Unclouded questions

questions from uncloudedfell

[quote]

Quote :

1) If you view it as Imperialistic for one nation to impose its values upon another, were you against Western sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid years? Taking this question one step further, had armed conflict resulted with a Western power invading South Africa during those times, in order so that black people there could be freed from apartheid, would you condemn that as, to use your words, an Imperialistic invasion? Yes, or no? If no, how would such a situation be any different than the bringing of democracy to Iraq and Kurdistan?

"Imposing your values" is VERY different to a full scale invasion. We covered this one. We did not invade Iraq to liberate Iraqis so your question is meaningless. There can be no equating your scenario of invading S.A. to liberate folk from apartheid to Iraq. Sorry.

Quote :

2) Do you view it as morally correct the position that one country should stand by and let another brutalize innocents, with the belief that in time, the aggressors will see the error of their ways?

No I do not. What does this have to do with Iraq which we allegedly invaded because of the imminent threat of WMDs... am I repeating myself?

Quote :

3) Do you believe that simple values of dignity, safety, and a right to live ones life in freedom, without fear of persecution, should not be said to be precluded from some people because of the color of their skin, or the God they believe in?

No I do not. What does this have to do with Iraq which we allegedly invaded because of the imminent threat of WMDs... am I repeating myself?

Quote :

4) How does the question "Where are WMD?" or the statement "The war is illegal!" in anyway address the freedom from murderous persecution of the Kurds, and the bringing of democracy to a people, including within this, the giving of women the vote for the first time ever, that the Iraq war has resulted in? How does this question or statement in anyway address the many questions that revolve around sacrifice, monetary cost, chance of success, ramifications of success or failure etc?

Answer to question one and two here: it does not.

You are putting cart before horse. Im not saying that no good can come of it.

But if the war is illegal that really rather eclipses the secondary gains for me mate. I see it as a HUGE issue.

Quote :

5) Both Iraqis and Kurds have embraced the democracy they have been presented with. Were they wrong to do so?

Have they indeed?

Quote :

6) If the war is solely about oil, why Afghanistan?

Good question, may I bounce it back? if its not about oil: Why Afghanistan?

in fact lets reduce the question to just : WHY AFGHANISTAN?

Because Im a fairly bright guy and I havent got the slightest clue and I've spent a fair bit of time asking around and noone I know knows WHY AFGHANISTAN either, look forward to you enlightening me on that score.

Quote :

7) Is a country, or for that matter an individual, precluded from acting in a moral manner, because they have failed to do so in the past? Using your example of the Sudan, because a Western military power failed to act there, are they then precluded from acting for the moral good in the future? If so, for how long?

Of course not, what a silly question that rather conveniently ignores the REAL question: if this really is about a humanitarian agenda to spread democracy and civilisation why didnt we act on Rwanda?

Answer, the fact we didnt act in the Sudan and did act in Iraq is a clear indication that the spread of democracy is not the agenda, the agenda is therefore something else entirely.

Quote :

And finally, for the purposes of debate, if 100, 000 casualties did result in the bringing of democracy to Iraq and Kurdistan, is this number too great? If so, what in your opinion should the cut off number be, and when this number is reached, what should happen then?

I think your undervalueing just how important the ramifications that the war in Iraq is illegal would be, look:

If you accept that its an illegal war then those civilians died so we can build an empire, they didnt die for their "democracy"- in which case it is not acceptable for even a single person to have died fulfilling an illegal agenda.


You were quick on the other thread to call for the "condemnation" of the "barbarism" you percieve as intrinsic to muslim culture, but a little slower to see the barbarity elsewhere.

If it was proven that the war was illegal, every one of those civilians deaths would no longer be "casualties of war" they would be 100,000 "murders" and those who killed them criminals.

You can keep pushing your view that the civilian deaths and injuries and suffering and thereby that the deaths, injuries and suffering of our allied military forces are a necessary evil in the pursuit of a greater good,
but the fact remains: we didnt go there pursuing a greater good

For the purpose of debate: If it WAS about the spread of democracy and civilian deaths WERE inevitable because every other option has been exhausted then a tough call would have to be made and you've got to fulfill the rather callous task of quantifying and qualiying human life and human suffering.

Richard,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
A rebuttal :

1) If you view it as Imperialistic for one nation to impose its values upon another, were you against Western sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid years? Taking this question one step further, had armed conflict resulted with a Western power invading South Africa during those times, in order so that black people there could be freed from apartheid, would you condemn that as, to use your words, an Imperialistic invasion? Yes, or no? If no, how would such a situation be any different than the bringing of democracy to Iraq and Kurdistan?

To which you answer :

Quote :

"Imposing your values" is VERY different to a full scale invasion. We covered this one. We did not invade Iraq to liberate Iraqis so your question is meaningless. There can be no equating your scenario of invading S.A. to liberate folk from apartheid to Iraq. Sorry.

You wholly fail to answer the question. Do you think that one country has the right to impose its values upon another? Yes or no? You refuse to come out of the woodwork and say. The South African example was very apt, as it demonstrates the continuum along which such an imposition of values can occur. From condemnation, to sanctions, to invasion. You stridently make the point over and over that invasion was not about spreading democracy (a word that seems spat from your mouth), and superficially, you are correct of course. Why superficially? Well clearly, had WMD's had been found in numbers great enough to satisfy those critics such as yourself, the war would not have ended there. Democracy would still have been installed. Kurdistan still freed. It would be utterly absurd to suggest otherwise. And indeed, any action taken contrary to this, would have been trumpeted as proof of the inhumanity of the West. Given this, your position that because no WMD were found everything else that followed was illegal, and so therefor, precluded from debate as far as costs and benefits across a range of fronts, makes no sense. Indeed, I believe it to be a position taken so that those, who generally have a pretty poor opinion of democracy (yet choose to live in democratic nations themselves surprisingly), can avoid the hard questions. The answers to which, paint them, along with everyone else, with the bastard brush. For as one who has dipped his toe into psychology would know. There are those who believe they have better ideas, having arrived at this position via questioning, and honestly evaluating the positions they hold (Such individuals are always open to change their position by means of the exact same process). And then, there are those who believe they are better people. Better people bridle at being painted with the bastard brush, for that is not who they are. Such people believe themselves to be truly possessed of an innate goodness, justice and mercy. Call into question a position an individual such as this holds, and they will go on into full on attack mode (for you have not questioned their idea, but rather their innate worth), never once allowing that any belief of theirs can result in suffering and death. No, it is only the one who disagrees with them that carries that burden.

Questions 2 and 3.

Your question, which you pose as answer both times here, I answer above. The installation of democracy within Iraq and Kurdistan was always a natural follow on from the initial goal of securing WMD. To argue against this, would be to take a position that holds that had WMD been identified and secured, the West would have then just picked up shop, leaving the country with a huge power vacuum which would have been filled nicely by Iran.

Question 4.

No cart before the horse. As I have given above. The mantra of "Where are the WMD?" only takes you so far. Does it allow for scathing criticism of intelligence gathering methods? Absolutely. Does it call into question the burden of proof that must be met before a nation commits itself to war? It does indeed. But can it be used as a means to sidestep intelligent debate upon the costs across a range of fronts that the Iraq war has imposed? Well, quite clearly it has been. But this should not be the case.

Question 5.

Again, you present a derisive opinion about democracy. It is here that I feel your position exposes itself as dishonest. By your own words, you don't appear to hold much stock in the worth of democracy and freedom. Again and again you have refused to come out and simply acknowledge that Iraq and Kurdistan are better now than under the dictatorship of Saddam. Instead, you continually fall back on the lines of "Where are the WMD?" and "The war is illegal!" Now I don't find it to be just a happy coincidence that those who practically spit when the benefits of democracy in Iraq and Kurdistan are raised, are also the first ones out with lines questioning the whereabouts of WMD and giving declarations that all so often include the words illegal and Imperialistic. Nor do I find it a happy coincidence that such tactics neatly shutdown debate on freedom, and its costs across a range of fronts, for those who hold it in such little worth.

Question 6.

Afghanistan is a tricky one. As it serves to destroy the narrative that Iraq was solely about oil. Except for those truly committed to this delusion. For such people, Afghanistan was merely the first master Machiavellian stroke that that evil mastermind BushHitler (a man who was also simultaneously a retarded simpleton) employed, with the end goal of taking Iraq in his evil, money stained capitalist fingers, and ravishing her. Bwahahahaha! Alternatively, Afghanistan is identical to Iraq. The West went in there to secure against a terrorist threat, which they quite reasonably believed would in time be brought to their shores (again), so better to preempt. And is now, why good golly gosh, trying to install democracy in the region. Here too, just as in Iraq. The same questions as to how much we sacrifice for others are raised. And without the dodges of WMD? Illegal! And, Imperialistic!
If the West pulls out, it ain't going to be all rose petals shooting out of the butts of the populace time. A lot of innocents will die. And the rest, suffer horribly. Does this mean we are obligated to act though? Having already given my position on Iraq, it won't surprise you when I say that personally I wouldn't. For the reason that I want to live a long life. But then, I don't shy away from the bastard brush.

Question 7.

Another attempt to invalidate democracy and freedom. The West has a litany of times that it has failed to act for the moral good. If you want to attack them for those times, be my guest. They deserve it! Or not. Depending on how much you think we should sacrifice. But each one of these failures occurs in isolation. It does not, as you would argue it does, invalidate future actions.

Question 8.

I did not say barbarism was intrinsic to the Muslim culture. I said that where it is found, it should be openly acknowledged as the affront to human dignity it is, and not swept under the multicultural rug of all beliefs are equal, and one persons values don't trump another's. I have used the example of Kurdistan already. But I will do so again. Here we have a thriving Muslim democracy. Where a woman who wears makeup is not stoned or otherwise beaten. Where fanatics and thugs do not rule under the guise of its what Allah wants.
And I reject outright that I have been guilty of not addressing barbarity fully on both sides. I have said from the outset, that whatever side you fall down on, you are holding to a position that will result in death and misery. Something which I have to say, you have not conceded once.
As I have already given, overly emotional words like murder, illegal, imperialist etc do nothing but shut down debate. It is not a happy coincidence only, that those with a quite deleterious view of democracy and freedom are the ones to use them. In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, the West entered with a tactical objective of addressing an immediate threat first, and then moving from there, to establishing a system that would result in them not having to come back and do it all over again in 5 - 10 years time. In either nations, had the West just hit hard and left, chaos would have ensued. Pakistani militants would have flooded over to fill the power vacuum in Afghanistan. And in Iraq, the fundamentalist Iranian regime, which has shown powerfully in recent days its value for democracy, and which is in the process of going nuclear, would have stepped in a seized power by proxy.
So to reiterate, dishonest slogans and over emotive words do allow you question intelligence gathering methods, and the burden of proof that should be accepted before a country commits itself to war. But it ends there.
To all those who use such dishonest gambits, I ask : You say the war is illegal? So what, you think upon discovering that there were no WMD the military should have returned with its tail between its legs so it could be nicely excoriated by yourself and those who think like you? If that is the case, you allow a fundamentalist nuclear Iranian regime to step in and seize control of the region. Is the West made safer as a result of this?

Man, breakfast is no longer calling, it's kicking down the front door with steel caps. I gotta go eat.
Richard, I honestly see no meeting of the minds between the two of us. You have given me some kick ass info on the psychology of confrontation, particularly as it results to time spent in deescalation. And for that, you have my profound thanks. But on this issue, I think we are as far apart as it is possible to get.

Richard,

Don't know if you intend a follow up, but I am sitting here with a major cold, and well on the way to space out city. A place where the old cognitive faculties take a serious beating. So I am going to bow out now. Please don't think me rude. If you would really like a reply on something, you'll have to give me few days. If not, thanks for the exercise.

Sure thing, leave it till your cold has cleared up and jump back in if you want. I think are views on this subject are widly divergent and as you arent seeking to convert me and Im not seeking to convert you I dont mind either way.

*Debate mode on*

For the sake of argument I will address the key points.

Quote :

For as one who has dipped his toe into psychology would know.

Please dont patronise me man.

I have a degree in psychology. It took 3 years of my life to get it and Ive studied it pretty extensively since. I am in that tiny percentage of psychology graduates who has had the privelege of actually using my degree professionally and getting paid for their knowledge of and understanding of the subject.

By the way, Thats the second time you've had a pop at my knowledge/ ability to think.

No need to get subtly personal or attack each others intellect, Im sure we are both dead clever and know all long words and stuff.

Anyway, No I absolutely do not think a country has the right to impose its values on another by force.

Let me save you the trouble of waiting for your rebuttal and replying by preemptively moving to say: I dont consider military intervention to prevent wholesale slaughter of civilians to be a "forceful imposition of values".

The UN was already there in Rwanda, but it wasnt given permission to do much.

The situation in Iraq was a full scale aggressive invasion not a humanitarian intervention,

talking about it as though it was a humanitarian intervention is fallacious, intellectually dishonest and obscures the issue.

Making comparisons with Iraq and other situations (real or hypothetical) of huminitarian intervention is therefore wholly redundant.

Rwanda is proof of what Iraq was NOT- we dont stop people from killing each other behind their own walls

Quote :

Taking this question one step further, had armed conflict resulted with a Western power invading South Africa during those times, in order so that black people there could be freed from apartheid, would you condemn that as, to use your words, an Imperialistic invasion? Yes, or no?

If the same flagrant dismissal of International Law as it pertains to going to war had been DISMISSED in this scenario as it was by the US and UK in going into Iraq then, abolsutely YES I would consider it illegal and an "invasion" and if there where evidence that the motivation was to further an Empire then YES I would call it "Imperialist."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/international-law-aspects-of-the-iraq-war-and-occupation.html

Quote :

The installation of democracy within Iraq and Kurdistan was always a natural follow on from the initial goal of securing WMD.

To talk about a "natural follow on" as though it were "primary motivation" is to compare chalk to cheese and if that isnt "cherry picking the facts to suit your point of view" I dont know what is!

As a "natural follow on" many lucrative security contracts have been gained, more weapons have been sold and many many of the power elite have gotten extremely rich (sorry, even richer) .

Shall we talk about THAT "natural follow on" as though it were a "primary motivation"?

Ah no, we wont will we?

Governments dont falsify evidence and commit false flag attacks to justify war to control resources and for profit do they? Kill innocent people? Lie?
You can make decisions when in power that make you and your cronies richer and more powerful can you?

For some people there point of view can NOT accept these distasteful notions. Its off their map.

A point of view which in the face of the facts is woefully naive.


http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

Quote :

The mantra of "Where are the WMD?" only takes you so far. Does it allow for scathing criticism of intelligence gathering methods? Absolutely. Does it call into question the burden of proof that must be met before a nation commits itself to war? It does indeed. But can it be used as a means to sidestep intelligent debate upon the costs across a range of fronts that the Iraq war has imposed?

A "scathing criticism of intelligence gathering methods" does not go NEARLY far enough!! How about considering the possiblity, as many have alleged, US and UK politicians included, that the evidence was simply fabricated?

as suggested by the Cheif Weapons Insepctor Hans Blix himself!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/12/iraq.usa

"Mr Blix accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq to justify their campaign. "

Blix repeatedly asked for more time... and was ignored

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1422171/Britain-and-US-unmoved-as-Blix-calls-for-more-time-over-Iraq.html

Quote :

But can it be used as a means to sidestep intelligent debate upon the costs across a range of fronts that the Iraq war has imposed?

I think you might mean "benefits" rather than "costs", otherwise you would be arguing against yourself.
And I presume you meant benefits "to the Iraqi people" otherwise, again you would be arguing against yourself.

I dont want to put words in your mouth.

But If that is what you meant then yes I agree, the illegality of the war does not cancel out any and all benefits.

As lone as we are not abonding intellectual integrity and ignoring the HUGE costs and the implications of an illegal invasion.

Otherwise it'd be like saying "Al Capone, yeah he killed and tortured for money, but he knew how to dress real snappy."

Quote :

By your own words, you don't appear to hold much stock in the worth of democracy and freedom.

democracy and freedom when enforced on a people by force of arms under pain of death are neither, they are just words

Quote :

Again and again you have refused to come out and simply acknowledge that Iraq and Kurdistan are better now than under the dictatorship of Saddam

I can not and so I will not.

Quote :

Instead, you continually fall back on the lines of "Where are the WMD?" and "The war is illegal!" Now I don't find it to be just a happy coincidence that those who practically spit when the benefits of democracy in Iraq and Kurdistan are raised, are also the first ones out with lines questioning the whereabouts of WMD and giving declarations that all so often include the words illegal and Imperialistic. Nor do I find it a happy coincidence that such tactics neatly shutdown debate on freedom, and its costs across a range of fronts, for those who hold it in such little worth.

Im not "falling back" on anything, I simply think one thing has FAR more relevance than the other.

Reggie and Ronnie Kray loved their mum and were apparently well liked by many.

If the war is illegal, then the fact that Iraq now has a female vote or a better police force less likely to use torture and murder with less corruption whilst doubtlessly good things are just not as IMPORTANT as the fact that we invaded a soveriegn state on false evidence.

When did this become ok? Or "not that big a deal"?

Again you mention the "costs" of the war- you mean "benefits to the people of Iraq" surely? I might be missing your point.

Quote :

Ahghanistan is a tricky one. As it serves to destroy the narrative that Iraq was solely about oil. Except for those truly committed to this delusion.

How does it? Ive already said I dont know why my country is fighting there. And I dont know anyone who does.

Im not sure if you were being ironic, are you going with the "to fight terrorism" line? Really?

Do I need to tell you what I think of that little gem? Your charecterisation of Bush can be applied to the evil terror network called AlQauda formed in Afghanistan by the Americans to assist in fighting the Russians, AQ is a database of CIA trained assets who... oh no wait sorry, back up.... AQ formed in Afghanistan in the early 90's is a global network of highly trained, religious fantatics who hate the west and will fight to the death to bring it to its knees at all costs... and is run by Osama bin -sometimes fat sometimes thin- Laden the bearded yo yo dieting criminal mastermind from a cave... close?

Charectirisations are fun, and a great way to make a point of view look ridiculous.

Watch out Bin Laden and his wealthy family ... wait sorry... I mean his ragged band of die hard mujahadeen are out to get us all... they've just been busy for the last few years... no, wait I mean they are perpetually being caught at the 11th hour by a thousand Jack Bauers all over the world saving us every week from imminent death and destruction.

Yeah.

Tuesdays terror threat? High alert. Again. Yawn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

An article by former UK Foreign Secreatary Robin Cook

Quote :

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Ooops!

Quote :

As I have already given, overly emotional words like murder, illegal, imperialist etc do nothing but shut down debate.

No they dont - go back and reread your first post on Arod's thread. Emotional? Furthering or shutting down debate? even a bit of an out of context rant?

Quote :

In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, the West entered with a tactical objective of addressing an immediate threat first,

In Afghanistan this immediate threat was AQ in your view right?

Quote :

You say the war is illegal? So what, you think upon discovering that there were no WMD the military should have returned with its tail between its legs so it could be nicely excoriated by yourself and those who think like you?

Nope, we shouldnt have gone in the first place. Simples.
This time round. And having gone in the first place, the first time round, in my view we should have stayed until the job was done. But we didnt. We didnt stay and oust Saddam, we didnt "impose our values", or get the female vote, or bring a fallacious "do as we say" version of "democracy" at the end of a gun barrel did we?

No, we pulled out leaving many to die.

Why?

Because we are the good guys and we only have the rest of the worlds interests at heart. Not because we wanted to maintain a state of controlled instability in the region. Its not about oil, since invading Iraq we havent touched a drop of that countries national resources, because we arent there for that. We are there for democracy.

Its not "democracy" and "freedom" that I feel such deep contempt for, ("you disagree with the war, you hate freedom, you hate democracy!" tried and tired tactic ) its the people who use these pretty words dishonestly to justify their fetid agendas.

That would be the people in charge, not people like yourself who are guilty of nothing more than believing in and trusting their governments.

Now, final question: "what is the melting temperature of steel?"


*Debate mode off*

Quote :

Richard, I honestly see no meeting of the minds between the two of us. You have given me some kick ass info on the psychology of confrontation, particularly as it results to time spent in deescalation. And for that, you have my profound thanks. But on this issue, I think we are as far apart as it is possible to get.

Absolutely mate, this is the kind of thing people go to war over.

We see things very differently so if your for dropping it Im for dropping it with no hard feelings, or wait till you feel better and get back in- with the understanding that you arent going to change my mind on this one without overwhelming fresh evidence.

Hey, Im not a hippy, I wanted to join the Army and I support the troops. The Army is just a sword, its the fucker holding it that concerns me.

Hi Richard,

Thanks for allowing me the R&R time. Amazing how such a little thing can exact such a toll. Though, as I say to my wife when she rolls her eyes at me during these times, I am 270lbs, that means I am carrying nearly 150lbs more of the virus than you are! This doesn’t seem to fly with her, yet it makes perfect sense to me.

Now:

I was not patronizing you. I reject that in some way I you have become a victim of my words, and I by extension, a victimizer. I know nothing whatsoever about your history beyond that you have done doorwork, and you say you have studied psychology. A statement you offered yourself, one which could mean many a thing. More to the point, even had you stated emphatically from the beginning that you had a degree in the field, it is still your choice what tone you assign to my words, and as well, whether or not you are victimized by them, or in some other way suffer some deleterious effect.

I do not agree with you, obviously. As you do not agree with me. Therefore it would be fatuous for me to paint your position as one that is intelligent and impeccably reasoned. For I do not believe it is. The fact that I disagree with you though, does mean that I am attacking your intellect broadly, or for that matter, attacking you at all. Already in our back and forth, I have given you praise where I felt it was warranted, on a particular issue. Here I disagree, again, on a particular issue only. In both cases I have played the ball, not the man.

To your other points:

I have not painted Iraq as a humanitarian mission at all. You have – One, whose objective to establish democracy you hold in little worth, and as such write off as illegal and imperialistic.
What I on the other hand have said, is that in both Iraq and Afghanistan the west invaded with the primary goal of securing against a terrorist threat. From there, in both nations they have sought to establish democracy. This, was always going to be the case. If I am ignorant of some published pre-invasion strategy that advocated invading fast, smashing the two places up a bit, and then buggering off home again just as quickly, please relieve me of my ignorance.
I have not once said though, that these facts preclude discussion on the value of intelligence that was given as the primary reason for invasion into both nations. Nor on how much we should sacrifice for others. Indeed, I have advocated such discussion. What I have railed against though, is the blatant dishonesty of those who offer up the slogans of “Where are the WMD?”, “Imperialistic” and “Illegal”. Why dishonest? Because these slogans are used only to invalidate the worth of democracy. That is it. Now if you feel that way, at least have the stones to come out into the open and say so. Don’t hide behind conspiracy theories, failures to act in the past as an invalidator of present actions, poor/wrong intelligence, perceived poor planning/strategy, or, the biggest cherry of them all, “It’s illegal, so it doesn’t count!”, those who use this one especially might as well, for all intents and purposes, dance up and down, with their thumbs in their ears, and while waggling their fingers sing, ‘Nah, nah, nahnah, nah, I can’t hear you!”. I cannot think of another instance where, in debate upon an issue whether it be military, social or other, such an approach has been widely advocated. For the obvious reason, that it spits in the face of any reasoned discourse and proper exploration of the issues.
This basic dishonesty is the hallmark of the left whenever the respective values of democracy are raised. For the very reason that they do not see it as having any value to speak of at all. It is not the imposition of values by force that the left disagrees with at all. But rather, the imposition of those values with which they don’t agree. When force is being used to crush democracy protests in Iran, replete with widely net circulated vids of a young woman dying, after being shot, all for the crime of demanding that her voice count, where were the howls from the left then? When Chavez installed himself as president for life, where were the left’s protests? When China demands the likes of Google be complicit in the censoring of information critical of their Government, information freely available to those in the west, where are the condemnations from the liberals? No. Imposition of values by force is just fine with the left, so long as it is not the value of democracy. When its that one, the attack mobs form.

As to my use of the word ‘costs’ in relation to democracy. I meant that word. And not the one you offered in its place ‘benefits’. I can understand your confusion though. I believe you are locked in the leftist prism of seeing the world as made up of oppressed and oppressors. This view is unable to accommodate a position which states that much of the time, we are all oppressors to a degree, while all the while not necessarily being inveterately evil people because of it. You see, I can champion democracy/capitalism as the only system which, for all its faults (faults which are universal to man), respects the right of every human being to live in freedom from persecution, free to pursue their own lives, and not have some moral overlord see it as their obligation to reeducate them and control them, while too, acknowledging that the cost of such a system is, and indeed has been historically, bloody. It is because of this that we are behooved to continually look to these costs and ask how much we are obligated to sacrifice for our fellow man. Previously, I have used the individual examples of adoption/fostering of children. Something, which can be recognized as an indubitable good by virtually all, and yet, something which is undertaken by comparatively few. Does this mean that those who do not undertake it because they view the cost as too great, are unable, or should be prevented, from acknowledging the moral good of the act? Of course not. In the same way, I can champion democracy/capitalism while calling for debate upon its costs. I am able do this, because I do not need to be a ‘better person’. I’ll settle just for striving for the best idea.
The roll of starry eyed cheerleader for capitalism/democracy. One, who sees only good from the position they take. Is not mine. As I have demonstrated again and again.
Your position though, that Iraq was better before you say (a truly incredible one). That it's all vast conspiracies and injustice and illegal and imperialistic. That it all doesn’t count, that it’s all invalid. Is a position that in my view, serves to allow no room at all for the possibility of appreciable suffering and death as a result of that which you advocate.
Am I wrong? Have I completely misread where it is you are coming from? I obviously don’t think so. But, I would be happy to concede that I am wrong if you show me where and how.
Or don't.
For on any course of action we take, we must ask ourselves what our expectations are, and too, if these are realistic. My expectations here, were simply to state cogently my own position and too, show the woeful barrenness of the one argued by most liberal commentators. This, I have done. And so for me it in this thread it ends.
I thank you again Richard, for providing me opportunity to flex the old mental muscles. Perhaps the greatest irony in our back and forth has been that neither of us advocate the invasions that took place. We just do so for very different reasons.

Hello mate, glad your feeling better, welcome back!

Quote :

“It’s illegal, so it doesn’t count!”, those who use this one especially might as well, for all intents and purposes, dance up and down, with their thumbs in their ears, and while waggling their fingers sing, ‘Nah, nah, nahnah, nah, I can’t hear you!”. I cannot think of another instance where, in debate upon an issue whether it be military, social or other, such an approach has been widely advocated. For the obvious reason, that it spits in the face of any reasoned discourse and proper exploration of the issues.

Its illegal so it doesnt count... whats the "it" here?

If Im saying "I cant hear you" what is it exactly you are saying?

Can you sum up your position and the main thrust of your "point" for me, because Ive taken it as being "hey stop looking at the fact the invasion was illegal, lets look at the upside"


If Im wrong please correct me as concisely as you can... your a bit verbose (and thats saying something coming from me! ) and I feel like Im losing track of your point sometimes

go on mate, in a nutshell

whats your point?

I promise not to jump up and down with my fingers in my ears

Quote :

More to the point, even had you stated emphatically from the beginning that you had a degree in the field, it is still your choice what tone you assign to my words, and as well, whether or not you are victimized by them, or in some other way suffer some deleterious effect.

So now you play the innocent? come come sir, will you claim that words and tone do not in and of themselves have intent? that is the choice of the speakee and not the speaker to assign meaning?

If a man invites me to "go and fuck my mother" it is my choice whether the intnet behind it is malicious or not- certainly it is my choice in HOW I respond, but the intent comes from he who makes the statement does it not?

Quote :

it is still your choice what tone you assign to my words,

I find this assertion pedantic abstruse, doctrinaire, pedagogic, punctilious, priggish, sententious and scholastic!

in case you didnt get it my responses' tone is sprightly, facetious, capering, sportive, jocular, waggish, irreverent and indecourous!!

Quote :

You have – One, whose objective to establish democracy you hold in little worth, and as such write off as illegal and imperialistic.

Incorrecto mi amigo! It IS illegal and imperialistic and therefore the asserted objective "to establish democracy" is simply laughable... "ha ha" I say... and once more for good measure....

"ha"

Quote :

"Where are the WMD?”, “Imperialistic” and “Illegal”. Why dishonest? Because these slogans are used only to invalidate the worth of democracy.

Say what now? If I dare ask "where are the WMD" use the words "imperialistic" and "illegal" then THEREFORE I "hate democracy" and I seek only to "derail intelligent debate"?

Thats a convenient assertion seeing as thats my point of view innit guv?

Ok... well then I'll set up some arbitrary rules too

If you believe Iraq and Afghanistan were really invaded to stop an "immediate terrorist threat" then you're... um... " a right wing, gun toting, fascist" and ... um... " A CIA shill" ! yeah! chew on that !

With respect, No I will not let you assert silly rules like that on me or on people who also dare "ask that questions" or "use those naughty words" that people like you who want us to "look on the bright side" dont like to hear.

Quote :

Why dishonest? Because these slogans are used only to invalidate the worth of democracy. That is it. Now if you feel that way, at least have the stones to come out into the open and say so. Don’t hide behind conspiracy theories, failures to act in the past as an invalidator of present actions, poor/wrong intelligence, perceived poor planning/strategy, or, the biggest cherry of them all

So um...er.... let me get this straight...your saying that those who use those "slogans" (good insertion of derrivateive term, implies thoughtlessness, repetition and has a sales overtone, well done!) "hate democracy"... ok... ... and that "people like me" should have the "stones" to come out and just say we "hate democracy" ... and I should stop "hiding behind conspiracy theories" and just "come out in the open and say so"

Dude... do you seriously believe that I and people who "use those naughty words" what you dont like , that we "hate democracy"?

Do you really think thats what motivates me? Im sat here going "yeah fucking democracy, I fucking HATE it when things are all fair and shit, government by the people for the people, fuck that... "

who do you think that I think should be in charge if not the "demos"?

do you think me an advocate of "aristos" perhaps?

What do you think my motivation is?

I dont hate democracy, I hate people using the word to cover their own fetid agendas, I said that on my last post... am I repeating myself?

Im all for keeping the ball in play, but like, once we've made a point, even if I dont agree with your point, or you dont agree with mine we shouldnt force each other to keep making it

just isnt progressive

where Ive asked you to reiterate your point, its becase, beyond attacking my point of view Im not really sure what you beleive mate

Quote :

This basic dishonesty is the hallmark of the left whenever the respective values of democracy are raised. For the very reason that they do not see it as having any value to speak of at all.

You've lost me now brother, that is just a silly statement to make.

Do they hate the baby jesus and worship satan too?

Come on.

Quote :

Imposition of values by force is just fine with the left, so long as it is not the value of democracy. When its that one, the attack mobs form.

Huh? Youve lost me and anyway not considering myself "of the left" I dont even have a dog in that race.

Quote :

As to my use of the word ‘costs’ in relation to democracy. I meant that word. And not the one you offered in its place ‘benefits’. I can understand your confusion though. I believe you are locked in the leftist prism of seeing the world as made up of oppressed and oppressors.

Oh right, that'll be it then

Quote :

You see, I can champion democracy/capitalism as the only system which, for all its faults (faults which are universal to man), respects the right of every human being to live in freedom from persecution, free to pursue their own lives, and not have some moral overlord see it as their obligation to reeducate them and control them, while too, acknowledging that the cost of such a system is, and indeed has been historically, bloody.

So America and UK are a democratic capitalist countries which respect the right of every human being to live in freedom from persecution? With no moral overlord seeking to reeducate and control them?

HAHAHAHAHA!

Im sorry I think we are hitting the edges now mate. I mean no disrespect to you personally but that assertion is just woefully woefully naive, seriously- where do you live where you can even assert that with a straight face???!!!

Quote :

Something, which can be recognized as an indubitable good by virtually all, and yet, something which is undertaken by comparatively few. Does this mean that those who do not undertake it because they view the cost as too great, are unable, or should be prevented, from acknowledging the moral good of the act? Of course not. In the same way, I can champion democracy/capitalism while calling for debate upon its costs. I am able do this, because I do not need to be a ‘better person’. I’ll settle just for striving for the best idea.

Ive found something you wrote that I understood first time I read it and agreed with

Quote :

Your position though, that Iraq was better before you say (a truly incredible one

Now sir, that is really very naughty of you to put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that. I cannot talk about things that I dont know so I will not.

Quote :

That it's all vast conspiracies and injustice and illegal and imperialistic. That it all doesn’t count, that it’s all invalid. Is a position that in my view, serves to allow no room at all for the possibility of appreciable suffering and death as a result of that which you advocate.

Eh? seriously, what are you on about? That the war is ILLEGAL is a position which in your view ...serves to allow no room... for the possibility.... that... sentence ... makes.... no ...

hey! are you using long words and complex sentence structure for the sake of it?

CHEAT!

Quote :

My expectations here, were simply to state cogently my own position and too, show the woeful barrenness of the one argued by most liberal commentators.

DO you REALLY think you have "simply" states "cogently" your position?


???

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, nor am I a thickie- I struggle to read your posts and to work out what your point is, some of it looks like rambling self indulgent self contradictory ranting to be honest.





Please RE state your case concisely - if you could bullet point them that would be wicked. Im sure this thread isnt turning into a load of wordy "wriggling" now is it?

Put your cards on the table, what exactly is your position?






with respect



King Richie the aristrocrat reformist lover of elitism

Quote :

I cannot think of another instance where, in debate upon an issue whether it be military, social or other, such an approach has been widely advocated. For the obvious reason, that it spits in the face of any reasoned discourse and proper exploration of the issues.

I think the end of the paragraph which you did not include in your quote sums up why I view "WMD?!", "Imperialistic!" and "Illegal!" as dodges. As I have said, again and again and again, their only purpose is to shut down debate with regards to both the costs and benefits of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion. As I give in the quote above, I honestly do not know of another instance where it would be acceptable behavior to cut short debate/evaluation about such a massively complex issue with such slogans. You use these slogans for this purpose. Your own words have been that it paints all that follows as a secondary issue. Now that 'all' that follows, is a pretty freaking big 'all'! To take that 'all' off the table? I believe that 'all' should dominate the table.

As far as responsibility for interpretation of intent, your example was not of the written word. It was your interpretation that I was being condescending to you with the 'dipped your toe' remark. I was being nothing of the sort. On my part, it was my interpretation that you were adopting the mantel of victim to elevate yourself morally above me. After all, the victim is always right, always entitled to sympathy. But then again, maybe I am wrong about you too. Whatever the case, comparing the written 'dip your toe' to the unspecified delivery of 'go fuck your mother!' is a comparison of wet toes and motherfuckers. In other words, a comparison that cannot be made.

Richard, you have sought, unsuccessfully, to state that my argument has been that the installation of democracy was the prime objective. I in turn asked of you if it was ever the policy to invade, smash the place up, and bugger off home? Obviously, it was not. So it will stand, that I what I have asserted from the beginning (without your attempt to 'spin' as regards to primary motivations) is correct. That being, that both Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded to secure against a terrorist threat, and from there the goal of establishing democracy in the region has been pursued.
Your answer to my question: You say the war is illegal? So what, you think upon discovering that there were no WMD the military should have returned with its tail between its legs so it could be nicely excoriated by yourself and those who think like you? If that is the case, you allow a fundamentalist nuclear Iranian regime to step in and seize control of the region. Is the West made safer as a result of this?

Quote :

Nope, we shouldnt have gone in the first place. Simples.

Is no answer at all. For the fact is we have gone. We are there. So doesn't it behoove us to intelligently debate all that it is involved in that? I think it does. You, apparently do not.

Quote :

That would be the people in charge, not people like yourself who are guilty of nothing more than believing in and trusting their governments.

As someone who has fallen again and again in testing on the libertarian end of the political spectrum. I must say that this surprised me quite a bit. But perhaps it shouldn't. After all, according to you I am also fixed upon identifying barbarity in the Muslim culture and set on portraying the invasion in Iraq as being primarily about installing democracy. Should I insert an eye roll here too?
I have said it repeatedly, but apparently it is required one more time. I. Do. Not. Support. The. Invasion.
Incredible as it may be to you, one does not need to buy into conspiracy theories. Can believe that all that is involved in the Iraq invasion should be open to intelligent discussion, and that it should not just end with, 'we should not have gone, simples'. And can value the installation of the democracy within Iraq, Kurdistan and Afghanistan while still at the end of the day being against the war.

Now it is no good trying to paint a narrative whereby I have cast you unwarranted as a hater of democracy. Yes, I have said you appear to hold it in little value, but I ask you, where have you given otherwise?

Here?:

Quote :

5) Both Iraqis and Kurds have embraced the democracy they have been presented with. Were they wrong to do so?


Have they indeed?

Or perhaps here?:

Quote :

Quote:
Again and again you have refused to come out and simply acknowledge that Iraq and Kurdistan are better now than under the dictatorship of Saddam


I can not and so I will not.

Or perhaps it was when you tried to sum up my position as, (paraphrasing) The war is illegal, but it gave women the vote!
Clearly, all such statements give a deep appreciation of democracy and my criticism is wholly unfounded. Time for another eye roll insert?

You claim to not understand my position Richard? I can honestly say that I do not understand yours. I honestly do not know if, at the end of the day, you accept that your position is one that can result in a hell of a lot of suffering and death too (as I sit here I cannot recall even one instance where you have come out against the atrocities that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan before the West showed up). I honestly do not know if, you see yourself as a man who has a better idea, or, as someone who is as a better person.

you're now blatantly prevaricating

from your last post

Quote :

Richard, you have sought, unsuccessfully, to state that my argument has been that the installation of democracy was the prime objective. I in turn asked of you if it was ever the policy to invade, smash the place up, and bugger off home? Obviously, it was not. So it will stand, that I what I have asserted from the beginning (without your attempt to 'spin' as regards to primary motivations) is correct. That being, that both Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded to secure against a terrorist threat, and from there the goal of establishing democracy in the region has been pursued.

but from your first post

Quote :

In the same way it's all (cue dramatic music), the invasion of Iraq that prompted any acrimony on the part of Muslims! After all, Iraq was a paradise, where people danced around with rose petals shooting out of their butts before the arrival of the evil white man, just ask the Kurds. What could such people possibly want with democracy? I mean honestly, the gall of giving all women in that country the vote for the first time ever! Absolutely disgusting I say.

and then your second post

Quote :

As to the Iraq thing. I disagree with you, just as I do the initial poster. For the reason that both of you seem to take the cowards way out (Here I may be entirely wrong, and indeed hope that I am) of either making the war either a wholly good, or wholly bad thing. The reality is, with such an issue, any position you adopt makes you a bastard. Perhaps more of a bastard, perhaps less. Such is the way with many adult decisions. Don't think one country has the right to impose it's values upon another?

so is it my fault that I got the impression that you were asserting that the primary objective was the imposition of democracy?

Quote :

So it will stand, that I what I have asserted from the beginning (without your attempt to 'spin' as regards to primary motivations) is correct. That being, that both Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded to secure against a terrorist threat,

You didnt assert that from the beginning at all, see YOUR two posts above.


Im struggling to take this thread seriously at this point.

Sorry.



Please, in one simple sentence, what was your initial point and what is your position?

Quote :

your position in one simple sentence in plain english please?


thankyou

My words already, in language so very, very plain.

Quote :

I have said it repeatedly, but apparently it is required one more time. I. Do. Not. Support. The. Invasion.
Incredible as it may be to you, one does not need to buy into conspiracy theories. Can believe that all that is involved in the Iraq invasion should be open to intelligent discussion, and that it should not just end with, 'we should not have gone, simples'. And can value the installation of the democracy within Iraq, Kurdistan and Afghanistan while still at the end of the day being against the war.

An even plainer question still,

Quote :

I honestly do not know if, at the end of the day, you accept that your position is one that can result in a hell of a lot of suffering and death too (as I sit here I cannot recall even one instance where you have come out against the atrocities that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan before the West showed up). I honestly do not know if, you see yourself as a man who has a better idea, or, as someone who is as a better person.

Only one question left, how many emoticons and of what type should I now put up?

the emoticons are there to set a tone of warm intent

Richard,

I don't see us progressing any further. Although, I must admit, I would have liked it had you answered my final question to you. I suppose if I'm honest, because I did not want to take your repeated non answer of it, as an answer in an of itself.
At any rate, I am sure we both have better avenues down which we can direct our energies. So for myself, it is time to do just that. One advantage in these things, as the guy with the size 15's who weighs 270, I can be assured of always being the bigger man FYI that emoticon was given with sincere, warm emotion.
Finally, I pay compliment to your integrity in not banning me and locking/wiping the thread.
Time to exit stage left.

ok here is an answer for you mate


WARNING GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF TORTURE






Im goin to rephrase the question just to give context though:




take out all consideration of the run up to the war, its legality or otherwise, a secondary agenda and all that- just remove it for the sake of argument and look at a country that has a regime that imprisons, tortures and abuses its people in the most horrendous, savage, sadistic and barbarous ways




I'll stick with Iraq for now for clarity

(if you want to know more about the atrocities committed by the taliban in afghanistan http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=taliban+atrocities+afghanistan&meta=&aq=f&oq=)

http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn massacre of 5000 kurds "Since 1974 over 400,000 had died in Baghdad’s war against the Kurds. Almost half had disappeared without trace. About 10 % of the total Kurdish population of Iraq had perished."


http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html Saddams torture videos- warning graphic!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080325170637.3e2d83du&show_article=1#

Quote :

"The naked prisoner was bound to the table with a steel bar strapped to his shoulder" to ensure maximum immobility as his torturers electrocuted him or used the iron to inflict burns, Badawi said.

Electric shocks were delivered via electrodes attached to a plastic syringe, the needle of which "was inserted into the urethra of the victim's sexual organ," Badawi added. "The pain was atrocious."

and lets not forget, the regimes use of torture ON CHILDREN

[quote]

Quote :

Saddam has made Iraq into a self-policing totalitarian state, where everyone is afraid of everybody else.
"Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else's migraine," says veteran BBC correspondent John Sweeney. "The fear is so omnipresent, you could almost eat it."
To Stalin's methods of arbitrary arrests and forced confessions, Saddam has added an element of sadism: the torture of children to extract information from their parents.

In northern Iraq -- the only place in the country where people can speak relatively freely -- Mr. Sweeney interviewed several people who had direct experience of child torture. He also met one of the victims -- a four-year-old girl, the daughter of a man who had worked for Saddam's psychopathic son Uday. When the man fell under suspicion, he fled to the Kurdish safe haven in the north. The police came for his wife and tortured her to reveal his whereabouts; when she didn't break, they took his daughter and crushed her feet. She was 2 then. Today, she wears metal braces on her legs, and can only hobble.

"This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents," writes Mr. Pollack in his new book, The Threatening Storm. "This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid. . . .
"This is a regime that practises systematic rape against the female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him." And if he has fled the country, it will send him the video.

if you do nothing and you are of a mind to "not get involved in another countries problems" then that position could be considered to "result in a hell of a lot of death and suffering too" as you say


what do I think it is "right" to do?

where inaction brings suffering and death and action brings suffering and death?

then there is no "right", only a choice between the lesser of two evils.



So you ask: do I consider myself "A better man or a man with a better idea?"



I wish.

Richie, for someone who claims he only got interested in politics recently, you sure a fast learner!!

As for afghanistan, heres my two cents.it is imperitive to stop the return of the taliban so as to preclude that country from becoming a base for alqeida to wage its world war on the west.The war in afghanistan is vital to the peace and security of the world.

Quote :

Richie, for someone who claims he only got interested in politics recently, you sure a fast learner!!

ah yeah, I hated it for years, then my sister married an american boy who is a politics graduate, he got me into american politics a couple of years ago through discussing with me the psychology of it, once I got a grip of it as a psychological subject I got a taste for it, but my knowledge and understanding is admittedly very superficial.

I wouldnt say superficial at all, you make more coherent arguments than most people I hear talk about the subject.You can always flesh out your knowledge with reading history.Regards

Danite wrote:

You can always flesh out your knowledge with reading history.Regards

To paraphrase, there is a quote that says something to the effect of "the further back in history you can see, the further into the future you can see." Recurring patterns of human behavior and all these things...

... nicely to Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme".

history, there is another subject Ive only recently gotten a proper taste for

that is down to British national treasure Stephen Fry and his excellent tv show Q.I. ... (a round of which this forum section is named after, I made this section so that forum people could educate me, its MY general ignorance - bit of free education from people with diverse backgrounds and interests, perk of the job like)

and reading them historical novels what are not accurate but what stimulate the imaginasium

Danite, I really wanted to get into it with you about judaism being polytheistic in origin, but I worry about pissing people off because

relgion and politics are those two precious subjects that seem to make people drop reason faster than you can say "but thats not what I said..."

here is another Mark Twain quote

Quote :

“In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other”

Richie please feel free, I have been a history freak for years and have discussed all kinds of things.In fact the history of Judaism and ancient near eastern religions is a particular favorite of mine,my views on these subjects are that of a historian, I will not get offended at all.As I am very busy these days I might be a bit tardy in responding but I will have more time next week.Judaism as we know it today is thr result of a very long and complex process that involved many aspects and elements.In modern Judaism we can see elements drawn from as far back as the Bronze age.I would be happy to discuss it with you, as well it seems people here are quite level headed and thoughful in general,lets give it a try if you wish.Regards

Sweeeet


new thread created

Studying history is important in my opinion as it allows one to follow the development of many ideas and situations we have today over time. This makes it much harder for certain types to sell us all kinds of tendentious constructs as they are banking on our lack of general knowledge to allow them to "get away with it" It is unfortunate that history is often taught as something that happened in past and is gone, rather it should be taught from the present day back showing the many roots of
what we have today, making the connections all the way back to the ancients.We would be suprised at how much from the ancients still influences us today.After the fall of Rome the germanic barbarians had to re learn civilisation again slowly but surely over the centuries, this lead them back to the Greeks, the Romans and Judeo Christian notions of religion, social obligations and morality, these are the three pillars of western civilisation.Happy reading!!!!

tendentious = Marked by a strong implicit point of view

new word learned, double points!

Completely agree. Cant know where your going, unless you know where you've been.

I didn't see this thread before, but just noticed it now and that "why Afghanistan?" was mentioned... well, here's why...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline