American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 10 of 12

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 8:23 PM

HKCavalier, SIGNYM, and Rue... you're my heros. Maybe even Hero is too.

It's so HIlarious listening to Yanks go on about how democratic they will make the world, and have, when they can't seem to remember Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, Honduaras, Iran/Contra, etc. The list of American despotism is long and well known. The USA never brought democracy to anyone anywhere, including (if you get right down to it) the USA! No, not Japan either... jeez, read a history book. A new one!

Notice how the arguement is following the FOX/White Houses new excuses for the invasion of Iraq? "Oh, we are bringing democracy to them"... bullshit. Just utter shit.

If someone is a warmonger I say call them on it and don't bother playing with them. Liars love to talk... it's like argueing that there isn't such a thing as a Bible Code with creeps like Billy Graham. They just don't get it.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 1:54 AM

Mmm hmmm.

Yes, well I noticed how Finn has not come up with the "real" history of Bolivia (or any place else for that matter) so that we can exchange something other than unsupported opinions.

And Finn has YET to answer my basic...puzzlement, I guess... about his (her?) view of what the heck we're doing, and why. I've tried, I really have, to figure out the driving force behind the discussion, but it's beyond me!

RUE

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 6:37 AM

SignyM,

I bet myself $100 I have the answer. I'm waiting to see if I'm right.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:57 AM

OOOOOOH! Tell me!! Tell me!!! Tell me!!!!

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
It's so HIlarious listening to Yanks go on about how democratic they will make the world, and have, when they can't seem to remember Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, Honduaras, Iran/Contra, etc. The list of American despotism is long and well known. The USA never brought democracy to anyone anywhere, including (if you get right down to it) the USA! No, not Japan either... jeez, read a history book. A new one!

Notice how the arguement is following the FOX/White Houses new excuses for the invasion of Iraq? "Oh, we are bringing democracy to them"... bullshit. Just utter shit.

Good morning Ghoulman. Hadda take a break from this thread after that crack Finn made when I spoke of the real social change brought about by men like Dr. King and Ghandi without firing a shot. He made that really ugly joke about how ineffectual "a nice 'I have a dream' speech" would have been against Hitler. Well, that left me speechless for a week until your comments above reminded me of the larger picture.

More and more I see how my country's sense of self is fueled by illusion, by bragartry, by denial. Finn thinks we defeated Hitler with bombs and bullets. First of all, we Americans had precious little to do with defeating Hitler. Europe and the U.S.S.R. defeated Hitler's armies, not the Americans. And yet, every American schoolboy and girl thinks we stormed the beach at Normandy and saved the world from the Nazis.

Likewise, the fall of communism, another Russo-European phenomenon for which we take credit.

Now we're "bringing democracy" to Iraq. I think you're right, Ghoulman--how are we supposed to do that when we don't even respect what little democracy actually happens in this country? Democracy in America has always functioned in the shadow of the plutocrats. Nothing gets done in this country except by their leave. When a suitably rich man doesn't like our democratic process, he and his cronies have always gotten around it somehow. I do think there's a real democratic spirit in this land (thank you, Iroquois Confederacy!) and even these rich bastards that pull the strings have a sentimental attachment to the idea, but here on the ground, there ain't a lot of democracy happening.

Again I will say that the reason Signy doesn't understand Finn's position is that Finn is representing this force of illusion, bragartry and denial. He says what he says because he feels compelled to, not because it has any internal logic. Finn is a nationalist, he may say that he doesn't agree with this or that policy, but at base he's defending the honor of his country. His allegiance is not to Truth or Justice or Humanity or even simple logic, but to America, right or wrong.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

KOHAN

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:51 AM

after about an 2 hours or so of reading this thread and following sources... I was wondering what each of you think about this little scenerio

Lets say that a group of small children are playing around an old railway terminal. Two rails leads in and out of this terminal, each leads into a different tunnel; one's still in use and the other one isn't. One child decides that he'll venture into the tunnel that is out of commission while the other kids went into the active one.

Now, here's the dilemma.

At this moment, you notice that a train is running near headding toward the active tunnel.

You are faced with a choice, either you switch the tracks and have the train run into the inactive tunnel, only losing one child; or you left it as is and leave the majority up for dead.

What will you do? Most people will choose to save the majority and sacrifice the minority. One is only a small price to pay when many are at risk, isn't it?

But on the other hand, why should the kid who decided that it was unintelligent to fool around an active rail be punished for making the right decision? (under the circumstances of course)

Then of course this draws out another question, the inactive tunnel is out of commission for a reason, would you put the lives of the passenger at risk?
-----------------------------------------------

All I'm trying to say here is that things arn't always black and white, there are rights and there are wrongs; and there're even factors and we did not take into account for.

If there's anything I ever learned about politics, is that being hardhead won't get too far...
(that's why Dubbya isn't gettin very far)

"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater."

JCOBB

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:07 AM

Quote:
Allow me to characterize the agument as a conflict between the forces of Compassion and the forces of Tough Noogies. Compassion says that making friends with dictators is simply wrong and must be avoided, while Tough Noogies says, "Yeah, but that's the way it is, so deal!" You see, rhetorically, Tough Noogies has not disagreed with compassion (supporting dictators is wrong) but Tough Noogies believes that Compassion is delusional. A social contract based on compassion is a pretty idea, but it'll never happen and Tough Noogies can show us stalinist russia to prove it.

Not to jump right into the middle of this or anything, but I do believe good ol' Jimmy Carter attempted to implement the Compassion's more ideal frame of reference, (read here if you are unfamiliar with his policy: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/55.htm ) lofty goals, to be sure, and yet they didn't always, (or even often) work in the "real world."

Now, this might be more an issue related to his leadership, and not his ideals, and yet I am continually brought back to the hostages in Iran. When a more pragmatic, "Tough Noogie" was sworn into office the hostages were freed. Of course they would have been freed anyways, that is not in question. It just seems to be the obvious polarity between the two, (Reagan and Carter) and the successes and failures in policy that raises doubt in my mind.

Again, easily could be due to implementation and not due to the policy itself.

I don't care, I'm still free.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:20 AM

Kohan,

What you present as a morally complex problem, seems to me simply to be an impossible situation. A child or children will die no matter what you do. You're screwed. I don't think the lesser of two evils applies when both evils are unthinkable. Furthermore, no one actually presented with your exquisitely improbable situation would be reasoning it out, they'd try to get all the kids off the tracks, do the best they could and blame themselves for whatever went wrong.

So, I don't see a connection between your parable and this discussion other than its putative moral: some things aren't as black and white as we might like.

Well, yeah...

But what about this reality/fiction debate? People are accusing other people of living in a fantasy or believing fictions as if they were facts. When people post their sources, the sources are impuned. The struggle here, seems to be of the highest order, a battle for reality itself. But whose reality is the real reality?

To me personally, this is a very interesting fracture in consensual reality. What happens to consensual reality when half the people don't consent? In the current political scene it looks like the people in power decide what reality is, and what is that, if not fascism?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Now, this might be more an issue related to his leadership, and not his ideals, and yet I am continually brought back to the hostages in Iran. When a more pragmatic, "Tough Noogie" was sworn into office the hostages were freed. Of course they would have been freed anyways, that is not in question. It just seems to be the obvious polarity between the two, (Reagan and Carter) and the successes and failures in policy that raises doubt in my mind.

I'd say the problem lies not with the men but with the system. I believe that our political system is basically a "Tough Noogies" system. Dr. King didn't get anywhere using conventional political channels and I don't think a personally compassionate man in the whitehouse has much of a chance against the entrenched forces of "Tough Noogies" (or what they used to call "Realpolitic").

Perhaps it's true. Perhaps if America didn't do anything illegal, didn't support dictators, didn't endorse death squads, didn't torture and kill the occasional detainee, we'd be overrun by our enemies. I sure as hell doubt it, though.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

JCOBB

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

I'd say the problem lies not with the men but with the system. I believe that our political system is basically a "Tough Noogies" system. Dr. King didn't get anywhere using conventional political channels and I don't think a personally compassionate man in the whitehouse has much of a chance against the entrenched forces of "Tough Noogies" (or what they used to call "Realpolitic").

Perhaps it's true. Perhaps if America didn't do anything illegal, didn't support dictators, didn't endorse death squads, didn't torture and kill the occasional detainee, we'd be overrun by our enemies. I sure as hell doubt it, though.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Perhaps if America did nothing it wouldn't be in hot water, perhaps it would, I don't much care to debate that. For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes the best intentioned actions can result in the worst reactions. Road to hell and all that. Similarily, sometimes the lack of action, can lead to the worst reactions.

I don't think there is always (or ever)the obvious panacea for social problems, and if, perchance, you are aware of it, then please, (in all seriousness, I don't claim to know everything) inform us.

Similarily, hindsight is an exceptionally wonderful thing, often claimed to provide 20/20 vision on history, (though I might find a contention or two with that). Its very easy to be critical of decisions made in the past, (and don't get me wrong, I am not saying that no analysis needs to be made, more that a degree of objectivity might be more ideal) when you have the luxury of hindsight. Often decisions need to be made, and often those involve two evils and picking between the lesser of them, (nevermind that one evil is a rock and the other a hard place). Be that evil inaction, (see the Allies in WW2, see also appeasement) or choosing between two actions with unsatisfactory effects. I suppose you can subscribe to the belief that there is always a "better" way, but, personally, I don't think life is that easy.

But, please, (again, in all seriousness) if you know of a panacea for all our problems, please inform me.

EDITED FOR CLARITY

I don't care, I'm still free.

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE