The Demonization of the Opposition

POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 17 of 20

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE

DRAKON

Friday, July 23, 2004 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Didn't you say freeing the Iraqis from terrible dictatorship was another reason?

There are many reasons for removing Saddam. But in the end, ultimately it comes down, to, well like any actions you take, it comes down to two purposes. Life and Happiness. Your life, and your happiness primarily.

I can't feel your pain. I can empathize, I can simpathize, I can recall similar incidents in my own experience that resulted in similar pains, and I can even use my imagination to think how I would feel in your circumstances. But none of these would match, (or really even come close) to feeling what you feel.

Or to put it another way, You are stuck inside your skull alone. Yes you can mingle with other souls in a physical universe and such, but you can't read their minds, and cannot feel what they are feeling. Or know everything they know, or think what they are thinking. Each individual is unique with its own life experiences, memories, thought processes, etc. And this tends to make folks kind of selfish.

So we do thing that we think will improve our lives and our happiness. Each of us individually.

So on the one hand, we remove a terrible dictator from power, shut down his plastics shredders and rape rooms. We liberate the Iraqi people. This is good for the Iraqis, but it also serves our interests as well. Democracies are more peaceful, for a number of reasons. First off, it allows the populace to become participants in the political life of their nation, instead of chattle or bystanders. And that prevents the disaffected from becoming too violent, as they have a means of making changes where it matters, rather than attacking an external scape goat.

There are a number of reasons for removing Saddam, WMDs, his links with terrorists, his past history of invading other countries, a debt of honor we owed the Iraqis who rose up after the first Gulf war and were slaughtered, removing Saddam so we no longer have to contain him, and thereby free those troops up for other operations later on, all the way to "swamp draining" and "fly paper". The first attacks the 'root cause' of terrorism, dictatoral autocrats ineffectively ruling their populations. The second provide a battleground for terrorists, one of our choosing, and one not on US soil. By invading Iraq, even though we gave bin ladan something he demanded (troops out of Saudi Arabia) we did it in a fashion that must oppose and fight. Instead of spending those resources on attacks against Americans here at home.

So by helping the Iraqi people, we help ourselves. This is one of the most counter intuitive things I have discovered in life, that sometimes being selfish helps more people and makes their lives better in addition to your own.

Quote:
Also, I don't/didn't think that the war was a good idea because I don't think we'll be any safer from terrorists or WMDs. If we spend all of money on this, than we can't spend it on more productive counterterror solutions and WMD containment projects. And now that everyone hates us more, they'll be less sympathetic to our struggle and more inclined to kill us. The 900 US soldiers killed, other soldiers killed, and all the Iraqi soldiers, civilians, and insurgents killed certainly won't be safer. So while Bush's intentions may have been good, I really think this whole war was counterproductive and misguided. If I had believed good would come of this war, than I might have supported it, but I thought it was a bad idea, and sadly I appear to be right.

Well I disagree, but like that is a surprise?

If you have an alternative, I would love to hear about it. I don't think border control, or becoming the kind of police state that would be necessary to prevent another 9-11 would be workable, even if there was the political will to do it. Letting the terrorist attack us time and again, and "getting used to it" is not an option either. You have to destroy it at its source.

There is a disagreement about what is the "root causes" of terrorism are. Why does

DRAKON

Friday, July 23, 2004 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Are you referring to the West Wall? Because I thought that used to be part of the Jerusalem temple, not a defense structure in any way. And they've also got Jesus's birthplace and the Dome of the Rock, which are also big tourist draws.

I am referring to the recent World Court ruling that Israel's security barrier is illegal. And noting the irony that one of the judges, who argued that such a wall is not justified as a means of self defense, has as a major tourist attraction in his home nation, exactly that kind of wall, built for exactly that purpose.

The Great Wall of China was built to keep the Mongol from terrorizing the rest of China. Israel is trying the same approach, and yet that is wrong.

Quote:
Basically you're saying that those who give up their human rights don't deserve them, right?

Its called the principle or reciprocity.

Look, you and I want to live on the same planet. You are very interested in this abstract idea called "your rights" You don't want to be killed, robbed, whatever. Whether I want to do those things or not, you need to find some means of getting me to agree to respect your rights.

So you offer me a carrot. You don't kill me, I won't kill you. But if you try, I will try right back and I just might be a better shot than you are. As long as neither of us tries to kill the other, everything is cool.

What the framers of the Geneva convention recognized is that their rules for warfare were unenforcable by themselves. I am sure that several different mechanisms were thought up, and rejected as unworkable. You ain't going to find policemen on the battlefield, arresting violators.

So what they built into it is this principle of reciprocity. You play by these rules of warfare, and your opponent will do the same. The war may still be bloody and all that, but your injured and those taken prisoner won't be summarily executed, or tortured or whatnot.

IF YOU REFUSE to play by those rules, then the opposition is no longer bound to them either. You kill their prisoners, they'll kill yours. That is the only means the Geneva convention has for enforcement. So as a LEGAL issue, the Geneva convention is moot. They are unlawful combatants, who do not abide by the Convention in the first place. And therefore we are not subject to those restrictions.

At one point it talks about sites of cultural importance, like mosques. Such sites are to be protected as much as humanly possible in wartime. However, if you set up a command post or a firing position in such a site, it loses its protected status and the opposition can attack and destroy it, without it being a war crime. Essentially the first side to break the agreement commits the war crime. The other side does not, even if it would be a war crime otherwise.

That is the legal issue. It has nothing to do with rights, morality or anything else. And that is what I was addressing in this area.

Quote:
If you lose because of your beliefs, so be it, go down shooting.

I would submit that losing because of your beliefs, proves your beliefs wrong. And I don't care so much about beliefs as I do about living, and winning.

It goes back to the whole purpose of having beliefs in the first place. I submit that it is to further our own lives and our own happiness. We believe in order to live, rather than the reverse. And if another set of beliefs is out to destroy you, and yours, what better serves your beliefs? Fighting for them, or letting those who would destroy them, win.

I do think that too much is made of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. It was a bad thing, not only morally, (which appears your concern) but also tactically and strategically (which is my primary focus). Its bad for morale, and makes it harder for others to trust us. It weakens support at home. But again, the military stated back in January that they got wind of the incidents, were investigating it, the unit that was there was replaced, and those responsible are facing court marshall as we speak

SIGNYM

Friday, July 23, 2004 1:57 PM

You know I hate to be an *ss... but I'm going to be one anyway.

Drakon, I tested you and you failed. I never implied that you were "paranoid". Rather than admit you were WRONG WRONG WRONG you went off in a huff.

Now, I could do this a couple dozen times over with various parts of your posts but you would NEVER admit that you're wrong. You'd do what you've been doing ever since you started posting- shift topics, accuse others, bring incorrect "facts" to the table, CHANGE DEFINTIIONS, and when all else fails, you'll go off in a huff.

The two possibilities that I mentioned was that you are either lying or incompetent to judge reality.

Over and out.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 23, 2004 4:27 PM

Soupcatcher- maybe I didn't catch it the first time, but why are you so interested in demonization?

Quote:
But I’ve seen more and more rhetoric demonizing those who are from a different party. I get the feeling that people think it would be the end of the world if the other political party gained power. Those who support the other party are traitors. They should all be shot or, at the very least, forced to leave the country. I’ve seen these statements made with higher frequency over the past few years.

I believe that this is happening because people feel that more is at stake. 9-11 really shook people up. And Cheney globalized the issue, literally, to the point where some people believe that the issue is "ultimate survival".

On the flip side, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld quickly instituted some pretty heavy-duty changes to rights vis a vis dentention and privacy. The Patriot Act was already waiting in the wings for an incident like 9-11, leaving the oppostion to believe that much of this was pre-planned. They may not be as afraid for their personal safety as they are afraid of the USA changing from a democracy to something else.

Both of these are significant concerns that play on people's deepest fears and will naturally cause polarization.

However one categorizes the response (polarization, demonization, prejudice, dehumanization) amybe the quesiton should be- what cna we do about it, if anything?

LTNOWIS

Friday, July 23, 2004 5:59 PM

Quote:
I am referring to the recent World Court ruling that Israel's security barrier is illegal. And noting the irony that one of the judges, who argued that such a wall is not justified as a means of self defense, has as a major tourist attraction in his home nation, exactly that kind of wall, built for exactly that purpose.

My bad. I misunderstood you. I guess I shouldn't go online after midnight.

Quote:

Quote:
If you lose because of your beliefs, so be it, go down shooting.

I would submit that losing because of your beliefs, proves your beliefs wrong. And I don't care so much about beliefs as I do about living, and winning.

It goes back to the whole purpose of having beliefs in the first place. I submit that it is to further our own lives and our own happiness. We believe in order to live, rather than the reverse. And if another set of beliefs is out to destroy you, and yours, what better serves your beliefs? Fighting for them, or letting those who would destroy them, win.

I disagree. We don't believe in things to further our own lives, we believe in them because from our perspective, they appear to be true. If you have a faction claiming the sky is red defeating a "sky is blue" faction just because they have nukes, than the sky won't magically be red. The nazis would have still been wrong if they had won. The Independents didn't have as much in the way of equipment and support, and lost, but that doesn't mean Mal's wrong in his beliefs. The good guys don't always win in the real world. Might doesn't make right. Likewise, look at Christianity. You don't convert to improve your life. You convert because you want to serve the true god, or die trying. All those Christian martyrs certainly didn't have their beliefs help out their lives any.

LTNOWIS

Friday, July 23, 2004 6:04 PM

Quote:
IF YOU REFUSE to play by those rules, then the opposition is no longer bound to them either. You kill their prisoners, they'll kill yours. That is the only means the Geneva convention has for enforcement. So as a LEGAL issue, the Geneva convention is moot. They are unlawful combatants, who do not abide by the Convention in the first place.

Ok, I agree that the Guantanamo guys and the insurgents technically can be abused as much as we like. But don't you have to draw the line somewhere morally? Just because their atrocities work, does that mean that we should commit them. If beheading some bad Iraqi would safen Americans and help us win, would you be in favor? Where do you say "Dang, they're really fighting dirty. Hopefully we can still win despite that." If Saddam had used chemical weapons on us, would you have wanted us to do the same? Two wrongs don't make a right.

LTNOWIS

Friday, July 23, 2004 6:18 PM

Quote:
Another poster compared this to My Lai, and failed to recognize the progress in the last 40 years. Instead of ~300 innocent Veitnamese civilians murdered, we had a few dozen HVT, i.e. terrorists, Ba'athists, people killing our guys, being scared and embarrassed, but left alive.

Ok, My Lai was definitely worse. But many, if not most of the abused weren't bad guys at all, just common criminals with no useful knowledge. Also, there was a lot of sexual and physical abuse. If I had a leg wound, I certainly wouldn't want someone beating on it with a baseball bat. I'm pretty sure I also read that all of the photographed abuse was done for fun, not for any interrogation purposes. It's the psychological truth that many people become sadists if you give them complete control over the well-being of others. Just look at the fox corporation.

RUE

Friday, July 23, 2004 10:51 PM

Just to clear up mis-statements about the Geneva Conventions: (there are four, and there are two additional protocols)

any signatory to the Conventions is bound to follow them whether or not the other side does

as long as there is military action, the Conventions must followed, whether the war is declared or undeclared, or if the signatory is an occupier

spies or saboteurs who are caught in the act (or under some equally strong suspicion) may be held incommunicado, but must be given their other Convention rights (humane treatment, fair trial)

the Conventions forbid not only torture but degrading or morally objectionable treatment, as well as human experimentation

RUE

Friday, July 23, 2004 11:08 PM

SignyM,

Had your fill of Drakon, eh? I personally will point out his factual errors as time permits (I hate to see them stand without note) but will no longer debate. I suspect that by now most people who've kept up don't give him much credit.

RUE

Friday, July 23, 2004 11:11 PM

SignyM, Soupcatcher,

I must enjoy a certain level of pain, I'm looking forward to more postings.

Last round I was ready to say ... steam .. venting .... gears ...... grinding .......... must ............ stop ................ thinking ..

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE