Evaluating Iraq

[michaeledward]

I never mentioned democracy and biological differences in the same sentence.

The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy.

Hmmmm. It sure seems that 'primitive' and 'democracy' are used in the same sentence.

What then do you mean by 'fast-forward evolution' and 'primitive', if not biological difference?

 

[MisterMike]

Hmmmm. It sure seems that 'primitive' and 'democracy' are used in the same sentence.

What then do you mean by 'fast-forward evolution' and 'primitive', if not biological difference?

Had I said "Primate" that would have been biological. By primitive,(which has a whoooooole lot of application) and I explained this later in the thread, I meant as a society and their lack of values. You can keep pushing the issue, but you are the one looking like a "monkey."

My first post was meant to be short and to the point. As I again later explained, my feelings are that until all the "bad Iraqis" are dead, there will be no democracy in Iraq.

And the time it will take to get rid of all the "bad Iraqis" will be long and arduous. Again keeping in line with the subject of the thread, and not making things personal as you have.

I consider things like "people shredders" and "gas chambers" primitive as far as their level of humanity. But if you like, I think we have Saddam sitting in a cell somewhere. Perhaps we could give him a shave, haircut and a new suit and put him back in Iraq just for you and robertson now that we are fairly certain there are no WMD's for him to have.(which he shoulda just let us come in freely for in the first place)

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, MM, lit crit time--let's unpack one of your quotes.

"By evolve, I meant they would have to evolve their "brains" in a direction of our choosing. As someone mentioned 900 years ago they were the brainpool, well, it seems they decided to stay there as the rest of the world spread out and moved on. (So I was off a little on the time)

All I care about is that the previous regime is gone. When someone else steps up to power, and we evaluate that they mean harm to us again, we should crush them again. But this whole idea of nation-building, and instituting a democracy, (with a constitution they already disagree over) is ludicrous.

As for archie, well, he meant well before all that PC crap came along. There were certainly lessons to be learned from his mistakes as the show meant to do, but I used it to simply keep stirring up the responses from the fanatics.

There are still primitives in the jungles of the Amazon and the Outback of Australia. Anyone who views this as offensive is a little too "sensthitive." "

Your words, right? OK then.

1. You not only used the word 'evolve,' a word that to my mind at least specifically calls upon Darwin and evolutionary biology for its basic, surface meaning, but you then went on to explain this political, 'primitiveness,' in temrs that explicitly drew upon evolutionary theory, i.e., "they decided to stay there as the rest of the world spread out and moved on." You have, knowingly or otherwise, borrowed a concept about human diversity from the so-called, "out of Africa," hypothesis.

2. Your account of politics, in other words, rests upon the idea that being fit or unfit for democracy is a matter of biology, because you repeatedly use terms that advert to biological difference ("brains...jungles...primitives") rather than to language, culture or history.

3. Your account also rests on a simple binarism: we, the "advanced," and pure democracies, will be forced ("when someone else steps up...and we evaluate that they mean harm...we should crush them again...this whole idea of...a democracy...is ludicrous") into action.

4. Your ideas repeatedly link certain peoples together (why else bring up the Amazon, the Australian outback, in the context of discussing Iraq?), and rely upon the notion that these, "primitives," are incapable of, "nation-buliding," and "democracy," because of their "brains...the brainpool," in contradistinction to, "the rest of the world...{which} spread out and moved on." That is evolutionary languaage--and as a sidebar, I always find it interesting to see instances in which those who reject evolution as a scientific theory are only too willining to adopt Social Darwinist positions. In other words, there are still isolated pockets of less-evolved humans, and we should deal with them only to evaluate their status as threats.

5. I do not see how else to evaluate the, "sensthitive," misspelling, which cannot be a simple typo, in the context of your assertion that, "I used...{the reference to Archie Bunker}...to simply keep stirring up the responses from the fanatics," and your repeated equation of rugged masculinity with patriotism. I would be interested to see another explanation of such a misspelling.

I don't see how else to interpret what you're saying than as an assertion that political differences, and the current mess in Iraq, stem from biological differences. You might want to read at least the introduction and Judith Stein's essay, "Defining the Race 1890-1930," in Werner Sollors, "The Invention of Ethnicity," for some suggestions about better--i.e. better grounded in reality ways to argue such matters. And a little Stephen Jay Gould on the topic of the actual science of evolutionary biology couldn't hurt, neither.

But the long and the short of it is (by the way, my name's Robert; otherwise, the correct term of address is, "Dr. Robertson," and I'd really prefer Robert), that you are claiming the Iraqi people are incapable of democracy.

I was thinking about this as I walked by the Lincoln Memorial in my home town yesterday, en route to the library, and read this, chiseled on the wall:

THOSE WHO WILL DENY FREEDOM TO OTHERS DESERVE IT NOT THEMSELVES. AND UNDER A JUST GOD, THEY WILL NOT RETAIN IT LONG.

Good solid Republican sentiments, I might add.

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm...cultures that dress up children as suicide bombers....celebrate people who fly planeloads of civillians into civillian targets as heros....round up busloads of civs. drive them to a site, force them to dig a mass grave, force them into it and mow them down...take civillian hostages and threaten to burn them alive.

Compared to a culture that at least attempts to minimize civillian damage....cans military leaders that commit illegal acts (instead of promoting them) and at least "thinks" they are doing the right thing (which agreed is up for debate). Yeah lots in common there...how could I miss it?

 

[MisterMike]

"4. Your ideas repeatedly link certain peoples together (why else bring up the Amazon, the Australian outback, in the context of discussing Iraq?), and rely upon the notion that these, "primitives," are incapable of, "nation-buliding," and "democracy," because of their "brains...the brainpool," in contradistinction to, "the rest of the world...{which} spread out and moved on." That is evolutionary languaage--and as a sidebar, I always find it interesting to see instances in which those who reject evolution as a scientific theory are only too willining to adopt Social Darwinist positions. In other words, there are still isolated pockets of less-evolved humans, and we should deal with them only to evaluate their status as threats."

Again, *yawn* I've stated it over and over *yawn* and over that I meant nothing biological by it. They have never adopted Demcracy because they live the same way they have for centuries, maybe eons. They look at us as the infidel. Hmm...kinda makes you wonder if a little sugar is gonna be needed to get them to adopt ANYTHING we as Americans value in our government.

In contrast, I find them primitive, therefor called them primitives.

Wah, to anyone who's offended.

 

[rmcrobertson]

You don't axly know what a, "social Darwinist," position is, do you?

OK, sure. Fine. I've got it wrong. So enlighten me. Why exactly are you using the word, "primitive?" Why did you bring up other societies, ones you identified as similarly, "primitive," in the context of discussing Iraq? Why'd you use words such as, "brains," and "evolve," why'd you bring up the way human beings have spread out across the globe and suggest that their differences were due to that?

In other words, since you claim not to mean biology and evolution, why are you using the language of biology and evolution to make your "case?"

They're real questions, not rhetorical ones. So enlighten me: just explain. Skip the rhetoric, skip the insults, skip the allusions to homosexuality and communism. Step beyond Michael Savage and simply explain what you really meant.

As for a statement--well, here's yours:

"They have never adopted Demcracy because they live the same way they have for centuries, maybe eons. They look at us as the infidel. Hmm...kinda makes you wonder if a little sugar is gonna be needed to get them to adopt ANYTHING we as Americans value in our government.

In contrast, I find them primitive, therefor called them primitives."

"Sugar," eh? Like horses and children?

Here's Lincoln's:

"THOSE WHO WILL DENY FREEDOM TO OTHERS DESERVE IT NOT THEMSELVES. AND UNDER A JUST GOD, THEY WILL NOT RETAIN IT LONG."

Personally, I'm gonna go with the Republican here. It strikes me as having come from a morally-evolved human being.

 

[MisterMike]

Again...

And somehow your are above Abe Lincoln now? Somebody call the U.S. Mint!!!!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So here is a side question...

What is your opinion of a government that uses excessive force against its own people, allows its police force to burn innocent women and children alive while they are surrounded by an armed force, that uses its military against protesting students, locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council, uses torture and 'conditioning' to encourage confession, limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line, and supports other governments that not only do the same, but worse?

We invaded Iraq supposedly to remove a brutal government that did all that.

The argument is "they use children as bombs". Ok, so they tie up a child with a few pounds of plastique, stop at the mall and -boom-. Is that truely worse than the other guys lobbing a shell into the air and due to malfunction, error or 'misinformation' blowing the pogees outta a schoolyard?

War is hell, and casulties in the civilian side are usually high. Funny thing is...to some they are sick bastards with no regard for life...to others, they are making the supreme sacrifice in the fight for their beliefs. Interesting how the winner writes the summary.

Of course, we can argue how evil it is to tie bombs to babes....but then again, the US supports a government who has a history of using maximum firepower against children who throw rocks. While I'm certain that statement will piss off a few people, while we rally against the brutality of Saddam, and the terroristic actions of Osama, the US spends billions in aid to prop up equally if not more brutal regimes.

The argument of celebration is interesting. Arabs celebrated the pain we feel from 9/11. That makes them evil. We celebrated the fall of Bagdad because we're the 'good guys'. Never mind the civilian losses, high crime rate, disorder and lawlessness we left behind. Both actions were good/evil depending on which side you were on. Ask Sadamn if killing his sons was good.

The simple fact is, whats good for one, is bad for another. Walk in their shoes a while, see through their eyes and it looks different. Its all cultural differences...not much different at all really.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I continue to be fascinated by the unwillingness to simply explain. Here, the strategy is to make a claim about my putting myself above old Honest Abe (not what I did, incidentally: one may recognize achievement in another, the way one would recognize Mozart's ability, without claiming to be superior) rather than to simply explain one's own position.

Of course, that's consistent: note the constant drift onto side issues or new issues, the constant attempts to change the subject, the constant personal accusations, the reiteration of "Commie," or, "gay," all of which attempt to mask an intellectually--and morally--bankrupt argument.

As for Mr. Hubbard's comment, I tend to agree, I'm sorry to have to say--one thinks of Kissinger's realpolitik, which roughly translates out as, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." And one thinks of Sinclair Lewis' corny character, Dorremus Jessup, who replies," By God, sir! Men's hearts and souls are not eggs for tyrants to break!" But then, to know Lewis' writing, you have to actually have an affection for American culture and history.

Almost worse yet, these clowns never seem to figure out the point that history has made again and again and again: ever since we started propping these bastards up around the time of the Spanish-American War (see Twain, another America-basher, and "To the People Sitting In Darkness"), the sad thing is, IT DOESN'T EVEN WORK.

Unless of course you live in a world where Cuba is our buddy, Spain didn't get ruled by that fascist, Franco, we won the war in Vietnam, they love us in the Phillipines, and countries like Panama and Chile are just in the bestest of shape...

 

[michaeledward]

So here is a side question...

What is your opinion of a government that uses excessive force against its own people, allows its police force to burn innocent women and children alive while they are surrounded by an armed force, that uses its military against protesting students, locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council, uses torture and 'conditioning' to encourage confession, limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line, and supports other governments that not only do the same, but worse?

We invaded Iraq supposedly to remove a brutal government that did all that.

Negative.
We invaded Iraq because they posed an 'immenent threat' the 'United States' with 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. While there are plenty of humanitarian reason to remove the government of Saddam Hussein, NONE of them were employed to justify the invasion.

Also beware of some of those accusations, for they are just as true here in the United States as they were in Saddam Husseins' Iraq.

"locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council"
"limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line"
"supports other governments that not only do the same"

But, I am thinking that you knew that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Negative.
We invaded Iraq because they posed an 'immenent threat' the 'United States' with 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. While there are plenty of humanitarian reason to remove the government of Saddam Hussein, NONE of them were employed to justify the invasion.

Not quite true. While the elusive WMD was the main argument, on many occations, the brutality of the Iraqi regime was indicated as a prime reason for its overthrow.

The sad part is, Sadamn is still alive. GWB is probably quite pissed that he was taken alive.


Of course, one has to wonder if the Iraqi8 people are better off under US control, rather than Sadamns control.

US / Iraqi Relations 1960-2000

early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.3

1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."4

1980-88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.

1990‑91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post‑war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.13

1991‑: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."14

1993‑: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self‑defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.15

1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.


Sources:
2. Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 130.

3. Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, p. 74; Edith and E. F. Penrose, Iraq: International Relations and National Development, Boulder: Westview, 1978, p. 288; Hanna Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1978, pp. 985‑86.

4. U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 (Pike Report) in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976. The Pike Report attributes the quote only to a “senior official”; William Safire (Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333) identifies the official as Kissinger.

12. See, for example, Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1. See also Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001.

13. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 1.

14. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 5. Albright quote is from CBS News, 60 Minutes, 12 May 1996.

15. On the dubious nature of the evidence, see Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Nov. 1, 1993.

So, now that we have "won", how do we disentangle and move forward?

 

[MisterMike]

Well, I continue to be fascinated by the unwillingness to simply explain. Here, the strategy is to make a claim about my putting myself above old Honest Abe (not what I did, incidentally: one may recognize achievement in another, the way one would recognize Mozart's ability, without claiming to be superior) rather than to simply explain one's own position.

Unwillingness. Well, it's been explained. Makes me wonder how anyone could read so many books and retain anything if you can't follow this thread far enough to see my explanations.

Of course, that's consistent: note the constant drift onto side issues or new issues, the constant attempts to change the subject, the constant personal accusations, the reiteration of "Commie," or, "gay," all of which attempt to mask an intellectually--and morally--bankrupt argument.

I think you're talking about yourself here. I don't think I see more spin and tangents coming off these posts from anyone other than you. Perhaps it's a result of the lack of attention span mentioned above.

You're wasting your time now. Maybe I'll catch you on a substantive thread, but there, you'll probably be attacking people rather than the issue. Pretty sad. I think they're affectionately called trolls.

 

[Tgace]

The argument is "they use children as bombs". Ok, so they tie up a child with a few pounds of plastique, stop at the mall and -boom-. Is that truely worse than the other guys lobbing a shell into the air and due to malfunction, error or 'misinformation' blowing the pogees outta a schoolyard?

?????? Is murder truely any worse than accidental homicide????? That logic boggles me.

The argument of celebration is interesting. Arabs celebrated the pain we feel from 9/11. That makes them evil. We celebrated the fall of Bagdad because we're the 'good guys'. Never mind the civilian losses, high crime rate, disorder and lawlessness we left behind. Both actions were good/evil depending on which side you were on. Ask Sadamn if killing his sons was good.

Hmmmm...celebrating intentional, planned, mass murder where the GOAL was to kill as many civillians as possible is the same as celebrating military victory, with civillian casulties that we would have avoided if possible?? Somehow when we "walk in others shoes" it becomes acceptable for others to suicide bomb innocent civillians in malls, busses and street corners "because its their way and we dont understand" but when we accidentally kill civillians we are now at the same level??

This good/bad issue smacks of moral relativism...where we arent allowed to define good/evil right/wrong...

"Everyone is indignant when he hears the Germans define justice as that which is to the interest of the Third Reich. But it is not always remembered that this indignation is perfectly groundless if we ourselves regard morality as a subjective sentiment to be altered at will. Unless there is some objective standard of good, over-arching Germans, Japanese and ourselves alike, whether any of us obey it or not, then of course the Germans are as competent to create their own ideology as we are to create ours...Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring."
-- C.S. Lewis

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh. No morality without theology, eh? But with theology, a morality that gets real slippery when we need it to...seems to me that a martial artist of any worthwhile sort would have contemplated the moral character of violence exercised in even the best of causes from time to time, but I guess not. Must be me--I'm just squeamish about our having blown up kids and babies, however noble or necessary the cause. But then, hey, I was more or less in favor of shipping Moammar Quaddafi off to hell any day now, and I still had problems with our cheerfully blowing up a year old baby girl with an airstrike. Silly me--I thought our higer moral status meant we had a greater moral responsibility than those, "primitives," out there.

As for MM's comments, well, I guess defending the indefensible is rather difficult. Personally, I'd have loved to have heard how a statement such as, "The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy," isn't in any way biological, has nothing to do with social Darwinism, and--in its references to, "these people," if nothing else--is in no way whatsoever racist. I'd also have loved to have heard why exactly it was that you used that odd spelling of, "sensitive," but I guess we're not going to be regaled with that one either.

One of the worst things that some have learned from the likes of Michael Savage is that screaming, racist hatred and angry contempt for one's fellow Americans is perfectly OK. I'd say it's un-American, but regrettably I actually know a bit about American history and characters like Col. Chivington.

Still, my apologies for actually understanding what's being said. I'd be upset too, if I were presenting some of these arguments.

 

[Tgace]

Did I equate morality with theology somewhere??

Name me any other country that, when engaged in military operations, gives as much consideration for civillian casualties as the US.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Small point - I never said I agreed with things....just said look at it from the other perspective.

My here has been the idea that -we- (the US) are somehow superior because we don't do certain things. There is an old saying "We have met the enemy...and he is us."

It is too true.

We will condemn Saddam for secret police actions, torture and execution....while we support others who do worse.

We condemned the Chinese for driving tanks over protesting students...I guess National Guard bullets are better?

We protest how North Korea mistreats their people...yet hundreds of thousands of Americans go hungry, have no health care and worse each day.

I'll answer my own question...answers in bold.

What is your opinion of a government that uses excessive force against its own people, (Seattle, New York, Waco, Ruby Ridge) allows its police force to burn innocent women and children alive while they are surrounded by an armed force (Waco), that uses its military against protesting students (Kent State), locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council (Japanese Internment, post 9/11 round ups of Arabs), uses torture and 'conditioning' to encourage confession (Guantano prison), limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line (CNN/Fox/ABC really all that accurate?), and supports other governments that not only do the same, but worse? (Israel, Russia, and England to name 3)

Personally...I think it stinks....

So, while we sit here and argue over the 'civility' of the Iraqis....lets not forget..we're not that 'evolved' ourselves.

Maybe people should take a few minutes to understand what is really said in those books they hold so dear?

Maybe then...and only then we'll be a peaceful world.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...dude, which moral yardstick did you think C.S. Lewis was talking about? trust me...his is not a humanist or culturally-relativist position.

As for who pays more-careful attention...well, you might wanna scope out the British conduct off this particular fine little war.

 

[loki09789]

Small point - I never said I agreed with things....just said look at it from the other perspective.

My here has been the idea that -we- (the US) are somehow superior because we don't do certain things. There is an old saying "We have met the enemy...and he is us."

It is too true.

We will condemn Saddam for secret police actions, torture and execution....while we support others who do worse.

We condemned the Chinese for driving tanks over protesting students...I guess National Guard bullets are better?

We protest how North Korea mistreats their people...yet hundreds of thousands of Americans go hungry, have no health care and worse each day.

I'll answer my own question...answers in bold.

What is your opinion of a government that uses excessive force against its own people, (Seattle, New York, Waco, Ruby Ridge) allows its police force to burn innocent women and children alive while they are surrounded by an armed force (Waco), that uses its military against protesting students (Kent State), locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council (Japanese Internment, post 9/11 round ups of Arabs), uses torture and 'conditioning' to encourage confession (Guantano prison), limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line (CNN/Fox/ABC really all that accurate?), and supports other governments that not only do the same, but worse? (Israel, Russia, and England to name 3)

Personally...I think it stinks....

So, while we sit here and argue over the 'civility' of the Iraqis....lets not forget..we're not that 'evolved' ourselves.

Maybe people should take a few minutes to understand what is really said in those books they hold so dear?

Maybe then...and only then we'll be a peaceful world.

I think that in my post I did qualify my 'superior' statement by saying that we are not perfect. There are things that stink, internally and externally. We, as a nation have done some bad things. Again, RELATIVE to other countries, we aren't doing so bad if you COMPARE our treatment of civilians(internally and externally), prisoners of war, our average conduct on a day to day basis - we don't make it a habit of running people out of neighborhoods now because they are muslim, christian, jewish, black but couch in under false charges or pretenses.... If you look at our level of social reform, it ain't perfect, but it is far from the racism and open prejudice of what it use to be - or anywhere near the stuff that many mid-eastern countries still hold on to. I am talking NOW.

Just today I watched a special on SF operating in Afg. They basically said the same thing as MM: Until the people can 'evolve' into a national mentallity from the tribal/regional/religious loyalties they have known for so long, democracy isn't possible. He was hopeful and said that he did think it was moving in the right direction though. Guys on the ground with the same idea...hmmm. Considering the locals outnumber the SF 12 man team and haven't run them out or burned them alive seems that they aren't feeling the 'arrogance' of the American mentallity.

A lot of this talk sounds like 'they' did all these horrible things but and made these problems but 'we' need to make a difference. If you are going to say we it needs to be across the board. Accountability. If you aren't 'perfect' in your own everyday life, if you make mistakes that will lead to consequences that will impact others, if you are prone to make emotional/conspiratorial actions and behaviors what room to any of 'us' have to be SO accusatory or judgemental of those same behaviors in someone in another arena?

I don't know what vacuum of ideology some of you are living in, but the world is a messy place and unless you are willing to step up to the table and take a bite of the S*(T sandwich by contributing to the cause what ever it may be(Peace Corp, Military Service, lobby/vote for a candidate, run for an office....) I think it is very 'armcherry' of us to waste time judging those who have chosen to take that responsibility. Like any human endeavor, there is imperfection, but what are you going do about it: Sit on this proprietary, token capitalistic forum and whine about how the world is unfair? Your arguing for equal and fair in a forum that has a skewed reputation point system based on 'rank' or 'supervisory title' - seems like an inconsistent pattern to me.

Venting is not the same as informing. Bitching is not the same as REFORMING. I don't see any major ex-patriation going on from any of you, nor do I hear about the refusal to buy certain brands of this or that - so that we aren't contributing to the 'corporate nation' or other things. We just finished with Easter for of us and it is a major Chocolate holiday. Do any of you refuse to support the slave labor out of africa and other countries associated with the chocolate industry? This smacks of the person who complains about the inhumanity of hunting while chewing on a Burger, or is a fashion vegetarian and still wears leather shoes/belts.

Fix the problem, not the blame. Lengthen your own line to make yourselves feel better instead of cutting down someone elses... maybe then we will have some peace in the world.

 

[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.

Posted this earlier, the irony seems to be lost on people though.

 

[michaeledward]

... Name me any other country that, when engaged in military operations, gives as much consideration for civillian casualties as the US.

I think that would be a challenge that is difficult to meet. Certainly, the United States does attempt to exercise care for 'collateral damage' when engaged in military operations. But I also think that is wrong.

If 'military operations' are warranted, then the military should target all legitimate targets and destroy them. The military should use the most effective weapon in the arsenal to destroy a target. All military operations should be conducted fast and overpowering. Then end result of any military action should an 'unconditional surrender' of the opposing force, or its complete destruction.

If the military is going to *****-foot around with sacred relics and concern for civilian casualties, then perhaps a military operation is not the correct tool.

One of the rules concerning guns is that you "Never point a weapon at anything unless you plan to destroy it." I think the military should be employed with the same principle.

Mike