Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 5:50 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,136 Year: 5,173/19,786 Month: 1,295/873 Week: 191/460 Day: 7/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ever wonder what 2000 looks like?
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 10 (254346)
10-23-2005 11:06 PM


I thought about posting this in an existing thread for site recommendations, but since it seems likely to spark a debate I decided to give it a thread of its own. This is without doubt the best example of an internet protest I've ever seen. It protests the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

Be sure your computer speakers are turned on and be sure to watch this all the way to the end.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 10-23-2005 11:15 PM berberry has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-24-2005 3:13 AM berberry has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 8:26 AM berberry has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2 of 10 (254348)
10-23-2005 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
10-23-2005 11:06 PM


Draft Russ Feingold
Time to rethink.

Thank you.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 10-23-2005 11:06 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 10 (254369)
10-24-2005 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
10-23-2005 11:06 PM


I don't know. I find it a little unsavoury that none of the Iraqi dead are mentioned whatsoever. I know its supposed to be appealing to Americans in particular, and its intention I probably agree with, but how you can talk about the consequences of the war without once mentioning dead, injured or suffering Iraqis leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

PE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 10-23-2005 11:06 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 4 of 10 (254404)
10-24-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
10-23-2005 11:06 PM


I'm sure Roger Waters would approve. You'd think he'd reissue Fletcher Memorial Home these days.

In any case, while I found it interesting, I agree that its refusal to deal with Iraqi casualties is disappointing. That could easily have been a tagline after the fact about what it takes to see 2000 soldiers killed.

Frankly I have been sickened by the left's use of american dead as a reason to abandon Iraqis to more of the same fate. It's fine to use them against Bush having sent us to war, but then all dead really should be mentioned and not used to argue what the appropriate course of action is now.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 10-23-2005 11:06 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 10-24-2005 8:46 AM Silent H has responded

    
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 10 (254409)
10-24-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Silent H
10-24-2005 8:26 AM


holmes writes me:

quote:
Frankly I have been sickened by the left's use of american dead as a reason to abandon Iraqis to more of the same fate. It's fine to use them against Bush having sent us to war, but then all dead really should be mentioned and not used to argue what the appropriate course of action is now.

I tend to agree with you and Primordial Egg with a couple caveats, weak though they may be. One, I think to have included Iraqi dead in that protest would have amounted to preaching to the choir. The target audience is going to care only about American deaths if they care at all (but as you say, that shouldn't preclude at least a brief reminder at the end). Two, not everyone protesting this war feels that all of our troops should be brought home at once. Some of us would be heartened at least somewhat with a new, more realistic Iraq policy, something besides "let's stay the course".


"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 8:26 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 11:09 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 10 (254438)
10-24-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by berberry
10-24-2005 8:46 AM


Some of us would be heartened at least somewhat with a new, more realistic Iraq policy, something besides "let's stay the course".

I didn't mean to suggest that you were taking the protest pull out side of things. I was just noting that it is becoming very big within liberal, supposedly humanist circles and that upsets me. It not only betrays the fact that their humanism is opportunist at best, it also shows they are just as american lives are more important as the neocons.

Given that Bush's leadership has been rudderless I've always wondered what he meant by "stay the course". We certainly need a smarter Iraq policy. As far as I can tell that would likely involved more troops being sent there.

That's another reason recent popular reactions from the left piss me off, they are helping preclude better policy by forcing us into a box of "less troops is better", which is as ignorant as thinking the Iraqis were going to open their arms to us as liberators and so the whole thing would be easy.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 10-24-2005 8:46 AM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-25-2005 2:58 AM Silent H has responded

    
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 10 (254631)
10-25-2005 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
10-24-2005 11:09 AM


opportunism
holmes writes:

I didn't mean to suggest that you were taking the protest pull out side of things. I was just noting that it is becoming very big within liberal, supposedly humanist circles and that upsets me. It not only betrays the fact that their humanism is opportunist at best, it also shows they are just as american lives are more important as the neocons.

Given that Bush's leadership has been rudderless I've always wondered what he meant by "stay the course". We certainly need a smarter Iraq policy. As far as I can tell that would likely involved more troops being sent there.

That's another reason recent popular reactions from the left piss me off, they are helping preclude better policy by forcing us into a box of "less troops is better", which is as ignorant as thinking the Iraqis were going to open their arms to us as liberators and so the whole thing would be easy

Holmes, I'm one of those humanist, liberals who thinks the Coalition forces should pull out completely. They should be replaced by an interim UN force and the Coalition should pay reparations to Iraq, for the illegal invasion.

I don't see how the above would lead to more Iraqi hardship than is currently being experienced. IMO, the idea that Iraq would go tits up if it wasn't for the US and UK has the same ring of a convenient falsehood that "WMD" had.

Do you think that the US should be building permanent military bases in Iraq?

PE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 11:09 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 10-25-2005 4:42 AM Primordial Egg has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 10 (254639)
10-25-2005 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Primordial Egg
10-25-2005 2:58 AM


Re: opportunism
I'm one of those humanist, liberals who thinks the Coalition forces should pull out completely. They should be replaced by an interim UN force and the Coalition should pay reparations to Iraq, for the illegal invasion.

Oh, we should pull out completely, the point is not immediately or asap. I also believe we should be paying reparations and repeatedly state I believe the international community and orgs should be pressing formal charges against Bush and Co because it was an illegal invasion.

You have just mentioned a possible alternative to coalition forces; a UN peacekeeping force.

I would completely be for the establishment of a replacement UN peacekeeping force comprised of noncoalition troops. They would of course have to be moved in before US troops left and an established plan for what to do while they are there and a mandate not to leave until a proper gov't is in place.

We can't simply pull out and hope there will be a replacement, or with the promise that one will be coming when we leave.

The problem is that there is no interest at the UN for a massive UN peacekeeping force to replace caolition forces, and perhaps rightfully so. Members are worried that such a move would put a UN sanction on the war since they are doing nothing to punish the US and taking over duties would relieve us of our legal burden.

After all the US could easily leave stating the UN is taking over and then pull the plug on assistance to that effort. We are already screwing the UN on debts and lambasting their independence from US control... which is another reason the UN is unlikely to be fielding a replacement team anytime soon.

IMO, the idea that Iraq would go tits up if it wasn't for the US and UK has the same ring of a convenient falsehood that "WMD" had.

Nice try, but that won't work on me. The WMD claim was bizarre and stretched at best. The idea that there are violent groups and sectarian opposition which could result in more chaos and perhaps civil war is not.

I have never argued that the US and UK are the only ones in the world who could ever do the job until an Iraqi force is in place. My argument has been that it is our legal duty, and we are the only force in the region capable of doing the job.

If this is not the case, then please present evidence.

Do you think that the US should be building permanent military bases in Iraq?

No. Unless we are simply building them for Iraqi forces to use as they regain strength and after we leave.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-25-2005 2:58 AM Primordial Egg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-25-2005 5:36 PM Silent H has responded

    
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 10 (254783)
10-25-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
10-25-2005 4:42 AM


Re: opportunism
holmes writes:

We can't simply pull out and hope there will be a replacement, or with the promise that one will be coming when we leave.

The problem is that there is no interest at the UN for a massive UN peacekeeping force to replace caolition forces, and perhaps rightfully so. Members are worried that such a move would put a UN sanction on the war since they are doing nothing to punish the US and taking over duties would relieve us of our legal burden.

After all the US could easily leave stating the UN is taking over and then pull the plug on assistance to that effort. We are already screwing the UN on debts and lambasting their independence from US control... which is another reason the UN is unlikely to be fielding a replacement team anytime soon.

That's a fair point, but easily alleviated if the Coalition were required to pay for peacekeeping upfront as part of the reparations.

holmes writes:

Nice try, but that won't work on me. The WMD claim was bizarre and stretched at best. The idea that there are violent groups and sectarian opposition which could result in more chaos and perhaps civil war is not.

I have never argued that the US and UK are the only ones in the world who could ever do the job until an Iraqi force is in place. My argument has been that it is our legal duty, and we are the only force in the region capable of doing the job.

If this is not the case, then please present evidence.

I disagree. The coalition have killed more civilians than the resistance and in fact lead the way when it comes to direct cause of civilian death. Second, I believe, are the (mainly foreign) Jihadis who go for the spectacular suicide bombings, with the anti-coalition resistance coming in third. The incidences of suicide attacks will likely dry up after the occupation, according to a study (see here for interview with author http://amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html).

It seems bizarre to me that you think the best way of avoiding the violence in Iraq is by maintaining its principal cause.

I'm not saying that all will be peachy creamy post pullout, but many of the most violent areas of Iraq have shown a tendency to self-govern. Plus, at present, many people are scared of working in Governmental positions because of the fear they might be seen as collaborators.

And yes, this Iraqis are too violent to govern themselves crapola is very much like the WMD fiasco. Maybe more insidious, less overt, but a carefully fostered and deliberate falsehood by those who want the world to turn a blind eye to the permanent bases that are being built.

I didn't post much in the way of (linky) evidence because I don't think its in dispute. If any of it is, let me know.

PE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 10-25-2005 4:42 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 10-26-2005 8:24 AM Primordial Egg has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 10 (254864)
10-26-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Primordial Egg
10-25-2005 5:36 PM


Re: opportunism
That's a fair point, but easily alleviated if the Coalition were required to pay for peacekeeping upfront as part of the reparations.

I agree that could be done, but it is unlikely to happen. We can't get accurate assessments right now of how much the total cost will be, so how would that be calculated? And the total sum would be enormous. How would we be able to pay for it in one lump sum?

But barring those practical issues, if we had that arranged and UN troops in place I would totally be for the immediate withdrawal of US troops.

The coalition have killed more civilians than the resistance and in fact lead the way when it comes to direct cause of civilian death. Second, I believe, are the (mainly foreign) Jihadis who go for the spectacular suicide bombings, with the anti-coalition resistance coming in third.

I'm not sure if that is true if you exclude casualties of the war. From what I understood at this point Iraqis are being killed less by "us" than "them". If you have figures I am open to seeing them.

It seems bizarre to me that you think the best way of avoiding the violence in Iraq is by maintaining its principal cause.

It is bizarre to me that you view violence in Iraq as being caused by the presence of the coalition. You are aware that Iraq has been fighting wars and insurgencies for well over twenty years, right?

While I agree that Islamic fundies like AQ have dimensions of regional autonomy (aka remove US presence), that is hardly going to be the sole generator of violence and instability within Iraq. If you believe that when we leave the violence will start decreasing, you seem to be turning your back on the history of Iraq as well as current issues facing the different groups.

this Iraqis are too violent to govern themselves crapola is very much like the WMD fiasco. Maybe more insidious, less overt, but a carefully fostered and deliberate falsehood by those who want the world to turn a blind eye to the permanent bases that are being built.

First, I agree that permanent bases should not be established there, so we can put that to rest now. Our continued presence until a new gov't is securely in place does not demand that, and indeed would be a very bad sign if our troops stayed there after security is achieved.

Second, I am not arguing that Iraqis are too violent to govern themselves. That's like saying that all the violence and Chaos in NO after Katrina proves Americans are too violent to govern themselves.

What I am arguing is they are presently in a condition of a power vacuum, compounded with great poverty and lack of infrastructure to deal with security concerns. And unlike the US, they do have greater internal divisions (those that would like independce from Iraq) as well as foreign elements interested in keeping Iraq destabilized who are able to infiltrate almost at will.

That means anyone who can do anything to help them keep things relatively stable until an Iraqi gov't can secure the nation for Iraqis, should be helping.

If I believed they were too violent to rule themselves I wouldn't agree to an eventual end to our occupation.

So please let's end that line of argument as well.

Stick to the facts. Is Iraq in a crisis situation regarding infrastructure and security forces? If so, who is best placed to help with those issues until Iraqi resources are in place? And who has the moral and legal duty to do so? If coalition troops leave will violence end and a new Iraqi gov't come into power faster and easier, than if troops stayed?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-25-2005 5:36 PM Primordial Egg has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019