What If?

[BabyRider]

:yh_clap

[greydeadhead]

Well.. for what is it worth.. there were democratic elections in Iraq before Saddam was removed from power. He was always victorious with 100% of the vote.. and every Iraqi voted...

[A Karenina]

kit, with all due respect to your position, some of us have a problem with the way things were handed to the American (and UK) public.



We had been asked for years to help the Iraqis depose Hussein. Certainly we are capable of it. Clinton gave paltry sums of $30 million or so. That might sound like enough to get rid of Hussein, but $30 million is one month's payroll for a company of about 6,000 people. Not really that impressive.



Then the horrific 9/11.



Then Bush declared he didn't care what bin Laden was up to.



Then he decided he was going after Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction pointed at us and were willing to use them.



And after terrifying people with this apparently false news, we invaded, deposed Hussein...and it became about terrorists.



Deposing Hussein was a good thing. I totally agree.



Doing so with a pre-emptive strike on ever-shifting grounds causes many of us to feel extremely wary of our own government. Wary and watchful is good. Extremely distrusting is not good.



But please please don't give me the "I told you so" routine over something that is perfectly obvious and has little to do with the real issue for many of us. Is the Iraqi people's freedom to vote a worthwhile thing? Yes! Does it make the string of lies and excuses ok? (shrug) I don't think so myself, but that answer depends on whether you believe more in the means or the end.



JMHO

[gmc]

I hope it all works out for the Iraquis and they do end up with democracy but there were probably better ways to do it and likely the iraquis would have ended up with a better government anyway, possibly after a civil war but they may still have that anyway. I hope I am wrong and it all works out without more bloodshed but better the Iraquis sort out their own democracy.

The ostensible reason for the war was not to depose Saddam though was it? Now they have had an election how soon should we pull our troops out? after all they now have rid of saddam and have a democracy don't they?

[capt_buzzard]

GMC, :yh_star :yh_star

[capt_buzzard]

PEIguy wrote: I have to say that I opposed the US going into Iraq from the beginning.



The whole line about Iraq having weapons of Mass destruction was a lie and Rice (with the blessing of the West Wing) misled congress in order to get their support. That being said, they misled the American Citizens and Britain. Hmm wasn't a president kicked out of Office for lying.



It seems most people forget that the US put Saddam in power to begin with and supported him during the time he was murdering thousands of his own citizens.



When Ossama kills 2,752 people on 9-11, it was terrorism, but when the White House kills 15,600 civilians in Iraq and between 500 and 3500, (depending on source, in Afghanistan), its to save them.



At the same time, anyone who has any ties to Muslims, is an automatic suspect and can be arrested without charge whether they are Canadian Citizens or even Americans.



Sorry folks, some of the scariest terrorists are in the White House. I agree with you on that.

[A Karenina]

Well done, PEIGuy! Sadly, Chomsky doesn't get much notice here. What is that saying about a prophet being hated in his own land? LOL. Of course, he explained it best with his emperor and the new clothes quip.

Whether we agree or disagree with him, the man is brilliant. To me, he deserves more respect and attention than he gets. Ah well.



What doesn't deserve attention and respect is the silly name calling that some resort to. JMHO.



May I also wish you a good day? Sincerely.

[Der Wulf]

PEIguy wrote: Cool. We can agree to disagree.



I know that my source for information isn't the American media or on the other hand, conspiracists like Michael Moore. My source information on most political history is Noam Chomsky, Professor at MIT since 1955, and a respected scientist and political writer. If you think I'm a nut, then I'm proud to be in good company.






According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle with the Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off."





According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, American operations behind the Iron Curtain included "a ‘secret army’ under US-Nazi auspices that sought to provide agents and military supplies to armies that had been established by Hitler and which were still operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the early 1950s."





According to Chomsky, in Latin America during the Cold War, U.S. support for legitimate governments against Communist subversion led to US complicity under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in "the methods of Heinrich Himmler’s extermination squads."





According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide between torture and U.S. aid."





According to Chomsky, America "invaded" Vietnam to slaughter its people, and even after America left in 1975, under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, "the major policy goal of the US has been to maximize repression and suffering in the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of the cruelty is quite astonishing." (6)





According to Chomsky, "the pretext for Washington’s terrorist wars [i.e., in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, etc.] was self-defense, the standard official justification for just about any monstrous act, even the Nazi Holocaust." (7)





In sum, according to Chomsky, "legally speaking, there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes."(8)


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=1020



Read the article, then explain how Horowitz is wrong. :yh_wait

[A Karenina]

Der Wulf, I believe you were addressing kensloft, but I'll throw my two cents in as well.



This is a long quote from Understanding Power ~



If you look back at the Revolutionary War period, you'll find that Revolutionary War leaders, people like Thomas Jefferson (who's regarded as a great libertarian and with some reason), were saying that people should be punished if they are, in his words, "traitors in thought but not in deed" - meaning they should be punished if they say things that are treacherous. And during the Revolutionary War, there was vicious repression of dissident opinion.

Well, it just goes from there. Today the methods are different - now it's not the threat of force that ensures the media will present things within a framework that serves the interests of the dominant institutions, the mechanisms today are much more subtle. But nevertheless, there is a complex system of filters in the media and educational institutions which ends up ensuring that dissident perspectives are weeded out, or marginalized in one way or another. And the end result is in fact quite similar: what are called opinions "on the left" and "on the right" in the media represent only a limited spectrum of debate, which reflects the range of needs of private power - but there's essentially nothing beyond those "acceptable" positions.

So what the media do, in effect, is to take the set of assumptions which express the basic ideas of the propaganda system...and then present a range of debate within that framework - so the debate only enhances the strength of the assumptions, ingraining them in people's minds as the entire possible spectrum of opinion that there is.



Now, I can't make the leap from paragraph one to paragraph two that Chomsky makes here. And I can't say I'm as suspicious as Chomsky is...but I do think he made one point, even though I don't agree with his backup to get there.



Our debate is often limited in scope, and we are often confined/labeled according to our views. It's as if the middle ground, the ability to reason, and the potential we have to find new ideas has just disappeared.



So, whether we agree with him or not, he does spark thought, conversation, and debate...and he drives us to new paths of thinking. So, I think it's a drag that more people don't read him.



Ok, now to let you two hash this one out.

[Der Wulf]

A Karenina wrote:

Now, I can't make the leap from paragraph one to paragraph two that Chomsky makes here. And I can't say I'm as suspicious as Chomsky is...but I do think he made one point, even though I don't agree with his backup to get there.



Our debate is often limited in scope, and we are often confined/labeled according to our views. It's as if the middle ground, the ability to reason, and the potential we have to find new ideas has just disappeared.



So, whether we agree with him or not, he does spark thought, conversation, and debate...and he drives us to new paths of thinking. So, I think it's a drag that more people don't read him.



Ok, now to let you two hash this one out.
Actually, it was addressed to pei guy, He claims his whole source of political wisdom is Chomsky ; "I know that my source for information isn't the American media or on the other hand, conspiracists like Michael Moore. My source information on most political history is Noam Chomsky, Professor at MIT since 1955, and a respected scientist and political writer. If you think I'm a nut, then I'm proud to be in good company."



I have a big problem with demigogs that adopt a political philosophy, then manipulate historical facts to support their predisposition. Read, listen, debate, then think and form your own belief systems ---then re-think and adapt as your mind or new facts redirect you.

You made an excellent point in another thread about the imperfection of humans. The point is not to reach a level of perfection, then park, the real excellence in mankind is the constant quest for improvment. that cannot happen without intellectual honesty. The article by Horowitz probes that quality in Chomsky's political essay's.



IMHO The history of the United States as propounded in this thread is nothing less than at best, an uninformed, unthinking, recitation of US basher talking points. At worst it's a twisted and bigoted diatribe.



Wanna debate the points, --I'm on. But we must get the facts straight before assuming intentions. BTW in my world, ladies do not step aside, they add a special dimension.

[A Karenina]

Der Wulf wrote: Actually, it was addressed to pei guy,
You're right. I'm sorry peiguy and kensloft.



Der Wulf wrote: I have a big problem with demigogs that adopt a political philosophy, then manipulate historical facts to support their predisposition. Read, listen, debate, then think and form your own belief systems ---then re-think and adapt as your mind or new facts redirect you.

You made an excellent point in another thread about the imperfection of humans. The point is not to reach a level of perfection, then park, the real excellence in mankind is the constant quest for improvment. that cannot happen without intellectual honesty.
Wow! That could've come from my own mind, except I'd take twice as long to say it. LOL



Der Wulf wrote: The article by Horowitz probes that quality in Chomsky's political essay's.



IMHO The history of the United States as propounded in this thread is nothing less than at best, an uninformed, unthinking, recitation of US basher talking points. At worst it's a twisted and bigoted diatribe.
I haven't read the Horowitz article yet. I'll be curious to see what PEIguy says about it. But I do agree that Chomsky makes some massive leaps that I can't follow. Especially when he's disrespecting Jefferson, one of my favorites. LOL.



I haven't read anything he's said about Iraq. So I'm wimping out and leaving it to those who have read him.



Der Wulf wrote: Wanna debate the points, --I'm on. But we must get the facts straight before assuming intentions. BTW in my world, ladies do not step aside, they add a special dimension.
Charmer! Effective, by the way.



Getting the facts straight...I guess that's part of my point. Oftentimes people have such opposing viewpoints that it takes forever to agree on the smallest detail, much less debate the points at hand.



Let's take item 1 and 2 from your quote. Chomsky's interpretation is brutal, but I have often heard that we did use Nazis against the Soviet Union. We'd have to first research to find out if that's true or not, and then analyze who we were using, why, and how. Then we could finally debate the right and wrong of how we fought the Cold War in this instance. That debate would probably lead to using bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan later on. Same basic principle.



Some people are going to get completely lost in the immediate outrage over using Nazis. Period. They can't go forward with their thinking. The debate has to start so small, with defining the term 'Nazi', understanding the roles of the various people, and then trying to make a judgement call on what we did.



I think that so often the ideas we argue are nebulous, views are lost in opposing ideaologies. Chomsky puts it right out there in a way that we can grasp, wrestle with, and finally conquer.



We seem to agree, overall (unless I am grossly misunderstanding you.) I don't feel any anger towards the twistings of Chomsky, even though I allowed myself to be mislead by them for a time. He does spark thoughts and questions; surely that's a great gift.



Again, I'm curious to see what PEIguy says.

[capt_buzzard]

Or what if the some Irish missionary had gone to Iraq and converted them to Catholism. They might be well drunk by now:D

[Peg]

I have a question. We got Hussein, turned him over to Iraq, and then nothing. You hear nothing of a trial, etc. How do we even know he is still in custody?

[Der Wulf]

Peg wrote: I have a question. We got Hussein, turned him over to Iraq, and then nothing. You hear nothing of a trial, etc. How do we even know he is still in custody?
He's in our custody, the Iraqi's are prepping for his trial, I think it's planned for next mo., they wanted to get the elections over first.

[gmc]

posted by der wulf

I have a big problem with demigogs that adopt a political philosophy, then manipulate historical facts to support their predisposition. Read, listen, debate, then think and form your own belief systems ---then re-think and adapt as your mind or new facts redirect you.

You made an excellent point in another thread about the imperfection of humans. The point is not to reach a level of perfection, then park, the real excellence in mankind is the constant quest for improvment. that cannot happen without intellectual honesty. The article by Horowitz probes that quality in Chomsky's political essay's.

IMHO The history of the United States as propounded in this thread is nothing less than at best, an uninformed, unthinking, recitation of US basher talking points. At worst it's a twisted and bigoted diatribe.


One of the things I dislike about these threads is that it is almost impossible to say anything about america without some american taking umbrage at what is said before they take time to consider what has been said.

Read, listen, debate, then think and form your own belief systems ---then re-think and adapt as your mind or new facts redirect you.


Rather than taking time to check in to the facts put forward they are generally dismissed out of hand as being misinformed or simply propoganda and therefore not worthy of consideration. If I point out the simple fact that in the eighties Saddam was an ally of the United States during the eighties who turned a blind eye when he was using mustard gas on the Iranian army as well as his own people and gave him considerable help in the form of intelligence information I sm being anti american., end of discussion. If you highlight the number of times the US has interfered in other countries, not in the defence of democracy and freedom but to propogate what are perceived as american interests, and generally speaking the interests of american coprporations, regardless of the consequences to the people of those countries rather than- no that is not what happened because i have checked out the facts- its a case of no that is american bashing so I will not even think about it.

The fact that the US helped the Taliban to power and trained al queda operatives gets ignored as if it never happened. It's almost as if the connection between foreign policy over the last twenty or thirty years and what is happening now in th middle east is invisible or you just can't bear to think about it. The other favourite one is you are just justifying terrorism which is a load of rubbish because I am not but things don't just happen for no reason.

Most of the above could also be said about all the western powers the US is just the biggest player. So don't point out the the British and french are just as bad because I would probably agree with you. Globalism is not a peculiarly american phenomenon and it is a moot point whether it is a good thing, like most things some aspects are good some are bad. but debate gets stifled by pilloring critics as fringe lunatics and closet communists, if you can't win an arguement demonise you opponent. A lot of the reporting in the US press of anti war sentiment has echoes of the way anti vietnam protest was treated. Anti american shoot them all.

As to Naom Chomsky, I have never read any of his stuff in detail although have had a look since seeing references to him in this forum. Like most pseudo intellectual commentators he seems to look for sweeping generalisations and explanations to explain the actions taken by very ordinary people that in retrospect were wrong but at the time seemed perfectly logical and what alternatives has he suggested. It is written from a peculiarly american standpoint, which is understandable, but as a non american it is irritating and quite narrow in viewpoint.

Same with Ayn Rand which I must admit I thought was a strange religious cult at first. That too is something I would have a look at out of curiosity but as an inhabitant of a social democratic country it seems weird.

Substitute big corporations and global business with the terms monarchy and empire and the same question rises. Why are we fighting wars for these people? I am not one for conspiracy theories but I look at the invasion of Iraq and the project for the new american century and their objectives where the signatories are now and where they have come from and the way things are reported and the contradictions in what bush et al have said and done and the way they get forgotten and who is really benefiting from the war in Iraq and its realpolitik by another name cloaked in the guise of a fight for freedom.

Rehashing the past is entertaining so long as you can be realatively objective about it otherwise it gets pointless.

Few bits you might find of interest, and lastly light relief. Never heard of pbs.org before.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... inion.html

http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/h ... index.html

http://www.huddersfield1.co.uk/america/ ... eading.htm

[Der Wulf]

OK gmc, since you are replying to me, We have posted to each other many times before, too many times to count.



At no time have I ever:



taken “umbrage at what is said before they take time to consider what has been said.”

Or



“Rather than taking time to check in to the facts put forward they are generally dismissed out of hand as being misinformed or simply propoganda and therefore not worthy of consideration.”

Or



” If I point out the simple fact that in the eighties Saddam was an ally of the United States during the eighties who turned a blind eye when he was using mustard gas on the Iranian army as well as his own people and gave him considerable help in the form of intelligence information I sm being anti american., end of discussion.”

Or



“If you highlight the number of times the US has interferedin other countries, not in the defence of democracy and freedom but to propogate what are perceived as american interests, and generally speaking the interests of american coprporations, regardless of the consequences to the people of those countries rather than- no that is not what happened because i have checked out the facts- its a case of no that is american bashing so I will not even think about it.”

Or



stated or inferred that “you are just justifying terrorism which is a load of rubbish because I am not but things don't just happen for no reason.”

Or



“pilloring critics as fringe lunatics and closet communists, if you can't win an arguement demonise you opponent. A lot of the reporting in the US press of anti war sentiment has echoes of the way anti vietnam protest was treated. Anti american shoot them all.”



As a matter of fact, I have with the exception of one “yadayadayada” (when frustrated at your repletion’s of this same diatribe), treated you with respect, carefully answered all of your questions, and discussed your opinions with tolerance.





Now, you stated “the way things are reported and the contradictions in what bush et al have said and done and the way they get forgotten and who is really benefiting from the war in Iraq and its realpolitik by another name cloaked in the guise of a fight for freedom.”



That’s pretty close to Chomsky’s line. Whom you have characterized as “Like most pseudo intellectual commentators he seems to look for sweeping generalisations and explanations to explain the actions taken by very ordinary people that in retrospect were wrong but at the time seemed perfectly logical” a characterization by the way that I agree with.



Your other independent opinion, that “Rehashing the past is entertaining so long as you can be realatively objective about it otherwise it gets pointless” IMO, the past, in the context of this thread, is not an “entertainment”, but the geneses of the present, and as such, must be factually accurate, the motivations must be in context, and accurately interpreted by anecdotal information, and attributed logic. “Relatively objective” just don’t cut it.





Sorry about the bitchin, but it does wear thin, and as the lovely Ms Karenina had pointed out in a previous thread , I sometimes get intense and use a sledge hammer where a couple gentle taps from a tack hammer would suffice. If I’ve done that here, I apologize, my intent was not to offend, but reduce the irritating background noise.



:yh_peace :yh_think

[gmc]

Posted by der wulf

OK gmc, since you are replying to me, We have posted to each other many times before, too many times to count.

At no time have I ever:

taken “umbrage at what is said before they take time to consider what has been said.”

Or


My apologies, i wasn't aiming at you in particular it was a general observation that some seem to find it diffucult to look at different perspectives or appreciate that there may actually be different perspectives.

Posted by der wulf from an earlier post

IMHO The history of the United States as propounded in this thread is nothing less than at best, an uninformed, unthinking, recitation of US basher talking points. At worst it's a twisted and bigoted diatribe.


That is what set me off, if you mention that maybe america is not as altruistic as some would like to believe it is american bashing. If for instance you point out that the US has backed up dictatorships against democratic movements because it was deemed to be in the US interest you get accused of US bashing. If you point out it has actively conspired with right wing guerrillas against a democrtically elected left wing government it is US bashing not a statement of fact that can be disputed or not as the case may be. If you mention the connection between al queda and Saudi and the lack of any to Iraq that gets dismissed as irrelevant. Nelson Mandela was condemned as a terrorist at the same time as Saddam was being hailed as a friend to the west. Incidentally I am aware that the UK government was doing exactly the same thing. The difference is many in this country were objecting vehemently much to the annoyance of Maggie Thatcher who really didn't like anybody disagreeing with her which is one of the reasomns we no longer have an effective opposition party in the UK, she emasculated the tories.

In pointing out the inconsistencies of the past it is not just US bashing but rather trying to say, hang on a minute maybe you should be a wee bit more sceptical about what you are told by your government.

Your other independent opinion, that “Rehashing the past is entertaining so long as you can be realatively objective about it otherwise it gets pointless” IMO, the past, in the context of this thread, is not an “entertainment”, but the geneses of the present, and as such, must be factually accurate, the motivations must be in context, and accurately interpreted by anecdotal information, and attributed logic. “Relatively objective” just don’t cut it.




I would very much agree with the latter point, but what I find is that if you do mention policy from the past as being the cause of what is now happening, whooosh suddenly you are off at a tangent and accused of US baiting and look at the terrible things the british did as if that was something new. Which again is a general comment not aimed at you specifically. It's almost a case of agree with me or I don't want to talk.

posted by A karenina

Getting the facts straight...I guess that's part of my point. Oftentimes people have such opposing viewpoints that it takes forever to agree on the smallest detail, much less debate the points at hand.


That's a good way of putting it, a lot of debate boils down ah yes but look at what you did.



Now, you stated “the way things are reported and the contradictions in what bush et al have said and done and the way they get forgotten and who is really benefiting from the war in Iraq and its realpolitik by another name cloaked in the guise of a fight for freedom.”

That’s pretty close to Chomsky’s line. Whom you have characterized as “Like most pseudo intellectual commentators he seems to look for sweeping generalisations and explanations to explain the actions taken by very ordinary people that in retrospect were wrong but at the time seemed perfectly logical” a characterization by the way that I agree with.


I am not familiar with Chomsky's line, seriously I have never actually read any of his stuff. But at the moment decisions are being made for the sake of short term inteterest that are arguably not in america's long term interest or anybody elses by, in some cases the same people, that made decesions in the past for the same goals and in the process manage to convince themselves there is no connection to what is happeneing now. It's as if they cannot learn from the past.

Having said that i really hope I am wrong and that it all works out wonderfully and we all live happily ever after. But The US seems to be set iona course that will leave it isolated and bankrupt, foreign wars cost money there are several former empires that could tell you that from bitter experience.