Is this soon to occur in Iraq?

[Michael Tee]

Speaking of being more clear and precise, I have to assume that your last post referred to my quoting from my own post in this thread, but if so, perhaps you could help me out a little here - - how does my quoting my exact words to prove that you had misrepresented them constitute "embarrassing weaselling after the fact?"  Looks to me like a forthright repudiation of an obvious attempt at misrepresentation.

[BT]

The USA is more evil than its opponents, kills and tortures more people, destroys more lives, either directly or through its agents and proxies.

The USA is the country. The country is governed by represenatives of the citizens. Ergo the citizens are more evil. Don't see how you can get around your statement. And yet you try.

[Michael Tee]

I'll make this real easy for you with a simple mathematical model.  There is a country with 1000 adult citizens.  Half of them never vote.  Because they're morons.  Of the 500 who vote, 255 vote for fascist, militaristic, racists and 245 vote for nice people.

So:  good-natured lazy dolts, 500; Democrats, 245; total not-so-evil, 745; total voting for fascist, miltaristic racists,  245.  Percentage of evil in the actions of the country:  100%.

Although those who make the evil possible are a minority of the population, the ACTIONS of the country's institutions (banks, military, foreign policy) are 100% evil.  What is so hard to understand about this?

This is the kind of discussion I would expect to have with a grade six student - - how a country with not-so-evil people can do some really shitty things consistently over a long period of time.   All it takes is a nucleus of really dedicated-to-greed-wealth-and-power evil shits at the top, enough dopes in the electorate and in the non-voting population at large, and voila - - a movie-magazine-reading, gum-chewing, church-going population of mostly morons guilty of crimes that only a Nazi government could have rivalled. 

[Amianthus]

I'll make this real easy for you with a simple mathematical model.  There is a country with 1000 adult citizens.  Half of them never vote.  Because they're morons.  Of the 500 who vote, 255 vote for fascist, militaristic, racists and 245 vote for nice people.

So:  good-natured lazy dolts, 500; Democrats, 245; total not-so-evil, 745; total voting for fascist, miltaristic racists,  245.  Percentage of evil in the actions of the country:  100%.

How do you know that the 500 that don't vote are "good-natured"? Maybe they like the "fascist, miltaristic racists" and will only vote if they're needed (or ordered to do so)?

If that's the case, then it's 755 supporting the "fascist, miltaristic racists" and 245 Democrats.

This is the kind of discussion I would expect to have with a grade six student

Maybe that's why the schools are doing so badly - teaching nonsense like this.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Maybe that's why the schools are doing so badly - teaching nonsense like this.
 

Is the nonsense Tee's assertion that half are morons who don't vote. or more like your assumption that fully 755 of 1000 favor militaristic warmongering?

Half of the citizens that could vote, don't. That's a fact. Only their motives are subject to speculation.

Slightly over half of those remaining voted for  Juniorbush, unless the election was fixed. Another fact.

Slightly less than half did not vote for Juniorbush. Yet another fact.

So is the nonsensical view that the 500 who don't vote are morons, or that they are simply abstaining and willfully allowing the militarists to take over?

Inquiring minds want to know.




 

[Amianthus]

So is the nonsensical view that the 500 who don't vote are morons, or that they are simply abstaining and willfully allowing the militarists to take over?

I thought I explained it in a way that a child could understand.

It's nonsensical because you can't know what the motivations are for those who don't vote. Mikey claimed that they're all pacifists. I said that anyone can claim just the opposite, and stand just as good a chance of being right.

In real life, the group that doesn't vote will probably mirror the group that does vote, within a small margin.

[domer]

I cannot emphasize enough a very important matter to consider: whether "by order of Congress" or otherwise, our withdrawal from Vietnam resulted in an overall WIN in the Cold War some 15 years later. Strategic thinking, if it can, must consider the big picture. I am suggesting -- not championing, but suggesting -- that prevailing in the overall struggle with violent, radical Islamic extremists may not depend on a "Super Bowl style" win in Iraq, but rather a solution to the problem it presents which serves our ends in the larger war. (I hasten to add, both as part of that calculation and as a separate, actionable moral issue, we must make an honest reckoning about the course that would follow in an "abandoned" Iraq, and our responsibility for any carnage that may result beyond the "normal.")

[_JS]

To add to Domer's statement, one piece of this war that is often forgotten by Americans is Afghanistan. Bill Frist was much maligned for his statements - Link - but I believe he was attacked by those on the right and left primarily because many Americans believe that the war in Afghanistan was won and is completely finished. The reality is far from that rosy scenario as Frist rightly pointed out, where he erred was to assume that this was common knowledge.

To illustrate this point, consider that we strongly encouraged Pakistan to send military forces into the autonomous region of Waziristan. That area of Pakistan is very mountainous and the tribes there are extremely rural and very religious. They follow the same highly fundamentalist Islam that the Taleban do and are indeed sympathetic to the Taleban plight. We used these tribes in Waziristan to smuggle weapons to the Afghani resistance fighters against the Soviets in the 1980's. So, Pakistan obliged us and subsequently took it on the chin. Now General Musharraf is making a separate peace with many of the Waziri tribes much to the chagrin of Bush, Blair, and Karzai.

The point is that there are fundamental differences in fighting this "war on terrorism." Moreover, the inducements that allowed us to fight wars by proxy during the Cold War no longer exist today. The nations we need to help us are not going to be impressed with our "expertise" in this area, especially considering that many of them have been dealing with radical and militant elements of Islam for decades.

[Michael Tee]

<<How do you know that the 500 that don't vote are "good-natured"? >>

I gave 'em the benefit of the doubt.  That's because I'M good-natured myself.

[Michael Tee]

<<It's nonsensical because you can't know what the motivations are for those who don't vote. Mikey claimed that they're all pacifists. I said that anyone can claim just the opposite, and stand just as good a chance of being right.>>

I think somebody lost sight of the fact that I was making up a simplistic model to illustrate a point I was making to BT which in itself was of a rather hypothetical nature.  (How a "democracy" can do lots of evil shit without necessarily having an evil majority of citizens supporting it)  My example was not intended to be a statistical analysis of a real-life election, it was oversimplified to enable BT to grasp a point which up to then had apparently eluded him.

[Amianthus]

I think somebody lost sight of the fact that I was making up a simplistic model to illustrate a point I was making to BT which in itself was of a rather hypothetical nature.  (How a "democracy" can do lots of evil shit without necessarily having an evil majority of citizens supporting it)  My example was not intended to be a statistical analysis of a real-life election, it was oversimplified to enable BT to grasp a point which up to then had apparently eluded him.

Hypotheticals work much better when they mirror the real world.

[Michael Tee]

sirs:  <<Let's bring back the concentr....I mean the all-caring compassionate "re-education camps" to get those folks to start thinking how they're supposed to.  >>

MT:  <<No, I think it's really better to handle traitors and collaborators the way the French Resistance did once the invaders had gone - - shoot about 20,000 of the bastards on whatever street corner you find 'em.  Re-ed camps are for wimps.  >>

sirs:  <<Spoken like a true bleeding heart lib>>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, my heart's in favour of the street-corner execution process for traitors and collaborators, but my head favours due process and old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon judicial principles.  In real life, much as I love to see fascists meeting up with instant karma, the risks of executing even one innocent man in the process are still too big to take.

sirs, I'm afraid you missed the irony in my remarks.  I wasn't supporting street-corner executions, I was contrasting them with the re-education camps, and in the contrast, you should have been able to see that the camps were much more humane than (a) instant karma or (b) lengthy prison terms of many years or (c) trials for treason with the death penalty following in most cases.  

I don't think you could find a single re-ed camp attendee who was in camp for as long as the prisoners of the "War on Terror" have been held in Guantanamo or whatever secret torture chambers the U.S. is currently holding them in.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<With said dismemberments coming from targeted attacks by terrorists vs being sanctioned by the Government.  Apparently the liberal plan supports sanctioned torture and dismemberment when exerising their 1st amendment.  Oh wait, that's only if it's Conservatives speaking out.  My bad>>

I am not following you.  You were praising the "liberation" of Iraq - - that the people now could criticize the government without fear of dismemberment.  I pointed out that they now could be dismembered without even having to criticize the government, just by being the wrong religion in the wrong place.  In other words, this wasn't any kind of improvement at all, since under Saddam, you could avoid dismemberment simply by not criticizing the government, and now you don't even have that protection.  And your point in reply was what?  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Facts to folks like you Tee, is like Kryptonite to superman>>

Aww, get serious, sirs.  I pointed out that you ignored facts when you claimed that the Vietnamese re-education camps were like concentration camps.  I pointed out that the Vietnamese re-ed camps lacked the distinguishing features of the Nazi camps, specifically the "medical experiments," the gas chambers, the crematoria.  Those are facts.  You might have wanted to challenge what I said with other facts.  Make some logical distinction, I don't know.  The "kryptonite" remark was just stupid and childish standing by itself without any accompanying factual or logical attack on what I had just stated.

[Michael Tee]

<<Hypotheticals work much better when they mirror the real world.>>

There's a place for realistic hypotheticals and there's a place for very simplistic hypotheticals.  BT wasn't getting what I considered a very basic point and I chose to use a simplistic, non-realistic model to illustrate the point.  One of the reasons I chose that kind of model was that hopefully we (BT and I) would avoid getting dragged into the kind of side-issue discussion that you and I are involved in now.

[sirs]

sirs, I'm afraid you missed the irony in my remarks.  

Given the alternate reality you prompt so many, if not all your accusations & comments from, that's not surprising

  

<<With said dismemberments coming from targeted attacks by terrorists vs being sanctioned by the Government.  Apparently the liberal plan supports sanctioned torture and dismemberment when exerising their 1st amendment.  Oh wait, that's only if it's Conservatives speaking out.  My bad>>

I am not following you.  You were praising the "liberation" of Iraq - - that the people now could criticize the government without fear of dismemberment. 

FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  MEANING IT'S NO LONGER "PUBLIC POLICY"

I pointed out that they now could be dismembered without even having to criticize the government, just by being the wrong religion in the wrong place.  In other words, this wasn't any kind of improvement at all, since under Saddam, you could avoid dismemberment simply by not criticizing the government, and now you don't even have that protection.  And your point in reply was what?  

That such acts of terrorism are just that, terrorism, NOT supported by the Government, NOT supported by America, NOT supported by the Iraqi populace.    And yes, they now do have some protection.....The Government, though obviously they aren't omnipotent.  Figured it out, yet?  Or are we back to the Castro Defense, keep quiet, be good, or else.

Aww, get serious, sirs.  I pointed out that you ignored facts when you claimed that the Vietnamese re-education camps were like concentration camps.  I pointed out that the Vietnamese re-ed camps lacked the distinguishing features of the Nazi camps, specifically the "medical experiments," the gas chambers, the crematoria.  Those are facts. 

<----------------------------------------------------------------------Right over your head.  My point about you disregarding, even making up "facts", is a systemic problem of yours Tee.  I never made it in reference to the splinter in your finger

[Michael Tee]

<<FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  MEANING IT'S [dismemberment's] NO LONGER "PUBLIC POLICY">>

Well, in the first place, some of it's still government policy.  The Sadrist Interior Ministry refuses to crack down on the Shi'ite militias, so the dismemberment of Sunnis goes on with government protection and blessing.  There are numerous reported instances of armed and uniformed Shi'ite death squads passing easily through government check-points.

But even if it weren't the government doing the dismembering, it's still gotta be a worse situation.  As I pointed out, under Saddam, all you had to do to avoid dismemberment was to keep your fucking mouth shut.  Under the "liberation" of Iraq, you have lost that option.  You'd have to be a real fool to think the present situation is better than the second.  You have no protection at all at present - - everyone's a target.

<<That such acts of terrorism are just that, terrorism, NOT supported by the Government, NOT supported by America, NOT supported by the Iraqi populace. >>

Come on, when a bunch of guys come to dismember you, do you think your last thoughts are gonna be, "Well, thank God it's not the government?"  That's lunacy.  What you see in Iraq now, in the absence of strong central authority (Saddam) is that every man is every other man's torturer and executioner.  The Americans took apart a system they didn't like and lo and behold!  they weren't able to put together anything to replace it with and the situation is ten times worse than before.

Also, your "not supported by America" is only half-true.  Why do you think Negroponte of all people was picked as Ambassador to Iraq?  What do you think the El Salvador Option was?  Even BT predicted US-sponsored death squads would be the next step in fighting the insurgency, although now I'm sure he'd be the first to ask, what Salvador Option, what death squads, what American involvement, where's the smoking gun?