Evaluating Iraq

[Makalakumu]

I have a feeling that this uprising is more then just a few criminals, foriegn terrorists, baathists, and fanatics. Even making that list brings up higher numbers then the few thousand reported. How else are they able to take back entire cities and fight off a large portion of our trained troops - remember we are calling in reinforcements as we speak. With that being said, this violence is probably going to make the transfer of power by July impossible. How is the rest of the world going to look at us then? Are we going to pull out and let them fight it out? Or are we going to stick to the "PlanfortheNewAmericanCentury" and stay until we establish a satallite nation in the middle east (An axis of American power that extends from Iraq to Afghanistan)?

What happens in Kerry is elected?

(Oh yeah, the top secret paperless electronic voting machines, the nearly 200 million dollar warchest of corporate money, and the multitudes of Katharine Harris' out there - oh yeah democracy )

 

[Makalakumu]

There is a lot of noise about re-instating the draft. There is a lot of noise about how the delayed rotation out is a consription by any other name.

I'm not sure that the military will ever be ever be formed of conscripts again. It takes the "right" kind of people to participate in conquest. Forcing dissenters into the ranks is one of the things that led to the situation in Veitnam isn't it? Also, a professional army is easier to train (and brainwash). Can you imagine if the troops over in Iraq were able to see past through the "we are fighting for Americas freedom" line?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

1 interesting note:
"Non-Hostile Gunshot" seems to be a polite way of saying "Self-Inflicted".
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040325_775.html

One thing to note is that Primitive doesn't mean Stupid.

The "Primitive" Barbarians destroyed Rome....they also repeled Roman invasion of parts of the UK for years. Primitive American Indians inflicted heavy losses on US troops during the indian wars, and the Zulu decimted the British during the Zulu War.

The Iraqis have a different cultural viewpoint. Who are we to say that worrying about your family first and some 'government' thats far away last is wrong?

The truth is that in the past many great techological advances (like the concept of "zero") came from the arab world. Unfortunately, many of the governments in that area are oppresive, and under opressive governments, inovation and creativity is styfled. This has been the case in Iraq for decades where if you admit the experiment was a failure, you died. This is similar to the Stalinistic system, with one small difference. Stalin had enough scientists that some progress did occur. Saddam did not.

1 last note on the primitive statement. The US is not #1.

Hardly surprisingly, Norway ranked as the most technologically advanced nation, with Australia, Canada, Sweden and Belgium tailing closely behind. Unexpectedly, the United States ranked sixth due to instances of poverty, health insurance issues, and sporadic Net-access in rural and inner-city communities.

Developing economies such as Mexico, Costa Rica and Chile were ranked as potential tech-leaders of the future alongside Portugal, Spain, Greece, Poland, and the Czech Republic.

At the bottom of the list were countries like Nicaragua and Mozambique where Net-access is virtually unknown and phones are thinly dispersed.

Source: http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/800051


Rewinding a bit....

"Multinational Force..Better Received:"

I doubt it. The US has proven repeatedly that when it comes to wars, it can't win. It makes an ok police force....and would fit into traditional Iraqi system well. It takes bribes, has a corrupt nature, etc. Could it have deposed Saddamn? I doubt it.

"How many of the "fanatics" do you think are Syrian or Iranian regulars in civilian clothing?"

- Probably some. I'm sure that those military when faced with a request to go kill Americans said, sure, just leave the uniform behind...btw, heres an extra case of ammo.

"Does anyone see Iraq as a jumping off point for further conquest? The building of a bunch of military bases in Iraq seems a bit suspect. Also, I've heard it bantered about that the US would like to pull much of its strength out of Saudi Arabia and put it into a country that has a more democratic government. Has anyone else heard this?"

The Saudi people wanted the US out and the Arab world saw an infidel presence in their holy land to be an insult. Removing our troops from their sacred soil, but remaining close enough to act if needed is good PR. Another point to consider is that the Iraqi army collapsed in record time. Once the US pulls out, it must be strong enough to prevent its neighbors from grabbing pieces of the pie. Training of a new Iraqi army continues, but it slowed by the uprising, as well as ingrained concepts that must be slowly worked out. Traditional US military training was too much for them. 25% or so of the new recruits said "screw it" and quit. Too much work. Other concerns revolved around the quality of that training, pay, and more.

Sources:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3700689/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60899-2003Dec12?language=printer

 

[michaeledward]

To even discuss the word 'Primative' in this thread is an embarrasment.

The Iraqi people are just exactly as far along the evolutionary path as Americans. They are not in any way 'primatives'. Nine Hundred years ago, the Islamic world was the center of knowledge and learning. In many ways far superior than that of the western world (i.e Europe).

The statement 'These people ... cannot live in a democracy' is demonstrably false. Many Iraqis have moved to the United States and other Western Democratic nations and live there with no difficulties at all.

MisterMike is spewing bigoted thoughts, throwing about scientific theory with disregard for actual science to mask his arrogance, bigotry, or ignorance. He bandies about these arguments in the same manner conquerers have always done so, to de-humanize the enemy to justify the killing.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

...MisterMike is spewing bigoted thoughts...

This thread is being reviewed by staff members who aren't involved in the discussion as I am.

 

[heretic888]

The Iraqi people are just exactly as far along the evolutionary path as Americans. They are not in any way 'primatives'. Nine Hundred years ago, the Islamic world was the center of knowledge and learning. In many ways far superior than that of the western world (i.e Europe).

The statement 'These people ... cannot live in a democracy' is demonstrably false. Many Iraqis have moved to the United States and other Western Democratic nations and live there with no difficulties at all.

While I definitely don't agree with most of the content of MisterMike's statements, I will have to say that cultural evolution is most definitely a reality. Being a student of what could be considered "evolutionary psychology" myself (no expert, mind you), I would have to agree that what could be construed as "the Iraqi culture" is, on the whole, not as "evolved" as what could be construed as "the American/Western culture(s)".

Of course, when the above statement is taken out of context, and not put in the proper framework of understanding found in evolutionary psychology (in which no culture is necessarily "better" than another, even though they may be more "evolved"), then it can be easily misunderstood.

In any event, these terms refer mostly to the collective values and socioeconomic forms in these societies, and NOT to the individuals living within them. Individuals can vary WIDELY in comparison to the cultural and social "medium".

Thus, the claim that all Iraqis are "incapable" of living in a democracy is untenable, in my opinion.

 

[michaeledward]

While I definitely don't agree with most of the content of MisterMike's statements, I will have to say that cultural evolution is most definitely a reality. Being a student of what could be considered "evolutionary psychology" myself (no expert, mind you), I would have to agree that what could be construed as "the Iraqi culture" is, on the whole, not as "evolved" as what could be construed as "the American/Western culture(s)".

Of course, when the above statement is taken out of context, and not put in the proper framework of understanding found in evolutionary psychology (in which no culture is necessarily "better" than another, even though they may be more "evolved"), then it can be easily misunderstood.

In any event, these terms refer mostly to the collective values and socioeconomic forms in these societies, and NOT to the individuals living within them. Individuals can vary WIDELY in comparison to the cultural and social "medium".

Thus, the claim that all Iraqis are "incapable" of living in a democracy is untenable, in my opinion.

The term 'Cultural Evolution' was not mentioned by MisterMike. His text said 'Evolution' and 'Primative'. He suggested that present day Iraqi's would require another 10,000 years of evolution to be able to function in a modern democratic society. Actually, it was some 10,000 years ago that homo sapiens were just beginning to form agrarian societies. This was happening in the fertile crescent, part of which is current day Iraq ... (oh, the irony).

We could, perhaps, have an interesting debate as to whether the 'Cultural Evolution' that has transformed the species homo sapiens from hunter-gatherers to whatever we are today, could be called 'progress'.

I'm sure the Cretaceous dinosaurs thought of themselves as less primative than there Jurassic predecessors ... look what good it did them.

Mike

 

[Mickey]

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.

Killing off the remaining Bathists and Saddam loyalist and other foreign supporters who have crossed the border seems to be the only answer for now. Then leave them the keys and get out.

I await the responses in support of how a multi-national force would have been better treated by the Iraqi's...

One could also argue that those in the USA could not live in a modern day theocracy. One could also argue that in the theology based society that has evolved, and the modern "Western" Society has de-evolved or re-gressed or not evolved at all to the level of some other societies.

Look at our Victorian view on sex, and our knee jerk reactions to the terms abortion, which are all based upon our religious instructions. One would wonder if a citizen of the USA has evolved far enough to live in a democracy themselves?

Would the term evolve be Brain matter size?

People thinking just like you?

Keeping an Open Mind to others and their societies?

Others? Anyone? Anyone?


Thsoe who make the biggest weapons or the prettiest pictures or buy the most or what have you, are not automatically the most evolved. Unless you subscribe to the the people thinking just like you questions.

As to Irony, the choice to reply to the comment that your quoted words are not bigoted, you quote Archie Bunker known for his bigoted persona. So either, you MisterMike, are bigoted and do not care. Or you do not know you might be, or your choice of replies was a poor choice and coincidental. :idunno: I would like to know which it is????


Mick

 

[MisterMike]

One could also argue that those in the USA could not live in a modern day theocracy. One could also argue that in the theology based society that has evolved, and the modern "Western" Society has de-evolved or re-gressed or not evolved at all to the level of some other societies.

Look at our Victorian view on sex, and our knee jerk reactions to the terms abortion, which are all based upon our religious instructions. One would wonder if a citizen of the USA has evolved far enough to live in a democracy themselves?

Would the term evolve be Brain matter size?

People thinking just like you?

Keeping an Open Mind to others and their societies?

Others? Anyone? Anyone?


Thsoe who make the biggest weapons or the prettiest pictures or buy the most or what have you, are not automatically the most evolved. Unless you subscribe to the the people thinking just like you questions.

As to Irony, the choice to reply to the comment that your quoted words are not bigoted, you quote Archie Bunker known for his bigoted persona. So either, you MisterMike, are bigoted and do not care. Or you do not know you might be, or your choice of replies was a poor choice and coincidental. :idunno: I would like to know which it is????


Mick

There was nothing bigoted nor was it implied to be. We keep calling for the spread of democracy and the Iraqi people themselves are aleady a divided nation. But we plan to keep them whole, and then force democracy. I believe they would rather a theocracy.

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."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh. It's unintelligent design theory. Mixed with an unironic version of Kipling's, "take up the White Man's Burden/Ye cannot stoop to less."

Congratulations on rediscovering Galton's "g," Cyril Burt's phony twin studies, and the rest of the pseudo-Darwininist, pseudo-biological, fake-science racist crap. And it is racist, if we define racism as the fantasy that there are different races of human beings and some of them are, "naturally," better than others. Personally, I'd recommend looking up Robert Plomin's work on behavioral genetics--he's one of the standards in the field, and he was always careful to point out that human genetics don't tell you diddley about "races." Since there's only the one and all.

But the science probably isn't interesting to you ay the moment, what with being caught up in these fantasies about racial difference. I particularly enjoyed the closing with the, "sensthitive," a nice little lisp suggesting that anybody who disagrees with you is a fag. (Ugly language, I know, but exactly what you have in mind.)

Shame on you--not just for the morality of what you're arguing, which boils down to arguing that the "superior," (i.e. white) people should rule over the inferior (i.e. them aborigines and Jibaros). Shame on your ignorance of the actual science.

Fortunately, such ignorance can be remedied. All ya gots to do is use your brain and do the reading. Unless, of course, your biology prevents?

Three whacks with a copy of James Tiptree's "Beam us Home." Or any of Octavia E. Butler's novels.

 

[Makalakumu]

But the science probably isn't interesting to you ay the moment, what with being caught up in these fantasies about racial difference. I particularly enjoyed the closing with the, "sensthitive," a nice little lisp suggesting that anybody who disagrees with you is a fag. (Ugly language, I know, but exactly what you have in mind.)

The homosexual issue is the new civil rights movement, not that I'm saying the "old" civil rights movements is finished by any means. Still, anything that can instill hatred of the enemy is part of the "mind control" I referred to before. This is all part of the system on the right. The Divide and conquer, Speak English or Die, Imminent Threat matrix is nothing but a "democratic" means of snatching large amounts of natural resources...the key to this puzzle is access.

upnorthkyosa

 

[michaeledward]

.the key to this puzzle is access.

upnorthkyosa

The thing is .... MisterMike lives in Massachusetts, which means he has access. Although I am a Native of Massachusetts, I think I can say without prejudice that the state has always had one of the better public education systems in the country. Certainly, there are many high quality colleges in the state. MisterMike lives right up the road from Worcester, Massachusetts, which has a billboard proclaiming its ten excellent colleges.

Alas, it requires more than just access, there must also be a desire.

 

[Makalakumu]

So is hatred of the people of Iraq part of the equation in this case? Is the American public being propagandized to hate our "enemy"?

I know that hatred of dissenters is definitely part - whether the dissent is tied to anti-patriotism or the deep religious hatred of homosexuals (the thought that if you dissent from this war then you are somehow not man enough - gay infact).

Shortly after the start of the war, in my home town, we had protests and counter protests. The pro-war and anti-war crowds would stand across from each other and shout back and forth. I remember walking calmly between both crowds. (very dangerous considering the mood of both camps) I asked some pro-war demonstrators whether or not it mattered that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and was told, "It doesn't matter. They killed some of us, now we are going to kill more of them."

This pronouncement has stuck with me and has pretty much summed up the root of the pro-war crowd. In the face of that statement, truly, the evidence doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Mickey]

There was nothing bigoted nor was it implied to be. We keep calling for the spread of democracy and the Iraqi people themselves are aleady a divided nation. But we plan to keep them whole, and then force democracy. I believe they would rather a theocracy.

You say there is nothing bigoted. Yet, you make another comment below that leads one to believe that you may not know that you are. Yet, as this is a written forum and I cannot see you smile or body language or know your intent, it makes it hard to determine. So, if you continue to either fan the flames of the fanatics as you put it, or being like your are, it does not matter as you are presenting yourself as a bigoted person. That is the impact of the situation. FYI

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)

Hmmmm, So they have to think just like us? Yet, above you state that they are different and want a theocracy versus a democracy or republic as the case may be. As to staying, many people here in the USA want to stay where they are at or where their parents are at, and not grow either. Should force be used against them as well?

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.

Yes, Power, threat, and 'WE' the USA gets to decide what is best. You contradict yourself here. You want to have the 'Power' to remove others, yet do not think then telling them how to do it better is the way to go. So, we should go crush China, and Korea others with France on the top of the list as the give away Nuclear power, which is a major threat? Where do we stop?

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.

Archie was a character to learn from. Everyone, who grew up watching him learned, even if they did not know it. Was it social programming? Maybe? As to the PC Crap, you may be correct in that it has gone pretty far know. Yet, it was the natural swing of the pendulum and society, that we have to get us here today. Make sense? What are target is to be in the middle. It will take the some adaptive controls or fuzzy logic or incremental repetitive steps with over shooting to get to the middle ground.

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."

Yes there are primitives, and their culture, has some really cool aspects. they work 2 to 4 hours a day. They have some of the healthiest people, they have formulas and concoctions that cure things that modern science has problems with. Yet, they are primitive, for they do not have what you have.

Woudl someone with out a cell phone and PC or Laptop with internet coneection or high speed connection with IR capabilities be considered a primitive as they do not think like you and do not have the items or tools you have? I am asking to understand you.

As to the lisp, either you are being funny in your own mind? Trying to keep the fanatics fires burning as a button pusher, or you truly are a bigot. And as I stated above, you are presenting yourself as a bigot.

Mick

 

[DAM]

an example of military programming

I was working with someome who was in Nam. We were overseas in NZ.
The Japanese were there at the same testing location. The host told us that we had to wait until the Japanese had gone through first. Ths guy, lost it. He said, "I did not eat after the MF G**** in Nam, I am not doing it here." Hi condition came out later in a time of stress. I stood up and said "Let's Go!". I told him we should leave, and go eat elsewhere. The host was embarrassed, the othere two were hungry and one did not wish to leave. They other said he would do what everyone else wanted.

The work mate, just walked up and grabbed a plate and began taking food off of the buffet. The Japanese did not mind, they were confused, but not upset.

Conditioning happens.

Dave

 

[MisterMike]

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.

 

[michaeledward]

An example of arguements from the left:
They shout at you and call you a racist or a bigot.

I commented that your statements are bigoted. Having never met you, I really can not say if you are racist or not. And I do not want this to be about name calling. I hear similar statements from the right-wing radio talk show hosts in Boston, and it could be that you are repeating their comments without thinking about what they (and you) are saying. However, that you have been unable to see these statements as racist, when pointed out that they indeed are, does speak volumes.

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.

This, again, demonstrates a lack of knowledge, which, if you choose can be corrected by opening your mind and a couple of books. Native American people were at times very vicious toward others. Of course, violent behavior can be found throughout human history, on every continent, in every time. Attached here are two easily available paragraphs that demonstratehow some Native Americans actually behaved.
To propose that you would not approve of, or participate in this behavior, some 600 years ago, is a non-sequitor. You are following the position of the current leadership in our society. From this evidence, we can not accept that you would fight against the leadership of the community some 600 years ago?

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0200/frameset_reset.html?[url]http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0200/stories/0201_0122.html[/url]

In late 1325 A. D. the Central Plains people at the Crow Creek were attacked by the Middle Missouri tradition people. The Middle Missouri people apparently were able to get through the fortification ditch that the Central Plains people had built or were in the process of completing. Earth lodges were burned. The victims were buried in a mass grave on the northern edge of the site, at the top of this picture. Archaeologists have identified 487 victims. For more about how archaeologists protected the site and honored the Native American dead, click here.

Archaeologists have several ideas about what happened at the Crow Creek Site, about who killed the people and why. One hypothesis is that the attack was carried out by the Middle Missouri villagers from the north who were unhappy that the Great Plains people had moved into the areas and had taken their land.​

​

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

And apparently, the arguements from the right are to call people cowards, and/or communists. While calling someone a coward, because they object to an unjustified war is an odd position to take, calling them a communist is even more strange. As we live in a democratic society, which allows one man, one vote, and guarantees that man the freedom of speech, you seem to be saying that by exercising those freedoms and privledges makes us 'communist' (as if this is a bad thing) ... If I understand the principles of communism (from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs), they would guarantee that one would not send members of the commune to fly planes into the buildings of the other communes. So, gee, maybe being a communists is what we all should aspire to be.

Happy Easter - Mike

 

[Makalakumu]

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

Mike, seriously, if the shoe fits (and it is in this case)...arguments from the left often contain the charges leveled because of statements that you have already made. It can be a frightening process to analyze the hatred we are raised with. It goes beyond stating that you can live with someone, because obviously, your rhetoric points at something different. Take a look at what you are saying from someone who is Iraqi or Homosexual. Then tell me that you are not fitting such charges.

 

[MisterMike]

I commented that your statements are bigoted. Having never met you, I really can not say if you are racist or not. And I do not want this to be about name calling. I hear similar statements from the right-wing radio talk show hosts in Boston, and it could be that you are repeating their comments without thinking about what they (and you) are saying. However, that you have been unable to see these statements as racist, when pointed out that they indeed are, does speak volumes.

This, again, demonstrates a lack of knowledge, which, if you choose can be corrected by opening your mind and a couple of books. Native American people were at times very vicious toward others. Of course, violent behavior can be found throughout human history, on every continent, in every time. Attached here are two easily available paragraphs that demonstratehow some Native Americans actually behaved.
To propose that you would not approve of, or participate in this behavior, some 600 years ago, is a non-sequitor. You are following the position of the current leadership in our society. From this evidence, we can not accept that you would fight against the leadership of the community some 600 years ago?

[/indent]

And apparently, the arguements from the right are to call people cowards, and/or communists. While calling someone a coward, because they object to an unjustified war is an odd position to take, calling them a communist is even more strange. As we live in a democratic society, which allows one man, one vote, and guarantees that man the freedom of speech, you seem to be saying that by exercising those freedoms and privledges makes us 'communist' (as if this is a bad thing) ... If I understand the principles of communism (from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs), they would guarantee that one would not send members of the commune to fly planes into the buildings of the other communes. So, gee, maybe being a communists is what we all should aspire to be.

Happy Easter - Mike

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.

If it were Canada we were at war with (which is very diverse) and I used the same comment of "primitives" there would be no issue. But you took it upon yourself to assume I used it specifically against the race of the Iraqi's (which I honestly do not know what race that is..LOL)

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

Everything I say is relative and from my own opinion. Whether someone does not agree with it or is insulted from it should not put me in the category of a racist or bigot unless there are some facts to back it up.

It seems people would rather attack me than speak to the subject of the thread. It's a diversionary tactic, but very transparent. It makes them feel better about themselves. Both you and robertson rarely contribute to a thread, but instead pounce on the person making the case for the "other side"

I feel this may be because your points are not the ones of the majority in this country and if you can make personal attacks instead, misquote people or misconstrue their statements you feel you've made your point.

Whether I've made more intellectual remarks in the past or those of Archie Bunker (in fun) it has made little difference in the substance your your replies. They have in most cases been personal attacks or attacks on what you think I believe in. Ah well, it's fun to be lumped in with the right wing Christian...what was it robertson, nutjobs or whackos?? Beautiful, just beautiful.

But let's not let this thread be about me or our differences. Say where you think this is going in Iraq and when enough's enough. I've made it clear we should stop when the killing is done. I can list my reasons and where they come from. But it seems I'm always put on the defensive by the personal attacks. Rebuilding Iraq should not be our cost. Call me cold-hearted on certain issues - oh well. I'll even say it for you if it makes you happy.

 

[MisterMike]

Mike, seriously, if the shoe fits (and it is in this case)...arguments from the left often contain the charges leveled because of statements that you have already made. It can be a frightening process to analyze the hatred we are raised with. It goes beyond stating that you can live with someone, because obviously, your rhetoric points at something different. Take a look at what you are saying from someone who is Iraqi or Homosexual. Then tell me that you are not fitting such charges.

The only people I cannot live with are the ones who wish to kill innocent Americans. Are you saying you can?