A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Everybody thought the guy had the weapons. The UN did

Now you're just taking the piss.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Now you're just taking the piss.

You were away, and you're my senior, so i respect what you've done. I won't take the easy win for those reasons. but I've already won this argument with the rest of your fellow-travellers. This is why Ty fears me and will never engage. WTTW- ask yourself "why were htere sanctions?" Nuff said.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
You suggested that we come to some definition of "common morality". I suggested one method of, at least on a gross level, measuring where those mores lie. You suggested nothing. And, I'm the one that's arrogant?

Look, if you want a determination, but you can't offer an approach, and you think that any sugestion of an approach is arrogant, you don't leave us with much room to progress on your path. How would YOU measure, define, or arrive at a common morality?

Sigh. I knew I should have clarified.

The reference to "breath-taking arrogance" was not directed at you. It was directed at George Bush, who I was both quoting and paraphrasing in the paragraph above it with regard to his contention in a recent interview that there was no need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for mistakes in Iraq, etc. because his recent election victory was the "accountability moment", and he won.

I thought that was arrogance, but may be wrong. It may just be blindness. Its really no shock that every corporation he ran went bust (save for the baseball franchise, where he enjoyed an antitrust exemption and effective regional monopoly). But -- he knows how to get elected, and how to bust people's balls.

To answer your question, I don't think that our elections are well-suited for measuring or defining the common morality. Morality in the general sense, as opposed to certain demogogued issues, has damn little to do with our elections, our election process, or politics in general.

I think our common morality is probably shaped, defined, and redefined from time to time, by a slow process of education, shared experience and public dialogue (of which elections may be a tiny part). However, I'm not sure we (i.e. Americans) could reach agreement on definitions beyond the most basic generalities -- which would be nearly useless in practical terms (because we'd disagree on the details). (i.e. "Murder is wrong." "Free speech is good.")

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You wouldn't describe Syria, Lebannon and Iran as totatlitarian?

No, not even close. The term has a technical definition. Syria under the elder Assad came closest, was defintiely very authoritarian, but has loosened up quite a bit in recent years. Iran has a civil society and economy that is quite free in some respects -- a semi-authoritarian parliamentary religious oligarchy. Lebanon is nothing close and never has been.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Everybody thought the guy had the weapons. The UN did, the French the Germans, Clinton, Kerry, everyone.

This continues to be false. Or, to put it differently, not everyone thought so by the time the shooting started because when the inspectors looked where we told them to, they didn't find anything.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In the context of what we were discussing, both you and bilmore are missing the point. My point was that the way we have presided over Iraq since we took over, and the mess we have made of it, discredits and undermines our promotion of democracy. The question is not whether our motives are pure, but how our efforts are seen and appreciated by others in the Middle East. Abu Ghraib, to take just one example, was a disaster for our public diplomacy efforts. The fact that the insurgency has only been gathering strength is also very, very unhelpful. My point was that others look at Iraq and, quite reasonably, would not want to live there. Given a choice between living under such conditions with a right to vote, and living in an orderly, non-democratic country, many people would choose the latter. (Look at Singapore. But I digress.) Moreover, the fucked-up state of the country threatens the entire project. For example, Kurds overwhelmingly want independence for Kurdistan rather than to remain a part of Iraq. If the centre cannot hold, Kurdish secession is increasingly possibly. But this would certainly convince many nationalists elsewhere that the price of democracy is too high. (Evidently, the price of recognizing Kurdish aspirations is too high for us even now, notwithstanding our ostensible commitment to democracy.) Or, if people associated the introduction of democracy with the inability of the central government to stop the insurgency, they may turn to a strongman. They might even elect someone who then eliminates democracy. It's happened before.

eta:
IMHO, notwithstanding the vote on Sunday, we're losing Iraq. In the future, the historians will ask whether the project ever could have worked out, or whether it was doomed from the start. (And the bilmores of the world will blame the MSM for failing to give enough support.) I tend to think the latter, but I'm not sure.

And my point was (not speaking for Billmore here) that perhaps Arabs in other countries are not rushing to support the Iraqis because they fear reprisals from their government, whether you call that government totalitarian, athoritarian, or another name.

ETA: You really are a pessimist by nature aren't you?

[Hank Chinaski]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Everybody thought the guy had the weapons. The UN did, the French the Germans, Clinton, Kerry, everyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This continues to be false. Or, to put it differently, not everyone thought so by the time the shooting started because when the inspectors looked where we told them to, they didn't find anything.

This is just to explain to Ironweed. My time is certainly too valuable to get back into this with the rest.

Blix had said the day the invasion began he was certain we would find WMD. The UN maintained sanctions that were starving Iraq, although making the Blix family, the Hussein family and certain French and Germans rich. The reason for the sanction were that Saddam had WMD once and would not show that he got rid of them.

Ty will quote a US general who told Bush "We have not found any" as proof that no one believed they were there.

The above is all anyone really needs to know to reach the answer. That the Dems reach the answer they do (or in Kerry's case one of the answers he does) is why there will not be a Democratic President anytime soon.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You were away, and you're my senior, so i respect what you've done. I won't take the easy win for those reasons. but I've already won this argument with the rest of your fellow-travellers. This is why Ty fears me and will never engage. WTTW- ask yourself "why were htere sanctions?" Nuff said.

You post some completely outrageous crap about the UN believing he had WMD and then talk about an easy win? The sanctions were in place because he wouldn't let the inspectors in, not because he had WMD. Do you remember Colin "The Respectable Face" Powell's dog and pony show designed to convince the UN that those Winnebagos were full of anthrax? WTTW - why go to the trouble of convincing a body that already believed, according to you, that there were WMD? Nuff said indeed.

Now I know why Ty doesn't wanna talk to you anymore. And what he said about when the inspectors went they didn't find none neither and like that.

ETA: I love special treatment as much as anyone, but you don't need to waste time on me either. Cheers!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
You post some completely outrageous crap about the UN believing he had WMD and then talk about an easy win? The sanctions were in place because he wouldn't let the inspectors in, not because he had WMD. Do you remember Colin "The Respectable Face" Powell's dog and pony show designed to convince the UN that those Winnebagos were full of anthrax? WTTW - why go to the trouble of convincing a body that already believed, according to you, that there were WMD? Nuff said indeed.

Now I know why Ty doesn't wanna talk to you anymore. And what he said about when the inspectors went they didn't find none neither and like that.

ETA: I love special treatment as much as anyone, but you don't need to waste time on me either. Cheers!

If your aim was to hurt my feelings- you have shot true.

[sgtclub]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/po...rint&position=

I'm curious to see how this is going to work out. Dean is not presidential, but he no doubt energized this base like few before him. He also is one of the few moderates in the party that has respect from the left. Actually, it may be the perfect fit.

[sgtclub]

http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.click...partnerID=2006

Terrorist in Iraq use toy American soldier as hostage.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.click...partnerID=2006

Terrorist in Iraq use toy American soldier as hostage.

Sad?

I'd think that if the best Terrorist Fuckheads could do is capture a GI Joe, that would be cause for some degree of happiness.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.click...partnerID=2006

Terrorist in Iraq use toy American soldier as hostage.

I know the word "terrorist" has been used rather carelessly in the last few years, but this really takes the cake.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sad?

I'd think that if the best Terrorist Fuckheads could do is capture a GI Joe, that would be cause for some degree of happiness.

That's my point . . . what kind of terrorists are they?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I know the word "terrorist" has been used rather carelessly in the last few years, but this really takes the cake.

i thought it was a prankster. it really puts credence in Wag the Dog.