Iraq: Ten years later by Niki2

CTS said those things. But you just insulted CTS for some viewpoints I hold. So yes, I'm now insulted.

Quote:
By the way, there is, Byte, whether you recognize it or not, a HUGE difference between "blind" and "ignorant" and "stupid". I, for one did not call ANYONE stupid; naive, yes, but please don't put words in my mouth. Or do, if you feel like it, but it's a lie.

That just makes it all better. Being called a liar on top of everything else too.

Quote:
Read a little history about what happens during different administrations to this country, make the effort, I dare you

Thanks for calling me ignorant AGAIN.

As for "show me there is NO difference, it's ALL bad, it's ALL rigged":

In the Bush administration, WHO controlled the house of representatives and and the senate when 9-11 happened, and who controlled the house and senate when we declared war on Iraq? Who were the chief of staffs? Who ran the CIA and FBI when they screwed up so badly for 9-11?

AND, would ANY of those things have changed if Al Gore was in office?

Probably not. We know that the Clintons and the Bushes were friends off the campaign trail, and obviously, they also shared political advisors and friends as well. Al Gore was part of that crowd.

There's also a lot of overlap from the Clintons to the Bushes to Obama with the czars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

Therefore, would we have gone to war with Iraq if Al Gore had been in office instead of Bush?

YES. Because vested interests existed who were pushing for War with Iraq behind the scenes. Al Gore might have paid more attention to to the briefings for the 9-11 terrorists, but the CIA didn't do their jobs and catch the training pilots before it happened. Al Gore might have opposed an Iraq War, but everyone likely to be in his administration, including the Clintons, would have supported it and would have been advising him to go through with it. He would have received the same erroneous briefing about Saddam having yellow cake and sheltering Al Qaeda that Bush did because those briefings were put together by non-appointed personnel.

And when the democrats regained control of congress in 2004, did they manage to stop anything with Bush as president? Have they stopped any of the rights violations that Obama promised to stop since he took office? All they've managed was holding to an already predetermined date for Iraq set by the Bush Administration.

No difference.

You want to argue that one man can't change everything, and that we shouldn't blame Obama, but you and Mal4Prez have said that if only Al Gore had been in office instead of Bush NONE of this would have happened. But that is spectacularly unlikely.

And I'm allowed to be angry with all of them for being such screw-ups. For being part of a system that enables wholesale murder in other countries. I blame them for being at the wheel and not stopping what I consider to be atrocities. Both sides. You say one person can't change anything, I say as a whole they're not even trying because all that dirty money lining their greedy corrupt pockets.

You want to go off at CTS, fine, she asked for it by digging at you like she did. But you don't get to just toss out vitriol and not get blowback when the splash effect hits me. I'm irrelevant as fuck, but I will still fight back if I've been slighted. Your best bet now is to ignore me and hope I get distracted by butterflies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:40 PM

wheeeeeeee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Again I ask: if you were suddenly Obama, in some Freaky Friday mind swap, do you think you'd be able to stop all the wars and corporate abuses on a dime? With no other innocent victims ever just because you said so?

No. But I would try. And then I would resign in protest if I couldn't succeed. I would not be a part of the system at the expense of those innocent lives. No.

And murder is a CLEARER evil than gangrape.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:57 PM

LOL, Byte. I'm sorry you got some of my blowback.

Hey guys, leave Byte alone. I'm the asshole here, not her.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:17 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nobody's anybody's baby here CTTS; we're all responsible for what we respond, you know that.

Quote:
And I'm allowed to be angry with all of them for being such screw-ups. For being part of a system that enables wholesale murder in other countries. I blame them for being at the wheel and not stopping what I consider to be atrocities. Both sides.

Abso-friggin-lootely! And so am I, and that's part of the point. The many--and I do mean MANY--of us here on RWED who are called "lefties" are quite quick to scream and holler--AND PUT UP POSTS DECRYING--drone attacks, staying in Afghanistan, and any number of other things we see wrong with the left/Obama/Democratic Senators/whatever. To condemn us because we voted for who we thought would do less damage, rather than--what, not voting and sitting around bitching about it???--is highly offensive and insulting to me, a citizen of a county which ALLOWS me the privilege of participating in my government!

The argument is purely that simply because we voted for Obama as the lesser of two perceived evils we should be condemned out of hand. That is the only argument. That's a stupid argument in my opinion, and that of others. If one doesn't vote, one isn't in the position to judge anything or anyONE...one can, of course, as you and CTTS happily have, but your opinion will be considered irrelevant; you chose not to participate, that makes you at fault for WHOEVER wins, whatever monster is at the helm, by default.

It is, in my opinion, simplistic to say there is no difference between the parties; it is, in my opinion, naive to say "it's all bad", and I've said so.

Hey, lady, you got nothin' on me. I have no desire to have knock-down, drag-out fights with anyone, but I'll speak my mind, I don't care if you feel it's "fighting back" to hurl invectives at me in return. You said you were insulted; I showed you the insulting things WE had been charged with; those are facts.

Quote:
Being called a liar on top of everything else too.

You stated "Maybe we just kinda disagree, as opposed to either you and Mal4Prez or me and CTS are stupid". I never wrote the word "stupid" once, nor can I find anywhere that Mal4 or anyone else called anyone "stupid". Your statement pretty clearly implied that someone was saying you were stupid. Ergo what you wrote was incorrect.

Quote:
you and Mal4Prez have said that if only Al Gore had been in office instead of Bush NONE of this would have happened

THAT is a flat out lie, you want me not to say something is a lie which obviously is? Show where I wrote any such thing. By saying "lesser of two evils", I'm in NO way saying Gore would have been peachy. I don't think we'd have invaded Iraq; I'm pretty sure we'd have invaded Afghanistan if the warnings of 9/11 hadn't been heeded, and maybe things would have worked out better if we HAD kept our eyes and military there, done what we set out to do and gotten out. Or not, who knows? But if you lie about what I wrote, of course I'll say it's a lie!

I'm pretty sure if McCain had won, we would be more fully involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he has pretty clearly said as much. Whether there were vested interests in going into Iraq or not, you cannot state flatly that we'd have gone in if Gore had been elected. That's not a debate: you are making a point based on assumptions, they prove nothing.

For "proof", you'd have to look back at previous administrations to see what, if any, the differences are. I may take the time to make my argument, but not today. The problem you're up against is that your argument is pure black and white: "There is no difference". Surely you can see that's not a valid point. "There's not much difference" would be easier to defend, but then you've admitted to our very point that it's worth trying to find the lesser of two evils, don't you see?

You made flat statements. I called you on them. Sorry you don't like it. You said you were insulted; I showed how what was said to and about those of us who believe in participating in the voting process was clearly, downright insulting, and sneered at you for thinking you were insulted in comparison. That's my right, just as being pissed off is yours. I LOVE the "warning" that my best bet is to hope you get distracted. Like I'm afraid of you or something? Give me a BREAK, little girl, you've got nothing to threaten me with!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:21 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"And then I would resign in protest if I couldn't succeed" There simply are no words. If you can't conceive of the permutations that would follow such actions. Ah, well: There are no words.

Your conscience might feel jim dandy. You could go home and pat yourself on the back smugly, enjoy all the perks of having been Prez for, what, five minutes?, and watch the country go to hell. Yup, very commendable.

Wow.

Time to go back to what Mark said: "Those who just take their ball and go home to pout have chose irrelevence, after which their opinions, no matter how angry, are nothing but pissing in the wind."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:23 PM

Quote:
To condemn us because we voted for who we thought would do less damage, rather than--what, not voting and sitting around bitching about it???--is highly offensive and insulting to me, a citizen of a county which ALLOWS me the privilege of participating in my government!

I didn't. You're still confusing me with CTS. And still insulting me.

Quote:
You said you were insulted; I showed how what was said to and about those of us who believe in participating in the voting process was clearly, downright insulting, and sneered at you for thinking you were insulted in comparison.

So in your view, being insulted by CTS more makes any claims I might have to being insulted by you moot. Fun times. I do so enjoy being insulted, confused for someone else, then told I have no right to complain about it.

Quote:
The problem you're up against is that your argument is pure black and white: "There is no difference". Surely you can see that's not a valid point. "There's not much difference" would be easier to defend, but then you've admitted to our very point that it's worth trying to find the lesser of two evils, don't you see?

There isn't a lesser evil because both sides are corrupt and work together. But you aren't to blame for that. You are free to continue voting and hoping it makes a difference.

And I will continue hoping they all fall flat on their faces when the corporations propping them up fail because of their own greed. Because I don't think we'll get meaningful change until we can take back the system from the aristocracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
In a nutshell. And yes, sad; but I must admit in a 45-year-old, somewhat amazing. I was damned naive at 45, but not THAT blind and ignorant, even then.

Still... Is it really necessary to call me blind and ignorant? You addressed that at CTS, but if I'm making the same arguments, well, you kinda just called me that too.

...

Pfft. Shoulda bowed out of this conversation when I said I was going to. For some reason all these arguments end up with us anarchists getting insulted.

We don't buy into something we think is a lie, so we're naive.

Instead of protesting and voting in a system that's rigged and abuses protestors and free speech, we're shirking our responsibilities by refusing to play that game and trying to find different paths for change.

We don't see a whole lot of difference which party is in power because the efforts of a few are muddled by the whole, and so to us they might as well be the same. But because we don't align ourselves with one party or another, we're BLIND.

Thanks a lot for making the EFFORT to talk to us lazy cowardly rubes.

Huh. Why are you so eager to be insulted that you invent insults? I never called you blind or ignorant or naive. I made the point of telling you, and CTS, that I don't blame you for your choices. Did you catch where I said I've made those same choices myself? If you try hard enough, you can turn that into an implied insult. But I never called my younger self naive. My whole point was that I understand your reasons for your choices.

Put away the matyrdom already. I am indeed making an EFFORT to talk to you, and never ever called you a "lazy cowardly rube". I make an EFFORT to talk to you because I think this is an important conversation, and I think it's worthwhile talking to you. And to CTS. If I think someone is not worth an effort, I don't make one. Ask Rappy or Jack.

If I haven't been entirely complimentary to CTS, you'll note that she accused me of being at fault in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and stated outright that I am a supporter of such things (that would be a LIE), and that she is morally superior to me. Which is a whole bunch of insult.

Funny I don't see you complaining when an *actual* insult is aimed at me. Guess you're too busy inventing insults aimed at you.

And you know what, I still like you and will still continue to enjoy talking to you. Not lying!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:39 PM

That post was directed at Niki, who I quoted, who did in fact say that CTS was blind and naive for not voting because she feels like none of the candidates were really serious about stopping any of the wars or the violations of human rights. And therefore, by extension, Niki said that I am blind and naive for feeling the same way.

Quote:
Funny I don't see you complaining when an *actual* insult is aimed at me. Guess you're too busy inventing insults aimed at you.

Gee, I have never once defended you or Niki in this thread, not once when I yelled at CTS that voting doesn't make you evil it just makes you optimists.

Quote:
And you know what, I still like you and will still continue to enjoy talking to you.

Let's not kid ourselves. *I* don't even like me.

Have fun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:49 PM

And I read on.., wow, this thread's gone weird! CTS continues to chose her moral superiority over effecting actual change. That's OK. Just thank goodness there are people actually willing to DO stuff and make the hard decisions.

And CTS - so you as Obama, because you couldn't snap your fingers and make everything perfect (your own personal version of perfect, whether anyone else agrees with you or not) would quit and run away to enjoy your pedestal. You would allow darker forces to take over and extend the war, leading to many many more innocents dead. Whereas, if you'd stayed and actually fought the good fight, you could have wound it down. Now who has murder on their conscience?

But, please, live in your fairy tale so you can feel superior.

Byte: you can't take all statements made toward CTS as statements made toward you, then get upset at Niki for "confusing" you. You have claimed CTS's statements as your own.

Despite your eagerness to read everything in the most negative light (do you really need so badly to be a victim?) I have indeed put a lot of effort into communicating with you. I feel it is disrespectful how you put up strawmen. I stated a list of things that I believe would be different under Gore. I am ready to defend those, if you would pay me the respect of having a CONVERSATION with me about them, rather than being offended over a strawman and running away.

You'll note that I specifically stated that nothing would be perfect, and that Gore would have his problems. That I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM. No, apparently you didn't note any of that, because then your strawman wouldn't stand.

Well, shoot. If Byte and CTS run away, who else is there to talk to? Why can't anyone have a debate without being either a Rappy brickwall or going all emotional over things that weren't said?

*sad sigh*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
You would allow darker forces to take over

This is exactly the mindset I am arguing against. There is no "dark" and "darker." Some things are black and white. Some things MUST be black and white.

Imagine you're in a room with a bunch of gangrapists. They force you to rape the girl too. You say, "No way!" They say, "I expected you to say that. But if you don't rape her, I will kill her. So do it to save her from a worse fate."

Then you say, "OK, she gets raped by one more person, or she dies. Getting raped one more time is the lesser of two evils." So you make the "hard decision" and join in the rape.

This is the mindset Obama and his supporters are working out of.

Now substitute gangrape and death with other possibilities. Say, kill the girl or I will skin her alive. Say, kill and eat the girl, or I will eat her alive. It doesn't matter. There is no end to how low the dark can go. The rules of choice remain the same. Choose dark or choose darker. As long as you let them corner you into that forced choice, you will never get out of the dark zone.

I am saying it is wrong. As long as people work within this mindset, and live by the rules of these moral economics, things will never change.

Real change comes from one person saying, "No, I will NOT cross that line, no matter what you threaten me with. You will NOT corrupt me." Then the next person finds it easier to say no. And the next. It is the only way to make the perverse rule makers to be the only ones standing, left with no power.

This is not about moral superiority. I am trying to make a case to change the "lesser of two evils" mindset because getting other people to see this is the only way to change the system.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:12 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Again I ask: if you were suddenly Obama, in some Freaky Friday mind swap, do you think you'd be able to stop all the wars and corporate abuses on a dime? With no other innocent victims ever just because you said so?
No. But I would try. And then I would resign in protest if I couldn't succeed. I would not be a part of the system at the expense of those innocent lives. No.

And murder is a CLEARER evil than gangrape.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

Your solution to everything seems to be to just give up.

Yeah, that'll get a lot done.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
You would allow darker forces to take over

This is exactly the mindset I am arguing against. There is no "dark" and "darker." Some things are black and white. Some things MUST be black and white.

And then you proceed to give a fictional example right of some 24 style TV show. Not very realistic. But I'll get back to that.

I talking about something that happened in reality. There were definitely lighter and darker forces in 2009. There was one candidate singing songs about "bomb bomb Iran" and another speaking openly against these wars. In my fiction where you are playing Obama, and you got elected and found that you were not a dictator and you could not immediately reshape the world into your vision for it, you have said that you would quit. OK, so the VP would step up and work toward ending the wars.

But if your whole administration went away and was replaced by McCain's (because we are talking about the effect of my "blame-worthy" vote for Obama rather than McCain), then McCain would very very likely send yet more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, would invade Iran and who knows what other countries. (But do you think Palin would have stayed on for the whole four years? Or would she quit early again, because she can't get her way either...)

So, because you quit since you were incapable of committing yourself to something imperfect, our new reality in 2013 would be continuing escalation in Iraq and Afghanistan and new wars in Syria and North Korea and who knows where else.

Yeah. Reality. You can't always get your way. Doesn't mean the other way is not worse.

OK, sure, so you and I could come up with fictional situations all day, but the vote cast in 2008 was very real choice between a bad situation that would get worse or bad situation with a chance to improve. Which it HAS. We are out of Iraq. There is a new agreement to get of Afghanistan. The drones are way fucking wrong, but they have been outed and I believe they are also on their way out - because people have NOT run away, even us who you choose to blame are staying involved and calling Obama out on these things.

Really, where you get "fawning" is beyond me. Do you really I think I fawn over him? Or is this your RWA brain, not able to understand that a vote, that "support", does not mean unconditional worship?

Back to your fictional example. The way I see the choice you are advocating, is that when you see the gang rape happening you say: "well, if I go over there I'll be forced to either rape her or watch her get killed, so instead I'll turn on my headphones and go over to that nice coffee shop and have a latte. I'll remove myself from the situation so I don't have to blame myself for any of this."

Not going to fix a damned thing.

Hey, you can choose to do what you want. But don't even start getting down on people who have chosen NOT to walk away. [EDIT the rest of this paragraph: I choose to believe you didn't really mean to compare a vote for a Obama to a choice to join a gang rape. It kind of seems like you made that comparison, but I think - I hope! - you didn't mean it that way.]

What you can't seem to get through your RWA head is that Obama is NOT a dictator, and he could not change the world. Yes, he could have done a helluva lot better, but I'm seeing for damned sure that he's done a lot than you - a quitter - would have done.

Cause what have you changed by quitting the system? Really? What are the real effects, other than how you feel about yourself, and what you can say to people online when you don't agree with them?

Quote:
This is not about moral superiority.

Then don't tell me you are morally superior to me. Yes, you did say it outright. And you imply it every time you blame me for casting a vote, as if it's my fault Obama isn't making the world into Wonderland, as if you could do it if you were in his place.

Quote:
I am trying to make a case to change the "lesser of two evils" mindset because getting other people to see this is the only way to change the system.

And yet you are have yet to show how your approach - quitting the game and isolating yourself from it - changes a thing.

And gorammit, CTS, this could such a more useful conversation. You and I AGREE. We do not like the wars, we do not like Guantanamo, we do not like the drones. Why aren't we talking about the problem, and looking for solutions, rather than playing this blame game? Why did it have to go right into: "but it's your fault for voting for Obama!" How in the world does that help?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:35 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahhh, Mal4. Just think how else you could have spent all the time you just wasted pissing into the wind, time you'll never get back in your life. Tch.

If you're through

, I'm sure we can find more interesting things to discuss.

It IS incredibly ironic that I put this post up specifically TO remind people that we didn't "fix" Iraq and things are pretty awful there, after all the thousands and thousands of deaths on every side. Most of us agree about that, I think, yet CTTS has taken it to a completely illogical level, that Obama's a monster and there's no difference between him and McCain, or Romney, or (for gawd's sake) PALIN! That's exactly what she's saying: Everything is black, there are no grays. You really want to keep trying to get through to someone like that? Silly gel...

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to someone unwilling to partake in the flawed process BECAUSE IT'S FLAWED and for essentially no other reason, in a country where we are DAMNED lucky to have as good a process as we HAVE, their attitude makes them totally irrelevant. I'm willing to spend a few minutes trying to point out the irrationality of their stance, but beyond that...neh.

I considered for a few minutes the value of contrasting different administrations; there's good and bad in all of them, and what each accomplished might be interesting to compare and contrast, and would show quite clearly how wrong CTTS is. But it would take time I'm not willing to invest, at least right now, and would do the "in one ear, out the other" with her anyway. Hell, even school children learn how different administrations handle things differently, better, worse, or just differently. She don't get it; end of story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Why aren't we talking about the problem, and looking for solutions,

Because your solution and my solution are not the same. That's what we are arguing about, isn't it? The solution.

Your solution is to vote for the lesser of two evils.

My solution is to say a resounding and defiant NO to BOTH evils, and pick a third option that isn't evil.

Yes, I believe my solution is morally superior. When I say it isn't about moral superiority, I mean it's superfluous to the solution. Mine is the only one that can give us the results we actually WANT, rather than the result that we reluctantly will tolerate.

Quote:
[EDIT the rest of this paragraph: I choose to believe you didn't really mean to compare a vote for a Obama to a choice to join a gang rape. It kind of seems like you made that comparison, but I think - I hope! - you didn't mean it that way.]

Yes. I DID mean it that way.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
that Obama's a monster and there's no difference between him and McCain, or Romney, or (for gawd's sake) PALIN! That's exactly what she's saying:

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Any difference between Obama and any of the Reps is cosmetic.

It would be like saying there is no difference between the gangrapist who is a star athlete and class president and the gangrapist who is the high school dropout and drug addict. When you're at the level of gangrape, none of those other differences amount to a hill of beans.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:32 AM

PENQUIN11

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
You are clearly not getting it, less people have died as a result of the Iraq war than did Sadam's reign.

Yet people STILL DIED, and we contributed in a major way to the over-all death toll in the region. We also originally put Saddam in POWER, and so are responsible for what he did.

It's not a question of us being better or worse based on the number of people we killed versus how many people Saddam Hussein killed, it's a question of we did the SAME THING. Which is KILLING PEOPLE.

You think our leaders are better than Saddam Hussein? Lol. Just you wait.

And the only reason we want to go to war with Iran is because Israel wants to go to war with Iran. I guess that's totally righteous and a good reason though.

1. We didn't put Sadam in power. You are thinking of the Taliban in Afghanistan, who we also didn't directly put in power (we trained them), they just so happened to be the "last man standing" in the Civil Wars following the defeat of the Soviets.

2. Our leaders may be corrupt, they may make terrible decisions, however last I checked I did not have to worry about being arrested and tortured to death for saying that they have been doing a bad job. If you truly think our leaders are as bad as Sadam, then I am convinced you have never been outside of the US, that you have never seen what others suffer through, and that you will never understand how lucky you are to be an American. The bottom 1% of the Poor people in America still would be in the top 50% (economically) of the worlds class structure.

3. The reason why the US could(good catch, I don't want to go into any war)go to war with Iran has to do with the fact that they have working nuclear facilities. On top of this Iran has stated that it wishes to wipe Israel, our ally, off the face of the Earth. They have stated that they want to "wipe away" the western world.

4. It took killing people to end the holocaust, heck it took killing a TON of people to defeat the Germans and the Japanese. Civilians did die as a result of the American Invasion. I guess we never should have stopped that either?

On Fixing Iraq: We removed a problem, but no nation or being could fix that place. It isn't a "lack of government" problem, it is a lack of common unity/sense of nationality problem.

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:50 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Penguin, nicely put! The only serious problem I have with what you wrote is, you WANT to go to war with Iran?? That boggles my mind. I would respectfully request that you not include anyone here but yourself in your "we" unless someone else speaks up to agree with you. I most certainly do NOT!

But as for the rest; in my opinion, pretty well said. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you portray, tho'. I would say there's more to it regarding Iraq than only "a lack of common unity/sense of nationality problem", but certainly that's part of it, and part of the problem in Afghanistan/Pakistan as well, as you noted before.

I still say you're all pissing into the wind, however. You'll never get past CTTS mental block that everything, EVERYTHING about our government is black, black, black. I wish she could visit a few of those other countries...or maybe just learn about them?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by penquin11:
We didn't put Sadam in power.

Some people beg to differ.

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I wish she could visit a few of those other countries...or maybe just learn about them?

I've not only visited them. I grew up in 3rd world countries in Asia, Middle East, and South America.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:25 AM

PENQUIN11

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by penquin11:
We didn't put Sadam in power.
Some people beg to differ.

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

Info that you need to know to understand why that article is bull:

a) Sadam Hussein was promoted to 2nd in command of the Bath party in 1976 and when President Al-Bakr stepped down he took power. There was no coup.

b) The Bath party took power in Iraq in 1958 because of the 14 July Revolution.

c)The revolution in Iraq that took place on July 14th, 1958 saw the overthrow of the Hashemite Monarchy, which was originally setup in 1921 by the Brits (can you say: Puppet?). And the Revolution- which established the Bath party as the party in power in Iraq (same party Sadam was in)- was primarily motivated by Anti- British/American Sentiments. Heck in 1972 the Bath party signed a treaty of friendship with the Soviets....

d) the Qasim guy it references, whose name it doesn't even spell correctly, he was in power and did favor a communist approach. There was a revolt in 1963, however his opposition came from within the Bath party and centered around his refusal to join the UAR, not his refusal to cut ties with Communists.

e) The United Arab Federation was an attempt to create a united Arab nation between Jordan and Iraq.

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:20 AM

STORYMARK

What, you mean we shouldn't take the word of a fringe website that can't spell, consistently use capitalization, or tell the difference between Iraq and Syria?

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:06 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

So much naivety on this thread, unbelievable.

I've been involved in local sports clubs and kindergartens where politics is rife. You end up compromising all over the place because there are a lot of people who want different things.

Thus is the nature of human society and this is what gets played out on the world arena, its just that the stakes are higher.

No compromise has two components, dictatorship or disengagement. Neither are great options.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
No compromise has two components, dictatorship or disengagement. Neither are great options.

Yep. That's heart of it. I'm so grateful to Niki for bringing "RWA" into the forum, because it explains a lot. Authoritarian types see only dictatorship or disengagement as solutions, because they can't imagine anything else.

But, Niki, I don't regret doing a little dance with CTS. I wanted to make sure I understand her, and I do.

CTS - you'll note that you have not offered any solution that did anything but make you feel good about yourself. You have not addressed any small part of this thing called reality. I think it's quite telling that your idea of a "solution" is to place blame on others and to publicly congratulate yourself that the blame is 100% not yours. What you've said in this thread says a lot about your priorities.

Now, I figure anyone who needs to do all that work really needs the ego boost that comes from it. So you go ahead and do what you need to get by. It's probably best that you leave the solving of actual problems to those who can engage in, discuss, and assess reality.

Speaking of which...

Penguin11, I don't think I've properly welcomed you! There's a penguin who stops by RWED from time to time, and it took me a while to figure out you're not him (which should of been obvious, he has rather unique signature.) Oh, that isn't criticism of your screen name. There can never be too many penguins. :)

I am so not a history/civics/politics expert. The little I know I've learned from encountering people like you. You obviously know a lot about the Middle East. Is this because of your dad serving? Do you have any more to share, especially regarding solutions? Are there any?

I tend to think the best the US can do is get the hell out of there and let those people run their own lives and their own country, though that's not likely to happen real soon. Our military may leave, but our corporations won't.

What do you think?

(BTW Byte - if you take my writing off of CTS as anything negative toward you, I will hunt you down and give you virtual kicks in the virtual butt until you believe that I LIKE you!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:30 PM

PENQUIN11

My father was in the military for 24 years, and fought in every conflict along the way. He was a psychological operations guy so he had to study up on the cultures and political history of the Middle East. That combined with my general interest in politics, especially my aspirations to become a diplomat, is why I know so much about the Middle East.

I also am a huge history nerd and the Middle East has an extremely interesting history dating back to the Abbassid Caliphs.

I think that the United States will always have a role in Middle Eastern affairs, however I think it is time we pull out our military because there really isn't much else we can do at this point. After we nail Al Queda's new #1 we will have no reason to have anyone there, and even then we don't need our army in Afghanistan to accomplish that. I think our international gaze needs to shift to Latin America before we lose control (influence wise) over the Panama canal- however, that once again will not involve our military.

If Iraq is to improve it will be because the Shia and Sunni populations are able to compromise with one another, something that will likely only happen at the cost of the Kurds (historically the Shia and Sunnis unite when slaughtering the Kurds).

Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together. Afghani soldiers/militants have always been regarded as some of the bravest in the world, and that stands true to this day, however the conflict between the Pashtun and Tajec tribes is going to tear apart the nation, with the Pashtun's being the likely winner.

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by penquin11:
My father was in the military for 24 years, and fought in every conflict along the way. He was a psychological operations guy so he had to study up on the cultures and political history of the Middle East. That combined with my general interest in politics, especially my aspirations to become a diplomat, is why I know so much about the Middle East.

I also am a huge history nerd and the Middle East has an extremely interesting history dating back to the Abbassid Caliphs.

That's excellent. I find history very "messy". I can't keep everything straight in my head, and find it difficult to assess fact from opinion. (I'm a physicist. I HATE opinion LOL!) As I get older, I find history relevant enough to attempt to sort through the varying accounts.

Quote:
I think that the United States will always have a role in Middle Eastern affairs, however I think it is time we pull out our military because there really isn't much else we can do at this point. After we nail Al Queda's new #1 we will have no reason to have anyone there, and even then we don't need our army in Afghanistan to accomplish that.

This is coming from an ignoramus: won't there just be a new #1? Ten years now, we've heard top Al Quaida people going down again and again, and yet another top dog always pops up. When does it end? Can it?

Quote:
I think our international gaze needs to shift to Latin America before we lose control (influence wise) over the Panama canal- however, that once again will not involve our military.

Good point. I am not familiar with Panama, but I am following, a little, the situation in Venezuela. These aren't stable countries. Great, another area of the world to worry for! :/

Quote:
If Iraq is to improve it will be because the Shia and Sunni populations are able to compromise with one another, something that will likely only happen at the cost of the Kurds (historically the Shia and Sunnis unite when slaughtering the Kurds).

I was in Kuwait in 2005, for a conference that had scientists from all over the Middle East. I asked an Iraqi about this issue. It's funny, the response I got was that the "common" people don't care. Sunni, Shia mix. (Hmm. He didn't bring up Kurds...) It's only the politicians that get so bent over all this, he said.

I don't know if I would apply that 100%, but I found it quite interesting. It's been a while, so I might have it wrong, but I'm pretty sure the man telling me this was from one sect and married to a woman from the other.

Quote:
Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together. Afghani soldiers/militants have always been regarded as some of the bravest in the world, and that stands true to this day, however the conflict between the Pashtun and Tajec tribes is going to tear apart the nation, with the Pashtun's being the likely winner.

I don't know the tribes. What I do know is that the people of this country are capable of doing lots of complicated shit. They aren't stupid, as far as science and engineering goes.

Where I see drawbacks, and this is based on conferences I went to in Kuwait and Turkey and fieldwork trips to Georgia (yeah, it's not the Middle East, but was once Soviet Union and is relevant to the area, I think), is that graft and sexism is holding the area back.

I spent 10 days in Tbilisi trying to get my equipment through customs. It only took so long because this was the first trip when we didn't pay bribes. Then, in Kuwait, I experienced many extremely kind and warm men, and also some who did not want to shake my hand or speak to me. (I'm female.)

Sorry if I'm lecturing. I really do want to hear more from you. I know my experience is limited. I've made some trips, but spent most of it thinking about what I was doing, rather than learning about where I was. I regret my limited scope now!

I can see what you say, that the US has a role in the Middle East. Because of my personal interests, I hope the Western world can do something about women's rights. I don't know how to accomplish this without being invaders who force our beliefs on the "natives." It's a pickle, no mistake!

I'm not asking for anything you're not willing to share, so answer as vaguely as you'd like, but have you managed to be a diplomat?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:41 PM

Haven't done this in a while - double woo-hoo!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 22, 2013 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
No compromise has two components, dictatorship or disengagement. Neither are great options.

I don't have a problem with compromise. Compromise on issues like should we spend more money on health care or education.

There can be NO compromise on issues like rape and murder. That you guys don't see this point is WHY we have wholesale state sponsored rape and murder.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 22, 2013 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
CTS - you'll note that you have not offered any solution that did anything

That my solution does nothing is your opinion. Which is why you don't endorse my solution.

I believe if enough people acted on my solution, it WILL do something in reality.

Incidentally, doing nothing is BETTER than committing murder.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 22, 2013 6:11 AM

CTS: I got pretty pissed off at HKCav when he compared my being annoyed at french cartoonists for not being culturally sensitive and trolling the middle east to me being okay with people threatening other people with murder and rape.

I have no tolerance for our politicians for acting this way, but I'm not really sure this is a constructive line of argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 22, 2013 6:12 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together.

A booming economy based on selling poppy plants for heroin, nice. To get its act together they'd first have to learn to use toilet paper, then to stop throwing acid in little girls' faces.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 22, 2013 6:32 AM