DrChinese and Tricky

[Mossy]

First off, let me apologize for singling you two out (Tricky and DrChinese).

(Tricky, you know I love ya, old man!)


DrChinese posted in another thread, and later Tricky rephrased the same sentiment:

OK, then which "lesson" are we to believe?

A. Today's rejoicing Iraqis.
B. Same Iraqis burning Bush in effigy last month.

Or is it:
C. The joyous attitude of Iraqis aimed at whomever is in power currently.

Your argument is hollow, as should be obvious to all. You will get to have the last word, as we have gotten off-topic.


I'm creating a separate thread because this is something that has been driving me crazy lately.

So... let's be blunt:

I could use a lot of words to describe your A and B summary of the "lessons" learned. One such word could be racist, although I think that might be a bit harsh.

Iraq's population is just over 20 million - and 75% of those people have been oppressed for 34 years. The Sunni Arabs (in the minority) were, in general, quite happy with the Baath Party (except for those few that happened to speak out... and then disappeared or had to go into exile).

So that means that 5 million people (the 25% minority) were probably having a good old time burning effigies, while the other 75% had to keep their mouths shut - or die. I am glad that many of us can't imagine a life like that - but they have lived it for a generation.

Now the silent 75% finally gets to timidly, and cautiously express their gratitude at SOMEBODY finally doing what they should have done years ago - and the response is:


I think the message here is "show your support for whoever has the power". I would guess that none of Saddam's supporters are foolish enough to wave an "Americans go home" sign in front of the soldiers. I'll bet, though, that there are still a few around. Most, though, will probably heed the old adage, "better to be a live coward than a dead hero".


Can either of you enlighten me as to how you came to your conclusions?

-Ed

[iain]

I am against the war, but I don't quite agree with the assessment of Tricky and DrChinese.

I am sure that there is an element of supporting whoever is in power, but I am also certain that for a large proportion of the population there is genuine happiness that the reign of a brutal dictator is at an end.

The Iraqi people deserve their happiness - they have suffered for it - and I am happy to see the scenes on the news.

But let's not get carried away. The jubilation will not last and there is a long road ahead. In a year or two we may start to know if the Iraqi people are really much better off than they were under Hussein, whether the west is more secure, the middle east more stable, Iraq a light of democracy in the region and so on.

But this is great to see on TV. It reminds me of the fall of the Berlin Wall (only with more looting:) )

[Mossy]

Originally posted by iain

But this is great to see on TV. It reminds me of the fall of the Berlin Wall (only with more looting:) )



Ha! :) I thought the exact same thing.

[Diezel]

While the thought of them supporting anyone in power might sound reasonable to some people, the facts don't support that thought one bit. From a recent CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/


About the same time, a Marine draped the American flag over the head of the statue -- a gesture that drew a muted reaction from the crowd, gasps in a Pentagon briefing room and anger from a commentator on the Arab news network Al Arabiya.

The crowd was happier to see the Marines take down the U.S. flag moments later and hang a pre-1991 Gulf War Iraqi flag around the statue's neck. That flag also was removed before the statue was pulled down.[/b]

They were not pleased at the symbol of the US as their new leader (which it never was, just a Gung-Ho Marine making a stupid mistake), but were very happy with the thought of a free Iraq.

That kind of blows the theory of "supporting whoever is in power" right out of the water. These people are thristing for freedom and are happy the US has done something to bring that about.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Mossy
I'm creating a separate thread because this is something that has been driving me crazy lately.

So... let's be blunt:

I could use a lot of words to describe your A and B summary of the "lessons" learned. One such word could be racist, although I think that might be a bit harsh.

Iraq's population is just over 20 million - and 75% of those people have been oppressed for 34 years. The Sunni Arabs (in the minority) were, in general, quite happy with the Baath Party (except for those few that happened to speak out... and then disappeared or had to go into exile).

So that means that 5 million people (the 25% minority) were probably having a good old time burning effigies, while the other 75% had to keep their mouths shut - or die. I am glad that many of us can't imagine a life like that - but they have lived it for a generation.

Now the silent 75% finally gets to timidly, and cautiously express their gratitude at SOMEBODY finally doing what they should have done years ago - and the response is:

Can either of you enlighten me as to how you came to your conclusions?

-Ed

I will be glad to try. Starting this thread was a good idea.

As good Americans, we tend to see ourselves as "helping" people around the world to find their way to a political system like our own. I happen to think our system is the best in the world, so it is natural to want to share it.

We assume that others around the world - most of whom see the US as a shining example of many good things - will want what we want. But that assumption starts to break down here, because they want some of what we offer but not the whole package. Why not take the whole package? Because they have different traditions, different cultures, different ideals, different goals, etc. And they certainly do not speak with one voice, just as people here do not speak with one voice. Some people want more authority and more stability; some want more freedom and more openness.

So when we see Iraqis cheering the American troops, what is it that we are seeing? Are they cheering the arrival of the American system of politics? Or are they cheering that Saddam is gone? Or are they cheering because we are the latest invasion force, and they will cheer us as they cheered Saddam when he was in power?

What we see is a function of our viewpoint. It isn't a function of their viewpoint. And that is the point. When we operate in the rest of the world - treating others like little children to be handed out treats by Uncle Sam - we must be sure we know what we are doing and why. Some people choke on our candy. Because the rest of the world only understands a part of us, as we only understand a part of them.

My wife and I raise our kids using our system. It works for us. Other people use their own systems - similar in some ways and different in others - to raise their kids. Everybody turns out fine. I can accept this diversity of approaches. The same applies to the world at large. We must accept that our values are not the values of other peoples. We tend to see in their actions the similarity of our values, but fail to appreciate the differences in an equal manner. But they are there, and in many cases the differences are fundamental.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DrChinese
So when we see Iraqis cheering the American troops, what is it that we are seeing? Are they cheering the arrival of the American system of politics? Or are they cheering that Saddam is gone? Or are they cheering because we are the latest invasion force, and they will cheer us as they cheered Saddam when he was in power?

Read my last post with the quotes from what happened over there. I think you have your answer. They are cheering that Sadaam is gone and they will someday be able to rule themselves.

Originally posted by iain

But this is great to see on TV. It reminds me of the fall of the Berlin Wall (only with more looting:) )

Before people go off half-cocked about this looting, remember it is only taking place in government buildings. Private properties are not being touched.

I don't remember about East Germany, but I remember similar events during Albania's communist collapse.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by LukeT
Before people go off half-cocked about this looting, remember it is only taking place in government buildings. Private properties are not being touched.

Not exactly true, some private property is being stolen, but since when does the Left have a problem with wealth distribution?

:D :p

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DrChinese
My wife and I raise our kids using our system. It works for us. Other people use their own systems - similar in some ways and different in others - to raise their kids. Everybody turns out fine. I can accept this diversity of approaches. The same applies to the world at large. We must accept that our values are not the values of other peoples. We tend to see in their actions the similarity of our values, but fail to appreciate the differences in an equal manner. But they are there, and in many cases the differences are fundamental.

Some cultural practices suck. If we pretend we willingly will tolerate them, we provide the bad cultural practices with a certain sense of communal reinforcement. It's that communal reinforcement that makes really stupid and cruel practices seem reasonable to many people.

So, sometimes tolerance is wrong.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese


My wife and I raise our kids using our system. It works for us. Other people use their own systems - similar in some ways and different in others - to raise their kids. Everybody turns out fine. I can accept this diversity of approaches. The same applies to the world at large. We must accept that our values are not the values of other peoples. We tend to see in their actions the similarity of our values, but fail to appreciate the differences in an equal manner. But they are there, and in many cases the differences are fundamental. [/B]

This is pure bull. You seem to be saying that the personal freedoms inherent in our culture are indeed not superior to the personal repression of a totalitarian system such as Saddam's regime! "Everybody turns out fine" you say?? Our values may not be the values of other people, that is true....but our core values of human rights and freedom are superior to other more repressive systems. The morality of freedom itself cannot be denied.

Sure the US could be vilified, and would be wrong to put a McDonalds on every corner of Baghdad....but the basic gift of freedom means the Iraqi people will be free to decide such things for themselves, in the context of their own culture.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Mossy

Can either of you enlighten me as to how you came to your conclusions?

-Ed

You won't get a straight answer from either of them.

The position of Dr. Chinese is that everything America does is wrong. So, unfortunately for him, he has to oppose the liberation of an oppressed people from a totalitarian regime. What you are seeing is his desperate attempt to put as much negative spin on this as possible. I am not sure of Tricky's history but you will likely see similar furtive back-pedalling.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Diezel


Read my last post with the quotes from what happened over there. I think you have your answer. They are cheering that Sadaam is gone and they will someday be able to rule themselves.

I would like to make an adjustment to this statement, if you'll permit:

They are cheering that Saddam is gone and the hope that they will someday be able to rule themselves.

I hope that we give them the chance.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You won't get a straight answer from either of them.

The position of Dr. Chinese is that everything America does is wrong. So, unfortunately for him, he has to oppose the liberation of an oppressed people from a totalitarian regime. What you are seeing is his desperate attempt to put as much negative spin on this as possible. I am not sure of Tricky's history but you will likely see similar furtive back-pedalling.

I can speak for myself, thank you. I have never said, nor do I believe, that America is always wrong. But sometimes she is, and I do not hesitate to state my opinion in that case. As a former Vietnam protester, I have found many situations over the years in which I am very proud of the United States and our role in the world.

I think Saddam is scum. I have never stated otherwise. I am not sorry if he is dead. I have never stated otherwise. I strongly believe in the principle that the end does not justify the means. Therefore, even a result I desire is not justified by the wrongful invasion of Iraq by the United States.

I am not trying to "spin" anything. Au contraire, mon capitan, it is you who are attempting the spin. Accept the rejoicing of the Iraqis for TV cameras for what it is, but it is not the validation of our actions. If you beleive we are doing the right thing in Iraq, then the number of rejoicing Iraqis won't matter to you. Neither will the number of chemical and nuclear weapons found (none to date).

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mossy
First off, let me apologize for singling you two out (Tricky and DrChinese).

(Tricky, you know I love ya, old man!)
Damn! How did I get to be so old? I'm only 50.


I could use a lot of words to describe your A and B summary of the "lessons" learned. One such word could be racist, although I think that might be a bit harsh.
It would also be a bit confusing. I'm unaware of anything vaguely racist in my position. I was under the opinion that most Iraqis were of the same general race, but different religions, sects and ethnic backgrounds. Perhaps you could educate me if this is not true.


Iraq's population is just over 20 million - and 75% of those people have been oppressed for 34 years. The Sunni Arabs (in the minority) were, in general, quite happy with the Baath Party (except for those few that happened to speak out... and then disappeared or had to go into exile).
Where did you get these figures? And how could 75% of them have been oppressed for 34 years when more than half the country is under the age of 30 (http://blue.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=IZ). The only thing I can find says the country is about 60% Shiite and 40%Sunni (http://saukvalley.com/277394067879544.bsp). I would imagine there is a great deal of regional variation. It is well known that much of northern Iraq is controlled by Kurds and other "Saddam unfriendly" groups. And yes, Saddam has executed many people for disagreeing with him, and while religion may have played a part in his choices, I'll bet that he was perfectly willing to execute any Sunnis who disagreed with him too.


So that means that 5 million people (the 25% minority) were probably having a good old time burning effigies, while the other 75% had to keep their mouths shut - or die. I am glad that many of us can't imagine a life like that - but they have lived it for a generation.
I think this is a tremendous oversimplification. I imagine that there are a great number who are simply apolitical. They do what whoever is in power tells them to do without asking why, or if they have reservations, they keep them to themselves. Of course, I don't know exactly what went on during the anti-American protests. Did everybody simply pour out into the street because it was a big ol' party? Were they "encouraged" to participate? Were they punished if they didn't? I can't answer these questions, and I don't believe you can either. I was making what I thought was an obvious statement that when one side is in the streets with guns, it would be folly to stand up for the other side. I am quite sure that many are very happy to be liberated. I am equally sure that there are many who are angry for being bombed, but who are smart enough not to complain right now.


Now the silent 75% finally gets to timidly, and cautiously express their gratitude at SOMEBODY finally doing what they should have done years ago - and the response is {"did you think they would boo the soldiers?"}
Can either of you enlighten me as to how you came to your conclusions
I am merely stating the obvious, that nobody's going to burn an American flag in front of the Marines. You seem to have pulled some amazing statistics out of... wherever you pulled them... about how many people are happy. I have to wonder how you came to your conclusions.

(Take that Yeti! :p)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway


Some cultural practices suck. If we pretend we willingly will tolerate them, we provide the bad cultural practices with a certain sense of communal reinforcement. It's that communal reinforcement that makes really stupid and cruel practices seem reasonable to many people.

So, sometimes tolerance is wrong.

But still, doctor. Cultural practices are exactly those which have resisted in time!
Everything that has resisted in time is very important, don't you agree?

If for a group of people, certain things are OK, we must respect this, Dr.Chinese is right! We are talking about Middle East here, about societies that they were created thousands of years before today.

States are a newly born country, a great country, established on really big ideals but it's a new country.

Time is the ultimate Judge.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Time is the ultimate Judge.
Let's say you're married to a guy for 25 years. You think you have a wonderful, faithful husband. Then one day, you discover he's been having an affair with a co-worker for the past 10 years. Now, you see your husband in a very different light.

Sometimes new things change the meaning of old things, no matter how long the old things have been around.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
States are a newly born country, a great country, established on really big ideals but it's a new country.
We all learn from the lessons of the generations that precede us, regardless of where those generations happened to live. I've learned lessons from the history of Germany, Rome, and Egypt, and I believe I've had ancestors in all those places.

[Cleopatra]

Yes, I agree but this stands for you that live in a specific society and you have had an education and the opportunity to think over moral aspects of life.

Nomads, for example, have different needs than us.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway

We all learn from the lessons of the generations that precede us, regardless of where those generations happened to live. I've learned lessons from the history of Germany, Rome, and Egypt, and I believe I've had ancestors in all those places.

True but I pressume that from this "journey" of yours in the "memory of Humanity" you have kept the things that suited you best in your life and yet you must have needed time to test and verify those things.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I think Saddam is scum.

And of course, you think Bush/Cheney/Rumfeld are too. :)


You aren't as bad a troll as others, but you are entertaining enough not to put on ignore.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

But still, doctor. Cultural practices are exactly those which have resisted in time!
Everything that has resisted in time is very important, don't you agree?


What about:

Slavery
Genocide
Racism
Sexism
Torture

Those cultural practices have been going on since time immemorial. Are they very important traditions to be cherished and celebrated the world over?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx


And of course, you think Bush/Cheney/Rumfeld are too. :)


You aren't as bad a troll as others, but you are entertaining enough not to put on ignore.

Thanks, I try. ;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


What about:

Slavery
Genocide
Racism
Sexism
Torture

Those cultural practices have been going on since time immemorial. Are they very important traditions to be cherished and celebrated the world over?

They must be important traditions, otherwise they wouldn't be practiced in the Western world even today.

I will talk about Europe but if you wish I can bring you examples from the States as well.

Slavery: Women from Eastern Europe are sold ( yes sold, I have seen such contracts) as sex slaves to Belgium, Germany, France, Italy.VIPs from these countries, Ministers and MPs are involved in such cases.

Genocide: What the western countries have been doing to their colonies only 50 years ago.50 years is practically yesterday.

Sexism: I could mention Legislations according to which we have serious discriminations based on sex in business life.Women and men don't get the same sallaries.

Torture: I personally don't know not even one western country that doesn't perform tortures in jails, for example.

I have heard nasty stories about torturing gays in some American States...

[EvilYeti]

Christ, you sound like the pinhead protestors on TV.

"Oh, we don't like Saddam, but we don't think war is the right way to get rid of him. How should he be dealt with? Oh I dunno, how about a stern talking to?"

Sorry Charlie, war is the ONLY way to get rid of despotic tyrant regime's like Iraq's. Unless you have a better way? Maybe blast the Iraqi's with your music until they are paralyzed with nausea? I think invasion would be preferable to that scenario.

You cannot be in favor of the liberation of Iraq while opposing the war. To do so is nothing more than blatant bald-faced hypocrisy.

Originally posted by DrChinese

I think Saddam is scum. I have never stated otherwise. I am not sorry if he is dead. I have never stated otherwise. I strongly believe in the principle that the end does not justify the means. Therefore, even a result I desire is not justified by the wrongful invasion of Iraq by the United States.

[Cleopatra]

Are you reffering to my post?

[EvilYeti]

Beat's me. Are you referring to mine?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Are you reffering to my post?

[Cleopatra]

Yes, Evil Yeti I was reffering to yours.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
They must be important traditions, otherwise they wouldn't be practiced in the Western world even today.

Do you see something wrong with working to stop slavery, genocide, racism, etc? Are you arguing that these things are "important," and thus ought to be tolerated?

[Cleopatra]

Of course not Dr.Benway!

But who are we-the westerns-to imply our moral values to others since we have failed to imply them to our society. What makes us better than others?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Christ, you sound like the pinhead protestors on TV.

"Oh, we don't like Saddam, but we don't think war is the right way to get rid of him. How should he be dealt with? Oh I dunno, how about a stern talking to?"

Sorry Charlie, war is the ONLY way to get rid of despotic tyrant regime's like Iraq's. Unless you have a better way? Maybe blast the Iraqi's with your music until they are paralyzed with nausea? I think invasion would be preferable to that scenario.

You cannot be in favor of the liberation of Iraq while opposing the war. To do so is nothing more than blatant bald-faced hypocrisy.


Not sure I follow you. I have clearly said I do NOT favor war to liberate the Iraqi people. If the only way to liberate them is to have a war, I am against it.

I also do not support a war to get rid of Kim Jong Il, Qaddafi, Castro, the Saudi ruling family, Musharraf, etc. I believe my position is consistent in this regard. How about yours? Where do we stop?

It should be obvious to most anyone that the problem with this war is not just Iraq, it is all countries that are like Iraq in some undefined way. Somehow, everyone is supposed to "know" Saddam is bad, and it is moral to oust him. How will we recognize our next target? Will he have red circles on his shirt? Horns on his head? Please explain if you know the answer.

This is one of the reasons the rest of the world is afraid of us. When, where and why will we strike next? I have no idea why Saddam was singled out as "more deserving" than the others I listed above. And I have no idea why he had to be removed at this time, when 4 presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr.) didn't see that need earlier.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


They must be important traditions, otherwise they wouldn't be practiced in the Western world even today.

I will talk about Europe but if you wish I can bring you examples from the States as well.

Slavery: Women from Eastern Europe are sold ( yes sold, I have seen such contracts) as sex slaves to Belgium, Germany, France, Italy.VIPs from these countries, Ministers and MPs are involved in such cases.

Genocide: What the western countries have been doing to their colonies only 50 years ago.50 years is practically yesterday.

Sexism: I could mention Legislations according to which we have serious discriminations based on sex in business life.Women and men don't get the same sallaries.

Torture: I personally don't know not even one western country that doesn't perform tortures in jails, for example.

I have heard nasty stories about torturing gays in some American States...

umm Cleopatra this is a skeptic forum can you provide some evidence for theses far-fetched claims.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Baker


umm Cleopatra this is a skeptic forum can you provide some evidence for theses far-fetched claims.

What do you mean evidence?

Will you be ok if I tell you that according to the Law number 234/2003 of France men and women who work in the field of energy are not taking the same sallaries?

Do you want a link provided by Google where the crimes that are related with prostitution will be obvious?

Do you want me to provide you with bibliographical referencies of the genocides perfomed by the French in Algeria or by Belgians in Congo, for example?

Do you want me to post links by the site of Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch regarding tortures?

Please, let me know.

[Baker]

If they come from a reliable source then yes I would love to see them however I was under the impression you where referring to mainly the US.

[Cleopatra]

How did you have this impression my dear Baker :)

I told EvilYeti that my examples will come from Europe because I am bored to hear complains that I must not have an opinion for a country I do not live in :) Although I have spent time in the States and shared years of my life with an american.

Stay tuned, you honour! Evidence will be provided ...

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
But who are we-the westerns-to imply our moral values to others since we have failed to imply them to our society. What makes us better than others?
The first step to fighting something, is to declare that you are opposed to it.

Next comes the problem of establishing a legal structure that promotes the behavior you'd like to encourage, and discourages the behavior you don't want.

Next comes the problem of enforcing those laws in some sort of non-arbitrary way.

Perfect expression of a particular value in codified law is probably not possible. Perfect enforcement of any law is also not possible. A degree of immoral behavior will persist, even if a government claims opposition to the behavior.

Some moral values are superior to others, by virtue of their effects upon the human community. Some values are superior, because they do not create self-contradictory moral positions.

Unless we'd like continuous warfare upon this planet, secularism, for example, is superior to the notion of divine rule.

Imagine the Shi'ites and Sunnis sitting down together to discuss their new government in Iraq. The Sunnis believe, according to their religion, that the Shi'ites are guilty of the sin of bid'ah, or innovation. This removes the Shi'ites from the pale of Islam. The Shi'ites, for their part, have similar beliefs about the Sunnis. The Kurds are generally Sunnis, but reject the "Arabization" philosophy of the Ba'ath Sunnis. And of course, there is a significant minority Assyrian Christian population, at odds with all of the above.

Clearly, these factions need to make a commitment to keeping religion out of government, else they're doomed to endless bloodshed. The Iraqis ought to view government as a function, a useful corporation, like a utility company. They need a system of laws that help with the building of roads, schools, etc. They need peace.

So yes, I do feel the right to assert my belief that the "western" value of secularism is better than Islamic law, but not for any reasons particular to the western world.

[bva]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You won't get a straight answer from either of them.

The position of Dr. Chinese is that everything America does is wrong. So, unfortunately for him, he has to oppose the liberation of an oppressed people from a totalitarian regime. What you are seeing is his desperate attempt to put as much negative spin on this as possible. I am not sure of Tricky's history but you will likely see similar furtive back-pedalling.

Hahaha. good point Yeti. Its the same ole same ole from these people. You present them with information and they throw a smoke bomb or point and say "look a baby wolf". Nothing is ever sound enough or good enough. Nothing is accurate unless it is their views.

You say "resolution 1441 is in material breach" they say "PROVE IT it's HERESAY there is NO WMD!!!"

You say "France wants peace for oil" they say "LIES LIES! AMERICA WANTS BLOOD FOR OIL" even though we know about the Lukoil and EFL oil contracts and what contracts do we have.


They make me sick to my stomach.

[EvilYeti]

Then no, I was referring to Dr. Chinese, I always quote at least a little if I'm referring to one particular post.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes, Evil Yeti I was reffering to yours.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Not sure I follow you. I have clearly said I do NOT favor war to liberate the Iraqi people. If the only way to liberate them is to have a war, I am against it.

Therefore you are opposed to the liberation of an opressed people by a totalitarian regime. Dr. Chinese is an appropiate moniker for a fascist.

I also do not support a war to get rid of Kim Jong Il, Qaddafi, Castro, the Saudi ruling family, Musharraf, etc. I believe my position is consistent in this regard. How about yours? Where do we stop?

Having the capacity for abstract thought, unlike yourself, I consider each country on an individual basis. North Korea, for example; I think we should make a concerted effort at diplomacy to convice them to shut down their nuclear program. If that fails, we should do it for them. I do not think we should invade them unless as a last resort, as that would result in millions of casualities for the Koreans. Its a different nation, culture, situation and requires a unique perspective.

It should be obvious to most anyone that the problem with this war is not just Iraq, it is all countries that are like Iraq in some undefined way. Somehow, everyone is supposed to "know" Saddam is bad, and it is moral to oust him. How will we recognize our next target? Will he have red circles on his shirt? Horns on his head? Please explain if you know the answer.

I think if the leader of a country dresses in a military uniform and fires an AK-47 into the air during speeches, its pretty good indicator that it would be in the worlds best interest for him to be ousted.

This is one of the reasons the rest of the world is afraid of us.

They should be afraid of us. God forbid one of these dictatorships actually thinks they could defeat us and launches an attack on the continental United States. We would make no effort to spare their civillians in a retalitory strike.

When, where and why will we strike next? I have no idea why Saddam was singled out as "more deserving" than the others I listed above. And I have no idea why he had to be removed at this time, when 4 presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr.) didn't see that need earlier.

Well, you have to start somewhere, right? Saddam is about the worst of the bunch, plus there were enough benefits for us in the long run to make it worth our while. The fact that Saddam is unpopular with his own people also is a huge factor, as it makes us liberators instead of invaders.
Our policy has changed post 9/11, its clear now that handling these regimes with kid gloves was a mistake, they will attack us regardless, or provide aid and comfort to those that will. The only solution is to remove their ability to threaten us.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diezel


Read my last post with the quotes from what happened over there. I think you have your answer. They are cheering that Sadaam is gone and they will someday be able to rule themselves.

What are the chances of that? As as been pointed out before, the post-war aims of the US have not been spelt out, or even decided within the Bush Administration.

[EvilYeti]

What the hell do you think we are going to do, make Iraq the 51'st state?

Most likely we are going to exactly what we did with Germany and Japan; install a temporary government to impose order during reconstruction until Iraq is stable enough to govern themselves.

Seems to have been the right idea for the former Axis powers, unless you think Germany would be better off run by Nazi's.

As a matter of fact, your probably do.


Originally posted by a_unique_person


What are the chances of that? As as been pointed out before, the post-war aims of the US have not been spelt out, or even decided within the Bush Administration.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Originally posted by DrChinese

Not sure I follow you. I have clearly said I do NOT favor war to liberate the Iraqi people. If the only way to liberate them is to have a war, I am against it.

Evil:

Therefore you are opposed to the liberation of an opressed people by a totalitarian regime. Dr. Chinese is an appropiate moniker for a fascist.


Making fun of my screen name would be like the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't it?

And your logic leaves a bit to be desired. My words stand for themselves without your twists.

As for supporting totalitarianism and Saddam, you might want to research your history a bit. If I am a supporter of Saddam (which I am NOT), then what does that make Reagan, Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld? They all met him personally. I'd like you to put together a good "apology" for them.

[Tricky]

Dr. Chinese said:
Not sure I follow you. I have clearly said I do NOT favor war to liberate the Iraqi people. If the only way to liberate them is to have a war, I am against it.
Evil Yeti said:
Therefore you are opposed to the liberation of an opressed people by a totalitarian regime. Dr. Chinese is an appropiate moniker for a fascist.
Quite a big "therefore", EY. Dr. Chinese did not say that he was opposed to liberation, but that he was opposed to war as the method of liberation. How the heck do you liberate dead people? And why are you calling him a fascist, when it is clear that he is totally opposed to facisim, either Iraqi or American?
***
Dr. Chinese said:
I also do not support a war to get rid of Kim Jong Il, Qaddafi, Castro, the Saudi ruling family, Musharraf, etc. I believe my position is consistent in this regard. How about yours? Where do we stop?
Evil Yeti said:
Having the capacity for abstract thought, unlike yourself, I consider each country on an individual basis. North Korea, for example; I think we should make a concerted effort at diplomacy to convice them to shut down their nuclear program. If that fails, we should do it for them. I do not think we should invade them unless as a last resort, as that would result in millions of casualities for the Koreans. Its a different nation, culture, situation and requires a unique perspective.
Beginning with an ad hominem, you then go to say that we should try diplomacy with North Korea, completely ignoring the fact that you discarded diplomacy with Iraq. What makes you think that NK is more tractable than Iraq? Is it because they definately have nukes? Dr. Chinese is consistantly saying (and I agree) that diplomacy is better than war. You seem to be saying "it depends on how powerful they are". Thus it seems that you only want to make war on weaklings. What a brave person you are.

Dr. Chinese said:
It should be obvious to most anyone that the problem with this war is not just Iraq, it is all countries that are like Iraq in some undefined way. Somehow, everyone is supposed to "know" Saddam is bad, and it is moral to oust him. How will we recognize our next target? Will he have red circles on his shirt? Horns on his head? Please explain if you know the answer.

Evil Yeti said
I think if the leader of a country dresses in a military uniform and fires an AK-47 into the air during speeches, its pretty good indicator that it would be in the worlds best interest for him to be ousted.
That's a pretty shoddy reason for ousting. Would you say that if a leader invokes God in their speeches that they should be ousted? Well then goodbye both Saddam and Bush. But as both Dr. Chinese and I have repeatedly said, we don't deny that it would be better if Saddam were outsted. We just fear that the cure is at least as bad as the disease. Saddam has not attacked anybody in a long long time. That indicates to me that the diplomacy and sanctions and inspections were working. What evidence do you have that they weren't?
***
Dr. Chinese said:
This is one of the reasons the rest of the world is afraid of us.

Evil Yeti said:
They should be afraid of us. God forbid one of these dictatorships actually thinks they could defeat us and launches an attack on the continental United States. We would make no effort to spare their civillians in a retalitory strike.
Well, Yeti, it appears that you are basically saying that because we could destroy them and they can't destroy us, that we are in the right. Actually, I agree that we are in the right, but not because we are the most powerful. I don't believe that superior firepower should be used to impose our will on others. It should be used for defense only. Otherwise, the rest of the world will see us as agressors, and rightfully so. You seem to be proud of that.


Dr. Chinese said:
When, where and why will we strike next? I have no idea why Saddam was singled out as "more deserving" than the others I listed above. And I have no idea why he had to be removed at this time, when 4 presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr.) didn't see that need earlier.

Evil Yeti said
Well, you have to start somewhere, right? Saddam is about the worst of the bunch, plus there were enough benefits for us in the long run to make it worth our while. The fact that Saddam is unpopular with his own people also is a huge factor, as it makes us liberators instead of invaders.
Our policy has changed post 9/11, its clear now that handling these regimes with kid gloves was a mistake, they will attack us regardless, or provide aid and comfort to those that will. The only solution is to remove their ability to threaten us.
We have to start somewhere? Well, that is the problem, isn't it? If we decide we can knock out one nation, why should anyone doubt that we will do it again to anybody who opposes us? Do you honestly think this is a good idea?

And as to regimes that fueled 9/11, why is it that we allow a totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the 9/11 terrorists) to flourish? Should we not be taking them out for their undemocratic governments and their regime that is so oppressive that may of their people feel compelled to rebel against the US? The Saud family is also very unpopular with the common people, but we don't hear much about it, since the government controls the press. We heard a lot about it on September 11, 2001, but a lot of people seem to want to ignore the obvious message that it is our ALLIES are spawning terrorists faster than Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or almost any other country.

And since you bring up the point, Iraq has never attacked us. No terrorist attacks have been tied to Iraq. They do not have, and have never had, any ability to threaten us. I do not deny that the regime was evil. I only point out that if you are using their actions towards the US as excuse for attacking, then you are building a straw man.

[bva]

Im not even sure I know what level of coward you are. Yeti made a brilliant point but you have your head so far up chinese's butt you could lick the back of his teeth. You read into what Yeti said, twisted it into some wild point and the inserted a dillusional commentary on how unjust America is for the war and how the Saddam regime is a victim. Why dont you pack your bags and head over to Iraq and oppose the people in the street celebrating the fall of tyranny. I know why because they would lynch you. Go tell the how you are supporting them by persecuting America. Rip the flag from their hands and burn it and explain to them how the USA is a symbol of international terror. Your a pillar of your community.. :mad:

[bva]

Originally posted by DrChinese



And your logic leaves a bit to be desired. My words stand for themselves without your twists.




Q: Did you or did you not say you were against the war?
A: You said YES you were against it

Q: Would Iraq be liberated without this war?
A: No not for many decades until the Hussein bloodline fizzled out


Q: How on earth then can you be supporting the liberation but not the war that is liberating them?

A: Because your a hypocrite plays both sides equally to fit your agenda while all along sticking your hot poker in anyones eyes who has the audacity to support the nation, support the troops, and show any sign of patriotism.

Yeah yeah your right cuz your lap dog tricky says so..

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tricky

Quite a big "therefore", EY. Dr. Chinese did not say that he was opposed to liberation, but that he was opposed to war as the method of liberation. How the heck do you liberate dead people? And why are you calling him a fascist, when it is clear that he is totally opposed to facisim, either Iraqi or American?

Are you getting your news from Al-Jazzerah? The war is almost over, Iraqi's are celebrating in the streets and the civillian casualties were kept to a minimum due to the diligent work of the coalition. Why don't you ask one of the jubilant Iraqi's if the civillian losses were a fair price to pay for the liberation of their nation? I trust you wouldn't like the answer.

I call Dr. Chinese a facisist because he is opposed to the removal of Saddam's facisist regime. If he is so opposed, what has he done to liberate the Iraqi people, other than object to the one thing that, so far, has worked. Armed intervention.

Beginning with an ad hominem, you then go to say that we should try diplomacy with North Korea, completely ignoring the fact that you discarded diplomacy with Iraq. What makes you think that NK is more tractable than Iraq? Is it because they definately have nukes? Dr. Chinese is consistantly saying (and I agree) that diplomacy is better than war. You seem to be saying "it depends on how powerful they are". Thus it seems that you only want to make war on weaklings. What a brave person you are.

We have tried for diplomacy for the last 12 years and Saddam has done nothing but sabotage it. Enough is enough.

12 years of diplomacy and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's under Saddams' rule vs. ~3 weeks of war and hundreds? How does that make diplomacy better than war? My ad-hominem attack stands, you both lack the basic capacity for rational, abstract thought.

Why don't you take your complaints about picking on weaklings to the people that are actually doing it, the Marines? March on down to your local recruitment office and call them a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards, tough guy. Should be no problem for a big brave man like yourself, sticking up for poor beaten little Saddam. I double-dog dare ya, chicken-****.

I could care less if North Korea has nukes. Its doubtful that they have the range to make it to the U.S.; even if they did we have enough defenses in place to knock them out. I'm worried that due to their unique culture the civillian casualties (on their side) would number in the millions. Or they would launch nukes into the South or Japan. I'm not worried about US interests. Am I a bad person for showing concern for non-american civillians? Regardless I think we will try diplomacy first and resort to military action if that fails, like we did with Iraq. Where diplomacy fails war succeeds.

That's a pretty shoddy reason for ousting. Would you say that if a leader invokes God in their speeches that they should be ousted? Well then goodbye both Saddam and Bush. But as both Dr. Chinese and I have repeatedly said, we don't deny that it would be better if Saddam were outsted. We just fear that the cure is at least as bad as the disease. Saddam has not attacked anybody in a long long time. That indicates to me that the diplomacy and sanctions and inspections were working. What evidence do you have that they weren't?

Stop changing the subject. Bush's frequent God references are embarrasing and I don't like them, but it has nothing to do with what we are discussin

I hate to break this to you but the war is almost over, it took less then a month and the civillians casualties were kept to an absolute minimum, at great cost to us no less. Diplomacy has NOT worked because Saddam has not abided by the terms of his surrender. Evidence will be forthcoming in the weeks that follow as our armed forces are able to search Iraq unimpeded.


Well, Yeti, it appears that you are basically saying that because we could destroy them and they can't destroy us, that we are in the right. Actually, I agree that we are in the right, but not because we are the most powerful. I don't believe that superior firepower should be used to impose our will on others. It should be used for defense only. Otherwise, the rest of the world will see us as agressors, and rightfully so. You seem to be proud of that.

No I'm not saying that, you are saying that. I never said might makes right.
Who cares what the rest of the world thinks, the've been so brainwashed by the Marxist peace movement that fighting tyranny is considered a crime against humanity.

We have to start somewhere? Well, that is the problem, isn't it? If we decide we can knock out one nation, why should anyone doubt that we will do it again to anybody who opposes us? Do you honestly think this is a good idea?

Its a fantastic idea. Nation's are free to oppose us as much as they want as long as it doesn't affect our national security. Fear is a great motivator.

And as to regimes that fueled 9/11, why is it that we allow a totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the 9/11 terrorists) to flourish? Should we not be taking them out for their undemocratic governments and their regime that is so oppressive that may of their people feel compelled to rebel against the US? The Saud family is also very unpopular with the common people, but we don't hear much about it, since the government controls the press. We heard a lot about it on September 11, 2001, but a lot of people seem to want to ignore the obvious message that it is our ALLIES are spawning terrorists faster than Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or almost any other country.


The Saudi's are not trying to build weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States or sell to those that will. Not to mention the Saudi's are nowhere near as brutal as Saddam's regime. They have also done their part to help us in the war on terror. So some of their former citizens attacked the United States, I'm mature enough not to hold the whole country responsible for the crimes of a few. Should we bomb ourselves because of Timothy McVeigh?


And since you bring up the point, Iraq has never attacked us. No terrorist attacks have been tied to Iraq. They do not have, and have never had, any ability to threaten us. I do not deny that the regime was evil. I only point out that if you are using their actions towards the US as excuse for attacking, then you are building a straw man.

I have never said that the prime reason for liberating Iraq was national security. Nor has our administration, the only people saying it are the protesters. Its one reason, surely, but pretty low on the list. Of concern is the AlQueda posion factory in northern Iraq, whether Saddam supported it or not he sure as hell wasnt going to do anything about it. After 9/11 we can't afford to let ANY AlQueda sites remain in operations, regardless of the circumstances.
There is a whole laundry list of good reaons for toppling Saddam's regime, much to many to go into here.

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Tricky

Damn! How did I get to be so old? I'm only 50.


It would also be a bit confusing. I'm unaware of anything vaguely racist in my position. I was under the opinion that most Iraqis were of the same general race, but different religions, sects and ethnic backgrounds. Perhaps you could educate me if this is not true.


50? Jesus... you're older than I thought! :)

When you see Brits or Americans protesting the war, and then later see Brits or Americans supporting the war - do you conclude that they are "showing their support for whichever side had the most recent press conference"? Probably not - why do you allow this difference in opinion among those populations but not the population of Iraq?

I apologize for suggesting it could be racial - but I have started to come to the opinion that this whole thing would be a lot different if Saddam had been killing white people.


Rather than go through your post piecemeal, I'll try to address the point I think you were making regarding my post.

The way I came up with my statistics (and just now verified those number), is by doing a search for "iraq population demographics". 60-65% are Shiite Arabs, and approximately 15-20% are Sunni Kurds - that puts the number of "non-Baath-party" people at somewhere between 75% and 85%.

(The question of "how could the be oppressed for 34 years when half the country is under 30" is irrelevant as we are talking about the population as a whole)


Of course, I don't know exactly what went on during the anti-American protests. Did everybody simply pour out into the street because it was a big ol' party? Were they "encouraged" to participate? Were they punished if they didn't? I can't answer these questions, and I don't believe you can either. I was making what I thought was an obvious statement that when one side is in the streets with guns, it would be folly to stand up for the other side.


That's the point - we don't know exactly how it went down, but why would you assume what did when there is another perfectly reasonable explanation that fits wells with the facts we do know? Why tarnish the population as a whole (and specifically, the millions of people who have been suffering for decades) with your statement, "show your support for whoever has the power"?

Regardless of a person's opinion on this war - there are some facts that we do know. I feel it dimishes your position to make statements like this, and to ignore the facts surrounding the suffering that these people have gone through. Why not (again: regardless of your position on this war), allow these people to express some gratitude and genuine relief and happiness at what may finally be the end of a very bad history?

Of course there are those who were happy with Saddam and his government, but the facts are: they are very, very much the minority.

Finally - one quick question to you and to anyone else: Have any of you taken the time to talk to any of the Iraqi exiles? I'm living in Germany and have the good fortune of being able to talk to the ones who truely do hate America, but who also truely appreciate what is finally happening. As one man put it, "Better a horrible end, than horror without end". He made that statement several days ago , his mother and extended family live in Iraq and he hasn't heard from them since just after the start of the war.

-Ed

[Mossy]

Originally posted by DrChinese

So when we see Iraqis cheering the American troops, what is it that we are seeing? Are they cheering the arrival of the American system of politics? Or are they cheering that Saddam is gone? Or are they cheering because we are the latest invasion force, and they will cheer us as they cheered Saddam when he was in power?


And this is precisely the sentiment that I am objecting to.

"They" are more than one person, and more than one opinion. "They" are over 22 million people - approximately 75% of whom have lived in hell for the last 3 decades.

How can you continue to equate the ones who are cheering now, to the ones who were cheering then? That is the part that is stopping me dead in my tracks, and frankly, frustrating me.

If you reask that question, without the huge generalization, your question seems to make an entirely different point:


Or are [a portion of the 15 million Iraqi people who have been oppressed for 30 years] cheering because we are the latest invasion force, and [those oppressed Iraqi citizens] will cheer us as [the approximately 5 million Iraqi citizens who were given a special status for the last 30 years] cheered Saddam when he was in power?


They != They.

Again, regardless of your position on this war - I feel that it diminishes your point when you attempt to lump ALL Iraqis into one bucket, and then question the [otherwise non-existent] hypocrisy of the motives behind their actions.

-Ed

[Diezel]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


What are the chances of that? As as been pointed out before, the post-war aims of the US have not been spelt out, or even decided within the Bush Administration.

A nice, cynical outlook, but wrong. You need only to look at what is going on in Basra to see that. They have already started setting up a self-rule government down there, putting tribal leaders in charge and contacting exiled leaders with interest of putting them in charge.

[crackmonkey]

What an odd take on things, Dr.C. You feel the population may be trying to ingratiate themselves to the troops by pretending to celebrate Saddam's downfall? Please... no one forced them onto the street. If there was any doubt as to the good intentions of the troops, people would have stayed out of sight. The Iraqis also haven't been shy about saying that the US shouldn't stay long; they want to govern themselves. Hardly a bunch of lickspittle yes-men...
Seeing the reception the troops got, shouldn't you be a little skeptical of your claims that it was an immoral war? If the population of Iraq is overwhelmingly for the war (it seems so, but too early to get a good read on it, admittedly), shouldn't that outweigh any sovereignty issues of a tyrant?

[iain]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
What an odd take on things, Dr.C. You feel the population may be trying to ingratiate themselves to the troops by pretending to celebrate Saddam's downfall? Please... no one forced them onto the street. If there was any doubt as to the good intentions of the troops, people would have stayed out of sight. The Iraqis also haven't been shy about saying that the US shouldn't stay long; they want to govern themselves. Hardly a bunch of lickspittle yes-men...
Seeing the reception the troops got, shouldn't you be a little skeptical of your claims that it was an immoral war? If the population of Iraq is overwhelmingly for the war (it seems so, but too early to get a good read on it, admittedly), shouldn't that outweigh any sovereignty issues of a tyrant? I agree, but I think we have to be cautious. Baghdad is a big city. If 10% of the population are on the streets celebrating, that would be huge crowds and make great television. That would not cast much light on the feelings of the other 90%.

I do not know what the true percentages are, but I'm sure that not every Iraqi is on the streets celebrating.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
I agree, but I think we have to be cautious. Baghdad is a big city. If 10% of the population are on the streets celebrating, that would be huge crowds and make great television. That would not cast much light on the feelings of the other 90%.

I do not know what the true percentages are, but I'm sure that not every Iraqi is on the streets celebrating.

True, but there was also a large population that sided with the British during the American Revolution. Does that mean it wasn't a good thing? (maybe I shouldn't ask that of a non-American ;))

[iain]

Originally posted by Diezel


True, but there was also a large population that sided with the British during the American Revolution. Does that mean it wasn't a good thing? (maybe I shouldn't ask that of a non-American ;)) I couldn't possibly comment on whether the American Revolution was a good thing :D

I think my point is that pictures of cheering crowds don't prove the war was right, any more than pictures of millions of anti-war protestors prove that it was wrong. They are powerful images, but we should be careful not to read too much into them.

What proportion of Iraqis are celebrating? From what I've seen it could be anywhere between 5% and 95% - we just don't know yet.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
I couldn't possibly comment on whether the American Revolution was a good thing :D

I think my point is that pictures of cheering crowds don't prove the war was right, any more than pictures of millions of anti-war protestors prove that it was wrong. They are powerful images, but we should be careful not to read too much into them.

What proportion of Iraqis are celebrating? From what I've seen it could be anywhere between 5% and 95% - we just don't know yet.

Your correct, we don't have that information right now. But I happen to live in an area with the largest population of Middle Eastern people, outside the Middle East and they were dancing in the streets of Dearborn yesterday. These are people that have just recently left Iraq and many of them still have their whole families over there.

And I have looked, seriously looked, for a single quote from an Iraqi ex-pat that said they weren't happy with the thought of a free Iraq, without Sadaam.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Mossy


And this is precisely the sentiment that I am objecting to.

"They" are more than one person, and more than one opinion. "They" are over 22 million people - approximately 75% of whom have lived in hell for the last 3 decades.

How can you continue to equate the ones who are cheering now, to the ones who were cheering then? That is the part that is stopping me dead in my tracks, and frankly, frustrating me.

If you reask that question, without the huge generalization, your question seems to make an entirely different point:

They != They.

Again, regardless of your position on this war - I feel that it diminishes your point when you attempt to lump ALL Iraqis into one bucket, and then question the [otherwise non-existent] hypocrisy of the motives behind their actions.

-Ed

I can't see what you are referring to in my post. Seems innocent enough to me. I would never lump all Iraqis in the same bucket. The Iraqis on the TV are "they". Not the same ones each time, certainly. I don't purport that any particular images are representative or not. I just said that we are shown images, and some people say "this one" is the true one or that one is. Frankly, I don't know. Maybe all of them are.

Not that anyone will understand this comment correctly, but most of the ones rejoicing yesterday also included US soldiers with guns. Don't read anything sinister into that statement, it is merely stating a fact. Are you objective enough to see that? It never occurred to me - when looking at pro-Saddam demonstrations a few months ago - that these people represented all Iraqis or anything even close to that. It was his propaganda.

If you know the number of people in Iraq that are happy to see Saddam gone, great. I wouldn't dispute that number unless you said it was everyone. (Heck, there are people in the US that think we'd be better off if Clinton was back in office. Imagine that.)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway

The first step to fighting something, is to declare that you are opposed to it.

Next comes the problem of establishing a legal structure that promotes the behavior you'd like to encourage, and discourages the behavior you don't want.



Dr.Benway, I will reffer to your post as a whole. I cut it for reasons of economy.

I needed some time to think about your post because I found the perspective interesting.

First of all, I was intrigued by the idea that "my" moral values can be superior to "yours". I really don't think that when it comes to moral values things work that way.

The life in dessert dictates completely different moral values than the life in Manhattan.

The professional life of a doctor surely dictates quite different moral values than the life of a lawyer etc etc.

Also. I think ( just think, I am willing to be persuaded on the contrary) that the examples that Baker provided like, Tortures, discriminations, slavery, genocides etc cannot be attributed to certain groups of people.

All these, represent the darkness we all carry in our souls. I can't explain otherwise how such practices exist even in the most advanced societies ( Proofs asked by the skeptical Baker will be provided to my next post). What do you think about that Doctor?

In 11th of April of 1826 in a small town of Western -Greece, Mesologgi, some people refused to accept the effective moral values of the Turkish conqueror. They refused to change their social structure in order to profit by the Turkish peshach, refused to stop talking their language and change their religion.

At the beginning Turks were sending them gifts and long letters, trying to persuade them that their system was old and not effective within the borders of the Ottoman Empire. When they saw that this didn't work, they start threatening them that they would impose their lifestyle and values to them. So they laid a siege to this town.

After staying locked behind the walls of the city for over a month and after starting dying of starvation, the Mesologeans decided to attempt an Exodus...

The got their flags , their starved children and wives and they tried to pass threw thousands of armed soldiers.

Of course, they got all killed. They didn't change their values with "superior" ones BUT in time, their values turned out to be stronger than the conqueror's because today, in the same city they speak the same language, believe in the same God and they live in the same way.

The Superior Court of Time decided that they were right :)

edited to correct Baker's nickname. I reffered to him as Bagel. Equally tasty, but wrong!

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The Superior Court of Time decided that they were right :)
Some values are more fundamental than others, and hence have broad appeal (though not universal appeal). Example: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

It's possible to have more culturally specific values that don't contradict the fundamental values. I think that diversity is great.

But I don't accept diversity when it comes to fundamental human rights.

[bva]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I just wanted to point out that everyone of the points you made were ignored by Chinese and Tricky. So typical. When they are stuck they move on..

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The life in dessert dictates completely different moral values than the life in Manhattan.[/i]

Does this statement lead to anyone else but me thinking immoral thoughts?

Mmmm... life in dessert. ;)

Ok, you can all go back to being serious now.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by bva
Yeti made a brilliant point but you have your head so far up chinese's butt you could lick the back of his teeth.

Quite amusing. Thanks.

And I mean the irony, not the 'licking back of his teeth' bit.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by bva


I just wanted to point out that everyone of the points you made were ignored by Chinese and Tricky. So typical. When they are stuck they move on..

Let's see, I am supposed to perhaps respond to this choice statement by Evil Yeti?

"I call Dr. Chinese a facisist because he is opposed to the removal of Saddam's facisist regime. "

My understanding of the meaning of the English language prevents me from being able to respond adequately to this gem. Besides, I think Tricky covered it quite nicely.

BVA, I think you need to go to bed now. It's past your bedtime, and you are getting a little cranky.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Some values are more fundamental than others, and hence have broad appeal (though not universal appeal). Example: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

It's possible to have more culturally specific values that don't contradict the fundamental values. I think that diversity is great.

But I don't accept diversity when it comes to fundamental human rights.


Maybe it's a matter of character. I can't accept that although I understand your point of view... I just can't make others think and live the way I do.I refuse to do this.

If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is your Gospel, well what if it's not mine, will we proceed to a Sacred-War?


Does this statement lead to anyone else but me thinking immoral thoughts?

Mmmm... life in dessert

LOL aerocontrols!! I saw my mistake afterwards but I didn't want to edit the post after some hours... Also, it was quite amusing :) :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The life in dessert dictates completely different moral values than the life in Manhattan.
Doon. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671541447/qid=1050324380/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-9080507-7847959?v=glance&s=books#product-details) Dessert planet. A planet covered with the vast sugar sand such that the Fremenmen must all wear SweatSuits to prevent them from becoming horribly fat. But underneath the sweet sands is a commodity precious to the entire universe, and especially the Schlepping Guild. Beer.

(Sorry for the diversion, Cleo, but I had to insert a commercial for one of my favorite parodies of all time. Also, I love your avatar. Makes me want to drag out all my old Asterix books.)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tricky

Also, I love your avatar. Makes me want to drag out all my old Asterix books.)

C-l-e-o-p-a-t-r-a my dear... Cleopatra...use all of my name... it fills your mouth, like syrup :)

Hmmm I was wondering if I should have used as avatar the image that includes Obelix as well... but then... that way,the place next to mine stays still vacant... I can paste Mr.Unique's avatar :p

http://www.asterix-obelix.nl/manylanguages/covers/fa-06-s.jpg

I apologize for the diversion too.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
C-l-e-o-p-a-t-r-a my dear... Cleopatra...use all of my name... it fills your mouth, like syrup :)
My apologies for unwarranted familiarity, my Queen. Did I mention you have a very pretty nose?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is your Gospel, well what if it's not mine, will we proceed to a Sacred-War?
Which part of the Human Rights declaration do you disagree with?

[Cleopatra]

Dr.Benway it was an hypothetical question, from my part, trying to insinuate that you sound very... hmmm strict or pretty sure about that.

Is the Declaration of Human Rights really your Gospel?

[Baker]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I can't see what you are referring to in my post. Seems innocent enough to me. I would never lump all Iraqis in the same bucket. The Iraqis on the TV are "they". Not the same ones each time, certainly. I don't purport that any particular images are representative or not. I just said that we are shown images, and some people say "this one" is the true one or that one is. Frankly, I don't know. Maybe all of them are.

Not that anyone will understand this comment correctly, but most of the ones rejoicing yesterday also included US soldiers with guns. Don't read anything sinister into that statement, it is merely stating a fact. Are you objective enough to see that? It never occurred to me - when looking at pro-Saddam demonstrations a few months ago - that these people represented all Iraqis or anything even close to that. It was his propaganda.

If you know the number of people in Iraq that are happy to see Saddam gone, great. I wouldn't dispute that number unless you said it was everyone. (Heck, there are people in the US that think we'd be better off if Clinton was back in office. Imagine that.)

So you are saying all of the cheering Iraqi’s shown all over Iraq is just US conspiracy.
You know you are starting to make latinijral look sane.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Baker


So you are saying all of the cheering Iraqi’s shown all over Iraq is just US conspiracy.
You know you are starting to make latinijral look sane.
So you are you saying that because there were no Iraqis out there booing and throwing stones at the gun-carrying soldiers, that there are none which oppose the invasion? I suppose that all those pictures of Iraqis cheering the fall of the World Trade Center were just part of a conspiracy.

Heck, some people just want to be on TV.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tricky

So you are you saying that because there were no Iraqis out there booing and throwing stones at the gun-carrying soldiers, that there are none which oppose the invasion? I suppose that all those pictures of Iraqis cheering the fall of the World Trade Center were just part of a conspiracy.

Heck, some people just want to be on TV.

Some statistics about Saddam Hussein's regime since the late '70s:

- 250,000-290,000 disappearances (most believed dead)
- 100,000 Kurds trucked to remote sites and executed during Feb-Sep 1988 alone
- 20,000+ killed in the '80s using banned chemical weapons
- 200,000+ Marsh Arabs displaced, detained or executed since 1991

Now who do you think they are in favor of Saddam or the US?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Baker


Some statistics about Saddam Hussein's regime since the late '70s:

- 250,000-290,000 disappearances (most believed dead)
- 100,000 Kurds trucked to remote sites and executed during Feb-Sep 1988 alone
- 20,000+ killed in the '80s using banned chemical weapons
- 200,000+ Marsh Arabs displaced, detained or executed since 1991

Now who do you think they are in favor of Saddam or the US?
Sources please?

Do you still think there are no Iraqis who oppose this invasion? (Hint. There are still pockets of resistance).

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Baker


So you are saying all of the cheering Iraqi’s shown all over Iraq is just US conspiracy.
You know you are starting to make latinijral look sane.

Would be nice if you occasionally read what I say BEFORE you place your foot in your mouth. Next time trying reading what you quote. Your words do not represent my statements.

[crackmonkey]

You were careful with your phrasing, Dr. C., but he picked up on the thrust of your comments. The implication was that the cheering masses may feel threatened by the troops, and are cheering to try to appease their new masters. Oddly, I couldn't see any of that attitude, particularly with the civilians who were criticizing the troops for not policing, fixing the electrical and water issues of Baghdad.
Reporters of all political stripes - from Fox to NPR to al-Jazeera - have noted that the people are deliriously happy with the invasion. The interpretation is somewhat different between the various outlets, however... Fox maintains that the people are cheering the proud liberators, and the Arab press sees it as the people being intoxicated by the hope of a better life, but that hope will soon be betrayed by the infidel invaders.
Regardless, the reaction of the people seems to be genuine. Not every last citizen, of course, but the vast majority.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tricky

Sources please?

Do you still think there are no Iraqis who oppose this invasion? (Hint. There are still pockets of resistance).


Yes very small pockets of resistance and they are mainly Syrian and some from other Arab nations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml


http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq0117.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/07/iraq/main548099.shtml

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You were careful with your phrasing, Dr. C., but he picked up on the thrust of your comments. The implication was that the cheering masses may feel threatened by the troops, and are cheering to try to appease their new masters. Oddly, I couldn't see any of that attitude, particularly with the civilians who were criticizing the troops for not policing, fixing the electrical and water issues of Baghdad.
If Dr. C. was careful in his phrasing, then you have shown us all why it is important to be careful. As I read over Dr. C's posts, I cannot see that implication. My own point (and I am not speaking for Dr. C) is that you will not see any strong anti-coalition protests (at least until the boundaries become clearer) because only an idiot would shout protests or physically attack armed soldiers who have been schooled that you can't tell the friends from the foes. This is not to say that there are not anti-coalition people in the cities, only that they are not idiots.

As the boundaries get clearer, we start to see people confront the soldiers (in a non-threatening way) to complain about things. Either we will act on their complaints, or their resentment will grow (or both).

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Reporters of all political stripes - from Fox to NPR to al-Jazeera - have noted that the people are deliriously happy with the invasion. The interpretation is somewhat different between the various outlets, however... Fox maintains that the people are cheering the proud liberators, and the Arab press sees it as the people being intoxicated by the hope of a better life, but that hope will soon be betrayed by the infidel invaders.
Regardless, the reaction of the people seems to be genuine. Not every last citizen, of course, but the vast majority.
Uh huh. And a some of these "deleriously happy" people are already complaining.

No offense, but I cannot completely accept your long-distance, media fed appraisal of exactly what is "genuine". Truly, I hope you are right. Still I think it would be a bad mistake for us to assume that we suddenly have a whole bunch of adoring and trustworthy friends. Wouldn't you?

Even if the outpouring of gratitude is genuine and widespread, we all know how these moments have a way of slipping away. I suspect that some people will lose the exhiliration of the moment and find things to complain and be resentful about (especially those who have lost loved ones) in the long difficult days ahead. This is human nature. If this does happen, we must not cry, "ungrateful wretches" and abandon them. This may be the hardest thing for us to do.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You were careful with your phrasing, Dr. C., but he picked up on the thrust of your comments. The implication was that the cheering masses may feel threatened by the troops, and are cheering to try to appease their new masters. Oddly, I couldn't see any of that attitude, particularly with the civilians who were criticizing the troops for not policing, fixing the electrical and water issues of Baghdad.
Reporters of all political stripes - from Fox to NPR to al-Jazeera - have noted that the people are deliriously happy with the invasion. The interpretation is somewhat different between the various outlets, however... Fox maintains that the people are cheering the proud liberators, and the Arab press sees it as the people being intoxicated by the hope of a better life, but that hope will soon be betrayed by the infidel invaders.
Regardless, the reaction of the people seems to be genuine. Not every last citizen, of course, but the vast majority.

I have said again and again, I am sure that many Iraqis are happy. Deliriously happy, I'm OK with that too. I am not disputing facts. But not all Iraqis are happy, agreed? And certainly some are intimidated or go with the flow of who's in power at the moment. It is a fact that many pictures have armed soldiers in plain view. Of course their emotions appear genuine, they appeared just as genuine when Saddam was in power.

What I am really trying to get at has nothing to do with the state of mind of the average Iraqi. It has everything to do with American perception of same. We try to relate to what they are going through, and I think we would like to imagine how we would feel in a similar situation. But I believe that there are so many differences, our understanding is limited.

I recognize that certain images - for me, the look of an Iraqi child - are nearly universal. But we must be careful to take the analogy too far. The farther we take it, the greater the breakdown of the analogy. Smiling faces may bring us satisfaction today, but the Iraqis and their Arab neighbors will live with the reality of the invasion for decades. I hope the end result was worth the pain, truly I do.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Baker



Yes very small pockets of resistance and they are mainly Syrian and some from other Arab nations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml
I see nothing in that story to indicate that the pockets of resistance are not Iraqi.

Originally posted by Baker
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq0117.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/07/iraq/main548099.shtml
Those are good sources and I accept them. Thank you. I just wanted to see where you got the numbers. I am quite sure that the casualties caused by this invasion will not be nearly so high. Probably only in the thousands.

[crackmonkey]

Tricky -

The people are deliriously happy that Saddam is gone, they're not deliriously happy that there is no electricity. People HAVE been criticizing the coalition forces about the conditions - pointing to the fact atht the population isn't cowering in fear... they're confident that the troops won't shoot them for being argumentative. That is a good sign, and points to their exressions of jubilation being honest and not an appeasement. I expect that there are some Saddam loyalists still lurking, but I think they're hiding from the rest of the population more than the troops at this point.
You're right that the current wave of gratitude can disappear quickly; this is a honeymoon between the coalition and the population. Once difficuly issues show themselves, friction will result. This is the hard part.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Tricky -

The people are deliriously happy that Saddam is gone, they're not deliriously happy that there is no electricity. People HAVE been criticizing the coalition forces about the conditions - pointing to the fact atht the population isn't cowering in fear... they're confident that the troops won't shoot them for being argumentative. That is a good sign, and points to their exressions of jubilation being honest and not an appeasement. I expect that there are some Saddam loyalists still lurking, but I think they're hiding from the rest of the population more than the troops at this point.
You're right that the current wave of gratitude can disappear quickly; this is a honeymoon between the coalition and the population. Once difficuly issues show themselves, friction will result. This is the hard part.
By Cracky! Impossible as this may seem, we may be coming close to agreement. Although, I don't think "appeasment" was how I would have described the Iraqi's jubilation, I still assert that if they had any misgivings, they kept them under wraps.

And yes it is a good sign that the people can argue with the troops (at least in front of TV cameras) without fear of being shot. In fact, I think this whole thing may work out for the best for Iraq. What I fear is that it will not work out for the best for the US. We have placed ourselves in a position where most of the world is angry with us and will be watching us with an eagle eye to see if we make a false step. We may have convinced some Arabs (and others?) that direct confrontation will not work against us and terrorism is the only recourse. I will be very happy if I am wrong.

Yes indeed, the hard part is very much ahead of us.