Myopia in reality
- Thread starter papasmerf
- Start date
On several occasions I've argued against those on this board that seem to think everything the U.S. touches turns to shit. What makes it difficult to intelligently argue the point is poorly stated remarks from certain smurfy posters. Any issues dealing with world politics are multifaceted and depend largely on a person's point of view. When you draw a line in the sand, resort to insults, and refuse to consider the opposition you cease to learn. If we can no longer learn, then we can no longer improve. Think before you type, Papasmerf. I agree with a lot of your views in a fundamental sense. Unfortunately something seems to happen in the delivery, and all credibility you might otherwise gain evaporates.
Just my honest opinion, and I mean no offense...
Just my honest opinion, and I mean no offense...
Papasmurf
I am sure we would "expatiate" on any thought that you might want to offer to provoke further discussion. While you gloat and rail about the liberal left, you demonstrate the same bankruptcy of thought so often associated with practitioners of dogma. Perhaps you can get out of the box, i.e. if you can see over the top of it..LOL..
EBS
I am sure we would "expatiate" on any thought that you might want to offer to provoke further discussion. While you gloat and rail about the liberal left, you demonstrate the same bankruptcy of thought so often associated with practitioners of dogma. Perhaps you can get out of the box, i.e. if you can see over the top of it..LOL..
EBS
Last edited:
Re: Why does the US care?
monkeylove said:Why does the US need sanctions removed? They unilaterally invaded Iraq and they should unilaterally sell Iraqi oil to unilaterally rebuild Iraq! Why do they even need the UN anymore? They made it irrelevant. [/i]{/quote]
Monkey love,
That's a good question, although don't you think it's laced with heavy sarcasm? For years the US had been blamed for the excessive sufferring and death of Iraqis due to those sanctions, which indeed were largely demanded by the US and Great Britian. Likewise the US and Great Britian were the only countries who had any interest in protecting the oppressed populations in Iraq. It seems that the rest of you pious citizens of the world picked up your toys and went home. You could care less that Saddam had been masaquering the Kurds and the Shi'as. Now even in the face that obvious atrocities were committed against the Iraqis by Saddam, and in fact he misappropriated the moneys and goods that were sent to Iraq, you still choose to vent your anger rather than hope for a better future of a country that has been freed from tyranny. Like Cardinal, I'm incredulous that the UN would stand in the way of expediting aid to the Iraqis. The reason why many of us in the US disdain the UN is precisely this kind of petty politics. If you are truly interested in helping the Iraqis, it is time you face reality and put aside your dissappointment at the apparent success of the US, GB, and Austrailia. If the intent is to operate the UN in a way such that you can check US power, I think you and a few others with the same motives are in for a most unpleasant surprise. The UN is severely crippled now. If I were them, I'd be anxious to find a way to help, lest we drop the other shoe.
EBS
The Real Proof...
The real story of Iraq will soon become evident as the US will install it's "caretaker" government of exiled Iraqis in the next while. The head of the so-called Iraqi National Congress, the group most favoured by the US to take over, is in fact a convicted swindler named Challabih who is wanted in Jordan for
for fraud in the collapse of a major bank. The CBC had a story on tonight about the CIA helping the former head of the Iraqi military
escape from prosecution in Denmark for the massacre of the Kurds. Seems like he's a buddy of Challabih. What for this guy to show up in the new government of Iraq. Saddam may be gone, but how many of his former henchmen will find a job in the "new"
Iraq. Stay tuned.
The real story of Iraq will soon become evident as the US will install it's "caretaker" government of exiled Iraqis in the next while. The head of the so-called Iraqi National Congress, the group most favoured by the US to take over, is in fact a convicted swindler named Challabih who is wanted in Jordan for
for fraud in the collapse of a major bank. The CBC had a story on tonight about the CIA helping the former head of the Iraqi military
escape from prosecution in Denmark for the massacre of the Kurds. Seems like he's a buddy of Challabih. What for this guy to show up in the new government of Iraq. Saddam may be gone, but how many of his former henchmen will find a job in the "new"
Iraq. Stay tuned.
Re: CF, I think we are going to find
One of the first things you'll see when a brutally repressed society is liberated from its dictator, is that people now have the time to concentrate on disputes that are simmering under the surface. Ask anybody knowledgeable about the aftermath of Kosovo. Look at any of the situations in Africa, brutally repressed by the French for decades. The French even got us involved in their colonialism in Vietnam. We should have never allowed them to reclaim Nam post WW2, but that was one of those "deals" we made for the sake of alliance. I could easily argue that a brutal dictatorship works best in Iraq, as this type of government is the most efficient at suppressing these types of "tribal" disputes. Neat freaks like you could look the other way as long as the dictator is not on the US list of friends. But if Iraq and for that matter the rest of the Middle East is to join the rest of the civilized world, perhaps they'll learn that such things can be better settled by talking and not shooting. Nobody likes war. I didn't relish the fact that this one had to occur. It has...you and a lot of other people need to get over it.
Better luck next time.
EBS
I'm curious Liminal, why you'd consider the US such a brutal occupier based on a spot incident. On one hand people demand law and order, as if combat troops can do that in the midst of a combat operation. On the other hand, you get the results of civilians doing something dumb, i.e. firing on US Marines. A lot of third world Jihad wannabes came to Iraq for the expressed purpose of killing Americans. I'm sure the news they got back home about how many we "quashed" didn't make them too anxious to try that again. I was hoping that they'd come by the busloads. As you already know, our weapons are very proficient at killing, and even better when people want to shoot at us.Liminal said:that the US is a pretty brutal occupier. That's of course, if past actions count for anything.
17 killed in Mosul two day ago. Another four yesterday. Tribes clashing.
Oh yeah...it's peachy there.
One of the first things you'll see when a brutally repressed society is liberated from its dictator, is that people now have the time to concentrate on disputes that are simmering under the surface. Ask anybody knowledgeable about the aftermath of Kosovo. Look at any of the situations in Africa, brutally repressed by the French for decades. The French even got us involved in their colonialism in Vietnam. We should have never allowed them to reclaim Nam post WW2, but that was one of those "deals" we made for the sake of alliance. I could easily argue that a brutal dictatorship works best in Iraq, as this type of government is the most efficient at suppressing these types of "tribal" disputes. Neat freaks like you could look the other way as long as the dictator is not on the US list of friends. But if Iraq and for that matter the rest of the Middle East is to join the rest of the civilized world, perhaps they'll learn that such things can be better settled by talking and not shooting. Nobody likes war. I didn't relish the fact that this one had to occur. It has...you and a lot of other people need to get over it.
Better luck next time.
EBS
Last edited:
Wollensak,
I'm well aware of this guy Challabi and I share your concern about his propriety for this job. You'll find that there is division in the US administration about this guy as well. The US will not install any government, as far as I understand that things will work. General Gardner is to be the "Viceroy" until such time that they have free elections. It wouldn't be a good thing for Challabi to be installed, but then again, I don't suppose that any government would satisfy many of you as long as you're convinced that the US has had it's hand in the cookie jar. Some things will never change, we can't change them..so sometimes we just have to shoot back and do what is in our best interest..that is what foreign policy is about first and foremost. And if the people in the country happen to benefit, that's a good thing. The one thing we can't afford to do is to turn anything over to anyone until we're reasonably sure the situation is stabilized. And no, I don't believe we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqis, although indeed that is what happens when you act in your own interest to remove a rogue regime.
On another hand, just who do you think would be a good candidate? Name me one candidate who could handle the government that is in place in Iraq and has no connection with the Bathist. If bank swindling in Jordan is the most we can get on this guy, he may be the least objectionable of the possible candidates.
I won't respond to old allegations about the CIA. CBC is government owned. What else could I expect from a socialist government?
EBS
I'm well aware of this guy Challabi and I share your concern about his propriety for this job. You'll find that there is division in the US administration about this guy as well. The US will not install any government, as far as I understand that things will work. General Gardner is to be the "Viceroy" until such time that they have free elections. It wouldn't be a good thing for Challabi to be installed, but then again, I don't suppose that any government would satisfy many of you as long as you're convinced that the US has had it's hand in the cookie jar. Some things will never change, we can't change them..so sometimes we just have to shoot back and do what is in our best interest..that is what foreign policy is about first and foremost. And if the people in the country happen to benefit, that's a good thing. The one thing we can't afford to do is to turn anything over to anyone until we're reasonably sure the situation is stabilized. And no, I don't believe we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqis, although indeed that is what happens when you act in your own interest to remove a rogue regime.
On another hand, just who do you think would be a good candidate? Name me one candidate who could handle the government that is in place in Iraq and has no connection with the Bathist. If bank swindling in Jordan is the most we can get on this guy, he may be the least objectionable of the possible candidates.
I won't respond to old allegations about the CIA. CBC is government owned. What else could I expect from a socialist government?
EBS
Last edited:
monkeylove
your so-called liberals are about three centuries to late. It was the true liberals, the Lockean liberals, (who many today lump with conseratives) who first made the intellectual case for freedom of speech. I'd kindly suggest you read some history. John Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration" had a huge influence on the founding Fathers of the United States, especially Thomas Jefferson. John Locke writes:
"Every man has the commisssion to admonish, exhort, convince another of error, and by reasoning, to draw into truth; but to give laws, receive obedience, and compel with the sword, belongs to none but the magistrate. And upon this ground, I affirm that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any article of faith, or form of worship, by the force of his laws."
Locke persuasively argued that there should be a distinction made between vices and crimes. He continues:
"Idolatry, some say, is a sin, and therefore not to be tolerated. If they said it were therefore to be avioded, the inference were good. But it does not follow, that's because it is a sin it ought therefore to be punished by the magistrate. For it does not belong unto the magistrate to make use of the sword in punishing everything, indifferently, that he takes to be a sin against God. Covetousness, uncharitableness, idleness and many other things are sins, by the consent of all men, which yet no man ever said were to be punished by the magistrate. The reason is, because they are not prejudicial to other men's rights, nor do they break the public peace of societies."
These are just a sample of the numerous quotes from just one of those dreaded "Dead White Males" that fought for freedom of speech. But, Locke's intellectual influence on individual liberty (including the ending of the worldwide institution of slavery) cannot be stressed enough.
Monkeylove,monkeylove said:....According to you the US is infallible and all the world's woes are cause by liberals, leftists and non-neoconservatives, brilliant logic. These same “liberals” fought for equal rights in the US when the conservatives were in favor of segregation!!! Think where we would be today with an unopposed McCarthyism; there is validity in all view points, maybe you should try a little tolerance and acceptance of differing view. Oh I forgot there is no “right” view but your own!...
your so-called liberals are about three centuries to late. It was the true liberals, the Lockean liberals, (who many today lump with conseratives) who first made the intellectual case for freedom of speech. I'd kindly suggest you read some history. John Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration" had a huge influence on the founding Fathers of the United States, especially Thomas Jefferson. John Locke writes:
"Every man has the commisssion to admonish, exhort, convince another of error, and by reasoning, to draw into truth; but to give laws, receive obedience, and compel with the sword, belongs to none but the magistrate. And upon this ground, I affirm that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any article of faith, or form of worship, by the force of his laws."
Locke persuasively argued that there should be a distinction made between vices and crimes. He continues:
"Idolatry, some say, is a sin, and therefore not to be tolerated. If they said it were therefore to be avioded, the inference were good. But it does not follow, that's because it is a sin it ought therefore to be punished by the magistrate. For it does not belong unto the magistrate to make use of the sword in punishing everything, indifferently, that he takes to be a sin against God. Covetousness, uncharitableness, idleness and many other things are sins, by the consent of all men, which yet no man ever said were to be punished by the magistrate. The reason is, because they are not prejudicial to other men's rights, nor do they break the public peace of societies."
These are just a sample of the numerous quotes from just one of those dreaded "Dead White Males" that fought for freedom of speech. But, Locke's intellectual influence on individual liberty (including the ending of the worldwide institution of slavery) cannot be stressed enough.
Hey wired,
While you're at it, why don't you give us a short course on conservatives as well. I'm sure real conservatives wouldn't recognize these neos in control right now either.
EBS
While you're at it, why don't you give us a short course on conservatives as well. I'm sure real conservatives wouldn't recognize these neos in control right now either.
EBS
Gee Wired, quoting someone else at length again?
Can't express the concepts yourself?
If we want to read other peoples works, we can. Your post is more than fifty percent the work of someone else. In addition, there is almost no relevance to what Monkeylove posted. It's like you don't know how to engage in the debate and try to reframe it into a contest of pasted quotes from the only sources you are familiar with.
I cannot understand what idolatry, covetousness, uncharitableness, and idleness have to do with the Monkeylove's post. The connection is so weak as to be meaningless.
Why can't you offer original insights or at least personal opinions that you can defend yourself with reason.
Can't express the concepts yourself?
If we want to read other peoples works, we can. Your post is more than fifty percent the work of someone else. In addition, there is almost no relevance to what Monkeylove posted. It's like you don't know how to engage in the debate and try to reframe it into a contest of pasted quotes from the only sources you are familiar with.
I cannot understand what idolatry, covetousness, uncharitableness, and idleness have to do with the Monkeylove's post. The connection is so weak as to be meaningless.
Why can't you offer original insights or at least personal opinions that you can defend yourself with reason.
Last edited:
On the other hand, you get the results of civilians doing something dumb, i.e. firing
Ahhhh...the logic of the occupier.
Tell me, do all Iraqi's have the inherent right of self-defence or is it something only Americans have?
Do citizens have the right to resist a foreign army? Would you?
Ahhhh...the logic of the occupier.
Tell me, do all Iraqi's have the inherent right of self-defence or is it something only Americans have?
Do citizens have the right to resist a foreign army? Would you?
If the Middle East is to join the rest of the civilized world
When will the US join the rest of the civilized world?
I don't see the way your foreign policy is starting to be implemented as being any different than if Hussein was your president.
When will the US join the rest of the civilized world?
I don't see the way your foreign policy is starting to be implemented as being any different than if Hussein was your president.
As you already know, our weapons are very proficient at killing,
Congratulations! What a cultural achievement.
Who was it who said: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
The war in Iraq was something akin to Mike Tyson beating up an old lady. The kind of swagger you've expressed is what I'd expect from a bully.
Believe me, the world's getting the message and we will adjust accordingly. The world has a long history of taking care of nations that throw their weight around too much.
Congratulations! What a cultural achievement.
Who was it who said: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
The war in Iraq was something akin to Mike Tyson beating up an old lady. The kind of swagger you've expressed is what I'd expect from a bully.
Believe me, the world's getting the message and we will adjust accordingly. The world has a long history of taking care of nations that throw their weight around too much.
Re: Spot incident?
Explain the context of the incident Liminal. If you want to make your point offer it in its context. Not in sound bytes.
Well done Liminal...taken completetly out of context.Liminal said:Two children were murdered at a checkpoint two days earlier.
Four other people murdered at checkpoints the previous day.
And that's just what we are hearing about.
Explain the context of the incident Liminal. If you want to make your point offer it in its context. Not in sound bytes.
Re: Gee Wired, quoting someone else at length again?
How original!
Get that from the Minister of Information Liminal?
Oh yes...the U.S. is so bad, they ruin everythng. It is better to live under Saddam Hussien's regime for 30 years than to be under the military occupation for a transition period. America is the true satan of the world!Liminal said:Why can't you offer original insights or at least personal opinions that you can defend yourself with reason.
How original!
Get that from the Minister of Information Liminal?
Re: On the other hand, you get the results of civilians doing something dumb, i.e. firing
Absolute right of self defense. The Iraqi's have proven this by cooperating with the Americans in indicating where the individuals of the regime are. Don't talk about self defence when your referring to a government that forces its citizens at gunpoint to sheild them from attack!Oh..but in your sence of logic that's ok isn't it because they are just "resisting."
Hey Liminal! Where's your contempt for the Iraqi government? Where's your comtempt for the way they have killed their own citizens? You argue for fairness across the board yet are unwilling to show it yourself!
Ahhh.....the logic of ideology!Liminal said:Ahhhh...the logic of the occupier.
Tell me, do all Iraqi's have the inherent right of self-defence or is it something only Americans have?
Do citizens have the right to resist a foreign army? Would you?
Absolute right of self defense. The Iraqi's have proven this by cooperating with the Americans in indicating where the individuals of the regime are. Don't talk about self defence when your referring to a government that forces its citizens at gunpoint to sheild them from attack!Oh..but in your sence of logic that's ok isn't it because they are just "resisting."
Hey Liminal! Where's your contempt for the Iraqi government? Where's your comtempt for the way they have killed their own citizens? You argue for fairness across the board yet are unwilling to show it yourself!
I've seen no evidence of this. What's your source?
"Don't talk about self defence when your referring to a government that forces its citizens at gunpoint to sheild them from attack!"
Almost every claim made by the Americans and British has so far been revealed as fictional. Until I find out otherwise, I'll give this the same credibility.
Let me recount an incident involving US soldiers in El Salvador that I'm quite familiar with:
A group of US Special Forces soldiers was caught in an attack on a motel by guerrillas. To make their escape, the wonderfully brave Americans grabbed reporters and held them in front of themselves while making their escape.
And currently:
In the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli soldiers routinely use Palestinians as shields when entering houses.
"Don't talk about self defence when your referring to a government that forces its citizens at gunpoint to sheild them from attack!"
Almost every claim made by the Americans and British has so far been revealed as fictional. Until I find out otherwise, I'll give this the same credibility.
Let me recount an incident involving US soldiers in El Salvador that I'm quite familiar with:
A group of US Special Forces soldiers was caught in an attack on a motel by guerrillas. To make their escape, the wonderfully brave Americans grabbed reporters and held them in front of themselves while making their escape.
And currently:
In the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli soldiers routinely use Palestinians as shields when entering houses.
