Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Page 7 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#150682 - 28/03/2003 18:48 Re: All's Fair [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Cuba is a good place to live? Ask the people in Miami about that.
Ask the people who lived under Batista, and then revisit the question.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#150683 - 28/03/2003 22:02 Re: All's Fair [Re: wfaulk]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
On the other hand, choosing Capitalism seems to be an irreversable decision, too. I'm not sure exactly what your argument is here.
Choosing Capitalism is quite reversible. In America, if we decided communism was a good thing, we could all vote for communist senators, representatives, governors, and even a communist President. From the inside, they could change the American political system in such a way that it no longer was a democracy full of communists, but a true communist government. Now, once that's done, because communism has historically relied on iron-fist dictatorship, with no chance for people to affect change, it's irreversible, without some kind of hostile rebellion amongst the populace.

No?

And there are as many non-Communist tyrannies as there are Communist tyrannies (without actually counting).
That's like going to your local grocery store and saying there are as many rotten apples as there are rotten kumquats. It's true, but only because there are a thousand apples and only 30 or 40 kumquats.

The fact is, percentage wise, it's not even close. And to try to say that most or all communist dictatorships are only dictatorships because of foreign intervention (what you seem to be saying) is a real stretch.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#150684 - 28/03/2003 22:22 Re: All's Fair [Re: tonyc]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
communism has historically relied on iron-fist dictatorship
I don't think that necessarily follows (you seem to be equating Stalinism and Maoism with Communism):
to try to say that most or all communist dictatorships are only dictatorships because of foreign intervention (what you seem to be saying) is a real stretch
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that many to most to all of the governments that were approaching communism had their minds changed by the Western world. I don't think that there has been any country that has peacefully become communist, despite the fact that there have been any number of democratically elected communist governments that have mysteriously been followed by nationalist coups. The only countries that are communist now are so because of rebellion, not popular choice (despite the fact that those rebellions were largely popular, at least at the time).

This could mean that it doesn't happen. It could also mean that it's never been allowed to. It's kinda like saying that a vending machine doesn't accept nickels based on the fact that every time you put a nickel in it, you hit the coin return button, and you get no product.
apples ... kumquats
Good point.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#150685 - 28/03/2003 22:31 Re: All's Fair [Re: bonzi]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Bonzi, I can debate with you and the other good gentlemen who have been on the thread with what I consider sound logic, but I cannot possibly hang with you guys when it comes to in-depth knowledge of history. So I defer to your knowledge of many more aspects of the U.S. and world history with respect to puppet leaders and anti-Communist efforts.

What I am quite certain of is that thwarting the spread of Communism was a good thing. The very fact that Bitt has to cite Cuba as the best example of a thriving Communist state is enough for me to be sure of that. Some things just don't work. If the U.S.'s actions have directly or indirectly caused Communism to spread, I guess I'll just say that the best-laid plans of mice and men often go astray. But to suggest that U.S. anti-communism efforts are the only things that keep Communism from being a legitimate political ideology is, to me, hard to swallow.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#150686 - 28/03/2003 22:34 Re: All's Fair [Re: bonzi]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
How the heck do you know that!?
It was widely reported that, in public and in private, French leadership refused to even consider any kind of resolution that, at its end, had the threat of force. The French did not dispute these reports, either. Without force, Saddam is not accountable for disarmament, and the resolution means nothing.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#150687 - 28/03/2003 22:46 Re: All's Fair [Re: genixia]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
I think we're missing the point. The biggest risk to The American Dream comes not from foreign 'outlaw' nations, nor from terrorist groups. It comes from the ever increasing concentration of wealth and power amongst fewer people.
...
Sorry Tony, but since you mentioned history and China in the same breath, I thought it was worth reminding people that we could actually learn from their experience, and try and avoid the same path.
Hey, don't apologize to me. I come here to be enlightened, and occasionally evangelize my own viewpoints in the hopes that I cause others to think about something in a slightly different way. I'm not generally big on these political or ideological debates, but with so many people firing pot-shots at America recently, I just wanted to see where people really stood. It turns out a lot of them stand on shaky ground when they criticize America, though some have also produced sound, logical explanations of their views.

Anyway, your arguments are extremely well-formed, but I'm afraid you haven't changed my mind about any of this.... Because I already agree with everything you've said! But I do not attribute it to flaws in capitalist or democratic ideologies. I attribute it to the way our current two-party flavor of democracy has evolved, and to the inadequacies of particular individuals or groups of individuals who have held key leadership positions in our government. Our leadership does need some reforming, the taxes do need fixing, corporate America does need to be accountable... I never believed in trickle-down economics. I, like you, see these warning signs. Though I don't tend to have these kinds of statistics on hand at all times!
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#150688 - 28/03/2003 22:48 Re: All's Fair [Re: 753]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Is it really selfless? It certainly is an extreme example, but if you consciously decide to give your life to save someone else, isn't the other option always worse? Are we saving a loved one because of our love for that person, because of our principles ... or because we couldn't bear a life without this precious person (and a life of blaming ourselves)?
I was going to make this exact point, but I was approaching quitting time at work (yes, you can tell what kind of work week I've had) and I didn't want to look so insensitive as to think that there is no good in the world without selfishness. I was willing to concede that one example as a selfless act, but in reality, deep down, there's selfishness in that, too. Just part of being human.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#150689 - 28/03/2003 22:49 Re: All's Fair [Re: wfaulk]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Ask the people who lived under Batista, and then revisit the question.
You're only proving that Cuba is a better place to live than it was under Batista. You're not making any kind of case that it's a good place to live.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#150690 - 28/03/2003 23:04 Re: All's Fair [Re: wfaulk]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
I don't think that necessarily follows (you seem to be equating Stalinism and Maoism with Communism):
Hmm, well I've disclaimed my poor knowledge of history several times in this thread. I couldn't even tell you which of the current Communist states became so via democratic means, as you've stated there have been many of. All I've ever seen in my lifetime from Communist states is a dictator ruling with an iron fist.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#150691 - 28/03/2003 23:12 Re: All's Fair [Re: tonyc]
genixia
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
Though I don't tend to have these kinds of statistics on hand at all times!


Nor do I....at *all* times. But those statistics were handily made available to me in last week's Business Week, "Tax Special" !!
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.

Top
#150692 - 29/03/2003 02:41 Re: All's Fair [Re: tonyc]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
All I've ever seen in my lifetime from Communist states is a dictator ruling with an iron fist.


I think that may be why you're arguing so vociferously that Communism doesn't work. Communism, as it has been implemented on a national scale has never been a total success, and usually a complete failure. However, that doesn't mean that the theory or ideology behind it is flawed. Communism is socialism taken to extreme, and there are plenty of nations with socialistic leanings that show it has potential. Communism and Democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts. I think to see a successful Communist society, you need to look on a smaller scale -- the Hutterites, Shakers, monastaries/convents, etc. The difficulty in implementing Communism on a national scale isn't the leaders -- that's a seperate issue altogether -- but in uniting such a disparate group of people to work towards a common interest.

Top
#150693 - 29/03/2003 07:22 Re: All's Fair [Re: canuckInOR]
Anonymous
Unregistered


The only environment that communism works in is one where the people truly care about eachother. Nobody really gives a damn after they work all day and then see their money go to somebody they've never met. Anyways, we all live in a communist environment for most our lives - we call it a family. Everyone does their part and everyone strives for the greater good of the whole family. Want an example of a sucessful commie state? Look at the american indian tribes. Everyone cared about eachother and each person made their own contribution to the tribe - hunters, warriors, chiefs, child-bearers, cooks, etc. Everyone gave what they could. But unlike in modern socialism, in an indian tribe they'd kick you out for being lazy. In socialist Europe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you get a big fat check for just sitting on your ass. Communism only works well in a close-knit community where everyone knows eachother and grew up with eachother. If the tribe got too big then it would inevitably break off into new, smaller tribes.

So, no, I don't think communism could work on a large scale. The chinese are moving more and more towards capitalism, because they know they have to if they want to catch up to the US. Captalism is the only way. You get what you earn and then you can distribute your earnings to your family/tribe as you see fit. The indians were not communist by force from a ruling elite; they were communist by choice. In a capitalist society, we have the freedom to make that choice...

All communists send a check and/or money order to:

d33zY
307 Corona Dr.
Lafayette, LA 70503
USA

Top
#150694 - 29/03/2003 07:34 Re: All's Fair [Re: Laura]
Anonymous
Unregistered


And back to the original topic, I agree with Laura that all's fair in war. The difference between the American Revolution and the elite Iraqi's & Al Qaeda defending from operation "Iraqi Freedom" is that we weren't cold blooded killers who would gas dissidents or put them in plastic shredders, and we weren't trying to wipe out an entire f*cking race of people who were alledgedly living in "infedelity". We were fighting for our freedom. Currently in Iraq, we are freeing the people from an oppressive regime, while getting rid of the threat to us at the same time.

But yeah, all is fair. Let's nuke the whole middle east. Problem solved.

Top
#150695 - 29/03/2003 08:12 Re: All's Fair [Re: canuckInOR]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
In reply to:

I think to see a successful Communist society, you need to look on a smaller scale




I agree with you there. It can work - but only on a smaller scale.

And... to get back on topic, YES all is fair in love and war (esp. when you're defending your homeland) excpect killing your own people. How can you say you're defending your nation when you're shooting it's people? But if China or Russia or the UN (just trying to think of forces large enough to occupy the US) invaded America you'd better expect a lot of creative ways to fight back.

And I do think it is okay for the cololition forces to complain about it because they are spending so many millions of dollars more and putting our forces at greater risks to protect Iraqi civilians and assets yet they are still losing the "Public Relations" war.

So when's 2.00 final coming out?
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#150696 - 29/03/2003 09:14 Re: All's Fair [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
And... to get back on topic, YES all is fair in love and war (esp. when you're defending your homeland) excpect killing your own people.

Why is killing your own people not "fair"? Not that I think it's right, but why should we expect anyone to fight a war in the "right" manner? The only way to enforce any rule/ law/ agreement is at gunpoint, and during war the guns are already pointed. I'll agree at least on this point with Laura: all's fair in war. Let's not make some sort of rule that we can't enforce and then decry the enemy for not obeying it. If he agreed with us about morality we'd not be at war in the first place.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#150697 - 29/03/2003 10:41 Re: All's Fair [Re: tonyc]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
I couldn't even tell you which of the current Communist states became so via democratic means, as you've stated there have been many of.
The current official Communist states are, IIRC, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. Not many left at all, huh? But you're still missing my point. All there have ever been (at least long-term) are Communist tyrannies (or, as someone else pointed out, socialist dictatorships that call themselves Communist, which is why I'm using a capital `C').

But I think that part of that can be explained by the fact that the rest of the world that was opposed to Communism made sure that no Communist ever came to power. The only times they failed were when the Communists came to power in a coup of one nature or another. It's hard to foment revolution against another revolution.

And, to be clear, the western world (I don't want to put the US in a bucket of it's own here, as it wasn't alone in these actions, although it played an important role) was opposed to the very existence of a Communist state, not to protect the citizens of that country, as pretty much every ruler that was put in power in place of a potentially Communist regime was awful, and they knew it at the time. (If you read memoirs and interviews of CIA people, et al., who put these people in power, you'll see the phrase ``We knew he was a thug at the time'', or something quite similar, a lot.)

And, to defend my example of Cuba, I said at the beginning that there are significant human rights problems in Cuba that need to be solved. But the US has no interest in that. They refuse to recognize Cuba diplomatically, which is ridiculous; that government has been in power for, what, fifty years? Many people claim that Cuba's poverty is largely due to the embargoes that the US levies against it. I don't know that that's definitely the case, but it's not outside reason.

My belief is that the US should agree to recognize Cuba, lift embargoes, and establish normal trade relations (assuming the couple of requirements that entails for any country) in exchange for Cuba cleaning up its human rights problems. Then again, the same sort of thing was set up with China, and their human rights problems are still significant, even if they are better.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#150698 - 29/03/2003 14:11 Re: All's Fair [Re: tonyc]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Hey, don't apologize to me. I come here to be enlightened, and occasionally evangelize my own viewpoints in the hopes that I cause others to think about something in a slightly different way.

And that's the magic of this unusual BBS...

(I should issue a standing apology for how I deal with some of these off-topic threads....I tend to "dump" some overly-long post, fail to do a great job responding to specific follow-ups, then come back and "dump" again. Oh, well, what can I say? I can't keep up! Went to the driving range, then book club last evening, and, Wow, this topic is now like 200 posts!)

A week or so ago, the venerable Helen Thomas (late of UPI, now with Hearst) asked (my memory/paraphase) Ari Fliesher "So, what do you think of those in the administration who have suggested that we should 'keep going' to deal with/democratize other countries (like Iran, Syria)? " Ari said "Who in the administration?" Helen Thomas: "Richard Perle" Ari: "He's not in the administration. He's not paid/compensated by the government."

So, Ari's response rested on what I would call a technicality.

About that time, I listened to part of an installment of another KCRW program called "Left Right, and Center". Arianna Huffington, who I hadn't really heard much of before, seemed to do a pretty decent job of upholding the "Left" anti-war position. What was most interesting about that episode was the comment of a politico representative of "the Right" who (over a phone link) said something like "and now the anti-war movement is resorting to conspiracy theories, some of them with clear anti-semetic overtones".

A while back in another thread , Jeff was nice enough to offer some insight into eschatological thinkings that answered some of my questions about relationships between US (evangelical) Christians, Israel and Middle East policy (and this war). I try not to get into a conspiratorial mindset on any of this, but, I have to say that, when I heard that commentator's remarks about "conspiracy theories....anti-semitic overtones" I was really steamed. It was, IMO, an attempt at the worst kind of demagoguery. Yes, there are clearly anti-semetic conspiracy theorists out there, but the case this guy was trying to put on the table was that if you are anti-war, anti-administration, and start asking questions about Richard Perle, Halliburton contracts, or our Israel/Palestine position, you must be dragging around a dog-eared copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like I said, I was pissed. I'm still pissed.

I've tried to catch back up on this thread as best I can and am picking this spot to respond because I think your overall position is an interesting one. I haven't seen a position yet that is without some contradictions and yours is no exception. I think your position is more "trees" Saddam oriented, while others, including mine advance a more "forest" position. I'll try to expand on this and then you can maybe legitimately argue that I missing the point or that my forest/trees argument is incorrect

(also, I earlier dropped the ball in responding to some of your responses, but, rather than go back over there and re-fork the Iraq threads, I'll to work them back in here as best I can).

On some level, I think the war on Iraq began on November 8, 2000. On that day, in the realization of an ambiguous election result, George W. Bush's generals strapped on their armor, got on their horses and took no prisoners. Al Gore's generals changed into women's clothing and slipped away in the night. I sometimes wonder how events would have unfolded had the ballot in Palm Beach county been different. One can only guess, but I can't see what would have been different that would have prevented 9/11; I would also guess that a "Gore administration" would have undertaken a similar post-9/11 campaign in Afghanistan, but would likely have been more "wishy-washy" on things like incommunicado incarceration of people at Guantanamo. I don't think they would have invaded Iraq.

Enough of alternative history. By the time the Supreme Court delivered their controversial decision on December 12, 2000, the Bush team had had plenty of time to plan staffing of the new administration. History will show this to have been one of the most polar, partisan executive branch transitions on the record. There was an element of vengeance to this: years of visceral hatred for Clinton were finally channeled into Republican power.

George W. Bush is not patently stupid, but he's not extremely bright. Biographers already have shown, and will show in the future, that his dominant trait, from an intelligence standpoint, is incuriosity. Whatever W already knows is "good enough". In terms of intercourse with the media, Bush's administration if the most tightly-controlled and scripted that anyone can remember -- fewest press conference, very little ad lib interaction with the press, and highest proportion of speech-written content delivery. As many others have said, those words are carefully chosen and that a cigar can be more than a cigar. There is a deliberate aspect of "throwing our weight around" in the carefully-chosen wording and what I heard a BBC commentator describe as a "hectoring tone" that is increasingly unpopular with our erstwhile allies.

Our actualized policy does not flow from the brain of W, but from the key members of his administration who were probably all identified by spring of 2000. Beyond Cheney, the political track records and thinking of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others was well understood. With respect to our current situation, there is little that is unfair in describing it in one word: hawkish. Oh, make that two words: extremely hawkish. After 8 years of suffering Clinton in a state of rage, these folks are in the seats of power and "on a roll". Feeling their oats. Behaving arrogantly toward interests other than their own whether those are US foreign interests (as defined by them) or internal policies (environment, privacy).

If mentioning the guiding role of these ideologues and the track record of people like Perle qualifies critics for the label of "conspiracy theorist" then the political discussion, more or less, ends right there. Some critics have been nailed for raising issues such as selection or rebuilding contractors in Iraq or for saying that the war was initiated to facilitate Halliburton gains. I think some of that quibbling diminishes other legitimate points and, while I don't view the invasion as based on money to be made, it is bloody convenient that Halliburton *will* make that money and that they wouldn't have made that money had we not invaded.

Resignation notwithstanding, Perle and kin will remain guiding lights for this administration as will strategy documents written during the frustrating "wilderness years" of 1992-2000. Perle's 1996 realpolitik treatise on a A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is, I think, a good example.

I just finished a second reading of the Washington Monthly piece that CanuckinLA posted in another thread. With respect to hawk/neocon posture, I thought that overall it was a pretty effectively reasoned attempt to posit what the heck is going on. Sadly, it seemed pretty credible to me.

From that piece there was a line "But that's what the hawks are setting in motion, partly on the theory that the worse things get, the more their approach becomes the only plausible solution." that really resonated. In some respects, it seems to describe (to me) the place we have been maneuvered to: Get congressional approvals for invasion with manufactured evidence? ... How can they later back down without accusations of being unpatriotic? Start the invasion? ...How can we then all not "Support Our Troops"? From all that I have read of your positions and posts, Tony, I come away with a feeling of this type of contradiction -- really mad at the way we started this, but pretty vocally supportive of it while underway. Maybe that's not legit, but it is the impression I've formed.

Yikes, I have gone through a whole bunch of typing without mentioning Saddam, how bad he is, how bad and sneaky his supporters are, and how much nicer the world would be if he were gone. Oh, on some level I will just stipulate to bunch of those things, because they are not the main focus of my concern. "Operation Irqui Freedom" is tactics; my main concern is with the underpinnings and implications of our overall strategy as it relates to a list of things:

- It's a big marble cake of a world, much of it from Stockton, California to Islamabad is Muslim.
- To oversimply Lewis' "What went wrong?" book/essays, the Muslim world is suffering from one huge inferiority complex with respect to that world's very poor current position as compared to revered past glories.
- This "complex" helps explain very conflicted opinions of both envy and moralistic disdain for the rich, sinful west.
- Grievances have become so deeply ingrained as to be unreasonable (as in: it was the Mossad that planned 9/11) but remain pretty fixed.
- A grossly unbalanced Israel-Palestine policy fuels grievances and conspiracy theories

So, into this very precarious pot we throw an invasion of Iraq. Saddam, last week reviled by most of that Muslim world, *now* stands a chance of being rehabilitated -- whether dead or alive -- in that world as the brave leader who stood up to American Zionist Imperialism. The "coalition" touted by Rumsfeld is a joke -- support on a grudging, economic basis rather than any earnest, heartfelt support. To top it off, a 3-star corps commander on the ground in Iraq observes that this isn't really the war we planned for as the CNN KIA list passes the 50 mark and other generals back bite Starry-War-eyed dreamers like Rumsfeld for the inadequacies of "Rolling Start". Along the way we have managed (is this gratifying to the hawks?) to alienate much of both "east" *and* "west, throw a wrench in NATO, and injure the UN.

Tactically, it looks like we've gotten into a bit of a pickle since Iraq's troops won't form ranks and allow us to mow them down and as of today (was this a surprise, people?) are even resorting to suicide car bombs. *Strategically*, I think our situation can be summed up by this Man-On-The-Street interview in Cairo:

"I used to think the US is a just country...but not anymore".

I've said it before, but part of the major contradictions I see rest on a conflict between short-term and long-term views, and between the Iraq picture and the bigger picture. Focusing on "but Saddam hit me first!" while in fact that whole table *is* (in the words of that Joshua Marshall) being rolled (and that Al Quaeda recruiting numbers are probably way, way up). If we just manage to get the 1st infantry there in time, we just may be able to subdue Iraq before the CNN KIA counter passes 200, but my biggest sense right now is that we can't predict what the casualty numbers for combatants and non-combatants will be.

I am trying to think of some bookmark phrase I could put in this post so that I could come back in 3 months, 6 months, or 1 or 2 years to compare how current-day realties wound up comparing with past anxieties, but it is my opinion that we are going to be asking why we thought this was a good idea.

I would think that I was a radical, conspiracy-theory left-winger if it weren't for the fact that so many experienced observers who I would consider established moderates echo the same concerns. Take for example the Middle East Editor, Christopher Dickey for Newsweek (not exactly a left-wing organ).

In an earlier thread, I asked "...What would have been the negative consequences if we had delayed this 6 months....?" and you, Tony, responded "Turning the question around, why did it have to take 6-12 months for Saddam to fulfill his obligations under 1441?" That didn't really address my question. My question was about what *my* country should be doing. On this particular Saturday, I think we have probably made an historically big mistake.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#150699 - 29/03/2003 17:57 Re: All's Fair [Re: jimhogan]
jheathco
enthusiast

Registered: 21/12/2001
Posts: 326
Loc: Mission Viejo, California
That post should count as three in the stats
_________________________
John Heathco - 30gig MKIIa w/ tuner module

Top
#150700 - 29/03/2003 18:37 Re: All's Fair [Re: jimhogan]
visuvius
addict

Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
f*uck man. that was beautifully written. From a muslim's perspective, you're absolutely right on each of the points in your list.

Top
#150701 - 30/03/2003 07:19 Re: All's Fair [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
bonzi
pooh-bah

Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
<trailer>
As one of very few members here from an ex-socialist country (Croatia), and as one near the leftmost end of political spectrum, despite being a kind or enterpreneur, I feel obliged to add some first-hand experience to the discussion. I will try that in the next several days (I am swamped with work again), but for the moment I will just say that we ended the experiment by decision of Parliament, which was not prompted by any kind of public unrest. As for religion, there existed political and peer pressure not to attend religious services, aproximately equal to the pressure to atend them that appeared after the change.

Also, I will try to argument my opinion on all being or not being fair in war, having, regrettably, (almost) first-hand experience in that, too.
</trailer>
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue

Top
#150702 - 30/03/2003 09:06 Re: All's Fair [Re: tonyc]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Andy: P.S. What is the point of having three Starbucks stores within several hundred metres of each other ?
yn0t_: As Bitt casually alluded to, even Americans have no idea how to answer that one.


No I think there is an answer for this, and there is a business-school term (not like I ever attended) for it that isn't coming to me, something like "Opportunity Denial". This is just a fancy way to say that you keep your competitor from opening in those locations by tying up the real estate. No matter that one of the 2-3 identical shops doesn't make money (or maybe even loses money for a while), so long as the aggregate of the stores is in the black. It's a good way to make sure that those evil independents don't get a foothold!!

Oh, the whole issue of chain like Starbucks and Home Depots deserves its own thread! My only strong feelings on the subject are of ambivalence.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#150703 - 30/03/2003 09:13 Re: All's Fair [Re: jimhogan]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Jim, how's anybody supposed to reply to that unless they have a free hour or two?

A few points (that don't really address your general point):

1. (not to speek for Tony, but) He expressed that he was against the administration's approach to conflict with Iraq. He never said he was against the war but now that it's going we have no choice to support it.

2. I don't know why people keep saying that we are suffering heavy losses. Maybe in the video game era, 50 or so lost soldiers 10 days into a war is heavy losses, but do you have any idea how many people died EACH DAY in Vietnam? Hell, more people died in car accidents on American roads the first week of the war than soldiers in Iraq - either by accidents or enemy fire. Twice as many people died at that Great White concert.

3. Suicide bombs and the like have never been effective against military targets. I really think that it's pointless to try to say the military is going to not accomplish their goals here. People said the same thing in Afghanistan - that we were not being effective and nothing was happening. Then 2 days later, we had control of every major city there. If you want to argue that we won't be successful politically or diplomatically with the Arab world or with Iraq, then that is another topic altogether.

4. All of this is really empeg's fault! We've been promised that they'd take care of this for us.

Other than that, I think your post was very well writen.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#150704 - 30/03/2003 10:22 Re: All's Fair [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Jim, how's anybody supposed to reply to that unless they have a free hour or two?

Piece of cake! Just get laid off!

A few points (that don't really address your general point):

1. (not to speek for Tony, but) He expressed that he was against the administration's approach to conflict with Iraq. He never said he was against the war but now that it's going we have no choice to support it.


And I don't want to speak for Tony and/or misrepresent him, either. I was just throwing my impressions out there. For *me* (and that's just me) being mad about the process that got us to war while ultimately being for this particular war once underway (if that's a fair summary) is a bit puzzling under the circumstances. I guess that's based on my sense that the only real process that counted was the administration's very early decision to invade Iraq. All of the UN stuff was just window dressing, as is the new "coalition". So, if you agree with the goal, why get upset about the perfunctory process (except that it was it was a chance for some countries like France and Russia to try to make us look bad)?

I heard just a snip of a story from (this week's?) Time magazine (can't find it referenced on the Web) where W walks by a conference room sometime last year where Condoleeza Rice is meeting with staff. I guess W hears somebody mention Saddam and he sticks his head in the door and goes "Saddam? F*ck him! He's gone!" then continues down the hall.

2. I don't know why people keep saying that we are suffering heavy losses. Maybe in the video game era, 50 or so lost soldiers 10 days into a war is heavy losses, but do you have any idea how many people died EACH DAY in Vietnam?
Yeah.
.... Twice as many people died at that Great White concert.

And that was a sucky, avoidable thing, too.

I don't *think* that I was one of the people who said "heavy" casualties, but if I implied it, that was not my exact intent. You're right. In a serious, full-on war where both sides meet head-on you could expect to see much bigger casualties. And if it was generally considered to be a "Good War"(tm), the country in question might just suck it up and say "well, that's too bad but it had to be be done" with a single voice.

My point in citing current numbers of deaths is just to try to keep in mind that they are occurring and that they are different from the 2-day war that I think many Americans expected or that Americans may abide if this drags on and more citizens start questioning our plan or motives.

Oh, and 50 isn't much, except as compared to zero, or unless you're the mom of dad of a MIA, knowing that chances are that they are death #51, and who just joined up to be a teacher.

3. Suicide bombs and the like have never been effective against military targets. I really think that it's pointless to try to say the military is going to not accomplish their goals here.

Suicide bombs are effective insofar as they will make it more likely that troops will kill more people who are perceived to be a threat but who might not have been. That may not get much press here, but it will certainly be on the loudspeakers and TV screens in the Middle East

People said the same thing in Afghanistan - that we were not being effective and nothing was happening. Then 2 days later, we had control of every major city there.

In the lull during the build up, I guess I remember people saying that nothing was happening, being pessimistic. Even allowing for, what 3000?, civilian deaths and failures to trap/pursue/kill OBL and others, there were aspects of that campaign that will be taught in war colleges as "good" textbook examples, but I think that parallels to the current situation are limited. In Afghanistan we had convenient proxy armies to work work with and no dense, highly built-up cities of 4.8 million people to subdue.

Trust me, I am not certain about what it will take (how many troops, how many combatant casualties, how many civilian casualties, how much money) to capture all of the major cities and police and govern them until such time as democracy is declared or until we get tired and bail out.

For caution, though, I'll say/ask again just how much of Afghanistan the new government of Afghanistan controls: Kabul.

Some of the Iraqi expatriates who have been whispering in our ear "Invade! The people will welcome US troops!" for the past 10 years, well, they may not be Afghan warlords, but I think they clearly have their own political interests and are likely to be the ones sniping at US MPs in 2004.

If you want to argue that we won't be successful politically or diplomatically with the Arab world or with Iraq, then that is another topic altogether.

On the contrary, I think that, from a strategic standpoint the military and diplomatic are inextricably linked.

4. All of this is really empeg's fault! We've been promised that they'd take care of this for us.

Yes, if Iraqis just had Ogg support!!

Other than that, I think your post was very well writen.

Thanks. Well, I did volunteer to Mr. Fabris that if he wanted to change me from "veteran" to "interminable blowhard" I would take it with reasonable grace.

I listened again to that 38-minute Christopher Dickey interview from Fresh Air and, if you or anyone can abide Real Audio or WMP9, I really have to give it another plug (I e-mailed FA and asked why they can't just have plain MPEGs or something...).

Oh, and....

Iraq Quote for the Day: "Be professional, be polite,...but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

- Marine Corps major in Iraq
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#150705 - 30/03/2003 10:50 Re: All's Fair [Re: jheathco]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
That post should count as three in the stats

Sorry, man. Just trying to keep busy!!
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#150706 - 30/03/2003 11:36 Re: All's Fair [Re: jimhogan]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
In reply to:

I listened again to that 38-minute Christopher Dickey interview from Fresh Air


I didn't see the original post... have link? Maybe I'll see if I can convert it to mp3.. would be fun to listen to on my empeg.

In reply to:

4. All of this is really empeg's fault! We've been promised that they'd take care of this for us.

Yes, if Iraqis just had Ogg support!!


No, I was replying to this comment by tfabris about software ver. 1.1 features (which was renamed 2.00 prior to its release): "- Solution for world peace, the end to disease and hunger, and the secret to immortality. (Oh, darn, that was the feature they didn't want us to leak. My bad.)"
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#150707 - 30/03/2003 11:44 Re: All's Fair [Re: jimhogan]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
the Muslim world is suffering from one huge inferiority complex with respect to that world's very poor current position as compared to revered past glories
I think that this puts a little too simplistic a point on it. In particular, I have objections with referring to it as an inferiority complex. I think it's more akin to frustration. The Arab world has a very distinct culture from the ``Western'' world, and I think that they have a hard time interspersing western culture into their own, at least a much harder time than Japan, Hong Kong, or Singapore, for instance. If that hard time comes from incompatibility, incapability, or unwillingness, I don't know, but it seems to exist nonetheless. Combine that with what seems to be an inability to deal with the ``western'' world (and, therefore, these days, the rest of the world) on anything but it's own terms (again, whether due to incompatibility or unwillingness on either party's part), and I think you find a culture that becomes more and more isolated, with one hand wanting to deal with the rest of the world, and the other busy slapping it away because it's been burned so many times already.

I've posted it before, but you may not have seen it: Newsweek ran quite a long article on ``Why Do They Hate Us'', by Fareed Zakaria, that I think has a reasonable explanation for that, which I've tried to paraphrase above.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#150708 - 30/03/2003 11:59 Re: All's Fair [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
I didn't see the original post... have link?

Yep, that'd be this one raht heah, pardner.

No, I was replying to this comment by tfabris about software ver. 1.1 features

Yes, I remembered that. I just hope for everyone's sake that Ogg support is higher on the list than World Peace. Less likely to be buggy!
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#150709 - 30/03/2003 12:39 Re: All's Fair [Re: wfaulk]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
I think that this puts a little too simplistic a point on it. In particular, I have objections with referring to it as an inferiority complex.

Even with my qualification that I *was* oversimplifying, I had reservations about using that term (but I was trying to stay under 3000 words). So, I accept your objection. When I typed it, I figured we'd get to talk about it.

I think it's more akin to frustration. The Arab world has a very distinct culture from the ``Western'' world, and I think that they have a hard time interspersing western culture into their own, at least a much harder time than Japan, Hong Kong, or Singapore, for instance. If that hard time comes from incompatibility, incapability, or unwillingness, I don't know, but it seems to exist nonetheless. Combine that with what seems to be an inability to deal with the ``western'' world (and, therefore, these days, the rest of the world) on anything but it's own terms (again, whether due to incompatibility or unwillingness on either party's part), and I think you find a culture that becomes more and more isolated, with one hand wanting to deal with the rest of the world, and the other busy slapping it away because it's been burned so many times already.

I've posted it before, but you may not have seen it: Newsweek ran quite a long article on ``Why Do They Hate Us'', by Fareed Zakaria, that I think has a reasonable explanation for that, which I've tried to paraphrase above.


I read that when you posted it earlier and agree that it was a good analysis. Also not too divergent, I don't think, from much of what Lewis had to say in his book (essays entitled "The Roots of Muslim Rage" that went into the book are on-line here ).

When Lewis fleshed those essays out, though, into his small book, he took a more provocative stance and title ("What Went Wrong?") and spent more time dwelling on the question of why the Muslim world -- once the pinnacle of science, economy, etc. -- fell behind in many areas. I'm going to have to re-read it, because in part I almost get the creeps talking/posting about it when I fear misinterpreting him or lapsing into near-racist generalization. My take-home, though, was that there are a lot of Muslims experiencing conflicting feelings of correctness/rightness (and I guess state-aligned religion in a place like Saudi Arabia is one expression of that) along with insecurity and dependency (dependence on foreign workers in Saudi being another example of an ambivalence "need but resent" phenomenon) and frustration.

Leaving aside political constructs like the Saudi royal family and focusing more on a "man-in-the-street" view (oh, like I'm an expert or have ever been there) -- the guy who said he used to think the US was a just nation for example -- the term that I see applied in analyses is "humilation". On the street, people have been successively humiliated by Ottomans, by European imperial powers (England, France), by Israel (several wars) and by their own corrupt leaders. If "inferiority complex" is not a legitimate handle, I would say that the combination of frustrations and humiiations are not likely to improve collective self-esteem. Where do very broadly held "The Mossad was behind 9/11" delusions gestate?

Anyhow, into all of this, we righteous Crusaders of the US of A march into Iraq. And "humiliating" is again heard from more than one acute reporter, ambassador, and by other seemingly thoughtful, sympathetic observers. This rings true to me. I have to ask, is this what the administration is aiming for?
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#150710 - 30/03/2003 13:46 Re: All's Fair [Re: jimhogan]
rob
carpal tunnel

Registered: 21/05/1999
Posts: 5335
Loc: Cambridge UK
I just hope for everyone's sake that Ogg support is higher on the list than World Peace. Less likely to be buggy!

World Peace has been in alpha for several weeks - not one of our greatest success stories. If only we had open sourced it.

Top
#150711 - 30/03/2003 17:24 Re: All's Fair [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Brad, in a little footnote on the casualties issue, I just now saw this report of a poll.

An excerpt: "While 59 percent respondents say they would support a war in which 500 U.S. troops died, support falls to just 47 percent and opposition to the war rises to 41 percent if the U.S. death toll rises to 1,000.'

Just one poll, but an interesting suggestion of what support for the war hinges on.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
Page 7 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >