Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 180

Spanky · 10-11-2005, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I feel like I am talking to a pair of particularly slow kindergarteners in having to say this, but one might use force to stop what is happening at a concentration camp (e.g., Treblinka) without using (more) force to try to change that country's culture.

So we should have changed Treblinka, but allowed the Nazi's to stay in power?

Yes we could have invaded Germany, changed Treblinka and just left. Can't believe I didn't think of that. That is what we should have done.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If -- if -- Hussein had been killing people in 2002 on anything like the scale achieved by the Nazis in 1944, then we could have found a way to use force to stop him without embarking on the project of turning Iraq into a western democracy. As it happens, we did not need to contemplate this problem, because the no-fly zone was already preventing Hussein from committing genocide against many Iraqis.

Yes because the no fly zones stopped Hussein from draining the swamps.

And you are right turning Iraq into a democracy is a bad thing. The Germans were naturally totalitarian, we should have just stopped the Genoice but not tried to impose a western democracy on them. We should have learned our lesson with our screw up with Germany, and not tried to impose our crazy western ideals of respect of human rights and democracy on the Iraqis.

We just didn't learn from our screw up with Germany and Japan.

Spanky · 10-11-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Who gets credit for all of the Iron Curtain? Because whomever that is (Bush I? Reagan?) totally kicks W's ass on the totalitarian despot government ending department. That was like, what, 20?

I don't know if you have noticed this but the Avatars are changing from Beaker, to Opus, to Spanky, to a smiling cartoon dinasour. Its like watching the TV on a Saturday morning. I can't believe that any random passerby could take any of this seriously when looking at the Avatars.

bilmore · 10-11-2005, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I feel like I am talking to a pair of particularly slow kindergarteners in having to say this, but one might use force to stop what is happening at a concentration camp (e.g., Treblinka) without using (more) force to try to change that country's culture.

The force was used to remove SH and his merry band of brigands. At the time, he WAS the culture of Iraq. Unfortunately, we failed to kill enough of the brigands - the war went too fast. So, we are using additional force to hunt them down. Also unfortunately, another group - the dread Islamacists - share several points of interest with the remaining merry brigands, and so have also moved in. They have joined in with the brigands to attempt a continuation of the Culture of Saddam. So, yes, we are continuing to attempt to change this culture - as a clean-up operation following our initial, most impressive culture change (luv those guided muni's) - and to allow the people to come out of passive slavery and take part in this turnkey op.

(Geez, Ty, you didn't use to be this dense. At Treblinka, the deathcamp theme WAS the culture. In Iraq, the Saddam-rule, with its attendant deaths, ruinations, and cheesy sound effects, WAS the culture. "Culture" means the overall theme of living. We changed it in both countries, by force. A less-than-perfect result would have been just fine in Treblinka, because it left the inhabitants far better off then they were pre-force. Same with Iraq.)

bilmore · 10-11-2005, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In some ways, things are better (e.g., people can vote). In some, they are worse (e.g., the power is on less often, and there are more car-bombings). The key question is, where are we headed?

Cool. It's better in minor ways (the people are no longer slaves, no longer subject to death-by-whim, and no longer living without any personal autonomy whatsoever), but in the important things, it's not so clear. Their shavers and refrigerators aren't as reliable.

Please keep in mind that the car-bombers are the old plastic-shredder guys, and their new friends. I think we've, at least, hampered their efficiency.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-11-2005, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So we should have changed Treblinka, but allowed the Nazi's to stay in power?

Or, we might have made a different assessment of our ability to restore democracy in Germany, for various plausible reasons.

The interesting question for historians about Iraq will be, was the project of transforming Iraq impossible, or did Bush simply screw it up?

Spanky · 10-11-2005, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In some ways, things are better (e.g., people can vote). In some, they are worse (e.g., the power is on less often, and there are more car-bombings). The key question is, where are we headed?

I think you can definitely say that under Saddam things were not going to get better.

bilmore · 10-11-2005, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The interesting question for historians about Iraq will be, was the project of transforming Iraq impossible, or did Bush simply screw it up?

Ah. So, we have a verdict on this attempt now, right? Utter failure?

Twice before, as I wrote earlier, your position was, I think it's all fucked, but I HOPE it works out. Three times' the charm?

notcasesensitive · 10-11-2005, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
There isn't a lot of difference a government killing its own people and people getting killed in a war.You can call it collateral damage if you want, but it still boils down to killing innocents.

Sometimes that killing is acceptable. It was acceptable in WWII because of the fact that Hitler was practicing genocide. Of course, we didn't get into WWII because Hitler was practicing genocide. We, meaning the upper levels of military and civilian government knew it was going on, but they didn't think it was worth getting involved in. We got into WWII because of Pearl Harbor, and the fact that Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

I also don't think it was a bad thing that Saddam was deposed. Had Bush I done it in 92 when we were driving him out of Kuwait, I would have wholeheartedly supported that. But he didn't.

Bush II also didn't depose Saddam because he was killing off thousands of his own citizens and trying to exterminate the Kurds. In fact, we've stood by for decades as Iran, Iraq, and Turkey have all tried to eradicate the Kurds.

W went into Iraq because he was getting his ass kicked by the press for failing to get Bin Laden. He needed a diversion. That's why we went into Iraq. And killing people because you need to boost your poll ratings isn't true or just or right. It's cynical, dishonest, and borders on the criminal. I say borders because I'm not aware of an existing statute that would expressly fit this situation.

As I said yesterday, right war, wrong time, wrong reasons, too great a cost.

Poll: If I had posted my typed-in response to this post earlier in the day, which questioned the exact nature of Bush's "deposition" of Saddam*, would this have raised or lowered the net level of the debate on this board today?

Just wondering.

*I'm guessing it was similar to the Saddam-Satan relationship in the South Park movie, but with the roles reversed and Bush playing the top. Wait, did I just call Bush Satan or did I call Saddam Satan? Does this post qualify as POPD? TIA!

Spanky · 10-11-2005, 01:32 AM

Where did Wonk and Sidd go? I don't recall giving them permission to leave. Ty, you are the moderator, do something...

bilmore · 10-11-2005, 01:32 AM

"James Dobson--founder of Colorado-based Focus on the Family and an influential social conservative--endorsed Miss Miers after a conversation with Bush political strategist Karl Rove. Such conversations have raised concerns that the White House is making assurances as to how Miss Miers would rule on certain cases--a situation that many think would compromise her independence if she was confirmed to the court.

"If anybody . . . wants to be on the Supreme Court or any court and are going to get that appointment based on assurances of how he or she would vote, they're not qualified to be on that court," said Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/
---------------------

Was Leahy even at the Roberts hearings?

Spanky · 10-11-2005, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Poll: which questioned the exact nature of Bush's "deposition" of Saddam*,

As Ty pointed out I need to go back to kindergarten and take remedial English - consequently I don't know what you mean by "Bush's deposition of Saddam"?

notcasesensitive · 10-11-2005, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
As Ty pointed out I need to go back to kindergarten and take remedial English - consequently I don't know what you mean by "Bush's deposition of Saddam"?

It's an FB thing. You don't really want to know.

Did you ever read Collapse? Bilmore would hate Collapse.

bilmore · 10-11-2005, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
As Ty pointed out I need to go back to kindergarten and take remedial English . . .

Think that's what she meant by the "level of debate"?

Naw . . .

Spanky · 10-11-2005, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
"James Dobson--founder of Colorado-based Focus on the Family and an influential social conservative--endorsed Miss Miers after a conversation with Bush political strategist Karl Rove. Such conversations have raised concerns that the White House is making assurances as to how Miss Miers would rule on certain cases--a situation that many think would compromise her independence if she was confirmed to the court.

"If anybody . . . wants to be on the Supreme Court or any court and are going to get that appointment based on assurances of how he or she would vote, they're not qualified to be on that court," said Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel."

Was Leahy even at the Roberts hearings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

Yes but I can relate to where he is coming from. I thought she was a good pick, but the fact that Dobson now supports her is making me reconsider my initial thinking.
---------------------

bilmore · 10-11-2005, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Did you ever read Collapse? Bilmore would hate Collapse.

Guns 'n Germs was better.