| |
|  |  |
 |
| Discussion: Jack You hit the nail on the head that time Tchock. He'll argue of course, he'll catch you out somehow, but you'll still be right. >>By Flagg <<<<<My guess is that religious extremism plays a part, a big part.>>>> So's mine: <<<<I live in a secular society and am in no position to judge or understand radical Islam. >>>> I wonder about that: from where I'm sitting, the USA is a very religious country: more so than most of the developed world. Some people might view fundamentalism of any sort presenting a potential threat to everyone else's rights and freedoms when the fundamentalists decide that everyone else has to believe the same things they do. Islam is a very diverse religion: there is no central structure like the Catholic Church, or even Anglicanism. We don't consider all Christian relgions as a monolithic entity, nor should we Islam. There are millions of Muslims that embrace secular society to varying degrees, just as there are some that see the only legitimate form of society as theistsic. You have noticed that muslims are primarily killing other muslims in Iraq, destroying each other's shrines and leaders. Even radical islam doesn't appear to have a single agenda. I've noticed that George W has spoken quite a lot about 'faith-based' politics, which some might consider inappropriate in a 'secular' society. From the likes of Jerry Falwell and co it appears that a lot of fundamentalist christians have a world view that attempts to limit the freedom of others, and see a bigger role for their beliefs than one would normally see in a secular society. What truly frightens me are the kinds of outcomes history is littered with when one 'faith-based' leader faces off against another one. It is possible that Iran is thinking of targets a lot closer to home that Israel. Perhaps they are alarmed by a occupying force in the neighbouring country and fear that they might be next. Maybe they think are arming themselves against the take over of another form of Islam. Maybe they really are trying to make nuclear energy: who wouldn't given the rest of the world is scrambling to reduce green house gases? Or even the export income they could earn from exporting oil rather than consuming it domestically? A leader is repsonsible for the actions of his advisors, else no leader could be held responsible for anything. You speak about Sadaam Hussein being tried for his crimes: it is unlikely that he killed anyone with his own bare hands. What steps have been taken to ensure that the WMD fiasco never happens again? Who exactly was reponsible? Is the same thing in danger of occuring in Iran? >>By Sarcophilus Is anyone else bemused by the Jack range diplayed on this thread? (Do we all see the same titles?) >>By Sarcophilus >> I simply found it depressing that people could take Bush seriously to the point where a long in-depth discussion was necessary. There's a strange circularity to it all. However you feel about him, he is the US President and hence influential. The US has become incredibly polarized and the Bush dynasty has come to be the icon of one pole. Thus he becomes important to all because he is important to some. In the hsort term it is easiest to focus on Bush as the icon because people can relate to an individual far better than an abstraction or policies. However, I believe making Bush the lightening rod is damaging to progressives because Bush becomes a handy scapegoat. Think about it. He is leaving in 2 years, what happens then? If Bush ends his Presidency in glory then the Republicans use him to endorse their next candidate. If he ends in shame then the Republicans shrug and say "Well, that was just him" and act as if everything that is wrong with the Bush administration was the fault of Bush the person, and try to give the impression that the Republicans are starting with a clean slate. This would not be 100% effective, but it would be fairly effective, considerably reducing the political damage. That is why I think we need to focus on actions and policies. If they are bad and we can show it, then we are not starting from scatch in 2 years. Those same policies and actions will have been shown to be bad. If we spend all our energies on Bush, then in 2 years we have to start again with someone new. To me another issue is clarity about goals. I do not care who is the President (or Prime Minister, or ...), I care about policies and actions. If for eg (ok, this is far-fetched, but bare with me) Bush were to suddenly table a progressive and effective disengagement strategy for Iraq, implement a dynamic, bold, radical plan for climate change, mobilize both houses to implement true gender equity, push for the legalization of gay marriage, etc ... well then, I'd probably become one of his most ardent supporters. A very puzzled and baffled one, but enthusiastic. And for another perspective on the whole issue, see http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2895 Tchock will like fair.org too I think >> Maybe it is necessary for what you want to achieve here, but I don't know what that is. We're just a bunch of people who showed up here and each is pursuing their own goal. There never was a consensus, and it seems to be winding down anyway. >> I feel out of place on this board because I simply don't know as much about the issues as the rest of you obviously do. The way we all started. I am here to learn much more than I am to push particular points of view. I throw my perspectives out there to see if they float, or sink like a rock. Keep learning, keep teaching. >> But I have an opinion anyway. And every right to it as much as anyone Keep on doing. >> I would hope that it's ok for me to state my opinion without offering a solution. Of course. You don't ever arrive at solutions unless you name the problem > But whether it's avoidable or not, killing civilians is wrong. Yes, and I'd say you are both right. Considering the fire power that the US has deployed and used in Iraq the civilian casualties have been low. In 3 years of war the civilian dead are about the same as the single bombing raid on Dresden, 30,000 dead in a single night. Vietnam 3 million over 10 years, Chechnya 200,000 in 10 years, Rawanda 800,000 in 3 months, Darfur, Cong, etc. Is that acceptable? L2R is right, you can't have war without killing civilians. Flagg is right, that killing is wrong. My outrage is about the selling of the war. The run up to the war included a massive PR campaign which gave the impression that there would be negligable civillian casualties. By military standards 30,000 for a conflict of this scale might count as negligable, but not by any other standard. So how about in a democracy we actually have an open and honest dialogue where the best estimate of probable casualties is arrived at, and then the public debates the merits of the conflict in that light? Instead of promo-shots of smart bombs and joyous commercials for precision targeting we say "OK, it's going to be about 10,000/yr dead, maybe 10 times that wounded. We're going to lose a lot of our own people, many will be wounded, and many more will be scared by what they see, what they do - are we willing to accept that?" And it's 30,000 so far, about 10,000/yr. Chechnya is 200,000, about 10,000/yr. >>> And about the African-Americans ... Presidential campaigns target the people who *are* going to vote. Sorry L2R, but Flagg got that right. In the west politics is increasingly about image and money, marginalizing the disenfranchised even further. This is not unique to the US, but the US is no exception either. >> use of the word 'fuck' Eh. I grew up working poor and it was every third word I and my friends used. Noun, verb, adjective, conjunction, it served every purpose. When I'm tired and cranky I still revert to that, but on the whole I'm just bored with it. It offends my Mom, so I don't use it around her. It offends L2R, so I'm OK not using it with him either. Sarco - I think Jack's Books on Iraq, Democracy, Gay Rights, Media, etc show her amazing breadth and appeal. Her books are so popular that they never seem to be on the shelves at the bookstore or the library. I 'm surprised Oprah hasn't done Jack yet, but I am sure it is coming ;-) >>By greenfyre <A leader is repsonsible for the actions of his advisors, else no leader could be held responsible for anything.> Ahhh - the revisionist view.... Hmmm... well - my field of study is Russia under Stalinism, so I shall parallel with him and his leadership.... Was the purges caused by Stalin - or was it the people. The above & below factor always is questioned. In truth - IS there any above or below? Surely it can only be on the same level? (again I shall keep it to Stalinst analogy) IF it was Stalin heading the purges - then why had no one else attempted to stop him? Therefore the situation relies solely on the people who support him. Where as if it was the vast majority of the people who were denounciating their neighbours left right & centre, as well as Ezhov's 'targets"as' system - then why did Stalin not know about it? It is in truth easy to blame the leader - of course it is. He is the one in the public domain, the one whom you think is responsible. Yet one man cannot run a country alone - he has advisors, and delegates, and colleagues. He is never alone. One madman cannot intiate anything in a country without the direct approval of his colleages - or the vast majority of them. Surely it comes down to the same old case....... who is worse : the psychopath, or those who support believe & nurture the psychopath? Nothing in Stalinism could have been achieved if it were not for Stalin, neither could it have been achieved if it were not for the people. Therefore we ALL share the same responsibility - in the end. But in the end this solves no problem - especially in today's society. We cannot appropriate the blame to each and every citizen of a terrorized country for not standing up to their rights. It is impossible. However, in such a 'peaceful' country as America & Britian - surely it is our duty as free citizens to stand up for our common scruples of justice & human rights? But perhaps I read your statement too deeply, Sarcophilus.... :) >>By Tchock * <targets"a> please actually submit this computer..... >>By Tchock * <TARGETS & QUOTAS SYSTEM> Q U O T A S please submit this NOW computer :) >>By Tchock Tchock * Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995, Of course, State ratification. Missed that one completely. Fascinating bit of history. And now a bit of nerdy irrelevant curiousity: at the time there were only 36 states, and as of 1995 they had all, finally, ratified it. Do the other states have to ratify individual ammendments? or is it a given that they accept the Constitution in it's entirety at the time of the granting of statehood? ie ratification is de facto part of becoming a state. Regardless, Tchock's point stands I believe, the 13th Ammendment had not been ratified by all eligable States even as Colin Powell was being considered as a possible Presidential candidate. Isn't life wierd? >>By greenfyre Sarco >> It is possible that Iran is thinking of targets a lot closer to home that Israel. Perhaps they are alarmed by a occupying force in the neighbouring country and fear that they might be next. Are you suggesting that threatening a country because you do not like their policies does nothing to assuage their fears that unless they have WMD other countries will threaten them if they do not like their policies? Surely not! >>By greenfyre Hmmm - well as far as I'm aware - & I have looked at the current Constitution - this is what happens in order to ammend part of the constitution, or add it. (It may be slightly different now, as there are more states...) 1. If two-thirds of the House agree on an amendment, then the process for 'voting' on that said amendment is undertaken. 2. Only until three quarters of the states have signed up to make this amendment shall the amendment be granted. (Back in Lincoln's day it was around one quarter of the states - therefore only nine states had to want the change.) 3. A state chooses to support the amendment (or not) is decided upon a Federal Election in which the citizens vote for the amendment. So basically - ratification IS de facto to becoming a state. >>By Tchock Just wondered what you guys think about this kind of thing...(It's an excerpt and I'd credit it if I could remember where the hell it came from. Google the text and you'll find it, I'm sure). Iraq is a war zone, and the death of a private security guard rates little mention. Yet private companies employing former soldiers and police officers to protect government officials and corporate heads has become a phenomenon of this conflict, leading to questions about not only their safety, but how well they are vetted and controlled. They are a private army, and more than 60 companies, employing at least 25,000 security guards, now work in Iraq protecting government, non-government organisations and private contractors. US and British companies have received much of this work, during which hundreds of private contractors have reportedly been killed. Most agree that private contractors are essential for Iraq to operate — US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last year that "any idea that we shouldn't have them I think would be unwise". Go mercs! >>By Just Jon >we are so far apart in our understanding that subsequent communication would be fucking useless as young Flagg would say it. Looking back, I think that was true from the start, and it's the same for all discussion of this type. I learned that lesson on the emo board, then apparently forgot it when I got all excited looking at this board. Apparently lv2read has learned the same thing now, as the debate seems to be over. Sigh of relief. Let's hope it stays with him. >>By Flagg Greenfyre WMD became the whole rationale for detente: " you can destroy me therefore i am willing to speak to you" - of course that is a gross simplification - but if Iran IS arming iteself then the local threat would like provide a rationale. I'm not suggesting that I would do the same, merely that I could entertain the possibility.... So Thcock..... I'm confused.....is Greenfrye correct: that the USA didn't ratify the anti-slavery amendment in entirety until 1995? Or was it ratified as the remaining states joined? >>By Sarcophilus [I notice that he can be warm and friendly from one eye and at the same time cold and mocking from the other. The effect is most disturbing. <Jack>, not knowing how to respond, smiles uncomfortably, and his smile is immediately mimicjked by the youth with such precision that it seems for a moment they have switched places] >>By Sarcophilus Sarco: As Tchock says, at the time only 9 states were required for the 13th ammendment to be Law, after that the ratification by further states is more formality. Although symbolic, it is an important confirmation of the validity of the law and says a lot about how that state feels about the law. Many of the States that finally ratified it later voted not to ratify in 1865. One could understand not ratifying in 1865 or even 1870, there was a lot of bitterness over a brutal war, but to wait until well into the 20th century?? JJ: It seems I just can't quit you. 25,000 Mercs in Iraq? like 2 Divisions? Granted not organized into a single unit, but even so that is a very substantial presence. And Rummy says they're needed? Significant implications I would think viz Iraqis perceptions of foreign occupiers/presence, flow of money (ie these guys are getting a lot of money, and it's mostly going out country again), etc. Can't see how this is a good thing. >>By greenfyre Well looks like peace has broken out at last- good on yer guys and galz.................. >>By wreckin krew I think peace only broke out because lv2read got totally confused by the REAL slavery story........... Hmmm.... Re: Ratification - well.... Once the nine states in Lincoln's era had accepted the 13th Ammendment, the rest of the ratification process was just a formality - as greenfyre states. However all states which were part of the occupied areas had to accept this Amendment until they could reaccept the whole Constitution. So - until 1995, Mississipi technically had NO Constitutional rights... and on top of this - due to the fact that Congress could not interfere with a state's stance on slavery as well as the Emancipation Proclomation, it meant that although it was in the Constitution that it was legal, there was no way to enforce this until Mississipi accepted the 13th Amendment: therefore slavery could have occured all the way up until 1995 - and even nowadays, as the ratification is not in all legalities recognized - and there was/could be no forceful way of preventing it. Therefore America as a whole nation (all 50 states lv2read) could not say that it had completley abolished slavery until 1995 (and may not be able to say that currently). It brings a completely different light on what America claims to stand for: Freedom. *Re - the Ratification of Mississipi - or at least the process - was initiated by the Govenor, who was coloured. Rather Ironic. >>By Tchock it possibly has wreckin Krew but dubya is still a draft-dodging maniac warmonger in my eyes.... oops have I broken any rules there? >>By BushisaManiac Excerpted from http://www.duncanfalconer.com/authorpage.html " Arriving back into Baghdad the other day required, as usual, a quick study of the latest dangers and no-go areas before leaving the airport. For me the city is ever shrinking. There are fewer places I can pass through than a couple of months back. Three years ago I could travel just about anywhere I wanted in the country ... Since then that freedom has steadily been reduced. Travelling between towns these days is best done by air ... Many westerners, security included, are beginning to wonder how long it will be before they are confined to their buildings" >>By greenfyre Great quote from Falconer. I find it pretty funny, actually. I mean... These "private contractors" (mercs in my book) in Iraq think of themselves as Eagles, noble birds of prey. They actually make a living like Vultures. And now, they end up hiding in their walled-up coops like Chickens. I freakin' love irony! >>By Just Jon JJ >> (mercs in my book) You say'in Mad Mike was a Hoare? >> I freakin' love irony! You know, I could get to like you ;-) >>By greenfyre Tchock I had the impression peace broke out because I kept swearing at lv2read. I guess we all helped. I'm sure not all mercenaries think of themselves as eagles. I'm sure some of them think of themselves as mercenaries. >>By Flagg It's a shame the real world has no place for the Conscience-led Mercenary. http://www.ffseven.com/image/ characters/cloud/large.jpg >>By Flagg Flagg >> Conscience-led Mercenary. Bit of an oxymoron, don't you think? I know of no struggle where anyone was not free to join up under the standard terms of all the others involved in the conflict. By definition a Merc is someone fighting for the $$$, not the cause. Some Mercs have been better than most in terms of values (eg Mad Mike), but by and large they are guns for hire to the highest bidder, pure and simple. >>By greenfyre Speaking of the Liberal media and Iraq http://www.cagle.com/working/060531/nick.jpg 8-) >>By greenfyre "Web Traffic to Washington Times, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh.com Is Down; Is Era of Right-Wing Site Popularity Over?" http://releases.usnewswire.com/ NOSPACE GetRelease.asp?id=68506 Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right with apologies to Dylan Thomas and thanks to 'My Left Wing' where I got it http://www.myleftwing.com/ NOSPACE showDiary.do?diaryId=23 oh, and if you don't know it, crooksandliars.com is another great place to watch the Fundies get put in perspective 8-). >>By greenfyre Thanks for the sites. I hope the secret police aren't monitoring this board ;) Well in real life a mercenary is a conscience-free gun-for-hire yes, but in fiction mercenaries are often heroes, as well as being the ultimate image of coolness. I think that's because in fiction pure evil exists, so there are people whom it's ok to kill, even just for money. These people are called badguys. Just one reason why fiction is better than real life. ^_^ >>By Flagg > in real life a mercenary is a conscience-free gun-for-hire > in fiction mercenaries are often heroes There IS a third category.. but...how to describe it... ;-) See www.randymcfab.com >>By Lynn Lynn >> See www.randymcfab.com Ummm, yeah, that one IS difficult to catagorize ... no conscience, no gun, no brains? Funny though. Definitely enjoyed the adventures of Randy McFab. One question though; how is it he has NOT been recruited by Homeland Security? >>By greenfyre Maybe Jon knows ? :-) >>By Lynn |