[LoganCharles]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0818-11.htm


Hate filled and moronic to say the least

[chalk_outline]

[MindFad]

Lord, someone get that bitch a cheeseburger. And oil her FEMBOT joints.

[djohnson]

What a hate filled article... I wonder why the anti-Bush people want peace but also want Bush's head on a stake. It makes no sense...

[Millennium]

Indeed. I have never much cared for commondreams.org's writers, but usually their rhetoric isn't this frothing-at-the-mouth hateful.

[OldManMac]

That is one person out of the Democratic party. I'm sure we could find the same thing in "your" Republican party. As a matter of fact, the two people pictured in the second post typify the hate on "your" side. And I will agree it is very poorly written.

[Spliffdaddy]

It isn't poorly written.

The grammer, usage, spelling, and context are all spot-on.

You must be referring to the content?

[LoganCharles]

I won't argue that there isn't hate on both sides. However this caught me particulary off guard because it is posted on a web site that claims progressive and forward thinking views ie *positive*.

From their site:

pro.gres.sive
adj.
Moving forward; advancing.
Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
n.
A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

www.dictionary.com

Excerpts from Rall's Rant:

Creatively altered maps of streets and subways will be handed out to button-clad stupid white men. Other saboteurs wearing fake RNC T-shirts will direct them to parts of town where Bush's policies have hit hardest. Rumor has it that prostitutes suffering from sexually transmitted diseases will discourage the use of condoms with Republican customers.

But Republicans who venture outside the Garden deserve the abuse ordinary New Yorkers will likely inflict upon them.

Republicans are neofascists now, and that's why New Yorkers good and true will be yelling at them to go back home.

Totally baseless and evil spirited. In no way continous with their supposed mission statement.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Lord, someone get that bitch a cheeseburger. And oil her FEMBOT joints.

You know you'd hit it.

[LoganCharles]

...prostitutes suffering from sexually transmitted diseases will discourage the use of condoms with Republican customers.

I wonder if Rall knows the irony created by his satire. Or is it really satire?

Republicans are neofascists now...

I would argue that promoting the 'extermination' of Republicans via un-protected sex with prostitues is synonymous to some other Final Solutions.

Hitler was a Socialist and would of been an avid reader of CommonDreams.Org

[MacGorilla]

I read commondreams.org fairly often but I shocked and revolted when I read that article. I emailed the author about it as well.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by djohnson:
What a hate filled article... I wonder why the anti-Bush people want peace but also want Bush's head on a stake. It makes no sense...

I don't know what that means. I don't recall anyone anywhere calling for peace for the sake of peace. I think most people would like to see bin Laden's head on a stake and would be all for invading any country that harbors him (except Pakistan of course).

Why are so many people furious at Bush and his ilk?

WTF was Iraq all about? Tell me something anyone, everyone, are we safer, is the world safer after the invasion of Iraq? Even as the Smirking Imbecile stood before you and said that Saddam was involved with 9/11 and bin Laden, even as the Smirking Imbecile stands in front of his microphone and insists 10 times during his speech that the world/USA is safer because we invaded Iraq...Fu<k, I want to know who actually believes that unbelievable CRAP. Bush has recruited millions of new terrorists....and I know you know that. To many Republicans that doesn't matter...after all, the good ol' US of A will kick their ass, that's what we do, we're the greatest country in the world and don't mess with Texas and Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden and fu<k France and the rest of "old Europe".

Bush will be remembered as the Great Uniter, for in his lifetime he united terrorists worldwide, not to mention the Democratic party. Bush will be deposed in November.

[LoganCharles]

Let's stay on topic shall we.

If uniting the Democratic party is any way equivalent to Ted Rall's Rant on Common Dreams then you guys are a seriously fuked up bunch.

[OldManMac]

If uniting the Republican party is in any way equivalent to Ann Coulter's hateful diatribe, then you guys are a seriously fuked up bunch.

[CreepingDeth]

This is your Democratic Party.


I think that is more accurate.

[MacGorilla]

The Democrats are already united. It seems that this election the tables have turned. Usually, the Democrats are divided and laize faire when it comes to elections (cough2000,2002cough) but this time it seems the Republicans are ones who are divided and laize faire. of course things could change before November but thats my observation.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
the Republicans are ones who are divided and laize faire. of course things could change before November but thats my observation.

Not exactly what the polls say but I agree on the street you get that vibe. I think a lot has to do with the malaise people are feeling from the after effects of 9/11, the constant terror warnings, the ups and downs of the economy and on going Iraq struggle. Part of the problem is that we've become too media related as a society. We're constantly bombarded by what's going on in the world that it starts to cheat us out of our own personal lives. Look at a lot of us here. We spend or should I say waste dozens of hours a week debating when we should be out there in the world making a difference.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Not exactly what the polls say but I agree on the street you get that vibe. I think a lot has to do with the malaise people are feeling from the after effects of 9/11, the constant terror warnings, the ups and downs of the economy and on going Iraq struggle. Part of the problem is that we've become too media related as a society. We're constantly bombarded by what's going on in the world that it starts to cheat us out of our own personal lives. Look at a lot of us here. We spend or should I say waste dozens of hours a week debating when we should be out there in the world making a difference.

very true

[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.rall.com/2004_06_01_archi...53231413264149

This is cartoonist, Ted Rall.

http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2006/02/11/

Sunday, June 06, 2004

How Sad...

...that Ronald Reagan didn't die in prison, where he belonged for starting an illegal, laughably unjustifiable war against Grenada under false pretenses (the "besieged" medical students later said they were nothing of the sort) and funneling arms to hostages during Iran-Contra.

Oh, and 9/11? That was his. Osama bin Laden and his fellow Afghan "freedom fighters" got their funding, and nasty weapons, from Reagan.

A real piece of work, Reagan ruined the federal budget, trashed education, alienated our friends and allies and made us a laughing stock around the world.

Hmmmm...sounds familiar.

Anyway, I'm sure he's turning crispy brown right about now.

.: posted on 10:28 AM

What a fuzzy brained jerk!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KaBlooey

Why are so many people furious at Bush and his ilk?

WTF was Iraq all about?

Changing the face of the MIddle East. By democratizing a nation at the core of the MIddle East, it will be witnessed and wanted throughout the remainder of the Middle East. There are reform movements underway in Iran and it won't be long.

Tell me something anyone, everyone, are we safer,

Yes.

is the world safer after the invasion of Iraq?

It may or may not be, but of course having nothing to do with our actions in the Middle East. The world is going to come to a head of ideals regardless of what you do. Imperialism is not strictly an American ideal. China knows this. Russia knows this. N. Korea knows this. Iran knows this. You seem to be the only one who doesn't know this.

Even as the Smirking Imbecile stood before you and said that Saddam was involved with 9/11 and bin Laden

The smirking imbecile duped the entire country including most of the greens you'd have likely voted for then? Either he's an imbecile or he's the most genius man that ever lived in having duped an entire nation. The smirking imbecile was working on International intel, the same intel cited by Collin Powell, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, et. al.

even as the Smirking Imbecile stands in front of his microphone and insists 10 times during his speech that the world/USA is safer because we invaded Iraq...Fu<k, I want to know who actually believes that unbelievable CRAP.

I live in a demilitarized zone here in the US. You don't? What, you're being threatened by terrorists or something?

Bush has recruited millions of new terrorists....

No, terrorists created millions of new Americans. At least for a couple of years.

and I know you know that.

What I know is that a nest of bees has been aggravated. The bees always existed. We can either address the hive on our time or let it develop en masse and deal with a much greater threat.

To many Republicans that doesn't matter...

Ahhh, here it comes... the ol' "republicans" argument. Tell me, if there are Republicans who disagree with our actions in Iraq and Democrats who support our actions in Iraq, does it matter?

after all, the good ol' US of A will kick their ass, that's what we do, we're the greatest country in the world and don't mess with Texas and Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden and fu<k France and the rest of "old Europe".

WIth all due respect, what the hell are you talking about???

Bush will be remembered as the Great Uniter, for in his lifetime he united terrorists worldwide, not to mention the Democratic party. Bush will be deposed in November.

Terrorists are anything, but united. Democrats on the other hand, couldn't be more divided on this issue. Evidenced by their dismally poor performance at the polls. Try not to view all things as "rebublican" this and "democrat" that. This leads to blindness and complete retardation of philosophy and common sense.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Changing the face of the MIddle East. By democratizing a nation at the core of the MIddle East, it will be witnessed and wanted throughout the remainder of the Middle East. There are reform movements underway in Iran and it won't be long.

This is one of the biggest errors you have made. "Democratizing" Iraq won't have any effect on the rest of the ME except make them distrust you even more (if that is possible). Your best friend in the ME is the one that would create your wanted "domino-effect". But you won't touch them out of fear that the price of oil might rise a few cents.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

This is one of the biggest errors you have made. "Democratizing" Iraq won't have any effect on the rest of the ME except make them distrust you even more (if that is possible). Your best friend in the ME is the one that would create your wanted "domino-effect". But you won't touch them out of fear that the price of oil might rise a few cents.

In due time my friend. In due time.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

http://www.rall.com/2004_06_01_archi...53231413264149

This is cartoonist, Ted Rall.

http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2006/02/11/

Ted, if you haven't gotten the message yet here it is real simple.

If Iran gets a nuke they will do one of three things.

1) Take out Israel and hope that will bring back the Mahdi, ending the world.

2) Use that nuke to threaten the world to do as it instructs. Of course, the ultimate goal of Islam is world domination, the creation of a global rule, a caliphate.

3) Show great discretion and employ the subtle tools of diplomacy and statecraft to provide a better life for it's people and be a peaceful member of the global community. (To do this they would ALSO have to stop funding and supporting worldwide terrorism.)

So, which one do YOU think it will be, Ted?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In due time my friend. In due time.

That's another error you make. By "changing" Iraq first (doesn't matter what method you used) you've simply destroyed any chance of having any credibility in the ME. And you can't keep invading ME countries before this blatant disregard for innocent lives comes back to haunt your own people.

This "domino effect" would have been effective if politics were used to change SA. Using force and starting against Iraq have simply made any "domino effect" highly unlikely. If anything the "domino effect" will lead to a radicalisation of the ME. Not the other way around. And that will also come back to haunt your own people.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

That's another error you make. By "changing" Iraq first (doesn't matter what method you used) you've simply destroyed any chance of having any credibility in the ME. And you can't keep invading ME countries before this blatant disregard for innocent lives comes back to haunt your own people.

I think the blatant disregard for innocent lives ended the moment we lifted economic sanctions against Iraq. The insurgents are animated now because the very threat to their prosperity is democracy. If we thought SA was a threat to us as we conducted our work in the ME, we would be addressing them. We considered Iraq a threat, just as we consider Iran a threat not only to the US directly, but to our interests overall. Again, you're going on the assumption that our actions have created more terrorists when I thought we already agreed to disagree on this. I believe terrorism created more Americans.

This "domino effect" would have been effective if politics were used to change SA. Using force and starting against Iraq have simply made any "domino effect" highly unlikely.

Maybe so, but you're forgetting in your claim of SA providing a meal ticket of sorts to the US, we have a mutual commercial understanding. There are two important things to remember. First of all, there was no better idea on the table and the status quo was not only a humanitarian nightmare, it was doing absolutely no good at all. Secondly, "politics" have their limit. There are times when force is necessary. I believe it is premature to deem a domino effect unlikely.

If anything the "domino effect" will lead to a radicalisation of the ME. Not the other way around. And that will also come back to haunt your own people.

There's an old saying that goes a little like; "when in doubt, do something". Nothing wasn't working to help us. You can say it won't work, but then I'm an optimist and would disagree. I'm not as concerned about what action may cause as knowing what inaction has caused throughout the course of history.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Ted, if you haven't gotten the message yet here it is real simple.

If Iran gets a nuke they will do one of three things.

1) Take out Israel and hope that will bring back the Mahdi, ending the world.

2) Use that nuke to threaten the world to do as it instructs. Of course, the ultimate goal of Islam is world domination, the creation of a global rule, a caliphate.

3) Show great discretion and employ the subtle tools of diplomacy and statecraft to provide a better life for it's people and be a peaceful member of the global community. (To do this they would ALSO have to stop funding and supporting worldwide terrorism.)

So, which one do YOU think it will be, Ted?

What's the problem with Iran having a nuclear weapon? The way I see it there are only potential positives if they get a nuke.


1) If Iran takes out Israel we retaliate by nuking Iran and maybe the rest of the ME -- We still get access to ME oil

2) If Iran threatens the world with it we nuke Iran as a pre-emptive threat to the US (i.e.: use the Bush Doctrine) -- We still get access to ME oil

3) If Iran becomes a model global citizen and uses its nuclear capabilities only for peaceful, energy-producing means . . . We still get access to ME oil


How is any of this bad again? In all these scenarios the US remains the dominant hegemonic power AND keeps un-fettered access to ME oil. This looks like a win-win situation to me.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Changing the face of the MIddle East. By democratizing a nation at the core of the MIddle East, it will be witnessed and wanted throughout the remainder of the Middle East. There are reform movements underway in Iran and it won't be long.

Out of mild curiousity...do you really think it will be this easy to make Iraq a democratic country? I'm honestly curious.

I can't say either way, so I wouldn't make any predictions. However, this was quoted in this thread a few days ago, and I have not seen anyone answer as of yet:

Originally Posted by ink

Fine.

Who liberated South Africa?

India?

USSR?

And additionally: What nation that has been liberated* by the west, over the past century, has developed a meaningful democracy. Germany and Japan don't count, because they were blatant agressors, and not in the "preemptive counter-attack" category.

--
* liberated in the sense that Iraq has been liberated.

Well, I'm curious. What nation has been "liberated" from non-democracy and gone on to develop a meaningful democracy?

greg

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I think the blatant disregard for innocent lives ended the moment we lifted economic sanctions against Iraq. The insurgents are animated now because the very threat to their prosperity is democracy. If we thought SA was a threat to us as we conducted our work in the ME, we would be addressing them. We considered Iraq a threat, just as we consider Iran a threat not only to the US directly, but to our interests overall. Again, you're going on the assumption that our actions have created more terrorists when I thought we already agreed to disagree on this. I believe terrorism created more Americans.

No. The insurgents are "animated" now because they have lost members of their families due to your actions. They are "animated" because there is a foreign military occupying their country. And then there are those extremists you want to focus on who are trying to fuel the civil war that has already started.

And thanks for at least being honest. The only reason you invaded Iraq is because of yourself. It has nothing to do with Iraqis or the Middle Easterners. Only to do with your interests, i.e. oil.

Maybe so, but you're forgetting in your claim of SA providing a meal ticket of sorts to the US, we have a mutual commercial understanding. There are two important things to remember. First of all, there was no better idea on the table and the status quo was not only a humanitarian nightmare, it was doing absolutely no good at all. Secondly, "politics" have their limit. There are times when force is necessary. I believe it is premature to deem a domino effect unlikely.

Again, it's all about your own interests and nothing to do with creating a better life for the Middle Easterners. Which again shows that you have completely failed to understand your enemy and what creates him.

You'll suck a despot as long as he gives you what you want. But you'll threaten to kill tens of thousands if not more if a semi-democratic nation does something you don't agree with.

But at least you are honest about it.

There's an old saying that goes a little like; "when in doubt, do something". Nothing wasn't working to help us. You can say it won't work, but then I'm an optimist and would disagree. I'm not as concerned about what action may cause as knowing what inaction has caused throughout the course of history.

And once again we enter the binary world that the Americans live in. There were more options than A) doing nothing and B) invading and in the process killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

And it is because you are completely unable to see that that you will have more problems in the future than you've ever had.

And there's another saying which is IMO better than the one you mention. It goes something like "when in doubt, ask a friend". But then, when a nation no longer has any friends they can't ask them can it?

[vmarks]

You can't have access or use what is radioactive and unable to be harvested. Getting oil out of the ground is no easy task. Look at what it has taken in order to get Iraq's oil supply online.

The notion is to remove nuclear threats before they become active (see: bombing Osirak reactor 1981.)

Look at the North Korea standoff- because they have nukes and are presumably not afraid to use them, enormous energy has been spent on diplomacy (six party talks) just because the costs of tin-horn dictators setting off nukes are so great.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

No. The insurgents are "animated" now because they have lost members of their families due to your actions. They are "animated" because there is a foreign military occupying their country. And then there are those extremists you want to focus on who are trying to fuel the civil war that has already started.

So am I to understand that you completely discount the presence of non-Iraqis composing the Anti-Iraqi Forces (oh, you prefer insurgency) ?

Iraqi officials stated that most of the non-Iraqi insurgents were from other Arab countries. However, the New York Times reported that General Rashid Flaiyeh, the head of the police commandos in Salahuddin Province, said the bodies of Filipino men were also among the dead guerrillas. "I was surprised there were men from the Philippines," he said on Iraqiya, a state-run television network. However, he had an explanation for the presence non-Iraqi Arab men. "The Arab countries are sending fighters into Iraq because they want to destroy our democratic movement."

But it's more than just other Arab countries: Muslims are going to Iraq to fight from European nations as well: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...669637,00.html

And it's not just Britain.

There's a legitimate Iraqi government. It was voted for by Iraqis. The so-called insurgency is Anti-Iraq, and not surprisingly, composed in part of non-Iraqis.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And it is because you are completely unable to see that that you will have more problems in the future than you've ever had.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2900768

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You will all get what you deserve in the end and I can't wait for it to happen.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

So am I to understand that you completely discount the presence of non-Iraqis composing the Anti-Iraqi Forces (oh, you prefer insurgency) ?

Iraqi officials stated that most of the non-Iraqi insurgents were from other Arab countries. However, the New York Times reported that General Rashid Flaiyeh, the head of the police commandos in Salahuddin Province, said the bodies of Filipino men were also among the dead guerrillas. "I was surprised there were men from the Philippines," he said on Iraqiya, a state-run television network. However, he had an explanation for the presence non-Iraqi Arab men. "The Arab countries are sending fighters into Iraq because they want to destroy our democratic movement."

But it's more than just other Arab countries: Muslims are going to Iraq to fight from European nations as well: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...669637,00.html

And it's not just Britain.

There's a legitimate Iraqi government. It was voted for by Iraqis. The so-called insurgency is Anti-Iraq, and not surprisingly, composed in part of non-Iraqis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ees-usat_x.htm

Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.

Since last August, coalition forces have detained 17,700 people in Iraq who were considered to be enemy fighters or security risks, and about 400 were foreign nationals, according to figures supplied last week by the U.S. military command handling detention operations in Iraq. Most of those detainees were freed after a review board found they didn't pose significant threats. About 5,700 remain in custody, 90 of them non-Iraqis

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2900768

Your point?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Out of mild curiousity...do you really think it will be this easy to make Iraq a democratic country? I'm honestly curious.
[snip]
Well, I'm curious. What nation has been "liberated" from non-democracy and gone on to develop a meaningful democracy?

greg

I'm gonna keep quoting myself until I get something here. The same thing happened in the last thread – once this question was asked, everything died.

Well?? Has any other country been "liberated" and gone on to form a meaningful democracy?? If not, then what are some reasons why you think Iraq will be the first?

greg

[vmarks]

Germans and Japanese were each defeated as a people, ground down by a multi-year total war, and so they accepted the remake of their societies and cultures. In contrast, Iraqis emerged almost unscathed from a three-week war designed not to harm them. Feeling liberated more than defeated, Iraqis are in no mood to be told what to do. They take what serves them from the occupation and fend off, through violence and other forms of resistance, what does not.

Presence: Boots on the city streets should be Iraqi, not foreign. Remove coalition forces from the inhabited areas, transferring them to the deserts (which are ample in Iraq).

(This is happening. We have seen troop withdrawals and Iraqi Forces take the lead.)

Power: Guarantee borders, oil and gas lines, and the government in Baghdad. Hunt down Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. Otherwise, Iraqis should maintain order.

(Again, huge movement in this direction.)

Decisions: Let Iraqis make internal decisions (security, finances, justice, education, religion, etc.), keeping only foreign and defense policy in coalition hands.

(The Iraqi Government was voted in, and Iraqis are making these decisions.)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by djohnson

What a hate filled article... I wonder why the anti-Bush people want peace but also want Bush's head on a stake. It makes no sense...

Same reason pro-life people bomb abortion clinics.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What's the problem with Iran having a nuclear weapon? The way I see it there are only potential positives if they get a nuke.


1) If Iran takes out Israel we retaliate by nuking Iran and maybe the rest of the ME -- We still get access to ME oil

2) If Iran threatens the world with it we nuke Iran as a pre-emptive threat to the US (i.e.: use the Bush Doctrine) -- We still get access to ME oil

3) If Iran becomes a model global citizen and uses its nuclear capabilities only for peaceful, energy-producing means . . . We still get access to ME oil


How is any of this bad again? In all these scenarios the US remains the dominant hegemonic power AND keeps un-fettered access to ME oil. This looks like a win-win situation to me.

Surely you jest.

ONE NUCLEAR DETONATION and the human race has lost. Even IF it doesn't result in Armageddon, (which I believe it likely would) the human race will have lost because this would be the ultimate indication of failure.

NO ONE should WANT this.

Yet, Iran seems to be speeding toward it and Ahmadinejad is at the wheel grinning.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I'm gonna keep quoting myself until I get something here. The same thing happened in the last thread – once this question was asked, everything died.

Well?? Has any other country been "liberated" and gone on to form a meaningful democracy?? If not, then what are some reasons why you think Iraq will be the first?

greg

Still waiting for examples.

greg

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Still waiting for examples.

greg

Little boy goes into an ice cream shop and asks the clerk for a chocolate ice cream cone.

The clerk says they are out and to come back tomorrow.

The little boy left.


An hour later the boy returned and once again asked for a chocolate cone.

Again the clerk told him they were all out of chocolate, then asked if the boy wanted another flavor.

The boy refused and left.


Ten minutes later the boy returned and the clerk asked if he'd like some Vanilla, Tutti-Fruiti or Rocky Road.

The boy asked for a chocolate ice cream cone.

With that the clerk blew his top and began yelling at the kid, making him cry.

To stop the boy from his wailing the clerk said this:


"Answer these three questions correctly and I'll fix you up, little guy!"

The boys sobbing subsided.


"First question. Spell VAN as in VAN -illa."

The boy spelled V-A-N.

"Very good. Second question, spell STRAW as in STRAW -berry"

The boy spelled S-T-R-A-W.

"Final question kid. Spell STINK, as in chocolate."

The kid thought a moment then said, "Hey, wait a minute mister. There's no STINK in chocolate!"

The clerk replied, "THAT'S what I've been trying to tell you, kid. THERE'S NO STINKIN CHOCOLATE!!!"



Greg, spell VAN, as in VAN -illa...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhhhh...so. I wanted one of you guys who so stridently claim that Iraw will turn into a shining example of democracy through the US' glorious actions, to either find another example of where this has happened before...or failing that, to admit that it has never happened before in modern history.

Since this is the Intarweb, of course, none of you seem prepared to do that. Whether that be because of a naturally lazy attitude towards research, which I've pointed out in the Global Warming threads, or because answering the question might make your opinions "look bad" I have no idea. Once the question got asked, in multiple threads, it was blatantly ignored. (As a side note, it can also been seen in the global warming thread below...zero response once I post an article detailed a global scientific move to support climate change, even though Kevin had posted immediately before about how there's not enough evidence to prove anything.) Even now, when I suppose your vague and slightly disparaging post means that there is indeed no example you can come up with, you won't come right out and admit that you can't find an example where "forced democracy" has worked in the past.

This, of course, is the basis behind the Zakaria article you so enjoyed (although he states it differently). Understanding the sociocultural basis behind the reasons democracy has (usually) failed when abruptly implemented is, I think, important. I also believe that his point about civil liberties being tied hand-in-hand is quite strong – and rule-of-law, incidently, is certainly something that is currently quite shaky in Iraq at the moment.

greg

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Ahhhhhh...so. I wanted one of you guys who so stridently claim that Iraw will turn into a shining example of democracy through the US' glorious actions, to either find another example of where this has happened before...or failing that, to admit that it has never happened before in modern history.

Since this is the Intarweb, of course, none of you seem prepared to do that. Whether that be because of a naturally lazy attitude towards research, which I've pointed out in the Global Warming threads, or because answering the question might make your opinions "look bad" I have no idea. Once the question got asked, in multiple threads, it was blatantly ignored. (As a side note, it can also been seen in the global warming thread below...zero response once I post an article detailed a global scientific move to support climate change, even though Kevin had posted immediately before about how there's not enough evidence to prove anything.) Even now, when I suppose your vague and slightly disparaging post means that there is indeed no example you can come up with, you won't come right out and admit that you can't find an example where "forced democracy" has worked in the past.

This, of course, is the basis behind the Zakaria article you so enjoyed (although he states it differently). Understanding the sociocultural basis behind the reasons democracy has (usually) failed when abruptly implemented is, I think, important. I also believe that his point about civil liberties being tied hand-in-hand is quite strong – and rule-of-law, incidently, is certainly something that is currently quite shaky in Iraq at the moment.

greg

And I take it you are currently a University student? Tell me why one should believe you will successfully matriculate? After all, you've never done so before. But, others have done so, you'll say. To which I'll say, that helps only in terms of imagination and organization.

When one lacks imagination it is difficult to understand how success in anything can be achieved without a pattern, a roadmap, a franchise. Are you saying that without a precedent, if none exists, that Iraq shouldn't be assisted any further?

I'll say this to you.

This country exists because of brave pioneers who had the guts, brains and curiosity to, as Capt. Kirk explained, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Could it be that for all your potential you are temperamentally unqualified to speak for any point of view as it pertains to the outcome of the issue in question in Iraq other than whether the Subway Sandwich franchise doing business in the Green Zone have any long term hopes of permanency?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Ahhhhhh...so. I wanted one of you guys who so stridently claim that Iraw will turn into a shining example of democracy through the US' glorious actions, to either find another example of where this has happened before...or failing that, to admit that it has never happened before in modern history.

Since this is the Intarweb, of course, none of you seem prepared to do that. Whether that be because of a naturally lazy attitude towards research, which I've pointed out in the Global Warming threads, or because answering the question might make your opinions "look bad" I have no idea. Once the question got asked, in multiple threads, it was blatantly ignored. (As a side note, it can also been seen in the global warming thread below...zero response once I post an article detailed a global scientific move to support climate change, even though Kevin had posted immediately before about how there's not enough evidence to prove anything.) Even now, when I suppose your vague and slightly disparaging post means that there is indeed no example you can come up with, you won't come right out and admit that you can't find an example where "forced democracy" has worked in the past.

This, of course, is the basis behind the Zakaria article you so enjoyed (although he states it differently). Understanding the sociocultural basis behind the reasons democracy has (usually) failed when abruptly implemented is, I think, important. I also believe that his point about civil liberties being tied hand-in-hand is quite strong – and rule-of-law, incidently, is certainly something that is currently quite shaky in Iraq at the moment.

greg

You basically are claiming that you aren't getting an answer when you limited the question so as to eliminate considering other relevant 20th century examples.

I highlighted the developments that need to happen for a successful Iraqi Republic, and noted that these developments are taking place, and didn't mention any past examples because you specifically rejected relevant ones out of hand when you first posted your question.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by vmarks

You basically are claiming that you aren't getting an answer when you limited the question so as to eliminate considering other relevant 20th century examples.

I highlighted the developments that need to happen for a successful Iraqi Republic, and noted that these developments are taking place, and didn't mention any past examples because you specifically rejected relevant ones out of hand when you first posted your question.

This is bullshit.

What relevant examples did I reject when I asked the question? Tell me. The original question (not posited by myself) listed Germany and Japan as not counting; the reasons for that are fairly obvious (you pointed one out yourself in your previous post).

So, go on. Give me relevant examples. Don't give me BS excuses.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

And I take it you are currently a University student? Tell me why one should believe you will successfully matriculate? After all, you've never done so before. But, others have done so, you'll say. To which I'll say, that helps only in terms of imagination and organization.

When one lacks imagination it is difficult to understand how success in anything can be achieved without a pattern, a roadmap, a franchise. Are you saying that without a precedent, if none exists, that Iraq shouldn't be assisted any further?

I'll say this to you.

This country exists because of brave pioneers who had the guts, brains and curiosity to, as Capt. Kirk explained, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Could it be that for all your potential you are temperamentally unqualified to speak for any point of view as it pertains to the outcome of the issue in question in Iraq other than whether the Subway Sandwich franchise doing business in the Green Zone have any long term hopes of permanency?

You talk about "fuzzy logic" and then give me an argument like this? Damn, aberdeen. You're slipping.

Not only is your rebuttal totally irrelevant, it's stupid. You compare a lack of previous examples of forced or abrupt democracy with the fact that I've never graduated? There's no connection there. There is precedent for graduation. Others graduate. My parents graduated! My brother is graduating, with the highest marks in his engineering year. My sister just entered university, and the lowest mark she's gotten so far has been an A+. Apparently, we have good scholastic genes. I am in fact somewhat of a mature student at 25, having gone back to school – I believe studies show older students who make a deliberate effort to enter university are more successful. My GPA has been hovering around 4.0 for the past couple years; all signs point to a successful graduation on my part, and (hopefully) an entrance into law school will result.

That's the worst argument you've ever brought up, aberdeen. There is no logical connection. The path I'm taking in school has been trodden a million times before (even if a Biology major and History minor seems to be a rare occurance, it's still been done ). The attempted democratization of Iraq has been tried before, and it seems the results have been quite dismal. vmarks' comments regarding the state of progress in Iraq are all positive and all good things, but it is significant that he does not remark on any civil progress. Guns and force and restructuring do not a democracy make. Not only does the population have to buy into the social and political re-organization, but civil liberties have to become an integral part of Iraqi society for democracy to last long-term. So far, I have seen little evidence that this has happened to a significant degree.

Finally, to say "for all your potential you are temperamentally unqualified to speak for any point of view as it pertains to the outcome of the issue in question in Iraq" is ambiguous. What does it mean, "tempermentally unqualified?!" Does my temperment disqualify me from discussing the current situation in Iraq? I would like to think that I should be more qualified than many of you here to speak on Iraq, since as a bit of an amateur historian I've done a fair bit of study on political transitions within nations. What does that have to do with my temperment?

And finally, I hate Subway. I worked there for 7 months in high school, and was The Artiste. My cookies were soft and moist and delicious and never hard; my subs were perfectly cut and had just the right amount of toppings. My brother and I held a 2-year store record for making 87 subs in a single, insanely busy hour. In short, I will never go in a Subway again unless forced to.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I'll say this to you.

This country exists because of brave pioneers who had the guts, brains and curiosity to, as Capt. Kirk explained, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Since I'm on a roll, I'll call bullshit on this as well, and also call you a racist ignoramus.

Where no man has gone before? Current estimates are of 12 million people living in the modern United States. Most of the central-southeastern area was vast farmland and settled villages, complete with structured societies including royalty. Your "brave pioneers" made a couple visits, and then 100 years later they decided to come back to settle the area – and found empty cabins and discarded tools and vast tracks of virgin forest where once farmland had reigned. Millions upon millions of people, wiped out by disease they didn't even understand, and leaving a land perfectly ripe for exploitation behind them.

Don't talk to me about white pioneers going "where no man has gone before." Those same white pioneers embarked on mass genocide from the moment they landed, and every noble step they took was soaked in blood.

greg

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Since I'm on a roll, I'll call bullshit on this as well, and also call you a racist ignoramus.

Where no man has gone before? Current estimates are of 12 million people living in the modern United States. Most of the central-southeastern area was vast farmland and settled villages, complete with structured societies including royalty. Your "brave pioneers" made a couple visits, and then 100 years later they decided to come back to settle the area – and found empty cabins and discarded tools and vast tracks of virgin forest where once farmland had reigned. Millions upon millions of people, wiped out by disease they didn't even understand, and leaving a land perfectly ripe for exploitation behind them.

Don't talk to me about white pioneers going "where no man has gone before." Those same white pioneers embarked on mass genocide from the moment they landed, and every step they took was soaked in blood.

greg

This is an excellent, and always over-looked, bit of information regarding the "Discovery" of the New World. Whether the European colonizers had come for peaceful purposes of trade or violent purposes of conquest, the end result would have been the same. The end result was almost complete decimation of the native peoples living here due to the germs and diseases brought by the colonizers.

It's a similar phenomena to what happened to the European colonizers who went into Africa and South Asia in the 19th century. They died in large numbers just because of the germs and diseases they were exposed to while in these places.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You talk about "fuzzy logic" and then give me an argument like this? Damn, aberdeen. You're slipping.

Not only is your rebuttal totally irrelevant, it's stupid. You compare a lack of previous examples of forced or abrupt democracy with the fact that I've never graduated? There's no connection there. There is precedent for graduation. Others graduate. My parents graduated! My brother is graduating, with the highest marks in his engineering year. My sister just entered university, and the lowest mark she's gotten so far has been an A+. Apparently, we have good scholastic genes. I am in fact somewhat of a mature student at 25, having gone back to school – I believe studies show older students who make a deliberate effort to enter university are more successful. My GPA has been hovering around 4.0 for the past couple years; all signs point to a successful graduation on my part, and (hopefully) an entrance into law school will result.

That's the worst argument you've ever brought up, aberdeen. There is no logical connection. The path I'm taking in school has been trodden a million times before (even if a Biology major and History minor seems to be a rare occurance, it's still been done ). The attempted democratization of Iraq has been tried before, and it seems the results have been quite dismal. vmarks' comments regarding the state of progress in Iraq are all positive and all good things, but it is significant that he does not remark on any civil progress. Guns and force and restructuring do not a democracy make. Not only does the population have to buy into the social and political re-organization, but civil liberties have to become an integral part of Iraqi society for democracy to last long-term. So far, I have seen little evidence that this has happened to a significant degree.

Finally, to say "for all your potential you are temperamentally unqualified to speak for any point of view as it pertains to the outcome of the issue in question in Iraq" is ambiguous. What does it mean, "tempermentally unqualified?!" Does my temperment disqualify me from discussing the current situation in Iraq? I would like to think that I should be more qualified than many of you here to speak on Iraq, since as a bit of an amateur historian I've done a fair bit of study on political transitions within nations. What does that have to do with my temperment?

And finally, I hate Subway. I worked there for 7 months in high school, and was The Artiste. My cookies were soft and moist and delicious and never hard; my subs were perfectly cut and had just the right amount of toppings. My brother and I held a 2-year store record for making 87 subs in a single, insanely busy hour. In short, I will never go in a Subway again unless forced to.

greg

If you want we can quit this now. You seem like a good guy, even though you are a lib.

[Rumor]

That article is oozing with venom. An extremist on the left. Gives me the willies that some people are so hateful. Also reminds me of certain people that tie bombs to themselves.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

This is bullshit.

What relevant examples did I reject when I asked the question? Tell me. The original question (not posited by myself) listed Germany and Japan as not counting; the reasons for that are fairly obvious (you pointed one out yourself in your previous post).

So, go on. Give me relevant examples.

Panama.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

No. The insurgents are "animated" now because they have lost members of their families due to your actions.

They had already lost several hundred thousand family members at the hands of Saddam via genocide. Also please keep in mind that an additional several hundred thousand were starved to death on failed economic sanctions because of Saddam's non-compliance. Please try to remain calm in this Von. There's no reason to get all worked up about me. I'm just a schlep on a computer. You can say everything was just fine prior, I disagree. Commercial agreements are the only contracts human nature can uphold Von. There are no global "friends" and there never have been.

They are "animated" because there is a foreign military occupying their country.

There's a reason there's an occupying force. Extremists don't want democracy, they want fascism and oppression. There was going to be a problem. We can address the problem on their time or on our time. You may not appreciate it, but the problem was growing, not waning.

And then there are those extremists you want to focus on who are trying to fuel the civil war that has already started.

there is no civil war Von.

And thanks for at least being honest. The only reason you invaded Iraq is because of yourself. It has nothing to do with Iraqis or the Middle Easterners. Only to do with your interests, i.e. oil.

That's nowhere near what I said Von. I mentioned several things and never used the words "only reason". That is your extrapolation and a point we disagree on. Please try not to be too angry in all this. I'm just a guy on a computer.

Again, it's all about your own interests and nothing to do with creating a better life for the Middle Easterners. Which again shows that you have completely failed to understand your enemy and what creates him.

I understand people Von. I understand what creates them and I understand what creates me. They are the same things. We want the same things. We have different ways of attaining these things and once we have them, we have a different idea on how to maintain them. Criminals on the other hand, are more ruthless and need to be addressed. Sometimes there are only a few criminals, sometimes there are many and the task is greater. There was a cult of them growing like a tumor Von. They grow in silence as long as no one disturbs them. They become scattered and desperate once disturbed. I believe this is what we see. If it makes you feel better, perhaps this was also America before we were attacked. If you can't blame them, you can't blame us. Though, it's possible you don't understand Americans.

You'll suck a despot as long as he gives you what you want. But you'll threaten to kill tens of thousands if not more if a semi-democratic nation does something you don't agree with.

hundreds of thousands were already dying. You're asking me which is more humanitarian? To die by genocide, starvation, IED, or wayward missile? I don't know. All we can do is look at numbers. Right now, we'd need many more years of "failure" at the current pace to equal the travesty of the region prior. Greater good Von. That's all I want. No one truly knows how to attain it. All you can do is try and argue with one another on how. Only, I'm not getting any "hows" from you. I'd like to see a few.

But at least you are honest about it.

of course I'm honest about it. I'm just a guy on a computer. I'm really glad I'm not in leadership and have to take the heat for the decision, but then I am in leadership and I understand that it's not always easy.

And once again we enter the binary world that the Americans live in. There were more options than A) doing nothing and B) invading and in the process killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Status quo was killing tens of thousands. Either it was nothing that facilitated these deaths or another something. Unless you know of something else. I'd like to hear it.

And it is because you are completely unable to see that that you will have more problems in the future than you've ever had.

I don't know that, but I'm inclined to disagree with you at this point. I'm biased in a particular direction and as our positions would have it, I'm optimistic, just as you are biased in the other. We may both be right or wrong. Only time will tell.

And there's another saying which is IMO better than the one you mention. It goes something like "when in doubt, ask a friend". But then, when a nation no longer has any friends they can't ask them can it?

There are no friends on this globe Von. Only mutual commercial partnerships. It's unfortunate, but then human nature often is.