inhumanity, nor for brutally attacking every group of innocents who do not subscribe to their own ultra-narrow worldview.

More people should call them "barbarians". The New York Times should call them barbarians. CNN should call the terrorist insurgents "barbarians". And that rag Al-Jazeera should call them "barbarians", too--because "barbarians" is exactly what those indiscriminate, totalitarian, compassionless terrorist murderers and beheaders are.

Actually, they are worse than barbarians. But in the absence of a term that more aptly describes their vicious and murderous depravity, "barbarians" will fairly do.

[Chris Alger]

In other words, you don't have any problem assuming that all Iraqis who fight against the U.S. occupation are "vicious," "ruthless" "terrorists barbarians," "sick barbarian cutthroat thugs," people who attack "every group of innocents who do not subscribe to their own ultra-narrow worldview," "indiscriminate, totalitarian, compassionless terrorist murderers and beheaders," even "worse than barbarians" guilty of "vicious and murderous depravity." It cannot be the case that some or many of these fighters lost relatives to U.S. bombing or torture by the U.S. or it's proxy forces and object to foreign domination over their country. They all have to all be as you've described them.

After all, it's obvious that there can't be any resistance fighters who fail to meet these descriptions because you aren't committing the sin of applying it to "all Middle Easterners," merely a subgroup. Subgroups of Arabs or Muslims smaller than "everyone" are legitimate targets of your generalized hatred, a model that you contend the world's media should follow as well. Figures.