Clear as Mud

[Michael Tee]

<<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." 

[Plane]

<<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

[Plane]

 """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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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. 

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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?

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

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?

[sirs]

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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

"...they were slant-drilling into Iraqi reserves..."

Is there any reason at all to think this is true?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.