Evaluating Iraq

[michaeledward]

1. Which statements? (Hint: there were no racist statements made, so your attack is what speaks volumes) It's the same attack the left uses when people speak up against Affirmative Action. In my case, it's unwarranted and borderline libel.

The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy.
We're trying to force on them what they cannot understand or adapt into their lifestyles.

That statement.

2. Your principle of communism is not what this country was founded on. Great idea to you or not.

It was not my idea of what communism is, nor was I making a statement on the foundation of our country.

Both you and robertson rarely contribute to a thread, but instead pounce on the person making the case for the "other side"

If providing evidence that Native Americans used genocidal attacks, thus refuting your statement about 'primative' peoples and violent attacks, is not 'contributing' to the thread, what does qualify as a contribution?

 

[MisterMike]

That statement. ?

OK good. No mention of race.

It was not my idea of what communism is, nor was I making a statement on the foundation of our country.?

You said "If I understand the principles of communism" meaning what followed was YOUR idea of it.

If providing evidence that Native Americans used genocidal attacks, thus refuting your statement about 'primative' peoples and violent attacks, is not 'contributing' to the thread, what does qualify as a contribution?

It seems it was an effort to refute what you assumed I Was saying. If you assumed I Was saying NAtive Americans were ALL peacefull, you are mistaken and AGAIN have read beyond the words typed down.

It appears you simply CANNOT read and comprehend what I type - (how awefull for a Massachusetts Education, as "Great" as their system is), or you can't get over your current tactics of distortion.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...Mike...you might need to check on the definition of the word, "racism." In my book, "racism," means that you're claiming that there are different "races," of human beings, that some of them are inferior (or in this case, "primitive"), that these inferiorities rest on biological differences, and that these biological differences explain cultural and historical phenomena like political differences.

Which of these did you NOT do?

I realize it'll be easier for you to yell, "leftist," or "commie," or come out with another one like the, "sensthitive," remark, than to answer. So please do; I'm dyin' to see how far you'll go with this nonsense, and then too the more of it there is, the more the intellectual bankruptcy of your arguments about Iraq becomes clear. But you're plain and simple wrong. I am surprised at you, and more than a little shocked that you don't know any better, or are so into the argument that you're unwilling to acknowledge your--well, let's just call them, "errors."

By the way, dragging the Flag on the ground like that is really, really poor flag etiquette. Learned that in the Scouts.

 

[Tgace]

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." -Lincoln

 

[Mickey]

An example of arguements from the left:

They shout at you and call you a racist or a bigot.

There's nothing wrong with primitive people. I wouldn't have minded living with the Native Americans 200 years ago. But what I would not have done is sent members of my tribe to fly planes into the buildings of the other tribe.

Seems poeple today are OK with that. Some are just yellow, and obviously some are pink.

MisterMike,

I do not think I am from the Left.

I do not remember shouting at you. I apologize if you believe so. I tried to say that you were presenting yourself as such, even if your intent may not be such.

As to tribes and belonging. Would you belong to a tribe that broadcasts daily into the other tribe, that they are unbelievers and thereby going to hell. Would you be a part of a tribe that tells others they are wrong for their beliefs. And before you answer, remember that Christians from the USA, fund such actions in the middle east. This, and the movies of corrupt police and goverenment and easy women are their perception of the USA and democracy. This is their only window into our world. If you are either Christian or a citizen of the USA, then you are a member of a tribe in essence.

As to being Yellow or Pink, I do not think I am either color or any such person who would these colors prescribed to myself by those who have to pigeon whole. Like I said you are presenting yourself as such.

I did not mean to Shout at you.

Mick

 

[michaeledward]

OK good. No mention of race.

You will note that my posts referred to your comments as 'bigoted', not racist.

For the record, the first use of 'racist' in this thread was by rmcroberston to describe the governments' actions during the Vietnam war. The first person to use the term 'racist' in this thread to describe a person was 'MisterMike', apparently accusing me of throwing that label around.

You said "If I understand the principles of communism" meaning what followed was YOUR idea of it.

Well, actually not. Simply defining a term does not mean that I believe in the term. For instance, if I posit that 'Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus was God's son, made flesh, was crucified for all mankinds' sins, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day'; this does not make it my belief.

It seems it was an effort to refute what you assumed I Was saying. If you assumed I Was saying NAtive Americans were ALL peacefull, you are mistaken and AGAIN have read beyond the words typed down.

Well, let's see. You might be right.

I was assuming that you said, had you lived amongst the 'primative' native North American inhabitants two hundred years ago, you would not send your tribe members to fly airplanes into the buildings of other tribes. I did assume that you were using a metaphore. Because I am fairly certain you are aware that native North American did not have airplanes two hundred years ago (you do know who the Wright brothers are).

Of course, we are getting from your argument a 'mixed metaphore'. As this thread was started as 'evaluating Iraq', and the situation on the ground there, it is a non-sequitor to be discussing flying planes into buildings (even metaphorical planes into metaphorical buildings), because I know you are aware that the Iraqi people and government had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 which used these tactics. In fact, I am fairly sure you are aware that there is no credible link between the people and/or government of Iraq and the criminal syndicate of 'al-Qeada'.
​

But, I am uncertain why you feel you can propose that you would not behave in the same manner native americans behaved? Perhaps you are stating that you would only live among the peaceful 'primative' native North Americans some two hundred years ago; not fighting back when the Europeans came and took the land on which you lived and hunted for generations.

It appears you simply CANNOT read and comprehend what I type - (how awefull for a Massachusetts Education, as "Great" as their system is), or you can't get over your current tactics of distortion.

For those statements in which I have used the tactic of distortion, I retract them.

Now, can we turn to the instances of your ad-hominem attacks?

 

[MisterMike]

You will note that my posts referred to your comments as 'bigoted', not racist.

For the record, the first use of 'racist' in this thread was by rmcroberston to describe the governments' actions during the Vietnam war. The first person to use the term 'racist' in this thread to describe a person was 'MisterMike', apparently accusing me of throwing that label around.


Well, actually not. Simply defining a term does not mean that I believe in the term. For instance, if I posit that 'Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus was God's son, made flesh, was crucified for all mankinds' sins, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day'; this does not make it my belief.



Well, let's see. You might be right.

I was assuming that you said, had you lived amongst the 'primative' native North American inhabitants two hundred years ago, you would not send your tribe members to fly airplanes into the buildings of other tribes. I did assume that you were using a metaphore. Because I am fairly certain you are aware that native North American did not have airplanes two hundred years ago (you do know who the Wright brothers are).

Of course, we are getting from your argument a 'mixed metaphore'. As this thread was started as 'evaluating Iraq', and the situation on the ground there, it is a non-sequitor to be discussing flying planes into buildings (even metaphorical planes into metaphorical buildings), because I know you are aware that the Iraqi people and government had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 which used these tactics. In fact, I am fairly sure you are aware that there is no credible link between the people and/or government of Iraq and the criminal syndicate of 'al-Qeada'.
​

But, I am uncertain why you feel you can propose that you would not behave in the same manner native americans behaved? Perhaps you are stating that you would only live among the peaceful 'primative' native North Americans some two hundred years ago; not fighting back when the Europeans came and took the land on which you lived and hunted for generations.



For those statements in which I have used the tactic of distortion, I retract them.

Now, can we turn to the instances of your ad-hominem attacks?

bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Seems the pot is calling the kettle black eh? I'd go further to say that this may apply to little old ladies holding political signs.

racism n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Nowhere did I mention superiority, or race.

If robertson wants to write "his book" on the English language, well, we will certainly have escalations such as these. I expect no less now though.

I'm through with this thread.

 

[michaeledward]

Hmmmmm,

you can make personal attacks instead, misquote people or misconstrue their statements

Nowhere did I mention superiority, or race.

These people are primitives

Hmmmmm, indeed.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I sure as hell did use the term, "racist." With excellent good reason, because MM argued that democracy in Iraq was impossible because of biological differences. He then proceeded to extend this ridiculous and science-free assertion into a claim that there were fundamental biological differences between us "advanced," human beings and the, "primitives," like Australian aborigines and certain South American tribes. Nor did he offer a shred of scientific evidience for these claims.

What he did do was start throwing around claims that those who called him on it were Commies, or gay, or whatever goofy thing popped into his mind--a familiar pattern, to anyone who recalls the seminars on biology of, say, Lester Maddox.

If that isn't racism, I'll be darned if I know what else to call it. Fortunately, I feel pretty confident that it's a fairly-surface, intellectual racism, from somebody who doesn't understand what he's talking about, and is merely repeating some ugly ideas. I strongly suspect that he doesn't act on these ideas in his immediate life...and a good thing, too.

To me the problem isn't with the identification of terminology. It's in getting somebody to think through what he's saying, and to start looking for evidence. If it were a student writing a term paper, I'd just keep demanding references and documented facts (that's how you avoid saying, "look, these ideas aren't ideas")--but it's not, so I have no good strategy at this point other than to call him on it...and that's probably useless, especially since he's decided not to reply to anything I write.

Ugly, ugly ideas, MM. Worse in some ways, they're completely bereft of fact or support, and all the verbal contortions and accusations won't help a bit. You need to know what you're talking about.

 

[michaeledward]

I understand and agree with just about everything you say here. It is always nice to see your thoughtful comments. Although I will admit at times you have me running over to Google to figure out what the hell you are referencing, not always mind you, but sometimes.

Mike

 

[8253]

Ive said it before and I'll say it again. We just need to quit screwing around with these people and do the job right so we dont have to deal with this crap anymore.

 

[michaeledward]

Ive said it before and I'll say it again. We just need to quit screwing around with these people and do the job right so we dont have to deal with this crap anymore.

OK, I hear you, ... but what exactly do you mean by 'The Job'? And how do you suppose we get it done right?

 

[loki09789]

Perhaps by using the term 'primitives' MM is making a statement about the current practice of parading dead bodies as war trophies, or the locals who were on NPR radio saying that it was right and they got what they deserve - shop owners and 'average' citizens.

Perhaps it is in reference to the inability, on a socio-political level, to find peace and overcome cultural prejudice between these factions based on religion, tribal affiliations, personal greed. I am sure that, just like in any culture there are those groups that are tolerant and compassionate and even friends, but they aren't as common as in the USA or other more "evovled" countries.

Perhaps it is the inability of these 'average' citizens who are living with death in thier faces and not just on thier TV's to wake up to the value and significance of each human life. Because, yes based on my personal values and the comparatively 'superior' quality of life, I don't see them, citizenry or government really effectively holding it together on their own - without the overlording of a SHussien or the stabilization of the foriegn occupation for now.

I would even use terms like barbaric (in the modern usage), corrupt, factioned, morally conflicted.... something about female circumcision, Kurdish holocaust, tribal 'racism' (in practice if not in literal ideology), and other fun things that mid-east countries and citizens live with that we don't that could be pointed to for a metaphorical use of the term primitive. Relative to our culture and quality of life ( life expectancy, medical treatments, educational standards....) and the statistical difference in internal violence that might support the usage.

How many of these internet sparrings or coffee shop conversations turn into us forming our own gangs of 'anti-' or 'pro-' that parade through the streets and firebomb our fellow neighbors? Honestly, how much of this 'religious' or 'politica' freedom battling in these countries is really motivated by personal gain, protection of a 'way of life' (translate fear of loosing the black market and access to money and power)?

I do think that it is going to be faster than ten thousand years to create some kind of stable and seemingly democratic type of government.

Call that bigoted if you want, but isn't the 'openness' and 'nonjudgemental/diversity respect' argument moot when you are lambasting someone on semantics instead of seeking clarification or understanding because you are too busy closing your judgement on terms and opinions? I am just glad that we are socially more 'evolved' or 'superior' to the extent that this closed mindedness doesn't break out into violence as often as it does in...say the mid east?

Please note that I NEVER specified a specific culture, religion or 'people' in this statement. I am talking about the 'primitiveness' of the cultural license to use violence so liberally on each other, so easily.

 

[michaeledward]

I think it is unsound to confuse 'Mob Behavior' with scientific theory. How individual members behave in a group has little to do with how 'evolved' the individual, or group, is.

Your statement that the Iraqi's can't "wake up to the value and significance of each human life' displays a bit of arrogance. Perhaps, the Iraqi's are a bit upset about the 10,000 individual human lives lost during the United States campaign. But the statement also helps to 'dehumanize the enemy', which is essential when asking soldiers to kill the 'other'.

And while you never mentioned a single group of people, many of the arguments have been used througout the history of the United States to suppress and oppress groups of people.

And that the United States uses violence from an altitude of 20,000 feet, or from the distance of a cruise missle strike does not make it any less violent.

 

[MisterMike]

Well, I sure as hell did use the term, "racist." With excellent good reason, because MM argued that democracy in Iraq was impossible because of biological differences. He then proceeded to extend this ridiculous and science-free assertion into a claim that there were fundamental biological differences between us "advanced," human beings and the, "primitives," like Australian aborigines and certain South American tribes. Nor did he offer a shred of scientific evidience for these claims.

I never mentioned democracy and biological differences in the same sentence. Nor did I mentione biological differences when referenceing Australians or South Americans. Therefore, no evidence was needed. I simply showed use of the term and how it is not bigoted or racist.

What he did do was start throwing around claims that those who called him on it were Commies, or gay, or whatever goofy thing popped into his mind--a familiar pattern, to anyone who recalls the seminars on biology of, say, Lester Maddox.

Those who called me on it didn't have a leg to stand on. Commies maybe, but I never called anyone gay. Just insinuated they were too compassionate.

If that isn't racism, I'll be darned if I know what else to call it. Fortunately, I feel pretty confident that it's a fairly-surface, intellectual racism, from somebody who doesn't understand what he's talking about, and is merely repeating some ugly ideas. I strongly suspect that he doesn't act on these ideas in his immediate life...and a good thing, too.

IF you can't use a term correctly then, maybe you shouldn't use it at all.

To me the problem isn't with the identification of terminology. It's in getting somebody to think through what he's saying, and to start looking for evidence. If it were a student writing a term paper, I'd just keep demanding references and documented facts (that's how you avoid saying, "look, these ideas aren't ideas")--but it's not, so I have no good strategy at this point other than to call him on it...and that's probably useless, especially since he's decided not to reply to anything I write.

Here I am.

Ugly, ugly ideas, MM. Worse in some ways, they're completely bereft of fact or support, and all the verbal contortions and accusations won't help a bit. You need to know what you're talking about.

Ugly through your clouded glasses mr. robertson.

 

[Tgace]

I think it is unsound to confuse 'Mob Behavior' with scientific theory. How individual members behave in a group has little to do with how 'evolved' the individual, or group, is.

Your statement that the Iraqi's can't "wake up to the value and significance of each human life' displays a bit of arrogance. Perhaps, the Iraqi's are a bit upset about the 10,000 individual human lives lost during the United States campaign. But the statement also helps to 'dehumanize the enemy', which is essential when asking soldiers to kill the 'other'.

And while you never mentioned a single group of people, many of the arguments have been used througout the history of the United States to suppress and oppress groups of people.

And that the United States uses violence from an altitude of 20,000 feet, or from the distance of a cruise missle strike does not make it any less violent.

Spoken like someone with no first hand experience....I could say the same thing about the Bosnian people...saw what they did to each other first hand....while I may not agree with much you say, I wont get a gang together and kill you for it...some of these other cultures will.

 

[loki09789]

Aim high, expecting to fall short. We live in the real world where ideology is tempered/dilluted/corrupted by human contact.

The USA isn't perfect by any means, but I think that relative to the destruction/reform, internal and external, compared to other countries by the citizenry and the government, we have earned the right to be proud of what we have accomplished. Like it or don't, we have what the rest of the world thinks they want, or hate us because they don't have. If I remember correctly, we came out of our American Revolution with a President and a democratic nation. The French, not too long after, came out with.....Napolean? Now they have national media stations and a governmental department in charge of acceptable language....but we are the evillist, most horriblest kid on the block.

All this talk about the USA as morally bankrupt, evil, incorporated... as if it is new or different. I would be more concerned with the world evil potential of the Euro-Union/Euro Dollar issue of 'incorporating nations' and such. Wasn't the coin of choice through all parts of the Roman empire the Roman coin, regardless of nationallity? N. Korea is starving citizens and letting children die in the streets. I mean citizens ignoring starving kids right in front of them all the way up to the lack of social services provided by the government. Relative to that, I would say we aren't doing so bad.

Mexico, Bosnia, South/Central American countries, Phillipines, N. Korea.... regularly and daily 'dehumanize' their own.

Unlike some of you believe from your media/academiac exposure to training, the military only 'dehumanizes' the enemey in stress training - just like you 'dehumanize' your opponent in sparring/self defense so that you can do what you have to without the moral quandry of empathetic concerns. Let's not make the gov/military out to be evil when we are practicing 'violent' arts on a regular basis.

In briefings, pre operational mission statements and train up, soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines/Coasties are repeatedly reminded of the humanity they are engaging - the Mogadishu/Blackhawk down tactic of baby/women as human shields to use that humanity against the troops comes to mind. Shoot or don't shoot, horrible decision to make. The rules of engagement, laws of land warfare, Geneva Conventions, stress on Corps Values or Army values all are part of a basic serviceman's training to make sure they act honorably/morally in the use of violence and remember that it is people they are protecting/killing and dieing next to and for.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The interesting point here is that people keep looking at the actions of the Iraqis, the Somalians and theBosnians and saying "here there be savages."

They seem to miss the atrocities commited by the 'good guys'.
I can go back a bit and bring up the Massacre at Wounded Knee but thats a bit far back...100 or so years as were the actions by the military during the Fillipino campaigns.

More recent of course were the My Lai Massacre (1968), or the actions of Tiger Force in Vietnam (Hmmm...scalpings by US troops...aint that 'enlightened'.)

But wait..thats all way back in the past...in the last 40 years, we have evolved at lightning speed.

Right.

Even now, reports and rumors of 'events' in Iraq commited by us "Good Guys" are beginning to surface.
"Recently eight U.S. Marine Corps reservists of the 2nd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment were charged in connection with the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war. Two of the Marines were charged with negligent homicide in connection to the death of a captive."

Yes, this isn't quite the same as dragging the bodies through the streets and making pinyatas out of them...and you may argue "war zone, stress, etc". But how does one explain the Orleans County LEO found guilty of "stepping on the penis of a mentally handicapped prisoner" does it? Or the Rodney King beating by a mob-mentality group of corrupt LEOs...or the sodomy of a prisioner in NYC by LEOs now does it?

Please, we can hide behind the concept of "democracy", some dubious high tech, and the willingness to die for the 'nation' rather than the 'cheif', but in the end...we are all still barbarians. A few shiny trinkets, nukes and apple pie doesn't make us any better than our ancestors a thousand years ago.

Drive by shootings happened as often 100 years ago as they do today...just a different weapon, and a different transportation method.

If anyone wants to argue 'civilization', 'evolution', etc...lets talk again when we are ourselves 'civilized'.

I don't believe that will happen until such time as 1 guy says "I won't kill today"..and the majority of the world says "Good Idea...we won't either".

Peace.

 

[loki09789]

I find it interesting that these political discussions, from people who want to carry the banner of 'tolerance' and 'informative opinions', tend to push the idea that we need to be 'fair and equal' in our presentation/observation of global issues when:

We are 'ranked' in martial arts terms based in our man hours here from white to black.

That a system of reputation points exists for some to gain percieved support or undermining on a numerical scale

That, based on their vestment level, can award/penalize more points than others based on an entire set of criterion that I didn't vote on, but have to accept as the way business is done....

Sounds a little proprietary or token capitalist to me.

Invest more, get more.
Say the right things to the right people, get more support.
Stand out in the wrong way, have your token earnings taken away from people with more token power/influence than you..... interesting.

 

[michaeledward]

Spoken like someone with no first hand experience....I could say the same thing about the Bosnian people...saw what they did to each other first hand....while I may not agree with much you say, I wont get a gang together and kill you for it...some of these other cultures will.

With which statement do you not agree with?

That I propose Iraqi's value a human life?
That I propose Iraqi's might be upset at 10,000 civilian fatalities during the past year?
That groups within the United States have oppressed other groups within the United States?
That the United States uses violence from a distance?

Perhaps you mean that the Bosnian attacked people of another faith, and killed them brutally. Of course, were I an anthropologist from mars, I might say that the past year looks an aweful lot like Christians Killing Muslems for no good reason.