Post by sittingstill on Apr 10, 2006 20:06:26 GMT -5
By the way, this is all great stuff guys. I think the problem here is Nikita has drunk the Kool Aid (what else are we to expect from someone who spent a good percentage of his adult life pretending to be Russian). Basically, people side too easily with partisan lines instead of thinking for themselves, and this is a clear cut case of that. The 'stats' Nikita talks about are totally irrelevant in legitimate discourse, unless they fit your chosen party line in which case you can conveniently ignore that they are totally irrelevant arguments.
Why?
Basically he's accepting that a complicated issue that affects a lot of people can be boiled down to Fox News-style Republican vs Democrat arguments: i.e that 'if the democrats did it then we have a universal moral standard and you can't refute it'. In practice Democratic and Republican administrations have differed very little in their approach to utilising the military-industrial complex for stategic empirical advancement....
Oh sorry - wrong messageboard!!
But anyway, the Iraqi invasion by our countries cannot be talked about solely in terms of Moms Apple Pie Republi-crat
Michael Moore vs Bill O'Reilly bloviation-type arguments - i.e trying to run the logic of 'party lines' against each other. The argument lies in the much simpler domain of 'case for war vs. anti-war'. Indeed if you naively except the Democrats to be the political manifestation of the anti-war position, as opposed to the 'anti-war' official party line, then you're mistaken and their case just doesn't hold up, which - combined with the RIDICULOUS case of John Kerry as an anti-war presidential candidate - goes some way to explain why President Bush was so successful in getting voted in a second term.
And so if we look at the argument as 'case for war vs. anti-war' for the sake of itself instead of upholding playground 'my party is better that yours' arguments, with a clear intent to work out the most pragmatic unpartisan solution then you'll get much clearer results. Of course I'm not going to get into that here (its a web page worth of information, and cannot be given justice in a single messageboard post) but to suffice to say that any open-minded individual that looks into the issue in an exhaustive-research manner will uncover a rich tapestry of corruption, lies, reconstruction contracts and dangerous Neo-Con ideology, the whole truth & fair sense warped by post 9/11 jingoism and a mainstream western media misinformation presentation so hung up on presenting things within the confines of 'Right vs Left' soundbites and bloviation so as to complete negate any semblance of discourse and truth....
I agree that the new Iraqi "democracy" has little chance of succeeding. Mostly, because many in the US do not want it to succeed, at least until a Democrat becomes president.
Commenting on the last paragraph (and this is no personal attack on you, StompinGround, just a political discussion based on what you wrote) - this is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about - mainstream views are so often based on 'there is a party which opposes my political views, I will base all discourse on blaming that political party for every wrong, making its viewpoint look corrupt and inept'. You've boiled something down to an issue simply of partisan contempt. Pointing out that political parties are corrupt and stupid is easy (because they are) but it works both ways. And in direct response to WHY Democracy is not currently working in Iraq, well - that too is complicated and almost besides the point - it was never a legit premise. Many people commented before the war that Democracy could not be a legitimate Coalition concern because 'the large shia population would likely favour reparations with Iran' which would be devastating to western interests, and also the formation of socio-political strong-arm militancy from each of the opposing Iraqi religious-ethnic groups would likely caused an instable turmoil bordering perhaps on civil war. Which is exactly what has happened (and military strategists did and would have known this).
Suffice to say I agree with a lot of what The Hammer, Bobbyryates and GarvinStomp have said here (apart from that 'wacky' stuff about homosexuals, which is a separate issue I've commented on elesewhere).
Finally, Nikita's death toll comment is sinful. American military deaths aren't the only factor in the 'success' of a war which officially has ended even though it simply has not. The death toll of Iraqi civilians, currently at 34000, is the only measure of success....
Why?
Basically he's accepting that a complicated issue that affects a lot of people can be boiled down to Fox News-style Republican vs Democrat arguments: i.e that 'if the democrats did it then we have a universal moral standard and you can't refute it'. In practice Democratic and Republican administrations have differed very little in their approach to utilising the military-industrial complex for stategic empirical advancement....
Oh sorry - wrong messageboard!!
But anyway, the Iraqi invasion by our countries cannot be talked about solely in terms of Moms Apple Pie Republi-crat
Michael Moore vs Bill O'Reilly bloviation-type arguments - i.e trying to run the logic of 'party lines' against each other. The argument lies in the much simpler domain of 'case for war vs. anti-war'. Indeed if you naively except the Democrats to be the political manifestation of the anti-war position, as opposed to the 'anti-war' official party line, then you're mistaken and their case just doesn't hold up, which - combined with the RIDICULOUS case of John Kerry as an anti-war presidential candidate - goes some way to explain why President Bush was so successful in getting voted in a second term.
And so if we look at the argument as 'case for war vs. anti-war' for the sake of itself instead of upholding playground 'my party is better that yours' arguments, with a clear intent to work out the most pragmatic unpartisan solution then you'll get much clearer results. Of course I'm not going to get into that here (its a web page worth of information, and cannot be given justice in a single messageboard post) but to suffice to say that any open-minded individual that looks into the issue in an exhaustive-research manner will uncover a rich tapestry of corruption, lies, reconstruction contracts and dangerous Neo-Con ideology, the whole truth & fair sense warped by post 9/11 jingoism and a mainstream western media misinformation presentation so hung up on presenting things within the confines of 'Right vs Left' soundbites and bloviation so as to complete negate any semblance of discourse and truth....
stompingground said:
I have to disagree. An Empire does not set up independent governments. An Empire retains sovereignty over the countries they defeat. We are not setting up a US state in Iraq. I agree that the new Iraqi "democracy" has little chance of succeeding. Mostly, because many in the US do not want it to succeed, at least until a Democrat becomes president.
Commenting on the last paragraph (and this is no personal attack on you, StompinGround, just a political discussion based on what you wrote) - this is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about - mainstream views are so often based on 'there is a party which opposes my political views, I will base all discourse on blaming that political party for every wrong, making its viewpoint look corrupt and inept'. You've boiled something down to an issue simply of partisan contempt. Pointing out that political parties are corrupt and stupid is easy (because they are) but it works both ways. And in direct response to WHY Democracy is not currently working in Iraq, well - that too is complicated and almost besides the point - it was never a legit premise. Many people commented before the war that Democracy could not be a legitimate Coalition concern because 'the large shia population would likely favour reparations with Iran' which would be devastating to western interests, and also the formation of socio-political strong-arm militancy from each of the opposing Iraqi religious-ethnic groups would likely caused an instable turmoil bordering perhaps on civil war. Which is exactly what has happened (and military strategists did and would have known this).
Suffice to say I agree with a lot of what The Hammer, Bobbyryates and GarvinStomp have said here (apart from that 'wacky' stuff about homosexuals, which is a separate issue I've commented on elesewhere).
Finally, Nikita's death toll comment is sinful. American military deaths aren't the only factor in the 'success' of a war which officially has ended even though it simply has not. The death toll of Iraqi civilians, currently at 34000, is the only measure of success....
