DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on January 14, 2007, 05:19:19 AM
-
if the United States loses the Iraq War, the consequences will be dire -- and a Democratic president elected in 2008 may well have to deal with them.
That president could inherit an Iraq in all-out civil war, regional chaos pitting Sunnis against Shiites and -- worst of all -- the collapse of American influence and the triumph of radical Islamist forces, Iran in the lead.
Iraq will not be the last theater of combat between radicalism and moderation, but wherever the next confrontation is -- in Lebanon, Egypt, Iran or Saudi Arabia -- the United States will be at an automatic disadvantage if it loses in Iraq.
..................http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/democrats_should_give_bush_fin.html....................
Now that they have taken over Congress, Democrats have a responsibility to do more than simply oppose Bush and his policies. If there is any possibility that the United States and its interests can still succeed in Iraq, they need to help it happen.
It's very possible that America will fail. If so, Democrats should give no one the opportunity to say that they precipitated it.
-
Nobody understands the new Washington power dynamic better than Emanuel, who helped create it. As chief strategist and fundraiser for the Democrats' recapture of the House, he understood before most others that the nation was angry with Bush and his party. Now, with Bush attaching himself even more firmly to an unpopular war, Emanuel wants to use that rising public anger to make the Democrats the nation's true governing party.
With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel plans to use Bush's Iraq speech to pose what amounts to a vote of "no confidence'' in Bush's leadership -- framing the new strategy as a congressional motion and voting it up or down. Emanuel is certain that it will lose, and that a sizable number of Republicans will join the Democrats in rejecting the president's military escalation. Rather than try to restrict funds for the troops (which he sees as a political blunder that would delight Republicans), Emanuel instead favors a proposal by Rep. John Murtha to set strict standards for readiness -- which will make it hard to finance the troop surge in Iraq without beefing up the military as a whole. The idea is to position the Democrats as friends of the military, even as they denounce Bush's Iraq policy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/democrats_wait_to_pick_up_the.html
And here's what Emanuel doesn't want to do: Fall into the political trap of chasing overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health care and he shakes his head. Four smart presidents -- Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton -- tried and failed. That one can wait. Reform of Social Security and other entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky. If the president wants to propose big changes to entitlements, he can lead the charge.
The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, they're waiting to pick up the pieces.
-
The "dire consequences" of America "losing" Iraq are non-existent. They are basically the same "dire consequences" that the fascists and militarists promised if America "lost" Viet Nam. Both countries that (a) are not America's to lose and (b) have every God-damn right to determine their own destiny for good or for ill WITHOUT the "assistance" or "help" of a foreign invading army that nobody invited in.
Both cases postulate future conflicts in unspecified places at unspecfied times with the "same enemy" that the U.S. happens to find itself fighting at the time. The "Politics of Fear" at its most basic level.
But since the prime driver of the enemy is the most basic form of nationalism conceivable (resistance to foreign invasion) the "enemy" can ONLY be found when the U.S. acts as a foreign invader either by actively invading another country or by overthrowing its government by covert action and maintaining a puppet regime in power over a captive citizenry. The simplest and most commonsensical relief is available, "Don't fuck with other people and they won't fuck with you."
Sept. 11, 2001 was a message for America, clear and simple: You are fucking with people who have finally figured out how to hit back at you. Stop fucking with them. The lesson America's moronic leadership took from the attacks seems to be: "Let's fuck with them some more and see what happens." Fair enough. Now you can SEE what happens. When is the message finally going to sink in?
-
since the prime driver of the enemy is the most basic form of nationalism conceivable (resistance to foreign invasion) the "enemy" can ONLY be found when the U.S. acts as a foreign invader either by actively invading another country or by overthrowing its government by covert action and maintaining a puppet regime in power over a captive citizenry. The simplest and most commonsensical relief is available, "Don't fuck with other people and they won't fuck with you."
False premise --> can't take anything else very seriously. Then again, what else is new coming from reading the Tee leaves?
-
The "dire consequences" of America "losing" Iraq are non-existent. They are basically the same "dire consequences" that the fascists and militarists promised if America "lost" Viet Nam. Both countries that (a) are not America's to lose and (b) have every God-damn right to determine their own destiny for good or for ill WITHOUT the "assistance" or "help" of a foreign invading army that nobody invited in.
The majority of Iraq walked through fire to vote.
A violent minority wants to be in charge on the basis of their own virtue above the people.
If you are for the right of Iraq to determine its own destiny you can't be against President Bush , who is for exactly that.
To give Iran over to the insurgency is not diffrent in any important way from giveing up te US to the KKK or Germany to the Natzi party.
-
Sept. 11, 2001 was a message for America, clear and simple: You are fucking with people who have finally figured out how to hit back at you. Stop fucking with them. The lesson America's moronic leadership took from the attacks seems to be: "Let's fuck with them some more and see what happens." Fair enough. Now you can SEE what happens. When is the message finally going to sink in?
I dispute this statement, MT. The message was anything but clear and simple, clear and simple would have been taking out an advertisement in the New York Times, or paid television spots. What September 11 truly illustrated was that a group of fundamentalist Moslems decided to martyr themselves for the cause. And what was the cause? Was it to stop American interventionism? I doubt it. The Arab world is smart enough to know that such an action as killing innocent citizens is likely to enrage the US into taking hostile action. At the time, the hi-jackers were a Moslem minority, remember the solidarity with the US immediately after 9/11 from the Mid-East, the Iranians praying for us, even Qadaffi sending his sympathies and condolences?
These hi-jackers did this in order to promote their cause, fundamental Islam. They did it so that they could use the actions of the maddened US to promote their view of Western decadence, and weakness. To say that they did it to put a stop to American interventionism is an absurdity. Where we went wrong, in my opinion, was going after Hussein at the wrong time when we could have concentrated our efforts on Al-Qaeda and those who support them. I'm not sad about toppling Hussein, but I am sad about the price we are paying and going to have to pay for it. From the 9/11 tragedy to today, when we come up with bizarre conspiracy theories about the plane hitting the Pentagon, it truly saddens me. I'm not going to second-guess the President, I don't have his job and wouldn't want it, but obviously better choices could have been made. Trumpeting partisan bullshit isn't going to soothe any wounds though, on either side of the political aisle.
-
What September 11 truly illustrated was that a group of fundamentalist Moslems decided to martyr themselves for the cause....These hi-jackers did this in order to promote their cause, fundamental Islam. They did it so that they could use the actions of the maddened US to promote their view of Western decadence, and weakness. To say that they did it to put a stop to American interventionism is an absurdity.....From the 9/11 tragedy to today, when we come up with bizarre conspiracy theories about the plane hitting the Pentagon, it truly saddens me. I'm not going to second-guess the President, I don't have his job and wouldn't want it, but obviously better choices could have been made. Trumpeting partisan bullshit isn't going to soothe any wounds though, on either side of the political aisle.
This is why I miss Fatman's posts. Good to seeyas Fat. And good to see those great posts, even when I'm in disagreement of them
-
What September 11 truly illustrated......
Hmmmmm............
Good points.
The Al Quieda is hardly made up of impoverished victims of eploitation , more ike the sos of the middle class which is new to their culture.
-
the collapse of American influence and the triumph of radical Islamist forces, Iran in the lead.
======================================================
Iran is Shiite. The Islamic fundamentalists are Sunni. They are never going to be allies.
American influence has diminished every day that Juniorbush has engaged in this useless war.
Maybe if we hung the bastard and his vicebastard Cheney for their numerous war crimes, they would come around
-
Maybe if we hung the bastard and his vicebastard Cheney for their numerous war crimes, they would come around
Yea, that's all it'll take. Gads, why didn't we think of this the 1st time they tried to take down the WTC. ::)
-
ea, that's all it'll take. Gads, why didn't we think of this the 1st time they tried to take down the WTC.
Juniorbush and Vicebastard Cheney were unknowns abroad at the time that happened.
The problem is not the small number of Al Qaeda types who have never liked our governments, it is the greater number of non-fundamentalists who have come to realize that we have conquered Iraq for its oil and are willing to stay until the last Iraqi is dead before the US oilmen who got us into this godawful mess can gain the right to occupy Iraq and such and sell its oil.
There was absolutely no connection between the 9-11 attacks and Iraq UNTIL the utter buffonery of Juniorbush and Vicebastard Cheney incompetently destroyed the government of Iraq and allowed anarchy there, thus inviting Al Qaeda into Iraq.
These two morons are to the Arab world what Saddam represented to most Americans, after all the propaganda about him was spread all over the place.
I propose a civilized hanging, officiated by Rev Billy Graham himself. No raucous shouts from Unitarians and Wiccans at all, following a more civilized sort of trial. It could show the world how Iraq should have gotten rid of their most despicable leader
-
Juniorbush and Vicebastard Cheney were unknowns abroad at the time that happened.
Yea, and? Seems to you, they're the cause of militant Islam festering and causing all the ruckus that they are. String them up, and all will be well with the world, right?
I propose a civilized hanging, officiated by Rev Billy Graham himself. No raucous shouts from Unitarians and Wiccans at all, following a more civilized sort of trial. It could show the world how Iraq should have gotten rid of their most despicable leader
LIke I said, apparently that's all that's needed to make nice nice with militant Islam, Muslim terrorists, and Insurgents bent on returning to a dictator status quo
-
<<The majority of Iraq walked through fire to vote.>>
Well, that's obvious bullshit, for many reasons. First of all, the "elections" were held under the guns of a foreign occupation army and its chosen puppets. You would have to be a pretty stupid fucking Iraqi NOT to vote when the puppets and their masters told you to vote. These people understand that the party in power makes lists, and if you get on one of those lists, very bad things can happen to you. So it really boils down to, Who are you more afraid of, the Resistance who MIGHT get you or the Occupation which can and will? The elections have no legitimacy whatsoever. They're an illegal sham conducted under an illegal occupation. Fooling exactly nobody. Except maybe you.
Secondly, I really don't know where you get this "majority" BS. There has never been any kind of legitimate accounting for this figure.
<<The percentage of turnout supplied by Ayar [Farid Ayar was the Vice President of the Iraqi Higher Independent Election Commission] came to 57% (happily rounded off by the press to 60%). This was based on what was described as 14 million potential voters divided by those 8 million who braved the potential bullets and bombs to go to the polls.
<<On Sunday, while hailing the millions going to the polls, I also raised questions about the 14 million eligible figure: was that registered voters, or all adults over 18, or what? Few on TV or in print seem to be quite sure, to this day. >>
The issue of the 14 million was raised by a reader-contributor to Daily Kos:
<<there hasn't been a reliable census in the country in ages, and estimates of the population vary widely, with 25 million being at the very low end. In early 2003 (pre-invasion), the Iraqi Ministry of Trade and Planning released the figure of 27.5 million (this number was to be used for calculations for the Oil-for-Food Program), while the CIA's World Factbook gives an estimate some 2 million lower. It would seem like the 14 million figure was merely derived by taking the low-end estimate of the entire population and multiplying it by 56%, the share of the population estimated (again) to be of voting age. >>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/134855/3139
In other words, the 57% figure (automatically inflated to 60% in most Western MSM accounts) is the result of the eligible-voter figure, which is based on . . . nothing. 60% can be adjusted up or down depending on where you want the eligible-voter number to be. Once again, it seems, you have been conned.
Report, IRIN, 12 January 2005
<<Q. There are rumours that people have been told at food rations distribution centres that if they don't go to vote they will not receive their food rations in 2005. Is that true?
<<A. It's a democracy; we won't do that, but if there are people forcing others to vote it's something out from our hands. Maybe they are doing that to persuade people to vote.>>
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1780.shtml
So, whatever that "majority" walked "through fire" for could just as easily been ration cards as democracy.
But even if there had been a real majority of the eligible voting population (60% as the MSM falsely claimed) that voted, it wouldn't mean much. The split was clearly along religious lines. The Shi'a voted because they knew the democratic constitution would give them power over the Sunni. The Sunni didn't vote because they knew the system was rigged to give power to their religious adversaries.
For democracy to work, you need first and foremost the consent of most of the population to abide by the results of the vote. If you have a determined minority who won't abide by it, it just won't work. What you are lacking is the consent of most of the population to the system. 51% or even 60% isn't nearly enough. I know it's not fair, but it's life. You're an individualist. You wouldn't like the Federal Government taking your money for things you don't approve of, even if it's a majority government. Why would you approve of them forcing a whole method of decision-making down your throat if you don't agree to it in the first place?
-
Excellent post, Fatman. I oversimplified and I'm afraid didn't express myself clearly.
<<The message was anything but clear and simple, clear and simple would have been taking out an advertisement in the New York Times, or paid television spots. What September 11 truly illustrated was that a group of fundamentalist Moslems decided to martyr themselves for the cause. And what was the cause? Was it to stop American interventionism? I doubt it. >>
You are quite right. I should have said the root cause was American interventionism in the Middle East, creating puppet states whose subordination to U.S. and Israeli interests enrages every self-respecting Muslim. This rage produces fanatics whose primary targets are the puppet states led by fake Muslims, either in thrall to the U.S. or too cowardly and self-interested to champion the cause of downtrodden and oppressed Muslims in their own corner of the world. The actual purpose of the Sept. 11 attacks was to provoke U.S. attacks on Muslims, which succeeded. The attacks in turn radicalized millions of Muslims and brought them into line with al Qaeda thought, estranging them from the "Westernized" puppet rulers presently supported and maintained in power by England and America and their silent Israeli partner.
I really should have spoken in terms of lessons to be learned rather than messages sent. But what I wrongly termed the message is in fact the lesson: Don't fuck with these people and they won't fuck with you. You have your corner of the world, let them have theirs.
<<The Arab world is smart enough to know that such an action as killing innocent citizens is likely to enrage the US into taking hostile action. At the time, the hi-jackers were a Moslem minority, remember the solidarity with the US immediately after 9/11 from the Mid-East, the Iranians praying for us, even Qadaffi sending his sympathies and condolences?>>
I think what was expressed by the leaders was not what was felt in the street. If you read Baudrillard's article, "L'esprit du Terrorisme," an English translation of which (highly abridged) was published in Harper's (sorry, I don't have the reference, the photocopy I have says only "Readings" at the bottom of the pages, but memory says this was from Harpers) he is, IMHO, quite correct in pointing out that "The moral condemnation and the sacred union against terrorism are directly proportional to the prodigious jubilation felt at having seen this global superpower destroyed, because it was this insufferable superpower that gve rise to both the violence now spreading throughout the world and to the terrorist imagination that (without our knowing it) dwells within us all."
Baudrillard was speaking of the highly repressed, unconscious Western reaction to the attacks, and with tremendous perspicacity, I might add, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is the Middle Eastern reaction that concerns us, and in that regard, I would expect that whatever the official condolences, the "solidarity" of the Middle East, Iranian "prayers" notwithstanding, was probably largely illusory.
<<These hi-jackers did this in order to promote their cause, fundamental Islam. They did it so that they could use the actions of the maddened US to promote their view of Western decadence, and weakness. >>
You're right, of course.
<<To say that they did it to put a stop to American interventionism is an absurdity. >>
Well, by "purifying" their own society, American interventionism would obviously have to be ended.
<<Where we went wrong, in my opinion, was going after Hussein at the wrong time when we could have concentrated our efforts on Al-Qaeda and those who support them. >>
Ahh, that's bullshit. There's always going to be an al Qaeda as long as the Arabs aren't masters in their own home and as long as the Jews continue to inflict misery and oppression on the Palestinians.
<<I'm not sad about toppling Hussein, but I am sad about the price we are paying and going to have to pay for it. >>
Yeah, that sucks but I'm a little bit sadder about the price the Iraqis have had to pay for it - - torture, rape, murder and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, seems a tad more onerous than the deaths of 3,000 highly trained professional killers.
<<From the 9/11 tragedy to today, when we come up with bizarre conspiracy theories about the plane hitting the Pentagon, it truly saddens me. I'm not going to second-guess the President, I don't have his job and wouldn't want it, but obviously better choices could have been made. >>
Not by that gang.
<< Trumpeting partisan bullshit isn't going to soothe any wounds though, on either side of the political aisle.>>
Soothing wounds can wait. There's a war to be stopped.
-
The actual purpose of the Sept. 11 attacks was to provoke U.S. attacks on Muslims, which succeeded. The attacks in turn radicalized millions of Muslims and brought them into line with al Qaeda thought, estranging them from the "Westernized" puppet rulers presently supported and maintained in power by England and America and their silent Israeli partner.
This is close to my enough to my premise for me to agree MT>
I really should have spoken in terms of lessons to be learned rather than messages sent. But what I wrongly termed the message is in fact the lesson: Don't fuck with these people and they won't fuck with you. You have your corner of the world, let them have theirs.
I disagree on this one MT. Just because you leave a nation alone doesn't mean that they won't attack you, look at Kuwait, Poland (though that is a complex one, admittedly), Japanese-Russian Manchuria.
Baudrillard was speaking of the highly repressed, unconscious Western reaction to the attacks, and with tremendous perspicacity, I might add, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is the Middle Eastern reaction that concerns us, and in that regard, I would expect that whatever the official condolences, the "solidarity" of the Middle East, Iranian "prayers" notwithstanding, was probably largely illusory.
It may surprise you MT, but I am in agreement with Baudrillard on this. I believe that there were a lot of powers in the world who consciously or not, enjoyed seeing the US get a black eye. However, I disagree that the majority of Middle Easterners, at the time, were overjoyed. They had to have an idea of what was coming.
Ahh, that's bullshit. There's always going to be an al Qaeda as long as the Arabs aren't masters in their own home and as long as the Jews continue to inflict misery and oppression on the Palestinians.
Just because there is always going to be unrest in the Middle East does not mean that it justifies the action of Al-Qaeda against innocent people. It disgusts me that terrorists feel that the best way to win support for their cause is to kill a bunch of civilians, rather than flying jetliners into say, the Capitol, White House, etc. Kidnapping civilian hostages. What the hell happened to Ghandi or MLK? If every displaced people in history were to resort to this crap, what do you think would happen? Should the English start hi-jacking Concordes and flying them into the Eiffel tower because they lost their territories on mainland France in the 100 years war? Should Germany load rail cars with bombs and detonate them in Danzig (Konigsberg until after WW2) Every people throughout history has been displaced at some point. It does not justify terrorism. Period.
Yeah, that sucks but I'm a little bit sadder about the price the Iraqis have had to pay for it - - torture, rape, murder and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, seems a tad more onerous than the deaths of 3,000 highly trained professional killers.
I too am unhappy about civilian deaths in a war that seems to be going nowhere fast. I've never been a fan of this war and have come in the past year to disagree with it totally. That said, how many innocent Iraqi's are killed by US forces, and how many are killed in the sectarian violence currently tearing that nation asunder? The fault does not lie squarely on the shoulders of the US, though quite a bit does.
Soothing wounds can wait. There's a war to be stopped.
Agreed, but there is no easy end to this. Each possible outcome is riddled with uncertainties. If we pull out immediately, Iraq is definitely destabilized, probably so for quite awhile, until a strongman comes along and takes charge. How many innocent Iraqis die then MT? If we pull out gradually, there is no guarantee that the government will hold. See the first part of this reply. If we stay indefinitely, well, that's just not going to work and I think that we all know that.
-
<<I disagree on this one MT. Just because you leave a nation alone doesn't mean that they won't attack you, look at Kuwait, Poland (though that is a complex one, admittedly), Japanese-Russian Manchuria.>>
Well, with all due respect, Fatman, Kuwait wasn't entirely the innocent victim of aggression. In the first place, they were slant-drilling into Iraqi reserves and Iraq had lodged numerous protests against the practice. And in the second place, they exist as a "nation" solely because of the Anglo-French "divide and conquer" disposition of the former Ottoman Empire in the wake of the First World War. In other words, the Allied violence that deprived Turkey of an empire was further employed to prevent the rise of a powerful Arab nation by drawing arbitrary lines around tiny collections of oil reserves and declaring each a separate "nation." Saddam had as much right to undo the results obtained by English and French force of arms as the English and French had to draw the lines in the first place. More, in fact, since it's his people who are robbed of their oil and the French and British who benefit from the robbery. Except of course for that pesky UN Charter - - which, since the U.S. disregards at will, it cannot really fault Saddam for displaying equal disregard.
<<It may surprise you MT, but I am in agreement with Baudrillard on this. I believe that there were a lot of powers in the world who consciously or not, enjoyed seeing the US get a black eye. However, I disagree that the majority of Middle Easterners, at the time, were overjoyed. They had to have an idea of what was coming.>>
I think they kind of anticipated George W. Bush and his "Bring it On!" At any rate, I read somewhere that for months following 911, "Osama" was THE most popular name in the whole world for newborn baby boys. At any rate, a lot of these folks aren't afraid to die, have nothing to lose, and have been ripped off and oppressed for so long that they couldn't HELP but cheer, no matter what kind of revenge attack would be unleashed upon them.
<<Just because there is always going to be unrest in the Middle East does not mean that it justifies the action of Al-Qaeda against innocent people. It disgusts me that terrorists feel that the best way to win support for their cause is to kill a bunch of civilians, rather than flying jetliners into say, the Capitol, White House, etc. Kidnapping civilian hostages. What the hell happened to Ghandi or MLK? If every displaced people in history were to resort to this crap, what do you think would happen? Should the English start hi-jacking Concordes and flying them into the Eiffel tower because they lost their territories on mainland France in the 100 years war? Should Germany load rail cars with bombs and detonate them in Danzig (Konigsberg until after WW2) Every people throughout history has been displaced at some point. It does not justify terrorism. Period.>>
I couldn't agree with you more, Fatman. My daughter and grandchildren live in Manhattan. But innocent people are hit all the time - - in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Afghanistan; and before them, in Panama City, in Belgrade, in Hanoi and Haiphong; and I won't even mention the innocent victims of US-backed death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua; or of the US-backed dictatorships in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. So I guess whatever you think of the terrorists personally or their motives, you have to admit there is a kind of karmic symmetry involved here where the war on innocent civilian victims finally starts to claim lives in the U.S.A. itself, where it all started. Maybe it will generate some introspection, some self-knowledge on the parts of the perpetrators, some reflections on root causes, and that can't be all bad. It seems to me that the biggest cause of "terrorism" is the actions of the U.S. government abroad, and the faster it stops doing evil to others, the faster it will start to see a reduction in the evil done to it. The faster the people of the U.S.A. begin to insist on just and ethical conduct in the country's foreign relations, the faster they will begin to drain the festering hatred that produces the suicide bombers and other so-called "terrorists."
-
<<The majority of Iraq walked through fire to vote.>>
Well, that's obvious bullshit, for many reasons. First of all, the "elections" were held under the guns of a foreign occupation army and its chosen puppets. You would have to be a pretty stupid fucking Iraqi NOT to vote when the puppets and their masters told you to vote. These people understand that the party in power makes lists, and if you get on one of those lists, very bad things can happen to you. So it really boils down to, Who are you more afraid of, the Resistance who MIGHT get you or the Occupation which can and will? The elections have no legitimacy whatsoever. They're an illegal sham conducted under an illegal occupation. Fooling exactly nobody. Except maybe you.
Secondly, I really don't know where you get this "majority" BS. There has never been any kind of legitimate accounting for this figure.
<<The percentage of turnout supplied by Ayar [Farid Ayar was the Vice President of the Iraqi Higher Independent Election Commission] came to 57% (happily rounded off by the press to 60%). This was based on what was described as 14 million potential voters divided by those 8 million who braved the potential bullets and bombs to go to the polls.
<<On Sunday, while hailing the millions going to the polls, I also raised questions about the 14 million eligible figure: was that registered voters, or all adults over 18, or what? Few on TV or in print seem to be quite sure, to this day. >>
The issue of the 14 million was raised by a reader-contributor to Daily Kos:
<<there hasn't been a reliable census in the country in ages, and estimates of the population vary widely, with 25 million being at the very low end. In early 2003 (pre-invasion), the Iraqi Ministry of Trade and Planning released the figure of 27.5 million (this number was to be used for calculations for the Oil-for-Food Program), while the CIA's World Factbook gives an estimate some 2 million lower. It would seem like the 14 million figure was merely derived by taking the low-end estimate of the entire population and multiplying it by 56%, the share of the population estimated (again) to be of voting age. >>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/134855/3139
In other words, the 57% figure (automatically inflated to 60% in most Western MSM accounts) is the result of the eligible-voter figure, which is based on . . . nothing. 60% can be adjusted up or down depending on where you want the eligible-voter number to be. Once again, it seems, you have been conned.
Report, IRIN, 12 January 2005
<<Q. There are rumours that people have been told at food rations distribution centres that if they don't go to vote they will not receive their food rations in 2005. Is that true?
<<A. It's a democracy; we won't do that, but if there are people forcing others to vote it's something out from our hands. Maybe they are doing that to persuade people to vote.>>
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1780.shtml
So, whatever that "majority" walked "through fire" for could just as easily been ration cards as democracy.
But even if there had been a real majority of the eligible voting population (60% as the MSM falsely claimed) that voted, it wouldn't mean much. The split was clearly along religious lines. The Shi'a voted because they knew the democratic constitution would give them power over the Sunni. The Sunni didn't vote because they knew the system was rigged to give power to their religious adversaries.
For democracy to work, you need first and foremost the consent of most of the population to abide by the results of the vote. If you have a determined minority who won't abide by it, it just won't work. What you are lacking is the consent of most of the population to the system. 51% or even 60% isn't nearly enough. I know it's not fair, but it's life. You're an individualist. You wouldn't like the Federal Government taking your money for things you don't approve of, even if it's a majority government. Why would you approve of them forcing a whole method of decision-making down your throat if you don't agree to it in the first place?
"Well, that's obvious bullshit, for many reasons."
No there isn't any evidence at all that it is bullshit , the single reason to think so is your POV.
There was one election , then no reprisal against he nn voter at all then another election with no reprisal agains the non voter at all so..."stupid fucking Iraqi NOT to vote when the puppets and their masters told you to vote".... Is absolute and objectively Bullshit
-
"""The faster the people of the U.S.A. begin to insist on just and ethical conduct in the country's foreign relations, the faster they will begin to drain the festering hatred that produces the suicide bombers and other so-called "terrorists." ""
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Do you really think that the killing of large numbers of inocent people all around the world will have this effect on the American public?
They may crave our respect, but they have chosen a very poor means to that end.
-
<<Do you really think that the killing of large numbers of inocent people all around the world will have this effect on the American public?>>
Not really. The American public doesn't give a shit about large numbers of people being killed all around the world. Doesn't bother them in the least. 2 million innocent Vietnamese, 100,000 innocent Guatemalans, 500,000 innocent Indonesians, 600,000 innocent Iraqis don't mean shit to the American public.
The American people will realize their mistakes when they have seen the 50,000th American body bag come back from the Middle East and they find that they haven't made a dent in the price of oil. Or that they need $200 to buy a euro. But the mere death of innocent civilians all around the world is not anything the American public loses any sleep over.
-
<<No there isn't any evidence at all that it is bullshit , the single reason to think so is your POV.>>
It's bullshit because there isn't any evidence at all that a majority voted, it's only speculation. Even if a majority did vote, who knows WHY . . . democracy, ration cards or fear of not voting and getting on a list.
<<There was one election , then no reprisal against he nn voter at all then another election with no reprisal agains the non voter at all so..."stupid fucking Iraqi NOT to vote when the puppets and their masters told you to vote".... Is absolute and objectively Bullshit>>
Every day dozens of bodies show up in Baghdad alone, more in the rest of the country. Dozens. Who knows why each one died, which ones are on lists, which are random victims? You don't know and I don't know. It seems obvious to me that if the Shi'a militias ordered folks in the neighbourhood to get out and vote, they'd know who didn't - - who didn't obey them. And you can stick your head in the sand all you like and pretend it makes no difference, but anyone with an ounce of common sense in his head knows that it could make a BIG difference - - the difference between life and death.
-
<<No there isn't any evidence at all that it is bullshit , the single reason to think so is your POV.>>
It's bullshit because there isn't any evidence at all that a majority voted, it's only speculation. Even if a majority did vote, who knows WHY . . . democracy, ration cards or fear of not voting and getting on a list.
Do you think that there are more than 22 million Iriquis?
A majority voted .
<<There was one election , then no reprisal against he non voter at all then another election with no reprisal agains the non voter at all so..."stupid fucking Iraqi NOT to vote when the puppets and their masters told you to vote".... Is absolute and objectively Bullshit>>
Every day dozens of bodies show up in Baghdad alone, more in the rest of the country. Dozens. Who knows why each one died, which ones are on lists, which are random victims? You don't know and I don't know. It seems obvious to me that if the Shi'a militias ordered folks in the neighbourhood to get out and vote, they'd know who didn't - - who didn't obey them. And you can stick your head in the sand all you like and pretend it makes no difference, but anyone with an ounce of common sense in his head knows that it could make a BIG difference - - the difference between life and death.
At least this is progress, you arn't still claiming that they were afraid that the US soldiers would kill them , now you are claiming that the Shi'a militia is following our orders.
If the Shi'a militia is enforceding our wishes , how can we loose ?
You know better than this, the violent and spitefull can kill a dozen every day in the manner of the KKK but this does not give the violent and spitefull the right to govern, how can you square a opposition to the KKK or the Natzis with a support of the Al Quaida?
-
You know better than this, the violent and spitefull can kill a dozen every day in the manner of the KKK but this does not give the violent and spitefull the right to govern, how can you square a opposition to the KKK or the Natzis with a support of the Al Quaida?
I'm still of the opinion that when all is said and done, history is going to see that Bush was to the Iraqis, what Lincoln was to the Negros
-
You know better than this, the violent and spitefull can kill a dozen every day in the manner of the KKK but this does not give the violent and spitefull the right to govern, how can you square a opposition to the KKK or the Natzis with a support of the Al Quaida?
I'm still of the opinion that when all is said and done, history is going to see that Bush was to the Iraqis, what Lincoln was to the Negros
Possibly , possibly .....
but not if it doesn't work.....
What would we think of Lincon , if he had no accomplished so much?
-
I'm still of the opinion that when all is said and done, history is going to see that Bush was to the Iraqis, what Lincoln was to the Negros
Possibly , possibly .....but not if it doesn't work.....What would we think of Lincon , if he had no accomplished so much?
Tall guy that had a fetish for tall hats?
-
<<If the Shi'a militia is enforceding our wishes , how can we loose ?
<<You know better than this, the violent and spitefull can kill a dozen every day in the manner of the KKK but this does not give the violent and spitefull the right to govern, how can you square a opposition to the KKK or the Natzis with a support of the Al Quaida?>>
I'm not endorsing the Shi'a militia, but I'm pointing out something you just don't seem able or willing to grasp - - that whatever the turnout, it can't all be attributed to a thirst for democracy - - democracy is a solution that in this case offers nothing to the Sunni minority and everything to the Shi'a majority. People vote for sectarian advantage or out of fear and there's no way of counting those votes separate from everyone else's. Unless there's general agreement among all of the people to accept the majority's rule, democracy will not work and is not even legitimate - - it's only an arbitrary means of enforcing the "tyranny of the majority." It's a made-in-America solution to the problem of governing Iraq, but it's not the only possible solution and it's not going to work without a consensus acceptance of it. Left to their own devices, the Iraqis could very well evolve something more workable in their own homeland.
-
"...they were slant-drilling into Iraqi reserves..."
Is there any reason at all to think this is true?
-
<<Is there any reason at all to think this is true?>>
<Gasp!> Are you suggesting that Saddam Hussein would LIE about such a thing?
There are complaints on record about the slant-drilling. I've read about this in several publications, and while all accounts report that Kuwait denied slant-drilling, I've never read anything that suggested the complaint was bogus or had been exposed as a lie.
I'd say there's at least as much reason to think this is true as to think that anything said by your "President" is true; probably a lot more.
-
<<Is there any reason at all to think this is true?>>
<Gasp!> Are you suggesting that Saddam Hussein would LIE about such a thing?
There are complaints on record about the slant-drilling. I've read about this in several publications, and while all accounts report that Kuwait denied slant-drilling, I've never read anything that suggested the complaint was bogus or had been exposed as a lie.
I'd say there's at least as much reason to think this is true as to think that anything said by your "President" is true; probably a lot more.
So we are just takeing Saddams word on it , because there isn't any evidence that it is true.
-
<<If the Shi'a militia is enforceding our wishes , how can we loose ?
<<You know better than this, the violent and spitefull can kill a dozen every day in the manner of the KKK but this does not give the violent and spitefull the right to govern, how can you square a opposition to the KKK or the Natzis with a support of the Al Quaida?>>
I'm not endorsing the Shi'a militia, but I'm pointing out something you just don't seem able or willing to grasp - - that whatever the turnout, it can't all be attributed to a thirst for democracy - - democracy is a solution that in this case offers nothing to the Sunni minority and everything to the Shi'a majority. People vote for sectarian advantage or out of fear and there's no way of counting those votes separate from everyone else's. Unless there's general agreement among all of the people to accept the majority's rule, democracy will not work and is not even legitimate - - it's only an arbitrary means of enforcing the "tyranny of the majority." It's a made-in-America solution to the problem of governing Iraq, but it's not the only possible solution and it's not going to work without a consensus acceptance of it. Left to their own devices, the Iraqis could very well evolve something more workable in their own homeland.
There is no such thing as a minority right to rule the majority.
Oh wait , you did approve of Nelson Mandela becomeing President of South Africa didn't you?
Where were you when Botha needed you?
Anyway ,majority rule is based on a faith in the common man to have all the virtues tat any of the nobility that want to rule him may display as justifacation.
Iran may e rife with racal prejudice , but they eed to realise that they can actually live in peace without haveing to be bound up in a tyrany
-
<<There is no such thing as a minority right to rule the majority.>>
I did not say that there was. But there are various other ways to govern a country and if a substantial minority does not wish to submit to the will of the majority, a democracy cannot and will not work. As you can plainly see right before your eyes.
-
<<There is no such thing as a minority right to rule the majority.>>
I did not say that there was. But there are various other ways to govern a country and if a substantial minority does not wish to submit to the will of the majority, a democracy cannot and will not work. As you can plainly see right before your eyes.
There is significant evil in he notion that the majority should submit to a minority that is determined to subjugate it.
Have you any real complaint against Natzis , if you don't agree with this?
-
<<There is significant evil in he notion that the majority should submit to a minority that is determined to subjugate it.>>
You're reading a lot into my post that just isn't there. I didn't argue that the Sunni should be allowed to "subjugate" the majority Shi'a. But they don't necessarily have to submit to the "tyranny of the majority" either. That's for THEM to decide, not the U.S. There are numerous alternatives - - secession being one of them, federalism with resource-sharing guarantees being another. This is something for the parties to negotiate, not for the U.S. to decide by decreeing that first there will be "elections" (in which the U.S. gets to vet all the candidates in advance.)
<<Have you any real complaint against Natzis , if you don't agree with this?>>
I don't understand you. The Nazis were a textbook example of the tyranny of the majority.
-
Stripped of your abhorrence for the initiation of this war (which for me is a mistake that we must now live with) and stripped even more profoundly of your utter detestation of the United States (which I don't share), your characterization loses all force, if it ever had any. The US was bound by every respectable precept of political or military philosophy to help rehabilitate Iraq after the disintegration of its government upon the tyrants fall. This had to be a joint endeavor unless you favor anarchy and a violent free-for-all. The consequent coming together of Iraqi self-governance, if it can be achieved, is a process comprised of many steps, big, small and backward. Yet, I have little doubt that the US authorities charged with managing this matter are proceeding largely in good faith if often ineffectively or otherwise frustratingly.
The whole enterprise very well may fall to overriding tensions in that country that create a dynamic of bloodletting, it seems, instead of reconciliation. But the US was the catalyst for these feelings to come out, not the creator. Whether and to what extent we continue to "help" is a matter of Iraqi cooperation coupled with a sober assessment of our self-interest, conjured while in a accentuated trance of reality, something that's been missing.
-
<<This had to be a joint endeavor unless you favor anarchy and a violent free-for-all. >>
Isn't that more or less what happened after the fall of the Shah of Iran, anarchy and a violent free-for-all? And what happened then? With a tiny fraction of the bloodshed in Iraq, a more or less stable society evolved, with real elections, although there are many brakes on the elected officials and the election candidates themselves are arbitrarily vetted. A government true to Iranian ideals and priorities, providing some kind of arena for the conflicting elements of the society to joust and resolve their differences. Not a made-in-America solution, not even the best possible solution, but their solution, their Iranian solution.
I maintain that an American military involvement in what is by any objective standard a purely Iraqi problelm of governance is not only arrogant but counter-productive. Any solution that bears the stamp of the invader and occupier is tainted irredeemably and will not last. Those who have collaborated with the invader will be marked for death, indelibly. What they build cannot and should not last.
<<Yet, I have little doubt that the US authorities charged with managing this matter are proceeding largely in good faith . . . >>
domer, honest to God, I really thought you were smarter than that. To believe that they are acting in good faith, you'd have to believe that Bush and Cheney are and were acting in good faith. That they (Bush and Cheney) are altruists, men who are very concerned about others, particularly others who lack the "blessings" of freedom and democracy. Well, how have they manifested this great altruism, their concern for the freedom and dignity of other men? Did they, for example, participate in any of the great Civil Rights battles of the 1960s, as Freedom Riders, for example, as marchers, as workers in CORE or SNCC or the NAACP, or even as writers of letters to the editor? Did they take part in any of the anti-apartheid actions in protest of the racist South African regime? Did they, perhaps, protest the overthrow of Salvador Allende or the human-rights abuses of the Argentine junta? Where, exactly, at any point in their lives prior to invading Iraq did they manifest a single glimmer of pro-democracy, pro-freedom activity? And how do they reconcile this love of freedom and democracy with their support for the worst dictators of the Middle East or their failure to protest the 39-year-old military occupation of the West Bank? What signs of altruism did Bush or Cheney ever manifest in a lifetime spent lining their own pockets, in Bush's case with varying degrees of legality?
It's nonsense to believe there's an ounce of sincerity in the administration's stated goal of bringing democracy to Iraq. From this administration in particular. And if that was their intention, how come it was never mentioned (at least never prominently mentioned, always as a "side benefit" or value-added feature of the main event, the invasion as a means of safeguarding America from WMD?)
Oil may or may not be the main reason for the invasion. Other respected commentators (Gwynn Dyer, for one) have suggested it was just a crude and misguided attempt to recoup the tremendous amount of prestige that the "mighty" America lost in that terrible slap in the face suffered on Sept. 11. But whatever the ultimate rationale behind the invasion of Iraq, it should be clear from both the nature and history of the instigators and the changing reasons given for the aggression, as well as the gross and flagrant inconsistency between their professed committment to and love for the democratic process and their actual friends and supporters in the Middle East today, that love of democracy and a committment to build it in Iraq are not any part of that rationale.
-
To believe that they are acting in good faith, you'd have to believe that Bush and Cheney are and were acting in good faith. That they (Bush and Cheney) are altruists, men who are very concerned about others, particularly others who lack the "blessings" of freedom and democracy.
BINGO. Wake us when you actually have FACTS/EVIDENCE to the contrary, and not just your Tee-leave non-existent dot connection
-
I maintain that an American military involvement in what is by any objective standard a purely Iraqi problelm of governance is not only arrogant but counter-productive. Any solution that bears the stamp of the invader and occupier is tainted irredeemably and will not last. Those who have collaborated with the invader will be marked for death, indelibly. What they build cannot and should not last.
You could get a lot of cheering going if you were to give this speech at a meeting of the KKK.
The invader cannot impose his morality on the majority of the region , cannot possibly be setting those in bondage free from sheer altruism!
I can't imagine you cheering over the deaths of the freedom riders that gave their lives for the sake of the freedom of others , but if that speech were shouted at a KKK meeting just before the klling of Medgar Evers hardly a jot would need to change!
Observe---
I maintain that an American military involvement in what is by any objective standard a purely Southern problelm of governance is not only arrogant but counter-productive. Any solution that bears the stamp of the invader and occupier is tainted irredeemably and will not last. Those who have collaborated with the invader will be marked for death, indelibly. What they build cannot and should not last.
The hope of mankinds future is not bound up in any kind of tyrany .
-
That was a good point about the KKK, but it ignores good and evil. My point was that collaborators and traitors will be executed, but I mis-stated it as "should" be executed because I wasn't thinking of other situations besides Iraq.
If the local population is basically evil, as in the U.S. South, then they will still execute what they consider to be traitors and collaborators, but in that case it is the local population which must be subdued at all costs because of their evil nature. The "traitors and collaborators" must be protected because they are fighting for justice and right (which is why the local population hates them so much.) This would apply in either Nazi Germany or the U.S. South.
If the local population is basically resisting a foreign occupation because it wants to remain master of its own house and keep its own natural resources and wealth for itself, there is nothing basically evil about the nature of the struggle, and the collaborators and traitors clearly deserve to die. This would apply, for example , in occupied Europe during WWII.
What complicates Iraq is that there are various strains of Resistance fighters, some of whom are not very nice people. However since the invaders are uniformly imperialist colonizers, they are on the whole more objectionable than the Resistance and therefore we should not interfere with the struggle but let them fight it out their own way and may the best man win.
-
To believe that they are acting in good faith, you'd have to believe that Bush and Cheney are and were acting in good faith. That they (Bush and Cheney) are altruists, men who are very concerned about others, particularly others who lack the "blessings" of freedom and democracy.
=====================================================================================
I fail to see any evidence whatever that Juniorbush and Puppetmeister Cheney have ever acted in good faith. They were WRONG about the threat posed by Saddam (there were, need we remind you once more NO WMDs) and clearly WRONG about how to proceed with the occupation and restoration of a government in Iraq. They are allies of Big Oil and always have been, ever since their days of lackeyhood.
What possible evidence can anyone present that these two have started a war in good faith?
Indeed, is is ever possible to start an unnecessary war in good faith at all?
No one believes this in Iraq, and only the most squishy-minded ratwingers believe it here.
If you have proof, Oh Great Slurs, please present it.
Plop it right down.
-
If the local population is basically evil, as in the U.S. South,
Just wanted to highlight this section.
-
I hardly think that the local population in the South is "evil". At one time, a majority of the White population was certainly against any voting rights for the Black population, but this has changed.
I have seen no signs of racist evil perpetrated here where I live, though there certainly has been a lot of corruption which has benefited a few of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
==============================================
It is also entirely true that even if the South WERE Evil Incarnate, that would not make Juniorbush and Puppetmeister Cheney
pure of motive and kind of heart.
Let's see some actual proof of their Great Democratic desires.
Please remember that these two clowns would never have attained office had a majority of the people favored them.
I am sure President Goreand VP Lieberman would have served us far better than either of these two criminals.
-
<<I hardly think that the local population in the South is "evil". At one time, a majority of the White population was certainly against any voting rights for the Black population, but this has changed.>>
It might have changed, but both plane and I were speaking of the bad old days when white supremacy and Jim Crow ruled.
-
It might have changed, but both plane and I were speaking of the bad old days when white supremacy and Jim Crow ruled.
He said that the speech would go over well at a KKK meeting. There are still KKK meetings.
And they're not all in the south. New Jersey and New York had rapidly growing KKK memberships when I last lived there.
Besides, even 40 years ago, the KKK was not the majority of the population in the south.
-
He was talking about the Freedom Riders and the assassination of Medgar Evers, clearly a reference to the 1960s. The White Citizens Councils, the KKK, Strom Thurmond's glory days, Bull Connor's glory days, Lester Maddox' glory days - - clearly the majority of the population of the South were a bunch of evil bastards who deserved no mercy from the forces of law and order.
-
I fail to see whether any hypothetical statement would go over well or poorly at an equally hypothetical KKK meeting is anything more than Guilt by Association.
I imagine that the KKK would be in favor of realy tasty BBQ sauce, clean restrooms and neatly pressed bedsheets, but that has nothing to do with Iraq, either.
-
He was talking about the Freedom Riders and the assassination of Medgar Evers, clearly a reference to the 1960s.
He also said that it would be valid today.
You could get a lot of cheering going if you were to give this speech at a meeting of the KKK.
-
<<He also said that it would be valid today.>>
What's the BFD? My comments were directed at the South of the 1960s. I didn't deal with today's South at all. The general run of commentary here seems to be that I don't know jack-shit about the New South and I can't really dispute that. They've either stopped the random murder of blacks or figured out a way to keep it off the front pages, and apart from the odd trip to Florida, the place is just off my radar screen.
-
apart from the odd trip to Florida, the place is just off my radar screen.
Well, for something that's off your radar screen, you sure seem to go to a lot of trouble to claim that southerners are racist.
-
<<Well, for something that's off your radar screen, you sure seem to go to a lot of trouble to claim that southerners are racist.>>
The topic that caught my eye was the South in the Sixties, as I said. That's still very much ON my radar screen. Fascinating time in history. What I said was off my radar screen was the South of today.
-
What I said was off my radar screen was the South of today.
In the past you've made numerous claims that the south continues to be racist to this day.
-
Parts of the South ARE racist to this day.
Well, not so much parts of the South, as individuals residing in the South: a greater percentage are racists in the South than in other parts of the US, though certainly the most violent racists are either deceased or too feeble to get violent.
Some parts have more racists than others, of course. But is is individuals that have racist attitudes, not parts of real estate.
-
Parts of the South ARE racist to this day.
So are parts of the Northeast, the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest, and so on
-
a greater percentage are racists in the South than in other parts of the US,
I dispute this; I've lived throughout the US, and I found more racists in the northeast and upper midwest than anywhere else.
-
That was a good point about the KKK, but it ignores good and evil. My point was that collaborators and traitors will be executed, but I mis-stated it as "should" be executed because I wasn't thinking of other situations besides Iraq.
If the local population is basically evil, as in the U.S. South,.....
Oh, thank you all to pieces.
The South was invaded and repressed and fought back against what they saw as evil . The North exploited the South economically during the same period.
But was the subjectivity of evil and good diffrent in that time than this?
I believe differently than some of my ancestors , I believe that I can live in peace among people of diffrent races who can treat me with respect in reciprocity.
But by your formulation of invaders always failing , could there have been hope for such a thing?
Thomas Jefferson, as a Southerner, struggled with the inequity of treating Indians as disposable and Negroes as farm animals , his intelect was great enough to overcome his upbringing and recognize the injustice and institutional crime these polices actually were , he commented on them in these terms , but he could not find a way out of the trap that the previous generations had dug. He considered the crime so unforgivable that repression of the wronged was essential to survival .
The generations that followed Jefferson mostly dug this debt deeper , without the influence of outsiders , this situation might have lasted a lot longer , or gotten worse , or worst of all lasted without mitigation until the present day.
So don't tell my buddies at the Sons Of The Confederacy (all great guys) but I am glad my side lost.
-
Plane,
I think I have relatives who belong to that (or could).
The ones who moved West wanted to forget that time as much as they could, I think.
-
<<In the past you've made numerous claims that the south continues to be racist to this day.>>
Claims? What kind of claims? It still IS racist today, just not as much as before. Where do you think Trent Lott and George Allen and their ilk draw their support from?
-
<<The South was invaded and repressed and fought back against what they saw as evil . The North exploited the South economically during the same period.>>
Are you totally CRAZY??? They could have avoided the whole thing by giving up SLAVERY. They should thank their lucky stars they weren't totally exterminated for the evil slaving bastards they were.
------------------------------------------------
Sorry, plane, I was so infuriated by the opening of your post that I didn't even bother to read through to the end. Glad you aren't unconditionally supporting those bastards. Next time, I gotta remember to read the whole post before blowing my stack.
-
Claims? What kind of claims? It still IS racist today, just not as much as before. Where do you think Trent Lott and George Allen and their ilk draw their support from?
Well, by that logic, every part of the world is racist.
-
Well, not so much parts of the South, as individuals residing in the South: a greater percentage are racists in the South than in other parts of the US, though certainly the most violent racists are either deceased or too feeble to get violent.
In many ways it was never the violent racists who were accepted in mainstream southern society by the 1960's. Maybe in backwater towns like Philadelphia, Mississippi there was some acceptance of the Klan, but in general by the mid 60's the Klan contained your rough & tumble outcasts. Your preachers, businessmen, and women of social standing would belong to the White Citizens Councils (later turned into Trent Lott's and Haley Barbour's pals at the CCC). They were far smarter and much more subtle about their racism than the Klan.
Everytime the Klan was caught murdering a white northerner or a southern "sympathizer" they only brought more national attention to the cause of civil rights (and generally helped someone like President Johnson pass landmark legislation). When the police in Alabama turned waterhoses and truncheons on peaceful marchers, that led to national sympathy for Civil Rights.
But yes, racism in the South and the rest of the country continued and still continues. When Goldwater said that the Civil Rights Act had a good intent but was unconstitutional the Southerners in the deep South states got the hint. Ronnie Reagan used the same argument. Jesse Helms used to go to Western Carolina (some of the poorest counties in North Carolina at one time) and talk about the blacks and Mexicans stealing all of their jobs, the people there got the hint. If you go to the CCC website you'll see a lot of their ire is directed at immigration issues and Hispanics today.
So yeah, racism sure as hell still exists and will always be a good issue to drag up when politicians (from any side) want some populist appeal to the lowest, basest of human concerns. Though Doctor King had a dream, and one I earnestly believe in, I think that element will always exist.
-
<<The South was invaded and repressed and fought back against what they saw as evil . The North exploited the South economically during the same period.>>
Are you totally CRAZY??? They could have avoided the whole thing by giving up SLAVERY. They should thank their lucky stars they weren't totally exterminated for the evil slaving bastards they were.
------------------------------------------------
Sorry, plane, I was so infuriated by the opening of your post that I didn't even bother to read through to the end. Glad you aren't unconditionally supporting those bastards. Next time, I gotta remember to read the whole post before blowing my stack.
That is anoter good reason for me to stay breif, isn't it?
The South was doing a wrong thing and was trapped in it , I do not know if there was a means out other than the interference of outsiders by outright invasion.
-
<<Well, by that logic, every part of the world is racist.>>
What, Trent Lott and George Allen would do as well anywhere else in the world? Hope not!
-
What, Trent Lott and George Allen would do as well anywhere else in the world? Hope not!
There are racists supported by segments of their population all over the world.
-
<<The South was invaded and repressed and fought back against what they saw as evil . The North exploited the South economically during the same period.>>
Are you totally CRAZY??? They could have avoided the whole thing by giving up SLAVERY. They should thank their lucky stars they weren't totally exterminated for the evil slaving bastards they were.
------------------------------------------------
Sorry, plane, I was so infuriated by the opening of your post that I didn't even bother to read through to the end. Glad you aren't unconditionally supporting those bastards. Next time, I gotta remember to read the whole post before blowing my stack.
Do you think that the South could have peacefully seceded if it had given up slavery?
-
<<That is anoter good reason for me to stay breif, isn't it?>>
No, it isn't, it's a very bad reason for you to stay brief, but it's a great reason for me to stay cool and read every post through to the end.
-
<<Do you think that the South could have peacefully seceded if it had given up slavery?>>
Of all the other reasons given as causes for the Civil War, I don't think all of them added up together even came close to the influence of the slavery issue. If slavery weren't an issue, I don't think the South would have ever chosen to secede. But hypothetically, if it had so chosen, I don't believe the North would have let it go. I think by that point in time, the vision of a new continent-wide world power from the Rio Grande to the Great Lakes (including the populated parts of Canada) was a very potent force in the North.
-
<<Do you think that the South could have peacefully seceded if it had given up slavery?>>
Of all the other reasons given as causes for the Civil War, I don't think all of them added up together even came close to the influence of the slavery issue. If slavery weren't an issue, I don't think the South would have ever chosen to secede. But hypothetically, if it had so chosen, I don't believe the North would have let it go. I think by that point in time, the vision of a new continent-wide world power from the Rio Grande to the Great Lakes (including the populated parts of Canada) was a very potent force in the North.
The South felt that it was being economicly exploited by the North and taxed unfairly , but slavery was the issue worthy of remembrance . Even though President Lincon promised to leave the institution of Slavery intact where it was at the outset.
In the present conflict there are a lot of issues involved , is one of overarching importance ?
Even if it is not one that seemed so at first?
-
<<In the present conflict there are a lot of issues involved , is one of overarching importance ?>>
Lessee . . . what's a one-syllable word that means a liquid hydrocarbon fossil fuel commonly known as black gold?
<<Even if it is not one that seemed so at first?>>
Ooops, that can't be it, then.
-
<<In the present conflict there are a lot of issues involved , is one of overarching importance ?>>
Lessee . . . what's a one-syllable word that means a liquid hydrocarbon fossil fuel commonly known as black gold?
<<Even if it is not one that seemed so at first?>>
Ooops, that can't be it, then.
I think you have a fixation.
-
<<I think you have a fixation.>>
Yeah, on the 800 lb. gorilla in the room that your "President" doesn't want anyone to mention.