New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

71
You're right I need a big fucking pot of coffee right now but anyway..

galanter wrote:Earwicker, you are just playing back, again, a form of fallacy the "leave Saddam alone" side seems to fancy.

It's related to the notion that 2 wrongs don't make a right.


I was brought up to think they didn't

galanter wrote:So the US made the mistake of supporting Saddam at one time. Why should the Iraqi people suffer further under Saddam for that?


It's not that the Iraqis should suffer (which you seem to zone out is what is happening to them now). I highlighted those things because of your apparent insistence that we are better than them. I was highlighting the past to illustrate that 'we' aren't/weren't any better. If you can't highlight past events to make a conclusion as to the relative righteousness of an individual/system then what the hell can you use?

I see the idealistic view of the 'let's get baddie Saddam' side but you can't just ignore history. You certainly shouldn't ignore recent history.

galanter wrote:Even if you are right about the Americans and Israel (what the heck do they have to do with this?)


I thought this was who you meant when you said he'd attacked three countries.
But even without that Israel has a lot to do with most things that happen in the middle east.

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

72
galanter wrote:
Earwicker wrote:
galanter wrote:FWIW I'd like to be on record as saying what was done to the indigenous population of the Americas was a horrific genocide that cannot be justified in any way.

I see no contradiction in believing this and supporting a war to remove Saddam.


What?!

Can't it be justified by the fact that in America now you have a democratic system of government (that doesn't work but that's beside the point) and that that system is the beacon by which all fledgling civilisations must guide their rudders.

Was the sacrifice not worth it?

If not then - why now?


Earwicker...I think you need a pot of coffee...this analogy would hold if we landed in Iraq, killed off virtually all the Iraqis, and then replaced them with a population of Europeans. This is not what is happening.


Incidentally I was showing mock shock above though my point stands.
You claim the misery of the Iraqis now is okay because long term it's for their benefit.
It's for their benefit because our system (according to you?) is bestest.
Therefore massacring the native population of the Americas and stealing all the land could be seen as okay because, long term, it led to this super duper system of ours.
If you view things long term an awful lot of things could be seen as very rosy.
However, I am still not sure where your unshakable optimism regarding Iraq is coming from.

Not that it matters cause in the pro war view the trouble there now is because of the Iraqi insurgents etc.
It's not our fault.
we tried
etc etc
etc etc

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

73
Earwicker wrote:Incidentally I was showing mock shock above though my point stands.
You claim the misery of the Iraqis now is okay because long term it's for their benefit.
It's for their benefit because our system (according to you?) is bestest.
Therefore massacring the native population of the Americas and stealing all the land could be seen as okay because, long term, it led to this super duper system of ours.
If you view things long term an awful lot of things could be seen as very rosy.
However, I am still not sure where your unshakable optimism regarding Iraq is coming from.

Not that it matters cause in the pro war view the trouble there now is because of the Iraqi insurgents etc.
It's not our fault.
we tried
etc etc
etc etc


Even if the pain were equivalent under Saddam and now (and there are reasons to think it isn't, especially if you are willing to travel outside of the triangle), and even if todays pain goes on for a number of years, I would still argue that the currentt situation is an improvement.

Why? Because now there is hope. Under Saddam the pain would have continued indefinitely. There was no sign the Iraqi people alone could depose him any more than the Russian people could depose his role model Stalin.* They tried...it failed in a bloodbath 10x or 100x worse than what is going on today.

Now the Iraqis have a chance, a good chance I think, to establish a better life for themselves.

-----

* And even if they did depose Saddam all of the ethnic hatreds would have been unleashed and they would be exactly where they are today anyway. You need look no further than Europe to find other examples of this. Better to pull the tooth now than suffer with it for years and then pull it anyway.

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

74
galanter wrote:Even if the pain were equivalent under Saddam and now (and there are reasons to think it isn't, especially if you are willing to travel outside of the triangle), and even if todays pain goes on for a number of years, I would still argue that the currentt situation is an improvement.

Why? Because now there is hope. Under Saddam the pain would have continued indefinitely. There was no sign the Iraqi people alone could depose him any more than the Russian people could depose his role model Stalin.* They tried...it failed in a bloodbath 10x or 100x worse than what is going on today.

Now the Iraqis have a chance, a good chance I think, to establish a better life for themselves.

-----

* And even if they did depose Saddam all of the ethnic hatreds would have been unleashed and they would be exactly where they are today anyway. You need look no further than Europe to find other examples of this. Better to pull the tooth now than suffer with it for years and then pull it anyway.


Galanter, none of us live there. It is very easy to sit back and claim that this is for their best. And essentially disgusting. We didn't give them a choice, our forces (we do pay for them after all) went in uninvited, killed a lot of people, created the situation for many more people to die horribly than they would have otherwise; how dare we sit back and say this was for their own good? What arrogance!

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

75
3 Points. First, there were multiple reasons for taking down Saddam. The good of the Iraqi's was a part of that, but there are other good achieved beyond this. (See previous posts in this thread).

Second, the Iraqis themselves wanted US assistance in the 1991 uprising and we let them down.

Third, the majority of Iraqis when faced with the binary choice (a) continued life under Saddam (b) the US takes Saddam down, have a number of times expressed (b) was the certain choice.

If I see a woman being raped and my choice is to walk away or intercede, I'm going to intercede. If that makes me arrogant then so be it.

(This thread is now mostly repeats...)

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

76
The multiple reasons for invading Iraq have all proved to be illegitimate. Iraq's military capability was pathetic, it's WMD's were a spook invented phantom, and the biggest killer of Iraq people since the first Gulf War was the continuation of the sanctions that deprived the country of money and resource.

The 1991 uprising was predominantly in Kurdish areas, did not represent anywhere near a majority of the population, and was encouraged by Western spooks who then turned their backs when it did not catch on, as you correctly point out. This was sadly not a popular uprising, which was why it failed, despite the hammering and humiliation that the Iraqi army had just sustained.

The rape has been carried out by the West, I'm afraid. The incompetence of the Coalition in the aftermath of the invasion is criminal. Between 100,000 to 150,000 civilians have been killed violently as a direct consequence of our armies, and the rate of carnage is not slowing. That's a pretty big number for a population of 28.8m.

The selling of this catastrophe as a success is horrible bullshit, the worst kind of propaganda. I'll leave a Robert Fisk cut 'n' paste:

As torture in Iraq was being exposed, Rumsfeld grovelled before Saddam

By Robert Fisk - 26 February 2006

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fis ... 347720.ece

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12083.htm

Everyone in the Middle East rewrites history, but never before have we had a US administration so wilfully, dishonestly and ruthlessly reinterpreting tragedy as success, defeat as victory, death as life - helped, I have to add, by the compliant American press. I'm reminded not so much of Vietnam as of the British and French commanders of the First World War who repeatedly lied about military victory over the Kaiser as they pushed hundreds of thousands of their men through the butchers' shops of the Somme, Verdun and Gallipoli. The only difference now is that we are pushing hundreds of thousands of Arabs though the butchers' shops - and don't even care.

Last week's visit to Beirut by one of the blindest of George Bush's bats - his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice - was indicative of the cruelty that now pervades Washington. She brazenly talked about the burgeoning "democracies" of the Middle East while utterly ignoring the bloodbaths in Iraq and the growing sectarian tensions of Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the key to her indifference can be found in her evidence to the Senate Committee on International Affairs where she denounced Iran as "the greatest strategic challenge" facing the US in the region, because Iran uses policies that "contradict the nature of the kind of Middle East sought by the United States".

As Bouthaina Shaaban, one of the brightest of Syria's not always very bright team of government ministers, noted: "What is the nature of the kind of Middle East sought by the United States? Should Middle East states adapt themselves to that nature, designed oceans away?" As Maureen Dowd, the best and only really worthwhile columnist on the boring New York Times, observed this month, Bush "believes in self-determination only if he's doing the determining ... The Bushies are more obsessed with snooping on Americans than fathoming how other cultures think and react." And conniving with rogue regimes, too, Dowd might have added.

Take Donald Rumsfeld, the reprehensible man who helped to kick off the "shock and awe" mess that has now trapped more than 100,000 Americans in the wastes of Iraq. He's been taking a leisurely trip around North Africa to consult some of America's nastiest dictators, among them President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, the man with the largest secret service in the Arab world and whose policemen have perfected the best method of gleaning information from suspected "terrorists": to hold them down and stuff bleach-soaked rags into their mouths until they have almost drowned.

The Tunisians learned this from the somewhat cruder methods of the Algerians next door whose government death squads slaughtered quite a few of the 150,000 victims of the recent war against the Islamists. The Algerian lads - and I've interviewed a few of them after their nightmares persuaded them to seek asylum in London - would strap their naked victims to a ladder and, if the "chiffon" torture didn't work, they'd push a tube down the victim's throat and turn on a water tap until the prisoner swelled up like a balloon. There was a special department (at the Chateauneuf police station, in case Donald Rumsfeld wants to know) for torturing women, who were inevitably raped before being dispatched by an execution squad.

All this I mention because Rumsfeld's also been cosying up to the Algerians. On a visit to Algiers this month, he announced that "the United States and Algeria have a multifaceted relationship. It involves political and economic as well as military-to-military co-operation. And we very much value the co-operation we are receiving in counter-terrorism..." Yes, I imagine the "chiffon" technique is easy to learn, the abuse of prisoners, too - just like Abu Ghraib, for example, which now seems to have been the fault of journalists rather than America's thugs.

Rumsfeld's latest pronouncements have included a defence of the Pentagon's system of buying favourable news stories in Iraq with bribes - "non-traditional means to provide accurate information" was his fantasy description of this latest attempt to obscure the collapse of the American regime in Baghdad - and an attack on our reporting of the Abu Ghraib tortures. "Consider for a moment the vast quantity of column inches and hours of television devoted to the detainee abuse [sic] at Abu Ghraib. Compare that to the volume of coverage and condemnation associated with, say, the discovery of Saddam Hussein's mass graves, which were filled with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis."

Let's expose this whopping lie. We were exposing Saddam's vile regime, especially his use of gas, as long ago as 1983. I was refused a visa to Iraq by Saddam's satraps for exposing their vile tortures at - Abu Ghraib. And what was Donald Rumsfeld doing? Visiting Baghdad, grovelling before Saddam, to whom he did not mention the murders and mass graves, which he knew about, and pleading with the Beast of Baghdad to reopen the US embassy in Iraq.

With the usual press courtiers in tow, Rumsfeld has no problems, witness George Melloan's recent interview with the Beast of Washington in his Boeing 737: "He generously spares me time for a chat about defence strategy. Bright sunlight streams in and lights his face ... Sitting across from him at a desk high above the clouds, one wonders if the ability of this modern Jove to call down lightning on transgressors will be equal to the tasks ahead."

And so myth-making and tragedy go hand in hand. Iraq's monumental catastrophe has become routine, shapeless, an incipient "civil war". Note how the American framework of disaster is now being portrayed as an Iraqi vs Iraqi war, as if the huge and brutal US occupation has nothing to do with the appalling violence in Iraq. They blow up each other's mosques? They just don't want to get on. We told them to have a non-sectarian government and they refused. That, I suspect, will be the get-out line when the next deluge overwhelms the Americans in Iraq.

Winston Churchill, when the Iraqis staged their insurgency against British rule in 1920, called Iraq "an ungrateful volcano". But let's just sit back and enjoy the view. Democracy is coming to the Middle East. People are enjoying more liberties. History doesn't matter, only the future. And the future for the people of the Middle East is becoming darker and bloodier by the day. I guess it just depends whether "Jove" is up to his job when all that bright sunlight streams in and lights his face.

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

77
galanter wrote:At some point it's simply immoral to stand by and allow a horror like Saddam to continue when you have the power to stop it.


This sentence encapsulates completely my reasons for ignoring Galanter's posts on Iraq after last Friday:

He will not argue the war as it is, he will only argue the war that he wished it to be.

He will not argue history as it is, only the history that supports his fantasy war.

He consumes lies and propaganda to justify his Christian Jihad, his efforts to make Islam an outlaw (or second-tier) religion in countries dominated by Western ideologies, and his completely fear-driven response to 9/11.

He regurgitates lies and propaganda back out to promote his rationale based on artificial history and propaganda, and he does so in the most holier-than-thou tone he can manage.

He is beyond a liar and a propagandist, he is a sanctimonious, lying, propagandizing, FOX News American.

His position is a 'safe' one to hold in 2006 ( for the brainwashed ), because he only has to say:

"Wait", "I'm smarter than you, so I can see the outcome of the occupation better than you", and then, when he is someday proven wrong, he will say, "I was right, but the American cowardly war protestors overpowered my superior reasoning and will". He's already bought his parachute.

Galanter's position is 'garbage in-garbage out' personified. He appears to be the only one holding it, and he's not going to change his smug and pious lectures no matter what facts are shown to him. If this was a boxing match, it would be called on a TKO, as a result of the minimum of nineteen times Galanter has been driven into a corner of the thread without a shred of actual reality to support his rationales other than 'Believe in me, I'm Galanter, and I'm more loving of the Iraqis than you will all ever be" ( as his President dismantles their country ).

He is a lying propagandist, and I can't figure out why Earwicker thinks I've crossed a line by stating that, other than a need to preserve decorum in the forum.

Galanter, you are, as Andrew L. said, "full of shit". Your position on the Iraq War is less defensible than Matthew's. Congratulations: you royally suck.

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

78
galanter wrote:
These are strange times. More and more it seems like being a moderate is the most radical position one can take.


These are not strange times at all, for people who view history as something that frequently repeats itself. To those who do, the parallels between Iraq 2003-'06 and past imperialist conquests inform our perception of the war.

I'm trying to figure out where exactly on your back you're patting yourself with the above 'moderate as radical' bromide. Are you claiming that you are the radical, by ignoring the past history of the military-industrial complex to instead accept that their vision for Iraq is built from morality and compassion and not the obvious new chapter in the book of 'death for profit'?

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

79
Let's all check in again, say, 5 years from now. If the insurgency has diminished and the Iraqis are making further progress with elections and other democratic reforms, I hope y'all will recognize this good turn of events for the Iraqis.

If the country has collapsed into bloody anarchy, or another psychopathic dictator has managed to grab power away from the electorate, I'll say "I meant well, but it looks like I was wrong."

Which result will make you happier?

New NHS Constitution Proposed For UK- Behavior Modifications

80
galanter wrote:Let's all check in again, say, 5 years from now. If the insurgency has diminished and the Iraqis are making further progress with elections and other democratic reforms, I hope y'all will recognize this good turn of events for the Iraqis.


There is a permanent US military presence in Iraq, five years from now will look like this year, and that continued presence won't be because the relentless sectarian violence outside the green zone and the other permanent installations demands that we 'assist' the Iraqis. We 'bought' Iraq. We installed Saddam, we de-installed Saddam, and we are not going to stop charging american taxpayers for the free army security service provided to the oil industry; Iraq is too rich in resources to survive democratic rule. It's our satellite state.

You only have to look at what is being constructed and who owns it to understand that the insurgency is going to fulfill the same purpose in Iraq that the facilitated flow of drugs across US borders does here: perpetual demand for a police state and police state funding.

If the insurgency dwindles, the anti-war crowd in the US can gain sympathy for a reduction in our free security support for the MIC. Stability is not the goal of this administation; the morphing of the Iraq insurgency into al Qaeda by the controlled media will continue, a new terror attack will solidify that propaganda, and the war on terror will remain open-ended along with the insurgency.

Watch what you are seeing as the new Cold War and you will understand it. Or don't, and continue to lie to yourself about why power acts in ways that be can be plausibly described as 'social outreach'.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests