Well, now what?

[John Connolly]

Iraqis Shocked by Beheading, Despair Over Violence

www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5119272

[Gene Williams]

Right...

[dave501]

Originally posted by drmarc
We went to war with Iraq:
1) Because of Al Qaeda- Anybody that knows anything about that region knows that this was a bunch of horseshit that enabled the initial war planning to begin. Iraq did a better job in killing Islamic fundamentalists than we did!
2) Weapons of Mass Destruction that were an imminent threat- Another bunch of !!!!!!!!.

1)Still spreading that lie...We went to war in part to completely implement the iraq liberation act of 1998, that clinton signed.
2) Still spreading that lie, too... there's no hope for you.

It is unfortunate to read responses from Kevin.

i feel the same when I read your drivel

The reality is that we went into Iraq for political reasons that we still are not leveling with to our own citizens!

aren't you violating yor security clearance by letting this info out? Oh, wait, you don't know this for a fact, it is just your leftist propaganda again

blah, blah, blah, decent statement, blah, blah, blah

God bless every one in that region. Muslim and non-muslims alike. Maybe we can somehow find our way back to acting like humane beings.

Dr. Marc

We know for a fact that saddam supported terrorism and terrorists. If you don't believe that, go ask the families of the people that blew themselves up to kill israeli children where they got there $10k or $25k checks from. That's support of terrorism. We knew iraq was a loose cannon and years of inspections and sanctions did nothing to alleviate anyones belief in that. So the US, along with the majority of european countries and a number of other countries from around the world, eliminated the threat. Yes, iraq is not as peaceful now, but it is not a majo threat to the US. Yes, a terrorist attack may be launched against the US because of iraq, but it won't have the $$ backing of iraq and will be a much less threat to life.

Back on topic, I think one of the biggest problems to be faced there is that we are trying to impose an unfamiliar society on the people. Not that they don't understand freedom, but that they don't understand what it means to support a free society. It effects them economically in that the economy was pretty much top down from the govt before, now it has to be from the people. And socially, how to get them to see the community support necessary to be free - it isn't jsut each person being free, it is the community instilling freedom thinking in the people which would create an environment in which terrorists would not thrive. I think it'll take at least 5 or 6 years of some sort of control/interference (but more likely many more) to create the environment where they now how to be free. But they are smart people and they may surprise me.

Dave McKenna, PhD

[gozanryu]

Right...

nice Gene!

[drmarc]

David:

Did you achieve your doctorate from Karl Rove's School of character assasination?

If we were to accept your explanation of why we went to war, we are yet on another reason. This one always fits within this administration's agenda -> blame any problems on the Clinton Administration.

You call me a liar and can profer nothing to support your position. There have been enough independent experts who have come out and basically called our administration's positions dishonest. When people in our own government do that, the revenge is swift. Let us look only at the US ambassador to Nigeria. This administration allowed an act of treason to occur by identifying his wife as a CIA operative. Treason in a time of war is punishable by death. Funny how they do not seem to be pursuing this crime. Un-named administration officials were talked to the media, basically bragging how this investigation was being stonewalled and dragged to a screeching halt.

What an open mind you have. If somebody expresses an opinion different from yours, it is called "drivel." Such an eloquent expression from someone with a doctorate!

Now I'm a leftist propandist! Wow! Books written by people who were high level officials in this administration, and by those who directly interviewed them confirm my position. Please inform this audience as to why we did go to war. Back it up with facts.

Your true character emerges when you demean a heart-felt statement about the anguish of the unnecessary loss of lives. I am glad to know that you have such a high respect for life.

Yes, Saddam gave money to the families of dead terrorists. Saudia Arabia gave more money! You somehow neglect to mention that fact. Is this out of ignorance or convenience? Direct support for the terrorist strikes against us can be directly traced back to Saudia Arabia NOT IRAQ! Why have we not "eliminated" a more direct threat to our safety.

I'm so glad that you know what freedom is and how to set it up in Iraq. The people will eventually establish a government based upon their culture and history. It will most likely end up being some version of a theocracy, whether we like it or not.

The people do seem to be smarter than you, in that they want to decide upon their own destiny and not have us force it down their throats.

The most interesting and pathetic part about your reply to me is your convenient absence of any comments about the businesses making money at even our soldiers expense; the atrocities we committed, or how we have made the world a more dangerous place for Americans.

Being called a "leftist propagandist" by the likes of you is actually a compliment that recognizes my open-mind and sense of humanity. These are things that you seem to lack in entirety.

Dr. Marc

[gozanryu]

Dr. Marc, it is indeed tragic the "pigeonholing" that occurs in discussion. It seems somehow unavoidable that polarization always finds a way in. I have spent many hours over the years trying to understand that bit of human behavior. Although I am definitely "right" leaning in the leftist view. (most people on the left view Mr. Kerry as a moderate Centrist) I think one of the failures of our time is to stand by ANY idea or ideology without having developed the posistion OURSELF rather than parroting some group or party "line". Luckily, most of us don't answer the dissagreements by lopping the oppositions head off, or hanging their mutilated bodies from bridges. The unlucky part is that usually, most people just "bluster". There are indeed, two sides to every story, sometimes three, or five! In the end though, I really believe you have to take a position. How you came by that decision is the key, in my opinion. CNN is not the definitive "axis mundi" by any stretch.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Nsherrard
As for the questions: Do you think we don't already know "who we're dealing with"? They freakin' destroyed the World Trade Center! The fact that they're willing to execute an American civilian is a suprise?

No, they didn't. This is a common misconception. The Iraqi insurgents (there is no evidence of involvement by non-Iraqis) had nothing to do with 9/11, which was perpetrated by Saudis. Nor is there any evidence of Al Quaida involvement in Iraq. To the insurgents, they are fighting for their national soverignty against an illegal occupier (America). Their motivations are quite different rfom the September 11 bunch, who were bankrolled by Osama bin Laden, a mortal enemy of Saddam Insane.

[Tamdhu]

I don't think I have made such a general claim as "Iraqis et al think it's ok to hack someones head off."

In a way, Cody, you did just that. You implied quite clearly that the thugs who cut off the man's head acted in some sort of justifyable self-defense. A lot, if not most or nearly all Iraqi's would disagree with you. The thugs are there, funded from without, to try to ensure that democracy does NOT take hold, because that would then threaten the stability of militant mullahcracies elsewhere (Iran, Sudan, Syria, etc.), and would weaken the cult of hatred for the United States and the West, which they use to distract their down-trodden populace at large from addressing the REAL root of their problems and utter lack of opportunities.

"Israeli Oppression! Kill the Zionist Monsters!"

"America, The Great Satan!"

These mantras are already losing their power, (with Iraqi and even Iranian civilians, if not the western media,) as more and more Iraqis get about the business of living, making a living, and taking part in the infrastructure that will allow them to maintain that way of living.

As for 'socialism' vs. 'capitalism', I think the folks in Iraq have had enough of 'managed economies' over the past 30 years or so to make them puke. I think they'll welcome the opportunity to fend for themselves on their own terms, and prosper by their own efforts, instead of hoping for handouts in return for walking someone else's party line.

The strategy of the war we are fighting is that of creating ever-widening pockets of stability, progress and civility, and that strategy is working. Our 'loss' and the enemy's percieved 'victory' in Faluja is nothing of the kind. We could very easily have wiped them out then and there, but we are not there to simply 'exterminate'. We are there to educate. Teaching them to fish, so to speak. We walk away with a little egg on our face in the short term, but get the Iraqi's going on their own much sooner in the long term.

This helps us, in the long term, in the 'war on terror', by eliminating the REAL cause of the 'discontent' that led to 911, namely, FASCISM, be it 'Islamo', secular or otherwise.

Those thugs that murdered the man in the video are in no way, shape or form the 'freedom fighters' you imagine them to be.

[drmarc]

Gozanryu:

You are absolutely correct in your observations. Joseph Rychlak (sp) was a professor emeritus as Duke University (I think it was in Pyschology). He described humans as "telic beings." He meant that we have an innate predisposition to assign meanings to interactions and events in our lives. This "pigeonholing" fits within this rubric.

News media in this country are basically owned by major corporations, each with their own agendas. The news that we receive, whether it be CNN, or FOX each have their own distinct political leanings. Even then, we are just given "sound-bites" rather than a real look at what has occurred. European news channels do a much better job at providing more complete coverage of events than our own news media. I find that I have to seek out many different sources and venues with differing positions in order to try and come to some better understanding of what is happening in our world.

One of the most inspirational teachers in my life was the late Max Lerner. He was considered one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. He was one of the few people who could genuinely separate his ego from his ideas, so that he could engage in critical exploration of his ideas and the ideas of others. He was always ready to modify his thinking when through reasoned analysis, he found that his ideas needed to be changed or modified. Many people tend to be intellectually lazy and accept what ever ideas come closest to what they want to believe. They then choose to find reasons not to accept or to explore ideas that challenge their beliefs. This is the process that David engaged in with me.

I would say that I am difficult to "nail-down." In some matters, I would be considered conservative (right-leaning), and in other areas I would be considered liberal (left-leaning). I always look to explore any venues of information that can shed light in matters that I am interested in exploring. I make sure that I try to look at as many "sides" to the story as possible and try to see which side seems to be the most plausible, and which sides seems to play the most games with distorting perceptions and events.

A perfect example of this "word game" is the latest revelation about the White House's approval of interrogation techniques for CIA operatives. Some how they managed to "legalese" the perception that tying people to a board and placing them underwater so that they think that they are being drowned is in compliance with the Geneva Convention. I would venture to say that if we subjected that person to experience what he/she believes is in compliance with the Geneva Convention then that person might conclude otherwise at the end of that experience. A more honest position would be to say that some torturing will occur with clearly identified terrorists. This would be a more honest approach.

Unfortunately, the only real clarity that we seem to have at this point in time is that all sides have engaged in atrocities, and all sides have suffered from unnecessary loss of young lives. That people die because of differing ideas is a sign of how "pigeon-holing" can be taken to lethal conclusions.

If knowledge is power, then it seems to me that the acceptance of differences of ideas will set us free from the tyranny of ideology.

Dr. Marc

[Tamdhu]

Their motivations are quite different rfom the September 11 bunch, who were bankrolled by Osama bin Laden, a mortal enemy of Saddam Insane.

Saddam's motivation was to play along and pay lip-service (and bribes) to the UN in order to get enough support from them to ensure a veto when the US chose to move against him. His degree of success in this endevour, and the willingness of UN parties to 'play ball' with him is more truly horrifying to me than any amount of prison porn. Behind that was the motivation of revenge against the West and chiefly America, and the undying dream of being nuclear-enabled 'Sultan' of the Middle East, with all that would entail and enable.

Saddam was not our enemy any more or less than Osama. They were both front-line players in the same fascist game. When one of them pushed us too far, it was time for both to go down.

Iraq was and remains a legitimate battlefield (one of several) in the war on Terrorism. His not being 'directly' responsible for 911, alas, was not enough to save him. He was playing the wrong game at the wrong time in the wrong field, and the payoff, in terms of long-term security for us, was (and is) too rich to resist.

Saddam wanted a 'cold' war that would stretch out over the next few decades. We deprived him of that, thanks to George W. Bush and NO thanks to the 'United' (against America) Nations.

[Tamdhu]

Unfortunately, the only real clarity that we seem to have at this point in time is that all sides have engaged in atrocities, and all sides have suffered from unnecessary loss of young lives.

Doctor, Doctor
Give me the News
I gotta
Bad Case
of Morally Relativistic BLUES!

Yes, it's all just so woefully unclear. Who's good? Who's bad? Who's naughty? Who's nice? Who knows? Certainly not us hand-wringing intellectuals!

Let's all go to work/school/university tomorrow with women's underpants on our heads, as an act of solemn solidarity with the prisoners in Iraq.

; )

[Cody]

Originally posted by Tamdhu
In a way, Cody, you did just that.

No I didn't. I pointed out the same argument can go either way. "U.S. is right to commit atrocities becase we are fighting people who disagree with our lifestyle" "Iraqis are right to commit atrocities because they are fighting people who invaded their country and drag the war on and on in their country with no legit cause." The point isn't a consensus over this "rataionalization;" I believe there is none on either side. Judging from the pm that I got, at least some U.S. citizen also sees the hypocricy and disagree with this line of "justifications." Rather, the point is that neither side is justified.

Originally posted by Tamdhu You implied quite clearly that the thugs who cut off the man's head acted in some sort of justifyable self-defense.

No, that's your interpretation. If I implied anything, both sides are NOT justified according to my subjective view (humanism). Justifications are societal constructs, I think you have to be incredibly naive to expect them to hold in a war. Kind of like expecting an attacker on the street to "fight fairly and honorably by not attacking eyes, groin, knees, or pull out a weapon."

Originally posted by Tamdhu A lot, if not most or nearly all Iraqi's would disagree with you.

A lot of American also disagree with you. If there is a consensus over this matter, there won't be a disagreement.

Originally posted by Tamdhu As for 'socialism' vs. 'capitalism', I think the folks in Iraq have had enough of 'managed economies' over the past 30 years or so to make them puke. I think they'll welcome the opportunity to fend for themselves on their own terms, and prosper by their own efforts, instead of hoping for handouts in return for walking someone else's party line.

I made the comment in respond to another poster's question about gas price. The point is that political agenda in a war goes beyond gas price.

Originally posted by Tamdhu The strategy of the war we are fighting is that of creating ever-widening pockets of stability, progress and civility, and that strategy is working. Our 'loss' and the enemy's percieved 'victory' in Faluja is nothing of the kind. We could very easily have wiped them out then and there, but we are not there to simply 'exterminate'. We are there to educate.

That's what your government would like the public to believe. Consents are always more useful than coercion; that's the backbone of "democrazy." IT's not about freedom, it's about controlling the crowds through propaganda so that they support the government's acts. Why else would the U.S. military employ torture techniques that leaves the least marking and evidence to the body? They need to torture without its people knowing that they are indeed using torture. Democracy isn't about a clean government; it's about a government that looks clean.

Originally posted by Tamdhu Teaching them to fish, so to speak. We walk away with a little egg on our face in the short term, but get the Iraqi's going on their own much sooner in the long term.

And atrocities against american civilians in Iraq will get them out of Iraq in the long term.

I think the problem often isn't that people of developing countries don't know how to fish, the problems is that the big player who are ahead in the game won't let them fish in their own water. People who starve aren't less hard working than the average joe in rich America; they are starving because they are at the bottom of the capitalism chain. They are enslaved not by gun point, but by world wide capitalist exploitations.

But that's getting way off topic. I don't think the world needs the west to "teach them how to fish," they need the U.S. to stop exploitations and intrusion with no valid cause.

Originally posted by Tamdhu This helps us, in the long term, in the 'war on terror', by eliminating the REAL cause of the 'discontent' that led to 911, namely, FASCISM, be it 'Islamo', secular or otherwise.

Bush admin IS facism. When did you stop cringing when he says "God bless America," "fight evil" and "crusade" etc? Getting used to them already?

Originally posted by Tamdhu Those thugs that murdered the man in the video are in no way, shape or form the 'freedom fighters' you imagine them to be. [/B]

I never imagined them to be freedom fighter; I think we disagree mostly on the ground that the U.S. isn't the selfless liberator as its government tries to present itself to be.

[Cady Goldfield]

Here's the latest on the killing of Nicholas Berg. It's confirmed that the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks carried out the murder on Berg. Our government is offering a $10 million reward for his death or capture.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/134/...ted_Ber:.shtml

[Jerry Johnson]

I am sorry, but I haven't cooled off concerning this matter. I am glad there is a $10 million dollar reward, it is worth the extra bucks at the pump.

Rumsfield, showed up in Baghdad and told the world that justice will be served to those guilty of the hazing and pranking of Iraqi prisoners. IMO, they don't need to be punished. But, I understand the world politics that are at play, damn it someone has to be a scapegoat . I am glad they are not releasing any more photos, I hope the media down plays it now, and moves on to what they are good at irresponsible journalism, and playing politics. I can't wait for then follow up story on the Berg murder...sex scandals of the rich and infamous. I am sure the media thinks sex is a more sanitized subject. The media has to stop playing politics.

I remember watching TV during the Viet Nam war, and the news showed a solider burning a hut with a lighter and then later the public went nuts. Now, the media shows what it wants to, not what it needs to. Not what the government tells it too ( to some point it is), nor by the public. It wants to show what is in ITS best interest, and corporate gain. Clearly, this war is making them bucks too. At the lives of our soldiers and civilians. Point being they should have publicly showed the murder of Berg, or the result. The media has shown equally graphic footage all the time of other incidences- to get ratings etc. By showing the footage in whole or part would have changed public opinion on the war and push for an end to it either by putting more of a military squeeze on Iraq, or pulling out troops. Either way it may start a spark that would end the war sooner. But, the media doesn't want the war to end. They just want to keep bring it into our homes like a nightly cop drama, as advertisers pay top dollar for spots.

[Gene Williams]

Originally posted by Cody
No I didn't. I pointed out the same argument can go either way. "U.S. is right to commit atrocities becase we are fighting people who disagree with our lifestyle" "Iraqis are right to commit atrocities because they are fighting people who invaded their country and drag the war on and on in their country with no legit cause." The point isn't a consensus over this "rataionalization;" I believe there is none on either side. Judging from the pm that I got, at least some U.S. citizen also sees the hypocricy and disagree with this line of "justifications." Rather, the point is that neither side is justified.



No, that's your interpretation. If I implied anything, both sides are NOT justified according to my subjective view (humanism). Justifications are societal constructs, I think you have to be incredibly naive to expect them to hold in a war. Kind of like expecting an attacker on the street to "fight fairly and honorably by not attacking eyes, groin, knees, or pull out a weapon."



A lot of American also disagree with you. If there is a consensus over this matter, there won't be a disagreement.



I made the comment in respond to another poster's question about gas price. The point is that political agenda in a war goes beyond gas price.



That's what your government would like the public to believe. Consents are always more useful than coercion; that's the backbone of "democrazy." IT's not about freedom, it's about controlling the crowds through propaganda so that they support the government's acts. Why else would the U.S. military employ torture techniques that leaves the least marking and evidence to the body? They need to torture without its people knowing that they are indeed using torture. Democracy isn't about a clean government; it's about a government that looks clean.



And atrocities against american civilians in Iraq will get them out of Iraq in the long term.

I think the problem often isn't that people of developing countries don't know how to fish, the problems is that the big player who are ahead in the game won't let them fish in their own water. People who starve aren't less hard working than the average joe in rich America; they are starving because they are at the bottom of the capitalism chain. They are enslaved not by gun point, but by world wide capitalist exploitations.

But that's getting way off topic. I don't think the world needs the west to "teach them how to fish," they need the U.S. to stop exploitations and intrusion with no valid cause.



Bush admin IS facism. When did you stop cringing when he says "God bless America," "fight evil" and "crusade" etc? Getting used to them already?



I never imagined them to be freedom fighter; I think we disagree mostly on the ground that the U.S. isn't the selfless liberator as its government tries to present itself to be.

And who gives a rat's !!! what some coolie from Canada, for Christ's sake, thinks about anything?