Herein lies the crux of our ideological conflict. Each side thinks that they are the true believers and the other side is a bunch of idiots. There is very little common ground anymore. I actually felt a tinge of regret after the post to which you refer, thinking that it might have been too personal and an attack on the individual and not the idea.
I would like to apologize to elucidator if he (I assume “he”) felt the same.
Regarding GWB, Sevastopol, that issue will never be resolved. Those who cling to leftward thought still don’t credit Reagan with his accomplishments 20 years later. It will be the same for GWB.
At the risk of jumping back into the pool I just got out of with my previous post, elucidator…
Please state your basic point or points without the layer of derisive sarcasm. I enjoy it as much as the next person, but it is obscuring your message.
That was a long list, already easily picked apart by others, but this was just jaw-dropping even by your standards, Sam:
Right. A civilized country starts wars just to avoid admitting it’s full of shit. Sure.
First, there’s the obvious fact that Bush’s folks could easily have spun that as a victory, forcing the evil Saddam to do whatever (and that you’d have lapped it up with a smile). But besides that, do you really believe that a country that starts a war on pretexts known to be wrong gains more prestige and followers than one that doesn’t? Really?
What is it with you guys, well? Do you honestly think that calling me a “Saddam apologist” is going to get you an answer to your question? Do you, manhattan, think cursing at elucidator and saying he opposes democracy is going to do anything? Do the bunch of you think skepticism in the face of raw, unvarnished government propaganda, which is all the bunch of you are presenting us with, is going to get any more respect by throwing this stuff around?
Crawl back under the rock y’all crawled out of. If you want some answers, bring manners the next time.
And just to introduce an actual idea in here, although why I don’t know, this entire thread is an exercise in the True Believers using the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to advance the idea that the ends justify the means, that is that invading Iraq on trumped-up charges of WMD is justified so that the end of democracy can be achieved. Some of us can think our way through to seeing the transparency of this argument. If that causes your thin skins to break and you to start whining uncontrollably about Saddam apologists and getting the fuck out of the way of history, you really need to toughen up a little, and learn some history. This ain’t Free Republic.
Quite all right. Got my faults, Lord knows, but “delicate” ain’t on the list. I’ve oft enough been the subject of Manny’s gentle, good natured joshing, with that mild, Garrison Keillor-esque wit. Rhinoceros occassionally ask to borrow my hide when contemplating a knife fight. Give as good as you get, and go down swinging.
And “he” it is, I regret that I have not the blessing of being an incarnation of the Goddess, and have not the clarity and insight so abundant to that gender.
(“Me? Oh, just posting some…no, I haven’t forgotten…right away, of course…Yes, dear…”)
The problem is not that facts are in dispute. It’s just that both sides find different sets of facts important. One side, looking at the reports of terrorist attacks and lack of basic services across much of the country, concludes that Iraq currently sucks. The other side, noting the elections, reports from people such as Saddam’s former secretary, and such things, conclude that Iraq currently sucks less than it did before we invaded.
Is this a cogent summary of both sides’s viewpoints?
I don’t think any party or coalition would have described itself as “pro-American,” but there was one liberal secularist list, Adnan Pachachi’s Assembly of Independent Democrats. It didn’t get enough votes to win a single seat in the National Assembly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Pachachi The liberal-secularist Liberation and Reconciliation Bloc won one seat, as did the left-leaning National Democratic Party; the People’s Union (a coalition including the Communists) won two. But all the really successful parties appear to be Islamist or based on ethnic groups or based on traditional tribal leaders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_2005
Of course, the voting included Iraqi expatriates – some of them living in the U.S., who might indeed be “pro-American” – and their turnout probably exceeded that in some provinces of Iraq, as they were able to vote under safer conditions – but the Shi’ite United Iraqi Alliance led among them, as it did among voters in Iraq.
You think this war was undertaken for the benefit of the United States? No wonder you’re so easily misguided. The folks behind this mess couldn’t care less if the nation gets cratered into a record-breaking debt as long as they themselves benefit from the mess.
Well, it’s not as if they have facts on their side…
A legitimate criticism, worthy of response, as well as offering an opportunity to bore you to tears.
Firstly, not sure that I could. Birds gotta swim, fish gotta sing. The strain might very well cause an internal rupture and hemmorage, a risk that a man in the full bloom of maturity dare not take.
Secondly, I am living testimony to the power of wit to change minds, mine own for instance. In the rapidly dimming past, my political views were quite conservative. To my enduring shame, I even thought Ayn Rand a philosopher, rather than a bitter and misanthropic intellectual harridan. I got over it, with a little help from my friends.
But at one time, as the civil rights movement was burgeoning, I was of a “go-slow” frame of mind (common enough in my native Texas). Mustn’t rush things, deliberate speed, all that sort of crap that men use to comfort injustice. And I read a line from Dick Gregory: “Get your foot off my grandmothers neck! Now, Goddamit!! Not one toe at a time!”
And I laughed, even as the human fury of that joke bit down to the bone. He reached me, instructed me, enlightened me. Which is to say, he made me feel a fool. Which I was. There is no shame in admitting having been a fool, the shame is in remaining one.
The moment a man laughs at a cherished opinion, that opinion is suspect and vulnerable. All the argument and citation in the world will not open such a chink in the armor, because it comes from within the armor. To paraphrase Mark Twain, a man I regard with the reverence some reserve for religious figures: laughter is the most powerful weapon in the human arsenal, it can shatter a petrified institution to atoms and shreds in a single blast.
(Not that I feign any comparison, I am egotistical, not delusional, I don’t fry my pencils and nibble them like breadsticks…)
Indeed . . . they’re not even interested in investigating cases of fraud on the government by Iraq reconstruction contractors, if said contractors have the right Republican Party connections. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304863
The beautiful thing (from Halliburton’s POV) about this arrangement is that, apparently, Halliburton can make money off this contract even if they fail to export any oil from Iraq. Come to think of it, how much oil is being exported, now? Does anybody know?
The question remains the same, “How does this benefit the US?”
I know that prominent neocons openly pooh-pooh the idea of national interest playng a role in foreign policy considerations and calculations, but surely the pro-invasion Dopers think that US’s national interests should come first when calculating US foreign policy. Don’t you?
So, how 'bout all them new terrorists and terrorists supporters that the invasion of Iraq’s brought about?
Supposedly, it was ~5yrs from planning stage to 9-11.
And yet, you’re doing the same thing now with democracy and freedom for others. Now it’s the left that’s become the, “Hey, I’ve got mine, let’s stay home” bunch. They’re the ones who wanted to leave Saddam in power and let the Iraqis try to get rid of him themselves. You’re the ones who have been making the old racist claim about how ‘those people’ can’t handle democracy because they’re too backwards, too tribal, or whatever. You sound exactly like the old southern conservatives during the civil rights movement, or like the apartheid regime in South Africa who justified their policies because the ‘wogs’ weren’t up to running their own affairs.
What George Bush is doing right now is the most liberal foreign policy since Kennedy. He’s liberated over 50 million people from tyranny, and counting. The people he’s fighting are the natural enemies of the left - fascists. The Islamists oppress women, gays, and other religions. But the left has opposed him every step of the way. Bin Laden was quoting Michael Moore for God’s sake.
I’ll tell you what - if I woke up one day and discovered that my cherished arguments were being embraced and repeated by David Duke and the KKK, I’d be doing some serious re-evaluation of my thinking. And the enemies of the U.S. right now make David Duke look like a civil libertarian. robertliquori said:
It used to be the case that we all saw the same facts, and argued over interpretation or cause. But with the rise of blogs and the fracturing of television and print media into partisan camps, we can’t even agree on the facts any more. Our media is becoming balkanized, and I’m afraid the population is going to follow suit. This is a troubling development, and doesn’t speak well for the state of society in the future.
elucidator said:
Well, I haven’t seen an opinion poll out of Iraq for months and months, so I have no idea what the thinking on the street is. My guess is that the opinion of the U.S. has probably gone up a bit in Shia areas, gone down in Sunni areas, and is already about as high as it can go among the Kurds. Certainly I’m not seeing any ‘death to America!’ marches - are you? Protests demanding the U.S. go home? Dissention in the new government over allowing the occupation?
In any event, were there pro-America marches in the streets of the former Soviet colonies after the wall came down? I remember one, somewhere like Lithuania or something. But you know what? Newly liberated people have their own problems. They’re not sitting at home going, “Oh, isn’t America wonderful! We must throw rose petals on them!”. Instead, they’re busy trying to start new lives and deal with the chaos that comes with sweeping change.
If you want to see if this whole effort improves the U.S.'s standing in the Arab world, wait five years. But frankly, the point was never to get the rest of the world to love America - the point was to remove the power bases of terrorists and the despair that leads people to decide that the best thing they can do with their lives is to strap a bomb to their bodies.
squeegee said:
How incredibly lame. Your pet conspiracy theory is so stupid that you can’t even come up with a plausible mechanism for how it’s supposed to benefit the evil bushies, and your fallback position is that they’re so stupid they invented a conspiracy that makes no sense?
In short, you have no evidence for this conspiracy, and can’t even make a logical case for how it would work. But it must be true, because…BUSHITLER!
Pantom said:
That’s an amazing statement. Is your position now that the bumbling CIA, who couldn’t get WMD in Iraq right, has suddenly morphed into a super spy agency that has penetrated the deepest levels of the Pakistani government? You do know that America’s biggest intelligence weakness is the lack of spies in Arab countries, right? The CIA relies heavily on electronic intercept and satellites for intelligence largely because it has very few ‘boots on the ground’.
It’s entirely possible that Musharref didn’t know what was going on. In case you haven’t noticed, the Pakistani government is a barely-stable collection of people who have their own agendas and power bases.
Squink said:
It’s not a training ground. It’s a terrorist killing ground. Not only that, but it’s forced al-Qaida into the position of killing Muslims to prevent them from spreading Democracy. Lately, Bin Laden released a statement telling Zarqawi that he should consider killing Americans at home. There’s no sign that Zarqawi has that kind of ability, which suggests that the real message is, “Hey doofus! Stop killing so many muslims. You’re not helping the cause.”
What do you think the opinion of al-Qaida is in Iraq right now? Do you think it’s going up in popularity, or down?
This is the batlle for hearts and minds, and al-Qaida is getting its ass kicked. This is how the war on terror will be won.
Brainglutton said:
Is it your belief that all of these things are worse now than they were under Saddam? In fact, oil production before the war was 2.8 million barrels per day. The current rate is about 2.5 million barrels per day. The problem here is not the result of war, but the fact that the entire oil infrastructure in Iraq is decrepit and failing. Nonetheless, Iraq has plans to re-invest oil revenue into the infrastructure and increase production to 5-6 million bbd within five years.
As for electricity, the total production is about the same as pre-war - between 4,000 and 5,000 megawatts. The problem is that demand is rising rapidly as people buy more televisions, cars, air conditioners, etc. Pre-war demand for electricity was about 5,000mW. Today it’s at 8,000. That says more about the growing Iraq economy than the destruction of power plants. Again, the problem is that the existing plants are old and have been neglected for a decade under Saddam. The Iraqi energy ministry is working now towards being able to produce 9,000mW within a couple of years.
But again, you’re cherry-picking the data to highlight only the bad. The story isn’t complete unless you count things like the re-flooding of the marshes, the rebuilding and re-stocking of schools across the country, the construction of new sewage plants in Baghdad and elsewhere, the growth in the economy, etc.
Most opponents of the war were in favor of those deployments, because it was the only way to get inspectors into the country. Certainly by the time the major debate on the war started, those troops were already there. Any reasonable discussion of the effects of not going to war has to consider the political cost of pulling out all those troops while leaving Saddam in power. It would have been devastating.
“So many”? How many? 1%? .5%? Are you still laboring under the belief that the insurgency has widespread support in the population? Did you happen to catch the big, “No to terrorism! No to Baathists and Wahabbists!” march in Iraq the other day? That would be, “no to al-Qaida” in case you weren’t sure who the ‘Wahabbists’ in question are.
The only place I’ve read an argument along those lines was in The American Conservative. Otherwise, most people who are skeptical about democracy’s prospects in Iraq base their skepticism on the facts that (1) the Iraqis have absolutely no historical experience with democratic government; (2) there are significant factions in their society which are inimical to democracy on principle; (3) we have good reason to doubt that the Bush Admin will tolerate any “democracy” in Iraq that freely decides to order our troops, and Halliburton etc., out of the country.
Bombs speak louder than chants.
What you describe as “the point” (1) was not what the Bush Admin stated as the purpose of the war when it started (they falsely claimed some communication between Hussein and al-Qaeda, but not even the Bush Admin could claim the presence of terrorist bases in Iraq without being hooted off the stage); (2) probably was not one of their actual, unstated motives (compared with things like control of the oil, and getting into a position to threaten Iran or Syria); (3) does not appear to have been accomplished.
Actually, it’s both. Young men in Iraq now – some Iraqi, some foreigners – are getting on-the-ground experience in terrorist tactics and guerilla warfare tactics; it is practically impossible for our forces, or the new Iraqi government, to kill or capture them all, or even a majority (it’s not like they wear uniforms); and those who get away will be giving us trouble for years to come, in Iraq and elsewhere.
It’s a killing ground, too, but terrorists aren’t the only ones getting killed – a possibility that appears to have been overlooked in the calculations of the “lightning rod” strategy.
:rolleyes: Let’s see . . . where have I heard that before?
But how much of that oil are they actually able to ship out of the country and sell? Do you know? I can’t seem to find that out by googling, but I’ve heard a lot of news reports about pipelines being blown up. The important factor here is not the oil stream but the revenue stream.
And, come to think of it, when Iraqi oil is sold abroad – who gets the money? Formerly, the oilfields and their revenues belonged to the state. Now, I understand, they have been or are being “privatized” – but into whose hands? Again, I can’t seem to find that out by googling.
:dubious: That’s not how I remember it. Everybody I knew, whether for the war or against it, saw the troop buildup for what it was: A prelude to invasion, and nothing else.
But still negligible, compared with what the war and occupation have cost in terms of money ($200 billion and still counting), lives (1500+ American and other Coalition; perhaps 100,000 Iraqi), and international reputation (you seem oblivious to the fairly obvious fact that a lot more of the world hates us now than before the invasion).
As you noted, there are no recent opinion polls. Nevertheless, whatever support the insurgency has appears to be enough to keep it going, and it shows no sign of dying down. It is as strong and deadly now as it was before the election, and I don’t think we can reasonably expect it to end until our troops leave (if then).
Blah blah blah . Where is the oil at? You made the claim, not put up or shut up.
Hey bud. I asked about oil. Not some totally different half twit conspiracy to hurt the US to put few million in his already very wealthy families pockets. Thats too moronic to do anything but dismiss. OIL. we are talking about the OIL conspiracy. Not some totally different half twit conspiracy to hurt the US to put few million in his already very wealthy families pockets.
Oh, come on!. I thought all you Bush haters define him as an ideologue moron who compares to the extremism he is trying to fight because he claims he has God on his side. Now it’s all about the Benjamins eh? LOL. You guys are too nutty to crack.
That’s a joke, right? The Developing Iraqi Insurgency Status at End-2004 pages 6 through 12 lists tactics and concepts the insurgents have picked up or refined in Iraq. They’re not getting deader, they’re getting smarter.
When are you going to learn that the “Bush is evil” diatribe only hurts you and the United States? I can understand it from nutjobs like Bin Laden, but you guys are supposed to know better considering you live in a free world.
I assert only that Bush (1) has an ideology (kind of a blending of the ideologies of the Christian Coalition and PNAC, with emphasis on the latter but more lip-service to the former) which is very important to him; and (2) really wants to help out his friends (those he has addressed as his “base” – it’s not any secret, is it?). Now, it just so happens that his ideology (in both of its roots) is evil, and most of the world can see it, even if you can’t; and when it comes to helping his friends, he apparently is none too concerned about ethics or honesty (or else he’s just oblivious, like Warren G. Harding was) – nor is he concerned in the first place about the ethics of using his office in that way. None of which makes him evil. Merely corrupt and stupid.
