Making Baby Jesus Cry

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Chicken.

Nope. The wisdom I impart on this board is done efficiently. My record here is 99-2-1, with the two losses and the tie coming when I was shitfaced. Sober, I'm 98-0. Drunk, I"m 1-2-1, albeit, the one drunk win was against SS, so that really shouldn't count.

Anyhow, a few observations while I'm catching up:

1. I bet dollars to doughnuts (hi fringey) that there is not going to be a civil war. I was particularly heartened at the news this weekend that Sunnis took up arms with Shites to ward of AQ factions. This is fantastic news, because it illustrates that Iraq is becoming a nation. The fact that the adoption of the draft constitution was delayed is dissappointing, but still overall good news, because all parties agreed to postpone 2 weeks while 2 issues were worked out. This means that all factions now get it - A 1 Iraq policy seems to have won the day.

2. I will be severely disappointed if women are not granted equal rights, and frankly, I don't think the US will let it happen. However, even if it does, I still would still view the process as an overall success. Change comes slowly, and we must remember that even in a country as advanced as ours, women really didn't have equal rights till arguably 30ish years ago, over 200 years after our founding. The most important thing now is to have all factions agree on a constitution, unite as 1 nation, kick AQ out of the country, and begin building institutions that willl allow democracy and free markets to prosper. Equal rights and other "western" advancements will come with time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I thought that is where you were heading. If I had to put percentages on it, I'd say Israel was 15% to blame.

Both sides can bear their share of blame, and there's really no point in trying to fight over who is more at fault. It takes two to tango. Lasting peace is only going to come when both sides agree to it. Anyone who pins the blame on one side or the other is just trying to prolong the misery.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am not downplaying the effects of a civil war. You are just ignoring the horror of Saddam Husseins regime. Why do liberals always think peace is such a good thing? I think the Jews in Germany would have preferred a German civil war. I am sure the civil war in the Soviet Union was much better than what was to follow. The Chinese civil war was preferable than the peace that followed. In Cambodia, the war and the US bombing, were infinitely better than the "peace" that followed. As I stated the Kurds and the Shiites chose civil war over peace under Hussein. And that is before he drained the wetlands killing and displacing millions of people. You just don't appreciate how bad things were during his regime.

On the contrary, I think we are all coming to understand that Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator because that measure of brutality was necessary to hold the country together.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
1. I bet dollars to doughnuts (hi fringey) that there is not going to be a civil war. I was particularly heartened at the news this weekend that Sunnis took up arms with Shites to ward of AQ factions. This is fantastic news, because it illustrates that Iraq is becoming a nation. The fact that the adoption of the draft constitution was delayed is dissappointing, but still overall good news, because all parties agreed to postpone 2 weeks while 2 issues were worked out. This means that all factions now get it - A 1 Iraq policy seems to have won the day.

There already is a civil war going on, but because the country's military and police forces are so non-existent, we are doing the fighting for the government.

Your ability to find some shred of happy news in Iraq is amazing -- it's Chicken Little in reverse.

There just is zero reason for Sunnis to buy into a Shi'ite led government. The Kurds and Shi'ites have the oil, and without control of the national government and the military -- like they've had for decades -- the Sunnis are sitting in some shitty real estate and watching their neighbors get rich.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
They who? I'm still waiting for a response (hope I didn't just miss it) to my comment about getting an economy going while willfully preventing a good chunk of your workforce and brain power from participating (and worse).

If you have a choice between a socialist system employing the whole work force and a free market system only using 1/8 of the workforce you are better of with a free market system. No government that has every nationalized all industry has been able to achieve sustained economic growth.

Obviously you want to draw from as much of the population as possible for talent etc. But socialist economies, even with everyone working (the Soviet Union employment force was over 50% women, same as India) both countries went no where.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It takes two to tango.

You summed up in one sentence on why liberals and pacifists don't understand conflict. It only takes one side to create a war. One side may just sit back and let the other one roll over them, but with only one agressor you can get plenty of violence, destruction and death.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
2. I will be severely disappointed if women are not granted equal rights, and frankly, I don't think the US will let it happen. However, even if it does, I still would still view the process as an overall success. Change comes slowly, and we must remember that even in a country as advanced as ours, women really didn't have equal rights till arguably 30ish years ago, over 200 years after our founding. The most important thing now is to have all factions agree on a constitution, unite as 1 nation, kick AQ out of the country, and begin building institutions that willl allow democracy and free markets to prosper. Equal rights and other "western" advancements will come with time.

I would be less concerned if women's rights were remaining limited, but they had more and now they are being taken away -- I don't know that there was really that kind of moving backward here. It seems all the more frustrating and discontenting (I know that's not a word; I'm tired) when suddenly you can't go to school or whatever.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On the contrary, I think we are all coming to understand that Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator because that measure of brutality was necessary to hold the country together.

I still can't believe you said that. Iraq has gone through periods of democracy and it has had strongmen a lot less brutal than Saddam Hussein and the country still held together.

So the gassing of the Kurds and the draining of the marshes was necessary to keep the country together? All the tortures and mass killings were necessary to keep the country together? These sort of things may have been necessary to keep Saddam in power but there were not necessary to keep the country together.

This also seems to imply that if the country wasn't so fractious Saddam Hussein could have been a lot less brutal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You summed up in one sentence on why liberals and pacifists don't understand conflict. It only takes one side to create a war. One side may just sit back and let the other one roll over them, but with only one agressor you can get plenty of violence, destruction and death.

I'm a little puzzled that you would say this in this context, since I thought your questions the other day were aimed at suggesting that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve blame for the present situation. I'm not saying that there are two sides to just any conflict, but with more than fifty years running since 1948, this is not just any conflict.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I still can't believe you said that. Iraq has gone through periods of democracy and it has had strongmen a lot less brutal than Saddam Hussein and the country still held together.

So the gassing of the Kurds and the draining of the marshes was necessary to keep the country together? All the tortures and mass killings were necessary to keep the country together? These sort of things may have been necessary to keep Saddam in power but there were not necessary to keep the country together.

This also seems to imply that if the country wasn't so fractious Saddam Hussein could have been a lot less brutal.

If I said that the former Soviet or Warsaw Pact regimes were brutal because they were fundamentally illegitimate and needed to do those things to maintain power, you would have no problem with the concept. They built the Wall and shot people going over it for reasons. Maybe Hussein was even more brutal than he needed to be -- e.g., in gassing the Kurds -- but Iraq's centrifugal forces suggest that there are reasons to expect a strongman there.

And if you think Iraq has had periods of democracy, you are setting the bar pretty low there. Although that's to be expected at this stage of the fiasco. It's a real surprise to see all the conservatives on this board lining up to explain why it's not so bad if the Iraq Constitution makes half of the population second-class citizens.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm a little puzzled that you would say this in this context, since I thought your questions the other day were aimed at suggesting that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve blame for the present situation. I'm not saying that there are two sides to just any conflict, but with more than fifty years running since 1948, this is not just any conflict.

I think there is blame to go around. But that is not what I am talking about. You made the blanket statement that it takes affirmative action on both sides to create a conflict. That is just classic liberal thinking. i.e. you can not simultaneous prepare for war and for peace, or violence begets more violence. In war it does not take two to tango. It take only one. If only one side decides to Tango then the other side gets slaughtered. But hey give Peace a Chance.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I said that the former Soviet or Warsaw Pact regimes were brutal because they were fundamentally illegitimate and needed to do those things to maintain power, you would have no problem with the concept. They built the Wall and shot people going over it for reasons. Maybe Hussein was even more brutal than he needed to be -- e.g., in gassing the Kurds -- but Iraq's centrifugal forces suggest that there are reasons to expect a strongman there.

That is vastly different than what you said before: "I think we are all coming to understand that Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator because that measure of brutality was necessary to hold the country together." You said "that measure of brutality" - in other words Saddam Husseins brutality was necessary to keep the country together. If Saddam Husseins type of brutality is necessary to keep the country together then the county should not be together.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a real surprise to see all the conservatives on this board lining up to explain why it's not so bad if the Iraq Constitution makes half of the population second-class citizens.

So let me gets this straight. If this constitution brings peace but women women's rights are restricted then Iraq is worse off than it was under Saddam? That is just absurd.

No one had any rights under Saddam Hussein. So any rights are a step in a positive direction.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You made the blanket statement that it takes affirmative action on both sides to create a conflict.

Clearly you and I have different understandings of what it means to tango. You're talking more about line dancing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is vastly different than what you said before: "I think we are all coming to understand that Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator because that measure of brutality was necessary to hold the country together." You said "that measure of brutality" - in other words Saddam Husseins brutality was necessary to keep the country together. If Saddam Husseins type of brutality is necessary to keep the country together then the county should not be together.

It's a big heap of fun to have you pick through my posts to bicker over semantics while you ignore the basic points. I stand corrected. Maybe his particular brand of brutality wasn't necessary, but brutality of that more general sort was, as we now can tell.