So I saw on the news this morning that the guerilla had, on video, beheaded Eugene Armstrong, with another american and an englishman to come, if the US don't "release iraqi women from their prisons". The US denies that they have any iraqi women in custody.
I'm curious, what is the current US policy on terrorist negotiations these days? I heard back in some action movie that they don't deal, period. Has that changed these past decades? The iraqi situation must have presented the US with a lot new situations and factors they haven't encountered before, since Bush don't seem to leave Iraq.
In short, what the hell are they going to do about this???
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Exactly what has been done about all the others. Nothing. If you agree to one set of demands like this then you pretty much have to agree to all of them to avoid looking inconsistant. Also, imagine the reaction if one set of hostages are saved by accepting the demands but a subsequant lot aren't (for whatever reason).
The only thing to do is to provide security so people feel they can't do this sort of thing without being caught and that it'd be more trouble than it's worth to do it in the first place.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
I feel sick.
What the fuck possessed me to look-up these videos and then watch them?
I feel so sick.
Those barbarians should be the ones to be killed - what they do is awful! The deaths are not swift - they hack at the throats, cutting through them until the heads come off!
The only thing to do to prevent these beheadings is for everyone to get the fuck out of there and leave them to sink into the dark ages - it's all they fucking deserve!!!!
I think that I'ma actually gonna upchuck - stupid curiosity! Any yes, you may all call me a daft twat for doing what I did - I won't hold it against you - I deserve it. Posted by School of Nim (Member # 205) on :
I found the clip just now on fucking Homeland Security's homepage. I had to jump through the clip because there was so much arabic dialogue, thinking maybe they didn't show the actual beheading. So the last mouse click on the slider landed me might right in the middle of the hacking. I shut it off immediately, I couldn't bear it.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Why would you want to look at something like that?
And, apparently, they've beheaded the other American, too.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Why would you want to look at something like that?
That's what I want to know - I can't believe that I did this. I still feel like puking. This is just one reason why I am not going to:
a) fly - I never intend to use a plane b) go outside Europe for my holidays (not outside UK preferably) c) take a job abroad
quote:Originally posted by Veers: And, apparently, they've beheaded the other American, too.
Aww shit! That's bad! This really has to stop. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Which it's not going to until they have something to lose.
And I know you're upset over this, but, please, "taking a job abroad" or "going outside Europe" != "taking a job in or going to a region of the world where you're likely to be kidnapped and beheaded", because all in all, even though there are parts where I really wouldn't want to work or have my holiday either, the Earth's still pretty big.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The only thing to do to prevent these beheadings is for everyone to get the fuck out of there and leave them to sink into the dark ages - it's all they fucking deserve!!!!"
Yep. Because every single Iraqi is a terrorist who beheads people. Uh-huh.
Posted by School of Nim (Member # 205) on :
More and more people start to believe there is nothing more the west can do for Iraq as goes for "building a democracy", at least nothing that couldn't be done by proxy. These things are seen as symptoms that we are not wanted there, we are as unwelcome as when Richard Lionheart was last in the region. I tend to think of this as GWB's faux-crusade too.
The "good" people that abhor these beheadings and want to grow as a people, they will never take power over the militants because what we saw on that film, that is as far as they are willing to go. Taking a good 90 seconds to carefully and slowly cut the head of a helpless, crying man with a saw-edged breadknife.
I know that the butchers are technically a minority, if one were to do an ethical headcount in that country, but they are the ones with the weapons and conditioned hatred. Everyone knew the war would boil down to this beforehand, a guerilla war where the small pockets of men and women have the sympathy of most of the people, just like in Vietnam.
The only point I ever saw in the whole affair, to break into Iraq with armies, were the "this is the only language they understand" mindset, referring to Saddam and his cronies. This is not applicable now. Unless we can send down James Bond to do surgical precision strikes and "pacify" every cell of holy soldiers left, or use that precious Delta Force that was so able in "Blackhawk Down", I don't see how american and european soldiers could stop the kidnappings and executions.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They're going to release "Dr Germ" today (supposedly it was arranged weeks ago) nad it's all too convient that a high-profile female prisoner should be released now.
Even if it is a coincidence, it would give Al Zarkawi and his thugs the chance to declare a victory.
I think that rather than "banning" US/British contractors untill things are safer, we should import one thousand more US/UN/British troops for each beheading untill the country is truly safe.
See how popular beheadings are after we REALLY occupy theur country.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
You don't think that's going to legitimize their cause all the more in the eyes of the people? Sure, import more trigger-happy teenagers and unemployed bottom-of-the-barrel soldiers.
Because fewer decent people will enlist now that they've seen all the shit that is going on down there, and all the lack of initiative in the US representatives down there (except for halfassed counter-strikes following a successful guerilla attack).
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
One of the major problems that I've heard about (and is especially relevant to this case) is tht there are CDs going around with pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuses and others of American soldiers abusing Iraqi women. Which doesn't exactly help.
Once again, I have to bring up the subject of the apparent lack of planning for the aftermath of the invasion. The really rather silly decision to disband the Iraqi army and police especially. Mostly this seems to have been motivated by the belief that the Iraqis wanted nothing more than an American invasion, followed by democracy and that the entire population would do what the Coalition authorities said peacefully.
quote: we should import one thousand more US/UN/British troops
If the UK actually had any troops left, of course. I find it astonishing that The Leader could get us into so many wars during His time in power and yet keep on cutting the forces to the point where they are at or below the minimum necessary to fulfil their obligations.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Wraith: "If the UK actually had any troops left, of course."
That's what I said. But if you send your hobos, boy scouts and BaE layoffs, I think you'll have enough for a couple more deployments. Don't want to lose face at this point!
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
DebkaFile is reporting that they're NOT going to release those prisoners. It seems they have good reasons.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"The only thing to do to prevent these beheadings is for everyone to get the fuck out of there and leave them to sink into the dark ages - it's all they fucking deserve!!!!"
Yep. Because every single Iraqi is a terrorist who beheads people. Uh-huh.
Not all at the moment but when they grow up they will be. Shoot/nuke the fucking lot of them!
Sorry to be so sinical but that's the view I have - they're all trouble. Oh and don't bother with comments about how shooting all of them would be impossible and nuking them would harm us too - I know. Pity there's not an ideal solution to get rid of them. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: DebkaFile is reporting that they're NOT going to release those prisoners. It seems they have good reasons.
Exactly. Whay the fuck would they ever "parole" Dr. Germ in the first place....ever?
She's a HUGE liability! If she goes free and disapears, we'll see Zarkawai with bio-weapons.
It's grim, but there should never be negotiating with scum like this- even if it means the deaths of good people that just tried to rebuild nad help the masses.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Well, he'd have to convice Assad to give him back the WMDs Syria is hiding for Baathists, and get there first through Kurdish territory. But, yes, you are right that Zarqawi would love to free a scientist who might feel indebted to someone for getting her out of there. (Or alternatively, might take the guerilla war to the next level in an effort to put her boss back in power.)
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"...nuke the fucking lot of them!"
Come back to this discussion when you've grown up yourself and have a real argument to contribute instead of acrimonious generalizations that just identify you as an opinionated bigot.
"...we should import one thousand more US/UN/British troops for each beheading untill the country is truly safe."
Right, because history has proven time and again that the number of troops stationed in a country is directly proportional to that country's safety.
Oh, wait.
"See how popular beheadings are after we REALLY occupy theur country."
And see how popular you will be.
I'll say this again, because I think it bears repeating: you CANNOT import democracy to where there previously was none without some long-term strategy that includes the words "diplomacy" and "commitment", nor can you enforce it with an occupying army. And if you try to do so anyway on a population as diverse as that of Iraq, heads are going to roll. Literally.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Of course you cant "import democracy" but you CAN import troops, kill off the insurgents and Zarkawai.
People continue to die not only because there's no real plan, but because we've gone in there expecting accolades instead of gunfire. It's all half-assed: you cant expect victory if you hamstring your own forces.
Currently the "pllan" is to train the Iraqui forces to (suppoedly) police themselves but that's obviously not the priority. Keeping a status quo untill election day is. After all, a scared populace votes Republican if for no reason than they appear to have a plan.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Come back to this discussion when you've grown up yourself and have a real argument to contribute instead of acrimonious generalizations that just identify you as an opinionated bigot.
Fuck off Cartman.
I know that you can't nuke 'em.
I know that you can't shoot 'em all.
Do you think that I'm that fucking dense?
If you actually bothered to read the last part of my last post you'd see that your comment was a waste of time - wanker.
Oh and just so you know - I'm not a bigot but hate it when people shove their religion and/or political views in my face. I can also say that I hate Tony Blair's guts and wish someone would shoot him as he's a complete and utter arsehole who got us Brits in bed with the Americans and opened up a whole nasty worms!
For the record: I do not have a problem with anyone provided they don't shove their beliefs and such in my face. I just find this stuff in Iraq all so depressing and wish someone would do something to end it and everyone's suffering once and for all!
I apologise if my comments appeared childish and offensive but others have voiced such view before and not got such a bashing as I have just had. So is that how it's going to be? A rule for you and a rule for me? If it is then all I can say is what I said above:
Fuck off Cartman.
EDIT: I said "Shoot/nuke the fucking lot of them!" Kindly get your facts right. By this I meant that the best solution would be to do as others suggest - send in troops and shoot the bastards that are cutting off heads.
"Nuke" was a poor, poor choice of work - "Blow the fuckers to pieces" (with reference to those doing the head cutting) would be much better and more accurate to my feelings on this situation.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't think anyone can talk about someone doing "something to end it and everyone's suffering once and for all" without discussing political and/or religious beliefs though.
Right?
Crap... did I just post something in the Flameboard? Oh no...
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune:
Crap... did I just post something in the Flameboard? Oh no...
D'OH!
quote:I don't think anyone can talk about someone doing "something to end it and everyone's suffering once and for all" without discussing political and/or religious beliefs though.
Right?
Yep. You've hit the nail on the head!
Hey Cartman: I have cooled off a bit. I'm sorry if I offended you. Truce? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I know that you can't nuke 'em.
"I know that you can't shoot 'em all.
"Do you think that I'm that fucking dense?"
It has nothing to do with whether or not one can kill them all. It's the fact that you obviously wish someone could.
And you can't say you were only talking about the terrorists. There is no possible way to interpret your post in that way. You were very, very clearly talking about the entire population.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
akb1979: "Pity there's not an ideal solution to get rid of them."
It's so strange, I sigh when blue-eyed peace activists repeat thoughts from the 60's, "if everyone would lay down their arms all at once, no one could fight!" Well Susie, the first one to pick up arms would be at a sort of advantage then.
Your statement, akb, is at the opposite side of the board, "if we killed just the right people at just the right time, everything would work out!". Some thought that was what the US was doing in this latest Saddam-war, killing off those faces on that pathetic and corny deck of cards of VIP-enemies, but lo and behold, new ones pop forth when their former leaders/allies are shot! The Pokemon-idiom has failed.
And talking about an "ideal solution" for mass execution/retribution borders dangerously on certain shall we say 'inappropriate' measures two generations ago.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I had no idea they all had blue eyes.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Still Waiting...
quote:"A year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush."
Richard Perle AEI Keynote speech September 22, 2003
I liked Kos' response to that: "Somewhere in Washington D.C. today, Richard Perle is very surprised."
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: It has nothing to do with whether or not one can kill them all. It's the fact that you obviously wish someone could.
OK, no arguement there.
quote: And you can't say you were only talking about the terrorists. There is no possible way to interpret your post in that way. You were very, very clearly talking about the entire population.
OK, so again no arguement - I have no great love for the people of Iraq. There I said it - happy now?
I don't consider myself to be a racist but in this, and only this, occasion I am. I'm sure that on the whole the people of Iraq are nice people - I just can't see it. Oh and if killing all those in Iraq prevents another generation of terroists from coming into the world - so be it - at least my kids will be safer. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Hey, September 21st was international peace day. No, I didn't notice either.
quote: I don't consider myself to be a racist but in this, and only this, occasion I am. I'm sure that on the whole the people of Iraq are nice people - I just can't see it. Oh and if killing all those in Iraq prevents another generation of terroists from coming into the world - so be it - at least my kids will be safer
I really hate having to say this, but that is one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. Killing all those in Iraq is more likely to inspire more terrorism, not reduce it. Not to mention lowering us to their level.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Here is a coincidence for you all.
Reid "Frolixo" Paskiewicz wrote today's update on SomethingAwful, the topic being genocide. After going through World's Greatest Genocides, he ends the article with a theory of how to stop genocide from occurring in the future;
quote:Maybe one day there will be world peace, but I have a feeling it�s only going to come about once we round up all the extremists and violent people, put them in labor camps, and ultimately dispose of them so we can have a world only populated with a pure race of peace loving folks. We can only hope that day will soon come.
SOUNDS LIKE A MAN OF YOUR METTLE, AKB1979.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I'm so glad that violence and extremism are genetic disorders that can be eradicated by cleansing the gene pool.
Ah... Isn't context wonderful? Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim:
quote:Maybe one day there will be world peace, but I have a feeling it�s only going to come about once we round up all the extremists and violent people, put them in labor camps, and ultimately dispose of them so we can have a world only populated with a pure race of peace loving folks. We can only hope that day will soon come.
SOUNDS LIKE A MAN OF YOUR METTLE, AKB1979.
Is that an insult or a compliment? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: The Pokemon-idiom has failed.
We cant travel from town to town challenging the locals to a fight, defeating them, taking prisoners and locking them into small inhumane cages?
The hell the Pokemon idiom has failed! Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: really hate having to say this, but that is one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen.
>Takes a bow<
Thank Wraith, I have my moments. I guess that means that I now just up to the high percentiles with you then, doesn't it? Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
AKB1979: If your precious USA was invaded and occupied, what would you be doing?
If someone occupied Australia (lets call this country "Evil Country Number 1")....believe me, I'd be doing what the Iraqi's are. Supporting and attempting to blow the living crap out of the soldiers of "Evil Country Number 1" at every opportunity.
And believe me, you'd probably do the same. So - Reality check. The Iraqi's did not come after you. This we know. If you think the invasion was anything but a lie, for political and economic gain, go check yourself in to an asylum. The USA (and unfortunately) the misguided govt's of the UK and Australia invaded Iraq, without provocation or legal authority.
So cut the crap. Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Somehow I don't think the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs needed mental counseling when she said the invasion was "illegal but legitimate." Speaking as someone who's taken some cousework in international law, I can say her sentiment was closer in line with prevailing customary international law than a blanket statement that the coalition was without authority.
September 23, 2004: While al Qaeda manages to set off one or more suicide bombs a day in Iraq, it finds itself losing the war it is waging. The bombs are killing mainly Iraqis, and the Iraqis have noticed this. Al Qaeda expects the Iraqi Islamic radicals to benefit from the bombing campaign. But the only Iraqi Islamic radicals that support al Qaeda are the Sunni Arab ones, and these are a minority of the Sunni Arab (20 percent of the population) minority. Moreover, most of the muscle, and money, for anti-government violence comes from Sunni Arab supporters of the Baath Party. Saddam Hussein led the Baath Party for over three decades. While Saddam is locked up, as are most of the senior Baath Party leaders, the thousands of thugs and enforcers that maintained Baath's control over Iraq are still out there. Many of these guys are still doing what they have always done; terrorizing Iraqis into supporting Baath, or at least not opposing it. Baath has cleverly shaped it's message to sound like a patriotic call to "expel foreign invaders." But most Iraqis are not fooled. Opinion polls consistently show that over 80 percent of the population wants nothing to do with Baath. Yet the only alternative to a democratic government is Baath, or a religious dictatorship. Al Qaeda makes itself unpopular by killing hundreds of Iraqis with suicide bombs. Baath makes itself hated with its continued terror campaign, kidnapping and assassinations. The terror tactics of al Qaeda and Baath have succeeded in some other Arab countries, much to the dismay of the locals. Syria is the only other country run by the Baath Party, and it is another Republic of Fear. Iran is dominated by Islamic conservatives, who rule by intimidation and terror. Afghanistan, when ruled by the Islamic conservative Taliban, also suffered under unpopular applications of intimidation and terror.
For centuries, Western democracies have considered the Arabs unable, or incapable of creating a democratic government, or any government that did not depend on terror and intimidation to maintain order. This debate continues, although in a more carefully worded fashion. It's not just the Baath Party and al Qaeda that have a vested interest in seeing democracy fail in Iraq. However, if you talk to a lot of people who deal with Iraqis on a regular basis (military civil affairs, reconstruction workers, troops in general) and Iraqis themselves, you find that while Iraqis still fear Baath and al Qaeda, they still want to try democracy. Iraqis know what goes on in the West. Millions of Iraqis have fled to the West (Europe and North America) in the last two decades, and the migrants have made it clear to the folks back home how democracy works. While Iraqi culture puts more emphasis on believing rumors and outrageous conspiracy theories, you still have to eat. Most Iraqis believe that a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," would be better at putting food on the table, and a DVD player on top of the new TV set, than some Baath Party thug or religious leader.
Al Qaeda will fight on until the last of their members is rounded up by Iraqi police. But al Qaeda have already lost their war in Iraq.
Thought some of you all might like this if it is true (and I pray it is...).
Addendum: Professor Volokh was nice enough to give us a Max Boot Article on the historical context of the losses we've suffered relative to other wars.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Canadian writer Scott Taylor's (New York Times story)account of being held prisoner by some Iraqi mujahedeen.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daryus Aden: AKB1979: If your precious USA was invaded and occupied, what would you be doing?
I don't think the USA is precious - don't live there so
quote:If someone occupied Australia (lets call this country "Evil Country Number 1")....believe me, I'd be doing what the Iraqi's are. Supporting and attempting to blow the living crap out of the soldiers of "Evil Country Number 1" at every opportunity.
This I agree with but I wouldn't capture innocent civilians and kill them - that's what I feel so strongly about. A soldier? - legitimate target as he/she's got a weapon that's intended to be used against them (no offence to anyone in the armed forces of any county). That's all I'm pissed about really - innocent civilians being dragged into this & needlessly killed. Yes the soldiers are people too with families, but they chose to be soldiers and go with the invasion and kill other people, so in my eyes that makes them legitimate targets - but I'm not happy about anyone being captured, tortured and killed - it's not nice.
Yes I've come across as a twat on this and I can see why - I type before I fully think out my reasons. I tend to do that on occasion when I feel so strongly about something.
quote:And believe me, you'd probably do the same. So - Reality check. The Iraqi's did not come after you. This we know. If you think the invasion was anything but a lie, for political and economic gain, go check yourself in to an asylum. The USA (and unfortunately) the misguided govt's of the UK and Australia invaded Iraq, without provocation or legal authority.
Yep, agree with you there - they shouldn't have invaded - biggest mistake they made.
quote:So cut the crap.
What!? But I can't do that! I've got so much of it to give! HEHE!
Oh yeah - back to my earlier comment about not being a racist. I really like to think that I am not - that I am fair, but truth be told I've had some really bad experiences with people from what are termed "ethnic minorities". I'm not racist - just bias because of what has been done to me by nasty people who happen to have different coloured skin to mine - some of them have been really cruel to me and my family which does have an affect on my judgement - no one can say that such things don't affect you beacuse they do. They are in the minority though as I have lots of friends and colleagues who are not white and are really nice to be with (I even work for a Muslim and he's OK). So to those of you who think that I am racist because I ain't! I just don't like a few people, that's all. Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Ah well, if talking crap is just part of your makeup, then we are more alike than I imagined.
You may even make it into the curry order one day if you keep that up.
On a serious note - I don't particularly have a problem with soldiers. (Unless they act like tossers. Which I must say, a number of them do.) In some cases I think they are as much the victims as civillians. I have a problem with the people who give the orders.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daryus Aden: Ah well, if talking crap is just part of your makeup, then we are more alike than I imagined.
Really? We are? Please, explain further?
quote:You may even make it into the curry order one day if you keep that up..
Huh? Curry order? Whaaat?
quote:On a serious note - I don't particularly have a problem with soldiers. (Unless they act like tossers. Which I must say, a number of them do.)
Yep, agree with you there.
quote:In some cases I think they are as much the victims as civillians.
Yep, agree with you there too.
quote:I have a problem with the people who give the orders.
Oh I most definately agree with you there! Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm not racist - just bias because of what has been done to me by nasty people who happen to have different coloured skin to mine - some of them have been really cruel to me and my family which does have an affect on my judgement - no one can say that such things don't affect you beacuse they do."
And if they were being nasty to you because white people had been nasty to them first...?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daryus Aden: AKB1979: If your precious USA was invaded and occupied, what would you be doing?
If someone occupied Australia (lets call this country "Evil Country Number 1")....believe me, I'd be doing what the Iraqi's are. Supporting and attempting to blow the living crap out of the soldiers of "Evil Country Number 1" at every opportunity.
And believe me, you'd probably do the same. So - Reality check. So cut the crap.
So you'd be bombing civillans from your own country just to spite the new government and kill a few occupying soldiers at random? You'd undermine the first chance at a democratic government in several generations while destroying the work your own countrymen have made at rebuilding? You'd support a radical, power-hungry cleric over a chance at democracy? If so, you're no better than Bin Laden. Besides, Australlia was never the dictatorship of saddam's rule: you never had police take whole famalies off to torture and execution without so much as a charge. Your comparison is nothing close to the same situation and you know it.
Really, you think that the adverage Iraqui wants the US forces to just up and leave? They want stability and safety as much as democracy- No, they dont like the US presence and dont think US soldiers are doing a good job protecting them from the radical element but to think that they all hate the US nad would support killing of our troops is sadly mistaken.
You should really speak with people that have been (or are) serving over there instead of getting all your views from the news.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You'd undermine the first chance at a democratic government in several generations while destroying the work your own countrymen have made at rebuilding? You'd support a radical, power-hungry cleric over a chance at democracy? If so, you're no better than Bin Laden.
Wow. Thats amazing, I used to think that only people on FoxNews used to speak like that. Way to absorb.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What democratic government? They went for over a year with no government at all. Now they have one that was appointed by an invading army. Now, if they even have elections next year, the people in charge say that as much as a quarter of the eligible population may not get to vote, and they don't care.
Where does democracy enter into that?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Wow. Thats amazing, I used to think that only people on FoxNews used to speak like that. Way to absorb.
Well, he's stating that he'd be "doing the same thing" while conviently ignoring the violence and destruction heaped on the adverage (non-comabtant) Iraqi populace by these so-called "rebels". I doubt Daryus or any Flarite would be doing those henious acts....for any supposed "cause".
These guys are not fighting for their freedom- they're just establishing their power via violence during the government's infantcy.
I'm not defending AKB1979's "nuke 'em all" statements, only pointing out the obvious fallacy in Daryus' argument.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: What democratic government? They went for over a year with no government at all. Now they have one that was appointed by an invading army. Now, if they even have elections next year, the people in charge say that as much as a quarter of the eligible population may not get to vote, and they don't care.
Where does democracy enter into that?
It's at least a start: leaving now owuld allow Al Saudr (sp?) to establish a theocracy in short order.
I said they have a chance at democracy: they have to want it. That means not turning a blind eye to violence and terrorist acts as much as it does showing up nad being allowed to vote.
Who knows? We may see additional UN aid (and they'll definitely be monitoring the elections under a microscope) ...and along with a change in US leadership, progress can be made.
If the Iraqi's want it.
All the good intentions and oversight in the world wont mean dick if they decide to become a theocracy or dictatorship again. But they'll get to decide for the first time ever.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"They" being anyone who just happens to have the good fortune to live outside the particularly violent areas...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"They" being anyone that wants to live without those "particularly violent areas". The people IN thos violent areas need to report information that could save lives and bring these killers to justice.
How long do you think the violence would continue if it was not in some way condoned in those areas?
What few Iraqi police there are are targets of both the insurgents (terrorists), and indirectly by the people they're protecting -by the people's fear or apathy to make a stand- or even a phone call to the police when they have information.
Each time civillians are killed in one of these "insurgent" attacks the news sow someone blaming the US forces because "they sholuld have been there to protect us", but it comes down to how much violence they'll allow their own countrymen to inflict on them.
Even if the populace were to (non-violently!) speak out against Al Sadur and his violent ways, it would improve the situation markedly- by showing that they DONT want the violence to continue in Iraq- not against the US- or against themselves-the general population. It would also go along way to curb many people's "nuke 'em all!" gut reaction to beheadings and the everyday brutality of the situation.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And if they were being nasty to you because white people had been nasty to them first...?
Who's being nasty, the people that have been to me in the past? They were kids who bullied me and kicked the shit out of me! There's no excuse for them to have done that just because they enjoyed it and had a laugh. Oh yes, they enjoyed seeing me on the ground in agony as they repeatedly kicked me in the face, stomach and nuts - FUCKING ARESEHOLES! (Fortunately I managed to protect my nuts after the first occasion so hopefully all is still working there so that I can still have kids).
Oh and if Iraqis started on me I'd tell them to fuck off and then kick the stupid shitty white twat that started it all off a cliff! I might even run a bet for how many times he bounces! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So you got stomped by fuck-o's. Happens. It's not really something to make a part of your world-view.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: So you got stomped by fuck-o's. Happens. It's not really something to make a part of your world-view.
It's my perogative! I'll include it in my world-view if I like!
Can't help it anyway - we are all shaped and influenced by what life throws at us. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"(Fortunately I managed to protect my nuts after the first occasion so hopefully all is still working there so that I can still have kids)."
I sure hope not...
"What few Iraqi police there are are targets of both the insurgents (terrorists), and indirectly by the people they're protecting -by the people's fear or apathy to make a stand- or even a phone call to the police when they have information."
So, you're saying that, since the people are afraid, it's their own fault they're in such a bad situation?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: It's at least a start: leaving now owuld allow Al Saudr (sp?) to establish a theocracy in short order.
I said they have a chance at democracy: they have to want it.
Why do they automatically "have" to want democracy? What if they actually do want a theocracy?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Speaking of which, I wonder why no-one ever says we should overthrow the pope and liberate the Catholics...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Why do they automatically "have" to want democracy? What if they actually do want a theocracy?
That's a fairly unfair question though. Everyone is taught that their system is the best one, and that all overs are wrong. And since a lot of your morals and standards come from a society designed around that system, you are going to be biased towards it.
However, it's also very easy to armchair left-wing complain (or whatever) and say stuff like that. "What gives us the right to say that our system is better? What gives us the right to force them to be able to choose who runs their country?" And so on. I am going to go out on a limb and say that, if viewed from as impartial an angle as is possible to achiece, democracy is a "fairer" system that theocracy. You're willing to argue against it if you want, but it'll need to be a convincing argument.
And as for that Catholics comment Tim, seriously, what? Using an example that contains only the vaguest of superficial similarities to the one being discussed is hardly a good argument. You can do better than that.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Using an example that contains only the vaguest of superficial similarities to the one being discussed is hardly a good argument."
Quite true. I would certainly avoid making any such argument.
"You can do better than that."
At what?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Okay, there were two possibilities:
1/ You were trying to make an insightful comment on people's apparent right to chose their leaders by comparing Saddam's rule in Iraq to the Pope's "rule" over Catholics.
2/ You were trying to be funny.
If point 1 is true, then it was rubbish. If point 2 is true, then you are rubbish.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Ah, but, if there were a third possibility...? What then, grasshopper?
Like, for example, say I was just being flippant and meant nothing by it. How does that grab you?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
LIKE A CONSTRICTOR
All the good intentions and oversight in the world wont mean dick if they decide to become a theocracy or dictatorship again. But they'll get to decide for the first time ever.
Well, then, this will all have been a rather colossal waste of... everything, won't it?
...democracy is a "fairer" system that theocracy.
Yes, and that's why we can't go around depositing it where we please.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
It's amazing how despite the clear threat of terrorist actions and the losing of one's head to any number of group that anyone would volunteer to go there. I hear the money is good, but I don't know if it's worth the risk. I've been to Bahrain which was a little more tolerant than most Middle East countries, the UAE even more so welcoming to westerners.
At this point though, it's hard for me to feel sorry for the victims. It's not as if they didn't know what was going on anymore. Not that I'm saying it's okay for the terrorists to keep chopping off heads either.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The money is very good I hear; up to several thousand pounds a week. And, let's face it, not all that many people have been kidnapped compared to the numbers of westerners out there. I'm not saying it's not risky but I can see why many people go.
quote:...democracy is a "fairer" system that theocracy.
Yes, and that's why we can't go around depositing it where we please.
Why ever not? A substantial portion of the world's democracies were imposed by outside force.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"What few Iraqi police there are are targets of both the insurgents (terrorists), and indirectly by the people they're protecting -by the people's fear or apathy to make a stand- or even a phone call to the police when they have information."
So, you're saying that, since the people are afraid, it's their own fault they're in such a bad situation?
You know that's not what I'm saying. If they want change they can assist in their own defense by at least reporting terrorist activities when they witness them. Silence is viewed as consent....by both the terrorists and by far too many watching the news as well.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: It's at least a start: leaving now would allow Al Saudr (sp?) to establish a theocracy in short order.
I said they have a chance at democracy: they have to want it.
Why do they automatically "have" to want democracy? What if they actually do want a theocracy?
Then we've wasted our time money and many many lives and should cease relations with the new (voter-approved) theocracy and bug out. As pointed out, democracy cant be forced on a people that dont want it, so....
But untill free elections can be held, the US/UK/Un forces should ensure that the interim government is not topled by extremists, lest we find ourselves invading Iraq again with justifiable cause in the future.
After all, Al Sadur's power is based on his anti-american stance: how long after we're gone before he's directing attacks on US targets outside of Iraq as well?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You know that's not what I'm saying."
Well, no, I don't. I mean, these people are in fear for their lives from both the insurgents and the American military/Iraqi police. And you seem to be saying "well, if they can't get over being scared a do something useful, they're just babies and they're screwed".
If you lived there, would you really want to call the cops on the insurgents, knowing that, if the insurgents don't kill you for it, it's just as likely that the Americans will kill you themselves in the process of taking out the insurgents?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Why ever not?"
Because, for one, imposing something by outside force runs contrary to the whole democratic process we so claim to love, and because it isn't too far removed from certain theocratic trends we so claim to hate, for two.
This is one of those cases where you have to practice what you preach, or just not preach at all.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"(Fortunately I managed to protect my nuts after the first occasion so hopefully all is still working there so that I can still have kids)."
I sure hope not...
Did you insult me TSN? Did you? Is that the best that you can offer?
Believe me bubba - I've had far worse than that thrown at me. If that's all that you have to offer in the way of insults then I suggest you go away and don't come back until you become a real man who knows how to insult people properly!
Tell me something: do you have a nice thing to say about anyone other than yourself? Because it sure doesn't sound like it. I admit that I can be horrible to people at times, but your nasty streak appears to be embedded into you. How very sad.
Oh and one last thing:
quote:I sure hope not...
Right back at ya!
Oh and clear you PM box - wanna send you one!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: "You know that's not what I'm saying." Well, no, I don't. I mean, these people are in fear for their lives from both the insurgents and the American military/Iraqi police. And you seem to be saying "well, if they can't get over being scared a do something useful, they're just babies and they're screwed".[/b]
No one said anything like that at all- as I've stated already- the locals need to be proactive their own defense: to have info on the insurgents whereabouts and plans and do nothing to stop them is to aid the insurgents. Not sharing that information costs both Iraqi and US lives every day.
quote:[qb] If you lived there, would you really want to call the cops on the insurgents, knowing that, if the insurgents don't kill you for it, it's just as likely that the Americans will kill you themselves in the process of taking out the insurgents?
I know there's the treat of the insurgents looking for payback but they cant expect US forces to protect them from insurgents while they turn a blind eye to insurgent activity.
You've got a very wrong view of what's going on there if you think civillians are "just as likely to be killed by US forces". US troops have gone so far out of their way to avoid civillian casualties that they wont engage insurgents in most public areas (unless fired on first) and they wont fire on holy sites even when insurgents fire from them at US troops.
No other army in the world has ever gone so far as this to keep civillians safe or to respect their holy places during wartime.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:A substantial portion of the world's democracies were imposed by outside force.
Such as?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Canada: those moose take no shit.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You've got a very wrong view of what's going on there if you think civillians are 'just as likely to be killed by US forces'. "US troops have gone so far out of their way to avoid civillian casualties that they wont engage insurgents in most public areas (unless fired on first) and they wont fire on holy sites even when insurgents fire from them at US troops."
Um... You do know that the Iraqi Health Ministry is saying that coalition forces are killing more civilians that the insurgents are, right?
And they don't avoid firing at holy sites to stop civilian casualties. They do it to avoid pissing off even more Muslims than they already have.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Have to actually spoken with any troops that serve or served over there? I know several, and they tell me the orders are strictly non-engagment if civillians are comprimised unless fired upon. That's not to say that civillians dont get caught in crossfire after shooting starts but they're definitely not targets. That deathtoll bit is added to by airstrikes nad by several of the bombings being blamed on UK/US forces.
I've seen many reports of a bombing killing people nad then some Iraqi comes on canera decreeing that he saw a Apache fire a rocket into the area: though theres often zero evidence to support this it's still on the news.
I'd be intrested to see the figures though nad their sources.
It's still a matter of US forces fighting to stabalize the country nad insurgents orking to tear it all apart.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"That deathtoll bit is added to by airstrikes..."
You say that as if they don't count...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I say that because the ground troops (whom I was clearly talking about) are doing all they can to avoid casualties but the airmen have no discresion from the mile away that they fire from: dont try to put words in my mouth just to instigate a response. It's petty.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I think what TSN may have meant was that your tone, Jason, seems to suggest that the deaths of Iraqi civilians, if caused by the insurgents or US troopers with bad aim, is regrettable but not the fault of the US, whereas the majority of the world understands that every open-conflict casualty (Iraqi, american and european) since the start of the invasion is the responsibility of the US/UK since you came in uninvited and arbitrarily rewrote the rules of conduct.
Unless I put words in TSN's mouth... *shrugs*
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I think what TSN may have meant was that your tone, Jason, seems to suggest that the deaths of Iraqi civilians, if caused by the insurgents or US troopers with bad aim, is regrettable but not the fault of the US, whereas the majority of the world understands that every open-conflict casualty (Iraqi, american and european) since the start of the invasion is the responsibility of the US/UK since you came in uninvited and arbitrarily rewrote the rules of conduct.
Regardless of whether that's what TSN meant, it's pretty much spot on. It is the US/UK's fault since they said "bugger everyone else, we're going to war, we're not afraid like you".
In actual truth it's not about bravery, it's about brains - everyone else is more sensible/smarter by staying out of the conflict. It would have been better on the whole if the US & UK had waited and joined the entire UN in the attack rather than put themselves out on a limb. But then that wouldn't have happened because there are no WMD, are there!?! And that's why they went in against everyone else's wishes, on the falsehood of removing the WMD that don't exist! Try getting out of that one Bush/Blair. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System:
quote:A substantial portion of the world's democracies were imposed by outside force.
Such as?
Sorry, shouldn't have said force; outside powers would be more accurate and applies to (most) of the former colonies. Of course, not all of those democracies survived- Iraq being a prime example of one which didn't.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Ah yes, they had it for a while there, some generations ago. But in the words of Sideshow Bob, "deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king". (WOAH, also appliez > US. w00t.)
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I always thought it was interesting how the Republican Party on The Simpsons seemed more diverse than the Democrats: a Jewish clown, an immigrant action movie hero, and a black doctor who is also a member of MENSA. (It seems not all Rs are stoopid.) Plus everyone's favorite industrialist officiating and an evil genius voiced by real-life R Kelsey Grammer. Hmmm...
What I find it interesting how the Republican Party on The Simpsons seems more diverse than the Republican Party of real life.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
It's not like Republicans haven't tried. This from Jay Nordlinger:
quote: J. C. Watts is retiring, and the media and other Democrats are having a field day saying there are no black Republicans left in Congress. Not a-one!
But let�s sober them up a little. What�s never mentioned is that, whenever we field a black candidate, the Democratic party moves heaven and earth to defeat him. We�ll have a black nominee somewhere: and the Democrats will make sure to stomp him like a bug, probably hinting, or outright saying, that the guy�s a Tom anyway.
Indeed, I believe Democrats work all the harder to defeat black Republicans, because they believe that such individuals violate the laws of nature: God intended for blacks to be Democrats, and to vote Democratic, and the Democratic party is to be the sole protector and representative of blacks. Period.
I remember when Gary Franks � a black Republican � was a congressman from Connecticut. The Democrats were extra keen on defeating him, because he stood, in part, as a rebuke to them. And, by golly, they did.
This leads to another memory: of Doug Wilder�s historic run for governor of Virginia. During that campaign, it was said, from coast to coast, that Wilder would be �the first black governor since Reconstruction.� This was said over and over again. It was implied, everywhere, that it was the duty of Virginians to elect him. If they didn�t, they would have spat in the face of history, and proven themselves . . . racist.
Well, well. It so happens that, shortly before, we Michiganders had a black nominee for governor: Bill Lucas. He was a Republican. And I never once heard that Lucas would be �the first black governor since Reconstruction.� There was no national excitement � which is to say, no media excitement � about him. And would it be entirely inappropriate to add that, where strict color was concerned, Lucas was a helluva lot blacker than Doug Wilder?
But he was, of course, a Republican, and therefore considered illegitimately black. He was soundly defeated by a white liberal politician named James Blanchard.
And no one cared. And they probably shouldn�t have. But the contrast � between the Lucas race and the Wilder race � was striking, never to be forgotten.
So, guys: No black Republicans in Congress? Is the Democratic party willing to step aside and let those Republicans win? Are you kidding? And, of course, they shouldn�t. But they should be a lot less smug about this �no blacks in Congress� thing.
Did Republicans rub it into the faces of Democrats that the only black senator since Reconstruction, for years and years, was a Republican (Ed Brooke of Massachusetts)? I don�t remember. But I doubt it.
Now, Nordlinger is an unabashed partisan, though he makes an effort to be realistic. That said, I think he makes a good point here.
I have also heard it said that there is a generational shift happening among blacks (though the shift began many many years ago). Once the baby boomers are off the scene, politics will look very different. I had a professor who clerked for Justice Thomas who said he could see such a dynamic happening too.
So while I concur that there isn't as much pigment in the crowd on the right, it's beginning to change. Don't count on things staying the same.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Just a couple of things regarding the righty Opinion Journal piece....
quote:� Society. A free and democratic election in January will mark a symbolic transition of Iraq from the dictatorial past towards a more hopeful future.
That's certainly the hope, but I find it interesting that this is put out front of an article purportedly about things that are actually going good in Iraq.
The election hasn't happened yet, so wishful thinking doesn't count.
And regarding a free and democratic election in January, here's what Dondald Rumsfeld had to say about that:
quote:"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) hearing.
Put the two together and you get a country where things are too violent to have an open election throughout the country. Democracy on the march.
----
quote:The Electricity Ministry is aiming to increase power production to 25,000 megawatts over the next five years. After years of neglect and violence, the electricity infrastructure in Iraq is in such state of disrepair that, according to ministry estimates, it might require somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion to fully upgrade the grid to modern standards. Foreign governments are already assisting, with the United Arab Emirates agreeing to speed up its contribution of $215 million toward rebuilding Iraqi power system.
According to my poor calculations, $215 million is .43% of the estimated upper cost of $50 billion. One wonders, when one considers who is footing the bill for the vast majority of Iraq reconstruction why the United Arab Emirates contributing .43% of 50 billion is such a sign of success.
Moreover, the IMF or the World Bank aren't the ones paying for all this. The United States is taking on huge deficits to rebuild Iraq and to write a sunshine and optimism story about Iraqi infrastructure that leaves one with the impression that the international community is footing larger amounts of the bill than they are, is, well, not the reality.
And, speaking of reconstruction, one has to ask why things like this are happening:
quote:Bush, in Shift, Taps Into Emergency Iraq Funds
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) has begun tapping into its $25 billion emergency fund for the Iraq (news - web sites) war to prepare for a major troop rotation and intense fighting this fall, administration officials said on Tuesday, despite the White House's initial insistence that it had enough money.
The Pentagon has already used more than $2 billion from what the White House dubbed its "contingency reserve" fund for Iraq. The money is being used to ramp up production of armored Humvees to support the troop rotation, as well as to buy body armor and bolster fuel supplies, the officials told Reuters.
The decision to use the $25 billion in Iraq reserves underscores concern within the administration about the rise in anti-American violence in Iraq.
The decision follows last week's announcement that President Bush (news - web sites) plans to divert nearly $3.5 billion from Iraqi water, power and other reconstruction projects to improve security.
The White House had initially asserted it would not need additional war funding until January or February, 2005 -- well after the November presidential election.
----
*Emphasis added.
Yes, things are going so good, the Administration felt it necessary to dip into an emergency contingency fund and has to transfer money away from reconstructing Iraqi infrastructure -- electricity and water -- and put it into security.
----
quote:Israelis and Palestinians will be able to use their cell phones in Iraq without switching networks, thanks to a roaming agreement reached between the Israeli company Cellcom and Kuwaiti-owned Asiacell, which supplies cellular phone services to Iraq.
For all those Israelis that plan to vacation in post-invasion Iraq, that piece of good news could not have come at a better time.
----
Despite Mr. Bush�s sunshine policy and pictures of Bechtel painting Iraqi schools, I think to say that the current situation in Iraq is anything but precarious is wishful thinking.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I'm sorry, but as evidence to support your contention that Republicans are trying to be a 'big tent' party, you cite a story lamenting the fact that Democrats actually oppose Republicans, even black Republicans, in elections?
That the good point is that of the 535 members of Congress, there are no black Republicans simply because Democrats actively sought to defeat them?
And a former clerk for one of the most conservative judges around hardly makes for an un-biased report of a sea change in ethnic makeup of political parties.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
What I'm sensing in your complaint about the lack of uniformly free elections throughout Iraq is that the result would be illegitmate, undermining the seed of republicanism we have planted in that country. Lee Harris makes a good point on how neither side has characterized the nature of legitimacy correctly. An example would be the reconstruction governments in the south after the American Civil War. Though there were federal troops securing the Union-installed officials, the people still held those governments to have enough legitimacy in their own time to govern.
As for the UAE, it's a sign of success because another Muslim nation decided to help. No, their contribution pales in comparison to the cost we are footing, but for them I'd bet that's a lot of money to donate, and they're going out on a limb to help us and Iraq rebuild. You point out their money is small potatoes. Yes. But that aid is still a victory.
The point of the Nordlinger article was to illustrate why there are no Republicans who are black, not why they are not represented in that party in perfect symmetry with the population. I think it still counts as a bigger tent than you are giving it credit for when they have (unsuccessfully) tried to elect them.
As for the comment about Justice Thomas's clerk, I heard the same from some of the flaming liberal professors at my school too. There're articles on it too that I'm too tired to find now. I'm not saying it's huge, all I'm saying is that it's growing.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:What I'm sensing in your complaint about the lack of uniformly free elections throughout Iraq is that the result would be illegitmate, undermining the seed of republicanism we have planted in that country.
You can't really call it democracy then can you?
At least not a Western-style, reform-oriented, democracy which is, correct me if I'm wrong, the model for this experiment.
As a side note, this talk about we invaded Iraq to democratize it bugs me. The right speaks about the current misadventure in Iraq as if it is the vanguard of a humanitarian / democratization foreign policy. I don't see that as the case at all.
That may be the case among the smallish cabal of Neocons hijacked this Administration, but it certainly wasn't presented to the American people as such. Rather, democratization, strikes me as a post-invasion justification put forth when primary reasons for pre-emptive invasion were thought to be untenable with the American people.
Remember, this was a pre-emptive invasion. Were we pre-emptivly bringing democracy to Iraq?
Anyway....
As for the seed of republicanism, mine is a wait and see approach.
Will Mr. Allawi become a strongman, which far from out of the question? And if he does, what will the United States do?
And, don't forget, they have already shown a predisposition to curtail particular freedoms that the West holds as essential fee societies to function...specifically freedom of the press.
So, we'll have to wait and see.
quote:An example would be the reconstruction governments in the south after the American Civil War.
An interesting analogy.
As I recall, the people of Georgia sent Alexander Stephens, the former Vice-President of the Confederates States of America, back to Congress. I wonder, if in the spirit of true democracy, the powers that be would allow former high-ranking members of the Ba'ath Party back in power.
[ September 27, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: That the good point is that of the 535 members of Congress, there are no black Republicans simply because Democrats actively sought to defeat them?
And given that only around 30 House seats are competative, it looks even worse; are there no black Republican congressmen because the Democrats make special efforts to defeat them, or because the Republicans only field them in seats they stand no chance of winning?
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Wraith, no argument with you on the lack of competitiveness in most districts. I think Charlie Cook actually has reduced his number of competitive seats from 30 to 18. It's had some good effects (more proficient legislators and fewer newbies fighting a learning curve their first term) and some very bad effects (candidates drifting to firing the base, not inspiring consensus). As for district-by-district analysis of each race over the decades, that I can't give you. I know a little bit about political history, but I'm no Michael Barone. However, we're starting to see more black candidates running. Off the top of my head, I would say the Lt. Governor in Maryland (and Republicans never win there period). The Texas delegation to the convention had a pretty large black contingent. Secretary of Education Rod Paige was elected the head of the equivalent body in Houston. I know there's a black running for state senate in Minnesota this year. (That one could happen. MN has been trending right the past 4 years.) A lot of people want Condoleeza Rice to go for governor in California after Arnold is gone. These are just the ones that I know of casually. So I would say that there have been successes and losses. I don't see a big conspiracy by The Man to keep them down. (Of course, another issue entirely is hispanics, which are still heavily D. Bush might lose Colorado this time around because of it. But that's an issue too complicated to start now.)
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Jay, I was wondering if something was wrong with your computer. Nothing was in your post there for a while. Otherwise I would have put this in the above post.
I wouldn't call it a democracy taken lock-step from the one in the United States. That's why the current government is called the Provisional Authority. Everyone complains that we shouldn't be trying to transplant America to the Middle East. Well, we're not. We're developing it one step at a time. A lot of the criticism centers around what "democracy" is. Everyone has different meanings for it in mind. It might be more useful to say we are increasing the degree of democracy there. Just like we are increasing the degree of legitimacy there by the baseline behavior of Iraqis toward their government. I won't deny that the government is still weak in areas like Falluja, but but that doesn't mean the prospect is doomed. It just means we need to perservere.
As for Alexander Stephens, yes, he was a Confederate. But he had accepted the authority of the US and submitted to it, demonstrating he felt the new government was legitimate. Those governments also elected lots of blacks and Republicans who were capable and able administrators. If one example of past opposition to core principles the nation stands for is all it takes to eliminate the government's legitimacy, then we're screwed since West Virginia still elects Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan years before.
I know I'm repeating myself, but you're conflating the justifications for the war with talk of "pre-emptive democracy." (Although, I got to say, Jay, that is one cool phrase!) Here are the justifications properly stated again (and cleaned up from a previous post):
1. Change the regime of Saddam Hussein and help Iraq transition to democratic self-rule 2. Pre-emptively find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction or the ability to resume programs to develop them 4. End economic sanctions and deliver humanitarian support to a starving population 5. Prevent further assassination attempts against the leaders of our country 6. Enforce international law embodied in more than 10 UN resolutions condemning Iraq�s flouting of the armistace signed and agreed to after the first Gulf War 7. Prevent further assistance to terrorist groups (e.g., Abu Nidal, Hamas) 8. Frighten wavering states into stopping support of terrorists and abandoning their WMD programs (whether that happened is contended, though I have read your evidence to the contrary)
Not all of them were treated with the same rigor as each other in the media. WMDs stole the show because Colin Powell thought it was the best of the several. That doesn't mean the others were never presented at some point to someone who was keeping track of all the possible jusitifications.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
IIRC,in his 2003 State of the Union address, GWB devoted 16 of his 18 paragraphs on Iraq to WMD.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Yes, but the lawyers over at the State Department wanted it that way. Colin Powell convinced Bush to make it the primary justification. It doesn't mean there weren't others.
Perchance, what does "IIRC" mean? Forgive me.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"if I recall correctly"
Using postcolonial states as examples of democratic institutions being imposed by imperial force of arms is sort of a flawed argument from the beginning, considering the large numbers of problems that plague nearly all of them. Being organized by 18th and 19th century imperial powers simply hasn't turned out to be a sufficient condition for a state to be free and open, by Western standards.
I'd recommend the book Freedom and Culture, by John Dewey, only I haven't finished reading it yet, because I am one lazy student. (Timeline: It was assigned when I was in college; I am no longer in college.) But it has some insights on the subject of democratic governments, free societies, and the relationships between them.
Plus dig that entertainingly Cranky review at Amazon.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I think what TSN may have meant was that your tone, Jason, seems to suggest that the deaths of Iraqi civilians, if caused by the insurgents or US troopers with bad aim, is regrettable but not the fault of the US, whereas the majority of the world understands that every open-conflict casualty (Iraqi, american and european) since the start of the invasion is the responsibility of the US/UK since you came in uninvited and arbitrarily rewrote the rules of conduct.
Unless I put words in TSN's mouth... *shrugs*
That's not my intended tone- I'm just sick of the news (and everyone folowing that perspective) blaming all civilian deaths on US troops for either "recklessly endangering them" or "not protecting them enough". While the administration may have dozens of ulterior motives, the men and women actually serving over there believe in the ideal of helping Iraq become a democracy and rebuilding.
Those are the same people getting killed every day as both candidates lounge in their mansions.
I dont think any of us are getting a complete picture on the situation in Iraq, only what's "news" and ratings. Though we're still seeing far more from Iraq than that other country we invaded...what was it's name Af...Af...something. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
To go back a few pages...
"I say that because the ground troops (whom I was clearly talking about) are doing all they can to avoid casualties but the airmen have no discresion from the mile away that they fire from..."
You may have been talking about only the ground forces, but so what? The line you quoted from my post was not that specific. When I speak of the likelihood of Iraqi civilians' being killed by US forces, you can't just say "well that's wrong, because the US forces aren't killing many civilians. (Oh, and I'm only talking about the ground troops.)".
If you're only talking about them, fine. Maybe they aren't killing a lot of civilians. But don't tell me that I have the wrong idea, just because you choose to interpret my terminology in a narrower way than is warranted.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Using postcolonial states as examples of democratic institutions being imposed by imperial force of arms is sort of a flawed argument from the beginning, considering the large numbers of problems that plague nearly all of them. Being organized by 18th and 19th century imperial powers simply hasn't turned out to be a sufficient condition for a state to be free and open, by Western standards.
Well, yes but that's because most were made independant before they were ready (for various reasons). Remember, a much slower transition to democracy was originally planned. Also most of the population of Iraq is much better educated than many of the colonial populations were when granted independance.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: To go back a few pages... If you're only talking about them, fine. Maybe they aren't killing a lot of civilians. But don't tell me that I have the wrong idea, just because you choose to interpret my terminology in a narrower way than is warranted.
Your "idea" was also that the adverage iraqi lives in fear of US forces (as much as of insurgents): that's not what I hear from people that have actually served/are serving over there. In fact, (considering that the US troops more are heavily armed that saddam's old troops), the anti-US demonstrations would indicate that not only are they not afraid of being killed by US forces, but that they're enjoying a freedom they lacked before we arrived....usually well within a stone's throw of US forces.
...now if they only would demonstrate for us. Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Thanks for the tip, Sol.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...that's not what I hear from people that have actually served/are serving over there."
And what about the people who live over there?
I'm not saying that I know for a fact that they are more afraid of being killed by US forces than by insuregents. I'm just saying that, statistically, they should be.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
TSN: I'm not sure that this answers the question you and Jason are debating, but I thought this might shed some light on where the casualties among the different demographics lie. The original story was posted here. Since the URLs change, here is the story in a block quote.
quote: ATTRITION: Iraqi Casualties When Fighting Americans
September 28, 2004: While the U.S. Department of Defense won�t release any data on enemy deaths in Iraq, the Iraqi Health Ministry has begun doing so. In the six month period from early April to early September, 3,487 Iraqis were killed because of combat action. Another 13,720 Iraqis were wounded. This data only covered fifteen of Iraq�s 18 provinces. The three Sunni Arab provinces that are most hostile to the government made collecting such data there impossible. During that same period, 432 American soldiers were killed, in all 18 provinces. The Iraqi deaths also include government security forces (police and troops.) The Iraqi casualties in the three Sunni Arab provinces were high, and probably increased the overall number of deaths by at least 20 percent, to about 3,800 adult males killed. Some of these were innocent civilians caught in the cross fire. Actually, a third of them were, according to the Health Ministry, were Iraqis killed by anti-government forces. The Health Ministry also believes that many deaths of anti-government fighters are not reported, to prevent further investigation of the family by the police. Coalition troops have noted anti-government fighters trying to take their dead with them, for the same reason.
What American troops do report, and this is often observed when journalists are about, are strenuous efforts to avoid civilian casualties. About two thirds of Iraqis are women and children. Since only nine percent of the combat dead are women and children, the American efforts appear to be working. The Israelis use the same approach when fighting Palestinians, and get the same results. Moreover, the Israelis have much more information available on the Palestinians they are fighting, and have found that over 80 percent of the adult males killed are actually hostile fighters.
American troops appear to have a 4:1 casualty ratio (for dead Iraqis for each dead American) with the anti-government forces. This varies quite a lot depending on the type of unit. American combat units appear to have a 10:1 ratio, while non-combat units, which get hit by roadside bombs, ambushes and mortar attacks, have a less than 2:1 ratio. The non-combat troops often fire back when they have a chance, but experience has shown that the best way to deal with an ambush is to increase speed and drive away from it. The overall experience with American troops shows why the anti-government forces and terrorists prefer to attack Iraqis. However, even this is becoming less effective, as better trained Iraqi combat troops appear in greater numbers. Some 90 percent of the of the coalition combat operations are conducted by American troops.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"...that's not what I hear from people that have actually served/are serving over there."
And what about the people who live over there?
I'm not saying that I know for a fact that they are more afraid of being killed by US forces than by insuregents. I'm just saying that, statistically, they should be.
Statistically we should live in mortal terror of cars and feel safe in planes too.
As to the POV of those living over there, I'm hoping to find a good blog from someone working and living in the region (preferably two- one native- one visiting) but no luck thus far.
quote:The overall experience with American troops shows why the anti-government forces and terrorists prefer to attack Iraqis. However, even this is becoming less effective, as better trained Iraqi combat troops appear in greater numbers.
That's going to be the real solution: more Iraqi combat troops (government loyal ones, anyway) will undermine any anti-american street-cred the insurgents may have.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, if it helps here's a native, and here's a visitor.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Thanks for the links- the first seems far less biased than the former Post reporters though. I'll be reading those....
I'm watching the BBC just now- they're reporting that eight italian hostages have been released (reportedly the italian government paid a million dollars for this release). Baaaaaad precedent if true.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Huh? I know of two Italian women who were released, not eight.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
There were a number of Iraqi hostages who were released at the same time as the two Italians.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes, it seems that only the two (of eight released hostages) worth reporting on last night were the two Roman women. Strangely, they were in Iraq to PROTEST the war!
Much good they did, really. Paid off for nicely for someone at least.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Pardon the lag for getting to this...we�re selling our house and have accompanying maintenance, buying another house and have tough negotiations, and our baby is due in November.
I have had to spend my intellectual capital countering real life arguments and problems.
At any rate, this:
quote:Here are the justifications properly stated again....
If I haven�t stated it in plain language before, I�ll do so now. I don�t believe the Mr. Bush and his Administration in their post-pre-emptive invasion justifications.
I look at the cited points as the line of spin they are.
And even if they were true and they are no good praise for the Mr. Bush and his Administration in that they chose not to be forthright and honest with the American people. They chose how to present their case to the American people and it wasn�t the democracy bringing, humanitarianism of the current line of justification.
There is a simple reason why Mr. Powell and the WMD argument and stole the show, and that�s because the Administration wanted Mr. Powell and the WMD argument to steal the show. The Administration chose to put the face of fear on their pre-emptive invasion plans.
They made national security and fear the issue and they put these thing front and center in the public reasoning for pre-emptive invasion.
I think it is dishonest for the Administration and its defenders to now say something like: 'oh, look at these other reasons to invade', when the Administration purposefully chose not to speak to the public about them before the invasion.
Instead, the Administration tried to, and did, scare the crap out of the population with half-truths, insinuations about Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, overplaying the danger Iraq and those nonexistent UAV�s posed to the national security of the United States.
What played from the White House, pre-pre-emptive invasion, was a permanent chorus of Saddam Hussein was a bad man who gassed his own people who had drones that could target the United Sates with WMD.
However, a greater indictment of the present line of spin is reality. What�s been created is a single use foreign policy...the Bic disposable razor of foreign policy...a get Saddam policy, with good sounding justifications that should, if they were justly and evenly enforced as foreign policy should be, be used to promote democracy, ease the suffering of people around the world, prevent other countries from obtaining WMD.
In that each cited justification there are real world examples that cry out to be taken care of through the auspices of the foreign policy laid out Mr. Bush.
And yet they are not.
North Korea gets a shrug... Who knows what�s happening with Iran... The Darfur situation gets called a genocide and then nothing gets done about it... Russia lays a smack-down on democracy and the United States does nothing... Afghanistan is so unstable that when Hamid Karzai leaves Kabul, it�s headline news...
So this line that we are in Iraq for peace, love, and democracy is, in my opinion pure spin. My guess, with no evidence to support it, is that once WMD weren�t found, Administration polling said the next best thing is going with the democracy bringing angle.
[ September 29, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Double post.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Despite what Niall Ferguson says (or may say; I've only seen him speak on TV), I don't think you can blame all the problems of postcolonial states on benevolent empires who just needed some more time to make things nice, darn it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: North Korea gets a shrug... Who knows what�s happening with Iran... The Darfur situation gets called a genocide and then nothing gets done about it... Russia lays a smack-down on democracy and the United States does nothing... Afghanistan is so unstable that when Hamid Karzai leaves Kabul, it�s headline news... So this line that we are in Iraq for peace, love, and democracy is, in my opinion pure spin. My guess, with no evidence to support it, is that once WMD weren�t found, Administration polling said the next best thing is going with the democracy bringing angle.
Yes...it's disturbing is it not? Almost as disturbing as all the people that both condemned the US/UK for not adhering to UN guidelines and NOW condemn the US/UK for not also solving all those other UN sanctioned issues as well. You cant have it both ways Jay, and the US cant be everywhere either.
Really, the administration chose Iraq because they foolishly thought they could easily accomplish something and be heroes or whatever but the UN's complete apathy towards- well, everything- has done shit since then to stem the problems you sited. How many resolutions do you really think the murdered in the Sudan care about? Kofi's sure not calling for the military action needed to stop the killing. It's not popular this season.
If the world really wants the US and UK (or any of the major military powers) to play by UN guidelines, they'll need to eliminate the Security Council and it's veto power completely: currently the UN has no teeth because one or more of the SC powers always has vested intrest in preventing military (even for humanitarian) action.
I was listening to Kerry's security advisor the other day (on NPR) nad he pointed out that since the UN's founding, there have been over 300 wars fought worldwide and the UN has voted to approve of two. He also pointed out that some of the SC members intrest lies in opposing any action not UN sanctioned (regardless of justification) because it undermines what little say they still (militarially) have in world affairs.
I'm not voting for Bush either but it's quite possible we'd be in Iraq even if he was never elected: Clinton sure has been supportiove of this war from the start (and he dealt with Saddam longer than any one president). Going in was pure politics and it backfired- we might get a new president as a result, but to say that the ideals of "peace, love, and democracy is, pure spin" is to limit motivations to the current administration only.
Thousands of troops, voters and Iraqi's are in it for the same reasons.
How do you propose to make a change for the better in Iraq -accomplish the sarted mission- no matter how misguided- once Kerry is in office? Really, I'm intrested in hearing your views.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Almost as disturbing as all the people that both condemned the US/UK for not adhering to UN guidelines and NOW condemn the US/UK for not also solving all those other UN sanctioned issues as well."
I don't think anyone's saying Bush should have invaded the PDRK or Iran instead of Iraq. We're saying that his claim of "making America safer" is undermined by the fact that he chose to invade a country that was less of a threat than those others.
In other words, he should have minded his own damn business. But if he absolutely had to invade somewhere, Iraq was not the place that made the most sense.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: How do you propose to make a change for the better in Iraq -accomplish the sarted mission- no matter how misguided- once Kerry is in office? Really, I'm intrested in hearing your views.
Well, crap. Where did I put that paycheck the Kerry campaign is giving me to advise them on foreign policy?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hey, you're a voter-same as everyone: if you cant tell Lurch what to do, who can? Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And besides, what I'm saying is that this whole misadventure in Iraq has been one colossal screw-up. Nearly all of which is the fault, in whole or in part, of Mr. Bush and his administration.
Remember back in 2000 when people were saying, �well, Mr. Bush ain�t all that bright but things will be ok, he'll surround himself with thoughtful reasoned people.� Well, how�d that turn out? Mr. Bush still ain�t all that bright, he makes unthoughtful decisions based on advice from the ideologues he�s surrounded himself with, makes no attempt to gather information from outside his crony bubble, and then lives in a fantasy world when reality refuses to meet expectations.
I�ll tell you something else, if Mr. Kerry is elected, at least we�ll stop having our foreign policy dictated by the likes of these bozos.
All in all, I�d say this Administration is comprised of a bunch of incompetent fools at the highest levels. If it weren�t for the fact that we apparently now live in some strange mirror universe where they are not responsible for any of the incompetent, foolhardy things they�ve done, they�d be thrown out on their collective ear.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Regarding the democracy in Iraq thing:
quote:NOTEBOOK How Much U.S. Help? The Bush Administration takes heat for a CIA plan to influence Iraq's elections
By Timothy J. Burger; Douglas Waller
Monday, Sep. 27, 2004 President Bush and interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi insisted last week that Iraq would go ahead with elections scheduled for January, despite continuing violence. But U.S. officials tell TIME that the Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections � a secret "finding" written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington. A source says the idea was to help such candidates � whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran � but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections. But lawmakers from both parties raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill. In particular, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi "came unglued" when she learned about what a source described as a plan for "the CIA to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections." Pelosi had strong words with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in a phone call about the issue.
quote:...this sort of behavior by the Bush administration fatally undermines the ideal of democracy in the Middle East. If Muslims think that "democracy" is a stalking horse for CIA control of their country, then they will flee the system and prefer independent-minded strongmen that denounce the US.
Apparently, "career professionals within national security agencies" dispute the general findings of Mr. Chrenkoff, linked to in another post.
The officials seem to think things are not going so well in Iraq.
quote:Growing Pessimism on Iraq Doubts Increase Within U.S. Security Agencies
By Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A01
A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.
While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged, officials say.
People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments."
"Things are definitely not improving," said one U.S. government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq.
"It is getting worse," agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. "It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago."
This weekend, in a rare departure from the positive talking points used by administration spokesmen, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged that the insurgency is strengthening and that anti-Americanism in the Middle East is increasing. "Yes, it's getting worse," he said of the insurgency on ABC's "This Week." At the same time, the U.S. commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "we will fight our way through the elections." Abizaid said he believes Iraq is still winnable once a new political order and the Iraqi security force is in place.
Powell's admission and Abizaid's sobering warning came days after the public disclosure of a National Intelligence Council (NIC) assessment, completed in July, that gave a dramatically different outlook than the administration's and represented a consensus at the CIA and the State and Defense departments.
Yeah....bush has screwed the pooch. Now, how to unscrew it?
Debate tonight should be intresting: it's make or break for Kerry (and hope for improvment for all of us, really).
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Despite what Niall Ferguson says (or may say; I've only seen him speak on TV), I don't think you can blame all the problems of postcolonial states on benevolent empires who just needed some more time to make things nice, darn it.
Well, no not all of them. Just most. And obviously I'm not counting all those who had to put up with the French, Dutch and the various other Continentals.
And Niall Ferguson's arguements are essentially along those lines, although slightly more complicated. Although he has also said that the US should've nuked China during the Korean war.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Whata cheery fuck-o.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Whata cheery fuck-o.
It was only a mild lapse; the rest of the book is pretty good, although slightly more political (and hence not quite as good) as Empire.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah...just a slight lapse into advocating nuclear anihilation of millions of people. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Nonono, what you do is you file it under "strategically sound" in the rationalizing centra of your brain, then you order the porter steak. Learn from the masters.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)