DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Henny on February 16, 2007, 07:02:50 AM
-
What Iraq Tells Us About Ourselves
By Col. W. Patrick Lang, Jr.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3734
The Bush administration, the Iraqi people, and Iranian meddling have all been blamed for the mess in Mesopotamia. But the American people themselves are the true root of the problem.
In the four years since the United States invaded Iraq, it’s become clear that our campaign there has gone terribly awry. We invaded Iraq with too few troops; we destroyed the Iraqi civil administration and military without having a suitable instrument of government ready in the wings; we expelled from public employment anyone with a connection, no matter how tenuous, to the Baath Party—which included most people who could be described as human infrastructure for Iraq. The list of errors goes on and on. Even the vice president acknowledges that “mistakes were made†(although, presumably, not by him).
But how did the highly educated, wealthy, and powerful American people make such a horrendous, catastrophic series of blunders? As Pogo, the cartoon opossum, once famously said, “We have met the enemy and he is us!†Yes, that’s right: We, the American people—not the Bush administration, nor the hapless Iraqis, nor the meddlesome Iranians (the new scapegoat)—are the root of the problem.
It’s woven into our cultural DNA. Most Americans mistakenly believe that when we say that “all men are created equal,†it means that all people are the same. Behind the “cute†and “charming†native clothing, the “weird†marriage customs, and the “odd†food of other cultures, all humans are yearning for lifestyles and futures that will be increasingly unified as time and globalization progress. That is what Tom Friedman seems to have meant when he wrote that “the world is flatâ€â€”that technological and economic change are driving humankind toward a future of cultural sameness. In other words, whatever differences of custom and habit that still exist between peoples will pass away soon and be replaced by a world culture rather like that of the United States in the 21st century.
To be blunt, our foreign policy tends to be predicated on the notion that everyone wants to be an American. In the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuffâ€â€”their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon. The U.S. Armed Forces and U.S. Agency for International Development would be the sharp swords of modernization in the Middle East.
How did Americans come to believe that the entire world is embarked on the same voyage, and that we are the navigators showing the way to a bright future? Our own culture is a rich blend, brewed from such elements as enlightenment, optimism, Puritan utopianism, a Calvinist tendency to not forgive sinners, and the settler’s lack of respect for the weak and “native†peoples of the world. In the United States, such threads have pushed us to believe that we are all in a melting pot of common ideology. This belief system has been fed to us in the public schools, through Hollywood, and now in the endless prattle of 24-hour news networks. It has become secular religion, a religion so strong that any violation of its tenets brings instant and savage condemnation. So called “neoconservatism†isn’t some kind of alien ideology; it’s merely a self-aware manifestation of the widespread American belief that people are all the same. The repeated assertion by U.S. President George W. Bush that history is dominated by the existence of “universal values†is proof in the pudding.
Americans invaded an imaginary Iraq that fit into our vision of the world. We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out. In our dream version of Iraq, we would be greeted as not only liberators from the tyrant, but more importantly, from the old ways. Having inhabited the same state for 80 years, the Iraqi people would naturally see themselves as a unified Iraqi nation, moving forward into eventual total assimilation in that unified human nation.
Unfortunately for us and for them, that was not the real Iraq. In the real Iraq, cultural distinction from the West is still treasured, a manifestation of participation in the Islamic cultural “continent.†Tribe, sect, and community remain far more important than individual rights. One does not vote for candidates outside one’s community unless one is a Baathist, Nasserist, or Communist (or, perhaps, a believer in world “flatness†like Tom Friedman and the neocons). But Iraqis know what Americans want to hear about “identity,†and be they Shiite, Kurd, or Sunni Arab, they tell us that they are all Iraqis.
Finding ourselves in the wrong Iraq, Americans have stubbornly insisted that the real Iraqis should behave as our dream Iraqis would surely do. The result has been frustration, disappointment, and finally rage against the “craziness†of the Iraqis. We are still acting out our dream, insisting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Shiite sectarian government “unify†the state, imagining that Maliki is a sort of Iraqi George Washington seeking the greater good for all. He is not that. His chief task is to consolidate Shiite Arab power while using the United States to accomplish the deed. To that end, he will tell us whatever we want to be told. He will sacrifice however many of his brethren are necessary to maintain the illusion, so long as the loss is not crippling to his effort. He will treat us as the naifs that we are.
Through our refusal to deal with alien peoples on their own terms, and within their own traditions, we have killed any real hope of a positive outcome in Iraq. Our mission there will be over some day, but there will be other fields for our missionary work, other dreams to dream about: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran ... Let us seek within ourselves the wisdom to avoid another such catastrophe.
Col. W. Patrick Lang, Jr., a retired Army colonel and member of the Senior Executive Service, served with Special Forces in Vietnam, as an Arabic professor at West Point, and as chief defense intelligence officer for the Middle East.
-
We, the American people—not the Bush administration, nor the hapless Iraqis, nor the meddlesome Iranians (the new scapegoat)—are the root of the problem.
He is right about that. The American People are the problem, but not for the reasons he gave.
We are the problem because we no longer have the fortitude to see it through to the end.
-
<<He is right about that. The American People are the problem, but not for the reasons he gave.
<<We are the problem because we no longer have the fortitude to see it through to the end. >>
The "it" that you expect the sheeple to "see through to the end" is PRECISELY the problem the guy was talking about, the desire to ram your way of doing things down the throats of the rest of the people of the world.
It's a positive sign when the people begin to see the stupidity of that way of doing things.
-
The "it" that you expect the sheeple to "see through to the end" is PRECISELY the problem the guy was talking about, the desire to ram your way of doing things down the throats of the rest of the people of the world.
You are probably right.
You can barely turn on the TV without seeing massive demonstrations with millions of people demanding that their government transform into strong arm dictatorships.
Lebanon - check
Ukraine - check
Tiannemen Square - check
Venezuela - check
-
<<You can barely turn on the TV without seeing massive demonstrations with millions of people demanding that their government transform into strong arm dictatorships.
<<Lebanon - check
<<Ukraine - check
<<Tiannemen Square - check
<<Venezuela - check>>
I don't know how Venezuela got on your list. Last time I checked, about 60% of Venezuelan voters wanted Hugo Chavez. The anti-Chavez demonstrations were about as real and spontaneous as the CIA-financed and directed "pots and pans" demonstrations of "housewives" that preceded the military coup, also CIA-sponsored, against the democratically elected regime of Salvador Allende. About what you'd expect the upper middle class to do in the face of Socialist Revolution, if they had the benefit of CIA "advisors."
I also don't think you're going to find the same level of support for pro-American "democracy" (LOL) movements in Ukraine or Lebanon now - - they've seen the CIA puppets in action and they're no longer impressed.
The only place you're likely to see a genuinely popular uprising now is China and that's only because Chinese government has deviated a long way from basic Communist principles.
-
Mikey says blah blah
Whooosh
-
Whooosh
Yeah.
"Look, way up there!"
;D
-
Damn good article Henny.
-
"In the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuffâ€â€”their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon."
I disagree strongly with this point , nothing like this was common to hear , there really isn't a strong desire in America to convert all of the world to sameness.
To free from opression is more like it , but what about opression is needed for all of the traditions of the Arab culture?
-
"In the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuffâ€â€”their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon."
I disagree strongly with this point , nothing like this was common to hear , there really isn't a strong desire in America to convert all of the world to sameness.
Agreed. Is it an effort by the anti-war side to push a false premise, then provide evidence to refute the false premise? It wouldn't be the 1st time. "That old stuff" would largely be referencing oppresive dictator rule. Is such rule what's being consdered "traditional" by the author? Is this how they're going about pushing the premise?
-
plane: <<I disagree strongly with this point [that "in the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuffâ€â€”their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon.""]
nothing like this was common to hear , there really isn't a strong desire in America to convert all of the world to sameness.>>
Bah, humbug - - crap like that was all over the airwaves: Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami all the tame "experts" you could hope to find on the Muslim mind. Here's an article by Pipes from the website of the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725733354.html
February 11 2003
Outsiders wonder if the Security Council will endorse Washington's goal of toppling Saddam Hussein. But policy insiders assume there will be an American war and an American victory, followed by Iraq's rehabilitation.
For insiders, the main issue is the extent of US ambition in the Arabic-speaking countries after that's all done. This foreshadows the debate likely to dominate foreign policy circles for decades: what should be America's role in the world?
In the ambitious corner stands the Middle East specialist Fouad Ajami, a Lebanese immigrant and professor at Johns Hopkins University. Writing in the liberal-leaning Foreign Affairs, he comments scathingly about the reigning political culture in the Arab countries (the belligerence and self-pity in Arab life, its retreat from modernist culture, and its embrace of conspiracy theories). He sees in the vigorous exercise of US power the best chance for improvement: no great apologies ought to be made for US unilateralism. The region can live with and use that unilateralism.
Ajami wants US will and prestige to tip the scales in favour of modernity and change and calls on Washington to aim high. Beyond toppling the regime of Saddam and dismantling its weapons, Onthe driving motivation of a new US endeavour in Iraq and in neighbouring Arab lands should be modernising the Arab world.
Only a successful US military campaign in Iraq will embolden those Arabs who seek deliverance from retrogression and political decay, so he hopes the war will be fought with the promise that the US is now on the side of reform.
In the cautious corner is the strategist Andrew J. Bacevich, a retired army colonel and now professor at Boston University whose evocatively titled article "Don't Be Greedy!" appeared in the conservative National Review. Bacevich admonishes the Bush Administration to confine its attention to Iraq and not make grand plans to bring democracy to the Arabs.
He dismisses these as utterly preposterous on four grounds:
Arabs have little affinity for democracy due to historical, cultural and religious factors. Arabs understand that freedom implies disposable marriages, sexual licence and abortion on demand as much as it does self-government and the rule of law - and they decline the package. Efforts to inculcate democratic values will find few allies from within Arab societies, where advocates for liberal values constitute at best a small minority.
Advocates for an ambitious program point to Germany and Japan as models, forgetting the protracted, ugly and unpopular US failures in the Philippines, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and South Vietnam. The Arab countries will more likely fit the latter pattern than the former.
Instead of trying to bring the Arabs into ideological sympathy with the United States, the goal should be to improve their governments' behaviour. Concepts such as parliaments or women's rights may strike Saudi princes as alien. On the other hand, they have no difficulty grasping the significance of a B-2 bomber or a carrier battle group.
More broadly, Bacevich sees this approach as a proper modesty and self-restraint in US foreign policy.
Bacevich and Ajami make compelling arguments and their articles should be read in full, but this analyst sides with Ajami. Addressing Bacevich's four points:
Japan had about as much affinity for democracy in 1945 as the Arabs do today, yet democracy took hold there.
There is no indication that an open political system inexorably leads to higher divorce rates and the other social changes - again, look at Japan.
A US victory in Iraq and the successful rehabilitation of that country will bring liberals out of the woodwork and generally move the region towards democracy. (Saudi leaders are leaking their plans to establish elected assemblies, something totally unprecedented in their kingdom.)
The US cannot pass up a unique chance to remake the world's most politically fevered region. Sure, the effort might fail, but to not even try would be a missed opportunity.
The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said last week that US success in Iraq could reshape (the Middle East) in a powerful, positive way, suggesting even the Bush team's most cautious member is rightly coming around to the ambitious point of view.
Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America (W.W. Norton).
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725733354.html
-
plane: <<I disagree strongly with this point [that "in the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuffâ€â€”their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon.""]
nothing like this was common to hear , there really isn't a strong desire in America to convert all of the world to sameness.>>
Bah, humbug - - crap like that was all over the airwaves: Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami all the tame "experts" you could hope to find on the Muslim mind.
Who?? ???
-
I sorta missed all of the supporters of the administration being dismissive of Arab tradition or intelligence.
I did notice a lot of people who were against the idea of trying to foster democracy in Iran because the people there couldn't handle it , but I don't count them as supporters of the administration policy.
Traditions such as Islam being the first choice of religions , gold jewelry being popular , coffee being brewed in a particular way ,do not require a repressive government .
What Arab cultural features or traditions do require a repressive government and would die in a democracy?
-
A representative democracy is not the result in a belief in one omnipotent God.
God as described in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a harsh, yet mystically fair ruler.
If you believe in one God, the political system suggested is that of a benevolent dictator, chosen based on his adherence to Islam and God's laws. Certainly Iranian government under Kholmenei is more in conformity with the Koran than anything any of Juniorbush's geniuses had planned for Iraq.
Democracy developed in the US, Switzerland, and the Netherlands because there was no single religion dominant. In Europe, people were tired after centuries of religious wars. England had a Civil War between Catholics and Protestants, and then between Cavaliers (Church of England) and Roundheads (dissenters).
The US is not a democracy because of anything Jesus or Moses said or did. Jesus seemed to be quite comfortable with the existence of slavery, so long as slaves were not overly flogged. The main reason to have a democracy in the US was pragmatic. The English are also pragmatists, as did Canada and Australia, the colonies that most resemble England and the US in culture and population.
The Koran teaches that there should be a single, just Caliph, and indicates that he should be chosen by religious leaders: NOT the people. Neither the Sunnis nor the Shia favor any sport of representative democracy. Neither does the Koran favor capitailis: like the Bible, it considers all lending of money at interest (which is central to capitalism and economic development in the US mode) to be usury and therefore sinful.
Capitalism does not function equally well in all societies. The best capitalism has done in Hispanic societies is Puerto Rico, a country where fully half the population lives part or all of their lives outside the country , in the US. Spain is a mildly Socialist nation, and is far ahead of other Hispanic nations, despite the fact that it lacks the natural resources of Mexico, Peru, Venezuela or Argentina.
The idea that all nations and societies will be at their best under a US economic and political system is simply bogus. Every society needs to reach its optimal system on its own.
Only Iraqis are qualified to decide what Iraq should have, and only Iraqis will eventually decide how this will be decided. It is folly to assume that a massive surge of US troops, no matter how many doors they bust down or Iraqis they throw in jail, will determine how Iraqis will eventually govern Iraq, once this civil war ends.
Suppose 130,000 Iraqi troops landed in the US in 1862. Can you imagine what possible beneficial effect they might have had on the outcome of the US Civil War? How is the US supposed to be helpful in sorting out Iraq's politics?
-
Democracy developed in the US, Switzerland, and the Netherlands because there was no single religion dominant.
So, how do you explain the democracy that has existed in Iceland for over a thousand years?
-
<<Who??>> [sirs' response to the names of Fouad Ajami, Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis]
These are writers and/or academics who have studied Islam and the Middle East and are treated by the MSM as experts in the field. These so-called "experts," BTW, are very supportive of the Bush Administration and its policies in the Middle East. Other academics and writers who are opposed to the Bush Administration and its policies in the Middle East are Uri Avneri, Juan Cole (probably the most knowledgeable of all of them, the late Edward Said, and of course Noam Chomsky.
It wouldn't hurt you to read a little from any of these.
-
<< I sorta missed all of the supporters of the administration being dismissive of Arab tradition or intelligence.>>
Those guys are all supporters of the Bush administration, or they were before the invasion of Iraq. They were the academic backbone of the "greeted with rose petals as liberators" kind of bullshit that was so prominently taken up by the talking heads in the early days. I understand that these guys are now trying to backpedal like crazy from their moronic predictions, blaming the Bush administration for a clumsy execution of the Master Plan or even admitting to some degree of unwarranted optimism on their part.
-
Excellent post, XO. The nub of it, and the simple answer to plane's question, I think, is:
<<Democracy developed in the US, Switzerland, and the Netherlands because there was no single religion dominant. In Europe, people were tired after centuries of religious wars. England had a Civil War between Catholics and Protestants, and then between Cavaliers (Church of England) and Roundheads (dissenters).>>
English "democracy" (civil liberties, more properly) developed out of the religous wars as you stated. People got sick of the constant rounds of beheadings, burnings at the stake, hangings, etc. and the worst of it was, no side ever stayed on top. Even the most partisan people finally adjusted to the idea that it could be their turn next. So the idea of religious tolerance (one of the civil liberties) developed. Freedom of speech probably had a more complex intellectual history.
The ideals of democracy were more complex and you'd probably need a real scholar to explain it all, but I'll take a stab at it: it was familiar to classical scholars from the experience of Greece in the 4th Century BC and it started to take off in England with the rise of the middle class, whose wealth, in contrast to the old aristocracy, was based on money rather than on land. This middle class could be taxed by the sovereign to pay for wars which were directed by the King and his barons, in which the middle class ("mere" merchants) had no say. As the sovereign's demands for money intensified, the middle class looked more and more to Parliament as their protection, which culminated in the English Civil War. The whole mess ended with the nominal restoration of the Stuart monarchy but as a constitutional monarchy keenly aware of the Parliamentary limits on its power.
English democracy was basically a wealth-protection scheme of a new merchant class and represented one more stage in the slow decline in the power of the landed aristocracy. Originally the franchise was tightly restricted, so the only voters were the middle classes themselves, but they sure as hell outnumbered the landed aristocracy and controlled a hell of a lot more liquid wealth, so it worked pretty well for them. It was only later, in the 19th Century, that the franchise was extended to the rest of the country so as to make it truly "democratic," and that was probably due to the influence of philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, as well as to the example of the American and French Revolutions.
The development of democracy and civil liberties in England (which were more or less just copied to America by its English settlers and further expanded upon there) depended on various local factors: the original feudal system, which resulted in a balance of power between the monarch and his barons, ultimately codified in a series of Magna Cartas, the customs and traditions of the Germanic tribes which had settled England, the rise of a monied middle class and its need to protect its assets from the demands of the older, land-owning aristocracy, the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent wars of religion, the utter savagery of which ultimately threatened everyone, since there was never a clear winner, the philosophers of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment, and the events of the French and American Revolutions.
I think only some of the events find parallels in Arab and Iraqi history - - the savagery of the wars of religion come first to mind. But an Islamic tradition lacks a rapacious aristocracy living off the labours of the proletariat. The Islamic state was always financed by a zakat, or tithe, that all members of the society contributed. A sort of "flat tax," in fact. So the need for a supreme Parliament to protect the wealth of the middle class never arose. The concept that God was the supreme ruler, not some hereditary monarch, produced less incentive for popularly elected government because people were conditioned to submit to a theocratic ruler, asking only that he be just and fair.
I dunno, plane asked a legitimate question, but you need to write a book to answer it. I'm not the guy to write the book. These were just a few of my thoughts on the subject. Obviously, I've only just scratched the surface. But I do not believe there is a made-in-America one-size-fits-all solution that wills solve Iraq's problems. That's just simplistic bullshit, typical of the Bush supporters, too dumb to even realize the dimensions of the problem.
The Bush adminsitration itself, BTW, does not have this problem. They seek only to impose a puppet government on Iraq similar to the one they once imposed on Iran, which will guarantee a steady supply of oil and prevent the people of the region, the true owners of the oil, from exercising any real control at all over it. A fake democracy similar to Egypt's would be ideal. They make up the fairy tale of being there "to bring democracy" and their supporters are left to struggle with the essentially bogus issue of, "well, OK, just how do we go about doing that?"
-
<<Who??>>
These are writers and/or academics who have studied Islam and the Middle East and are treated by the MSM as experts in the field. These so-called "experts," BTW, are very supportive of the Bush Administration and its policies in the Middle East.
Look Tee, you can pick out the most whacked out folks on the right that you want, and supposedly validate their position by making them "very supportive" of Bush. Makes them a nice counter to the whacked out far left commentaries you pose. Neither does it make it some widespread mainstream position of the right, of how Arabs are to be taught to lose their traditions, and embrace some "sameness" agenda. That's currently the agenda of Militant Islam, the actual enemies of this current war, we're in....Convert to Islam, be subjugated by it, or die. Nothing nuanced about it
Point being the "who" is dead on, as it pertains to your accusation. Picking a few fringe folk from the right, in no way validates the fringe left accusation of yours, of it being mainstream conservative thought, or how it was "all over the airwaves". I've been pretty up to speed on most of the rhetoric, both left and right, and this is THE 1st time I've heard it
Other academics and writers who are opposed to the Bush Administration and its policies in the Middle East are Uri Avneri, Juan Cole, the late Edward Said, and of course Noam Chomsky. It wouldn't hurt you to read a little from any of these.
I appreciate the suggestion, however, I'll leave the hard left/right book reporting to the fringe folks, who actually swallow it.
-
<<Look Tee, you can pick out the most whacked out folks on the right that you want, and supposedly validate their position by making them "very supportive" of Bush. . . . Picking a few fringe folk from the right, in no way validates the fringe left accusation of yours>>
ROTFLMFAO. Here's an example of somebody that sirs considers one of "the most whacked out folks on the right" and "fringe folk." This is priceless. What I need to know, sirs, is if this guy is "whacked out right" and "fringe right," what academics are you going to consider mainstream right?
<<http://www.danielpipes.org/bios/>>
“Fringe†writer Daniel Pipes has appeared in: Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Harvard Magazine, Financial Times, Jerusalem Post, the Globe & Mail and numerous other “fringe†publications; he’s a distinguished visiting Professor at Pepperdine University;
<<He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. He served in various capacities in the U.S. government, including two presidentially-appointed positions, vice chairman of the Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships and member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He was director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in 1986-93.>>
<< . . . how it was "all over the airwaves". I've been pretty up to speed on most of the rhetoric, both left and right, and this is THE 1st time I've heard it>>
Why does this not surprise me?
-
....Irrelevent linking....
A resume' is supposed to refute/validate one's views as ............ mainstream?? Predominant acceptable ideology?? I couldn't count how many nutcase Left Wing College Professors there currently are in this country, all with equally impressive "credentials". Doesn't make what they say any less radical or accepted by actual mainstream thought. oy
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_11_10.gif)
Your moving into desperation direction there, Tee
-
Seems to me that "nutcase," "fringe" and "whacked out" have a pretty elastic meaning in sirs' lexicon. Or that sirs has very little idea of academic standards at institutions such as the U.S. Naval War College, Harvard U., and the U. of Chicago. Usually when these institutions invite somebody to teach their students, they select for knowledge and credibiity, sirs. If you are going to accuse somebody who taught there of being "fringe" etc., you should be able to show some pretty strong evidence of that status, other than the fact that you do not agree with their opinions. Last time I checked, U. of Chicago, for example, did not rely on a sirs-rating before deciding if anyone was qualified to teach at their institution.
-
Pipes is to Bush as Chomsky was to Clinton. The only relationship they have as far as i can see is their position on the political spectrum relative to the whole.
Show where Pipes influenced the administration.
-
After just posting my last post to sirs, it just suddenly hit me what a surreal exchange I have entered into.
I am actually sitting down at a keyboard trying to convince sirs that a guy who writes for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer, who has lectured at Harvard, U. of Chicago and the U.S. Naval War College is not likely to be a whacked-out right-wing fringe nutbar simply on the basis that sirs has never heard of him, disagrees with his opinion and never heard anyone else voice a similar opinion. I can't believe I got sucked into this kind of argument.
sirs, if you want to believe that Daniel Pipes is just a fringe element, God bless you, you go right ahead and do so. Far be it from me to argue the point. I'm giving up. Going for lunch as a matter of fact. Have a nice day.
-
Pipes is to Bush as Chomsky was to Clinton. The only relationship they have as far as i can see is their position on the political spectrum relative to the whole.
Precisely. Yet Tee is convinced that just because someone is well educated with a nice resume', their view must be considered predominantly acceptable by their ideological masses. ::) Just has to be, because.......well, because Tee says so.
Now let's all sit back and watch how Tee rationalizes how mainstream the views of both Pipes and Chomsky are supposed to be.
-
Somebody mentioned Noam Chomsky: now there is a cunning linguist.
-
<<Pipes is to Bush as Chomsky was to Clinton. >>
That's not an exact analogy but it's not bad.
<<Show where Pipes influenced the administration.>>
I never said he did. That wasn't my point at all. plane denied that he'd ever heard before the invasion that it would be a good thing for the Arabs to junk their whole useless culture and learn American ways. That view was common and I just searched out one example to prove it.
I don't think of guys like Pipes as an influence on the administration. The administration doesn't give a shit what kind of culture the Arabs want to practice, they can evolve into a culture of incest and cannibalism for all they care about it. All they want is the fucking oil, but they can never say that. They have to pretend it is all about "democracy" and "freedom," which is the reason for all these essentially bogus debates, "Can it be done?" etc.
Pipes and his ilk are more of enablers than influencers. They are mostly products of Zionist think tanks with their own agendas and they basically smear and downgrade Arabs and Muslims on a non-stop basis to minimize the daily crimes and oppression going on in the West Bank and Gaza. Their views are useful to the Bush administration insofar as it needs to produce optimistic conclusions from the phony "debate" over whether their "democracy-building" efforts will succeed. From the POV of the administration it's equally good if it can be concluded "Yes it can be done but we have to tear down the whole filthy Arab culture" or "Yes it can be done even if they preserve their culture."
-
Somebody mentioned Noam Chomsky: now there is a cunning linguist.
LOL. Now there is a clever pun.
-
Look Tee, you can pick out the most whacked out folks on the right that you want, and supposedly validate their position by making them "very supportive" of Bush.
Sirs, the authors he mentioned are very mainstream, and Daniel Pipes in particular has been consulted regarding Middle East issues by the government. The problem being that the authors mentioned are extreme right wing. Here's a little background:
Excerpt From: Daniel Pipes, Peacemaker?
By Michael Scherer
May 26, 2003
... His solution is simple: The Israeli military must force what Pipes describes as a "change of heart" by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza -- a sapping of the Palestinian will to fight which can lead to a complete surrender. "How is a change of heart achieved? It is achieved by an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat," Pipes continued. "The Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them."
Obviously, such extreme views put Pipes at odds with the stated policies of the Bush administration, and even Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has indicated he will accept the "road map" for peace. So it took many by surprise last month when President Bush nominated Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a Congressionally sponsored think tank dedicated to "the peaceful resolution of international conflicts."
The nomination has angered American Muslim groups and liberal Jewish leaders, who see Pipes as a poor choice for a peace institute. "Daniel Pipes is not a peacemaker," says Susannah Heschel, a professor of Jewish Studies at Dartmouth and co-chair of the liberal Jewish group Tikkun. "It would be like appointing me to be the head of nuclear physics at Los Alamos."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/05/we_420_01.html
-
Show where Pipes influenced the administration.
Look down 1 post --
-
I did read your post. Show where he was influential.
Being tucked away in an inconsequential board might actually prove the opposite.
-
Credentials are a valuable indicator of the worth of a commentator, but the proof comes when his/her arguments are re-presented, examined, analyzed, synthesized and so forth in an ongoing process of dialogue. In the end result it is the force of argument which distinguishes a commentator, not a set of credentials or accolades, which serve only a gatekeeper (wheat/chaff) function, which themselves can be unreliable in both including or excluding commentators from serious consideration.
-
I am less interested in the examination of these persons as I am in the validity of the idea.
Do Arabic Cultural features die in a democracy?
-
<<Credentials are a valuable indicator of the worth of a commentator . . . >>
You've obviously missed the point of the thread up to the production of credentials. The issue was not the worth of the commentator. I myself find him to be dangerously right-wing and seriously misguided. Henny produced sufficient proof of that.
The issue was whether the idea that Arabs need to jettison their culture had been widely spread before the invasion. plane claimed never to have heard that before. I produced an article by Pipes which also cited Fouad Ajami, another academic who, like Pipes, had been saying precisely that. sirs countered by declaring that Pipes (who he admittedly had never heard of) was "fringe" and therefore didn't count. I produced some of Pipes' resume, not to prove "the worth of the commentator" (frankly, the guy's an idiot) but that he had all the earmarks of mainstream acceptance of his authority. Hardly a "fringe" commentator. And that's what THAT debate was all about.
-
<<Do Arabic Cultural features die in a democracy?>>
Depends what you conside Arabic cultural features. Do women have to be veiled or not? Do men have to be the boss or not? Do Jews and Christians have to pay a special tax or not?
Every religion and culture adapts to one degree or another. The Jews are a perfect example. They give up some cultural features and keep others.
The Western world adopted democracy as a necessary alternative to the contradictions in their lives and it was adopted in stages. At the same time as democracy was being adopted, other features of the culture were changing. It would be a Herculean effort to try to assign to each stage of each change, how much was due to democracy and how much to other forces also developing or evolving at the same time. I'd say the changes came as a package - - as democracy was advancing, so was scientific knowledge and at the same time religious influence was in decline. All the changes that were conducive to democracy didn't necessarily happen because the people were hell-bent on achieving democracy and all else had to fall into place. There was just a lot of natural interaction and democracy for whatever reason continued to advance, benefitting from some of the societal changes and being held back by others.
The difference in Iraq is that a bunch of heavily-armed foreigners invaded the country and are now telling the people there (for public consumption at least) "All right you bastards, become democratic." The entire society is being force-marched in one direction and every other feature of the culture is being examined by plane from one POV only, that is, will it help the advance of democracy or will it hold it back? That wasn't how democracy evolved in the West and it's unreasonable to think it can be force-fed to the Iraqis, trimming back every other societal factor that gets in the way. It's plane's priority but it's not necessarily the priority of the Iraqi people.
-
Well, then: silly. As to the substance you flagged, the answer is intuitive and easy: Arabs, like everyone else, will not be forced to abandon their cultures but to modify and adapt them in the face of competing truths pouring in from the modern world. Next.
-
That wasn't how democracy evolved in the West and it's unreasonable to think it can be force-fed to the Iraqis, trimming back every other societal factor that gets in the way.
Is it unreasonable to believe the Iraqi's are capable of democratic elections?
The Iranians i believe were touted as having conducted the same very recently.
Are the Persians that much more superior than the average arab?
-
I did read your post. Show where he was influential.
Being tucked away in an inconsequential board might actually prove the opposite.
Ok, I found his "resume" online. There is a specific reference bolded and highlighted as you read down:
Daniel Pipes
Middle East Forum: Founder and director
Project for the New American Century: Signatory
Institutional Affiliations
Washington Institute for Near East Policy: Adjunct Scholar (2)
U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon: Golden Circle supporter
New York Post: Columnist (4)
Jerusalem Post: Columnist (4)
Middle East Forum: Founder and Director (9)
Project for the New American Century: Signatory (12)
Naval War College: Former lecturer (1, 4)
Harvard University: Former lecturer (1, 4)
University of Chicago: Former lecturer (1, 4)
University of Pennsylvania: Former lecturer (3)
Foreign Policy Research Institute: Director (1986-1993) (3)
Government Service
U.S. Institute of Peace: Former Member of the Board (2003-2005) (10, 11)
Department of Defense: Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology (current) (1)
Education
Harvard University: Ph.D., History (1978) (1)
Harvard University: A.B., History (1971) (1)
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1316
-
I try to understand democracy in the way that Thomas Jefferson espoused it , the legitimacy of government arising from the consent of the governed.
Anything that the people abhor ought to be rejected by a democratic government , anything that the people love ought to be supported by a democratic government .
If there is any success in the establishment of democracy then the government ought to become coped to the people .
In this situation I would expect it to be imposible for the things the people love to be threatened unless the tradition that is most important is repression itself.
-
Department of Defense: Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology (current) (1)
And?
He is assigned to a committee.
Big Deal.
-
I have been reading the Daniel Pipes website.
He is alarmist and not admireing of Arab culture.
Not entirely happy with Bush either.
http://www.danielpipes.org
President Bush Replies to My Iraq Critique
October 25, 2006
Well, not exactly, but at a news conference today, George W. Bush in effect answered the argument I presented yesterday at "In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change It," that coalition forces should be redeployed to the uninhabited regions of Iraq. He acknowledged problems in Iraq but insisted that the administration's course remains correct. He offered a strong rationale for the intense involvement in Iraq (and Afghanistan) which I disputed:
Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the Taliban. … The fact that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts in Iraq are not worth it. To the contrary; the consequences in Iraq will have a decisive impact on the security of our country, because defeating the terrorists in Iraq is essential to turning back the cause of extremism in the Middle East. If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia. … If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow.
The president is clear here, if not entirely explicit: The coalition must defeat the Islamists in Iraq to prevent them from taking the country over and using it as a basis to attack the United States.
I agree that we do not want Islamists ruling in Iraq but I wonder why the threat in Iraq is so important that American and other Western forces must fight them with boots on the ground in Baghdad. Actually, the Bush administration has already helped Islamists take over in Baghdad (not to speak of the Palestinian Authority) through elections; is that really so different from their winning a military victory? And speaking of a military victory, that is what Islamists are currently achieving in Somalia, with barely any response from Washington.
Why this inconsistency, this privileging of Iraq? I think it has little to do with the dangers of Islamists taking over there but results instead from the accumulated inertia of what I yesterday called the "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption. This holds that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. That's a mistaken mentality that is leading to major damage. It needs to be focused on and reassessed. (October 25, 2006)
-
The difference in Iraq is that a bunch of heavily-armed foreigners invaded the country and are now telling the people there (for public consumption at least) "All right you bastards, become democratic." The entire society is being force-marched in one direction and every other feature of the culture is being examined by plane from one POV only, that is, will it help the advance of democracy or will it hold it back? That wasn't how democracy evolved in the West and it's unreasonable to think it can be force-fed to the Iraqis, trimming back every other societal factor that gets in the way. It's plane's priority but it's not necessarily the priority of the Iraqi people.
I have to agree with this, MT (the problem of forced democratization). To elaborate a little bit, I believe that Arabic culture could be very compatible with Democracy, and there are budding signs of that all over the Middle East. What I see as being most problematic is that while America is good at disrupting things over here, they are NOT doing that well in the short term with their PR campaign.
For some the attitude has become one of pulling away from anything and everything American, and America has put a lot of stress on Democracy. And they don't want it... because it's American! You run into this with people (mostly) who are middle-aged and older, but kids are being influenced as well by the attitudes of their elders. (And on the other hand, the young people are also often drawn to all things Western, which may make a difference in the long term.)
-
And?
He is assigned to a committee.
Big Deal.
LOL. He would have to be the White House Chief of Staff for you to concede the point, BT?
-
The difference in Iraq is that a bunch of heavily-armed foreigners invaded the country and are now telling the people there (for public consumption at least) "All right you bastards, become democratic." The entire society is being force-marched in one direction and every other feature of the culture is being examined by plane from one POV only, that is, will it help the advance of democracy or will it hold it back? That wasn't how democracy evolved in the West and it's unreasonable to think it can be force-fed to the Iraqis, trimming back every other societal factor that gets in the way. It's plane's priority but it's not necessarily the priority of the Iraqi people.
I have to agree with this, MT (the problem of forced democratization). To elaborate a little bit, I believe that Arabic culture could be very compatible with Democracy, and there are budding signs of that all over the Middle East. What I see as being most problematic is that while America is good at disrupting things over here, they are NOT doing that well in the short term with their PR campaign.
For some the attitude has become one of pulling away from anything and everything American, and America has put a lot of stress on Democracy. And they don't want it... because it's American! You run into this with people (mostly) who are middle-aged and older, but kids are being influenced as well by the attitudes of their elders. (And on the other hand, the young people are also often drawn to all things Western, which may make a difference in the long term.)
There is some history in this concept.
In Cuba , in the Phillpines and in Japan.
In Cuba we set out explicitly to produce liberty and establish human rights , our failure was miserable .
In the Phillipines we did no better for a long time , but when there was finally a genuine voce of the people government it politely asked us to decamp or military presence.
In Japan the effort to produce a democracy has woked outstandingly well though the Japaneese discuss with one anthr whether they should ore often tell us "no".
The question seems often to become whether the objective of the new form of government is to be good for its own people or for the US which is building it.
-
LOL. He would have to be the White House Chief of Staff for you to concede the point, BT?
No but he would have to have reached the heights of other academics like Kissinger, Rice, Brezenski or even Patrick Moynihan for me to acknowledge that he was influential upon the Bush Admin.
This guy has as much influence as Pat Buchanan. Little to none.
-
No but he would have to have reached the heights of other academics like Kissinger, Rice, Brezenski or even Patrick Moynihan for me to acknowledge that he was influential upon the Bush Admin.
This guy has as much influence as Pat Buchanan. Little to none.
BT, I thought about this a bit, and I still disagree with the brush off you're giving Daniel Pipes in regards to this discussion. Point is, he is currently assigned to a DoD committee. You have equated him to Noam Chomsky, but has Noam Chomsky ever been taken seriously enough under any administration to be assigned to an advisory committee? I've looked and have yet to find anything.
-
henny,
The larger point was one of influence. Even with Pipes being thrown a bone by being placed on some obscure committee i doubt he has had the influence of a Chomsky whose books were touted by Hugo Chavez on the floor of the UN. Fact is Chomsky is an anti-authoritarian so it wouldn't make sense to place him in a position of authority.
-
<<This guy [Pipes] has as much influence as Pat Buchanan. Little to none. >>
I agree, but that's totally missing the point. Pipes' blatherings about Arab society and its supposed incompatibility with "democracy" are about as relevant to Bush and his gang as studies on the relative frequency of flower metaphors in Shakespeare and Chaucer. The point being, Bush and his gang don't give a shit about democracy in Iraq and don't need Pipes to advise them on how it can best be installed there or even IF it can be installed there at all. Their concerns are far more practical - - how to instal a relatively stable puppet regime that will follow U.S. dictates and give the U.S. what it wants: first right of refusal on all Iraqi oil, no energy policy in conflict with U.S. interests, and unlimited perpetual rights to establish and maintain military bases.
Pipes is kind of a "useful idiot" to the administration. He and others like him keep the "debate" bubbling - - can "democracy" be installed in Iraq without junking the indigenous culture or can it be installed only at the cost of the old indigenous culture? Sort of like a "debate" in the Third Reich over whether its racial inferiors should be exterminated by gas or by shooting. The basic premise of the debate remains the same on both sides of the fake issue and is never questioned, i.e. in this case that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread "democracy."
-
<<This guy [Pipes] has as much influence as Pat Buchanan. Little to none. >>
I agree, but that's totally missing the point. Pipes' blatherings about Arab society and its supposed incompatibility with "democracy" are about as relevant to Bush and his gang as studies on the relative frequency of flower metaphors in Shakespeare and Chaucer. The point being, Bush and his gang don't give a shit about democracy in Iraq and don't need Pipes to advise them on how it can best be installed there or even IF it can be installed there at all. Their concerns are far more practical - - how to instal a relatively stable puppet regime that will follow U.S. dictates and give the U.S. what it wants: first right of refusal on all Iraqi oil, no energy policy in conflict with U.S. interests, and unlimited perpetual rights to establish and maintain military bases.
Pipes is kind of a "useful idiot" to the administration. He and others like him keep the "debate" bubbling - - can "democracy" be installed in Iraq without junking the indigenous culture or can it be installed only at the cost of the old indigenous culture? Sort of like a "debate" in the Third Reich over whether its racial inferiors should be exterminated by gas or by shooting. The basic premise of the debate remains the same on both sides of the fake issue and is never questioned, i.e. in this case that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread "democracy."
It is not a fake issue.
Without the promise of fostering democracy the America people wold never sign on to the project.
The American people are the bigget of the major players in this drama.
-
<<It is not a fake issue.Without the promise of fostering democracy the America people wold never sign on to the project. >>
It's a fake issue because the idea that the U.S. government has spent half a trillion dollars to "foster democracy" in Iraq is an obvious lie. It's absolutely preposterous. There is no intention whatsoever to "foster democracy" in Iraq. Democracy is the last fucking thing the U.S. government wants to see there.
-
It's a fake issue because the idea that the U.S. government has spent half a trillion dollars to "foster democracy" in Iraq is an obvious lie. It's absolutely preposterous. There is no intention whatsoever to "foster democracy" in Iraq. Democracy is the last fucking thing the U.S. government wants to see there.
Well, that's 1 completely unsubstantiated and may I add, asanine opinion
-
<<It is not a fake issue.Without the promise of fostering democracy the America people wold never sign on to the project. >>
It's a fake issue because the idea that the U.S. government has spent half a trillion dollars to "foster democracy" in Iraq is an obvious lie. It's absolutely preposterous. There is no intention whatsoever to "foster democracy" in Iraq. Democracy is the last fucking thing the U.S. government wants to see there.
The US government is not more influential than the American people, they are diffrent and the same depending on what in particular they are doing.
The US government is supposed to be on the leash of the people and the people are lead and persueded by the government , but not to do as they do not approve.
If democracy in Iraq is what the people are persuaded is important it is thereby important.
-
<<Well, that's 1 completely unsubstantiated and may I add, asanine opinion>>
It's substantiated by a TON of circumstantial evidence, common sense and realism. The truly asinine opinion is that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread democracy. That's another lie in a whole pack of lies and the people who make up those whoppers are probably peeing in their pants laughing at the idiots who actually believe in them.
-
<<The US government is not more influential than the American people, they are diffrent and the same depending on what in particular they are doing.
<<The US government is supposed to be on the leash of the people and the people are lead and persueded by the government , but not to do as they do not approve.>>
The US government can flout the will of the people as long as it chooses to do so unless and until it clashes with some powerful interest group such as the financial or business community. Viet Nam was one obvious example and Iraq will turn out to be another.
<<If democracy in Iraq is what the people are persuaded is important it is thereby important.>>
Important only in that lies and bullshit have to be created to trick the people into thinking that their wishes are being followed. Important only as a limiting factor, that when the lies and bullshit start to wear thin, then the government unless it can find new lies and bullshit will finally have to call it quits.
-
It's substantiated by a TON of circumstantial evidence, common sense and realism. The truly asinine opinion is that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread democracy. That's another lie in a whole pack of lies and the people who make up those whoppers are probably peeing in their pants laughing at the idiots who actually believe in them.
Actually, it's substantiated by a TON of hyperbolic accusatory innuendo from like minds. Common sense and realism haven't shown themselves in that Bush lied diatribe, since the get go
-
<<Common sense and realism haven't shown themselves in that Bush lied diatribe, since the get go>>
Common sense manifests itself in that when a preposterous excuse is made to invade a small country (we are afraid of what damage Iraq will do to us) bullshit is recognized as bullshit; furthermore, when the original excuse is exposed as the bullshit which it always was, and the army stays and continues fighting the people of the country, and a new excuse is invented, that also is recognized as bullshit.
Realism manifests itself in the realization that ever since oil was discovered in the Middle East, foreign powers have invaded and interfered in local governments to control the oil supply and that this doesn't just stop for no reason the night before Bush and his British partners in crime decide to invade Iraq. Conversely, absence of realism manifests itself in the willingness of people to believe that the same U.S. government that props up the dictatorships of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is very, very interested in promoting "democracy" in Iraq.
-
I am sorry MT but in the course a a debate "common sense" applies to only those who agree with me.
All others must bring stronger ammunition.
-
<<Common sense and realism haven't shown themselves in that Bush lied diatribe, since the get go>>
Common sense manifests itself in that when a preposterous excuse is made to invade a small country
Preposterous in your completely unobjective OPINION, based on YOUR distorted rationales, (i.e. Saddam's imminent attack on America), which again, only morons on the right, and apparently the left bought into. When it's based on REALITY, the "excuses" more than demonstrate the vailidty of our operation
furthermore, when the original excuse is exposed as the bullshit which it always was, and the army stays and continues fighting the people of the country, and a new excuse is invented, that also is recognized as bullshit.
This is more of the garbage of pushing a false premise, then debunking the false premise. Of course it's BS that saddam was just about to attack America with WMD. Your problem is NO ONE WAS CLAIMING OR PUSHING THAT. Your "Mushroom cloud" remains the prevention of Saddam in aquiring it, NOT in prevening his imminent attempt to blow up Boston. Again, rationally minded people get it. The others.....? Well, There's always the Elvis Factor
Realism manifests itself in the realization that ever since oil was discovered in the Middle East, foreign powers have invaded and interfered in local governments to control the oil supply and that this doesn't just stop for no reason the night before Bush and his British partners in crime decide to invade Iraq.
Realism is if it were about the oil, we would have annexed it from the beginning, and have them guarded 24/7 by our own military. we'd refer to it as downpayment for our efforts at taking out Saddam. If we were as evil as you keep claiming, THAT's what would have happened. To hell with the Iraqis and their democracy, we have the military, and we had the justification.
-
[]
Realism is if it were about the oil, we would have annexed it from the beginning, and have them guarded 24/7 by our own military. we'd refer to it as downpayment for our efforts at taking out Saddam. If we were as evil as you keep claiming, THAT's what would have happened. To hell with the Iraqis and their democracy, we have the military, and we had the justification.
It might behoove us to start paying more attention to the oil.
We need for the oil to start paying for the rebuild of Iraq , it can also pay for the stregthenig of the legitamate Iriqui government .
Allowing development and the sale of oil to be so slow is starveing the Iriqui people and hamstringing the Iriqui government , I would estimate this to be a success of the insurgency.
-
It might behoove us to start paying more attention to the oil. We need for the oil to start paying for the rebuild of Iraq , it can also pay for the stregthenig of the legitamate Iriqui government .
Agreed. But according to Tee, we were paying attention to it before hand. Yet strangely, we're not controlling it. The one and only real reason we went into iraq, and we're not in charge of it?, not controlling it's flow?, not guarding it 24/7 with our most elite military units and their hardware? What gives??
Perhaps maybe because it WASN'T about the oil?
-
<<Preposterous in your completely unobjective OPINION, based on YOUR distorted rationales, (i.e. Saddam's imminent attack on America), which again, only morons on the right, and apparently the left bought into.>>
No, preposterous based on the scenario that an 800-lb. gorilla is claiming to be threatened by a hamster, who he must smash in order to avoid future harm.>>
<<When it's based on REALITY, the "excuses" more than demonstrate the vailidty of our operation>>
LOL, what "reality?" The "reality" that a hamster will take on an 800-lb. gorilla?
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:56:46 PM
furthermore, when the original excuse is exposed as the bullshit which it always was, and the army stays and continues fighting the people of the country, and a new excuse is invented, that also is recognized as bullshit.
<<This is more of the garbage of pushing a false premise, then debunking the false premise. Of course it's BS that saddam was just about to attack America with WMD. Your problem is NO ONE WAS CLAIMING OR PUSHING THAT. >>
Condi's "mushroom cloud" argument, remember?
<< Your "Mushroom cloud" remains the prevention of Saddam in aquiring it, NOT in prevening his imminent attempt to blow up Boston.>>
The actual argument was, we can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud. In other words, act now or be nuked - - nuked by the mighty Saddam.
<< Again, rationally minded people get it. >>
THAT'S for God-damn sure. You aren't even close to rationally minded, so of course you still don't get it.
<<The others.....? Well, There's always the Elvis Factor>>
The Elvis Factor in this case being that 800-lb. gorillas really can be attacked and taken down by hamsters.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:56:46 PM
Realism manifests itself in the realization that ever since oil was discovered in the Middle East, foreign powers have invaded and interfered in local governments to control the oil supply and that this doesn't just stop for no reason the night before Bush and his British partners in crime decide to invade Iraq.
<<Realism is if it were about the oil, we would have annexed it from the beginning, and have them guarded 24/7 by our own military. >>
Realism is, you're a bunch of hypocritical, sanctimonious bullshit artists and you never in a million years would have risked exposing your true nature as predators when there was a chance you could cover it all up with a phony story about "bringing democracy." Even your own people would puke at the real nature of your objectives and your methods. Most of them do - - in fact if you weren't also stealing election after election, you and the scum you support would have been swept out of office in a landslide.
<<we'd refer to it as downpayment for our efforts at taking out Saddam. If we were as evil as you keep claiming, THAT's what would have happened. To hell with the Iraqis and their democracy, we have the military, and we had the justification. >>
You just prove your own ignorance of history and reality. Even Hitler tried to put a decent face on his aggression, claiming to be liberating German minorities from oppression in Austria and then Czechoslovakia and Poland, later claiming to be liberating Europe from Bolshevism and Jews. Evil NEVER comes out and owns up to what it's really all about. Hypocrisy and denial are the hallmarks of every evil regime in history. Hitler didn't rule Western Europe by military force - - he set up or puppet governments or worked with collaborationist governments for the same reason the U.S. tries to set one up in Iraq - - for appearances' sake only.
-
<<Preposterous in your completely unobjective OPINION, based on YOUR distorted rationales, (i.e. Saddam's imminent attack on America), which again, only morons on the right, and apparently the left bought into.>>
No, preposterous based on the scenario that an 800-lb. gorilla is claiming to be threatened by a hamster, who he must smash in order to avoid future harm.
Still with the unproven, irrational garbage that it was Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S. huh? Well, since you're needle is still stuck in muck, time to move on to posters that have some more substantive responses & questions
<<This is more of the garbage of pushing a false premise, then debunking the false premise. Of course it's BS that saddam was just about to attack America with WMD. Your problem is NO ONE WAS CLAIMING OR PUSHING THAT. >>
Condi's "mushroom cloud" argument, remember?
Precisely. Thank you for making my point (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_11_10.gif)
-
It might behoove us to start paying more attention to the oil. We need for the oil to start paying for the rebuild of Iraq , it can also pay for the stregthenig of the legitamate Iriqui government .
Agreed. But according to Tee, we were paying attention to it before hand. Yet strangely, we're not controlling it. The one and only real reason we went into iraq, and we're not in charge of it?, not controlling it's flow?, not guarding it 24/7 with our most elite military units and their hardware? What gives??
Perhaps maybe because it WASN'T about the oil?
Of course it is not about the oil .
But the oil is there and it is an important part of the future of Iraq.
So it is a mistake to forget about it , the government of Iraq is struggleing over a bill that will establish controll for the goernment over the oil contracts to be granted.
I think it would be nice , if American companys won a lot of these very lucretive contracts , but just nice , not necessacery.
Necessacery is that the Government of Iraq controll the process and get legitamate bidding going .
Sooner is far better than later , the people in Iraq haveing to tolerate high unemployment is one of the most aggravateing parts of the situation.
-
But according to Tee, we were paying attention to it before hand. Yet strangely, we're not controlling it. The one and only real reason we went into iraq, and we're not in charge of it?, not controlling it's flow?, not guarding it 24/7 with our most elite military units and their hardware? What gives?? Perhaps maybe because it WASN'T about the oil?
Of course it is not about the oil .
Well, I know that, and you know that, and most sane people know that. Then there's.....well you know who. Those with severe BDS
But the oil is there and it is an important part of the future of Iraq. So it is a mistake to forget about it , the government of Iraq is struggleing over a bill that will establish controll for the goernment over the oil contracts to be granted. I think it would be nice , if American companys won a lot of these very lucretive contracts , but just nice , not necessacery.
100% agreed
-
<<Still with the unproven, irrational garbage that it was Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S. huh? >>
Unproven? Condi's "mushroom cloud" was an obvious appeal to fear - - to fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam. Her "we can't wait until . . . " was obviously meant to suggest that by waiting (i.e. not taking action against Saddam) that Americans risked a "mushroom cloud," i.e. a nuclear attack.
There is nothing unproven and nothing irrational in stating that the Bush administration attempted to put fear into the hearts of Americans, and specifically a fear of Saddam Hussein and his offensive military capacity. Of which the "mushroom cloud" comment of Condoleeza Rice was a prime example.
It's a fact and Ms. Rice's words are on the record. They mean what they say. Only a delusional and hysterical idiot could claim that they mean anything other than their plain and obvious meaning - - "This man and his weapons are a threat to America and we must take prompt military action against him if the threat is to be avoided. THAT was the rationale for the invasion as presented to the American people and it was not only a lie but an absurdity.
<<Well, since you're needle is still stuck in muck, time to move on to posters that have some more substantive responses & questions>>
Translation: This bullshit isn't working, I'm getting my ass kicked every time I open my stupid mouth, time to move on.
The rest of your post is unfortunately garbled and confused. You recapped a debate where you had claimed that nobody was claiming that Saddam would nuke the U.S.A. and I of course referred you immediately to the best-known example of exactly such a claim, Condi's "mushroom cloud" remarks. You then thanked me for proving your point. Hello?? The mushroom cloud remarks were a classic example of the absurd lengths the Bush administration was prepared to go in fear-mongering (nuclear anihilation in this case) based on their absurd lie that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, leaving the U.S. no alternative but to attack unilaterally. And this is "proving your point" how, exactly?
-
<<Still with the unproven, irrational garbage that it was Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S. huh? >>
Unproven?
Yea, precisely....UNPROVEN. Your Tee-leaf logic say so, just doesn't cut it, in this forum. Perhaps at Kos, or MoveOn.org
Condi's "mushroom cloud" was an obvious appeal to fear - - to fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam. Her "we can't wait until . . . " was obviously meant to suggest that by waiting (i.e. not taking action against Saddam) that Americans risked a "mushroom cloud," i.e. a nuclear attack.
What it was, was what any President and his administration references when they're extolling their reasons for military intervention. What she said may be construed, and distorted by you as an "appeal to fear". What you can't distort is the accuracy and sincerity of what she was saying. America was risking Saddam aquiring nukes, which could eventually be used against U.S. forces in the region, or more likely via SCUD attacks on Israel, ala Gulf War I
There is nothing unproven and nothing irrational in stating that the Bush administration attempted to put fear into the hearts of Americans, and specifically a fear of Saddam Hussein and his offensive military capacity. Of which the "mushroom cloud" comment of Condoleeza Rice was a prime example.
The "fear" as you put it was justified by the intel everyone was acknowledging. No need to go into the laundry list of Dems and Foreign leaders that all acknowledged the threat. The Mushroom cloud" was simply a continuation of the potential threat Saddam posed. I repeat, EVERY PRESIDENT and his administration highlight the danger of the threat when justifying & using military intervention. Did I mention EVERY PRESIDENT?
It's a fact and Ms. Rice's words are on the record. They mean what they say.
Absolutely. Your terminal problem is the continued effort to misrepresent what she said.
Only a delusional and hysterical idiot could claim that they mean anything other than their plain and obvious meaning
Ahhh, the ol XO technique for validating opinion.......it's "obvious"
- - "This man and his weapons are a threat to America and we must take prompt military action against him if the threat is to be avoided. THAT was the rationale for the invasion as presented to the American people and it was not only a lie but an absurdity.
That actually would be a good example of delusional & hysterical
You recapped a debate where you had claimed that nobody was claiming that Saddam would nuke the U.S.A. and I of course referred you immediately to the best-known example of exactly such a claim, Condi's "mushroom cloud" remarks.
Broken record. But you go with what you think works, regardless of how broken the record or how deep the rut.
<<Well, since you're needle is still stuck in muck, time to move on to posters that have some more substantive responses & questions>>
Translation: This bullshit isn't working, I'm getting my ass kicked every time I open my stupid mouth, time to move on.
Actually, the translation is Tee can't keep from pathetic perseverative Elvis factor distortions, so sirs is moving on
-
"...it was not only a lie but an absurdity. "
I don't see it as either a lie nor an absurdity.
Saddam Hussein actually did have a nuclear bomb building program actually did have a biowepons building program and he actually did have a chemicl wepons program which he actually did use on people .
Saddam actually did hide the means by which he got rid of his stuff , so well that we do not know yet where or when he destroyed (or hid ) it.
Saddam did chase inspectors out , giveing himself plenty of time to dig the best hideing place the world has ever known , money being no object.
Saddam did have close relationships with terrorists , provideing money , sanctuary , training.
So in what way could those more sceptical than yourself know that Saddam was not dangerous?
You may repeat your assertion that hamsters do not attack Gorillas , but I will reject this out of hand for the reason that we have been beset by hamsters since Lockerbie.
-
Is it unreasonable to believe the Iraqi's are capable of democratic elections?
The Iranians i believe were touted as having conducted the same very recently.
Are the Persians that much more superior than the average arab?
This is one of the most illogical replies, but it can be used the other way as well. Canadians have far fewer violent crimes than the United States. Are Canadians that much more superior than Americans?
-
<<You may repeat your assertion that hamsters do not attack Gorillas , but I will reject this out of hand for the reason that we have been beset by hamsters since Lockerbie.>>
Oh, yeah. Lockerbie. I guess Bush must have sold the invasion to the American people on the basis of, "We're gonna go to war against Saddam Hussein so that no more bombs will ever be planted on airliners again." That's the most absurd example you could have come up with. Those kinds of terrorist actions (bombs on airliners) have probably been around since the end of WWII. Every country participates in them, directly or indirectly. The U.S. for example, shelters the guy who bombed a Cubana airliner flying from Caracas to Havana.
When I said hamsters don't attack gorillas, I was referring to organisms large enough to be organized into a national format, not a cell of five or ten individuals who could come from anywhere. My example of a hamster attacking a gorilla was based on a nation vs nation attack, where the attacker faces the anihilation of his homeland, himself included. Your example is meaningless in the context.
It is absurd to consider that Iraq under any leader would nuke the U.S.A. because of inevitable retaliation. Your example of Lockerbie doesn't even address the situation. No airplane bomber has ever risked the nuclear anihilation of his country. Not even the craziest right-wing commentator would suggest such a thing.